Audiophile-sounding DAC for almost no money

0DAC - delivers engaging, immersive sound with a pricetag at least two orders of magnitude from commercial audiophile DACs

Similar projects worth following
Several years ago, a blogger 'NwAvGuy' introduced a DAC design named 'ODAC'. 'O' meant 'objective' because it was designed to achieve the best objective criteria (measurements, in particular THD+N). My design is the complement of that, designed entirely for listening enjoyment with little regard for measurements. The broader aim is to make audiophile sound quality a commodity so everyone gets to get off on the music. Wave a cheery 'goodbye' to fatiguing digital sound! The BOM cost is low (sub $10) and the circuit board area modest (75cm^2) - to keep both down it has only I2S input. The output stage is a single-ended classA buffer which can drive low-impedance headphones direct if desired.

The name of this design is 0DAC, pronounced 'lingDAC' (zero = ling in Mandarin).

To get a great sounding DAC its important to choose a DAC chip with lots of potential and ignore most of the datasheet specs. 'Having potential' means a simple as possible chip, without the usual bells and whistles which have been added to DAC chips in the past couple of decades. Going back to the 1990s most DAC chips were just that - DACs and had neither on-board digital nor analog filters using opamps. Both of these kinds of filters have the potential to screw up the sound so you do not want them on the chip where its impossible to bypass them.

Philips started a trend with their 'Bitstream' DACs of including on-chip filters and on-chip opamps (SAA7320). But for a while in the 80s and 90s they produced some excellent chips without all that extra fluff - for example TDA1541, TDA1543, TDA1545 and TDA1387. Burr Brown similarly had their PCM-series DACs, culminating in the PCM1704 where by most listeners' ears they'd already started to lose the plot, being seduced by numbers - PCM63 seems to be the pinnacle of their art. Analog Devices have had great designs too, the most recent being AD1865.

I've so far mentioned only audio-targeted DACs but there are others which are pure DAC chips - I've samples of an ancient one from ADI, the AD768. It's an example of a DAC targeted at the communications market, a field which in many ways holds more promise for great sounding D/A than does audio nowadays. TI/BB and Intersil also have offerings in this arena. Of the audio chips I've mentioned, all are out of current production so if you want to have a viable manufactured product you have to look beyond audio to find your chip. Schiit did exactly that in their multibit DAC designs, going to the medical/industrial segment. Metrum too started off with an industrial DAC chip from TI/BB but since have gone over to custom resistor arrays buried inside modules. Hobbyists though aren't constrained by production volumes and so have rarely had it so good with the wide choice of recycled devices on the secondary market.

I must confess I have a real soft spot for Philips (now NXP or even Nexperia) - partly because my first few CD players were Philips (they and Sony together being the innovators of the CD format) but also because their IC designs rock, and not just in DACs. Take in the realm of amps their in-car offerings (TDA8566 for example - I have a design for an amp using it here : Hi end chipamp). TDA1541 has been done to death by DIYers (Thorsten Loesch and Pedja Rogic have commercial product too) - how to choose from its many tweaks? TDA1545 has some DIY designs extant (Peufeu's 'Extremist' is here - TDA1545 DAC) - having listened to my own designs I've abandoned this chip on SQ grounds. TDA1543 has literally dozens of DIY projects and commercial boards/boxes (Lite DAC-AH is my favourite). Strangely TDA1387 has been largely ignored to date - there's a few units on Taobao : L1387 DAC but nothing in the audiophile mainstream. In regard to the tech behind the chips, the TDA1387 takes some beating as it continuously recalibrates itself on the fly so doesn't require the usual extreme resistor matching achieved in other manufacturer's offerings by laser trimming. Its also absurdly cheap as the chips are recycled from old 'Soundblaster' PC cards.

