advertisement


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

mattgbell said:
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.
Click to expand...

MQA is already in our firmware (we just need MQA to added there optimization coefficients for this DAC design and approval) + DSD1024 is a matter of available MIPS on the XMOS USB interface, we have not tried, but with optimization then its maybe possible. Its important to note, these are both features enabled via a user installed software update (over USB). so nothing that would delay production once we are ready with the hardware design.

The current DevDACII PCB testing on the Lab bench has a small 8 element DAC array - the original intention of the DevDACII was to confirm the technology behind the discrete DAC array. For a "production" design I will increase the array size to 16 or 32 elements, this expands extra performance tricks we can implement. Also, we are simplifying the Analogue stage while at the same time bringing a step improvement in performance.

These PCB design changes where already in progress before the decision to productionise the DevDAC design.
 
JohnW said:
MQA is already in our firmware (we just need MQA to added there optimization coefficients for this DAC design and approval) + DSD1024 is a matter of available MIPS on the XMOS USB interface, we have not tried, but with optimization then its maybe possible. Its important to note, these are both features enabled via a user installed software update (over USB). so nothing that would delay production once we are ready with the hardware design. [...]
Click to expand...

Thanks, John, that is good to hear.
 
My feelings on latest developments are mixed.

My position broadly is, and has for the last x years been, “just give me a dac as soon as possible please.” So I’m kind of inclined to take a Devdac.

BUT, there is a part of me that just sees a other swerve to avoid delivering. This seems horribly familiar to me. The MDAC 1.5 was supposed to be the interim and now it turns out to be too difficult etc. This is how we went from MDAC 2 to FDAC and then back again. This is how we got the detox and then didn’t get the detox.

So I’d take the dev dac IF it is delivered this calendar year.

Also I would like clarification of the total price including case and delivery and confirmation that the price will be payable on delivery.
 
So great I pay £370 as advised and then 5 years later get told it’s not worth it!
See how this develops and what the final cost will be for either option.
 
I retired a couple of years ago, and I’m now not in a position to fund the additional sum that John is indicating will be required on top of the development funding. My preference is therefore a refund. If this is not possible then I guess I’m writing off £600. Live and learn...
 
JohnW said:
In light of the current situation I can propose some steps that can be taken "today""-


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.

The ADC / Phono Stage / DSP will still be offered as options on the FDAC.

If DevDAC II proceeding to production is not a preferred option, then MDAC1.5 which is a development of DevDAC but re-housed into the MDAC chassis is the next possible project but many original sponsors have requested custom chassis as they no longer own original MDAC chassis. The MDAC1.5 would also share digital filter cards with MDAC2 / FDAC – otherwise it’s essentially the DevDAC – the DevDAC design is now on the bench and can be delivered sooner

The MDAC1.5 will still be put into production irrespective of DevDAC, however it’s a question of longer timelines, and depending on the response to DevDAC maybe AFTER MDAC2 / FDAC.

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)

For those holding onto MDAC / donor units, then the MDAC1.5 would follow DevDAC…. then MDAC2/FDAC.

Please consider the options, also that if DevDAC is purchased at cost it does NOT effect your “at cost” MDAC 1.5 ./ MDAC2 FDAC production option – it’s purpose is to deliver a DAC in a short timescale that outperformance the original project goals… and reinstall confidence in the project.

The DevDACII is based on the Core Discrete DAC technology, the MDAC1.5 / MDAC2 / FDAC designs add extras (advanced clocking, Detox, Streamer, ADC, DSP etc) - but the core discrete DAC technology is common for DevDAC to FDAC....

Think of the DevDAC as a Pure DAC, simple but not lacking.
Click to expand...

John,
Thank you for this.
I'm not on Facebook, so maybe some of these questions have been answered there.

First, will my preferred version, the 'MDAC2 Advanced Clock Option 1' still fit in the old MDAC case/chassis?

On the DevDAC II, which looks as if it might be a useful stopgap:
Will it need the old MDAC AC power unit?
Does it use the MDAC remote?
I know you don't have a final design for the chassis for this, but do you have approximate dimensions (cm rather than mm)?
I don't doubt that this will be a big improvement on the original MDAC, but do you have any idea of the likely improvement from a 'Fusion' modified unit?
 
“I don't doubt that this will be a big improvement on the original MDAC, but do you have any idea of the likely improvement from a 'Fusion' modified unit?”

Hi BobL

I believe this DevDAC is discrete, so no ESS family sound...it’s going to sound ‘different’
 
I also very much doubt that DevDAC II will use the old MDAC power unit.
Because then I would need to buy an old MDAC just for the power brick.
 
