Surely the proof is in the listening, or perhaps I should say the choice is for the listener. If you like what an external clock does, then use it. If not, don’t.
I demoed a clock at the dealer and noticed a small but material improvement with his very expensive demo gear. So I bought a clock for my Rossini Player and despite extensive listening tests with all manner of cables I could hear no difference whatsoever. So I took it back to the dealer. Who knows why; maybe my gear was incapable of resolving the difference, maybe my Rossini Player by chance already had the best ever internal clock ever made. It matters not, I saved the money and have the same quality music in my opinion.
Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that as long as multiple digital units are involved, there must be only a single Clock source to keep all unit synchronised. Which is where an external Clock becomes necessary.
(I did some digging, apparently MSB sends Clock synchronisation signals over their proprietary ProISL module/interface. So, unlike dCS, there’s no way for MSB to support a non-MSB Transport or Streamer if you want to keep them properly synchronised.)
MSB is not wrong that sending a Clock signal over external interface/cable will increase jitter of the Clock signal (which obviously equally applies to them in their multi-box setup! ); which is why dCS has one of the most sophisticated PLL’s in the market. You might want to read carefully James’ posts that Erno’s highlighted above.
Also, as Simon says above, the proof is in the listening, but also in the objective measurements of jitter. dCS systems have one of the lowest jitter profiles in the market; which proves such external clock based systems can perform just as well, if not better, than systems with built-in “femto” clocks.
And they do! As pointed out by Erno above; all dCS devices have internal clocks built-in! They’re just cannot be as accurate as a dedicated external Clock
I’m just not sure about this statement:. “They just cannot be as accurate as a dedicated external Clock”
Perhaps when multiple separated are involved, otherwise I see no reason why this would be so.
Taking another approach to explore the point: I wonder if dCS itself would state the clock inside the Vivaldi One is inferior to the separate Vivaldi clock.
I agree @Ermos. Below is the source of the “simplified quote read somewhere” (!) ; )
Again, there appears to be quite different design philosophies between the two companies: upsampling versus no upsampling; external clock versus internal clock; multiple integrated power supplies versus one external, separate power supply.
I find this quite interesting and curious since both manufacturers are highly esteemed. Hence my interest in other’s views on this matter.
Hi @Anupc, continuing to push on this thread/point:
The logical conclusion of that position is that the Vivaldi One provides inferior clocking than the Vivaldi stack w external master clock. Do you agree?
I know you’re not asking me, but I agree that this seems logical — we probably wouldn’t see Vivaldi Ones paired with Vivaldi Clocks so often otherwise.
Apologies for being late to this thread, we’ve been at CanJam London this weekend so it has been a busy one!
Yes, that is correct. We use high quality crystals in all our products, and the crystals in the Vivaldi One (or any Vivaldi product) are not lesser than those in the Vivaldi Clock. However, as has been written elsewhere, the absence of any DAC, CD mech, networking etc. means that those crystals inside the Clock have less impacting them and can naturally run more accurately.
It is correct to say that for optimum operation, the DAC needs to have a high quality clock circuit inside the same unit, optimised so that clock signal reaches the DAC circuit cleanly. This is still the case with a dCS DAC even when it locks to an external Master Clock - the DAC clock then slaves to the external clock as opposed to synchronising to the timing information in the audio signal (which has its own problems).
We do this synchronisation by way of a very capable Phase Locked Loop. It is a bespoke dCS design, using our own hardware and software, that lets us get the best performance out of any source, or clock input. Every step in the clocking chain is important for audio playback, and this extends beyond just internal clock performance. The PLL inside each product in the chain needs to be of top quality, and each needs to be kept synchronised. Using a Master Clock to do this avoids effects like intersymbol interference which can induce jitter into the signal.
We’ve been using Master Clocks in audio systems, both consumer and professional, for decades. I think it is fair to say that if we had found a better way of clocking audio in that time, we definitely would have taken it!
@James The questions remains why Vivaldi clock will be very different (or better performing) than Rossini Clock. Is it because of lesser quality crystal ?
@sourav no, we don’t compromise on crystals. The Vivaldi Clock has a more advanced chassis meaning it provides better mechanical isolation from physical vibrations which would otherwise impact the crystals.
The control board which runs the unit is more advanced as well, which (among other things) allows us to perform gentler DSP on the clock signal itself. More delicate handling there provides better performance.
First of all, many thanks for all those complete and very clear answer. It shows how Dcs experts are.
Finally, best way to know is to listen and compare.It’s what I did when I added a U Clock , than moved to Scarlatti and now with Vivaldi Clock. And I added a 10mhz clock , and this one sublimed the dcs clock.
Still want to dive deeper on this because… Well, that’s what these boards are for and if someone wants to start a 30 page thread on Ethernet cables, who am I to judge ; )
These two statements remain in conflict in my mind and I’m just trying to reconcile them technically:
James/dCS: “However, as has been written elsewhere, the absence of any DAC, CD mech, networking etc. means that those crystals inside the [Vivaldi external] Clock have less impacting them and can naturally run more accurately.”
Versus
MSB: “A clock sent over an ultra-high quality cable will still increase its jitter considerably. The best solution is to create the lowest jitter clock as close to the DAC as possible.”
It seems logical that if one has multiple devices that need to be synched, a high quality external clock would be the best way to do this (i.e., upsampler, DAC, transport), as long as the increase in jitter from the cables did not offset the accuracy gain from the isolated clock.
However, if you just have one box with no transport, e.g. MSB Premier, or MSB Select (in fact there are multiple boxes but the other box is simply the power supply, not needing synchronization, and omitting the "digital director which is a new product), it would seem to that putting a high accuracy clock right next to the DAC inside the unit would be best.
Any further thoughts on that @James (in general, not with respect to MSB in particular)?
); which is why dCS has one of the most sophisticated PLL’s in the market. You might want to read carefully James’ posts that Erno’s highlighted above.
Sort of, as we do our best.
;
