The finished product
Paul & Herb: This sounds really very exciting! So now my question, which might be very simple: If this LATCH re-clocking circuit (Herb/Tent with Paul’s improvement) is proved to be reliable and working (and I have no any doubt that it is exactly so!!), what still one needs a 50Hz stereo-oscilloscope for?? What it is to be yet monitored ?? Can’t this circuit be considered as a “final product”, for every combination of the stopped-clock NEC Digital-Filter (SM5842/7) and PCM63 ?
In other words: Isn't it enough simply to purchase the suggested parts/logics (P6, U4, U2 etc.) and build an appropriate small PBC needed, place it correctly between DF and PCMs and let it do the work?
BTW, I am already using all the other points mentioned in Herb’s DACPrincipia4 (XO3.2 in the transport, thus getting the “Enhanced SPDIF” and the separate injected Clock into the DF’s XTI; the receiver is bypassed for the Clock-Signal). It is FANTASTIC!! Now I would like to keep going forward with the re-clocking. Hope you can advise me.
Greetings & Thanks,
IJ.
PA0SU said:
Paul & Herb: This sounds really very exciting! So now my question, which might be very simple: If this LATCH re-clocking circuit (Herb/Tent with Paul’s improvement) is proved to be reliable and working (and I have no any doubt that it is exactly so!!), what still one needs a 50Hz stereo-oscilloscope for?? What it is to be yet monitored ?? Can’t this circuit be considered as a “final product”, for every combination of the stopped-clock NEC Digital-Filter (SM5842/7) and PCM63 ?
In other words: Isn't it enough simply to purchase the suggested parts/logics (P6, U4, U2 etc.) and build an appropriate small PBC needed, place it correctly between DF and PCMs and let it do the work?
BTW, I am already using all the other points mentioned in Herb’s DACPrincipia4 (XO3.2 in the transport, thus getting the “Enhanced SPDIF” and the separate injected Clock into the DF’s XTI; the receiver is bypassed for the Clock-Signal). It is FANTASTIC!! Now I would like to keep going forward with the re-clocking. Hope you can advise me.
Greetings & Thanks,
IJ.
irgendjemand said:
Dear IY,
Some words are made bold by me in the quote. These are the crucial points:
- What about the layout of the DAC in question?
- What about the power supplies (plural!) of the to be built reclocking circuit?
In the 'background' many problems should be solved as well, otherwise the remedy may be worse than the disease.
If it was that simple as you think, TentLabs should have produced it already..........
The 50 MHz oscilloscope: it could very well be e.g. that the clock from the transport should be inverted. For this the signal relations on the PCM should be investigated. One should be sure about this. Just listening to the audio is too unsure!
About the layout: read
www.tentlabs.com/InfoSupport/page35/files/Supply_decoupling.pdf
to get an idea......
SM5842APT on 16,9344MHz
Hello,
very fine thread ! Full of information !
This is for Dr. H.
Could be I can say some things to make your 384fs=16,9344MHz Player work on the 256fs=11,2896MHz DAC.
Please look at the datasheet of the SM5842APT, it can selekt the System Clock with Pin 3. Open this Pin, it´s a intern pull-up to High then it works on 384fs clocks as well.
Some things...
I think the solution with the clean Tent Clock in the Transport and sending this to the DAC is very good, I dont know if the PLL with another Clock would be better... There I think only a much better
Clock then the Tent - what probably could be consructed... - could be a inprovement.
The XO3 should do the work as well, if you send out the Clock to the DAC, how it´s done with the XO3.2. The 3.2 improves the SPDIF as benefit. But if you have a XO3, I would try this one.
The DIR9001 doesnt work with the external Clock, but it´s a improvement over the 8412/14 when you use the full/originaly SPDIF as the information. B.t.w. There is a Pro-Version on the market, which is even better then the normal DIR9001 Adaptor.
I see, I will have to read this thread from this day every day...
So I can have a further input fo the christmas time...
