Clock experiments

[custodian]

Quote from the Abendrot website on the $28k clock:

"The fundamental product of Abendrot Audio, a rubidium master clock placed in a beautiful aluminium cabinet, finally came to completion. STUTE is a master clock of supremacy designed for high-end digital audio system as well as a fruition of state-of-the-art technology of space development. Having the potentiality only can be actualized by a unique adjustment circuit, this rubidium oscilator with accuracy of 1 second in 1,000 years enables floating satellites to travel through several light years correctly. STUTE by Abendrot Audio, designed by the few existing professionals well versed in this secret technology, is the only genuine rubidium master clock. It is an ultimate collection for your audio system as well as an invitation to the deep, profound universe of sound."

Who writes such garbage?

[Glisse]

Originally Posted by custodian

Well if you accept digital audio is about digital data transmission, ...

I had not really wanted to enter a pissing contest on this but you really left me little choice. On that note, I'll leave this thread to others as I just want to get on enjoying the sound that I'm getting with the BVA clock.

That would be a shame, as your thread subject and experiments have been interesting. And very pertinent to the evolution of digital replay.

The problems of internet communication!! Both you and Adam are right re. Grimm, just disagreeing on details, focus and perceived intent

I hope you reconsider.

[justubes]

We audiophools are all cool, in our own funny ways.

It is the desire and quest for knowledge that we share our ideas and experiences.


This guy is cool, definately ahead of any of our so call "high end" high priced digital systems.

Do a google translate. Now this is for the love of the hobby but Grimm is no where close, nor is dcs, nor esoteric ......

BVA clock are super exotic for most audiophiles which draws some blows, its all for commercial gain at the prices we pay to audio manufacturers.

Is there a better mousetrap, a better idea? This guy has done it, no side taken for dcs or esoteric or solution etc....


Search "Philips CDpro2LF top turntable built Rubidium" google is the best!
Its a first Rubidium clock in the cd player!

Custodian has done his BVA at oem costs and shares his findings, excellent job and think is a great deal .! I researched rubidium clock to the nines. Well, i was about to spring for a G01 but heck, let have some fun.

Esoteric aluminium casing cost to oem $800
Prs10 say $2,000
Transformers $200
Pcb, vcxo, misc parts etc $1,000

R&D - not much in designing a rubidium clock

Sfz clock at $35,000 is surely underpriced especially at the volumes they move.

Wow... solves all contest!

[justubes]

Some interesting extracts on this topic , note translated by google

Smartphone version is here.DDS method rubidium word clock generator　History of development
since it is not in the relationship of an integral multiple and 10MHz reference being used and measurement instruments, in order to obtain a signal of an integral multiple another oscillator frequency that is used in audio and (VCO / VCXO) He is trying to to be locked to the reference using. This method is effective in the case of obtaining a (22.5792MHz needed by the DAC inside, for example) frequency of 10MHz or more, but largely depends on the oscillator short-term frequency stability and phase noise (in the range of tau = 0.01sec-100sec about) will. Currently, these oscillators is so far short of the performance of the OCXO of 10MHz. You clearly inferior as compared to the reference of 10MHz (Although they may have been expressed as the neighborhood noise) phase noise of low-offset region in particular. There is little or no effect on the signal phase noise of the reference of 10MHz is output even how well So. It is a good idea from someone's standpoint measuring the phase noise of the direct master clock 22.5792MHz enter the 10MHz of high-performance OCXO rubidium or GPS to word clock in excess of one million yen To confirm this truth. It is probably that noticed already, to frequency conversion without deteriorating the characteristics of the reference (property), it means system which does not interposed another oscillator is good. It is are you realize this is the DDS (Direct Digital Synthesis). Nice contrast, in the so-called down-conversion of about 40% of the frequency that you input is the upper limit when using the DDS, it is common to use at around 20% in order to secure the signal quality. Therefore, the frequency of about 100MHz is required if you want to output the 22.5792MHz that are used to direct the master clock. Circuit for multiplying the frequency that you enter has a built-in DDS for this, but it does not work in the case of many less than 25MHz. Multiplier is required separately when you use the reference of 10MHz. For example, it seems that using by multiplying the 10MHz reference of arbitrary waveform oscillator of the DDS system of commercially available phase noise obtained when the output 22.5792MHz has deteriorated considerably. To configure the multiplier of low phase noise and does not seem to be easy. It follows that there is only used to direct the oscillation it becomes that it is not can also use the multiplier, but better to use the atomic clock, such as rubidium is advantageous if you get a reference to a higher frequency. OCXO will be difficult to secure the short-term frequency stability frequency is higher that the best performance of 5MHz is known. You are using a VCXO order to lock in the atomic clock Rujiumu was also division of course, but you can be kept relatively good frequency stability and phase noise VCXO that is built into the rubidium oscillator can be narrow lock range . It is a matter of comparison only, but it can be said that the latter is clearly better signal obtained using the rubidium and the signal was 20/10 multiplying the 5 / 10MHz is (100MHz). If the conclusion, we compared 22,5792MHz obtained in the DDS is allowed to lock to the 100MHz of rubidium 22.5792MHZ obtained by locking the 10MHz the VCXO, if this latter is better apparently claims us right It will be had, but the result of the measurement of short-term frequency stability and phase noise, DDS scheme had better it is not to say. master clock of the DDS system which we have made, we realized by frequency 22.5792MHz more than double the short-term frequency stability and phase noise of equal to or greater than the 10MHz that output in a high performance rubidium FE5680A. DDS system I think that it has excellent characteristics to convert the frequency of the audio without degrading the properties of the (rubidium) and oscillation has available

