|
|
Post by macca on Apr 10, 2023 11:23:09 GMT
I like that you are surprised that I made a very fair point.  I would like to see a lot more measurements of the specific use cases we have here so we could see what, if anything, is really happening to the signal. |
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Apr 10, 2023 12:10:11 GMT
Here we go again if we can hear the difference we will be able to measure it . Well if the measurements could be made and proved then no company should ever make anything but perfect sounding equipment and all equipment should sound the same . I know some people maintain this is the case and that once we achieve certain levels and if two items measure the same they will sound the same but most users know this to be wrong and amps,CD players , Dacs , and many others do sound different . Despite what I keep being told I do not think as yet we have the perfect and right tools to take the perfect measurements that will tell any designer or mfg with real certainty what is right and what is not. All current equipment is a compromise and we all have to make our choice. If studios use clocks to achieve so good recording how is that not to achieve a good playback . While often record companies and staff may do constant things to ruin playback Ih ave not met an engineer , producer or artist that wanted there music to sound terrible .
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Apr 10, 2023 12:34:42 GMT
I like that you are surprised that I made a very fair point. I would like to see a lot more measurements of the specific use cases we have here so we could see what, if anything, is really happening to the signal. I would like to think that it *should* always be possible to find out definitely where things make a difference, but as I have always said from day one, I don't believe they can, but that's because I don't know if we are measuring for the right things, or in the way that these things would show up. In general, the garden variety audiophile only has the measurement devices on the side of their heads to gauge things with, and I am ok with that too. I'm happy to read measurements and personal accounts and accept them for what they are. I just don't dismiss either on the basis of the other. If we can get a measurement of what effect a clock has, it may not be in the right area to find it IMO, as what I am hearing is spacial. Can we measure that? Time smearing maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Apr 10, 2023 12:58:09 GMT
Martin makes a fair and genuine point, see answer below Remember when you look at a signal on a scope you are looking at the time domain, when using an FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) which is knocked down version of discrete Fourier transform you are using the frequency domain. We can view both at the same time and in far geater resolution and sample rate. Now the perception we have can be some of all of those items I mentioned before in ther previous post, these manifest themselves as temporal (time based) differences. They are quite a few of us in the EE community seeking answers here and in the interests of fair pair if they really are any that we can genuinely measure any differences at all using traditional methods. I now have an APX 555 (B) which I acquired last week, just building the pc to control and some new mastering software so give me a week to get to grips with it! Our human hearing tops out around 120 s/n plus any Frequency limitations we have personally so is there any point at looking at anything below this? Martins plot show's much of the signal way down in the mud below -130dbr (A) which is an A weighted filter that is applied top the result. Compared with dB, A-weighted measurements underestimate the perceived loudness, annoyance factor, and stress-inducing capability of noises with low frequency components, especially at moderate and high volumes of noise. If you look at the plot Martin has posted the APX 555 (b) has a max FFT sample rate of 1.2Million samples bin size per sample maybe 2K (I need to check on this) plus I suspect amir was using averaging as well the horizontal time base for 22Khz is pretty much 0.05ms We have been diffing a lot deeper into this in relation to much noise is 'not visible or more obvious' when we delve far more accurately into the results. Below is a plot of a dac I'm working on taken on the UPV 66 Audio analyser which has a s/n of 114db if salved wit the SE-120 possibly around 117s/n, not quite the quoted 120sn the APX555 (B) has. THis is a 12Khz test signal generated by the high precision digital FG inside the analyser. It very similar to a J-test run @ -1dbs with 256K resolution on the FFT analyser. Given its using 1988 dac chips I'm please with it. The nest plot after is the same dac, same setting only this time looking up to 45Khz, not the the second harmonic amplitute which is now visable due to increasing the BW of the analyser. Martin will point out hat a brickwall filter (or some form of pulse filter) will remove this. However this is how I have designed the dac. 
