Mutec REF 10 Masterclock

[austinpop]

44 minutes ago, SwissBear said:

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

 

Hi @SwissBear - peace, my friend!

 

I was not doubting your findings, just pointing out that these are complex interactions, and therefore clearly system dependent. It seems in your case, what you are hearing is that:

• while the initial addition of the modified switch and sMS-200ultra provided an audible improvement,
• the additional introduction of a Ref 10 reference clock to the sMS-200ultra did not further improve the SQ.

Since  @romaz and one or 2 others on the other thread  have observed a further benefit (over and above the sCLK-EX Ultra benefit) from applying the Ref 10 to their Ultras, I can only conclude that this effect is system-dependent.

[SwissBear]

34 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Hi @SwissBear - peace, my friend!

 

I was not doubting your findings, just pointing out that these are complex interactions, and therefore clearly system dependent. It seems in your case, what you are hearing is that:

• while the initial addition of the modified switch and sMS-200ultra provided an audible improvement,
• the additional introduction of a Ref 10 reference clock to the sMS-200ultra did not further improve the SQ.

Since  @romaz and one or 2 others on the other thread  have observed a further benefit (over and above the sCLK-EX Ultra benefit) from applying the Ref 10 to their Ultras, I can only conclude that this effect is system-dependent.

Hi @austinpop,

Sorry if you interpreted my post as aggressive. This was not the intention.

Once again, I am surprised that you tend to oppose the findings of romaz and others to mine and that you qualify the results as system's dependent. They appear to me to be much more process dependent, ie dependent of the fact that you are using a synchronous or asynchronous music flow to feed the DAC than system dependent.

In the first case, you will benefit from a high precision clock in a much more efficient way than in the second case, as in the first case you will send the time information from the high precision clock to the DAC and not in the second.

This is very much independent of the complexity of the process involved and of the system IMHO.

[barrows]

On 5/18/2017 at 2:29 AM, Octagon said:

1 Hz:               ≤  -116 dBc/Hz
10 Hz:             ≤  -142 dBc/Hz

@julian.david, These are some impressive numbers.  As we know, all Xtal based oscillators vary some.  Do you do provide individual measurements of each unit produced for phase noise?  Or is there an actual guarantee that these numbers will be achieved?  And is that in a Lab setting at the ouptut of your box, or with X length of coax cable, or?

[austinpop]

@SwissBear

 

What DAC are you using? And does your DAC also accept an input from the Ref 10?

 

Just trying to figure out how many distinct output ports on the Ref 10 you're using, and what you're connecting them to.

[barrows]

On 6/20/2017 at 7:06 PM, seeteeyou said:

According to the discussions from that 100-page (and counting) megathread, the best practice would be picking the clock that's closet to the DAC itself if we're interested in replacing that with sCLK-EX.

 

However, we've gotta ask the $64,000 question in order to find out if the clocks inside DirectStream DAC were holding back the ones inside a modified Singxer SU-1 with sCLK-EX.

 

In other words, is DirectStream DAC operating in master mode or slave mode for I2S? My understanding could be incorrect so hopefully someone could chime in to correct me. If DirectStream DAC were operating in slave mode for I2S, it's taking the clock(s) from the source (i.e. Singxer SU-1 with sCLK-EX) and that's the only way to justify the investment IMHO.

 

Otherwise, DirectStream DAC could be accepting the inferior clock(s) inside the DAC itself if that were operating in master mode for I2S. Consequently the performance of sCLK-EX might be held back by the inferior clock(s) behind that and maybe we aren't exactly getting what we've paid for?

 

FYI - the differences between master mode and slave mode for I2S could be found here as well

 

https://www.allo.com/sparky/kali-reclocker.html

https://www.allo.com/sparky/boss-dac.html

The DS DAC from PS Audio always operates in master mode for its converter section, as it is an asynchronous DAC by design, that is it resamples all incoming data asynchronously to its single internal masterclock.  This does not matter what input you use.

