The kitchen and the bedroom is best for them.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Teardown of the Emotiva DC-1 DAC
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Jimster480
Major Contributor
Nah my wife does all sorts of stuff, she actually plays Violin and she enjoys my headphones. But not the technical aspects that make them good, just the music itself!The kitchen and the bedroom is best for them.
OK, as long as she washes off the sticky hair spray when she's done.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2017
- Messages
- 543
- Likes
- 1,618
The BUF634 should definitely be part of the headphone amplification stage, but if there is gain on the headphone out (which, per the specs, there is), then there is another opamp in the chain there (as the BUF634 is unity gain). The BUF634 could be connected as a conventional voltage follower, but it is more typical with the BUF634 and LME49600 to place it within the feedback loop of the gain IC, like this: https://i.imgur.com/HXMkjjL.png
Typically one would not heatsink the gain IC under this circumstance, as it is unlikely to have any meaningful heat while driving the BUF634 - actually, it's not all that common to give the output buffer its own heatsink at all, I've usually seen them sinked to a copper pad on the PCB.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #65
So I have closed the box and getting ready to ship it back to Sal. Do we really need to know the confirmation of the headphone design seeing how it is being replaced with a newer unit?
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2017
- Messages
- 543
- Likes
- 1,618
Only you can make that call, given that you're the only one actually having to do work here. I'm just always curious to see how things are put together, particularly when I don't have to put in any effort
OP
- Thread Starter
- #67
I opened the unit and found the part, only to remember I had already taken a picture of it!
So there is the LM4562. The vertical pins you see on the left are the Buf643Ts.
I can't reverse engineer the circuit as taking out the PCB requires major surgery with tons of connectors that need to be undone.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2017
- Messages
- 543
- Likes
- 1,618
A mystery solved, thank you!
Given that the LM4562 is in there and where it is, it is a fairly safe bet that the BUF634s are inside of the feedback loops of its two channels - pretty much every case of the BUF634 or LME49600 in headphone amps I've seen has been similar to its reference implementation in that respect. That would make the headamp section of the DC1 similar to JDS's Element in design, among a gaggle of others. It's a pretty good choice, shame that the rest of the unit wasn't so good.
Johnny2Bad
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
- Messages
- 42
- Likes
- 28
RE: Journalists (Audio and otherwise)
I have a 4-year B.Journalism (an Honours Program). I've never worked full time in the field, but obviously I know a bit about the career.
First of all, the "product" of journalism is words, not Audio (or Science, or Medicine). There is no need to be factually accurate to pass the checklist you would use to write a story. Merely asking someone a question and printing the answer is sufficient, regardless of how accurate that answer should be.
Secondly, Journalists have virtually no actual education in any topic that a normal 3-year Arts graduate would have had to take. The idea is to teach a wide range of topics in as short a time as possible (first two years). So where most college grads have taken, say, an introductory History class and an elective senior History class, possibly a series of Science classes with Labs, a full Economics class, and so on, the Journalism student takes a half class in History, a half class in Economics, only one Science with a Lab, and so on.*
They receive virtually no actually useful post-secondary education about anything, really. It's two years of fluff followed by two years of writing, structure of various types of writing, and a bunch of career study.
None of the above prepares you to write a science story beyond just regurgitating what you've been told or read, what the Press Release says, or write the sensational headline the Editor wants. Accuracy is far from the highest priority.
Now, in the defence of the profession, there are good writers, writers with Science backgrounds who understand the Scientific Method, who refuse to jump on bandwagons, or who can pen a thoughtful and illustrative piece. They just don't churn them out at the rate that the profession demands.
It's like a lot of college courses, actually. As the demand for graduates goes up (and that demand may be driven solely by the number of entrants) the quality goes down. Back in the day when there were no schools of Journalism you had hard working writers who earned a spot on the magazine, newspaper, or news broadcast. There not only is no need for them anymore, if there were, they would have to go back to school and get that degree before anyone would hire them.
