That’s not at all what I was referring to, and it’s not what “blindfolded darts” means. Trying new things, without knowing what the results might be, is a perfectly valid method of experimentation. Though it is rarely “blind.” It is usually an educated guess. One does not swap copper for vulcanized rubber and expect to improve the conductivity of one’s medium. One selects a new alternative based on what one knows about the alternative, though one might not be able to predict the outcome of the new combination. If it’s better, keep it, record it, and move the R&D forward. If it’s worse or same, record it, and also keep trying. The scientist-engineer controls for and records the inputs and outputs. And the results are verifiable. Not blindfolded darts. Experimentation is not a blindfolded process, and even accidental discovery rarely is. Simply claiming that something changes/improves/worsens something without an explanation for how, though, leaves the customer with zero reference point. That’s blindfolded. And it’s how way too many reviewers and customers and dealers seem to feel comfortable operating in this hobby. Over on digital photography, lens sharpness and color fidelity are verifiable, as are pixel light gathering and doling shutter recording speeds. One can still prefer the color and contrast of a Rodenstock lens over a Schneider, but one will have definitive reference points for explaining what one’s eyes see. With cars, “feels faster” and “is faster” are two decidedly different things, but both are explicable with objective data. My e-tron GT is decidedly not faster than either my R8 or RS7, but it feels as though it is, and I know exactly why. There is no reason we could not enjoy that framework in Audi if it weren’t that out industry and much of the customer base depend on it being otherwise.
Granted, patent rights tend to muck up this abstract discussion a bit, because inventors are incentivized to protect their secret sauce until it enjoys legal protection (those that refuse to explain and also fail to patent are telling us something, whether want to admit it or not). We may not know exactly why one “thing” (whatever it is) should be better than another. But the thing’s characteristics, including its measured properties, can give us a clue. Regrettably few manufacturers tell us much about their products—which actually does tell us much about their products—but those that do, allow us to make educated guesses about which might actually produce an improvement in our particular system. Again, that’s not blindfolded darts.
I honestly doubt any manufacturer would be mad enough to have no goal to work towards and I didn’t suggest otherwise.
We’re agreed that an educated guess is better than a complete guess, but educated guesses don’t always work out (again, because we don’t understand everything there is to know about science), so I stand by my opinion that at times people ‘get lucky’, even if with hindsight people might understand why that approach worked. I did not say this is how it always or even usually happens, just that it happens. I’m not sure we actually disagree on this.
Your point that ‘One does not swap copper for vulcanized rubber and expect to improve the conductivity of one’s medium’ appears disingenuous. As the opposite has already been proven, it would be downright silly to try this.
Always needing an explanation of why something works assumes that an explanation is readily to hand and, as you point out, protection of intellectual property often gets in the way. The reality is we can’t explain everything we measure, otherwise we would be able to explain how Quantum Entanglement works (as opposed to merely demonstrating that it exists).
It’s more like “conducting repeatable experiments that produce measurable effects compatible with what the theory predicts, and that would be quite unlikely under hypotheses that contradict said theory”.
As human beings, we are not allowed to discuss reality. We can study relations between observables.
Excellent series. One aspect of clocking that I hope you will address has to do with the provision for an externally attached “master clock” for the Vivaldi Clock. What type of clock should this be if used? And what would be it’s overall value with other components, which rely on clocking, within a consumer audio system? I’m thinking here of network switches of maybe CD playback or streaming devices.
I love tech explanations because they help me organize my thoughts about things that can or cannot make sense.
Example of one thing that doesn’t make sense: an external clock for your Ethernet switch.
Reason why it doesn’t make sense: not even the order in which data packets arrive at the Ethernet card have any importance, let alone exact timing.
Example of something that may make sense: an optical insulator right before the Ethernet card may improve things by preventing noise from entering the analog signal path through the card.
BUT: noise may well enter through the transceiver power unit …
I’d really love to hear from DCS about this. And I also have a question: why don’t you add an optical Ethernet port?
Oh I think that’s been answered. Perhaps not quite as directly as some might want, but here, here, here, and here for example are some not-entirely-obtuse clues on what dCS think.
Steve, I like the Perf10 a lot, but it’s in another home these days. I replaced it with the Novus Kronos1. It’s a GNSS-disciplined atomic clock.I think both act on the Vivaldi similarly.
