More transparent, especially at mid/HF, more micro details. At least it is the difference I hear within my system.
Hi,
would like to try your Transformer for a Buffalo IIIpro SE (Ess9038pro) to replace the Mercury I/V stage. What type of Transformer would be the "best"?
Could the same Transformer pair be used for the "IAN CANADA 9038Q2MPI" dual mono HAT (for comparison). An further what to use for the Buffalo III (with ESS9018 chip)
thx
Branko
would like to try your Transformer for a Buffalo IIIpro SE (Ess9038pro) to replace the Mercury I/V stage. What type of Transformer would be the "best"?
Could the same Transformer pair be used for the "IAN CANADA 9038Q2MPI" dual mono HAT (for comparison). An further what to use for the Buffalo III (with ESS9018 chip)
thx
Branko
Last edited:
So what would I need to order then, and how?
The Pcb for Buffalo you provided Gerber Files. Do you give the Eagle files?
Or do you have boards to sell?
Regards
Branko
The Pcb for Buffalo you provided Gerber Files. Do you give the Eagle files?
Or do you have boards to sell?
Regards
Branko
Last edited:
Hi Branko,
Eagle is too "overweighted" SW for such a simple PCBs. I use Sprint Layout (without circuit binding).
Usually, cad files (.lay6) and gerber files are in the archives that I upload.
Check PM please.
Thank you.
Eagle is too "overweighted" SW for such a simple PCBs. I use Sprint Layout (without circuit binding).
Usually, cad files (.lay6) and gerber files are in the archives that I upload.
Check PM please.
Thank you.
Ivan, do you recommend a transformer (well, pair) to use with the Soekris R2R DACs? I was thinking 0.5+0.5-2+2? Output from DAC is ~600 ohms
Hi nyatt,
Well, I have no straight answer, have no implementations. I think 1:1 or 1:2 if a double signal swing needed is OK. No need to use splitted coils on primary and secondary I think.
Well, I have no straight answer, have no implementations. I think 1:1 or 1:2 if a double signal swing needed is OK. No need to use splitted coils on primary and secondary I think.
How would 1:1 trafo ever be better than no transformer at all for the soekris DACs?
Getting a balanced output with a split secondary makes makes some sense if going balanced is worth the addition and cost of the trafo, and vice versa for balanced output to SE. A Step up trafo to replace an active gain stage has some logic.
With 1:1 seems you get distortion from a trafo and not much else.
Getting a balanced output with a split secondary makes makes some sense if going balanced is worth the addition and cost of the trafo, and vice versa for balanced output to SE. A Step up trafo to replace an active gain stage has some logic.
With 1:1 seems you get distortion from a trafo and not much else.
I don't know is it needed for Soekris' DACs at ll, but any transformer acts like LPF at least
There is no need to use splitted coils for many DACs to get conversion SE->BAL or BAL->SE. Balanced output can be done on a single secondary coil. You just need to use DACs GND, leaving secondary coil as +/- signal source. From my practice, total isolation, including ground has no advantages in most cases for home audio, but viceversa in most cases brings just a more main's hum.
Statement can make a sense at LF, but joke or not, in most cases (my) transformers allows to decrease the noise floor due to its internal LPF. Sure, SUTs gives steeper LPF.
Anyway, as I said, I have no any implementations with Soekris' DACs using my transformers, have no any feedbacks, thus - it is up to you are they needed or not.
P.S. Another story could happens if it will be rised up that Soekris' DACs can work on to the low impedance instead of line-impedance (600 Ohm). Similar situation was with the DSC project, where many years they tried to use voltage-type transformers (high-impedanced like 10k:10k), when the real breakthrough was in translation the voltage output to the current output by loading it on to the low impedance. Will be funny if the story repeats 🙂
MC SUT transformers
Hi guys!
Time is going, statistics on my transformers usage cover more and more different DACs. I am very grateful to everyone who leaving feedback in this thread. Thank you!
I would like to present my new product. I decided to make transformers on a larger cores. What was the prerequisite for the creation of such transformers? Market inquiries (you guys as well) and my willing to bring one more useful instrument in to analog audio chain (the best systems I heard are still analog ones) as well. I have some feedbacks regarding usage of my existing transformers in analog chain, but first of all, these new transformers are positioning as step-up transformers for MC cartridges. (Most likely later I will have a dedicated thead on these transformers).
However I have tested them in my DAC and got great results. Their use as post-DACs is also very relevant, I have no doubts. And that is why.
