Master Clock Generators

[nat8808]

Besides, there was a Esoteric G-Orb clock on ebay that went for £3k or so - that's a nice £5k depreciation to swallow not long after buying it...

[Andybrown163]

Has anybody heard the Mio Audio La CLOCK master clock? I have heard that the master clocks make very little difference on single box CD players.

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, there was a Esoteric G-Orb clock on ebay that went for £3k or so - that's a nice £5k depreciation to swallow not long after buying it...

I think you'll find that's £9k depreciation!!!!

[skyward]

Andy

If you wish to actually try a master clock, then one of these will let you obtain a great deal of the performance of the expensive Esoteric clock.

http://www.drawmer.com/products/dms/...ster-clock.php

[ncdrawl]

they serve absolutely NO purpose whatsoever in a domestic hifi situation.

they are used in studios to lock equipment to a common clock for recording.....but Hifi? utter foo nonsense.

[Andybrown163]

Skyward

thanks for the link. If I was to buy a clock it would be Esoteric, I think system synergy is important.

I am intrigued by the clock and its performance and don't buy into the the idea "it makes no difference". The same people say that cables make no difference either and the difference my cables make is astronomical. Somebody who was tone deaf couldn't fail to hear the difference. Each CD player has a clock, the better CD players, the manufacturers go to the expense of installing a more accurate clock.

Getting back into HiFi after so many years things have changed some. I am genuinely interested to hear from people who have had first hand experience of clocks in HiFi's as 18years back CD players were just becoming mainstream and were no match for my PT anniversary so i have little or no knowledge.

Despite some comments here, I would need no justification to go and buy an Esoteric G0Rb for my HiFi. I would just buy it if i wanted one. However, I want to learn about the component from people who have had some genuine practical experience.

Andy

[ncdrawl]

Waste your money if you want. And that is *exactly* what you are doing with those hifi "clocks".

Clocks have a use in recording studios....not in hifi.

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.

sing external clocks of any cost pretty much guarantees an INCREASE in ADC jitter over using the ADC's internal crystal (mainly due to the required PLL when using external clocks). So, if your primary
The best way to clock a converter is with internal clock, using a good fundamental frequency crystal (third order types are more jittery), and locating the crystal properly (good ground to the AD ample hold and so on). You now have a low jitter clock inside the machine.

What happens when you get a stand alone “almost no jitter clock”? You look AT THE OUTPUT CONNECTOR of that “super clock box” and it generally can work as well as the internal crystal clock Now take a cable and hook it to the AD chassis. Now you have to go through some electronic circuit to receive the clock. At this point, you have accumulated a lot more jitter (I can list half a dozen causes).

Well, this is not the end of the road. The big one is the PLL circuit. Unlike the internal clock (fixed crystal case), you have a crystal that can be pulled up or down by some amount, we call it a VCXO (voltage controlled crystal oscillator). There is some circuitry in there that keeps comparing the incoming external clock rate to the VCXO, and makes the proper adjustment on an ongoing basis…
What is more steady? A mediocre internal crystal implementation is going to outdo even a good external clock implementation.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun1...sterclocks.htm

[Andybrown163]

[QUOTE=ncdrawl;1297120]Waste your money if you want. And that is *exactly* what you are doing with those hifi "clocks".

Clocks have a use in recording studios....not in hifi.

I don't doubt for a minute that they are used in recording studios. I understand their purpose in this context. If you look at CD player spec sheets they have a clock in too. the better quality CD players tend to have higher grade components like DAC's, transports and clocks. There is an audible difference generally, big or small, between players. If the manufacturers could put a wind -up clock in with no difference in performance wouldn't they do that? A trusted Esoteric dealer told me clocks made some but little difference, not worth in investment. A buyer of the La Clock on here says the clocks make a worthwhile difference, not massive, but audible and worth the investment. Others on other forums have quite polarized views.

