A previous thread from Andrew (at dCS) allowed that an additional 10MHz reference clock could results in sonic improvements to the already outstanding dCS Vivaldi Clock. A number of folks on this forum have implemented this solution.
My point is, why need both? It seems that if dCS followed the path of Esoteric, one could have the Vivaldi DAC with a “very good” internal clock, and Vivaldi stand-alone Clock with an even higher accuracy clock AND the other “magic”, outputting 44 and 48, dither, etc…
Then, at the highest end, you don’t need two clocks.
I don’t know for a fact as I’ve never opened-up my Vivaldi Clock to take a peek, but I believe it’s the same, but as mentioned elsewhere, everything else around it, including the temperature sensors, the control board firmware, etc. is unique to the Clock.
Thats true, but there are Rubidium clocks with both long term stability and low phase noise. I believe that’s exactly why the SRS PERF10 is suitable as a 10MHz reference clock for dCS Masters, whereas something like Mutec Ref10 is less so.
Ps: @August by the way, you might want to read-up on the link Ben posted above. Specifically posts from James about dCS’ 10MHz Reference Clocking needs being quite different from (other) DAC systems where low phase-noise is more important.
I’ve read that since, thanks. Seems in line with the PLL-explanations of Grimm.
Reading the whole thread did leave me wondering why @PaleRider never got back on what the Kronos did for him or if he left it in his system. Is this that rabbithole you were talking about Greg ?
Another way to look at this would be that if we did this, having a higher quality VCXO inside the Vivaldi Clock than inside the Vivaldi DAC, we would knowingly be putting a lower quality clocking source inside the Vivaldi DAC than we could, for no reason other than to make the Vivaldi Clock a more appealing upgrade.
The Vivaldi DAC, whether as part of a full Vivaldi system or on its own, should be the best performing version we can make, so it should not have hardware that is in any way compromised.
We have been working with our crystal supplier for 25+ years with a huge amount of collaboration between them and dCS to get to the point where the crystals we use are, we believe, of the highest quality available anywhere in the world. That has been the output of decades of work, moreso than simply choosing a more or less expensive component from an electronics catalogue.
Sorry for any ambiguity. I have several times expressed my extreme satisfaction with the system. I don’t pretend for a femtosecond to have performed an objective comparison, but I have twice done a Pete-style comparison of 2-3 weeks with/without. I am quite satisfied, to the point where, when it came time to downsize and consolidate my headphone listening system, I chose to sell the MSB Select II. I believe I would have reached that conclusion without the Kronos, but that’s a probability, not a certainty.
No worries August. One of the most delightful things about this community is the tremendous amount of information shared, often in new and different contexts. It can be difficult to explore a topic completely.
So to try and get my head round this, and for me, and my set up.
I have the apex vivaldi dac, and upsampler.
I run the upsampler from the clock out on the dac to the clock in on the upsampler.
I believe this then this means they are both locked to the dac’s clock.
The vivaldi clock in the dac, and clock are the same.
I take it the upsampler has a clock, and is this the same as the one in the dac.
By locking them together i get slightly better results than not locking them together.
So adding a vivaldi clock to my set up, brings in a 3rd clock, the same quality as the other 2.
This 3rd clock now somehow makes it even better, how exactly does that work.
I can see that a separate box, power supply could be beneficial, but find it hard to really see the benefit from doing what i am doing now, by just locking the upsampler to the dac.
I can see the added benefit if you then add the transport to it all.
I haven’t really had time to listen since my clock went back to the dealer, so i may find i am missing what the clock does, but for now just trying to get my head round it all, as this clock / re clocking is certainly a strange one.
I know i have asked alot off questions, and may not get all the answers.
Thanks for taking the time to reply to this thread and share dCS’s perspective James.
I’d like to very politely and respectfully explore this statement:
If dCS allows that a master 10 MHz clock can be added and further increase the Vivaldi’s performance, isn’t this logically very similar?
Why not have a dCS product that eliminates the need/temptation to add another clock by another manufacturer? As Greg jocularly put it, paraphrasing: “Well, there is that plug in the back…”
And if so, then wouldn’t the logical place to house this performance upgrade be the external Vivaldi Clock?
(My initial answer to my own question was: “There has to be some limit to a product’s performance, given price and market size.” But the SRS Perf10, for example, only costs ~$4k retail (and therefore ~$2-3k wholesale) and so I have ruled this reason out… )
You’re more than welcome to - by no means is there anything going on “under the hood” that we wouldn’t want to talk about, and thus far there hasn’t been a question I have asked the engineers that they haven’t had a very well considered (like 30+ years well considered) answer for. Personally, I love this sort of discussion
I do see where you are coming from here, though bringing it back to the Vivaldi Clock and DAC comparison for a moment, consider that we are using the highest quality VCXOs we can possibly get our hands on. If we were to differentiate the quality of the VCXO used in the Vivaldi Clock and DAC, that would mean we would have to use a lesser VCXO inside the DAC. That’s just not how we do things - the Lina DAC uses the same VCXOs as the Vivaldi Clock. We don’t compromise on hardware for any of our products.
