advertisement


The John Westlake/Lakewest MDAC/FDAC, VFET and Detox

What input/output is on the Devdac?
Is there an estimate of when FDAC would be available as that is what I agreed to purchase and have so far paid £550 to be developed? Also, do you have a ball park figure (£500-£750, 750-1000, 1000-1500, greater than 1500) for what you currently think the L3 FDAC will cost and what features it will have - is it still the same as the list of items on the webpage?
 
it may be helpful but IMHO people would be wanting too many different options and confuse the situation even more. John needs to set out limited options of what he is going to make and let people make their choice, not everyone can be 100% happy. These options and timelines are still not clear. He really needs someone to project manage this. The passing of time has shown that this is unlikely to happen.
 
John,

Thanks for your post.

I'd go for the DEVDAC.

It'd be great its feature list could be locked down now and you could make the chassis design/order a priority.

JohnW said:
DEVDAC II:-

Discrete FPGA based Balanced DAC Array

Dual frequency Discrete Clock (no ASRC with USB input)

Galvanically Isolated USB / digital domain.

Native DSD support to 512 (MIGHT be possible to extend to 1024)

Balanced Analogue domain attenuation (no digital manipulation of Data) – pure path DSD (DAC / PreAmp mode)

USB, SPDIF and Optical input.

Balanced and signal ended audio outputs

SE and balanced headphone outputs

Colour LCD display for UI

Supports PCM to 768KHz 32Bits, DSD64, 128, 256, 512 (Might be possible to extend to 1024) and MQA (subject to MQA blessing).

A chassis has current not been design for the DEVDAC2, but the vendor I recently met in Asia would be able to manufacture a Detox style solid chassis.

Its feasible if all the stars align to start shipping this design by say Christmas – if this where to become a DAC then I’d like to expand the DAC array to increase audio performance, but this is something we already have on the lab bench.

This DEVDAC design is a very decent design (Discrete FPGA based DAC) – its not the full MDAC2, but its advantages are it meets the original GBP300 – GBP350 budget, comes with its own CNC case (no need to donor MDAC) and the design is essentially ready and can be turned into a shipped product within 2-3 months – early units can be shipped to help debug software and hep gain trust.

Its can be offered as a stop gap design for those who still want the full blown MDAC2 / FDAC, they can still take up there production option when development is completed… or just stay with the DevDAC.

The DevDAC technology meets the original design goals of the project – an far upgraded MDAC design, although it will come its own chassis.

[...]

My strongest recommendation to those who want to see a DAC ASAP is the DevDAC, its beyond the performance of the original project, but has its own solid CNC chassis and is realistically possible to start manufacture of PCB’s this side of Christmas (unknown is CNC chassis / production shipping times (chassis has not been design yet, but it would be a taller version of the Detox (taller due to the height of the XLR’s)) – I believe complete units can be shipped this side of Christmas)

[...]
Click to expand...
 
Ian M said:
it may be helpful but IMHO people would be wanting too many different options and confuse the situation even more. John needs to set out limited options of what he is going to make and let people make their choice, not everyone can be 100% happy. These options and timelines are still not clear. He really needs someone to project manage this. The passing of time has shown that this is unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
Yes I was taking it as a given that the options - ie the 3 DAC variants I mentioned - would be defined by John.
 
I think and I see that John hoping for this, that after Devdac there will be very little interest for a board to reuse it with original Mdac chassis. Too much waiting. That leave us with just 2 dac projects.
 
I think that John should restrict himself to two DAC projects. The first being DEVDAC II and the second being FDAC coming later. Both, in my view, should have locked down specifications with no options to complicate and delay matters. I agree with those, including John, who think that MDAC1.5 (or whatever!), intended to fit inside the MDAC chassis, is a waste of time now, given that it is technically identical to the DEVDAC II, which will come in its own nice box. As someone who still has a now dead MDAC, I simply can't see the point in reusing its old chassis.

I am inclined to going with a DEVDAC II and an FDAC if and when it becomes available. I think John said that those who wish to have both can do so at cost on top of their development payments, which I think is a fair offer.
 
To progress the situation, I think it would be helpful to understand how many people have bought an MDAC chassis, and how many want a DAC which can fit into this chassis, in light of the recent list of options (Devdac II in taller chassis, MDAC 1.5, MDAC2/FDAC - the latter being presumably the same product in a larger 'full sized' housing).

I did pay for an MDAC chassis, but would be happy to sell it (likely at a loss) to someone who would want a DAC housed in it... and if there were enough demand for this product (MDAC1.5 AIUI) to be built. If not, I'm wondering if there is a way to fix these MDAC chassis and what the value of the fixed product would be (the original MDAC "1" was a pretty and remains a pretty good product, even if the goalpost at £400-500 has changed).

Just a thought...
 
I think the FDAC is still years away! The project should be simplified further. Two boxes, Devdac and FDAC both custom made. The FDAC case can start as the equivalent of what the MDAC2 was going to be and then be upgradable to FDAC. Anyone invested in a spare MDAC should be compensated and the word “MDAC” never be uttered again.
But then what do I know?
 
Devdac sounds like the quickest product to deliver then, so I'd strongly support focusing on that, and only that. Once delivered, the pressure will be off a bit, faith will be restored, and other products can be discussed.

I know that won't make the salvaged MDAC purchasers happy. I personally have saved an MDAC as a case, but I don't really care about that. I also previously said I wanted a standalone detox, but would accept my contribution rolled into a Devdac/FDAC if that made life easier.

@JohnW - I'm just glad you've come and faced this. Please stay!
 
JohnW said:
In answer to your first question, USB2.0 is a very complex high speed interface protocal requiring an FPGA / external PHY to facilitate the solution and USB level.

With DevDAC / MDAC1.5 / MDAC2 / FDAC the entire analogue stage is galvanically isolated from the digital domain - including the USB input, this is accomplished partially by DAC FPGA... so we bypass the issue of isolating the high speed USB, we isolate the WHOLE digital section.

We cannot isolate USB 2.0 interface - we side step the issue...

Its takes the same amount of effort to but the Detox into production as the DevDAC and i'd guess 98% of development sponsors would rather have a DAC - with the Detox feature incorporated and there Detox development sponsorship fee being included within the MDAC1.5/MDAC2/FDAC.

So either I can give you a DevDAC at a good discounted rate to factor your Detox development sponsorship... refund the detox sponsorship once we start to ship DevDAC's etc. or you holdout for a pending DAC design incorporating the Detox.
Click to expand...
John,

Thank you for clarifying!
 
wintoid said:
Devdac sounds like the quickest product to deliver then, so I'd strongly support focusing on that, and only that. Once delivered, the pressure will be off a bit, faith will be restored, and other products can be discussed.

I know that won't make the salvaged MDAC purchasers happy. I personally have saved an MDAC as a case, but I don't really care about that. I also previously said I wanted a standalone detox, but would accept my contribution rolled into a Devdac/FDAC if that made life easier.

@JohnW - I'm just glad you've come and faced this. Please stay!
Click to expand...

My situation is the same and I agree with this as a sensible way forward.
 
I am not in the Facebook group and have paid £500 for an FDAC L3 that I no longer require but would like a refund.
 
JohnW said:
[...]
Supports PCM to 768KHz 32Bits, DSD64, 128, 256, 512 (Might be possible to extend to 1024) and MQA (subject to MQA blessing).
[...]
Click to expand...

One more thought about the DEVDAC design.

Could we not just stick with what's already achievable, and not try to include DSD1024 and MQA?

It's not that I'm anti-DSD1024 or MQA, it's just that time really is of the essence. In any case, I suspect the demand among investors for DSD1024 and MQA is likely to be relatively limited.

Much better to bank what has already been achieved.
 
...MQA compatibility I think is worth having these days; even if it’s a licenceable option that can be applied later - don’t limit your options if it’s the last DAC you might have :)
 
ti33er said:
...MQA compatibility I think is worth having these days; even if it’s a licenceable option that can be applied later - don’t limit your options if it’s the last DAC you might have :)
Click to expand...

I understand that view, but for those who want it the DEVDAC may not be a "last DAC" . It may be the DAC we (some of us) want John to produce right now.

Maybe the MQA option would be a good option for people who're prepared to wait longer.
 
Just to add my name...I've paid 4 x £100 payments. Hoping for an MDAC 1.5 sometime soon.

Any estimated final cost John?
 
Boozyuzi said:
Just to add my name...I've paid 4 x £100 payments. Hoping for an MDAC 1.5 sometime soon.

Any estimated final cost John?
Click to expand...

Ontop of the GBP400 Development sponsorship the MDAC 1.5 about 300 to 500.... with the basic modulator option (there will be a range of modulators). The Modulators can be shared with them MDAC2/FDAC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top