The performance of reproduction equipment is judged based on their fidelity level thus the term "hi-fi". It's the degree of closeness of reproduced sound to the original.
For speakers and room acoustics, yes. As for the rest of reproduction electronics chain prior to the speaker terminals, they already achieved the audible transparency even at low price these days.
I wouldn't pay that much attention to marketing phrases. They are in it for business.
hi guys this dac works with 5v? and how is the sound quality in some sources called the same as the audiophonics 9038?
ES9038q2m OPA1612 Op dekoder dijital yayın kurulu I2S 32bit/384K DSD128 ahududu pi icin 2B 3B 3B + 4B DAC G3 001|Demo Levhası Aksesuarları| - AliExpress
ES9038q2m OPA1612 Op dekoder dijital yayın kurulu I2S 32bit/384K DSD128 ahududu pi icin 2B 3B 3B + 4B DAC G3 001|Demo Levhası Aksesuarları| - AliExpress
Topping D50 (ES9038Q2M based) is powered from a single USB, i.e. 5v as well. So what?
Power voltage is not a critical parameter. Anyway it’s the external power voltage, there may a voltage conversion inside. However the native ES9038Q2M voltage is 3.3. Output (analog line) voltage is 2v peak-to-peak that fits into 5v as well.
Al the rest imho depends on the other details, schematics etc
Power voltage is not a critical parameter. Anyway it’s the external power voltage, there may a voltage conversion inside. However the native ES9038Q2M voltage is 3.3. Output (analog line) voltage is 2v peak-to-peak that fits into 5v as well.
Al the rest imho depends on the other details, schematics etc
Its possible to make one that works with 5v, although it is more common to see higher voltages used for the output stage part of it. The particular dac you linked to is not one I would expect to have good sound quality, also it appears to require an RPi.
Regarding dacs sold at audiophonics, it depends which one you mean. There was more than one last time I looked.
If you are looking for an RPi dac that sounds good, Allo.com makes some pretty good ones. But, they cost more than the one you linked to at aliexpress.
Scott Wurcer:
"The ESS DAC was developed via FPGA prototypes and then committed to a dedicated IC."
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
"The ESS DAC was developed via FPGA prototypes and then committed to a dedicated IC."
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
Where did you come with your rattles, victim of marketers? entertain the local audience? I didn't order a clown. what jokes do you ascribe to me here, buddy? if you don't hear the difference, it doesn't mean that there isn't one. finished products also cost money or you don't know about it ?. here is a discussion on how to improve the cheap chinese es9038q2m board and get a good result. do it yourself. does handmade say nothing? they do not impose anything on anyone here. and you and your friend impose someone's ready-made crafts. would you not go to the corresponding thread about ready-made solutions and worship your gods there, marketers with their divine scientific figures? : D
Last edited:
The perception of said original, when it exists, is unique to each set of ears.
How would you figure that out? Level matched double blind listening test comparing with measurements that you don't know about?
To show that your claim is not a joke, please quote where me and my friend "impose someone's ready-made crafts".
Perception, yes, it's a personal thing for sure. Audio electronics don't have have such thing however, they do have the industry standard such as flat frequency response within audio band.
what does this mean in your opinion ?! convince me that you are not criticizing our actions in relation to the cheap Chinese board es9038q2m
start with post 6123. read carefully what is written there. you started to answer me, so you support him. what do you want here? here we are talking about es9038q2m and its revision. can you make a positive contribution? no? the door over there, close it on the other side. something is still not clear?
Last edited:
You asked, "where are your arguments with the facts that we are wasting money?" and I answered. It's a Q & A.
Hi Markw4 ,
I’m thinking about similar to post #6060
Might I see an FFT from such modification?
Could you please estimate how much distortions should be expected from a 100 pF (probably ceramic) SMD cap soldered into the original board (in the opapm negative feedback). Could the caps increase C2/C3 by 10 db (or more) ? How do you think?
I’m thinking about similar to post #6060
Might I see an FFT from such modification?
Could you please estimate how much distortions should be expected from a 100 pF (probably ceramic) SMD cap soldered into the original board (in the opapm negative feedback). Could the caps increase C2/C3 by 10 db (or more) ? How do you think?
Hi Serge,
Regarding the SMD example attached to post #6060, and in the case of ESS dacs, I found one issue that concerned me. The opamps seen on the bottom of the board are for AVCC, and for I/V. The differential summing opamp was implemented on the top of the board (where the original opamp was located). All opamps were LME49720, perhaps not as ideal as OPA1612. What I found was that the AVCC opamps operated normally. The I/V and differential summing opamps all ran rather warm to the touch, so much so that I eventually added heatsinks. Although I could not see it on the scope I had at that time I guessed that the opamps were heating due to RF mixed in with and leaking out of the dac chip analog outputs. Another forum member doing a similar mod reported the same heating observation. I could not say that I could attribute any audible issue associated with the heating, but I never got the dac to sound as good as I later found out an ES9038Q2M dac can sound. Regarding feeback caps, use only C0G/NPO caps in the audio path (or maybe some types of film for audio, depends), and those particular feedback caps are definitely in the audio path. Also, 50v or 100v C0G/NPO caps are very linear indeed and more linear than the 25v types. For bypass caps the normal recommendation is to use X7R ceramic, 0.1uf. Larger value caps in parallel are often tantalum, but not always. A good book that discusses the issues with bypassing is Henry Ott's, Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering.
The above having been said about bypass caps, some people swear by .1uf Wima film caps, or sometimes others. Curiously, sometimes they do sound better in real world situations. Wouldn't use them myself for digital chips though.