Firstly, as a non-Facebooker, I'm grateful for the update from John here. Keep it up John - the mood has quickly changed for the better.

I'll take a DevDac, in a shiny new case. Knowing John's high standards, if he is happy that it is ready for consumer consumption it should be good and should do wonders to restore faith and goodwill here.

I don't think it's a great idea to hold John to a Christmas deadline because he is overly optimistic (let's not forget the lessons learned) but, with clarity and focus, it seems reasonable to expect deliveries by Spring next year and I think that could be regarded as a good short-term result.

John, if you have a development machine that you could release so that I could verify that we won't be disappointed, I'd happily give it a workout and report back, and perhaps organise some back-to-back comparisons with other customer's kit in my area (South East).
 
Discovery said:
John, if you have a development machine that you could release so that I could verify that we won't be disappointed, I'd happily give it a workout and report back, and perhaps organise some back-to-back comparisons with other customer's kit in my area (South East).
Click to expand...

Now who’s being overly optimistic? :D
 
Non facebooker as well, happy to see updates posted here, hopefully regularly.

I m a bit lost/confused over what is to be expected (did not follow developments very closely lately...).

From what is posted, DevDAC II looks like an interesting alternative.
I understand it as being basically a complete new DAC in a new case (new UI, etc.); no detox, no streamer.
Overall, the MDAC functionalities in a different package - not yet designed.

MDAC 1.5
Needs an MDAC donor unit. Seems to be just a reworked DevDAC II (+ some USB detox) to fit within the original MDAC case.
Is that it, roughly?
no streamer option for that one?

MDAC2
what will that really be? What case, what options?

FDAC
Same question as for MDAC2, or does MDAC2 morph into FDAC?

There is still some info missing to be able to make a choice. Or is it just me?

@John, can you please recap/re-explain what MDAC2 will be and what are the differences with DevDAC II and MDAC 1.5?

Thanx
 
iansr said:
Would it help clarify the position if someone set up a google spreadsheet where every sponsor could record their requirements, specifically DevDac or MDAC 1.5 or MDAC 2 (FDAC) - ?
Click to expand...

Tony is this something you could assist with, to aid constructive progress (and, for all the right reasons, minimise your overall involvement!)?

John is asking for direction ('... happy to follow sponsor suggestions') so it would be a collective failure to let the opportunity pass.

With the greatest respect, everything else is subjective (my contributions included) and none of us would be content with decision making by opinion.
 
Discovery said:
Tony is this something you could assist with, to aid constructive progress (and, for all the right reasons, minimise your overall involvement!)?
Click to expand...

If someone here wants to set up a shared Google spreadsheet I will very happily host links to it, add a link in the opening post of this thread etc. I don’t really think it should be me that does it though as I have no involvement in these projects myself, plus it may become confusing logistically given I have a professional Google account myself (AdSense). I don’t really want to have to keep logging in/out of two accounts as that way mistakes happen! Please set something up though, it is a good idea.
 
It’s difficult to say what the requirements are before full specification, delivery date and cost are known - or at least it is for me.
 
Hi,
I added each post to a spreadsheet - total is £75,485 - in an Open Office spreadsheet - just the basics = name, amount donated, and the post where they stated they donated the funds.

If someone has a dropbox or other, i can upload to - will do so.

The spreadsheet is basic - no colours etc., just the basic information.

Regards,
Shadders.
 
I suspect what folk really need is for it to be editable by the whole investor group (Google Sheets would be a good option) so people can enter the specific product and feature-set they ordered. The purpose as much as anything to act as a statistical poll and arrive at a consensus as to what exactly should be delivered, i.e. to identity core priorities and therefore eventually manage expectations where maybe the least popular options can be removed from development.

It needs to be put together by someone who really understands the various projects, models, options and feature-set. My guess is it will be quite a wide and deep spreadsheet! As I say I’m very happy to host links etc, but really its not possible for me to actually do as I lack the product knowledge and don’t have specific hosting for this kind of thing (a shared Google sheet would be a far better option for you).
 
Tony L said:
I suspect what folk really need is for it to be editable by the whole investor group (Google Sheets would be a good option) so people can enter the specific product and feature-set they ordered.
Click to expand...

The problem I can see is that what's going to be on offer is very different from what was ordered. For example I paid for RIAA and DSP modules that are no longer going to be available - certainly not for the MDAC. This far down the line my only certainty is what I've paid, not what I paid for - how does Level 2/3 relate to what's now being offered?
 
Hi,
I agree with @Tony L , that the spreadsheet requires someone who knows what MDAC2, FDAC etc., are, so as to ensure the description is correct. All i could do is copy what was written on the post.

Regards.
Shadders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top