Mutec REF 10 Masterclock

[vortecjr]

Romas, so you don't like our message against the spaghetti solution and this makes you resort to attacking us and the microRendu. We don't claim to know everything and we are making a genuine effort to research it. All of this research might actually prove you have super human hearing. Anyway, Mr Watts is not fond of the microRendu and he thinks it's not better than a Windows laptop. I'm perfectly fine with that because we are making units that replace laptops and desktops in your audio room. Don't you think his statements about the microRendu also extends to the spaghetti solution being no better than a laptop?   

[mourip]

1 hour ago, vortecjr said:

Thomas I'll ask Chris to move these posts to a new thread. 

 

If you mean all of the posts that do not relate to the REF10 that would be great... or we could just return to the original programming and move on.

 

Julian. Perhaps you might consider sponsoring a Mutec manufacturers thread? That might help insure that the future Mutec topics would continue to focus entirely on your products and avoid diversion.

[barrows]

3 hours ago, SwissBear said:

some of these satisfied customers very lucky enough to be able to test the Ref-10 as an improvement to the performances of the MC-3+ USB and I am one of those. Having no financial interest in Mutec, I sincerely advise MC-3+ USB users to test for themselves and appreciate the improvements

And as Jesus has pointed out, this is a sensible use for the Mutec Ref-10, as the MC-3+ is an SPDIF output device and can certainly achieve better performance with a better clock, no one questions this approach here that I am aware of.

[barrows]

5 hours ago, romaz said:

his pulse array DACs are inherently immune to jitter, he believes all sources sound the same with his DAVE and that the microRendu is no better than a Windows laptop.  Here is what Rob shared with me last year shortly after I bought my microRendu and I told him I was hearing an improvement:

So who is "right", Rob Watts or you?  It appears that you and I both know something which Rob Watts does not, that the source still matters despite using a well isolated async USB interface?  We agree, so I am really unclear as to what your point here is.

As far as Sonore goes we make products to both achieve the convenience of computer audio, and to improve the performance of the associated DAC by providing as good a USB feed as possible at the associated price point.  I doubt that anyone in this discussion thinks the USB source does not matter.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Many people have reported this thread, for going off the rails and for comments that are out of bounds.

 

Please get back on topic and keep the comments inline. 

[romaz]

 

 

Jesus and Barrows, I will respond to your questions but this will be my last response.  Feel free not to respond back.  Chris, if you see fit to remove my post, I'm ok with it.

 

3 hours ago, vortecjr said:

Romas, so you don't like our message against the spaghetti solution and this makes you resort to attacking us and the microRendu. 

 

Jesus, it really doesn't matter to me at all whether you like this "spaghetti solution" or not.  It has nothing to do with it.  As far as attacking you, I'm not sure where your paranoia comes from.  As I see it, Sonore are the aggressors here.  I merely countered Barrows' narrow minded view about a product he has never even listened to.

 

4 hours ago, vortecjr said:

All of this research might actually prove you have super human hearing. 

 

Trust me, I don't have super human hearing.  What I'm hearing is being heard by many, you just refuse to acknowledge there may be something there.  It's interesting that you are waiting for measurements from John S. to validate the validity of clocking when you offer no measurements for your products.  The only measurements I see come from ASR and we all know what those look like.  Regardless, I didn't buy my microRendu or my REF10 because of measurements, I bought them for their potential to cause "goose bumps."  As far as I know, there is no lab instrument that can measure for this.  Sometimes, you just have to listen.

 

22 hours ago, barrows said:

In addition my posts are not meant to be any criticism of the Mutec components, for their intended purpose I expect they are excellent, and the clock itself, if it actually meets the claimed specs...

 

...if it actually meets the claimed specs???

 

Barrows, please give this manufacturer the benefit of the doubt that they have integrity in reporting their measurements.  At least, they offer measurements.  This is what I meant when I said that your bias and your agenda are clear.  You say your comments are not meant to be critical and then you follow it with a veiled insult.

 

3 hours ago, barrows said:

So who is "right", Rob Watts or you?  It appears that you and I both know something which Rob Watts does not, that the source still matters despite using a well isolated async USB interface?  We agree, so I am really unclear as to what your point here is.

