Master Clock Talk

[mmwwmm]

If theres a center pin and it connects to the positive, its safe to assume a direct connection from positive to negative = short. Since the clock outputs are active all the time, I'm not sure how you would turn off a load unless theres some dip switches in the device to turn each output off.


I think that would put an unnecessary load on the clock outputs and degrade the output signal. If you had a dac or preamp that outputed 4 rca outputs simultaneously, connecting any more than 1 would put a load on all the outputs and degrade the signal. If they had switchable outputs, it might be feasible.

Excuse me but I think you don’t know what a dummy load is and neither the principles of terminating an RF circuit with a load.

 

[dougms3]

Excuse me but I think you don’t know what a dummy load is and neither the principles of terminating an RF circuit with a load.

Lol ok, please educate us, whats a dummy load and in what way do the principles of terminating an RF circuit with a load affect the master clock in this situation?

 

[mmwwmm]

Lol ok, please educate us, whats a dummy load and in what way do the principles of terminating an RF circuit with a load affect the master clock in this situation?

Go and educate yourself (Lol)

 

[dougms3]

Go and educate yourself (Lol)

A mature answer indeed. Sounds like someone doesnt know something.

Exactly those are the reasons I suggested the use of terminated BNC loads. In fact using terminating dummy loads in an output is just like you were using that output connected to an end device.

So you're saying having additional bnc cables attached to the master clock will do what exactly? All I said is that the outputs are all active, if you place unnecessary load on the outputs, it would probably degrade the signal across the board.

If you're saying that it has some kind of positive effect, how would placing additional load on the outputs benefit? You brought it up.

If you're saying it has something to do with dummy load or something with the principles of terminating an RF circuit with a load, then please explain.

No need to get mad or defensive, I disagreed with you, thats all. Sometimes people are not always going to agree with you.

 

[mmwwmm]

No need to get mad or defensive, I disagreed with you, thats all. Sometimes people are not always going to agree with you.

The tone of your previous and “mature” posts speaks for yourself (…”lol”…)
As been said go and educate yourself. Bye

 

[dougms3]

The tone of your previous posts speaks for yourself (…”lol”…)
As been said go and educate yourself. Bye

If I'm understanding this correctly, you're saying that populating all 6 outputs with 5 or less dummy loads is going to offer an improvement but don't have an explanation as to why. Are you expecting people to buy all these extra cables to test your theory with no explanation?

Don't worry about me, I will educate myself because I won't be learning anything useful from you.

Lol bye.

 

[mmwwmm]

Don't worry about me, I will educate myself

Great! Good luck. A tough task will be for sure. Lol!


Now time to press the wonderful ignore button

 

[dougms3]

Great! Good luck. A tough task will be for sure. Lol!


Now time to press the wonderful ignore button

You still here imparting worthless information I see.

Bye.

 

[Exocer]

Not really clock related per se, but the Netgear GS108v3 switches sounded better today. For the price, totally worth trying especially if you already have a decent LPS (Using a Sean Jacobs DC3 on the pair here). There is a capacitor on the PCB directly after the DC input that looks cheap (this corresponds with a previous comment made for another Netgear switch). I have purchased some AudioNote caps to try. If the cap brings then closer to the buffalos, these switches can be a sleeper bargain with minimal effort.

No, I do not think the cap swap will put it in a new league but for the price I’d say go for it. Tomorrow I will remove a switch to see if two sound better than one. They are compact and easy to mod. No coil whine.

Back on topic: I am on the fence about whether to just pick up an OCK-2 or modify the OCK-1 to the max. I am leaning towards the latter because the form factor works perfectly in my space-limited environment… keep everyone posted on those tweaks if I end up going that route.

 

[JaMo]

@mmwwmm and @dougms3

Guys, please cool down. We all should and can have a conversation in a positive tone. Sometimes we don't agree with eachother but it is ok. We all have things to learn.

Down to the question of load or not on the outputs. On the Mutec REF10 the design holds a switch on each output to allow us to cut the "antenna" function of "not populated outputs. On a gear of this pricelevel, no risks can be taken to get EMI problems.

The OCK-1 and -2 have individual buffers on all outputs and they should at least in theory be sort of protected from EMI. When I recommend caps with "No pin", it is because I have no idea if it should affect the circuit/performance of the active and working outputs. I mainly want to encapsulate and prevent the center pins (-"antennas") to pick up any noise, and this without putting load on the circuits. The shielding of the OCK-2's box is brilliant and we want to complete it right!?

You can of course investigate this further.. I won't, there is no reason, I think.

/Jan

 

[dougms3]

@mmwwmm and @dougms3

Guys, please cool down. We all should and can have a conversation in a positive tone. Sometimes we don't agree with eachother but it is ok. We all have things to learn.

Down to the question of load or not on the outputs. On the Mutec REF10 the design holds a switch on each output to allow us to cut the "antenna" function of "not populated outputs. On a gear of this pricelevel, no risks can be taken to get EMI problems.

The OCK-1 and -2 have individual buffers on all outputs and they should at least in theory be sort of protected from EMI. When I recommend caps with "No pin", it is because I have no idea if it should affect the circuit/performance of the active and working outputs. I mainly want to encapsulate and prevent the center pins (-"antennas") to pick up any noise, and this without putting load on the circuits. The shielding of the OCK-2's box is brilliant and we want to complete it right!?

You can of course investigate this further.. I won't, there is no reason, I think.

/Jan

I didn't seen any dipswitches that can control if the ouput is on /off so I assume they're all active all the time when the device is on.

If thats the case, connecting the dust cover with the center pin will connect + and -, either causing a short or an increase in load or possibly both. It makes sense that when you plug in the dust cover without the center pin it would offer an improvement because its only connected to the ground.

On the mutec, since you have the option of turning off the ouputs, it wouldn't matter if they're off.

Can anyone confirm if plugging in more than one device degrades the signal at all?

 

[JaMo]

Can anyone confirm if plugging in more than one device degrades the signal at all?

It is not the case. The correct load with the correct impedance on more than one output doesn't degrade anything. The individual buffers are taking care of this. It is open outputs/exposed "live" centre pin that may pick up noise. The risk is small but a shielding cap cost about USD1.5 so it is an easy choice to be sure
/J

 

[sajunky]

The OCK-1 and -2 have individual buffers on all outputs and they should at least in theory be sort of protected from EMI. When I recommend caps with "No pin", it is because I have no idea if it should affect the circuit/performance of the active and working outputs.

Intuition in most cases leads us in the right direction. In this case it doesn't harm. Thumbs-up.

Terminated pin has two edge sword effect, not going into details, but negative effects cannot be ignored.

 

[rsbrsvp]

Here is a Q. which I would request input from experienced members. I find power supplies make a bigger difference in my system than anything else.

Example: I have one component with a DC LPS at 1.0uV ripple which is very very low noise. I found a better PS at .2uV noise, and yes I can clearly hear the difference.

So how about a after dark clock with a -121phase noise rating. My hunch is it has a reasonably good PS built in it- but not the very best. Now- I have another clock at -113 which I can attach a .2uv noise DC PS which is as close to zero noise as imaginable. I wonder how close the -113dcb clock would get to the -121 clock. My hunch is the lower noise PS would make up a lot over the better clock in the After Dark unit.

I'd appreciate everyone's input...

 

[JaMo]

Here is a Q. which I would request input from experienced members. I find power supplies make a bigger difference in my system than anything else.

Example: I have one component with a DC LPS at 1.0uV ripple which is very very low noise. I found a better PS at .2uV noise, and yes I can clearly hear the difference.

So how about a after dark clock with a -121phase noise rating. My hunch is it has a reasonably good PS built in it- but not the very best. Now- I have another clock at -113 which I can attach a .2uv noise DC PS which is as close to zero noise as imaginable. I wonder how close the -113dcb clock would get to the -121 clock. My hunch is the lower noise PS would make up a lot over the better clock in the After Dark unit.

I'd appreciate everyone's input...

Hi @rsbrsvp ,
You are absolutely on to something very important here. The PSU is equal important as the OCXO itself. It is a "pearls for pigs" scenario. And yes, a -121dBC/1Hz OCXO should have the best, most silent PSU You can find to match its potential.
/Jan