Mutec REF 10 Masterclock

[SwissBear]

On 9/8/2017 at 1:22 AM, sadekkhalifa said:

I have now in my chain IsoRegen, tX-USBUltra(With External Master Clock input) and Paul Hynes SR7 in order.

 

Which is better to me is to order Ref10 with one Habst Digital BNC cable for my tX-USBUltra

 

or to order sMS-200Ultra (With External Master Clock input) + Switch + dCBL-CAT7 LAN cable special edition.

 

My source is jRiver in my laptop.
 

Hi Sadek,

As you have asked the question publicly before reformulating it in PM, I will answer publicly.

This is a difficult question ! I hate advising people if I do not know what their system is, what their expectations are, aso...

First, I would wait for the Paul Hynes to arrive before I make very specific new decisions. this is what I have done for my own system. It can very well be that, with the Paul Hynes in the chain, suddenly your system is so transparent that you are happy with it. I have not personally tested the influence of the Ref-10 on a system which is not reclocked via a Mutec MC-3+ USB. So I can not evaluate the benefits of this solution. @romazseems enthusiastic about it. As he is a very reliable and esteemed contributor of this community, you can very well decide that this is a good option.

But when the PH is in place, you can also decide that the best would be to use it to power another computer than your laptop, in order to reduce the electromagnetic noise it is introducing into the system. Romaz has extensively commented about this too.

Finally, you have not mentioned which is the preferred input of your DAC. Is it really USB ? Is AES/EBU an option ? In this case, before the Ref-10, I would consider a Mutec MC-3+ USB.

There are so many possible options that you can only decide for yourself, given your utility function.

A last comment if you allow me: at this stage, do not put so much money into expensive cables. The Habst is close to 1'000 EUR. The Ethernet cable you are contemplating from SOtM is 500 USD. This is, at least from my point of view, none sense at this stage. I paid 50 USD for the connection cables from my Ref-10 to my MC-3+ and I am very happy with them . It might happen one day, when everything is so transparent and well defined into your system, that you hear a big difference between two cables. This may not yet be the case today.

Just my 2c.

[Deusvult]

Very interesting to hear about your findings @SwissBear! Did you also have a chance to try out the IsoRegen in the chain? Is that part redundant or does it further improve things? 

[SwissBear]

2 minutes ago, Deusvult said:

Very interesting to hear about your findings @SwissBear! Did you also have a chance to try out the IsoRegen in the chain? Is that part redundant or does it further improve things? 

 

Hi @Deusvult,

Thank you

Yes, I had the chance to listen to the Iso-Regen in this context, as Peter has been kind enough to include this small box among the gears he sent me

At this stage, I would simply say that this addition has not been a game changer. Which does not mean that the Iso-Regen is not a good device, but might just illustrate the fact that the sMS-200 Ultra powered by a PH does such a good job at assembling good USB packets, which are then buffered into the MC-3+ USB, that any additional improvement in this field is not audible, at least not for me.

But this is not a definitive answer and I will probably revisit this subject later.

The next goal for me is to listen to the sMS-200 Ultra synchronized with the Ref-10. This should happen sometime early next week. I will report my perceptions at that time.

[beautiful music]

1 hour ago, SwissBear said:

Hi Sadek,

As you have asked the question publicly before reformulating it in PM, I will answer publicly.

This is a difficult question ! I hate advising people if I do not know what their system is, what their expectations are, aso...

First, I would wait for the Paul Hynes to arrive before I make very specific new decisions. this is what I have done for my own system. It can very well be that, with the Paul Hynes in the chain, suddenly your system is so transparent that you are happy with it. I have not personally tested the influence of the Ref-10 on a system which is not reclocked via a Mutec MC-3+ USB. So I can not evaluate the benefits of this solution. @romazseems enthusiastic about it. As he is a very reliable and esteemed contributor of this community, you can very well decide that this is a good option.

But when the PH is in place, you can also decide that the best would be to use it to power another computer than your laptop, in order to reduce the electromagnetic noise it is introducing into the system. Romaz has extensively commented about this too.

Finally, you have not mentioned which is the preferred input of your DAC. Is it really USB ? Is AES/EBU an option ? In this case, before the Ref-10, I would consider a Mutec MC-3+ USB.

There are so many possible options that you can only decide for yourself, given your utility function.

A last comment if you allow me: at this stage, do not put so much money into expensive cables. The Habst is close to 1'000 EUR. The Ethernet cable you are contemplating from SOtM is 500 USD. This is, at least from my point of view, none sense at this stage. I paid 50 USD for the connection cables from my Ref-10 to my MC-3+ and I am very happy with them . It might happen one day, when everything is so transparent and well defined into your system, that you hear a big difference between two cables. This may not yet be the case today.