[custodian]

Originally Posted by justubes

Some interesting extracts on this topic , note translated by google Smartphone version is here.DDS method rubidium word clock generator　History of development since it is not in the relationship of an integral multiple and 10MHz reference being used and measurement instruments, in order to obtain a signal of an integral multiple another oscillator frequency that is used in audio and (VCO / VCXO) He is trying to to be locked to the reference using. This method is effective in the case of obtaining a (22.5792MHz needed by the DAC inside, for example) frequency of 10MHz or more, but largely depends on the oscillator short-term frequency stability and phase noise (in the range of tau = 0.01sec-100sec about) will. Currently, these oscillators is so far short of the performance of the OCXO of 10MHz. You clearly inferior as compared to the reference of 10MHz (Although they may have been expressed as the neighborhood noise) phase noise of low-offset region in particular. There is little or no effect on the signal phase noise of the reference of 10MHz is output even how well So. It is a good idea from someone's standpoint measuring the phase noise of the direct master clock 22.5792MHz enter the 10MHz of high-performance OCXO rubidium or GPS to word clock in excess of one million yen To confirm this truth. It is probably that noticed already, to frequency conversion without deteriorating the characteristics of the reference (property), it means system which does not interposed another oscillator is good. It is are you realize this is the DDS (Direct Digital Synthesis). Nice contrast, in the so-called down-conversion of about 40% of the frequency that you input is the upper limit when using the DDS, it is common to use at around 20% in order to secure the signal quality. Therefore, the frequency of about 100MHz is required if you want to output the 22.5792MHz that are used to direct the master clock. Circuit for multiplying the frequency that you enter has a built-in DDS for this, but it does not work in the case of many less than 25MHz. Multiplier is required separately when you use the reference of 10MHz. For example, it seems that using by multiplying the 10MHz reference of arbitrary waveform oscillator of the DDS system of commercially available phase noise obtained when the output 22.5792MHz has deteriorated considerably. To configure the multiplier of low phase noise and does not seem to be easy. It follows that there is only used to direct the oscillation it becomes that it is not can also use the multiplier, but better to use the atomic clock, such as rubidium is advantageous if you get a reference to a higher frequency. OCXO will be difficult to secure the short-term frequency stability frequency is higher that the best performance of 5MHz is known. You are using a VCXO order to lock in the atomic clock Rujiumu was also division of course, but you can be kept relatively good frequency stability and phase noise VCXO that is built into the rubidium oscillator can be narrow lock range . It is a matter of comparison only, but it can be said that the latter is clearly better signal obtained using the rubidium and the signal was 20/10 multiplying the 5 / 10MHz is (100MHz). If the conclusion, we compared 22,5792MHz obtained in the DDS is allowed to lock to the 100MHz of rubidium 22.5792MHZ obtained by locking the 10MHz the VCXO, if this latter is better apparently claims us right It will be had, but the result of the measurement of short-term frequency stability and phase noise, DDS scheme had better it is not to say. master clock of the DDS system which we have made, we realized by frequency 22.5792MHz more than double the short-term frequency stability and phase noise of equal to or greater than the 10MHz that output in a high performance rubidium FE5680A. DDS system I think that it has excellent characteristics to convert the frequency of the audio without degrading the properties of the (rubidium) and oscillation has available

I've lost the will to live. Pass the kerosene.