[BigAlMc]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

The DS DAC from PS Audio always operates in master mode for its converter section, as it is an asynchronous DAC by design, that is it resamples all incoming data asynchronously to its single internal masterclock.  This does not matter what input you use.

Hi @barrows,

 

Does this mean that the directstream DAC is unlikely to benefit from the signal being reclocked upstream, or less likely to benefit as much as other DACs? 

 

Thanks, 

Alan 

[barrows]

4 hours ago, BigAlMc said:

Does this mean that the directstream DAC is unlikely to benefit from the signal being reclocked upstream, or less likely to benefit as much as other DACs? 

I would roughly estimate about half of the DACs on the market operate asynchronously, re-clocking all inputs to their own internal clock master.  Theoretically, these DACs are "jitter immune", but in practice they still seem to perform better with a low jitter source.  I would suggest that the PS Audio DS, and other async re-clocking DACs will benefit less from the application of extreme re-clocking methods in the source, but they are still likely to benefit some.

DACs which derive their internal master clock from the source will benefit more from a low jitter source.

 

The PS Audio DS has a very good internal masterclock (Crystek VCXO).  Rather than reclocking the source, the best improvement could come from replacing the internal masterclock with something better (but internally, not via a cable etc)  This would have to be a very good clock source though, and one would need an experienced tech to make such a mod.  I have worked on some DS DACs, and would suggest money would be better spent by making internal mods, rather than adding an external clock to the source.  For the price of the Mutec stuff, you could probably find someone to add a better clock internally.

[julian.david]

Hi all,

 

I promise to jump back in on the discussion in the next few days! I've recently become a dad and had to pull back a little. Meanwhile, it's been a busy week at MUTEC HQ shipping out large batches of REF 10s to our distributors in the US and South Korea. If you're interested in getting one in those areas, now is the time to contact our distributors! 

Julian

 

[BigAlMc]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

I would roughly estimate about half of the DACs on the market operate asynchronously, re-clocking all inputs to their own internal clock master.  Theoretically, these DACs are "jitter immune", but in practice they still seem to perform better with a low jitter source.  I would suggest that the PS Audio DS, and other async re-clocking DACs will benefit less from the application of extreme re-clocking methods in the source, but they are still likely to benefit some.

DACs which derive their internal master clock from the source will benefit more from a low jitter source.

 

The PS Audio DS has a very good internal masterclock (Crystek VCXO).  Rather than reclocking the source, the best improvement could come from replacing the internal masterclock with something better (but internally, not via a cable etc)  This would have to be a very good clock source though, and one would need an experienced tech to make such a mod.  I have worked on some DS DACs, and would suggest money would be better spent by making internal mods, rather than adding an external clock to the source.  For the price of the Mutec stuff, you could probably find someone to add a better clock internally.

Thanks @barrows,

 

Regards, 

Alan 

[Kritpoon]

5 hours ago, julian.david said:

Hi all,

 

I promise to jump back in on the discussion in the next few days! I've recently become a dad and had to pull back a little. Meanwhile, it's been a busy week at MUTEC HQ shipping out large batches of REF 10s to our distributors in the US and South Korea. If you're interested in getting one in those areas, now is the time to contact our distributors! 

Julian

 

 Julian, congradulation on the new additon of the little one to the family!

[austinpop]

5 hours ago, julian.david said:

Hi all,

 

I promise to jump back in on the discussion in the next few days! I've recently become a dad and had to pull back a little. Meanwhile, it's been a busy week at MUTEC HQ shipping out large batches of REF 10s to our distributors in the US and South Korea. If you're interested in getting one in those areas, now is the time to contact our distributors! 

Julian

 

 

Congratulations!

 

Sadly, you cannot connect the Ref 10 to the little one to make them perfectly regular with their sleeping and feeding. 

[zoltan]

Congratulations to Julian on becoming a father and on the fantastic Ref 10.

 

The dealer brought it over for a demo with my MC3+USB and got away with my money :-)

2-3 hours in the unit and I'm already very happy.

 

 

upgrade to accept the reference clock and I also sent my D-Link switch along to be modified. Should be back in less than two weeks. (Also internal wires are upgraded to UP-OCC silver and some eABS added for EMI absorption.)