Just my 2c.

Thank you @SwissBear for your feedback.

 

Regarding to the preferred input of my DAC, indeed the USB is the best option. 

 

And @romaz may be very busy these days to answer to my query. 

[mecani]

Hello  I intend to change the power supply of the mutec mc3 + usb and I would be interested to know if a parody of 5v 3a brown tedyy would be valid Thank you

[SwissBear]

56 minutes ago, sadekkhalifa said:

Thank you @SwissBear for your feedback.

 

Regarding to the preferred input of my DAC, indeed the USB is the best option. 

 

And @romaz may be very busy these days to answer to my query. 

I would then suggest to follow into the steps of @romaz and @austinpop here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-the-sms-200-and-microrendu/

Romaz has done an incredible job digging into a difficult subject which is not completely understood from a theoretical point of view, thus the 'heuristical' approach of the thread. AustinPop has done an incredible job taking over and synthesizing the trends which were emerging.

So starting from post 1 in the thread is a good exercise, which will probably help you decide what is the next appropriate step for you.

[SwissBear]

1 hour ago, mecani said:

Hello  I intend to change the power supply of the mutec mc3 + usb and I would be interested to know if a parody of 5v 3a brown tedyy would be valid Thank you

Hi @mecani,

I have no knowledge of this PSU. I would just like to underline that the stock PSU of the Mutec MC-3+ USB is a very good SPSU indeed, and the people at Mutec have done a very good job designing or sourcing it. So the goal here is not to change for the pleasure of changing. The Paul Hynes LPSU which has been used in my system and in various other systems ( @romaz also is a great supporter of this technology) has some unique features which are very desirable in our field: very low noise, very low output impedance, very low current leakage, aso... So you would probably need to check if the PSU you are contemplating has the appropriate characteristics before attempting the surgery, knowing that very few suppliers are actually publishing their specs.

As far as appropriate characteristics of the PSU are concerned, you could check this post of @rgom: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/16801-mutec-mc-3/?do=findComment&comment=708840 or ask the contributor to give you advice. Alternatively, you could also contact with Mutec (see contact information here: https://mutec-net.com/kontakt.php) or ask @julian.david for help.

[beautiful music]

@SwissBear indeed i followed this forum from the first post to the last post,  @romazand @austinpop did a good contribution in this hobby.

 

Depend on a contribution from Roy, Rajic and other folks in that forum, i got a good idea of different streamers and clocks, but my query is just to emphasize my thoughts and to get other opinions from other audiophiles here.

[SwissBear]

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

 

[baconbrain]

48 minutes 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.

 

Excellent feedback although somewhat surprising.

 

Is the switch that you have as a loaner from Aqvox? I am assuming that you have the 200 Ultra connected directly to the switch and not via bridge, correct?

[SwissBear]

35 minutes ago, baconbrain said:

 

Excellent feedback although somewhat surprising.

 

Is the switch that you have as a loaner from Aqvox? I am assuming that you have the 200 Ultra connected directly to the switch and not via bridge, correct?

Hi Bacon,

 

Can I ask what you find surprising ?

 

The router is a D-Link which clock has been changed by SOtM together with a few other changes. And yes the sMS-200 is connected to the router and not in bridged mode.

[austinpop]

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.

 

[SwissBear]

8 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

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.

 

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. 

[austinpop]

5 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. 

 

Ahh - OK, thanks. Very interesting.

[mozes]

It will be very interesting to wait for the SOTM master clock as it should be a clear step up from the SCLK-EX board. Assuming that both are designed by the same manufacturer, means that SOTM won't launch their master clock unless it is clearly up and above the SCLK board. Still what do I know  

[Kritpoon]

19 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. 

 

That's a very interesting observation you found. Maybe the implementation of REF Clock Signal is not as good in sCLK-EX board as it is with MC-3+?. I don't know what's the clock spec is with the SOTM sCLK-Ex is, but from Rajiv experiments (exchanging USB-tx Ultra with Iso-Regen - the two unit is almost identical in SQ) so with that I assume (very very generally that SOTM sCLK-EX clock performance is similar to that of Crystek 575 oscillator use with ISO-Regen). WIth that level of clock (osciallator performance) by adding REF signal, it should be some improvements (big or small, better or different: that's another issue), but it should be there. So I questions, how or how well the REF signal is being implemented in the sCLK-EX board?

 

With the improvements you hear when REF10 + MC-3+ is I think partly because the REF10 was designed primarily with MC-3+ in mind? Just my speculation.