In the next dac board I modified, I used the through-hole output stage board that I constructed as an example for people wanting to see how one could be made. In that case, I used twisted-pair wire-wrap wire run close to the dac board ground plane to bring the dac output signals down the the I/V opamps. No excess heating noticed in that case. One should be careful not to use too much capacitance before the I/V opamps, and no series resistors or inductors. Those things will increase distortion, audibly hurt the sound, and capacitance to ground at I/V inputs causes gain-peaking in I/V feedback amplifiers.
Regarding ceramic feedback capacitance causing measured and or audible distortion, it depends on the particular type of ceramic insulation material. Basic rule is as above, if using ceramic then only use C0G/NPO ceramic for that. Did the original board use that type of ceramic? Probably not, since it costs more. But the type of cap cannot fix the other problems associated with voltage mode output stages. ESS dacs really need good I/V instead.
Regarding the SMD example attached to post #6060, and in the case of ESS dacs, I found one issue that concerned me. The opamps seen on the bottom of the board are for AVCC, and for I/V. The differential summing opamp was implemented on the top of the board (where the original opamp was located). All opamps were LME49720, perhaps not as ideal as OPA1612. What I found was that the AVCC opamps operated normally. The I/V and differential summing opamps all ran rather warm to the touch, so much so that I eventually added heatsinks. Although I could not see it on the scope I had at that time I guessed that the opamps were heating due to RF mixed in with and leaking out of the dac chip analog outputs. Another forum member doing a similar mod reported the same heating observation. I could not say that I could attribute any audible issue associated with the heating, but I never got the dac to sound as good as I later found out an ES9038Q2M dac can sound. Regarding feeback caps, use only C0G/NPO caps in the audio path (or maybe some types of film for audio, depends), and those particular feedback caps are definitely in the audio path. Also, 50v or 100v C0G/NPO caps are very linear indeed and more linear than the 25v types. For bypass caps the normal recommendation is to use X7R ceramic, 0.1uf. Larger value caps in parallel are often tantalum, but not always. A good book that discusses the issues with bypassing is Henry Ott's, Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering.
The above having been said about bypass caps, some people swear by .1uf Wima film caps, or sometimes others. Curiously, sometimes they do sound better in real world situations. Wouldn't use them myself for digital chips though.
In the next dac board I modified, I used the through-hole output stage board that I constructed as an example for people wanting to see how one could be made. In that case, I used twisted-pair wire-wrap wire run close to the dac board ground plane to bring the dac output signals down the the I/V opamps. No excess heating noticed in that case. One should be careful not to use too much capacitance before the I/V opamps, and no series resistors or inductors. Those things will increase distortion, audibly hurt the sound, and capacitance to ground at I/V inputs causes gain-peaking in I/V feedback amplifiers.
Regarding ceramic feedback capacitance causing measured and or audible distortion, it depends on the particular type of ceramic insulation material. Basic rule is as above, if using ceramic then only use C0G/NPO ceramic for that. Did the original board use that type of ceramic? Probably not, since it costs more. But the type of cap cannot fix the other problems associated with voltage mode output stages. ESS dacs really need good I/V instead.
Last edited:
Thank you Mark!
>Did the original board use that type of ceramic?
Who knows, I can’t identify them and do suspect the cheapest ones are used.
My questions was rather theoretical, I’m still trying to avoid significant changes to the board and looks like I’ve fumbled something. I will let you know after the verification.
>Did the original board use that type of ceramic?
Who knows, I can’t identify them and do suspect the cheapest ones are used.
My questions was rather theoretical, I’m still trying to avoid significant changes to the board and looks like I’ve fumbled something. I will let you know after the verification.
Mark,
>Wondering why you want to ground outputs though?
Not the both, just one of them.
If you remember I’ve been trying to “repair” a ChiFi board with ES9038Q2M with only one opamp (5532) for the both channels. Please don’t say it’s a rubbish, I know that. I’m just trying to extrude maximum from the existing components. The original analog part has 1 opamp per-channel for balanced amplification (without I/V).
First of all I’ve made I/V from the opapmp using the DAC- output (to avoid the inversion).
The results got a bit better, but still not decent. There were no significant improvements for already a week or more, in spite of what I was trying (negative feedback depth, caps etc),
Having no ideas I just cut DAC+ output completely (before opamp’s + was grounded via a cap) and found that something changed and got a tiny bit better. Having no ideas again but having a spare DAC output I decided to play with it to emulate the second I/V I will never have. So I tried to connect to AVCC/2, load with a resistor or a cap to ground etc and found some noticeable positive changes.
So I decided it’s nothing to lose and taking into account DAC is of 700 ohm output impedance connected DAC+ ground. What was the surprise. The annoying C2 and C3 went down to the noise floor. Who could imagine that the DAC’s symmetrical outputs are so dependent
>Wondering why you want to ground outputs though?
Not the both, just one of them.
If you remember I’ve been trying to “repair” a ChiFi board with ES9038Q2M with only one opamp (5532) for the both channels. Please don’t say it’s a rubbish, I know that. I’m just trying to extrude maximum from the existing components. The original analog part has 1 opamp per-channel for balanced amplification (without I/V).
First of all I’ve made I/V from the opapmp using the DAC- output (to avoid the inversion).
The results got a bit better, but still not decent. There were no significant improvements for already a week or more, in spite of what I was trying (negative feedback depth, caps etc),
Having no ideas I just cut DAC+ output completely (before opamp’s + was grounded via a cap) and found that something changed and got a tiny bit better. Having no ideas again but having a spare DAC output I decided to play with it to emulate the second I/V I will never have. So I tried to connect to AVCC/2, load with a resistor or a cap to ground etc and found some noticeable positive changes.
So I decided it’s nothing to lose and taking into account DAC is of 700 ohm output impedance connected DAC+ ground. What was the surprise. The annoying C2 and C3 went down to the noise floor. Who could imagine that the DAC’s symmetrical outputs are so dependent