The Well Tempered Master Clock - Building a low phase noise/jitter crystal oscillator

Status
Not open for further replies.
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi dddac,
The claims made went beyond phase noise, and those claims were never verified by others with the proper equipment and training to the best of my knowledge.

syn08 did provide additional information on this subject. One major issue was that there was never any recognition of the fact that there were imperfections in the material used for playback, or what the minimum detectable amount of phase noise or jitter was. The claim was that no matter what, the improved clock makes an audible difference. I do know from my own work and experience that this isn't true, but I have never quantified it.

Improving the clock in a DAC or CD player only makes a difference to a certain point, and that also depends on the equipment and media. I would not be that surprised to find out that many decent units using a crystal oscillator would not benefit from a clock better than they already have. But as I said, it depend on several factors. Improving a unit with a bad clock is likely pointless as well since many other aspects of that system would also need to be improved.

What I did experience was every attempt to duck questions possible, and attacks made on non-technical grounds. You can't make strong claims and duck responsibility for them by saying "I am only a hobbyist". That really only says "I don't know what I am doing".

As I said before, I have no problem with subjective claims. But when technical claims are made that are not fully researched or backed up, then those things should be questioned. It's not up to me or anyone else to prove the claims made in this thread, it is up to Andreas alone and he danced whenever a question was raised.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi Mark,
I don't know. I probably would never have seen his thread in that case. I am not about to rule on forum policy as that would be up to the owner, not me.

But then, he couldn't claim he had no commercial interests in a vendor's thread. That would have been more honest I think.
 
anatech,
What would be useful guidance would if there is a place in diyaudio where members should feel safe to comment on their perceived and subjective sound of the devices we build. Should that be ok if it is hidden in the lounge forum for example? In this thread, an assertion was made or implied that clocks that measure with lower phase noise using Andrea's equipment (Timepod? how quick they forget) would also sound better. People chose to implement of their own free will and then comment. It became clear that these comments would be ridiculed and everyone stopped. @DDDAC chose to comment on his own site where we can read and comment without being bullied. Even Syn08 has a personal site where he reports on his subjective sound experience with his amps and phono stages and reports on the collective impression that his friends reported on listening and hearing first class results. But he is quick to suggest it is inappropriate here.
So, if we want to report on our listening impressions are we required to point to a private web site? It is useful. Does the clock make a difference in sound? Does a power supply to the clock make a change that is worth worrying about? What about vibration and or EMI shielding?
I'd conclude that only measurements performed by accredited Diyaudio.com certified engineers can be reported here and sound quality has no place in diyaudio.
Help us understand how we should navigate this topic. Is it best to set up a separate site or use private emails? Certainly we've learned it is against forum rules or edicate to discuss it here.
 
Is there a pending amendment to the rules that will enforce all subjective claims of sound quality to be accompanied by an objective analysis that has been approved by the moderating teams?
All bets are off if the claimant labels it "impression".
I don't want attack anyone or any of those thread ideas in public though,
:rolleyes: You've posted plenty of that yourself including the use psychological terms on someone which were deleted by the forum authority due to offensiveness.

I thought Andrea backed up always his claims with phase noise measurement and showed his claim was correct - building a low phase noise clock

Also, I Never felt mislead by him.

As much as I appreciate you efforts to protect the readers here, I also think we got it. At least I did.
You are free to think and feel any way you want even if it's all a mirage. One convenience about the thoughts and feeling is that you don't need to back it up with evidence.
 
anatech,
What would be useful guidance would if there is a place in diyaudio where members should feel safe to comment on their perceived and subjective sound of the devices we build.
There already is such place, it's called diyAudio forum. The forum rules allow you to post perceived sound quality no matter how subjective it is. If you know of someone who did that and faced a pitchfork mob showing up at his door threatening his safety, please show it.
 
So no problem saying, 'this clock made my dac and other dacs sound much better?' Is that not an allowed opinion about sound quality?


Also, why is it okay for another member to say what amounts to, 'The claim that a clock makes dacs sound much better is not possibly true, and that's a fact."
 
