No worries, I think attempting to isolate the crystal alone is very difficult. I failed over and over again.
It ended up making more sense to make a single rigid structure that weight KG's rather than grams. Which opens up many more opportunities for isolation and opens up the opportunity to incorporate cheaper solutions.
Panzerholz is a magic material in my opinion. The majority of energy decay was pretty much under 20ms and the resonant peaks were lower than anything we tried.
For reference, here's an amazing digital audio open project freeDSP-aurora - DSP with 8 I/Os, USB Audio, S/P-DIF, ADAT, Bluetooth and Wifi contro
I am following the thread, mostly for my education, and there was never a single inflammatory post since the thread was started in February 2019. Anybody wonder why?
I am following the thread, mostly for my education, and there was never a single inflammatory post since the thread was started in February 2019. Anybody wonder why?
I did purchase a board and crystal in the previous run a couple a years ago. I fancied the technical clock performance. Haven't built it. At the same time as the board arrival I tried a quite good clock and compared it to a really cheap one but to my surprise I did not get the big improvement I had hoped for. So my temptation to build it was put a bit off. Then these new clocks came about being yet another 10 dB better at 1 Hz. This time it was the seller behaviour, it had changed, that stopped me from a purchase. It's not all about technology.... it must feel right in the heart also. I still think it is an excellent technology achievement.
I could have got one just to own it thanks to its performance, like a piece of art, but as I realise through my own experience and tests that it is not in the clock together with the aspects mentioned earlier, this sealed the (no)deal really.
For you who did buy one and felt it improved the sound of your DAC - good for you - the impact of it being real or imagined - doesn't matter really as long as you are satisfied.
Hey Andrea - show the improvement/difference by measurement in the output of a DAC - that will have an impact! Its not that hard:
- SNR
- FR
- IMD
- Level linearity
- Phase
Your argumentation now is something along the line of: use my 10000 rpm mixer (500rpm - buuu!) and your whipped cream will taste much more yummy. And look at my rpm measurement system - it can measure to +/- 0,00000001 rpm...
//
I could have got one just to own it thanks to its performance, like a piece of art, but as I realise through my own experience and tests that it is not in the clock together with the aspects mentioned earlier, this sealed the (no)deal really.
For you who did buy one and felt it improved the sound of your DAC - good for you - the impact of it being real or imagined - doesn't matter really as long as you are satisfied.
Hey Andrea - show the improvement/difference by measurement in the output of a DAC - that will have an impact! Its not that hard:
- SNR
- FR
- IMD
- Level linearity
- Phase
Your argumentation now is something along the line of: use my 10000 rpm mixer (500rpm - buuu!) and your whipped cream will taste much more yummy. And look at my rpm measurement system - it can measure to +/- 0,00000001 rpm...
//
FYI, helping rehab was the happy part for me
DIYaudio way down the list.To understand my motivation in buying WTMC, you need to understand what I seek in audio reproduction.
I value a full and natural sound. So I am going to borrow some comments from Aurthur Salvadore that resonate with my priorities which are provided by WTMC. He describes the accurate reproduction of low-level information.
He defines it as:
1. The harmonics that identify instruments and enables them to sound natural or "musical";
2. The decay of the individual notes and their harmonics;
3. The subtle, instantaneous shifts of dynamics and their intensity and emphasis (also known as micro-dynamics and dynamic shading) enabling musical "expression" to be sensed, heard and felt;
4. The sense of ambience and space, allowing the listener to both hear and be "there";
5. The separation, or absence of homogenization, of all of the above, reducing "boredom" and "listener fatigue";
6. and the sense of both continuity and a continual presence, which has also been described by others as "continuousness".
