[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Are there any other sources connected to the Nait5i? Naim make the signal ground to earth connection in the CDP, and the SB3 doesn't have an earth; so it maybe that you just need to make an earth to signal ground connection somewhere in the system. The SB3 PSU is rated at 2A, but it only actually consumes about 1A. So the LT1086 would be fine. -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Hi all, I intend to help a person, who has a Naim 5i integrated and a SB3. There is a strange hum with the stock SB3 power supply and my thought was to replace it with a linear PS. He sent me this link while discussing the topic and browsing it I found that 1A, or 1.5A solutions (like LT1086) are used in several DIY PSU. However, as far as I know the SB3 needs 5V/2A DC. Any clarification regarding this issue? Also, is there a link with a suggested PS circuitry which is known to work? -- banfi.t banfi.t's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9923 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
sure, put the caps back in? how did you remove them, did you cut them, or desolder? if the former, you can always replace them... -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
So I think it's clear that I didn't either understand or know what I was doing, so now is there any way to rectify my mistake ? Buy another Squeezebox ? I read the post and it seemed to make sense to me, but what I didn't understand until later was that the caps were to be removed as part of some other mods. -- Colin Reilly Colin Reilly's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1089 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Patrick Dixon;167612 Wrote: > If you short the coupling caps you will end up with DC on the output - > which is not a great idea. yeah, sorry about that - forgot all this stuff was single-rail. i just looked back at the thread and it looks like this was all in the context of bypassing the output section... so not sure what gave Colin the idea that he could just do that part of it. sort of like trying to make cookies with just flour. ;) -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dorkus;167574 Wrote: > i don't know which caps you are referring to but it sounds like you've > removed the output coupling caps. when the person said "remove," what > they really meant was "remove and replace with a short." so you need to > stick a wire in there where the caps previously were. BUT, i am just > taking a guess here, i do not know what C43 and C45 are and don't have > a schematic in front of me... i'm sure someone else here will chime in > though. If you short the coupling caps you will end up with DC on the output - which is not a great idea. -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dorkus;167574 Wrote: > BUT, i am just taking a guess here, i do not know what C43 and C45 are > and don't have a schematic in front of me... i'm sure someone else here > will chime in though. It looks like c43 is part of the 9v power to the opamp. -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Colin Reilly;167535 Wrote: > Is there anything I can do to restore the sound or am I wasting my > time. I started off wanting to remove the Op Amp but realized I had > bitten off more than I could chew. Serves me right. You didn't need to remove the caps, just the opamp itself. But then you need a wire from the DAC to the outputs, so it's a good thing you didn't i guess. Maybe you should just put the caps back in (use the posted pics to orient them). -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Colin Reilly;167535 Wrote: > Earlier in the thread someone mentioned removing C43 and C45 capacitors > at the very least to improve the sound. I did this to my SB2 and now > of course no sound. i don't know which caps you are referring to but it sounds like you've removed the output coupling caps. when the person said "remove," what they really meant was "remove and replace with a short." so you need to stick a wire in there where the caps previously were. BUT, i am just taking a guess here, i do not know what C43 and C45 are and don't have a schematic in front of me... i'm sure someone else here will chime in though. -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Earlier in the thread someone mentioned removing C43 and C45 capacitors at the very least to improve the sound. I did this to my SB2 and now of course no sound. I am assuming this is done to improve the quality of the digital output in that case ? Is there anything I can do to restore the sound or am I wasting my time. I started off wanting to remove the Op Amp but realized I had bitten off more than I could chew. Serves me right. -- Colin Reilly Colin Reilly's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1089 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dorkus;167384 Wrote: > i just came across that last night... it looks pretty similar to the > other ones on the market, for better or worse (a little of both > actually). but the price, while still too high IMO, is more reasonable > than the alternatives. > > i'm currently in the process of building a SB PSU from scratch. have > been researching my design options for a few months now... but more on > that later. > > > > sorry, but a SB supply that costs 4 digits is nothing short idiotic. > for that amount you should be able to build a no-holds-barred power > supply for a power amplifier. or as you rightly point out, a > Transporter... > > +5V @ 2A with good regulation, low noise, low broadband impedance and > good transient response, while not as easy as some may think, is not > complete rocket science. and as Mr. Adams has pointed out, the fruits > of your labor are ultimately limited by the internal supply rails > anyway. i also wouldn't be surprised if the $2500 supply does not > really do a better job in these respects than a well-designed > commercial supply, as your listening bore out... a lot of "audiophile" > supplies actually have terrible, terrible design flaws... > > like dpac it also irks me to see the $750 supplies which use the most > run-of-the-mill parts like a LT1086 in totally generic implementations > straight out of a datasheet/DIY forum. as if that weren't bad enough, > they throw in some total faux pas warned against in said datasheet, > like putting a 2 meter wire between the regulator and load > (squeezebox), or adding undamped "designer" film bypass caps which are > pretty much guaranteed to add a nice ringing to the line when exposed > to the high-speed load transients of a digital device like the SB. yet > people seem to be happily snapping these things up, probably for lack > of better options... oh well. > > anyway, enough bashing, and on to a more constructive note. i think i > am close to selecting a regulator... unfortunately the Jung-based > "super regs" are too low in current (most top out around 300mA), and > i'm too lazy/unskilled to figure out how to modify it for increased > current capacity without degrading performance. so i might go with the > LT1963, which has an improved topology compared to the typical LMx17 > stuff, and much better noise performance than the LT1086 (40uV max vs. > 130uV, specified over a wider band too). only downside is reduced > ripple rejection, so i might look into a choke filter. i will probably > make the main box an unregulated supply, and put the regulator in a > little dongle at the very end of the DC power cable to the squeezebox. > if you guys are interested i will keep you updated on my progress... > > happy new year! :) I like that idea very much. Placing the reg right there is very appropriate. Depending on the remaining volume of the SB in that area you can fit some local capacitance, post reg. Having the xfrmr and diodes and main cap in the remote box very cool. THis is another trade off in general b/t industrial design (cool little box with far away power supply) or one like the transporter with internal (improved functional layout) supply where you can place the reg right next to the load circuits. I guess the SB has an internal smps of some surface mount type for the digital pwr, but a separate liner reg for the analog. You would think that as long as the main supply has enough stability with transient loads (such as the SB) putting the money there would not pay off as much as much better supplies/regulators directly before the circuits they are powering. I bought that welborne PS with such skepticism in mind, and as such it is more for experimentation and a decent platform with which to stage follow on work. I intend to use the SB3 (eventually) to drive an external DAC like a bel canto dac 2 or some equivalent. Keep us posted of your work! -- dpac996 dpac996's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9407 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
"as if that weren't bad enough, they throw in some total faux pas warned against in said datasheet, like putting a 2 meter wire between the regulator and load (squeezebox), or adding undamped "designer" film bypass caps which are pretty much guaranteed to add a nice ringing to the line when exposed to the high-speed load transients of a digital device like the SB. yet people seem to be happily snapping these things up, probably for lack of better options... oh well." Dude: exactly! I love it. Regulators are suppossed to be as close to the load as possible! lol -- dpac996 dpac996's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9407 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Robin Bowes;167401 Wrote: > > and if you're doing the job properly, and replacing the internal > supplies, not just the external wallwart, you'll be using multiple > supplies rather than just one, so the current requirement for each one > is less. that would be nice, but it's not an option at the moment - this is meant to be a "plug and play" upgrade supply for any stock SB. -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Patrick Dixon wrote: > dorkus;167384 Wrote: >> ... unfortunately the Jung-based "super regs" are too low in current >> (most top out around 300mA), and i'm too lazy/unskilled to figure out >> how to modify it for increased current capacity without degrading >> performance. > Not so. The ALWSR (which we sell on Andy's behalf) will go to 1.5A > providing you give the pre-regulator sufficient heatsinking. > > see:- http://www.at-view.co.uk/alwsr.htm ... and if you're doing the job properly, and replacing the internal supplies, not just the external wallwart, you'll be using multiple supplies rather than just one, so the current requirement for each one is less. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dorkus;167384 Wrote: > ... unfortunately the Jung-based "super regs" are too low in current > (most top out around 300mA), and i'm too lazy/unskilled to figure out > how to modify it for increased current capacity without degrading > performance. Not so. The ALWSR (which we sell on Andy's behalf) will go to 1.5A providing you give the pre-regulator sufficient heatsinking. see:- http://www.at-view.co.uk/alwsr.htm -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dpac996;167292 Wrote: > On another note I bought a welborne labs squeezebox linear power supply. i just came across that last night... it looks pretty similar to the other ones on the market, for better or worse (a little of both actually). but the price, while still too high IMO, is more reasonable than the alternatives. i'm currently in the process of building a SB PSU from scratch. have been researching my design options for a few months now... but more on that later. tomjtx;167327 Wrote: > > I spent 2 weeks auditioning a modded SB2/PSU that sells for 2,500.00. > sorry, but a SB supply that costs 4 digits is nothing short idiotic. for that amount you should be able to build a no-holds-barred power supply for a power amplifier. or as you rightly point out, a Transporter... +5V @ 2A with good regulation, low noise, low broadband impedance and good transient response, while not as easy as some may think, is not complete rocket science. and as Mr. Adams has pointed out, the fruits of your labor are ultimately limited by the internal supply rails anyway. i also wouldn't be surprised if the $2500 supply does not really do a better job in these respects than a well-designed commercial supply, as your listening bore out... a lot of "audiophile" supplies actually have terrible, terrible design flaws... like dpac it also irks me to see the $750 supplies which use the most run-of-the-mill parts like a LT1086 in totally generic implementations straight out of a datasheet/DIY forum. as if that weren't bad enough, they throw in some total faux pas warned against in said datasheet, like putting a 2 meter wire between the regulator and load (squeezebox), or adding undamped "designer" film bypass caps which are pretty much guaranteed to add a nice ringing to the line when exposed to the high-speed load transients of a digital device like the SB. yet people seem to be happily snapping these things up, probably for lack of better options... oh well. anyway, enough bashing, and on to a more constructive note. i think i am close to selecting a regulator... unfortunately the Jung-based "super regs" are too low in current (most top out around 300mA), and i'm too lazy/unskilled to figure out how to modify it for increased current capacity without degrading performance. so i might go with the LT1963, which has an improved topology compared to the typical LMx17 stuff, and much better noise performance than the LT1086 (40uV max vs. 130uV, specified over a wider band too). only downside is reduced ripple rejection, so i might look into a choke filter. i will probably make the main box an unregulated supply, and put the regulator in a little dongle at the very end of the DC power cable to the squeezebox. if you guys are interested i will keep you updated on my progress... happy new year! :) -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dpac996;167292 Wrote: > Dorkus, > Well said. I would like to add that usually (consumer level products in > mind) designs are constrained in both cost and time to market. The item > has to be (or should) profitable for a companies success. This means > that selected parts, while appropriate for the reliability, quality > controls, and stated performance, may not result in the BEST sound for > a given circuit implementation (not re-design, aka clipping this and > rerouting that and piping in a supply line here). Again it's all about > trade-offs...but for us audiofools we must tweak and twist until we > feel its up to our constantly evolving standards! > Ok i'm off my soap box. SOrry. > On another note I bought a welborne labs squeezebox linear power > supply. I actually went to the trouble of designing and researching a > comparable supply (digikey, mouser, newark, etc)in capture, and when I > analyzed the BOM (including sending the board out for fab) a nice > aluminum enclosure, requisite cables, the darn thing was at least as > expensive...so be it for NRE, they get to amortize the NRE over the > sale of many units, hence improve their profit margins, wheras in my > case its a one off, crazy overhead but cool DIY factor. Time being a > factor, i pulled the trigger at welborne. > I found one well known outfit offering a SB2/3 linear power supply > for 750 dollars... what an outrageous unnecessary rip off (IMHO). But > some audiophiles have more dollars than sense and such "products" are > quickly snatched up. I would have saved my money for the transporter... > > Happy New Year! I completely agree with you re. the 750.00 PSU. I spent 2 weeks auditioning a modded SB2/PSU that sells for 2,500.00. It simply was not as good as the Transporter. Indeed, it wasn't much,if any, better than the stock Elpac/SB3. It would make far more sense, IMHO, to modify the TP if one wants to pursue that final bit of improvement. Aberdeen mods is sending me a modded TP and I'll post impressions. -- tomjtx tomjtx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7449 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Dorkus, Well said. I would like to add that usually (consumer level products in mind) designs are constrained in both cost and time to market. The item has to be (or should) profitable for a companies success. This means that selected parts, while appropriate for the reliability, quality controls, and stated performance, may not result in the BEST sound for a given circuit implementation (not re-design, aka clipping this and rerouting that and piping in a supply line here). Again it's all about trade-offs...but for us audiofools we must tweak and twist until we feel its up to our constantly evolving standards! Ok i'm off my soap box. SOrry. On another note I bought a welborne labs squeezebox linear power supply. I actually went to the trouble of designing and researching a comparable supply (digikey, mouser, newark, etc)in capture, and when I analyzed the BOM (including sending the board out for fab) a nice aluminum enclosure, requisite cables, the darn thing was at least as expensive...so be it for NRE, they get to amortize the NRE over the sale of many units, hence improve their profit margins, wheras in my case its a one off, crazy overhead but cool DIY factor. Time being a factor, i pulled the trigger at welborne. I found one well known outfit offering a SB2/3 linear power supply for 750 dollars... what an outrageous unnecessary rip off (IMHO). But some audiophiles have more dollars than sense and such "products" are quickly snatched up. I would have saved my money for the transporter... Happy New Year! -- dpac996 dpac996's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9407 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dpac996;167121 Wrote: > In the datasheet for the PCM1748 it states this device offers some post > DAC low pass filtering internally, but it is not enough to attenuate > out of band noise (artifacts from DAC process), and the recommendation > is to employ additional low pass filtering. that is true, but the multi-pole active filters usually prescribed in app notes are selected not for best sound quality, but best measurements (freq response flatness, S/N, etc.)... you can usually get away with just a simple first-order filter, there is even a BB app note (in broken english) illustrating it. possible side effects of HF noise do need to be considered, but anyone with the competence to perform tweaks *properly* should be able to account for those in the context of their own system. obviously this stuff is "at your own risk." i should add i am not a big proponent of unbuffered "direct DAC" out though... done that on multiple occassions, and unless you have a really benign upstream load with really short interconnects (tubes anyone?), the sound becomes anemic. a properly designed opamp buffer will usually sound better, despite its failings... > This reminds me of the modders who remove the muting circuits in cd > players...yeah those annoying clicks are real fun... it's one of the first mods i do, but only when the underlying circuit will tolerate it. modern DAC's have muting built in so the clicking is minimal in use. i usually modify the power supply as well, to keep the analog stage always on, so i only have to worry about power-on transients when i plug it in. of course, if i were giving the cd player to my dad or a friend, i would leave the mutes in for safety... but the problem is often that they are not even relays (which are fine by me), but shunt transistors which have non-linear behavior in the off state... those will definitely degrade sound quality. > I would love to hear what the SB3 engineers are saying about the dudes > who reroute traces and clip this line and that and just remove parts > that "seem" like they are in the way. no offense to the SB3 engineers specifically, who i'm sure are perfectly competent, but a lot of so-called "engineers" who make this stuff for a living are pretty clueless... an engineering degree (which i have), some spec sheets and layout software do not always yield a well-design product... > I guess it is fun on some level (kind of like those dudes that pimp out > honda civics), but you have to trust the designer on another level too! if they're deserving of it, sure... i'm actually not as cynical as i might sound. i like sound engineering and a well-designed industrial product, and i agree a lot of "audiophile" tweaking going on out there is misguided and silly. most people (myself included) do not really know what we are doing most of the time. that said, you have to keep in mind the most prevalent design goals for mass-produced electronics: minimal manufacturing time/labor, maximum parts availability/reusability at miminal cost, simple packaging, low failure rate, etc. etc... in the end, tweaking is an attempt to overcome some of the obvious compromises made during the initial design and production of a component. that does not mean all tweaking is good - a lot of tweaks actually make things sound worse - but with judicious and knowledgable application you can get some nice gains in musical enjoyment. but yeah, the moral still is, you have to know what you are doing... -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
In the datasheet for the PCM1748 it states this device offers some post DAC low pass filtering internally, but it is not enough to attenuate out of band noise (artifacts from DAC process), and the recommendation is to employ additional low pass filtering. Without looking at the SB3 schematic, or even pictures of the PCB, I assume the designer(s) carried this recommendation out by an active filter providing some gain and the filter function. Removing this op-amp as a means to higher sonic performance seems troubling to me. If the down stage components (preamp in particular) are capable of high bandwidth it is possible in some instances to create unstability in the power amp. Don't get me wrong, I like modifying stuff too, but this is something I would leave alone, as it performs a useful and necessary function. It might be interesting however to replace the bipolar stock opamp in favor of say an AD827, or many other higher performance parts. This reminds me of the modders who remove the muting circuits in cd players...yeah those annoying clicks are real fun... I would love to hear what the SB3 engineers are saying about the dudes who reroute traces and clip this line and that and just remove parts that "seem" like they are in the way. I guess it is fun on some level (kind of like those dudes that pimp out honda civics), but you have to trust the designer on another level too! just my 2 cents. -- dpac996 dpac996's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9407 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Does anyone have a spare Scientific Conversions SC916-01 1:1 that they are not using? I would love to complete these mods myself. -- tf1216 tf1216's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6730 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
