It seems that David (with multiple persons) and I are the only ones that have conducted A-B comparisons - all of them under what I see as valid conditions (and Coris has chipped in too on the experimental level), so...
Maybe the doubters should keep their powder dry till they have done similarly, please.
It's a no-brainer to try, get some 100MHz SAWs (or even 50-100MHz range if straight 100MHz is not available) and fit on Sabre DAC.
Really, not unreasonable to ask before posting serious comment.
Cheers, Joe
Maybe the doubters should keep their powder dry till they have done similarly, please.
It's a no-brainer to try, get some 100MHz SAWs (or even 50-100MHz range if straight 100MHz is not available) and fit on Sabre DAC.
Really, not unreasonable to ask before posting serious comment.
Cheers, Joe
Forgive me, i'm trying to understand here. i'm a burn in skeptic for things that take so little time to warm up and have no moving parts so i'm going to put that to one side ... but if you want to be taken seriously please consider the below. Joe I actually have no problem with the majority of your previous post, apart from the use of emotional descriptors that mean something different to everyone to define something.
From the last couple of posts of reports (and there arent many to draw from) I am to draw these conclusions.
You 2 have agreed that it starts out with greater stability (with a grey, lifeless tonality), better bass lines (with a grey, lifeless tonality), is superior at rendering un-involving, less musical, but complex rhythmic patterns and has a grey, blunt, merciless kind of vitality?
how do you expect to communicate anything with that?
setting aside my view that running async higher than 100MHz is pointless, lets just talk about the technology and limitations/difficulties. I suggested long ago that SAW be sent to Iancanada and/or 1audio/Demian, both of whom have access to high grade FFT and phase noise analysers, as well as reference clocks orders of magnitude better than the SAW, as well as having NDK and Crystek, but back then I was attacked for suggesting that it could be harmonic content and the interaction with other hardware that was pleasing.
the fairly lacking tolerance and given you now agree its possible its H, will mean its different from unit to unit. its not a desirable thing for epson, but an error; wo it will not be controlled for. You will need to buy many and select for an unknown source of noise.
From the last couple of posts of reports (and there arent many to draw from) I am to draw these conclusions.
You 2 have agreed that it starts out with greater stability (with a grey, lifeless tonality), better bass lines (with a grey, lifeless tonality), is superior at rendering un-involving, less musical, but complex rhythmic patterns and has a grey, blunt, merciless kind of vitality?
how do you expect to communicate anything with that?
setting aside my view that running async higher than 100MHz is pointless, lets just talk about the technology and limitations/difficulties. I suggested long ago that SAW be sent to Iancanada and/or 1audio/Demian, both of whom have access to high grade FFT and phase noise analysers, as well as reference clocks orders of magnitude better than the SAW, as well as having NDK and Crystek, but back then I was attacked for suggesting that it could be harmonic content and the interaction with other hardware that was pleasing.
the fairly lacking tolerance and given you now agree its possible its H, will mean its different from unit to unit. its not a desirable thing for epson, but an error; wo it will not be controlled for. You will need to buy many and select for an unknown source of noise.
Last edited:
qusp,
Instead of spending time shooting down what has been said about the SAW, please just spend a few dollars and test one yourself and report your findings.
Joe is not a fool and has never denied that on paper the Crystek and other audio grade XO/VCXOs should sound better than the SAW.
However, his experience with the ESS Dac specifically, suggests that this is not the case with his listening tests. Joe shared his "experience" with the community in hope others would also chip in by making their own comparisons. He did this not to show how smart he is but to share something he felt would benefit others.
I have no vested interest in this and have just shared my own observations. I was a skeptic to start as I was fully cognisant of the technical reasons why the SAW would not work as well as the Crystek. One can go on and on about phase noise etc etc but no one (other than Joe and I) has sat down and listened to both the SAW and Crystek. Coris has shared his own SAW experience but AFAIK this was not in a back to back comparison with the Crystek.