 These following images are with my new turbo nutter bastard R&D scope the first one is the same set up only this time we are taking a much longer sample time 200ms as apposed to 0.05ms, although only 100K samples only 1/12th on the APX rate. The last one is using a 100ms time still significantly more than 0.05ms this time with 100Million samples 92 times greater than the analyser plus bin sizes of 20K (again 10 times that per bin)
so what does it all mean in real world understanding then? well the analyser on the plot that Martin showed in in dbr (a) this is decibels relative to reference level. the Wavepro I have selcted dbm (a unit of level used to indicate that a power level is expressed in decibels (dB) with reference to one milliwatt (mW).
So we would need to use a conversion calculation and being in mind the scope was set to 1 meg ohm that calculation is Dbm-10 (dot) log10 (Z) (Z is the impedence value in the case of the scope 1Meg Ohm) which gives us at its mid mud point (lol) point -152dbr (A) also remeber I did have avergaing turned off.
Back to the OP, can and what if measureable traits produce the results when you are sat in front of the your sound system that I have discribed in the previous post.
Our reaserch is ongoing but it is so far throwing up some interesting questions!
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Apr 10, 2023 13:03:13 GMT
Sorry a bit more I can reduce the resolution bandwidth down to 200 microhertz and plot the same 22Khz BW with 20 Billion samples and a memory depth of 5 gigapoints but they may take a wee while to accomplish. As Sherlock Holmes would often state, when you have looked at all of the logical facts only the illogical are left, we have started so will keep you up to date as we progress on the journey.
In a couple of weeks I have a serious areospace project we will be woprking on so I will renting a special signal analyser (even I cant to spring for one of these for weeks use lol) so I will spend a day looking very closely at dac signals tyopu never know something may be obvious
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 10, 2023 13:16:58 GMT
If studios use clocks to achieve so good recording how is that not to achieve a good playback . because recording and playback are two entirely different processes. The studio need to use a master clock in certain situations, otherwise you will start to build up noise and distortion. You'd need a lot of it before it began to spoil the recording but it's best practice so it's done regardless. At home you are usually not needing to synchronise multiple DACs so the purpose of use in the studio does not apply. That doesn't mean there cannot be an effect on playback when using a reclocker or master clock at home though. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 10, 2023 13:26:58 GMT
I like that you are surprised that I made a very fair point. I would like to see a lot more measurements of the specific use cases we have here so we could see what, if anything, is really happening to the signal. I would like to think that it *should* always be possible to find out definitely where things make a difference, but as I have always said from day one, I don't believe they can, but that's because I don't know if we are measuring for the right things, or in the way that these things would show up. In general, the garden variety audiophile only has the measurement devices on the side of their heads to gauge things with, and I am ok with that too. I'm happy to read measurements and personal accounts and accept them for what they are. I just don't dismiss either on the basis of the other. If we can get a measurement of what effect a clock has, it may not be in the right area to find it IMO, as what I am hearing is spacial. Can we measure that? Time smearing maybe? I sort of agree. I have not measured the overall performance of my system. Based on the individual measurements of all the components, it should all be fine. In practice it is, so that's job done. I don't need the verification of measuring the FR and the noise and distortion levels. If I did and they turned out to be terrible am I suddenly going to hear bad sound? Obviously not! if it did sound wrong that would probably be a good way to diagnose the issue though. The problem is not so much that we cannot measure everything - it's just an electrical signal, it is totally quantifiable until it reaches the loudspeaker drive unit - The problem is that in an individual situation we cannot be sure what is going on until we measure that individual situation. Otherwise there are too many variables to be able to do more than generalise about what is really happening on a technical level in a specific system. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 10, 2023 13:37:23 GMT
Martin makes a fair and genuine point, see answer below Remember when you look at a signal on a scope you are looking at the time domain, when using an FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) which is knocked down version of discrete Fourier transform you are using the frequency domain. We can view both at the same time and in far geater resolution and sample rate. Now the perception we have can be some of all of those items I mentioned before in ther previous post, these manifest themselves as temporal (time based) differences. They are quite a few of us in the EE community seeking answers here and in the interests of fair pair if they really are any that we can genuinely measure any differences at all using traditional methods.
