Mutec REF 10 Masterclock

[justubes]

Julian, 

 

If the Ref is used to reference any device or specifically a normal vcxo, how much does it contribute to the lower phase noise of the master?

 

So will a Ref 10 refencing a mc3+USB, it there any further improvement or benefit of having a  better or even lower phase noise osc in the mc3+ usb? 

[justubes]

Yes I understand in a product implementation that will increase the cost and make lines finer between theproduct lines. 

 

Just for further understanding and discussion. 

 

Suppose the base of the mc3+usb has a even lower phase noise clocking, closer to that of the Ref 10, this would surely increase the cost a fair bit to also get a better power supply into a larger unit. The question is even if still fed by the Ref 10 Which still has a better phase noise. How much does this external reference contribute to the overall phase noise in comparison to the mc3+ usb now as it is vs. Fitted with an even better oscillator. 

 

Is the determining factor more so the internal oscillator in the mc3+usb or will the better external reference still be the dominant and determining factor of the low phase noise in the mc3+ usb? 

 

If we rate. In a scale of 100% and take the base of the Ref 10 as 100 for low phase noise in clocking  scoring

 

Ref 10= 100 (base, best clock>

Mc3+USB = 80

MC3+ USB plus ref 10 =90

MC3+ with improved oscillator over current 10g clocking plus the Ref 10 =?? 

 

Will there be yet another nice jump to say a score of 95 or will the score still be similar to 90, since the Ref 10 is disciplining the MC3+usb? 

[justubes]

On 7/2/2019 at 5:32 PM, SlowikPL said:

Hi ,

I wanted to know if my setting of my 2x Mutec MC-3 USB and my Ref 10 are proper. I`m using the Clocks witch my dCs Rossini only as a WordClock . One MC-3 is set 44,1 – and multiply of it  and other MC-3 48- and multiply of it .

Can somebody confirm my setting from the photo?

Hi,

 

Does not look right.

 

2nd column should also have the 2nd row, 10M also lighted.

 

That is, if you have the ref10 connected to both units. 10M has not been selected.

 

Let us know how it goes.

 

 

[justubes]

On 12/22/2019 at 12:18 PM, auricgoldfinger said:

 

Here is the link to the Habst clock cables:  http://habst.de/digital-xlr-rca-bnc.html  You can email the proprietor, Daniel, through the web contact form for more information.

 

As you have read on this thread and possibly elsewhere, clock cables affect the performance and sound quality of the master clock.  The Habst cable is an excellent choice, but there are other options as well.  I can personally vouch for the Habst cables as I use them in my system.

 

People have generally found the shortest possible length is preferable for clock cables.  A major advantage of the Habst cable is that it can be grounded to an unused BNC output on the REF 10, which significantly improves sound quality.  I ground mine to a Synergistic Research Active Ground Block for even better results.  You could probably do the same with your Entreq. 

 

 

How do you ground the Ref10?

 

Have you tried chassis ground, from what i hve checked, the grounds of each output of the Ref10 checks to be isolated from my tests with a meter.

[justubes]

39 minutes ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

It's not a chassis ground.  Daniel has always been reluctant to provide details about his cable construction, but I believe the secondary, shorter cable is used to ground the shielding of the primary (signal) cable.  Attaching the secondary cable to an unused BNC output or external grounding device enables the ground, thereby lowering the noise floor.  The perceived result is more detail and better spatial cues.

 

What i meant is that using another unused bnc is not griunded directly with the next bnc output which the cable is connected to.

 

Each bnc is isolated from each other.

 

So meanimg not a true or best ground...

[justubes]

23 minutes ago, Arpiben said:

@austinpop

Please note that I am not arguing about Mutec good performances. But for several reasons, like the ones mentioned by @mansr, we should rather compare phase noise at DAC's output where it may matter. 

The advice is coming from somebody used to deal with phase noise and synchronization in Telecom industry. Feel free to delete.

Agree, but it is next to impossible to test it that way with the many different dacs.

 

But in any case take it that any improvement in the phase noise of an external reference  will result in the same improvement at the dac.

 

What happens after the output of the reference master clock will require your own testing to determine if it was worthwhile.

 

There will always certainly have losses.

 

Maybe better PLL, FPGA etc that will be available in the future that has negligible losses