[kirin]

Hello, this is indeed an interesting project! In my opinion these features were and are still desirable.

I have a question, also to all the others. I remember the DataLink protocol is well documented, also the control via IR. But I never found a similar description of the Masterlink protocol. I know about many attempts in the older forum threads and open source code (eg for arduino) many years ago, but I am not sure whether it is well specified or verified working. Maybe I did just not found it?

Beohacker, or did you reverse engineer it? If yes, can it be shared?

Thanks and best regards

[B3OHACK3R]

Hi,

I would not go so far and say that I reverse engineered the ML protocol. It was done (probably even multiple times) before. For example have a look here: https://github.com/giachello/mlgw
It uses the capability of the MLGW to send and receive raw ML commands.

What is probably more or less new is an independent receiver / sender. The only trick here was to understand what the parity bit does. For receiving this can be ignored but for sending you have to use it. A mark parity bit signals start and end of an telegram while space is used for anything in-between. Apart from that it’s just a differential serial bus running at only +/- 0.25 V.
The addressing and also that lockmaster stuff (which also is already documented on the web) can mostly be ignored if you are just “simulating” a link node. Pretty fault tolerant I would say.

[Keith Saunders]

B3OHACK3R wrote:

As with every product the difficulty lies mostly one the financial risk. Nowadays the usual go-to-market duties besides the development itself can leave a huge hole in your pockets. Especially when sold internationally it can easily screw up your whole product pricing if you are not selling it in large numbers. Not even to mention customer support and marketing.

I agree with your point here that is why most small product developers appoint a distributor, then you are only dealing with your distributor, not hundreds of end users.

In my view your “Private Project” has great commercial potential.

[pilatomic]

Stunning result you have here, congratulations !

I am very curious about that enclosure ! Is that something you designed ? Or is it an off the shelf part ?

Full disclosure here, I have an ongoing project that bears some resemblance with yours, but I have already settled on an more conventional enclosure.

[B3OHACK3R]

pilatomic wrote:

Stunning result you have here, congratulations ! I am very curious about that enclosure ! Is that something you designed ? Or is it an off the shelf part ? Full disclosure here, I have an ongoing project that bears some resemblance with yours, but I have already settled on an more conventional enclosure.

Thanks! Cool that you are working on something similar. Looking forward to your project. 🙂

Yes, the enclosure was entirely custom made for this one. Two CNC machined and anodised aluminium shells combined with two 3D printed parts. The one on the front is a nice SLA print. On the inside there are two indentations for the wireless flex antennas. The one on the backside currently is an FDM print – will probably update it to a metal one some time in future.

[PhilLondon]

Very interesting project, why not open-source it?

[Hyponx]

Fascinating product. It’s hard to say how big of a market something like this would have given the vintage nature of its application. But I’d certainly be interested personally. I have an older Beogram and a Beosound 9000 that I believe could employ this.

Open sourcing it or having a distributor for it would be an interesting development.

[B3OHACK3R]

Open sourcing the whole thing would not be that much useful. For the average DIY people it will be much too difficult to build – mostly because of the processor part.

Given the risk of low sales numbers – making a regular product out of that would result in being somewhat on the “expensive” side. Probably more than the devices it can control are worth on the 2nd hand market nowadays.
Probably not a huge issue if it would be an original beo product. Nevertheless in the end it would be a 3rd party unit and as matador wrote a few days ago I also see this as a critical point.

[BeoMedia]

 

That sounds interesting. Which use cases could this scaled version be used for please? Is there a web interface or app that would allow to control ML or Datalink audio systems via WiFi and to stream these audio sources via AirPlay (there will not be a network RJ45 connection?)

Beyond a missing RIIA preamplifier which other functions will be missing from the light version?

I would be interested in further integration of new and legacy products, just not sure what new features and use cases it will bring (as a light version).

[B3OHACK3R]

BeoMedia wrote:

That sounds interesting. Which use cases could this scaled version be used for please? Is there a web interface or app that would allow to control ML or Datalink audio systems via WiFi and to stream these audio sources via AirPlay (there will not be a network RJ45 connection?) Beyond a missing RIIA preamplifier which other functions will be missing from the light version?

Probably similar to that old PC2 interface. No direct network connection or streaming – the host system needs to take care of that.
A possible “light” version would cut away the processor including the network interface as well as the nice housing.
Maybe leaving the RIAA integrated makes a lot of sense. Probably better splitting it up in a dedicated DL and a dedicated ML version. Both at the same time isn’t necessary anyway.

Technically it would still be capable of the same functions like mentioned for the “full” version. Just not fully integrated. The end user would be required soldering some connectors, putting it in a standard housing and setting up the software. Could supply some software examples how certain things can be done…

[Madskp]

First of all very interesting project even though it might not become more than what it is now.

