[johnwmclean]

Just checked into the TPA website, there’s a nice teaser pic there of new up and coming Buffalo II. Twisted Pear Audio
There is some good news for those wishing to simply change the original module out for the new Buffalo II, the footprint is still 2" x 3.3"

 

[rds]

Wow, the Buffalo gets more updates than the iphone. Looks cool though.

 

[FallenAngel]

I feel a thought coming... I'm thinking ES9018 + Output transformers

 

[adamus]

I already have some sowters on hand

 

[apatN]

I was notified too.
They also allow for easy stacking. I can only imagine the different possibilities of this wonderful DAC.

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwmclean /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is some good news for those wishing to simply change the original module out for the new Buffalo II, the footprint is still 2" x 3.3"

Is there enough room in your chassis for this new combo?

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatN /img/forum/go_quote.gif They also allow for easy stacking. I can only imagine the different possibilities of this wonderful DAC.

The stacking was one of the key things that got me building TPA stuff in the first place, but they started moving away from it...... I'm so glad they have returned to the original form factor.

Now if the Ballsie Lite could stack on top of that as well for easy single ended outputs, I would be a very happy chappy

 

[apatN]

^ How do you like the ballsie? Is it a worthwhile upgrade if I am using SE only?

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatN /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ How do you like the ballsie? Is it a worthwhile upgrade if I am using SE only?

Don't know, haven't heard it. I have the original IVY that has both balanced and unbalanced outputs, and both can be used at the same time.

If I do upgrade, I would want to keep that functionality.

 

[johnwmclean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beefy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is there enough room in your chassis for this new combo?

I could order another base panel and re-configure the layout with the placids in mind as well. The problem is your still left with the old modules to sell off anyway, maybe selling the total unit is a better viable option - and more attractive for re-sale.

I’m not jumping on this bandwagon, I’d be happy to re-build another unit every 3 or so years, it’s probably much wiser waiting for AMB to come to the party with a reference DAC

a company I’d much rather deal with.

 

[digger945]

Did Brian mention what the doohickey is on top of the Buffalo board?
Interesting to say the least. These guys could make a business out of doing this sort of thing

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwmclean /img/forum/go_quote.gif I’m not jumping on this bandwagon, I’d be happy to re-build another unit every 3 or so years, it’s probably much wiser waiting for AMB to come to the party with a reference DAC a company I’d much rather deal with.

Yeah, if you try and keep up with TPA gear you will be either disappointed or frustrated because they definitely push to be on the bleeding edge. Not better or worse than AMB's approach of solid designs that last a long time, just different

Quote:

Originally Posted by digger945 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Did Brian mention what the doohickey is on top of the Buffalo board?

I'd bet it is something to do with analogue voltage regulation or reference. Russ made a comment about a cool new way of doing that on diyaudio......

 

[grenert]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnwmclean /img/forum/go_quote.gif I’m not jumping on this bandwagon, I’d be happy to re-build another unit every 3 or so years, it’s probably much wiser waiting for AMB to come to the party with a reference DAC a company I’d much rather deal with.

I understand where you are coming from. While I am happy that TPA has made Sabre chip DACs readily available for DIYers, I prefer the process that AMB and others follow, which is incorporating the input of others and open prototyping during the development process. It definitely seems to cut down on the subsequent "tweaks" and "upgrades."

For example, I found it difficult to keep track of the optimal parts values for the original IVY (C1-C4 going from 10nF to jumpered; C13-C16 going from 10nF to 1nF; R1-R4 values changing...). It was especially annoying to buy the IVY kit and then having to remove and replace parts with ones that were not included with the kit

.

I kept thinking, "Shouldn't this have already been figured out?" If not, perhaps they should just be selling PCBs, and then we'd expect that some parts values may change. To me, a kit implies a finished product design.

 

[n_maher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif I feel a thought coming... I'm thinking ES9018 + Output transformers

Do you crave high output impedance for some reason?

And it says right in the post that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisted Pear In this picture you can see the IVY II modules mounted atop and to the sides of the Buffalo II. These are a redesign of the IVY, and has inputs the line up directly with the Buffalo's outputs.

Or did I misread the question?

 

[cobaltmute]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grenert /img/forum/go_quote.gif I understand where you are coming from. While I am happy that TPA has made Sabre chip DACs readily available for DIYers, I prefer the process that AMB and others follow, which is incorporating the input of others and open prototyping during the development process. It definitely seems to cut down on the subsequent "tweaks" and "upgrades." For example, I found it difficult to keep track of the optimal parts values for the original IVY (C1-C4 going from 10nF to jumpered; C13-C16 going from 10nF to 1nF; R1-R4 values changing...). It was especially annoying to buy the IVY kit and then having to remove and replace parts with ones that were not included with the kit . I kept thinking, "Shouldn't this have already been figured out?" If not, perhaps they should just be selling PCBs, and then we'd expect that some parts values may change. To me, a kit implies a finished product design.

You can tweak an amb design as well. The difference is that amb doesn't promote heavy tweaking. Once a design is finished, it is finished.

And the bottom line is that the tweaks are all optional anyways. You could have bought the TPA kits and stopped right there. You chose to get on their tweak bandwagon.

But that is part of the audiophile bandwagon - "buy the latest and greatest". It may not be any better, it is just newer.

 

[grenert]

AMB doesn't sell kits. To me, that makes a difference. Your opinion may differ.