SOME of us ........... 'ey
"As I said before, some of us are actually building something, so our approach might be different than yours. Try to be more tolerant, it never hurt anybody."
Yes, and some of actually design things and build them, help other people design, help other people learn to design, help improve designs, offer suggestions based on what some of the really good commercial high end designers are doing, and make recommendations for parts and design techniques that that serious audio tweakers have known about for ten years, not ten days. What I haven't done, is copy a commercial design down to even the basic cosmetics and to trying to capitalize on a cult following to make a buck; all thewhile, forgetting the fact they probably have benefited in some small way from one or more of the above activities.
And your point was what exactly .............?
"As I said before, some of us are actually building something, so our approach might be different than yours. Try to be more tolerant, it never hurt anybody."
Yes, and some of actually design things and build them, help other people design, help other people learn to design, help improve designs, offer suggestions based on what some of the really good commercial high end designers are doing, and make recommendations for parts and design techniques that that serious audio tweakers have known about for ten years, not ten days. What I haven't done, is copy a commercial design down to even the basic cosmetics and to trying to capitalize on a cult following to make a buck; all thewhile, forgetting the fact they probably have benefited in some small way from one or more of the above activities.
And your point was what exactly .............?
Re: SOME of us ........... 'ey
That you are becoming just another bore with your constant comments on people copying commercial (and not only) designs and capitalising on that.
Fred Dieckmann said:
That you are becoming just another bore with your constant comments on people copying commercial (and not only) designs and capitalising on that.
Re: SOME of us ........... 'ey
I understand that this part of your post doesn't apply to me?
Fred Dieckmann said:
I understand that this part of your post doesn't apply to me?
Re: SOME of us ........... 'ey
I am quite open with a fact that I did copy a commercial design down to basic cosmetics. But if you follow the forum, you will also find that I didn't stop at that, and actually IMHO, quite improved on the original design I copied previously.
So what exactly is your point?
Fred Dieckmann said:
I am quite open with a fact that I did copy a commercial design down to basic cosmetics. But if you follow the forum, you will also find that I didn't stop at that, and actually IMHO, quite improved on the original design I copied previously.
So what exactly is your point?
Re: Any man proud talkin' ..... spent all night on the box.
Actually, I appreciate your last post, as I'm really not in a mood to argue on a Sunday afternoon.
Have a good one, Fred😉
Fred Dieckmann said:
Actually, I appreciate your last post, as I'm really not in a mood to argue on a Sunday afternoon.
Have a good one, Fred😉
rfbrw said:
Thanks, that was an interesting and tricky one. I could only
find him in one of my four art history books, and there he
was only mentioned in passing as the father and teacher of
Caterina v. Hemessen. That made it obvious to check out
the latter in Chadwick, which revealed slightly more info on
Jan Sanders v. H. Funny that the most info on him was to
be found in a book about female painters. I guess I might
even find a few paintings by him on the net now that the
name is revealed. Anyway, while probably a detour for most
of you, I find this one of the more interesting topics lately.
There are other things than audio to learn about here.
Thank for posting the picture Fred, and for revealing its
identity rfbrw.
Addendum: Searching the net reveals a lot of interesting
info for those interested in this topic. JSvH indeed is claimed
a Flemish mannerist painter. None of my books even mention
any mannerist movement in Flemish painting, so Freds post
led to some interesting discoveries, for me at least.
Re: Relax, guys...
Now, has anyone stated any minimum performance of an oscillator for a CD? What is the lowest acceptable performance.
One other thing: Isn't it necessary to have good shielding especially when the oscillator is off the main pcb? Lars' 4-layer pcb seems a better solution than a singlesided pcb. What about radiated energy and what it causes in terms of bad sound?
I just checked ELFA and see a square canned oscillator. The price is 2 USD and I suspect (not checked the datasheet) that's a regular CMOS inverter, the same kind as can be seen as original in a CDP. This is just an obrservation.Cobra2 said:
Now, has anyone stated any minimum performance of an oscillator for a CD? What is the lowest acceptable performance.
One other thing: Isn't it necessary to have good shielding especially when the oscillator is off the main pcb? Lars' 4-layer pcb seems a better solution than a singlesided pcb. What about radiated energy and what it causes in terms of bad sound?
Per-Anders,
I am not sure those C-MAC oscillators in Elfa are that good.
You may wish to check their full range of oscillators
http://www.cmac.ca/mt/databook/
Some of these are claimed to have ultra low phase noise,
which I (mis?)understand as jitter. Then there is the problem
of finding one with the right frequency off the shelf, which
seems not too easy for some CDPs.
I am not sure those C-MAC oscillators in Elfa are that good.
You may wish to check their full range of oscillators
http://www.cmac.ca/mt/databook/
Some of these are claimed to have ultra low phase noise,
which I (mis?)understand as jitter. Then there is the problem
of finding one with the right frequency off the shelf, which
seems not too easy for some CDPs.
Re: Re: Relax, guys...
Per,
I use industrial cans but internally things are somewhat different (optimised by my indications, made on my spec) (I am not stating that industry clocks are no good, but I found only 3% decent ones among a huge search over the industry)
Minimum jitter performance: Defined by set up and hold times of DAC (I expect ns here)
Audible (my ears): < 1ps
(all rms, 3-sigma, depending on spectrum of jitter)
CMOS inverter based clocks are no good to my ears, and it does not take a genius to figure out why. Finally, what is acceptable depends on ones requirements, what is audible is another discussion
Shielding: Depending on topology of oscillator, for example an LC based osc has a very high impedance and deserves to be totally shielded in order not to get disrupted.
so far, so good
peranders said:
Per,
I use industrial cans but internally things are somewhat different (optimised by my indications, made on my spec) (I am not stating that industry clocks are no good, but I found only 3% decent ones among a huge search over the industry)
Minimum jitter performance: Defined by set up and hold times of DAC (I expect ns here)
Audible (my ears): < 1ps
(all rms, 3-sigma, depending on spectrum of jitter)
CMOS inverter based clocks are no good to my ears, and it does not take a genius to figure out why. Finally, what is acceptable depends on ones requirements, what is audible is another discussion
Shielding: Depending on topology of oscillator, for example an LC based osc has a very high impedance and deserves to be totally shielded in order not to get disrupted.
so far, so good
Re: Relax, guys...
Hi Arne, others,
The "cheap" Philips caps are there as they have some ESR, and therefor dampen oscillations from the decoupling network that every digital circuit has (I challenge "digital" manufacturers here !). On critical points an SMD cap decouples RF, and the canned oscs have 1uF internally !
Changing these to low ESR types decreases performance
My input cap is chosen small on purpose to avoid LF input currents through the power supply (red wire) which in turn prevents similar currents through the ground wiring (resulting in lower LF jitter)
Currently the PCB is and will remain double sided
Scraped off parts: These are part of a long search, and not given away, but all in line with LOW NOISE
I have a cascaded voltage reg with 110 dB suppression in the audio range and output voltage noise of 3 nV per Sqrrt Hz (20 Hz - 50kHz) (You are invited to beat this low noise, I had to build an AD797 based 50 dB pre amp to measure that - using my beloved HP3580A SA).
All above contributes, inlcuding a dedicated designed canned oscillator - available for true DIY as well - to low jitter and better sound. Rocket science ? Whatever you like to call it, it just works fine.......
hasta pronto
Cobra2 said:
Hi Arne, others,
The "cheap" Philips caps are there as they have some ESR, and therefor dampen oscillations from the decoupling network that every digital circuit has (I challenge "digital" manufacturers here !). On critical points an SMD cap decouples RF, and the canned oscs have 1uF internally !
Changing these to low ESR types decreases performance
My input cap is chosen small on purpose to avoid LF input currents through the power supply (red wire) which in turn prevents similar currents through the ground wiring (resulting in lower LF jitter)
Currently the PCB is and will remain double sided
Scraped off parts: These are part of a long search, and not given away, but all in line with LOW NOISE
I have a cascaded voltage reg with 110 dB suppression in the audio range and output voltage noise of 3 nV per Sqrrt Hz (20 Hz - 50kHz) (You are invited to beat this low noise, I had to build an AD797 based 50 dB pre amp to measure that - using my beloved HP3580A SA).
