Jump to content

coogee.de

  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    Germany

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Found on Mutec site: "Extreme oversampling of incoming data allows the audio to be recombined and merged with a newly generated ultra-low jitter clock signal at ultimate precision, enhancing the re-clocked audio with unparalleled richness of details, spatiality, and musicality." (https://mutec-net.com/product_mc-3-plus-usb.php?lng=en#description)
  2. Of course, Mutec does not have to explain every aspect. But the highend world is so full of marketing screaming, I would really be surprised, if such major improvement possibility is not officially mentioned. And it is quite easy to implement 3 or more circuits into 1 gadget, so IMHO it would have already be done by any manufacturer. I understand your low pass filter explanation. Serialization of low pass filters works in the analog world, but does it also apply here? Maybe I have a major misunderstanding of the de-jitter functionality: 1) detect the sampling rate 2) sample the signal with a much higher sampling frequency than the original sampling rate 3) use any algorithm to detect which of the samples are caused by jitter 4) recombine the samples 5) use your own high precision frequency source to put them out again -> the original clock information is removed and replaced by a new and more precise clock. So, the only jitter in the new signal should be the own jitter of the de-jittering gadget. IMHO further steps can only reduce this jitter and only if the 2nd clock is more precise.
  3. Your description of the sound improvements is exactly my experience with an older DAC and 1 MC3USB. My final thought about this matter: If there is an improvement of SQ, Mutec would know/find/explain the reason and mention it on their homepage. But they do not claim it, they just say "look, what someone found when cascading MC3USBs".
  4. I also had once 2 MC3+USB in my system, just because I was curious if cascading really improves SQ. -> I could not hear any improvement. And I also could not (and still can not) imagine, WHY it should work. IMHO it can only improve the sound, when the 1st step does not work correctly (due to production variances?) and the 2nd does. If you have any idea, why it should work, please tell me. I am really interested in an explanation. And in general I only heard improvements with my older DACs. I guess, most modern DACs (especially the ones with XMOS driven USB inputs) do the de-jittering almost as good as an MC3+USB.
  5. It is really just cosmetic: black color, a window and some internal LEDs. IMHO not worth the extra 400 (!) EUR. Even 200 EUR is too much.
  6. The ADI-2 Pro is the best piece of audio hardware I ever bought... and over the years I have bought a lot. And this hardware helped me to finally realize, that the quality of the DAC or the quality of the amplifier is almost unimportant as long as every headphone available has no linear frequency spectrum. Even a very expensive headphone like my Focal Utopia has an annoying hump from 1 to 4 kHz. The high frequency peak of the HD800 is also well known. Sometimes you are lucky, when you find an amplifier, which "fits" to your phones, because it has the opposite flaws. (I also had once a tube amplifier, where I changed the tubes until I found a setting fitting somewhat to my HD800.) This is were the ADI-2 Pro helped me: The fantastic DSP with a digital 5-band parametric equalizer. I programmed it to flatten out the hump -> result: best sounding headphone system I ever had!!! (and for much less money actually) An extra amp is also not necessary, because I couldn't find any improvements when connected to a Violectric V281 or Auralic Taurus. So, I stopped my search for the holy grail sound and will not spend any further money for expensive audiophile headphone equipment. Ok... I maybe will buy an ADI-2 Pro II
  7. But a BNC S/P-DIF input. You just need an adapter or a Cinch->BNC cable.
  8. Yes, I will sell the 2nd Mutec and will use the money to buy the Mutec 10 MHz clock module when it is available.
  9. I did not mention it, but I also have 2 MC3+USBs. But I can't hear any improvement from stage 1 to stage 2. Staying with the sifter analogy: Both sifters have the same fineness (= clock accuracy), so the flour after the first sifter should also completely pass the 2nd sifter. The Mutec desciption says: "Extreme oversampling of incoming data allows the audio to be recombined and merged with a newly generated ultra-low jitter clock signal at ultimate precision". So, basically, they collect the raw data and analyze it to find out the sampling rate, recombine the data and put them out with their own high precission clock. So, the original jitter should have been completely removed by the 1st MC3+USB. The 2nd MC3+USB can only remove the jitter, which was introduced by the 1st one through a slightly worse clock (e.g. caused by component tolerances). If my understanding is correct, then it is important, which device is no. 1 or 2 -> sound degradation is also possible. When both clocks are equally good/bad -> no change in sound quality at all (which is maybe my situation). Or the signal is improved (I hope it is not altered) by something else.
  10. About cascading the MC3+USB: Does anyone have an idea/technical explanation, why this should improve the sound? IMHO, this would imply, that there is still jitter after the 1st stage. Maybe caused by an imprecise clock in the 1st stage? Why should this introduced jitter be solved by the 2nd stage with a similar clock? If the precision of the clocks is different between the MC3+USBs, then IMHO it would be enough to use the better one solely. Or where am I going wrong?
×
×
  • Create New...