Anyone know where a person can get decals (or...?) relating to audio for the front panel? Like symbols for play, pause, etc?
Thank you
Darren
Thank you
Darren
Russ White said:
Hi Russ,
Thanks for the lead. From the datasheet I sort of understand that the receiver should not be in slave mode, the clock should be 2.8224 for 44.1kHz and indeed lift pin 25 (OMCK).
Is it also possible to send the clock*4 (11.2896) from the tent clock directly to SCK from the DAC? The SCK from the receiver would not be connected. Or could this introduce timings/delay issues? The tent clock comes with a /4 output so that would provide both freqs.
What is best to do with the clock ground? Connect to ground on the power supply side or to the receiver side/board?
Thanks for the help,
Jeroen
JeroenR said:
I have not used the device except in any other way but as a master. so I have never tried what you are trying. So I can't tell you if it will work or not.
The way I read the datasheet OMCK is only used while the PLL is not locked. I am not sure I would bother with that, but 256Fs (11mhz) is just fine there.
I would not use the 11mhz clock independantly as it will be out of sync with the other clocks and the data.
It seems like to do what you want you would need to run the CS8416 is slave mode.
So you would need to generate the bit clock and word clock from your clock (so they are all in sync).
IMHO, its probably not worth your trouble.
Cheers!
Russ
Hi
Got the last board today so it's ready to be put together. I was thinking of stacking all the boards on top of each other like in the attached picture. Is there something negative about using a design like this? The only thing I can think of is the LCDPS board being close to the DAC boards but that shouldn't make any real difference.
Also I was looking at transformers and I found one torroidal, 2x9V 30VA which would work fine. But I also found these two:
1x9V 12VA
http://www.velleman.be/ot/en/product/view/?id=423#
2x12V 12VA
http://www.velleman.be/ot/en/product/view/?id=981
Either using 2x 1x9v for a true dual-mono design or use the 2x12V. They look kind of neat and would do well in a minimalistic design with boards stacked, transformer and connections in the back. What do you think? Should I try these or go with the torroidal?
Thanks
Got the last board today so it's ready to be put together. I was thinking of stacking all the boards on top of each other like in the attached picture. Is there something negative about using a design like this? The only thing I can think of is the LCDPS board being close to the DAC boards but that shouldn't make any real difference.
Also I was looking at transformers and I found one torroidal, 2x9V 30VA which would work fine. But I also found these two:
1x9V 12VA
http://www.velleman.be/ot/en/product/view/?id=423#
2x12V 12VA
http://www.velleman.be/ot/en/product/view/?id=981
Either using 2x 1x9v for a true dual-mono design or use the 2x12V. They look kind of neat and would do well in a minimalistic design with boards stacked, transformer and connections in the back. What do you think? Should I try these or go with the torroidal?
Thanks
Attachments
No picture attached, but the modules were designed to be stacked. I usually place the power supply(s) in a separate stack opposite the power connections of the modules.
The 2x12(12VA) should work.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=1514467&stamp=1211221739
Attachment works for me, the link above should work as well. Anyway I used two distances to make enough room for the components in the bottom. It looks pretty neat and shouldn't be any different to having the LCDPS board lying next to the others instead of under. Or am I wrong?
Btw, very nice kits, very proffesional 🙂
Attachment works for me, the link above should work as well. Anyway I used two distances to make enough room for the components in the bottom. It looks pretty neat and shouldn't be any different to having the LCDPS board lying next to the others instead of under. Or am I wrong?
Btw, very nice kits, very proffesional 🙂
jonatan_w said:
Thanks. 🙂
Your stack should work fine, as would the transformers.
I would suggest though that you move the power supply to the top of the stack, this will aid with the cooling of the heatsinks.
Cheers!
Russ
dac stack hardwired i2s bus
Thought i'd chime in. Stacking these does make a great form factor.
What I did was remove all the i2s green connectors and run 24awg stranded through the holes. To do this with the USB receiver, I flipped the receiver upside down.
You need to remove the USB boards' analog output green connectors and bend the 12s-spdif selector pins out of the way so it will fit w/o being as high. Or you could use more spacers.
Pics here-
http://kentleech.com/opus-dac-stack/
So it goes like this from top to bottom-
USB (upside down)
Metronome
Left opus
Right opus
Ballsie
I opted to keep the power boards and transformers away- they will be in their own shielded section when I enclose it.
-Kent
Thought i'd chime in. Stacking these does make a great form factor.
What I did was remove all the i2s green connectors and run 24awg stranded through the holes. To do this with the USB receiver, I flipped the receiver upside down.
You need to remove the USB boards' analog output green connectors and bend the 12s-spdif selector pins out of the way so it will fit w/o being as high. Or you could use more spacers.
Pics here-
http://kentleech.com/opus-dac-stack/
So it goes like this from top to bottom-
USB (upside down)
Metronome
Left opus
Right opus
Ballsie
I opted to keep the power boards and transformers away- they will be in their own shielded section when I enclose it.
