advertisement


MDAC First Listen (part 00110101)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would those L1 L3 fit directly to an RPI or need modding John?

Yes, via the USB, in fact we will forward a unit to JiriJ so he can test "our" USB stack with the CM3 (RPi3) module.

The little DAC's basically started life as our internal XMOS software development boards for the MDAC2 / FDAC.
 
Yes, via the USB, in fact we will forward a unit to JiriJ so he can test "our" USB stack with the CM3 (RPi3) module.

The little DAC's are basically our internal XMOS software development boards for the MDAC2 / FDAC.

Thanks John, very interesting indeed. Would love to hear one some time.

As I said before, SQ in the main is subjective but if you have heard one of your little DACs via the RPI board, then how in your opinion would it compare against an original MDAC which was in top serviced order in terms of SQ?

Thanks again.
 
The trouble is I cannot except compromises. Its IMPOSSIBLE to design such a small dac without too many compromises - a fact brought to my attention with the little L1 - L3 dacs we designed based on our MDAC2 / FDAC evaluation boards.


If the DAC's going to be less then perfect then I'd rather leave it to other company's - there's no value I can add.

I'm struggling to squeeze everything into the MDAC2 chassis - and in fact its already really a two box design with the external PSU.

JohnW,

I don't really understand then why we are sinking so much time into developing the MDAC2 in this situation.

Based on your posts here it seems like many months/years have been devoted to solely trying to pack everything onto a small board. That to me seems like waisted investment of time and money.

First we invested so much time previously pushing it into the old MDAC chassis, that was scraped and the FDAC design seemed to save us. And so much progress was made, but then it was bloated with everyone here's additional requirements which were never really planned for and sunk the FDAC timeline into oblivion.

Now it seems were back to bad investments in miniaturization vs product dev.

Why not just keep moving forward with simplified FDAC and let the consolidation of additional features happen on future rev's which people can optionally wait for if they so choose?

When the FDAC was announced as the new direction, I like many others, sold my MDAC shell and upgraded to something else as an interim step while we wait. now we are locked out of the MDAC2 and back on the someday train. I support the effort but I really don't get it...

Aaron
 
JohnW,

I don't really understand then why we are sinking so much time into developing the MDAC2 in this situation.

Based on your posts here it seems like many months/years have been devoted to solely trying to pack everything onto a small board. That to me seems like waisted investment of time and money.

First we invested so much time previously pushing it into the old MDAC chassis, that was scraped and the FDAC design seemed to save us. And so much progress was made, but then it was bloated with everyone here's additional requirements which were never really planned for and sunk the FDAC timeline into oblivion.

Now it seems were back to bad investments in miniaturization vs product dev.

Why not just keep moving forward with simplified FDAC and let the consolidation of additional features happen on future rev's which people can optionally wait for if they so choose?

When the FDAC was announced as the new direction, I like many others, sold my MDAC shell and upgraded to something else as an interim step while we wait. now we are locked out of the MDAC2 and back on the someday train. I support the effort but I really don't get it...

Aaron
Oh no: we now have a promised date for the delivery of *something* and in case you hadn't noticed quite a few people have bailed already. If there is one more change of plan/deferral of the day when something is delivered, then I doubt there will be anyone left.
 
JohnW,

I don't really understand then why we are sinking so much time into developing the MDAC2 in this situation.

Based on your posts here it seems like many months/years have been devoted to solely trying to pack everything onto a small board. That to me seems like waisted investment of time and money.

First we invested so much time previously pushing it into the old MDAC chassis, that was scraped and the FDAC design seemed to save us. And so much progress was made, but then it was bloated with everyone here's additional requirements which were never really planned for and sunk the FDAC timeline into oblivion.

Now it seems were back to bad investments in miniaturization vs product dev.

Why not just keep moving forward with simplified FDAC and let the consolidation of additional features happen on future rev's which people can optionally wait for if they so choose?

When the FDAC was announced as the new direction, I like many others, sold my MDAC shell and upgraded to something else as an interim step while we wait. now we are locked out of the MDAC2 and back on the someday train. I support the effort but I really don't get it...

Aaron

Aaron,

If you re-read my post you will see that my comments we directed to the small L1-L3 miniDAC NOT MDAC2!!!!

The L1-L3 miniDAC's are "Tiny" boards by comparison to the MDAC2.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/86116171/L3.JPG

I'd like to believe that the MDAC2 will be VERY good (after all this effort) :)
 
Oh no: we now have a promised date for the delivery of *something* and in case you hadn't noticed quite a few people have bailed already. If there is one more change of plan/deferral of the day when something is delivered, then I doubt there will be anyone left.

I am not saying to change anything. I don't really think we should get that right unless its a formal vote by every paying member using survey software. This really should have happened but didn't, both times the project pivoted and when new options were proposed.

