TheFlash

My digital world: reclocking experiences

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Fourlegs said:

If MBP is MacBook Pro then there is a fair to moderate chance that it has a noisy USB output and this might be the worst option especially if it is plugged into a charger. However some laptops do have relatively noise free output if they are used on battery only but not all are equal. 

The Archimago test I mentioned earlier did measure high noise in MPB USB outputs.

Some DACs' USB inputs deal with noise better than others. But if the problem is noise why use a reclocker and not a noise filter? Fitness for purpose seems logical.

.

Edit: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/05/measurements-computer-usb-5v-power.html

Edited by tuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
3 minutes ago, tuga said:

No point in reclocking USB.

There might be.

If the Mutec MC-3 clock is better than the Mytek clock, taking USB in and outputting reclocked SPDIF will make a (positive) difference. If the clock in question is not the MC-3 internal but the REF10 then it will make a bigger positive difference.

If you use USB IN on the DAC then of course the DAC’s own clock will negate any benefits of using a reclocker, but I don’t think this was being proposed. I’ll reread tomorrow and withdraw gracefully if wrong, but right now bed beckons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheFlash said:

There might be.

If the Mutec MC-3 clock is better than the Mytek clock, taking USB in and outputting reclocked SPDIF will make a (positive) difference. If the clock in question is not the MC-3 internal but the REF10 then it will make a bigger positive difference.

If you use USB IN on the DAC then of course the DAC’s own clock will negate any benefits of using a reclocker, but I don’t think this was being proposed. I’ll reread tomorrow and withdraw gracefully if wrong, but right now bed beckons.

Some DACs with adaptive USB (f.e. Azur DacMagic) produced high levels of jitter. In that case USB into Mutec then S/PDIF into DAC would be the right option.

Good night.

Edited by tuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
9 hours ago, tuga said:

Some DACs with adaptive USB (f.e. Azur DacMagic) produced high levels of jitter. In that case USB into Mutec then S/PDIF into DAC would be the right option.

Good night.

And why would it not also be with other DACs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Dealer

For the last ten years competently designed dacs have used asynchronous USB.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

And why would it not also be with other DACs?

Because in most implementations asynchronous/isochronous USB works flawlessly (in terms of jitter), unlike what happens with adaptive USB. There's the exception of the Benchmark DAC 1 which produces excellent results with adaptive USB, although they've moved to asynchronous/isochronous USB on the DAC 2 and DAC 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

And why would it not also be with other DACs?

There's only need for reclocking if the transmission interface and/or the DAC's clock produces jitter.

I agree with @Fourlegs that there could be noise, but that is a different problem which will not be "solved" by reclocking and should be addressed with a "solution" that is fit for purpose. You don't treat a migraine with a splint.

Edited by tuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
3 hours ago, tuga said:

Because in most implementations asynchronous/isochronous USB works flawlessly (in terms of jitter), unlike what happens with adaptive USB. There's the exception of the Benchmark DAC 1 which produces excellent results with adaptive USB, although they've moved to asynchronous/isochronous USB on the DAC 2 and DAC 3.

So to be clear: are you saying that with most DACs, adding a Mutec reclocker in the playback chain before the USB input will NOT improve sound quality? Regardless of the quality of the clock in the source device? So even if I have the crappiest laptop ever, with the crappiest innards, I should not bother adding a Mutec and converting to SPDIF, I should simply go direct to the USB IN of my DAC because it is a FACT that the Mutec will have no effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
3 hours ago, tuga said:

There's only need for reclocking if the transmission interface and/or the DAC's clock produces jitter.

I agree with @Fourlegs that there could be noise, but that is a different problem which will not be "solved" by reclocking and should be addressed with a "solution" that is fit for purpose. You don't treat a migraine with a splint.

Any personal experience to share?

Let’s leave noise out if this.

Edited by TheFlash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

So to be clear: are you saying that with most DACs, adding a Mutec reclocker in the playback chain before the USB input will NOT improve sound quality?

The long reply is it depends.

19 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

Regardless of the quality of the clock in the source device?

In good USB implementations the clock in the source device doesn't matter (and in many cases DACs which perform well with USB also perform well with S/PDIF).

19 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

So even if I have the crappiest laptop ever, with the crappiest innards, I should not bother adding a Mutec and converting to SPDIF, I should simply go direct to the USB IN of my DAC because it is a FACT that the Mutec will have no effect?

Whether or not it will be beneficial depends on things that are related to the DAC and not the laptop/transport, although it is obviously better to use a clean source (I use an LPSU-powered NUC with minimalist OS):

a) the DAC's jitter performance when using USB is worse than when using S/PDIF (f.e. the previously mentioned CA DacMagic)

b) the DAC's USB input does not deal with noise issues but the S/PDIF does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

Any personal experience to share?

I don't know what jitter sounds like. I prefer to rely on measurements.

Adding the Mutec will introduce variables that go beyond the reclocking (USB to S/PDIF convertion, grounding, possibly others).

The Mutec wasn't designed for this particular purpose but I would expect it to produce an improvement in the situations which I highlighted in my previous message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

Let’s leave noise out if this.

We can't really.

The Mutec may actually improve noise and not just jitter performance when compared to another USB to S/PDIF DDC (f.e. the Halide Bridge)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
24 minutes ago, tuga said:

We can't really.

The Mutec may actually improve noise and not just jitter performance when compared to another USB to S/PDIF DDC (f.e. the Halide Bridge)

I know what you mean; in the real world of course noise is a factor. I simply wanted to focus on the clocking side of a Mutec, and not be distracted by whether adding one into the chain either
(a) adds noise which may make SQ worse
(b) adds noise which may make SQ "better" (illusion of more detail, etc)
(c) reduces noise by suppression or other means, making SQ better

All valid discussion points but they're a distraction from the actual reclocking process and under what circumstances this process has a positive, a negative or no effect on SQ.

I'm basically seeking to take any noise about noise out of the argument for now!

Edited by TheFlash
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

I know what you mean; in the real world of course noise is a factor. I simply wanted to focus on the clocking side of a Mutec, and not be distracted by whether adding one into the chain either
(a) adds noise which may make SQ worse
(b) adds noise which may make SQ "better" (illusion of more detail, etc)
(c) reduces noise by suppression or other means, making SQ better

All valid discussion points but they're a distraction from the actual reclocking process and under what circumstances this process has a positive, a negative or no effect on SQ.

I'm basically seeking to take any noise about noise out of the argument for now!

Your WigWam Info says you're using a Metrum Onyx and your signature a Metrum Pavane. The latter has a USB input.

I've just asked Metrum if the Pavane USB input produced better measured jitter performance than S/PDIF and they replied "For jitter there shouldn't be a significant difference, i'm being told by an engineer here. But overall the USB is better."

.

Both are NOS DACs.

According to Julian Dunn's "Jitter Theory" technote:

- oversampling produces lower levels of jitter than NOS

- asynchronous sample rate conversion will produce less jitter than synchronous SRC

.

I am in the market for a better NOS DAC (to use with HQPlayer's upsampling and filtering algorithms). I have to look for measurements of the Metrums.

Edited by tuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
1 hour ago, tuga said:

Your WigWam Info says you're using a Metrum Onyx and your signature a Metrum Pavane. The latter has a USB input.

I've just asked Metrum if the Pavane USB input produced better measured jitter performance than S/PDIF and they replied "For jitter there shouldn't be a significant difference, i'm being told by an engineer here. But overall the USB is better."

.

Both are NOS DACs.

According to Julian Dunn's "Jitter Theory" technote:

- oversampling produces lower levels of jitter than NOS

- asynchronous sample rate conversion will produce less jitter than synchronous SRC

.

I am in the market for a better NOS DAC (to use with HQPlayer's upsampling and filtering algorithms). I have to look for measurements of the Metrums.

My wigwam info needs updating but doesn’t allow for multiple components.

I have both the Onyx and Pavane Level 3. I’m in no rush to part with the Onyx in my second system but if something tempting comes along it may move on. The Pavane in my main system is going nowhere for the long term foreseeable (never say never).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.