• Disclaimer: This Vendor's Forum is a paid-for commercial area. Unlike the rest of diyAudio, the Vendor has complete control of what may or may not be posted in this forum. If you wish to discuss technical matters outside the bounds of what is permitted by the Vendor, please use the non-commercial areas of diyAudio to do so.

exaU2I - Multi-Channel Asynchronous USB to I2S Interface

In terms of a DIY solution that can work with standard USB Audio Class compliant drivers, the key is selecting a USB chip which is programmable. The popular DIY chips are from FTDI Chips, and they are (nearly?) all not programmable, thus USB Audio is out of reach.

Any standard processor chip with USB Device capabilities would be a good choice. Off the top of my head, there is Microchip PIC and Cypress EZ-USB FX2. If you actually want to perform DSP on the hardware instead of in the computer, then a good choice would be the Texas Instruments TMS320 family. I am currently working on a design using the TMS320VC5506, which is a massively powerful DSP with onboard USB. It's technically a 16-bit processor, but it can access 32-bit samples in memory and has 40-bit registers - all fixed point. A better choice might be one of the 32-bit members of the family, and the floating point models might be much easier to program.

In any case, having a processor instead of a drop-in part like the FTDI Chip allows full control over USB, such that USB Audio 2.0 could be implemented. The problem here is that USB Audio firmware development costs something like $50,000 - or at least that's the quotes I've seen. I do know that the USB product development I have done is similarly expensive due to the time it takes to create firmware that works flawlessly on custom hardware.

Perhaps some day the DIY community will have an open source USB Audio firmware, but that could be difficult considering that many parts of the firmware are in assembly language, which is obviously not as portable as Standard C. Another problem is that each processor has its own USB library, and they are not compatible, making it that much more difficult to have one open source USB Audio solution that works everywhere.
 
TPA recommended alternatives to I2S

None yet... :)

The reason is I want a solution that conforms to the USB audio class 2 spec. I don't want custom drivers if I can avoid it.

In the case of windows one has little choice. But in the professional audio (recording and mastering) arena where I get most of my music from - that fact matters little as almost all the studios use Macs anyway.

That is what I hope to achieve. A standard based approach to USB audio.

But honestly, in this context, who cares about my solution, or any off the shelf solution (like yours)? I was looking at a way for people to possibly come up with their own. That what the DIY section of the forum is all about. If you have some commercial interest that is fine. Just call it what it is.

Cheers!
Russ

Well, I have as much commercial interest as you.

I am very interested to share my passion for realistic music reproduction, but unfortunately original research and development costs money. Let's face it - there is more in-house developed know-how in the exaU2I then in the Buffalo III DAC. That's why competition to exaU2I is slow to appear.

My way of shearing is to make this research available to the DIY community for fraction of the cost of comparable devices on the CASH list at Computer Audiophile | High-End Audiophile Music Servers.

Regarding USB audio class 2 spec - inside there is everything AUDIO that one can think of. It is designed to serve wide spectrum of consumer applications. It is hard to achieve audiophile-grade sound with such a multifunction tool. I prefer the specialized approach. I need better than standard approach.

Finally on the Mac-Windows argument - with a true asynchronous driver / interface implementation, it doesn't matter what is the computer platform of choice. Does it matter if you use Mac or Windows to stream out audio to something like Squeezebox?

Since you don't recommend any existing USB to I2S interface on Earth, let me rephrase my question:

Is it better to use SPDIF with Buffalo DACs instead of proprietary exaU2I?

On one side you have a jittery, legacy, limited-bandwidth interface.
On the other side - the risk to use something proprietary, but innovative and delivering results now.

Regards,

exa065
 
Last edited:
Regarding USB audio class 2 spec - inside there is everything AUDIO that one can think of. It is designed to serve wide spectrum of consumer applications. It is hard to achieve audiophile-grade sound with such a multifunction tool. I prefer the specialized approach. I need better than standard approach.
The way you've worded this, it seems to imply that USB Audio 2.0 Class specifications would somehow compromise the design of the exaU2I. But when I read carefully, I see nothing specific. Maybe I'm must misinterpreting due to context.

Would you care to qualify your statements? Apart from the FT2232H, is there any reason why a future revision of the exaU2I hardware could not be USB Audio 2.0 Class compliant without sacrificing any of the existing audiophile-grade sound?