Next up - NOS is my choice here for lowest BOM cost. NOS is a TLA for 'No oversampling' and the craze of NOS began with a Japanese guy by the name of Kusunoki (go here for his web presence, I'm not thereby endorsing his technical justifications - who wanted to bypass the digital filter in a DAC. In the history of Philips' CD players, oversampling has always been used, initially because when CD came out they only had production ready a 14bit DAC (TDA1540) and CDs have 16bits worth on them. So oversampling (4X) was used as a way to gain a couple of bits from the DAC through averaging out 4 faster samples to create one slower one. When the TDA1541 was...

Read more »

Schematic_PhiDAC hex 5.26.pdf

Updated PhiDAC hex schematic - this one corresponds to the kits which are available for sale on DIYAudio. Minor updates to the level shifters and a swap from CJ431 to TL431 for improved reliability in case a DAC chip draws too much current.

Adobe Portable Document Format - 247.85 kB - 07/14/2020 at 10:56



Gerbers for 3rd order (low cost) filter daughter board for PhiDAC hex. Using pre-selected TDK 7mm inductors.

x-zip-compressed - 44.62 kB - 05/13/2020 at 09:07


7th order

Gerber set for 7th order daughter board filter for PhiDAC hex. Using P14 ferrite cored inductors.

x-zip-compressed - 105.25 kB - 05/13/2020 at 09:05


gerber phiDAC

Gerbers for 2020 updated version of PhiDAC - using 6 paralleled DACs and off-board filtering.

x-zip-compressed - 158.07 kB - 05/13/2020 at 09:03



Costed BOM for PhiDAC, Taobao component prices.

sheet - 12.90 kB - 02/20/2019 at 08:00


View all 12 files

  • 2 × SLF7045T-470 Inductors, Chokes, Coils and Magnetics / Fixed Inductors, Chokes and Coils
  • 2 × SLF7045T-330 Inductors, Chokes, Coils and Magnetics / Fixed Inductors, Chokes and Coils
  • 14 × C3216X7R2A104K160AA Capacitors / Ceramic TDK 1206 100nF 10%
  • 2 × 220uF 16V Capacitor electrolytic
  • 4 × TDA1387T Data Converters / Digital to Analog Converters (DACs)

View all 11 components

  • PhiDAC reloaded

    Richard Dudley06/16/2021 at 03:04 0 comments

    As the original PhiDAC dates back to 2019 and I've learned a little in the intervening time I was curious to see whether the design could be revisited.

    First up - the AD8017s I have discovered are noisier than I had thought due to my ignoring the -ve input current noise contribution. They are also a bit limited by the upper supply voltage of 12V. After attending to some discussion on DIYA I wanted to see if I could build in some headroom for handling 'intersample overs' - there was none on the original PhiDAC due to the relatively low supply voltage.

    TI have recently introduced some very nice (at least on paper) low-noise FET input opamps, in particular the OPA1656 and OPA1678. The latter appeals especially because its ultra-cheap. The design trade-offs with these opamps are rather different than with CFB types - their voltage noise is higher but there's no current noise to speak of so resistor values can go higher with only the resistor noise itself to be concerned about and not the opamp current noise into that resistor.

    With higher working impedance the inductor(s) in the filter need to be higher value, so I have to wave goodbye to those 0805s as their inductance doesn't go high enough. P14s look to be a reasonable choice as I can get them in better tolerances than even the 5% Fastrons from a local manufacturer. Fastrons can be a useful fallback.

    Higher working impedance means higher voltage swing at the DAC output - on PhiDAC the output swing was negligible as the filter impedance was ~33ohm. On this design I decided to use a 'cascode' MOSFET (aka common-gate stage) on the DAC's output - the output compliance then is limited by the breakdown voltage (and dissipation) of the FET. A 2N7002 is good to 60V but we won't need all that as opamps peg out around 36V typically. The cascode also means no level-shifting circuitry is needed on the DAC itself.

    Noise and noise-gain simulations have revealed that the MFB type output filter I'm using isn't the quietest - a Sallen-Key design shows lower noise gain for the opamp and hence should be lower noise in practice.