All this is feeding a Devialet D800 - which can't be clocked :-(

 

Anyway, some questions:

- The Habst clock cable is as much as the MC3+usb itself, I can't see myself spending that much. Probably go DIY, I have a few pieces of Oyaide silver and copper 75 Ohm cables around. How long should the cable be? The shorter, the better?

- Has anybody tried different power cables on the Ref 10? Does it make a significant difference?

- Is it OK/better to leave the Ref 10 and the MC3+usb on 24/7?

- Anybody who has a modified SMS-200 ultra with clock input: how does it work? Does it change automatically? On the MC3+usb you have to switch. Maybe you have to do something on the SMS-200 ultra, too? Perhaps that is why Swissbear didn't hear any improvement?? 

[SwissBear]

1 hour ago, zoltan said:

- The Habst clock cable is as much as the MC3+usb itself, I can't see myself spending that much. Probably go DIY, I have a few pieces of Oyaide silver and copper 75 Ohm cables around. How long should the cable be? The shorter, the better?

Page 8 of the user manual of the Ref-10, you will find references of cables recommended by Mutec and sold by Pasternack:

• RG-400/U for the 50 Ohm https://www.pasternack.com/bnc-male-bnc-male-rg400u-cable-assembly-pe3582lf-p.aspx
• RG-216/U for the 75 Ohm https://www.pasternack.com/bnc-male-bnc-male-rg216u-cable-assembly-pe33403-p.aspx

Much cheaper than Habst, which seemingly has only 75 Ohm anyway.

[Confused]

I would like to pick up on @SwissBear's recent reports of his experience with the REF10, Mutec MC3+USB and sMS-200.  Clearly there have been one or two posters who were perhaps a little disappointed that SwissBears observations did not provide another data point for the 'clock chain' theory, but in a way, I think it actually makes it an interesting result and one worth thinking through.

 

For the purpose of this post, I am going to make some assumptions.  Firstly, I am going to assume that everyone is reporting accurately and what they are hearing is an accurate reflection of what is happening from a technical perspective.  So the benefits @austinpop and others with similar set-ups are hearing from clocking the 'Trifecta' is real and SwissBears's lack of benefit from adding the REF10 to the sMS-200Ultra is real.  Some of the posts following SwissBears observations implied that maybe if Habst cables were used with the sMS-200Ultra, or if the REF10 was given some 'burn in time' then maybe SwissBear would have noticed some benefit from adding the REF10 to the sMS-200Ultra.  Whilst I see the point here, I think this is a little illogical.  Consider that SwissBear has already reported good results with using the REF10 with the MC3+USB, and then even better reports after the REF10 had settled down for a few days.  So this clearly indicates that the REF10 has settled down, it is burnt in, and the non-Habst cables used are working as they should.  I think we need to be as clear minded and logical as possible with interpreting these observations, otherwise the ultimate truth will forever escape us.  OK, I note that some of the posts were humorous and perhaps not that serious.  Nothing wrong with humour of course, but we need to be careful this does not deflect us from logical and rational conclusions. The REF10 boosted SQ with the MC3+USB, but did not show a benefit with the sMS-200Ultra in front of a 'clocked' MC3.  So the final assumption is that there is nothing wrong with what SwissBear has done or observed, clocking the sMS-200 in from of the MC3+USB does not offer any improvement.

 

So with those assumptions made, I do have a theory.  Consider the ultimate aim of digital audio in this context, which is to offer a perfect audio feed to a DAC.  So what would be the characteristics of this feed?  It should be 'bit perfect', nothing lost nor gained, it should contain zero noise or interference of any kind, and the timing of the bits should be perfect with zero jitter.  The numbers I will use from now on are completely arbitrary, simply to illustrate a theory.

