tube clock - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Digital Line Level

Digital Line Level DACs, Digital Crossovers, Equalizers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2nd January 2009, 11:40 PM   #1
jitter is offline jitter  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
jitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Default tube clock

Today I went to my favourite high end store to listen to a few DACs tot get my Shigaclone project started. As I was waiting for the invoice to be made up I noticed a "AH! Njoe Tjoeb 4000" (google it). This basically is a modified Marantz 4000 (although they call it an OEM 4000).

I knew these guys were into modifying output stages (tubes) but my eye fell on two very strange boards that looked to be clocks...but they use a miniature tube in it...

I asked them, and yes, they were clocks (AH! Super Tjoeb Clock). They claim to be the first to use a tube in a clock board. Their own site doesn't show pictures of the clock (yet?) but I found these on a Japanese site :

http://www.audiolab.co.jp/A-lb/img/stc/top_l/top_l1.gif
http://www.audiolab.co.jp/A-lb/img/stc/top_l/top_l4.gif

Have a look...
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2009, 06:58 AM   #2
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Here you go:

http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1284
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2009, 07:46 AM   #3
jitter is offline jitter  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
jitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally posted by Cauhtemoc
Here you go:

http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1284
Hmmm, I stopped reading on the second page. Seemed like a bunch of guys fighting over the validity of the tube clock without any first hand experience with the thing. I guess that's a typical human reaction to a radically different approach (I wonder if 47Labs' nonOS, unfiltered DAC caused a similar stir).

I may read the remaining eight pages sometime later later to see if there actually is someone in there who has listened/measured the modded 4000. Thanx for the link anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2009, 07:56 AM   #4
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
47 labs nonos you mean?


Click the image to open in full size.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2009, 08:49 AM   #5
jitter is offline jitter  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
jitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Looks...awful, but how does it sound?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2009, 11:27 AM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by jitter
Hmmm, I stopped reading on the second page. Seemed like a bunch of guys fighting over the validity of the tube clock without any first hand experience with the thing. I guess that's a typical human reaction to a radically different approach (I wonder if 47Labs' nonOS, unfiltered DAC caused a similar stir).

I may read the remaining eight pages sometime later later to see if there actually is someone in there who has listened/measured the modded 4000. Thanx for the link anyway.
Think of it what you want, but people like Jocko and Guido Tent are as much of experts as it gets on this matter.

The idea to use a tube for a low jitter oscillator is ridiculous. Put simply, to get low jitter you need low noise, and a tube is a hundred times noisier than a good transistor. Add to this a poor unregulated power supply and the fact that tubes are microphonic. The designer also makes ridiculous claims about the clock, such as the comparator used is so fast that jitter does not occur.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2009, 07:17 PM   #7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Prima Luna PL8 from the Netherlands/China uses a "tube clock" as well.
__________________
Thanx!
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2009, 10:09 PM   #8
jitter is offline jitter  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
jitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
I took the time to read the whole thread. Luckily the discussion became a little more constructive just after the point where I had stopped reading this morning.

Quote:
The idea to use a tube for a low jitter oscillator is ridiculous
There were some (IMO) valid reasons given why this I would agee with this statement. Yet there were also some reasons given why a tube could work.

I'm actually not really much wiser as the measurements that were quoted in the thread were either not comparable or highish because of power supply related noise. The tube clock was never measured as a separate entity.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
All-tube digital clock Nixie Tubes / Valves 17 23rd July 2012 04:19 PM
Tube Crystal Clock Oscillator poynton Tubes / Valves 3 25th August 2008 05:32 PM
Tube clock??? quantran Digital Source 9 23rd January 2007 01:54 PM
CS8412, PMD100, PCM63, onboard clock + [word] clock output implementation stolbovoy Digital Source 7 3rd December 2004 07:18 PM
Kwak clock versus Tent clock rbroer Digital Source 22 21st September 2003 01:20 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:37 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2