One and a half Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 TEAC will shortly release it's 4 output 10MHz Clock, confirmed to work with the UD-503 and NT-503. Details posted on PhileWeb. EAC will release the master clock generator "CG - 10M" which will transmit 10 MHz clock signal on October 28. Although it is an open price, actual sales at around 148,000 yen are expected. CG-10M External clock generator used in combination with USB-DAC, network player, CD player, etc. The company says "to maximize the performance of products that support all 10 MHz clock inputs." Product ( reference news ) which was exhibited at IFA was officially announced. The crystal oscillator which is the heart part adopts "TEAC Reference OCXO" (Oven Controlled Crystal Oscillator) that the oscillation stability with the thermostat is high. High accuracy specifications with frequency temperature characteristics within +/- 3 ppb and frequency accuracy within ± 0.1 ppm were realized. Also, the analog meter on the front panel always displays the oscillation stable state inside OCXO which can not be confirmed. So that the stable operation state of the OCXO can be confirmed. Four gold-plated BNC terminals are equipped as output terminals. In addition to completely eliminating the interference between the systems by a completely independent circuit configuration, stable load current can be supplied by mounting a large-capacity toroidal core power transformer. The legs are proprietary three-point support pinpoint foot which patent also got, "It is easy to positively pinpoint groundable". Moreover, aluminum which is resistant to radio wave noise is adopted as the front / top and side panels. In TEAC products, it is said to have been confirmed with "UD - 503" and "NT - 503". Back terminal part rando 1 AS Profile Equipment List Say NO to MQA Link to comment
wgscott Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Wow, thanks for this post. The clock sounds like it will cost a bit more than the NT-503 DAC that I have, but I'll probably find some reason I can't go on with life without having this. I wonder if it would make an audible improvement in my rather modest system? Link to comment
esldude Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 Paying more for the clock than the DAC cost doesn't strike me as a good bargain. Maybe buying a better DAC for the amount of money of DAC+clock makes for better bang to buck ratio. Summit 1 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
One and a half Posted October 19, 2017 Author Share Posted October 19, 2017 The Mutec REF-10 by all accounts makes an improvement which is proportional to its price . Let's see what early adopters have to say, I'd be keen on the NT-503 and the new clock combo. If only the clock would work with a computer's USB stream somehow. AS Profile Equipment List Say NO to MQA Link to comment
esldude Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 14 minutes ago, wgscott said: Wow, thanks for this post. The clock sounds like it will cost a bit more than the NT-503 DAC that I have, but I'll probably find some reason I can't go on with life without having this. I wonder if it would make an audible improvement in my rather modest system? https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/does-your-studio-need-digital-master-clock I don't see anything that changes the thinking of this 2010 article. Even the best connected clocks resulted in worse jitter than letting the ADC/DACs run on the native clocks. The process of locking to an external clock and the timing error from the cabling means at best, the internal slaved clock could only equal itself free running with locking to an external reference. That explains the measured results in jitter in this article. Inexpensive devices have poorer ability to lock to an external source. Some expensive devices do better, but also have a better clock internally to start with. Master clocks are for syncing several devices. The idea you improve sound with clocking locked to a better quality external clock is more audiophool woo. If you disagree, all I need are some good DAC output measurements showing with and without master clock with the master clock being better. PS-I would assume the master clock works with USB input on the Teac just fine. USB doesn't control timing of the Teac. It simply serves as a way to transfer digital data. The Teac runs off its internal free running crystal clock after that. Substitute referencing that internal clock to the master and it will work with USB like all the other inputs. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
esldude Posted October 19, 2017 Share Posted October 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, One and a half said: The Mutec REF-10 by all accounts makes an improvement which is proportional to its price . Let's see what early adopters have to say, I'd be keen on the NT-503 and the new clock combo. If only the clock would work with a computer's USB stream somehow. We don't need early adopter opinions. Early adopters think a box of dirt improves sound. We need some reasonable measurements of timing error. Or improved analog results. And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
mansr Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 36 minutes ago, esldude said: Master clocks are for syncing several devices. The idea you improve sound with clocking locked to a better quality external clock is more audiophool woo. This should be on a label attached to the clock input. esldude 1 Link to comment
Popular Post One and a half Posted October 20, 2017 Author Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2017 2 hours ago, esldude said: We don't need early adopter opinions. Early adopters think a box of dirt improves sound. We need some reasonable measurements of timing error. Or improved analog results. You set up the tests and we might listen, with a lot of ifs buts and maybes. Old argument, and not welcome. I don't listen to numbers, sorry. asdf1000 and gstew 2 AS Profile Equipment List Say NO to MQA Link to comment
