External Clock?

[Mike]

JVS: You don't believe in using an external word clock. Why?

EM: Because I think this is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in the audio business. That means you have a precision clock that you have to connect to a wire to connect to a DAC, when the clock should be straight away where it belongs, inside the DAC, beside the DAC chip, if there is such a thing—not through a cable in a different box. This is so idiotic, it's not even funny. It's a money grab.


Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/...8drK6M6cEHy.99

[Alpinist]

JVS: You don't believe in using an external word clock. Why?

EM: Because I think this is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in the audio business. That means you have a precision clock that you have to connect to a wire to connect to a DAC, when the clock should be straight away where it belongs, inside the DAC, beside the DAC chip, if there is such a thing—not through a cable in a different box. This is so idiotic, it's not even funny. It's a money grab.


Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/...8drK6M6cEHy.99

Mike,

I hope DCS and Esoteric are taking notes!

Ken

[CPP]

A good post from 2016 External Clock or No External Clock, that is the question

[GSOphile]

This will be fun to watch!!

[ack]

JVS: You don't believe in using an external word clock. Why?

EM: Because I think this is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in the audio business. That means you have a precision clock that you have to connect to a wire to connect to a DAC, when the clock should be straight away where it belongs, inside the DAC, beside the DAC chip, if there is such a thing—not through a cable in a different box. This is so idiotic, it's not even funny. It's a money grab.


Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/...8drK6M6cEHy.99

Fully agree with Meitner. Moreover, I have always said that if an external clock improves the sound, it just means the internal clock was not optimally designed. It is a money grab to me.

[CPP]

JVS: You don't believe in using an external word clock. Why?

EM: Because I think this is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in the audio business. That means you have a precision clock that you have to connect to a wire to connect to a DAC, when the clock should be straight away where it belongs, inside the DAC, beside the DAC chip, if there is such a thing—not through a cable in a different box. This is so idiotic, it's not even funny. It's a money grab.


Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/...8drK6M6cEHy.99

I think it all depends on how the manufacturer handled the jitter in their device. Its it so low that an external clock wouldn't make and real noticeable difference. Like when JA performed measurements on the dac in question in this link.
"tested for its rejection of word-clock jitter with 16-bit AES/EBU data, the DV2 turned in superb performance: all odd-order harmonics of the LSB-level, low-frequency squarewave were at the correct levels (fig.11, sloping green line), though with some broadening of the peak that represents the high-level tone at one-quarter the sample rate. This is presumably due to the presence of low-level, low-frequency random jitter components "https://www.stereophile.com/content/emm-labs-dv2-da-processor-measurements

[Elberoth]

I'm with Meitner on this. That said, external clocks DO improve some DACs, which probably means their own clocks are just not good enough.

[asindc]

Does it make any difference if the clock upgrade is external or internal? Isn’t the fact that the stock clock is being upgraded really the issue here?

[Al M.]

Fully agree with Meitner. Moreover, I have always said that if an external clock improves the sound, it just means the internal clock was not optimally designed. It is a money grab to me.

That was always the conceptual problem that I had with dCS, yes. They claim external clocks are standard in pro audio, but I think that parallel is flawed. If I understand correctly, in pro studios a separate clock is used to synchronize everything, it's not just about a single ADC or DAC.

[Kuoppis]

I think Ed’s argument is pretty sound: for accuracy the clock should reside as close as possible to the DAC. It is unlikely that cables and interfaces in between will make clocks operating on femto second level more accurate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[still-one]

That's what so good about the internet. It makes it so easy to keep searching until you find someone who validates your product choices.

[mep]

That's what so good about the internet. It makes it so easy to keep searching until you find someone who validates your product choices.

There is someone on this forum who is a master at that. Every time he buys something new, he scours the internet looking for positive reviews of his new purchase and provides links to every review to validate how smart he was for making his purchasing decision.

[Jack]

Not every review, just the ones that validates his expenditure.

[kiwi_1282001]

There is someone on this forum who is a master at that. Every time he buys something new, he scours the internet looking for positive reviews of his new purchase and provides links to every review to validate how smart he was for making his purchasing decision.

