Mutec MC-3+

[nbpf]

1 hour ago, dr.sah said:

how do you change inputs on mutec? with one button, or more buttons?

See https://www.mutec-net.com/downloads/manuals/MUTEC_MC-3plusUSB_Manual_E_screen.pdf, section "Operation".

[Cazzesman]

I recently purchased a 2nd hand Lampizator Level 5 DAC/Pre setup with a separate Lampi power supply.    I had been using my Mutec USB 3+ to reclock the USB signal coming from my Caps Lagoon Mini PC (Running AO in Core, Fidelizer 8.1 and JRiver).   In the past it went from the Mutec into an Oppo 105D dac.   The Oppo was later replaced by a Chord Hugo TT dac.   Both DAC's were connected from the Mutec output to the inputs via a quality glass optical toslink.

 

The new Lampi has a USB input and the following comes from the Lampi website.

 

USB

In all our DACs we offer USB input option. Our module is of a highest level, with 32 bit engine, capable of 384 kHz speed, compatible with all operating systems of all computers. It is asynchronous and uses two internal clocks for re-clocking. It also is self powered from internal power supply which we build into our DACs. No power is taken from the computer and the noisy computer line is PHYSICALLY interrupted and insulated. 

Our USB is not converting to SPDIF - it is much better than that - it converts to i2s and it is connected DIRECTLY to the DAC chip, bypassing all input and receiver stages. There is no better USB solution than this. Our USB is also supplying the DSD signal to the DAC which means you have only ONE computer program and one USB cable and one USB port for both PCM and DSD technology.

 

I had a Lampi guru around recently (the local Australian distributor) for a listen to my system and he recommended I take the Mutec out of the system and run the USB straight from my Mini PC into the Lampi USB.     The Lampi has both 75ohm RCA coaxial and Toslink inputs.   The Mutec has both 75ohm BNC and RCA coaxial out.    I didn't have a 75ohm coaxial cable of any note other than a 75ohm RG59 video cable with BNC at both ends.  I had a generic BNC to RCA adapter that I used.   

 

I did some testing with the RG59 from Mutec to Lampi vs Curious Cable USB from Mini PC direct to the Lampi.   I felt the USB was the better of the two.

 

I lashed out the grand total of $55 (includes exchange rate and delivery) and purchased a Blue Jeans 75ohm Belden 1694A cable with matching Canare connectors (BNC one end and RCA the other).

 

Today I compared the BJC 75ohm coaxial from the Mutec into the Lampi vs the Curious Cable USB direct to the Lampi.   

 

Chalk and cheese the BJC from the Mutec killed it.   Clarity and separation plus a bigger sound stage.   Vocals forward and concise.

 

The Lampi may have done alot of work on the USB input but the Mutec showed what a brilliant reclocker it is during today's trial.  The Mutec's a keeper for me.

 

Regards Cazzesman

[mourip]

If you get some cash burning a hole in your pocket consider the REF10 to clock the M3USB. They allow you a trial period and the difference is immediate. You get a more refined sound. Incremental but obvious...

[soundlogic]

I am considering selling my Mutec "Dynamic Duo": Ref-10 and MC3+USB, mint, black, all factory items and boxes.

Please PM if interested. Tim

[mourip]

4 hours ago, soundlogic said:

I am considering selling my Mutec "Dynamic Duo": Ref-10 and MC3+USB, mint, black, all factory items and boxes.

Please PM if interested. Tim

 

Have you found something that worked better for you?

[LowMidHigh]

7 hours ago, mourip said:

If you get some cash burning a hole in your pocket consider the REF10 to clock the M3USB. They allow you a trial period and the difference is immediate. You get a more refined sound. Incremental but obvious...

Cybershaft is a very good option too, for half or less the price. 

[mourip]

Good point. They have been mentioned before as a good candidate.I would do a bit of thread searching before ordering one to see if anyone else with an M3USB had used one. The reason being that they come from Japan and so might not have a trial period or at least it could be expensive to ship it back. 

[LowMidHigh]

8 minutes ago, mourip said:

Good point. They have been mentioned before as a good candidate.I would do a bit of thread searching before ordering one to see if anyone else with an M3USB had used one. The reason being that they come from Japan and so might not have a trial period or at least it could be expensive to ship it back. 

Disclosure: I'm not affiliate with Cybershaft. 

 

They'll accept returns. Shipping International Priority is around $70.

 

I riffled through many threads: Unanimous satisfaction. The OPT13 or 14 are a level below REF10, but $2,100 cheaper. The difference in sound isn't day and night though. A marginal improvement. 

 

You can purchase either the OP15 or 16 and match REF10 performance, still for $1,500 less. Naturally, you can go OP higher, but a reviewer describes the 17 as too analytical and preferes the 14.

 

The REF10 has 8 outputs though. 

 

 

[One and a half]

I thought the Cybershaft clocks were discontinued.

[LowMidHigh]

6 minutes ago, One and a half said:

I thought the Cybershaft clocks were discontinued.

 

Temporarily. They have retired some product lines and introduced new ones--with 50/75ohm switch, more OP grades and a clock distributor.  A slightly fresh look too. 

[julian.david]

On 10/7/2018 at 4:44 AM, LowMidHigh said:

Disclosure: I'm not affiliate with Cybershaft. 

 

They'll accept returns. Shipping International Priority is around $70.

 

I riffled through many threads: Unanimous satisfaction. The OPT13 or 14 are a level below REF10, but $2,100 cheaper. The difference in sound isn't day and night though. A marginal improvement. 

 

You can purchase either the OP15 or 16 and match REF10 performance, still for $1,500 less. Naturally, you can go OP higher, but a reviewer describes the 17 as too analytical and preferes the 14.

 

The REF10 has 8 outputs though. 

 

 

 

Hi there, 

While it’s true that some of Cybershaft’s latest 10 MHz clocks match the phase noise performance of the REF 10 at 1 Hz offset at a lower price, I think it’s also worth pointing out that these OCXOs are used, recycled oscillators with potentially questionable long-term performance. This is no secret as Cybershaft themselves note it in the fine print of these product pages. We’ve been doing quite a bit of research in this field at MUTEC prior to the launch of the REF 10. Our main developer has inside knowledge of the second-hand oscillator market and how these oscillators are handled in the process. So for us at MUTEC there were and still are a lot of reasons why we stay away from these predominantly Chinese-sourced recycled OCXOs.  

 

Sure, there’s a 2-year warranty but a performance decay and functional unreliability may easily slip in unnoticed over time. Buying a REF 10 guarantees a brand-new, carefully tested German-made OCXO that will provide excellent performance for many years to come. I personally believe there’s a real value in having the peace of mind that your newly bought equipment performs at its peak. But ultimately the great thing about competition is that everybody can make those decision on their own depending on their preference and budget.

 

BTW, this discussion is probably better suited to take place in the REF 10 thread but I still thought it'd be worth chiming in here.

 

Hope this helps,

Julian

[LowMidHigh]

2 hours ago, julian.david said:

 

Hi there, 

While it’s true that some of Cybershaft’s latest 10 MHz clocks match the phase noise performance of the REF 10 at 1 Hz offset at a lower price, I think it’s also worth pointing out that these OCXOs are used, recycled oscillators with potentially questionable long-term performance. This is no secret as Cybershaft themselves note it in the fine print of these product pages. We’ve been doing quite a bit of research in this field at MUTEC prior to the launch of the REF 10. Our main developer has inside knowledge of the second-hand oscillator market and how these oscillators are handled in the process. So for us at MUTEC there were and still are a lot of reasons why we stay away from these predominantly Chinese-sourced recycled OCXOs.  

 

Sure, there’s a 2-year warranty but a performance decay and functional unreliability may easily slip in unnoticed over time. Buying a REF 10 guarantees a brand-new, carefully tested German-made OCXO that will provide excellent performance for many years to come. I personally believe there’s a real value in having the peace of mind that your newly bought equipment performs at its peak. But ultimately the great thing about competition is that everybody can make those decision on their own depending on their preference and budget.

 

BTW, this discussion is probably better suited to take place in the REF 10 thread but I still thought it'd be worth chiming in here.

 

Hope this helps,

Julian

Thanks for the edifying post. I moved the conversation to the thread you suggested, posting a few questions. Looking forward to your reply. 

[LowMidHigh]

Has anyone compared the sonic performance of USB input against coax? I'm curious of others' findings. 

[m5sime]

4 hours ago, LowMidHigh said:

Has anyone compared the sonic performance of USB input against coax? I'm curious of others' findings. 

 

Hi - I use both with my Brooklyn DAC. USB from a microrendu and spdif from a Sonos zp80 streamer (still one of the easiest to use systems for me). 

 

AES balanced to the DAC now. I haven’t been able to do a detailed comparison between inputs as the sources are different. But they both are better than into the DAC direct. USB allows me to stream MQA etc. 

[Confused]

6 hours ago, LowMidHigh said:

Has anyone compared the sonic performance of USB input against coax? I'm curious of others' findings. 

I can only say something very similar to @m5sime above.  The best source that I have to feed the MC3+USB is a USB source (sMS-200Ultra +tX-USBultra), and this gives the best overall result.  I also run a relatively cheap Blu-ray / CD / SADC player via S/PDIF to the MC3+USB (Pioneer BDP-450).  The SOtM kit wth the MC3+USB comes out on top as a combination, but the uplift to the performance to Pioneer is significant.  The basic conclusion is that the MC3+USB is transparent to and dependent on the quality of the source, but provides a nice uplift in performance with pretty much anything you can try with it.  I have also run my TV to the MC3+USB via Toslink, again an improvement, but obviously you are not hitting the level of performance form something like the SOtM kit via USB.

[Cortes]

6 hours ago, Confused said:

I can only say something very similar to @m5sime above.  The best source that I have to feed the MC3+USB is a USB source (sMS-200Ultra +tX-USBultra), and this gives the best overall result.  I also run a relatively cheap Blu-ray / CD / SADC player via S/PDIF to the MC3+USB (Pioneer BDP-450).  The SOtM kit wth the MC3+USB comes out on top as a combination, but the uplift to the performance to Pioneer is significant.  The basic conclusion is that the MC3+USB is transparent to and dependent on the quality of the source, but provides a nice uplift in performance with pretty much anything you can try with it.  I have also run my TV to the MC3+USB via Toslink, again an improvement, but obviously you are not hitting the level of performance form something like the SOtM kit via USB.

 

@Confused,

in case you have tried the combinations I post below, what 's your opinion on:

a) sms-200 ultra`+reclocker (as Ref10,  Sotm's, cybershaft) v.s. sms-200 ultra +tx-USBultra  

b) sms-200 +tx-USBultra vs. sms-200Ultra+tx-usbUltra

thanks!. 

[Tom75]

Hm, great question and hope we can get the reply. 

[Confused]

1 hour ago, Cortes said:

 

@Confused,

in case you have tried the combinations I post below, what 's your opinion on: 

a) sms-200 ultra`+reclocker (as Ref10,  Sotm's, cybershaft) v.s. sms-200 ultra +tx-USBultra  

b) sms-200 +tx-USBultra vs. sms-200Ultra+tx-usbUltra

thanks!. 

I am not sure I can help here, although to be honest I am not sure if I fully understand point a)

 

To take these one at a time:

 

Point a) I have never tried a Cybershaft or SOtM reference clock, although I do have the Mutec REF10 and MC3+USB per my signature.  It would be possible for me to try the sMS-200Utra + REF10 MC3+USB versus sMS-200Utra +tX-USBultra (with or without the REF10).  However, as one would use the AES/EBU input of my Devialet and the other the USB input of my Devialet, I am not sure what this would tell anyone.  The point being is that it is generally reported that these inputs to the Devialet do sound a little different, with most that have tried it preferring the AES/EBU input over the USB input, so the most likely result is that the  sMS-200Utra + REF10 MC3+USB  combination would win, simply because it utilises the preferred AES/EBU input.  This would tell you more about Devialet amps than it would regarding the upstream kit.

 

Point b) I have never tried an sMS-200.

 

Sorry I can't be of more help!

[kaka]

On 10/7/2018 at 2:40 AM, Cazzesman said:

I recently purchased a 2nd hand Lampizator Level 5 DAC/Pre setup with a separate Lampi power supply. ....

 

On 10/7/2018 at 2:40 AM, Cazzesman said:

Today I compared the BJC 75ohm coaxial from the Mutec into the Lampi vs the Curious Cable USB direct to the Lampi.   

 

Chalk and cheese the BJC from the Mutec killed it.   Clarity and separation plus a bigger sound stage.   Vocals forward and concise.

 

The Lampi may have done alot of work on the USB input but the Mutec showed what a brilliant reclocker it is during today's trial.  The Mutec's a keeper for me.

 

Regards Cazzesman

 

I'm not surprised - hardware gurus were getting improvement by replacing the Lampi USB boards with various super-clocked boards. Lampi eventually began offering a super-clocked version of the board they use as an upgrade

[LowMidHigh]

When I received the MC3+USB two days ago, I was sorely disappointed. My humble Eitr sounded better; cleaner, more resolved and more neutral. It was in my face, nothing subtle. The MC3 was relatively boomy and muffled.

My source is HiBy R6, with no decrapers in the chain.

So I tried to feed the MC3 off the coax jack. What a metamorphosis! What a step up. My system never sounded so good. Perhaps a REF10 can improve on it, but I can't imagine how. To put it in context, many SoundCloud tracks are poorly mixed, and yet I even enjoy listening to them too now.

P. S. : That puts to rest an inquiry I made above as to the sonic differences between USB vs SPDIF, although other sources may yield different results. 



 

[mourip]

10 hours ago, LowMidHigh said:

When I received the MC3+USB two days ago, I was sorely disappointed. My humble Eitr sounded better; cleaner, more resolved and more neutral. It was in my face, nothing subtle. The MC3 was relatively boomy and muffled.

My source is HiBy R6, with no decrapers in the chain.

So I tried to feed the MC3 off the coax jack. What a metamorphosis! What a step up. My system never sounded so good. Perhaps a REF10 can improve on it, but I can't imagine how. To put it in context, many SoundCloud tracks are poorly mixed, and yet I even enjoy listening to them too now.

P. S. : That puts to rest an inquiry I made above as to the sonic differences between USB vs SPDIF, although other sources may yield different results. 



 

 

I have also found AES/EBU to sound better than USB with the M3USB. The REF10 adds refinement and finesse, not jump up and shout, but worth it if you are OK with the path to poverty ?

 

[LowMidHigh]

I don't know if it's ever been answered: What takes the cup, cascading 2 or 3 MC3USB or 1 x MC3USB + REF10? 

[LowMidHigh]

14 hours ago, mourip said:

 

I have also found AES/EBU to sound better than USB with the M3USB. The REF10 adds refinement and finesse, not jump up and shout, but worth it if you are OK with the path to poverty ?

 

I have a feeling the less than stellar USB performance is why a stack of MC3USB is needed to clean up the signal further. 

 

I doubt cascading will do much when spdif/Aes is the source. But I'll find out soon... 

[Confused]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 2:27 AM, LowMidHigh said:

I have a feeling the less than stellar USB performance is why a stack of MC3USB is needed to clean up the signal further. 

 

I doubt cascading will do much when spdif/Aes is the source. But I'll find out soon... 

1

The most pervasive theory as to why stacking MC3+USB's work is that the last MC3 before the DAC is already been fed a well-clocked signal, so this last MC3 has to work less hard, and hence produces less noise, jitter etc.  It is just a theory though, nobody seems to be able to measure this stuff.

 

From my own observational experience, I have definitely found that the MC3+USB is sensitive to whatever you use to feed it.  So the end result is different if the USB feed is from a microRendu, sMS-200ultra, tX-USBultra.  Even changing my sMS-200Ultra to the Neo version made a clear difference.  This is much the same with the other inputs, where I have tried different CD players and also my TV via Toslink.  There are two ways of looking at this, one is to say that the MC3+USB is transparent to the source feed, a second way is perhaps to say that the MC3+USB's USB input is inadequate, not removing all noise, jitter or whatever else from whatever is feeding it.  It is a fine product in my opinion, but is not a cure for all possible upstream issues.  Depending on how you look at this, it could be considered that we are saying pretty much the same thing.

[LowMidHigh]

24 minutes ago, Confused said:

The most pervasive theory as to why stacking MC3+USB's work is that the last MC3 before the DAC is already been fed a well-clocked signal, so this last MC3 has to work less hard, and hence produces less noise, jitter etc.  It is just a theory though, nobody seems to be able to measure this stuff.

 

From my own observational experience, I have definitely found that the MC3+USB is sensitive to whatever you use to feed it.  So the end result is different if the USB feed is from a microRendu, sMS-200ultra, tX-USBultra.  Even changing my sMS-200Ultra to the Neo version made a clear difference.  This is much the same with the other inputs, where I have tried different CD players and also my TV via Toslink.  There are two ways of looking at this, one is to say that the MC3+USB is transparent to the source feed, a second way is perhaps to say that the MC3+USB's USB input is inadequate, not removing all noise, jitter or whatever else from whatever is feeding it.  It is a fine product in my opinion, but is not a cure for all possible upstream issues.  Depending on how you look at this, it could be considered that we are saying pretty much the same thing.

 

Thank you for the input.

 

Base on your observations, arguing that the MC3USB isn't sensitive to the source is unattainable. I suppose it mean there’s some sort of “leak”, i.e., jitter/interference travel within the device to affect the re-clocking output. It’s beyond my pay-grade, but I have a hunch some sleuth work could nail it once and for all.

 

I suggested to Christian to improve the product with an internal loop that would mimic a stack of MC3USB, or an external feed with user provided cable and an option to set the number of iterations. 

 

The reply was the idea had been floated before, but space and cost considerations prevent such upgrade.