Best regards,
Manfred.
Hello,
very fine thread ! Full of information !
This is for Dr. H.
Could be I can say some things to make your 384fs=16,9344MHz Player work on the 256fs=11,2896MHz DAC.
Please look at the datasheet of the SM5842APT, it can selekt the System Clock with Pin 3. Open this Pin, it´s a intern pull-up to High then it works on 384fs clocks as well.
Some things...
I think the solution with the clean Tent Clock in the Transport and sending this to the DAC is very good, I dont know if the PLL with another Clock would be better... There I think only a much better
Clock then the Tent - what probably could be consructed... - could be a inprovement.
The XO3 should do the work as well, if you send out the Clock to the DAC, how it´s done with the XO3.2. The 3.2 improves the SPDIF as benefit. But if you have a XO3, I would try this one.
The DIR9001 doesnt work with the external Clock, but it´s a improvement over the 8412/14 when you use the full/originaly SPDIF as the information. B.t.w. There is a Pro-Version on the market, which is even better then the normal DIR9001 Adaptor.
I see, I will have to read this thread from this day every day...
So I can have a further input fo the christmas time...
Best regards,
Manfred.
PA0SU said:
All,
This statement marks the end of my involvement with diyaudio.
This has to be the most arrogant thing I have heard on this forum in a long time, and does nothing but inspire complete contempt for the person who uttered it.
I'll leave you Buy It Yourselfers and Tent *** kissers to wallow in your own sh*t.
Re: SM5842APT on 16,9344MHz
In your opinion, how much animprovement is the XO3.2 over the XO3 for use in the transport?
As stated in a previous post I have this one and I'm not sure how long would it be to trade it to Tent in for the updated version.
Cool. Model number?
caine28 said:
In your opinion, how much animprovement is the XO3.2 over the XO3 for use in the transport?
As stated in a previous post I have this one and I'm not sure how long would it be to trade it to Tent in for the updated version.
Cool. Model number?
spzzzzkt said:
To Paul,
Why do you insult me when I say that 'a circuit' would have been produced by TenLabs if it were simple?
My statement is, that building a reclocking cicuit into an existing DAC is far from simple....
I do not accept the way you treat me. Who is the arrogant person here?
Thanks Manfred, will have a look at 5842 again.
Paul, Herb:
You're both valuable contributors to the thread; we can all benefit from the ideas and experiements.
This is meant to be fun and rewarding at the same time. Let's work together.
Paul, Herb:
You're both valuable contributors to the thread; we can all benefit from the ideas and experiements.
This is meant to be fun and rewarding at the same time. Let's work together.
Manfred was right 😉
; The data sheet for SM5842 says that pin 3 (CKSLN) is the
"Oscillator and system clock select input. 384fs when HIGH, and 256fs when LOW."
So if I set pin 3 of 5842 to HIGH (5V), I should be able to run my transports clock (16.xx) directly to XTI of 5842.
Lets assume that the clock in the transport is just standard, nothing fancy.
Would this still be a better solution than running a secondary PLL/VCXO?
; The data sheet for SM5842 says that pin 3 (CKSLN) is the
"Oscillator and system clock select input. 384fs when HIGH, and 256fs when LOW."
So if I set pin 3 of 5842 to HIGH (5V), I should be able to run my transports clock (16.xx) directly to XTI of 5842.
Lets assume that the clock in the transport is just standard, nothing fancy.
Would this still be a better solution than running a secondary PLL/VCXO?
Dr.H said:
But, you cann't longer use the transport's clock in the DAC. The dig.fi still expects 256.fs!
The 256.fs from the receiver is far too noisy!
If possible do not use a secondary PLL-VCXO and never use a clock directly from a receiver.
PA0SU said:
????
As mention above (and written in the Datasheet) the oscillator and system clock select input of the SM5842 figf. can be 384fs when HIGH, and 256fs when LOW.
