I am very interested to understand form an overview perspective, clocks, noise and performance, how the different clocks affect and potentially compromise the performance in the video chain
My set up is Panasonic 9000 4K player (with LPS) this has two (evidently better than average clocks) one main board, one output HDMI, then this goes to a Lumagen 4242 this has three clocks, HDMI input board, main board and HDMI output board, then this goes to a projector (epson LS10,500), which I assume has one or two more clocks
I found improving the power supply in the 9000 with a Coris LPS improved the picture, I have also upon recommendation added three very low noise/jitter clocks to the Lumagen and found quite a signifiant picture upgrade, so wondering where I might still be leaving something on the table.
Any insight appreciated
My set up is Panasonic 9000 4K player (with LPS) this has two (evidently better than average clocks) one main board, one output HDMI, then this goes to a Lumagen 4242 this has three clocks, HDMI input board, main board and HDMI output board, then this goes to a projector (epson LS10,500), which I assume has one or two more clocks
I found improving the power supply in the 9000 with a Coris LPS improved the picture, I have also upon recommendation added three very low noise/jitter clocks to the Lumagen and found quite a signifiant picture upgrade, so wondering where I might still be leaving something on the table.
Any insight appreciated
Clocks can affect quality of digital to analog conversion (DAC, D/A, etc.). The clock is the time reference for reconstructing an original analog signal from digital data. Since digital audio always involves a DAC, clocks are one factor that can affect the analog audio output. A lot of other things can affect it too, its not simply a matter of using better clock modules and or a better primary power supply. Just about everything can matter to some extent or other.
OTOH, computer monitors mostly stopped using video DACs after the days of RGB analog video. Power supplies can be another matter, since some power supplies produce more noise than others, some supplies regulate better than others, etc. Again, a lot depends on the particular technology and or circuitry in use. A purely digital system should be fine so long as noise and or clocking are not bad enough to produce bit-errors. Projection equipment and video monitors, to the extent they may rely on analog signals for some purpose, could potentially be affected by smaller noise levels and or timing errors than would be required to cause a digital bit-error.
So, what do you think changed perceptually after making changes to clocks and or power supplies? Something looked different in some way?
OTOH, computer monitors mostly stopped using video DACs after the days of RGB analog video. Power supplies can be another matter, since some power supplies produce more noise than others, some supplies regulate better than others, etc. Again, a lot depends on the particular technology and or circuitry in use. A purely digital system should be fine so long as noise and or clocking are not bad enough to produce bit-errors. Projection equipment and video monitors, to the extent they may rely on analog signals for some purpose, could potentially be affected by smaller noise levels and or timing errors than would be required to cause a digital bit-error.
So, what do you think changed perceptually after making changes to clocks and or power supplies? Something looked different in some way?
The image after adding the clocks, improved in the following areas, whist this is subjective three other people have said the same things in different ways
- Improved image depth, very noticeable, the perception is a much greater 3D effect, you look into the image not at it
- Improved contrast and image dynamic range seems to be greater, more 'pop' to the image
- obvious improvement in detail and resolution, close ups of faces, hair, skin etc looks obviously clearer (2K and 4K)
- It looks more stable and somehow less digital, more 'filmic' and 'analogue'
- Soft focus shots and depth of field shots show the beauty if the photography in a more obvious way
- Less noise, discs that show noise seem significantly cleaner
- Motion seems easier to follow, action easier to track
Is it audible? If so, where and when was it discovered?
That is the crux of this audio replaying electronics these days. Anything goes in subjective comparisons including the perception of "hearing" a difference just by a suggestion that component was changed without physically changing it. It's a jungle out there and one can easily get lost without a compass (objectivity).
Surely your compass of objectivity is A-B listening, rationale purchases (research, understanding and experience and experimentation) and long term satisfaction and review. If you aren't prepared to try you will go nowhere fast will you ?
If you aren't able to hear any difference and aren't confident that your objectivity in hearing Audio is probably not for you. How would you buy any components from speaker to CD player or TT or anything in between if you are not confident enough to assess ?
The same goes for video IMO
If you aren't able to hear any difference and aren't confident that your objectivity in hearing Audio is probably not for you. How would you buy any components from speaker to CD player or TT or anything in between if you are not confident enough to assess ?
The same goes for video IMO
Just going is very dangerous in the audio electronics jungle. Why? Because there are many predators that can eat your wallet in seconds.
Often people equate perceivable difference with audible difference. They are not the same. People's perception is very prone to deception. As I already mentioned, you can perceive a difference without changing any components. That is one of those weaknesses we all have and the boutique audio business try to take advantage of that. Don't fall prey to it.
As for speakers to CD, there is a huge difference in distortion level between the best speakers in the world to just average run of the mill CD player, preamp, amp and cables. Just compare the measurements. The bottleneck in audio reproduction is with speakers and room acoustics. Anything prior to those are already audibly transparent even at low cost. Throwing money at those components won't net you the gain you believe that will. Those predators will say anything to make you believe so but that's called marketing.
Paranoia ?
Most spend their lives making value proposition decisions, hopefully the older you get the wiser you are and the better at decision making you become.
I measure what I can and have a lot of experience of EQ and room measurements, and make sure that I listen and balance measurements with aural assessment as well. I usually 'trim' by ear or visual assessment. A lot of things you can here but cant measure
Most spend their lives making value proposition decisions, hopefully the older you get the wiser you are and the better at decision making you become.
I measure what I can and have a lot of experience of EQ and room measurements, and make sure that I listen and balance measurements with aural assessment as well. I usually 'trim' by ear or visual assessment. A lot of things you can here but cant measure
No, it's the other way around. Can you hear a difference smaller than 0.5 db? No but it can easily be measured.
