Using G-01 Master Clock with other brand?

[custodian]

Originally Posted by Elberoth

Some people have reported SQ benefits from using a rubidium clock on top od the dCS clock. Personally, I would rather try the Stanford Research (SRS) clock, as it uses the very same PRS-10 rubidium module as Esoteric, but only costs $3500.

At DCS, I was involved in a trial with various rubidium clocks with the Vivaldi. Each clock affected the sound however the DCS conclusion was that the commercial rubidium clocks did not offer an improvement.

As discussed in my thread elsewhere, the real improvement in sound quality comes if you use a BVA OCXO clock such as the Oscilloquartz 8607 which will improve phase noise by 15dB and short term accuracy by an order of magnitude,

The problem is cost, but not crazy in relation to Vivaldi cost.

[JCR]

Originally Posted by custodian

At DCS, I was involved in a trial with various rubidium clocks with the Vivaldi. Each clock affected the sound however the DCS conclusion was that the commercial rubidium clocks did not offer an improvement.

As discussed in my thread elsewhere, the real improvement in sound quality comes if you use a BVA OCXO clock such as the Oscilloquartz 8607 which will improve phase noise by 15dB and short term accuracy by an order of magnitude,

The problem is cost, but not crazy in relation to Vivaldi cost.

yeah...I just wondered if using the top of the line Esoteric clock in replacement to the dCS clock could improve the dCS Vivaldi stack at all since the Esoteric top of the line has the rubidium inside already. I remember your comments from the other threads on this topic as well... I guess I am searching for an alternative to buying the BVA master clock at ~$35k

Generally speaking I am sure the Esoteric stuff must have a slithly different sound signature compared to the dCS stuff. Both amazing products off course...

Jacques

[custodian]

Originally Posted by JCR

yeah...I just wondered if using the top of the line Esoteric clock in replacement to the dCS clock could improve the dCS Vivaldi stack at all since the Esoteric top of the line has the rubidium inside already. I remember your comments from the other threads on this topic as well... I guess I am searching for an alternative to buying the BVA master clock at ~$35k Generally speaking I am sure the Esoteric stuff must have a slithly different sound signature compared to the dCS stuff. Both amazing products off course... Jacques

Jacques
I understand.

My BVA clock does not currently have the solid aluminium case that the $35k commercial BVA clock has but I found a company to mill such a case. With that case, it should be possible to make an equivalent BVA for less than $20k.

The improvement from the BVA against the rubidium is enormous!

[Elberoth]

Originally Posted by jfrech

Hmm...interesting...$2695 USD price

Would this be a reference signal for a dCS clock or a replacement?

SRS is the company that makes the PRS-10 rubidium oscilator, which is also used by Esoteric.

You can get one from Esoteric for $20k, in a nice & shiny box, or directly from SRS, for ... $2600. SRS is a scientific company, so no audiophile markups, no audiophile frills. The clock inside is exactly the same.

Performance wise, thay should also be exactly the same (in fact, the SRS one may be even better, as it doesn't have the extra PLL circuity found in Esoteric, which is used to generate additional 44.1 and 48kHz signals).

You cannot replace your dCS clock with one of those, as it only outputs the 10MHz signal and your DAC can only work with 44.1 and 48kHz signals.

Esoteric on the other hand, can output 10MHz, 44.1 and 48kHz signals.

One may ask, why to keep the dCS clock, if the Esoteric can supply the 44 and 48kHz signals needed by your dac directly ? The answer is simple - the dCS PLL circuity is superior to Esoteric one, so it is better to use Esoteric clock with the dCS clock (Esoteric 10MHz -> dCS Clock -> 44.1/48kHz -> DAC), than Esoteric alone (Esoteric -> 44.1/48kHz -> DAC).

Hope this helps.

[Elberoth]

Originally Posted by JCR

Not sure about the srs model though. I once tried the Antelope version but was not happy with it (switching PS!!!!)...

Antelope uses very different Rubidium clock module - $800 Spectratime LCR-900. This is one of the cheapest (the cheapest ?) Rubidium module available on the market.

http://www.spectratime.com/documents/lcr_spec1.pdf

The $1495 SRS PRS-10, as used by SRS and Esoteric, is MUCH superior in performance.

PRS10 - Rubidium Frequency Standard

Phase noise @ 10Hz

Antelope 10M (Spectratime LCR-900): -80 dBc/Hz
SRS PERF10 & Esoteric Rb-0 (SRS PRS-10): -130 dBc/Hz

50dB difference. That is huge. H-U-G-E .

[jpspock]

I would like to benefit of your great experiencee. I'am testing a U clock on my puccini and the result is positive, but I would like to know if changing the initial bnc 75 ohm with another one, which??, would improve the result? Same questiin if changing the power cable.
And finally is there a big difference between the U clock and the scarlatti clock?

Many thanks for your help.

[Elberoth]

Originally Posted by JCR

I guess I am searching for an alternative to buying the BVA master clock at ~$35k

It seems to be very slightkly better than the SRS PERF10 one. The question is - is it $32k better ?

[custodian]

Originally Posted by Elberoth

Antelope uses very different Rubidium clock module - $800 Spectratime LCR-900. This is one of the cheapest (the cheapest ?) Rubidium module available on the market. http://www.spectratime.com/documents/lcr_spec1.pdf The $1495 SRS PRS-10, as used by SRS and Esoteric, is MUCH superior in performance. PRS10 - Rubidium Frequency Standard Phase noise @ 10Hz Antelope 10M (Spectratime LCR-900): -80 dBc/Hz SRS PERF10 & Esoteric Rb-0 (SRS PRS-10): -130 dBc/Hz 50dB difference. That is huge. H-U-G-E .

You are correct. A good OCXO should be superior to the Antelope.

The SRS is a good choice for a rubidium clock at reasonable price. Using that as a master clock to control the DCS clock MAY give sound improvement. I believe it does; DCS believe it doesn't. In general rubidium sources have poorer short term stability to a good OCXO.

As I keep saying; there are better solutions (BVA OCXO) but at a price.

[custodian]

Originally Posted by Elberoth

It seems to be very slightkly better than the SRS PERF10 one. The question is - is it $32k better ?

Yes, it is hugely better. The $35k price is clearly too high however it will always be an expensive solution.

The benefit of the BVA is a major reduction in digital "edge" which you will notice immediately.

[custodian]

The value for money argument is difficult.

The DCS Vivaldi is better than the Puccini but is it $60k better? Does the Scarlatti with a BVA sound better than a Vivaldi stack with just the DCS clock? Does a Puccini with better clock and better cables such as MIT Oracle sound better than the more expensive DCS products? That's quite a matrix of comparisons to do.