randytsuch Wrote: > I just looked at the beginning of the diyaudio thread, where Carlos > refused to disclose his formula, but I didn't read the 55 pages of it > to see if he changed his mind. Good luck with figuring it out, I have > no idea how you would do it. yeah, the S/N on that forum is really bad these days... 90% of those 55 pages are pointless argument. if i figure it out i will let you know... i may contact Carlos directly to see if he'd be willing to point me in the right direction. otherwise, i'll just have to dig through the books and see if i can coax my brain into the chore known as "thinking"... cheers, marc -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dorkus Wrote: > i'm still figuring that out. :) carlosfm claims to know, and he's > generally a very helpful guy but he is kinda shadowy about it. i think > he doesn't want DIYers getting too lazy and leaning on him too much. in > any case, the first step is to figure out the equivalent output > inductance of the regulator. in the case of the LM320T, based on the > impedance graph and specified load i figure it's around 1.5uH. from > there you have to work out the Zobel value, but i haven't quite figured > out how to do this with the very low output impedance (around .01 ohm) > of the regulator... just plugging that into standard Zobel formulas > gives you ridiculous values. will have to think some more... I just looked at the beginning of the diyaudio thread, where Carlos refused to disclose his formula, but I didn't read the 55 pages of it to see if he changed his mind. Good luck with figuring it out, I have no idea how you would do it. Randy -- randytsuch randytsuch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3783 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
randytsuch Wrote: > > My next, what should be obvious question, is how do you calculate the > correct snubber value, if you know the output inpedance of the circuit > you are adding the snubber to. i'm still figuring that out. :) carlosfm claims to know, and he's generally a very helpful guy but he is kinda shadowy about it. i think he doesn't want DIYers getting too lazy and leaning on him too much. in any case, the first step is to figure out the equivalent output inductance of the regulator. in the case of the LM320T, based on the impedance graph and specified load i figure it's around 1.5uH. from there you have to work out the Zobel value, but i haven't quite figured out how to do this with the very low output impedance (around .01 ohm) of the regulator... just plugging that into standard Zobel formulas gives you ridiculous values. will have to think some more... -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Hi Dorkus Yes, ignorance is bliss, so much less to worry about if you don't know any better. OK, I get the snubber now, thanks for the links. My next, what should be obvious question, is how do you calculate the correct snubber value, if you know the output inpedance of the circuit you are adding the snubber to. Randy -- randytsuch randytsuch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3783 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
randytsuch Wrote: > Hi Dorkus > When you said snubber, at first I thought you were talking about the > putting RC's on each diode of the diode bridge. But, I think you are > talking about a RC filter, either before or after the voltage > regulator. I am guessing you put it before the regulator, after the > big lytic that would be after the diode bride, effective making a CRC > filter. > hi randy, yeah, "snubber" is a bit confusing since it is often used on inductive loads or rectifiers as you mention. but in the most general sense, it is just a bypass capacitor damped with a series resistance. this is different from a CRC filter where the R is in series with the line - in a snubber the R is only in series with the cap. i was actually surprised that wikipedia has a decent concise explanation of snubbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snubber here's some more specific info: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=56106 in carlosfm's diagram, the .47 ohm resistor in series with the 47uF bypass cap constitute the snubber. since it is just a general impedance compensation element (same idea as a Zobel in a speaker crossover), you could choose to add snubbers anywhere there is a reactive load or an inductive rise in output impedance - on the xformer secondary, before regulators, after regulators, etc... however one must be careful not to inadvertantly make matters worse by introducing a rogue pole in the whole mess, which could potentially cause ringing. usually the most advisable place is right after a regulator, where the impedance characteristics are hopefully known. unfortunately not many regulator datasheets specify output impedance vs. frequency, but the LM340T does, which may be why carlosfm from diyaudio prefers it. good ol' fashion trial and error can also be used, though that is obviously tedious. i really recommend playing with snubbers a bit - it's cheap, easy, and based on my quick experimentation highly effective. i really was skeptical that such small impedance changes could make much of an audible difference, but listening to my lightly (and not even properly) snubberized DAC last night i was again amazed at the improvements, at least in my relatively high-resolution system. YMMV though. power supply design really is an art that i am only beginning to scratch the surface of... when used in high speed, highly dynamic circuits (e.g. digital audio), one must really consider the supply to be a complex impedance network (xformers, caps, parasitics, etc.) combined with negative feedback amplifiers (regulators). batteries do not sidestep this problem as they have impedance and noise issues of their own. sometimes i wonder if the blissful ignorance of looking at supplies as pure DC was better... *sigh* -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
I may try some other regulators. I wonder if things sound better because of "good" distortion or for some other reasons. The LT1085 sounds good to me, so I have little incentive at the moment to go back into that PS and change regulators. As for snubbers, I have usually heard that term in reference to the rectifier diodes and placing RC networks between the pins to filter some of the switching noise. I have never tried it myself. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dorkus Wrote: > coincidentally i was just playing around with regulators today on my > Sony SACD player DAC supply. i recently reworked the entire supply on a > perfboard to get the impedance lower. i also added a RC "snubber", which > made a very appreciable improvement in sound quality. my values are not > optimal, i am using 5 ohms in series with a .047uF Pana P cap since > it's what i had on hand. this is one application of a film cap that is > ok IMHO in a high speed supply - as a HF stabilization element when > used in conjunction with series resistance, since the R dampens the > reactance from parasitic inductance. > > i had also changed the garden-variety 7805 regulator to a LT1086-CT5, > which is the 5V fixed version of the LT1086 you're using. someone told > me however that the LT regulators are *not* better sounding, and > actually have higher noise than many 78xx parts. while the adjustable > version obviously has better noise performance with proper decoupling > of the ADJ pin, some people feel the low-dropout design is not the best > for sonics. > > anyway, on that person's suggestion i switched back to a 7805, and he > was right - it sounds quite a bit better. interestingly, the difference > in sound quality between regulators was not as big as the impact of the > snubber, but that may be a function of me having the wrong RC values. > > in any case, thought you guys might find my results interesting. i > should emphasize that this PS stuff is not as simple as it may seem - > "better" parts do not equal better sound quality. > > btw, a very knowledgable person (the originator of the snubber idea > actually) told me to try the LM340T-5 regulator as an alternative to > the 7805. he also has the snubber values calculated already, so i may > give it a shot. > > cheers, > dorkus Hi Dorkus When you said snubber, at first I thought you were talking about the putting RC's on each diode of the diode bridge. But, I think you are talking about a RC filter, either before or after the voltage regulator. I am guessing you put it before the regulator, after the big lytic that would be after the diode bride, effective making a CRC filter. Is this what you did, or am I way off? Randy -- randytsuch randytsuch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3783 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > > I built a separate PS supply that is housed in project box and made up > of: > > 1 LT1086ADJ regulator > coincidentally i was just playing around with regulators today on my Sony SACD player DAC supply. i recently reworked the entire supply on a perfboard to get the impedance lower. i also added a RC "snubber", which made a very appreciable improvement in sound quality. my values are not optimal, i am using 5 ohms in series with a .047uF Pana P cap since it's what i had on hand. this is one application of a film cap that is ok IMHO in a high speed supply - as a HF stabilization element when used in conjunction with series resistance, since the R dampens the reactance from parasitic inductance. i had also changed the garden-variety 7805 regulator to a LT1086-CT5, which is the 5V fixed version of the LT1086 you're using. someone told me however that the LT regulators are *not* better sounding, and actually have higher noise than many 78xx parts. while the adjustable version obviously has better noise performance with proper decoupling of the ADJ pin, some people feel the low-dropout design is not the best for sonics. anyway, on that person's suggestion i switched back to a 7805, and he was right - it sounds quite a bit better. interestingly, the difference in sound quality between regulators was not as big as the impact of the snubber, but that may be a function of me having the wrong RC values. in any case, thought you guys might find my results interesting. i should emphasize that this PS stuff is not as simple as it may seem - "better" parts do not equal better sound quality. btw, a very knowledgable person (the originator of the snubber idea actually) told me to try the LM340T-5 regulator as an alternative to the 7805. he also has the snubber values calculated already, so i may give it a shot. cheers, dorkus -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Well, I decided to spend a couple of hours getting the ART DIO side of the equation done. I put in the SC944-05 on that side following GaryB's, Jim l'Hommideau, Graig's, and other's wisdom. I chose the floating option outlined on the ART DIO downloads in the DIOMods group on Yahoo. It sounds very good - I am getting a nice strong lock on the Art DIO and I tried comparing to the stock unmodded SB2 analog outputs. The SB2 alone sounds fine, but much flatter and the details are not as easy to discern as through the heavily modded Art DIO. I get a much better sense of depth and there are lots of subtleties in the mix that come out easier with this combo. Compared to the previous non-transformer based stuff, it is just shades better. I mean I don't have a golden ear, and I honestly have listened only about an hour due to family time. I think I will update this once I convert the cable from coax RCA to a good BNC cable and BNC connectors on both the SB2 and ART DIO. I snapped a couple of pictures, so I will put them up on my site soon and share. I think it is worth the trouble if you are building your system around the SB2 as I have (it is better than my vinyl rig now and I will probably have to get a modern tonearm and work on some isolation to get the TT back in the running). -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