    Several listening experiments revealed that higher filter impedances made for a more dynamic sound - these listens though were done on the 'Deca DAC' with its bipolar opamp and multiple paralleled chips. With higher resistor values there is a limit to how much current we want from our DAC chips before we exceed the standard 2VRMS signal level. The OPA chips have an inherent voltage noise roughly equivalent to a 1kohm resistor so going lower than this seems counter-productive in the I/V stage - this sets an upper bound of 6 chips as 6mA*1k gives 6V peak-to-peak output. As to the lower bound, I was curious to hear how a single chip sounded so I built a single TDA1387 prototype for a listen. I'll report on that in the next log.

  • Phi DecaDAC - multi-multibit DAC for 2021

    Richard Dudley12/28/2020 at 04:24 1 comment

    Here is the latest incarnation of PhiDAC - by now it must be the 4th generation. This incorporates the latest discovery about noise in the I/V stage - on paper the analog stage is at least 12dB quieter than the 3rd generation PhiDAC. This translates into a wider soundstage (especially at the rear) and for some reason superior dynamics in the bass.

  • Further insight into paralleling DAC chips

    Richard Dudley12/02/2020 at 04:33 0 comments

    As one of my half-finished DAC projects involves a very large number of chips (72 minimum) I wanted a way to test individual DAC chips by listening before incorporating them into this design. So I designed and built a test board which accepted a single chip in a ZIF socket. I was shocked that this had more air and ambience apparent than the original PhiDAC (which also had a single DAC chip). My curiosity was piqued as previously I'd associated more ambience with more paralleled DAC chips. That is I thought I was lowering DAC noise by putting more chips in parallel, but this experimental single chip DAC threw a wrench in that hypothesis.

    Turns out that the I/V stage noise is far more critical than I previously believed - it needs to be better than the DAC chip's noise by a significant margin to release the full amount of recorded bloom. In the original PhiDAC I am using AD8017 preceded by a very low impedance passive filter (~33ohm). Its this combination of low impedance with the AD8017 which contributes noise and masks the low-level ambience. AD8017 being a current-feedback opamp has significant current noise at its -ve input and that is associated with a not-very low noise corner. AD829 as on PhiDAC hex does quite a lot better - similar voltage noise but lower current noise which allows for a higher impedance passive filter. Seems with 6 chips and AD829 that 47ohm is a bit on the low impedance side, 100ohm is closer to optimum. Of course there's a trade-off in going higher impedance - more voltage swing at the DAC chip output pins. 6mA into 100ohm is 600mV but the filter 'rings up' near the corner frequency resulting in about 5dB peaking so worst case just over 1V swing. TDA1387 lacks an AC compliance spec (TDA1543 gives 25mV) - its best to keep this as low as possible, how low really can only be determined by listening. When I went up to a 240ohm filter the SQ wasn't as good so 100ohm is about the sweetspot with AD829.

    An alternative chip for I/V is LT1028 which has >6dB noise improvement over AD829 in its voltage noise and so is better suited to the existing 47ohm filters. Changing the filter impedance is rather inconvenient since I have already a large stock of inductors for the existing design and would need to commission more values. Thus changing to LT1028 is the best way forward for now - the fact that it doesn't have the OPS stage bypass matters much less than the improvement gained from lower noise.

  • PhiDAC hex kits

    Richard Dudley05/30/2020 at 02:06 0 comments

    If you are curious enough to try your hand at a kit, you can go here for details of how to order :

  • PhiDAC hex - 3rd generation PhiDAC

    Richard Dudley04/23/2020 at 06:57 0 comments

    Have built up two of these so far - 6 paralleled DACs and a 7th order filter plug-in.

  • Is there a sweet spot for number of paralleled DACs?

