[Malcyg]

..........Each step taken has resulted in my system sounding progressively darker, smoother, less bright with greater depth and a very much deeper but more tightly controlled and strikingly accurate bass. There are more indicators, but I’ll ignore those for the sake of brevity and simply summarise it as seeming like a combination of the strengths of both analogue and digital without many of the weaknesses of either. All of these could be argued to be clear indicators of a progressive eradication of noise and, given that you and I have arrived at similar outcomes, mention of brightness and RF noise generators puzzles me.........

Well, your comments seem very similar to mine, so I think we are in agreement on that. It all sounds fabulous however and beyond what I ever expected. Even RWh said BluDave performance is beyond what he even dreamt was possible only 5 years ago, so we are perhaps dealing with incredibly minor stuff here in the overall scheme of things.

I apologize for crashing this thread, as I am not a Chord owner. Although - when these mystery prototypes come to market, who knows - that may change!

I respect Rob immensely, but I really struggle to characterize what we are hearing with the SE plus reference clock chain as RF noise. One of the key characteristics of noise is fatigue. As you and I have discussed on many occasions, Roy, the clock effect is the opposite of fatigue. What Ref 10 quality clocking in the digital chain preceding the DAC gives us is:

• a bigger (in all dimensions), more holographic image
• instruments that have body, texture, and a palpable physicality
• Highly improved clarity and resolution, allowing one to hear far more deeply into the music
• deeper, yet better articulated bass
• startlingly more natural voices
• and a fatigue-free treble.

How can that be RF noise? I am indeed glad that you could demonstrate to Rob that digital sources can at least affect - if not improve, to his ears - the sound quality. Perhaps that will inform his design process going forward.

Parting thought - I hope that some day, digital audio component designers, in general, will start paying the same attention to system clocks in their components (USB, ethernet, mobo) as they do to the data/word clocks. Until then, I don't see the black boxes and spaghetti going away!

 

[AndrewOld]

I apologize for crashing this thread, as I am not a Chord owner. Although - when these mystery prototypes come to market, who knows - that may change!

I respect Rob immensely, but I really struggle to characterize what we are hearing with the SE plus reference clock chain as RF noise. One of the key characteristics of noise is fatigue. As you and I have discussed on many occasions, Roy, the clock effect is the opposite of fatigue. What Ref 10 quality clocking in the digital chain preceding the DAC gives us is:

• a bigger (in all dimensions), more holographic image
• instruments that have body, texture, and a palpable physicality
• Highly improved clarity and resolution, allowing one to hear far more deeply into the music
• deeper, yet better articulated bass
• startlingly more natural voices
• and a fatigue-free treble.

How can that be RF noise? I am indeed glad that you could demonstrate to Rob that digital sources can at least affect - if not improve, to his ears - the sound quality. Perhaps that will inform his design process going forward.

Parting thought - I hope that some day, digital audio component designers, in general, will start paying the same attention to system clocks in their components (USB, ethernet, mobo) as they do to the data/word clocks. Until then, I don't see the black boxes and spaghetti going away!

Shouldn’t you be asking the guy who designed your DAC why his design is so sensitive to the source, and whether he intended it to be so sensitive.

 

[austinpop]

Shouldn’t you be asking the guy who designed your DAC why his design is so sensitive to the source, and whether he intended it to be so sensitive.

Yes, indeed, as should we all.

I had several discussions with Charlie Hansen, before his sad passing, on this subject. I had auditioned the QX-5 in my system, and discovered the same benefit from upstream clocking as I did with my humble Codex.

While his design goal with the QX-5 was to be immune to noise from the source, in practice he admitted that upstream sources could and did still sound different. However, when presented with the system clock optimizations mentioned here, he was not willing to accept that they could be the cause for the SQ gain we were hearing.

Outside of SOtM, Mutec, Uptone, and maybe SGM on the very high end, I don't know many designers willing or interested to optimize system clocks.

C'est la vie.

 

[marcmccalmont]

I apologize for crashing this thread, as I am not a Chord owner. Although - when these mystery prototypes come to market, who knows - that may change!

I respect Rob immensely, but I really struggle to characterize what we are hearing with the SE plus reference clock chain as RF noise. One of the key characteristics of noise is fatigue. As you and I have discussed on many occasions, Roy, the clock effect is the opposite of fatigue. What Ref 10 quality clocking in the digital chain preceding the DAC gives us is:

• a bigger (in all dimensions), more holographic image
• instruments that have body, texture, and a palpable physicality
• Highly improved clarity and resolution, allowing one to hear far more deeply into the music
• deeper, yet better articulated bass
• startlingly more natural voices
• and a fatigue-free treble.

How can that be RF noise? I am indeed glad that you could demonstrate to Rob that digital sources can at least affect - if not improve, to his ears - the sound quality. Perhaps that will inform his design process going forward.

Parting thought - I hope that some day, digital audio component designers, in general, will start paying the same attention to system clocks in their components (USB, ethernet, mobo) as they do to the data/word clocks. Until then, I don't see the black boxes and spaghetti going away!

Why not just by a single unit like an Aurender N10 that includes an ovenized clock and it’s output is low noise, jitter and phase noise without extra boxes connections etc. I understand the need for an accurate external clock for multiple ADC’s in multi channel recording but for 2 channel stereo why not one well engineered device?

 

[Malcyg]

The fact is that even the clever guys designing the products are still in discovery mode with some of this stuff.

 

[Limniscate]

Why not just by a single unit like an Aurender N10 that includes an ovenized clock and it’s output is low noise, jitter and phase noise without extra boxes connections etc. I understand the need for an accurate external clock for multiple ADC’s in multi channel recording but for 2 channel stereo why not one well engineered device?

Because the Aurender N10 supposedly isn't as good. See this mega thread:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/rev...atched_thread_reply_messagetext#post-14100559

 

[Malcyg]

Yes, indeed, as should we all.

I had several discussions with Charlie Hansen, before his sad passing, on this subject. I had auditioned the QX-5 in my system, and discovered the same benefit from upstream clocking as I did with my humble Codex.

While his design goal with the QX-5 was to be immune to noise from the source, in practice he admitted that upstream sources could and did still sound different. However, when presented with the system clock optimizations mentioned here, he was not willing to accept that they could be the cause for the SQ gain we were hearing.

Outside of SOtM, Mutec, Uptone, and maybe SGM on the very high end, I don't know many designers willing or interested to optimize system clocks.

C'est la vie.

This is a quote from a review of the tX-USB Ultra which I found quite interesting:

I asked Charles Hansen, co-founder and Research Director at Ayre Acoustics, why these USB enhancement devices seem to have an effect on a sophisticated well-designed DAC such as the Ayre Acoustics QX-5 Twenty?

"Please don't be misled by the word "clock". The QX-5 has an insanely good master clock that runs the DAC chip, giving the absolute best sound quality. However both USB and Ethernet inputs have their own separate clocks. The USB clock is a multiple of 12MHz and the Ethernet clock is a multiple of 25MHz - neither related to the digital audio master clock frequencies that are multiples of either 44.1kHz or 48kHz (two separate crystals used).
"Ayre has done everything possible to elicit the highest performance from each type of digital source. Yet the quality of the source still makes a difference. Therefore improving the quality of the source on any input will make some difference to the sound.

"You may recall that when Gordon Rankin (Wavelength Audio) developed asynchronous USB, he and I both thought that the source would no longer matter. However we were wrong. Not only does the source still make a difference, but it even matters if you are listening to 'flat' files or losslessly compressed files."


Read more at https://www.audiostream.com/content/sotm-tx-usbultra-usb-signal-regenerator#TylpIFJZDzlWq1Fm.99

 

[austinpop]

...The QX-5 has an insanely good master clock that runs the DAC chip, giving the absolute best sound quality. However both USB and Ethernet inputs have their own separate clocks. The USB clock is a multiple of 12MHz and the Ethernet clock is a multiple of 25MHz - neither related to the digital audio master clock frequencies that are multiples of either 44.1kHz or 48kHz (two separate crystals used)...

Yes, exactly, and my suggestion to him was the completion of that train of thought - why not use an "insanely good" master clock to supply the 12 and 25MHz frequencies too? This would negate the need for black boxes upstream, and might allow them to actually have an Ethernet DAC that is truly a 1-box solution, with no need for spaghetti. His contention was that would raise the cost astronomically, as their "insanely good" master clock - sourced from a Russian outfit called Morion - is also insanely expensive. Which is true, if each component tries to use OCXO clocks of the quality of the Ref 10. Which is where our discussion ended.

That cost pressure is why I am urging designers to at least consider a frequency synthesizer design, like sCLK-EX, that can generate all the data AND system frequencies needed. This would be driven by an internal reference clock, of as high a quality as the target price point allows. Finally, provide a reference clock input, so customers who are willing to pay, can achieve even higher SQ by overriding the internal reference clock with an external one of much higher quality. This is what we currently achieve with the SOtM Ultra boxes and the Mutec/Cybershaft/SOtM reference clocks.

The "novel" aspect to all of this is to bring the system clocks into the fold, and apply the same clock quality to them as the data clocks. There are already components out there from Mutec, dCS, Esoteric, TEAC, and soon, iFI, that accept 10MHz reference clock inputs. What is unclear is whether internally, they use this clock "goodness" for data clocks only, or do they also apply it to the system clocks? That is where I'd like to see progress.

I realize this has veered off topic from the Chord Blu2. I'll stop taking us down this rathole.

 

[romaz]

To put things in proper perspective, I do believe my DAVE and my Hugo2 are much more immune to upstream sources and cables then any DAC I have previously owned and so I don't want to give the impression from my post that owners of Rob's DACs have to go to extraordinary measures for good SQ. Despite my preferences, I think there are many who could be completely happy with a simple laptop as a source as well as the stock USB and mains cable that come with DAVE and to this extent, Rob has succeeded in his design goal. In fact, I would choose DAVE or Hugo2 with stock cabling and fronted by a cheap laptop beyond any other non-Chord DAC setup because in a digital setup, I still firmly believe it starts at the DAC and if resolution and transparency are your goals, there's no DAC setup that can do it better than a BluDAVE. As Rob has stated, there's simply no way to achieve 16-bits of accuracy without "doing the maths" and no other DAC setup even attempts to do the math. The bottom line is that BluDAVE by itself gets you pretty much there and a well executed server and cabling is merely icing on the cake.

I know there are people who read this thread and are dismayed by the extremes that people like me go to but I believe "tweaking" is in the blood of the typical audiophile. If someone is going to buy something like a BluDAVE, why not optimize the rest of your chain so that BluDAVE can show you what it can really do? As to how far you should take things, I believe you go as far as your budget will allow up until you hear no further improvements. At least, that's how I look at it.

With regards to the talk about clocking, I want to reiterate that my findings with clocking have nothing to do with word clocking (or signal timing), it has to do with the elimination of fatiguing noise that bad clocks introduce. My experience has shown me that both DAVE and Hugo2 are indeed immune to jitter. With just about any other DAC, Toslink connections are typically frowned upon because this connection is jitter prone and so Rob's DACs are unique in that they embrace this connection. As I contemplate the ideal server for one of Rob's DACs, I do believe such a server should have an optical connection.

 

[flyte3333]

it has to do with the elimination of fatiguing noise that bad clocks introduce.

For those following John Swenson’s posts, he recently mentioned he’s spending the next months researching the potential for each clock’s phase noise to make it into the DAC and if ‘clock blocking’ improves sound quality. But he did say he won’t comment or guess what’s happening for at least 6 months after properly researching this.

 

[galacticsoap]

Hi Everyone. I know this has been discussed before, but I thought I'd plumb the collective wisdom of this group once more in my quest to further improve my system. Like everyone I couldn't be happier with the effects that Blu2 introduced when I installed it in my system last week. The last 7 days has been quite the experience listening to music, mouth agape, and eyes wide open.

My next challenge will involve cleaning up the USB signal that get's sent to Blu2 between my Windows 10 music server which I'm using as both a Roon Core and End-point. I contemplated upgrading to a Zenith SE but I hesitated as I need to be able to utilise Windows so I can listen to mixes via Soundcloud (I know, it's lossy, but hey)

After reading, and re-reading countless threads on here and CA it appears that the two solutions I'm leaning towards include (with positive's and deltas noted below):

Mutec MC3+USB + Ref 10 Masterclock + LPS1 (for the MC3+)
+ The MC3+USB has galvanic isolation after their USB input
+ The MC3+USB would partner well with the Ref 10 as they are designed by the same company
- The MC3+ has a variety of input's I won't use as I'm entirely focussed on improving the USB signal of my Windows PC

Sotm txUSBUltra + SMSP500/Iso-Regen + LPS1 with Ref 10 Masterclock
+ Both the Sotm + Uptone solutions focus entirely on the USB solution which is the only input into the Blu2 I'm focussing on
+ Further to the above, the Iso-Regen (from what I understand) has isolation before AND after the USB chip. I also already own a LPS-1 which would negate the need for me to spend money on the SMPS-500
+ Sotm have a distributor in Australia
- The ISO-Regen doesn't have clock-output so I would lose the benefit of incorporating the Ref 10 into my system which from what I understand from either @romaz or @austinpop brings improvement to Blu2.

With all of this in mind, I'm looking at going ahead with the txUsbUltra + SMSP500 + Reference 10 as the next improvement to my current system make-up (noted in my sig). Can anyone see any issues with my logic?

Thanks in advance,
GS

 

[hibo2]

Hi Everyone. I know this has been discussed before, but I thought I'd plumb the collective wisdom of this group once more in my quest to further improve my system. Like everyone I couldn't be happier with the effects that Blu2 introduced when I installed it in my system last week. The last 7 days has been quite the experience listening to music, mouth agape, and eyes wide open.

My next challenge will involve cleaning up the USB signal that get's sent to Blu2 between my Windows 10 music server which I'm using as both a Roon Core and End-point. I contemplated upgrading to a Zenith SE but I hesitated as I need to be able to utilise Windows so I can listen to mixes via Soundcloud (I know, it's lossy, but hey)

After reading, and re-reading countless threads on here and CA it appears that the two solutions I'm leaning towards include (with positive's and deltas noted below):

Mutec MC3+USB + Ref 10 Masterclock + LPS1 (for the MC3+)
+ The MC3+USB has galvanic isolation after their USB input
+ The MC3+USB would partner well with the Ref 10 as they are designed by the same company
- The MC3+ has a variety of input's I won't use as I'm entirely focussed on improving the USB signal of my Windows PC

Sotm txUSBUltra + SMSP500/Iso-Regen + LPS1 with Ref 10 Masterclock
+ Both the Sotm + Uptone solutions focus entirely on the USB solution which is the only input into the Blu2 I'm focussing on
+ Further to the above, the Iso-Regen (from what I understand) has isolation before AND after the USB chip. I also already own a LPS-1 which would negate the need for me to spend money on the SMPS-500
+ Sotm have a distributor in Australia
- The ISO-Regen doesn't have clock-output so I would lose the benefit of incorporating the Ref 10 into my system which from what I understand from either @romaz or @austinpop brings improvement to Blu2.

With all of this in mind, I'm looking at going ahead with the txUsbUltra + SMSP500 + Reference 10 as the next improvement to my current system make-up (noted in my sig). Can anyone see any issues with my logic?

Thanks in advance,
GS

Logic seems good. Could keep it all in house as Sotm have a clock that competes with Ref 10. Some have found Iso Regen becomes redundant with TxUltra in the chain. You could then re purpose LPS1 to power Ultra to save cost of Sps500.

Martin

 

[dmance]

I have read thru the long digression regarding clocks. Improved USB clocks upstream of a DAC with asynchronous USB cannot have any effect on the accuracy of the digital data. The audible difference being heard must be down to RF reduction.

Like my 1960's rabbit ears TV needed my kid sister to stand by the doorway for best picture. This was a solution, sure, but not worthy of the headline ''Best TV Picture needs Girl to Be In Room".

We're all smarter than that.

 

[romaz]

I have read thru the long digression regarding clocks. Improved USB clocks upstream of a DAC with asynchronous USB cannot have any effect on the accuracy of the digital data. The audible difference being heard must be down to RF reduction.

I just finished saying this twice but I guess you repeating it a third time is good because it can't be overstated:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/cho...official-thread.831343/page-196#post-14103672

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/cho...official-thread.831343/page-199#post-14107124

I have purposely avoided talking about clocking on this thread because it's just not the right thread for it. People will automatically assume these master clocks are being used for sample rate conversion when it isn't true. People will also assume that Rob's DACs aren't truly immune to source jitter and again, I don't believe this to be true at all.

 

[Doody]

As Rob so wisely put it, "assume nothing." There are audiophiles on this thread that assume too much and have already made up their minds about how something will sound based on preconceived notions. You have to listen.

AMEN, brothers.

Fantastic write up @romaz . Thank you for sharing.

Doody