So, does it sound better with the digital transformer in it? Randy -- randytsuch randytsuch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3783 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
OK, for people who want to do this with an SB2 - the info is as follows: L1 is just a jumper on my SB2 board (a solder jumper at that). I left it in place. Remove L5 from the board. The southern pad will be your IN+ for the transformer. I mounted the transformer using Blu-Tak in a dead bug configuration next to the analog RCAs. I tied IN- and Shield on the transformer to the big ground connection of the old digital coax out. I still have things connected to my WBT NextGen RCA from the SC916-01 OUT+ and OUT- respectively. Signal locks pretty strong for the ART DIO on external, but I will convert everything to BNC in the next few weeks. Thanks for the help. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > I just wanted to clarify what you meant by the "junction" of the > resistors in your original post. I use the word "junction" to refer to the point where the two resistors are hooked together. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
GaryB Wrote: > Mike, > You really need some understanding of the circuit to do this without > destroying your squeezebox. The two inductors that I called L8 and L9 > in my post are hooked up directly to the SP/DIF digital output and > provide a little bit of smoothing of the sharp digital output waveform. > I think some of the folks in the UK who modify the Squeezebox > professionally first pointed these out. > > So the question is whether L1 and L5 connect directly to the output? > If so then you are probably on the right track. > > Be careful in there. > > ---Gary Gary: I do understand the circuit, but I was thrown off by the numbering. Yes, L1 and L5 trace directly from the SPDIF output pin (see pic - circled). They trace from pin 1 or 2 on the Xilinx chip through the two resistors you mentioned - in SB2 they are R2 and R3. I just wanted to clarify what you meant by the "junction" of the resistors in your original post. Thanks for your concern. I think I will get it right - I just want to double check before removing SMDs. They are very tough to work on. BTW, I have returned L8/L9 to their homes. +---+ |Filename: sb2_inside_3.jpg | |Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=919| +---+ -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > I thought it was too far from the digital out. Are the numbers on the > SB2 and SB3 boards different? > > I assume that GaryB meant L1 and L5 on the SB2 board numbering... Mike, I thought I'd said it clearly before but my modifications were all to the Squeezebox 3 and the board notation is different from the Squeezebox 2. You really need some understanding of the circuit to do this without destroying your squeezebox. The two inductors that I called L8 and L9 in my post are hooked up directly to the SP/DIF digital output and provide a little bit of smoothing of the sharp digital output waveform. I think some of the folks in the UK who modify the Squeezebox professionally first pointed these out. So the question is whether L1 and L5 connect directly to the output? If so then you are probably on the right track. Be careful in there. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
seanadams Wrote: > That's because they're part of the CPU/wireless power supply - please > put them back!!! I thought it was too far from the digital out. Are the numbers on the SB2 and SB3 boards different? I assume that GaryB meant L1 and L5 on the SB2 board numbering... -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > I removed L8/L9 - you can see them in this pic right above the chip > labeled "CPU/Wireless Power Supply". That's because they're part of the CPU/wireless power supply - please put them back!!! -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Checking to see if image is here... -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Still have questions about wiring in the transformer. I removed L8/L9 - you can see them in this pic right above the chip labeled "CPU/Wireless Power Supply". Tracing back from them, the first thing is D4 from L8 and then is R22. I measure from the L8 to GND is 9.6Kohm and from L9 to GND is 4.09Kohm. These do not match what you say. Note that I am on an SB2. I looked at where the original digital out center pin connected and it traces back to a resistor R3 which measures 160ohm and next to that is R2 which measures 280ohm and an inductor L5. I cannot howerver trace any of these back to L8/L9 area. Sorry about being lame, but I do not want to ruin my SB2. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > There are two sides, a two pin side and a three pin side. I am assuming > that the two pin side is the input and that the 3 pin side is the > output. The center pin on the three pin side appears to be a "shield" > wire. Gary, what did you wire to this? The 3 pin side is the primary. The datasheet labels the transformer as follows: Top View Pol. Dot 1 --- 2 --- 3 In+ Shld In- 4-- 6 Out+Out- I wired the Shield to board ground. mamsterla Wrote: > Also do you just remove L8/L9 or jumper across them. I cannot find > R55/R56 where you said you took the digital signal. Can you check your > board to let me know if those are the right resistors? > > On my SB2 board, the resistor upstream from L8 is R22 and the resistor > upstream from L9 is R26 - these are hard to read like 2438ohms or > something. These are horizontally laid out and then below them are two > vertically laid out resistors R25/R27 on the L9 side and R23/R24 on the > L8 side. None of these is 107ohm or 245ohm as you stated in your > original post. > I just removed L8 and L9. If you trace back from L8, you should see it going to the junction of two resistors. I probably got the labelling of these wrong when I wrote my initial message. All my SB3 are in use so its not easy to go back and check the resistor labels. I wired up the transformer so the shield and In- connection go to a convenient ground point on the board. The In+ goes to the junction of the 107 and 245ohm resistors that I mentioned. The resistor you found that is labelled 2438 might be the 243ohms. Did you try measuring it? The 107ohm resistor goes to ground while the 245ohm resistor goes back to the output driver chip. If you are having trouble find these resistors, you can always wire to the pads where L8 and L9 were connected. One of them should go to ground and one will measure 107 ohms to ground. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
I just got the SC transformers this evening. I do not, however have the datasheet. I wanted to hook up the SC916-01 to the SB2 if possible tonight. There are two sides, a two pin side and a three pin side. I am assuming that the two pin side is the input and that the 3 pin side is the output. The center pin on the three pin side appears to be a "shield" wire. Gary, what did you wire to this? Also do you just remove L8/L9 or jumper across them. Am I right in my assumptions? Any help? Group buy people. I will try to send out all the TFs this weekend. If not, on Tues. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
hi occam, i think you may be reading a bit into my words. occam Wrote: > Dorkus, > He nor I made any mention of ps decoupling of digital circuitry, only a > reference to his rather well chosen (IMO) analog ps. > ??? but in this case the PS is powering the SB, thereby making this a digital application. granted there is a degree of isolation provided by upstream regulation and decoupling, but it is a dB reduction, not a total decoupling of circuits. the PS is part of a digital system, period. > Neither he nor I advocated replacing a smt ceramic for digital > decoupling with a stacked film leaded cap. Why in heaven's name would > you think we'd done so? > i didn't. > Similarly, while I do like the Panny FM electrolytics, as they're > readily available, from objective criteria, I can't see why they'd be > prefferable to Rubycon ZAs. > i never said they were. mamsterla said "I usually use a triple cap in my PS caps - a low ESR like a *Panasonic FC* or a Rubicon ZA/ZL..." i was suggesting trying the Pana FM in place of the FC, since it is a newer improved version. > I'm eagerly awaiting your offer of a smt based external linear supply... i'm not sure why you think i am advocating a different power supply, when i am really trying to offer an alternate perspective on power supply decoupling within the current context. > PS - Thanks for the nerdy references, but save for that 1st general > reference, it might be beneficial to make them relevant to the subject > at hand, decoupling of LINEAR (PS)circuits. they are certainly relevant, as they pertain to supply bypassing in HIGH SPEED DIGITAL applications. the choice of a capacitor in a linear power supply *is* dependent on what it is powering, because the load will modulate the supply line and thus introduce certain frequency components into the system as a whole. this means if you are using a "low-speed" linear analog PS to power a high-speed digital circuit, you must consider the PS to be operating in a high-speed regime now, at least to some extent. i think a common mistake tweakers make is to look at different parts of a circuit or device in isolation, when really the entire beast must be analyzed holistically. this means everything from the power outlet to the RCA jacks - power cords, transformer choice, etc. yes, it would even include the power lines from the electric plant to your house, but we don't have any control over that so of course it's moot. we do what we can with the things that are within our control and are an effective use of time and effort. related to this is the misconception of what i consider "holy grail" parts - magical drop-in replacements which will invariably improve the performance of anything they're installed in. black gates, designer film caps, vishay resistors, OPA627 opamps, you name it. i too have gone down this route in the past, but with experience i've learned there is no such thing as the perfect part for every job. i have heard some great-sounding gear using pedestrian parts which actually didn't sound better when modded with expensive tweak parts, in fact oftentimes they sounded worse. careful component selection is about more than picking what you perceive to be the best individual parts. again, i am not saying your preferred film cap does not work here - i am merely suggesting that there is a *chance* that it may not be wise here, and one should not be so complacent as to assume it will always work. just give the PS a try with and without the film cap, and see what you like better - you could very well hear no difference, or i could be completely wrong and you may like it better with it. but there's arguments either way, and you'll never know for sure until you experiment. -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Clarifications on what I have done: There are two separate sets of mods I have done to the SB2: 1. Outboard PS - I will get some pics up. I took them and I have to find them. I built a separate PS supply that is housed in project box and made up of: 1 Volex 12AWG captive cord with keeper 1 120/9.6VAC 3AMP EI core Hammond dual bobbin transformer 4 31DQ10 Ultra-fast soft recovery diodes (3A) in a full wave rectifier configuration 2 Panasonic 4700uF FC caps bypassed with 0.01uF Wima MKS2 film caps - these are the PS caps 1 LT1086ADJ regulator 2 Vishay/Dale Metal film 1% resistors at values of 3.65Kohm / 1.21Kohm to get 5v from the regulator The regulator 5v to ground is filtered by: 1 Panasonic FC 2200uF 1 Wima 2.2uF MK4 1 Siemens 0.01uF Stacked polyester This goes up through a solid core umbilical and is soldered directly to the SB2 (removed the old connector). I have no O-scope at the moment, so I cannot really measure HF behavior. It is rock solid at 5.12v at the SB2 where the umbilical connects. 