.... And unsatisfied with that the genius goes on to post disrespectful vitriol over dissenting opinion – even if it is supported by fact.

[Rob181]

This will be fun to watch!!

Tick...tick...tick...

[kzhtoo]

I can’t help but smell a bit of hypocrisy here. ^

[Phishphan]

I had one connected to my K1 for a while. Can’t say I heard a big difference or any. ... and now I own EMM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mep]

Not every review, just the ones that validates his expenditure.

That's why I said every positive review.

[wklie]

My two cents on this subject. Feel free to disagree.

The engineering perspective that an internal clock must be better than an external clock is mostly relevant only to a DAC designer. My humble opinion is that this perspective is not necessarily useful to a user who seeks SQ improvement, depending on the brand of DAC the user already has.

As a user, if you have bought a product that does not allow a clock input, you hope that the clock inside is as good as possible (this is the case of Lumin X1).

If you have bought a product that does have a clock input, and the manufacturer sells you an external clock and tells you it's much better - the manufacturer is usually not lying. My observation of a certain Japanese brand is that 100% of their users with a clock upgrade reported a SQ improvement. So this is built into a design that favors external clock, regardless what the engineering perspective says (it does not say what happens when a really good external clock is compared to an internal clock of a lower grade anyway). Some may question why don't they put a better clock inside to eliminate the external clock, well that's their product strategy - that's a business decision and there is no right or wrong about it.

A visitor of an audio show told me he would not buy our product because we do not support an external clock. I suppose there are many audiophiles who view external clock as a means to improve SQ, and an upgrade path. So even though Lumin is not currently in the camp of preferring an external clock, I acknowledge the fact that consumer demand for external clock is also real.

[imprezap2]

Still, a full stack (4 pieces) Vivaldi sounds quite nice, although I agree that it sounds logical that the clocks should be as close as possible to the DAC, but IMO that also means that the transport should be in the same casing, and here also EMMlabs have separate boxes.

It's like a 911, basically a bad design with the engine behind the rear wheels, but engineered so well it works perfectly.

[GSOphile]

My two cents on this subject. Feel free to disagree.

The engineering perspective that an internal clock must be better than an external clock is mostly relevant only to a DAC designer. My humble opinion is that this perspective is not necessarily useful to a user who seeks SQ improvement, depending on the brand of DAC the user already has.

As a user, if you have bought a product that does not allow a clock input, you hope that the clock inside is as good as possible (this is the case of Lumin X1).

If you have bought a product that does have a clock input, and the manufacturer sells you an external clock and tells you it's much better - the manufacturer is usually not lying. My observation of a certain Japanese brand is that 100% of their users with a clock upgrade reported a SQ improvement. So this is built into a design that favors external clock, regardless what the engineering perspective says (it does not say what happens when a really good external clock is compared to an internal clock of a lower grade anyway). Some may question why don't they put a better clock inside to eliminate the external clock, well that's their product strategy - that's a business decision and there is no right or wrong about it.

A visitor of an audio show told me he would not buy our product because we do not support an external clock. I suppose there are many audiophiles who view external clock as a means to improve SQ, and an upgrade path. So even though Lumin is not currently in the camp of preferring an external clock, I acknowledge the fact that consumer demand for external clock is also real.

Peter, I guess my question would be, if we were starting from scratch, and for a moment ignoring the sales/financial aspects, should we expect to achieve better clock performance with a great internal clock a la Lumin/EMM/MSB or a great external clock a la Esoteric/dCS?

[wklie]

Peter, I guess my question would be, if we were starting from scratch, and for a moment ignoring the sales/financial aspects, should we expect to achieve better clock performance with a great internal clock a la Lumin/EMM/MSB or a great external clock a la Esoteric/dCS?

Even though many experts believe the internal clock design should be more correct, there is a hypothesis that some people may actually like the type of jittery rendition brought by an external clock, not unlike some sort of distortion that can be pleasing to listen to (e.g. second order harmonic of SET). The fact that people can hear differences among clock cables may also imply that the cable does affect the clock jitter, which may be an evidence of external clock being more jittery in usual setups. The existence of 50 ohm vs 75 ohm clock input even among different products of the same manufacturer make things even more complicated.

The clock design is only one of the many aspects of technical implementation that affect SQ. Since SQ preference is subjective anyway, I guess one should just audition the different systems and ignore the implementation details (e.g. clock or Delta Sigma vs R2R, etc.) and factor in the costs of the clock and the clock cable.

[GSOphile]

Even though many experts believe the internal clock design should be more correct, there is a hypothesis that some people may actually like the type of jittery rendition brought by an external clock, not unlike some sort of distortion that can be pleasing to listen to (e.g. second order harmonic of SET). The fact that people can hear differences among clock cables may also imply that the cable does affect the clock jitter, which may be an evidence of external clock being more jittery in usual setups. The existence of 50 ohm vs 75 ohm clock input even among different products of the same manufacturer make things even more complicated.

The clock design is only one of the many aspects of technical implementation that affect SQ. Since SQ preference is subjective anyway, I guess one should just audition the different systems and ignore the implementation details (e.g. clock or Delta Sigma vs R2R, etc.) and factor in the costs of the clock and the clock cable.

And an additional power cable. From an investment standpoint, I prefer paying for a single great internal clock over having to acquire for an external clock at a premium to achieve comparable performance. Thanks for your thoughts, Peter.

[Spock]

My two cents


I have never tried an external clock but I experienced digital amplification with internal dac and digital connection to the CD player. As you know, in this connection the DAC of the CD player's stay turned off.
To my surprise, I prefered much more when using the DAC of the CD player and the connection was made by an analogue cable to the amplifier that did the decoding again to digital...


Audio is not so linear as we sometimes think...

[wklie]

I'm not surprised. I've received similar comments from customers before who preferred analog outputs, even if it is followed by another stage of analog to digital conversion done by an amplifier that digitizes the inputs. This reminds me of other forum reports of preferring vinyl rips (for playback using a DAC) to CD rips. In this hobby, ultimately I think what sounds good to oneself is much more important than what other people say what should sound good or is correct.

[jdandy]

In this hobby, ultimately I think what sounds good to oneself is much more important than what other people say what should sound good or is correct.

Peter.......So true. There is only one person that must be happy with my sound systems..........Me!

[Randy Myers]

Interesting topic; a few month ago I think it was Stereophile (maybe The Absolute Sound, I am being too lazy to search out the issue )....anyway they did a very nice go through of one of the dCS DACs. They loved it but preferred the unit using only the internal clock. They actual felt the external clock degraded the sound.

[Elberoth]

Interesting topic; a few month ago I think it was Stereophile (maybe The Absolute Sound, I am being too lazy to search out the issue )....anyway the did a very nice go through of one of the dCS DACs. They loved it but preferred the unit using only the internal clock. They actual felt the external clock degraded the sound.

It depends on the quality of the clock.

[Randy Myers]

It depends on the quality of the clock.

In the article/review they tried the external clock that dCS sold (fairly expensive I thought) and came away saying that they preferred the DAC using only the internal clock. It was supposedly designed for that specific model. They did love the DAC but not so much the external clock .

I felt it was interesting because at the time one of our audio club members took a couple other members down to a dealer in LA to check out this very same DAC. He has an older dCS. So far he is not into digital so much but has been considering a server, etc. They came away saying that he was going to keep his current dCS. I read the article shortly afterwards and suggested maybe trying it without the external clock. I don't believe he has gone back down to do that as of yet however.

[Elberoth]

I've never read a report where adding a dCS clock to a dCS component would be make it sound worse.

[nicoff]

I've never read a report where adding a dCS clock to a dCS component would be make it sound worse.

Well, you read it reported on this thread! Put this in your “first time” folder.

[Phishphan]

Guys like Ed Meitner are adamantly against the concept. I added one to the esoteric K1 I had.. I didn’t think it made much difference