External Clock?

Mike

Mike

Audioshark
Staff member
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
30,492
Location
Sarasota, FL
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/meitner-emm-dv2-dsd-mqa-digital-audio#GpRbV8drK6M6cEHy.99
 
Mike said:
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/meitner-emm-dv2-dsd-mqa-digital-audio#GpRbV8drK6M6cEHy.99
Click to expand...

Mike,

I hope DCS and Esoteric are taking notes!

Ken
 
Mike said:
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/meitner-emm-dv2-dsd-mqa-digital-audio#GpRbV8drK6M6cEHy.99
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mike said:
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/meitner-emm-dv2-dsd-mqa-digital-audio#GpRbV8drK6M6cEHy.99
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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?
 
ack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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. :)
 
still-one said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. [emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
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.
 
wklie said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top