Hi stinius,
Sorry, I missed your post.
Hi gerhard,
Well, I will treat you with respect. I do understand exactly what your experience has been. In a pure sense, your experience is valuable.
However. As I asked some time ago, once you pass the limits of the rest of the system, how much of an improvement in a clock will actually make a difference? Then, additionally, how much can a human being actually be expected to perceive? There are finite limits to our ability to sense timing differences. That places a limit on how good the performance needs to be. Then, what is the level of impairment that exists in the recorded material?
I do have direct experience with the equipment used to capture the original data both new and after aging. As you know, quartz clocks settle in with age. All clock sources in consumer digital equipment is a quartz oscillator unless the equipment is very inexpensive, and then you may find a resonator. We will ignore that low quality gear.
Good quality CD players and DACs all use quartz crystal oscillators. You know that stability depends on both drive level and temperature stability mostly. I have dealt with both new product service modifications, and after market improvements for oscillators. So, I do have direct experience with this exact topic. I have stated this before, you ignored it in your search.
I test reasonable oscillators with an HP 5372A. That is more than any average technician does, and you know that as well. This is a piece of lab equipment, and I use one.
I have never been inclined to do a study on oscillators in digital audio products, it isn't worth the effort, but required performance levels are well within my ability to directly measure it. Just being honest here. Others here have the ability to measure oscillators to finer levels I guess, but the numbers are well within the range of my equipment. It does have the high stability oscillator option of course.
We are advising members who are not technical on an effective improvement to their system. This isn't a debate on the best oscillator in the world (and commercial oscillators are better than this one). Discussing the perfect oscillator is irrelevant to the use in audio products. Extreme performance will not buy the DIYer anything at all but a warm fuzzy feeling. What I asked was to define the limits of the consumer equipment to begin with (so a target to improve on), then the level of instability in the recorded material to begin with. That establishes a built in level of instability that cannot be improved on. Additionally, what can a human actually sense as far as impairment. That question is critical and defines a ceiling for performance where improvement beyond that point represents a complete waste of money.
If you are an engineer, you are aware that improvement of a system beyond the point where it doesn't make any difference is in fact a waste of money and resources. Correct me if I am wrong on that point, but I'm not.
Since Andreas was developing an improvement on audio playback systems, or recommending his product for that purpose, it was up to him to find out what the limits of the systems and humans were in order to define a target for performance. He did not do any of that, nor have you. I just asked the unpopular question that should have been defined during or before development. In your work, you know that these limits are defined in order to define success or failure of any of your projects. That is how engineering is done.
Anyway, enough. I have always been clear. For all I know, people with good playback equipment can't possibly detect an improvement in system performance by installing a better clock. That is the question, not whether the clock is very good. Who cares beyond a certain point? The question at the heart of this thread, and under subjective reports is simple. What level of performance is required beyond which there is no improvement? People will declare they can sense an improvement in something even when it has been proved that they can't possibly sense one. That is the nature of having a brain that will fool us depending on what we believe we should hear.
That is all I have ever asked / said.
-Chris
Sorry, I missed your post.
I was thinking earlier that it should simply be closed. This isn't a decision I would make since I have been involved in it. I'll ask the team to review and they will decide without my influence. Personally I feel every aspect has been explored and everyone is just picking fights where ever they can.
Hi gerhard,
Well, I will treat you with respect. I do understand exactly what your experience has been. In a pure sense, your experience is valuable.
However. As I asked some time ago, once you pass the limits of the rest of the system, how much of an improvement in a clock will actually make a difference? Then, additionally, how much can a human being actually be expected to perceive? There are finite limits to our ability to sense timing differences. That places a limit on how good the performance needs to be. Then, what is the level of impairment that exists in the recorded material?
I do have direct experience with the equipment used to capture the original data both new and after aging. As you know, quartz clocks settle in with age. All clock sources in consumer digital equipment is a quartz oscillator unless the equipment is very inexpensive, and then you may find a resonator. We will ignore that low quality gear.
Good quality CD players and DACs all use quartz crystal oscillators. You know that stability depends on both drive level and temperature stability mostly. I have dealt with both new product service modifications, and after market improvements for oscillators. So, I do have direct experience with this exact topic. I have stated this before, you ignored it in your search.
I test reasonable oscillators with an HP 5372A. That is more than any average technician does, and you know that as well. This is a piece of lab equipment, and I use one.
I have never been inclined to do a study on oscillators in digital audio products, it isn't worth the effort, but required performance levels are well within my ability to directly measure it. Just being honest here. Others here have the ability to measure oscillators to finer levels I guess, but the numbers are well within the range of my equipment. It does have the high stability oscillator option of course.
