Who knows, if the experiment was done the usual way it is done here, with HF clocks in a mess of flying wires, there could be a big difference in EMI
Is that a promise...
But seriously, this should have been done a long time ago, would've solved a lot of problems here.
The decision was made not to divulge schematics and money is being charged so seems like the appropriate thing to do.
TCD
It's not difficult to get the schematic of the DRIXO oscillator by reverse engineer.
It's a two layers PCB, most of the components are listed in the BOM we have published for builging semi-finished board, the few remaining parts are clearly identifiable.
As for the frequency doubler it is even easier since the components are very few.
But Gerhard aside, someone is really interested in discussing "Building a low phase noise / jitter crystal oscillator"?
I do not think.
The schematics of the previous oscillators have all been published and the technical questions about the designs in this thread have been almost nil.
Therefore speaking about cooperation for building things is quite curious when really the is no interest about .
That would be the same for a sine out of the DAC, but the timepod
would not go low enough for most frequencies of interest.
(unless patched)
Nevertheless with the standard analog measurement this holds true
(ring mixer + delay).
Maybe the Holme setup does it as is or can be re-parameterized.
would not go low enough for most frequencies of interest.
(unless patched)
Nevertheless with the standard analog measurement this holds true
(ring mixer + delay).
Maybe the Holme setup does it as is or can be re-parameterized.
Gerhard,
I believe we can get the Timepod to go low enough for most frequencies of interest with up conversion.
The real problem is designing a suitable image reject up converter for such low frequencies, getting the quadrature is a pain.
Anyway we will try this way as soon as we find the time since we would like to measure the phase noise of the LRCK at 44kHz, not much far from audio frequencies. so the problem is the same.
I believe we can get the Timepod to go low enough for most frequencies of interest with up conversion.
The real problem is designing a suitable image reject up converter for such low frequencies, getting the quadrature is a pain.
Anyway we will try this way as soon as we find the time since we would like to measure the phase noise of the LRCK at 44kHz, not much far from audio frequencies. so the problem is the same.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 537459
you did not understand much of what the moderator said ... I understand that you are outside the European but why bring your frustrations here !?
I share my experience, and that of my audiophile friends around me, if you don't think it's possible it's not my fault, but please do your tests before judging and offending as well as playing only with the measurements.
I repeat again, in the audio many things are not measurable but they create many differences, if you do not agree with this I'm sorry, but you are in the wrong forum.
so for you not even the ethernet cable contributes to the sound quality !?
signal cables !?
power cables !?
all snake oil and big money for the big companies that sell them ??
if the audio was based only on measurements this forum would make no sense to exist, we would all have a nearly perfect sound system and you would go somewhere else to take your writings.
I believe in measurements, but I also believe that the ear in the audio field is fundamental after the measurements.
D
Deleted member 537459
in terms of measurements I don't know, I can say that dozens of companies already do what I have tried.
so I didn't invent much. the difference is comparable to an upgrade on the audio clock oscillators. even a linear power supply and capacitor change of the switch itself there are great improvements.
clearly in the field of liquid music via ethernet such as roon or volumio and the like.
seeing is believing. the silence between the instruments, the focus, the more real bass, everything better
Of course, but sorry it's not our way.
We prefer using a tool with a solid time base and cross correlation.
But it's simply our subjective opinion.
Really, the used transistors part(s) is still unknown to me.. brand and company... or second source?
Also the question about the Power ground, should this be connected to the chassis or not, while the floating output as SMA should be connected to the chassis ground.
In other words, if the power is totally floating, we will get soon or later in the question about maximal voltage from output ground and power ground.
Hp
If you dislike them you can simply short C36 and C39 to ground.
We don't do this but in the end it's diy audio.
About the transistors, I have wrote in the thread we have used standard 3904 and we have not got any improvements in replacing them with the low noise SSM2212 (used in the EXO oscillator).
We don't do this but in the end it's diy audio.
About the transistors, I have wrote in the thread we have used standard 3904 and we have not got any improvements in replacing them with the low noise SSM2212 (used in the EXO oscillator).
Maybe the problem can be solved with just larger Coupling capacitors and asking
JM to remove the 400 KHz lower limit for F_in enforced by the software.
But 2 equal oscillators and two ring mixers with the IF port taken as input should be
also easy. Single sideband mixers should not be needed, the mirror frequency can be
far away. Equal oscillators should abound at your place.
The input Wilkinson divider with isolation from DC may require some thinking.
The built-in one probably won't do the job properly
(without checking the MCL datasheet)
There are also DDS chips that produce sin+cos at the same time. Phase noise is
quite good, esp. at these low frequencies, btdt.
Cheers, Gerhard
so I didn't invent much. the difference is comparable to an upgrade on the audio clock oscillators. even a linear power supply and capacitor change of the switch itself there are great improvements.
clearly in the field of liquid music via ethernet such as roon or volumio and the like.
seeing is believing. the silence between the instruments, the focus, the more real bass, everything better[/QUOTE]
Hello,
Because i asked Doede to make a '' pile '' of printed circuit boards to construct my '' own '' regulator i will use that one for several devices in my gear where they could be beneficial.
Like the modem supplied by the '' telephone/internet/cable company '' This comes with the cheapest supply possible. SO if i can make a diy solution, that even has a choke input i can just try and see if it works. IF a '' better '' ethernet cable gives better sound ( still using basic cable) then the supply should give an improvement too.
Will build one for my Etherregen.
Already have one for my Roon nucleus.
clearly in the field of liquid music via ethernet such as roon or volumio and the like.
seeing is believing. the silence between the instruments, the focus, the more real bass, everything better[/QUOTE]
Hello,
Because i asked Doede to make a '' pile '' of printed circuit boards to construct my '' own '' regulator i will use that one for several devices in my gear where they could be beneficial.
Like the modem supplied by the '' telephone/internet/cable company '' This comes with the cheapest supply possible. SO if i can make a diy solution, that even has a choke input i can just try and see if it works. IF a '' better '' ethernet cable gives better sound ( still using basic cable) then the supply should give an improvement too.
Will build one for my Etherregen.
Already have one for my Roon nucleus.
I don't think John Miles would like to change the software, he would have reason to laugh at this request (you know what time-nuts members think about audio).
The Timepod and its software have been designed for RF purpose and not for audio.
But it seems the problem here is that everyone is in a hurry.
I'm sorry but we're not in this rush, we will build the up converter taking our time and then we will make the measurements following our own way.
Of course, everyone is free to allay their anxiety by following their own path, by doing the appropriate measurements in the way he deems most appropriate.
Last edited:
Probably had no effect on data integrity. May have had some influence on conducted noise through wired ethernet.
Although I have not personally done any testing on it, people I tend to believe told me wired ethernet is often a problem for some audio systems. Better isolation from noise getting into the dac might be a more appropriate solution. May depend if noise is getting into other reproduction equipment too.
Last edited:
Demian,
it could be possible, but I wouldn't rewrite the cross correlation software since someone (John Miles) has already made this for us.
Of course, everyone is free to write the software.
Good luck.
Andrea
I am well aware of what other companies do. Melco will sell you an audiophile switch for £2000.
It is not for me to tell you what you hear or do not hear but knowing how this stuff works it is hard, bordering on impossible, for me to accept what is claimed without some demonstrable mechanism by which these improvements take place.
If it works for you then it is all to the good but you won't see me going down that path anytime soon.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.