    Richard Dudley03/19/2020 at 02:46 0 comments

    Having found improvement from 4 paralleled chips I was curious whether further doublings of chips would lead to even more improvements. Going from 4 to 8 chips necessitated lowering the noise of the I/V stage in order to get some semblance of a level playing field for comparison. Already I was using paralleled stages as the opamp I used wasn't particularly low noise itself (AD744) - this opamp was chosen because I was wanting to experiment to see if I could improve the HF cleanliness and AD744 is one of the very few opamps which allows bypassing its classAB output stage (OPS). I really needed a bipolar input, undegenerated input stage opamp with a bypassable OPS to get the number of paralleled stages down to a manageable size. The opamp also needed to be cheaply available on Taobao. After a fairly brief search, I landed on AD829 - a part I'd never come across before but which fitted the bill perfectly. It also has a considerable extra advantage in that it is compensated for a minimum gain of 26dB - almost unheard of in opamps. Even 'decompensated' opamps usually have under 20dB minimum gains. This 26dB figure turns out to be a perfect fit for the I/V stage - its also under half the price of AD744 so all round an excellent solution here. A single AD829 with its 2nV/rtHz noise figure is a good match for 4 DAC chips, to go to 8 needs 4 paralleled for the same noise level as I want to keep the output compliance voltage constant meaning halving the LC filter's impedance. It took some layout tweaking to get the AD829 stable whereas the AD744 gave no issues whatsoever, eventually I got the AD829 array working and sounding great, slightly better (by which I mean more engaging) with 8 chips than 4.

    So then what about 16 chips?

  • PhiDAC - the next generation

    Richard Dudley02/01/2020 at 03:44 0 comments

    I've worked on the massively parallel DAC for a few months now and got to the point where I really need transformers made by a factory to create some kits for sale.. Winding them by hand is only my idea of fun when its a research project, not a commercial undertaking. Seeing as nCoV has hugely slowed commercial activity here in China I figured it would be quite some time before I'd get any significant volume of transformers (or even PCBs) made I therefore decided to re-visit the original PhiDAC (2019) once again and have a play with that design.

    The two major attractions of the sound of 'grossDAC' over PhiDAC are considerably increased ambience and cleaner high frequencies. I began to wonder how much of the excellent ambience of grossDAC was due to the paralleling of chips and how much might be down to some effect of the transformers. Transformers I've used before on the output of my mobile phone gave a certain 'spaciousness' to the SQ which was alluring. Over on DIYA a contributor to my lingDAC thread had asked if it was possible to modify PhiDAC to accept 8 paralleled DAC chips, instead of the usual 1. The answer was a quite firm 'no' to that but I was curious how many extra chips might be OK to use.

    4 chips turns out not to be too difficult. Just a few tweaks to gain and current sources (one of which controls the DC offset) with a cap change in the filter. What was surprising on listening was how much closer the SQ was to grossDAC in terms of the ambience. I'm not sure I'd be able to tell them apart on that aspect. My hypothesis is that the DAC generates some of its own LF noise which gets reduced 6dB when 4 chips are stacked up. Pretty damn encouraging for such a simple, cheap circuit.

    So then, what about the HF 'haze'? Still working on that but adding more caps helped quite a bit with that on PhiDAC SE. For what I'm calling 'PhiDAC Quad' I don't want to go to such complexity as an additional PCB for caps so I'm experimenting to see if there are any other ways around this.

    Another thing I've discovered is that under certain conditions the MLF2012 inductors used in the passive filter generate some measurable distortion. This might be because I'm using them close to their maximum rating (5mA) - 4 chips running at 6V put out 4.8mA max. So I'm exploring different inductors and slight variations on the basic filter configuration.

  • How a transformer helps...

