Twisted Pear Buffalo Sabre DAC
Nov 10, 2009 at 6:06 PM Post #1,187 of 1,284
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianDonegan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
... You will like it, I promise. It will also remain ahead of the curve.


That's good enough for me! Different manufacturers are releasing affordable solutions based on the Sabre such as Eastern Electric and Oppo, it is good that TPA always aims to be ahead of the curve.
 
Nov 10, 2009 at 6:29 PM Post #1,188 of 1,284
Quote:

Different manufacturers are releasing affordable solutions based on the Sabre such as Eastern Electric and Oppo


Oppo is using the lesser Sabre (probably due to it being $30 less per chip) so no worries there.

Quote:

Any consideration of using dual ESS9018 chips in mono mode?


No. $100+ just in chips... If you really wanted to, I guess you could do it with two boards and some custom firmware.
 
Nov 10, 2009 at 9:33 PM Post #1,189 of 1,284
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianDonegan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well, it is in a state of flux, so I don't want to say anything that will not be true when it is done.


Arrgg, curiosity kills the cat
tongue.gif


If you can add an async USB input, that'd be awesome. My B32s is just finished yesterday and I hope there won't be a big change in the new revision .
confused_face.gif
 
Nov 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM Post #1,191 of 1,284
We should start a pool!

I'll put money on less integration on the I/V side of things possibly with new discrete modules.

Disclaimer: based purely off what everyone seems to request at every turn lol.
 
Nov 11, 2009 at 12:52 AM Post #1,192 of 1,284
I/V will be separate, like with the original Buffalo. We will have different I/V modules available. IVY-II from the B32 will be a separate board, so you can still get what is basically a B32, but better in other ways. We will also have discrete I/V stage, sort of Counterpoint-II. A balanced tube stage is even a possibility, but only if we come up with something we like and feel suits the DAC to our standards.
 
Nov 11, 2009 at 3:29 AM Post #1,193 of 1,284
Damn that means I need to rebuild my buff32 =P
 
Nov 11, 2009 at 4:11 AM Post #1,194 of 1,284
Quote:

Originally Posted by nattonrice /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Damn that means I need to rebuild my buff32 =P


A year in the making,
but an upgrade is up for the taking,
off to the for sale threads, in very fast stead,
someone will get lucky, it’s an incredible DAC,
I hope nat get his money back
 
Nov 11, 2009 at 6:39 AM Post #1,195 of 1,284
Damn... and I just finished this one yesterday for lil knight:
4094946930_7bce8f8700_b.jpg

4094190143_c0af68cb50_b.jpg


Optical, USB, and coax inputs feeding TP 4:1 MUX. Dual mono LCBPS power supplies plus one LCDPS. Outputs are XLR and 4-pin K1000 plus a TRS jack and RCA's. Power switch is Amb's e24 circuit triggered by an LED ringed Bulgin momentary switch.

Still needs feet and nicer knobs that LK is going to source himself.
 
Nov 11, 2009 at 5:21 PM Post #1,200 of 1,284
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianDonegan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I/V will be separate, like with the original Buffalo. We will have different I/V modules available. IVY-II from the B32 will be a separate board, so you can still get what is basically a B32, but better in other ways. We will also have discrete I/V stage, sort of Counterpoint-II. A balanced tube stage is even a possibility, but only if we come up with something we like and feel suits the DAC to our standards.


Brian, if I can be cheeky, can I ask why the separate IVY? You've mentioned in the past that to get the performance out the B32s that you wanted, the IVY had to be integrated, to optimise signal paths etc.

Is the decision to give more choice to customers?

The question is asked purely out of interest, not for other means (like has happened elsewhere..
wink.gif
)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top