Some use cases for a light version from the top of my head:

• as an interface to activate a Beolab 2000/3500 or Beolink Active when sound is detected from analog audio input (Airport Express, Chromecast audio etc.) That said this already exist as a product from Almando.
• As an interface for controlling and relaying sound from a Beogram/Beogram CD/Beocord to an airplay/chromecast device

B3OHACK3R wrote:

Probably better splitting it up in a dedicated DL and a dedicated ML version. Both at the same time isn’t necessary anyway.

One use case for both DL and ML could be to actually control a Beogram from a Masterlink only product (BS Ouverture, BC2, BS4, BS5 and Beovisions with ML). Would probably need the use of some alternative source commands to make this work,

[B3OHACK3R]

Great, thanks for your input!

Yes, both scenarios would be possible with such a USB connected light version.

Madskp wrote:

One use case for both DL and ML could be to actually control a Beogram from a Masterlink only product (BS Ouverture, BC2, BS4, BS5 and Beovisions with ML). Would probably need the use of some alternative source commands to make this work

True, thought about this one as well. Not exactly sure if I remember correctly but couldn’t you just use a 1611 converter for using a turntable in a ML setup (Phono / N.Radio source)?

[Madskp]

B3OHACK3R wrote:

True, thought about this one as well. Not exactly sure if I remember correctly but couldn’t you just use a 1611 converter for using a turntable in a ML setup (Phono / N.Radio source)?

Not as far as I know. In all my testing with the 1611 converter it was not possible to control a Beocord (I have never tested with a Beogram, but will try that soon) directly connected to the 1611, only with a Beomaster, or a MCL2AV. As far as I understand B&O’s termonologi for datalink, there is Audio Link for connection between Beomaster and Beocord/Beogram/CD, and Audio Aux Link for connection between Audio Masters and Video products + the 1611 and 1614 converters

[B3OHACK3R]

I could be wrong. Maybe I mixed up something regarding that.
Indeed the two protocols are pretty different. Sometimes they are also referred to Datalink ’80 and Datalink ’86.
The first generation is used for talking to the Beogram / Beocord peripherals. Just two identical bytes being sent back and forth.
Data pins of the TP2 and the Phono are always connected in parallel. I guess two or maybe even more bits are some kind of simple device address while the other ones are the control command. Haven’t investigated that in depth as it’s simple enough to record and just play back the commands when needed.

[Madskp]

My take on it is mentioned here https://beoworld.dev.idslogic.net/forums/topic/beolab-3500-and-1611-converter-settings/page/19/#post-20377

My guess is that the Datalink for Beocord, Beogram etc. Only has 2 device types, and in beomasters with more sockets extra outputs from the Microcomputer is used for these sockets

[B3OHACK3R]

True, could be.

Was testing with a BC9500 here. So no CD / TP1 sockets.
Phono and TP2 commands are looking different but could be that Phono / CD and TP1 / TP2 are the same.

[pilatomic]

Can confirm, currently hacking around with what I believe is the Datalink 86 protocol on my Beosystem 5500 ( so CD / TP / TP2 / PHONO ). TP and TP2 protocol are identical, except that TP2 has no support for running status (to provide the MCP5500 with live display).

CD and PHONO also seems identical, but I haven’t pushed the investigation enough to confirm that.

[Madskp]

pilatomic wrote:

CD and PHONO also seems identical, but I haven’t pushed the investigation enough to confirm that.

They are identical enough that the CD connector on a MCL2AV can control a Beogram

[Guy]

Madskp wrote:

One use case for both DL and ML could be to actually control a Beogram from a Masterlink only product (BS Ouverture, BC2, BS4, BS5 and Beovisions with ML). Would probably need the use of some alternative source commands to make this work,

A trivial correction, but BS Ouverture does have datalink – you were probably thinking of BS3000/3200 which are ML-only. ?

Following the thread with interest …

[B3OHACK3R]

pilatomic wrote:

Can confirm, currently hacking around with what I believe is the Datalink 86 protocol on my Beosystem 5500 ( so CD / TP / TP2 / PHONO ). TP and TP2 protocol are identical, except that TP2 has no support for running status (to provide the MCP5500 with live display). CD and PHONO also seems identical, but I haven’t pushed the investigation enough to confirm that.

How I understood it is that DL ’80 is used for that CD TP PHONO stuff.
Ah, true. With external CD unit of course track status info needs to be transmitted as well. Looking forward to your findings. Can’t test that here with the BC9500.

The AAL port uses DL ’86 which has proper addressing and is similar to the IR commands. It is pretty well documented already I think.

[Author]

Posts