I thought that the digf. expects only what you tell him to expect? 😉
Greetings.
irgendjemand said:
Yes, you are right! With a masterclock at 348.fs and an SPDIF enhancer in the transport, also my DACprincipe4 will work, even the reclocking circuit. Much more simple as I could imagine....
My brains were still fixed to 256.fs for the reclocking.
PA0SU said:
I owe you a BIG apology Herb. I followed the link in a message alert and completely missed the context of your post. Removed from context (and with out the benefit of my first coffee) I had read as you saying something along the lines that if mod to the reclocking circuit was any good Tentlabs would have already come up with the idea. In context I see you were saying nothing of the sort. So again I apologies for my comments to you.
Paul
Feeding 16.xxx to 5842-NO need for VCXO-PLL
Paul, since your transport is also at 16.xxx and as Manfred points out, the 5842 can take the 16.xxx if CKSLN is pulled high (+5v), why not try this option as opposed to the VCXO?
Herb, I would be interested to know if you tried feeding the original cd player clock back to your transport. How does it compare with the Tent clock?
The SPDIF of the Theta is reclocked, balanced etc and I think pretty decent. So perhaps all I need to do is buy a simple Tent XO?
Paul, since your transport is also at 16.xxx and as Manfred points out, the 5842 can take the 16.xxx if CKSLN is pulled high (+5v), why not try this option as opposed to the VCXO?
Herb, I would be interested to know if you tried feeding the original cd player clock back to your transport. How does it compare with the Tent clock?
The SPDIF of the Theta is reclocked, balanced etc and I think pretty decent. So perhaps all I need to do is buy a simple Tent XO?
spzzzzkt said:
You are an impulsive man! Next time 'count till 10' as my mother often said when I was angry..... Also a good method is: ask the writer what he did mean precisely before blaming him.......
Do not forget that many people here (and I am one of them) write in a foreign language, so it always could be that a statement is annoying or even insulting for a maiden speaker as you.
But, I accept your apologies.
Herbert.
Re: Feeding 16.xxx to 5842-NO need for VCXO-PLL
What do you mean with: feeding the original cd player clock back to your transport ? As far as I understood the term 'transport' is synonym for 'CD-player' on diyAudio...., or?
If the SPDIF output from you Theta is 'clean', a jitter poor clock (as a Tent XO) could be enough. But, are you sure that the SPDIF has been reclocked? The circuit diagram will tell you....
Dr.H said:
What do you mean with: feeding the original cd player clock back to your transport ? As far as I understood the term 'transport' is synonym for 'CD-player' on diyAudio...., or?
If the SPDIF output from you Theta is 'clean', a jitter poor clock (as a Tent XO) could be enough. But, are you sure that the SPDIF has been reclocked? The circuit diagram will tell you....
the DIR9001 PRO thing
Hi,
I´m not so firm with the forum so I don´t find a button to answer on the right fitting part in the thread...
... the question about the DIR9001 and the Pro-Version of it, please look on the big auction-house with the e and type number 160301121098 in. This man sells also the Pro-Version !
Then you could make your own experiencies on it.
But: the much better way seems to be not to use the SPDIF in the normal way. Taking a better clock is everyway much better.
I cannot say if a VCXO is better then a clock-signal from the Transport to the DAC, or from the DAC to the Transport, what
also would be a Idea...
Taking a XO3 is of course a improvement over the original Clock on Board the Player. No discussion here.
I would say the Clock-Signal-Path from Player to DAC is only worth to do it when you have a very good Clock. I would say with the original "bad" Clock in the Transport and sending it to the dac you probably have no improvement over using two "bad" clocks...
But: I havent done this way with the original Clock.
I have only experiencies with the Tent Clock.
Tent Clock is good for us, let me say this again.
I have heard some other Clocks in the last years...
I think i could say most of them on the market...
there a little differencies I would say. The Tent is shure one of the
more musicaly ones, when I have to take it in words.
Some other are very stable and clean too, most ones are really bad, but some are a little cool, the XO3 and also the newer XO3.2 is a little more my thing, the timing is more swinging...
hard to say it with words...
