Mine is in the sticky hands of Parcel Force. Try tracking it on their website?
I was charged just over 22GBP import charges, which makes no sense at all. We shall see when it (eventually) arrives. I did it by phone, so perhaps I misheard. I don't expect it until Monday, which is ridiculous for a package that arrived in the UK on Tuesday. It's only got to come 40 miles...
Paul
Unlucky
Mine turned up on Thursday and, so far, zero charges which did surprise me.
Its a bit hit and miss over here.....
Now onto putting this baby thru its paces
Well USB for Hi-Rez is USB 2.0 & USB DAC can't support
, to get full potential off BII convert PCM 24-192 & DSD-DXD, I finally decide to buy a chinese converter HDMI to SPDIF like this:
Link:
HDMI Converter-Switcher 3X1 HDMI + DVI + SPDIF + YPbPr + R/L to HDMI C301 (SMQ040) - € 68.63
Price: 68.63€ or 88.99 USD
SPDIF HIFI audio output from HDMI1.3 signal: LPCM/Dolby-AC3/DTS7.1/DSD
Last edited:
@Merlin, I'd far sooner go for something like the m2tech hiface...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/153191-m2tech-hiface-usb-spdif-24-192khz-asynch.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/153191-m2tech-hiface-usb-spdif-24-192khz-asynch.html
Right Brian, only till 24/88.2 DSD or 24/96 DVD-A, but better than 24/192 & the best sound I heard is 24/352.8 DXD.
You are thinking developing newly interface USB 2.0 capablly of 24/192, if yes I'm interested, please be so kind to let me when will be finished & aprox. price?
Yes I know this product: input USB / otput SPDIF 24/192 cost 99.00€ RCA + 9.00€ shipping, 114.00€ BNC + 9.00€ shipping (Nov 2009 prices) & also I know that jkeny offers a service to modd for I2S cost 50.00€
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...ech-hiface-usb-spdif-24-192khz-asynch-24.html
So in total is 99€ USB/SPDIF 24/192 + 9€ shipping Spain + 50€ mod jkeny I2S = 158€
Hi All
First of all, thank you Russ and Brian, for a superbly well thought out, executed and presented product.
I've just listened to my newly built Buffalo II + IVY III. An hour ago it was still partly in bits, so no run in. It's a stereo, SE version, still using 317/337 regs for the I/V stage (though with 33u+0R47 on the reg outputs; I'll be getting some better regs shortly), the supplied AVCC mini Placid reg board, and a Paul Hynes PR3 series reg for the digital circuitry.
I was using a Buffalo 32S, with same regs- apart from Paul Hynes Z173V3 regs for 2 X AVCC (a vast improvement sonically over the original DVCC derived buffer supply)
One other thing- I only completed a modification to my power amp two weeks ago, which was in itself a big step forward, so my comments may be exagerated (though there're not ) . With this in mind, I've only listened so far to music I've played in the last few days
It's vastly better than my 32S, which was the best I'd heard. It's not subtle either! It’s in no particular area either- everything is better! 32S owners- don't hesitate!
I say this as someone who would normally sell his soul to keep an op amp (particularly as an I/V converter) or a commercial 3 legged reg out of his system; as a valve user; and as a inveterate DIYer who smiles to himself whenever Russ or Brian conflate sound quality and specs, e.g. the pursuit of a few more dBs of DNR or THDR.
I have to say, if this is where playing by the book gets you, I'm going to have to dust off the book!
And what a platform to test this! When I get some more PH regs for the AVCC supply, I can just plug them in in place of the mini Placid. Certainly the PH regs are of higher performance- but what an ideal way of seeing if this matters in practice! (they have ever where else I've used them, so I expect the answer yes, but am I right?) Want to try other I/V schemes - easy!
Thanks again guys
Paul Needs
Russ and Brian- is the leap forward mainly down to the layout improvements around the 9018, the altered IVY circuit, or both? I noticed a few ferrites too- did they contribute in a major way?
First of all, thank you Russ and Brian, for a superbly well thought out, executed and presented product.
I've just listened to my newly built Buffalo II + IVY III. An hour ago it was still partly in bits, so no run in. It's a stereo, SE version, still using 317/337 regs for the I/V stage (though with 33u+0R47 on the reg outputs; I'll be getting some better regs shortly), the supplied AVCC mini Placid reg board, and a Paul Hynes PR3 series reg for the digital circuitry.
I was using a Buffalo 32S, with same regs- apart from Paul Hynes Z173V3 regs for 2 X AVCC (a vast improvement sonically over the original DVCC derived buffer supply)
One other thing- I only completed a modification to my power amp two weeks ago, which was in itself a big step forward, so my comments may be exagerated (though there're not
) . With this in mind, I've only listened so far to music I've played in the last few daysIt's vastly better than my 32S, which was the best I'd heard. It's not subtle either! It’s in no particular area either- everything is better! 32S owners- don't hesitate!