Please do not jumble my words with Joe's to make nonsense of our independent observations. And even if I failed to make it clear enough about what the SAW did better than the Crystek, the point was that in the end, after a long evaluation period, the SAW sounded better to my ears. Instead of taking this point, you "mock". That said, I too would like to know the reasons (beyond its better stability) why the SAW sounds better in my dac and in my system. In hifi, everything interacts.
I do not have the time to test the SAW on the Twisted Pear Buffalo III dac that I also have. This version of the dac allows the oversampling and re-clocking feature of the ESS chip to be turned off. I am curious to know if there is more to be revealed in the SAW vs Crystek comparison by switching off oversampling & reclocking on the ESS.
I am not sure exactly what you were referring to in your first para about "warm-up and have no moving parts". If you were speaking of my having to keep the dac powered for a long period before some of the positive qualities of the SAW could be appreciated, I do believe that oscillators need time to settle down and temperature stability is also key to their proper functioning. Maybe the SAW is more sensitive to this than the Crystek, I don't know.
Instead of spending time shooting down what has been said about the SAW, please just spend a few dollars and test one yourself and report your findings.
Joe is not a fool and has never denied that on paper the Crystek and other audio grade XO/VCXOs should sound better than the SAW.
However, his experience with the ESS Dac specifically, suggests that this is not the case with his listening tests. Joe shared his "experience" with the community in hope others would also chip in by making their own comparisons. He did this not to show how smart he is but to share something he felt would benefit others.
I have no vested interest in this and have just shared my own observations. I was a skeptic to start as I was fully cognisant of the technical reasons why the SAW would not work as well as the Crystek. One can go on and on about phase noise etc etc but no one (other than Joe and I) has sat down and listened to both the SAW and Crystek. Coris has shared his own SAW experience but AFAIK this was not in a back to back comparison with the Crystek.
Please do not jumble my words with Joe's to make nonsense of our independent observations. And even if I failed to make it clear enough about what the SAW did better than the Crystek, the point was that in the end, after a long evaluation period, the SAW sounded better to my ears. Instead of taking this point, you "mock". That said, I too would like to know the reasons (beyond its better stability) why the SAW sounds better in my dac and in my system. In hifi, everything interacts.
I do not have the time to test the SAW on the Twisted Pear Buffalo III dac that I also have. This version of the dac allows the oversampling and re-clocking feature of the ESS chip to be turned off. I am curious to know if there is more to be revealed in the SAW vs Crystek comparison by switching off oversampling & reclocking on the ESS.
I am not sure exactly what you were referring to in your first para about "warm-up and have no moving parts". If you were speaking of my having to keep the dac powered for a long period before some of the positive qualities of the SAW could be appreciated, I do believe that oscillators need time to settle down and temperature stability is also key to their proper functioning. Maybe the SAW is more sensitive to this than the Crystek, I don't know.
I think and I sustained all the time from my part, that this is the most reasonable/logic enterprise for a sceptic one, about one or another experiment: TRY IT YOURSELF!
In this case, a SAW oscillator it only costs few dollars. Buy one and try it. Then report please about your impressions/results (and if is possible about your measurements). It should not be so difficult...
The more impressions/results and discussions about facts, the better a possible conclusion it may be.
qusp stated many times in his posts about how many DACs he own. What wonderful occasion to try and cross compare a SAW versus a Crystek in different DACs... qusp shows in his posts about his high professional standard and knowledge levels. What wonderful occasion for all of us here to have some very high professional appreciations from one who experimented (and even made some measurements) himself on a SAW oscillator...
I see also very clear a fact about this case: someones have tried this oscillator and come out with theirs observations. Someones have never done anything in this field, but come out with theirs observations based on "how it should be" or about theirs scepticisme...
Last edited:
I understand that to a degree.
Re burn-in, you may be sceptical, I on the other hand am diplomatic. I don't seek confrontations. If people believe in burn-in, then who am I to question them. I also have pointed out that it sometimes takes the brain a while to sort out what is going on, so that may be a factor as well.
