ESS Sabre Reference DAC (8-channel)

rossl said:
The SPDIF + doesn't actually need a coupling cap and the SPDIF - on the cable doesn't need to be tied to ground. UNLESS it will violate the common mode range.

If there is a chance of the common mode range being violated, then an input signal transformer would solve the problem.

I have been testing a sample of the MAX3280 receiver and it may be best with some 0.1uF coupling caps on the input pins. I'm getting noisy SPDIF from some sources without them.

I'm still testing the little guy out. :smash:
 
Have chips, waiting for boards to arrive...
 

Attachments

  • ess.jpg
    ess.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 1,412
Early on, I called it project Buffalo just because I am a hockey fan, and when I saw Sabre I immediately thought of the Buffalo Sabres. Yeah, I am nuts like that.

As my design project rolled a long, Brian and I simply did not come up with anything more clever to call it. So Buffalo stuck, for now.

We did kinda like "Ultra Mega Super Hi Fi Self Actualizer DAC" But I could not make it fit on the PCB. ;)

We only have a small number of chips. If the DAC works out well, we will order more.

Cheers!
Russ
 
Looks like my CD-Pro2LF cdp will be OPUS dual Differential configured for only the briefest spell as the Buffalo is too enticing a prospect to pass on.

Shall have to layout the boards such that I can swap out the Opus boards for the Buffalo and IVY. I take it I will only need one Buffalo for differential operation?

Mark:D
 
Have fitted a low jitter clock powered by an AD797 regulator to the demo board. As Ross said, it's a clear improvement. I have to say though that in my experience, much of the benefit from "clocking" comes simply from moving the oscillator off-chip. Even a 74HCU04 based oscillator, with a the same crystal, will produce a substantial improvement because it has it's own reg.
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2006
I tried twice to fax the NDA form to ESS, and it's simply ringing and doesn't pick up. Either they emailed me the wrong number or I don't know what. I know the problem isn't on my side because I'm quite certain the post office here knows how to send faxes, given that they do it several times a day. A suggestion: perhaps they should actually put a fax number on the form, given that's how it will be sent most of the time, it's only common sense. I mean there isn't even a phone number, just an address :rolleyes: