Master Clock for your EtherREGEN

[AfterDark.]

On 3/11/2021 at 10:59 PM, LowMidHigh said:

 

As PYP alluded, you're better off with LP-1.2 x 2 (if the LP-1.2 has the oomph to power the AfterDark).

 

 

Hi! LowMidHigh,

 

LPS1.2 is sufficient to power the Giesemann. Normal operating use around 0.5A only, max for power up around 0.8-1.0A.

 

Best Regards,

Adrian 

AfterDark. 

[ambre]

1 hour ago, LowMidHigh said:

Etherregen should preferably be used with a square wave, but this is still an audiophile debate.

it's a fact that isn't subject to a debate.

John S. covered it at length in one related thread. 

 

HI EverytimeHigh, 

 

NO.  We are still waiting for the clock papers by Uptone & Swenson company.  Repeatedly stating ...before buying clock products, please wait for the clock paper to come out.......to make an informed choice!

 

In the Audio industry like Merging Nadac also Master Clocks brands Mutec, Tascam, Antelope .....all use a Sin Wave 50 Ohm and less 75 Ohm (mostly for video) in their studios and consumer applications.

 

Suppose there are more or less conflicting issues and starting points for design / approach /and proper implementation of a 10Mhz of 25 Mhz Master Clock in a switch, re-clocker like Mutec MC3 USB  and maybe a new ISO_OXCO _Regen with 10Mhz input?   Also the necessity to use a high quality clock cable... to minimize various kinds of jitter, ground plane issues with a known or unknown causal effect? 

 

Strange enough many people including myself and many studio professionals prefer /  like the sound of a clocked  Mutec, SOTM and EtherRegen switch? Maybe it's technically spoken ...worse.... not better?  Or do we like this kind of jitter or other contaminants?

 

We all are hearing apparently positive differences...... by using  a really cheap Chinese BJ7, an Afterdark Giesemann, a Cybershaft, a Mutec SE 120 Master Clocks? And not to be underestimated the effects of a good BNC Clock cables. Like the Afterdark (50-Ohm) and the more (very) expensive SOTM, Chord etc.  BNC-cables?  

 

Whats is going on ?

 

Regards, Andreas 

[Ponkbutler]

29 minutes ago, ambre said:

NO.  We are still waiting for the clock papers by Uptone & Swenson company.  Repeatedly stating ...before buying clock products, please wait for the clock paper to come out.......to make an informed choice!

 

In the Audio industry like Merging Nadac also Master Clocks brands Mutec, Tascam, Antelope .....all use a Sin Wave 50 Ohm and less 75 Ohm (mostly for video) in their studios and consumer applications.

 

John was quite clear about square wave being preferable and has not given any indication that the clock paper will mark a change of thinking.

 

You keep repeating the above-quoted misinformation about clocks. The Mutec Ref10 is, for example, a square wave clock with a combination of outputs, but gives the preference to 75 Ohm, as you can see from the number of outputs provided:

• 2 x 10 MHz reference clock BNC output, 50 Ω terminated, unbalanced
• 6 x 10 MHz reference clock BNC output, 75 Ω terminated, unbalanced

 

As you report different types of good external clocks result in an improvement. We have several reports of this on the forum and I have a friend who is very happy with adding a SOtM clock (sine wave and 75 Hz) to his EtherRegen. But of course no-one wants just better, we want best 😀

 

Also, note that whereas the SOtM clock was originally supplied with only a 50 Ohm output, they now offer both 50 and 75.

[ambre]

34 minutes ago, Ponkbutler said:

The Mutec Ref10 is, for example, a square wave clock with a combination of outputs

Hi Ponkbulter,

 

You are correct concerning Mutec for both models Square Wave.  The other brands differ. 

The how and why is the actual question of my posting resp. reaction. 

 

Quoting your words " But of course no-one wants just better, we want best 😀"   How to achieve that ? And referring to words earlier mentioned ....please wait for the clock paper to come out.......to make an informed choice!

 

What are the criteria for making the right choice? If SOTM uses Sin-Wave with an explanation on their webpage. What  is correct or is it different per device?  A better guideline and substantiated professional advice would be more than welcome.