2. Mod 2 is the replacement of the 14v power rail filter cap inside the SB2 (labeled "Big Ass Cap" by Sean Adams here - http://www.slimdevices.com/photos/inside_squeezebox2/) with a 3300uF Rubycon ZA bypassed with another Siemens 0.01uF stacked polyester. I also replaced the standard digital out RCA with a WBT Nextgen, though I will probably go with a BNC and Scientific Conversions Transformer in the next few weeks. I use my SB2 solely as a digital transport - I do listen to some internet radio, so I have decided to leave in the 12MHz oscillator. I have left the analog outputs intact as people do not indicate that it detracts from digital performance. This is really useful information. Keep it going. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Dorkus, I do believe we are talking at cross purposes here. Please read specifically what Mamsterla posted - mamsterla Wrote: > Gary: > I forgot to mention that my SB2 is modded with a linear, LT1086ADJ > regulated PS and has a new Rubycon ZA "big ass" cap with a 0.01uF > Siemens stacked polyester bypass cap on it. He nor I made any mention of ps decoupling of digital circuitry, only a reference to his rather well chosen (IMO) analog ps. Neither he nor I advocated replacing a smt ceramic for digital decoupling with a stacked film leaded cap. Why in heaven's name would you think we'd done so? Now when I read Mamsterla's original post I made some assumptions - He chose the LT1086adj, even though LT1086-5 s are available specifically because he could capacitively bypass the ground leg of the voltage set resistive divider for better performance than the non-adjustable implementation. He implemented his ps on some perf board or 'dead bug' and using smt components is simply not practical. And his use of those Epcos stacked film caps is very astute in the context of a non-smt based implementation. Similarly, while I do like the Panny FM electrolytics, as they're readily available, from objective criteria, I can't see why they'd be prefferable to Rubycon ZAs. This implementation potentially offers far superior performance than than the ULN723 based regulated supplies that folks hereabouts are so excited about (and as the original source for the recommendations on AudioCircles of the Hosfelt and the PowerOne supplies from CascadeSurplus, I feel entitled to make such assertions, and only suggested them as a quick and dirty cheap altenative and not as the equal of a well implemented ps as done by Mamsterla) and more importantly, is relatively straightforward to do so. I'm eagerly awaiting your offer of a smt based external linear supply, with double sided boards, proper ground planes for lowest noise, and provision for the 'proper' components. But until that time, I'd think the proper response to Mamsterla would be to ask for advice. FWIW, Occam PS - Thanks for the nerdy references, but save for that 1st general reference, it might be beneficial to make them relevant to the subject at hand, decoupling of LINEAR (PS)circuits. -- occam occam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=949 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
occam Wrote: > The Siemens (now Epcos) stacked poly caps are known for their very low > inductance, and are specifically used in ps bypass of high speed > circuity. interesting, can you show me an actual commercial application where they are used as such? > Go to digikey, and download the PDFs, and then tell us as to their > applicability. The encapsulated Epcos polyesters are series B3252xxx > and the polypropolenes ar B3262xxx. > FWIW i'm looking at the datasheet now, and there isn't anything in it to distinguish the Epcos from other stacked film caps i've seen. in fact, there's no mention of suitability for high speed applications. that doesn't mean they aren't good caps, but i'm just not seeing what you refer to. yes, stacked types have lower inductance than wound types, but poleyester has somewhat high dielectric absorption which limits its effectiveness at high frequencies, and self-inductance is still a problem vs. a chip ceramic cap. polypropylene is out due to the large physical size which makes low self-inductance impossible, particularly since almost all PP caps are wound types. i hear there are some stacked PP types but i haven't seen them; i bet they are expensive and they are still going to be larger than their polyester equivalents. the self-inductance of film caps can lead to unpredictable resonant behavior in a high-speed circuit. engineers who have access to network analyzers and high-speed scopes know this, which is why you will almost never see film caps in a industrial/commercial high-speed digital circuit, even where cost is not a limiting factor. you might be familiar with Pete Goudreau, who coined the "Godreau Triplet" bypassing scheme which used electrolytic and ceramic caps only. i believe he based his recommendation on actual broadband impedance measurements, and he found film caps were wholly unsuitable. of course, the proof is in the listening. if you think the circuit sounds better with the film cap in, by all means leave it in. i think it would be a good idea to test both with and without it though, rather than assume the film capacitor is the right part for the job. film cap bypassing was an audiophile fad back in the 90's, and now there's a countermovement of eschewing them altogether (e.g. the gainclone minimalists). usually the correct answer is far less black and white than either faction would lead you to believe, which is why experimentation is critical. not having network analyzers or 10ghz scopes on us, we can only rely on our ears. some nerdy background info for those interested: http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/Anniversary/21.html http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=3736 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=42787 -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
occam Wrote: > The Siemens (now Epcos) stacked poly caps are known for their very low > inductance, and are specifically used in ps bypass of high speed > circuity. As to an objective/subjective preference for polypropolene > over polyester, that may be but Epcos also makes these stacked > architechture caps in polypropolene, though more limited values, the > .01 being among them. The nekk'd stacked polyester from Epcos, > available from Maplin in the UK, are legendary for that application. > Go to digikey, and download the PDFs, and then tell us as to their > applicability. The encapsulated Epcos polyesters are series B3252xxx > and the polypropolenes ar B3262xxx. > FWIW Wow, thatnks for that info. I usually use a triple cap in my PS caps - a low ESR like a Panasonic FC or a Rubicon ZA/ZL at 2200uF or 1000uF depending and then bypass with a Wima MK4 at 2.2uF and a Siemens NOS stacked polyester 0.01uF. I have found that this combo works very well in my power rail stiffening applications. In general I took this idea from Thorsten Loesch when I was building my phono preamp and have applied it to the Art DIO mods I did too. When my Siemens run out, I will look at both the Epcos. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dorkus Wrote: > you may want to try w/o that polyester film cap in there too. film caps > actually aren't very good for supply bypassing in high-speed (e.g. > digital) circuits. the parasitic inductance is much higher than > eletrolytic or chip ceramic caps and can screw up the sound. YMMV, but > some people feel they add coloration... You're kidding, right? The Siemens (now Epcos) stacked poly caps are known for their very low inductance, and are specifically used in ps bypass of high speed circuity. As to an objective/subjective preference for polypropolene over polyester, that may be but Epcos also makes these stacked architechture caps in polypropolene, though more limited values, the .01 being among them. The nekk'd stacked polyester from Epcos, available from Maplin in the UK, are legendary for that application. Go to digikey, and download the PDFs, and then tell us as to their applicability. The encapsulated Epcos polyesters are series B3252xxx and the polypropolenes ar B3262xxx. FWIW -- occam occam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=949 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > I forgot to mention that my SB2 is modded with a linear, LT1086ADJ > regulated PS and has a new Rubycon ZA "big ass" cap with a 0.01uF > Siemens stacked polyester bypass cap on it. you may want to try w/o that polyester film cap in there too. film caps actually aren't very good for supply bypassing in high-speed (e.g. digital) circuits. the parasitic inductance is much higher than eletrolytic or chip ceramic caps and can screw up the sound. YMMV, but some people feel they add coloration. i recently opened up my lightly-modded Sony SACD player, which i've felt for a while was a little bright and tizzy up top. i forgot i had previously added Panasonic polypropylene film bypasses by the output opamp. the Pana P is a pretty good cap, but i realized this was a no-no and took it out, replacing it with some 10uF Panasonic HFU electrolytics i had in my parts bin (they're predecessors to the FC caps). ah, much better... after some break-in much of the tizziness was gone. i'm now very wary of using film caps for PS bypassing anywhere when high-frequency, low-ESR 'lytics (like Pana FC) are already in place. quick question: does anyone find that the SB lacks a little "oomph" in dynamics or bass with the opamp taken out? i mean on an absolute basis, i.e. compared to a good external DAC, not the stock SB. my experience with bypass mods is they are very transparent, but sometimes the impedance mismatches caused by the removal of buffering can make the sound a little thin or anemic. is the BB DAC chip really ok by itself? -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
P Floding Wrote: > Hi! > Did you get my two emails? > Regards > Patrik I will send an email out tonight with all the responses I have received. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > Hi: > > It looks like I have enough interest. What I need from people is the > following info: > > 1. Part number and quantity - look here for info: > http://www.scientificonversion.com/ > 2. Certainty - I do not want to float people if they are unsure > 3. Agreement to cover costs including any Paypal fees and/or shipping > costs. I will do my best to minimize these things. > > I figure a $15 part would net around $20 total depending on shipping > and packaging costs. I will close off the order Wed. morning around > 11am PDT if I have the $100 min. > > Email is the best: mamster at wnx dot com > > Thanks, Hi! Did you get my two emails? Regards Patrik -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