In my experience, the Bulk Transfer mode of the exaU2I puts it at risk of losing samples. Granted, such an occurrence would be incredibly rare, but the fact is that the USB Host (your computer) will not guarantee bandwidth for Bulk Transfer. It's designed for disk drives and other non-real-time devices. One significant change if the exaU2I were to become USB Audio Class compliant is that it would then be using Isochronous Transfer mode, which is absolutely guaranteed bandwidth. Audio and other guaranteed bandwidth, real-time data is exactly what ISO is designed for. In other words, the audiophile-grade quality of the exaU2I would only be improved by switching to USB Audio, although it would require a hardware change.

I will admit that some of the other USB Class specifications are crap, e.g. the USB-MIDI spec is so bad that it compromises the timing of the MIDI events - needlessly, too, I would add. Conversely, USB Audio seems fully capable, and I am aware of no shortcomings. If you are aware of shortcomings in the USB Audio specification which would sacrifice audiophile-grade quality, then I would be very interested in discussing them.

To clarify: I am not making any claim that the exaU2I does not offer the best audiophile-grade sound. I'm sure it does. That is a function of the hardware, and Bulk data dropouts are probably unlikely. However, USB Audio Class compliance would make this accessible to more people with less effort and 100% reliability, so I'd like to see a way to combine the high-grade hardware with the convenient, driverless link.
 
The way you've worded this, it seems to imply that USB Audio 2.0 Class specifications would somehow compromise the design of the exaU2I. But when I read carefully, I see nothing specific. Maybe I'm must misinterpreting due to context.

Would you care to qualify your statements?

I just said that It is hard to achieve audiophile-grade sound with such a multifunction tool. Sure there are fine USB Audio 2.0 implementations out there. I am disappointing by the complexity required to achieve something straight-forward and simple. Your previous post illustrates my point.

Who knows what is the best technology of the future to stream out sound from a computer? I will pick the easy one for the next exa.
 
Well, I have as much commercial interest as you.

exa065

Oh you do? That's great to have out in the open. So why not behave like a vendor?

You are the only person who brought up my work. I had no intention of doing so. I also had no intention of mentioning your work in any unflattering way. Yet you seem to have some axe to grind. Your wild and inaccurate assertions don't make you look any better either.

Remember I am only part of this conversation because you wanted me to be. I would not have posted anything further if not for your invitation to do so.

I am genuinely interested in spawning a new conversation in a new thread about a similar topic only because I think its fun to design things from the ground up. I bet many people would get a lot more out of learning how it works, then simply buying something. I understand there are people for whom just buying something is the best option. That's quite fine, but then there are people like me for which that is simply not enough fun. :D

My post was simply a pursuit of my hobby. You must realize that your response seems a defensive reaction to alternative views. That kind of reaction seems very out of spirit on this forum. I understand you must have a lot at stake, but this is not the place to make that stand.

I wish you well, but remember this is the DIY forum. It is OK to post things that are on topic and encourage DIY pursuits. If you think it should be all about your product, then this thread does not belong on this forum.

Cheers!
Russ
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Originally Posted by Russ White

If you think it should be all about your product, then this thread does not belong on this forum.

Cheers!
Russ[/QUOTE]


You do in fact think that the thread "Buffalo III - flexibility without compromise." is all about your product... You can actually not tolerate something else than exclusively about Buffalo on that thread. You do so! You also rejected many times ExaU2I from your own thread, because was about "miss leading"... It does your thread belong to this forum?

Not a good point to be so ironical against somebody`s else work, or minimise it to get the focus on yours... A little bit more modesty from your part is also strongly recommended... You have the moderation rights on your thread, but not the "teaching everybody everywhere" right yet (on this forum)...

I can suggest you to pay a little bit more as Vendor and maybe you will get the moderation rights over the entire DIY forum, so you could easily delete everything which is not belonging to this forum (in your conception...) And be then the DIY world Boss.

Cheers!


Sorry Exa for this out of topic post, but I had to pointed accordingly the intervention above...
 
Last edited:
Mac OS X driver for exaU2I

There is a new OS X driver beta uploaded on the exaDevices download page.

One of ou users have identified an issue when the driver is used on OS X Snow Leopard. The Audio Midi application stopped working. Please don't use the previous version and download the new one dated 2010-10-17. Contact us from the support page on exaDevices.com if you need any assistance.

