connect it as you would the battery board... its that simple. spinning a new gen board is a significant cost vs respinning the same board and its easy enough to do it as it is. most people that are going to go to the trouble to build another reg for the board will go with something a bit more exotic than another slightly lower noise LDO anyway IMO.
The Si570 shows -112dBc@100Hz at 120MHz, so theoretically around -130dBc@100Hz at 10MHz; so, I presume -100dBc at 10Hz or less, since the manufacturer does not shows phase noise performance at 10Hz and 1Hz, that are much more important in audio than higher testing frequencies. A good oscillator should be reach -120dBc at 10Hz, not at 100Hz.
A good crystal should be in cold welded package, 10 ohm ESR or so, a few fF of motional capacitance, translated in 100-150K unloaded Q.
But the cheap Citizens like this
CSA309 11.2896MABJ-UB - CITIZEN AMERICA - CRYSTAL11,2896MHZ | Farnell Italia
should work fine in a simple cheap picogate oscillator. As far as I know these crystals does not perform all identical, so the best way is to buy a lot of them (50 pcs for about 15 USD) and listen to the result. I think you could find at least 5 good crystal from the bag of 50.
A good crystal should be in cold welded package, 10 ohm ESR or so, a few fF of motional capacitance, translated in 100-150K unloaded Q.
But the cheap Citizens like this
CSA309 11.2896MABJ-UB - CITIZEN AMERICA - CRYSTAL11,2896MHZ | Farnell Italia
should work fine in a simple cheap picogate oscillator. As far as I know these crystals does not perform all identical, so the best way is to buy a lot of them (50 pcs for about 15 USD) and listen to the result. I think you could find at least 5 good crystal from the bag of 50.
Since a member ask "What are the best clock to try", I try to reply to the question, I never said something replaces something.
BTW, you could build 2 or more of this "3 USD oscillators", for any frequency you are looking, the only limit is the suitable crystal you can get from the market.
BTW, you could build 2 or more of this "3 USD oscillators", for any frequency you are looking, the only limit is the suitable crystal you can get from the market.
sure, but you have suggested building the clock board plus trimmed cmos buffer as a cheaper solution...and doing 50 uncontrolled listening tests on 11MHz crystals to select a suitable unit as something that compares to 45/49/90/98MHz clocks that are already cheaper than the cost of the parts for your suggestion alone (not NDK or si570 of course)... one is a multiple speed unit, all with well designed boards and interfaces to connect to fifo
you have made all of these suggestions as a solution for a clock to try in the fifo clock module?.
(i'm interested in how you select these by ear, you just remember, take notes on 50 parts? again tick tock tick tock)
it just seems like straight up trolling to me, just like most posts you make in this thread, they are off topic. your posts contain the subject of clocks, but other than that have zero to do with this thread, its just OT noise IMO.
anyone who might take on building their own clock board with diff CMOS amp as a solution, is probably already aware of the fact it could be done....
you have made all of these suggestions as a solution for a clock to try in the fifo clock module?.
(i'm interested in how you select these by ear, you just remember, take notes on 50 parts? again tick tock tick tock)
it just seems like straight up trolling to me, just like most posts you make in this thread, they are off topic. your posts contain the subject of clocks, but other than that have zero to do with this thread, its just OT noise IMO.
anyone who might take on building their own clock board with diff CMOS amp as a solution, is probably already aware of the fact it could be done....
Last edited:
I get the whole DIY as enjoyment thing, ive done my toils of matching discrete parts etc. ;but these are serious undertakings time wise. sorry i'm just getting frustrated with all these oddball interludes, many lead to suggestions the fifo is pointless/superfuous, or harping on about 44.1 as the only valid audiophile pursuit. All in a thread where people are pretty clearly willing to try new things and mostly want much higher speeds
If you are looking for a dual clock frequency, most of folks in this thread does not need more than 2 frequency (I believe), it's a cheaper solution (I wrote 5 good from 50, so 1 from 10: 10 listening tests and 3 USD), but also IMHO (starting from the specs of the above devices) a better solution.
No limit for higher speeds, you can reach easily 100MHz with overtone crystal.
And again you forgot the question: "What are the best clock to try"
No limit for higher speeds, you can reach easily 100MHz with overtone crystal.
And again you forgot the question: "What are the best clock to try"
I appreciate to learn from you and I was not aware that I could build a clock myself which outperforms the Crystek...(I am wondering if there is no project going on at DIYAUDIO on this or even a group Buy...this for sure would be on the list of many)..