[wizard]

Originally Posted by custodian

Quote from the Abendrot website on the $28k clock:

"The fundamental product of Abendrot Audio, a rubidium master clock placed in a beautiful aluminium cabinet, finally came to completion. STUTE is a master clock of supremacy designed for high-end digital audio system as well as a fruition of state-of-the-art technology of space development. Having the potentiality only can be actualized by a unique adjustment circuit, this rubidium oscilator with accuracy of 1 second in 1,000 years enables floating satellites to travel through several light years correctly. STUTE by Abendrot Audio, designed by the few existing professionals well versed in this secret technology, is the only genuine rubidium master clock. It is an ultimate collection for your audio system as well as an invitation to the deep, profound universe of sound."

Who writes such garbage?

When I asked them about phase noise and other specs on it - no answer.

They think because we are using a nice chassis and a high price, people think we are using the best clock available inside. The no specs thing - reminds me of Goldmund before.
Something fishy about the clock inside? I think it's a cheap clock they are using.

Sforzato BVA at $33000 is cheap vs the $28000 Stute.
BVA performance is at a different level.

[custodian]

Originally Posted by wizard

When I asked them about phase noise and other specs on it - no answer. They think because we are using a nice chassis and a high price, people think we are using the best clock available inside. The no specs thing - reminds me of Goldmund before. Something fishy about the clock inside? I think it's a cheap clock they are using. Sforzato BVA at $33000 is cheap vs the $28000 Stute. BVA performance is at a different level.

The Stute spiel reminds me of a dodgy art dealer. That sort of rubbish does the industry no good at all and at a price of $28k, it really is ridiculous.

[Elberoth]

Originally Posted by justubes

Well, i was about to spring for a G01 but heck, let have some fun.

Esoteric aluminium casing cost to oem $800
Prs10 say $2,000
Transformers $200
Pcb, vcxo, misc parts etc $1,000

R&D - not much in designing a rubidium clock

Sfz clock at $35,000 is surely underpriced especially at the volumes they move.

Wow... solves all contest!

I'm pretty sure the real numbers are quite different (casing costs much more; PRS-10, transformers & misc parts - less), but I would be surprised if the total BOM would be more than $4000. Which would be in line with othere hi-end products, where BOM mostly accounts for 20% of the retail price.

If the rubidium module used in the Sforzato Clock indeed costs $12k in retail alone, then $32k retail price would be more than justified on BOM basis.

[custodian]

Originally Posted by Glisse

That would be a shame, as your thread subject and experiments have been interesting. And very pertinent to the evolution of digital replay. The problems of internet communication!! Both you and Adam are right re. Grimm, just disagreeing on details, focus and perceived intent I hope you reconsider.

Thanks for your encouragement.

Early on in the thread, I'd got across the information that there was evidence of major sound quality improvements by pursuing clock technology. I think the take up of that clock technology in audio will be very limited at the current Sforzato pricing. In refining my own unit, it is possible that a small run of BVA clocks could be produced at a more reasonable price but that is no more than an idea at present.

I'll update the thread if and when I make any progress on this.

[custodian]

Originally Posted by Elberoth

I'm pretty sure the real numbers are quite different (casing costs much more; PRS-10, transformers & misc parts - less), but I would be surprised if the total BOM would be more than $4000. Which would be in line with othere hi-end products, where BOM mostly accounts for 20% of the retail price. If the rubidium module used in the Sforzato Clock indeed costs $12k in retail alone, then $32k retail price would be more than justified on BOM basis.

The Sforzato unit does not use a rubidium module. Are you getting confused with the Stute!

Pricing for a BVA oscillator module alone is very high. Depends of course on quantity and exact spec but could certainly much higher than the commercial rubidium modules. For real prices, contact Oscilloquartz in Lausanne and get a quote for BVA 8607.