All above contributes, inlcuding a dedicated designed canned oscillator - available for true DIY as well - to low jitter and better sound. Rocket science ? Whatever you like to call it, it just works fine.......
hasta pronto
Re: Re: Relax, guys...
Do you mean that you have ordered a special oscillator design? Isn't it very expensive in small series? I assume that you don't sell in huge quantities.Guido Tent said:
Re: Re: Re: Relax, guys...
Guido seems to sell just the oscillator can itself for $25 - $30, (actually, it was some retailer, not Guido himself). Assuming
he wants to make a profit, not a loss on this, it might give a
hint. No idea what quantities he is buying, though.
peranders said:
Guido seems to sell just the oscillator can itself for $25 - $30, (actually, it was some retailer, not Guido himself). Assuming
he wants to make a profit, not a loss on this, it might give a
hint. No idea what quantities he is buying, though.
Hi, Guido!
Thanks for clarifying that all things have a purpose...
BTW, the Kwak-clock is still single-sided ;-)
Arne K
(BTW, I have used your XO in Kwack-clock circuit with equal good result, maybe "overkill" ?).😉
Thanks for clarifying that all things have a purpose...
BTW, the Kwak-clock is still single-sided ;-)
Arne K
(BTW, I have used your XO in Kwack-clock circuit with equal good result, maybe "overkill" ?).😉
Re: Re: Re: Re: Relax, guys...
Hi
I stock 8 frequencies XO and 5 frequencies VCXO. The clocks are designed with my inputs and manufacturerd to my specification. Industry requires quantities, and yes, I do sell them otherwise the business case would be very negative.......
XO costs 27 euro and needs LOW NOISE power supply (just like any other oscillator)
Ciao
peranders said:
Christer said:
Hi
I stock 8 frequencies XO and 5 frequencies VCXO. The clocks are designed with my inputs and manufacturerd to my specification. Industry requires quantities, and yes, I do sell them otherwise the business case would be very negative.......
XO costs 27 euro and needs LOW NOISE power supply (just like any other oscillator)
Ciao
The right stuff
"Whatever you like to call it, it just works fine......."
I'd call it some very thorough engineering. The design details indicate some who gone past the standard engineering specs to some of the real subtitles of extreme low jitter oscillator design. The thinking on low Q caps, very high PSRR, and extremely low noise; mirror the findings and design techniques used in the no holds barred Jung type regulator circuits. I think we have a truly talented designer here, who has given more hints on low noise oscillators than I would have after designing such a product. Having done some telecom phase noise measurements with the Tektronix CSA-8000 on very low oscillator circuits, I find myself in agreement with his findings and design approach.
http://www.tek.com/site/ps/0,,85-13499-INTRO_EN,00.html
"Whatever you like to call it, it just works fine......."
I'd call it some very thorough engineering. The design details indicate some who gone past the standard engineering specs to some of the real subtitles of extreme low jitter oscillator design. The thinking on low Q caps, very high PSRR, and extremely low noise; mirror the findings and design techniques used in the no holds barred Jung type regulator circuits. I think we have a truly talented designer here, who has given more hints on low noise oscillators than I would have after designing such a product. Having done some telecom phase noise measurements with the Tektronix CSA-8000 on very low oscillator circuits, I find myself in agreement with his findings and design approach.
http://www.tek.com/site/ps/0,,85-13499-INTRO_EN,00.html
Tent XO!
Hi Fred,
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Both TENT & KWAK are exelent!
Giving the fact that I did not measure the PSU.
I just, for now, tested the TENT XO on the KWAK PSU.
Both gentleman are really good in designing clocks.
I'm still ill, but when I'm back on track, I'll report to you guys how the TENT XO sounds with his own dedicated PSU!
Best regards,
Audiofanatic 😉
P.S. Heren, jullie zijn echt geweldig!
Fred Dieckmann said:
Hi Fred,
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Both TENT & KWAK are exelent!
Giving the fact that I did not measure the PSU.
I just, for now, tested the TENT XO on the KWAK PSU.
Both gentleman are really good in designing clocks.
I'm still ill, but when I'm back on track, I'll report to you guys how the TENT XO sounds with his own dedicated PSU!
Best regards,
Audiofanatic 😉
P.S. Heren, jullie zijn echt geweldig!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.