tgb

hi, could you please elaborate ?... because the way you wrote it, it looks like you have a cheapo scope (70MHz BW / <1kEur)... and it sounds weird... .. and especialy the "the aspects we are trying fix" : what do you mean here ? (1) Back to subject : - an 100Mb ethernet signal, from the ER (100MB for the ER is a smart choice) - it is a easy signal to trigger using any scope, cause signal freq is 125M, thus any cheap 00M BW scope will do the job (3kEur max) - anyone can tweak a switch or a FMC-bridge and measure the signal using a fairly cheap oscilloscope, and check which tweak is OK or KO vs SQ. So what ? Ethernet is cheapo to measure vs USB ! lol ! (although I can measure USB 2.0 signal thanks to a "vintage" scope I bought at 3kEur only) Strange exchange... an answer to (1) would help....

hi Mop911 (& Superdad too !), "done already" ?... it is not so obvious... because electronics is full of "straight-forward" designs, and innovative designs like the EtherRegen To be clear, I'm not bashing Uptone here. Uptone : "if it didn't exist, it should be invented" (I guess you get the meaning of that French common quote) I don't have any product from Uptone, because I do DIY experiments (etherRegen like), but like I go on doing my experiments because I get a cleaner SQ, I guess Uptone would have last a few months only if their product didn't improve the SQ. To Superdad, I agree, to do a proper measurement can be tricky, and as you said : my test fixture is not yours, and thus comparison between your results & mine are tricky (or close to : complete mismatch) 😀 but... if you could provide a eye-diagram of the Etherregen ouput, it could help... to understand... "better SQ" 😀 all the best !

Hi, Can someone be kind enough to post the an eye-diagram of the Tx Ethernet signal at the output RJ45 socket, please ? I didn't find the info is somewhere in this thread... Just to see how nice it looks (and to compare with my tiny lost cost experiments 😃 ) Thanks

yeah... but active systems are mostly used in "pro" systems, thus +/- to run 24/7 not bad vs reliabilty, isn't it ? you're right => fantastic SQ can be acheived using a passive or active setup.... "fantastic" fits anything ! my point was about : 1. the SQ vs $$$$ (cost) 2. I don't care about the design of the active speakers because... I just care about SQ ! Lol ! (here is a bottleneck for many..) You have a MU-1>Mola => great ! => plug them into a 2.1 setup actives ... you test... and then you can draw conclusions

dear Kalpesh, 33years with actives !!!! Did you gave this HUGE info b4 ?... (info = active setup beats any passive setup vs price/perf ratio) I hope so... but I think you get bored to get replies like "you're a jerk, passive is he way to go" .... just to say that on my own I swaped my passive for an active setup just 2yr-ago... to realize how... an active setup is WAY ahead/better as you want to call it vs a passive. I wish you a long life with the Cabasse Albatros.... but there are many nice newer actives on the market : have a try ! 😀

Hi Clockmeister, 1st comment : pleaase explained more clearly... the post b4 the last one => impossible to understand clearly what you mean. instaed of of throwing 6 screenshots in a raw, with text above the bunch of screenshot => do a post with 1 screen, or write above each screen what result it gives. My point is farly simple : 1. you have nices measurement devices : cool 2. you apply the recommendation of x/y/z to perform the test : cool So far : perfect. 3. the measurement device gives its results => +/-5 ps jitter 4. this 4th point, you omitted it => is this result meaningful ? 5. instead you jumped to point 5 => hey guys, this is the result The problem is : 5ps is way to much. This result is not meaningful ! In all the application notes / tech docs you put in link (I found many others on my side) => the clock under test, is a basic XO / TCXO etc. In such a case, ending up to a Xps jitter is meaningful. The Mutec like a GPSDO (I supposed the Mutec outperform a basic GPSDO) and others (like my DIY ones) ARE in another league. The stability & jitter of these devices outperfom the stability/jitter of common XO/TCXO by 1 order of magnitude ! So, to do measurements on such top-notch devices => the scope is not the right device because its uncertainty is too big. In such a case => 1. time-domain analysis lead to wrong results (not in line with "expectations", I mean : not in line with the expected performance of that kind of clock) 2. measurements must be done in the frequency-domain ! With the proper measurement device (spectrum analyzer, phase noise analyzer, TinyPFA (my favorite), etc...). Sum up : if we want to do measurements on a clock (no matter the freq, & the cost of it) - a measurement in the time-domain using a scope may lead to a wrong result, due to : GS/s, bandwith limit & the related rise-time. And in such case, EVEN the shape of the waveform will affect the result : square / sine wave will lead to diffrent result (givenall things being equal) - a measurement in the frequency domain => meaningful, whatever the case. Back to topic : why +/-3ps is weird, and other mesurements in the frequency domain must be done : Let's take the jjitter = 2ps (-2ps to +ps) Given that we deal with a 10MHz frequency => the period = 1 / 10.10e6 = 100 ns = 100 000 ps The jitter we have = 2ps thus, - sometimes the period = 100 002 ps, converted in Hertz => 9.999 8 MHz - sometimes the period = 99 998 ps, converted in Hertz => 10.000 2 MHz Here is the issue => with such clocks, (1) instead of having : 9.999 8 MHz & 10.000 2 MHz (2) we should expect : 9.999 999 8 MHz & 10.000 000 2 MHz <= better result, with roughly "1" order of magnitude difference vs the results we have by using a scope. I say that because I did the tests :-) I have DIY "master clock" plugged on a Mutec MC3+, based on a TCXO (rated at stability = 0.26ppm ; a good one I got from Mouser, clipped sinwave). I measured it using a scope (basic Siglent) => I got 1ps std.dev ! Even better than your result on the Mutec ! Was it a good result ? no, cause meaningless, cause way to big. I measured it using the TinyPFA (in the freq. domain) => like (1) vs (2) => the result matched the 0.26ppm stability (although these 2 are not strictly comparable) (slightly better than expected, so far so good, especially given that my "master clock" is small like my small finger (oscillator + power supply stage, all included !) & powered via... a basic wall wart 5V charger ! :-) ) So, we are waiting for your measurement in the frequency domain ! Especially, what matters is the compairison between the Mutec Nano vs Mutec Ref vs the LHY ! Using the same setup => it's more interesting to compared different clocks, rather than trying to follow the guidelines of JEDEC... I admit I find that all these measurements of clocks are quite messy given that we are never sure each manufeacturer followed the same procedure... that's really messy... my 2 cents.