 

Barrows, if you are going to extol the virtues of Rob's comments for your personal gain, you need to be prepared to defend his other comments.  My point with bringing Rob's comments up is that despite his intelligence, wisdom and experience, even Rob doesn't know everything but at least he is willing to admit it.  With regards to the REF10 and how it might impact a DAC or any other digital component, unless you've actually listened to what it can do, please keep your speculative comments to yourself.

 

4 hours ago, vortecjr said:

Anyway, Mr Watts is not fond of the microRendu and he thinks it's not better than a Windows laptop. I'm perfectly fine with that because we are making units that replace laptops and desktops in your audio room. Don't you think his statements about the microRendu also extends to the spaghetti solution being no better than a laptop?   

 

Yes, that's correct.  Rob does not believe the source matters with his DACs.  In other words, he believes all sources should sound the same based on the technology he has implemented in his designs and based on his own listening of various sources and so this would apply to this "spaghetti solution" as well.  To Rob's credit, however, as you read, he was clear to say he doesn't know everything and so you'll never find Rob coming onto a thread like this and questioning the findings of others.  Further to Rob's credit, he is actually willing to listen.  He approached me a while back and offered to fly to my home in California later this year to listen to my sources.  Obviously, I have agreed to host him as I welcome the opportunity.

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-electronics-blu-mk-2-the-official-thread.831343/page-83#post-13679993

 

3 hours ago, barrows said:

As far as Sonore goes we make products to both achieve the convenience of computer audio, and to improve the performance of the associated DAC by providing as good a USB feed as possible at the associated price point. 

 

No argument here.  Sonore makes fine products.  Please let them speak for themselves.

 

Now moving back to the REF10, I have received more clock cables to try of varying price.  I will report back once I have had a chance to evaluate them...

[julian.david]

On 9/17/2017 at 8:55 PM, austinpop said:

But - it is nice to meet people, and put faces to names.

 

Absolutely! It's one of the main reasons why I like going to trade shows! 

Come over for High End Munich next May and we'll have a beer ;-)

 

Julian

[julian.david]

On 9/17/2017 at 9:07 PM, austinpop said:

 

That would be wonderful, wouldn't it!

 

 I wish more DACs enabled a reference clock input (John Swenson's type #3 clock). So far, looking at your list, they seem to either be on the low-end (Teac, M2Tech), or the nose-bleeding end (Esoteric).

 

Some DACs in the middle ($2k-5k, like the Mytek Brooklyn) do sport word clock inputs (JS's clock type #1), but that isn't particularly useful.

I definitely hear you on this. We are pretty confident that we will see more 10 MHz-enabled DACs in the future though. 

 

Julian

[Confused]

5 minutes ago, julian.david said:

Absolutely! It's one of the main reasons why I like going to trade shows! 

Come over for High End Munich next May and we'll have a beer ;-)

 

Julian

There are two big shows coming up in the UK over the next few weeks.  Hifi London Indulgence show at Hammersmith 29th September to 1st October, then the Hifi News show at Windsor 21st / 22nd October.  Will there be any kind of representation for Mutec at either of these shows, even at the level of other manufacturers using Mutec products?

[julian.david]

19 hours ago, mourip said:

Julian. Perhaps you might consider sponsoring a Mutec manufacturers thread? That might help insure that the future Mutec topics would continue to focus entirely on your products and avoid diversion.

 

18 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Many people have reported this thread, for going off the rails and for comments that are out of bounds.

 

Please get back on topic and keep the comments inline. 

 

Hi all,

 

Wow, this has been a pretty wild ride in the thread during the past 48 hours! It's unfortunate that the discussion has derailed a bit, but hopefully we can get back on topic now I personally believe that we're fine with an open thread rather than a sponsored one. MUTEC has no interest in policing anyone's opinion and the forum's general rules should be good enough to take care of any real offenders. 

