The Aberdeen Components "HACKsaw Mod"

[aberdeencomponents]

000000000000000000000

[pfarrell]

On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 10:16 -0700, aberdeencomponents wrote:
> We specialize in TacT Audio component mods. We use only the digital
> section of the SB2.
> [snip]
> Come see us at www.aberdeencomponents.com

Hmmm, are blatant advertisements by commercial firms allowed
as part of our Acceptable Use Policy?

Being commercial is not bad in the OpenSource world, but
I'd think you'd have to post parts lists, instructions, and
then casually mention that you're willing to do it
for a low low fee if someone doesn't want
to take a hacksaw to a perfectly good SB2.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimse...msoftware.html

[seanadams]

Hmmm, are blatant advertisements by commercial firms allowed
as part of our Acceptable Use Policy?

He emailed me the pics and I invited him to post it. Personally I don't have a problem with a modest volume of commercial traffic but if we'd rather not hear about stuff like this that's fine too... speak up if you care one way or the other!

[Dave D]

When I saw the hacking, my first thought was, "NOOOOOOO!!!"

It's a bit interesting, though, to see what people are paying others to do. Doesn't bother me. If I started seeing a bunch of spam about other products, It would get annoying.

Geez, they cut it in half...a perfectly good Squeezebox...

I wonder if this would void the warranty

[Robin Bowes]

seanadams wrote:
> pfarrell Wrote:
>
>>Hmmm, are blatant advertisements by commercial firms allowed
>>as part of our Acceptable Use Policy?
>>
>
>
> He emailed me the pics and I invited him to post it. Personally I don't
> have a problem with a modest volume of commercial traffic but if we'd
> rather not hear about stuff like this that's fine too... speak up if
> you care one way or the other!

My £0.01:

He's not doing anything that Vinnie @ Red Wine audio is doing, and I
don't have a problem with that either!

R.

[seanadams]

Did you consider also removing the digital section so we can be more RIAA friendly?

[pfarrell]

On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 12:56 -0700, aberdeencomponents wrote:
> This aint no advertising,
> I was just showing one of the many things "Tact Hackers" do to the SB2,
> if you got to my site you see nothing about SB2.

Yeah, that did confuse me.

> I do it for free. As far as parts goes , you just need a Hacksaw.
> the only thing we are eliminating is the COMPLETE analog section, which
> we dont use.

I think I didn't understand exactly what you were doing.

> Arent you in the wrong part of the Forum? Your open source, I am
> audiophile.

Forum? I'm on the mailing list, which is mirrored to the forum.
Many of us follow several lists or sections of the forums.
There is natural overlap.

Wouldn't a coping saw do a better job than a hacksaw with your
proposed mod?

I'm not a purist on advertising, but I think guidelines are
useful. Of course, some of the other mailing lists could
probably use moderators to kill troll threads.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimse...msoftware.html

[Aylwin]

Interesting stuff! Looking at the photo with the hack saw I can't help but wince. It looks painful. But the photo with the board cut in two is amazing. You mean it still works?

So what do you with the half that still works? Stick it in a TacT box? Any pictures?

[JJZolx]

Yes it still works and sounds great.
The Mod is not finished.... I have to make 2 more major cuts, the unit will be the size of a deck of cards when it done.
1st cut removed the entire analog section. 2nd cut will remove the 14 volt power supply. 3rd cut will remove the front end power supply (5v, 3,3 v).

Is it _necessary_ to chop up the board to enable you to bypass the analog and power supply sections? Or just dramatic?

Might be some food for thought here for Slim Devices. I've wondered whether some small DAC makers would be interested in dropping the communication end of an SB into a DAC. If the SB motherboard were actually two or three boards it would make this very easy. I think it would also aid in the production of "audiophile" versions of the SB, with upgraded analog output boards and power supplies, as well as making it easier to isolate/sheild the different sections within the chassis.

[seanadams]

Is it _necessary_ to chop up the board to enable you to bypass the analog and power supply sections? Or just dramatic?

Might be some food for thought here for Slim Devices. I've wondered whether some small DAC makers would be interested in dropping the communication end of an SB into a DAC. If the SB motherboard were actually two or three boards it would make this very easy. I think it would also aid in the production of "audiophile" versions of the SB, with upgraded analog output boards and power supplies, as well as making it easier to isolate/sheild the different sections within the chassis.

I think you are underestimating the performance of the built-in DAC. Check out this test where Squeezebox2 outperforms a standalone DAC (complete with differential PS and separate burr-brown chips for each channel):

http://www.seanadams.com/sb2_super_regs/

In fairness to the Adcom DAC, it's a few years old.

In fairness to SB2 (vs recent $1000+ DACs which might perform better), it does a hell of a lot more than D->A conversion at a fraction of the price.