During this time, I managed to understand the following. Despite the fact that there are good-sounding samples among modern DACs, the use of old DAC chips, especially multi-bit ones, for many remains relevant (and often uncontested).
So what is the difference between old DACs and modern ones? The most obvious is the output signal strength. As an example: ~ 21mARMS for ES9038PRO or 0.7mARMS for AD1865. The 30x difference is impressive, isn't it? ..
What does it means in terms of using the same core size? Right, different LF loss at the same signal level.
For Audio, a fairly large amount of practical research has been carried out, including my own experience, which indicates that the bandwidth (-3dB) at the low frequency should be at least 4 Hz from the bottom (preferably from 2 Hz). As about me, in this case only I can talk about approaching the natural perception of music. Using these new bigger transformers it is much easier to achieve the wanted response at LF on old DAC chips. Of course, you can say that nobody prevents from using a parallell or balanced, or even parallell/balanced connection to increase the output signal, but... This approach is not for my ears at least. I (and many others too) hear the degradation in other aspects. This parallelization approach more for DS DACs I believe, but poorly works on R2R DACs. For my taste at least...
Outwardly, new transformers are similar to the current ones, but have an increased diameter and height: 60x30mm (current 46x23mm). The price for a pair of transformers will be $500 (1prim/1sec version). Still the toroidal core, still the hand winding, still the mumetal shielding, still the same overall SQ. Lead time is not less than 2 months (winding takes times more). I will upload the drawing later.
Short specs of 1:20 version.
Primary DCR: 2.5 Ohm
Secondary DCR: 265 Ohm
BW (6 Ohm source, 10k load): 1Hz-110kHz
BW (17 Ohm source, 10k load): 2.5Hz-95kHz
Hi guys!
Time is going, statistics on my transformers usage cover more and more different DACs. I am very grateful to everyone who leaving feedback in this thread. Thank you!
I would like to present my new product. I decided to make transformers on a larger cores. What was the prerequisite for the creation of such transformers? Market inquiries (you guys as well) and my willing to bring one more useful instrument in to analog audio chain (the best systems I heard are still analog ones) as well. I have some feedbacks regarding usage of my existing transformers in analog chain, but first of all, these new transformers are positioning as step-up transformers for MC cartridges. (Most likely later I will have a dedicated thead on these transformers).
However I have tested them in my DAC and got great results. Their use as post-DACs is also very relevant, I have no doubts. And that is why.
During this time, I managed to understand the following. Despite the fact that there are good-sounding samples among modern DACs, the use of old DAC chips, especially multi-bit ones, for many remains relevant (and often uncontested).
So what is the difference between old DACs and modern ones? The most obvious is the output signal strength. As an example: ~ 21mARMS for ES9038PRO or 0.7mARMS for AD1865. The 30x difference is impressive, isn't it? ..
What does it means in terms of using the same core size? Right, different LF loss at the same signal level.
For Audio, a fairly large amount of practical research has been carried out, including my own experience, which indicates that the bandwidth (-3dB) at the low frequency should be at least 4 Hz from the bottom (preferably from 2 Hz). As about me, in this case only I can talk about approaching the natural perception of music. Using these new bigger transformers it is much easier to achieve the wanted response at LF on old DAC chips. Of course, you can say that nobody prevents from using a parallell or balanced, or even parallell/balanced connection to increase the output signal, but... This approach is not for my ears at least. I (and many others too) hear the degradation in other aspects. This parallelization approach more for DS DACs I believe, but poorly works on R2R DACs. For my taste at least...
Outwardly, new transformers are similar to the current ones, but have an increased diameter and height: 60x30mm (current 46x23mm). The price for a pair of transformers will be $500 (1prim/1sec version). Still the toroidal core, still the hand winding, still the mumetal shielding, still the same overall SQ. Lead time is not less than 2 months (winding takes times more). I will upload the drawing later.
Short specs of 1:20 version.
Primary DCR: 2.5 Ohm
Secondary DCR: 265 Ohm
BW (6 Ohm source, 10k load): 1Hz-110kHz
BW (17 Ohm source, 10k load): 2.5Hz-95kHz
MC SUT transformers:
Good to be used with TDA1541 in balanced mode (2x TDA1541), or in Single-Ended mode (1xTDA1541)?
Good to be used with TDA1541 in balanced mode (2x TDA1541), or in Single-Ended mode (1xTDA1541)?
Thank you!
No matter, both modes are OK. I prefer SE. For balanced mode it is needed to use two primary coils.