hi, Clockmeister, thanks for your reply. I but you didn't answer my question... => I copy/paste it => Then, I just quote you last screenshot : the bottom-right diagram shows that the short-term stability ("jitter") is +/-3ps (roughly). What do you think about this result ? Is it "ok", and you can conclude the Mutec is a good clock based on this result ? I add : I think that 3ps (roughly given the histogram), is "a bit" big... as a basic hobbyist in electronics, I would expect a bit less than 3ps (3ps, based on the way you perform the mesurement) especially from this Mutec... But maybe I ask too much precision from this clock !😀

Perfect ! You've understood my points :-) ok. I'll the same blabla, but more franckly : 1. the sound you get : you're happy with it.... but... you think there is room for improvement. No pb. 2. the solution you have in mind : adding a box in the chain, or replacing a box... etc => it will cost $$$$, you may get an improvement but within a few months => you'll end up to the same starting point => etc... an endless story ! 3. in your post, you don't mention : passive treatment / active room correction. Do you have both ? If you don't => you should because these 2 "corrections" are key in any setup (from 100Eur to 100kE). Here are the biggest improvements to get a nice SQ ! First > passive treatment (within the limits of your acceptance of such stuff in your listening room/living room :-) ) 2nd > active correction then => add a "box" in the chain etc... but... after having a proper basis to work with (passive/active correction) (sorry about this post off-topic)

Hi GJo, I see what you mean : that SQ is not my cup of tea... or IS ... :-) Nevertheless, I think you're wrong to limit your judgement to this basic test, although it looks fair & obvious. Explanation : by upgrading the "clock", whereever in the hifi chain => we improve the quality of the signal, simply because we have a real-time stream, and so, the accuracy of the "metronome" that manages" the flow of data => is key. Usually, a better clock leads to a more "analogue" sound, smoother, more natural etc... (given that the other big improvement is about the 3D : more depth, better stability of the scene (for instance : a quatuor in from of the listener). But in some cases, although we get the proper improvement vs 3D, we can complain about an SQ with a "high pitch" (annoying, disturbing, tiring after some minutes). In that case, we can explain it this way : the better clock lead to a more precise signal, thus a more precise SQ. Thus, of course, the high frequencies of the sound are more precise/detailed etc... (like if you take off a "smoothing" filter), so the perception of the sound can be "high pitched" sound. So, here is my conclusion 1. tech point of view => a better clock is a good thing, anyway. 2. SQ point of view => if SQ changes to high-pitched or less pleasant => the solution/patch is to add a set of active correction in the chain (a box like a Trinnov, or easier/cheaper : via software at server/PC level). Of course, this step of active correction will patch the modes into the room etc... I don't understand why there are so many $$$$ setups without an active correction step... (if someone can explain, thanks in advance)

Hi Clockmeister, I'm surprised you took a scope to measure a "clock" signal. Can you justify this choice ? That's cool to "see" the squarewave.... but that's a "clock"... thus => what matters here is the short-term stability vs the famous 10MHz. Then, I just quote you last screenshot : the bottom-right diagram shows that the short-term stability ("jitter") is +/-3ps (roughly). What do you think about this result ? Is it "ok", and you can conclude the Mutec is a good clock based on this result ? Thanks for feedback

well... I admit I don't get the meaning of the prev post... An active speaker have the amp right there @ few cm thru traces on the PCB A passive speaker have the amp right there @ meters... then, anyone feels free to test an active vs a passive (sorry but I didn't understand the previous post vs tech)

hi dear ducktoller, you said => active (not powered!) speakers Sorry but I must give you an info => "active speakers" are "powered speakers"... with an "amp" inside the box (when we have an analogue coax/XLR input) or "DAC+amp" when we have AES/coax digital input within the "box" To be clear : by "box" I mean "the active speaker". Well... I stop there because if anyone tells to 10-yr-old "plenty of its will to understand the whole world" :-) => that, the diff between active vs passive setup is : passive = big box right here / active = the "big box" is within the "speaker box" Then,... instead of posting such non-sense post/question... the best is to be clear about => can we discuss about active speakers in this forum ? if "no", no brainer, at least it's clear !