-Kent
Re: Just for fun
ah, I may have found my answer to my question (latest question at head-fi) ... the above post seems to be the closest I've found. Currently, I am using a "direct" transport to DAC connection using i2s and the requirements for my DAC are 16-bit I2S, 64 BCK/WS and BCK is 44.1kHz * 64, 2's compliment data, WS 44.1kHz.
Can I "substitute" the transport mechanism for the Wolfson 8804, which would configured as: AIF_MS to MASTER, TXSRC to SPDIF, AIFCONF1 to low, AIFCONF0 to low and powered using an existing 10V psu?
Russ White said:
ah, I may have found my answer to my question (latest question at head-fi) ... the above post seems to be the closest I've found. Currently, I am using a "direct" transport to DAC connection using i2s and the requirements for my DAC are 16-bit I2S, 64 BCK/WS and BCK is 44.1kHz * 64, 2's compliment data, WS 44.1kHz.
Can I "substitute" the transport mechanism for the Wolfson 8804, which would configured as: AIF_MS to MASTER, TXSRC to SPDIF, AIFCONF1 to low, AIFCONF0 to low and powered using an existing 10V psu?
Re: Re: Just for fun
My honest answer is, I believe you can, but I have never tried. 🙂
luvdunhill said:
My honest answer is, I believe you can, but I have never tried. 🙂
Ballsie vs Ivy, and Ivy versions
I don't think I've seen this covered, but then again I haven't been following closely.
What are the differences/issues regarding Ivy vs Ballsie when used with the Opus? I'm looking to put a buffer on my Opus, but since I fully expect that I'll move to the Buffalo eventually, it would seem to make sense to preserve future compatibilty by going with the Ivy if possible.
Relatedly, I notice that you list 3 different versions of the Ivy on the site - COD, Buffalo, and Opus - what are the differences? Is it as simple as input impedance values?
I don't think I've seen this covered, but then again I haven't been following closely.
What are the differences/issues regarding Ivy vs Ballsie when used with the Opus? I'm looking to put a buffer on my Opus, but since I fully expect that I'll move to the Buffalo eventually, it would seem to make sense to preserve future compatibilty by going with the Ivy if possible.
Relatedly, I notice that you list 3 different versions of the Ivy on the site - COD, Buffalo, and Opus - what are the differences? Is it as simple as input impedance values?
The differences between the three IVY versions are filter values (R and C), tailored for each DAC.
The Ballsie is has a higher input impedance and is designed specifically for the Opus, based largely (not totally) on the Wolfson circuit.
The IVY is really an I/V stage that can be made to act as an output buffer for the Opus by adding input resistors. It will still have a very low input impedance (like 1K) works fine with Opus. A reason to use it this way is the symmetric nature of the THS op amps allows you to eliminate the Opus output caps when using the IVY's balanced outputs.
Both boards allow you to remove the Opus output caps when using the single-ended outputs.
The Ballsie is has a higher input impedance and is designed specifically for the Opus, based largely (not totally) on the Wolfson circuit.
The IVY is really an I/V stage that can be made to act as an output buffer for the Opus by adding input resistors. It will still have a very low input impedance (like 1K) works fine with Opus. A reason to use it this way is the symmetric nature of the THS op amps allows you to eliminate the Opus output caps when using the IVY's balanced outputs.
Both boards allow you to remove the Opus output caps when using the single-ended outputs.
Russ,
I'm not sure if you've already answered this, but I don't recall seeing it in this thread. Is it possible to use the balsie with the buffalo DAC. In otherwords would it be possible in the future to upgrade my opus/balsie combo with the buffalo ?
PJN
I'm not sure if you've already answered this, but I don't recall seeing it in this thread. Is it possible to use the balsie with the buffalo DAC. In otherwords would it be possible in the future to upgrade my opus/balsie combo with the buffalo ?
PJN
PJN said:
Absolutely. It will work just fine. 🙂 if you don't want any offset from the balanced outputs to GND you will want to put a cap at the inputs of the ballsie, but for a lot of gear that won't really matter. The SE output will be offset free even without the caps.
"if you don't want any offset from the balanced outputs to GND you will want to put a cap at the inputs of the ballsie"
Hi Russ - just want to clarify:
1. What kind of cap and what value?
2. So I will need to put the caps between each of the +/- outputs of the buffalo and the +/- inputs of the ballsie (cap in series with signal path like when using DC blocking caps?)
I am also interested in upgrading my Opus to Buffalo someday. Thanks!
Hi Russ - just want to clarify:
1. What kind of cap and what value?
2. So I will need to put the caps between each of the +/- outputs of the buffalo and the +/- inputs of the ballsie (cap in series with signal path like when using DC blocking caps?)
I am also interested in upgrading my Opus to Buffalo someday. Thanks!
The ballsie is a 47K load, so any cap from 1uf to 10uf or so would be just fine.
1uF gets you a corner frequency of about 3hz. 2.2uf gets you 1.5hz.
I would probably use a MKP type cap.
Cheers!
Russ
1uF gets you a corner frequency of about 3hz. 2.2uf gets you 1.5hz.
I would probably use a MKP type cap.
Cheers!
