Mutec REF 10 Masterclock

[julian.david]

21 hours ago, zoltan said:

I already have the Ref 10 (see my post 16 hours ago). In fact, the improvement was so clear that I asked the dealer to leave it with me. I will pay for it on Monday. 
I will report here in a few weeks when my system is complete with the SMS-200 ultra again.

 

Awesome and congrats on the REF 10! Would you mind sharing what dealer you got it from?

 

Thanks,

Julian

[julian.david]

18 hours ago, austinpop said:

@julian.david 

 

Will you (or Mutec) be exhibiting at RMAF? I am going to be there.

 

We are unfortunately skipping RMAF this year. We (i.e. our US distributor and YourFinalSystem.com) did it last year and the results were so-so. Sorry we won't get a chance to meet there!

 

Julian

[julian.david]

6 hours ago, barrows said:

The only plausible explanation is that the result of a better clock in the upstream digital USB source (say an ultra Rendu) is that the improved timing reduces noise on the USB feed to the DAC.  I will not rule out the possibility that there might be some other advantage to a better clock in this position, but at this time it appears to be extremely unlikely, to the point of being virtually absurd.  Note the same does not apply to digital sources where one is using a SPDIF output, that is an entirely different thing, I am referring to USB output devices here.

As this is the mutec clock thread, i would also suggest that it is crazy to use such a high quality clock on (like an SMS-200 ultra) a USB output device unless first the actual DAC clock has been brought up to at least the same low level of phase noise.  Upgrading the DAC clock is going to offer an exponentially better improvement than upgrading the clock in a USB source device ( or router, switch etc).  For the price of the Mutec, one could get a competent tech/modder to put a really awesome clock(s) upgrade in their DAC for a much larger performance increase.

 

Or you just use the REF 10 as a clock source for both the USB output device and the DAC at which point you've upgraded two parts of the equation in one whack. 

 

Julian

[julian.david]

17 hours ago, rickca said:

@julian.david is it not possible for Mutec to significantly improve the performance of the MC-3+ Smart Clock USB to yield something more cost effective than the REF 10 Masterclock?

 

 

Two things in this regard:

1. The MC-3+ Smart Clock USB's internal clock is already quite good and a lot of people are happy with just that. We had to go quite a bit further in terms of component and PSU quality to top that.
2. The REF 10 is not the first 10 MHz clock out there, so we had to come up with selling points why somebody would buy it over another existing clock. So the goal was to design a 10 MHz clock with industry-leading performance and that also addresses the lack of an impedance standard in the 10 MHz market. Considering that all MUTEC products are 100% made in Germany and the level of performance, we simply can't do it for a lower price point. And considering the price of something like Abendrot's Stute, I believe you can still consider the REF 10 somewhat affordable. 
3. Finally, as you hopefully know by now, the REF 10 is the first product in a new line we call "Empyreal Class". As such, you can expect more products with similar aspirations from MUTEC so that the REF 10's positioning will make a bit more sense in the long run if it doesn't immediately do so for you right now. 

Hope this helps!

Julian

[barrows]

6 hours ago, austinpop said:

The reason for my statement was that there is a pervasive, yet incorrect, impression out there that in "asynchronous USB," the target supplies the clock for the data flowing from source to target. In fact, as John mentioned, the target only uses an explicit feedback mechanism, effectively a flow control mechanism. Both source and target have free running clocks.

Of course the above is how it works: BUT there is nothing wrong with that!  The clocking of the data stream only matters where the data is clocked into the DAC itself, this is the only place where any timing variances can produce an audible problem: no where else!

As long as the USB interfaces' buffer is managed such that is does not overflow, or run out of samples, it is doing its job perfectly, upstream timing is not a factor.  You guys are misinterpreting John Swenson.  

Again, I am not saying that upstream clocks will not have an influence on sound quality, but the mechanism by which they can does not have anything to do with the timing of the audio data, the only place the timing of the audio data matters is at the input to the DAC (that is the DAC chip itself, or discreet converter section, not the USB input).  I am also not suggesting that async USB is perfect (we make the Rendu products specifically to enhance the performance of even well implemented USB interfaces, and the ultraRendu and Signature Rendu SE both are governed internally by "femto" clocks).

The only plausible explanation for better clocks upstream improving sound quality is that they reduce noise getting into the USB interface/DAC, where it could effect the DAC clock, or perhaps even the analog output stage.  The mechanism of how this noise is produced is not understood (by me, anyone?), but I suspect it is related to imprecise timing resulting in more processor power being used, perhaps, perhaps because more error correction is necessary.