* Why did I enrol in a Journalism program? Because unlike any other program, a student in the Journalism program can take any introductory class, in any college, and the electives that follow successful completion of the introductory class, and the University I attended had a ridiculous number of disciplines available. I stretched my 2-year Pre-Journalism program to almost five years, taking all kinds of classes across all kinds of disciplines. But most students in that program don't do that; they just do what they are told and get the degree and out.
I have a 4-year B.Journalism (an Honours Program). I've never worked full time in the field, but obviously I know a bit about the career.
First of all, the "product" of journalism is words, not Audio (or Science, or Medicine). There is no need to be factually accurate to pass the checklist you would use to write a story. Merely asking someone a question and printing the answer is sufficient, regardless of how accurate that answer should be.
Secondly, Journalists have virtually no actual education in any topic that a normal 3-year Arts graduate would have had to take. The idea is to teach a wide range of topics in as short a time as possible (first two years). So where most college grads have taken, say, an introductory History class and an elective senior History class, possibly a series of Science classes with Labs, a full Economics class, and so on, the Journalism student takes a half class in History, a half class in Economics, only one Science with a Lab, and so on.*
They receive virtually no actually useful post-secondary education about anything, really. It's two years of fluff followed by two years of writing, structure of various types of writing, and a bunch of career study.
None of the above prepares you to write a science story beyond just regurgitating what you've been told or read, what the Press Release says, or write the sensational headline the Editor wants. Accuracy is far from the highest priority.
Now, in the defence of the profession, there are good writers, writers with Science backgrounds who understand the Scientific Method, who refuse to jump on bandwagons, or who can pen a thoughtful and illustrative piece. They just don't churn them out at the rate that the profession demands.
It's like a lot of college courses, actually. As the demand for graduates goes up (and that demand may be driven solely by the number of entrants) the quality goes down. Back in the day when there were no schools of Journalism you had hard working writers who earned a spot on the magazine, newspaper, or news broadcast. There not only is no need for them anymore, if there were, they would have to go back to school and get that degree before anyone would hire them.
* Why did I enrol in a Journalism program? Because unlike any other program, a student in the Journalism program can take any introductory class, in any college, and the electives that follow successful completion of the introductory class, and the University I attended had a ridiculous number of disciplines available. I stretched my 2-year Pre-Journalism program to almost five years, taking all kinds of classes across all kinds of disciplines. But most students in that program don't do that; they just do what they are told and get the degree and out.
Last edited:
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 945
Good post above.
Johnny2Bad
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2017
- Messages
- 42
- Likes
- 28
RE: Watering down of requirements
I think one of the best indicators of that is, when I attended University, a minimum requirement of graduation anywhere in Canada was you had to have a second language other than English (to probably no-one's surprise, I had French, and since I took it in High School, it was the advanced level; students without HS French could take what amounted to HS French).
That in itself was a watering down of what was required a decade earlier (1960's), where that minimum was you had to have Latin (and Latin was a requirement to graduate from High School as well).
Today, no second language is required at all.
There is something intangible about understanding a second language that improves your critical thinking skills, even if you never actually use your language instruction after graduation. I don't think any proof is needed beyond the realization that language becomes harder to learn as you age (and after your brain develops the patterns it will use in adulthood to solve problems).
It's not all bad news ... today there are in my City language immersion 1~8 where no English is used after the third grade, and you can choose from French, Ukrainian, Cree (Native American), or German. But in my humble opinion higher education, despite the greater level of knowledge today vs in the past, fails in critical thinking skills and includes too much rote learning. Not to mention the simple skills of writing and perhaps more glaringly, comprehension.
Technology in the classroom isn't helping. There were always textbooks (the ancient equivalent of technology) but I remember the individual teacher spent virtually all of the class teaching, good or bad, you got something that *was not* in the textbook in class. Now when so much teaching time is spent just monitoring the tech aids, that instruction time is diminished and something valuable has been lost.