As for no moving parts, I can assure you that most things 'move' one way or other as thermal conditions change. That gives them opportunity to settle under stress. There are plenty of examples of this in physics. Very few things are totally static.
Hey, we live on a movin' part.
Good to know that we have some common ground, but now it is my turn to wonder why you don't except my choice of words?
Why do you take them as emotional and completely miss the fact that I was trying to create a juxtaposition in such a way that Coris selection of words did not give Terry the wrong idea. If you cannot understand that, OK, but why should it disturb your sensibilities?
I am not going have my hands tied behind my back and if I think it appropriate, I will use any words I deem appropriate to that particular context and not judged to be... erhh... feminine? Like "ohh, you are being emotional." It comes across as just another put-down.
If you were to have a discussion re the use of language (and descriptors are indeed a valid part of language, and how it should be used in relation to audio and what we hear, then by all means have it, just start a new thread. I have had this discussion before and quite up to it again. For years was a favourite topic with HP and many articles in TAS. That was fun.
I don't, Coris does. That is his choice.
With the 105 new layout, it is less problematic, but I actually agree with you. I tried 125MHz on the '95 and got problems that disappeared at 100MHz. So that is where I feel comfortable to stay.
Coris is going to try 'sync' 108MHz on the '105 and use a divider chip to get 27MHz. He feels that is a good thing. I am open to anything you have to say - I can see what he is attempting and why - but is there a reason why this should be better? Not sure, but may also try it.
Haven't we? I mean, isn't that the point? We have - and therein lies the problem. Also, on the phone with Terry - and I fully understand his view, but again I feel that it has not yet been resolved.
We know what frequencies that one is superior and inferior to each other - the specs are known - does spectral measurements reveal everything? It reveals something - no question about that.
But don't we all also know that sometimes specs don't tell the whole story. We also use our ears as instrumentation. I have no problem with scepticism, I have plenty of that and on many subjects.
But do you have an open mind, that we may have overlooked something? Is it possible? Is it somehow wrong to even ask that question?
For example(s):
What about Dustin Foreman claiming he can hear S-D artefacts something like 150dB down or something? I have talked to others that have an open mind that there are certain phenomenons that are audible and cannot be successfully masked and are perceived as "not natural" and "foreign".
What do you think of Bybees? They are supposed to work on the quantum level. That is not an answer - a smokescreen? So don't think I am not capable of being a sceptic.
Ask Ric. I got an email from somebody who asked me about Ric filing the ends of Wima caps off (I assume that is true) and another two about LEDs and I just let that those "pass through to the keeper" (for others, this is a cricket term for just letting the ball pass by without reacting).
But even then I am not entirely dismissing the point that some of these things may have some validity. Others I truly have doubts about. C'est la vie.
I think I am definitely in the top 10% of sceptics in audio. You should number my sighs at things I am being told. That only subjectionists know the truth and yet have no real idea what they are talkimg about. But I recognise that they are well-meaning and they too can change, in time.
No, I am definitely in the top 10%. Hence I cringe when suggested otherwise.
But what I say about SAWs stands, from now on Im will only accept critical review by those who have at least tried them.
Com'on, this is a no-brainer and no-one is being asked to depart with money (how much scepticism is fuelled by THAT motive?).
Cheers, Joe
Last edited:
For those who have doubts about the SAW subject, I just literally received below within the last hour.
Earlier in post #349 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...iscussions-upgrading-mods-35.html#post3444384, Anthony Camplone gave his views (review) on the Oppo 105 which he sent for upgrade to Level 2, a single 100MHz SAW on the Sabre DAC, but a Fox oscillator on the 27MHz.
He returned it for Level 3 - which is only changing the Fox to a 54MHz SAW giving 27MHz via a divider, that is all, nothing else was done.
Hi Joe,
I type this on my iPad while sitting in the couch listening to what Level 3 has achieved. I let the player run on repeat for a good 7 hours until I sat down to listen to it this afternoon.