    Richard Dudley07/16/2019 at 09:04 0 comments

    Transformers are usually described in what I'll term the 'voltage domain' - that is in relation to the voltages across their windings. Under this tradition, the term 'step up transformer' refers to one with a higher voltage on its secondary than its primary. It seems to me equally valid to describe transformers in the 'current domain' too, in which case a 'step up' would be one which gives a higher current on its secondary than its primary. The transformer which does 'step up' in the current domain simultaneously does 'step down' in the voltage domain. The two 'domains' are completely equivalent and just a matter of perspective, but I find I need to adopt one perspective or the other in order to think straight about trafo design. Swapping between them gets very confusing very quickly!

    Why talk about transformers in terms of currents, thereby swimming against the tide? Simply because the DACs I'm using are current output types, not voltage. From now on, when I talk 'step up' or 'step down' I'll be writing in the current domain, the opposite of the normal way of speaking of trafos. A trafo to provide a low impedance on its primary and a much higher one on its secondary is called a 'step down' in the current domain. The input current is higher than the output. Given we've not got a lot of current coming out of a single DAC chip (at most 1.2mA peak-peak) we'll need a few of them in parallel when using a step-down transformer in order to get a useful amount to feed into our I/V.

    Circuits I've seen which use transformers (step down ones) in conjunction with DACs (AudioNote had a patent on this, now expired) tend to put the I/V resistor on the transformer's primary and then have more turns on the secondary to increase the voltage. To use passive I/V on the DAC's output directly seems to me to be taking a step backwards (been there, done that), so I prefer to use the trafo in 'current mode' and have the I/V stage (either active or passive) on the output (secondary). One transformer manufacturer says this sounds better - perhaps because the trafo's leakage inductance is providing useful low-pass filtering in this mode. A rule of thumb I've learned with trafos in 'voltage mode' is that they do need to be driven by the lowest possible impedance. The dual of this rule would seem to be that running in 'current mode' a trafo should be driven by the highest possible impedance - a TDA1387 output is certainly that.

    Designing a transformer in 'current mode' has taken some getting used to and I'm not yet anywhere near as proficient in thinking about trafos in this way - the equations for their design are still talking about voltages, not currents. So I did one or two experiments in an attempt to prime my intuition. The first thing I discovered was that primary inductance matters - its a major contributor to the low-frequency roll-off. In conjunction with that, primary DCR matters too. In an attempt to maximize the primary inductance I have gone over to a higher mu core material, its downside is that it permits a reduced maximum B (around 0.25T) compared to the lower mu ferrite I'm used to using (~0.35T). I have very few core sets with the high mu material so I began with an EP17. This core has one major advantage in that its a horizontal configuration (most ferrites adopt vertical configs) so the winding doesn't need to go up and down, just left to right. Better winding flexibility.

    My rule of thumb for a trafo design on a ferrite core is that the winding which goes on first should occupy about 40% of the total window. That's because of having a shorter turn length. Assuming the primary is going on first, a 0.47mm outside diameter allows about 20 turns in a single layer. Two layers of this do indeed take about 40% of the window, 20 turns is about 4mH in practice. The secondary I designed using the voltage equations - turns per volt at 20Hz (minimum frequency) is around 1200. Hence 3600 turns gets us to 3V peak. Rather fortuitously,...

    Read more »

  • Going beyond PhiDAC

    Richard Dudley07/16/2019 at 02:35 0 comments

    A PM I received from an interested DIYer asked me my view of PhiDAC SE's sound against the original lingDAC. I was piqued too so set up a comparison. The result was that PhiDAC SE won on bass (all those caps in the 'pants' aren't for nothing!) but lingDAC's top-end was still sweeter. So not an outright win for either design. Seeing as lingDAC's power supply is an extremely modest one due to the choice of a 5*5cm form-factor for the PSU board, I wondered whether lingDAC could be improved with the addition of more caps. Turns out it can - so, with a considerably improved PSU, it wasn't a big surprise that lingDAC became the clear winner in the shoot-out.