We are advising members who are not technical on an effective improvement to their system. This isn't a debate on the best oscillator in the world (and commercial oscillators are better than this one). Discussing the perfect oscillator is irrelevant to the use in audio products. Extreme performance will not buy the DIYer anything at all but a warm fuzzy feeling. What I asked was to define the limits of the consumer equipment to begin with (so a target to improve on), then the level of instability in the recorded material to begin with. That establishes a built in level of instability that cannot be improved on. Additionally, what can a human actually sense as far as impairment. That question is critical and defines a ceiling for performance where improvement beyond that point represents a complete waste of money.
If you are an engineer, you are aware that improvement of a system beyond the point where it doesn't make any difference is in fact a waste of money and resources. Correct me if I am wrong on that point, but I'm not.
Since Andreas was developing an improvement on audio playback systems, or recommending his product for that purpose, it was up to him to find out what the limits of the systems and humans were in order to define a target for performance. He did not do any of that, nor have you. I just asked the unpopular question that should have been defined during or before development. In your work, you know that these limits are defined in order to define success or failure of any of your projects. That is how engineering is done.
Anyway, enough. I have always been clear. For all I know, people with good playback equipment can't possibly detect an improvement in system performance by installing a better clock. That is the question, not whether the clock is very good. Who cares beyond a certain point? The question at the heart of this thread, and under subjective reports is simple. What level of performance is required beyond which there is no improvement? People will declare they can sense an improvement in something even when it has been proved that they can't possibly sense one. That is the nature of having a brain that will fool us depending on what we believe we should hear.
That is all I have ever asked / said.
-Chris
I knew you would take the bait
So the topic is about posting baits?
Look around you and I think you'll find you have been trumped by reality. Over engineering is one of the hallmarks of our age.
So what is the benefit of over engineering on top of already over engineered digital audio product? It sure isn't audible trait, is it?
Then I guess you haven't had the pleasure of working in the defence industry where we routinely made things that would survive and work after any possible human operator would have been decades dead or in conditions that bordered on the ridiculous, like the sea being frozen. And you might let the guys and girls at the likes of Pagani, Bugatti and Mclaren know about their poor design.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. That I have a Pi Zero W music server doesn't render the Melco redundant. I like the the Pi and I like the Melco and beyond that I don't really care so long as I am happy. It is not for me to pontificate to others on the value of their choices.
I understand myself very well the engineering concept of “safety margin”.
I also understand very well the DIY (and not only) reasoning behind “because I can”.
However, do yourself a favour and search this thread for the data/quotes showing the limits of human hearing with respect to jitter (or the phase noise floor). You will find out it is 4 to 5 orders of magnitude compared to what is preached in this thread. 5 orders of magnitude (aka 100dB) is not a safety margin, is an engineering abomination.
Then do everybody a favour and come up with some credible data/facts regarding the effect and it’s magnitude on audio reproduction, of the much praised close in phase noise, which is Andreas core sales pitch.
If after doing this homework you still believe the SQ stories narrated here, then you must be under the Spinoza‘s conjecture spell, and there’s nothing to do to further explain the matter.
And don’t tell me about defence industry, I was involved into that more than I like to admit; nobody is considering 5 orders of magnitude of “safety margin”.
Regards,
Tom
I also understand very well the DIY (and not only) reasoning behind “because I can”.
However, do yourself a favour and search this thread for the data/quotes showing the limits of human hearing with respect to jitter (or the phase noise floor). You will find out it is 4 to 5 orders of magnitude compared to what is preached in this thread. 5 orders of magnitude (aka 100dB) is not a safety margin, is an engineering abomination.
Then do everybody a favour and come up with some credible data/facts regarding the effect and it’s magnitude on audio reproduction, of the much praised close in phase noise, which is Andreas core sales pitch.
If after doing this homework you still believe the SQ stories narrated here, then you must be under the Spinoza‘s conjecture spell, and there’s nothing to do to further explain the matter.
And don’t tell me about defence industry, I was involved into that more than I like to admit; nobody is considering 5 orders of magnitude of “safety margin”.
Regards,
Tom
Last edited:
.This goes beyond safety margins into the I-see-no-use-for-this-therefore-it shouldn't-exist realm. You can bang on about the limits of human hearing till the end of time and I still won't care. The only difference is I won't devote my time to stalking you online and naysaying everything you post.
I guess you aren't experienced / versed in today's sound reproducing digital equipment.
I think you are pretending not to know what the objective of over over-the-top design is with Pagani, Bugatti, Mclaren and certain oscillators. Perhaps you have too much free time on your hand.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.