[Good Times]

I want to try going balanced, and need advice.

My source will be either CDP (coax) or direct from a computer (FLAC). Will be recabling my HD650s for the job.

I want to try balanced as cost effectively as possible, so I thought the Opus with two boards would be a good place to start. I currently have a Mini3 and would love to mod it (with another) for a balanced amp build (similar to N_Maher’s old build). Then prob run a 4-pin XLR to my cans.

Any advice on going down this path? My DIY skills I'd say are intermediate. Or would I be better off going for some 2nd hand pre-built gear to see if I like the sound first? (like this)

 

[TimmyMac]

Why 2 Opus boards if you want to be cost-effective? The WM8741 is enough of a match for the mini3 I'd say.

 

[Good Times]

Don't I need a min of 2 to achieve a dual mono (for a balanced setup)?

 

[XXII]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Good Times /img/forum/go_quote.gif Don't I need a min of 2 to achieve a dual mono (for a balanced setup)?

The OPUS is already balanced AFAIK. But if you've budgeted for 2 already, then might as well go for a Buffalo32s

 

[Good Times]

Ah, I didn't realise. No I'd prefer to go the cheapest option route for my first foray, and it it's something I pursue, would be aiming for a Buffalo/B22 (thinking years ahead here).

 

[glt]

If you are going for OPUS, try my open source controller to access all the features of the DAC... H I F I D U I N O

 

[Good Times]

Damn you - now I have a whole lot more reading to do over Easter

Ha, thanks for the link, some great stuff there.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by glt /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you are going for OPUS, try my open source controller to access all the features of the DAC... H I F I D U I N O

aha! I see you are on headfi, now, too

I ran into you on the arduino forums.

it seems this concept is gaining momentum.


btw, just yesterday I got my DIY preamp/volume control to be ethernet/ip/web enabled! lots of fun

I will also be releasing source when its at the point when all features are fully working. new things are added almost daily, though - its a trip, I tell you!

 

[glt]

Yeah, good to see you here too. Long time member, but nothing to contribute until now...

It would be good more people in audio will use Arduino as most chips have software interface. It is also good for audio to think more open-source. I'm not sure if this thing is gaining momentum, but I shared at diyaudio and got no response.

I will be looking forward to borrow some of your code .

 

[linuxworks]

mine will be open source, too. so things can merge and maybe we'll have a super-controller someday

right now I'm trying to sort out how to balance what -can- be done with what -should- be done (lol). the webserver thing is more of a what -can- be done and no one but me would want it, I don't think

but I like to design knowing how far you can stretch things and then back off a bit so you have 'headroom'. so to speak

I'm actually more proud of my user interface and feature set than the code, itself. once the ui/features settle, I'll submit the code for review and i'm sure a lot will change - but that's ok and what's what I'm intending.

you are talking to the DAC right now and I'm talking to a volume controller. it seems natural to have the controller be able to talk to many different things (right now, I also talk to the ethernet device, the lcd display and the PGA chip but I'm thinking of even more things it can talk to, so that the design will allow for it, later).

wouldn't it be neat of stereo equip was like data-comm equip, in that most things will be 'visible' as networked objects and things can 'manage' each other over a LAN connection? I'm sort of thinking along those lines, but trying to stay small scale and using $4 arduino chips to do it

 

[pabbi1]

Something like this? Using CTH, rather than MillettMax, you can bring this in ~ $550 ($200 OPUS, 2x $130 for CTH kits, & case / trans) - tight, but doable.

 

[qusp]

very interesting

does this mean that you would be able to use say a jailbroken iphone or itouch as a remote?? just a though; would be well cool to be able to control a buffalo with an iphone.

I cant see that it would be a stretch from managing over ethernet/LAN to wifi/bluetooth.

of course there is heaps of work involved, no doubting that, but seems a logical progression to me and likely you have already though of it.

either way.. kudos to the 2 of you.

using it this way you could actually leave out the LCD and have all functionality on the remote. I think such a thing if it could be modular, to be used with other makes of DAC and controllers would have wide application and perhaps you would rethink your open source leanings at least for some part of it.

cheers

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qusp /img/forum/go_quote.gif very interesting does this mean that you would be able to use say a jailbroken iphone or itouch as a remote?? just a though; would be well cool to be able to control a buffalo with an iphone.

I spent most of today trying to get a better web output from this thing.

this is what I got so far. its exactly the 'front panel view' of the lcd in actual reality

it even draws the little lcd dots in the bar graph just like the real thing

no 'sets' yet (no ability to change values) - just read what is currently set. it does show the actual input device name, the output device name and volume level. its not too bad as a demo or starting point. however I have a strong feeling this is about as much as a SINGLE CHIP can take and any more will have to be put into another co-processor and let that handle the ethernet i/o and only interrupt the main cpu when there are local 'mgmt data' things to exchange.

at some point when 'sets' (POST for cgi forms) is supported then you'll really be able to control this thing with wireless IP of any kind (IP enabled phone, ipaq, IP palm pilot or whatever).

 

[glt]

Looks very nice. How about an iPhone app?

Are you using wiznet or xport? Would xport built in web server offload some of the processing?

 

[linuxworks]

I have tried wiznet but not the other (xport) yet.

there seems to be some kind of bug in the dev environment since having 'too much code' causes the webserver to not init properly (or the whole ip stack). the lack of good debug tools also is slowing me down.

so far, if things work - great. if not, back off and try something else

not the best way to do development but it IS a work-in-progress (this arduino thing).

more and more, I'm thinking the core function should run on its own cpu and any 'mgmt modules' should be add-ons in a true hardware sense. that's often how datacomm systems work and it might apply here, too. a 2nd chip is $4. no big deal

the wiznet chip and board is close to $50. so going 2 cpu isn't expensive considering the cost of the NIC system, itself!