Difference between other audio board

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

urbanspaceman

Well-known member
Hi, i have just discovered two audioboard for teensy
HI-FI audio codec module and Teensy super audio board

what are the main differences?
audio quality?
number of outputs?
onboard memory?

teensy audio board can be coupled with another to double inputs and outputs, these two boards work the same way?
In a commercial project for audio, which would make sense to use? and why?

Thanks
 
urbanspaceman said:
Hi, i have just discovered two audioboard for teensy
HI-FI audio codec module and Teensy super audio board

what are the main differences?
audio quality?
number of outputs?
onboard memory?

teensy audio board can be coupled with another to double inputs and outputs, these two boards work the same way?
In a commercial project for audio, which would make sense to use? and why?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I would be also interested. I recall, that MickMad's (1sqinch) board is smallest but without input/output buffers.
also whollander's (superaudio)board is using input/output buffers with well proven cirrus chips , while I would still need to read about AsahiKasei with respect to quality.

nevertheless, 32 bit sigma-delta at >216 kHz sampling sounds impressive

Edit: interestingly the "Tascam DR100 MkIII Portable Digital Audio Recorder" uses two AK4558 but only claims 24 bit/192 kHz to achieve 109 dB S/N (The AK4558 is a stereo single ended CODEC). But I do not know how they use the two CODECs.
 
Last edited:
Any other than 44.1kHz / 16 Bit will not work with the audio-library. But you can write your own code, of course.
 
urbanspaceman said:
In a commercial project for audio, which would make sense to use? and why?
Click to expand...

Well, that depends on lot on what's meant by "a commercial project".

If you're going to make a proprietary product to sell, the non-commercial license on the Super Audio Board might be an issue. The PJRC audio board and MickMad's board are so simple, nearly identical to the info published in the chip datasheets, that you shouldn't have much license issue with making your own PCB from the datasheet info.

But maybe you mean particularly high quality requirements, like extreme SNR or distortion specs which low power chips can't meet?

Or maybe commercial means some sort of consulting project, where leveraging already-working stuff can allow you to big a lower price for the work?
 
I mean a project that has a good sound quality and that it is marketable
the license question is important point

if i make custom hardware that use open source library (like the audio library, or the ILI library) and one proprietary library for the hardware
what is the best way?

1. Release the hardware and the custom library and tell to the users : 'hey you ave to use this open source libraries'!
2. Release all opensource, hardware and custom library (but selling the hardware)
3.?
 
Each library has its own license. Many of them are MIT which allows proprietary usage. Some are LGPL, and I've heard many different opinions on what that really means. A few are full GPL, which definitely doesn't allow usage in proprietary closed source products.

I know a concise summary would be convenient, but as a matter of principle, the license info in each library is the authoritative word. Any sort of summary would risk inaccurate or misleading info. You really need at each library you use.

Of course, this message isn't "legal advice". That can only come from your own attorney.
 
Regarding the sound quality, probably your best way to check is simply listening with good quality headphones, using high quality source material, or whatever effects or synthesis techniques you'll be using.

The SGTL5000 is used in many commercial products, and I believe it sounds as good as pretty much any consumer audio products I've ever heard. But I certainly don't have the "golden ears" many people talk about. Listening can be very subjective.

Some types of people... let's call them "audiofiles" for lack of a good term, require knowledge that a certainly level of technical specification is met, regardless of how listening tests go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top