About the clock on CS8412 to SM5842?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Jump to Latest
R

rfbrw

Member
Joined 2001
masonlin119 said:
Dear all,

I have a DAC using CS8412 and SM5842.
I try to replace the MCK ofCS8412 to XTI of SM5842 with a TCXO 11.2896 Mhz.
But it didn't work....

Did I forget something or do something wrong about the reclock?

Can someone advice?

Regards,

Mason
Click to expand...


You have to run the CS8412 as a slave device by putting it in slave mode. You will also have to provide SCLK and FSYNC.
 
Elso Kwak

Elso Kwak

Banned
Joined 2001
geocities.com/elsokwak/
Tcxo

Jocko Homo said:
Why do you all you Chinese guys seem to think that a TCXO is going to solve all of your problems?

It isn't.

Must be something endemic to your culture. All of my Chinese friends in the USA are just as convinced that it will.

Jocko
Click to expand...


For some reason or another TCXOs have better jitter specs than plain normal XOs. But I was not impressed by that Chinese clock with a TCXO and sold it.:bigeyes:
 
Jocko Homo

Jocko Homo

RIP
Joined 2002
Because the "TC" part of it is only going to compensate for drift due to temperature. It has absolutely no bearing on jitter.

Not sure that it has anything to due with faith...........probably more a cultural belief that "more quality is always better." A TCXO may well be a better part than a bog standard XO due to an upgrade in certain temperature sensitve parts, but that has no impact on jitter. What I have trouble undersanding is why none of my many Chinese friends seem unable to grasp that. Despite my repeated explanations to them.

Jitter is the key. Simple as that.

Once you understand that, you then have to delve into its frequency spectra, as jitter numbers can be fudged.

Jocko
 
X.G.

X.G.

Member
Joined 2003
hi,Jocko

I have known the point what you say all before.I discussed with our friends on here and my opinion is basiclly same as you....

http://www.hifidiy.net/dispbbs.asp?boardID=2&replyID=37094&ID=4435&skin=0

IMHO, I can not say TCXO is better or worse in simple, and I would say that: when all parts of both is the same except for the 'TC', XO is better than TCXO.....the lusson equation of phase noise can tell us about it.

maybe someboby of my friends and your Chinese friends can not get the point;)

X.G.
 
Elso Kwak

Elso Kwak

Banned
Joined 2001
geocities.com/elsokwak/
X.G. said:
hi,Jocko

I have known the point what you say all before.I discussed with our friends on here and my opinion is basiclly same as you....

http://www.hifidiy.net/dispbbs.asp?boardID=2&replyID=37094&ID=4435&skin=0

IMHO, I can not say TCXO is better or worse in simple, and I would say that: when all parts of both is the same except for the 'TC', XO is better than TCXO.....the lusson equation of phase noise can tell us about it.

maybe someboby of my friends and your Chinese friends can not get the point;)

X.G.
Click to expand...

XG the point is as I said. But I do not believe in measurements. The ultimate goal is to please your ears, or better your soul, not some specs race.
:rolleyes:
 
G

Guido Tent

Member
Joined 2001
TentLabs.com
Elso Kwak said:


XG the point is as I said. But I do not believe in measurements. The ultimate goal is to please your ears, or better your soul, not some specs race.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, the same group of people likes heavilly distorting tube amps - not my cup of tea. If you are after true reproduction only one thing counts: Low jitter.

TCXO's are optimised on long term stability and therefor are not most suited for audio. Ofcourse there are exceptions but I never found them.

I think I understand the Chinese obsession Jocko hints at: They generally only look at ppm levels. As we all know ppm's are not the correct parameter to indicate jitter.

back to work now
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Top Bottom