Last edited:
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Opinions are fine as long as there is no technical misrepresentation. As soon as you claim something to be a fact, you should be prepared to prove it.

There are people who will say the 1970's Candle stereo system sounds better than a higher end component stereo system with real designed speakers. The bulk of the population would disagree with them, but as long as they say that is their opinion, that's cool.

We have always been that way here. However when sharing an opinion, be prepared to have others share theirs and they may not agree with you. That's why a subjective thread turns into a brawl and often needs to be shut down.
 
Opinions are fine as long as there is no technical misrepresentation. As soon as you claim something to be a fact, you should be prepared to prove it.

There are people who will say the 1970's Candle stereo system sounds better than a higher end component stereo system with real designed speakers. The bulk of the population would disagree with them, but as long as they say that is their opinion, that's cool.

We have always been that way here. However when sharing an opinion, be prepared to have others share theirs and they may not agree with you. That's why a subjective thread turns into a brawl and often needs to be shut down.


Thanks for the reply. It would be nice to see some even-handedness in how this is dealt with across the entire forum. When we see posts that are claiming subjective changes to sound quality, are we okay to alert the moderation team, evenharmonics, syn08 and others who are highly capable in both supplying and analysing objective evidence that their skills are needed in unemotionally uncovering the truth? If not how do we break the cycle of selective judgement?
 
Also, why is it okay for another member to say what amounts to, 'The claim that a clock makes dacs sound much better is not possibly true, and that's a fact."
What amounts to? That's what creates many problems on internet forums. Quote is the key when making accusation like that. The following are examples of quote.
"You must be living on another planet. If you care to look at who you actually quoted, it is your own credibility that is damaged. Not that you ever had any to begin with."
or this
May I ask for more details of your listening tests, such as what did you use for conversion to DSD (settings too), what dac, what clocks, etc?

Hope this helps.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi Mark,
I have next to zero interest in debating this point. What I said was clear.

Raj1,
Selective? Hardly! My posting history will bear out the fact that I approach this the same way every time. However, I can't be everywhere all the time. Nor am I interested in becoming a slave to false claims of fact.

Hopefully people who have read posts like mine can learn how to separate fact from claims without any basis.

To be honest, I am very tired of having people raise subjective opinions when facts have been stated. It is a massive waste of my time to try and help people who would rather throw their beliefs into the world of faith. If people don't want to use their heads - okay. I just can't stand some folks misleading others. This has been done since the beginning of time. I will always see people out a lot of money in some cases over the same formula. Make a silly claim, collect followers and market that. Whatever.

You would think that you might just consider what someone with actual experience has to say instead of blindly following the pied piper.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi Raj1,
There is no rule, it is an unwritten expectation. Misrepresenting a fact is actually an outright lie. That is not allowed. I can't understand why anyone would feel that is okay.

Hi Joseph,
Go bark up another tree. Facts were given in history. In addition, it is up to the person who made the claims in the beginning to prove them. It sure as heck isn't mine to go over everything again with you unless you need single syllable words.

Yours is a very familiar tactic used by people making false claims. The onus is on Andreas, who I am sure you are talking to. So ask him, not me. Or just read back in the thread.
 
Hi Joseph,

There were likely some posts that implied improved sound quality. Thats the point of contention in this thread. Either way, given how much disruption debates of subjectivity can cause, it would be wise for the moderator team to stipulate necessary rules to avoid such occurrences in the future. There are guidelines for safety practices and commercial interests, but there’s nothing clearly binding for subjective evaluations.

-Raja
 
Hi Raj1,
There is no rule, it is an unwritten expectation. Misrepresenting a fact is actually an outright lie. That is not allowed. I can't understand why anyone would feel that is okay.

Hi Anatech,

Unwritten expectations are the cause of many problems. A simple clear rule stating that subjective opinions should be avoided if they cannot be backed up by qualifying objective analysis would be helpful if that’s the direction the moderation team and site admin is eager to enforce.

-Raja
 
Status
Not open for further replies.