Dual I/V stage implementation for Buffalo II & III - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analog Line Level

Analog Line Level Preamplifiers , Passive Pre-amps, Crossovers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12th September 2011, 01:20 AM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Tokyo
Do, I'm very interested to hear more on your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting delivery of a Buffalo III board and Tube-I-Zator boards. Have been mulling the benefits of getting a second Buffalo III board for the dual mono configuration. Would love to see some shots of your build?
 
Old 12th September 2011, 01:18 PM   #12
qusp is offline qusp  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
qusp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinnocchio View Post
Hi Qusp,

I do appreciate the feedback but if you could also provide some positive feedback, maybe tell us how you would do it instead of just pointing out the bad.

If using relays is not good then there must be tons of people wasting their times building / implementing R2R volume control using relays...

After all, this way of thinking would have never brought us to the moon!

Please don't be a show stopper and see the positive side of anyone interested to use an I/V stage of their liking. I do love the Legato / IVY stages but there's plenty of people that won't give up their tube I/V for SS output...

Lets just be innovative and find ways around this issue.

Thanks for your understanding
you are missing the point, relay volume controls are dealing with voltage, not current and volume controls are designed to lower dnr by their very nature, that is not what you want from an IV stage.

i'm seriously happy you love the sound of your dac, thats what its all about, i really am, but the way i see it building an entire second dac to gain a few db performance and then throwing it directly away before the signal even gets anywhere seems a total waste of time and effort, i dont like to see people make such decisions, so i speak up when called for comment, but hey its your money. i think you could probably get better performance with one dac done properly than making compromises with 2. doing the dual mono thing, the only reason to do it is to squeeze the last bit out of the sabre dac, whether this has anything much to do with great sound is subjective

myself (and btw the way the designer of the sabre dac sees it) short line of sight current paths that keep the phases as close to each other as possible and direct signal returns are to be maintained for good performance from an iv stage with sabre. that simply is not possible with the setup you mention and its not possible with ANY setup that uses relays in the current path, the resistance of the relays will become the IV stage, sabre starts falling out of current mode with <1ohm

Last edited by qusp; 12th September 2011 at 01:21 PM.
 
Old 12th September 2011, 08:49 PM   #13
Just DIY!
diyAudio Member
 
pinnocchio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Montreal
Quote:
Originally Posted by qusp View Post
you are missing the point, relay volume controls are dealing with voltage, not current and volume controls are designed to lower dnr by their very nature, that is not what you want from an IV stage.

i'm seriously happy you love the sound of your dac, thats what its all about, i really am, but the way i see it building an entire second dac to gain a few db performance and then throwing it directly away before the signal even gets anywhere seems a total waste of time and effort, i dont like to see people make such decisions, so i speak up when called for comment, but hey its your money. i think you could probably get better performance with one dac done properly than making compromises with 2. doing the dual mono thing, the only reason to do it is to squeeze the last bit out of the sabre dac, whether this has anything much to do with great sound is subjective

myself (and btw the way the designer of the sabre dac sees it) short line of sight current paths that keep the phases as close to each other as possible and direct signal returns are to be maintained for good performance from an iv stage with sabre. that simply is not possible with the setup you mention and its not possible with ANY setup that uses relays in the current path, the resistance of the relays will become the IV stage, sabre starts falling out of current mode with <1ohm
Hi Qusp,

Would switches create the same scenario?

thx
pinnocchio
 
Old 12th September 2011, 08:52 PM   #14
Just DIY!
diyAudio Member
 
pinnocchio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Montreal
Quote:
Originally Posted by squizcat View Post
Do, I'm very interested to hear more on your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting delivery of a Buffalo III board and Tube-I-Zator boards. Have been mulling the benefits of getting a second Buffalo III board for the dual mono configuration. Would love to see some shots of your build?
I will post pictures of the prototype shortly. Everything will be installed in a nice box. But I'm waiting on Brian and Russ to release the AC2 (Audio controller 2) before I do this, since I want to create a nice front panel using Front Panel Express!

Thanks
 
Old 13th September 2011, 04:34 PM   #15
Just DIY!
diyAudio Member
 
pinnocchio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Montreal
Ok...

I'm disapointed but it looks like this thread is dead...

If you need help with a dual mono BII and external I/V just PM me.

Thanks
 
Old 13th September 2011, 06:50 PM   #16
jcarr is offline jcarr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Hi Qusp:

You mentioned the importance of low parasitics in the link from the 9018 chip to the I-V stage, which I fully agree with.

To give that point more attention, I'd like to ask your opinion (or experience) as to how much resistance, capacitance or inductance the link can have before the 9018 performance starts showing signs of degradation.

I've read elsewhere that ESS themselves strongly suggest that the link or current injection point of the I-V stage not exceed 10 ohms impedance, wide-band. But do you think that there will be a steady increase in performance with reduced impedance at the current injection node, or do you think that beyond some point there will be a plateau? As an extreme example, would 0.2 ohm input impedance allow superior performance to 0.6 ohm impedance, or is it that below 1 ohm (or 10 ohms, for that matter), performance differences are more or less inconsequential?

