Hi lasercut,
Actually, for many years now we are easily able to measure impairments well below what can be heard. I have proved it in my lab through a lot of listening experiments with many people. I've also been able to predict what people would hear. I am not alone in this.
I happen to use an audio analyzer called an RTX 6001, which was developed by a member here. I bought one in a group buy. Used with M.I. (Multi Instrument) software the performance is on the same level as an Audio Precision test set (better than the System one). There are people with the AP (many) and more with a Keysight and UPM analyzer. So there are many of us using various brands of equipment that routinely measure things beyond the ability to hear them. The argument that anyone can somehow hear beyond our ability to measure it has long been untrue. It was true in the 80s, but back then I used a good THD meter and ran the output of that to a spectrum analyzer. I was measuring things beyond what anyone with a simple meter could measure, and I was not alone. So back then I was figuring out how to interpret what could be measured vs what people were hearing and was able to correct many issues in design and components. So we have been looking at a spectrum for decades, not a simple number on a meter. There has also been something called a tuned AC voltmeter, HP 3581x that many designers were using. You can tune in a frequency with a 1 Hz filter and read the level. Record the harmonic series (2nd, 3rd and so on) and you could figure out the actual THD and know the amplitudes of each order. A mental picture of the distortion. I also have an HP 3580A analogue spectrum analyzer with a 1 Hz bandwidth. Cool instrument. These things allowed a window into audio performance most people were unaware of. They were in use in the audio industry, so known. I also have an HP 35665A Audio Spectrum Analyzer (they call it a Signal Analyzer) as well. The RTX is a quantum leap beyond everything else.
You can see the progression of instrumentation over the decades, a steady improvement where we are now limited by the noise floor of the instruments (well below the noise floor of audio equipment) and we use math averaging to reduce the audio equipment noise floor so we can see what is going down below that level.
End result? We easily and routinely measure things below the threshold of your ability to hear. We can measure time events finer than our brains can process it. There is nothing you can hear (for real) that cannot be measured. That is the state of the art right now. So any claim to hear beyond measurements means that person is using old test equipment. Some of us are up to date and that statement is completely false. Not very romantic I know.
Now to the people who claim I, or we, don't listen. Another falsehood. Everyone I have talked to listens to their work as well as measures it. Habit? I don't know, we just do. So calling us deaf or people who don't enjoy music is actually pretty insulting - and ignorant (using the proper definition) since I am consistently on record stating that we listen as well. Audio is what we do, we have the tools for it. Want to join the club? Learn what equipment is out there, buy it and learn to use it. Become adept at interpreting what you are seeing. Then, maybe then you can comment knowledgeably. But then, you would be arguing from "this side" I guess. You would have knowledge and know the truth.
-Chris
Actually, for many years now we are easily able to measure impairments well below what can be heard. I have proved it in my lab through a lot of listening experiments with many people. I've also been able to predict what people would hear. I am not alone in this.
I happen to use an audio analyzer called an RTX 6001, which was developed by a member here. I bought one in a group buy. Used with M.I. (Multi Instrument) software the performance is on the same level as an Audio Precision test set (better than the System one). There are people with the AP (many) and more with a Keysight and UPM analyzer. So there are many of us using various brands of equipment that routinely measure things beyond the ability to hear them. The argument that anyone can somehow hear beyond our ability to measure it has long been untrue. It was true in the 80s, but back then I used a good THD meter and ran the output of that to a spectrum analyzer. I was measuring things beyond what anyone with a simple meter could measure, and I was not alone. So back then I was figuring out how to interpret what could be measured vs what people were hearing and was able to correct many issues in design and components. So we have been looking at a spectrum for decades, not a simple number on a meter. There has also been something called a tuned AC voltmeter, HP 3581x that many designers were using. You can tune in a frequency with a 1 Hz filter and read the level. Record the harmonic series (2nd, 3rd and so on) and you could figure out the actual THD and know the amplitudes of each order. A mental picture of the distortion. I also have an HP 3580A analogue spectrum analyzer with a 1 Hz bandwidth. Cool instrument. These things allowed a window into audio performance most people were unaware of. They were in use in the audio industry, so known. I also have an HP 35665A Audio Spectrum Analyzer (they call it a Signal Analyzer) as well. The RTX is a quantum leap beyond everything else.