    This result has led me away from using ICs and back to the discrete-based I/V stage of lingDAC for my 'next generation' DAC. I've also decided to introduce a new element into the design, a transformer. In the past I've used transformers for bal-SE conversion (or even just SE-SE isolation) of the output on various prototypes but this time the primary proposition is a little bit different - impedance transformation.  Isolation is of course handy to have but here its coming along for the ride.

    As with any discrete I/V stage, input impedance is a major design focus. With a filter prior to the I/V as I'm using, the I/V stage doesn't see the high impedance current source output of the DAC, except at the lowest frequencies. Rather it sees the shunt caps of the filter and these have a falling impedance with frequency. The presence of the shunt caps leads to increasing HF distortion whose overall magnitude is related to the ratio of the filter's Zout to the I/V's Zin. Its for the lowest HF distortion that we need the lowest possible Zin for the I/V. Given the I/V stage's input topology is a grounded base transistor, its Zin is a function of the collector (or emitter) current. In other words, higher gm for the transistor is better as then the Re is lower. To get a 1ohm input impedance this necessitates 25mA collector current, which is a bit on the high side - lingDAC operates with single digit mA and has around 5ohm looking into the first transistor's emitter. If the filter were matched to this impedance we'd get a substantial amount of distortion at all frequencies seeing as the input impedance varies with the signal. So I use a degenerating resistor in series with the emitter to give a higher overall input impedance, the variation of the Re with signal then is a smaller fraction of the total input impedance. Still, the HF distortion isn't too pretty being of the order of 1%.

    In order to aim for lowest distortion it turns out we want the filter to have as high an output impedance as we can, and the I/V to have the lowest Zin. Lower Zin can be obtained through the use of a CFP (complementary feedback pair) - a composite transistor which uses local feedback to give a much lower Re for the same Ic as a single transistor. I've played with CFPs and they're a bit tricky to get stable, particularly when both transistors are bipolars. A bipolar/MOS partnership I've found best from the pov of stability issues. I've already got a re-design in the works of lingDAC using CFPs in the I/V stage, however its only at the PCB layout stage and has been languishing there for months as other avenues have looked more interesting, in particular working on raising the filter output impedance.

    To raise the Zout of the filter requires higher valued inductors (together with smaller caps). Larger valued inductors get more tricky to source - physically they end up bigger and most likely SMT versions won't exist. The TDK 7mm range lingDAC uses tops out at 1mH for example which would permit less than a 2-fold increase in Zout of lingDAC's filter. There's a considerable downside to raising the filter impedance and that's that all current output DACs prefer to have their outputs loaded with the lowest possible impedance. An increased filter Zout brings along an increased Zin. So what's good for the DAC is bad for the...

    Read more »

  • Evolution of PhiDAC to PhiDAC SE

    Richard Dudley05/04/2019 at 06:20 0 comments

    A number of kit packs of PhiDAC have been made up and shipped out to interested parties. The first feedback has come from Phuong in Vietnam, he's built a PhiDAC for himself and also made one for a friend, as a gift. Phuong said that at first his friend didn't think too much of the bare PCB but all that changed when he heard the first few notes coming out of it....

    I've done some experiments with improving the power supplies to the AD8017s. I've created 'hats' with extra caps on to get low impedance, right at the opamp power pins. With 6 or 8 1800uF Nichicon HZs (the lowest ESR electrolytics I've been able to find) the quality of massed vocals (I listen to quite a lot of choir music) has improved noticeably and overall dynamics are slightly better. These mods though aren't amenable to any kind of volume production nor are they likely to survive boards being shipped anywhere as they rely on soldering for both electrical and mechanical connection. So I figured I needed a more robust way to achieve the depth of power supply impedance I'm looking for.

