Wow! Well you could replace that with a single B3SE-Pro-ES9038/Mercury and you will get even better results than the dual mono 9018s would have been with far less headache
Stellar case work there! You could easily re-use that chassis.
Cheers!
Russ
That actually is the plan, I want to get 9038 working, then finish the software...it works, but there are some things to improve.
Today would probably raspbery PI be the way to go, will have to check on that.
I have actually never got that dual mono to work completely, thought my legato is broken, so i have bought the second one...but that gave me no joy.
At least I have discovered, that there are new DAC on the way...If the 9038pro is that good, it would be really nice to have state of art controller for it, witch touch + remote.
...but for now im waiting for Mercury plus 9038pro, checking the page for mercury almost daily...
Russ, what about LT3042/LT3045?Yep I tested it - and decided against using it right now.
It's a fine regulator - but we did not like it as well as the current AVCC module for a number of reasons.
BTW nothing would prevent us from creating a new AVCC module using the chip - we just have not found any compelling reason to do so. It's really not any better than what we are currently using. We choose our parts exceedingly deliberately.
Cheers!
Russ
Those look really good - but honestly pretty comparable to what we already using - still something to check out
I am currently using Buffalo III with a controller designed by Robert Hartholt of CE-Designs. This gives me a nice OLED display and it controls many parameters of the chip. I wonder how hard it would be to update this firmware for the 9038. Unfortunately Robert has lost interest. I have made a few tweaks and corrections to the firmware but do not have a full understanding of it without some help.
Yes! Take a look at the on-board firmware source code - it should be really straightforward to transition.
GitHub - twistedpearaudio/Buffalo-III-SE-Pro-On-Board-Firmware
If the code is open source and on github people like me could contribute to an ES9028/38 branch.
Russ,
Couple of times i requested for some comments about the multichannel solution.
These were simply ignored.
I am interested and i'm just trying to find out if it is a hodge-podge of stacked boards and wires to keep things modular or if it is a multi-channel specific design to get best performance.
My last experience with the former solution from another designer was very disappointing.
Hoping not to be ignored again
thanks
Couple of times i requested for some comments about the multichannel solution.
These were simply ignored.
I am interested and i'm just trying to find out if it is a hodge-podge of stacked boards and wires to keep things modular or if it is a multi-channel specific design to get best performance.
My last experience with the former solution from another designer was very disappointing.
Hoping not to be ignored again
thanks
Just an opinion from a casual observer:
It is extremely difficult to design for efficient and flexible uses unless a modular approach is used. That is both the beauty and drawback to DIY pursuits. DIY requires dedication to success by the end user - including a bit of creativity and willingness to experiment. No problem if you prefer not to experiment, but then it will take some time before the community comes to a consensus on the best approach for your own application. In this case, I imagine the question is, "What's the best configuration for the I/V stages to manage the new higher currents from the es9038 in multi-channel mode?" The answer will depend on each user's opinion of how many internal DAC channels should be paralleled to reach the signal/noise level they consider worthwhile. On top of that, I think there is no set number of I/V channels that would be 'just right' as a design parameter except for basic stereo. So my suggestion is that you'll have to be patient and let builders' knowledge and experience accumulate for a while. Then maybe you can get some specific suggestions for your personal multi-channel application.
I will be updating my 6-channel rig over the winter, but am not interested in changing the I/V arrangements I already use (3 Legato boards). So I'm using 9028s rather than the 9038.
Regards,
Frank
The multi-channel DAC board is nearly complete. It is designed around a complimentary 8 channel I/V stage - as well as a summing type stereo I/V stage (which I might make work for mono - as well)
It will be a very neat and tidy solution.
It will get it's own thread as I finalize the design and seek input from builders.
Cheers!
Russ
It will be a very neat and tidy solution.
It will get it's own thread as I finalize the design and seek input from builders.
Cheers!
Russ
Nice to hear an 8 channel I/V stage is coming, that is what stopped me from completing my BIII project !
By the way Russ, is having one BIIIse(pro) per channel pair a viable solution for a multiway project compared to a single multiway DAC, in term of timing/clocking?
As I understand it the integrated ASRC in the ESS will prevent any clock derivation issue, and its very high sampling frequency will make potential timing differences between each BIII very small.
That is at least what I measured when using a pair of SMLS M8 DACs (based on the mobile ES9018), so I expect the bigger brothers to act similarly.
By the way Russ, is having one BIIIse(pro) per channel pair a viable solution for a multiway project compared to a single multiway DAC, in term of timing/clocking?
As I understand it the integrated ASRC in the ESS will prevent any clock derivation issue, and its very high sampling frequency will make potential timing differences between each BIII very small.
That is at least what I measured when using a pair of SMLS M8 DACs (based on the mobile ES9018), so I expect the bigger brothers to act similarly.
Thanks Russ,
Very nice, I cannot wait to see it ...
Please remember to include the option for can choice the I2S format ( I2S, Left just, and right Just ).
I get the same impression, though I don’t have good measurement capability. In theory even plain 44.1kHz is fast compared to the speed of sound. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if a right/left PCM pair from 44.1kHz PCM was delayed a cycle in one DAC relative to a different DAC, the resulting half-wave phase reversal would center way up at 22kHz. ...and thats without the ESS DAC’s ASRC dividing the incoming PCM into many smaller periods...