I say this as someone who would normally sell his soul to keep an op amp (particularly as an I/V converter) or a commercial 3 legged reg out of his system; as a valve user; and as a inveterate DIYer who smiles to himself whenever Russ or Brian conflate sound quality and specs, e.g. the pursuit of a few more dBs of DNR or THDR.
I have to say, if this is where playing by the book gets you, I'm going to have to dust off the book!
And what a platform to test this! When I get some more PH regs for the AVCC supply, I can just plug them in in place of the mini Placid. Certainly the PH regs are of higher performance- but what an ideal way of seeing if this matters in practice! (they have ever where else I've used them, so I expect the answer yes, but am I right?) Want to try other I/V schemes - easy!
Thanks again guys
Paul Needs
Russ and Brian- is the leap forward mainly down to the layout improvements around the 9018, the altered IVY circuit, or both? I noticed a few ferrites too- did they contribute in a major way?
Last edited:
Hi Paul,
Its all about synergy.
The layout is better, the decoupling is better, AVCC is better. IVY-III is better. It all adds up. It all works together.
I mean this as kindly as I can, but I would suggest that if I thought the PH design was "higher performance" I really would not have bothered with my own shunt regulator for the AVCC supply.
Instead I focused on a shunt reg designed specifically for this application. It is not a design of expediency. It is the result of a lot of testing. It is a design with clear purpose and that purpose is more than met. I take pride in having designed a DAC that everyone can enjoy. Both tweakers, and those who just enjoy a DAC that is already thoughtfully designed can get what they want with the Buffalo II. I like both types of people equally well, and I don't think one type is going to enjoy the music any more then the other.
So, I am very glad you are enjoying the flexibility the DAC has to offer and are using it as it was intended. Just be careful about comments like the above, as it could come off as offensive to the person who worked extremely hard to create a regulator that was tuned specifically for the application. I agree the PH regs may well work splendidly, but I personally doubt they will work "better", but once again that is a subjective value judgment. I wouldn't try to convince you either way. That would be pretentious.
Music is almost completely subjective, and so I don't mind hearing all of the different ideas that come across. I try to learn from all, and implement what works best for me. I expect all people are that way. There is no one "right" way to do things in audio. And its not always about the destination(incredible audio) anyway. Its the fun in getting there.
Most of all I truly hope you enjoy the music, and I really appreciate your report and kind words. Good work in getting it up and going so quickly.
I do firmly believe that the output stage is where the most effective and noticeable changes in characteristics can be achieved. It is for this reason I myself go between the IVY-III and the new CP-II. I like them both. I don't really consider one "better" than the other (except in terms of measurement). They are both simply two very nice, but different things.
Cheers!
Russ
Last edited:
I stiil trying to setup my new BII. For now I use LCDPS and at the first power up the voltage output was 5.5v but after an hour became 5.4V, so I tried to reach again 5.5v but turning the pot the voltage was stable 5.4V, next thing I thought it needs more power (like counterpoints) so I bypassed the two resistor and now I have solid 5.5v, is this the correct way or I have to change the values of the ressistors R1 & R2 (lcdps)?
When the CP-II is going to be availiable?
Thanks!
When the CP-II is going to be availiable?
Thanks!
It is perfectly OK to short those resistors, or you can go with a lower value. Say 2.2R.
CP-II is Currently in test and I have some new PCBs coming very soon. It will be the same foot print as IVY-III with the same headers. So people can easily swap the two back and forth.
The circuit is much more user friendly than the original CP and actually has a lower output impedance Just around 1-ohm (it has a defeatable emitter follower at the output with a CCS load).
Cheers!
Russ
Last edited:
Hi Russ
Oh dear, this the trouble with email. Re-reading my post, I think I'd be offended if I was you! I meant to be praising you to the heights, and poking fun at me, and my preconceptions. I only mentioned alternative regs to illustrate how highly suited to trials of this kind Buffalo II is- whilst not compromising the world class performance.
Mea culpa, and thanks for you for your highly diplomatic reply- the mark of a true gentleman
Paul
Oh dear, this the trouble with email. Re-reading my post, I think I'd be offended if I was you! I meant to be praising you to the heights, and poking fun at me, and my preconceptions. I only mentioned alternative regs to illustrate how highly suited to trials of this kind Buffalo II is- whilst not compromising the world class performance.
Mea culpa, and thanks for you for your highly diplomatic reply- the mark of a true gentleman
Paul
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.