I'm not a luddite but I'm also not a bandwagon-jumper or a tech cheerleader*, I try to view tech with open eyes; tech in the classroom has much to prove and so far hasn't lived up to the promises. We now have experimented with two generations of students without much in the way of results. Certainly some aspects are successful, even necessary, but the idea that giving every student a laptop is somehow going to improve learning is suspect in my opinion. The problem is that all three parties (educators, tech, and doubters) are all on the same train, with no brakes. Everyone is waiting for the ship to right itself and are afraid to jump off.
* I'm talking to you, CNet
I think one of the best indicators of that is, when I attended University, a minimum requirement of graduation anywhere in Canada was you had to have a second language other than English (to probably no-one's surprise, I had French, and since I took it in High School, it was the advanced level; students without HS French could take what amounted to HS French).
That in itself was a watering down of what was required a decade earlier (1960's), where that minimum was you had to have Latin (and Latin was a requirement to graduate from High School as well).
Today, no second language is required at all.
There is something intangible about understanding a second language that improves your critical thinking skills, even if you never actually use your language instruction after graduation. I don't think any proof is needed beyond the realization that language becomes harder to learn as you age (and after your brain develops the patterns it will use in adulthood to solve problems).
It's not all bad news ... today there are in my City language immersion 1~8 where no English is used after the third grade, and you can choose from French, Ukrainian, Cree (Native American), or German. But in my humble opinion higher education, despite the greater level of knowledge today vs in the past, fails in critical thinking skills and includes too much rote learning. Not to mention the simple skills of writing and perhaps more glaringly, comprehension.
Technology in the classroom isn't helping. There were always textbooks (the ancient equivalent of technology) but I remember the individual teacher spent virtually all of the class teaching, good or bad, you got something that *was not* in the textbook in class. Now when so much teaching time is spent just monitoring the tech aids, that instruction time is diminished and something valuable has been lost.
I'm not a luddite but I'm also not a bandwagon-jumper or a tech cheerleader*, I try to view tech with open eyes; tech in the classroom has much to prove and so far hasn't lived up to the promises. We now have experimented with two generations of students without much in the way of results. Certainly some aspects are successful, even necessary, but the idea that giving every student a laptop is somehow going to improve learning is suspect in my opinion. The problem is that all three parties (educators, tech, and doubters) are all on the same train, with no brakes. Everyone is waiting for the ship to right itself and are afraid to jump off.
* I'm talking to you, CNet
Last edited:
I can remember when we had Reporters reporting on what happened and Journalists investigating why, how and lessons to be learned.
Modern journalists appear to me to be reporters who have self-(mis)appropriated the Journalist nom.
Modern journalists appear to me to be reporters who have self-(mis)appropriated the Journalist nom.
Any plan to measure the upcoming DC-2? I need a sub $700 dac/pre with DSD and remote volume for use with my JBL 708P's.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #74
If someone loans one to me, sure.
Hmmm. Anyone buying one for sure?
cequalspid
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2018
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 18
Possible, not sure what your looking at specifically, but the DC-1 had a long run.
Justamusicfan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2019
- Messages
- 11
- Likes
- 2
Bought one on the used market and, while you do have to dis assemble a lot of it to do this, I replaced the op amps with Burson V6 vivid op amps. The difference is immediately noticeable and eliminates any complaint of the dac sounding “lean”. Maybe I should have replaced those no name electrolytic caps while I was in there.
After all that work I'm sure it sounds totally different to you.
My stock DC-1 still only sounds transparent.
Last edited:
Justamusicfan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2019
- Messages
- 11
- Likes
- 2
If nothing else, I gave it a longer life. I junked the garbage electrolytic capacitors it came with. Sound is cleaner . Transparent is a meaningless audio reviewer term. Like saying a wine is oakey with hints of cherries and leman.
Similar threads
- Poll
