smeggy
Member of the Trade: ThunderpantsTP1
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Posts
- 6,299
- Likes
- 29
Colonel, I've been trying to get hold of you but your PM box isn't accepting messages.
Master Clock Talk
- Thread starter colonelkernel8
- Start date
lini
Thought the last line in Citizen Kane was nosebud.
Quote:
Depends on the patient, I'd say.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
| Originally Posted by Epicurean /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nooo! Don't listen to him! A discrete output stage is more worthwhile! 
|
Depends on the patient, I'd say.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Leporello
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 10, 2002
- Posts
- 781
- Likes
- 121
Quote:
There is very little solid evidence that jitter really is a problem at all in most modern run-of-the-mill cdps. Marketing departments just love it, though.
Regards,
L.
| Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif They are completely ignoring the much bigger problem of jitter by saying that any and all chips that you put in your CD player causes EMI interference and its a "sonic jackhammer". |
There is very little solid evidence that jitter really is a problem at all in most modern run-of-the-mill cdps. Marketing departments just love it, though.
Regards,
L.
sacd lover
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Posts
- 8,287
- Likes
- 223
Listen to a similar player with an upgraded clock for a few days and go back to a stock player .... the positive difference is very noticeable .... whatever the reason.
Jon L
For him, f/1.2 is a prime number
- Joined
- May 20, 2003
- Posts
- 4,489
- Likes
- 733
Quote:
I agree with you there. A "super" clock costs so dang much these days, and to really get all the improvements from a good clock, the power supply to the super clock has to be revamped as well ($$). We're looking at some serious money.
If I had a set budget, I would first plunk that money into the analogue output stage and power supply. If my budget went deeper, then I would implement a better clock with clock PS.
If you A-B the same unit with and without better clock/PS, the differences are definitely noticeable. The biggest benefit is the imaging and soundstaging. Instruments obtain clearer edge definition with cleaner spaces between performers. More specificity and accuracy to images.
| Originally Posted by Epicurean /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nooo! Don't listen to him! A discrete output stage is more worthwhile!
|
I agree with you there. A "super" clock costs so dang much these days, and to really get all the improvements from a good clock, the power supply to the super clock has to be revamped as well ($$). We're looking at some serious money.
If I had a set budget, I would first plunk that money into the analogue output stage and power supply. If my budget went deeper, then I would implement a better clock with clock PS.
If you A-B the same unit with and without better clock/PS, the differences are definitely noticeable. The biggest benefit is the imaging and soundstaging. Instruments obtain clearer edge definition with cleaner spaces between performers. More specificity and accuracy to images.
budx3385
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2005
- Posts
- 547
- Likes
- 34
This thread comments on the effect of installing a net-audio Rockclock in a vintage CDP
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=228977
happy reading !
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=228977
happy reading !
colonelkernel8
Headphoneus Supremus
Quote:
Do you mean the one with the upgraded clock is better? Your wording is a little confusing.
This new forum structure is a pain in the ass.
| Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Listen to a similar player with an upgraded clock for a few days and go back to a stock player .... the positive difference is very noticeable .... whatever the reason.
|
Do you mean the one with the upgraded clock is better? Your wording is a little confusing.
This new forum structure is a pain in the ass.
sacd lover
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2002
- Posts
- 8,287
- Likes
- 223
Quote:
Yes I do .... much better in my experiences. I had a sacdmods Philips 963sa with an upgraded analog output stage plus some power supply mods, but without the clock upgrade. I could very clearly hear the transient smearing of the 963sa compared to a sacdmods 555es that had the same mods; plus an upgraded clock. Of course, the players were different, but all the most important pieces were upgraded on both except for the clock in the 963sa.
| Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you mean the one with the upgraded clock is better? Your wording is a little confusing. This new forum structure is a pain in the ass. |
Yes I do .... much better in my experiences. I had a sacdmods Philips 963sa with an upgraded analog output stage plus some power supply mods, but without the clock upgrade. I could very clearly hear the transient smearing of the 963sa compared to a sacdmods 555es that had the same mods; plus an upgraded clock. Of course, the players were different, but all the most important pieces were upgraded on both except for the clock in the 963sa.
colonelkernel8
Headphoneus Supremus
Rock on SACD lover. Thank you for supporting me. For all you non-believers out there, go buy one, install it or even borrow one and install it. You will not believe the sonic sex your ears will be hit with.
Pars
Can Jam '10 Organizer
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Posts
- 4,133
- Likes
- 62
Quote:
Well, he seems to have his share of satisfied customers
. I was having a hard time trying to understand what exactly he does, but I had to laugh a bit when I read "Rarely is a component ever designed wrong,". Really? Sounds like all they do is replace components with boutique components (BlackGates, anyone?). No thanks. It's websites like that that really get my BS meter going. Make a bunch of claims, and then back it up with nothing other than a bunch of warm and fuzzies. Perfect for advertising in a place with Clever Little Clocks, the Intelligent Chip, yada yada...
| Originally Posted by DarkAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have had both dacs and CDPs modded with Audiocom Superclock in the past, but for different view I found one well regarded mod guy at Audiogon who advises against aftermarket clock upgrades and says they add noise back into your CDP.......read why: Clock Upgrade He also thinks tubes are bad upgrade option for CDP vs carefully selected solid state part upgrades. |
Well, he seems to have his share of satisfied customers
DarkAngel
DarkAngel's a man, baby!
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2001
- Posts
- 7,235
- Likes
- 15
Quote:
He is just saying most good CDPs have decent design layout but use lower cost parts that can be replaced with more expensive parts that sound better, all mod guys do this for any CDP mod
He is somewhat different than others in saying that aftermarket clocks do not always improve sound, and if he has modded hundreds of CDPs he should know what he is talking about. As he said he would gladly offer clock upgrades and make more money if he thought they effectively improved sound.
My experience with Audiocom Superclock 3 is that they did seem to improve sound, but don't have original stock CDP/Dac to compare and other mods were made at same time so hard to isolate what clock upgrade did.
| Originally Posted by Pars /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, he seems to have his share of satisfied customers
|
He is just saying most good CDPs have decent design layout but use lower cost parts that can be replaced with more expensive parts that sound better, all mod guys do this for any CDP mod
He is somewhat different than others in saying that aftermarket clocks do not always improve sound, and if he has modded hundreds of CDPs he should know what he is talking about. As he said he would gladly offer clock upgrades and make more money if he thought they effectively improved sound.
My experience with Audiocom Superclock 3 is that they did seem to improve sound, but don't have original stock CDP/Dac to compare and other mods were made at same time so hard to isolate what clock upgrade did.
Mr_Sukebe
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2006
- Posts
- 246
- Likes
- 11
Experiences with my own modded Meridian transport certainly agrees with the principle of the clock mod. Mine was a nice cheap Tentlabs "flea" mod. Worked absolute wonders.
Pars
Can Jam '10 Organizer
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Posts
- 4,133
- Likes
- 62
Quote:
That is what I used also (home made modified "Flea" board, now out for a commercially made one), after looking at the Kwak clock and Jim Hagerman's clock. Guido Tent (Tentlabs) knows his stuff, and the flea board is very well thought out.
| Originally Posted by Mr_Sukebe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Experiences with my own modded Meridian transport certainly agrees with the principle of the clock mod. Mine was a nice cheap Tentlabs "flea" mod. Worked absolute wonders. |
That is what I used also (home made modified "Flea" board, now out for a commercially made one), after looking at the Kwak clock and Jim Hagerman's clock. Guido Tent (Tentlabs) knows his stuff, and the flea board is very well thought out.
flecom
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Posts
- 1,424
- Likes
- 13
just give in and cough up $3k~8k for a nice rackmount rubidium reference oscillator or something
hciman77
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Posts
- 2,890
- Likes
- 14
In no properly controlled listening test has jitter at the level found in modest consumer CD players ever been shown to be audible by humans.
I suggest you read Ashihara , Kiryu, Koizumi, Nishimura, Ohga, Sawaguchi and Yoshikawa "Detection threshold for distortions due to jitter on digital audio" (2005). They found jitter undetectable below 500ns. The lead Author and I corresponded for a while, he found one subject who "said" he could detect 150ns, however this subject was unable to replicate this in proctored tests. In practice nobody could detect jitter at 250ns so even the most cautious interpretatation is that jitter becomes audible somewhere between 250ns and 500ns. 25% could hear it at 500ns, 50% could hear it at 1 microsecond and all could hear it (to 75% reliability) at 2 microseconds.
Even in the dismally poorly controlled Benjamin and Gannon (AES reprint) paper jitter was not detectable in music below 30ns, 10ns for a single pure 17k tone.
Dunn's model and the model in the Essex paper are mathematical and never empirically tested they do not adequately account for masking, even Dunn admitted that his model was off in the light of Benjamin and Gannon's work.
No commercial CD player has jitter levels anywhere near those found to be audible. The poster child for jitter in CD players is the Marantz 63/67 series. Even this fails to hit 700ps, this gives rise to jitter sidebands at -105db (worst case on an 11K pure sine wave signal on the analog out) , the jitter sidebands on the digital out are at -130db on an 11K sinewave.
To hear jitter you can download jitter samples from Arny Kruger's web site, they start at -20db and decrease to -80db. If you can successfully detect even the -80db jitter vs unjittered signal you have excellent hearing, and this is jitter that is degrees of magnitude worse than even the poor old Marantz's analog out.
Nobody is doubting the existence of jitter. I think its relevance to consumer products may be overstated somewhat by the high end audio community.
I suggest you read Ashihara , Kiryu, Koizumi, Nishimura, Ohga, Sawaguchi and Yoshikawa "Detection threshold for distortions due to jitter on digital audio" (2005). They found jitter undetectable below 500ns. The lead Author and I corresponded for a while, he found one subject who "said" he could detect 150ns, however this subject was unable to replicate this in proctored tests. In practice nobody could detect jitter at 250ns so even the most cautious interpretatation is that jitter becomes audible somewhere between 250ns and 500ns. 25% could hear it at 500ns, 50% could hear it at 1 microsecond and all could hear it (to 75% reliability) at 2 microseconds.
Even in the dismally poorly controlled Benjamin and Gannon (AES reprint) paper jitter was not detectable in music below 30ns, 10ns for a single pure 17k tone.
Dunn's model and the model in the Essex paper are mathematical and never empirically tested they do not adequately account for masking, even Dunn admitted that his model was off in the light of Benjamin and Gannon's work.
No commercial CD player has jitter levels anywhere near those found to be audible. The poster child for jitter in CD players is the Marantz 63/67 series. Even this fails to hit 700ps, this gives rise to jitter sidebands at -105db (worst case on an 11K pure sine wave signal on the analog out) , the jitter sidebands on the digital out are at -130db on an 11K sinewave.
To hear jitter you can download jitter samples from Arny Kruger's web site, they start at -20db and decrease to -80db. If you can successfully detect even the -80db jitter vs unjittered signal you have excellent hearing, and this is jitter that is degrees of magnitude worse than even the poor old Marantz's analog out.
Nobody is doubting the existence of jitter. I think its relevance to consumer products may be overstated somewhat by the high end audio community.
Users who are viewing this thread