seanadams Wrote: > They're better known as "ferrite beads" (search digikey). Basically a > low Z for DC current but very high for 100MHZ+ - we use various ones > for internal power as well as external EMI filtering. Sean, were L8 and L9 on a SB3 added to pass the FCC EMI test, or some similiar test? Since I don't have a TV or other appliance close to my SB3, I don't care about EMI, and I can bypass these beads. Randy -- randytsuch randytsuch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3783 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
seanadams Wrote: > ... but not a high inductance (stored magnetic field)... for that you > need a real coil. Sorry. I know what they are - I just did not see anything I recognized as one in the pictures here: http://www.slimdevices.com/photos/inside_squeezebox2/ Good old Z - our friend impedence. Ah, my analog EE classes. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > > Also what are inductors labelled on the SB2? I am not familiar with > SMD versions of things. They're better known as "ferrite beads" (search digikey). Basically a low Z for DC current but very high for 100MHZ+ - we use various ones for internal power as well as external EMI filtering. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
GaryB Wrote: > I like to use 1:1 transformers on the sending side. A larger voltage > swing on your digital cable isn't a good thing. The 1:2 transformers > can be useful on the receiving side to give a larger signal to the > receiver chips. You should remember that 1:2 transformer reflect > impedance with a 1:4 ratio, so you need to terminate the 1:2 > transformer with 4 x 75 ohms = 300 ohms. > > Net: I like the 916-01 in the squeezebox and the 944-05 in the dac. > > ---Gary OK. Makes sense. When you terminate, you do so on the secondary, right (makes sense there). Any suggestions on the Female BNCs to use - Neutrik? Any isolated one will do? Hey, did you ever try the Art DIO with XLR outputs rather than INA103s on RCAs? Also what are inductors labelled on the SB2? I am not familiar with SMD versions of things. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > I notice that you used a Scientific Conversions SC916-01 1:1 AES > transformer in your mods even though it might appear that the SC9440-05 > 1:2 is the one that they recommend for SPDIF use. Any comments on your > choice? Did you just want to keep the 1:1 impedence? I like to use 1:1 transformers on the sending side. A larger voltage swing on your digital cable isn't a good thing. The 1:2 transformers can be useful on the receiving side to give a larger signal to the receiver chips. You should remember that 1:2 transformer reflect impedance with a 1:4 ratio, so you need to terminate the 1:2 transformer with 4 x 75 ohms = 300 ohms. Net: I like the 916-01 in the squeezebox and the 944-05 in the dac. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
P Floding Wrote: > I too would like to participate! > > I'm not 100% sure which ones I'll need. It will replace transformers on > the TacT RCS 2.2x digital input card. (And, depending on price, perhaps > on the output card as well.) > I'll get one for the SB too. > > I'll have to get back with exact specs, but count me in! > > Oh, and where is the price info for these transformers? (At least a > rough figure would be useful..) > > Regards I have heard that the raw price is about $15 each for the transformers plus shipping and handling (i.e. paypal, packaging). I think there is a company that does lots of TACT upgrades - http://www.aberdeencomponents.com/ Check out their forums to see which unit people recommend. Then email me back. I will reply to everyone who emails me prior to taking the order. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > Hi: > > It looks like I have enough interest. What I need from people is the > following info: > > 1. Part number and quantity - look here for info: > http://www.scientificonversion.com/ > 2. Certainty - I do not want to float people if they are unsure > 3. Agreement to cover costs including any Paypal fees and/or shipping > costs. I will do my best to minimize these things. > > I figure a $15 part would net around $20 total depending on shipping > and packaging costs. I will close off the order Wed. morning around > 11am PDT if I have the $100 min. > > Email is the best: mamster at wnx dot com > > Thanks, I too would like to participate! I'm not 100% sure which ones I'll need. It will replace transformers on the TacT RCS 2.2x digital input card. (And, depending on price, perhaps on the output card as well.) I'll get one for the SB too. I'll have to get back with exact specs, but count me in! Oh, and where is the price info for these transformers? (At least a rough figure would be useful..) Regards -- P Floding P Floding's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2932 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Gary: I notice that you used a Scientific Conversions SC916-01 1:1 AES transformer in your mods even though it might appear that the SC9440-05 1:2 is the one that they recommend for SPDIF use. Any comments on your choice? Did you just want to keep the 1:1 impedence? -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Hi: It looks like I have enough interest. What I need from people is the following info: 1. Part number and quantity 2. Certainty - I do not want to float people if they are unsure 3. Agreement to cover costs including any Paypal fees and/or shipping costs. I will do my best to minimize these things. I figure a $15 part would net around $20 total depending on shipping and packaging costs. I will close off the order Wed. morning around 11am PDT if I have the $100 min. Email is the best: mamster at wnx dot com Thanks, -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsrela, I sent you a PM on Friday , I'm in for two transfos Chris -- krzys krzys's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2256 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
If there's going to be a GB from Scientific Conversion I'd like to participate, I need one SC944-05. Regards, John -- nullspace nullspace's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3781 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Hi Mike, I'm in for 2 trafos, and there are some other interested parties on the Pedja Rogic TDA1541A DAC pages at Yahoo. I tried to PM you a couple of days ago, but I don't think it got through. Please could you drop me a line if you are still up for a group buy? All the best Jon Clancy -- jonclancy jonclancy's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3780 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
GaryB Wrote: > 1. No, I don't think you need to remove anything else. > 2. From Scientific Conversions directly. They have a minimum order of > $100 so you will need to find a few friends to share the cost. They > charge ~$15 a transformer. > 3. I like ext best. > > ---Gary Thanks for the info. I will put together an order, so if anyone needs any of these, let me know. I need 2 (one for the SB2 and one for the DAC in case I run it off something else). I will pass them on at cost and just charge shipping to get it out to people. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > A couple of quick questions: > > 1. Does it make sense to alter/remove anything else from the SB2 for > its duties as a digital transport? > 2. Where did you source your Scientific Conversions transformers? > 3. What mode of the ArtDIO do you like best - 88.2/44.1/ext? > 1. No, I don't think you need to remove anything else. 2. From Scientific Conversions directly. They have a minimum order of $100 so you will need to find a few friends to share the cost. They charge ~$15 a transformer. 3. I like ext best. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
GaryB Wrote: > So my cover is blown - I am the same Gary from the Diomods board. > > And one final comment about digital output jacks - I think 75 ohm BNC > jacks are the only way to go. They are cheap and their performance > will be better than the best WBT RCA jack. You can buy very good > digital cables already terminated with BNC plugs for not much money as > well. The following folks sell some nice cable at very reasonable > prices (I have no connection with them in any form): > http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/digital-audio/index.htm > > ---Gary Gary: I forgot to mention that my SB2 is modded with a linear, LT1086ADJ regulated PS and has a new Rubycon ZA "big ass" cap with a 0.01uF Siemens stacked polyester bypass cap on it. I will definitely try out the BNC connectors. I have ordered all my video cable from BlueJeans, so I will gladly order some BNC cables from them. A couple of quick questions: 1. Does it make sense to alter/remove anything else from the SB2 for its duties as a digital transport? 2. Where did you source your Scientific Conversions transformers? 3. What mode of the ArtDIO do you like best - 88.2/44.1/ext? BTW, with the Welborne PS-1 power supplies, I have not heard anything better than my ArtDIO digital board with INA103 outputs. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla Wrote: > GaryB: > > I think I know your posts from the DIOMods Yahoo group. > > My question is would it be worth putting the transformer in on both > sides - SB2 and ArtDIO. > > What other SB2 mods would you recommend for a digital only transport if > that is the best for my setup? BTW, I have RCA instead of BNC > connectors (WBT NextGen). > So my cover is blown - I am the same Gary from the Diomods board. I'm glad to see another user of some of my DIO tweaks. The DIO is a relatively old DAC but it still holds its own. I think the last thing I changed on my DIO was 3 years ago - a very long time ago in the digital world. Regarding digital mods for the SQ3, the key thing I found is adding the transformer and getting rid of the series output inductors as I described at the start of this thread. I also like the linear supply even when using the SQ3 in digital mode. As to whether or not one needs a transformer in both the squeezebox and the DIO, the answer is that in principle you don't. A transformer in the squeezebox should be enough and is the preferred place. That said, I have transformers in both my squeezebox and my DIO. The transformer in the DIO is useful if you're going to use it with different transports of unknown quality. And one final comment about digital output jacks - I think 75 ohm BNC jacks are the only way to go. They are cheap and their performance will be better than the best WBT RCA jack. You can buy very good digital cables already terminated with BNC plugs for not much money as well. The following folks sell some nice cable at very reasonable prices (I have no connection with them in any form): http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/digital-audio/index.htm Buy a few different lengths (3ft, 4ft, 5ft, etc.) and see which one sounds best. For digital, shorter isn't always better. You'll find the sound may lock in with a certain length as it minimzes weird reflections in the digital domain between the squeezebox and the dac. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Pat Farrell said the following on 02/03/2006 04:00 AM: > mamsterla wrote: > >>ArtDIO digital board only DAC - I basically removed the digital board, > > > I'm not Gary, but is the ArtDIO DAC actually better than the SB3? > > When the Art DIO was released a while back, it was a budget pro-audio > product. Since time is quality in the chip/IC world, the SB3's > chip is much more recent. > > Is it clearly better? Well, I've just hooked up my (modded) DI/O to my SB3 and done a very quick and unscientific test. To my ears, the DI/O sounds has smoother high-end, more width, more depth, "blacker" background. R. ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
