Teac 10MHz clock : CG - 10M

[esldude]

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.

[esldude]

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. 

[esldude]

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.  

[esldude]

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.