[mozes]

8 minutes ago, Kritpoon said:

but from Rajiv experiments (exchanging USB-tx Ultra with Iso-Regen - the two unit is almost identical in SQ) so with that I assume (very very generally that SOTM sCLK-EX clock performance is similar to that of Crystek 575 oscillator use with ISO-Regen).

The IR is very good, but the tX USB ultra is clearly superior, at least to my ears. I am not sure if @austinpopfound them similar in performance.

 

10 minutes ago, Kritpoon said:

WIth that level of clock (osciallator performance) by adding REF signal, it should be some improvements (big or small, better or different: that's another issue), but it should be there.

I agree, there should be a difference, for the better or worse, that's up to the listener to judge

[austinpop]

 

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 ). 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>

 

[mozes]

3 minutes ago, austinpop said:

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.

Thanks Rajiv for digging this quote from Roy's post, this is very insightful indeed.

[baconbrain]

1 hour ago, SwissBear said:

Hi Bacon,

 

Can I ask what you find surprising ?

 

The router is a D-Link which clock has been changed by SOtM together with a few other changes. And yes the sMS-200 is connected to the router and not in bridged mode.

 

I had anticipated that there would be an improvement in the SQ with the Ref 10 providing the clock signal to the sMS-200 ...

[Confused]

Thanks for yet another interesting post @SwissBear !  Plus you have certainly started some debate!  I have to say that for me your findings are not surprising, in fact they are exactly what you might expect considering the conventional logic of how asynchronous USB should function.  That is, improving the clocking of the USB feed from the sMS-200Ultra should not improve the sound as performance will default to the final clocking capability of the Mutec MC3+USB.   (or Mutec MC3+USB + REF10)  Of course @austinpop has witnessed rather different results, but as he points out himself these things can be system dependant, and his results were with a significantly different set-up, different DAC, no Mutec MC3+USB or REF10.  So I think there is still something that is working in the 'clock chain' theory, what @SwissBear is demonstrating is that with this one particular set-up, the conventional logic of the workings of asynchronous USB remains valid.  I am sure in time as we get more data a pattern should emerge, we are just not quite there yet.

[austinpop]

I think we should Habstain from drawing broad conclusions until we get more data points.

 

One day I will run out of Habst puns.

 

Today is not that day. 

[Kritpoon]

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

I think we should Habstain from drawing broad conclusions until we get more data points.

 

One day I will run out of Habst puns.

 

Today is not that day. 

 

Thats very funny. Cant stop laughing.

[esimms86]

39 minutes ago, austinpop said:

I think we should Habstain from drawing broad conclusions until we get more data points.

 

One day I will run out of Habst puns.

 

Today is not that day. 

Then perhabst not. We're all collectively holding out for the SOtM/Mutec holy grail at which point our Habstburg jaws will drop. 

 

And please, don't give me any Habstburg lip.

[SwissBear]

I would tend to interpret the results I observed on my system in the same way than @Confused. There seems to be a natural hierarchy in the means of using a precise time signal and this hierarchy is not controversial IMO ( @austinpop).

 

What is a precise time reference useful for in digital music reproduction ? In precisely rebuilding the analog music flow from the digital music flow. Hence, the natural hierarchy of devices where a perfect clock signal is useful is:

1. the DAC: if you own a DAC which has a 'world clock' input, then there is a very big chance that you will highly benefit from the Ref-10
2. any device which is sending a synchronous music flow to the DAC: the synchronous music flow will include the musical data as well as a time signal, which will be interpreted by the DAC to rebuild the analog music flow. This is exactly what the MC-3+ USB is doing, transforming an USB flow which has no time information into an AES/EBU flow, which embarks time information. Therefore it is not abnormal that a precise clock at this stage has a big influence. This is the case of the MC-3+ USB off the shelf, and even more when the MC-3+ USB is synchronized with the Ref-10. I would add that if you have 1. a DAC with clock input 2. a MC-3+ USB, you will be able to synchronize both with the Ref-10
3. in the absence of these 2 items above, the already good clocks from SOtM gears, as well as the Ref-10 if they are connected to it, will be used to build a very precise asynchronous music flow. And we have all witnessed the quality of the Ultra family of SOtM products, which demonstrates that the precision of the clock signal is useful in this field.

So there is nothing controversial in stating that my observations tend to confirm this natural hierarchy, and that improvements brought at level 3 will be an order of magnitude inferior to the improvements brought at level 2 in this field.

You can also assess this in putting an MC-3+ USB into your chain after having removed its stock SPSU, connect it to a Ref-10, and check for yourself.

SOtM and Mutec are two companies which are building tremendous technologies which work very well together and are very complementary.

Just my 2c