While I don't appreciate your shameless product plug I have to ask: Is DIY now just wiring up a few boards, wow you don't even need a soldering iron!
I looked at the buffalo dac and hey it's "sold out". Do they have stock? No. It's sold out. Always. Then the $250 price tag is quite a markup for the DAC chip and smt support parts, which makeup maybe 1/4 of that cost. What would an entire DAC system then cost?
So, nya buying ready made isn't much DIY. People are buying the Chinese DAC boards from eBay, complete with PSU, reciever, DAC, output etc. At least they are thru-hole and can be modded and for $99 this where people are going right now. Sad but true.
I don't find piecing together other people's high level building blocks to be very satisfying, but I really enjoy the low level design part, and not everybody has the same level of talent or desire.
I post my designs and I don't get much response here, so maybe a low level scratch-built design isn't so interesting for others. (or my designs suck)
I object to the ESS chip because it's not sold through normal retail channels. If I can't get it through digikey, or mouser, or newark etc, then for all practical purposes, It doesn't exist.
Sheldon
well with due respect its clear you have no idea what the parts of the buffalo II are worth. the dac chip alone is worth about 60USD, clock for the 80 or 100mhz version ~30, supporting parts like the oscons, thin film R's and NPO caps probably another 30-35 at least, PCBs ~10-15, regulators ~10-15 (total $150-160) show me a manufacturer that makes less markup than that and i'll show you someone that fails.
I agree that the TP stuff isnt so DIY, but the buffalo II allows the use of any power supply and output stage you fancy. if you want to use the sabredacs then in most cases you will have to put up with some proprietary design for the IV stage and layout, thats just how it is, so slam it on mot being so DIY, fine, but to call the price inflated is just plain naive IMO.
if you want a more DIY sabre based dac go for the ackodac, mostly finished a build for one now and I can say its pretty impressive. only thing I got preloaded was the dac chip and clock, I dont have a hot air station and when dropping this sort of cash on a dac chip and build, I would prefer to let someone else do that part; for 10 bucks extra its a lot less stress and when pushing the limits of the resolution like this (i'm going for 384khz capability) better that part is done as cleanly as possible
the rest I bought just as PCBs, sourced the parts including finding alternatives etc, sourced and built power supply designs and regulators for the IV, headamp and input stage sections, did up the panels in cad ordered copper cladding for lining the inside and heatsinking (bonded to the AL case)
I already have a buffalo32 and buffalo II, the former is in the workshop rig and the latter is filling in for the ackodac until its done and then going to be modified for a portable dac/headphone amp. The power supply, charge system and input stage are my doing, along with the casework and the IV stage has been modified from the prototype opamp IV for ackodac. so I enjoy a more DIY experience too, thats the reason why I've moved away from the TP stuff of late, painting by numbers isnt really all that satisfying; but if it means more people get into DIY then all well and good IMO
I agree that the TP stuff isnt so DIY, but the buffalo II allows the use of any power supply and output stage you fancy. if you want to use the sabredacs then in most cases you will have to put up with some proprietary design for the IV stage and layout, thats just how it is, so slam it on mot being so DIY, fine, but to call the price inflated is just plain naive IMO.
if you want a more DIY sabre based dac go for the ackodac, mostly finished a build for one now and I can say its pretty impressive. only thing I got preloaded was the dac chip and clock, I dont have a hot air station and when dropping this sort of cash on a dac chip and build, I would prefer to let someone else do that part; for 10 bucks extra its a lot less stress and when pushing the limits of the resolution like this (i'm going for 384khz capability) better that part is done as cleanly as possible
the rest I bought just as PCBs, sourced the parts including finding alternatives etc, sourced and built power supply designs and regulators for the IV, headamp and input stage sections, did up the panels in cad ordered copper cladding for lining the inside and heatsinking (bonded to the AL case)
I already have a buffalo32 and buffalo II, the former is in the workshop rig and the latter is filling in for the ackodac until its done and then going to be modified for a portable dac/headphone amp. The power supply, charge system and input stage are my doing, along with the casework and the IV stage has been modified from the prototype opamp IV for ackodac. so I enjoy a more DIY experience too, thats the reason why I've moved away from the TP stuff of late, painting by numbers isnt really all that satisfying; but if it means more people get into DIY then all well and good IMO
Last edited:
thats fine if you have access to or have yourself the skills needed to program an MCU, the sabre doesnt wake up so easy and needs a fairly specific startup procedure. the MCU for the ackodac has all the functionality you are looking for, thats why I mentioned it. you could possibly use the MCU module for ackodac with this PCB, though the advanced version is the one you want and it communicates via USB rather than i2c, a totally data connection, not for audio data.
not a lot of info on that page, the price is right tho
not a lot of info on that page, the price is right tho
The Sabre actually wakes up fine without any firmware (i.e. in hardware mode), with default settings suitable for many users. These won't be ideal for all users of course.
How was that shameless? He has nothing to do with TPA (I do).
I am chiming in here to respond to some comments about TPA.
First, everything we sell (apart from the Buffalo) is available as a schematic and a bare board, so you can DIY all you want. If you don't consider using a board DIY, then this project (subject of the thread) was never for you in the first place... design it and do it yourself.
We sell the Buffalo complete because the parts are just too expensive. We can't afford to stock a bunch of chips for when people accidentally destroy them. It's as simple as that.
