[johnwmclean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimmyMac /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's certainly been a success for them, anyway, having an effective monopoly over chips to the DIY market (at least for those who don't want to sign their life away). Means they can charge whatever they want. Not sure it's a boon to us though - there's still no sign of the barebones board they promised as long as their high-dollar boards keep selling.

So the boys from TPA have been making a killing you reckon...

and of course you know how cheap it is to produce these boards

 

[frex]

johnwmclean,

You seem (in your signature) to have you own TPA Buffallo DAC including the Sabre DAC. Do you know if a battery of measures they were made on the DAC ?
I would be very interested to see the result...

Frex

 

[qusp]

yes, there are other DIY efforts including this chip starting to become available and in a more DIY fashion than the TP boards. the 'ackodac' prototype is being printed as we speak, i'm actually using the 9012 on mine as i'm not aiming for multichannel output. makes for a much easier and neater layout; the rest of the chip specs are identical, just means you dont have to combine the channels onboard, its done in the chip.

yes you do need to sign an NDA to develop for this chip, but I personally dont have a problem with that. (doesnt effect me though) acko is a single person who happened to sign it and he is able to design with the chip, simple as that. sure there are other things he CANT do with the info, but hey, who cares as long as you got what you wanted right??

 

[qusp]

and true enough, new developments including the D1B1 buffered output stage for the ackodac stack, are taking this project to a new level. its gonna be way fun

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qusp /img/forum/go_quote.gif makes for a much easier and neater layout; the rest of the chip specs are identical, just means you dont have to combine the channels onboard, its done in the chip.

I don't think that is right. You don't have to combine the channels onboard on the Sabre 9008 or 9018 - it is done via firmware.

[EDIT] Actually, you do have to connect all the pins from the separate channels, but that is all you have to do.

 

[qusp]

yes, thats what I meant, just saying it makes for a cleaner and simpler layout if you only need 2 channel operation like I do. because i'm sure that is doine with opamps on the TP board, thus the need for 4 OPA1632 and a couple of other opamps when only 2 x opa1632 would suffice for balanced 2 channel operation

 

[Beefy]

[EDIT] Not worth it.

 

[qusp]

not sure what that was about, just stating the facts of the matter. i'm not criticizing anyone or anyones design. i'm not even sure the 9012 was available when TP started to design for the buffalo32. just saying that was my decision when faced with the choice of using the 9018 or 9012 on my ackodac. other people may choose the 9018 because they want multichannel, I dont need that, so i'm happy to use the 2 channel chip, if only because I dont have to shell for a couple more opamps; not that i'm using any

 

[Nebby]

Certainly understandable point of view there qusp

Somewhat interested in seeing what will develop with the ackodac myself.

Btw, any chance you could consolidate your sig? An 18 line sig is a bit on the large side

 

[Nebby]

oops.

 

[amb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by qusp /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... yes you do need to sign an NDA to develop for this chip, but I personally dont have a problem with that. (doesnt effect me though) acko is a single person who happened to sign it and he is able to design with the chip, simple as that. sure there are other things he CANT do with the info, but hey, who cares as long as you got what you wanted right??

Yes I do care. If I sign an NDA, it would severely restrict what information I could divulge. It's called a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT for a reason. This means I won't be able to conduct the type of "open source" DIY project that I do. I couldn't publish the schematic diagram, I couldn't provide in depth circuit descriptions, the technical details about the chip, or involve the public in design decisions. I could not give good support to builders, and any website related to the project would be largely be devoid of useful info. Each time when I get asked a question, I would have frame the answer in a way that won't violate the NDA in any way.

Not to mention that the chips are not available from the usual distributors -- you have to jump through hoops to get them.

Given the open info and availability of products from their competition, suffice to say that unless the closed policy changes, an ESS chip will not be on my horizon. It's not so clearly superior to anything else to make me want to sell my soul.

 

[luvdunhill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amb /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not so clearly superior to anything else to make me want to sell my soul.

perhaps the devil is in the NDA protected details

 

[Beefy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amb /img/forum/go_quote.gif I couldn't publish the schematic diagram

........? Buffalo Schematic

 

[qusp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by amb /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes I do care. If I sign an NDA, it would severely restrict what information I could divulge. It's called a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT for a reason. This means I won't be able to conduct the type of "open source" DIY project that I do. I couldn't publish the schematic diagram, I couldn't provide in depth circuit descriptions, the technical details about the chip, or involve the public in design decisions. I could not give good support to builders, and any website related to the project would be largely be devoid of useful info. Each time when I get asked a question, I would have frame the answer in a way that won't violate the NDA in any way. Not to mention that the chips are not available from the usual distributors -- you have to jump through hoops to get them. Given the open info and availability of products from their competition, suffice to say that unless the closed policy changes, an ESS chip will not be on my horizon. It's not so clearly superior to anything else to make me want to sell my soul.

well yes, sure if your business is built around the sharing of info, I can get that, but as far as an individual is concerned I dont see the problem. different points of view I guess. but yeah i'm not sure that is correct about the schematic, perhaps only with the 9018/12??

 

[MASantos]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beefy /img/forum/go_quote.gif ........? Buffalo Schematic

That's the schematic from the buffalo, not for the ess sabre dac IC. I think AMB was referring to the later.