1) I would get the Trident/AVCC since I designed them particularly for the purpose. 
This way you can compare if you like.
2) I don't know why not.
3) Those transformers should be fine - but it would not hurt to double the 15V for amperage. But 30VA should be ok.
4) You will have a fine DAC with this setup. Enjoy!
The only way to make it simpler would be to use the IVY-III - many people try both the IVY and the Legato. Both have their merits.
Cheers!
Russ
This way you can compare if you like.2) I don't know why not.
3) Those transformers should be fine - but it would not hurt to double the 15V for amperage. But 30VA should be ok.
4) You will have a fine DAC with this setup. Enjoy!
The only way to make it simpler would be to use the IVY-III - many people try both the IVY and the Legato. Both have their merits.
Cheers!
Russ
1) I would get the Trident/AVCC since I designed them particularly for the purpose.
2) I don't know why not.
3) Those transformers should be fine - but it would not hurt to double the 15V for amperage. But 30VA should be ok.
4) You will have a fine DAC with this setup. Enjoy!
The only way to make it simpler would be to use the IVY-III - many people try both the IVY and the Legato. Both have their merits.
Cheers!
Russ
Thank you for the answer.In the mean time I decided to go with the Tridents/AVCC since I want for the start to have it as it was designed, later maybe I will play a bit, maybe not.
I will also go with the 9V/15V transformers from your offer.
Before I place my order (still waiting for Paypal approval) I would like to ask two more question:
-Which USB board is preffered for the B3SE (excluding the awaited TPA board) ? I was thinking to get the Wave IO, and if possible to power it from a separate 9V transformer with a separate Placid HD.First is this possible and second will the new TPA board work with this for the future so I can change the Waveio?
-If I want to use USB and Toslink inputs only, do I need some source selector or how it's the most simple way to switch between the source? Even automatic source detecting will be good for me.If this is already explained please point me to it...
Thanks again
Fantastic work again, it makes a huge difference having such quality information.
As others have said—thanks so much for doing this. I would not have been able to get my DAC up and running without your guides.
There is one possible update you should make. For the I2S cables, 10cm is too long for anything over 192khz; at least it seems to be. With the wave board I can sync up to 192 with 10cm cables; I have 5 and 6 cm cables on order. Lucian (Wave designer) tests with 5cm cables. (It's possible that other 384 khz designs are not as sensitive to this, but my guess is that the 10cm you recommended was based on 192 being the fastest rate used.)
Thanks again.
I think it says "below 10cm". It's not my measurement actually, it's from a researcher from Philips when answering the question "for which path length was I2S designed?". And you are correct, that's from a paper quite some years back. 32/384Khz wasn't on their radar back then.
You know, when I wrote that people were actually telling me it was possible to achieve much greater lengths. On the other hand, manufacturers like IDT say I2S should be below 300 mil (approx. 7.62mm).
For now, the text remains what it is. 192Khz is already high resolution, and you should be able to use 10cm cables for that signal. At least it'll stop people from trying to run I2S over wires that are way too long.
I think it says "below 10cm". It's not my measurement actually, it's from a researcher from Philips when answering the question "for which path length was I2S designed?". And you are correct, that's from a paper quite some years back. 32/384Khz wasn't on their radar back then.
You know, when I wrote that people were actually telling me it was possible to achieve much greater lengths. On the other hand, manufacturers like IDT say I2S should be below 300 mil (approx. 7.62mm).
For now, the text remains what it is. 192Khz is already high resolution, and you should be able to use 10cm cables for that signal. At least it'll stop people from trying to run I2S over wires that are way too long.
I bet a lot of you might be interested in this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/250583-every-pi-better-pear.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/250583-every-pi-better-pear.html
Clock and Sabre vibration damping
Since everything's been running smoothly, and all nicely broken in, I'm beginning to look at ways to tweak the BIIIse board. The first thing I'd like to try is some vibration damping, especially on the clock, but also possibly on the Sabre chip too.
Before proceeding, I wanted to ask about possible temperature issues with these two devices, since damping will also affect cooling. I know at least with the clock, that temp. stability is very important. So possibly a bit of insulation may not be a problem. My housing is fairly well ventilated (all passive). What are the maximum desirable temperatures on the chip and clock surfaces?
Does anyone have specific experience in damping these parts? Typically I have used either bitumen pads, blu-tack, or silicon as a damping in other projects (none of them digital though).
Since everything's been running smoothly, and all nicely broken in, I'm beginning to look at ways to tweak the BIIIse board. The first thing I'd like to try is some vibration damping, especially on the clock, but also possibly on the Sabre chip too.
Before proceeding, I wanted to ask about possible temperature issues with these two devices, since damping will also affect cooling. I know at least with the clock, that temp. stability is very important. So possibly a bit of insulation may not be a problem. My housing is fairly well ventilated (all passive). What are the maximum desirable temperatures on the chip and clock surfaces?
Does anyone have specific experience in damping these parts? Typically I have used either bitumen pads, blu-tack, or silicon as a damping in other projects (none of them digital though).
I'm interested in this too and starting to get underway with some research.
I have tried using 3m rfi sheets. Small squares stuck onto the clock appeared to improve the focus of the sound (instrument positioning) but if I did the same to the DAC chip itself then the sound seemed like it got more boxed in. I'm testing one of Ian's FIFO re-clocking boards and this is proving revelatory - surprising seeing as I thought the sound was excellent to start with ;-)
Ian’s I2S FIFO Re-clocker: Single-digit psec Jitter | H i F i D U I N O
Ian's clock board also provides mounting hooks for rubber band 'floating' - again, not tried this but I will do when it comes to box things up properly.