...and the FIFO does its job, it is a must have, but why not than being hardcore as well on the Clock-Quality and PSU-Quality ?
DIY is for me about learning and get crazy and have fun...Andrea, your recommendation fulfills all of that fur sure...but selecting by ear from a bag of 50 is too crazy, even for me...
So...if you can recommend a better clock (which manufacturer ?) and if you have a link, I will build it...just for fun and to see what the FIFO can achieve in the Dual-Board-Setup ....and than I will do the shoot-out against the S570...just for fun.
...and the FIFO does its job, it is a must have, but why not than being hardcore as well on the Clock-Quality and PSU-Quality ?
DIY is for me about learning and get crazy and have fun...Andrea, your recommendation fulfills all of that fur sure...but selecting by ear from a bag of 50 is too crazy, even for me...
So...if you can recommend a better clock (which manufacturer ?) and if you have a link, I will build it...just for fun and to see what the FIFO can achieve in the Dual-Board-Setup ....and than I will do the shoot-out against the S570...just for fun.
Last edited:
yes of course you can, which will put pressure on the layout/termination and you will still need another clock for the 44.1/48k material since the board doesnt support 2048x FS, so needs auto switching between 4 clocks to emulate the si570, with all of them needing some trimming in the divider to get a close multiple
thus my statement of you missing the point of the si570
no I didnt forget...
its far too general a question to answer in this context and without a budget or aim. if you actually remember my query was regarding your minimization of the effort required vs quite a small money saving overall.
if just building a single standalone clock for a dac board and a single fundamental frequency is all thats desired, sure I might consider it, but I wouldnt be listening to 50 XOs to pick a few, sorry I have better things to do with my time. when you produce something that actually does reach the theoretical potential, (harder than you claim and you know it) then I might start listening a bit harder, these are not new concepts to me, but myself I know that the buffer already adds more, or at best about the same jitter as the NDK and crysteks sans buffer, if you have to multiply the fundemental, then...
so you may be able to equal or slightly better the common clocks in use in this thread for a tenner less, or really about the same, if you just lash it up and dont care about your time.
so remind me of the point aside from the adventure? which is fair enough as well as long as thats how its presented, rather than an easy way to save money and get a better result with no experience.... along with a very likely lack of test gear to verify the result
Last edited:
As far as I know (maybe I'm wrong) the only clock project in DiyAudio is the Discrete low jitter clock from Anton Clark. I got a couple of PCBs, but I have not yet tried them. I own a bag of Citizen crystal, so I'll try them in Anton's circuit. The great issue is that cheap crystals are not selected and therefore constant quality is not guaranteed. A good crystal costs 100 times and more than the Citizen, and in this case the manufacturer tests all crystal and selects only those are conform. I bought 5 sample of good quality AT-cut crystal from Laptech, they came with a paper listing the specs of each crystal. Reading the document I found they produced 12 crystals to send me 5, 7 was throw out because they don't reach the minimun spec requested (Q below 100K). That's the reason whereby they are so expensive.
At this moment I'm working about a low phase noise oscillator using the above crystal, but my time is limited, so this project is far from the end. The prototype works, but I have to design the PCB to test its performance at a professional lab.
Unfortunately the most popular distributors such as Mouser, Digi-Key and so on, do not supply good oscillator
At this moment I'm working about a low phase noise oscillator using the above crystal, but my time is limited, so this project is far from the end. The prototype works, but I have to design the PCB to test its performance at a professional lab.
Unfortunately the most popular distributors such as Mouser, Digi-Key and so on, do not supply good oscillator
of course, the FIFO buffer has higher jitter than the XO, but as I said several time in my previous posts one can feed directly the DAC BCK from the MCLK and then send it back to the source (the FIFO buffer). A synchronous system with a clean bit clock close to the DAC chip, certainly within the reach of the diyer (since we are in a diy forum).
No multiplier, an overtone crystal reachs easily 100Mhz at third or fifth overtone.
No PLL, not much loved from audio devices.
An easy way? I can reply for myself, not for all the folks of this thread, IMHO a way to get better performance.
The FIFO buffer is a good project (take a look at the group buy, I got 5 units), but with some additional trick it can become a great project. I believe that in this thread there are those who wants play any kind of liquid music at all costs, but there are also those who wants to reach the better performance although with less friendly solutions.
