[mmwwmm]

I think this would be interesting for all LHY clock owners and people interested in buying one of them (I own an OCK-2)

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...ur-etherregen/?do=findComment&comment=1232040

 

[Highfive99]

I think this would be interesting for all LHY clock owners and people interested in buying one of them (I own an OCK-2)

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...ur-etherregen/?do=findComment&comment=1232040

Whatever. My take on it is for the money I spent on an OCK-1 and for the difference in SQ it made in my rig, it's best bang for the buck I've experienced. I could give a rat's ass for what the measurements are for what it costs and the difference it made. I listen to music not measurements.

 

[Exocer]

Whatever. My take on it is for the money I spent on an OCK-1 and for the difference in SQ it made in my rig, it's best bang for the buck I've experienced. I could give a rat's ass for what the measurements are for what it costs and the difference it made. I listen to music not measurements.

I feel the same way about the impact. It was exciting to see something that measures that badly (compared to its old advertised specs) sound so good. It was my OCK-1 used in those measurements and I am grateful for John Swenson for taking the time to measure it. The good news is: I probably got one of the poorer measuring ock-1s and I can confirm that the impact of the Ock-1 in my system is very positive. Is it likely a Mutec Ref10 or AfterDark Eva sound better? More than likely! But for the cost, the Ock-1 is a very nice and simple place to start on the reference clock journey and it may very well be as far as many of us need to delve.

I have some parts coming to complete a diy clock project with a clock that measures substantially better than the Ock-1. I’ll do my best to listen and confirm if it is subjectively superior to the Ock-1 in my system and report back.

 

[mgsu]

I feel the same way about the impact. It was exciting to see something that measures that badly (compared to its old advertised specs) sound so good. It was my OCK-1 used in those measurements and I am grateful for John Swenson for taking the time to measure it. The good news is: I probably got one of the poorer measuring ock-1s and I can confirm that the impact of the Ock-1 in my system is very positive. Is it likely a Mutec Ref10 or AfterDark Eva sound better? More than likely! But for the cost, the Ock-1 is a very nice and simple place to start on the reference clock journey and it may very well be as far as many of us need to delve.

I have some parts coming to complete a diy clock project with a clock that measures substantially better than the Ock-1. I’ll do my best to listen and confirm if it is subjectively superior to the Ock-1 in my system and report back.

REF10 square wave

LHY OCK-1 square wave

The square wave looks bad, but keep in mind that the wave shape is not that important as the threshold at 0 Volts that is more important for the performance of the clock. The wave sweep looks a little bit nasty on the OCK-1, should be a relative straight line.

 

[jimmychan]

Just a guess, Kingwa save the FPGAs for the more pricey DAC than the low cost DI-20.

 

[sajunky]

LHY OCK-1 square wave

The square wave looks bad, but keep in mind that the wave shape is not that important as the threshold at 0 Volts that is more important for the performance of the clock. The wave sweep looks a little bit nasty on the OCK-1, should be a relative straight line.

This is something wrong, by example DI-20 expect between +0.3Vpp and +3Vpp. On this screenshot there are negative values!

Did you measure OCK-1 with ISO option ON? It would explain negative voltage on the output of the capacitor in series. It is not allowed. Some devices will not tolerate negative voltage, it may activate a parasite surface diode of the input. When it happen, recovery from this stage is slow, it would explain slow and irregular raising, like loaded with relatively large capacitance on the input. Not a real capacitance, as it would show on the falling edge too. Defective measurement.

Falling edge is perfect with a small overshot, it is tuned for a maximum speed of the transition.

[EDIT] is the same person who made jitter measurements? It can be defective as well for the same reason.

 

[Exocer]

REF10 square wave


LHY OCK-1 square wave



The square wave looks bad, but keep in mind that the wave shape is not that important as the threshold at 0 Volts that is more important for the performance of the clock. The wave sweep looks a little bit nasty on the OCK-1, should be a relative straight line.

I don’t use the square wave output.

 

[Jake2]

I think this would be interesting for all LHY clock owners and people interested in buying one of them (I own an OCK-2)

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...ur-etherregen/?do=findComment&comment=1232040

Cheers for sharing, I think.

Interesting is a very diplomatic way of putting it. This was foreshadowed by Superdad so not exactly out of the blue but these measurements are the lower end of the range I was anticipating. Ah well, maybe there's material sample to sample variation as @Exocer says.

Everyone wants - and should be able to reasonably expect - their product to at least measure as claimed, especially with clocks where phase noise at low offsets is widely accepted as closely correlating (if inversely) with sound quality. Shows there's no free lunch as far as phase noise measurements are concerned. Though my OCK-1 improves my R26 today just as much as it did yesterday.

So not a great look for LHY/Beatechnik/Alvin who I respect and will give the benefit of the doubt. An unpleasant learning experience for them methinks. It must I think reduce future demand for the OCKs and potentially the upcoming SW-10 too, certainly for those shopping based on phase noise specs. Which was me, and will likely be me again in future when I upgrade, though the OCK-2 remains in the frame.

@Highfive99 Notwithstanding the above I'm in the same boat as you re the high bang for buck sound quality improvement the OCK-1 brought my system. And my apologies - in my late night commenting on the A26 thread I read your comment as if you'd just gotten the OCK-1, but of course you've had it a while.

 

[Odezra]

I see on the audiophile style site that Superdad recommends a low pass filter on cheaper clocks and I have noticed that the LHY Ock-1 that I own provides only modest results in my system. Maybe this marries up with what Superdad is finding. Is there any point of view or recommendation for me to try a low pass filter on the Ock-1 as he suggests? Has anyone done this or recommends me trying this?

I saw this for the Giessmann clocks but am not entirely sure whether something like this would be beneficial for my clock. I think I'd rather maximise it's performance (assuming that's possible), than go again on a more expensive LHY (or other model).

https://www.adark.co/en-au/products...emann-clock-group-buy-for-audiophilestyle-com

 

[MartinWT]

Two 0.5m Harmonic Technology Digital Copper III 50Ω clock cables prepared and now plumbed into the system.

 

[Odezra]

Cheers for sharing, I think.

Interesting is a very diplomatic way of putting it. This was foreshadowed by Superdad so not exactly out of the blue but these measurements are the lower end of the range I was anticipating. Ah well, maybe there's material sample to sample variation as @Exocer says.

Everyone wants - and should be able to reasonably expect - their product to at least measure as claimed, especially with clocks where phase noise at low offsets is widely accepted as closely correlating (if inversely) with sound quality. Shows there's no free lunch as far as phase noise measurements are concerned. Though my OCK-1 improves my R26 today just as much as it did yesterday.

So not a great look for LHY/Beatechnik/Alvin who I respect and will give the benefit of the doubt. An unpleasant learning experience for them methinks. It must I think reduce future demand for the OCKs and potentially the upcoming SW-10 too, certainly for those shopping based on phase noise specs. Which was me, and will likely be me again in future when I upgrade, though the OCK-2 remains in the frame.

@Highfive99 Notwithstanding the above I'm in the same boat as you re the high bang for buck sound quality improvement the OCK-1 brought my system. And my apologies - in my late night commenting on the A26 thread I read your comment as if you'd just gotten the OCK-1, but of course you've had it a while.

It's a pretty big mistake to be honest and I like Alvin too from what I have seen of him on Youtube and the service is excellent. That said - I think i'll avoid LHY at this point. Not delivering what was published is a pretty egregious error.

i would of liked to consider the SW 10 but not sure the brand should be awarded for mistakes like this. Publishing stats and not checking them first (they could easily of verified across a sample of boxes themselves at least) speaks to the fact that they are throwing these out without much QC. Obviously - it's a cheap box and not worth it at this price, but the marketing should of been clearer and not misleading.

To put this in perspective - I reached out to uptone audio the other day to be added to the etherregan 2's mailing list and i got a nice note back from Alex explaining how they will be releasing the etherregan 2 a little later than planned as some of the components they received from a OEM are not up to the advertised spec (and they are offering this device for similar money to the Ock 1). This is what you expect from manufacturers - they stick by what's advertised/claimed.

 

[Capri87]

Can someone provide a link where he bought his OCK-2 from aliexpress?

 

[sajunky]

It's a pretty big mistake to be honest and I like Alvin too from what I have seen of him on Youtube and the service is excellent. That said - I think i'll avoid LHY at this point. Not delivering what was published is a pretty egregious error.

Measurements like this should be disregarded till is done properly with ISO option OFF as explained in this post. The same applies to the previous report that product was not complying with a published data.

The person who did it is either incompetent or it is a deliberate action for discrediting competitor. I cannot trust this source anymore, it was made improperly. A signal should be DC coupled, with no negative voltage on the output. Plain and simple.

Now it is clear why this person chose to not publish a report using a real name. Without the official report confirmed by a real person who can be trusted, this story is just another Internet hoax. Another case where users have no option than trusting their own ears.

 

[Odezra]

Measurements like this should be disregarded till is done properly with ISO option OFF as explained in this post. The same applies to the previous report that product was not complying with a published data. The person who did it is either incompetent or it is a deliberate action for discrediting competitor. I cannot trust this source anymore, it was made improperly. A signal should be DC coupled, with no negative voltage on the output. Plain and simple. Now it is clear why this person chose to not publish a report using a real name. Without the official report confirmed by a real person who can be trusted, this story is just another Internet hoax. Another case where users have no option than trusting their own ears.

That’s interesting thanks. I should temper my views so until we know more. The ock 1 has been a modest change in my system I have to say. I have ordered a low pass filter to test with the sine output to see if this might improve things .

 

[Jake2]

Measurements like this should be disregarded till is done properly with ISO option OFF as explained in this post. The same applies to the previous report that product was not complying with a published data.

The person who did it is either incompetent or it is a deliberate action for discrediting competitor. I cannot trust this source anymore, it was made improperly. A signal should be DC coupled, with no negative voltage on the output. Plain and simple.

Now it is clear why this person chose to not publish a report using a real name. Without the official report confirmed by a real person who can be trusted, this story is just another Internet hoax. Another case where users have no option than trusting their own ears.

Fairly sure the quoted phase noise figures and the square wave plots came from different sources. And related to different Ock-1 units. The former from Alex of Uptone (Superdad on AS), the latter from a poster over on the Audiophilestyle thread, 'Clockmeister' if my memory serves.

(I'll double check this)