With this issue uncovered unfortunately we will not make any further attempts to support OS X Leopard.

Thank you again to all users that provided feedback.

Best regards,

exa065
 
The best sound with a Buffalo DAC

Oh you do? That's great to have out in the open. So why not behave like a vendor?

Cheers!
Russ
Russ,
The readers will decide for themselves who behaves like an honest vendor. If you are interested to have a factual discussion, I am prepared to address any of my statements that you find wiled or inaccurate.

You didn't reply to the questions that matter to the DIY users regarding achieving the best sound with a Buffalo DAC. Many of them consider various I2S devices. It appears that you are looking for end to end TPA solution and nothing else works for you.

I am disappointed to see this useless fight on my thread. Long ago on the about page of the TPA website there was a BS meter. I don't know why it was removed. I really liked it. Anyway it was showing around -20dB. On this thread we are aiming for -120dB.
 
Exa ...

Why do you surmise I care what products people use with our DACs. I don't in the least. Sure I am developing something I think will be awesome, and I hope people choose to use it. But I have never had a problem with your work. What I did not want was our vendor thread to become a place where others tried to advertise for free. Nothing more than that.

I don't feel the need to respond to a completely subjective question. People can decide for themselves what they like.

I have no urge to fight, I really don't even feel engaged in one. It is disappointing to see you are feeling that way.

Where do you feel I have attacked you in any way?

My only goal in posting on this thread was not to lose track of some interesting information someone had posted and to encourage people who might want to try it to start a thread. How does that offend you? It in no way benefits me. It only benefits hard core DIY folks. :)

Best of luck to you.

Cheers!
Russ
 
You do in fact think that the thread "Buffalo III - flexibility without compromise." is all about your product... You can actually not tolerate something else than exclusively about Buffalo on that thread. You do so! You also rejected many times ExaU2I from your own thread, because was about "miss leading"... It does your thread belong to this forum?

Coris,

I appears you don't understand that the Twisted Pear Audio forum is exclusively for Twisted Pear Audio. Why would you expect it to be something else?

I don't recall any other reason for deleting posts other than we did not want to advertise for work we did not necessarily endorse. I am sure any reasonable person can understand that.

Please read the moderator's note at the top of the forum.

Thanks!
Russ
 
Russ,
The readers will decide for themselves who behaves like an honest vendor. If you are interested to have a factual discussion, I am prepared to address any of my statements that you find wiled or inaccurate.

You didn't reply to the questions that matter to the DIY users regarding achieving the best sound with a Buffalo DAC. Many of them consider various I2S devices. It appears that you are looking for end to end TPA solution and nothing else works for you.

I am disappointed to see this useless fight on my thread. Long ago on the about page of the TPA website there was a BS meter. I don't know why it was removed. I really liked it. Anyway it was showing around -20dB. On this thread we are aiming for -120dB.

Hi exa065,

I want to be as neutral as possible for both parties (I love you both :D )

When you say "It appears that you are looking for end to end TPA solution and nothing else works for you."

I have to be in disagreement with you on that one though... I'm using a dual mono BII setup with a Tube I/V and many times needed help for the BII to interface with it and Russ was giving me some good pointers and helping out, which turned out to work good.

Like I have said you both have AMAZING products/solutions and we need you both. I'm sure there's enough place for two great minds! ;)

Ciao!
Do
 
I am genuinely interested in spawning a new conversation in a new thread about a similar topic only because I think its fun to design things from the ground up. I bet many people would get a lot more out of learning how it works, then simply buying something. I understand there are people for whom just buying something is the best option. That's quite fine, but then there are people like me for which that is simply not enough fun.
If you do start such a topic in a new thread, then please drop a brief note here. I'd like to read along.

Personally, I think that a USB Audio Class compliant device is a bit beyond the skills of the average DIY hacker, but maybe someday there will be someone to donate open source. But even though I have my doubts that it will ever happen, I'm always open to discussion.
 
Personally, I think that a USB Audio Class compliant device is a bit beyond the skills of the average DIY hacker, but maybe someday there will be someone to donate open source. But even though I have my doubts that it will ever happen, I'm always open to discussion.

I have to agree with this. from the USB to I2S boards i have seen.they are quite complex. If one was a kit that you simply soldered parts onto, that would be one thing. but building one from scratch is a pretty big ball of wax.

