Russ wrote:
The most power hungry devices on the cape will be the clocks - and only one will run at a time they should consume < 25ma. Along with the other active parts total consumption should be well below 100ma. Of course the design is subject to change still.As it stands now that is accurate.
Ahhh...
Russ you tease! Hoping the higher priority could be the C-III... but that is just my wish.
Yes - I am making good headway. I have one PCB I am designing that has slightly higher priority - but as soon as that is done this will get my attention again.
Russ you tease! Hoping the higher priority could be the C-III... but that is just my wish.
I have a couple questions.
1. Is there any ballpark on price?
2. Roughly how big will the cape be?
3. Any thought on a case to hold this and the bbb?
- (I have an idea here, it would be slick if you sold a case + cape + one of your sweet power supplies!! Then we could just plug in a bbb and smile)
1. Is there any ballpark on price?
2. Roughly how big will the cape be?
3. Any thought on a case to hold this and the bbb?
- (I have an idea here, it would be slick if you sold a case + cape + one of your sweet power supplies!! Then we could just plug in a bbb and smile)
I can answer one of your questions ''Roughly how big will the cape be?"
definitely size http://www.adafruit.com/images/480x360/572-00.jpg logical and beautiful
Russ certainly confirm.
I've started planning the metalwork etc. for my new DAC, which I'm basing on the Buffalo IIIse and the Botic.
In terms of physical deployment my thinking is to turn the BBB/Botic module upside down and stack it on top of the DAC board; keeps the i2s cables nice and short. I don't think there's a downside to that implementation, other than the vertical height you require.
Anyway, I started sketching out the boards in a CAD package using board dimensions that are available on the Beaglebone and TPA websites. Now, if I've got it right, by a happy coincidence the stand-off holes at one end (the right end as far as alignment goes) of the BBB/Botic boards align with those on the DAC board. In addition, the other end of the Botic board overlaps the DAC board, so, a suggestion for Russ;
If you could provide two additional stand-off holes in the Botic board corresponding to the stand-off holes on the DAC board you could stack the botic board on the DAC and the BBB on the Botic using the standard BBB holes plus the headers - that would be really neat.
Of course, this might already be a part of your cunning plan?
Ray
In terms of physical deployment my thinking is to turn the BBB/Botic module upside down and stack it on top of the DAC board; keeps the i2s cables nice and short. I don't think there's a downside to that implementation, other than the vertical height you require.
Anyway, I started sketching out the boards in a CAD package using board dimensions that are available on the Beaglebone and TPA websites. Now, if I've got it right, by a happy coincidence the stand-off holes at one end (the right end as far as alignment goes) of the BBB/Botic boards align with those on the DAC board. In addition, the other end of the Botic board overlaps the DAC board, so, a suggestion for Russ;
If you could provide two additional stand-off holes in the Botic board corresponding to the stand-off holes on the DAC board you could stack the botic board on the DAC and the BBB on the Botic using the standard BBB holes plus the headers - that would be really neat.
Of course, this might already be a part of your cunning plan?
Ray
I double checked the published documentation covering the stand-off holes for the Buffalo DAC III and Beaglebone Black; the holes at one end of the BBB board are indeed the same spacing as those on the DAC board. If the Botic board had holes for six stand-offs to the DAC and BBB footprints it would be simple to stack the Buffalo III/Botic/BBB modules. What do you think Russ?
Turning to powering the thing;
Ray
Turning to powering the thing;
- power requirement to the Buffalo 3 DAC board is 5.25V
- power to the BBB needs to be 5V +/- 0.25V (so could be 5.25V)
Ray
Linear, regulated 5V wall wart
I replaced the switching PS for my BBB with the following easy (and cheap! $8) replacement:
RWP480505: CONDOR POWER SUPPLIES: Power Supplies & Wall Adapters
Very subjectively, I thought the sound improved. This wall wart is claimed to be linear and regulated.
I replaced the switching PS for my BBB with the following easy (and cheap! $8) replacement:
RWP480505: CONDOR POWER SUPPLIES: Power Supplies & Wall Adapters
Very subjectively, I thought the sound improved. This wall wart is claimed to be linear and regulated.
Possibly. It complicates the manufacturing process a bit. It really depends on the volume and whether I build them myself or outsource it.
Further to my last post re. stacking the BBB/Botic on the DAC board...
As this project appears to be heading towards a tight integration with the Buffalo III DAC does the Botic actually need to be constrained to the physical size/footprint of the BBB? Thinking further on the stacking suggestion, if the Botic footprint were to be the same as the DAC footprint then other possibilities open up such as interconnecting i2s signals via a header arrangement in a similar fashion to how the Legato stacks below the DAC, likewise power. Such an approach wouldn't preclude use with non-TPA DAC boards. I guess the complication stems from there being two Buffalo III variants?
I've got a feeling that Russ has already seen these possibilities though.
Ray
As this project appears to be heading towards a tight integration with the Buffalo III DAC does the Botic actually need to be constrained to the physical size/footprint of the BBB? Thinking further on the stacking suggestion, if the Botic footprint were to be the same as the DAC footprint then other possibilities open up such as interconnecting i2s signals via a header arrangement in a similar fashion to how the Legato stacks below the DAC, likewise power. Such an approach wouldn't preclude use with non-TPA DAC boards. I guess the complication stems from there being two Buffalo III variants?
I've got a feeling that Russ has already seen these possibilities though.
Ray
I for one am pretty happy with a design that matches the bbb rather than the DAC. the botic requires a bbb, but can be used with any DAC, right??
Also, is this being designed as a completed board, a kit, or both?
Looks like a good option, but isn't the bbb underpowered with only 1A? I thought it required 5V 2A?
Perhaps you can sell some upgraded clock boards outside the outsourced supply chain.
A question, does the BBB have the power and interface ability to use the Botic for output, and run some sort of screen? (say 2 line VFD on up to a graphic screen) and be able to run a display program behind the server/output drivers?
I totally agree, this is surely a BBB cape and not being built to specifically suit any one DAC. As such I would expect it to follow the form of the BBB as Russ has already indicated.
I have already built a DAC (ES9023 based) and BBB into a single chassis with multiple power supplies. Just awaiting the cape.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.