I read somewhere that 70 degrees is the safe limit for the DAC chip but that figure is from elesewhere on here. I'm sure the data sheet will have the authoratitive figure but I haven't checked yet.
I quite like was hifiduino is doing with his shielding (and damping) and I'm definitely going to try: TEST | H i F i D U I N O
Other people have mounted their boards onto Acrylic which I need to research.
Hope this helps.
I have tried using 3m rfi sheets. Small squares stuck onto the clock appeared to improve the focus of the sound (instrument positioning) but if I did the same to the DAC chip itself then the sound seemed like it got more boxed in. I'm testing one of Ian's FIFO re-clocking boards and this is proving revelatory - surprising seeing as I thought the sound was excellent to start with ;-)
Ian’s I2S FIFO Re-clocker: Single-digit psec Jitter | H i F i D U I N O
Ian's clock board also provides mounting hooks for rubber band 'floating' - again, not tried this but I will do when it comes to box things up properly.
I read somewhere that 70 degrees is the safe limit for the DAC chip but that figure is from elesewhere on here. I'm sure the data sheet will have the authoratitive figure but I haven't checked yet.
I quite like was hifiduino is doing with his shielding (and damping) and I'm definitely going to try: TEST | H i F i D U I N O
Other people have mounted their boards onto Acrylic which I need to research.
Hope this helps.
One more question regarding dual-mono configuration: Does the connection between the two mono boards via I2C header eliminate the need to connect digital sources directly to the slaved mono board? When two digital inputs into the master board are toggled, does the slaved board follow the switch automatically?
I had some good results last night with blu-tak. I didn't get to forensic (in terms of which was best) but just put a blob about 1cm3 onto each of the clocks, Ian's FIFO main chip and the Waveio main chip = more focus and deeper soundstage. I was the only one listening so presumably I'm susceptible to the usual psychological phenomena. I had it running for a couple of hours before applying and then an hour afterwards. Definitely preferred the latter hour. I'll see if I can repeat the other way today to check that it wasn't a warm up thing....but after 2 hours it should be fine.
If I've interpreted this correctly, you still need I2S connections to both boards. I've never tried switching inputs on the BIIIse but seeing as the slave follows the master board in every other regard I guess it will be the same here.
I'd definitely have a read of leon's guide on the TPA site - good dual mono info in there. Also, re your previous question, do a search on the TPA forum for my name as I got horribly confused when first connecting dual mono up and got some good help - with diagrams - in a couple of threads there.
HTH.
Crom, I've read Leon's guide and am still confused about source switching in dual mono mode. BII dual mono set-up connects S-PDIF source to S-PDIF input terminal on one board and cascades S-PDIF source to D1 input terminal on the second mono board. I think that taking this approach with dual mono BIIISE would defeat the source switching capability-- as S-PDIF and D1 inputs would be cross-connected. On the other hand, everything looks straight-forward if whatever switchable source at the input block of the master board, passes to the slave board through the I2C header. In this instance there would be no need to connect to the input terminals on the slave board. The third option would be to connect the S-PDIF source in parallel to S-PDIF terminals on both boards. I this case I'm guessing that the altered input impedance of the paralleled connection might not be optimal.
Clarification from TP or Leon would be appreciated.
Clarification from TP or Leon would be appreciated.
Hello,
I will admit upfront that I haven't completed reading thru this whole thread yet but intend to do so in the coming weeks. What I can say is that based on what I have seen thus far about this DAC my interest has been peaked enough to make this post.
So with that said I have a question I'm hoping someone can answer about the twisted pear product and what an outsider could expect if they choose to build one.
So, for those that have built a DAC based on this board how would you say it stacks up as far as SQ and low noise goes against some of the readily available and well reviewed DACs on the market that are already assembled (ie...Ayre QB9, Weiss 202, Berkeley Alpha DAC...etc..etc) if we exclude price from the equation?
Is it fair to compare these other DACs with the Twisted Pear offerings and is Twisted Pears goal to be able to compete with these other choices on the market?
I am pretty new to the whole DIY scene but have dipped my toes into the water enough to build my own Hypex NC400 Amps. I enjoyed the project very much and have since been itching to give a DIY DAC build a go and the Twisted Pear seems like a nice candidate but only if it could potentially be as good or better then what I could get already made if done correctly (within reason).
Thanks for any info you can provide.
I will admit upfront that I haven't completed reading thru this whole thread yet but intend to do so in the coming weeks. What I can say is that based on what I have seen thus far about this DAC my interest has been peaked enough to make this post.
So with that said I have a question I'm hoping someone can answer about the twisted pear product and what an outsider could expect if they choose to build one.
So, for those that have built a DAC based on this board how would you say it stacks up as far as SQ and low noise goes against some of the readily available and well reviewed DACs on the market that are already assembled (ie...Ayre QB9, Weiss 202, Berkeley Alpha DAC...etc..etc) if we exclude price from the equation?
Is it fair to compare these other DACs with the Twisted Pear offerings and is Twisted Pears goal to be able to compete with these other choices on the market?
I am pretty new to the whole DIY scene but have dipped my toes into the water enough to build my own Hypex NC400 Amps. I enjoyed the project very much and have since been itching to give a DIY DAC build a go and the Twisted Pear seems like a nice candidate but only if it could potentially be as good or better then what I could get already made if done correctly (within reason).
Thanks for any info you can provide.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.