Posts inducing copyright infringement have been deleted. If you want to buy something yourself, trace it, and design your own board, that's your own business. Soliciting others to help duplicate a copyrighted board design is not acceptable. No further warnings.
Actulally I believed, that only the PCB layout is possible to protect. This has been the case in DK for many years, unless you have some special patented technology (Which I guess TPA doesn't).
Also, we do not know if the schematic is copyrighted. Where is that stated??
Anyway.,... I fully understand why TPA do not want their schematic public. If I made that, I wouldn't either. And specially if I was trying to sell it at $500.
BTW... As KvK said. This is a DIY site.... We took quite a few punches, until we made the schematics public, even though they were not finished.
Now I do not understand, why TPA should not make their schematics public 😕
Well I don´t really understand either but anyway.
The DAC has now been running some days after the new clock assembly has been mounted.
It is now very clear that this design features lower jitter than the former oscillator, this probably due to both better data in the oscillator and the power supply for it, which is placed very close to it, and is a pretty powerfull low noise discrete design, decoupled only by very small ceramic caps, as this circuit alone is dealing with 25MHz.
The sonic impression of that design change, is nice but also interesting. 3D is more natural and also what could be called freshness or energetic, but at the same time smoother, and that is the strange part. Normally things like that do not come together, but jitter reduction can be somewhat unpredictable in its way of showing up.
Unfortunately it takes a few days for the circuit to get there, due to warm up.
Digital circuits really are slow starters, the analog stage in contrary is ready within hours, due to both heavy biasing and the shunts. So the enclosure heats up pretty fast, and is stable @35-40 dgr. C depending on ambient temperature.
To make the heat dispurse effectively, we added som thermal gap pad between the shunts and enclosure, as well as between the transformers and the enclosure. This prolonges life for the capacitors, even though they are 105 dgr. types, with a life span @ 2.000 hours @ 105 dgr. and max ripple and voltage. We are not even close to that, so they might actually outlive us all. Anyways! they cannot be bettered, as FM caps are industrial standard components with the highest reliabillity available, and luckily the data we needed optimised for our design, are awsome in the FM series. Well done Pana, lets se some large can types for power amps some sunny day.
This warm up period should be expected always, so it is best to leave it on for good, my experience says 2 days, maybe the third day´s listening session will start to show for real what it can do. Break in we do not really believe in, beside the strange sound of fresh soldering.
Maybe someone can explain that.
The DAC has now been running some days after the new clock assembly has been mounted.
It is now very clear that this design features lower jitter than the former oscillator, this probably due to both better data in the oscillator and the power supply for it, which is placed very close to it, and is a pretty powerfull low noise discrete design, decoupled only by very small ceramic caps, as this circuit alone is dealing with 25MHz.
The sonic impression of that design change, is nice but also interesting. 3D is more natural and also what could be called freshness or energetic, but at the same time smoother, and that is the strange part. Normally things like that do not come together, but jitter reduction can be somewhat unpredictable in its way of showing up.
Unfortunately it takes a few days for the circuit to get there, due to warm up.
Digital circuits really are slow starters, the analog stage in contrary is ready within hours, due to both heavy biasing and the shunts. So the enclosure heats up pretty fast, and is stable @35-40 dgr. C depending on ambient temperature.
To make the heat dispurse effectively, we added som thermal gap pad between the shunts and enclosure, as well as between the transformers and the enclosure. This prolonges life for the capacitors, even though they are 105 dgr. types, with a life span @ 2.000 hours @ 105 dgr. and max ripple and voltage. We are not even close to that, so they might actually outlive us all. Anyways! they cannot be bettered, as FM caps are industrial standard components with the highest reliabillity available, and luckily the data we needed optimised for our design, are awsome in the FM series. Well done Pana, lets se some large can types for power amps some sunny day.
This warm up period should be expected always, so it is best to leave it on for good, my experience says 2 days, maybe the third day´s listening session will start to show for real what it can do. Break in we do not really believe in, beside the strange sound of fresh soldering.
Maybe someone can explain that.
Yes. And when a board is solicited for copying...
I would strongly recommend that anyone wanting to cooperate with this consider the possible liabilities and morality. Any further discussion of this will be removed and posting privileges suspended.
Yes. And when a board is solicited for copying...
I would strongly recommend that anyone wanting to cooperate with this consider the possible liabilities and morality. Any further discussion of this will be removed and posting privileges suspended.
Guess one has to learn all life long...
Anyway, I do not think the DAC is that interesting that it's worth back-engineering it. This would only be in order to prove, that it really is a non-interesting mainstrem implementation, not worth the price.
But if TPA can sell it at that price... Let them 😉
Well they seem to be doing quite well so far. I guess good sound, customer support and a forum for them to discuss stuff all go towards a successful venture. Let your customers tout how good your product is or isn't. Self boasting about how good it is without anyone having ever heard it, makes it sound fishy to a lot of us. No one has probably ever built anything that they were not proud of 🙂 Whether it is a success in the market depends upon what the people decide about the product and its perceived quality. But this is not a commercial product or even a DIY product as you guys are not selling anything, so why does anyone care what you might think about a proven and reliable product anyway?
Just beause TPA has great succes selling these kits, doesn't automatically mean that it is high performing. Take a look at the cheap SONY CD-players... They sell millions. Call that high performing?? Anyway, I would choose that over the TPA.
So all of the buyers that have posted how well the TPA product perform sonically against virtaully all known DIY DAC's, are all deaf? Need to get a new argument. I am one of the most esoteric people in these forums when it comes to sound quality demands, but too many people report how incredibly good sounding their DAC is vs any and all competition. Factor in superb and professional service it is a tough product to compete against.
If you do not ambitions or "future plans" to sell your DAC, wht waste your time and efforts to discredit one of the most successful products in DIY? By trying to discredit another manufacturer, it will back fire, as this is not a very professional approach to take. It looks back on you for even trying to discredit them. If your non-product is so great, well I guess we will never know, as it will never be sold as a commercial product to DIYers.
Comparing Sony to TPA is not correct. The Buffalo DAC is one of the best sounding DAC's available in all of audio to the DIYers, as reported by their customers and others that have heard them. No argument that discrete devices should sound better vs. op-amps, but no guarantees as many products have prove over the years. The public will determine what sounds best, not the manufacturers 😉
Can a Moderator please deal with this contentious posting of implied criticism of TPA products? It has gone on for far too long. The poster has not even got a TPA DAC!!!!! I hope that his own design is to a more ethical standard than is his on forum behavior.
Last edited:
I don't think they realize how much harm they've been doing to themselves actually, and they still do. Let this thread be an example of how not to present your latest project. 
Well!
A lot of people heard it.
And we do have a few to spare, that´s all.
Proudness could have been achieved years ago, as it actually did function as supposed to already then. The very first board was unfiltered as an experiment, but that was discarded imidiately.
Since then every single subject has been taken to the absolute limit, which has left hardly anything unchanged. And that is the difference between this project and a lot of others.
It actually worked perfectly compared to others years ago.
No electronics for sound reproduction has ever been perfect, which ours are not either, but we´ve taken every step to get as close as possible to be so.
And that is the whole point, we did not perfectionalise one single point, we sought to perfect them all. Hence you´ll find 9 discrete regulation steps and 6 LM 317´s on board a DAC PCB. This is unheard, and it is not even featuring differential topology further than the input stage of the analog stage, the rest is unballanced Push Pull topology.
Fully differential you´d have to ad another 8 regulators.
About the market, we are not intersted at all, it´s not going to be marketed at anywa.
Kurt,
The thing is you are not making a commercial offering to any DIYers or as a kit, but still you continue to bash a highly successful product, TPA. That is not professional in any manner.
If you like your DAC, that is great, but why would anyone here care as they will never be able to hear it for themselves, or have an opportunity to buy one. It just makes no sense what your trying to do. Does that make sense? If your motive is not to generate interest in your DAC, why knock a product that many here find to be a great value and sonically superior to a great many DIY DAC's available on the market.
The criticism goes on the implementation of the ESS DAC in the Buffalo design.
And for you I will repeat - one do nat have to listen to op-amps in every possible implementation to know how they sound.
That is basically what this is all about. The theory of operation of op-amps are the same for every one of them. It has been like that since the first op-amp came to world decades ago.
The idea is just around: endless gain, which can be linearised by the means of feed back. The mantra is more gain, more bandwith, less THD+N.
If we did not tell you yet, I´ll do it now "this idea does not work in audio".
Nor in the Buffalo neither in anything else.
A lot of very competent engineers already knows this (I humbly claim do to so to), hence almost any design of real high end features discrete design, and if it s going to be real tough, it is also non feed back and capless all the way.
This is the reason I and several other nerds PB´íng me, find the Buffalo a standard design, and so it is, and no matter how much you will wish it wasn´t, it stays so.
You can learn to design flawlessly with op-amps in a week, and you will hit the border of performance almost every time. It is almost as building with Lego, everything fits together perfectly. That is why they are so popular amongst both engineers and DIYérs.
Designing discrete circuits is completely different, first of all, you cannot be sure the thing is doing as suposed to at all. Next you will have to create perfect conditions for your amp, which most of the engineering in any op-amp has been undertaken to make them completely insensitive to, i.e. PSRR, DC Offset, just to name a few probs discrete designers have to face.
So can´t we just drop further discussion about this completely irrelevant Buffalo thing, which is of no interest at all to anyone who might be interested in this thread.
Why is it that a commercial product can not be criticised, if it really just is off the helf design?
This is really a riddle to me, try to make a BOM for it by Digikey, or where ever. Then look for the originallity for the design, and the speed of its appearance, which might make you think this over.
If succes were the main benchmark for measuring sound quality, you might consider a Sony next time you need new sound gear.
You are a DAC designer. This means that if you attack or put down another DAC designers products, it makes you look like that you are trying to discredit the other manufacturers design. If yours is so special, (which we will never know as it is will never be produced) no one will ever know. It is like you are bragging with out the benefit of anyone every knowing what is truth or simple pride on your part. That is not a smart way to act. No one cares what your DAC sounds like as it will never be available to compare to TPA DAC. Your reasoning about why the TPA DAC is bad hold "zero" reasoning with anyone here. They know what a TPA DAC sounds like and so do the other owners. It is a stellar DAC compared to anything close to its price in all of audio, not just the DIY crowd. It is a known commodity in audio. You just have your opinion. That does not make for a good argument in audio. People buy what they know is good, not what someone tells them is good. There is no point of reference with your DAC as no one will ever be able to compare your DAC to the Buffalo. Your continued boasting only makes you look bad, like an envious person that wishes they had what someone else has, in this case, a share of the DAC market.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.