Anything you can buy is just an aid. How much aid you want is up to you.
correct, I actually just found that out first hand last night. you just need to make sure all of the supplies turn on at the same time. early in the piece of the development of the ackodac we were having problems waking it up, but turned out to be lack of drive capability on one of the regs and it didnt like the TP volumite (funnily enough
It's unfortunate the DIY community failed to launch in this thread, it was way too big- almost like discussing a DIY car project in one thread.
My beef is with a commercial product being offered for sale in a open source DIY thread. How is Buffalo "open source" if the schematics and PCB are proprietary? I want to see the design before buying, people want to do mods and tailor things which is the spirit of DIY. Blindly buying a canned SMT board as a solution "so you can DIY all you want", seems strange, I'm used to component level DIY where you need a soldering iron to build something and have flexibility with part choices etc.
My beef is with a commercial product being offered for sale in a open source DIY thread. How is Buffalo "open source" if the schematics and PCB are proprietary? I want to see the design before buying, people want to do mods and tailor things which is the spirit of DIY. Blindly buying a canned SMT board as a solution "so you can DIY all you want", seems strange, I'm used to component level DIY where you need a soldering iron to build something and have flexibility with part choices etc.
It's not. I think I said
And it's not being sold here... I was responding to comments.
Also, the term Open Source, is completely inaccurate if you read how the thread was going. They were just going to design a DAC and call it open source. Hurtig and K&K already know everything, so they have no intention of including any one else's opinion in the design. That's fine, just don't call it "open source."
Last edited:
That in itself doesn't rule out the subsequent design being open source. I take it that Linus Torvalds didn't ask publicly for people's opinions on his original kernel before he opened it up - if he had there would still be arguments over what to include even now. Open source in that case meant all his code was available for inspection and there are no 'proprietary restrictions' on how it might be modified.
Sounds to me like a slightly cynical take on the whole affair
There CANNOT be an "open source DAC", it is just a misleading title. Unless you make the chips and passives from scratch...
The DAC's have application schematics, pin-out diagrams and software/hardware specs provided by the manufacturers and those are theirs to change, not open-source. The manufacturing process of the DAC chips is not "open source". As the one for capacitors and resistors. And board itself. And whatever else goes in.
The DAC's have application schematics, pin-out diagrams and software/hardware specs provided by the manufacturers and those are theirs to change, not open-source. The manufacturing process of the DAC chips is not "open source". As the one for capacitors and resistors. And board itself. And whatever else goes in.
I would like to retract this paragraph, but I can't, so I will just apologize for it.
I am sorry for posting a statement which is just the kind of thing I hate to read. It calls into question the character of people I do not know (actually know) and draws conclusions about their motivations. All statements like this really do is call into question the character and motivations of the person posting, and I regret it. I certainly don't harbor any ill-will about the people and the project, or the idea behind it. It was just a bad moment.
I am sorry for posting a statement which is just the kind of thing I hate to read. It calls into question the character of people I do not know (actually know) and draws conclusions about their motivations. All statements like this really do is call into question the character and motivations of the person posting, and I regret it. I certainly don't harbor any ill-will about the people and the project, or the idea behind it. It was just a bad moment.
That's just a misleading claim.
To me, an 'open source DAC' is eminently practical, its one thing I've been pondering for quite some time and will eventually introduce to the community in some form. But discussion about what to put in it won't be open to the community - design by committee never works. The open source nature is nothing to do with the initial design but really about documenting it and the build carefully so that people can opt to choose their own caps, resistors etc. and get the board built themselves if they prefer. With an open source DAC the design methodology is clearly explained so people begin to understand the rationale behind the design and this allows them to make their own modifications which hopefully will be shared with the community.
I'm firmly convinced that open source hardware is something valuable, definitely not something impossible.
Open source hardware? All the DAC's are "open source" by the fact that the schematics are free to download from manufacturer site. And they are "closed source" by the fact that manufacturing process is proprietary.
So, there it is... "open source" makes no sense in any other place than software creations.
Putting together a schematic diagram from two of the manufacturer's is nothing special that could be claimed as intellectual propriety (that could be made "open").
So, there it is... "open source" makes no sense in any other place than software creations.
Putting together a schematic diagram from two of the manufacturer's is nothing special that could be claimed as intellectual propriety (that could be made "open").
Seems to me there's some confusion in the language we use to talk about these things, so I'll just attempt to tidy that up first. 'DAC' can mean both a semiconductor chip doing the function of digital to analog conversion, and a system or component doing this function for audio.
So let me call the first of these a 'dac' and the second one a 'DAC' in the rest of this post.
No dacs are open source that I'm aware of, the internal circuits for them are not in the public domain. But then its jolly hard to modify a chip, well beyond the resources of a diyer. By and large we have no need to know the internal circuits of a dac - the manufacturer provides datasheets and app notes to tell us how to apply them.
Sometimes the manufacturer makes an evaluation board available for their dac - this is part way towards a DAC, but they don't generally make the manufacturing details available (gerbers, NC drill plots) for others to make their own.
The putting together of a schematic diagram using a dac is only part of what's needed to make an open source DAC. The diyer doing this would also need to build it and test it (including listening) sufficiently to be able to write it up for others to build.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.