I would also stress that unless you have a system such as @romaz, it is also a bit daft to suggest that "huge gains" will be made with adding a $3K clock to a USB output device.  Someone with a more moderate system will be much better served by improving speakers, or DAC by that price delta.  Indeed, for $3K, one could have a couple of really good OCXO installed in their DAC, along with a good dedicated power supply for them, by a competent tech for a much bigger gain in sound quality.  Remember there are a lot of members here who do not have DACs in the $6K and up range (where DACs really start getting very good) and a thread like this is going to scare them away from computer audio.

[vortecjr]

19 hours ago, austinpop said:

I am sure our findings here and on the other thread have not gone unnoticed by the Mutec's, the SOtM's, the Uptone's and the Sonore's, and others of the world. I am sure none of us want these absurd chains of devices, other than the result sounds so damn good!

I only speak for Sonore. We have noticed what you are doing, but not in the way you are implying here. I don't think it's appropriate for you to include Sonore in an attempt to validate your findings especially since you are well aware that we are skeptical of your findings. 

 

Since it seems that SOtM has endorsed and are profiting from the spaghetti solution, why not ask them to validate your findings? 

[rickca]

33 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

I don't think it's appropriate for you to include Sonore in an attempt to validate your findings especially since you are well aware that we are skeptical of your findings. 

I knew that was coming. 

[baconbrain]

52 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

 

Since it seems that SOtM has endorsed and are profiting from the spaghetti solution, why not ask them to validate your findings? 

 

Not to mention that the price of the ingredients makes for a pretty pricey spaghetti...

[Cormorant]

"Spaghetti solution"

 

Ha ha, perfecto!

[SwissBear]

2 hours ago, vortecjr said:

Since it seems that SOtM has endorsed and are profiting from the spaghetti solution, why not ask them to validate your findings? 

 

Seems they already did it.

Interesting to note that Mr Lee specifically mentioned the tx-USB Ultra in his comment.

[vortecjr]

13 minutes ago, SwissBear said:

 

Seems they already did it.

Interesting to note that Mr Lee specifically mentioned the tx-USB Ultra in his comment.

It's great that they listened to it.

[ElviaCaprice]

Sonore, you should have just kept out of this thread.  Your comments here come across as making you look unprepared/desperate to match the challenge of SOtM and Mutec. 

Our ears will guide us over any technological reasoning.  Romaz, thanks for the great thread, lot's of food for thought.  Austinpop, I look forward to your findings with the Cybershaft. 

 

[romaz]

3 hours ago, barrows said:

I would also stress that unless you have a system such as @romaz, it is also a bit daft to suggest that "huge gains" will be made with adding a $3K clock to a USB output device.  

 

It seems that my statement has been misrepresented.  I will quote what I actually stated and I stand by it:

 

"No matter how good a DAC, no matter how many defenses it implements to ward off RF and jitter, it would appear to me that there are huge gains to be had by paying attention to your digital front end."

 

Notice that I made no mention of a $3k clock.  If my above statement were not true, then there would be no justification in buying a Sonore Signature Rendu SE (also selling for $3k) -- we should just pour this money into a better DAC.  But to borrow your own phrase, Barrows, "everything matters," and my findings with better power supplies, better clocking, etc. with respect to these upstream digital components are just as applicable to my $600 Chord Mojo and $1,300 Oppo BDP-205 as they are to my Chord DAVE.

 

Regarding what a good clock does in these upstream components, I agree with you.  It's about noise and not timing.  Here is John Swenson's quote:

 

"As discussed in this thread a high frequency clock can have at least three different "uses".

1) integer multiple of a word clock, DACs frequently have two of these, one for each of the sample rate families.

2) clock used for "processing" not related directly to sample frequencies

3) reference for a frequency synthesizer (which may be producing #2 frequencies)

 

Very few DACs actually use word clocks any more. Most of them use some form of #2 clock.

 

The Ref10 is designed to be a #3 source. For most audio equipment it cannot be used directly since not very many boxes have frequency synthesizers built in.

 

#2 are clocks that are fed into things like processors, USB receivers, PCIe boards etc. They are not related to audio sample rate frequencies at all, but observations seem to indicated that they can effect ultimate sound quality. The mechanisms for this are not known. I do have a theory I have been working on that explains this but it is very preliminary at this point and I'm not willing to make it public yet."

 

It's ok if people are skeptical of the impact or the value of clocking in these small "spaghetti" devices.  For sure, it shouldn't be anyone's first priority but just to be clear, when I report findings, that's all I'm doing.  I have no agenda to promote as I am not trying to sell anything to anyone.  I have paid for everything I have and I have no financial relationship with any audio company.  

 

Here is an interesting quote from John Swenson regarding the ultraRendu:

 

"2) much lower jitter clock.

When the microRendu project was started really good clocks were large and expensive so the choice was made to go with with a good but not best available clock. At this point we didn't understand how critical this next step in lower noise clocks was for many USB input DACs.

 

But now VERY low noise clocks are much smaller and less expensive than they were (still not cheap, but significantly less than before) so it was decided it was very important to use these in this design. This is probably the most important improvement over the microRendu."

 

It seems that with the ultraRendu, the clock does matter.  All that the REF10 seeks to accomplish is to improve this clock even further.

 

Regarding the value of a $3k+ external master reference clock like the REF10, value is always relative.  As Julian so wisely said, compared to how expensive some external master clocks can get, before having heard it, I found the REF10's asking price to be fair.  Considering the REF10 gives you 8 galvanically isolated clock outputs with a choice of 2 different impedances, considering its well implemented linear PSU, considering the very high build quality, but most importantly, considering its stellar performance, I consider the REF10 to be an outright bargain.  As I consider the quality of my current music server build and as I compare it to things I have heard in the past including such things as a $17k Aurender W20 or my former $9k CAD CAT, this current build easily supersedes those servers and I attribute this to 3 trump cards:  (1) my power supply, (2) the sCLK-EX boards that allow me to reclock almost any device, and (3) the REF10.

 

[barrows]

40 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Sonore, you should have just kept out of this thread.  Your comments here come across as making you look unprepared/desperate to match the challenge of SOtM and Mutec. 

Our ears will guide us over any technological reasoning.  Romaz, thanks for the great thread, lot's of food for thought.  Austinpop, I look forward to your findings with the Cybershaft. 

 

You are quite comical, last time I looked this thread was started by octagon, and is about the Mutec clock generator, not Romaz...  I posted here because I was interested in the Mutec clock, I asked of Julian if Mutec individually tests their clock generators and provides a phase noise plot for each one, as there will be some variation (every crystal is a little different) and at the very low levels of phase noise specified it would be nice to now what one is actually getting..  I can buy a very good OCXO from a supplier in Europe, for about $500 USD, and they will provide a phase noise plot for each individual unit.  I also offered the suggestion that one would be better off providing a clock of this accuracy for the actual DAC (internally) where it could offer a very much larger benefit than applying it to a USB output device.  This is good technical information, which audiophiles would benefit from.  None of it has anything to do with Sonore products.

Yes, you certainly seem to not want to be bothered by any "technological reasoning", LOL.  

[SwissBear]

9 minutes ago, barrows said:

This is good technical information, which audiophiles would benefit from.  None of it has anything to do with Sonore products.

 

Thank you for your contributions which are elevating the technical debate. Very useful IMO.

[barrows]

@romaz  Exactly, but i think you are missing the point I was trying to make:

 

For someone like you with a Digital front end >$20K (blu+DAVE) improvements in your D/A converter are going to be hard to come by, perhaps impossible, so going all out with experiments on source feeding that combo may be justified as your last area to achieve gains in sound quality.  But what has happened over in the other thread (and some here, as they seem to have been linked) is that readers are getting the idea they are going to get "big gains" by doing this.  I am only trying to bring back some sense of scale and relative importance to the discussion.  For example: spending thousands of dollars on re-clocking a router or switch, or a Regen type device is going to be wasted money when much bigger gains could be had to the audiophile who is using a lower level DAC.  People with more moderate DACslike an Ayre Codex or Mytek Brooklyn would eb better served by first putting that money into a better DAC first (even more so better speakers if they do not already have Vivid Audio Giyas or something similar).

Maybe my perceptions of the value of "upstream tweaks" is somewhat ameliorated by the USB source I use, but I am not going there fully as this is not a Sonore thread.  I do value some upstream tweaks in my own system, like the custom built ultra low noise power supply I built for my router, which we will be using at RMAF, but if you read this thread there are some folks here who fully do not understand even what kind of influence upstream clocks can have (noise as you and I agree, and not better data timing in the direct sense). 

 

In addition my posts are not meant to be any criticism of the Mutec components, for their intended purpose I expect they are excellent, and the clock itself, if it actually meets the claimed specs is excellent for its intended purposes (clock distribution necessary in Pro audio environments), and I agree the price appears to be quite fair as well for a non asian origin product.

[vortecjr]

27 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Sonore, you should have just kept out of this thread.  Your comments here come across as making you look unprepared/desperate to match the challenge of SOtM and Mutec. 

Our ears will guide us over any technological reasoning.  Romaz, thanks for the great thread, lot's of food for thought.  Austinpop, I look forward to your findings with the Cybershaft. 

 

No...no regrets. This is not about Mutec and their eco system. Mutec has a USB to SPDIF solution and they are reclocking it from an improved external clock. I have no objection to this scheme. They have already explained that the quality of the external clock could not be installed in their digital converter. This is about the spaghetti solution and the unsubstantiated massive improvement that is being claimed. We have been quiet long enough and it's time to speak out. We are not unprepared and or desperate because we choose to look to substantiate things before we set sail. In fact, if this area of research shows any improvement we would be looking to diminish it and not promote a tangled mess as a work round.    

[austinpop]

1 minute ago, barrows said:

For example: spending thousands of dollars on re-clocking a router or switch, or a Regen type device is going to be wasted money when much bigger gains could be had to the audiophile who is using a lower level DAC.  People with more moderate DACslike an Ayre Codex or Mytek Brooklyn would eb better served by first putting that money into a better DAC first...

 

That is a reasonable hypothesis, and one that I too subscribed to for a long time. However, my actual observations have been quite different.

 

I had the opportunity to try a DAVE over 2 long afternoon sessions in 2 different setups. One against my Codex, and one against another CA'ers Yggy. While the DAVE clearly improved the SQ on both our (very different) setups, the magnitude of that improvement was far smaller than what we had both observed by adding superior upstream clocking in our chains.

 

My intent is not to offend anyone or lead anyone astray. All I have done, both in this topic and the other one, is report my findings honestly and without any preconceived notions. To be honest, I too was surprised that the magnitudes were not the opposite. I expected to be blown away more by the DAC improvement. And yes - everything matters. In another system with different components, the results may well be different.

 

Again, these are just data points. I don't ask anyone to generalize  from them. Beyond this, I wanted to add another sentiment, but I think Roy said it just about perfectly. I wholeheartedly echo what he said.

 

26 minutes ago, romaz said:

It's ok if people are skeptical of the impact or the value of clocking in these small "spaghetti" devices.  For sure, it shouldn't be anyone's first priority but just to be clear, when I report findings, that's all I'm doing.  I have no agenda to promote as I am not trying to sell anything to anyone.  I have paid for everything I have and I have no financial relationship with any audio company.  

 

Now, let's get back to the Ref 10.

[ElviaCaprice]

29 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

No...no regrets. This is not about Mutec and their eco system. Mutec has a USB to SPDIF solution and they are reclocking it from an improved external clock. I have no objection to this scheme. They have already explained that the quality of the external clock could not be installed in their digital converter. This is about the spaghetti solution and the unsubstantiated massive improvement that is being claimed. We have been quiet long enough and it's time to speak out. We are not unprepared and or desperate because we choose to look to substantiate things before we set sail. In fact, if this area of research shows any improvement we would be looking to diminish it and not promote a tangled mess as a work round.    

Your flailing here is noted.  I have nothing against Barrows technical contributions, thank you. 

[austinpop]

7 hours ago, julian.david said:

 

We are unfortunately skipping RMAF this year. We (i.e. our US distributor and YourFinalSystem.com) did it last year and the results were so-so. Sorry we won't get a chance to meet there!

 

Julian

 

Sorry to hear that, Julian.

 

To be honest, I am going mostly for CanJam - I am very skeptical of what sonic impressions one can get from crappy hotel room setups. And I can only imagine the tricky value proposition for you guys (manufacturers).

 

But - it is nice to meet people, and put faces to names.

[vortecjr]

4 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Your flailing here is noted.

Feel free to expand.

[austinpop]

7 hours ago, julian.david said:

 

Or you just use the REF 10 as a clock source for both the USB output device and the DAC at which point you've upgraded two parts of the equation in one whack. 

 

That would be wonderful, wouldn't it!

 

 I wish more DACs enabled a reference clock input (John Swenson's type #3 clock). So far, looking at your list, they seem to either be on the low-end (Teac, M2Tech), or the nose-bleeding end (Esoteric).

 

Some DACs in the middle ($2k-5k, like the Mytek Brooklyn) do sport word clock inputs (JS's clock type #1), but that isn't particularly useful.

[romaz]

24 minutes ago, barrows said:

@romaz  Exactly, but i think you are missing the point I was trying to make:

 

For someone like you with a Digital front end >$20K (blu+DAVE) improvements in your D/A converter are going to be hard to come by, perhaps impossible, so going all out with experiments on source feeding that combo may be justified as your last area to achieve gains in sound quality.  But what has happened over in the other thread (and some here, as they seem to have been linked) is that readers are getting the idea they are going to get "big gains" by doing this.  I am only trying to bring back some sense of scale and relative importance to the discussion.  For example: spending thousands of dollars on re-clocking a router or switch, or a Regen type device is going to be wasted money when much bigger gains could be had to the audiophile who is using a lower level DAC.  People with more moderate DACslike an Ayre Codex or Mytek Brooklyn would eb better served by first putting that money into a better DAC first (even more so better speakers if they do not already have Vivid Audio Giyas or something similar).

Maybe my perceptions of the value of "upstream tweaks" is somewhat ameliorated by the USB source I use, but I am not going there fully as this is not a Sonore thread.  I do value some upstream tweaks in my own system, like the custom built ultra low noise power supply I built for my router, which we will be using at RMAF, but if you read this thread there are some folks here who fully do not understand even what kind of influence upstream clocks can have (noise as you and I agree, and not better data timing in the direct sense). 

 

In addition my posts are not meant to be any criticism of the Mutec components, for their intended purpose I expect they are excellent, and the clock itself, if it actually meets the claimed specs is excellent for its intended purposes (clock distribution necessary in Pro audio environments), and I agree the price appears to be quite fair as well for a non asian origin product.

 

Barrows, first of all, much respect to you and Sonore.  I am well aware of the great things you are capable of and having met you, Adrian, and Andrew at RMAF last year, and as a proud owner of a microRendu, know that I hold Sonore in high regard.  Having partnered with John Swenson, you guys have some serious IQ over at Sonore and it shows.  Contrary to how things might be perceived, if I have a bias, as an American, it is to see a small American company like Sonore succeed and succeeding, you guys are.

 

Having said that, if my effusive praise of the REF10 seems disproportionate to your perceived value of it relative to other devices in a digital chain, I want to remind you that I am posting in the REF10 thread.  If there is a place to be able to speak openly and candidly about the REF10, this is that place.  Having clearly stated what DAC I use, people can make up their own mind about how it might translate in their own system.  I would like to think that anyone reading this thread who can afford a REF10 and might be interested in a REF10 isn't going to be a fledgling audiophile and isn't going to use it to reclock their iPhone.  Absolutely, the REF10 is not the first component anyone should buy but nonetheless, this is one remarkable piece of kit.  There are many who jump onto this thread and make comments of what's possible or not possible based on theoretical grounds and have never actually heard the REF10.  The perspective that I offer is that of an actual REF10 user.

 

While it appears Sonore has not yet substantiated the impact of clocking in these "spaghetti" devices, I would encourage you guys to give it a go.  Where there's smoke, there's usually fire, and so I believe you will find that the many who have gone down this path are not just listening to placebo.

[barrows]

45 minutes ago, austinpop said:

I wish more DACs enabled a reference clock input

I strongly disagree with this.  Asking customers to shell out more money to add an external clock when a really good clock should be installed internally is a money grab in my book.  Especially when one considers that an external clock will never be as good as the same clock applied internally without cable/connection losses (which are significant).

A better way for a DAC manufacturer if they would like to allow for an upgrade clock would be to implement the internal clock(s) as a module, on a small daughter board which plugs into the main DAC board.  Then they could offer an upgrade path of better clocking at much more reasonable prices and with higher performance.  (Considering that chassis and cables are a large portion of any components expense).

[barrows]

11 minutes ago, romaz said:

While it appears Sonore has not yet substantiated the impact of clocking in these "spaghetti" devices, I would encourage you guys to give it a go

This is a exactly what John S. is doing.  Hopefully his research will be able to determine the mechanism for any improvements, and then audiophiles can move forward in an informed way.  Of course we are well aware of the value of a better clock in our Ethernet Renderers, we first started experimenting with that long ago, which led to the development (among other things) of the ultraRendu and Signature Rendu SE.

But, if I am going to use clocks as accurate as the Mutec claims to be, they are going in my DAC first as a replacement for the audio clock(s) where they can do the most good.  Of course audio clock frequencies will not have as low phase at low frequencies as a 10 MHz clock can (phase noise scales with clock frequency all other things remaining equal) but using a fixed frequency clock at audio frequency will perform better than a 10 MHz reference clock used to generate (digitally) audio frequency clocks.  There are now some pretty nice audio frequency clocks available at semi-reasonable prices.