The benefit of the Vivaldi Clock isn’t in the specification compared to the Vivaldi DAC, it is from performing the master clocking for the system external to all the busy stuff going on inside the DAC, Transport, Upsampler, streamer and so on, which makes it perform better with the same hardware spec. The regularity of the word clock signal being sent by the Vivaldi Clock removes intersymbol interference from being a problem, each connected device doesn’t have to work at pulling sync pulses out from AES or SPDIF signals (which is difficult to do), and so forth.
The 10MHz input on the Vivaldi Clock is by no means a statement by dCS saying that you have to use it to get the best out of the system. The reality is that the vast majority of 10MHz clocks on the market will not provide an audible benefit to the system. Such a 10MHz clock would be inherently very jittery by audio standards, and actually making use of a 10MHz signal for audio purposes is pretty hard (ASRC naturally adds jitter).
The fact of the matter with the 10MHz input is that it is in place because we can do it, and there do exist some devices (such as that Greg has found, devices on the more esoteric and exotic side of things) which will improve the long term accuracy of the Vivaldi Clock. However, this can only be done and is only considered by us as a viable option because we have a really really good PLL that can actually make something useable from what is, quite frankly, a very jittery 10MHz signal coming from an atomic clock.
To make sure I understand, is the suggestion here to place an atomic 10MHz source inside the Vivaldi Clock and then to remove the 10MHz input as an option for the user?
From personal experience, using a full-stack Vivaldi system with a Mutec Ref10 - SE 120 reference 10MHz clock added in 2020, there is an improvement to be had.
Hi @James,
First and foremost thank you for the detailed response, and for engaging with me and others directly on this forum. I don’t know if there is any other place on earth where audiophiles like me can have such high quality discussions, and learn so much, directly from the manufacturer (and other users!), as here. Thank you!
I have understood the first few paragraphs in your reply.
Re:
Yes, this is precisely my question/suggestion, and I welcome your thoughts.
So I am in the same boat as XCop Steve as above. I had a full Vivaldi stack for some years and then subsequently added a Mutec Ref10 SE120 external clock. To me it made a significant improvement and would highly recommend. However if going down this route I would suggest all cables used for external clock are at the same level (at least) as your main cables used (both clock and power cables).
If based in the UK I can recommend the Mutec dealer and he can go through in more detail and am sure could loan you a clock so you can try for yourself. Just DM me for more details if required
Thanks
Marc.
Understood Greg, and also why, as your 10MHz Master Clock has an external GPS source to ensure even higher accuracy than the Mutec and the SRS Perf10. In fact, you may likely have the best audio clocking configuration in the entire United States (!) : )
I’m still eager to hear @James’s response to this, as my suggestion/question seems to be what Esoteric has implemented with the G-01X (below).
(And no, I am not asking James to comment on the quality of the Esoteric, as that would be against the rules/decorum of the forum, more the overall approach to the dCS Master Clock, and whether it could also have an atomic clock inside).
Yeah, the Esoteric Grandioso clocks offer the option of inputting a GNSS clock signal. It’s pretty slick. Not sure if there are any specific devices they recommend for that purpose, or whether they offer one of their own now, but back in 2018, Sound Stage Ultra reported that Esoteric was not a big fan of GNSS referencing:
Next on the G1’s rear panel is a BNC input connector that accepts a 10MHz or 1pps reference pulse from an external Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite receiver. The GPS is a navigation system maintained by the U.S. Department of Defense and comprising at least 24 satellites. GPS works in any weather conditions, virtually anywhere in the world, 24 hours a day, with no subscription fees or other charges. When used with an optional GPS receiver, the G1’s rubidium oscillator synchronizes with a rubidium or cesium GPS clock.
I got excited about the GPS feature, only to discover that Esoteric doesn’t necessarily recommend its use. According to them, a satellite pulse creates a different but not necessarily better sound than that of the G1’s internal rubidium oscillator. Further, Esoteric says that while some customers prefer the satellite sound, few suitable GPS receivers are available other than some used ex-military ones. Note, too, that a GPS antenna would likely have to be installed on the roof of your house, and if it’s between two other, taller buildings, the GPS signal will be unavailable.
What’s interesting is that they no longer have any models like the G-01X that combine both Word Clocks and 10MHz reference Clock in a single unit (at least not from Esoteric).
Additionally, their highest-end Master Clock, the Grandioso G1X, which is an upgrade of their Rubidium-based G1, is now based on an in-house OCXO instead!
Presumably they learned, either technically or from a market demand/cost/value perspective, not to combine both types of Clocks into a single unit, and to move away from Rubidium-based clocks
?
