In the measurements we see a slight improvement. Use a Hiface in measurements. It would be interesting to see if there are improvements in general with all kinds of transport. The same I've tried it with Aune DAC and Gigawork DAC, worsened jitter in both.
The pulse transformer is not very special. It's just a small ferrite toroid with two copper coils like any other pulse transformer.
The pulse transformer is not very special. It's just a small ferrite toroid with two copper coils like any other pulse transformer.
I would like two output stages behind the Buffalo II DAC. LEGATO stage and another stage output valves. I like the legato but I want to use the valves according to the type of music.
I am studying if I can do without compromising too much sound. I see two possibilities:
- A low signal relay PANASONIC TQ2-5V type just behind the DAC output. With the minimum cable. The relay signal derived from one or another stage.
- Connect the two stages at once without relays in the signal path and steps on or off via relays. The two stages would NEVER on.
Is it feasible or forget about it?, I'm no expert and maybe this is an impossible
I am studying if I can do without compromising too much sound. I see two possibilities:
- A low signal relay PANASONIC TQ2-5V type just behind the DAC output. With the minimum cable. The relay signal derived from one or another stage.
- Connect the two stages at once without relays in the signal path and steps on or off via relays. The two stages would NEVER on.
Is it feasible or forget about it?, I'm no expert and maybe this is an impossible
You might find that one type is superior to the other on all kinds of music. In which case you may not need to switch. Possibly..
Have a look at the tube stage I did for the BIII
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/196552-buffalo-iii-dac-tube-output-stage.html
This performs so very well, and doesn't sound tube-like at all. Just awesome.
Have a look at the tube stage I did for the BIII
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/196552-buffalo-iii-dac-tube-output-stage.html
This performs so very well, and doesn't sound tube-like at all. Just awesome.
As mentioned...
here by Russ; I would like to see someone attempt to design a CFP style tube output stage for the B-II/III. I know nothing of circuit design for these, but I assume Russ believes that a (legato style) CFP tube output stage could achieve the low input impedance preferred by the ESS 9018. I wonder if this kind of design could be done fairly simply with a pair of dual triodes...
I know Russ has considered doing a TPA tube output stage, but it appears he is really too busy to take on a completely new project... Any low level tube I/V experts out there...
here by Russ; I would like to see someone attempt to design a CFP style tube output stage for the B-II/III. I know nothing of circuit design for these, but I assume Russ believes that a (legato style) CFP tube output stage could achieve the low input impedance preferred by the ESS 9018. I wonder if this kind of design could be done fairly simply with a pair of dual triodes...
I know Russ has considered doing a TPA tube output stage, but it appears he is really too busy to take on a completely new project... Any low level tube I/V experts out there...
HI Barrows I welcome this kind of conversation. If someone has a cool idea to try I would love to see it.
I was thinking of a BJT/Tube hybrid CFP. Where the tube would do the heavy lifting but the BJT would provide extremely low input impedance.
I was thinking of a BJT/Tube hybrid CFP. Where the tube would do the heavy lifting but the BJT would provide extremely low input impedance.
For all-tube I/V:
1. What is the recommended shunt to use the Sabra chip in current mode?
2. What is the recommended High Frequency roll-off (what frequency to have -3dB attenuation)?
1. What is the recommended shunt to use the Sabra chip in current mode?
2. What is the recommended High Frequency roll-off (what frequency to have -3dB attenuation)?
80Mhz clocks and sample rate limitations with oversampling enabled.
Bottom line:
When utilizing the ASRC:
> 3 * 64 * fs does work. But only barely at very high sample rates (> 352khz)
> 4 * 64 * fs is better. 🙂
Cheers!
Russ
Bottom line:
When utilizing the ASRC:
> 3 * 64 * fs does work. But only barely at very high sample rates (> 352khz)
> 4 * 64 * fs is better. 🙂
Cheers!
Russ
Last edited:
Why bitter? From what Russ writes it seems to me that BIII will do higher sample rates than BII so you did the right move!
I'm sitting here looking at the BIII with just a few components and full of holes like a swiss cheese
Anyway, Russ thanks for the information.
Cheers,
Nic
The information I shared shouldn't have any bearing on that decision. 🙂
It is really just an explanation of noted behavior with the ES9018 at 80mhz and sample frequencies beyond 312.5khz.
Your better off in any case.
1. For tubes some have had good success with an I/V resistor of 21-47 ohms depending on the gain of the tube stage. To be correct this is not exactly current mode, but it will work well.
2. I would aim for 40-60khz but some people like to go even higher. It really depends on the output stage and your personal taste.
There is no hard cut off for "current mode". 🙂
Any resistance will modulate the DAC outputs which is what causes some distortion.
What you need to remember is that the lower the impedance at the DAC output the better the performance. So the best answer is as low as your stage can manage. 😀
For example both Legato and IVY-III impedance are just fractions of an ohm.
Any resistance will modulate the DAC outputs which is what causes some distortion.
What you need to remember is that the lower the impedance at the DAC output the better the performance. So the best answer is as low as your stage can manage. 😀
For example both Legato and IVY-III impedance are just fractions of an ohm.
Last edited:
Exactly. 🙂 It's a relative term. Basically the higher the ratio of outputZ to inputZ the more like a current source the DAC behaves. The lower this ratio the more like a voltage source.
Last edited:
Question:
I am trying to switch between spdif and I2S with the arduino. So, at the moment I have both sources permanently connected and the spdif switch on. I have a pulse input transformer, but I leave the termination to the board.
The problem is that the I2S module is always on, and gives a signal out. This prevents the spdif to work. If I switch the I2S module off, then it works.
Is it possible to do what I am trying to do ? How ?
Thanks,
Davide
I am trying to switch between spdif and I2S with the arduino. So, at the moment I have both sources permanently connected and the spdif switch on. I have a pulse input transformer, but I leave the termination to the board.
The problem is that the I2S module is always on, and gives a signal out. This prevents the spdif to work. If I switch the I2S module off, then it works.
Is it possible to do what I am trying to do ? How ?
Thanks,
Davide
Thanks,
As far as I understand, the spdif switch has no effect when a I2S source is used. Correct ?
Thanks,
Davide
As far as I understand, the spdif switch has no effect when a I2S source is used. Correct ?
Thanks,
Davide
That is incorrect. It still switches. 🙂
The output of the SPDIF comparator will directly connected to D1 when the switch is closed - which is probably not what you want with I2S input.
At the least you need to switch D1 between I2S and SPDIF as it is shared. In addition, if you want to leverage the on-board comparator you will need to cut the trace of the comparator to D1. Then you take the output of the comparator to the switch in D1
- Status
- Not open for further replies.