SOtM sCLK-OCX10

[RussL]

22 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

If that's what they heard, so be it. I'll never argue with anyone about what they hear, because we are all unique in that regard.

 

The one caveat I will add is that a show demo environment (crappy hotel room with noisy neighbors!)is not at all ideal for these comparisons. So don't form conclusions from what you hear in a show - good or bad. The ultimate test comes in your own system, in your sweet spot, and where you can repeat the comparison as many times as you need to decide. 

 

Despite some of the glowing show reports, I felt the AXPONA acoustics were terrible in general. Yes, there were some rooms that were exceptional. For example, I found the Nagra room - with their massively expensive HD preamp and amp - to be really harsh and unengaging. Yet a very similar system at RMAF was the best room of the show, for me.

 

Agree on the show environment.  My friends were most impressed by a self-powered ATC speaker pair (don't remember the model number) that lists for 25K.

 

Russ

[RussL]

22 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

You might want to spend some time reading these 2 threads.  There are a lot of people who would argue otherwise based on their real-life experience.

 

 

 

I read the first post quite some time ago but I'll go through again and take a look at the second post.  I'll still stand by my earlier statement though; the only clock that counts is the one in the DAC.  I'm an audiophile since my first year in college (1961) and have seen, heard, too much voodoo "enhancers" over the years.

 

Russ

 

 

[RussL]

5 minutes ago, d_elm said:

You should make it clear that this is your opinion and not based on any true facts.

 

Yes it is my opinion however it's based on a very successful engineering career (now retired).

 

Russ

[auricgoldfinger]

2 minutes ago, RussL said:

I read the first post quite some time ago but I'll go through again and take a look at the second post.  I'll still stand by my earlier statement though; the only clock that counts is the one in the DAC.  I'm an audiophile since my first year in college (1961) and have seen, heard, too much voodoo "enhancers" over the years.

 

Understood. 

[Superdad]

29 minutes ago, RussL said:

Yes it was subjective but I believe you know as an engineer and respected designer that the only clock that counts for asynchronous USB audio is the clock in the DAC, not any external clocks.

 

Just to be clear, I am not "an engineer and respected designer"--that would be my partner John Swenson.

 

And, having done blind testing between two otherwise identical ISO REGEN boards--where the only difference was a $1.08 Crystek C-3391 and a $9.60 Crystek CCHD-575--I can unequivocally state that you are incorrect about the upstream data clock not mattering.  Research is still ongoing as to exactly why the phase-noise fingerprint of a data clock can and does make an audible difference to otherwise buffered interfaces.  But you can be sure this is not part of a mass delusion.  

[Superdad]

27 minutes ago, RussL said:

I read the first post quite some time ago but I'll go through again and take a look at the second post.  I'll still stand by my earlier statement though; the only clock that counts is the one in the DAC.

 

You might appreciate this post:

 

[MNG]

On 07/05/2018 at 9:33 PM, Superdad said:

Research is still ongoing as to exactly why the phase-noise fingerprint of a data clock can and does make an audible difference to otherwise buffered interfaces.  But you can be sure this is not part of a mass delusion.  

 

I have asked this question before on this thread, but I’m interested in understanding why we’re using the term ‘phase noise’ all of a sudden nowadays whereas historically the term ‘jitter’ has always been used - it appears that the two terms are just different ways of describing exactly the same thing. A cynic might view this as a marketing move because using the term jitter would likely lend more credence to the comments made by @RussL in most people’s minds because they think they understand what it means whereas phase noise seems a bit racy and new. And reducing ‘noise’ is always good, right?

 

From an uninformed perspective using simple logic, I would have made exactly the same comments that Russ made about there being no merit in clocking the signal unless you are slaving multiple devices like in a dCS system. However, I am open to trying things out for myself as opposed to just theorising as I have learnt that relying on theory can often be wrong. I have a Chord BluDave combo which is quite a good DAC and the DAC designer would also agree that there is no value in massaging the signal, and yet I am feeding it with a signal from a Zenith SE which is then ‘enhanced’ by a tX-U tied to an OCX10. Why? Because I found that, contrary to theory, there was a definite improvement in sound quality from the clocking devices. But, using a professional sound level meter, there is absolutely no change in dB loudness.