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts.

cheers, jonathan
__________________
http://www.lyraconnoisseur.com/, http://www.lyraaudio.com
 
Old 20th September 2011, 04:11 AM   #17
Just DIY!
diyAudio Member
 
pinnocchio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Montreal
Quote:
Originally Posted by squizcat View Post
Do, I'm very interested to hear more on your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting delivery of a Buffalo III board and Tube-I-Zator boards. Have been mulling the benefits of getting a second Buffalo III board for the dual mono configuration. Would love to see some shots of your build?
Hi squizcat,

For the Tube-I-Zator pics, please go to this thread Tube-I-zator Professional PCB

Thanks
Pinnocchio
 
Old 14th October 2011, 08:47 PM   #18
Just DIY!
diyAudio Member
 
pinnocchio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Montreal
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarr View Post
Hi Qusp:

You mentioned the importance of low parasitics in the link from the 9018 chip to the I-V stage, which I fully agree with.

To give that point more attention, I'd like to ask your opinion (or experience) as to how much resistance, capacitance or inductance the link can have before the 9018 performance starts showing signs of degradation.

I've read elsewhere that ESS themselves strongly suggest that the link or current injection point of the I-V stage not exceed 10 ohms impedance, wide-band. But do you think that there will be a steady increase in performance with reduced impedance at the current injection node, or do you think that beyond some point there will be a plateau? As an extreme example, would 0.2 ohm input impedance allow superior performance to 0.6 ohm impedance, or is it that below 1 ohm (or 10 ohms, for that matter), performance differences are more or less inconsequential?

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts.

cheers, jonathan
Hi Jonathan,

Did you ever got an answer for that? I'd would really love to do this project but right now I'm kinda stuck not knowing...

Thanks
Do
 
Old 14th October 2011, 11:29 PM   #19
jcarr is offline jcarr  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Hi Do: No, I haven't received a direct answer from anyone with hands-on 9018 design or build experience.

What I have been doing is working together with a buddy on a balanced-to-SE I-V converter design for the Buffalo II and III, that eschews monolithic devices, and has built-in DC cancellation and therefore requires no coupling capacitors. The overall topology assumes true differential outputs from the 9018, which means that the quantizer should be run in up to 8-bit mode rather than 9 (unless someone reading this knows how to configure a 9018 for true differential outputs when the quantizer is set to 9-bit operation).

Our present overall design is complex with multiple interlocking variables, and it isn't always easy to deduce that topological fragment A is directly responsible for distortion reduction B or phase improvement C.

Keeping those cautionary words in mind, at least down to about 0.2 ohms (achievable with fairly straightforward, although not necessarily simple topologies), it appears that there are direct and quantifiable improvements in distortion. Further reducing input impedances is requiring weirder topologies, and possibly as a result, doing so seems to be bringing diminishing degrees of distortion improvements.

At the end of the schematic design process we will then need to consider how to package the final circuit into a compact enough form so that the input impedance improvements aren't negated due to excess resistance, capacitance and inductance brought by a circuit that is physically too-large (or runs too hot).

kind regards, jonathan carr
__________________
http://www.lyraconnoisseur.com/, http://www.lyraaudio.com

Last edited by jcarr; 14th October 2011 at 11:34 PM. Reason: greater clarity
 
Old 16th October 2011, 01:18 AM   #20
Just DIY!
diyAudio Member
 
pinnocchio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Montreal
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcarr View Post
Hi Do: No, I haven't received a direct answer from anyone with hands-on 9018 design or build experience.

What I have been doing is working together with a buddy on a balanced-to-SE I-V converter design for the Buffalo II and III, that eschews monolithic devices, and has built-in DC cancellation and therefore requires no coupling capacitors. The overall topology assumes true differential outputs from the 9018, which means that the quantizer should be run in up to 8-bit mode rather than 9 (unless someone reading this knows how to configure a 9018 for true differential outputs when the quantizer is set to 9-bit operation).

Our present overall design is complex with multiple interlocking variables, and it isn't always easy to deduce that topological fragment A is directly responsible for distortion reduction B or phase improvement C.

Keeping those cautionary words in mind, at least down to about 0.2 ohms (achievable with fairly straightforward, although not necessarily simple topologies), it appears that there are direct and quantifiable improvements in distortion. Further reducing input impedances is requiring weirder topologies, and possibly as a result, doing so seems to be bringing diminishing degrees of distortion improvements.

At the end of the schematic design process we will then need to consider how to package the final circuit into a compact enough form so that the input impedance improvements aren't negated due to excess resistance, capacitance and inductance brought by a circuit that is physically too-large (or runs too hot).

kind regards, jonathan carr
Please let me know when you have this I/V completed

If you need some testers, I have some good gear to test it on.

BTW, someone asked me if instead of using relays to switch the BII/BIII current output to Legato or Tube I/V to use them for switching the power of the desired I/V stage and connect both I/V in parallel at all time. This way we could have really short traces.

The only thing I'm not too sure is if one of the I/V stage is powered off, current will still flow in it and go through passive components. I don't know if this could have an issue with the BII current output...

So basically, have the BII and Legato 3.1 sandwiched together like they're supposed to then run an extra set of cables to the tube?

Thanks
Do
 

Closed Thread


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Buffalo II & transformers markusA Twisted Pear 523 27th May 2014 03:04 PM
Legato or IVY III outputs for Buffalo II? natzev_i Twisted Pear 272 21st March 2011 08:08 PM
FS:Buffalo DAC II with tube output stage Nikola Krivorov Swap Meet 2 12th February 2011 06:08 PM
FS: Buffalo II DAC + Placid Combo, Legato I/V Stage, 2x Placid BP Modules damohpi Swap Meet 4 23rd November 2010 08:51 AM
Buffalo Dac original vs Buffalo II mrtakib Digital Line Level 7 24th August 2010 06:47 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:03 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2