Hi david256, You might be right to say that I've "attitude issues"... but, I'm just talking about active speakers & how they outperform most of passive setups. I'm stating that, based on my own experience... of course... not just based on blabla & so forth. then, me, I face bashing form some guy saying that I'm fool, or like you said "you clearly want a troll style argument". Back to reality, I had a passive setup (10kE), I wanted to upgrade it, but faced the $$$ wall :-) so I investigate the "actives", and found some high-end monitors ex-demo => bought them for a try => I did not expect anything, I just wanted to know "how does it sound ? what's the SQ of these actives ?" in my room... of course, "in my room" :-) So, I paid 4.5kEur.... then went to the shop to get this pair of actives into my car booth ; as I paid thru their web site, I had 14days (in EU) to be ok or send them back & get my money back. By home, I compared both "setups", actives vs active ; no need to explain that sources were equal etc.... and the result was.... the passive setup worth 10kE was KO at first "piano notes" by this 4.2kEur actives speakers (5.6kE is the current price, new, and is still.... a bargain of course) then, you add a sub to these 2 actives & the SQ is... => let's talk money => the 2.1 setup worths 9kEur (Core59 + sub18s from Dynaudio) Let's be "posh" and talk about 10kE 2.1 setup :-) this active setup is way more clearer/live/sharper / etc than my previous passive setup based on the Classé 2200i which was a beast vs power & SQ precision. For info, the passive speaker down the Classé had 92dB yield... quite high. Keep in mind I was... shocked from 1st notes of piano played thru this 2.1 active setup, and even MORE regarding the question : what passive setup (amp+ passives) can overperform the active setup ? and what's its price ? Story short => active 2.1 setup is : - efficient vs electricity bill coz class-D amplifiers - class-D amplfier are "fast" => fast = quick to suit the digital stream so what vs "fast" : - "fast" = simply => more "live" SQ .... as simple as that... ... the faster the overall hifi gear, the most precise/live SQ you get in your ears ! :-) Dear David256, you have some Magnepan 1.7 as passive speakers => back with old class-D amp I can't find the specs... 1. magnepan & so forth => they need huge elec power to match transients & 100% they can't match an active monitor to end, dear david256, 1. buy an active monitors? "FREE" if ou buy thru web (inside EU that's the rule) 2. compare.. cool & nice at home the 2 setups 3. after 14 days.. you'll have to get a clear idea about the "stuff", unless brainless... of course, 14days is 14days to long because from the first sec on a well-know track => you get the winner ! etc... You, based your setup in your sign => I don't see how any of your post is relevant vs actives speakers (tech view, not "blabla view") I'm just pointing that actives speakers offer a way higher price/perf ratio than any passive setup => you dig it ? :-)

Hi david256, you said => "the design integrated source solutions as those can obsolesce." question : can you explain "obsolescense" of actives speakers ? feel free to give examples of course.... Actives speakers are all over the high-end places like studios & Pro stuff for ages. So, if any issue vs quality over long term with actives speakers was a real issue & no go... it would be quite surprising ! :-) Feel fre to explain how all these so-called "pro", that use their gears (/hours & / high SPL) more than any home user, are wrong by choosing actives, vs like any noob => amp+passive speakers ! :-) Oups ! I was a noob b4 I swap a passive setup for an active one 1.5yr ago :-) you said => "The evolution of class D amplification bodes well for practical active speakers" well... "bodes well" => it's been already ok for a while ! (see paragraph above) "practical" (active speakers) => practical... can you explain/explicit ? you said => "that don't require a dolly to move and minimal design impact to provide heat ventilation for the electronics." what you write shows that you know very little about electronics... :-) if I'm wrong, feel free to explain "what's on your bench ?" (electronic measurments device) like scope / VNA & so forth... (you have them all right ? Feel free to explain. you said => "that don't require a dolly to move and minimal design" oups.. "minimal design" it's been there fo years ! based on class-D :-) Please update your thought about "what's happen now" => now & b4 => teens & "short of $" they go first for actives because it is cheaper ! as simple as that ! and next ? they keep using actives.... more high-power actives... and so on ... but no way for them to go to amp+passive speakers => simply because => back to passive setup => they loose vs transients ! Here is the key nasty word vs audiophiles & where they are wrong => "transients" Basd on that, help your self with the measurement tool (see above) & use your brain.... if no brain at all, you could have a try with Chatgpd but not sure it can end up to....ok ...rgds

+1 Dear stefano_mbp, as your hifi-gear is based on actives, feel free to give your feedback on this thread :-) => actives are ok / bad / why do ou go for actives instead of passives (setup) ? your clear feedback would be appreciated Rgds