BUT!! I personally would like to BUY an affordable USB audio solution! I don't care who makes it as long as it is affordable and works!
 
Frequently Asked Question

The most frequently asked question on the exaU2I tech support page is: "How do I connect the exaU2I to a Buffalo II DAC?" It seems that the schematic that we have on our DIY guide at www.exadevices.com > exaU2I > D.I.Y. Guide is not very informative.

The more specific question is: "Where do I find DVCC on the Buffalo II board?"
Since I don't have a Buffalo II DAC, the best answer that I can come up with is from the Buffalo II User guide:

Optional Features

The following are not recommended nor supported, but as some of you will want to tinker I am making this information available. If you decide do this do not expect any support should your DAC fail. You are on your own. To use external supplies remove the ferrite bead located on the bottom side of the PCB for the supply you wish to make external.

VDD(1.2V) remove L6

VDD_XO(3.3V) remove L7

DVCC (3.3V) remove L8


Once you have removed the ferrite bead you can supply each voltage at the marked pin header. For

convenience I added a pad for VD at each header.



It appears that DVCC can be obtained from L8 - the side that is away from the regulator.

How do you connect exaU2I to BII?
Any feedback is appreciated.

 

Attachments

  • exaU2I-ES9018-Two-Channel.gif
    exaU2I-ES9018-Two-Channel.gif
    3.4 KB · Views: 303
Last edited:
I don't recall any other reason for deleting posts other than we did not want to advertise for work we did not necessarily endorse. I am sure any reasonable person can understand that.

Please read the moderator's note at the top of the forum.

Thanks!
Russ

As I clearly recall you may have serious memory issues,
and maybe it would not hurt if you re-read the moderator´s note yourself.

Anyhow I think that the best for all would be that you reside in your own domain (TPA vendor forum) and moderate and delete any posts you want there - and simply let other forum threads alone as you as an vendor simply should NOT interfere in issues where you have a clear business interest.

PS! If I had written this post in your domain where you can delete posts I am 100% sure this post would have been deleted ASAP - just like ALL the other of my posts you previously have deleted.
 
Just for the record

Forum Rules

Rule 11. Note 4.:

"The regular forums are non-commercial and should have no advertisements or overtly commercial threads or posts. These belong in the appropriate Commercial Sector forums. Commercial entities may have threads and post in the regular forums discussing theory and initial product design. If a project gets close to commercial availability, the topic must be continued in a Commercial Sector thread."

If a projects gets close to commercial availability... ... MUST be continued in a Commercial Sector thread

exadevices is ignoring that rule and forum ethics on a continuous basis. I mentioned that before. The situation is not new.

There's nothing to argue about or to discuss. The situation is crystal clear. The moderators are obviously sleeping.

BR

P.S: From what I recall Russ and most other serious vendors usually stick to those rules.
 
Last edited:
Seems like nothing would be lost if exa065 were to start a new thread in the commercial forum with a title referencing the exaU2I. I have no idea what it takes to start a commercial thread - are there requirements of some sort stopping anyone from doing this?

If there are no barriers, then the discussion of the exaU2I should continue there. Considering the cobwebs growing on this thread and the number of times it has been sidetracked, I actually think that a new thread would be preferred. Any stragglers who continue to follow this thread could be guided to the new thread via posted links. Not only that, but placement on the commercial forum could actually boost exaU2I sales again.

Everyone's happy!
 
Seems like nothing would be lost if exa065 were to start a new thread in the commercial forum with a title referencing the exaU2I. I have no idea what it takes to start a commercial thread - are there requirements of some sort stopping anyone from doing this?

If there are no barriers, then the discussion of the exaU2I should continue there. Considering the cobwebs growing on this thread and the number of times it has been sidetracked, I actually think that a new thread would be preferred. Any stragglers who continue to follow this thread could be guided to the new thread via posted links. Not only that, but placement on the commercial forum could actually boost exaU2I sales again.

Everyone's happy!

Open a new thread... !?!?

...this one gotta be moved over there to make us all happy. ;)

Exa - according to the rules - was forced to do it weeks/months ago when the discussion popped up the first time.
They just keep ignoring it as long as the heat is low. Those guys exactly know what they are doing.

And what about those vendors who STILL follow the rules. I'd have a serious problem with this forum if suddenly all vendors would start to act like this company.

BR
 
Last edited: