[B3OHACK3R]

Actually, anybody knows what the Powerlink RX function does? Been seeing that in a few schematics. TX is obviously for Penta, 4500, BL5. What about RX? Any speakers sending data back to the source? Was that ever implemented in any speaker?

Probably a provision for local controls or a IR receiver within a speaker? Now I’m somehow curious what happens if you connect an IR eye to the PL data pin…

[B3OHACK3R]

pilatomic wrote:

Would you happen to recall the output load characteristic during that test ? Having a relatively low (~1k) load impedance could definitely degrade that THD.

I’m usually measuring at 10k. It is a known “problem” with those DACs. Same goes for the output volume. It only shows optimal THD+N at around -1.5 dB. Any higher and it will degenerate (saturate the output stage?).

pilatomic wrote:

No, really 10µF. That’s what the LM1117 is characterized with (the 3.3V fixed version, not the ADJ one). It requires the output cap ESR to be > 0.3R, which already excludes ceramic caps.

Ah, I see. Was only quickly looking at the reference schematic where 100 uF is used. Been quite a while since I was using such higher power LDO. Mostly switching buck converters nowadays and only small / modern LDOs with high PSRR for noise optimised low-power stuff.

[B3OHACK3R]

Madskp wrote:

Just for fun I did a voltage measurement on this pin and it reads 0.4V and fluctates when a command is pressed on the remote control

Could also be IR data output that is replicated on this pin. A scope capture would reveal it.
So that when connected to that PC Office thing it could forward local IR commands directly to the PC. Just an idea…
In any case – not that much useful.

[B3OHACK3R]

Madskp wrote:

The original peripheral for this connection was the first Beolink PC office box

Ah, true. Forgot about that.

Madskp wrote:

But if you can tell from the diagram that SL_config is and output then we might not have much use for that for input applications

Yes, definitively output-only in the schematic.

[B3OHACK3R]

Madskp wrote:

Replacing the 1611 converter with a 1614 converter on the other hand will not make any functions work at all.

The 1614 does not elevate the ML data lines. So no ML communication possible without a proper master. Either the circuit is not there at all or it is disabled by software. Not sure if I’ve seen a schematic of the 1614 so far.

[B3OHACK3R]

Keith Saunders wrote:

In other words if a 1611 (EU) converter failed, it must be replaced by a 1636 (EU)

Sounds a bit strange. In the 1636 schematic you provided the circuit does not contain the typical ML power supply for the data lines. So in no case it could act as a ML master.

[B3OHACK3R]

Madskp wrote:

SL-config is not connected to ML-sense

You can see in the schematic that SL_Config is actually an output. The “CPU CARD” can set it’s SL_CONFIG pin low which will then provide a logic high signal (5V) on PC pin 1.
SL probably stands for slave. Maybe to tell a peripheral connected to the PC socket that the PC source was activated?

[B3OHACK3R]

pilatomic wrote:

That’s interesting ! Any insight on the mechanism that lowers the THD here ? Too much drop through the resistors ?

Only noticed when measuring a PCM5122 on the audio analyzer (pretty much the same chip on the analog output). Never made much assumptions why this is actually the case. In-field you will either see the 470R from the datasheet / EVK being used or a value around 100 … 75R. The ones with a lower value were likely be tuned with a proper analyzer, the others are probably just copy-paste. Just make sure you have proper ESD protection. Also sometimes they don’t like a ferrite bead (FB3?) in front of the analog power input. Better to have the whole system powered by a buck converter and only have a small LDO for the analog part of the DAC.
With exception of the PCM5242 (convenient if you need symmetrical output) I stopped using those TI DACs a while ago because they also seem to have a higher variability in quality than usual. E.g. ESS has a part that is pretty similar to the PCM5102 and has no such issues.
Not that all that would make any difference when connected to vintage Beo gear… 😉

pilatomic wrote:

and the recommended output cap is a 10µF tantalum

You mean 100 uF, right? Which is likely also the reason why they are recommending tantalum caps. Ceramics in that range are quite a bit more expensive (and probably weren’t even available back when that LDO was designed – same goes for low-ESR electrolytics).
Personally I don’t like tantalum much. Only use it if there is no way around. Although they still have the highest density with lowest ESR they also really dislike repetitive and excessive in-rush current. They tend to go up in flames if they are unhappy with their environment. Then there is also the fact that it’s a conflict resource…
Alu-Poly is a great alternative if normal electrolytics or ceramics won’t cut it.

[B3OHACK3R]

pilatomic wrote:

While I work on those last details, here are a few up-to-date picture :

Someone in love with tantalum caps? 😉

You could evaluate lowering the series resistance of the RC filter on the PCM5102 output a little. Otherwise you won’t be able to hit the THD+N value they are mentioning in the datasheet. Some TI reference designs are….

[B3OHACK3R]

dmacri wrote:

The Non-B&O Monitor setting are Generic and Panasonic Screen. Do you knoe if thast can be updated to include LG Screen? Is that a possibility?

Can’t tell for sure if there is a matching code for your LG but, yes – the projector PUC table in general should be updatable by your dealer.

[B3OHACK3R]

dmacri wrote:

That may be just fine because I’m really using the LG TV as a monitor. My needs are modest. I just need power on and power off for the TV. Volume and input control is all handled by the BS3. I know there is some video manipulation, but my wife and I both like the effect and I plan to go through a full calibration soon to bring everything up to HD standard. I’d like to use the remote to turn on TV, my cable box, and the BS3.  Channel control would be on the cable box, volume on the BS3.

Had no luck directly turning it on with the BR1. Just OFF.

As Tignum already wrote, easiest would be to use a projector PUC that matches the LG TV. It would turn it on/off automatically over IR. I think they all still have IR.
Using a source PUC wouldn’t work in your case if you use the BS3 for video as well.

Everything else requires some advanced tinkering.

[B3OHACK3R]

dmacri wrote:

I was going to ask if I could control the TV just using the BeoRemote One directly. Is that even an option?

You can pair it over BT with the LG TV but it won’t be of much use. I think only the cursor, volume and power off works. No enter, no back, no home key. Pretty much useless.

In my setup it’s working fine but you have to build a little converter box.

https://forum.beoworld.org/forums/topic/beoremote-1-with-generic-lg-tv-or-any-other/

[B3OHACK3R]

Having a similar setup although I’m using the BS3 for audio only.
Used to have exactly like you are describing it but the video output of BS3 wasn’t looking good. Even in game mode where it should be more or less pass-through. Not about the resolution but it does some image post-processing just not looking good on modern screens.

Anyway, what you are looking for is possible but requires some advanced “tinkering” skills.

You could use the projector control output for switching on the LG. You would have to build some kind of IR translator or IR receiver -> LG IP protocol converter.

[B3OHACK3R]

trackbeo wrote:

But *absolutely* one should be able to play a stream proffered by a content provider, without having to use some web browser and then divert its audio output using Airplay or Chromecast.

A little off-topic for this thread but technically you can do so using the Mozart platform API that is available to public. Not convenient but it works.

https://bang-olufsen.github.io/mozart-open-api/

E.g. from command line with cURL. Replace the IP with the one of your speaker and string with a URL to a radio station.

curl --request POST \
--url https://0.0.0.0/api/v1/playback/uri \
--header 'Accept: application/json' \
--header 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data '{
"location": "string"
}'

[B3OHACK3R]

Sure. I’m using this handy python lib.

https://github.com/supersaiyanmode/PyWebOSTV

system.screen_off() is what you are looking for.

[B3OHACK3R]

pilatomic wrote:

values from 10nF to 10µF

Had to use a good 100 uF electrolytic cap combined with 3x 22 uF and fine tuning of the buck converter feedback loop to get the ripple on that rail to an acceptable level. Anyway, as you said not of much interest here.

Somehow DL can only be bit banged. Of course offloading realtime tasks to a dedicated MCU would give best results. Nevertheless DL is so slow and looking to be tolerant enough that you can abuse it quite a lot. For me it works 100% reliable.

[B3OHACK3R]

From what I know there are no connectivity issues with ESP32. Actually its reception quality is pretty good for what it is. For stable operation it requires some external low ESR bulk capacitance. Also some supply rail filtering between ESP and the remaining system is good practice here. All the low cost dev boards you can get are a little short on this end…

Probably let’s not talk about compliance here. It will certainly vanish any fun on such projects. 😉

BlueZ is… well often there is just no way around it when using linux. Although for audio streaming bluez-alsa works pretty nice.

For that other project I was actually thinking about implementing the whole DL communication on the same FTDI chip that already handles the ML communication. It has some nice GPIOs that are more than fast enough to bit bang it. So that could be a nice single chip solution that entirely runs over USB…

[B3OHACK3R]

pilatomic wrote:

I did a proof of concept about 2 years ago using an ESP32, but couldn’t get a reliable sound stream with anything other than the default SBC codec (which really isnt that good). I then attempted to pivot to Qualcomm chips, but they are really interested in small volume orders. I ended up using the Microchip BM83 module, which works quite well for my use case, except for its really arcane documentation !

Ah, interesting that it wasn’t reliable for you with an ESP32. Been using it myself for a couple of projects already and was always happy. Did you use their IDF SDK or the Arduino stuff?

Yes, I know those BM83 modules. Around for ages I think and come with a hefty price tag for what they are.

Was there a particular reason you just didn’t go with a Linux system? Things tend to be a lot easier then.

[B3OHACK3R]

Nice, congrats!
Which BT chip are you using?

[B3OHACK3R]

Madskp wrote:

Just got me thinking of this thread https://forum.beoworld.org/forums/topic/beolink-passive-ir-eye/page/3/#post-20843 where I tested an MCL IR eye connected to the AUX connector of a Beomaster 5500 and was able to control it via the IR eye. So based on that volume control via datalink should be possible. I don’t have the Beomaster 5500 anymore, but can try to do the test with a Beocenter 9300 and Beomaster 4500 and see if it works the same.

Ah, thanks. That is some good input again.
I made the assumption that local volume control through the AAL / DL port should be possible because I saw that the IR protocol is very similar to the DL one. I would have tested it by just sending a Beo 4 IR command for volume up/down without the carrier enabled.

Perfect that you already tested that! So most likely they are even identical.

[Author]

Posts