Many more than volume. You won't be able to hear 1/6 octave and smaller variation in sound or 0.05% and smaller harmonic distortion but they can easily be measured.
Better way to approach this is, name one sound you or anyone actually heard (not what one thinks he / she heard) that cannot be measured.
The western musical scale (one octave) is divided into 12 semitones. Each semitone is 1/12 of an octave. If you can't hear 1/6 of an octave how can you make sense of music? Musicians and most people with a modicum of music experience can distinguish 1 cent, which is 1/100 of a semitone.
I think you misunderstood what I was pointing out. If you have a tone generator, parametric equalizer and frequency response measuring tool, you can try it yourself. Listen to short duration of pink noise multiple times from fixed position and see if they sound same to you. If they do, then activate the equalizer and change 1/6 or 1/12 octave by 1 db somewhere in mid frequency where we are most sensitive to, and see if you can hear the difference by activating and deactivating the eq when the output level is within 0.5 db matched in both cases. Then do the same with measurement tool and see what it picks up.
Edited.
How do you measure things like :
Dynamics, micro dynamics, tone, imaging, weight and body, realism and so on
I spent a lot of time thinking I could PEQ a lack of body in voices when using an ACURUS ACT4, I couldn't you can add frequencies around the lack of body and apparent lean-ness of tonality but it doesn't solve the problem it just lifts and 'paints' around it. Was is better after reading about voice mixing and playing for hours with curves ? Yes, did it actually cure the inherent problem ? No
I set up 4 subs, time aligned and EQ'd across a 2m seating area. I did assess using REW and listening. I ended up finalising the delays by ear. The curve was worse, a slight 3 db lift and a null. I can adjust that out but it doesn't sound as good. I changed the position of my front speakers by a cm or two and set by ear. Most will know that the whole sound with some speakers can be surprisingly sensitive to position. If I use REW to measure these differences I cant measure them. So should I conclude they dont exist ? Or perhaps we are very sensitive to some things and less to others. Perhaps I am also measuring the wrong thing ?
I measure and look at time alignment, RT60's SPL and so on
Be great if we could measure all aspects of excellent or 'perfect' sound reproduction. We can't we can measure number of very useful correlating attributes, the rest is by our subjective instruments
BTW I am still curious about what might be the more important clocks to consider upgrading in the video chain. It will be expensive to do them all
So, you learned something about what EQ can't fix? That's good. A lot of people never figure out something is still wrong with their system.
However, its not just about clocks. IME clock modules are sensitive to how they are powered, and to how their outputs are loaded. They can also be sensitive to ground plane currents running underneath them. Ultimately, the whole system needs to be properly designed if all the problems are to be fixed.
Moreover, beyond clock-related problems there is much more to consider. IMHO and IME the thinness that can't be fixed with EQ often comes from two possible sources, (1) distortion, and or (2) signal correlated noise. The latter factor is something some people remain in denial about because compared to distortion, its not so easily measured. What causes signal correlated noise? Things like RFI/EMI noise on the AC power line sneaking into electronics, some switch mode amplifiers, some switch mode power supplies, ground loops, etc. RF noise from DAC chips can sometimes be a problem.
In other words, chasing after one factor at a time such as clocks is only going to get you so far. Next it will be something else, maybe capacitors, op amps, etc.
However, its not just about clocks. IME clock modules are sensitive to how they are powered, and to how their outputs are loaded. They can also be sensitive to ground plane currents running underneath them. Ultimately, the whole system needs to be properly designed if all the problems are to be fixed.
Moreover, beyond clock-related problems there is much more to consider. IMHO and IME the thinness that can't be fixed with EQ often comes from two possible sources, (1) distortion, and or (2) signal correlated noise. The latter factor is something some people remain in denial about because compared to distortion, its not so easily measured. What causes signal correlated noise? Things like RFI/EMI noise on the AC power line sneaking into electronics, some switch mode amplifiers, some switch mode power supplies, ground loops, etc. RF noise from DAC chips can sometimes be a problem.
In other words, chasing after one factor at a time such as clocks is only going to get you so far. Next it will be something else, maybe capacitors, op amps, etc.
Last edited:
Glad to say the 'lean', 'thin' etched sound has gone by reverting back to analogue out of my modified 9000 Panasonic and using my old trusted naim AV2 processor used as an analogue 8 channel pre-amp with additional power supply. In fact the audio is excellent at the moment, could be improved of course but better than nearly all home cinema systems I have listened to
The three 'clocks' in the Lumagen are boards, I did star GND to reduce impedance between the new clock and Lumagen board
The three 'clocks' in the Lumagen are boards, I did star GND to reduce impedance between the new clock and Lumagen board
The answer is the ones that you think or believe will be important. You've got no way of measuring the video chain and you can't put two identical setups next to each other to compare so you are going by memory...
You need to be more specific. The difference of dynamics, micro dynamics, tone, imaging? And from which equipment? Weight, body, realism are more of sales pitch terms. Do you have any electronic audio replaying terms for those?
If a sound reproducing component is audibly transparent, that is a perfected component.
Because those are what Jam's audio business sells?
I'll liken this to help with dynamics and how you 'appreciate' getting close to live music. Pull up outside a pub with a live band playing, you can here clues that tell you the event is live the impact, the transients etc, you sit in your car and turn your radio up and 'drown out' the live event. It doesn't sound live or dynamic just louder. We know the clues that tell us its live music. Walk past a trumpet player in the street, it sounds full vibrant and not thin, lean or ethched and harsh. These are just descriptive terms, its not a white paper with defined terms
And by the way I don't need to be more specific, my question was not about justifying my perceptions it was about which clocks are the most important in a video chain. Why is the DIYAudio forum so condescending sometimes ?