No issues at all, as long one keeps an eye on the BS meter and, when it pegs in the red step back and think. Luckily for me there are plenty of people who keep me on the straight and narrow path on here.
All very true. I have no problem with people getting pleasure from their systems even if they would send me screaming from the room. To re-quote Nelson Pass 'It's entertainment, not dialysis' . But measurements are the only common ground we have. subjective listening experiences are generally meaningless unless you are in the room at the time.
My first Wife's grandmother had the same. She was overwhelmed at family gatherings as she couldn't pick out any conversation from the background noise. It struck me at the time as I love decoding individual conversations in a crowd and it fascinates me how the brain can do that.
And I will admit I am a soundstage freak. I love that illusion even though I accept it is neither real, nor necessarily accurate. My system, my rules and no claims of fidelity
Audibly transparent is audibly perfect for sound replaying gear. You can find measurably better ones but if it's way beyond audible threshold, what good does it do other than bragging opportunity or just makes one feel good about knowing that it's measurably better?
The last audio thing that sent me screaming from the room was the much praised Thiel CS3.5 speaker set. Wonder why JA did not perform a full set of measurements on this abomination Thiel CS3.5 loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
I agree that it is very difficult to isolate just the x-tall. In fact when using a frequency doubler and solid core cable between it and the clock it seemed best to me to treat it all as one unit. I placed them top to top with a large gap pad in between to dampen and deaden the boxes. At the moment simple zip ties are used to provide some constrained layer damping. In the photo the combined box is standing on very compliant feet. I will try suspending all from elastic next and report ifI hear an improvement. I do suspect that keeping the internal x-tall in a vertical or on edge orientation is preferential to operating it flat but this also needs to be verified. Keep having fun with this, thanks again for the opportunity to play.
Caveat emptor, but yes, I recommend it.
Perhaps this gives people who are interested more info than I had. I took a well educated guess based on years of experience with clock upgrades. Small leap of faith. Maybe less for someone who values my opinion.
We all have to make our own purchase decisions. I resonate with Nelson Pass, Arthur Salvatore, Lukas Fikus and Herb Reichert. Fikus ranted about TDA1541a, 6n2p, 6n6p and choke loaded power supplies. My system is thick with that stuff and I'm glad I followed his lead.
Nelson raves about slot loaded open baffle and, I think, hmmm let's try that!
Yes. Like when you buy an outboard clock for your commercial DAC. 120v in and SMA clock signal out.
Very nice. Tend to take a more utilitarian view of clocks myself.
The picture is now almost complete.
So Audio related decisions should be based on "trust him", followed by "trust me, 'cause I trust him", not on hard facts. Last step: tell me what's the difference between your approach in Audio and a Religion of your choice, with you in the role of a missionary.
And some are offended when High End Audio is compared to quackery...
So Audio related decisions should be based on "trust him", followed by "trust me, 'cause I trust him", not on hard facts. Last step: tell me what's the difference between your approach in Audio and a Religion of your choice, with you in the role of a missionary.
And some are offended when High End Audio is compared to quackery...
I have explored using sand. Aluminium oxide was recommended by my transformer guy. It's electrically inert and quite dense. I used it in power supplies. They got quite heavy.
Mass is your friend when fighting external vibrations.
However I believe Andrea did some tests and saw no influence from vibration.
Mass is your friend when fighting external vibrations.
However I believe Andrea did some tests and saw no influence from vibration.
Andrea- re research The research that has been done in a scientific way is limited and the jitter thresholds were quite high by today's standards. It's one of the roadblocks that needs to be properly addressed to validate the need for phase noise 40dB(?) better than that research suggests.
Chris- What you can do with the time interval analyzer that a timepod can't is measure the jitter in the audio output. Your analyzer is good to 200 pS. You could measure a 100 Hz sine or square from a dac and see the min max and standard deviation. Actually a submultiple of the sample rate would be cleaner. Which would be interesting. Swap clocks and see if it changes. I'm traveling but I'll explore this with my HP5370 (20pS one shot resolution) when I return. I have a 24.576 oxco with voltage trim I may be able to graft onto a dac to to see how much gets from in to out.
Chris- What you can do with the time interval analyzer that a timepod can't is measure the jitter in the audio output. Your analyzer is good to 200 pS. You could measure a 100 Hz sine or square from a dac and see the min max and standard deviation. Actually a submultiple of the sample rate would be cleaner. Which would be interesting. Swap clocks and see if it changes. I'm traveling but I'll explore this with my HP5370 (20pS one shot resolution) when I return. I have a 24.576 oxco with voltage trim I may be able to graft onto a dac to to see how much gets from in to out.
I trust only myself, but I am glad for company. When several of us all “fall under the spell” with agreed upon impressions, the “scientific” dogma that denies even the possibility of such a consensus being in any way factual is to me more suspect than the theory of common delusion. Digital audio is a coding process. Proving the integrity of the code does not tell us anything about the ultimate decoding and interpretation of the message except that it might be possible according to the possibly incomplete theory's the code is based on. The full system includes yes the 1/2 called the recording or encoding which will always remains a limitation and continues all the way to ones personal experience or interpretation of all that led up to the recreation in our brains. Several friends have admittedly damaged hearing yet they can discern similar differences to those which I hear and agree to similar descriptions of those differences. We have learned to decode with error correction if you will. The message makes it through even if the objective measurements would suggest that it isn’t possible. I would argue that the limits of our perception are yet to be discovered and that we still are looking for the keys under the streetlight because the light is better even though we know that they were dropped somewhere else. One last example, a musician friend could derive great enjoyment and meaning from a cheap mono cassette recorder placed on top of a piano. His internal processing allowed him to hear another musicians encoding of meaning into the music, discover it, decode it, learn from it, enjoy it, and even respond to it in a musical conversation. The better the audio channel the broader the potential audience. Digital audio is simply the encoding of amplitude over time but it assumes perfect timing and correct amplitude while demanding filtering of changes outside of the frequency band. Wrong timing or wrong amplitude and the result is limited. A small hint digital audio is always a low and late approximation, but not to worry too much so is all live experience.
It is. But not in the sense you are certainly thinking. Entertaining more like Samuel Beckett, Harold Pinter, Eugène Ionesco and Fernando Arrabal.
I’m afraid a clock jitter does not map to an analog output signal jitter. It maps, at the analog output, to good old noise. Which is what I suggested a long time ago to be used as a metric for evaluating clock performances. No need for a time interval analyzer to do this type of evaluation, a decent sound card would be good enough.
syn08, anatech, billshurv etc
you are completely wrong.
we all have solid experience on how jitter impact the SQ, well before joining this group buy.
we have already been in constant search for better clocks based on the experience and glad that there is Jetterati.
we only asked about the dBc/Hz and never asked Andrea if we will get better SQ with his clock, as this is an extremely silly and stupid question to ask.
your experience only mean that you dont need a better clock with your own ears and gears, its just 1 sample, and you concluded that the millions of samples out there must be wrong based on your own sample, and you called it science.
you are completely wrong.
we all have solid experience on how jitter impact the SQ, well before joining this group buy.
we have already been in constant search for better clocks based on the experience and glad that there is Jetterati.
we only asked about the dBc/Hz and never asked Andrea if we will get better SQ with his clock, as this is an extremely silly and stupid question to ask.
your experience only mean that you dont need a better clock with your own ears and gears, its just 1 sample, and you concluded that the millions of samples out there must be wrong based on your own sample, and you called it science.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.