 

That is why not only me but also many others are eagerly awaiting John's papers. As a guideline for purchasing the correct Master Clock for our Switch, Re-clocker or DAC.

 

Ps. SOTM prefers Sin Wave:  "  As many audiophiles know, the clock signal is an angled square digital signal, but the sCLK-OCX10 produces a pure analog sine wave of 10 MHz, and this sinusoidal clock signal is the method adopted for the best clock performance because it produces significantly less noise than the angled square digital clock signal. In order to implement this, the sCLK-OCX10 consists of only analog circuitry which contains 10 years of know-how of SOtM" 

????

 

Enjoy the Music, Andreas

[LowMidHigh]

2 hours ago, ambre said:

 

HI EverytimeHigh, 

 

NO.  We are still waiting for the clock papers by Uptone & Swenson company.  Repeatedly stating ...before buying clock products, please wait for the clock paper to come out.......to make an informed choice!

 

In the Audio industry like Merging Nadac also Master Clocks brands Mutec, Tascam, Antelope .....all use a Sin Wave 50 Ohm and less 75 Ohm (mostly for video) in their studios and consumer applications.

 

Suppose there are more or less conflicting issues and starting points for design / approach /and proper implementation of a 10Mhz of 25 Mhz Master Clock in a switch, re-clocker like Mutec MC3 USB  and maybe a new ISO_OXCO _Regen with 10Mhz input?   Also the necessity to use a high quality clock cable... to minimize various kinds of jitter, ground plane issues with a known or unknown causal effect? 

 

Strange enough many people including myself and many studio professionals prefer /  like the sound of a clocked  Mutec, SOTM and EtherRegen switch? Maybe it's technically spoken ...worse.... not better?  Or do we like this kind of jitter or other contaminants?

 

We all are hearing apparently positive differences...... by using  a really cheap Chinese BJ7, an Afterdark Giesemann, a Cybershaft, a Mutec SE 120 Master Clocks? And not to be underestimated the effects of a good BNC Clock cables. Like the Afterdark (50-Ohm) and the more (very) expensive SOTM, Chord etc.  BNC-cables?  

 

Whats is going on ?

 

Regards, Andreas 

 

Are you aware the ER expects a square wave? If not, do your research and all the pieces will fall in place. 

 

As for SOTM championing their sinuous wave, IMO their marketing materials are full of fluff. I'll take John's opinion over theirs.  But for each their own

 

 

 

[ambre]

1 minute ago, LowMidHigh said:

 

Are you aware the ER expects a square wave? If not, do your research and all the pieces will fall in place. 

 NO running now with Sin Wave Afterdark .....and very well do your own research maybe  more in depth ...EtherRegen accepts both Sin or Square wave😁

[AfterDark.]

49 minutes ago, LowMidHigh said:

 

Are you aware the ER expects a square wave? If not, do your research and all the pieces will fall in place. 

 

As for SOTM championing their sinuous wave, IMO their marketing materials are full of fluff. I'll take John's opinion over theirs.  But for each their own

 

 

 

 

Hello! LowMidHigh,

 

We can confirmed UpTone EtherREGEN can use both Square Wave and Sine Wave. There is some comments from different customer, the sounding for Sine Wave is more analogy and Square Wave is more forward sounding. The original format for OCXO is pure sine wave in nature. Nevertheless, the Phase noise and Allan Derivation can only be measured from sine wave format. So, it is more favourable to measure the quality of OCXO in a right manner. 

 

There is another factors which can improve sounding,  by using quality BNC Clock cable, and matching impedance on connected devices and cable is more important for audiophile. 

 

Most of the time, after burn in, the clock will improve much more further and the format from each others compared will be negligible. This is the first experience from user's impression. 

 

Thanks. Hope it can help.

 

Best Regards,

Adrian

AfterDark. 

 

 

[scolley]

2 hours ago, ambre said:

That is why not only me but also many others are eagerly awaiting John's papers. As a guideline for purchasing the correct Master Clock for our Switch, Re-clocker or DAC.

Just chiming in to say ditto. Checking every day to see if said paper is out yet, for per John's advice, I'm not spending a nickle on any clock related product until I see that. Could not be more eager to read it, when it arrives. Clearly they have a lot on their respective plates right now. :-(

[R1200CL]

Time to do some rereading ?

https://audiophilestyle.com/search/?&q=Square wave&author=JohnSwenson&search_and_or=and&sortby=relevancy

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/search/?&q=Square wave&author=Superdad&search_and_or=and&sortby=relevancy

https://audiophilestyle.com/search/?&q=Square wave&author=Clockmeister&search_and_or=and&sortby=relevancy

 

I think the only true answer to this is by certain measurements by specific clocks with EtherRegen. 
My understanding this may be a time consuming process. I don’t know.
 

 @Clockmeister Are you someone that can help in this matter ?
 

The implementation of square wave also matters. Correct ?

I’ve asked also isn’t it better to implement square wave conversion on the receiver side ?

And if not, why ?

 

The measurements I’m really interested in when you’re using the B to A setup, as it has been said long time ago that a clock is highly likely not to do any help in this configuration. 
 

@JohnSwenson

Is it to expect you will do measurements when time allows, on EtherRegen in B>A to verify if it’s a “total” waste or not to use a clock in this specific configuration ?

Could it be said or expected that the degradation is linear, meaning a 140 will become 130 at 10 Hz, and hence a 130 clock will become a 120 one (as an example) ?

Does it now exist components that could made B side 1 GB, or preferably also having SFP interface ?

 

[Freddiekaberman]

Hi to all,

 

Wow this thread is unstoppable! I don't have much in the way of technical insight to add to the recent posts, but I thought it might be useful to share my recent experiences, in case anyone finds it helpful. I am running the BG7TBL Chinese clock.

 

I started with the clock on a UK made Longdog audio LPS (a basic version, no fancy fuses or cables) and the ER on its stock SMPS. The LPS was a very nice SQ boost and seemed better used on the clock than the ER.

 

I was running a cheap Van Damme 75 ohm coax and built myself a new cable with Furutech NCF BNC connectors and 0.5 metre Neotech NEVD2001 silver coax. The cable is now run-in and I can report that it has a distinct sonic signature over the Van Damme. I very much like the result as I find it smoother, more resolving and open, less "digital" in presentation.

 

Then I tried a set of 4 ferrites in various frequency grades and played around for a week or so. I had a low frequency 3 MHz+ ferrite which I thought gave a "sat-on" effect, but the other 3 ferrites which ranged from 100MHz up to about 1 GHz just gave a subtle but appreciable lift in SQ. The difference was much more marginal than the cable itself, but I ended up preferring the sound with them in place for a slightly more grounded sound - hard to describe. No way could I detect them blind as we are really in the margins here. Of course I did "hope" for an improvement with my cable experiment, but I don't mind admitting if I was wrong or wasted my time and money - in the end I am more than happy with it and will not be bothering with alternatives. 

 

After this, I took delivery of a matching pair of Chinese LHY Audio 50VA power supplies, the upgraded version with nice encapsulated toroidals and rubycom caps throughout and super build quality. I tried placing one LPS on the clock and living with it for a few days before adding the matching LPS to the ER. This was interesting - I found the better LPS on the clock gave clear improvements mainly in detail resolution, soundstage and overall musicality. However the 2nd LPS on the ER also gave a very good uplift, but in a different way, I would say it added meat to the bones and gave a deeper and more robust presentation. The 2 LPS together complement the sound and I felt gave an excellent overall performance boost for a modest outlay. I don't for a moment suggest these will compete with the best LPS out there, but at the price I have no complaints at all. I am going to upgrade them with some decent mains and DC cables and see how they respond.

 

This all in context of my Naim NDS/555DR which I have had from new, back in the dark ages of streaming some 7 or so years ago. Thanks to the ER and all the madness which followed with this thread, it is sounding better than I could have imagined and will be staying put in my system for some time yet.  Will report back... 

[PYP]

2 hours ago, AfterDark. said:

Most of the time, after burn in, the clock will improve much more further and the format from each others compared will be negligible. This is the first experience from user's impression. 

My Cybershaft, as expected from reading the manual and advice from Adrian, took a month to stabilize.  Given that timeframe, how many people have done a side-by-side comparison of two clocks with different square vs. sine waves topologies that have stabilized for a month?  And then tried different cables on those clocks and let the cables settle in?  Perhaps no one has done that, which means that we must rely on audio memory.

 

While I too look forward to reading John's paper, he is clearly a very talented designer and problem solver who doesn't claim to have all the answers and always reminds us that there are so many variables that his guidance cannot be predictive (my interpretation of what he has said).    

 

Perhaps the other characteristics of the clock -- selection process for the clock (from Cybershaft manual - "We calibrate in-house for a few months after the delivery of a new unit, and select and install individuals with very stable characteristics"), build quality (use of next generation linear regulators,  a "thick copper foil substrate, which is twice the normal size," "robust vibration control" and "a strong magnetic shield is constructed around the board," etc. etc. -- might be just as important, or more so, than the sine vs. square distinction.  

 

 

 

 

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, scolley said:

Checking every day to see if said paper is out yet

Sorry guys (and John). I have been the holdup on this for a couple of months.

John wrote his paper; it was a bit confusing to me and needed some editing; I've been really busy so I asked my smart wife to edit it; have not had a chance to re-review it and put it out there for you all. Should be able to get to it this week since all the rest of this month's EtherREGENs are shipping tomorrow.

Thanks for your patience,

--Alex C.

[scolley]

4 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Thanks for your patience

Alex (and John, of course)... no. Thank YOU for your efforts. You guys made a killer product that has an ardent following. And now you are both kind enough to spend quality time to give us guidance on how to best optimize a highly technical option you provided as a part of said product. That goes WAY beyond post-sales support if you asked me. It's over the top.

 

So I'd just like to take a moment to say thank YOU guys for doing this... and pls pass some of those thanks along to your wife. ;-) I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum that feels this way. Thanks.

[navrsale]

The obsession with clocks is overrated. The concept of jitter misleads people into thinking that all you need in a digital signal is the correct bits (which is relatively trivial to transmit) with great timing (low jitter), and so all you need is a great clock. This simplistic view is highly misleading. At least three things matter - the clock, noise, and bandwidth. In the image of a perfect square wave, the horizontal axis is time and the vertical axis is voltage. We will assume the clock is perfect – ie. the vertical signal lines occur at perfectly spaced intervals (the bit rate). When the signal is representing a binary 0, it is at 0v. When the signal is representing a binary 1, it is at 1v. And we will assume that the receiver of this signal decides that the transition between a 0 and a 1 has occurred when the signal rises through the 0.5v level, and that a 1 has transitioned to a 0 when the signal falls through the 0.5v level. Now imagine that there is noise added to the signal. If the frequency of the noise is below the bitrate then this perfect square wave swims on top of a longer and smoother wave. The interesting point is that the timing between the data transitions (where those vertical lines pass through 0.5v) is unchanged. So no problem, yet. If the frequency of the noise is above the bitrate then the horizontal lines get fuzzy. And if we combine the low frequency noise with the high frequency noise the effect is combined. Again, the interesting point to note is that the timing between the data transitions (where those vertical lines pass through 0.5v) is unchanged provided the noise is not extremely high. So, again, no problem. Noise, on its own (as long as the deviations caused are materially below 0.5v) is not a problem. The reason it is not a problem is those vertical lines, because noise does not change the space between them.

Now imagine there is no noise. Zero noise is impossible, but something else that is impossible is the vertical line on the square wave, since it requires infinite bandwidth. The vertical lines imply the signal can achieve 0v and 1v in more or less the same instant. Whatever tools we have to transmit a signal, the demands of high bit-rate signals are way beyond what the available tools can deliver. Think about how your analog cables can mess with sound up to around 20kHz, and then think about the enormously wider frequency range required of a digital cable (and, optical cables just have a different set of problems, mainly related to reflections). The higher the bit rate the harder it gets. When we allow for constrained bandwidth, instead of transitions being instantaneous, the signal goes up a slope when transitioning from 0v to 1v, and down a slope when transitioning from 1v to 0v. If the bandwidth was the same as the bitrate then the signal would be a sine wave. To reasonably square out the signal you need to add several harmonics of the bitrate (say 7 or more) above the bitrate, and that is a lot of bandwidth - even more for higher bit rate signals. By adding harmonics, the sine wave begins to square out. Interestingly, in both of these constrained-bandwidth examples, the transitions through 0.5v are still perfectly spaced – even with the sine wave. So still no problem.
But as I mentioned, a higher bitrate signal (if you think high bitrate files must always sound better) requires even more bandwidth to square out the wave, and so in a system that has a finite limit on bandwidth, a lower bitrate signal will be more accurately represented than a high bitrate signal. On top of that, if you ask anything in a music server to work faster, it will work with less precision and this is a key trade-off to be aware of when you assume higher bit rates must be better, just because the numbers are bigger. These examples only allow us to conclude that there is no problem if we can achieve zero noise or infinite bandwidth. But each of those goals is unattainable, and the problem becomes apparent when there is both noise and constrained bandwidth. So what happens if we add a low frequency noise component to a frequency-constrained digital audio signal? All of sudden, the 0.5v points are shifted right or left by the addition of the low frequency noise that lifts or drops the signal between bits. Shifting the slopes up or down shifts the 0.5v points left or right. The greater the amplitude of the noise, and the greater the bandwidth constraint, the greater is the effect on timing (jitter).

Now if we add high frequency noise to a frequency-constrained signal you can see that the transition timing at precisely 0.5v is now hard to discern for any digital receiver. If the signal is vertical at the transition then noise does not affect it. But as soon as the transition is not vertical then noise changes the transition point. It is the combination of constrained bandwidth and noise that inevitably creates jitter (variation in data transition timing), regardless of how great the clock is.

[fsmithjack]

13 hours ago, MasterWarzombie said:

Hi ,

 

Etherregen should preferably be used with a square wave, but this is still an audiophile debate.
However, your new clock is certainly 75 ohms, but not a square wave.
I'm sure Afterdark will come out in square wave afterwards.

You have not yet completely burned your Queen Square Wave. it's a shame I think.

 

Hey Guys,

I just bought the Emperor Crown 75Ohm to use solely with my EtherRegen. Do you guys think it will be an upgrade over the Queen even if not a square wave?

Thanks   

 

 

[R1200CL]

13 minutes ago, fsmithjack said:

 

Hey Guys,

I just bought the Emperor Crown 75Ohm to use solely with my EtherRegen. Do you guys think it will be an upgrade over the Queen even if not a square wave?

Thanks   

 

 

As pr. phaise noise numbers, the answer is obvious yes. 
 

But if you can hear it, I don’t know. But Adrian says it’s audible. No reason to doubt him. But he can of cause only refer to his system and customers experience. 

[fsmithjack]

15 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

As pr. phaise noise numbers, the answer is obvious yes. 
 

But if you can hear it, I don’t know. But Adrian says it’s audible. No reason to doubt him. But he can of cause only refer to his system and customers experience. 

 

I asked his opinion. Seems like a nice and honest person. He said the Emperor Double Crown is the sweet spot for the eR so hopefully it sounds better? Thats all I care about is how it makes my audio system sound. I don't know enough about sin/square wave and how those match up to my EtherRegen so crossing my fingers 😬

[R1200CL]

13 hours ago, LowMidHigh said:

it's a fact that isn't subject to a debate.

There are different ways to obtain a square, so it’s debatable 

 

You may degenerate the signal so much, you’re better staying away from a square. 
So question is how to determine if a square is done right ?

[navrsale]

2 hours ago, navrsale said:

The obsession with clocks is overrated. The concept of jitter misleads people into thinking that all you need in a digital signal is the correct bits (which is relatively trivial to transmit) with great timing (low jitter), and so all you need is a great clock. This simplistic view is highly misleading. At least three things matter - the clock, noise, and bandwidth. In the image of a perfect square wave, the horizontal axis is time and the vertical axis is voltage. We will assume the clock is perfect – ie. the vertical signal lines occur at perfectly spaced intervals (the bit rate). When the signal is representing a binary 0, it is at 0v. When the signal is representing a binary 1, it is at 1v. And we will assume that the receiver of this signal decides that the transition between a 0 and a 1 has occurred when the signal rises through the 0.5v level, and that a 1 has transitioned to a 0 when the signal falls through the 0.5v level. Now imagine that there is noise added to the signal. If the frequency of the noise is below the bitrate then this perfect square wave swims on top of a longer and smoother wave. The interesting point is that the timing between the data transitions (where those vertical lines pass through 0.5v) is unchanged. So no problem, yet. If the frequency of the noise is above the bitrate then the horizontal lines get fuzzy. And if we combine the low frequency noise with the high frequency noise the effect is combined. Again, the interesting point to note is that the timing between the data transitions (where those vertical lines pass through 0.5v) is unchanged provided the noise is not extremely high. So, again, no problem. Noise, on its own (as long as the deviations caused are materially below 0.5v) is not a problem. The reason it is not a problem is those vertical lines, because noise does not change the space between them.

Now imagine there is no noise. Zero noise is impossible, but something else that is impossible is the vertical line on the square wave, since it requires infinite bandwidth. The vertical lines imply the signal can achieve 0v and 1v in more or less the same instant. Whatever tools we have to transmit a signal, the demands of high bit-rate signals are way beyond what the available tools can deliver. Think about how your analog cables can mess with sound up to around 20kHz, and then think about the enormously wider frequency range required of a digital cable (and, optical cables just have a different set of problems, mainly related to reflections). The higher the bit rate the harder it gets. When we allow for constrained bandwidth, instead of transitions being instantaneous, the signal goes up a slope when transitioning from 0v to 1v, and down a slope when transitioning from 1v to 0v. If the bandwidth was the same as the bitrate then the signal would be a sine wave. To reasonably square out the signal you need to add several harmonics of the bitrate (say 7 or more) above the bitrate, and that is a lot of bandwidth - even more for higher bit rate signals. By adding harmonics, the sine wave begins to square out. Interestingly, in both of these constrained-bandwidth examples, the transitions through 0.5v are still perfectly spaced – even with the sine wave. So still no problem.
But as I mentioned, a higher bitrate signal (if you think high bitrate files must always sound better) requires even more bandwidth to square out the wave, and so in a system that has a finite limit on bandwidth, a lower bitrate signal will be more accurately represented than a high bitrate signal. On top of that, if you ask anything in a music server to work faster, it will work with less precision and this is a key trade-off to be aware of when you assume higher bit rates must be better, just because the numbers are bigger. These examples only allow us to conclude that there is no problem if we can achieve zero noise or infinite bandwidth. But each of those goals is unattainable, and the problem becomes apparent when there is both noise and constrained bandwidth. So what happens if we add a low frequency noise component to a frequency-constrained digital audio signal? All of sudden, the 0.5v points are shifted right or left by the addition of the low frequency noise that lifts or drops the signal between bits. Shifting the slopes up or down shifts the 0.5v points left or right. The greater the amplitude of the noise, and the greater the bandwidth constraint, the greater is the effect on timing (jitter).

Now if we add high frequency noise to a frequency-constrained signal you can see that the transition timing at precisely 0.5v is now hard to discern for any digital receiver. If the signal is vertical at the transition then noise does not affect it. But as soon as the transition is not vertical then noise changes the transition point. It is the combination of constrained bandwidth and noise that inevitably creates jitter (variation in data transition timing), regardless of how great the clock is.

What is the conclusion? If we add any kind of filtering on the signal path, whether ER or any other means, we are essentially constraining (already constrained) bandwidth even more thus degrading jitter. Noise should be dealt with at the point of entrance into the signal path as much as possible. Once the noise enters the system it is too late to deal with it even with the most expensive clocks out there.

[PYP]

14 minutes ago, navrsale said:

What is the conclusion? If we add any kind of filtering on the signal path, whether ER or any other means, we are essentially constraining (already constrained) bandwidth even more thus degrading jitter. Noise should be dealt with at the point of entrance into the signal path as much as possible. Once the noise enters the system it is too late to deal with it even with the most expensive clocks out there.

Your technical explanation is helpful (to me, anyway).  Personally, I've found that adding an eR improves the sound and that using an external clock with the eR further extends that improvement.  It isn't subtle.  

[ambre]

31 minutes ago, navrsale said:

What is the conclusion? If we add any kind of filtering on the signal path, whether ER or any other means, we are essentially constraining (already constrained) bandwidth even more thus degrading jitter. Noise should be dealt with at the point of entrance into the signal path as much as possible. Once the noise enters the system it is too late to deal with it even with the most expensive clocks out there.

What is your advice to do ?  That’s unclear for me and after such an in detail explanation we do need to know how  to proceed in such a way that determination of clock signals can be minimized as much as possible. 
 

As many others and stated earlier today we do like the maybe the  “nasty” clock improvements in terms of SQ in using a Mutec mc3 and Etherregen switch.

 

What are the pitfalls and how to avoid/minimize that as much as technical possible?

I am curious what your advice will be?

And please keep it simple and 🥸.

[LowMidHigh]

3 hours ago, R1200CL said:

There are different ways to obtain a square, so it’s debatable 

 

You may degenerate the signal so much, you’re better staying away from a square. 
So question is how to determine if a square is done right ?

 

A convoluted way of thinking, as poor implementation doesn’t obviate the fundamental principle of matching a transmitter to receiver characteristics. 

 

And since you keep hinting your doubts in the manufacturers’ charts and ability to produce satisfactory waves, perhaps it's on to  back those doubts with measures or at least A/B (or better still, A/Bx). 

[JohnSwenson]

14 hours ago, ambre said:

Hi Ponkbulter,

 

You are correct concerning Mutec for both models Square Wave.  The other brands differ. 

The how and why is the actual question of my posting resp. reaction. 

 

Quoting your words " But of course no-one wants just better, we want best 😀"   How to achieve that ? And referring to words earlier mentioned ....please wait for the clock paper to come out.......to make an informed choice!

 

What are the criteria for making the right choice? If SOTM uses Sin-Wave with an explanation on their webpage. What  is correct or is it different per device?  A better guideline and substantiated professional advice would be more than welcome.

 

That is why not only me but also many others are eagerly awaiting John's papers. As a guideline for purchasing the correct Master Clock for our Switch, Re-clocker or DAC.

 

Ps. SOTM prefers Sin Wave:  "  As many audiophiles know, the clock signal is an angled square digital signal, but the sCLK-OCX10 produces a pure analog sine wave of 10 MHz, and this sinusoidal clock signal is the method adopted for the best clock performance because it produces significantly less noise than the angled square digital clock signal. In order to implement this, the sCLK-OCX10 consists of only analog circuitry which contains 10 years of know-how of SOtM" 

????

 

Enjoy the Music, Andreas

Guys really please wait on the clock paper, there are a lot of interacting parts, what is "best" depends on a lot of factors. I spent many days putting all this in the clock paper, I don't have time to re-write it all here in bits and dribbles to answer each individual question. Don't assume anything at this point until you read the clock paper.

 

Alex didn't want me to post it "as is" but he has had a major family emergency, pets needing surgery and trying to keep production going in the face of massive parts shortages, he says the paper is right in front of his face every day, but has still not been able to get it done.

 

Thanks,

 

John S.

[LowMidHigh]

If anyone is interested in a premier review of the clock's wave shape, here's prior posts by John and Alex:

 

 

 

[AfterDark.]

8 hours ago, LowMidHigh said:

If anyone is interested in a premier review of the clock's wave shape, here's prior posts by John and Alex:

 

 

 

 

Hi! LowMidHigh,

 

Just want to share some information on some product information.

 

The technology is changing fast and the very best Merging + Clock from Swiss is using the Sine Wave 50ohm as standard long time ago. The last paragraph is showing the 10Mhz output amplitude details. 

 

 

We hopes more information from different manufacturer (Cybershaft, Merging, Esoteric) with their industry expertise can help audiophile like us and define the excellent choices for best sounding. 

 

Best Regards,

Adrian

AfterDark.