I'm just saying i don't get it.. Given John's admission of perfection it should have been obvious the original plan and now this MDAC2 would be somewhat doomed given the restrictions of space they inherit. i would like to see a chart of the investment time spent into putting things into small packages vs building the design then fitting the package around it from the start.

Still support the delivery of something by sometime. otherwise all i did was make a really bad USD/GBP forex trade :)
 
Aaron,

The MDAC2 is not "somewhat doomed given the restrictions of space they inherit" PLEASE re-read my post that I was referring to the space restrictions of the L1 - L3 miniDACs in reply to Kennyh questions about a small DAC for the RPi!!!! I've even posted a picture of the miniDAC PCB!

As a "no thrills DAC", the MDAC2 with its external PSU should be pretty much reference quality - I've even stated that I'm even wondering what to do for the FDAC so that its a "Step improvement" in sound quality over the MDAC2...

I believe that the MDAC2 with VR PSU will reset the standard - certainly anywhere near the price point...
 
Nick,

Sadly its a custom cut for the MDAC so its not available anywhere else - you will have to order from IAG UK.

84MHz - for MDAC

Thanks John, I placed the order today, once it arrives I have another cap or two to replace at the same time, I changed 11 last time, can't remember how many there are in total.
 
Thanks John, I placed the order today, once it arrives I have another cap or two to replace at the same time, I changed 11 last time, can't remember how many there are in total.

Great news - how much did they charge you for the crystal?
 
Well I'd like to think of DAC's in the GBP4K to 5K price point as the MDAC2's competition.

I was thinking that MDAC2 would give the Mytek Brooklyn (£1600+ approx.) a run for it's money but if you are aiming to better that, then it should be a fabulous dac.Roll on summertime.
Keep up the great work John.
 
Aaron,

The MDAC2 is not "somewhat doomed given the restrictions of space they inherit" PLEASE re-read my post that I was referring to the space restrictions of the L1 - L3 miniDACs in reply to Kennyh questions about a small DAC for the RPi!!!! I've even posted a picture of the miniDAC PCB!

I was not referring to your side project and I will not go back to the year of posts around time lost trying to fit the parts into the original MDAC chassis.

I am only reacting to these comments from less than a week ago...

"Originally with MDAC2 the idea was to use a "cut down" analogue stage design of the FDAC - but I could not do this, so making my own hell, I'm now trying to squeeze it al into the MDAC2 PCB area - I'm already past 50% area with just the PSU and output stage devices on the board so its going to get "fun".

In this situation we assume "fun" mean 'long timelines and many delays'

To your second point. Is your blanket recommendation that all FDAC wait list members who have sold their MDACs go out and repurchase used units to take the MDAC2 and forget the FDAC?

Regards,

Aaron
 
Aaron,

"Fun" means hard work and does not mean its not possible - Munich is still THE target for the first units.

The Analogue output stage, filtering and its PSU is going to take up the whole area of the mainboard area allocated to the Analogue stage with the ESS DAC's, there PSU's and the clock section mounted on a daughter board above the analogue stage.

Its actually a good solution for a number of reasons, one of them is that we can better control the Ground noise between the Digital section, DAC & analogue output stages.

I'll be able to arrange chassis for Non MDAC owners, but such details can be sorted once the PCB is completed as my first priority is to complete the design ASAP.
 
I was thinking that MDAC2 would give the Mytek Brooklyn (£1600+ approx.) a run for it's money but if you are aiming to better that, then it should be a fabulous dac.Roll on summertime.
Keep up the great work John.

Brian,

The Mytek uses a SINGLE Mobile version of the ESS DAC - we uses DUAL version of the new IC in the cheaper miniDAC! they also use only a single 100MHz clock which requires ASRC with USB - we use two discrete clocks for 44.1KHz and 48KHz based sample rates, so ASRC is not required with USB.

The Mytek is also full of opamps in the analogue signal path and uses a SMPS PSU...

I like the colour LCD display of the Mytek :) - a feature we will add to the MDAC2 at a later date with a user retrofit update.

The MDAC2 uses a PAIR of ES9028PRO's - a very different beast to the cheaper mobile version...

BUT the proofs in the listening, lets see how the MDAC2 compares once its available :) but from a hardware perspective its in a completely different class!
 
I'll be able to arrange chassis for Non MDAC owners, but such details can be sorted once the PCB is completed...

Would that be more or at least expensive compared to the full width chassis?

... as my first priority is to complete the design ASAP.

That was not what I expected when signed to the project to get the best from the designer! Instead you are required to accept the best what a designer can put in the limited PCB space in MDAC chassis with less feature set that was promised.

Maybe it's time to prepare to send full money back request because project designer could not deliver what it was promised.
 
That makes no sense. You are not required to accept an MDAC2 (which will be so good that John forsees a real struggle to improve it) - you can wait for the FDAC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top