This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TAS2505-Q1: Schematic review

Part Number: TAS2505-Q1
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TAS2505

Hi team

My customer is conducting the TAS2505Q1 schematic design, please kindly help us to review it and here we have some questions, please provide us the schematic feedback asap since they will generate the PCB board tomorrow: 

Config as below :

  • Using two TAS2505 to do the actuator drive, input signals are same from MCUs DAC source. Is it OK for this config?
  • AINR use the Pseudo-differential framework.
  • IIC use the same source of MCU.
  • Using RST0 and RST1 to do the separate control drive.

Wait for your response, thank you!

  • Hi Zirui,

    First let me add comments on the schematic:

    • Please change the design so that internal LDO is not used. Currently we are not recommending to use the internal LDO due to a known issue. Use an external source for AVDD and DVDD.
    • Is DAC AIN signal filtered before this part of the schematic? It is recommended to place a LPF between a DAC output and a Class-D amplifier, as the modulation from the Class-D can take some high-frequency content back to audible range.
    • Both TAS2505 have the same I2C address, I would suggest adding a switch or mux as it could create conflict on driving the I2C bus.

    Regarding your questions:

    • Using two TAS2505 to do the actuator drive, input signals are same from MCUs DAC source. Is it OK for this config?
      • I think this is OK from TAS2505 perspective. I assume they've verified the DAC ability to drive both inputs.
    • AINR use the Pseudo-differential framework.
      • This is OK
    • IIC use the same source of MCU.
      • As mentioned above, it could cause conflict having two devices with the same address.
    • Using RST0 and RST1 to do the separate control drive.
      • This is OK, although this could not be considered as an alternative for I2C mux/switch. At some point both devices would be enabled and sharing the same address.

    Best regards,
    -Ivan Salazar
    Applications Engineer

  • Thanks Ivan!

    This is OK, although this could not be considered as an alternative for I2C mux/switch.

    Any recommendation device for I2C mux/switch?

  • Hi Zirui,

    You may check our portfolio: https://www.ti.com/interface/i2c/switches-and-multiplexers/products.html

    I know we're using some TCA and PCA devices on our EVMs.

    Best regards,
    -Ivan Salazar
    Applications Engineer