wgscott Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 OK, so I guess the main point is for a conventional digital stereo system, there is no reason to have this clock, but for other applications there is a genuine purpose: Quote Overall, it should be clear from these tests that employing an external master clock cannot and will not improve the sound quality of a digital audio system. It might change it, and subjectively that change might be preferred, but it won't change things for the better in any technical sense. A‑D conversion performance will not improve: the best that can be hoped for is that the A‑D conversion won't become significantly degraded. In most cases, the technical performance will actually become worse, albeit only marginally so. Having said all this, the use of a master clock may well make a digital audio system much more convenient and stable to operate — and that may well be a very desirable benefit in its own right, easily outweighing any minor performance compromises of slaved A‑D converters. Or it may ensure the required synchronism between sample rates and video frames is achieved, which is absolutely vital in any video‑related work. The obvious conclusion is that in simple digital audio setups a master clock is usually unnecessary, although it remains critical that multiple digital devices are clocked sensibly. In more elaborate digital audio systems, a master clock can make the task of slaving multiple units much easier and neater, and allow the system to operate more reliably. In systems where digital audio is being used in synchronism with video, an appropriate master clock is absolutely essential. But in any of these cases, the use of a master clock will not improve the audio quality achieved by the converters in any technical sense — and the most expensive clocks fare no better in this regard than the least expensive. The only relevant criteria for purchase is whether the clock provides the facilities, inputs and outputs required, and is designed sufficiently well to conform with AES11 Grade 1 standard. Link to comment
GUTB Posted October 20, 2017 Share Posted October 20, 2017 Although external clocks do increase jitter, it's a FACT there is a widely reporting increase in SQ. That's not just audiophoolery, but genuine recording studio feedback. You'll note that these high end clock upgrades first appeared to gain traction in the studio market and then branched out into consumer level products. In the end of the day, my ears will be the judge. 4est 1 Link to comment
Popular Post wgscott Posted October 20, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, GUTB said: Although external clocks do increase jitter, it's a FACT there is a widely reporting increase in SQ. That's not just audiophoolery, but genuine recording studio feedback. You'll note that these high end clock upgrades first appeared to gain traction in the studio market and then branched out into consumer level products. In the end of the day, my ears will be the judge. Just like it is a FACT that Class D amps suck. What an amazingly compelling argument. Studios typically deal in more than two channels. Someone's signal to noise ratio could use a little improvement. esldude, mansr and tmtomh 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted October 20, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, GUTB said: Although external clocks do increase jitter, it's a FACT there is a widely reporting increase in SQ. That's not just audiophoolery, but genuine recording studio feedback. You'll note that these high end clock upgrades first appeared to gain traction in the studio market and then branched out into consumer level products. In the end of the day, my ears will be the judge. They gained traction the studios because they were essential when you are using a half dozen or more ADC/DAC units for dozens of channels. The 10 MHz variety is especially needed in those situations when you are synching all that with video. So, if they didn't exist, someone would have needed to come up with some system. At home, with a two channel DAC, you never needed it. Now maybe if you are doing digital crossovers and running 6 channels of DAC for feeding a pair of three way speakers, then yes this or something similar is needed. Not for the improved clocking, for the synched clocking. Yes they want the clocks of good quality because they may run hundreds of feet of cable to accomplish this. tmtomh and mansr 2 And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. Link to comment
kevin gilmore Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 I've been testing a number of 10mhz reference clocks with the nt503 and this one sounds the best. I bought it on ebay new plus the power supply for $200. Its a 10mhz OCXO disciplined by a rubidium standard and is far more accurate an lower phase noise than anything I have tested. rubidium clocks have about a 10 to 15 year lifetime due to the lamp. There are also GPSDO units available on ebay for about the same $200, but require a GPS antenna for the built in TCXO to be disciplined to. click on the picture for much larger Link to comment
mansr Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Why do people think the long-term stability (years) provided by atomic clocks is at all relevant to audio applications? Link to comment
kevin gilmore Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 its not. But the jitter of the oscillator is important. Which is why the disciplined OCXO's sure seem to sound better than the synthesized disciplined things. I really did not expect the quality of the sound to change, I was surprised. best $200 for a tweek in a very long time Link to comment
mansr Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, kevin gilmore said: its not. But the jitter of the oscillator is important. Which is why the disciplined OCXO's sure seem to sound better than the synthesized disciplined things. I really did not expect the quality of the sound to change, I was surprised. An OCXO has very low jitter all by itself. The rubidium (or GPS) reference is only needed for extremely accurate frequency and long-term stability. Nobody can hear a difference of a few ppm, so that's pointless for audio. Link to comment
One and a half Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 Further to above link at Phileweb, a feature page from TEAC. The feet should be sold as DIY. Instruction Manual is in Japanese. AS Profile Equipment List Say NO to MQA Link to comment
