Mutec MC-3+

[tne]

...

 

Seriously, I've sort of jokingly mentioned this before, but if someone wants to send me the Mutec, I'll be happy to compare them. ...

 

Mine arrives this afternoon, and while I am not willing to send it out to you, our upstream components (e.g. Xfi/LPS) will be similar except I will have a REGEN not an Intona in the path. Your downstream components are at a level beyond mine, but my Adam's are very accurate and detailed. So if you want to send your Berkeley to Berkeley...

 

I will send my Xfi back to our friends in Roseville soon, but once it is returned to me, I will try

Macbook Pro -> Curious REGEN link -> REGEN -> Curious REGEN link -> Mutec -> AES -> Xfi.

In the meantime I will go ... Mutec -> SPDIF -> Resonessence Concero HD.

 

Reports to follow.

[Blake]

Mine arrives this afternoon, and while I am not willing to send it out to you, our upstream components (e.g. Xfi/LPS) will be similar except I will have a REGEN not an Intona in the path. Your downstream components are at a level beyond mine, but my Adam's are very accurate and detailed. So if you want to send your Berkeley to Berkeley...

 

I will send my Xfi back to our friends in Roseville soon, but once it is returned to me, I will try

Macbook Pro -> Curious REGEN link -> REGEN -> Curious REGEN link -> Mutec -> AES -> Xfi.

In the meantime I will go ... Mutec -> coax SPDIF -> Resonessence Concero HD.

 

Reports to follow....

 

Look forward to your reports. I am in the first batch of Vi Tube DAC's so hopefully it will arrive in the not too distant future.

 

I think the big selling point of the Mutec over the Berkeley is the price (almost half), rather than whether it is superior to the Berkeley in an absolute sense. I wish the Mutec was still a bit cheaper as I would consider it for my other setup.

 

You are a long-time member, so I would actually sort of consider sending the Berkeley to you, but after having just sent my Berkeley to Intona in Germany (so Intona could sort out the Intona/Berkeley compatibility issue... my Berkeley is currently en route back to me in the USA) I think I am done volunteering my Berkeley for experimentation/furthering of science for a while.

[jumper]

I'm still in the research phase for upgrading my source, but I'm already sold on sending whatever I select to the MC-3+ USB then on to the Schiit Yggy via AES. I'm not interested in any native DSD recordings and selected the Yggy for its filter so I'll stay away from any software upsampling. This makes USB out of my source less important I believe. Can anybody theorize wether an old school setup like a Lynx AES PCIe card into the Mutec could be better than a well implemented USB source (like the upcoming Microrendu)? Is there a sound quality benefit to sending USB to the Mutec? I figured since I'm only planning on playing up to 192 PCM that I could skip USB altogether but still take advantage of the reclocking from the Mutec.

[Rexp]

To those that have tried it. What sounds better:

 

1.Server>Mutec>DAC

2.Server>Streamer>DAC

3.Server>Cubox>DAC

 

Thanks!!

[devs]

As if all streamers/servers are equal...

 

Anyway, I haven't come across a single report in which the Mutec at the end of the chain didn't improve whatever was in front of it.

[One and a half]

I'm still in the research phase for upgrading my source, but I'm already sold on sending whatever I select to the MC-3+ USB then on to the Schiit Yggy via AES. I'm not interested in any native DSD recordings and selected the Yggy for its filter so I'll stay away from any software upsampling. This makes USB out of my source less important I believe. Can anybody theorize wether an old school setup like a Lynx AES PCIe card into the Mutec could be better than a well implemented USB source (like the upcoming Microrendu)? Is there a sound quality benefit to sending USB to the Mutec? I figured since I'm only planning on playing up to 192 PCM that I could skip USB altogether but still take advantage of the reclocking from the Mutec.

 

It's a hard decision with the Audio PCIe cards.

 

Since they are designed with pro audio in mind, the software that runs them is a mixer type which includes analog ins, XLR in, ADAT, you name it. For the RME HDSPeAIO it was not so simple to set all the levels at 0db and let it go cause that output was still too hot for my DAC. In this case used HQ Player volume to set at -6db and the distortion due to over driving wasn't noticeable. This also tells me the dither wasn't that great either.

 

I wish there was a simple PCie to AES3 conversion card, but there's not one I can see, but would be grateful if there was, without the mixer software.

 

When USB is tamed with the MC-3+USB and re-clocked input and output, there's an advantage compared with PCIe direct to AES3, if there was such a beast with little or no clocking.

 

A little too early to tell yet with the microrendu, now if this was Ethernet to AES3...?

 

Word of warning about playing files without upsampling. I know Audirvana + has a setting for the sample rate change time delays up to about 5s or so? Use this. The player software can have zero delay, the Mutec takes about 1/4s to change the rate, and the DAC may be the same or longer. It is possible to miss out on the first 1/2s to 1s of the track when playing of the sample rate delay is set to zero.

To overcome this, set Audirvana to suit, I think Jriver has this as well, or upsample everything to 192kHz and have no delays, other than the initial period when the player software takes control of the MC-3+USB at the player startup. Far as I can tell, there's no real advantage/disadvantage for SQ to upsample to 192KHz, it's just to provide zero delay for the DAC and Mutec when changing tracks of different sampling frequencies.

[Rexp]

As if all streamers/servers are equal...

 

Anyway, I haven't come across a single report in which the Mutec at the end of the chain didn't improve whatever was in front of it.

I'm generalizing of course. Let me put it another way- If you had to buy a digital front end that comprised of three parts, as per my post, which combination would you buy?

[Fyper]

I'm still in the research phase for upgrading my source, but I'm already sold on sending whatever I select to the MC-3+ USB then on to the Schiit Yggy via AES. I'm not interested in any native DSD recordings and selected the Yggy for its filter so I'll stay away from any software upsampling. This makes USB out of my source less important I believe. Can anybody theorize wether an old school setup like a Lynx AES PCIe card into the Mutec could be better than a well implemented USB source (like the upcoming Microrendu)? Is there a sound quality benefit to sending USB to the Mutec? I figured since I'm only planning on playing up to 192 PCM that I could skip USB altogether but still take advantage of the reclocking from the Mutec.

 

I don't have the same experience as One and a half with PCIe Cards.

The use of a Lynx AES PCIe has not only been very easy but also very fruitful for me.

The AES output level hasn't been an issue and the latest 64bit ASIO driver has subjectively brought a significant improvement over the previous 32Bit one.

 

One of the interesting aspect of the Lynx Card is the external clock input.

I have been using this with a master clock also linked to my Esoteric DAC.

Anyone thinking clocking/reclocking matters (and I believe there might be a few in this thread) will see the interest in this.

Now I'm thinking about using a Mutec to replace the master clock. With the MC-3+ USB that would offer 3 possibilities :

 

1 Using the Mutec to reclock the AES output of the PCIe card

2 Using the Mutec as a master clock for the PCIe Card and the DAC

3 Using the USB input of the Mutec and AES + a clock connections to the DAC

 

With the coming Mutec 10M clock, this should be even more interesting...

 

The only regret is that the Mutec doesn't handle Dual AES, which is currently what produces the best results between the PCIe and The Esoteric DAC.

That should put the option 2 as the best, but who knows...

[One and a half]

I don't have the same experience as One and a half with PCIe Cards.

The use of a Lynx AES PCIe has not only been very easy but also very fruitful for me.

The AES output level hasn't been an issue and the latest 64bit ASIO driver has subjectively brought a significant improvement over the previous 32Bit one.

 

One of the interesting aspect of the Lynx Card is the external clock input.

I have been using this with a master clock also linked to my Esoteric DAC.

Anyone thinking clocking/reclocking matters (and I believe there might be a few in this thread) will see the interest in this.

Now I'm thinking about using a Mutec to replace the master clock. With the MC-3+ USB that would offer 3 possibilities :

 

1 Using the Mutec to reclock the AES output of the PCIe card

2 Using the Mutec as a master clock for the PCIe Card and the DAC

3 Using the USB input of the Mutec and AES + a clock connections to the DAC

 

With the coming Mutec 10M clock, this should be even more interesting...

 

The only regret is that the Mutec doesn't handle Dual AES, which is currently what produces the best results between the PCIe and The Esoteric DAC.

That should put the option 2 as the best, but who knows...

 

The Mutec has two configurable clock outputs on the rear panel <1> and <2>. Set one for the Card, the other for the DAC, or since they are the same rates, there's the rear panel output <1> A & B.

Use the AES3 input (output from the Lynx) and the Mutec AES3 output to the DAC, use the Intern + Reclock and the source is AES3 input.

Leave the clock multipliers at 1 for the AES3 output <4>. That should work very nicely.

 

Yes, re-clocking matters (a lot).

[mourip]

Getting to know the Mutec...

 

I have my Mutec USB running in my headphone system. Easier to try different settings than in my main system where it will live soon. I am running Windows 2012 with JRiver 20 and Audiophile Optimizer feeding my Yggy via AES.

 

First off it sounds great both in GUI mode and in Minimal Server mode. JRMC would not launch in Core Mode. Have not figured that out yet. I was using the Mutec ASIO driver.

 

Punted and am now in Minimal Server mode and trying the various Mutec drivers available. Under Options I see ASIO, WASAPI, Kernel Streaming, and Direct Sound. So far I have tried ASIO and WASAPI and both sound very good but different. WASAPI seems warmer.

 

When using ASIO I was surprised to find that the volume slider in JRMC was working. I thought that meant that is was somehow using Windows Sound and so would not be bit perfect or am I confused?

 

If anyone out there is using both JRMC and AO I would be interested in what your settings are...

 

Thanks!

 

Well for those of you waiting breathlessly for the outcome of this all is well.

 

Phil from AO responded and reminded me that I had to run AO again once I switched to Core Mode otherwise JRMC would not work...

 

JRMC running in Core Mode with ASIO driver using Audiophile Optimizer into the wonderful Mutec.

[jumper]

I don't have the same experience as One and a half with PCIe Cards.

The use of a Lynx AES PCIe has not only been very easy but also very fruitful for me.

The AES output level hasn't been an issue and the latest 64bit ASIO driver has subjectively brought a significant improvement over the previous 32Bit one.

 

One of the interesting aspect of the Lynx Card is the external clock input.

I have been using this with a master clock also linked to my Esoteric DAC.

Anyone thinking clocking/reclocking matters (and I believe there might be a few in this thread) will see the interest in this.

Now I'm thinking about using a Mutec to replace the master clock. With the MC-3+ USB that would offer 3 possibilities :

 

1 Using the Mutec to reclock the AES output of the PCIe card

2 Using the Mutec as a master clock for the PCIe Card and the DAC

3 Using the USB input of the Mutec and AES + a clock connections to the DAC

 

With the coming Mutec 10M clock, this should be even more interesting...

 

The only regret is that the Mutec doesn't handle Dual AES, which is currently what produces the best results between the PCIe and The Esoteric DAC.

That should put the option 2 as the best, but who knows...

 

Which Lynx are you using? The E22 software (mixer) appears much simpler than the AES16e.

[Fyper]

I use the AES16e

 

The mixer display is impressive as it shows 2X8 channels but it's pretty simple to use when you use only 2 digital outputs...

[jumper]

I use the AES16e

 

The mixer display is impressive as it shows 2X8 channels but it's pretty simple to use when you use only 2 digital outputs...

 

 

Thanks - the E22 only offers two channels but is a newer design, seems pretty solid. However I have no experience using master clocks so have little knowledge. If my DAC does not have a master clock input how would the E22 (or AES16e) best be connected to the Mutec MC-3+ USB? Would the Mutec just act as a reclocker as you your #1 scenario or can the master clock still be used just between it and the Lynx (not the DAC)?

[westy]

I hope I can make this question clear...

 

Will the Mutec send an upsampled digital signal with the clock out feature?

Or is it limited to whatever the signal is and that is what the internal clock sends?

 

I'm trying to send an original 24-48hz digital signal and upsample with the Mutec to say 24/192hz and then send the higher resolution to a Tascam for recording.

[One and a half]

I hope I can make this question clear...

 

Will the Mutec send an upsampled digital signal with the clock out feature?

Or is it limited to whatever the signal is and that is what the internal clock sends?

 

I'm trying to send an original 24-48hz digital signal and upsample with the Mutec to say 24/192hz and then send the higher resolution to a Tascam for recording.

 

The MC-3+USB isn't capable of that, however the Tascam can record at a higher sampling rate or even DSD, and this is the better solution anyway, since only one device does the upsampling.

[westy]

One and half, Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am using the Tascam recording at 24/96 or 24/192.

But I thought with all the inputs and Clock multipliers on the Mutec that it would work.

[One and a half]

One and half, Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am using the Tascam recording at 24/96 or 24/192.

But I thought with all the inputs and Clock multipliers on the Mutec that it would work.

 

Yes, the output clocks are mainly for interfaces at different rates. The source is still the same fs, however the clocking points are different to match various other pro audio equipment's digital inputs.

[tne]

Since yesterday running

 

Macbook Pro / HQPlayer -> Mapleshade Clearlink Plus -> Mutec MC3+USB -> Apogee Wide Eye RCA -> Xfi/LPS.

The Xfi seems to me holding up despite some earlier issues, so I am sticking with it for now as the only balanced DAC I have (currently). New AES cable (DH Labs Silver Sonic D-110, very reasonably priced) arriving in two days (Sat), so I can evaluate which works best in my system.

 

I like what hear so far, but want to get my ears/head adjusted to the new sound before reporting. Running through the evaluation playlist now. In a week or so I will put a REGEN (JS-2 powered) in front in order to evaluate that combination as well.

 

While the Mutec has features that I am not currently using (now it is serving as a USB to SPDIF converter and reclocker), I like the flexibility that it provides for future system evolution.

 

 

BTW, Blake, my friend, I was joking about sending your Berkeley here, but it would be an interesting comparison. Certainly someone in your area will be trying one out in the near future.

[westy]

Well I will get my Bryston BDP-2 back from repairs tomorrow. In the meantime, I have received the new upgraded Intona that's supposed to work well with the Mutec. And I also received today the replacement version B of the Wyred Recovery.

So, sometime tomorrow I should be able to try these 3 units in various configurations.

[juanitox]

something make me curious , the MC3 USB can run from his own 1GhZ 1PS clock and some use them with 10MHZ external clock how can an external clock + clock wire length can be more precise than the dedicated internal clock with short path .

 

i mean just using it for playing usb input ( not for synchro clocking external source)

[Fyper]

Thanks - the E22 only offers two channels but is a newer design, seems pretty solid. However I have no experience using master clocks so have little knowledge. If my DAC does not have a master clock input how would the E22 (or AES16e) best be connected to the Mutec MC-3+ USB? Would the Mutec just act as a reclocker as you your #1 scenario or can the master clock still be used just between it and the Lynx (not the DAC)?

 

If your DAC doesn't have a clock input you can:

- Reclock the AES through the Mutec between the E22 and the DAC or

- Use the Mutec as a master clock for the E22 only

In that latter case, not sure whether it'd be possible or useful to still have the AES going through the Mutec.

You would need to try (and to try usb out to the Mutec also)

[tboooe]

something make me curious , the MC3 USB can run from his own 1GhZ 1PS clock and some use them with 10MHZ external clock how can an external clock + clock wire length can be more precise than the dedicated internal clock with short path .

 

i mean just using it for playing usb input ( not for synchro clocking external source)

 

Good question. Maybe it has to do with the quality of the clock? The external one is more precise and consistent than the internal one?

[juanitox]

maybe is an answer but i would like to hear the engineer side: is a super external clock with 20 inches of wire is more stable than a 1ps internal clock ?

[gldgate]

maybe is an answer but i would like to hear the engineer side: is a super external clock with 20 inches of wire is more stable than a 1ps internal clock ?

 

Julian from Mutec who posts here said he would be back from vacation in early March to answer questions. Hopefully, he can provide input on this question as well. Marketing for their 10M reference clock seems to indicate it would be a good match with the Mutec MC-3 + USB for audiophiles in addition to Studio folks.

[*progear]

maybe is an answer but i would like to hear the engineer side: is a super external clock with 20 inches of wire is more stable than a 1ps internal clock ?

 

I've tried the Mutec MC3+USB with and without my DIY-10M. The internal clock seemed better to my ears. With the MC3+ it is the other way round.

External clocks require reflection-free cabling, matching impedance is a must, including plugs (which as always, is the hardest bit) and don't forget proper termination! 20 inches and quite a bit longer than that should be no problem at all.

 

What really matters in a clock is phase noise, absolute accuracy is overrated, i e. nobody will hear any difference between a 9999.9999 Hz and a 10000.0001 Hz clock.

In my view Mutec have done a good job there, probably only the best 10Ms out there will best the internal clock.

 

The idea behind reclocking is to use a very clever PLL (phase-locked loop) design to pass on a "cleansed" signal to the DAC and that leaves your DAC's own PLL less work to do. That also kinda explains why cascading several MC3+ still improves the sound.

I guess that the new MC3+USB already has some sort of internal cascade PLL, my speculation.

 

After all the above clock-talk one more belief:

The clock that matters most for music reproduction is that of the DAC.