 

So lets consider this theoretical perfect feed to the DAC as being '100%'.  The output from an MC3+USB is dependant on what is fed to it via USB, but the MC3+USB's job is to improve what is fed to it, via asynchronous USB, then reclocking.  So lets assume that a REF10 clocked MC3+USB can output a maximum of 99% of the theoretical perfect feed to a DAC, but it can do this from a USB feed that is at 94% of the theoretical perfect feed.  Lets then assume that an sMS-200Ultra can produce 95% of the theoretical perfect feed, but with the REF10 attached this improves to 97%, in both cases the Mutec MC3+USB will output the very same 99%, so the end result will sound the same, sMS200Ultra connected to the REF10 or not.

 

OK, these are arbitrary numbers, please do not read too much into the values, but I suspect this is what is going on here.  austinpop I believe is using an Ayre Codex, which I believe uses an asynchronous USB input.  It is entirely possible that the Ayre Codex does simply get better and better as the feed to it improves, and that the 'Trifecta' style clock chains do improve the feed, quite why this should be I am not sure, I guess the aim with all this experimentation is to try to work out why.  However, as I see it, SwissBear has offered an interesting 'data point', and one that can be rationalised.  In practical terms, this is perhaps good news for those that have DACs with a decent AES3 input, as it would appear that you can run a REF10 providing clock reference to an MC3+USB, use a reasonably decent product of your choice to feed USB to the MC3+USB, and you are more or less done, the results should be good.  Understanding exactly what is going on in the USB 'clock chains' might need a lot more work and logical thinking, but it's good fun experimenting and my feeling is that we need more 'data points' all 'round to work everything out, to observe a true pattern,  but I am sure we will get there, or at least somewhere close, in time. 

 

Seeing @julian.david's lovely stack of brand new REF10's ready to ship, I can only hope a few of them will be finding there way to CA posters and providing a few more much needed 'data points', here's hoping!

 

[zoltan]

These are very interesting thoughts, Confused. There are points that may need further consideration. 

 

If the MC3+USB reclocks everything to 99% (let's keep this number), there would be no benefit of stacking several MC3+ units as several people have done and benefited from it apparently. Also, most people reported 20-30% better results when they replaced the SMS-200 with the SMS-200 ultra feeding an MC3+USB (if my memory serves me right). The difference between the original and the ultra is the added clock, which should not matter (following your reasoning) if the Mutec reaches 99% anyhow.  

 

I imagine it differently. Each good clock/re-clocker can improve on the digital signal a bit. Some more, some less. Every step the signal becomes closer to what you described as 100%. So if a re-clocker is fed better signal to start with, it can output a signal that has less jitter compared to a situation when it is fed a high jitter data stream.

 

An analogy in my mind is something when somebody is trying to clean a dirty window. There are sponges of different quality but they can wipe with each sponge once. Using a better sponge will give a cleaner window but using another sponge after that may improve. But it has to be a better or the same sponge as the first to see some results. After a while, using similar sponges will not help, hence people seem to have stopped at stacking 4 MC+USB units with diminishing benefits. 

 

Anyway, I will hopefully get my SMS-200 ultra back with clock input and will be able to report what I hear in my system. I will also ask SOtM how to switch to using the 10Mhz input. 

[Confused]

@zoltan  First to say that I do not pretend to have all the answers, far from it!  You are right about the reports of the positive benefits of 'stacking' MC3's, however, I have not seen any reports (yet) of anyone trying this with REF10 clocked MC3's, the results might be the same, they might be different.  The same is true regarding comparisons of the sMS-200 versus SMS-200Ultra feeding an MC3+USB, I have not seen anyone reporting the results of this where the MC3+USB is fed by a REF10, except for the recent posts from SwissBear.  So in this scenario, we have a 'data set' of just one, but at least we have that.  As an example, I have recently moved from a Devialet Expert to the newer Pro model.  With the old Expert amp I had established a clear hierarchy of performance between different input devices via USB, AES/EBU, Devialet AIR Ethernet, and so on.  I figured that this basic hierarchy would remain in place with the Pro version.  The thing is, it did not, both AIR and the USB input had improved, narrowing the gaps to the previously much preferred AES/EBU input.  So what is reported with a MC3+USB, may not work out quite the same with a REF10 clocked MC3+USB.  Or to use your dirty window analogy above, maybe the REF10 clocked MC3+ is like replacing the sponge with a pressure washer.

 

Ultimately it goes back to needing a few more 'data points' before this makes more sense or at least we can discern some clear trends.

 

The good news is it looks like you may be establishing a couple of 'data points' yourself soon, keep us posted!  Are you planning to try the REF10?

[mourip]

I am not sure if this is "apples to apples" or possible an unrelated data point but I have a RedNet D16 ethernet to AES converter with a Mutec USB reclocking after it and then AES out to my Yggy DAC.

 

When I added an Antelope LiveClock external wordclock generator I hooked it up to the workclock inputs of both my D16 and my Mutec. After a bit of experimentation I eventually disconnected it from the Mutec as I heard no difference or possibly a slight diminution.

 

I now have two slacked Mutecs after my D16 which does make a small but rewarding improvement. The LiveClock is just hooked up to the D16 and that definitely helped. The combined effects of this chain gives me a pretty great sound.

 

I would like to try a masterclock but cannot quite justify the cost of the REF10...

 

...yet :-)

 

 

[SwissBear]

Hi @Confused

 

Thanks for your answers.

A few thoughts:

• the cable story is a non-story. I have checked my cables against the specifications of Mutec and they are compliant.
• in terms of analogy I like this one (I hold it from a very famous French DAC manufacturer who is also manufacturing reclockers for his DACs in order to respect his IP): think of jitter as a noise and think of reclocker as a door on the way of noise. If you interpose two doors, you will hear less noise, and that's why we have double or triple pane windows in our houses.
• having said that, what will remain of jitter after the first door is not easily measurable.

From a philosophical standpoint, there is a time where buying more gears must cease, unless it becomes an addiction. And to follow into the steps of Pr. Lustig from UCSF (https://youtu.be/EKkUtrL6B18), addiction is the opposite of happiness

 

Let's listen to music

[barrows]

34 minutes ago, SwissBear said:

From a philosophical standpoint, there is a time where buying more gears must cease

Each additional component must also be powered, and each power supply adds to the overall noise profile.  Noise is cumulative, so there will come a point where additional components are doing more harm than good.

[zoltan]

3 hours ago, Confused said:

The good news is it looks like you may be establishing a couple of 'data points' yourself soon, keep us posted!  Are you planning to try the REF10?

 

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.

[Confused]

2 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.

Ah, sorry Zoltan, I had actually missed the bit about you getting a REF10 on demo.  I have to say, your post above is short but it says a lot, it clearly did not take long for you to decide to buy it!  So that's another positive report for the REF10/MC3+/Devialet combination.

 

I am actually a little jealous that you can get one on demo, I am not sure that is possible in the UK, except perhaps via post on a 'sale or return' type deal.

 

All I can say is enjoy, and I'm sure a few of us look forward to your report once you get the REF10 hooked up to the sMS-200Ultra.  Good stuff! 

 

 

[austinpop]

6 hours ago, Confused said:

Ultimately it goes back to needing a few more 'data points' before this makes more sense or at least we can discern some clear trends.

 

Indeed. I completely agree.

 

 

[BMCG]

Local dealer will be running an interesting A/B....shortly

 

Mutec Ref 10 vs the Abendrot Stute....

 

Each will do duty as the 10 MHz reference for a dCS Vivaldi Clock....

 

Now I've run the Abendrot Stute with my dCS Vivaldi Clock & DAC.

 

The enhancement to microdetail was not subtle....listening to the 24/96 version of the Doors "The End".....and the enhancements to the opening cymbals were a stand out...Sense of realism stepped up pointedly...and it is not like the base dCS combo is usually construed as lacking in detail..

 

Moreover, i wanted the "40k USD Stute" to disappoint....

 

it didn't

 

So colour me intrigued as to whether the Mutec can match up. 

 

(given the price disparity ...rather hope it can)

 

[austinpop]

@julian.david 

 

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

[rickca]

@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?