[duffer5]

Hi @duffer5 ,
In the setup that you describe, the DAC receives the sound from the streamer by either I2S or a coaxial port. Unlike a USB connection, the master in your case is the streamer, and the DAC is the slave. So, in theory, you should connect the 10 mHz clock to the streamer.
Once you receive the clock, you should try both options, and use the one that sounds better to your ears.

You could have avoided this dilemma by ordering a clock with more than a single output to connect it both to the streamer and the DAC. It improves further the sound.

Thank you. I think I will cancel my after dark order and go with the Ock-2.

 

[Jake2]

Thank you. I think I will cancel my after dark order and go with the Ock-2.

Welcome to the thread @duffer5 - you are certainly going all in with accessorising your R-7HE purchase, love it.

You can’t go wrong with the OCK-2 to start, for its price for its performance and flexibility.

You always have the option of later upgrading to something more exotic with guaranteed low phase noise performance like the Afterdark Trifecta double or triple crown or the new Mutec should you like what you hear with the LHY. Something like that is my future upgrade path, when funds permit.

But in the meantime the additional performance that can be eked out of the OCK-2 through cables, vibration damping and power/grounding tweaks is quite remarkable, at comparatively modest cost. A clock expert over at AS is of the view that the headline phase noise performance of an oscillator is only part of the picture, and that the presence or absence of harmonic spurii (spikes) in its phase noise plot is also important and might explain why some modest specced clocks sound subjectively very good indeed. This makes intuitive sense to me and may correspond to the significant progressive improvements I’ve experienced with three external clocks in response to cleaner power, signal grounding and damping, none of which probably change the baseline measured phase noise of the oscillator much at all. Though perhaps it does that too, I’ve no way of measuring it…

 

[gregorio]

USB is asynchronous, meaning that its data stream does not include a clock signal, and a DAC that receives that stream applies its own clock to get the data in line.

Correct, same with Ethernet and some other protocols.

So it seems to make sense to optimize the DAC clock or connect a superior external master clock.

It does indeed “make sense to optimise the DAC clock” or rather, to optimise the clock signal entering the DAC chip and that’s why all DACs do. This distinction is important because all DACs employ Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) circuits or some similar scheme to optimise the signal produced by the clock. Therefore, the absolute accuracy of the clock itself is largely irrelevant, it’s the accuracy of the clock signal after it’s been optimised by the PLL (or equivalent) that’s important and to maintain that accuracy, the clock/PLL has to be placed within a few millimetres of the DAC chip. Obviously, an external clock is going to be far further away from the DAC chip so an external clock signal will also have to be optimised by the DACs clock/PLL (or equivalent). Therefore, the very best that can be achieved with an external clock is exactly the same optimised clock signal as the internal clock or an inferior, more jittery clock signal if the DAC’s clock recovery circuitry (PLL or equivalent) isn’t especially well designed, REGARDLESS of whether the actual clock is superior in the external clock. In other words, an external clock does NOT “optimise the DAC clock” (it’s the same or worse) and therefore does NOT “make sense”!

However, all the other inputs (spdif, optical, I2S) provide their own clock data as part of their data stream. Does this mean that the quality of the (internal or external) DAC clock is of less importance in that case?

No. SPDIF, AES/EBU and other protocols that have an embedded clock signal still have to pass through the DAC’s clock (or at least the clock recovery/PLL part of the DAC’s clock).

G

 

[Jake2]

@MartinWT I tried the 2cm^3 tungsten cube just now sitting directly on the OCXO of my LHY SW-8 switch. Holy crap, more thunderous, punchy bass, greater PRaT, female vocals with a much purer tone, greater richness and definition to the strum of a guitar. Removing the cube it is as if everything is smeared, and not subtly so as with many external clock deltas. I daresay the delta is that much greater than with the OCXO of the OCK-1 or 2, though I'm running from memory here, I certainly don't recall the delta in bass or the purity of midrange tones with those clocks made such an impression on me, satisfying though they were.



So I am smiling to myself and shaking my head here in disbelief that vibration damping of the oscillator of an ethernet switch - a switch(!) - can have such an impact.

Alas as with the OCK-2 clock the 2cm cube is too tall... I can't fit the lid back on. However, the improvement is so dramatic I don't want to sacrifice it... my mind is turning to clingfilm temp dust covers, DIY copper lids etc

I'm also just about to pull the trigger on several more tungsten cubes in a range of sizes, including at least 4 X 1cm^3 cubes for a half height damping layer which might just fit in the OCK-2 and a few other places the bigger cubes don't.

Someone else please try this with the LHY SW-8.. seems to be some magical synergy!

Thanks again for the tungsten cube tip Martin, it keeps paying dividends

 

[camrector]

Welcome to the thread @duffer5 - you are certainly going all in with accessorising your R-7HE purchase, love it.

You can’t go wrong with the OCK-2 to start, for its price for its performance and flexibility.

You always have the option of later upgrading to something more exotic with guaranteed low phase noise performance like the Afterdark Trifecta double or triple crown or the new Mutec should you like what you hear with the LHY. Something like that is my future upgrade path, when funds permit.

But in the meantime the additional performance that can be eked out of the OCK-2 through cables, vibration damping and power/grounding tweaks is quite remarkable, at comparatively modest cost. A clock expert over at AS is of the view that the headline phase noise performance of an oscillator is only part of the picture, and that the presence or absence of harmonic spurii (spikes) in its phase noise plot is also important and might explain why some modest specced clocks sound subjectively very good indeed. This makes intuitive sense to me and may correspond to the significant progressive improvements I’ve experienced with three external clocks in response to cleaner power, signal grounding and damping, none of which probably change the baseline measured phase noise of the oscillator much at all. Though perhaps it does that too, I’ve no way of measuring it…

“harmonic spurii“ you say…….

Is that the accepted term for harmonic distortion now? Lol

 

[camrector]

Correct, same with Ethernet and some other protocols.

It does indeed “make sense to optimise the DAC clock” or rather, to optimise the clock signal entering the DAC chip and that’s why all DACs do. This distinction is important because all DACs employ Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) circuits or some similar scheme to optimise the signal produced by the clock. Therefore, the absolute accuracy of the clock itself is largely irrelevant, it’s the accuracy of the clock signal after it’s been optimised by the PLL (or equivalent) that’s important and to maintain that accuracy, the clock/PLL has to be placed within a few millimetres of the DAC chip. Obviously, an external clock is going to be far further away from the DAC chip so an external clock signal will also have to be optimised by the DACs clock/PLL (or equivalent). Therefore, the very best that can be achieved with an external clock is exactly the same optimised clock signal as the internal clock or an inferior, more jittery clock signal if the DAC’s clock recovery circuitry (PLL or equivalent) isn’t especially well designed, REGARDLESS of whether the actual clock is superior in the external clock. In other words, an external clock does NOT “optimise the DAC clock” (it’s the same or worse) and therefore does NOT “make sense”!

No. SPDIF, AES/EBU and other protocols that have an embedded clock signal still have to pass through the DAC’s clock (or at least the clock recovery/PLL part of the DAC’s clock).

G

Amen!

 

[Dandion]

When I add an external clock or any addional device that I can hear obviously an improvement in clarity and soundstage, I don't consider it harmonic distortion. In my case, adding ock 2 on the r26 brought taller soundstage and clarity straight out of the box without burning clock/cable.

 

[camrector]

When I add an external clock or any addional device that I can hear obviously an improvement in clarity and soundstage, I don't consider it harmonic distortion. In my case, adding ock 2 on the r26 brought taller soundstage and clarity straight out of the box without burning clock/cable.

Hmm don’t care what you “consider it”.
You could call it whatever you wish.
Science in the audio world calls it harmonic distortion. They measure it and even print numbers out for you, for example THD, (total harmonic distortion)
What you are describing are the known effects of harmonic distortion.

 

[duffer5]

I have cancelled my Afterdark order and have ordered the Beatechnik LHY Audio OCK-2. I did purchased their stock BNC. Hopefully the stock cables will be a decent starting point. I appreciated the help from this group.

 

[OCC7N]

Random:
Any chance to find a good dual output masterclock the size(small and DC input) of Leo Bodnar but with 75Ohm?

Afterdark seems to be 1 or atleast 3 output but then its not DC/powered like Leo bodnar

 

[MartinWT]

@MartinWT I tried the 2cm^3 tungsten cube just now sitting directly on the OCXO of my LHY SW-8 switch. Holy crap, more thunderous, punchy bass, greater PRaT, female vocals with a much purer tone, greater richness and definition to the strum of a guitar.

Excellent, that's what I hear with my cubes.

Amazing effect, isn't it?

 

[ray12345]

Hmm don’t care what you “consider it”.
You could call it whatever you wish.
Science in the audio world calls it harmonic distortion. They measure it and even print numbers out for you, for example THD, (total harmonic distortion)
What you are describing are the known effects of harmonic distortion.

I admire your persistence. After a few months of bashing, you are still on the same topic, rating any clock as a harmonic distortion.

I know, hearing more details is a harmonic distortion to you, it is because of distortion to our ears that we are hearing more details, recordings are supposed to be all flat and boring, if we are enjoying the music we are enjoying harmonic distortions, right? ...... call it whatever you like

 

[gregorio]

When I add an external clock or any addional device that I can hear obviously an improvement in clarity and soundstage, I don't consider it harmonic distortion.

Why “obviously”? The internal clock signal (after the PLL or equivalent) of any DAC, even 30 year old cheap CD players, produce jitter/artefacts at least 100 (and typically ~1,000) times below audibility. An external clock either results in exactly the same or a higher level of jitter/artefacts and those artefacts are noise and/or harmonic distortion. However, the additional noise/distortion with an external clock should still be more than an order of magnitude below audibility. If you really are hearing a difference (the additional noise/distortion) with an external clock, there’s something seriously wrong/broken with your DAC.

After a few months of bashing, you are still on the same topic, rating any clock as a harmonic distortion.

No clock generator is perfect, there will always be some amount of jitter resulting in harmonic distortion and/or noise, so he is correct. The only question is how much and that question has been investigated for 60 years or so and conclusively answered decades ago! Even modestly priced DACs these days produce jitter artefacts so low they can’t even be reproduced by speakers/HPs at any reasonable listening level, so obviously there is no question of audibility!

I know, hearing more details is a harmonic distortion to you, it is because of distortion to our ears that we are hearing more details,

No, there’s a proven, extremely well established and demonstrated reason you’re perceiving more details. If there really is so much distortion when using an external clock that you can actually hear a difference, your clock/DAC is effectively faulty.

recordings are supposed to be all flat and boring, if we are enjoying the music we are enjoying harmonic distortions, right? ......

No, recordings are generally not designed to be flat and boring, although they can be under certain circumstances, and generally higher fidelity is preferred to lower fidelity/distorted reproduction. Having said this, some types of distortion/harmonic distortion is classified as “euphonic” precisely because it is pleasing/enjoyable, which is why these types of harmonic distortion are added virtually ubiquitously to rock and other popular genres. However, this does not apply to clocking as even the degraded performance of using an external clock should still be way, way below audibility.

call it whatever you like

Sure, we could call it pink unicorns but the correct name is distortion and/or noise.

G

 

[JaMo]

Why “obviously”? The internal clock signal (after the PLL or equivalent) of any DAC, even 30 year old cheap CD players, produce jitter/artefacts at least 100 (and typically ~1,000) times below audibility. An external clock either results in exactly the same or a higher level of jitter/artefacts and those artefacts are noise and/or harmonic distortion. However, the additional noise/distortion with an external clock should still be more than an order of magnitude below audibility. If you really are hearing a difference (the additional noise/distortion) with an external clock, there’s something seriously wrong/broken with your DAC.

No clock generator is perfect, there will always be some amount of jitter resulting in harmonic distortion and/or noise, so he is correct. The only question is how much and that question has been investigated for 60 years or so and conclusively answered decades ago! Even modestly priced DACs these days produce jitter artefacts so low they can’t even be reproduced by speakers/HPs at any reasonable listening level, so obviously there is no question of audibility!

No, there’s a proven, extremely well established and demonstrated reason you’re perceiving more details. If there really is so much distortion when using an external clock that you can actually hear a difference, your clock/DAC is effectively faulty.

No, recordings are generally not designed to be flat and boring, although they can be under certain circumstances, and generally higher fidelity is preferred to lower fidelity/distorted reproduction. Having said this, some types of distortion/harmonic distortion is classified as “euphonic” precisely because it is pleasing/enjoyable, which is why these types of harmonic distortion are added virtually ubiquitously to rock and other popular genres. However, this does not apply to clocking as even the degraded performance of using an external clock should still be way, way below audibility.

Sure, we could call it pink unicorns but the correct name is distortion and/or noise.

G

Oh, I think both of You (@camrector & @gregorio) should register on Whatsbest forum and sell these sensational facts to them. I am sure none of the members there knows about this..

Best of luck. Please, keep away from this thread though
/J

 

[gregorio]

Oh, I think both of You (@camrector & @gregorio) should register on Whatsbest forum and sell these sensational facts to them.

What “sensational facts”? They’re not sensational, they’re basic facts well known/established in the pro-audio, audio engineering and scientific communities for 20 years or more.

I am sure none of the members there knows about this..

So you’re saying no audiophiles know the actual proven, well established facts, that are employed daily in tens of thousands of studio setups around the globe, really? It’s amazing what audiophile marketing can achieve don’t you think?

Best of luck.

Why would I need any luck to disseminate basic facts that are already well known/established? Do you mean “best of luck” overcoming false audiophile marketing and those audiophiles convinced by it?

Please, keep away from this thread though.

Why, isn’t this a thread to talk about master clocks?

G