    From building up perhaps a dozen PhiDACs I've encountered almost the full variation in parameters of TDA1387s that the datasheet describes. It thus turns out that in some cases PhiDAC won't operate to spec, the DC offset will be too high and hence will clip the output before digital full-scale is reached. It seems to me the best way to solve this is include a micro which allows the DAC to self-calibrate. While I peruse various manufacturer's sites in choice of the ideal MCU for this I've gone on to develop the 'PhiDAC SE' where the extra PSU capacitors are included on an extra PCB (or three). I've also swapped the opamp from AD8017 to AD815. One reason for this change is I have a number of tubes of the latter which I'd like to put to good use. Another is that I have had some reliability issues with the recycled AD8017s - some have failed, none of the AD815s I've used (I played with them in other projects prior to this which is how I acquired a stock of them) have had an issue although I understand they too are recycled. AD815 has another advantage in that its much more flexible in its power supply requirements - in particular its upper limit is above 30V, a far cry from AD8017's 12V. The package is much larger though and this necessitates a larger PCB.

    I've run into some oscillation problems with AD815 which didn't happen with AD8017 but then I'm driving headphones direct now as the AD815's superior thermals render that a practical option. Turns out the ferrite bead at the inverting input might not be the best choice. As a result of the transient oscillations and a couple of small board errors the rev1 board is undergoing re-layout and hopefully will go off for manufacture this week.

    Here's one example PhiDAC SE (an extreme one) where the extra caps have been fitted both to top and bottom of the PCB. While adding one 8-cap PCB per opamp makes a significant difference, the second one may well give no additional improvement. I had to try it though :)

View all 19 project logs

Enjoy this project?



Peter19500 wrote 12/21/2020 at 21:17 point

Thanks to Richard for the kit phi dac.  Perfectly wrapped and sorted.  Great job Richard.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Peter19500 wrote 12/21/2020 at 17:56 point

Zloženie: 100% bavlna.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Ben Familetto wrote 07/07/2020 at 21:26 point

Hello, in the BOM there is no value for C14, C15. Anyone know what they are supposed to be?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 07/11/2020 at 08:48 point

Which BOM are you referring to?
 If PhiDAC revG then C14 is not fitted (NF) C15 is 100nF 1206 NP0 according to the BOM.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Chris McNeil wrote 07/01/2020 at 19:06 point

Hey Richard, 

I've been reading your TDA1387 adventures with interest here and on DIYA. I am in the midst of a multi-amp project that will require 4 stereo DACs or an 8-channel DAC.

At this stage I'm testing various DAC possibilities with  a DIY angle.... in a comment in February you mentioned an offer of 10 parts kits for PhiDac for $50...given recent  Covid-enhanced budget restrictions that's an appealing offer but the DIYA thread linked to implies you've moved on from that. Or is that offer still good? If so, consider it sold and I may be back for filters, some point. 



  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 07/04/2020 at 10:55 point

Hi Chris - interesting that you would like a multi-channel DAC, its something I've been considering doing for a while. No progress to report yet though. I will have to look to see if we have any of those $50 packs of kits left. Yes the design's moved on to a more complex filter than was used on that original PhiDAC.

<later> Checked and we do have some kits left, looks like 5 or 6 boards. Can do you a reduced price, let me know if you're interested.

OK Chris will drop you a line with price and shipping options.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Chris McNeil wrote 07/08/2020 at 14:15 point

Hey Richard - cool deal. You can email me at chris at Thaut dot io. 

And, yes, I've become quite a fan of multiamping via analog active dbx crossovers and am looking forward to the joys of FIR via the MiniSharc based solution. I'm keeping the analog chain for low latency movie watching and full analog chain vinyl so it will be interesting to contrast the 2 approaches .... just need to build a good 16-in, 8-out RCA switcher box for A-B comparisons.

Thanks for all your work in optimizing the TDA1387 dac, very inspiring.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Chris McNeil wrote 07/20/2020 at 22:59 point

Received the kits very quickly- thanks, Richard! I don't know how long until i get something together but I'm already very impressed with what seems to be one of the great values in DIY Audio-land.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 07/28/2020 at 03:28 point

How are you getting on with your kits Chris?

