Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


2 Pages12>
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
risingtenpi  
#1 Posted : Sunday, March 22, 2009 12:41:31 AM(UTC)
risingtenpi

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 4/25/2008(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Brisbane, Australia

I am a little confused about your best found config for IVY 1.0, for the Buffalo V1.0.

*should I have caps across R13-16?
*should I have caps from each input to gnd?
*C1-2, C7-8 included or not?
*Jumpers across R5-8?
*Jumpers across R17-20?

Thanks mate.

Michael
Russ White  
#2 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 7:07:56 AM(UTC)
Russ White

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
Hi Michael,

Here is my personal recomendation based on some new testing I have done.

Make R1-4 357 or 392R.

Omit C1-4.

Jumpers for R5-8;

1nf caps at each input to GND.

Give that a try. :) I think you will like it.

The BAL/SE stage can remain as stock.

Cheers!
Russ

Edited by user Monday, March 23, 2009 9:39:38 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Ichiban  
#3 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 8:00:32 AM(UTC)
Ichiban

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 6/14/2007(UTC)
Posts: 30
Location: WesternNewYork

By omitting c1-4 do you mean
to leave that circuit path open?
So that r17-20 would not require
jumpering?

Edited by user Monday, March 23, 2009 8:07:58 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Ichiban attached the following image(s):
IVY Mod Schematic 23Mar09_Sm25.JPG (11kb) downloaded 1,299 time(s).
IVY Mod Schematic 23Mar09.JPG (33kb) downloaded 1,284 time(s).

You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
Russ White  
#4 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 9:39:08 AM(UTC)
Russ White

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
Ahh, yes I meant R5-R8 to jumper. I should have opened the schematic. Sorry for the confusion. R17-20 would simply be omitted, or left alone as the cct segment there would be open.

I have edited the post so as not to confuse any more people.

Cheers.
Russ
Russ White  
#5 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 10:04:28 AM(UTC)
Russ White

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
For a bit more background, what I discovered was that THD improved and square waves looked much better.
pcking  
#6 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 7:49:52 PM(UTC)
pcking

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 9/24/2008(UTC)
Posts: 14
Location: Singapore

Hi Russ,

are these settings also applicable to IVY 2.0 & Buffalo 1.1 ?

Regards,
Adrian.

Russ White wrote:
Hi Michael,

Here is my personal recomendation based on some new testing I have done.

Make R1-4 357 or 392R.

Omit C1-4.

Jumpers for R5-8;

1nf caps at each input to GND.

Give that a try. :) I think you will like it.

The BAL/SE stage can remain as stock.

Cheers!
Russ
Russ White  
#7 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 8:11:47 PM(UTC)
Russ White

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
pcking wrote:
Hi Russ,

are these settings also applicable to IVY 2.0 & Buffalo 1.1 ?

Regards,
Adrian.



Yes. :)
pcking  
#8 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 8:30:07 PM(UTC)
pcking

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 9/24/2008(UTC)
Posts: 14
Location: Singapore

Thanks. Any issues if I were to use 10nF caps for C13-C16 instead of your recommended 1nF ?

Reason I asked is bcos I have already upgraded my C1 to C4 to some good oil caps & it would be a waste if I cannot re-use them since you have recommended to have C1-C4 removed in this new config.

Thanks.

Russ White wrote:
pcking wrote:
Hi Russ,

are these settings also applicable to IVY 2.0 & Buffalo 1.1 ?

Regards,
Adrian.



Yes. :)
Russ White  
#9 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 8:33:31 PM(UTC)
Russ White

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
I don't think it should pose any serious issue. It should be ok. But I would look to lowering it if possible.
risingtenpi  
#10 Posted : Monday, March 23, 2009 11:31:53 PM(UTC)
risingtenpi

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 4/25/2008(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Well that was exactly what I was looking for mate, thanks.

Just to clarify, those recommendations are using IVY1.0 Resistor and Cap terminology, or are they using 2.0? (and I should cross reference accordingly)

thanks,

Michael
JonP  
#11 Posted : Friday, April 3, 2009 12:17:57 AM(UTC)
JonP

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 4/3/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4
Location: Irvine, CA

I'll give it a try...

Could you tell me how much of the improvement is due to the resistor change? I currently have the "stock" 187 ohm, and am wondering if that might be too much output, since I listen in "headphone amp mode" sometimes.

If it's not a huge difference, I probably will leave them and just do the cap changes.
leo  
#12 Posted : Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:44:28 PM(UTC)
leo

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 8/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 43
Location: UK

I've just tried this using

360R R1-4
1nf Evox PFR C13-16

So far the OPA1632's are running cooler , seems to be more stable, sound is more neutral

Its worth a try guys, thanks for sharing Russ!
Russ White  
#13 Posted : Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:13:13 PM(UTC)
Russ White

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
Your welcome. :) I am glad you tried it. I would encourage everyone to do it if they are able. It is definitely much better.

BTW All of this information came out my testing for IVY II. :)

Cheers!
Russ
leo  
#14 Posted : Friday, April 24, 2009 1:10:10 PM(UTC)
leo

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 8/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 43
Location: UK

Come on guys, give this a try and post opinions, I'd be amazed if you did not hear a difference.

I totally agree this is better Russ! A LOT better!
leo  
#15 Posted : Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:06:38 AM(UTC)
leo

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 8/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 43
Location: UK

Did you try comparing slow roll off against fast roll off on the Buffalo filter setting since this last mod Russ?
Russ White  
#16 Posted : Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:26:42 AM(UTC)
Russ White

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
Yes, I would not suggest slow roll off at all. Perhaps there is some reason to use it, but I have not found it yet. :)

Cheers!
Russ
leo  
#17 Posted : Saturday, April 25, 2009 6:46:24 AM(UTC)
leo

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 8/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 43
Location: UK

Thats interesting Russ thanks

Listening to Buffalo today I'm finding its the best I've heard it, things like piano just sound more realistic to my ears.

I can't wait to test Buffalo32, I just hope its at least a bit better than thisPray

Somebody asked earlier in this thread about 10nf so I've tried it, sorry but IMHO 1nf is a lot better here
Russ White  
#18 Posted : Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:01:03 AM(UTC)
Russ White

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,979
Location: Nashville, TN

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 89 time(s) in 83 post(s)
Leo, I would tend to agree, 1nf to 2.2nf is probably the ideal range.
avr300  
#19 Posted : Sunday, April 26, 2009 11:35:18 AM(UTC)
avr300

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 6/17/2008(UTC)
Posts: 921
Denmark

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 70 time(s) in 69 post(s)
leo wrote:
Come on guys, give this a try and post opinions, I'd be amazed if you did not hear a difference.

I totally agree this is better Russ! A LOT better!


Agree, this mod brings nice things.
neb001  
#20 Posted : Monday, April 27, 2009 6:30:12 AM(UTC)
neb001

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 7/30/2007(UTC)
Posts: 31

Probably off topic for this thread, but are the changes to the parts also applicable to an IVY hooked up to a COD?
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
GuestUser (4)
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.