 

@barrows:

I trust you have a real interest in finding out more about MUTEC products rather than trying to harm us. We are actively seeking partnerships with brands (such as SOtM, for example) because we believe that those partnerships can help advance the art and the craft of great audio. I'm not just here because it pays the bills, but because I have a passion for music and audio. So all of this here should ultimately be positive and somewhat fun. MUTEC in general and I personally will not engage in any negative talk about other manufactuers. 

 

If you have doubts about the specs of the REF 10, send me a PM or email and we can talk about setting you up with a demo. We've just done a trade with the nice folks at SOtM, which has been an overwhelmingly positive experience for both parties.

 

BTW, it'd be great to know your real name (maybe add it to your signature?) since I'm sure we'll run into each other at a trade show at some point in the future!

 

15 hours ago, romaz said:

Now moving back to the REF10, I have received more clock cables to try of varying price.  I will report back once I have had a chance to evaluate them...

 

I'd love that. Keep those reports coming!

 

Julian

[julian.david]

On 9/11/2017 at 10:19 PM, barrows said:

@julian.david, These are some impressive numbers.  As we know, all Xtal based oscillators vary some.  Do you do provide individual measurements of each unit produced for phase noise?  Or is there an actual guarantee that these numbers will be achieved?  And is that in a Lab setting at the ouptut of your box, or with X length of coax cable, or?

 

In face, this quote had slipped my attention. Sorry about that! 

 

The phase noise measurements are measured at the BNC outputs of the REF 10 as that seems to be the most useful way of measuring. Internal measurements, i.e. at the output of the oscillator would yield marginally better specs but those would hardly be representative for the real word. Plus, our designers did an incredible job transferring the clock signal to the physical outputs with very minimal losses. Stating measurements with a coax cable attached on the other hand also doesn't seem to be very representative as this is parameter we can't control. What would be the "right" length? What make of cable? It would be a different story if we would provide a cable with the unit, of course.

 

In terms of individual measurements, we are making sure that every unit sits within our established tolerance. As I'm sure you know, it's impossible to achieve zero tolerance between components so you have to come up with some generalized specs that you can comfortably publish. Hence, the REF 10 phase noise specs are all stated as "≤ value dBc/Hz". Production values may in fact perform better. I'd have to check with our technical team to be more precise, but I think this information is already more complete than what most other manufacturers will publish.

 

Hope this helps!

Julian

[mourip]

17 hours ago, romaz said:

Now moving back to the REF10, I have received more clock cables to try of varying price.  I will report back once I have had a chance to evaluate them...

 

Looking forward to hearing about the BNC clock cables. I have a REF10 coming from the US distributor and hope to report back here regarding it's effect in my own system. Oddly, finding a wide choice of BNC WC cables was not too easy. Most Pro Audio online retailers seem to mainly carry a couple of house branded OEM and mass produced brands. Perhaps they will be fine. I will be using some Canare 75 ohm cables from Sweetwater to start. 

 

I will use the REF10 to clock two Mutec 3+ USBs and an Antelope Liveclock. 

 

More later...

[barrows]

@julian.david Hi Julian,  for sure I in no means meant to criticize your product in any way, and a number of times in this thread I have praised it.  Sorry if my posts came of as critical of Mutec, what I was concerned about is how and what some people are using the Mutec for.  As we both know, crystal based oscillators can vary a bit in performance and I was just asking two questions: if you test each individual unit to make sure it meets spec, and whether you provide that test information to the customer.  I think doing so would add peace of mind that the customer knows for sure what they are getting, and would make sure you know what they are getting as well.  I say this specifically because the performance in the specs is very, very, good.  I am not trying to infer that I doubt it though, just a little reassurance all around would be nice.

Thanks for the kind offer of a demo as well, but at this time there is nothing in my system which could benefit from a 10 MHz reference, maybe sometime.  I tend to use audio frequency clocks directly in DACs and interfaces without the addition of a DDS.  Although it is interesting that there are relatively new developments in DDS tech which makes this approach more viable for attaining really low phase noise at low frequencies where it matters most.

 

Just saw the second post that you test each unit to be within specs, that is great news, and I am sure of value to those considering purchasing the product.  Thanks for providing confirmation of that.

