• Disclaimer: This Vendor's Forum is a paid-for commercial area. Unlike the rest of diyAudio, the Vendor has complete control of what may or may not be posted in this forum. If you wish to discuss technical matters outside the bounds of what is permitted by the Vendor, please use the non-commercial areas of diyAudio to do so.

Designing a practical ES9038 based eight channel DAC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since practicality is part of this conversation, I want to mention a few thiungs that affect cost.

Whenever we add a separate board, it adds time and therefore cost. For example, making Rheas is actually very time intensive for me, mostly soldering on the tiny pins. I have jigs, but it is still finicky work.

Similarly, making/testing Trident modules takes time. Using onboard regulators reduces build and testing time, because it is all done at once.

These things also require additional packaging and materials.

I am not saying they cannot be done, but the flexibility does incur costs.


From the comments I've read, people seem to be generally after absolute fidelity and are willing to pay for it within reason (e.g.: I think there's a few wishing to move from the MiniDSP multichannel solution for that very reason)

The tridents - particularly for AVCC - are an important component of getting the most out of the Sabre DAC chips.

One option is to have default on-board regs that can be easily bypassed/replaced with tridents. If the cost of the extra onboard components can be offset by more efficient assembly/testing then perhaps this is the best option.

This may be heresay - but perhaps you could also consider offering 3rd party tridents if they are such a pain to make (you can get Chinese-made 3.3v LDO regs for a very reasonable price)

If the onboard regs were the same LDO circuit as the tridents then I'd have no probs with that of course - so long as there was an easy option to power them separately (particularly AVCC)

When something is completely optional - like SE output - I think there's a case for putting it on a separate board if it significantly affects overall cost (e.g. The Mercury is not a cheap board because of component cost and assembly no doubt, and I wonder what the cost would be without all the SE componentry)
 
Last edited:
Diyaudio is not cheap hobby :)
If I were to buy all in one, I would probably have bought something like benchmark dac-3. Flexibility is very important here.

My old man bought the dac 3 and corresponding amp for around $7000 AUD. The Buffalo/Legato/Sympatico build I did for him easily bests it at a fraction of the price (not taking into account all the labour of course)

High fidelity componentry at an affordable price is also very important.
 
1 - What actual multi-channel source are you planning to use? I2S from TI DSP board (4 way active crossover) @192kHz at least
2 - Will PCM/DSD input be sufficient? Note anything else will likely require some sort of separate input module(s) - so be specific. Only raw I2S/DSD lines as on current BIII

Output:
1 - What are your ideas around the physical layout and casing? same format as current BIII, no casing, no XLR connectors, etc.
2 - Do you prefer individual output boards or a monolithic 8 channel board? Separate 2ch boards
3 - Do you value absolute fidelity(floating - mercury type front end) or lower cost (gnd reffed IVY type front end)? Absolute fidelity
4 - Are you likely to need SE outputs? No. Would like to see smaller output boards without SE.

Control:
1 - How do you anticipate controlling the DAC? external controller via I2C, no config jumpers needed
2 - Is on-board control important to you? no

Regulators:
1 - do you prefer a tight local PCB layout with on-board regs - or would you rather have the flexibility of Trident/AVCC style regulators? flexibility/upgradeability
 
Last edited:
I understand that this is completely contrary to the current overall goals of this project but I for one would be very interested if you would combine this project with your comment from a few months ago about considering a single-PCB, dual mono 9038 DAC. If such configuration is possible within a single board it might widen the market somewhat!


I'm not interested in multi-channel but am always interested in the potential for increased "fidelity" across 2 channels.
 
I understand that this is completely contrary to the current overall goals of this project but I for one would be very interested if you would combine this project with your comment from a few months ago about considering a single-PCB, dual mono 9038 DAC. If such configuration is possible within a single board it might widen the market somewhat!


I'm not interested in multi-channel but am always interested in the potential for increased "fidelity" across 2 channels.

+1
 
Input:
1 - What actual multi-channel source are you planning to use?
2 - Will PCM/DSD input be sufficient? Note anything else will likely require some sort of separate input module(s) - so be specific.