To say I was stunned would be an understatement. This upgrade is far from subtle. The first thing I noticed was how much the sound has opened up. Extra levels of detail with none of the digital side effects. Actually very analogue sounding. Also the timing has improved even more.
Just so I thought I wasn't hearing things, I called over a mate to see his reaction. Lets just say he was speechless. Both of us were sitting here like two bozo's, laughing at what we were hearing in utter amazement. CD after CD and at different volume levels trying to catch you out. But we did not succeed. We believe you have a giant killer on your hands with this upgrade.
I can't thank you enough. This is a beautiful sound digital player.
Regards,
Anthony Camplone
-
Whatever the objective arguments are, the real importance is... IT WORKS !!!
So what are you waiting for?
Cheers, Joe
Earlier in post #349 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digi...iscussions-upgrading-mods-35.html#post3444384, Anthony Camplone gave his views (review) on the Oppo 105 which he sent for upgrade to Level 2, a single 100MHz SAW on the Sabre DAC, but a Fox oscillator on the 27MHz.
He returned it for Level 3 - which is only changing the Fox to a 54MHz SAW giving 27MHz via a divider, that is all, nothing else was done.
Hi Joe,
I type this on my iPad while sitting in the couch listening to what Level 3 has achieved. I let the player run on repeat for a good 7 hours until I sat down to listen to it this afternoon.
To say I was stunned would be an understatement. This upgrade is far from subtle. The first thing I noticed was how much the sound has opened up. Extra levels of detail with none of the digital side effects. Actually very analogue sounding. Also the timing has improved even more.
Just so I thought I wasn't hearing things, I called over a mate to see his reaction. Lets just say he was speechless. Both of us were sitting here like two bozo's, laughing at what we were hearing in utter amazement. CD after CD and at different volume levels trying to catch you out. But we did not succeed. We believe you have a giant killer on your hands with this upgrade.
I can't thank you enough. This is a beautiful sound digital player.
Regards,
Anthony Camplone
-
Whatever the objective arguments are, the real importance is... IT WORKS !!!
So what are you waiting for?
Cheers, Joe
I found this interesting comparison of the phase noise and temperature and voltage sensitivities of Epson saw oscillators versus AT cut crystal oscillators (Like the crystek 950) here: http://www.pletronics.com/getfile.php?id=99
this suggests that the saw oscillators do not measure as well for all of these properties under most conditions.
Consider this one data point, and it does not address vibration sensitivity, microphonics.
This does cover the frequencies of interest here, and is measuring oscillators close to those that we've been discussing.
Eric
this suggests that the saw oscillators do not measure as well for all of these properties under most conditions.
Consider this one data point, and it does not address vibration sensitivity, microphonics.
This does cover the frequencies of interest here, and is measuring oscillators close to those that we've been discussing.
Eric
still only ~20ppm frequency drift over 20-60c range on the SAW. PSRR is considerably worse though ... 10ppm change in frequency for a 10% supply change, thats pretty bad.
thanks for the link Eric, thats the first close in phase noise plot ive seen for the epson.
the pletronics isnt exactly stellar for close in phase noise either though (~10Hz), about 30dB worse than the crystek and ~15dB worse overall noise floor (-170 for cchd957, -155dB for the epson)... its such a significant difference, thats why I struggle so much with this. if it were small and they didnt have such bad PSRR it would be easier to swallow (previously I surmised that maybe they had better PSRR and that helped explain the preference). the NDK is better again than the crystek. the 125MHz epson is another 5-10dB worse ... for a total of 40dB these are big numbers
Joe, I will reply tomorrow, no time now, but your post deserves a good response.
thanks for the link Eric, thats the first close in phase noise plot ive seen for the epson.
the pletronics isnt exactly stellar for close in phase noise either though (~10Hz), about 30dB worse than the crystek and ~15dB worse overall noise floor (-170 for cchd957, -155dB for the epson)... its such a significant difference, thats why I struggle so much with this. if it were small and they didnt have such bad PSRR it would be easier to swallow (previously I surmised that maybe they had better PSRR and that helped explain the preference). the NDK is better again than the crystek. the 125MHz epson is another 5-10dB worse ... for a total of 40dB these are big numbers
Joe, I will reply tomorrow, no time now, but your post deserves a good response.
Last edited:
Yes... by the figures on the papers.
These SAW oscillators are used in quite wide area of special applications, difficult environments as military, aircraft, space, and so on. Why? Because another oscillators are better? What mean "better" in this case? It is not this "better" something relative notion? Why they do not use Crystek instead of SAWs in all those special applications? BTW, Crystek produce SAW type oscillators too... Why those companies chose to produce such type SAW, even though they can produce and sell better types? There is for sure not the price the reason... These SAW components have some special properties which it adapt it best to some applications.
In audio (digital) field it is quite long time since exist the concept of a perfect oscillator. But what happen if that oscillator is not so "perfect" or "better"? Have somebody tried it? Yes, somebody/few tried it.
With so bad characteristics, as Pletronics state for SAWs (BTW, they compare Epsons SAW against theirs own product in that link above, do they?), the sound out of a such digital system is not as bad, but opposite...
There is something even more contradictory when about parameters, stability and so on, where SAWs are stated as lower quality.
I could see in the material (Pletronics "studies") that SAW is quite bad in stability power depending.
Is a while since I use battery to power such DAC clock oscillator. Only battery. No any regulator. There is in such case a huge power level variation (many teens, even hundreds mV) on that oscillator (one is SAW, another one is Crystek, different DAC chips types). Never ever I could notice any quality variation in the resulted sound out of those two sources. Just high quality sound always.
The main point with this battery power system for clock is absence of any ripple, and much lower noises in power rail for that oscillator.
There is big difference and very hearable in sounds when powering a clock oscillator from a very low noise regulator, and power it from battery.
What I found out in this case is that those oscillators have anyway an incorporated regulator. Quite sophisticated I may say. There is a sort of a shunt regulator, as the power rail behave like so when variations occur. The frequency remain solid stable while quite large power variations on it. It looks like there is no any issue when an oscillator it may have such power variations. The big problem occur when that power system induce/modulate the clock frequency with ripples or even worse, noises.
My point here is that are some parameters of those clock oscillators which not all the time may be important to have a very good sound out of a DAC system, those are used to.
One may have a open mind when go into those things, TRY IT, and experimenting, before have some conclusions.
Heaving a priori conclusions about a result or something, only by readings/comparing datasheets, is not just fortunate way of doing...
its been a while since i've seen such a lot of unsubstantiated opinion framed as fact, good job! even assumptions/stories about an onboard sort of shunt regulator are framed as knowledge... much lower noises from batteries... with no measurements and using the type that has onboard voltage limiter (was anyway)
what other parameters might a clock have? setting aside the obvious need to withstand 10G shock in audio ... they really arent complicated devices.
stop looking for superior things and accept its looking more and more like its the bad things that make it preferable to some. thats cool, no worries, people like what they like; but dont try and turn it into something else.
the measurements are rather public and name particular devices/companies, if there was anything incorrect about them, the lawyers would be onto it.
what other parameters might a clock have? setting aside the obvious need to withstand 10G shock in audio ... they really arent complicated devices.
stop looking for superior things and accept its looking more and more like its the bad things that make it preferable to some. thats cool, no worries, people like what they like; but dont try and turn it into something else.
the measurements are rather public and name particular devices/companies, if there was anything incorrect about them, the lawyers would be onto it.
Last edited:
Thanks. If it's constructive, I look forward to it.
I will be going fishing, so cannot respond until Monday.
But may I make this appeal, which is one that Coris and David has made also, that you have several DACs there (is that right?), and that it should be a simple matter for somebody with your capability to try a 100MHz SAW on a Sabre DAC, whether a Buffalo DAC or AckoDAC.
Send me a PM, joeras@vacuumstate.com and an address or post box, and I will even send you one by post - I am game. What's to lose?
Whatever the numbers say, and I hope that you don't think that I believe that numbers are not important, yet the real test has to be passed - listening is surely as important, at the very least.
Do we just follow one simple rule and find what measures best and then conclude that it must sound best? That has led to many errors in the past, but then again I suppose that some is the SS brigade can't stomach that some like tube amps and then point to higher 2nd order distortions etc, when as far back as the 70's Jean Hiraga demonstrated that THD had little comparative value, so did Matti Otala who found a distortion mechanism nobody even knew existed and discovered it by chance... often we collect numbers that are the wrong numbers, because we made a subjective value judgement about which measurements matters, some that was proved objectively wrong later.
I come from a serious loudspeaker background. Same sort of issues, wrong assumptions made about the amplifier and loudspeaker interface led to one of the greatest fallacies in audio, so-called "Damping Factor" - which none other than Richard Small told me this in 1975 (before the world got to know him as part of the Thiele-Small 'team') was baloney (the fool that I was objected) -yet it persists everywhere to this day - I have debunked this by "current driving" a loudspeaker system where there is ZERO Damping Factor. An amplifier with an output impedance of 270 Ohm means no damping from the amplifier itself, even below 20 Hertz. Yet I play the great Joe Morello drum solo from 'Take Five' at concert levels, where every nuanced base note, pitch and pacr, is covered and dramatic dynamics that hits you in the solar plexus. ZERO DAMPING FACTOR. Two weeks ago I demonstrated this to a friend (Hi Adam) who had argued with me his pro-stance on Damping Factor with me for fifteen years, yet when he heard the above demonstration, said "how did they get away with this for so many years." They? He was one of them.
So the whole notions (yes, plural) of this type is something that has infected parts of the audio industry for decades, sometimes painfully put aside, with festering sores lingering on.
I see a similar story unfolding here.
Why did we realise that our objectives were wrong? Because our ears can tell us differently. Then we must find out what the real facts are.
That is actually a cause for celebration, because the journey of discovery is one of the great spices of life.
So... this is a no-brainer - try the SAW. If the SAW does work and our perceptions tell us there is something here worth looking at, then we have a challenge. It's not about the SAW sounding nicer, but is it better? Does it sound more correct? Because if it does, it will meet the test of time.
As the great Niels Bohr was fond to say:
"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."
That's the right spirit to have.
Cheers, Joe
PS: Once Damping Factor myth was totally dismantled to a person's satisfaction (and amazement), all of a sudden I had their attention, and could point to the actual numbers that made it a fallacy, these actual numbers were the actual numbers that Richard Small was referring to back in 1975. Sometimes progress is not slow, it's just that we are.
PPS: The other thing I have seen that gets in the way of progress is ego and personalities. Let's not that be the case here, because I will just run away from it. Don't need it.
.
Last edited:
Joe, just quickly, as i'm just hitting the bed (I work odd hours) as i've mentioned before a few times when the conversation circles around, I do have several dacs, but the main ones are running galvanically isolated, then buffered i2s, clocked with dual synchronous clocks and the ones that dont, have onboard crysteks. crysteks that dont have the OE pin accessible, which leaves part of the output stage in parallel with any clock you wire in when its unpowered.
if they made them in more useful speeds, I would have tried them already, but as it is they are completely useless to me. comparing them in another dac (for example if I made one), I hope you agree...would be of very limited value.
i'm curious, but not THAT curious, i'm pretty happy with the clocks and clocking system i'm using. Do let me know if you ever get a hold of some 45.1584MHz, 90.3168MHz, 49.152MHz, 98.304MHz
have a good trip, fishing in Winter? brrrrrr
if they made them in more useful speeds, I would have tried them already, but as it is they are completely useless to me. comparing them in another dac (for example if I made one), I hope you agree...would be of very limited value.
i'm curious, but not THAT curious, i'm pretty happy with the clocks and clocking system i'm using. Do let me know if you ever get a hold of some 45.1584MHz, 90.3168MHz, 49.152MHz, 98.304MHz
have a good trip, fishing in Winter? brrrrrr
Last edited:
I have Viking blood...
It's going to be great... let us resume hostilities (just joking) on Monday.
Cheers, Joe
qusp,
If you have a very stable and quiet power supply, why fret over PSRR data, especially ones quoting 10% supply change? 10% is ridiculous in any good audio product.
As far as NDK oscillators go, Bunpei (who contributes regularly on this forum) and his group in Japan have reported very good results using these very expensive products. Bunpei and his buddy Chiaki have developed products using NDK.
I'd will have no hesitation in doing back to back comparisons between NDK, SAW/Crystek is someone sends me a 100mHz NDK.
If you have a very stable and quiet power supply, why fret over PSRR data, especially ones quoting 10% supply change? 10% is ridiculous in any good audio product.
As far as NDK oscillators go, Bunpei (who contributes regularly on this forum) and his group in Japan have reported very good results using these very expensive products. Bunpei and his buddy Chiaki have developed products using NDK.
I'd will have no hesitation in doing back to back comparisons between NDK, SAW/Crystek is someone sends me a 100mHz NDK.
About two years ago, I tried NDK 100MHz OCXO with Buffalo II. Afterward, Chiaki and I found that a "synchronous master clocking scheme" is far better than such an asynchronous clocking as using 100MHz. I have no NDK 100MHz OCXO at my hand anymore.
As for clocks, 90.3168 MHz and 98.304 MHz of synchrous use, our recommendation is NDK;
7311S-DF-255R-90.3168M-NSA3344A
7311S-DF-255R-98.304M-NSA3344A
Unit price is 5,500 JPY (approximately 55 USD)/piece when you order 10 pieces. (You can order the minimum quantity 1, however, the price might be higher for the condition.)
The oscillators are used in Acko's TURBO Master Clock 100M module, also.
Hey Joe:
Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but which frequencies have you found have worked with the MediaTek chips inside of the Oppo 95 and 93? I know that the stock clock in these units is 25Mhz. So using a 100MHz Saw with a divide by 4 circuit clearly should work in theory.
But the HC4040N is only rated to 98kHz. It seems like this could still work, even though this is just slightly outside of its specified operating range. I'd get a 50Mhz SAW to try, but I can find none of sale in the US. And the European suppliers who have them don't seem to sell to anyone who is on this side of the pond.
I'd love to get my hands on a 54mHz chip to try in one of the later model Oppos, but that sounds like special order territory, and is therefore impractical for me.
Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but which frequencies have you found have worked with the MediaTek chips inside of the Oppo 95 and 93? I know that the stock clock in these units is 25Mhz. So using a 100MHz Saw with a divide by 4 circuit clearly should work in theory.
But the HC4040N is only rated to 98kHz. It seems like this could still work, even though this is just slightly outside of its specified operating range. I'd get a 50Mhz SAW to try, but I can find none of sale in the US. And the European suppliers who have them don't seem to sell to anyone who is on this side of the pond.
I'd love to get my hands on a 54mHz chip to try in one of the later model Oppos, but that sounds like special order territory, and is therefore impractical for me.
The '93 only has clocked MediaTek chip and you can use 25MHz. There is no clock on the Cirrus Logic DAC.
On the '95, you could supply both 100MHz and 25MHz as you suggest. I have not tried it.
Coris is going to try it on the '105 with 108MHz and divide by 4 to get 27MHz. The Sabre is rated 100MHz max, but should still handle 108MHz. He will be suing a different divider chip than 4040N.
I was able to get some 50MHz SAW from Farnell/Element14 Part # 1907482
Not sure where you are, but sounds like Coris has some spares? I won't be selling any as it took four months to get the ones I have and it looks like I will need them and more in the future.
Cheers, Joe