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

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
NicMac  
#1 Posted : Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:32:33 AM(UTC)
NicMac

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 2/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 299
Location: Italy

You asked for feed-back so here is some.
The old USB->I2S and SPDIF->I2S converters really only has some meaning in the context of the Opus and COD DAC. Even with these DAC's full functionality would still be supported by a USB/SPDIF - MUX combo.
For Buffalo users a small panel mounted USB-> SPDIF converter makes much more sense. Level shifting does not seem necessary as it is likely to be used either alone or together with the MUX. Maybe an optional pulse-transformer on the SPDIF output would be nice.

As the Buffalo cost a little bit more than an average DAC most customers are likely to want to use it with more than one input and therefore need a MUX.
Maybe the current MUX is a bit of an overshoot as I really see no use for the I2S output when using it with the Buffalo. A "Lite" version doing (only) source switching, galvanic isolation and level shifting would be very welcome.

Other wishes:
A general change to 0.1" terminals. A more compact OTTO

Anyway thanks for great products and great support.

Nic

Edited by user Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:35:06 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Shaman  
#2 Posted : Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:29:15 AM(UTC)
Shaman

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 1/11/2009(UTC)
Posts: 70
Location: Greece

Sidenius112 wrote:
As the Buffalo cost a little bit more than an average DAC most customers are likely to want to use it with more than one input and therefore need a MUX.
Maybe the current MUX is a bit of an overshoot as I really see no use for the I2S output when using it with the Buffalo. A "Lite" version doing (only) source switching, galvanic isolation and level shifting would be very welcome.


/signed

Keep up the good work. Applause
sp502  
#3 Posted : Friday, July 3, 2009 5:16:57 AM(UTC)
sp502

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 8/24/2008(UTC)
Posts: 11

Sidenius112 wrote:


As the Buffalo cost a little bit more than an average DAC most customers are likely to want to use it with more than one input and therefore need a MUX.
Maybe the current MUX is a bit of an overshoot as I really see no use for the I2S output when using it with the Buffalo. A "Lite" version doing (only) source switching, galvanic isolation and level shifting would be very welcome.



With I2C support for input selection it would be ideal!

NicMac  
#4 Posted : Friday, July 3, 2009 6:35:55 AM(UTC)
NicMac

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 2/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 299
Location: Italy

sp502 wrote:
Sidenius112 wrote:


As the Buffalo cost a little bit more than an average DAC most customers are likely to want to use it with more than one input and therefore need a MUX.
Maybe the current MUX is a bit of an overshoot as I really see no use for the I2S output when using it with the Buffalo. A "Lite" version doing (only) source switching, galvanic isolation and level shifting would be very welcome.



With I2C support for input selection it would be ideal!


And if it could also route a 4-wire I2S signal (selectable by I2C obviously) it would be close to perfection!!!

Everything else upstream in the signal path could be done by add-on modules like Toslink->SPDIF, USB->SPDIF, ASRC and so fourth. The Buffalo is so good that the current problem is in getting the virgin signals redirected to the DAC with as little wiring and data processing as possible.
Brian Donegan  
#5 Posted : Friday, July 3, 2009 6:42:47 AM(UTC)
Brian Donegan

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administration, Customer
Joined: 10/24/2006(UTC)
Posts: 2,868
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 141 time(s) in 134 post(s)
Okay, we are planning some things that while not exactly what you are describing, the end result will be along these lines. More to come...
Shaman  
#6 Posted : Friday, July 3, 2009 9:59:55 AM(UTC)
Shaman

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 1/11/2009(UTC)
Posts: 70
Location: Greece

Good news!
I knew you guys wouldn't let us down!
MashBill  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, July 15, 2009 6:52:25 PM(UTC)
MashBill

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 1/5/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1
Location: Kansas, USA

While I like your ideas for the new USB receiver, I hope you continue offering the older version with analog out. I bought one to use on my office computer. It worked so well, that I wanted to buy a couple more. Alas, you were sold out....

If you have 1 or 2 laying around, please contact me. I would like to buy them.

Thanks,
Bill
ustas  
#8 Posted : Monday, August 3, 2009 11:40:59 AM(UTC)
ustas

Rank: Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 3/31/2009(UTC)
Posts: 15
Location: Russia

Sidenius112 wrote:
sp502 wrote:
Sidenius112 wrote:


As the Buffalo cost a little bit more than an average DAC most customers are likely to want to use it with more than one input and therefore need a MUX.
Maybe the current MUX is a bit of an overshoot as I really see no use for the I2S output when using it with the Buffalo. A "Lite" version doing (only) source switching, galvanic isolation and level shifting would be very welcome.



With I2C support for input selection it would be ideal!


And if it could also route a 4-wire I2S signal (selectable by I2C obviously) it would be close to perfection!!!

Everything else upstream in the signal path could be done by add-on modules like Toslink->SPDIF, USB->SPDIF, ASRC and so fourth. The Buffalo is so good that the current problem is in getting the virgin signals redirected to the DAC with as little wiring and data processing as possible.


I think two I2S switched inputs (USB>I2S and pure I2S) sure selectable by I2C and little trigger for DSD/SPDIF switch on Buff32S . Also, for perfection 2 SPDIF(coax) + 1 TOSLINK + 1 Balanced AES/EBU. ASRC in/out very good idea.
NicMac  
#9 Posted : Monday, August 3, 2009 2:58:13 PM(UTC)
NicMac

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 2/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 299
Location: Italy

Well - while we are at the suggestions (for AC1).
Front panel: "window" with display and IR sensor and one knob (operating a digital encoder with push-button function).
Short push turns on the DAC. Rotation changes volume. Short cycles between the different inputs. Long push turns off the DAC (leaving it in a sleep mode with power only for the controller).
More sophisticated things (filter selection, display of sampling frequencies etc.) could be done from the remote only.
Have a look at the way its done in the RelaiXed preamp http://jos.vaneijndhoven.net/relaixed/. Also the way DAC is taught to respond to any kind of remote remote is very intuitive and easy with this (excellent) preamp.
Just my two cents.
Nic
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
GuestUser (2)
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.