• 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.

Introducing the Buffalo III-SE-Pro 9028/9038

How new is the new LCDPS and is more information available? I believe mine is v1.1 from a few years back.


BK

Brian is still putting together the store page for the new version. It is the same board with a new regulator on it and a jumper where the CRC resistor normally is (because of the higher current demands). It should be available on the site soon.
 
Hello, just a bunch of practical questions:
1. Are BIIIse pro dimensions identical to previous BIIIse?
2. To power BIIIse pro, can we use a Placid HD from previous BIIIse build as is or some modifications are needed (assuming it is properly heatsinked)? In particular, has shunt current to be raised? How much?
3. Will BIIIse pro have same SQ as new BIVse or there will be an improvement? Changes will be only in system functionalities or the dac will be better optimized (i mean PS, AVCC, clock, jitter correction, etc...)? Dimensions will be greater?
4. Has 9038 BIIIse pro only higher output current than 9028 one? Does the higher current analog stage bring better SQ, using the same tubes I/V output stage (for example)?
Thanks

1) Yes.
2) Yes you can - you will need to be delivering something like 750ma.
3) In stereo mode they will be practically the same. B IV will be larger.
4) Yes - features are the same but the output current is quadrupled.

Cheers!
Russ
 
I forgot:
5. There is an updated integration guide for BIIIse pro, or at least a guide for configuring its dip switches and new functionalities?

The integration guide is a community effort - and I am happy to assist in creating a new version for the new modules.

Each module itself will have a datasheet and the on-board DAC firmware is on GitHub and has a "readme.md" file that describes all of the switch settings. In this way people can also create their own custom firmware. They only need a serial programmer to program the Atiny85.
 
No, there is no updated integration guide. I am pretty much done renovating the house however, so it could be in the next few weeks there's some time to look at old projects like my BIIISE/Chronos setup, or even a 9028/9038 guide. Russ/Brian will have to send me some information and preferably pictures however.

That would be awesome! I am happy to send you whatever you need. I will make sure you see the datasheets too!

Thanks Leon!
 
1) Yes.
2) Yes you can - you will need to be delivering something like 750ma.
3) In stereo mode they will be practically the same. B IV will be larger.
4) Yes - features are the same but the output current is quadrupled.

Cheers!
Russ

Regarding B III and B IV. What will be the main difference then between those two? Hope not only the lager size ;)
 
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2007
Paid Member
Hi Russ,

Looks as if you people have put a lot of effort into applying the new Esstech DACs .. Just out of curiosity ... Can you say a bit about the sound differences between the two DAC ICs? It was my impression that the ES9018 somehow split the waters between "likers" and "less-likers" ... and some said that the ES9018 could be a bit fatiguing to listen to in the long term (apparently due to its sampling structure). Can you say a bit about this ...

Of course entirely open and up to you ...

Cheers & congrats on your accomplishment ;-)

Jesper
 
Hi Russ,
... Can you say a bit about the sound differences between the two DAC ICs?

...

Cheers & congrats on your accomplishment ;-)

Jesper

Thanks!

I would say there is a very large difference between the two. The filter choices on the ES9018 were a bit limiting unless you rolled your own (not so simple) which the ES9018 does support. The ES9028/38 have *much* better filters - but honestly I am finding it hard to pick a favorite one!

One of the biggest wins for DIY folks is the THD compensation feature of the ES9028/38. Using this feature one can measure the distortion of their whole system and then apply correction (of 2nd and 3rd harmonics) at the DAC! How awesome is that?!?!?.

Also the new chips are simply very much better engineered. They are far more bullet proof and the signal routing is now intuitive where it could be very hacky in the ES9018. It's just a much much better design.

All in all - my opinion is that the ES9028 both sounds better - and is far easier to work with than it's still excellent predecessor. Largely this is because of the new features - and the fact that ESS is clearly getting better at their craft. The ES9028 is a great chip for people to jump in with - in that it's reasonable current output gives you the flexibility to pick an output stage you like Mercury, IVY, Legato... all work with the ES9028. The ES9038 enjoys all of the same attributes - but requires a brute of an output stage - so it is less flexible. Choices.... :)

Cheers!
Russ
 
Last edited:
What I'm looking for, is there a difference/better SQ with the 9038/Mercury versus the 9028/Mercury? If not I'd opt for the 9028 and simplicity.

So there will be two Mercury models, one for 9028, one for 9038 with higher current output?

Dual mono question. Any mono DSD issue like with the 9018 chip in dual mono? The 9018's in dual mono required different mapping for DSD input to play DSD in stereo. As I recall that was due to the 9018 chip design, not the TP implementation.
 
Last edited:
One of the biggest wins for DIY folks is the THD compensation feature of the ES9028/38. Using this feature one can measure the distortion of their whole system and then apply correction (of 2nd and 3rd harmonics) at the DAC! How awesome is that?!?!?.

As awesome as it gets... Can you provide any advice on how to get information that would help implement this feature?

Thank you,
Andrey
 
Nice work Russ and David. I'm planning for dual mono 9038 implementation, do you recommend BIII SE Pro 9038 over BIV for dual mono?

Regarding I/V stage, I see OPA1632 are extensively use since IVY I/V and will bring along to Mercury. I'm currently using Sonic Imagery Labs 992 discrete opamps for my 9018 (not Buffalo:shy:) and by so far it is the best sounding opamp I have used. I'm not saying anything bad with OPA1632 as it is a full differential design opamp and I'm not a pro on circuitry. My question is, is there any possibility to swap OPA6132 with any conventional opamp like the 992 with circuit modification?
 
Another question regarding the output of the two chips. The internal resistance of the 9018 is 195R with all four output stages paralleled for stereo. I assume the 9028 is the same. The 9038 is apparently different. Since it delivers 4 times the current, does it have 1/4 the internal resistance of the 9018?
 
Interesting...

Nice work Russ and David. I'm planning for dual mono 9038 implementation, do you recommend BIII SE Pro 9038 over BIV for dual mono?

Regarding I/V stage, I see OPA1632 are extensively use since IVY I/V and will bring along to Mercury. I'm currently using Sonic Imagery Labs 992 discrete opamps for my 9018 (not Buffalo:shy:) and by so far it is the best sounding opamp I have used. I'm not saying anything bad with OPA1632 as it is a full differential design opamp and I'm not a pro on circuitry. My question is, is there any possibility to swap OPA6132 with any conventional opamp like the 992 with circuit modification?

Application of the SI discrete OPA. I was wondering a bit about this for the 9038. I was kind of wondering if a SI OPA for I/V, followed by a discrete diamond buffer stage for driving the output might be a reasonable solution.
How do you run the SI OPAs with the ESS 9018?
 
Nice work Russ and David. I'm planning for dual mono 9038 implementation, do you recommend BIII SE Pro 9038 over BIV for dual mono?

Regarding I/V stage, I see OPA1632 are extensively use since IVY I/V and will bring along to Mercury. I'm currently using Sonic Imagery Labs 992 discrete opamps for my 9018 (not Buffalo:shy:) and by so far it is the best sounding opamp I have used. I'm not saying anything bad with OPA1632 as it is a full differential design opamp and I'm not a pro on circuitry. My question is, is there any possibility to swap OPA6132 with any conventional opamp like the 992 with circuit modification?

You will need 2x 992 for each 1632

I could post a schematic if I am allowed by Russ.