My FIFO already did exactly this way
. Clean MCLK from clock board is sent directly into the DAC chip. FIFO buffer logic is just synchronizing with MCLK which was sent back from clock board(could be via a isolator). Every signal is generated by the clock board at finial stage, so what clock you have what jitter performance you get. It has nothing to do with the logic. FIFO doesn't introduce any additive jitter to the clock board. Just didn't get your point, what you are looking for?
I measured/tested most of the XOs you mentioned, including the discrete one, but forgive me, I just don't want telling much.
Regards,
Ian
Last edited:
Ian,
From your testing result:
Period jitter RMS:5.988 ps
Period jitter peak-to-peak:+-21ps
Jitter distribution: Gaussian
frequency: 2.82239MHz
where this jitter come from? if it comes from the generic XO you are right, but if the XO has lower jitter then it comes from the FIFO. since it re-clock all the I2S signal.
From your testing result:
Period jitter RMS:5.988 ps
Period jitter peak-to-peak:+-21ps
Jitter distribution: Gaussian
frequency: 2.82239MHz
where this jitter come from? if it comes from the generic XO you are right, but if the XO has lower jitter then it comes from the FIFO. since it re-clock all the I2S signal.
yes thats the generic XO, since a meaningful measurement at 1-2ps at the output of the clock buffer (not memory buffer) is not so easy, so he crippled the design to get a number that meant something...
it seems you dont know how this module works...still.
the only jitter in this system is that of the master clock itself and the output buffer, similar to the logic buffer chips you recommended, but with a properly laid out impedance controlled PCB and tested to a level that means something, rather than anecdotal listening test results.
and here we are...De ja vu all over again.
this is still about the clock recommendation?
it seems you dont know how this module works...still.
the only jitter in this system is that of the master clock itself and the output buffer, similar to the logic buffer chips you recommended, but with a properly laid out impedance controlled PCB and tested to a level that means something, rather than anecdotal listening test results.
and here we are...De ja vu all over again.
this is still about the clock recommendation?
Last edited:
Without the generic XO jitter spec is not clear what is the source of the 6ps jitter.
The measurement should be repeated with the Crystek XO, from its phase noise specs it should have theorically about 0.3 ps (or 0.15ps at 11.2896 MHz).
If the SCK jitter will be the same 6ps, the Crystek or any other high performance oscillator will be unuseful, since the source of the jitter is the FIFO system (maybe the output buffer, I have never seen any schematic, so I cannot say anything).
The measurement should be repeated with the Crystek XO, from its phase noise specs it should have theorically about 0.3 ps (or 0.15ps at 11.2896 MHz).
If the SCK jitter will be the same 6ps, the Crystek or any other high performance oscillator will be unuseful, since the source of the jitter is the FIFO system (maybe the output buffer, I have never seen any schematic, so I cannot say anything).
aaargh seriously how hard is it to get through to you? the fifo system has NO effect on any of the outputs, not a single one, not MCK, not LRCK, not BCK, not SDATA, none of them.......none of them....
the fifo system has NO effect on any of the outputs, not a single one, not MCK, not LRCK, not BCK, not SDATA, none of them.......none of them....
how about you repeat the test and get a meaningful result, Ians measurement noise floor is about 2ps (which is pretty awesome really) and he could not get a meaningful result, so he crippled the unit by using the generic XO to get a result that meant something.
its really hard to tell if you read the pages the results were posted on, or anything but your own words posted in this thread. its baffling, you seem to be replying to our posts, yet its unclear if you understand them or read them properly.
that or you are trolling, you present yourself as a smart guy and there is at least some evidence of that, yet certain things need repeating and repeating and repeating; you keep on playing the same frustrating record
Last edited:
Maybe I lost some posts of this 232 pages thread, I don't remember I read the measurement with the Crystek XO is under the noise floor of the spectrum analyzer. I apologize for this oversight.
Is there any post with the generic XO jitter measurement?
If yes, its jitter is around 6ps or lower?
Is there any post with the generic XO jitter measurement?
If yes, its jitter is around 6ps or lower?
My bet is that the output jitter is dominated by the clocking flip-flops... It would be interesting to do the test with the Crystek. Likely Ian already did that
I have yet to see any datasheet having jitter values for flip flops which sort of indicates that jitter is not an important parameter for flip flops...
I have yet to see any datasheet having jitter values for flip flops which sort of indicates that jitter is not an important parameter for flip flops...