I would just like board one! Keep up the great work you guys... you single handedly got me in this hobby now!
I plan on using DSD (bought a Denon SACD just to tap the DSD signal). I also hope to use the built in filters for a 2-channel active set up in the future.
According to the other thread, the chip can auto detect the incoming format. Does that mean that the auto detect feature is a S/W mode?
So here is my understanding of option 2:
The PIC will enable the following options:
- auto-detect enable/disable switch
- Input format selection by switches (spdif, i2s, dsd) -don't know why this would be better than autoselect
- Selection of 2, 4, 8 channel output switches
- Support what I plan to do (stereo 4 channel -high pass/low pass) by some switch combination or firmware upgrade
According to the other thread, the chip can auto detect the incoming format. Does that mean that the auto detect feature is a S/W mode?
So here is my understanding of option 2:
The PIC will enable the following options:
- auto-detect enable/disable switch
- Input format selection by switches (spdif, i2s, dsd) -don't know why this would be better than autoselect
- Selection of 2, 4, 8 channel output switches
- Support what I plan to do (stereo 4 channel -high pass/low pass) by some switch combination or firmware upgrade
glt said:
There will be no PIC on either board. 🙂 Any firmware will be off board via Femto or Volumite.
The difficulty in supporting DSD surprisingly has nothing to do with autodetection it has more to do with signal routing. 🙂
It is very easy to use DSD, PCM, or SPDIF in hardware mode stereo, just not all at the same time. The reason is that the default mode for a single PCM input is to use two channels per data pin (not all eight). And the default mode for DSD is to use one output channel per input channel(and there is one data input per channel not two channels per data as is the case with PCM). While the default mode for SPDIF is to use all eight of the channels in Stereo. Now ESS could have made that the case for DSD and PCM too... but alas... every chip has its faults, and this is a doozy. I am hoping Dustin will show me some secret trick, but for now it appears a uC is the only way to do it.
So there is no way with PCM and DSD to make it work like SPDIF unles you route the PCM data signals to DATA2-5. The problem with this becomes that DATA2-5 are then joined, and the DSD inputs are staggered. So you end up with a couple of channels connected which should not be.
The problem can be resolved if you use a microcontroller because you can remap some of the inputs and use a little routing trick that Dustin showed me. This is how Buffalo currently works, but it is not running in hardware mode, and requires the uC.
The idea on the Buf32 is to allow the user to run in hardware mode only leaving the critical bits on the PCB. The cct is completely revised with new VREGs and a better layout. Adding a microcontroller would compromise that to some degree and make the module larger.
The idea with boards #1 is to hit the broadest range of features with the fewest layout compromises. Laying out for stereo is much cleaner than laying out for 8 channels when people may only use two. The same is true for the input section.
Also the DAC simply performs better in stereo and mono mode then it does with a single channel.
One other thing is impact on analog output stages. With a stereo DAC it is much simpler to specify the components for the I/V stage as it will be common. While with an 8 channel DAC you will need to know if the I/V stage will be used for 1,2,or 4, or even 8 channels worth of current and adjust it accordingly.
That said we do plan on offering both board types, but it is looking like board #1 will be first to come. You can easily use it for active filtering and you get the better performance of using the 4DACs in parallel per channel.
Cheers!
Russ
I started a possible GB thread to get great RCA PCB mount connector, that would make an excellent SPDIF input for the Buffalo. See the thread at: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1744204#post1744204
If interested, send me an email.
If interested, send me an email.
Hi Russ, I see the constrains.
I don't plan on using multichannel so restricting to stereo is fine.
So for active filtering would I be able to feed a single spdif/pcm/dsd/ to two buffalo boards? One with high pass filtering and one with low pass filtering?
re: PCM vs DSD, what you are saying is that you can route for either PCM or DSD but not for both in default/hw mode?, so a few switches would be an ugly solution?
Would you plan on adding the DSD/PCM switching in the Volumite?
Thanks for involving us in the design of the next board.
I don't plan on using multichannel so restricting to stereo is fine.
So for active filtering would I be able to feed a single spdif/pcm/dsd/ to two buffalo boards? One with high pass filtering and one with low pass filtering?
re: PCM vs DSD, what you are saying is that you can route for either PCM or DSD but not for both in default/hw mode?, so a few switches would be an ugly solution?
Would you plan on adding the DSD/PCM switching in the Volumite?