Popular Post JohnSwenson Posted October 22, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2017 On 10/19/2017 at 4:43 PM, esldude said: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/does-your-studio-need-digital-master-clock I don't see anything that changes the thinking of this 2010 article. Even the best connected clocks resulted in worse jitter than letting the ADC/DACs run on the native clocks. The process of locking to an external clock and the timing error from the cabling means at best, the internal slaved clock could only equal itself free running with locking to an external reference. That explains the measured results in jitter in this article. Inexpensive devices have poorer ability to lock to an external source. Some expensive devices do better, but also have a better clock internally to start with. Master clocks are for syncing several devices. The idea you improve sound with clocking locked to a better quality external clock is more audiophool woo. If you disagree, all I need are some good DAC output measurements showing with and without master clock with the master clock being better. PS-I would assume the master clock works with USB input on the Teac just fine. USB doesn't control timing of the Teac. It simply serves as a way to transfer digital data. The Teac runs off its internal free running crystal clock after that. Substitute referencing that internal clock to the master and it will work with USB like all the other inputs. The linked article is way out of date and not even looking at the same things. There are some REALLY good clock synthesizer chips on the market now, which did not exist when this article was written. These chips lock on to the reference clock and can synthesize multiple frequencies while adding extremely low phase noise of their own. There are two types on the market, the jitter attenuating type and the type that assumes you have an extremely low jitter reference. IF you have an extremely good reference the second type will give you better results, but the first type can take a not so great clock and turn it into an output that is much better than the reference! IF the DAC uses one of these internally then feeding it a really good external reference IS a good thing. Of course building that ultra low phase noise OCXO in the DAC to begin with would be even better, BUT having an external connection into one of these chips gives the user more flexibility. The DAC can come with a very good but not insanely expensive clock, which dramatically decreases the price of the DAC. When the user wants to upgrade they can add the insanely expensive reference clock without having to buy a new DAC. I can guarantee that NONE of the devices in that linked article had anything close to what is available today. Most of those "master clocks" that were covered are actually pretty lousy clocks. Their primary goal was to have lots of flexibility in input types and output types so they could be used in many different setups. The circuitry they used was even poor for the time. As far as phase noise goes they bear extremely little resemblance to the reference clocks that are being discussed these days, which JUST output 10MHz, but do it EXTREMELY well. That article goes into great length discussing how a master clock can get degraded by running it through a microphone cable. Nobody here is talking about running a 10MHz reference clock through a microphone cable. The people buying these are going to be using highly optimized extremely wide bandwidth cables which have very small impact on such a signal. Such a cable can be had for $50 from the professional RF companies so it is not particularly expensive to transfer the output from the reference clock to the DAC. All this is predicated on having a DAC which uses one of these modern extremely good clock synthesizers. If it doesn't, then yes, adding an expensive reference clock is going to be useless. John S. lwr, ElviaCaprice, tapatrick and 8 others 6 2 3 Link to comment
One and a half Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 Thanks John for your insights. Nice to hear a new song, rather than the lame old ones. mourip 1 AS Profile Equipment List Say NO to MQA Link to comment
mansr Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 I'm still waiting for any evidence these fancy clocks make an audible difference over a good TCXO. Link to comment
mourip Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 14 hours ago, kevin gilmore said: I've been testing a number of 10mhz reference clocks with the nt503 and this one sounds the best. I bought it on ebay new plus the power supply for $200. Its a 10mhz OCXO disciplined by a rubidium standard and is far more accurate an lower phase noise than anything I have tested. rubidium clocks have about a 10 to 15 year lifetime due to the lamp. There are also GPSDO units available on ebay for about the same $200, but require a GPS antenna for the built in TCXO to be disciplined to. click on the picture for much larger Hi Kevin. Glad to see you here. I have much appreciated your posts and expertise on Head-Fi for many years. "Don't Believe Everything You Think" System Link to comment
lmitche Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 14 hours ago, kevin gilmore said: its not. But the jitter of the oscillator is important. Which is why the disciplined OCXO's sure seem to sound better than the synthesized disciplined things. I really did not expect the quality of the sound to change, I was surprised. best $200 for a tweek in a very long time Kevin, I've been looking on eBay for years for a deal like this. Where did you find it? I just looked and can't find the same. What were the other clocks you tried that were beat by this one? Pareto Audio aka nuckleheadaudio Link to comment
mourip Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 15 hours ago, kevin gilmore said: rubidium clocks have about a 10 to 15 year lifetime due to the lamp. This part would concern me when looking for a used one on eBay. "Don't Believe Everything You Think" System Link to comment
4est Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 13 minutes ago, mourip said: This part would concern me when looking for a used one on eBay. Is the lamp part of the oven? Forrest: Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP> Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz Link to comment
kevin gilmore Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 I found it on ebay, new in box, never soldered to etc. I got lucky, keep looking. It sounds better than the frequency electronics ones which are DDS. There are 2 different kinds of these, some are programmable the others are not. They are all pulls from cell phone tower electronics packages, so no idea how much life is left. The lamp is part of the rubidium physics package. Which also includes a heater for the detector. The oven for the crystal is something else. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now