mamsterla wrote: > ArtDIO digital board only DAC - I basically removed the digital board, I'm not Gary, but is the ArtDIO DAC actually better than the SB3? When the Art DIO was released a while back, it was a budget pro-audio product. Since time is quality in the chip/IC world, the SB3's chip is much more recent. Is it clearly better? -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
GaryB: I think I know your posts from the DIOMods Yahoo group. I have a ArtDIO digital board only DAC - I basically removed the digital board, built 3 power supplies, +5V Digital, +5V analog and +-15V for my INA103 output. I was looking to do the Scientific Conversions transformer for that DAC when I saw this thread - I am driving that DAC with a modified SB2. My question is - if I do not want to do the 1748KE upgrade, would it be worth putting the transformer in on both sides - SB2 and ArtDIO. What other SB2 mods would you recommend for a digital only transport if that is the best for my setup? BTW, I have RCA instead of BNC connectors (WBT NextGen). Thanks for answering so many questions. -- mamsterla mamsterla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=469 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
If you look at the datasheet for the dac chip in the squeezebox (pcm1748), you'll see that it is spec'd to drive a 5k load. With my modified squeezebox where I take the output directly from the pcm1748, bypassing the output stage, I find that the sound is much better IF you are driving a high enough impedance. For example driving a tube preamp with 100K input impedance, it sounds great and is equal to or better than using an outboard DAC. If you take the preamp out of the chain and drive the amp directly, the sound actually is worse. The reason for this is that the amp has ~10K input impedance. If you drive a lower impedance such as 10K then you are getting close to the drive capability of the pcm1748 and it sounds less good - meaning that it still sounds good but maybe no longer better than the external dac which has a very good output buffer. As always, matching of components is the key to getting the best sound. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
I'm sure it will work (assuming you do it right), but it may sound better still going through a good pre, because the pre output is a better match for the power amp input. But my point was, that the buffer stage IS actually doing something useful - even though it can be improved upon. -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
ezkcdude Wrote: > No, that's not necessarily true. I'm running the SB3 right now directly > into my amp using the analog outputs. I'm only using a pair of passive > attenuators, and they are usually dialed about half way to full, which > is more than loud enough. Is this with the opamp removed or still in place? I'm running mine straight into the power amp from the anaolgue outputs but with the SB in its original form with the opamp in place. WhatI'm wondering is if it'll work this way after taking the opamp out -- AndyWright AndyWright's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2241 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
AndyWright Wrote: > So before I start hacking (probably literally!) - should I infer from > this that the output direct from the DAC is insufficient to drive a > power amp ? I'm using NuForce reference 8s, 47k Input, 26dB gain, > without any pre-amp inbetween. > > Andy. No, that's not necessarily true. I'm running the SB3 right now directly into my amp using the analog outputs. I'm only using a pair of passive attenuators, and they are usually dialed about half way to full, which is more than loud enough. -- ezkcdude ezkcdude's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2545 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Patrick Dixon Wrote: > We implement our own output buffer (amongst other things), and it's a > significant improvement on the built-in one. The buffer stage is there > to provide post-DAC filtering and to increase gain to industry standard > levels, as well as to drive power amps. Thanks. So before I start hacking (probably literally!) - should I infer from this that the output direct from the DAC is insufficient to drive a power amp ? I'm using NuForce reference 8s, 47k Input, 26dB gain, without any pre-amp inbetween. Andy. -- AndyWright AndyWright's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2241 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
AndyWright Wrote: > I'm giving some thought to having a go at this myself, but did wonder > what the final amp is there for in the first place? is it just a buffer > to lower the output impedance so the SB can drive into low-ish impedance > power amps? Just wondering because people here who have carried out the > mod talk of "less brightness" - could this be the output being > attenuated at higher frequencies by the capacitive load of the > cables/power amp ? > > Andy.I don't think so. We implement our own output buffer (amongst other things), and it's a significant improvement on the built-in one. The buffer stage is there to provide post-DAC filtering and to increase gain to industry standard levels, as well as to drive power amps. -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
I'm giving some thought to having a go at this myself, but did wonder what the final amp is there for in the first place? is it just a buffer to lower the output impedance so the SB can drive into low-ish impedance power amps? Just wondering because people here who have carried out the mod talk of "less brightness" - could this be the output being attenuated at higher frequencies by the capacitive load of the cables/power amp ? Andy. -- AndyWright AndyWright's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2241 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
I descided to just go with the flow; Threw away the opamp, removed some caps, and added some blackgate's. And I must say SO much improvement! all sharpness & brightness is totally gone, much more detail overall. A recommendation for everyone. -- Heimiko Heimiko's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3462 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Heimiko Wrote: > Thanks for the reply. I would prefer leaving the headphone stage in > tact, as my amp doesn't has a headphone-out. If I would leave the > output stage in tact, but simply cut off the phono plugs, and take them > directly to the DAC (with caps in between ofcorse) would I still have a > major improvement? instead of grouding pin 9, i could use it for ground > for the audio, which is in the specs for the pcm1748. The audio wouldn't > pass the opamp anymore, but would it still influence the signal? since I > also take ground away from it? any thoughts on this? Some of the real hardcore modders should be able to give a correct answer to this, but think that it is quite important to get rid of the op-amp from the circuit for maximum results - even if you do not use it for the audio output. -- whistler whistler's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3277 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Heimiko Wrote: > I am seriously considering applying the analog mod (removing opamp, > replacing caps, etc.). However, i'm curious, this probably has an > effect on the headphone output? If I take the left/right straight from > the DAC chip, the headphone output probably fails to function. Am I > correct? Yes, you disable the headphone output by doing the "analog mod". -- whistler whistler's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3277 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Thanks for the reply. I would prefer leaving the headphone stage in tact, as my amp doesn't has a headphone-out. If I would leave the output stage in tact, but simply cut off the phono plugs, and take them directly to the DAC (with caps in between ofcorse) would I still have a major improvement? instead of grouding pin 9, i could use it for ground for the audio, which is in the specs for the pcm1748. The audio wouldn't pass the opamp anymore, but would it still influence the signal? since I also take ground away from it? any thoughts on this? -- Heimiko Heimiko's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3462 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
I am seriously considering applying the analog mod (removing opamp, replacing caps, etc.). However, i'm curious, this probably has an effect on the headphone output? If I take the left/right straight from the DAC chip, the headphone output probably fails to function. Am I correct? -- Heimiko Heimiko's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3462 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Skunk Wrote: > Sean posted one. I'm afraid you'll have to search. I did to no avail > (didn't see it linked from www.seanadams.com either) http://www.seanadams.com/dac.pdf -- occam occam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=949 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Jenks Wrote: > Does anyone know a place I can order a KE version of the DAC chip? If you are in the US, get them from Digikey. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
tyler_durden Wrote: > > Do you have a schematic and board layout diagrams? > Sean posted one. I'm afraid you'll have to search. I did to no avail (didn't see it linked from www.seanadams.com either) -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
My darling wife keeps using my wire cutters to cut the dog's toe_nails, so when I tried them they failed. I will get some new ones. I put in some cheap DC blocking caps and removed the ones from the board - which is what I should have domne in the first place, and the sound is much better balanced. With using the ones on the SB2 board leading edges were emphasised and subtle inner detail and emotion were diminished. With the new caps the balance between leading edge and subtle detail is much better. I have ordered some Auricaps and expect that will improve things further. Does anyone know a place I can order a KE version of the DAC chip? I will probably have to find a techie that can change it for me though. -- Jenks Jenks's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3413 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Jenks Wrote: > Ok, I looked at removing the output stage and it all looked too hard > with my meagre skills and soldering iron. Well removing the op amp isn't that hard. You can do it without soldering at all. The output opamp (NJM2041) is a surface mount part but there is a reasonable amount of space between the leads. I've been able to clip the leads of the op amp with some small wire cutters. Typically I just cut the leads on one side and then bend the op amp back and forth until the leads on the other side break. It is useful to get a magnifying glass and check that you haven't shorted anything out. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Ok, I looked at removing the output stage and it all looked too hard with my meagre skills and soldering iron. So I just removed the two Caps C44 and C45 as suggested. The sound has improved significantly, smoother through the mids and highs and more natural overall. I didn't expect any noticeable change, so that was a surprise. -- Jenks Jenks's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3413 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
