March 30, 200917 yr x2 on that. I fully support what the TWP guys do but there are times that I wish they would stick with a design for a little while longer and not immediately jump to the next, newerbetterfasterquicker model. x3 on that. I'm looking forward to playing with one.
March 31, 200917 yr This just in... Nice! Would love to see a schematic, to work out how things are different from the old Buffalo......
April 4, 200917 yr I would say not yet released. They usually let people know ahead of time when they will go on sale..
April 4, 200917 yr $469 for the board and $549 with power supplies. Naaman, You mean with the new power supplies they were working on since Christmas right? Different than the IVY ones?
April 4, 200917 yr It looks like it's the older PSs. No idea when the newer Placid PS will be available.
April 4, 200917 yr Naaman, You mean with the new power supplies they were working on since Christmas right? Different than the IVY ones? IVY is their active I/V and line stage. The new power supply has been in development since WELL before Christmas. Russ canned it temporarily because it worked but didn't behave very well. Though by the sounds of it, the new Buffalo has fairly substantial on-board voltage regulation...... I'm not convinced that you will need anything better than the LM317 based regulators they currently sell.
April 5, 200917 yr So is this new Buffalo going to require an Ivy or Counterpoint to sound it's best, or is that built in to the new board?
April 5, 200917 yr All built in. Just IVY built in right? I found that choice odd given all of the positive stuff that Russ had been posting about the Counterpoint.
April 5, 200917 yr I think the reason they went with the Ivy II on the initial B32 is because it gave them better #s since everything was on one board. The counterpoint would be on option on the second B32 board that allows more flexibility in configuration. Oh what to do.
April 5, 200917 yr Just IVY built in right? I found that choice odd given all of the positive stuff that Russ had been posting about the Counterpoint. Heavily updated IVY. Counterpoint is a funny one. Russ likes it, but I think that the design is a bit finicky. He still seems to worry about turn off thump and DC offset. I think the reason they went with the Ivy II on the initial B32 is because it gave them better #s since everything was on one board. The counterpoint would be on option on the second B32 board that allows more flexibility in configuration. Yep. We can't forget that there is a second DAC-only tweakers board coming that will allow the use of IVY II, Counterpoint, or any other I/V stage the user desires. Oh what to do. I'm sticking with my existing Buffalo
April 5, 200917 yr Does Twisted Pear use separate analog and digital ground planes? It's hard to tell if they do. From the schematics of the Opus and original Buffalo it looks like the digital and analog grounds are shared?
April 5, 200917 yr Does Twisted Pear use separate analog and digital ground planes? It's hard to tell if they do. From the schematics of the Opus and original Buffalo it looks like the digital and analog grounds are shared? NFI. I can normally follow a schematic OK, but the original Buffalo schematic bakes my noodle
April 5, 200917 yr So $549.00 includes most everything needed, save for case and connectors? Seems like a pretty decent deal to me. I'm assuming that if I desired multiple switched digital inputs I could add the S/PDIF 4:1 MUX/Receiver Module?
April 5, 200917 yr So $549.00 includes most everything needed, save for case and connectors? You will need power transformers as well. I'm assuming that if I desired multiple switched digital inputs I could add the S/PDIF 4:1 MUX/Receiver Module? Yep, that is pretty much it. You should be able to power the MUX from the second channel of the LCDPS. You can also add optical and USB receiver modules with no worries.
April 5, 200917 yr NFI. I can normally follow a schematic OK, but the original Buffalo schematic bakes my noodle I think they're following Guido Tent's advice here: http://www.tentlabs.com/InfoSupport/page35/files/Supply_decoupling.pdf and not separating the digital and analog ground planes. This goes against pretty much every suggested layout by every DAC manufacturer, but Guido may still be right. I wish there was some good resource for this.
April 5, 200917 yr I think they're following Guido Tent's advice here: http://www.tentlabs.com/InfoSupport/page35/files/Supply_decoupling.pdf and not separating the digital and analog ground planes. This goes against pretty much every suggested layout by every DAC manufacturer, but Guido may still be right. I wish there was some good resource for this. Might be worth your while to ask Russ in the Buffalo thread on DIY Audio for confirmation. I am sure that he will be more than happy to give you a definitive answer
April 5, 200917 yr I think they're following Guido Tent's advice here: http://www.tentlabs.com/InfoSupport/page35/files/Supply_decoupling.pdf and not separating the digital and analog ground planes. This goes against pretty much every suggested layout by every DAC manufacturer, but Guido may still be right. I wish there was some good resource for this. I'd take a look here. DIYHiFi.org • View topic - Ground question
April 5, 200917 yr I'd take a look here. DIYHiFi.org • View topic - Ground question That's fascinating, particularly the Henry Ott links. Thanks.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now