You can see the progression of instrumentation over the decades, a steady improvement where we are now limited by the noise floor of the instruments (well below the noise floor of audio equipment) and we use math averaging to reduce the audio equipment noise floor so we can see what is going down below that level.
End result? We easily and routinely measure things below the threshold of your ability to hear. We can measure time events finer than our brains can process it. There is nothing you can hear (for real) that cannot be measured. That is the state of the art right now. So any claim to hear beyond measurements means that person is using old test equipment. Some of us are up to date and that statement is completely false. Not very romantic I know.
Now to the people who claim I, or we, don't listen. Another falsehood. Everyone I have talked to listens to their work as well as measures it. Habit? I don't know, we just do. So calling us deaf or people who don't enjoy music is actually pretty insulting - and ignorant (using the proper definition) since I am consistently on record stating that we listen as well. Audio is what we do, we have the tools for it. Want to join the club? Learn what equipment is out there, buy it and learn to use it. Become adept at interpreting what you are seeing. Then, maybe then you can comment knowledgeably. But then, you would be arguing from "this side" I guess. You would have knowledge and know the truth.
-Chris
exclusive,
Don't lament too much. Many people have been fully supported here. They all have one thing in common. They provided answers and proved their claims. I spent a few thousand dollars on my RTX developed by jens. Another member developed super low distortion oscillators and many of us bought some of those (I have). Many amplifiers and preamps were designed here, and I have bought many of those. Some were community efforts, some are in the DIYAudio store.
So support? There is more evidence that people are fully supported as long as they answer questions and prove their claims. The only reason Andrea is running into tough questions is that he is unable or unwilling to answer some very basic questions that you people should have been asking of him long before I got here.
Look at the other successful projects and compare how the developer handles questions, then look at the ones that are problematic. Each group has a lot in common with projects in those groups.
-Chris
Don't lament too much. Many people have been fully supported here. They all have one thing in common. They provided answers and proved their claims. I spent a few thousand dollars on my RTX developed by jens. Another member developed super low distortion oscillators and many of us bought some of those (I have). Many amplifiers and preamps were designed here, and I have bought many of those. Some were community efforts, some are in the DIYAudio store.
So support? There is more evidence that people are fully supported as long as they answer questions and prove their claims. The only reason Andrea is running into tough questions is that he is unable or unwilling to answer some very basic questions that you people should have been asking of him long before I got here.
Look at the other successful projects and compare how the developer handles questions, then look at the ones that are problematic. Each group has a lot in common with projects in those groups.
-Chris
peufeu,
you know we have developed this oscillators to be used in digital audio, so you should know, although their short term stability is very good, they are not suitable to be used in telecommunication, radar, GPS and so on like the Wenzel one.
There is not the oven so the long term stability is poor, there is no frequency pull ability since the varactors have been removed.
We don't know about the aging, it could poor since we have set the crystal drive level for the best close in phase noise.
And again we care less than zero about profit, can you please understand this is an hobby?
Andrea
Hi Chris,
here we reed things a bit different. You seem to be looking for a product while I am looking at ideas. A project being commercially successful is not of much merit. You demand answers because you are evaluating the solution (product), while I like to know the reasoning behind the effort. What was the flaw discovered in commercial products the he tough can be done better or in a different way and why his way is better and in what respect. So far criticism apart the project has ignited some new ideas (at least for me). Even if the whole leads to a dead end some good is extracted along the way. Unnecessary criticism makes people protective and unsecure and as a result they stop sharing.
here we reed things a bit different. You seem to be looking for a product while I am looking at ideas. A project being commercially successful is not of much merit. You demand answers because you are evaluating the solution (product), while I like to know the reasoning behind the effort. What was the flaw discovered in commercial products the he tough can be done better or in a different way and why his way is better and in what respect. So far criticism apart the project has ignited some new ideas (at least for me). Even if the whole leads to a dead end some good is extracted along the way. Unnecessary criticism makes people protective and unsecure and as a result they stop sharing.
Yet another time the same stinkin' s***.
The self-acclaimed Golden Ear Brigade has to rely on the self-procaimed golden-ear-ness
because they could never ever win a technological argument. First because they do not
know what's in their hardware ( hint: unpublished) and even if it was open for everyone
to see, they could not understand it because it takes some years of full-time hard work
just to understand the basics and then some more years to understand ADCs / DACs
OR oscillators that are state -of-the-art
Then it is much easier for the work-shy to proclaim that they have a god-given sensitivity
to hear assumed or hallucinated deficiencies. If it was really given by someone, then by
the devil; life would be cheaper and nicer without. And with enough open-mindedness,
the brain might fall out. It seems it happens here from time to time.
Another invention of the ankle-biters is that spending 10 years to become a good
engineer somehow destroys one's ability to hear. If anyone has an impaired hearing
ability, it's the musicians in the orchestra pit. That abuse takes it's toll. Yet some
musicians like it when I give them a USB stick with good music on it, it's the
musical contents and not the dBc's.
Yes, I see. For you, it must increase your little ego. For me, the best investment was
the B&W 804s, I admit that B&W know more about speakers than me.
And the Krell amplifier that I bought from a Golden Ear who knew nothing about
electronics but felt he could improve it. The price was so low that it still was a bargain
if I would only keep the box, transformer, power electrolytics and cooled transistors
and build a different amplifier otherwise. It was enough to undo the sh*tty Golden
Ear Mods to bring it back to a healthy life.
Enlightment for you? Even God said "I've done a lot of wonders, but give me a break..."
If a capacitor or a cable is good, that is determined by the HP/Agilent bridge,
pretty fast. WRT the 1000€, the fool and his money are soon parted.
Gerhard
Last edited:
Hi Gerhard,
That was a well considered response. I fear that ilgavro is too steeped in audio lore to ever understand. His outlook is romantic to the point where he just can't accept the reality of the situation. Expect this type of posting to never evolve with him.
Hi exclusive,
Not really. I'm looking for the ideas as well. What Andrea just said makes sense. I haven't seen his oscillator, so I can only hope he has blocked air currents from reaching the crystal. I will assume he has as that would affect short term stability for sure.
I will give Andrea credit where it is due, but basic questions need to be answered and he should have already investigated these things. That's all.
-Chris
That was a well considered response. I fear that ilgavro is too steeped in audio lore to ever understand. His outlook is romantic to the point where he just can't accept the reality of the situation. Expect this type of posting to never evolve with him.
Hi exclusive,
Not really. I'm looking for the ideas as well. What Andrea just said makes sense. I haven't seen his oscillator, so I can only hope he has blocked air currents from reaching the crystal. I will assume he has as that would affect short term stability for sure.
I will give Andrea credit where it is due, but basic questions need to be answered and he should have already investigated these things. That's all.
-Chris
Thanks for the insight but your post is too unfocused.
You chose not to respond to second option in the post which was 'or should be impossible to hear' which is applicable to this clock.
We already have clear measurements of the oscillators superior performance,
we now also have measurements of analogue improvements with these clocks.
You can claim it's impossible to hear but the only way of settling anything at this point is with listening tests, and these are difficult to conduct, difficult to verify and inherently flawed, and the real owners are happy to go on just 'believing' the differences are real.
If we are staying focused on the actual topic, there is no claim of 'deafness' here, it is fact that you have not heard the clocks for yourself, or more importantly the systems they are being used in by the ones you're responding to.
Last edited:
Hi lasercut,
Just forgot really.
So far there has been zero proof against other existing oscillators, nor any idea what the level of impairment exists in the material you listen to is. These are very basic questions a thinking person should want to know.
So allow the thinking people to ask for answers. Feel free to spend money on psychics for a reading to make you feel better.
-Chris
Just forgot really.
No, it's good performance, but we have measurements, yes.
No, if you knew anything about experiments you would understand that those findings are not valid to prove anything. This was mentioned but I guess you didn't read or don't comprehend.
Remember the carburetor that the gas companies were supposed to have bought from the inventor and hidden from the rest of us? All claims, no proof and turned out to have never existed. There are gas saving devices that don't work sold with "proof". Then, all kind of cables, green markers for CDs, green LEDs for the inside of CD players, on and on.
So far there has been zero proof against other existing oscillators, nor any idea what the level of impairment exists in the material you listen to is. These are very basic questions a thinking person should want to know.
So allow the thinking people to ask for answers. Feel free to spend money on psychics for a reading to make you feel better.
-Chris
My claim was that the phase noise of the DRIXO oscillator is in the region of the Wenzel one.
And a professional RF guy would seem to agree:
"The oscillators of Andrea and his Co are absolutely state of the art with regard to phase noise. The removal of the oven and maybe varicaps for locking are intended and agreed upon by the kit builder crowd. They add nothing to this application.
The phase noise IS on par with Wenzel, the crystal limits the performance."
Sound Quality Vs. Measurements
Pay attention 007! Even I got that
I should, the "bug" was in my eyes when reading the number of FFT points, it's 8,388,608 one order of magnitude larger than I thought at a quick look. The process gain is 10log(N/2)=66dB (not 22dB that I mentioned) and the ADC SNR comes to -170dB+66dB=-104dB, exactly what I would expect from the RTX ADC 24bit sigma-delta chip.
So the "gap" that needs to be explained is not 78dB but only a more reasonable 36dB. Now, only if we could have the same DAC measured with the original and the Andrea supa-dupa clock. I don't think there will be any measurable difference though, and about the audibility, let's not go there now.
Hi Andrea,
Okay, so it's a crystal oscillator. I am getting familiar with it simply from description and my existing knowledge of oscillator design and existing units. I have never tested the ones inside DACs and CD players. Have you? They may be close to yours, and they may be all that is needed in that there may not be any real improvement by improving them. You have not investigated that it seems.
You're going to get that performance with a half decent crystal and proper drive. So how do you compare to existing products? They will be on the same order as yours. Notice that he said:
Okay, so it's a crystal oscillator. I am getting familiar with it simply from description and my existing knowledge of oscillator design and existing units. I have never tested the ones inside DACs and CD players. Have you? They may be close to yours, and they may be all that is needed in that there may not be any real improvement by improving them. You have not investigated that it seems.
You're going to get that performance with a half decent crystal and proper drive. So how do you compare to existing products? They will be on the same order as yours. Notice that he said:
Hi lasercut,
I'm not going to train you. That takes time, text books (or PDFs) and my training cost thousands. But the resources are out there for you to do it for free. Some info is right here. Knock yourself out!
-Chris
That is what happens when the experiment hasn't been well designed. As he stated, it was a quick test and did not apply to this oscillator or situation. It was a proof of concept more than anything.
I'm not going to train you. That takes time, text books (or PDFs) and my training cost thousands. But the resources are out there for you to do it for free. Some info is right here. Knock yourself out!
-Chris
Arrived at the same conclusions here as regards Supercaps feeding the Clocks and doublers. And also trickle charging the Caps has no negative or audible effect on playback.
Running 8 sets of 2 Supercaps with separate regulators feeding each set and I can turn off the regulator's while listening for extended periods and no difference in the musical pleasure.
And what did you think which limited an oscillator's performance at these phase noise levels, the electronics?
Andrea
Yes, but the Wenzels can be tuned. The varicaps tend to eat
quite a few dB. And Wenzel have bought Crowen Crystals, so they
do not need a GB. And making a few oscillators is not making them
from a recipe. Yes, I have done 100 MHz / 100 Hz / -145 dB,
tunable. That works if someone pays for it, for just one sample
that can be shot into space. Look at Jim L. from NASA who tells
how 1000 blanks are used to get a single good one to fly.
He's on the time nuts list.
I hear that the new crystals by Morion and an English company
are in a different league. Intended to close the gap that Oscilloquartz
left when they were bought, and then some above that.
Prices are astronomical, and even if you have the $$$, that does
not mean that you get them. Politics.
And SC is not the top of the evolution. There are active MASERS
for short term stability, coupled to Cesium for long term.
SC cut is nice to have.
Gerhard
quite a few dB. And Wenzel have bought Crowen Crystals, so they
do not need a GB. And making a few oscillators is not making them
from a recipe. Yes, I have done 100 MHz / 100 Hz / -145 dB,
tunable. That works if someone pays for it, for just one sample
that can be shot into space. Look at Jim L. from NASA who tells
how 1000 blanks are used to get a single good one to fly.
He's on the time nuts list.
I hear that the new crystals by Morion and an English company
are in a different league. Intended to close the gap that Oscilloquartz
left when they were bought, and then some above that.
Prices are astronomical, and even if you have the $$$, that does
not mean that you get them. Politics.
And SC is not the top of the evolution. There are active MASERS
for short term stability, coupled to Cesium for long term.
SC cut is nice to have.
Gerhard
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.