Thanks for involving us in the design of the next board.
A drop in Buffalo replacement...... ie, board 1. Get the 'basic' meat and potatoes covered first, the exotic souffle second.
Preferably in the same board footprint as Buffalo as well. The small, standardised modules are a big part of what sets TPA apart. It would be a shame to lose that for the sake of a whole heap of features most people won't or can't use.
Preferably in the same board footprint as Buffalo as well. The small, standardised modules are a big part of what sets TPA apart. It would be a shame to lose that for the sake of a whole heap of features most people won't or can't use.
Both boards is a better plan. I think the 8-channel output is a potential stab at a high-end HT setup, which is something I would love to tackle.
May I suggest offering the stereo version with the 9008 (like you already do) and the HT version with the 9018. That way you have two DSD-capable boards, one stereo and one HT, with different chips. Unless of course, the sonic benefits of the 9018 override the hassle and cost of making a new board for it.
May I suggest offering the stereo version with the 9008 (like you already do) and the HT version with the 9018. That way you have two DSD-capable boards, one stereo and one HT, with different chips. Unless of course, the sonic benefits of the 9018 override the hassle and cost of making a new board for it.
Don't drop DSD support
One 'unique'feature of the current Buffalo is easy DSD support with auto detection between it and pcm.
This opens an easy way for people to hear sacd digitally and the quality of sound exceeds most dsd to pcm conversion tools.
Do not drop this advantage and feature by following others. Put in a micro and isolate it for board 2 to support multichannel also where possible.
One 'unique'feature of the current Buffalo is easy DSD support with auto detection between it and pcm.
This opens an easy way for people to hear sacd digitally and the quality of sound exceeds most dsd to pcm conversion tools.
Do not drop this advantage and feature by following others. Put in a micro and isolate it for board 2 to support multichannel also where possible.
Board no. 1 will do fine for my application. Can't wait until they will be avaible.
Will the Counterpoint i/v be avaible at the same time?
Scanspeakman
Will the Counterpoint i/v be avaible at the same time?
Scanspeakman
Guys, Russ never said they won't be releasing both Sabre32 boards. They will.
He's merely pondering which of the board to release first.
My vote goes for board No1 as well.
Going for it will also help you gain more experience with the new chip which I'm sure will come in handy when you go for the (more complicated) board No2.
Indeed, an ETA for (any of) the new boards (DAC, PS, I/V) would be much appreciated!
Doesn't have to be an exact date... Something like "DAC: 2 weeks, PS: 2 months, I/V: 1 month" would suffice. 😉
He's merely pondering which of the board to release first.
My vote goes for board No1 as well.
Going for it will also help you gain more experience with the new chip which I'm sure will come in handy when you go for the (more complicated) board No2.
scanspeakman said:
Indeed, an ETA for (any of) the new boards (DAC, PS, I/V) would be much appreciated!
Doesn't have to be an exact date... Something like "DAC: 2 weeks, PS: 2 months, I/V: 1 month" would suffice. 😉
Some product tidbits:
1) Counterpoint is working very well but in its present form is only suitable for balanced use. Single ended it presents a nasty thump on power off. Brian and I are still thinking things through regarding its release. It is very much an intermediate to advanced builder's circuit. I do not recommend it for beginners, At least not yet.
2) Placid is probably at least a couple more months off because I need to redesign it to be more user friendly. The circuit works fine, but Brian and I decided the current PCB is not very practical for many users. I also have a different PS which may take precedence over placid because it achieves the same type of performance but it is much more versatile. I don't have a name for that circuit yet.
3) The BUF32_Stereo board will be designed by the end of next week. I am not sure how much timer it will take after that to get the modules ready to roll.
1) Counterpoint is working very well but in its present form is only suitable for balanced use. Single ended it presents a nasty thump on power off. Brian and I are still thinking things through regarding its release. It is very much an intermediate to advanced builder's circuit. I do not recommend it for beginners, At least not yet.
2) Placid is probably at least a couple more months off because I need to redesign it to be more user friendly. The circuit works fine, but Brian and I decided the current PCB is not very practical for many users. I also have a different PS which may take precedence over placid because it achieves the same type of performance but it is much more versatile. I don't have a name for that circuit yet.
3) The BUF32_Stereo board will be designed by the end of next week. I am not sure how much timer it will take after that to get the modules ready to roll.