So some of the bad words on top are right, I do like Guidos way of doing the things. There are many other on the market who
sell **** for gold, Tent sells things they are let´s say worth the price. What can we want more...
One thing I want to think about:
Is there a generally thing that 256fs is less problematic then 384fs, cause the frequency is lower.
What can we say about this basics ?
I´m happy that there are no differencies and I can read some more of the interesting things about the PCM63 way of living...
I´m still on the first steps on the theme reclocking.
Good spzzzzkt is still here...
I think we all have or own sort of humor and we should accept this and see this as good sign...
So, I look forward to get the best PCM63 DAC soon...
For my interest:
How do you use the SM5842APT ?`
* jitter-free or normal mode ?
* Dither on or Dither off ?
Whats your oppinion on the differencies in sound ?
Have a good night,
Manfred.
Hi,
I´m not so firm with the forum so I don´t find a button to answer on the right fitting part in the thread...
... the question about the DIR9001 and the Pro-Version of it, please look on the big auction-house with the e and type number 160301121098 in. This man sells also the Pro-Version !
Then you could make your own experiencies on it.
But: the much better way seems to be not to use the SPDIF in the normal way. Taking a better clock is everyway much better.
I cannot say if a VCXO is better then a clock-signal from the Transport to the DAC, or from the DAC to the Transport, what
also would be a Idea...
Taking a XO3 is of course a improvement over the original Clock on Board the Player. No discussion here.
I would say the Clock-Signal-Path from Player to DAC is only worth to do it when you have a very good Clock. I would say with the original "bad" Clock in the Transport and sending it to the dac you probably have no improvement over using two "bad" clocks...
But: I havent done this way with the original Clock.
I have only experiencies with the Tent Clock.
Tent Clock is good for us, let me say this again.
I have heard some other Clocks in the last years...
I think i could say most of them on the market...
there a little differencies I would say. The Tent is shure one of the
more musicaly ones, when I have to take it in words.
Some other are very stable and clean too, most ones are really bad, but some are a little cool, the XO3 and also the newer XO3.2 is a little more my thing, the timing is more swinging...
hard to say it with words...
So some of the bad words on top are right, I do like Guidos way of doing the things. There are many other on the market who
sell **** for gold, Tent sells things they are let´s say worth the price. What can we want more...
One thing I want to think about:
Is there a generally thing that 256fs is less problematic then 384fs, cause the frequency is lower.
What can we say about this basics ?
I´m happy that there are no differencies and I can read some more of the interesting things about the PCM63 way of living...
I´m still on the first steps on the theme reclocking.
Good spzzzzkt is still here...
I think we all have or own sort of humor and we should accept this and see this as good sign...
So, I look forward to get the best PCM63 DAC soon...
For my interest:
How do you use the SM5842APT ?`
* jitter-free or normal mode ?
* Dither on or Dither off ?
Whats your oppinion on the differencies in sound ?
Have a good night,
Manfred.
Theta...
Hi,
does it have a good Clock inside ? What would do all the good ideas in it, when the clock would be lousy ? Can you find this out ?
Probably it´s worth a try to send the clock to the DAC separately, as said above...
You could buy a XO3, when you say the theta spdif is better then the most normal SPDIF Out... hard to say from the distance...
Fact is: The XO3.2 improves the most SPDIF-Out´s...
Could you take a good picture from the theta to have a look an it ? This could help...
Good night, Manfred.
Hi,
does it have a good Clock inside ? What would do all the good ideas in it, when the clock would be lousy ? Can you find this out ?
Probably it´s worth a try to send the clock to the DAC separately, as said above...
You could buy a XO3, when you say the theta spdif is better then the most normal SPDIF Out... hard to say from the distance...
Fact is: The XO3.2 improves the most SPDIF-Out´s...
Could you take a good picture from the theta to have a look an it ? This could help...
Good night, Manfred.