I will have a go at disabling the output stage properly today and order the caps. I really appreciate the insights I got from this thread of yours. I had been using a Meridian 568.2 as system preamp and to avoid the external DAC too many boxes). I had my eye on getting an Audio Aero Prima DAC to replace the Meridian. I have also tried several separate DACs such as Northstar 24/192 (very average), Benchmark DAC1 (nice sound but somehow missing something - mainly body), Lavry Blue (Very nice). Removing the Meridian and using the modded SB2 direct to the power amps is better in many ways, and quite a surprise given my first impressions of the analogue signal I got from my SB1. I have had an SB2 for a while now but had never listened to the analogue outputs. Who would believe a 200 dollar device could sound this immediate and musical? -- Jenks Jenks's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3413 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Jenks Wrote: > Hi Gary > > Can you please comment on what I have just done. > > I have got my drill out and attacked the SB2 board - cutting three > links; between c7 and r37; between c39 and r39; and between the 5V > supply and R41. > > I am assuming that cutting the link between the power supply and r41 > that I have disabled the output stage altogether and do not need to > remove it??? Jenks, Cutting R41 doesn't actually cut the power to the opamp so it hasn't done what you hoped. The power to the op amp actually is from the 9v regulator shown on the schematic as U10C. > I have a lot more space at my disposal - should I use a film cap > instead? My guess is the Blackgate is plenty good enough (Rest of > system is pretty good - Rowland Model 201 Monos driving Verity > Parsifals, signal cabling is Jena Symphony). I think the Blackgates are very good but some of the better film and foil polypro caps are a bit better. People have nothing but good things to say about Auricaps and there are other brands that people like as well. By the way, I really like Verity speakers - your system must sound great. > My question is - have I stuffed up? Are there some downsides I cannot > see? > Anyway it is working, and sounds pretty good to me. The fact that its working and sounds good means you haven't messed up too badly. But you haven't really disabled the output opamp either so you might be getting some strange mixing of signals. At the very least I'd get rid of the op amp output caps (C44 and C45) or cut the lines going to those caps so you can guarantee that the signal from the op amp is out of the picture. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Question for you guys who are doing all this board cutting and modifying- Do you have a schematic and board layout diagrams? Where can I get copies of them? Thanks, TD -- tyler_durden tyler_durden's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2701 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Hi Gary Can you please comment on what I have just done. I simply do not have the equipment, let alone the experience, or even the eyesight, to play too much with surface mount boards, so have figured out some simple ways to go about it. I have an SB2 but have housed it in a large enclosure together with a high quality linear supply. I have got my drill out and attacked the SB2 board - cutting three links; between c7 and r37; between c39 and r39; and between the 5V supply and R41. I am assuming that cutting the link between the power supply and r41 that I have disabled the output stage altogether and do not need to remove it??? I have installed new output jacks, using the same ground connection as the old ones, but connecting the hot to the downstream sides of c7 and c39, thereby using those caps as my coupling caps. Next stage is to get some better coupling caps and attach them at the output jacks - at which time I will move the cables that feed the output jacks, removing them from the downstream side of c7 and c39, and soldering them to the upstream side of c7 and c39. I may get the same Blackgates that you have used. However I have a lot more space at my disposal - should I use a film cap instead? My guess is the Blackgate is plenty good enough (Rest of system is pretty good - Rowland Model 201 Monos driving Verity Parsifals, signal cabling is Jena Symphony). Hope this makes sense. My question comes from the fact I don't know what I am doing and I have not really done it the same way you did. My question is - have I stuffed up? Are there some downsides I cannot see? I had a look at that DAC chip and frankly my eyes boggled at the idea of soldering to one of those spindly and closely spaced legs off the DAC chip, so chose the easier spot which was at the coupling caps. I cannot see me ever trying to replace it - way too scary. Anyway it is working, and sounds pretty good to me. -- Jenks Jenks's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3413 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
dorkus Wrote: > p.s. GaryB, are you on diyaudio.com? Yes I am - same userid. ---Gary -- GaryB GaryB's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3169 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
despite being a serious tinkerer and DIY-er myself (i took apart [and broke] a nintendo portable game when i was 8 out of sheer curiousity), i honestly believe any manufacturer has the right to void warranty if you so much as open the device, much less make ANY changes - even sticking some blue tack on a crystal. you guys are all smart and competent i'm sure, but the problem is there are way too many, for lack of a better word, dummies out there who do ridiculous things to electronic devices and expect it to be covered under warranty. part of the problem is the litigious nature of this country - you have to really spell things in black and white to protect yourself from liability. i'm all for good customer service, but overly forgiving warranty policies end up benefitting a small irresponsible minority (abusive users) at the cost of the majority. i know some companies go above and beyond when it comes to warranty work, and i think that's very classy of them, but usually it's with specialty or premium products where the margins are very high and/or it's a niche market that's not as prone to bumbling end users. the squeezebox is more mainstream, and i'm sure sean has to work very hard to keep the price as reasonable as it is. just my 2 cents... ok, with that out of the way... i don't have a SB yet, but i can't wait to get one. :) perhaps i'll start by picking up a used SB2 beater to experiment with, then get a new SB3 once i've settled on some mods. (i wish i could afford to buy several SB3's to play with like Gary, but i can't :p). the SB2 and SB3 boards are moreless the same correct? p.s. GaryB, are you on diyaudio.com? -- dorkus dorkus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3373 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
davehg Wrote: > .., he knows the gear, and has modded countless SB2's and SB3's. > Plus, he backs up his work... I know Wayne and respect his work. I think he is far more numerate than you give him credit for. -- occam occam's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=949 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
davehg Wrote: > > Why should Sean and his team spend their time determining what the > problem is when it could be tied to a defective part on a mod? No reason, I agree. I was just stating a fact, as I see the JD100 as being more similar to a Squeezebox than a Saleen. Fixed link to your article: http://musicserver.blogspot.com/ -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Until or unless they decide to certify these mods, or release their own high end audiophile versions (unlikely), the risk is on us. Why should Sean and his team spend their time determining what the problem is when it could be tied to a defective part on a mod? That is why companies like Dinan (BMW) and Benz (AMG) and John Cooper Works (MINI) spend so much $$ getting their products certified for warranty coverage (and partly why they cost so damn much too). Modder beware. hey, the thing is only $250. I'll buy a new one. That said, I have ZERO qualms recommending Wayne at Boldercable, who has modified two devices for me and built two power supplies and few interconnects, digital cables, and a Bybee purifier. His work is great (I opened it up to see up close), he uses the best parts, he knows the gear, and has modded countless SB2's and SB3's. Plus, he backs up his work. Sean, glad to see your company supports the audiophile community and hosts forums and the time spent developing software that allows high resolution playback. [See my blog on building an Audiophile SB3 based computer server: http://musicserver.blogspot.com -- davehg davehg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2269 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
seanadams Wrote: > Once board-level mods have been made, we can not cover it under > warranty. > I do know that Jolida mods by Response, for example, do not effect the warranty in any way... I believe most of their mods are cleared through the manufacturer. -- Skunk Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
davehg Wrote: > Of course, if the problem is traced to the SB3, not the modders work, an > interesting dilemna, as Slim Devices may choose to void the warranty, > even if the defect is not caused by the mod. Sean? Once board-level mods have been made, we can not cover it under warranty. If it were something completely unrelated, say, a remote control then maybe we could cover it, but as anyone who works with electronics knows, it's quite easy to fry something off on the other end of the board from where you're hacking. So please be careful, and if you're buying modded units ask them to offer a warranty. This isn't really a new issue wrt warranties in general. Sure if you mod your muffler you won't void your stereo warranty, but for example google "Saleen warranty" - Saleen covers pretty much everything after they've modded the car. Ford doesn't cover much because a non-obvious thing like a hose being pinched while doing some mod could damage your a/c - not a system that Saleen actually meant to touch. I could name a hundred similar things like that in Squeezebox - not that it's particularly dangerous to mod one. -- seanadams seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
Of course, if the problem is traced to the SB3, not the modders work, an interesting dilemna, as Slim Devices may choose to void the warranty, even if the defect is not caused by the mod. Sean? -- davehg davehg's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2269 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Re: Modifying the Squeezebox 3
whistler Wrote: > However, I wonder what the modders like eg. Bolder Cables do when a SB > acts up. I suppose that Slim Devices will not grant a warranty repair > on a modded SB? > > On the other hand, if they do, the modding I paid for will be lost when > they replace it with a brand new. Any experience with this? You would have to ask the guys doing the mods how that works. I'm sure that they warrant their work and they're probably the only ones you can turn to when the device acts up, as I'm guessing the mods must void the Slim Devices warranty. If you can pinpoint the problem to a non-modded component such as the wireless module, or the display then I doubt if Slim would have a problem replacing that component. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19822 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