As you know time domain and frequency domain are effectively the same thing, so if we see something in the time domain analysis then it will also be visible in the frequency domain, it can't be otherwise. In the graph I showed the noise is so far below the signal there is no way it can be audible in any situation and there cannot be anything 'hiding' that is not visible but that would affect sound quality. It's a great notion that there are mystery still to be solved here it would be very interesting if that were the case. I applaud you for trying but I strongly suspect you are wasting your time. |
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Apr 10, 2023 15:36:10 GMT
So recordings are only made for and of themselves and they are never meant to be played ? The process or even the art of recording may well be different but it's only purpose in the real world is to make a sound which can and should be played back. What is done including adding distortion ,reverb , echo spatial placement only has any point when it is played back and listened to . So they are using a clock to make the recording better in order that it will sound better when listened to .
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 10, 2023 16:06:42 GMT
So recordings are only made for and of themselves and they are never meant to be played ? The process or even the art of recording may well be different but it's only purpose in the real world is to make a sound which can and should be played back. What is done including adding distortion ,reverb , echo spatial placement only has any point when it is played back and listened to . So they are using a clock to make the recording better in order that it will sound better when listened to . They are using a master clock to prevent distortion issues from creeping in. I suppose you could say that will make the recording sound better but it's purpose is as a preventative not an enhancement. It's stopping the signal from deteriorating, as opposed to improving the signal from what it was originally. |
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Apr 10, 2023 16:52:06 GMT
As has been said this is all about maths and numbers if the recording is digital and what is needed at all times is to make the numbers as accurate as possible so that they are recorded in the most accurate and beneficial way . When it comes to playback then it is about being able to duplicate and spit out those same numbers in the most accurate way and make the job of the number crunching elements as easy as possible to not make errors . This is never done on a CD replay as the system has a built in error correction circuit that means each time the cd plays it will never be exactly the same as each time it spins there will be different levels of correction on that play . I still have no idea why this matters but it is very clear that it does and there is starting to get a larger number of people using very different equipment and clocks who are clearly hearing the improvement . Yet as far as we know no one has measured why this is or is even sure what they should be measuring and your attitude is in your own words that even trying to find out is wasting time . I strongly disagree with this and would say trying to find out the reasons things happen the way they do is never a waste of time , you may well go running down the wrong road , you might even be not sure of which way to go but that should never stop someone trying and seeing if they can find the answer .
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 11, 2023 5:47:40 GMT
As has been said this is all about maths and numbers if the recording is digital and what is needed at all times is to make the numbers as accurate as possible so that they are recorded in the most accurate and beneficial way . When it comes to playback then it is about being able to duplicate and spit out those same numbers in the most accurate way and make the job of the number crunching elements as easy as possible to not make errors . This is never done on a CD replay as the system has a built in error correction circuit that means each time the cd plays it will never be exactly the same as each time it spins there will be different levels of correction on that play No, that is not how CD works. Unless the disc is damaged beyond correction you get the identical signal every time. If it is damaged to that extent you will get skips or drop outs. |
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Apr 11, 2023 8:28:52 GMT
Yes that is how a CD is designed to work and it is part of the Red Book standard . When you place a cd it starts and spins up to speed each time you do it often starts at a different place and wobbles as it reaches its correct rotation speed . As the laser reads the pits there are differences and the error correction starts working to return the code to what its software tells it should be the correct number that was there . If you check any cd player with a meter that shows how often the error correction triggers it is never zero and it varies from play to play . last time i read about it the average was 7 - 10 times per full disc play but in some cases it could be over 40 + . There used to be a very early Cambridge Two Box CD Player designed by Stan Curtis which had a read out that told you every time the error correction triggered . A freind had one and said in all the time he played CD,s he never had a disc with less than five triggers and in most cases it was 15 -20 per CD . Whoever dreamt up the slogan Perfect Sound Forever has done a great disservice is convincing some people that it is correct and annoying those that know it is just marketing fluff .
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Apr 11, 2023 8:38:07 GMT
As has been said this is all about maths and numbers if the recording is digital and what is needed at all times is to make the numbers as accurate as possible so that they are recorded in the most accurate and beneficial way . When it comes to playback then it is about being able to duplicate and spit out those same numbers in the most accurate way and make the job of the number crunching elements as easy as possible to not make errors . This is never done on a CD replay as the system has a built in error correction circuit that means each time the cd plays it will never be exactly the same as each time it spins there will be different levels of correction on that play No, that is not how CD works. Unless the disc is damaged beyond correction you get the identical signal every time. If it is damaged to that extent you will get skips or drop outs. Sorry Martin thats not correct, CD is not bit perfect hence the use of a CRIC and why a CD once copied and played back via SSD is way better, once the copy is made its' bit perfect so no error correction to enable no matter how good easy demo that one
|
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Apr 11, 2023 12:10:30 GMT
I had promised myself that after hearing Alan fb's system with and without the external clock that I wouldn't comment on the clocking issues. But this quote so entirely matches my own experience at Alan's place... macca"I do wonder from some of the descriptions if there is not something happening in the frequency domain with these reclockers. Most audible differences are changes in frequency response. ... that I thought (after a little encouragement from Chris optical) that I'd put in my 2 penneth after all. The tldr version, which is probably all that I can be bothered with, is that I preferred and not by a small margin the internal clock to the external clock. Playing a good recording of a concert grand piano the internal clock simply sounded much more like a real piano. Thus ended my interest in all these shenanigans. Not even close. After a bit of acclimatisation I could easily hear when the external clock was in circuit. It wasn't an improvement IMHO. I'm back at Alan's place soon, I understand that the tonal presentation of the Ekta speakers has been modified since my last visit, it would be interesting to have another comparison. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Apr 11, 2023 12:51:00 GMT
I had promised myself that after hearing Alan fb's system with and without the external clock that I wouldn't comment on the clocking issues. But this quote so entirely matches my own experience at Alan's place... macca"I do wonder from some of the descriptions if there is not something happening in the frequency domain with these reclockers. Most audible differences are changes in frequency response. ... that I thought (after a little encouragement from Chris optical) that I'd put in my 2 penneth after all. The tldr version, which is probably all that I can be bothered with, is that I preferred and not by a small margin the internal clock to the external clock. Playing a good recording of a concert grand piano the internal clock simply sounded much more like a real piano. Thus ended my interest in all these shenanigans. Not even close. After a bit of acclimatisation I could easily hear when the external clock was in circuit. It wasn't an improvement IMHO. I'm back at Alan's place soon, I understand that the tonal presentation of the Ekta speakers has been modified since my last visit, it would be interesting to have another comparison. Jerry, whilst you are in the West Midlands, and a paltry 15-20mins away from my house, why not pop in for a listen here before going to Alans? At the very least you will have a "second opinion" to give on the Ekta, and see if what you hear via the Aqvox with and without EXT clock relates to what you hear with Alans? You could bring your favourite DAC of the moment and spend an hour or so messing about? |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Apr 11, 2023 12:56:35 GMT
OK, good plan, Oli
Once I've agreed a date and time with Alan I'll drop you a message.
|
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Apr 11, 2023 14:15:19 GMT
I am so glad that Jerry put his comments above . I have little doubt that what he heard and comments on is his honest view . This is the issue and there is really not any substitute for what I have been saying all along you need to if you can listen to this for yourself and decide what does and does not work for you . The fact that Jerry disagrees with my view of what I hear does not make his view right or my view right , they are just that a view using music and your ears . I have obvious sensitivities to certain things when I listen and for me I suspect it is very much timing for me this is the important thing and when given whatever addition an external clock gives my brain due to the stimulus makes a very different sound picture in my head than without it . Jerry may well not have his hearing wired anything like mine and so other things are more important to give him the music he wants to hear and how he wants it to sound . I have little doubt that some will be hear things in a similar way to others that have commented positively as I have done but there will also be others like Jerry who will have a different view . The important thing is Jerry has tried it and come to his own conclusion and that no matter what view point you have the external clock does alter things and make a difference . Now we need to know is this just nice distortion that appeals to some and not others or is this in fact a definite improvement ?Is this another analogue / digital Valve / Solid State argument .
