• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

DAC/ADC/FPGA Chip Manufacturers

pozz

pozz

Слава Україні
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
4,036
Likes
6,869
Populating the list of chips for the devices tested on ASR has led to a lot of research into semiconductor companies.

I'm mostly making this thread to ask questions and make a few notes, since audio product manufacturers are sometimes unclear about which chip or brand they use.

ADC/DAC Chip Companies
  • AKM Semiconductor
  • Analog Devices
  • Burr-Brown (acquired by Texas Instruments in 2000)
  • C-Media Electronics
  • Cambridge Silicon Radio (acquired by Qualcomm in 2015)
  • Cirrus Logic
  • Conexant (acquired by Synaptics in 2017)
  • Crystal Semiconductor (acquired by Cirrus Logic in 1991)
  • ESS Technology
  • IDT
  • NXP Semiconductors
  • Pacific Microsonics
  • Philips Semiconductors (named changed to NXP Semiconductors in 2006)
  • Qualcomm
  • Realtek
  • Signetics (acquired by Philips and name changed to Philips Semiconductors in 1975, whose own name changed to NXP Semiconductors in 2006)
  • Texas Instruments
  • VIA Technologies
  • Wolfson Microelectronics (acquired by Cirrus Logic in 2014)
Microcontroller/FPGA Companies
  • Atmel (acquired by Microchip Technology in 2016)
  • STMicroelectronics
  • Xilinx
 
Last edited:
Main question is how do I refer to the chip in the data table? If a company like Burr-Brown was acquired by Texas Instruments, do I have all entries listed as TI, or do I make allowance for when the chip was manufactured?

E.g., the Burr-Brown PCM63 in Camelot Technologies Uther 2.0 DAC produced in the 90s.
 
Last edited:
Is there a good resource for chips used in audio gear? Right now I trawl Google until I find something that seems reliable.
 
All iFi products tested on ASR seem to use the same Texas Instruments DSD1793 chip. iFi doesn't disclose this on their website, referring only to Burr-Brown chipsets in general along with other generic marketing lingo.
 
pozz said:
Main question is how do I refer to the chip in the data table? If a company like Burr-Brown was acquired by Texas Instruments, do I have all entries listed as TI, or do I make allowance for when the chip was manufactured?

E.g., the Burr-Brown PCM63 in Camelot Technologies Uther 2.0 DAC produced in the 90s.
Click to expand...
That's a tricky one. Some chips have both BB and TI logos on them.
 
Headphone dongles.

The Apple seems to use Cirrus Logic CS42L42, and Google the Conexant 20985? Is that correct? Or are those chips embedded in the phones and the headphones adapters are meant to connect to them?
 
pozz said:
Headphone dongles.

The Apple seems to use Cirrus Logic CS42L42, and Google the Conexant 20985? Is that correct? Or are those chips embedded in the phones and the headphones adapters are meant to connect to them?
Click to expand...
The chips are in the dongles so far as i know.
 
pozz said:
Can you help me figure out which chip for Amanero Technologies Combo384?
Click to expand...

A follow up on mansr's answer: The chip that the Amanero board is built around, is a general-purpose microcontroller. Not something aimed at audio specifically. Microcontrollers from XMOS are often used to do the same USB->I2S conversion, while those from Microchip Technology, STMicroelectronics or other companies mostly get to do the rest of the non-audio related grunt work in the devices.

I would argue that the companies that only supply microcontrollers, don't really belong on the list, since it's purely digital devices that can be found in just about any kind of electronics product you can imagine. Not just audio products.
 
Last edited:
Killingbeans said:
A follow up on mansr's answer: The chip that the Amanero board is built around, is a general-purpose microcontroller. Not something aimed at audio specifically. Microcontrollers from XMOS are often used to do the same USB->I2S conversion, while those from Microchip Technology or STMicroelectronics or other companies mostly get to do the rest of the non-audio related grunt work in the devices.

I would argue that the companies that only supply microcontrollers, don't really belong on the list, since it's purely digital devices that can be found in just about any kind of electronics product you can imagine. Not just audio products.
Click to expand...
The ones I named are in tested products and control the D/A or A/D conversions. I don't see them as being too different from the Xilinx chips used in Chord DACs.

The Amanero is from the infamous Ciunas DAC review.
 
pozz said:
The ones I named are in tested products and control the D/A or A/D conversions. I don't see them as being too different from the Xilinx chips used in Chord DACs.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the microcontrollers can't be used for neither D/A nor A/D conversion. They usually only have very limited A/D capabilities used for analogue non-audio inputs. A microcontroller is essentially a full computer on a chip. All it can do is run the software that's been put in its memory. An FPGA, on the other hand, can be do whatever you want it to be do (within reason), including most of (what it takes to do the D/A conversion needed for audio.) the signal processing needed before the actual D/A conversion.

The Amanero does no D/A conversion. It only translates one digital signal type to another. To put it roughly, it's just a specialised Arduino.

EDIT: mansr made a good point, so I made a few changes.
 
Last edited:
Killingbeans said:
An FPGA, on the other hand, can be whatever you want it to be (within reason), including most of what it takes to do the D/A conversion needed for audio.
Click to expand...
An FPGA is still a fully digital device. When used in DAC designs, they generally do the digital interpolation and perhaps other signal processing. The D/A conversion is done elsewhere.
 
Killingbeans said:
The difference is that the microcontrollers can't be used for neither D/A nor A/D conversion. They usually only have very limited A/D capabilities used for analogue non-audio inputs. A microcontroller is essentially a full computer on a chip. All it can do is run the software that's been put in its memory. An FPGA, on the other hand, can be whatever you want it to be (within reason), including most of what it takes to do the D/A conversion needed for audio.

The Amanero does no D/A conversion. It only translates one digital signal type to another.
Click to expand...
Ok so for the Ciunas DAC, the Amanero chip does not provide D/A functions.

Looking at the teardown... Yes, I fully misunderstood. It uses a TI PCM 5102.
 
mansr said:
An FPGA is still a fully digital device. When used in DAC designs, they generally do the digital interpolation and perhaps other signal processing. The D/A conversion is done elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Really good point. Strictly speaking, the Chord DACs actually could be considered to be discrete designs, at least in this context.
 
I'll need some help understanding FPGA DAC implementations then. Here's a high-quality pic of the Hugo 2 board.

How/where is the D/A happening?
 
Last edited:
pozz said:
How/where is the D/A happening?
Click to expand...

My bet would be that the FPGA does everything a "full" DAC chip normally does in the digital domain, and the actual D/A conversion is done with discrete components. I could be wrong though(?).
 
pozz said:
Main question is how do I refer to the chip in the data table? If a company like Burr-Brown was acquired by Texas Instruments, do I have all entries listed as TI, or do I make allowance for when the chip was manufactured?

E.g., the Burr-Brown PCM63 in Camelot Technologies Uther 2.0 DAC produced in the 90s.
Click to expand...
I suggest you stick with the company at time of manufacture to ensure the data will be static over time. You don't want to be chasing your tail if a company becomes acquired or changes its name in the future. I also think this would better align with the spec sheets of the devices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom