[Mr Brett]

Apologies for the confusion, but the thread is currently a bit hard to track due to some ... differences in opinions.
I'm using an Audio-GD DI20HE (50 ohm) and as a final step of upgrade I was looking for a clock. Here is a list of clocks I have on my radar and I'm currently reading about:
LHY OCK-1/OCK-2
MUTEC REF10 / REF10SE
Gustard C18
Cybershaft clocks
Afterdark project clayx ( this thing has a billion versions )
Are there any more worth checking out? Are there any clocks considered "best" or better than others?

I've found a clock on my Audio GD DI20HE to have little to no effect.
Tried an LHY OCK-1, but that was no good in my system.

Sent the Audio GD to Coherent Systems and had a bit of work done on it.
He found the same about clocks on the DI20HE...
"The Audio GD doesn't seem to respond that well to 10Mhz clocks like other DDC's do. I even tried my own Mutec SE-120 on it and yes it was better but the cost I would go elsewhere."

 

[FredA]

I've found a clock on my Audio GD DI20HE to have little to no effect.
Tried an LHY OCK-1, but that was no good.

Sent it to Coherent Systems in the UK and had a bit of work done on it.
He found the same about clocks..
"The Audio GD doesn't seem to respond that well to 10Mhz clocks like other DDC's do. I even tried my own Mutec SE-120 on it and yes it was better but the cost I would go elsewhere."

Depends mainly on three factors. That dac that is used. The clock cable. And the clock. My own experience is the opposite when the dac does reclocking or just plays i2s as is. The impact is then major. The clock input on the di20 and audio-gd dacs is implemented the same way. And i can also say that the impact on the dac is significant. Of course, the setup that is used,.cables, and so on matter. Other dacs and ddcs possibly do better.

 

[cglin222]

to put phase noise into perspective

Mutec REF10 has -116 db and costs ~3500 Dollar.

To achive -120db Mutec brought the REF10 SE120 to the market which cost ~7000 Dollar

-4db reduction in phase noise costs 3500 Dollar

Edit: consistent -115db for 500 Dollar is to good to be true.

So then in reality gustard c18 with -110 is actually true and better than ock2 then since it’s 1500 I think
LHY don’t even bother do tell us their phase noise maybe it’s less than -100

 

[FredA]

So then in reality gustard c18 with -110 is actually true and better than ock2 then since it’s 1500 I think
LHY don’t even bother do tell us their phase noise maybe it’s less than -100

They say it is -116db. The ock2 has been compared to the ref10 se120 by a member of this thread. The ock2 is of course not as good but a solid value. I would buy it before the c18, it is half the money. It is very well made. I have the sw8 and it is an excellent awitch. Of course, the price difference hurts Gustard. I am sure the c18 is very good though.

 

[camrector]

So then in reality gustard c18 with -110 is actually true and better than ock2 then since it’s 1500 I think
LHY don’t even bother do tell us their phase noise maybe it’s less than -100

If the OCK2 was anywhere near -110 or
above, LHY wouldn’t have removed the measurements and would be shouting from the roof tops it’s measurements.
So I’d you want a $700 piece of aluminum absent of the most important performance measurement of a OCXO then LHY has you covered!!

 

[Jake2]

So then in reality gustard c18 with -110 is actually true and better than ock2 then since it’s 1500 I think
LHY don’t even bother do tell us their phase noise maybe it’s less than -100

Ray's first-hand experience of owning the Gustard C18 and LHY OCK-2 may be of interest to you.

I hear guys here asking about comparison between Gustard C18 and LHY OCK-2, I had both and now that I have sold my C18 I can voice out my opinion. I guess it is not hard to know that I prefer the OCK-2. I use Gustard U18 and X26 Pro, the OCK-2 performs better than C18 on my system. The soundstage is more open, more details and for a much cheaper price. I sold my C18 for a price higher than the brand new price of OCK-2, leaving some money for other upgrades.

 

[cglin222]

They say it is -116db. The ock2 has been compared to the ref10 se120 by a member of this thread. The ock2 is of course not as good but a solid value. I would buy it before the c18, it is half the money. It is very well made. I have the sw8 and it is an excellent awitch. Of course, the price difference hurts Gustard. I am sure the c18 is very good though.

So they’ve claim 115 or 116
What was the really measurement turned out measured by user
Just wondering

 

[cglin222]

Ray's first-hand experience of owning the Gustard C18 and LHY OCK-2 may be of interest to you.

Yes this is interesting and makes me wanted to get the ock2 but the fact is that even if they didn’t meet the claim they could at least show the correct phase noise, why hide it
Unless it’s really bad? Don’t know

 

[Jake2]

Yes this is interesting and makes me wanted to get the ock2 but the fact is that even if they didn’t meet the claim they could at least show the correct phase noise, why hide it
Unless it’s really bad? Don’t know

LHY’s rationale, as most recently conveyed in Jan’s post a few pages back, whether you accept it or not, is it is too expensive to individually measure every unit. Fortunately there are many alternatives with individually measured phase noise certificates for those willing to pay for it (and who prioritise certainty re measurements) from AfterDark, Cybershaft and Gustard. Something for everyone. Choose your poison.

 

[bodiebill2]

I've found a clock on my Audio GD DI20HE to have little to no effect.
Tried an LHY OCK-1, but that was no good.

Sent the Audio GD to Coherent Systems in the UK and had a bit of work done on it.
He found the same about clocks on the DI20HE...
"The Audio GD doesn't seem to respond that well to 10Mhz clocks like other DDC's do. I even tried my own Mutec SE-120 on it and yes it was better but the cost I would go elsewhere."

Not here. To that extent that occasionally I felt something was off with the sound, until I noticed I forgot to power on the clock (Mutec Ref10 SE120) for the DI20HE. Relief followed...

 

[Mr Brett]

Depends mainly on three factors. That dac that is used. The clock cable. And the clock. My own experience is the opposite when the dac does reclocking or just plays i2s as is. The impact is then major. The clock input on the di20 and audio-gd dacs is implemented the same way. And i can also say that the impact on the dac is significant. Of course, the setup that is used,.cables, and so on matter. Other dacs and ddcs possibly do better.

In my system, have an upgraded Audio GD DI20HE DDC, with an Audience AU24Sx AES/EBU cable to my modded Gustard A22 Dac.
The LHY OCK-1 I tried had a Gustard C2 cable.

 

[OCC7N]

I've found a clock on my Audio GD DI20HE to have little to no effect.
Tried an LHY OCK-1, but that was no good.

Sent the Audio GD to Coherent Systems in the UK and had a bit of work done on it.
He found the same about clocks on the DI20HE...
"The Audio GD doesn't seem to respond that well to 10Mhz clocks like other DDC's do. I even tried my own Mutec SE-120 on it and yes it was better but the cost I would go elsewhere."

Try the test for yourself.

Clock only the DAC for a week with di20he connected(only to DAC)

When you connect clock to DI20HE, listen how the music melts together. Its not about cleaner/pure sound with this DDC. Its magic!

There are some points to mention. DI20HE is NOT like any other DDC. They are completely correct.

1. Separation, isolation of each instruments
2. Timing/clock its own clock, lifelike

The thing I can not explain about the DI20HE is the lifelike rythm. The OCK-2 does not effect it like the way it does with my R8HEmk2

However with OCK-2 everything melts together connected to DI20HE/R8HEmk2.

No matter what DAC I have tried with DI20HE. They all feel “boring” without it, even the R8HEmk2.

 

[gregorio]

On network recording, all the gear works at frequencies that are entire multiples of the basic sound frequencies, and is slaved to a master clock.

No, it does not! The audio gear connected to the network synchronises to the PTP clock, which typically would be provided by the converter. The network itself is NOT synchronised to that clock, it’s a standard Ethernet network running at the gigabit rate, NOT audio sampling rates!

The switches that are used are not the ones that you buy on Amazon for office appliances.

By far the most common network audio protocol is Audinate’s Dante, here is what Audinate states: “Most off-the-shelf switches are fine for use with Dante, apart from unmanaged switches with Energy Efficient Ethernet (EEE)”.

A less widely used protocol is Ravenna, which is what the Merging converters (that you brought up) employ. This is what Merging states about audio networking: “AoIP [Audio over IP], rather than forcing static interconnections between devices, allows the user instead to use a standard, off-the shelf, network switch to become a type of router that allows all the devices to talk to one another.”

Again, why argue about something you clearly know little/nothing about it and why just keep making up these false assertions?

G

 

[OCC7N]

Now ESS and AKM converters employ network Ravenna protocols....omg this is getting out of hand.

Please don´t feed into this....any PTP-V2 capable ethernet device can be configured as Master. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DAC CHIP.

 

[MartinWT]

There is no doubt that cables make a difference, not only analogue and power cables, but it's surprising how different digital cables can sound, too.
I wouldn't even bother debating it.