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Apr 11, 2023 14:26:27 GMT
OK, good plan, Oli Once I've agreed a date and time with Alan I'll drop you a message. Sundays are usually bulletproof for availability, days in the week are quite difficult, but we'll see where we get to |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Apr 11, 2023 14:45:49 GMT
Having made my post above, I've been musing a bit on the subject.
Initial thoughts were that the differing perceptions seemed to be along the old Flat Earth / Round Earth dichotomy.
The clock improvements seemed to be focusing on PRaT issues, which ime promote the presentation of rhythmic precision at the cost of tonal accuracy.
As a classical fanboy I am blessed/cursed with the need to hear the damn music sound tonally correct. That's not such an issue with some other genres of music where there isn't an Abso!ute Sound to compare it to. (See what I did there?).
I've heard a Naim Flat Earth system sound stunningly, wallet-openingly amazing on rock music. But it made a recording of a Steinway concert grand piano sound like a badly tuned upright honkytonk straight out of a Western cowboy saloon bar. It really did.
At Alan's place, Dream Theater's Pull Me Under sounded really good. Thoroughly enjoyed it. But an orchestra sounded a bit thin and shrieky.
I've noticed this sort of thing many times before when a system hasn't been setup with classical music in mind.
It's just that sort of genre-specific system preference that I heard on Alan's system when going from internal to external clock and back again.
---
It also has, I think, to be borne in mind that Andrew bencat's experiences have been on the systems he's heard, mine have been on an entirely different setup.
We can have no real idea what the other person heard.
It will be interesting if I do make it to Oli's place so I can hear a different system with / without the clock changes.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Apr 11, 2023 15:22:01 GMT
Having made my post above, I've been musing a bit on the subject. Initial thoughts were that the differing perceptions seemed to be along the old Flat Earth / Round Earth dichotomy. The clock improvements seemed to be focusing on PRaT issues, which ime promote the presentation of rhythmic precision at the cost of tonal accuracy. As a classical fanboy I am blessed/cursed with the need to hear the damn music sound tonally correct. That's not such an issue with some other genres of music where there isn't an Abso!ute Sound to compare it to. (See what I did there?). I've heard a Naim Flat Earth system sound stunningly, wallet-openingly amazing on rock music. But it made a recording of a Steinway concert grand piano sound like a badly tuned upright honkytonk straight out of a Western cowboy saloon bar. It really did. At Alan's place, Dream Theater's Pull Me Under sounded really good. Thoroughly enjoyed it. But an orchestra sounded a bit thin and shrieky. I've noticed this sort of thing many times before when a system hasn't been setup with classical music in mind. It's just that sort of genre-specific system preference that I heard on Alan's system when going from internal to external clock and back again. --- It also has, I think, to be borne in mind that Andrew bencat's experiences have been on the systems he's heard, mine have been on an entirely different setup. We can have no real idea what the other person heard. It will be interesting if I do make it to Oli's place so I can hear a different system with / without the clock changes. The larger issue is the speakers capability to convert that orchestral piece, and as good as the Ekta are, I don't think they will hit the spot you need them too. Jason played a piece of music by Regina Spektor, and it's just her and a Piano. With the Vaders this piece was absolutely convincing in terms of the grand being played....on the Ekta it turned into a kind of grandiose Upright. I don't think my system ever sounds shrill or shrieking, tbf, but I guess we'll find out. |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Apr 11, 2023 15:26:29 GMT
I'm a firm believer that different musical genres require different things from audio systems.
I know there's a school of thought that a good system will play any music really well, but I've always found that to be complete b#ll#cks!
|
|
|
|
Post by brucew268 on Apr 11, 2023 15:39:07 GMT
I'm a firm believer that different musical genres require different things from audio systems. I know there's a school of thought that a good system will play any music really well, but I've always found that to be complete b#ll#cks! I read Floyd Toole recently saying something similar. He would have his room acoustics set up to be convertible so that he could have it one way for classical and another for other genres... and had a room with different acoustic values for studio control rooms. |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Apr 11, 2023 16:01:12 GMT
I've heard of well-heeled audio fans having different systems in different rooms for varying musical genres.