 

BTW, barrows is actually my real first name (it is given from my mother's maiden name)  I use precisely for transparency on forums.  the entire name is : Barrows Worm de Geldern, and I usually go by Barrows Worm.

[julian.david]

On 9/19/2017 at 2:22 PM, barrows said:

@julian.david

BTW, barrows is actually my real first name (it is given from my mother's maiden name)  I use precisely for transparency on forums.  the entire name is : Barrows Worm de Geldern, and I usually go by Barrows Worm.

 

Great to know and nice to e-meet you. Also thanks for clarifying those other points ;-)

 

Best regards,

Julian

[mourip]

Could someone who has a Mutec +3 USB doing reclocking with a REF10 as external reference kindly take a picture of their front panel. 

I have music playing but am not sure that it is really using the REF10 as the light next to 1-10.0M is not lit.

[SwissBear]

5 hours ago, mourip said:

Could someone who has a Mutec +3 USB doing reclocking with a REF10 as external reference kindly take a picture of their front panel. 

I have music playing but am not sure that it is really using the REF10 as the light next to 1-10.0M is not lit.

Here you are: you just need to select 'Extern Re-Clock' with the Select button instead of 'Intern Re-Clock' when using the internal clock of the MC-3+ USB

 

[beessy]

Hi SwissBear 

 

For your usb input, you should set the clock out to 176.4kHz.

On picture all your dsd will be converted to 44.1kHz 

 

Regards 

[mourip]

2 hours ago, SwissBear said:

Here you are: you just need to select 'Extern Re-Clock' with the Select button instead of 'Intern Re-Clock' when using the internal clock of the MC-3+ USB

 

 

Thanks. This is helpful. I also just downloaded the latest version of the Mutec USB manual which is more clear. I think that I have it set properly and will post a photo once I have taken in more coffee and reached my target heart rate. BTW. I am upsampling everything to 192K and so far have turned on the REF10 for my Antelope LiveClock/Rednet D16 and for one of my two Mutec USB re-clockers. The REF10 adds a new level of refinement as I enable it to each device.

[mourip]

Here is a snap of the two M3 USBs. The top one is set to accept the REF10 external reference and is set to re-clock, sending stream to DAC.

 

The bottom one is re-clocking and feeding the one above.The input is always 192K from JRMC.

 

[beessy]

Why are you not feeding the bottom one by ref10 external clocking too? 

 

[SwissBear]

4 hours ago, beessy said:

Hi SwissBear 

 

For your usb input, you should set the clock out to 176.4kHz.

On picture all your dsd will be converted to 44.1kHz 

 

Regards 

Thanks for pointing this out. I normally do not feed DSDs to the Mutec and convert them to PCM inside Roon.

BTW, is the MC-3+ USB good at handling DSD -> PCM conversion ?

[beessy]

Yes, you should try dsd native into roon  and let mc3 usb do the job for pcm conversion.

 

Regards 

[austinpop]

2 minutes ago, beessy said:

Yes, you should try dsd native into roon  and let mc3 usb do the job for pcm conversion.

 

Regards 

 

Why do DSD conversion at all? If your DAC handles DSD natively or over DoP?

[mourip]

46 minutes ago, beessy said:

Why are you not feeding the bottom one by ref10 external clocking too? 

 

 

I am trying to systematically add the REF10 as reference input to each component to see what the benefit might (or might not) be. I first started by adding the REF10 to my LiveClock which is adding external WCLK to my RedNet D16. I then moved to the next upstream component the Mutec 3+ USB. Next on to the M3+ USB before that.

 

Next at the suggestion of jelt2359 I will try running another BNC from an M3 USB to the Rednet D16 as Word Clock and disconnect the LiveClock. If this sounds better I could save a few bucks and simplify my chain. After that I will pull out one M3USB completely to see if it is still helping.

 

Basically I am going to try out as many combinations and permutations as possible and report back. So far the sound quality has improved with each step.

[auricgoldfinger]

6 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Why do DSD conversion at all? If your DAC handles DSD natively or over DoP?

 

The MC3+ USB does not support DSD.  It converts everything to PCM.