As I said earlier if I wanted one, I would buy it and then sell it again if I didn't like it! however, I was into Turntables last time around, cheap cables and kettle leads were the order of the day. Everybody spent most of their money on front ends and not on speakers etc. How times have evolved. I am interested in the new technology and how things have changed.

regards
Andy

[bencat]

Not being the most technically gifted (now there is a really understated statement) I am not sure if my reading of this is correct so if it has fundamental flaws then go easy on me I am just trying to put my thoughts in order.
Clocks and timing are important for digital data they are I think like an earth in a circuit they set the base line point from which all things are worked. In theory and possibly in practice the best place for a clock generator is as close as possible to the dac chip that will use it. This is often cited as being an advantage of the one box CDP. So if you wish to improve the clock and comensurate perfomance then fitting a well designed and specified clock board a la Tricord , Audiocom etc is the best way to go.

However that is just for CDP and CD use . In the brave new world of digital music and sound we all know that many of us myself included have multiple digital inputs which to make them work will often have to be routed through a seperate Dac this can either be for percieved sound quality reasons or just ease of use . To improve the whole chain of this the ideal way to work is to have one piece of equipment that produces the clock timing and then all the other units slaved to that clock and working by its generated time. In this instance so long as the original clock works consistently then everything else will be linked to that and all equipment should work well . Problem is when most original digital equipment was designed mutliple units and inputs were not available or in some cases throught about so this area was never standardised and this leaves these companies to make up there own system so that you can not mix equipment .
My problem with these ne and expensive master clocks is that they only work with single item and do not slave all your digital equipment to that one clock source if they could and did then there would be some justification (but not at those prices ) without that I am not convinced that they would offer much if anything to the overall system .

[ncdrawl]

[QUOTE=Andybrown163;1297133]

Waste your money if you want. And that is *exactly* what you are doing with those hifi "clocks".

Clocks have a use in recording studios....not in hifi.

I don't doubt for a minute that they are used in recording studios. I understand their purpose in this context. If you look at CD player spec sheets they have a clock in too. the better quality CD players tend to have higher grade components like DAC's, transports and clocks. There is an audible difference generally, big or small, between players. If the manufacturers could put a wind -up clock in with no difference in performance wouldn't they do that? A trusted Esoteric dealer told me clocks made some but little difference, not worth in investment. A buyer of the La Clock on here says the clocks make a worthwhile difference, not massive, but audible and worth the investment. Others on other forums have quite polarized views.

As I said earlier if I wanted one, I would buy it and then sell it again if I didn't like it! however, I was into Turntables last time around, cheap cables and kettle leads were the order of the day. Everybody spent most of their money on front ends and not on speakers etc. How times have evolved. I am interested in the new technology and how things have changed.

regards
Andy

clocks arent new technology , nor is the reason to use them(or not) anything new.


they offer no benefit.


cheap cables and kettle leads are , as always...as good sonically as anything else at any price.

the only thing one need concern themselves with is the quality of the connector (primarily because there is so much strain on them they need to be rugged). cable makes fuckall difference....just as always

[zebra100]

Ultra stable digital clocks come with a huge price tag. They have absolutely no use in a domestic audio environment. Completely and utterly pointless.

[tuga]

I am guessing you are not speaking from experience Simon. I know mains cables make a hugh difference but IMO the difference is in relation to the quality of equipment one has. I am not interested in a debate as I already have an answer to this one. I am interested to hear from anybody with experience of master clocks!

Could you tell us what quality equipment you have?

Cheers,
Ric

[ncdrawl]

Ultra stable digital clocks come with a huge price tag. They have absolutely no use in a domestic audio environment. Completely and utterly pointless.

[tuga]

I have on loan from Keith at Purité a full set of M2Tech's little silver "Evo" range of digital boxes - DAC, interface, battery PSU and clock generator.

I own a Hiface2 and wanted to see if the upgrade was worth the candle, so Keith suggested I try all the associated kit and see what works for me...

I started with the interface, and it did indeed sound subjectively better - simply more resolution, then I added DAC and PSU and those too worked well, the battery PSU surprising me a bit at how much it improved the sound...

I nearly didn't bother with the clock as I couldn't see what it could bring to the party, especially as it could only (and rather absurdly) work with the interface unit and not the DAC!

Obligation and idle curiosity got the better of me though, so as a token effort I lashed it on - and there too was another small subjective improvement to overall resolution. I was frankly surprised by this.

Why this is I'm not sure, but I was convinced enough of the difference to buy all four units as the basis for a computer-based system!

YMMV!

churz, sod

Years ago I also bought into this "modular" upgrade approach when I got myself the Audio Alchemy D/AC, to which I latter added a dedicated transport and then a jitter filter (in those days when jitter was a real, yet unsolved, problem and single-box CD players performed better because the clock was sitting at the door of the D/AC chip) and finally a couple of "better" PSU for both D/AC and filter.

In my opinion this "modular" upgrade approach can be justified only if adding all parts together in the same box will make it too expensive for the target consumer.
Paying 20.000£ for a DCS D/AC that can be improved upon by an external clock that costs another 10.000£ and an upsampler unit that will add another 10 is an insult, especially when you can get similar performance from a single box made by another several other manufacturer at a smal fraction of the price.
The same is true for Naims external PSU...

Cheers,
Ric

[earlofsodbury]

Years ago I also bought into this "modular" upgrade approach when I got myself the Audio Alchemy D/AC, to which I latter added a dedicated transport and then a jitter filter (in those days when jitter was a real, yet unsolved, problem and single-box CD players performed better because the clock was sitting at the door of the D/AC chip) and finally a couple of "better" PSU for both D/AC and filter.

In my opinion this "modular" upgrade approach can be justified only if adding all parts together in the same box will make it too expensive for the target consumer.
Paying 20.000£ for a DCS D/AC that can be improved upon by an external clock that costs another 10.000£ and an upsampler unit that will add another 10 is an insult, especially when you can get similar performance from a single box made by another several other manufacturer at a smal fraction of the price.
The same is true for Naims external PSU...

Cheers,
Ric

Part of the reason for purchasing this way was the Lego-adicted kid in me loves doing things this way - I actually, perversely, like the tangle of wires etc.

I went down this road once before with Musical Fidelity's X-v3 series, and it was a catastrophe, because I bought blind, mostly secondhand and didn't demo. Thanks to Purite I got to demo each box for its effectiveness: I bought all four because it gives me a sound I like and flexibility of implementation, plus - things to play with.

The final cost was around that of the same company's Young DAC, which sounds very similar, but I get the battery PSU too - and that is a must-have in this combo for me - really raising the system's game.

So not wholly logical, and arguably not wholly cost-effective, but the decision was an avowedly emotional one as well as a rational one

[tuga]

Any chance of posting a pic?

[chris217]

Waste your money if you want. And that is *exactly* what you are doing with those hifi "clocks".

Clocks have a use in recording studios....not in hifi.

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.

sing external clocks of any cost pretty much guarantees an INCREASE in ADC jitter over using the ADC's internal crystal (mainly due to the required PLL when using external clocks). So, if your primary

I believe that a similar argument also applies to using external DACs. A single box CD player can lock the (average) reading speed of the disc to the output rate of the internal DAC. (Likewise, a media streamer can adjust its network reading speed to its internal DAC.) An external DAC just has to take what it is given and cope with it - a much more difficult task.

[adamdea]

I believe that a similar argument also applies to using external DACs. A single box CD player can lock the (average) reading speed of the disc to the output rate of the internal DAC. (Likewise, a media streamer can adjust its network reading speed to its internal DAC.) An external DAC just has to take what it is given and cope with it - a much more difficult task.

Yes on one level that is true but in practice the problem of dealing with the jitter from the transmitting device and interface have largely been solved, and the attraction in an external dac is that it can work for several different sources. It thereofre makes sense to have one decent dac with a good clock in it. The problem is that whilst you can de jitter a stream of bits using a stable timing reference, how can you "de jitter" your uber expensive clock (ie timing reference)? The problems of having an external clock are therefore pretty much insurmountable. The crtical stage is the D/A conversion and that clock has to be right at that point.

[Andybrown163]

Could you tell us what quality equipment you have?

Cheers,
Ric

Esoteric K03, A03, C-03, Carbon pro speakers, and mainly Aluminata interconnects and power leads.