What motivated me to buy Andrea's clock? I heard what I perceived as a step towards my goals by using lower jitter clocks. Cheap sh#t on various CDP's I tinkered with, followed by FOX on a WaveIO; Iancanada test disposable clock followed by NDK. Then NDK SDA. Various tinkers to improve the clocks with vibration dampening or power supply improvements. All drove me in little tiny increments away from harsh grating digital towards my goals. Sometimes so small I'd certainly fail a double blind, but clearly heading in the right direction. Chris, who I have met and respect called my attention to Andrea's early WTMC GB. It had closed. On a whim and a flyer I asked him if he had space for one more. He had some 45/48MHz crystals left over so I grabbed a pair and implemented the 45. This was a surprise upgrade. Not a little "gee I think I like silver wire over copper" but a holy **** moment. I read about his plans to develop a 5MHz clock that had a Q factor of 3000 vs the 300 I found so satisfying. I plunked down $150 bucks on a flyer fully realizing it might make no further improvement on a 30 year old obsolete DAC chip. Not so. Another significant jump. Now in fairness, I did not immediately prefer the 5MHz clock. It is brutally revealing even with an old 1541a DAC. I had to go back and attend to some non linearities with my speaker crossover, and I still have a little system noise due to some minor ground loops in my currently unfinished implementation. But over time as it burned in, and developed it was clear that it is the most natural and pleasing sound I have heard.
So you have my motivation and my results with all its warts. I pretty much want to clean up the implementation and close up the chassis. Good enough to see me through. Time to stop tinkering and start collecting a better class of recorded music.
Last edited:
I can relate. My 45MHz clock is encased in 1/2 copper plate and then filled with sand. I have no way to measure it, but adding the sand definitely knocked my pleasure meter up a few notches.
Just my subjective 2 cents. Since substituting a Driscoll 22 family clock with doubler to 45 for a Accusilicon 45 family clock injected into a Chronus re-clocker synchronously feeding an ESS 9038 pro DAC, I can report that I am listening longer with more enjoyment and even experiencing meditative states triggered by the music. Every song is more engaging. Absolute polarity is revealed in a more pressing way. The bass is clearer and more dynamic. The depth and body of recordings that contain those qualities is greater, more immersive. Even the timbale balance of mono recordings are more realistically and enjoyably revealed. I look forward to the next group buy so that I can explore a 5 MHz family clock as the majority of my music is 44.1. Hard to imagine how my impression of the music might improve, or if the limits of my perception have been reached, but I am willing to discover for myself by listening over time and sensing my undoubtedly biased response. Listen and let listen or even listen and let measure, but my measure is the enjoyment I experience. Thanks to all who have had a part in developing this advancement in listening pleasure to our awareness.
PCB in Sand?
With Andreas initial 45MHz WTMC, the oscillator and squarer are on one little pcb and a second pcb heats the oven. There are two power supplies required which I did with low noise regs hardwired to the base pcb. I didn't want to cover the oven as its a little finicky and might melt. So the sand filled up to cover the regs to the base of the pcb. see first 3 pics.
With the 5MHz DRIXO I mounted the crystal inside a little foam block, put the pcb face down on a foam block with cutouts and then put a layer of sand over the whole PCB. That assembly was in a hard wood structure, mounted on silicone in an Al chassis. Last pic
With Andreas initial 45MHz WTMC, the oscillator and squarer are on one little pcb and a second pcb heats the oven. There are two power supplies required which I did with low noise regs hardwired to the base pcb. I didn't want to cover the oven as its a little finicky and might melt. So the sand filled up to cover the regs to the base of the pcb. see first 3 pics.
With the 5MHz DRIXO I mounted the crystal inside a little foam block, put the pcb face down on a foam block with cutouts and then put a layer of sand over the whole PCB. That assembly was in a hard wood structure, mounted on silicone in an Al chassis. Last pic
Attachments
Ok, so in a nutshell it was Andreas claim of ultra low close-in phase noise, as measured by the omnipotent Timepod, correct? So you made a purchase based on some objective criteria/measurements.
How does this decision match with your other claim, that you would never buy audio based on specification only, but based on listening? So your logical approach would be to first listen to the clock, then make a purchase decision, which you have not followed, correct?
You could argue, based on your previous experience with low jitter that Andreas product was top notch, but then how would this type of rationale match your other claim, that there are parameters affecting the SQ that we don't (or don't know how to) measure? Perhaps Andreas product was failing to provide the SQ you were hoping from, due to some other, not yet known, parameter?
So I think it is fair to say that you essentially gambled your cash to Andrea and, lucky you, you hit the SQ jackpot. I have no problem accepting this type scenario, it is very common in high end audio.
Known fact: only a minuscule percentage of the high end audio buyers would accept they made a wrong purchase, the higher the relative cost, the lower the probability this to happen. What they purchased HAS to sound good, because it was relatively expensive, sounds a familiar type of bias?
I would defer to Andrea to see if he believes that would be harmful to any of the components.
What I thought of doing was to put it in a light plastic bag and bury it in a shoe box full of sand. If you don't hear a clear improvement in sound, scrap the idea. Idea being you don't want to put stress on through hole components. Also, many could argue that this is extreme and not justified. They could be right. Only way to know is to try it in a way you do not destroy it. So I certainly can't advocate this approach. On one hand we are working with something we value and cannot be replaced. OTOH if it makes an improvement it might be good and there really is no reason to take it out. Kind of like potting a circuit board.
Yes. Like when you buy an outboard clock for your commercial DAC. 120v in and SMA clock signal out.
Hello,
Making a construction that isnt very sensitive to vibrations is not that eady.
FIRST you have to know what kind of vibrations you want to get rid off.
But like i wrote before if you do like it is described in the manual there will be an SMA parts on the circuit that normally is mounted onto the chassis to make the chassis work like a screen.
If you make a sturdy connection between the chassis and the SMA mounting ring the sand wont do that much. Ask someone who has worked with scales positioned on tables to measure extreme low weights.. Ask someone who has a turntable with a suspended subchassis.
Are these clocks (circuit boards) very sensitive to vibrations with certain frequencies????
Maybe these are things that are easier to investigate than noise?
Maybe Andrea should spend some time on this!
Greetings, eduard
Making a construction that isnt very sensitive to vibrations is not that eady.
FIRST you have to know what kind of vibrations you want to get rid off.
But like i wrote before if you do like it is described in the manual there will be an SMA parts on the circuit that normally is mounted onto the chassis to make the chassis work like a screen.
If you make a sturdy connection between the chassis and the SMA mounting ring the sand wont do that much. Ask someone who has worked with scales positioned on tables to measure extreme low weights.. Ask someone who has a turntable with a suspended subchassis.
Are these clocks (circuit boards) very sensitive to vibrations with certain frequencies????
Maybe these are things that are easier to investigate than noise?
Maybe Andrea should spend some time on this!
Greetings, eduard
Right you are on all points.
I experimented over several iterations and realized improvements towards my goals as I used clocks that measured better. But these clocks never exceeded $15. Buying into Andrea's gig was an unusual risk for me as now I was throwing effort and >$100 at something with no way to know if it would be worth it other than Andreas story. For me it worked. Highly recommended if you can afford it.
I did audition a multi k$ Mutech outboard clock with specs that approach WTMC. To me a major improvement over the stock clock in the commercial DAC.
Then an even bigger leap to abandon a perfectly good WTMC with barely 18months of use for his opus. Not sure this was sane. I did it because there was a one time opportunity to get the best.
A 5MHz Laptech crystal was never going to be available commercially, and there likely will never be this level of performance available for this price.
So I thought why not? Close the clock question once and for all. Certainly not so much of an improvement to justify mothballing a really good $100 clock for a $300 clock. But would I sell it for $300? No. $1,000? Nope
Why do I think all this perceived sound is not imagined? I installed an NDK SDA 48MHz in one slot and the 5MHz DRIXO in the other. Then you can toggle back and forth between tracks. Take a track you know well at 96k and downsample the track to 45k. The NDK will play the 96k and DRIXO the 45k. The NDK gets the advantage of the original hires material vs the lowres with conversion errors for DRIXO. To me, no contest. The low res on DRIXO is the one I prefer.
Last edited:
So, while admitting your SQ experience is strictly personal, how can you recommend the same purchase to anybody else? Are you suggesting everybody should gamble $150 and cross their fingers?
Not asking about the details of your attempt to compare clocks, because I already know the answer(s).
People gamble on every piece of audio equipment in their chain, unless they have the luxury of demoing them first (even then a short demo wont tell you a whole lot), in DIY you must build first so that is never an option.
People buy and sell all the time because finding the perfect gear isn't easy (DIY is far more efficient path to perfection I think, time wise and money wise), I guess you will have some guys who buy one set and hold onto it even if they hate it because an ASR review told them it's audibly transparent.
People buy and sell all the time because finding the perfect gear isn't easy (DIY is far more efficient path to perfection I think, time wise and money wise), I guess you will have some guys who buy one set and hold onto it even if they hate it because an ASR review told them it's audibly transparent.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.