Ah. That’s the one you were putting in after the Perf10. I recall pics of satellite dishes. Or was that something else. If it was, that’s something I’d avoid at my condo/townhouse site.
Seems that the Perf10 is a better fit for me.
The OP21 is supporting both the dCS and the etherREGEN. I’m assuming the Perf10 will do the the same. What do you recommend to power the Perf10?
The GNSS antennae for the Kronos1 are not large, but they do have to be mounted for clear sky access. I had some success with window mounting for testing purposes, but until I got them roof mounted, I did not have 100% signal lock and use. Pic below shows the antennae on standard J-mounts. Yes, the Perf10 has plenty of outputs for other devices. I had a custom power supply built by James Soh at Plixir Power. I suspect that was overkill, but
Nice that you probably don’t have to wrangle with a condo association to put up an array of dishes. I do, so a Kronos1 is not in the cards.
I’ve been happy with the OP21 but somewhat concerned with long term drift in accuracy. That along with the comments from dCS suggest that the Perf10, by design, is better in this area. And from your prior comments, it certainly has positive sonic value over the OP21. Hope I’m reading you correctly.
By the way, you did mention an issues with overly bright and obtrusive LEDs. Did you find a solution for these?
If I bring one of these in-house, I think I’ll avoid electric tape. I’ve found this solution problematic. Will try using LightDims a try. Found these dots, of varied sizes really do the job. And in the case where I need to see if a unit has been turned off, I get a little halo leakage.
One thing nice is that the folks who make the Perf10 are close by my Alameda home. Not so for Kenji over the big pond…
We all have different tastes, but in my opinion the lights aren’t the only thing on the SRS I’d want to cover up. The entire fascia is — to me — absolutely hideous. Works a treat with a Clock cable into the Vivaldi Clock though!
(I’m not sure the design brief for the dCS and SRS design teams was entirely the same, of course…)
One which is hyper accurate in the long term. Short term accuracy (jitter performance) is not as much of a concern as you aren’t clocking audio, you are clocking a clock - different requirements from that perspective. The links Greg posted should cover this topic pretty well!
That may well be true (admittedly I haven’t dug much into the specs myself) but phase noise performance is much less of a concern in this use case. It is more important when looking at a clock that is controlling audio products like a DAC where jitter performance is crucial, but in this specific case looking at a reference clock feeding something like the Vivaldi Clock, long-term accuracy is what you need over jitter performance.
The Mutec clocks would be better suited to connecting to a DAC for example than they would acting as a reference for another clock, assuming that clock has performance anything like the Vivaldi.
Appreciate the information. A recent conversation with another happy user of the Cybershaft OP21 echoes your comments. Though not a dCS customer but an Esoteric one, he also pointed out the more important factor of long term clock stability over short term for the dCS stack. I think he also noted the difference of clocking types which seem to be either Word clock versus PLL. The dCS Master clock utilizes the Word clock approach in conjunction with the DAC and Upsampler. Though not using an Esoteric master clock, it would appear that what Esoteric offers is similar to the Cybershaft.
I gather from your comments that the dCS Master is unique in its use of a global master. So, the SRS Perf10 would seem a more suitable choice for its long term accuracy rather than short term accuracy.
However, I’m still wondering how each type of clock would affect the ultimate performance and sound quality from a system incorporating a dCS stack, all other things being equal.
Cybershaft OPA21 and Mutec Ref 10 SE 120 use OXCO and emphasize on low phase noise (-120dBc/Hz @ 1Hz or better). Cybershaft does not publish any long term stability data.
Perf10 is a Rubidium atomic clock and emphasizes on long term stability. It ages considerably less than Cybershaft or Mutec.
Phase noises are given as -130dBc/Hz @ 10Hz for Perf10; -140dBc/Hz @ 10Hz for Cybershaft OPA21 and -148dBc/Hz @ 10Hz for Mutec Ref 10 SE 120.
I’m currently using Mutec Ref10 SE 120 to clock Mutec MC-3+ Smart Clock USB, which in turn will be used as wordclock for all units, which have external wordclock inputs.
Any chance to get your series of articles as a downloadable white paper in pdf format?
Perhaps not quite as directly as some might want, but 
