Clock experiments

[wizard]

Stute chassis is designed in Japan and uses a clock from UK.

Looking at the shipment accuracy, I think they uses a Quartzclock module inside.

[custodian]

Originally Posted by wizard

Stute chassis is designed in Japan and uses a clock from UK. Looking at the shipment accuracy, I think they uses a Quartzclock module inside.

I don't think its a Quarzlock rubidium module.


The 10-11 accuracy is typical for a good rubidium clock although of course accuracy over very short time period is more interesting. BVA will have at least 10-12 stability with better phase noise.

Do Stute actually charge $28k for that?

[Elberoth]

Originally Posted by JCR

Humm...ok here is a stupid question! If it is sold as a replacement for atomic clock, could one buy a commercially available atomic clock (not sure if Antelope has one but I think they do) and then buy this BVA part number to replace the generator of the 10Mhz signal? This may be an oversimplification but just a thought!

Jacques

Apart from the PSU issues, the Rubidium module used in the Antelope 10M clock (Spectratime LCR-900) is PCB mountable, to allow seamless upgrade of OCXO crystal oscillators. The BVA clock would definately not fit plug & play.

[Elberoth]

BTW - for anyone interested in clock discussions, there is a great whitepaper on the Grimm Audio webpage on clocking, which I sugest everyone should read:

http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/asset...nds_or_ppm.pdf

It is written in a very simple language, and makes understanding clocking much easier.

[custodian]

Originally Posted by Elberoth

BTW - for anyone interested in clock discussions, there is a great whitepaper on the Grimm Audio webpage on clocking, which I sugest everyone should read: http://www.grimmaudio.com/site/asset...nds_or_ppm.pdf It is written in a very simple language, and makes understanding clocking much easier.

Not really. It's written as pseudo science but it's actually straight advertising for their CC1 clock.

Their section on jitter is laughable. They seem not have really understood what jitter is.

[Elberoth]

I beg to differ. I certainly didn't find anything laughable or inacurate in their whitepapers. I can assure you, that the guys at Grimm Audio know more about digital audio than all the people on this forum combined. And then multiplied by 10.

As for the 'advertising' part - they simply point out why Rubidium is not necessarely the Holy Grail in audio clocking and why a good (especially free running) OCXO can outperform it.

Which is exactly what you (and I) have been saying from the very begining ...

[custodian]

Originally Posted by Elberoth

I beg to differ. I certainly didn't find anything laughable or inacurate in their whitepapers. I can assure you, that the guys at Grimm Audio know more about digital audio than all the people on this forum combined. And then multiplied by 10. As for the 'advertising' part - they simply point out why Rubidium is not necessarely the Holy Grail in audio clocking and why a good (especially free running) OCXO can outperform it. Which is exactly what you (and I) have been saying from the very begining ...

I don't think anything written so far on this thread makes any claim that rubidium fundamentally is better than OCXO. It has better long term stability but that is clearly hardly relevant.

In specific listening tests on specific equipment, differences were heard: the interpretation of those differences is open to debate. In my view, a good rubidium clock such as the SRS or Quarzlock had a positive impact on the sound from a clocked DCS Scarlatti or Vivaldi system in some specific tests. DCS feel that the differences are neither better nor worse; just different.

My notes on the BVA OCXO try to point out that the trial was done to see whether using an oscillator with a significantly better phase noise and stability would have a noticeable effect on sound quality. The conclusion was a resounding yes. It is tempting to extrapolate the results to conclude that very high short term stability is the road to removing the audible differences between the sound of analog and digital systems but I'll leave that to others. I'd ask you to re-read the short paragraph in the Grimm paper on jitter and then try to claim it makes any contribution to the understanding of jitter.

How do you reach the conclusion that the folks at Grimm Audio know more about digital audio than all the people on AA combined? Do you know enough about the sum of knowledge held by people on here? Sounds a bit of an outrageous claim without back up evidence.

[custodian]

Originally Posted by Elberoth

Apart from the PSU issues, the Rubidium module used in the Antelope 10M clock (Spectratime LCR-900) is PCB mountable, to allow seamless upgrade of OCXO crystal oscillators. The BVA clock would definately not fit plug & play.

I thought we had covered this already in previous replies. It doesn't make a lot of sense to approach acquiring a BVA in that way. The BVA oscillator is the major cost element. The power supply requirements and lock signal provisions are different. The physical form and fit is different and finally, given the expense of the 8607, it would make sense to put it in a rather better non resonant enclosure than Antelope or similar use.

[justubes]

Custodian is stating his experiences of the BVA sounding better in the trials.

Industry users ina radar or guilded missile systems would crown this as tops, together with hydrogen and ceasium clocks. Cannot dispute these professionals as they know whats best!

Cost wise, even if i felt digging deep in to my pocket to spend on the BVA which i admit certainly am habouring these thoughs in the deepest regions of my heart. My brain cannot comprehend, short of being able to test one in my system which is impossible.

I am taking a more calculated approach in optimising sonically by way of cables and to be certain of achieviig what i expect as a great impovement to justifiy the expenditure. More importantly, to keep me busy and intrigued at least for the next 24 months playing with the clock, supplies and cables together allowing time to revisit my music with this setup.

This is gathered with my experience with the dcs clock, a good PC with a lesser digital clable didnt justify the aquisition, it was a sonic change more so than an outright improvement, it added what some have described akin to a magification through a better camera lens but musicality i felt was somehow subtracted. With a $3k digital cable,it now met my sonic expectations.

Correct me if inaccurate, the10m master clock to the dcs would still go through the dcs clock phase lock loops then to the transport/ dac, the esoteric on the otherhand, allows the 10m pure sine without any PLL. Could this be a superior implementation and use of the 10m to disclipline directly the espterics will accepts this connection? Im guessing it would, less is sometime best!

[Glisse]

A most interesting thread, and many thanks to Custodian for the primer on available clock technologies.

I think many of us that have been playing with different DACs for a while have recognised that those with very accurate clocks / low phase noise seems to sound more natural.

What seems to be happening now, as Custodian is highlighting, is that these variations seem to be relevant to what we hear, at amazingly tiny levels.

I have read conjecture that suggests that timing errors on digital create a completely unnatural sound, meant literally: a sound that does not occur in nature. As such, even at such tiny levels of difference, our brain discerns and is irritated by these errors. Who knows? There is no nexus between the engineering and biology departments in this field.

But my reason for intruding is that I have just read a comment by Michael Ritter, from Berkeley Audio Design, made in an interview featured in the latest issue of TAS, that addressed an area not yet discussed.

Implementation.

Ritter is adamant that having the clock any great distance from the digital to analogue conversion is a problem:

It’s a big effort to A, have a phenomenal clock and B, isolate it from
junk coming in and C, deliver it to where the payoff is at the DAC chip
in pristine form. I don’t understand those designs where the clock is
some distance from the converter, or worse, in a separate enclosure so
that the clock has to go through drivers, connectors, and cables. There’s
just no way that you can maintain the ultimate performance of a clock
when it goes through a long-distance transmission system like that. The
more advanced and extreme the clock’s performance, the more difficult
it is to maintain that performance at the DAC chip.

Of course, just one person's view, although he does have some form in this area.