Hi Brian and Russ,
Could you tell me the exact distance between the mounting holes on a buffalo/ivy board?
Thanks!
Could you tell me the exact distance between the mounting holes on a buffalo/ivy board?
Thanks!
An a simple PCB, I called ''Digital Inputs PCB'' to go with the MUX 4:1 PCB. It allows the mounting of these connectors: AES/EBU Neutrik XLR female panel mount, True 75 ohms Amphenol BNC, Toslink TORX142L optical input (with needed parts, as the TORX PCB, and finally a RCA input. You can decide not to mount one of these and use the remaining MUX input to accept the USB interface, as I will do.
Attachments
Algar_emi said:
Sweet!
Let me know how it works. 🙂
I wasn't sure if anyone would try it.
Cheers!
Russ
Remember guys about the second buffalo I built didn't sound as good as my one, then my friend changed sw1 on the set of 4 dip from 0 to + and he got the jump in SQ.
Well, I went over tonight and questioned him about it. Yes, he did move the right switch, was very definite about it, and not only that I could hear how much improved it was.
So I dunno, but maybe someone would try it on their buffalo and see. I intend doing it with mine tomorrow.
Fran
Well, I went over tonight and questioned him about it. Yes, he did move the right switch, was very definite about it, and not only that I could hear how much improved it was.
So I dunno, but maybe someone would try it on their buffalo and see. I intend doing it with mine tomorrow.
Fran
Thanks for your comments. Still far away from getting any music out of my Buffalo. I still missing the I/V section. I was waiting for the CounterPoint, but I may settle for the IVY.
I'll see.
I'll see.
fmak
Personally, I wouldn't do this but mount the connectors as close as possible with short equally spaced wiring to keep impedance as consistent as possible.
A pcb like this is likely to introduce variable impedance discontinuities.
You can se the differences on a fast scope.
Algar_emi said:
Personally, I wouldn't do this but mount the connectors as close as possible with short equally spaced wiring to keep impedance as consistent as possible.
A pcb like this is likely to introduce variable impedance discontinuities.
You can se the differences on a fast scope.
Buffalo Update
Okay, so we are getting about 5-10 emails per day asking about the next round of Buffalos and asking to be put on the waiting list.
First, there is currently no wait list. I know we said we would have one, but that was before we got our hands on a batch of Sabre32 chips.
So, here's the plan: we are redesigning the Buffalo for the Sabre32. As I mentioned, we have chips. Russ is cranking on the new design and it will be very very cool. It is still early to comment on features since it is not yet complete. Pricing is also not set (obviously), but it looks like it will be a bit more expensive (chip costs more, new XO costs more, more parts, etc).
We are trying to get it ready and working as soon as possible, and will make more announcements as things firm up. I don't think it will be too long now.
As usual with redesigns, once we have two confirmed working units, we will open up orders for the rest.
We will also likely have a enhanced version of the IVY available (currently called IVY II) at the same time. More details on that to follow.
Okay, so we are getting about 5-10 emails per day asking about the next round of Buffalos and asking to be put on the waiting list.
First, there is currently no wait list. I know we said we would have one, but that was before we got our hands on a batch of Sabre32 chips.
So, here's the plan: we are redesigning the Buffalo for the Sabre32. As I mentioned, we have chips. Russ is cranking on the new design and it will be very very cool. It is still early to comment on features since it is not yet complete. Pricing is also not set (obviously), but it looks like it will be a bit more expensive (chip costs more, new XO costs more, more parts, etc).
We are trying to get it ready and working as soon as possible, and will make more announcements as things firm up. I don't think it will be too long now.
As usual with redesigns, once we have two confirmed working units, we will open up orders for the rest.
We will also likely have a enhanced version of the IVY available (currently called IVY II) at the same time. More details on that to follow.
Whats the status on Counterpoint and Placid, will they be available at the same time as the new Buffalo or will they be made available sooner?
Counterpoint works, and sounds great, but still has some turn off behavior I am trying to iron out. Anyone who thinks they can help me solve this issue contact me by email.
