BrianDonegan said:
To my view, not having board mount connectors is the best approach for DIY.
The other way (having board mount connectors) would deprive users from choosing connectors of their preference.
For Russ: Beagle Board
Hi Russ,
Quick question on using the Beagle Board for I2S - is there a driver or mixer functionality for the board - how does the playback program access the I2S output?
Also, with only one I2S output, how is the Sabre32/BuffaloII able to spit out 8 channels? Sorry for the noobish question. Do you think the Beagle has enough muscle to do basic DSP (room correction + volume), or do I need to look at a Mini-ITX solution?
Hi Russ,
Quick question on using the Beagle Board for I2S - is there a driver or mixer functionality for the board - how does the playback program access the I2S output?
Also, with only one I2S output, how is the Sabre32/BuffaloII able to spit out 8 channels? Sorry for the noobish question. Do you think the Beagle has enough muscle to do basic DSP (room correction + volume), or do I need to look at a Mini-ITX solution?
The Sabre32 has no facilities for this. It must be done with a separate DSP.
EDIT: I misread the question as "split out", not "spit out".
You can derive eight channels for the eight DACs from a single stereo I2S input.
Finally got around to hooking up a Volumite to my Buffalo to control volume while driving headphone. Must say the IVY doeas a great job driving my HD650s 🙂 Nice job TP dudes.
Re: For Russ: Beagle Board
If I ever have time I will do a wirteup on getting it to work.
If you want it quickly my best advice is to pick one up (they are fairly cheap) and give it a go for yourself.
I don't think it has enough horse power to do serious DSP in real time.
To get 8 channels out from one PCM source with the Sabre chip you simply connect the same data signal to D2-D5. 🙂 There is another way too, but my brain is too tired to dig through the DS at the moment.
Cheers!
Russ
sangram said:
If I ever have time I will do a wirteup on getting it to work.
If you want it quickly my best advice is to pick one up (they are fairly cheap) and give it a go for yourself.
I don't think it has enough horse power to do serious DSP in real time.
To get 8 channels out from one PCM source with the Sabre chip you simply connect the same data signal to D2-D5. 🙂 There is another way too, but my brain is too tired to dig through the DS at the moment.
Cheers!
Russ
I'm not sure if it was covered before, but I've got a little predicament.
I have an I2S source and an S/PDIF source and I would like to use both to feed the Buffalo. Is the only way to easily do this is using the S/PDIF receiver along with the OTTO?
I have an I2S source and an S/PDIF source and I would like to use both to feed the Buffalo. Is the only way to easily do this is using the S/PDIF receiver along with the OTTO?
FallenAngel said:
I think the chip autodetects
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1742251#post1742251
FallenAngel said:
For the Buffalo (not 32) that is probably the simplest solution yes.
That way you can leave the buffalo configured for I2S.
Cheers!
Russ
Buffala32 thoughts and design considerations
Hi Folks,
It is your humble DAC board designer once again coming to you asking for your valued opinion on a couple of specific areas regarding the new ES9018 DACs on the way from Twisted Pear.
Here is the skinny. We are planning two new boards.
1) A simple stereo (or mono if you use a controller) Buffalo replacement designed to work primarily in hardware mode while supporting I2C input for control options including Volumite and Femto. This board would only be able to support a single SPDIF and I2S stereo input because of the constraints of using the chip in hardware mode. The 4 differential DACs per side would be in parallel In Short DSD mode would not be available on this board because of the way the chip supports hardware mode. Its a design compromise in favor of simplicity and ease of use over complexity and flexibility.
2) A more complex 8 channel board which allows full access to all inputs and outputs as well as I2C for control, but it more challenging to configure and maybe not as suitable for absolute beginners. This will be more of an intermediate to advanced users board. Requiring much more knowledge about the way the DAC works. This board would be much more tweakable, and support all inputs. Including DSD.
As far as I know hardly anyone is using DSD input on the current buffalo, in short to support it on the new board I would have to use an on board uC and I really don't want to do that.
Board #1 would be ultimately capable of everything Board#2 is except more than 2 channel output/input and DSD input.
Our inclination is to finish Board #1 first as it will be the most suitable for the largest contingency of users.
I am opening up the floor for discussion now that you know what we are thinking on this end.
Please let us know how you feel.
Cheers!
Russ
Hi Folks,
It is your humble DAC board designer once again coming to you asking for your valued opinion on a couple of specific areas regarding the new ES9018 DACs on the way from Twisted Pear.
Here is the skinny. We are planning two new boards.
1) A simple stereo (or mono if you use a controller) Buffalo replacement designed to work primarily in hardware mode while supporting I2C input for control options including Volumite and Femto. This board would only be able to support a single SPDIF and I2S stereo input because of the constraints of using the chip in hardware mode. The 4 differential DACs per side would be in parallel In Short DSD mode would not be available on this board because of the way the chip supports hardware mode. Its a design compromise in favor of simplicity and ease of use over complexity and flexibility.
2) A more complex 8 channel board which allows full access to all inputs and outputs as well as I2C for control, but it more challenging to configure and maybe not as suitable for absolute beginners. This will be more of an intermediate to advanced users board. Requiring much more knowledge about the way the DAC works. This board would be much more tweakable, and support all inputs. Including DSD.
As far as I know hardly anyone is using DSD input on the current buffalo, in short to support it on the new board I would have to use an on board uC and I really don't want to do that.
Board #1 would be ultimately capable of everything Board#2 is except more than 2 channel output/input and DSD input.
Our inclination is to finish Board #1 first as it will be the most suitable for the largest contingency of users.
I am opening up the floor for discussion now that you know what we are thinking on this end.
Please let us know how you feel.
Cheers!
Russ
Re: Buffala32 thoughtsand design considerations
I would like to have DSD support 🙂 I understand that most people don't need it, so I might be pretty alone here on that point.
I would like to have DSD support 🙂 I understand that most people don't need it, so I might be pretty alone here on that point.
Hi Russ..
#1 is fine here, I don't use more than 2 channels. I'm fine as long as I can communicate with the chip via I2C.
Looking forward to accomplish my 9008 with it's new relative.
#1 is fine here, I don't use more than 2 channels. I'm fine as long as I can communicate with the chip via I2C.
Looking forward to accomplish my 9008 with it's new relative.
Board #1
If I have a Buffalo v1.2 will i hear any more with board #1 or should i wait for bd #2
If I have a Buffalo v1.2 will i hear any more with board #1 or should i wait for bd #2
For me the current Buffalo will keep me satisfied for a while (esp. after the power ref mod), so I'd like #2 to experiment...
Russ,
I am interested in both! However if I had to attach a priority I'd say solution #1 over #2.
I am interested in both! However if I had to attach a priority I'd say solution #1 over #2.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.