I think it would be fun but I've only really got the funds and space for 1 system to do things as best I can for the music I listen to.
To be fair, I'd say my system was at least "good" for anything, but it does some stuff seriously well imo.
|
|
optical
Moderator
BIG STAR
Be Excellent To Eachother
Posts: 1,624 
Member is Online
|
Post by optical on Apr 11, 2023 16:48:44 GMT
I'm a firm believer that different musical genres require different things from audio systems. I know there's a school of thought that a good system will play any music really well, but I've always found that to be complete b#ll#cks! I've always been of the same belief just due to experience really but I'm desperate to be proven wrong eventually.... |
|
Arke
Moderator
Posts: 1,259
|
Post by Arke on Apr 11, 2023 18:33:36 GMT
I'm a firm believer that different musical genres require different things from audio systems. I know there's a school of thought that a good system will play any music really well, but I've always found that to be complete b#ll#cks! I've always been of the same belief just due to experience really but I'm desperate to be proven wrong eventually.... hopefully you'll manage it eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Apr 12, 2023 5:54:17 GMT
No, that is not how CD works. Unless the disc is damaged beyond correction you get the identical signal every time. If it is damaged to that extent you will get skips or drop outs. Sorry Martin thats not correct, CD is not bit perfect hence the use of a CRIC and why a CD once copied and played back via SSD is way better, once the copy is made its' bit perfect so no error correction to enable no matter how good easy demo that one
It is not bit perfect but once error correction is applied the signal leaving the player is identical every time. Copying the CD to a hard drive of any type will make no difference to the output whatsoever even though error correction is no longer required. This is easily demonstrable. I thinkyou might need to refresh your memory as to how CD works. You appreciate that the disc is not read in real time? |
|
Arke
Moderator
Posts: 1,259
|
Post by Arke on Apr 12, 2023 6:24:00 GMT
Sorry Martin thats not correct, CD is not bit perfect hence the use of a CRIC and why a CD once copied and played back via SSD is way better, once the copy is made its' bit perfect so no error correction to enable no matter how good easy demo that one
It is not bit perfect but once error correction is applied the signal leaving the player is identical every time. Copying the CD to a hard drive of any type will make no difference to the output whatsoever even though error correction is no longer required. This is easily demonstrable. I thinkyou might need to refresh your memory as to how CD works. You appreciate that the disc is not read in real time? Martin, my knowledge is quite lacking when it comes to digital, so please excuse the silly questions... So essentially all CD transports, regardless of quality or cost, will produce exactly the same digital output after error correction? Genuine question. I plan to utilise my CD collectiion again one day, but it seems that I don't need a pricey transport. Or, perhaps I'm better to rip to an SSD. Digital seems a minefield 😂. This thread shows I'll need a clock! |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,399
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigman80 on Apr 12, 2023 6:33:48 GMT
It is not bit perfect but once error correction is applied the signal leaving the player is identical every time. Copying the CD to a hard drive of any type will make no difference to the output whatsoever even though error correction is no longer required. This is easily demonstrable. I thinkyou might need to refresh your memory as to how CD works. You appreciate that the disc is not read in real time? Martin, my knowledge is quite lacking when it comes to digital, so please excuse the silly questions... So essentially all CD transports, regardless of quality or cost, will produce exactly the same digital output after error correction? Genuine question. I plan to utilise my CD collectiion again one day, but it seems that I don't need a pricey transport. Or, perhaps I'm better to rip to an SSD. Digital seems a minefield 😂. This thread shows I'll need a clock! The digital output can have a influence AFAIK |
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Apr 12, 2023 7:27:06 GMT
Jason there is a lot of processing to get the digital stream from a CD, apart from the error correction.
As with everything digital, ably demonstrated on this forum, the ultimate timing of digital processes can cause poorer performance.
I have an old CD player used as transport which responds favourably to being reclocked by the Mutec. I was very pleased with the uplift when first connected.
Some transports sound better than others in their native state, throw a Mutec in the mix and you are sorted.
|
|