 

So, I’m always going to be slightly cynical, but this clocking stuff does somehow make a difference. I don’t really understand how or why, but I think that we are digging in an area where even the experts who design the gear that we listen to are still learning about all of this. 

[JohnSwenson]

On 5/15/2018 at 2:48 AM, MNG said:

 

I have asked this question before on this thread, but I’m interested in understanding why we’re using the term ‘phase noise’ all of a sudden nowadays whereas historically the term ‘jitter’ has always been used - it appears that the two terms are just different ways of describing exactly the same thing. A cynic might view this as a marketing move because using the term jitter would likely lend more credence to the comments made by @RussL in most people’s minds because they think they understand what it means whereas phase noise seems a bit racy and new. And reducing ‘noise’ is always good, right?

 

From an uninformed perspective using simple logic, I would have made exactly the same comments that Russ made about there being no merit in clocking the signal unless you are slaving multiple devices like in a dCS system. However, I am open to trying things out for myself as opposed to just theorising as I have learnt that relying on theory can often be wrong. I have a Chord BluDave combo which is quite a good DAC and the DAC designer would also agree that there is no value in massaging the signal, and yet I am feeding it with a signal from a Zenith SE which is then ‘enhanced’ by a tX-U tied to an OCX10. Why? Because I found that, contrary to theory, there was a definite improvement in sound quality from the clocking devices. But, using a professional sound level meter, there is absolutely no change in dB loudness.

 

So, I’m always going to be slightly cynical, but this clocking stuff does somehow make a difference. I don’t really understand how or why, but I think that we are digging in an area where even the experts who design the gear that we listen to are still learning about all of this. 

A simplification of phase noise and jitter is that phase noise is the spectrum of the jitter. For some reason people like to think of jitter as a single number (I guess it is easier to compare two clocks if you are just using one number), but the jitter from a clock is NOT "just one number", there is a whole spectrum involved. The phase noise plot lets you see the differences. For example you can have two clocks that both have 1ps jitter but their phase noise plot can be radically different.

 

BTW using phase noise to look at clocks is nothing new, it has been going on for many decades, it is just that it is significantly more difficult to understand and particularly measure, so the simpler "jitter number" has been used so far for consumer products.

 

When trying to compare good clocks the single jitter number doesn't cut it, it doesn't give anywhere good enough resolution into what is happening with the clock. Thus as digital audio is working with better and better clocks we have to go with phase noise in order to see the differences.

 

John S.

[MNG]

On 5/18/2018 at 7:54 AM, JohnSwenson said:

A simplification of phase noise and jitter is that phase noise is the spectrum of the jitter. For some reason people like to think of jitter as a single number (I guess it is easier to compare two clocks if you are just using one number), but the jitter from a clock is NOT "just one number", there is a whole spectrum involved. The phase noise plot lets you see the differences. For example you can have two clocks that both have 1ps jitter but their phase noise plot can be radically different.

 

BTW using phase noise to look at clocks is nothing new, it has been going on for many decades, it is just that it is significantly more difficult to understand and particularly measure, so the simpler "jitter number" has been used so far for consumer products.

 

When trying to compare good clocks the single jitter number doesn't cut it, it doesn't give anywhere good enough resolution into what is happening with the clock. Thus as digital audio is working with better and better clocks we have to go with phase noise in order to see the differences.

 

John S.

 

Thank you for that info John, much appreciated. I look forward to seeing your new switch devices emerge.

[auricgoldfinger]

Big review of BNC cables by Jay at Audio Bacon

 

https://audiobacon.net/2018/08/11/the-audiophiles-short-list-the-best-digital-coaxial-cables/

[auricgoldfinger]

In case anyone is in the market for a cable upgrade...

 

https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649455547-sotm-dcblbnc50-digital-cable-1-meter/?utm_campaign=new-classified-ad&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email

[BigAlMc]

Jay reviews the sCLK-OCX10

 

https://audiobacon.net/2018/09/26/sotm-sclk-ocx10-a-high-purity-10-mhz-master-clock-generator/

 

Certified sizzle!

[Vhond]

Review by Hans Beekhuyzen:

 

Click