Placid, has been superseded by a more robust and flexible linear type design I am working on, but I may still return to it. Placid worked well, but it is a bit finicky. Counterpoint does not require placid to excel in any case. It has a constant current draw, and LCBPS is more than sufficient for superb results.
Right now my priority is on the new Buffalo32 since we have the chip in stock and want to get it out to you folks.
It is going to be pretty cool, some (subject to change) features:
1) More and better regulators.
2) More optimized grounding scheme.
3) Complete input flexibility.
4) Will work in hardware mode by default, but still has I2C interface for volumite etc.
5) Lower phase noise clock.
6) Any input/output configuration supported by the chip is possible including mono,stereo, 4 channel, and 8 channel.
Cheers!
Russ
Placid, has been superseded by a more robust and flexible linear type design I am working on, but I may still return to it. Placid worked well, but it is a bit finicky. Counterpoint does not require placid to excel in any case. It has a constant current draw, and LCBPS is more than sufficient for superb results.
Right now my priority is on the new Buffalo32 since we have the chip in stock and want to get it out to you folks.
It is going to be pretty cool, some (subject to change) features:
1) More and better regulators.
2) More optimized grounding scheme.
3) Complete input flexibility.
4) Will work in hardware mode by default, but still has I2C interface for volumite etc.
5) Lower phase noise clock.
6) Any input/output configuration supported by the chip is possible including mono,stereo, 4 channel, and 8 channel.
Cheers!
Russ
IVY II
IVY Ii is going to be pretty cool too.
It will be a mono cct so you will need one per channel. I made it mono just because the PCB routing is much better. It also allows for one PS per channel if desired.
Basically it will have 3 stages.
The first stage is operated with an input/output bias of AVCC/2 to symmetrically load the DAC.
The second stage is a 2 pole filter with a real pole at the input which is not bandwidth limited. This means that out of band noise will be better filtered. This stage is centered around GND so that the output has no DC offset. This is a balanced output.
The third stage is a Balanced to single ended converter for those who use SE outputs.
The biggest improvement I have heard so far with the Buffalo is getting the input bias to AVCC/2 and that is the main reason for the new design.
The basic design has been tested and is working, I am just laying it out now.
Cheers!
Russ
IVY Ii is going to be pretty cool too.
It will be a mono cct so you will need one per channel. I made it mono just because the PCB routing is much better. It also allows for one PS per channel if desired.
Basically it will have 3 stages.
The first stage is operated with an input/output bias of AVCC/2 to symmetrically load the DAC.
The second stage is a 2 pole filter with a real pole at the input which is not bandwidth limited. This means that out of band noise will be better filtered. This stage is centered around GND so that the output has no DC offset. This is a balanced output.
The third stage is a Balanced to single ended converter for those who use SE outputs.
The biggest improvement I have heard so far with the Buffalo is getting the input bias to AVCC/2 and that is the main reason for the new design.
The basic design has been tested and is working, I am just laying it out now.
Cheers!
Russ
Re: IVY II
These should be number 1 and 2 in reverse order 🙂
I can't wait!
Russ White said:
These should be number 1 and 2 in reverse order 🙂
Russ White said:
I can't wait!
I see some money flying out the door at my house... and there is an empty chasis calling its name...
Re: Re: IVY II
Couldn't agree more. I'd love to replace my DCX2496 with something that actually sounds good (my soldering skills are incompatible with SMD's - hence no mods).
sangram said:
Couldn't agree more. I'd love to replace my DCX2496 with something that actually sounds good (my soldering skills are incompatible with SMD's - hence no mods).
Russ White said:
Just confirming - does this mean that there will be multiple I2S input data lines available (single clock obviously), or will the 4/8 channel outputs be available only via internal routing/filtering from a single 2-channel input? It sounds like multi-channel inputs will be available, but it's safer not to assume.
dwk123 said:
Yes all 8 inputs will be available. 🙂 And they can be any configuration the chip supports.
Keep in mind some configurations will require firmware to setup the DAC. This can be easily accomplished with Volumite or Femto (or any other uC really).
I will try to provide more detail later.
Cheers!
Russ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.