Output:
1 - What are your ideas around the physical layout and casing?
2 - Do you prefer individual output boards or a monolithic 8 channel board?
3 - Do you value absolute fidelity(floating - mercury type front end) or lower cost (gnd reffed IVY type front end)?
4 - Are you likely to need SE outputs?

Control:
1 - How do you anticipate controlling the DAC?
2 - Is on-board control important to you?

Note: This is a crucial topic.

Regulators:
1 - do you prefer a tight local PCB layout with on-board regs - or would you rather have the flexibility of Trident/AVCC style regulators?

Master Clock:
1 - do you prefer the optimal layout, performance, simplicity and reliability of a local best in class on-board master clock - or the flexibility and added complexity/cost of external clock sources or Rhea modules?

Input:
1 - Multichannel-USB
2 - Yes!

Output:
1 - Casing by my own.
2 - 8 channel board
3 - Absolute fidelity! May be also a tube alternative?
4 - see Input 1

Control:
1 - In the end: Software controlled (64 Bit Brutfir/Linux) or Arduino...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I forgot:

Regulators:
1 - Best on board solution

Digital chain (nearly) without analog cables. 2 x mono way to the (active/digital) speaker. Independant from the 9038 Chip the best would be 2 x 4 channel DACs. 4 channels (2xDACs) at each side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi.

My acyual setup is six channel dac for three way speaker. We have three Buffalo with IVY. Dac chips controled by modified Hifiduino code, to provide general volume and balance between ways. Crossover is on computer with Dephonica sofware (sound better than Mini Shark solutions)

Input:

1 - What actual multi-channel source are you planning to use? DIYinHK multichannel USB card
2 - Will PCM/DSD input be sufficient? Yes. Adaptors for multichannel sources like MiniSark or DIYinHK Xmos card are welcome

Output:
1 - What are your ideas around the physical layout and casing?
2 - Do you prefer individual output boards or a monolithic 8 channel board? Monolitic whit onboard output connectors
3 - Do you value absolute fidelity(floating - mercury type front end) or lower cost (gnd reffed IVY type front end)? Mercury
4 - Are you likely to need SE outputs? Both

Control:
1 - How do you anticipate controlling the DAC?
2 - Is on-board control important to you?Essential. General volume and balance between channels

Note: This is a crucial topic.

Regulators:
1 - do you prefer a tight local PCB layout with on-board regs - or would you rather have the flexibility of Trident/AVCC style regulators?Simpicity

Master Clock:
1 - do you prefer the optimal layout, performance, simplicity and reliability of a local best in class on-board master clock - or the flexibility and added complexity/cost of external clock sources or Rhea modules?Simpicity

NOTE.

I preffer top quality solution with four Sabre chips in stereo configuration


Cheers!
Antonio
 
Last edited:
Glad I found this...

Now is your chance! What sort of 8 channel DAC are you looking for?


Maybe instead of pulling my hair out piecing together an eight channel solution with BBB, USB XMOS chips, various clock arrangements, multiple DACs etc - maybe I will put my 2 cents in and let the pros handle it! :p

Thank You Russ and Brain for this opportunity! :D

Input:

1 - What actual multi-channel source are you planning to use? PC - would like the choice of USB, HDMI, and LAN inputs. 384 kHz would be nice, but not necessary. For me, it is more for future proofing.
2 - Will PCM/DSD input be sufficient? Perfect

I like the isolation concept You created with the BBB and Cronus boards - so if You can figure a layout with this concept in mind...

Output:
1 - What are your ideas around the physical layout and casing? I like to pick/build my own case work. Ideally sized around Standard 2U chassis.
2 - Do you prefer individual output boards or a monolithic 8 channel board? I like your idea of individual boards, esp if there are different types available (like with Mercury, IVY and Legato) Also, to keep the cost down, maybe You could offer single ended OR balanced iterations of each type. However, if it works better to have a monolithic 8 channel board for board layout in terms of absolute fidelity and cost, then monolithic board.
3 - Do you value absolute fidelity (floating ground - mercury type front end) or lower cost (gnd reffed IVY type front end)? Absolute fidelity for sure.
4 - Are you likely to need SE outputs? Yes, actually I have both balanced and Single ended amps, it would be nice to have the choice to use them all.

Control:
1 - How do you anticipate controlling the DAC? In terms of the audio signal, volume and DSP, I plan on doing those with-in the software in my PC (JRiver). But for the control of the DAC chip itself - software with-in a PC would be cool, but maybe too costly or complicated to implement given different OS everyone has. I would be fine with the DIP switches like used in the earlier designs.
2 - Is on-board control important to you? Not necessarily, as long as I can control it another way via PC (windows) or smartphone app.

Note: This is a crucial topic.

Regulators:
1 - do you prefer a tight local PCB layout with on-board regs - or would you rather have the flexibility of Trident/AVCC style regulators? Which ever produces the better fidelity. I am sure this is subjective, but I am willing to have faith in what ever You feel will lead to the best fidelity. So if the Tridents work best for the Pro38, then that is what I want. ;)

Master Clock:
1 - do you prefer the optimal layout, performance, simplicity and reliability of a local best in class on-board master clock - or the flexibility and added complexity/cost of external clock sources or Rhea modules?Best in class on-board master clock. So if that meant mounted Rhea modules directly on-board, why not? :)


As this is being designed as a multi-channel DAC, and one Pro38 chip is being used, it's potential needs to be maximized. So to do that:

Are the Tridents the best regs? Or can this be done with tight local regs and a better PSU up front? Which of these two options is the most cost and/or labor effective, or does it come out in a wash? :)

With the master clock, does having an external option complicate the board layout enough to compromise power or signal considerations of the board?

Another option here with the clock would be a multi-channel Cronus option that one could purchase separately and plug into the I2s of the DAC board and have a way to by-pass the on-board clock. Would that be possible?

As I mentioned above, I like the idea of being able to pick and choose different output stages, and even possibly having dedicated single ended and balanced output options. Then everyone could buy what ever output stages suit their budgets and input requirements for their amps. However, I do not know if this is the best option in terms of your production and labor costs. Also, what would work better, again, regarding board layout of the DAC itself, to have individual output sections or one monolithic section containing both single-ended and balanced outputs? Which one is more cost effective, small customized boards or do it all monolithic boards? I could see having different types of the monolithic boards in-terms of IVY vs Mercury as well.

Also, I thought with the inputs, if there was an ADAT toslink option, that might be appalling to the Professional music market, although this might be better as a separate input board.

Sorry Russ and Brain for all the questions, but I think the answers would help others see what You are up against in terms of balancing cost and fidelity.


Now I know what I am saving up for... I am very interested!
 
Last edited:
Hi all

Great project.
Interested in i2s input SE output, reg and clock on board, volume control with IR
Using It after najda digital crossover
Would be great to have the capability to go to 10 or 12 channels eg you manage several subwoofers with a 3 channels speakers

Could clock feed RPI with volumio or moode ?
 
Input:
1 - DIYINHK multichannel usb reciver.
2 - Yes
Output:
1 - As long as the dac and output boards are separate I'm ok.
2 - Whatever.
3 - Absolute fidelity.
4 - No.
Control:
1 - From a pc + sabre volume pot.
2 - No.

Regulators:
1 - Flexibility of Trident/AVCC style regulators.

Master Clock:
1 - I have a Pulsar clock, would be nice if it could be fitted somehow.
 
Requested features for 8-channel ES9038 DAC

  • Separate analog and digital ground planes connected at a single point.
  • Support for (optional) on-board I2C and Reset Pin isolators to make Arduino support easy.
  • If using on-board regulators, the option to separately power them rather than running them all from the same 5V supply (this makes a substantial difference to the sound quality)
  • If not using on-board regs, provide off-board regs that are easy to individually power (Tridents currently require modifications/hacks to do this)
 
Shouldn't this be what everyone is waiting for ? :)

b3sepro28_8.jpg
 
Dahlberg,

My guess is that the dac changes from the 2 channel version are not that great. The difficulty is the IV for the 9038 chip. Making it for 8 channels and and relatively compact. Something more compact than 4 mercury IV boards stacked under the DAC board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.