Who knew the arrangement of the DAC and clock could be such a profound spiritual matter
1 Like
Actually this is a good example of science as it is easily explicable. My point earlier was in regard to DAC/Clock combinations which are on individual shelves and not stacked. When stacked there is a passibility of electromagnetic coupling from the fields generated by the transformers. The external fields are not necessarily identical in both vertical directions and from both components hence there may be one arrangement that is more favourable than the other.
Incidentally the styling of Rossini may gives a clue as the fluting has been designed to show at the top of DAC and bottom of clock, leaving a plain interface for both where they meet as if they were a single unit.
1 Like
Yes ā¦ thatās absolutely fine.
Phil
I have my DAC ABOVE my Clock as that allows me to use short (50cm) 75ohm BNC to BNC cables for the Clocks Wordclock outputs to the DACs Wordclock inputs and they donāt interfere with the rest of the abundant cableage that our hobby always seems to entail ā¦ so in my setup it is where it is for purely practical reasons.
Phil
1 Like
Thanks so much Phil!
The scientifically not explainable part is not which one should be on top and why but what made Brian give in.
Ok, back to sciences. Do we actually know which the better arrangement is, in which case the fields cause less problem? Is it the aesthetically pleasing one or the other? In the latter case the whole world uses their Rossinis the wrong way around which produces less optimal sound but me (I know mine are not stacked but see my next point below), which would just prove my non-scientific ways of going against the grain again. Or is the aesthetically pleasing arrangement also sonically better to make me a rebel and also justify why I still slightly prefer listening to analogue?
Please donāt take all my comments literally just because Iām not using smileys and tend to exaggerate for effect.
Not sure electro-magnetic fields are bothered about wooden shelves. The distance is what matters but I think microphony (mechanical coupling that can change electric parameters) is mostly why stacking is not recommended and the main purpose of audio racks is to prevent mechanical coupling between devices and between the floor.
Plus the casing of the Rossinis looks and feels thick and made of metal which should keep most of the electromagnetic fields in/out.
Still only me, there are different āexcusesā that make sense scientifically but isnāt it scientifically strange that there is zero excuse for having them my way around?
IMHO this da Vinci code-like theory that dCS has coded hidden set-up instructions into the fluting on the Rossini is total poppycock.
- What if I have a Player and a DAC?
- How does the Transport fit into the pattern?
- Has anyone ācracked the codeā for the Vivaldi fascias?
I see nothing in the board layouts that would suggest it matters, and fwiw moving my components around in my rack (for entriely different reasons) produced no noticeable differences in SQ. I will take quite a bit of convincing that anything else is the case.
haha, everything is
So youāre another one who has them my way around!
I have my Rossini APEX and the clock on separate shelves simply because Iāve placed Magico Q-Pods under the DAC (the Q-Pods are designed to dissipate vibrational energy as heat.) I canāt imagine trying to use the Q-Pods under either the DAC or the clock if they were stacked on top of each other, aesthetically that would just look weird. BTW, these have paired amazingly well with my Rossini APEX and have upped the SQ a material degree. Yes, I know, off topic, but I thought Iād share.
1 Like
I have my Purcell on top of my Deliusā¦but only because top glass plate of Delius is cracked 
Richard
Itās down to ergonomics, which way makes it easier to load a CD?
In my case it is with the player on the shelf above the clock.
I only need to touch the clock to turn it on and off.
Hoping this helps;
Hilary
The clock should always be at the top, word clock signals flow downhill better. Gravity innit. Or quantum bruv.
4 Likes
Word clock signals are electrical pulses, not physical objects affected by gravity. Their transmission and reception are governed by the principles of electrical engineering, not physics. Word clock signals travel through transmission lines (cables) that are designed to maintain signal integrity regardless of their orientation. While quantum mechanics plays a role in the behavior of electrons within electrical circuits, it doesnāt cause word clock signals to be affected by gravity in any meaningful way.
The master clock should be placed on a separate level of the rack to isolate it from vibrations and resonances. This is far more important than any perceived effect of gravity.
That explains why everything sounded quicker when I had the clock tilted slightly backwards. Mounting it on the wall in a vertical position could get you in audio nirvana. You just had to use g rated clock cables.
I donāt think Matt was serious he just -similarly to me- does not use smileys even though his usage of the language and the absurdity of his comment should have been giveaways.
Isnāt everything a derivative of art, philosophy and mathematics, and therefore, the latterās derivative, physics?
Just askināā¦
; )
Even empirical sciences like physics have their own methodologies and discoveries that are not solely derived from art, philosophy, or mathematics.
While I was joking, it is not correct that gravity doesnāt affect electrons. Electrons are mass positive particles and are indeed subject to gravity.
Iād suggest a minimum 30 degree tilt as a starting point 
1 Like
Electrons are fundamental particles with a negative charge and a small but non-zero mass. As they have mass, they are indeed affected by gravity.
Although the scientific consensus is that the effect of gravity on audio signal transmission is negligible, I respect your experience and the fact that youāve taken the time to experiment and form your own conclusions.