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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 this  Somebody asked earlier in this thread about 10nf so I've tried it, sorry but IMHO 1nf is a lot better here
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/17/2008(UTC) Posts: 921  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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
