LowMidHigh Posted March 27, 2021 Share Posted March 27, 2021 Thank you for the pointed white paper. 99% clear. Since I use a quality Ref10 clock, I'm left wondering about my cables. How much does attenuation plays a rule in a 1.5 cable? Professional companies gives their specs @ 100m runs. For example, the attenuation of Canare LV-77S @ 100' is 1.0. Can things get any lower? LV-61S @ 100' is 1.3. Secondly, if performance can be improved, can anyone recommend a low attenuation 75ohm cable? By the meter or feet is better, as I solder my BNC cables myself. Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted March 27, 2021 Share Posted March 27, 2021 18 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said: Raw attenuation doesn't matter, it is how the attenuation changes with frequency that matters. So the numbers you quoted don't make any difference, what you need is the attenuation vs frequency graph. The flatter the graph below 1GHz the better. The problem is you cannot compare graphs from different companies since the scales are almost always different. Even within the same company the scales are frequently different. The Canare LV-77S spec sheet has a table for this with several of their models. You can tell by looking at this table that the LV-77S has significantly less change with frequency than the others do. This is the information you need to look at to compare cables. Note this is only if you are using square wave output, if you are using sine wave it doesn't matter. John S. Very helpful, John! And yes, I can see how the increments on the LV-77S is lower than the other cables. Guess I've just pointed me at the right direction... Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted March 27, 2021 Share Posted March 27, 2021 2 hours ago, James Stephens said: Hi there, Canare LV-77S does have the lowest attenuation with frequency of the listed cables here: http://www.canare.com/ProductItemDisplay.aspx?productItemID=74 I have been using this up to now for a square wave cable. Of course the info shared today changes things .. lol I might just be buying an AfterDark sine wave clock now! Will read and re-read a few more times first though .... For square wave cable hunters though, Belden 1694A does look to be even better (lower) by the metric of attenuation vs frequency: https://catalog.belden.com/techdata/EN/1694A_techdata.pdf Best, James Excellent tip, James. Regrettably, the Canare and the Belden measurements don't fully overlap, but where the do, the 1694A does measure better. I have a small spool of Furutech FP-62 on hand, but the company doesn't publish any numbers, so I'm reluctant to use it. I guess Belden it is. Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted March 27, 2021 Share Posted March 27, 2021 1 hour ago, MartinT said: But the Canare LV-77S sounds better! Trust your ears, it's not just about measurements. I haven't used either, but I doubt I'll be able to hear any difference in a ref clock application. (Hell, I had to temporarily replaced a home-brewed Furutech cable with a $2 BNC/BNC and I couldn't detect anything different). Still, I believe a solid core is less prone to skin effect than a stranded core, which might explain why Belden measures better than the Canare. Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
Popular Post LowMidHigh Posted March 27, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted March 27, 2021 28 minutes ago, Superdad said: [When you accidentally posted your question in AfterDark’s “Filter group buy” thread I answered there. But since you caught that the question is more appropriate here, I’ll just repost my long answer below...] Hi James: While I understand what you are asking, the phrasing of the latter part of your question does not really fit. You seem to imply that there are first-rate clocks that offer both square and sine waves from the same box. That’s not the case with the Mutec (square only) nor any of the better boxes from Asia (mostly sine) that I am aware of. As John explained in his paper, it takes a lot of care to both produce a really good square wave AND to preserve that quality (via cabling) all the way to the target device. Not that it can’t be done. And OXCO modules (the circuits in the cans along with the crystal) are available with square wave output. But how that is implemented and handled varies greatly. Also, some companies (and I have no idea about what AfterDark does to offer square wave in some models) use sine>square circuits between the OCXO module and the output. There exist a couple of chips that do this extremely well, but then there are the rest which are rather poor at it (and then the truly terrible squarer mess that is in the BG7TBL boxes). So with inexpensive square wave output clocks you really never know what you will get. Yet with sine wave clocks you need to be very careful to filter to a very clean wave—best done at the endpoint target device end. Back to your question—which likely was more meant to be something like: “Can a really low-phase noise sine wave output clock—terminated with the Mini-Circuits filter—outperform a first-rate square wave box such as a Mutec REF10 SE20 (assuming $$$ also spent on a cable for that square wave)? I certainly can’t answer that and I think John would decline to as well without making extremely careful (and rather difficult to set up) measurements. And even the characteristics of the receiver in the endpoint target would likely have significant affect on such a comparison. I write all the above primarily so that we can all begin thinking about these things from the proper angles. It’s confusing stuff! First off, John explicitly says in the paper that he suspects a good square producing clock + low attenuation cables would outperforms a sine clock + a filter. I'm quoting: "Just remember that the best possible result is still going to be using a square wave clock box with a REALLY good sine to square converter, everything being just right inside the box—AND you use a really low-attenuation-with-frequency cable." Secondly, I believe you misconstrue James' question. He was interested to know if there were other excellent square-producing clocks, apart from Mutec's, which could outperform a sine+filter. Put differently, could you list the brands whom he could trust to have the proper internal circuitry to produce a stellar square wave. James Stephens and LEO SOUND 2 Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted March 27, 2021 Share Posted March 27, 2021 I have a question fo my own here to John. Given we have the figures for both the Bedlen 1694A and Canare LV-77S, which of the two would he recommend over the other? Going by the numbers alone, the Bedlen is superior, but some people here claim that the Canare "sound" better. Kind of a contradiction, so I hope he could weigh in. Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted March 27, 2021 Share Posted March 27, 2021 9 minutes ago, MartinT said: It's really the Belden 4694R that should be compared with the Canare LV-77S. And they sound really close albeit slightly different in character. 1694A is a lesser cable and sounds inferior. Thanks for the guidance, Martin. Indeed, the 4694R measures better than the 1694A. How flexible is the 4694R? The 1694A is rather stiff, whereas the Canare very pliable. Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted March 27, 2021 Share Posted March 27, 2021 1 hour ago, LEO SOUND said: If square wave outputs are to be avoided, why the etherregen is "square wave" and therefore you have to buy a sin wave clock with a filter to be sure to have a good signal. I'm interested in a Square Wave from AfterDark that claims it's special for etherregen on their website. @AfterDark.Can you provide details on this clock as it looks like it was produced in collaboration with Uptone Audio. But from the white booklet, we just have the impression that we need Sine Wave because almost no clock does a good Square Wave except the very expensive watches and out of budget for me. Sotm is sine wave I think. It's not true that a square wave is to be shunned. Here's what the paper says: "Just remember that the best possible result is still going to be using a square wave clock box with a REALLY good sine to square converter, everything being just right inside the box—AND you use a really low-attenuation-with-frequency cable." Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 32 minutes ago, LewinskiH01 said: Thank you! That Prosig cable is the same one that displayed best behavior from the three cables you posted on April 2. I wonder what the magic sauce is in it? Built to spec. A lot of the exotic cables don't meet the spec, and aren't property tested. Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
Popular Post LowMidHigh Posted April 20, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted April 20, 2021 28 minutes ago, DarqueKnight said: The Prosig cable produced the best classic square wave shape on the scope, but it was not the best sounding. Maybe you like little distortion in your music. Tubes add distortion, and many audiophiles swear by them. R1200CL and richard_crl032 1 1 Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted April 20, 2021 Share Posted April 20, 2021 35 minutes ago, DarqueKnight said: No. I prefer neutral sounding gear. I do not own any tube gear. The Prosig cable had the least clarity and detail. You make me scratch my head. Those cables don't transmit sound, merely an analog wave that triggers a gate on the receiving end, which is in turn controls the receiver's timing. The less jitter and noise phase arriving over that analog wave, the more accurate the timing. So why would a more jittery signal--e.g., Audio Labs, as per your tests--sound better than a cleaner signal? Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 46 minutes ago, DarqueKnight said: I did not measure jitter and phase noise among the cables. I just looked at time domain plots on an oscilloscope. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the only electrical noise that affects sound quality at a DAC's output is jitter and phase noise? Why wouldn't an analog timing signal be subject to the same types of noise degradation as any other analog signal? My digital music playback chain is as follows: NAS--(Ethernet)-->EtherREGEN--(Ethernet)-->Digital Music Player--(USB)-->Word Clock--(SPDIF)-->DAC. Here is what I’m saying: As far as I understand, if the shape is not a perfect square, the triggering interval is flawed, thus jitter is introduced into the DAC. Now, it could be that shielding on that cable is so terrible that it picks up noise, which countervails the nearly perfect square to a point where the overall sound is degraded. A bit off tangent, but somewhat related: money doesn’t necessarily buy quality in this game. I inquired with Furutech about the attenuation on some of their coax cables, and the figures sent back to me were pretty dismal; considerably worse than the more affordable Canare LV-77S. Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 27 minutes ago, DarqueKnight said: Sine waves aren't perfect square waves, and they make very good clock signals. A clock pulse can be any shape (square, sinusoidal, sawtooth, etc.) as long as it is periodic. Matching the wave shape of the clock and the receiver will yield the best results, given the clocks in questions are of the same quality (that is, if you're comparing clocks), while a mismatch can introduce jitter into the receiver. (In the case of the ER, the filter is here to address it) I believe the reason has to to do with the gate mechanism. In your case, the cheap cable with the nearly perfect square should've produced the best sound, with the exception I'm making below. 27 minutes ago, DarqueKnight said: I am not sure if you are making a general comment or if you are referring to a specific cable. I was referring to that stock cable, the less costly one, you tested with the square wave. One explanation I can come up with -- other than expectation bias, of course -- is that it picks up so much noise, that the benefits of the square wave are vitiated. Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] Link to comment
LowMidHigh Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 1 hour ago, flkin said: In a nutshell, would it be fair to say then that using the filter makes the Sine wave clock work as well as the best square wave this particular sine wave clock can ever be? That's from the bottom of the white paper: "Just remember that the best possible result is still going to be using a square wave clock box with a REALLY good sine to square convertor, everything being just right inside the box—and you use a really low-attenuation-with-frequency cable." Stereo [Genelec 1032C x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MC3+USB x 3 <-- REF10 SE120] <== [AERIS G2] <== [EtherRegen x 3] Chain switchable to [Genelec 8331 x 2 + 7350] Surround [Genelec 1032C x 3 + 8431 x 2 + 7360 x 2] <== [MiniDSP U-DIO8] <== [Mac Mini] 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