• 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.

Building an open embedded audio applicance.

Jump to Latest
#664
Pic of the BBB_DAC. BBB attached directly to DAC via I2S for now, actually sounds not too bad. Rather than house the BBB PS in the box I have an external linear supply.
 

Attachments

  • BBB_DAC.jpg
    BBB_DAC.jpg
    986.5 KB · Views: 572
Last edited:
#665
mp29k said:
I for one am pretty happy with a design that matches the bbb rather than the DAC. the botic requires a bbb, but can be used with any DAC, right??
Click to expand...

ChrisMmm said:
I totally agree, this is surely a BBB cape and not being built to specifically suit any one DAC. As such I would expect it to follow the form of the BBB as Russ has already indicated.
Click to expand...

Gents, firstly, Mr. White hasn't responded to the suggestion I made so this may all be academic anyway, just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting for one moment anything that would prevent use with other DACs, though some of the driver/kernel development earlier might be DAC specific? All I am saying is that with a very slightly larger footprint (and it really wouldn't very much bigger) it would be possible to tightly integrate the Botic/BBB with the Buffalo DAC board via headers - you wouldn't have to but it would be neat and would make connecting it all together simpler as it would remove the possibility for making incorrect connections and eliminate variables such as I2S wire lengths. Unless you already have a DAC solution that is very tight for space there shouldn't be a problem?

I'm assuming that, as this is a TPA product, integration with other TPA products would be more important than operation with non-TPA products and there appears to be precedents, such as the Legato integration. Also, I'm not sure that there is anything to say that a BBB cape has to have the same footprint as a BBB?

We have a saying here about not trying to "teach granny to suck eggs" and it might well be that the sentiment applies here; I'm sure Russ will have explored the Botic requirements and will have sound reasoning (pun not intended) behind the design decisions he's making.


mp29k said:
Also, is this being designed as a completed board, a kit, or both?
Click to expand...

With all those surface mounted ICs, if at least those components aren't pre-assembled I may as well give up now.

Ray
 
#666
nautibuoy said:
Gents, firstly, Mr. White hasn't responded to the suggestion I made so this may all be academic anyway, just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting for one moment anything that would prevent use with other DACs, though some of the driver/kernel development earlier might be DAC specific? All I am saying is that with a very slightly larger footprint (and it really wouldn't very much bigger) it would be possible to tightly integrate the Botic/BBB with the Buffalo DAC board via headers - you wouldn't have to but it would be neat and would make connecting it all together simpler as it would remove the possibility for making incorrect connections and eliminate variables such as I2S wire lengths. Unless you already have a DAC solution that is very tight for space there shouldn't be a problem?

I'm assuming that, as this is a TPA product, integration with other TPA products would be more important than operation with non-TPA products and there appears to be precedents, such as the Legato integration. Also, I'm not sure that there is anything to say that a BBB cape has to have the same footprint as a BBB?

We have a saying here about not trying to "teach granny to suck eggs" and it might well be that the sentiment applies here; I'm sure Russ will have explored the Botic requirements and will have sound reasoning (pun not intended) behind the design decisions he's making.




With all those surface mounted ICs, if at least those components aren't pre-assembled I may as well give up now.

Ray
Click to expand...

I can see the benefit to someone with a buffalo dac, but having the footprint be any bigger at all would preclude keeping the server (bbb) plus clock and s/pdif (botic) as small as possible. I would love to have a Buffalo iiise, but I just spent hard earned on a NAD d3020, and I quite like it. My planed DIY is quite light, involving only plans to built some cables, assemble the bbb into a case, and play around with software, so building a complex power supply and complex (albeit it fantastic I and sure) DAC, isn't in the cards. If Russ were to choose to size this to one specific DAC, to prevent running a tiny length cable between i2s headers, when it is very likely to be used alongside thousands of dac varieties, it would to me be a very strange design choice. The quality design, the TPA name behind it, and the features are all very compelling, but at great part of the draw for me is the tight integration with bbb, not single dac I may never own.
 
#667
The Botic cape is designed to easily integrate with Buffalo, but it will also be simple to integrate with others too. 🙂 It already has a header that matches B3 digital input header. No need to grow the size of the cape - but if you use that header you will not want to have any other capes on top of the Botic.
 
Last edited:
#668
Russ White said:
The Botic cape is designed to easily integrate with Buffalo, but it will also be simple to integrate with other too. 🙂 It already has a header that matches B3 digital input header. No need to grow the size of the cape - but if you use that header you will not want to have any other capes on top of the Botic.
Click to expand...

Thank you Granny😉

That'll be the B3 rather than the B3SE; the latter is what I have on the way? So the intention is to have them stackable?

Ray
 
Last edited:
#669
Russ White said:
The Botic cape is designed to easily integrate with Buffalo, but it will also be simple to integrate with other too. 🙂 It already has a header that matches B3 digital input header. No need to grow the size of the cape - but if you use that header you will not want to have any other capes on top of the Botic.
Click to expand...

Hi Russ, thanks for all you are doing with this, I'm getting quite excited to hear the final product.

Will this be a fully assembled, registered cape, or will it require some soldering by the end user? Also, do you have a ballpark on price?
 
#671
mp29k said:
Will this be a fully assembled, registered cape, or will it require some soldering by the end user? Also, do you have a ballpark on price?
Click to expand...

TP modules are usually kits, with through-hole components left for the end-user to solder. They're always well-labelled and simple enough for anyone (with a soldering iron) to assemble. I assume that the Botic will follow this pattern.
 
#672
Duffy Moon said:
TP modules are usually kits, with through-hole components left for the end-user to solder. They're always well-labelled and simple enough for anyone (with a soldering iron) to assemble. I assume that the Botic will follow this pattern.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking if it isn't fully assembled, I'll have to do a lot of practice first. Never used a soldering iron. Probably not the best first project.
 
#678
None of their kits are too difficult to do. We really should wait and see what Russ comes up with. It seems a good start. If the clock prices are an issue, they could be left off; easy enough to solder on, even an amateur I would think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom