Audiocom clock vs. LC Audio clock

[KevinLee]

Hello everyone,

I have searched around a bit and could not find too much info on these ready made clocks.

The Audiocom clock is a version 1.1 and the LC Audio is a XO2.

Has anyone tried both of these clocks?

Does anyone have any preferances and why?

They (one of them) will be going into a NAD C541I.

I know I should try them both but it is hard to tell the difference when the re & re takes a while.

Any experiences or comments appreciated.

Cheers

KevinLee

[KevinLee]

Anyone?

[Hans L]

I would be very surprised if you find someone that used both. I have installed a LC Audio clock upgrade once and I was quite pleased with the results, which also included modifications to the power supply (which is probably the first place to start) and to the analog output section. I'm definately not an EE but had help from internet and friends.

I can't imagine why one ultra low jitter clock with could be audibly better or worse than similar clock. Evaluate them based on wether they have a decent seperate power supply offering. Other than that it's strictly based on the price difference.

[ALW]

I can't imagine why one ultra low jitter clock with could be audibly better or worse than similar clock. Evaluate them based on wether they have a decent seperate power supply offering. Other than that it's strictly based on the price difference.

I'd rather evaluate them on jitter performance, in which case LCAudio were unique in providing basic jitter specs (albeit unverified).

I've used the Audiocom v1.1 and the LCAudio X0 / X02 and my ears preferred the latter. It's easy for one clock to be better from another, simply because jitter performance and spectra vary.

The Audiocom seems to pander to 'audiophile' pretensions by littering BG's around as if they are some magic panacea.

Both clocks are still sensitive to external PSU's though.

Andy.

[Elso Kwak]

Originally posted by Hans L
I would be very surprised if you find someone that used both. I have installed a LC Audio clock upgrade once and I was quite pleased with the results, which also included modifications to the power supply (which is probably the first place to start) and to the analog output section. I'm definately not an EE but had help from internet and friends.

I can't imagine why one ultra low jitter clock with could be audibly better or worse than similar clock. Evaluate them based on wether they have a decent seperate power supply offering. Other than that it's strictly based on the price difference.

Please see:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...al&r=&session=
Contrary to all clock mongers I found that using the player's own "raw" digital powersupply gives the best sonical results........

[Hans L]

Originally posted by ALW
I'd rather evaluate them on jitter performance, in which case LCAudio were unique in providing basic jitter specs (albeit unverified).

I've used the Audiocom v1.1 and the LCAudio X0 / X02 and my ears preferred the latter. It's easy for one clock to be better from another, simply because jitter performance and spectra vary.

Obviously the jitter spec is important, it's the sole reason for buying a low jitter clock.

Maybe I'm assuming too much if I say that all these clocks have ultralow jitter. My experience with the LCAudio clock was that it did not deliver earthshattering performance compared to the standard clock, though there was an improvement. So therefor I assume that the differences between the ultralow jitter clock upgrades is very, very minor.

Originally posted by Elso Kwak
Please see:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...al&r=&session=
Contrary to all clock mongers I found that using the player's own "raw" digital powersupply gives the best sonical results.......

I read your post at the asylum. Guido Tent certainly knows what he's talking about, so it's good to see that his clock performed well in your tests. I listened to a presentation/lecture of him during a DIY-event this year. Very interesting stuff. Luckily Guido made sure he didn't address the group as if it were an EE-graduate class
He states that the powersupply is extremely important to the proper functioning of the clock and the foundations of his argument seemed rock-solid, but I'm afraid I couldn't reproduce it here.

I wonder how your listeningtest results can be explained. Somehow a more precise readout by the player gave a more accurate but less pleasing experience.

[jean-paul]

Originally posted by Hans L

Maybe I'm assuming too much if I say that all these clocks have ultralow jitter. My experience with the LCAudio clock was that it did not deliver earthshattering performance compared to the standard clock, though there was an improvement. So therefor I assume that the differences between the ultralow jitter clock upgrades are very, very minor.

You assumed too much At least not one of them sounds the same nor has it the same specs. Some of them give ( when built in right ) great improvement in certain cdplayers while others don't deliver what you've payed for.
I used the Audiocom with the special supply too and was not very impressed with its price/performance ratio.

Originally posted by Hans L

I wonder how your listeningtest results can be explained. Somehow a more precise readout by the player gave a more accurate but less pleasing experience.

If that is the case you know you still have work to do in the machine. Just a good clock is not enough ( I wish it was )

[Hans L]

Originally posted by jean-paul
You assumed too much At least not one of them sounds the same nor has it the same specs. Some of them give ( when built in right ) great improvement in certain cdplayers while others don't deliver what you've payed for.
I used the Audiocom with the special supply too and was not very impressed with its price/performance ratio.

I felt the same way about my LCAudio clock. Its price ration isn't too high either And this is a clock that has received a lot of positive reviews.

I still don't get it though. If the clock actually is ultralow jitter like advertised, how can it differ much from another low jitter clock, when the power supply is well built in both cases? Its only job is to clock. The only spec for the clock is jitter. If the jitter is low, the clock is a little better than a standard clock. And it should perform equally well in all players (which have the same standard clocks 99% of the time). If another clock isn't built up to spec like the LCAudio is, then it would probably sound more like a standard clock.

I think describing different low jitter clocks with different sonic signatures is stretching it a little, but then again, you don't want to get me started on cables, synergy and other vague phenomenons ....

[jean-paul]

It all depends how low "ultralow" is according manufacturers. "Very low" might be "ultralow" for some

Board layout and wiring of the new clock pcb have their influence in different cdplayers and play a role in the total performance too. Also, when you feed it from the raw supply results differ from cdplayer to cdplayer. Stray RF radiated from the new clocks also differs.

[BrianL]

Guido's clock looks to me to be the best bang/buck. I bought the
clock oscillator by itsef w/o the accessories, though getting the
whole thing with S/PDIF reclocking might not be a bad idea.