  Are you sure? yes | no

sunny wrote 05/30/2020 at 07:43 point

I want to provide a DAC for the csr8673 module to provide 3.5mm analog output. Can i use your project?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 05/30/2020 at 07:52 point

I can't find CSR8673 but CSR8670 has I2S output so that will work.
 I2S output also is supported by CSR8675. Message me your email and I will send you the BOM, I've not released the latest one publicly yet.

  Are you sure? yes | no

sunny wrote 05/30/2020 at 08:30 point

I typed the wrong word. It should be 8675. I found your production document, but I didn't find the BOM

  Are you sure? yes | no

sunny wrote 07/05/2020 at 04:42 point

thank you ,my email is

  Are you sure? yes | no

Matt Benjamin wrote 03/26/2020 at 23:50 point

Hi there;  suggestions on whether it's sensible to build a 2/2/19 phiDAC, or take a different approach to experiment with at this stage?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 04/23/2020 at 06:48 point

It depends what your aims are - if you'd like the very best sound then build the latest PhiDAC hex. I have just uploaded the schematic, gerbers will come along in a week or so.

  Are you sure? yes | no

g_arun wrote 10/19/2019 at 10:32 point

Sorry for stupid question. Does phiDac sound better than 0Dac? 

  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 04/23/2020 at 06:49 point

Its not a stupid question - PhiDAC has tighter bass than 0DAC, but 0DAC has more clean high frequencies. Take your pick!

  Are you sure? yes | no

andrea.lebon wrote 02/18/2019 at 15:08 point

how much is the cost of full project and how can i order it

  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 02/18/2019 at 15:15 point

You can order a kit of 10 sets of parts for the PhiDAC if you like. Price will be $50. No kits are available for lingDAC so far. If you'd like the kit, please indicate your interest on the DIYA thread here :

  Are you sure? yes | no

nabildanial.93 wrote 09/08/2018 at 18:49 point

this project is abandoned?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 01/08/2019 at 07:04 point

Nope, still on-going.

  Are you sure? yes | no

alexandre zanol wrote 09/09/2017 at 10:26 point

Absolutely agree that Philips ICs rock! I have a soft spot for the TDA1543 for all the years of musical enjoyment I had with it. Now playing with the TDA1387 and I am thrilled with the potential of the chip. It is curious indeed that it didn´t find its way into CD players and stand alone dacs - I would say a marketing mistake by Philips, because the little guy is not limited (in performance) by its low power consumption.

  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 09/09/2017 at 10:29 point

I have followed a similar path to you Alex it seems, I did love the TDA1543 for quite a while with its soft, analog style of sound. But after I'd tamed the CMOS chick I couldn't go back....

  Are you sure? yes | no

alexandre zanol wrote 09/09/2017 at 11:01 point

Richard, the description is spot on. Cassette tape sound.

Onward with the '1387, I can´t wait to get more ambience, detail and some sweet highs with the analog filter :)

  Are you sure? yes | no

Steven Clark wrote 09/08/2017 at 05:50 point

I can find simple parallel resistor ladder based DACs on digikey if I look.  Do they all have op-amps, or does something else disqualify them?

  Are you sure? yes | no

Richard Dudley wrote 09/08/2017 at 06:01 point

Have a part number? I'll take a look then and let you know.
 In general ladder based DACs are too glitchy for audio, but some might be able to be made to work.

  Are you sure? yes | no


[this comment has been deleted]

Richard Dudley wrote 09/02/2017 at 13:46 point

Yes indeed, they can get the idea of what most systems with speakers are aiming for but mainly fail to achieve as their amps aren't transparent enough. Designing a speaker amp to deliver the goods this beast puts out is the next challenge....

  Are you sure? yes | no

john.kenny wrote 09/02/2017 at 13:50 point

Right, so it's the project that will just keep giving with further downstream elements when people are ready - excellent!

  Are you sure? yes | no

Similar Projects

Does this project spark your interest?

Become a member to follow this project and never miss any updates