• 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.

Buffalo DAC (ESS Sabre 9008)

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
1

123chris

Member
Joined 2005
hatschoe.serverthuis.nl
I received my Volumite today together with the comperator. Great service!

I have one question:

Is the orientation of IC1 correct in this way?

Thanks.

Chris
 

Attachments

  • volumite 002.jpg
    volumite 002.jpg
    99.2 KB · Views: 636
J

JonPike

Member
Joined 2004
On the board/firmware/notch filter subject, to clear things up...

Is the board version important, or just the firmware level? I have a 1.1 Buffalo, (#41, interestingly enough) and 1.0.3 written on the PIC chip.

Which one is 1.0.3 and what is it's proper switch orientation?

I guess a little chart of possibilities would be useful to post someplace.
 
avr300

avr300

Member
Joined 2005
Very interesting. Pls. try to test it again, this time the original design. I will, it's just a pain to get to the caps - thanks to the stacking design :rofl:

I'm still not convinced. I think I'm still getting SsssSSSsssss'es even with decent caps. Not as much as with bad-caps, but it's still there.

I don't remember this issue at all with the non modded version.

So exactly what is the problem with the original design? Something about the Sabre slewing too fast for the THS and therefore it's introducing distortion? Is that actually a practical problem, or just a design issue?
 
Russ White

Russ White

Member
Joined 2005
twistedpearaudio.com
avr300 said:
So exactly what is the problem with the original design? Something about the Sabre slewing too fast for the THS and therefore it's introducing distortion? Is that actually a practical problem, or just a design issue?
Click to expand...


There is no "problem". :)

That the danger when you show people new things, they think there is something wrong. :)

It simply is a different filtering/compensating technique. :)

As you can see the IVY was designed to support it. It not really a mod. :) It just was not originally recommended because I had not thoroughly tested it yet.
 
avr300

avr300

Member
Joined 2005
No no, I don't think anythings wrong. More or less the other way around. I really think the sound of the original design is great (as I remember it). Really clean and extended treble, therefore, any sibilance is hard to accept.

I'll test the original again.

Thanks Russ.
 
K

khundude

Member
Joined 2006
Hey TP dudes,

How does that Buffalo sound when connected to the Placid shunt reg? When do you think you will have it for sale? How much are you thinking of asking? Will you have them ready by the time the Buffalo stampede on Dec. 8? I am sure it will sound more natural. I don't know how to describe it but my experience, although very limited, shunts make things real. If you have one ready before the stampede I would love to switch from the LCDPS to the Placid in my order as I know I will switch in the future anyway and would love to avoid the added work and expense of selling the LCDPS. I am waiting with sheer excitement for my Buffalo, kinda like when I was a kid at Christmas!
 
R

rolls

Member
Joined 2007
khundude said:
Hey TP dudes,

How does that Buffalo sound when connected to the Placid shunt reg? When do you think you will have it for sale? How much are you thinking of asking? Will you have them ready by the time the Buffalo stampede on Dec. 8? I am sure it will sound more natural. I don't know how to describe it but my experience, although very limited, shunts make things real. If you have one ready before the stampede I would love to switch from the LCDPS to the Placid in my order as I know I will switch in the future anyway and would love to avoid the added work and expense of selling the LCDPS. I am waiting with sheer excitement for my Buffalo, kinda like when I was a kid at Christmas!
Click to expand...

I am also interested in the Placid, but there are onboard regulators and an opamp for the supplies, so there is no benefit to simply connect the placid to the buffalo.
There could be a better way: The LCDPS can still be responsible for the digital supply, because the digital supply does not seem to be critical.
Then we could remove IC3 (and more), the analog supply. The Placid will be used for the left and right analog supply. It is best to solder the wires from the Placid directly on both sides of C11 and C12, theses are the nearest points to the analog supply inputs.
I know that Russ and Brian are not happy when we start to modify their buffalo boards, but I hope they won't mind or give an even better solution how to use the Placid. It could even be that there is no difference sonically, but I don't think so.

André
 
Joshua_G

Joshua_G

Member
Joined 2008
gomeh.com/
rolls said:
I am also interested in the Placid, but there are onboard regulators and an opamp for the supplies, so there is no benefit to simply connect the placid to the buffalo.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. Digital circuits can also benefit from a cleaner supply, prior to the onboard regulators.

rolls said:
The Placid will be used for the left and right analog supply
Click to expand...
I fail to see the point in using two different PSUs, when a one very clean one can feed both circuits. One Placid (which is a dual PSU) will be good to feed both circuits on the Buffalo. Why add a second, inferior PSU?
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom