Jump to content

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, jelt2359 said:

Where have you seen this? I'd be surprised if there's an actual logical reason for this.

 

Just look at the posts up this page alone. There is a prevailing view out there about this. Maybe it matters more for "word" clocks rather than "master" clocks. I don't know.

 

That's why I'd like the experts at Mutec to weigh in. 

 

Does master clock cable length matter? Does it need to be super short - like 0.2m - for the master clock to provide any benefit at all over a good built-in reference clock like the one in the SOtM sCLK-EX board?

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, pam1975 said:

I will go for ref 10 on a SMS 200 ultra and my current Mutec MC3+ USB. 

i have the ref 10 on pre-order already, waiting for news from Mutec.

I will share impressions here although I won't be able to measure anything ;) 

 

Envious!

 

Do look into the cable length question - i.e. from the Ref 10's output to the sMS-200ultra's and MC3+ USB's input.

 

Maybe master clocks are different, but I just learned from May at SOtM that in their internal listening tests, they found that SQ deteriorated between using SMB clock cables of 0.3m vs 1m. Again - this is in the context of distributing (word?) clocks of 24MHz and 225MHz from the sCLK-EX in the Ultra box to the other boxes in the chain.

 

I'm hoping Mutec will clarify for the master clock @ 10MHz.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, svart-hvitt said:

LENGTH OF WORD CLOCK CABLES

 

Antelope Audio says that the BNC cable connection stability begins to degrade after the 250th meter.

 

But maybe golden ears experience degradation after 30 centimeters? Does austinpop have any further evidence that 30 centimeters are a crucial limit for word clock cables?

 

Nope.  I'm not making claims.

 

Just asking the question. Does master clock cable length matter? And referring to what SOtM have reported.

 

I'd rather just hear what Mutec - @julian.david et al. - have to say. 

 

No need for snideness.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, 4est said:

I am not sure who you are referring to, but this 10MHz product is not a master clock in any way, shape or form. It gets used with a word clock. The word clock acts as a "master" to slaves(ADCs,DACs ect). This is not masterclock/mclk. That term should be removed from the title in this thread as it will/has confused people. I do realize that SOtM use that term as well, but I do not think it is the appropriate term.

 

The sCLK board is available with different options for different uses.

 

Word clock is of a much lower frequency than the 10MHz Ref10 clock being discussed here. 10MHz is RF, and should be kept as short as practical.

 

 

 

And now I am confused again. 9_9

 

Here is the info sheet on the Ref 10: https://www.mutec-net.com/downloads/Ref10_InfoSheet_2014_E.pdf . The first sentence reads:

 

The MUTEC REF10 is a reference master clock generating 10MHz clock signals of ultra-low phase noise, to significantly improve the acoustical quality of digital audio devices.

 

I would love a link to a good primer that explains these terms. So is the right way to think of as follows:

  1. There is a concept of master and slave. A device that accepts a master input becomes a slave, and uses that master to synchronize.
  2. There is an orthogonal concept of word and reference clocks. Word clocks provide the clocks for audio data at the relevant data frequencies, whereas a reference clock is a single frequency (usually 10MHz) and is used purely for synchronization?

So you can have master word clocks, and master reference clocks?

 

Am I on the right path?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, julian.david said:

Well, again it depends, and we're still working on an official statement, but I'd try to keep the length to no more than 1-3 meters. Shorter is better. We were using 0.5 meter cables at High End recently and that worked remarkably well. 

 

Hi Julian,

 

That is exactly the clarity we were seeking! Thanks so much.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, julian.david said:

 

Now if you add a REF 10 to this system, the only thing that changes is that the Re-Clocking within the MC-3+/MC-3+USB is now based on this ultra precise external clock signal of the REF 10 to increase the quality of the re-clocking process affecting the sound quality of the entire system. But everything else stays the same and the REF 10 is technically not the "master" of the system in the traditional sense of dictating the sample rate. 

 

Does that make sense to you all?

 

It does indeed, and clarifies the fact that there are distinct master-slave relationships in the digital audio chain, in terms of:

  • the end-to-end word data clock between source and destination
  • the word data clock for reclockers
  • the reference clock for all or a subset of elements in the chain

and possibly others.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Keith_W said:

I would also suggest that any potential purchaser of your clock check their DAC to see if it accepts a 10MHz input. 

 

It would be really great to list DACs that accept a 10MHz reference clock. Either they're not very common, or I'm in the wrong price segment - i.e. sub-$3k. :D

 

DACs with a word clock input seem to be more common. For example, the Mytek Brooklyn.

Link to comment
On 6/13/2017 at 3:19 AM, julian.david said:

 

 

We are working on a compatibility list for DACs. There are definitely a few out there already such as the Esoteric D-1, D-02X and D-05X, TEAC NT-503, Antelope Zodiac, and we are expecting there to be more manufacturers jumping on the bandwagon in the future.

 

Thanks so much, Julian. 

 

Timely too, as there was just a Massdrop sale on the Teac!

 

May I quickly test my understanding with you on a particular scenario? Assuming USB as the connection mechanism with a DAC that utilized asynchronous USB. Also let's assume the transport chain is:

  • SOtM sMS-200ultra (with master ref clock in) > SOtM tX-USBultra (with master ref clock in) > a DAC with master ref clock input
  • All 3 are driven by the Ref 10, from 3 of the 8 outputs of the Ref 10

My understanding of this scenario - for USB:

  1. The master for the data communication is the DAC
  2. The master for the clock reference is the Ref 10

And my expectations of SQ improvements over the baseline with no Ref 10:

  1. Even without a DAC with a reference clock input, the scenario with the Ref 10 supplying the 2 SOtM Ultra components, there should be a sonic benefit.
  2. The benefit would be even greater if the DAC too accepted the reference clock.

Would you agree?

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, JohnSwenson said:

But what about asynch USB, isn't the DAC in control? Overall yes, the DAC has its OWN FIFO and also checks it, but instead of changing a clock frequency it sends a command back to the computer which tells it to speed up or slow down the average sample rate. So even though the local DAC clock is in ultimate control of the sample rate, as far as the MC3+/USB is concerned the USB data stream is in control, it just passes it on down to the DAC.

 

Thanks once again for your insight, John. 

 

This was an aspect of asynchronous USB that I had not fully understood. Let's consider the scenario:

  • sMS-200 (the USB source) > ISO-Regen (USB reclocker) > DAC

To repeat back what I understood from your writeup:

  • The USB source still generates the data clock, and embeds it in the data stream
  • The reclocker reads in and regenerates the data stream with its own (better) clock
  • The DAC is the "master" of this communication, not in terms of being the clock generator, but rather in terms of controlling the average sample rate. As far as reading the data itself, the DAC still needs to lock on to the embedded clock in the data stream.

Perhaps this explains why even asynchronous USB DACs are so profoundly affected by the quality of the clocks used by the USB source and any regenrator(s) in the path?

 

Question for you:

  • When the DAC, as master controller, sends a command back - to "slow down" the ave. sample rate, say - what are the magnitudes we are talking about, in % terms of the nominal sample rate? 1%, 5%, 10%?
  • When this command is sent back, presumably both the USB source and the reclocker register the command, and honor the new rate? Or does that only fall to the USB source, with the reclocker merely passing through what it receives?

I apologize if this is going off-topic for the Ref 10, in which case we can take this elsewhere.

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
10 hours ago, romaz said:

My REF10 and Habst clock cables have arrived.

 

The REF10 is connected to 2 SOtM sCLK-EX clock boards.  These boards have been used to replace the clocks on a small mini-ITX SoC motherboard, incoming LAN adapter, outgoing SOtM tX-USBhubIN USB card and tX-USBultra.  The tX-USBultra then connects directly to my Chord DAVE and so this is a straight USB setup.  In the next couple of weeks, I will also have my internet modem/router/switch reclocked and so eventually, 8 clocks will all be synchronized to the REF10 and I will have no bad clocks in my direct path.  It should be clear by now just how revolutionary SOtM's sCLK-EX board is.  Everything is being powered by independent rails from several Paul Hynes SR7s including my SOtM clock boards.

 

Upon first listen, I heard no difference.  Nada.  It sounded very good but with the REF10 activated or deactivated, I heard no change.  I have to admit I was a little worried.

 

I let things run continuously overnight and oh my, how things have opened up.  I'm sure more break-in is required and sound quality will improve further and so I will wait another couple of weeks before commenting further but what I am hearing already is just breathtakingly good.  The dimensionality and atmosphere of my live recordings are now at a level I have never ever heard before in my system and I have had many servers come through my system including an Aurender W20, CAD CAT, Lumin U1, Baetis Reference (original), Melco N1ZH  and Antipodes DX (2nd gen), just to name a few.  This list doesn't include the dozen or so servers I've built myself, a RedNet 3, and just about every USB and Ethernet gadget you can think of.  The layering of detail in my orchestral tracks is just crazy good and perceptible at even whisper levels.  Bass definition and dynamics, midrange texture and clarity, treble extension and air, yes, it's all there.  People talk about great clocks making the biggest difference in the bass and lower midrange but I must say, I hear it's impact everywhere.  Perhaps what stands out the most is how smooth and grain-free the sound is.  I thought my system was already free of harshness but this level of smoothness is a whole other level.  I've been listening for the last few hours and no fatigue, just amazement at how my music has taken on new life. 

 

Before this, I had a quad Ultra stack at my disposal (SOtM sMS-200ultra with Ultra reclocking switch, tX-USBultra and dX-USB HD Ultra.  More recently, I added the Iso Regen and so my system is not a stranger to well-clocked components.  As you would imagine, my system already sounded very very good and it was unfathomable that my previous setup could be beat so easily and yet, somehow, with this simpler setup + the REF10, I have beat it...and not by a small margin.

 

I'm off for a much needed holiday and so I won't be reporting back for a couple of weeks nor will I be offering a response to this post anytime soon.  By then, hopefully, my setup will be complete (which will include a reclocked router and a few other surprises).  What I will say is don't let anyone tell you an external master clock can't make a huge difference.  They have no idea.  

 

I hate you! :D

 

The gap between the Habst and the Habst-nots is growing... :P

 

Seriously, Roy, I have so many questions, but it can all wait until you return.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...

The whole clock topic is complex, so I am not surprised - we're all Confused.

 

5 hours ago, AmusedToD said:

Intresting read. We need some qualified CA reviewers to het their hands on the dCS, I am thinking @romaz and @austinpop :)

 

I'm Amused To D(eath) at your comment.

 

I only review things that:

  1. Interest me, in terms of areas my system is evolving, and
  2. I can afford, and choose to buy, or
  3. Kind loaners from CA'ers.

I haven't ever received demos from manufacturers directly.

 

That said, I would never say no to a Ref 10 or dCS loaner for review, but I'm not holding my breath! 9_9

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
16 hours ago, SwissBear said:

Next step for me: a very kind person from the other forum has proposed to lend me his sMS-200 Ultra with external clock plus as well as a modded router. I will therefore have an sMS-200 Ultra, a modded router and the MC-3+ USB fed by the LPSU and clock-driven by the REF-10. I should receive this gear end of this week and will be happy to report if any further improvement, which I am not expecting at this stage, occurs.

 

Stay tuned ;)

 

This will be very interesting! May I ask that you compare the sCLK chain with and without the Ref 10 providing the reference?

 

So the chain will look like:

  • modded switch > sMS-200ultra > MC-3+ USB (baseline), compared to:
  • same as above, but with Ref 10 providing reference clocks to the sMS and the MC-3+

What PSUs will you be using for each component?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Confused said:

@SwissBear  Many thanks for your update, crystal clear and tells me all I need to know with respect to the REF10's influence on the MC3+USB.  It is also good to see that you are happy to try @austinpop's suggested test, it should be interesting to see how the 200Ultra interacts in this scenario.  I have a suggestion here.  You have already reported the improvement from the Mutec MC3+USB with the REF10 attached.  For me an interesting thing to test would be with the REF10 connected to the Mutec MC3+USB, then try the 200Ultra both connected to the REF10 and then on it's own with no connection to the REF10.  What I am thinking is that using 'conventional' wisdom, the MC3+USB's asynchronous input should provide the clock for the USB input, then the Mutec re-clocks for the AES3 output.  So the REF10 connected clock in the MC3+USB is effectively looking after everything, including the feed from the 200Ultra.  So using conventional wisdom, it should make no difference if the REF10 is connected to the 200Ultra or not.  However, if an improvement can be heard with the REF10 connected to the 200Ultra, then this would add good evidence that something interesting is happening with these well clocked chains.  I think it would be a fascinating thing to try.

 

Great point.

 

I think I know the empirical answer, based on my own observations, but it would be great to get another data point.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, SwissBear said:

@Confused & @austinpop: the sMS-200 Ultra which is being lent to me has been produced by SOtM with their standard specs for the BNC external clock which is 50 Ohm. This is quite awkward as the standard for this kind of applications is 75 Ohm. Anyhow, after looking for a reasonable quality cable for this connection, I renounced and ordered one 50 Ohm cable from SOtM, which will introduce some delay in the test results...

I will therefore be obliged to start with listening to the sMS-200 Ultra without the REF-10 connection... until I receive the wonderful (and pricey) SOtM cable ;)

 

Ugh - sorry to hear that. One would have thought 50 ohm cables would not be an issue!

 

Well, looking on the bright side - this will give you time to form an extended baseline of the Ultra.

Link to comment
On 9/6/2017 at 6:12 AM, SwissBear said:

@Confused & @austinpop: the sMS-200 Ultra which is being lent to me has been produced by SOtM with their standard specs for the BNC external clock which is 50 Ohm. This is quite awkward as the standard for this kind of applications is 75 Ohm. Anyhow, after looking for a reasonable quality cable for this connection, I renounced and ordered one 50 Ohm cable from SOtM, which will introduce some delay in the test results...

I will therefore be obliged to start with listening to the sMS-200 Ultra without the REF-10 connection... until I receive the wonderful (and pricey) SOtM cable ;)

 

I am going to have to educate myself about 50 ohm cables soon enough.

 

@SwissBear - not sure where you're based, but is there some sonic reason why you need to get the 50 ohm cables from SOtM? Just wondering what it adds over a clock cable from Digikey.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, SwissBear said:

Some thoughts about the addition of SOtM sMS-200 Ultra + modded router to my system

 

First I would like to thank very warmly and sincerely  Peter, my audiophile friend, who has accepted to lend me his gears while he was flying to sunny beaches for holidays. Tremendous opportunity. Thank you so much ;)

 

System:

If I try to summarize my perceptions in relation to the optimization process of my system, the goal has been, over the months, to improve two families of parameters which were essential to me: the transparency of the system on one side, and the aptitude of the system to reproduce the atmosphere of the recording on the other side.

 

The first axis has to do with signal/noise ratio, signal cleaning, room reverberation removal, aso... The second axis has more to do with correct restitution of the sound stage, separation between the instruments, the voices, texture of the sound, aso...

 

If I try to classify the most important contributors of each of the elements of my system to these two axis, I would range, in decreasing order:
Transparency:

  • acoustic treatment of the room (ceiling)
  • Devialet D900 + B&W 802D3
  • Paul Hynes LPSU (including the removal of the Mutec MC-3+ USB SPSU)
  • SOtM sMS-200 (prior to the arrival of the PH)

Atmosphere:

  • active treatment, with frequency and time domain corrections
  • Mutec Ref-10
  • Mutec MC-3+ USB

The goal of this classification is to try to express my perception that each element of the system contributes to the two axis, but some are contributing much more than others in each direction.

 

When I decided to remove the SOtM sMS-200 from my chain some weeks ago, I felt I had reached a level of transparency with the addition of the Paul Hynes LPSU which was allowing me to remove this component. I was therefore quite skeptical that the sMS-200 Ultra could significantly change my perceptions.

 

This happened to be a big mistake as the integration of the SOtM sMS-200 Ultra and the modded router has proved to be a further significant step in the direction of transparency. I have very clearly perceived that the capacity of the system to reproduce the sound recorded with clarity and transparency was further enhanced by the SOtM gears.

 

On the other side, I did not have the perception that this addition was providing a significant improvement in the direction of the atmosphere restitution. The soul of the music, which has been very significantly enhanced on my system with the arrival of the Ref-10, would be significantly altered if I was removing it of the chain, even while leaving the SOtM gears.

 

So both elements have their respective contributions, each of them mainly in one direction, but it will be difficult for me to remove any of them... To bad for me, I shouldn't have tested them ;)

 

Pls note that I have not been able to test the clock input of the SOtM gears so far, due to a problem of 50 Ohm cables, which should be solved early next week.

 

 

Wow, excellent report!

 

If @romaz's impressions are any indication, then the application of Ref 10 reference clock to the SOtM Ultra via the 50 ohm cable should give you another positive SQ bump.

 

i look forward to your findings!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SwissBear said:

A few more observations:

 

I have listened to the system with the sMS-200 Ultra being fed a clock signal from the Ref-10 and, either with internal reclocking (Mutec MC-3+ USB processing without the input of the Ref-10) or with external reclocking (Mutec MC-3+ USB using the input of the Ref-10 for reclocking), there is no audible difference in feeding the sMS-200 Ultra with an external clock on my system.

This can be the consequence of:

  • the 50 Ohm cable I bought not being 'good enough' for the magic to happen (I did not buy the 500 USD filtered 50 Ohm cable proposed by SOtM)
  • my ears not being able to discern the subtlety of the improvement
  • an aysnchronous signal (USB) fed into the Mutec MC-3+ USB not being sensitive to high precision clocking before being fed
  • the reclocking made by the MC-3+ USB is 'good enough' to take over any attempt of reclocking made before

Conclusion: I will leave it here for the time being, and try again when I receive my own sMS-200 with 75 Ohm clock input.

 

I have listened again to the Iso-Regen and I am keeping the observations I made during my former attempts: the transparency is significantly and negatively affected by the introduction of the Iso-Regen into the chain, while the addition to the 'emotions' provided is not strictly necessary due to the presence of the Mutec devices in the chain.

 

Conclusion: the Iso-Regen does not have its place in my system.

 

This is it for now. Thanks for reading ;)

 

 

Interesting stuff indeed! One never really knows how this will shake out until you try it.

 

If I understood correctly, your experiment was:

  • Hold the sMS-200ultra - fed by 10MHz from the Ref 10 via 50 ohm cable - constant
  • Compare config 1 and 2, where:
    • Config 1: Mutec MC-3+ USB with no Ref 10 input
    • Config 2: Mutec MC-3+ USB with Ref 10 input.

Please correct me if I got that wrong. What I'd suggest is the inverse:

  • Hold the Mutec MC-3+ USB with Ref 10 input constant
  • Compare config 1 and 2, where:
    • Config 1: sMS-200ultra with no Ref 10 input
    • Config 2: sMS-200ultra with Ref 10 input.

 

Link to comment

 

37 minutes ago, SwissBear said:

I didn't probably express myself clearly enough. The second experiment is exactly what I did, and I did it in the 2 configs (with the MC-3+ USB fed with Ref-10 or not).

In both experiments, I found that the Ref-10 input to the sMS-200 did not bring audible improvement. 

 

These things are so system dependent that the only way to navigate is to trust your own ears - as you are doing.

 

The only other thing - which you are also doing - is to leave it to settle in place and burn in. I went back and found Roy's post about when he got his Ref 10 (and the infamous Habst cables :D). He wrote:

 

On 7/19/2017 at 1:57 AM, romaz said:

My REF10 and Habst clock cables have arrived.

 

The REF10 is connected to 2 SOtM sCLK-EX clock boards.  These boards have been used to replace the clocks on a small mini-ITX SoC motherboard, incoming LAN adapter, outgoing SOtM tX-USBhubIN USB card and tX-USBultra.  The tX-USBultra then connects directly to my Chord DAVE and so this is a straight USB setup.  In the next couple of weeks, I will also have my internet modem/router/switch reclocked and so eventually, 8 clocks will all be synchronized to the REF10 and I will have no bad clocks in my direct path.  It should be clear by now just how revolutionary SOtM's sCLK-EX board is.  Everything is being powered by independent rails from several Paul Hynes SR7s including my SOtM clock boards.

 

Upon first listen, I heard no difference.  Nada.  It sounded very good but with the REF10 activated or deactivated, I heard no change.  I have to admit I was a little worried.

 

I let things run continuously overnight and oh my, how things have opened up.  I'm sure more break-in is required and sound quality will improve further and so I will wait another couple of weeks before commenting further but what I am hearing already is just breathtakingly good.  

<snip>

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...