Here is some news from Dustin:
1) He confirmed that to use the ES9018 effectively in stereo mode and support all three input types (PCM/DSD/SPDIF) you must configure the chip with a microcontroller. In short stereo hardware mode is not really practical if you plan on supporting all three digital input options.
2) DSD mode does not utilize the custom FIR filters. So if you are thinking of using the ES9018 to do an active filter DSD input is not an option.
I think what I will attempt to do is go ahead and add an ATiny85 microcontroller to the new Stereo board (AKA board #1) so we can continue to support DSD.
I will keep you all posted.
Thanks for the good input from all of you. I am open to any further suggestions.
Cheers!
Russ
1) He confirmed that to use the ES9018 effectively in stereo mode and support all three input types (PCM/DSD/SPDIF) you must configure the chip with a microcontroller. In short stereo hardware mode is not really practical if you plan on supporting all three digital input options.
2) DSD mode does not utilize the custom FIR filters. So if you are thinking of using the ES9018 to do an active filter DSD input is not an option.
I think what I will attempt to do is go ahead and add an ATiny85 microcontroller to the new Stereo board (AKA board #1) so we can continue to support DSD.
I will keep you all posted.
Thanks for the good input from all of you. I am open to any further suggestions.
Cheers!
Russ
Russ White said:
Thank you!.
The only option for active filter for all modes seems to be MESH
Russ White said:
Good ending Russ; I think you will gain custome this way..
As for FIR filters for dsd, I have several filters on my dCS954 and it is very difficult to decide which is best. The same is true in PCM mode.
I'd rather optimise the analog filter.
I only want to use in as a stereo DAC. I will need DSD/I2S support at the same time for my DAC and I2S/SPDIF on the other two I am building for friends. I would like pads/jumpers for external regulators to directly power all aspects of the board(VD, VA, clock, etc) without having to lift legs and such. I am very happy with my current Buffalo in I2S/DSD mode so the addition of pads is all I would like different.
It would be option 1 with DSD or full microcontroller support, the ability to isolate PS traces and use 4 shunt regs to power it, and the size can be bigger to allow the extra pads. This would allow a DIYer to tweak the power supplies for best result in a stereo DAC optimized for performance. If it is larger, so what, the PCB could be longer with holes to accomodate the TP standard size on top. It could be double width to allow IVYs side-by-side. It can be as big as a CD case for all I care, as long as it has DSD and PS mod potential.
The second board would be great for HT or experienced tinkers.
A thought on the DSD wiring problem... Could you use an OTTO to manipulate the wiring arrangement and attach it via pads to switch the wiring arangement. These could be pads and jumpers, no?
It would be option 1 with DSD or full microcontroller support, the ability to isolate PS traces and use 4 shunt regs to power it, and the size can be bigger to allow the extra pads. This would allow a DIYer to tweak the power supplies for best result in a stereo DAC optimized for performance. If it is larger, so what, the PCB could be longer with holes to accomodate the TP standard size on top. It could be double width to allow IVYs side-by-side. It can be as big as a CD case for all I care, as long as it has DSD and PS mod potential.
The second board would be great for HT or experienced tinkers.
A thought on the DSD wiring problem... Could you use an OTTO to manipulate the wiring arrangement and attach it via pads to switch the wiring arangement. These could be pads and jumpers, no?
I have to say I would probably like both boards as well, one for playing music through and one for 'playing with' ... My son already has designs on my current Buffalo!
So for this to work for me, at least, DSD is not a priority (it can be in board #2,) but I would like to see the best that can be done with board #1. After all, better music is what we are all after isn't it? So better regs etc. Russ and all the tricks you learnt since designing the original Buffalo into the best board you can make for #1 please ;-)
Russ
P.S Sorry if this reads a bit 'down' on DSD, it is not meant to, I too have DSD sources, but at least in my experience it does not seem as big a market as high resolution PCM?
So for this to work for me, at least, DSD is not a priority (it can be in board #2,) but I would like to see the best that can be done with board #1. After all, better music is what we are all after isn't it? So better regs etc. Russ and all the tricks you learnt since designing the original Buffalo into the best board you can make for #1 please ;-)
Russ
P.S Sorry if this reads a bit 'down' on DSD, it is not meant to, I too have DSD sources, but at least in my experience it does not seem as big a market as high resolution PCM?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.