Russ
Forgot to answer the second part. You would just put the cap in series with each input. This is why they call them coupling capacitors. They couple two circuit for AC signals, but block DC voltage.
Cheers!
Russ
Cheers!
Russ
Listening note...
OK I want to clear up a misconception. 🙂
While the Buffalo is a great(maybe better than great?) DAC (as is the COD, but I won't get into that right now). I am not sure it fair to call the Buffalo an upgrade to the Opus.
What I mean is while the raw numbers may be better on the Buffalo, and I certainly love to listen to it, the Opus is by no means a slacker!!! 🙂 This is especially true with the version 2.0 boards and the WM8741. I am just delighted with the WM8741.
The WM8741 is really well done. It hits all the right buttons. I have been listening to it for a while now, and I will not give it up. I have been A/B testing it with the buffalo and while they do both sound distinct, I would not say either has an advantage. Except in one area. The Opus is far less finicky. 🙂
Now I am using the IVY to do the heavy lifting and BAL/SE conversion on the Opus. This is very very easy to do. this I did mostly just to prove the concept. But it seems a nice synergy.
The wonderful thing about the Opus is that the WM8741 already has a low pass filter which I think sounds great. This means that there is less HF junk which needs to be filtered out by the next stage(IVY or Ballsie).
The Buffalo is a marvelous DAC, but if it has a weak spot(well I can actually think of more than one, but these have to do with technical details and not the sound) it is that it really absolutely **MUST** have some heavy duty filtering after the DAC to achieve respectable dynamic range. The Opus does not have this requirement. This allows you to run the next stage wide open, as far as slew rate and bandwidth.
Well just some musing while quaffing a pint of my new IPA, now back yo your regularly scheduled programming...
😀
Cheers!
Russ
OK I want to clear up a misconception. 🙂
While the Buffalo is a great(maybe better than great?) DAC (as is the COD, but I won't get into that right now). I am not sure it fair to call the Buffalo an upgrade to the Opus.
What I mean is while the raw numbers may be better on the Buffalo, and I certainly love to listen to it, the Opus is by no means a slacker!!! 🙂 This is especially true with the version 2.0 boards and the WM8741. I am just delighted with the WM8741.
The WM8741 is really well done. It hits all the right buttons. I have been listening to it for a while now, and I will not give it up. I have been A/B testing it with the buffalo and while they do both sound distinct, I would not say either has an advantage. Except in one area. The Opus is far less finicky. 🙂
Now I am using the IVY to do the heavy lifting and BAL/SE conversion on the Opus. This is very very easy to do. this I did mostly just to prove the concept. But it seems a nice synergy.
The wonderful thing about the Opus is that the WM8741 already has a low pass filter which I think sounds great. This means that there is less HF junk which needs to be filtered out by the next stage(IVY or Ballsie).
The Buffalo is a marvelous DAC, but if it has a weak spot(well I can actually think of more than one, but these have to do with technical details and not the sound) it is that it really absolutely **MUST** have some heavy duty filtering after the DAC to achieve respectable dynamic range. The Opus does not have this requirement. This allows you to run the next stage wide open, as far as slew rate and bandwidth.
Well just some musing while quaffing a pint of my new IPA, now back yo your regularly scheduled programming...
😀Cheers!
Russ
Russ,
Thanks for your listening impressions. I did order the opus upgrade thinking that with the '741, Wolfson is realizing all of their long experience in developing DACs. May I ask what filter did you use and what's the sampling rate (I'm assuming that you are using the Metronome)... thanks
Thanks for your listening impressions. I did order the opus upgrade thinking that with the '741, Wolfson is realizing all of their long experience in developing DACs. May I ask what filter did you use and what's the sampling rate (I'm assuming that you are using the Metronome)... thanks
Russ,
This has been a roller coaster ride for me. I had decided to buy/build my "last" system back in November. The DAC was to be the WM8740 Opus. Then the news of a DSD Opus. I figured I will wait a month. Then the news that six months is more likely, but I am still goin to wait. Then comes the Buffalo and it arrived before the new Opus and looks great! OK, I will get the Buffalo! Now this! You guys are killing me! Seriously though, I will be buying one of these for sure. It could be the Opus again and it could save me money too. Unfortunately, money is an issue. So I will ask you for some listening impressions. Can you please describe the key sonic differences in the DAC as in bass, mid, treble, imaging, etc. It would help me on this see-saw ride to make a decision so I can finally listen to good music again. Thanks for your time and patience.
This has been a roller coaster ride for me. I had decided to buy/build my "last" system back in November. The DAC was to be the WM8740 Opus. Then the news of a DSD Opus. I figured I will wait a month. Then the news that six months is more likely, but I am still goin to wait. Then comes the Buffalo and it arrived before the new Opus and looks great! OK, I will get the Buffalo! Now this! You guys are killing me! Seriously though, I will be buying one of these for sure. It could be the Opus again and it could save me money too. Unfortunately, money is an issue. So I will ask you for some listening impressions. Can you please describe the key sonic differences in the DAC as in bass, mid, treble, imaging, etc. It would help me on this see-saw ride to make a decision so I can finally listen to good music again. Thanks for your time and patience.