diyAudio

diyAudio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/)
-   Digital Source (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/)
-   -   Finally, an affordable CD Transport: the Shigaclone story (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/120229-finally-affordable-cd-transport-shigaclone-story.html)

Erik van Voorst 1st March 2013 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimkasta (Post 3391125)
holy #@$#@%.@!!!!!

That's an expensive clock... :D

Yeah my audio buddy said:

...well Erik if I understand it correctly we now went from an 80 cent resonator to an 800 dollar clock...:eek:

c12mech 1st March 2013 09:47 PM

Erik, no one will ever be able to say that you did not take this project seriously.

Speaking of Dexa, can anyone comment on their regulators. If the clock is that good I can only wonder if the regulators are in the same class.

Erik van Voorst 1st March 2013 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c12mech (Post 3391690)
Erik, no one will ever be able to say that you did not take this project seriously.

Speaking of Dexa, can anyone comment on their regulators. If the clock is that good I can only wonder if the regulators are in the same class.

I will give them a try soon :D

c12mech 2nd March 2013 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik van Voorst (Post 3391773)
I will give them a try soon :D

Why did I get the feeling that you would say something like that. Looking forward to hearing your observations.

BMW850 2nd March 2013 01:14 PM

1 Attachment(s)
John Walton and the New Jersey Audio Society did test 13 different regs in Linear Audio Vol 4, measurements as well as controlled listening tests.

Here a graph of this test I found on the Internet.

Regards,
Rudy

brgds 2nd March 2013 01:50 PM

The gear under listening tests was a preamp... There is more in the article, each regulator was measured in terms of noise, impedance and line rejection, and that is really good staff when you consider which regulator to chose for a concrete application.

Erik van Voorst 2nd March 2013 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle_leon (Post 3391067)
That Dexa clock is very expensive, so it had better be really good, because at this price point I would begin to consider atomic clocks...


Am I right that the page you showed is for "10 Mhz only" considering the "nature"......the Shiga uses as you know 16.93 Mhz...

All the ebay stuff I came across was not of any use either...

This 16.93 Mhz was quite a problem in my extensive search to try to obtain/implement the (Rubidium/Atomic) best clock possible (not exceeding my "clock-budget" of lets say 1500 dollar)...and if you do find a suitable one how will it perform...(experience somewhere)...a bit expensive to gamble...high stakes...:eek:

For the time being the Dexa was and proved a safe bet for me...:cloud9:

I will even buy it for myself.

Erik van Voorst 2nd March 2013 08:53 PM

The spectratime you are referring to is by the way EXACTLY the same as you will find in the Antelope Eclipse 384 :D

Erik van Voorst 2nd March 2013 09:21 PM

Originally posted by CraigBuckingham



Those recording engineers are misguided.

Rubidium master clocks are optimised for good long-term stability as time references. Very short-term stability or phase noise that is in the low end of the audio band is therefore not as critical a design parameter.

Current state of the art crystal oscillators are virtually at the limits that physics dictates for the type or resonator used. SC cuts performing better than AT cuts.

Rubidium master clocks use a CRYSTAL OSCILLATOR stabilised to the rubidium hyperfine transition of 6 834 682 610.904 324 Hz. It is that hyperfine transition frequency accuracy that gives long-term accuracy by the use of synchronising to it.

The short-term accuracy is determined by the CRYSTAL OSCILLATOR used in the rubidium standard.

A brief description on that can be found here Rubidium standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A more detailed description here PRS10 - Rubidium Frequency Standard

So to put it in simple terms the Rubidium standard oscillator is superfluous, redundant - lowers performance and adds unnecessary cost when applied to high quality audio/digital conversion.MAYBE SOME INTERESTING STUFF TO READ IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT CLOCKS :)

tonyptony 3rd March 2013 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Henderson (Post 3345644)
syklab,

The 19.58 mm was measured from the TOP of the CD Turntable, point A, without a CD or the Clamp resting on it...to the top of the chassis, or point B in your photo.

If it is easier to measure this way...from the Bottom of the CD Turntable to the top of the chassis, or point B in your photo, the measurement is 17.34 mm. For reference, the thickness of my CD Turntable samples is 2.24 mm.

Did we conclude that 19.58 mm is the optimal distance? I measured one of my mechanisms and I have 19.6088 mm. Wasn't sure if that was enough of a differnce to worry about.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:46 PM.


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