• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Can you review a Synchro-Mesh S/PDIF re-clocker?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Veri

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
9,596
Likes
12,036
Another engineering driven firm that sells clocks:

https://www.grimmaudio.com/pro-products/master-clocks/cc2/

And they just introduced a digital music player MU1 at €10k:

«Needless to say that the MU1 features our trademark ultra low jitter clock. This is a music player worthy of the name Grimm Audio»
Source: https://www.grimmaudio.com/hifi-products/music-players/mu1/

Are they all making it up, i.e. selling tech that in no way can contribute to audible improvements?
Ugh :facepalm:
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,065
Location
Zg, Cro
Another pioneer in clocks, Antelope:

«Isochrone 10M is the ultimate tool in achieving analog sound. Experts agree that 10M is probably “the best sounding clock” ever produced».
Source: https://en.antelopeaudio.com/products/10m/

Oh, so manufacturer is claiming on his web page that some anonymous "experts" agree that his device is the best sounding product without giving any proof for it and we should all take it as a hard fact? :facepalm:

I won't even bother commenting "analog" sound part of the claim..
 

Purité Audio

Master Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
9,051
Likes
12,150
Location
London
External clocks make sense in a studio environment.
Keith
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
External clocks make sense in a studio environment.
Keith

Of course they do in a studio setting to clock synchronize many boxes.

But the same manufacturers - Mutec, Grimm, Antelope, which have a footing in and legacy from the pro world - claim sonic quality improvements too.

So I hope this thread and @amirm ’s contributions can replace confusion with facts!

:)
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
I checked the 24/96 files, there is a 200 samples time offset, that's it. When adjusted, the difference is a perfect digital null (all the 24-bit samples have the *exact* same values in both files). The whole task did take about 30 seconds with a wave editor.... therefore I really find it remarkable you had to seek help for this. Checking/manipulating .WAV files should be your day job if you test your digital audio stuff, shouldn't it?
This is indeed a quite trivial task. The two files in each set both have the same number of samples. Only the amount of leading and trailing zeros differ.

frame1.wav: 5219464 / 46703 / 88235 (total / leading zeros / trailing zeros)
frame2.wav: 5219464 / 46903 / 88035
frame1a.wav: 11363520 / 96000 / 192000
frame2a.wav: 11363520 / 96200 / 191800

In both cases, the content has been shifted 200 samples towards the end in the "2" files compared to the "1." After removing the zeros, the remaining samples are exactly the same in both sets.
 
Last edited:

PierreV

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,437
Likes
4,686
Those miniaturized rubidium clocks are really nice if, while you listen to music, you also like to fly cubesats in formation with milimeter precision.

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/...r=&httpsredir=1&article=3189&context=smallsat

One of my neighbors does just that, next time I see him I will ask him for his thoughts on their use in for a 44100 Hz signal over a meter of cable...
(am assuming we can discount relativistic effects there too)

Oh, but wait, I don't think the one he uses are hand assembled in Switzerland, so maybe that doesn't count.
 
OP
Empirical Audio

Empirical Audio

Active Member
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
224
Likes
63
Location
Great Northwest, USA
Without EQ turned on I get -300db bit perfect with both pairs of files. Each file in the pair is offset by about 200 samples and is identical otherwise. The A set is 96 khz and the other set is 44 khz. I also get that result with L+R the only difference is dbA results are a bit over 300 db.

View attachment 23700

View attachment 23701

Perfect, thanks. so if I understand, there are two unchanged files at 44.1 and 96 and then two with 200 sample offset at 44.1 and 96?
 
OP
Empirical Audio

Empirical Audio

Active Member
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
224
Likes
63
Location
Great Northwest, USA
Can the difference file be made audible ?

Would/could the differences be caused by reclockers or might this be done 'on purpose' to create small audible differences in order to sell a product at the expense of a competitor (which would be a sick thing to do).


I did not use my re-clocker in this test. I used the same setup as with the Mutec test, USB to DAC without re-clocking. How do you know I heard differences? I have not posted my results on the offset files yet.
 
OP
Empirical Audio

Empirical Audio

Active Member
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
224
Likes
63
Location
Great Northwest, USA
There was no personal comment, it was simply an observation. EA stated he could hear a difference between files and when tested they are identical.

I have reworded the comment in case it was misconstrued.

Seems to me that I did not post my observations on these files yet, only that my wife and I agree on the results.
 
OP
Empirical Audio

Empirical Audio

Active Member
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
224
Likes
63
Location
Great Northwest, USA
I checked the 24/96 files, there is a 200 samples time offset, that's it. When adjusted, the difference is a perfect digital null (all the 24-bit samples have the *exact* same values in both files). The whole task did take about 30 seconds with a wave editor.... therefore I really find it remarkable you had to seek help for this. Checking/manipulating .WAV files should be your day job if you test your digital audio stuff, shouldn't it?

Thanks, I needed an objective result. No one here would believe me. Now if they would just do the listening tests....
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,065
Location
Zg, Cro
Thanks, I needed an objective result. No one here would believe me. Now if they would just do the listening tests....

???

@KSTR I believe now it's up to you to try to explain Steve there's no audible difference between those 2 files. May the Force be with you! :D
 
Last edited:

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
f5eaf3018baff29bf1deabbb0c6c129f--costume-contest-costume-ideas.jpg
 
OP
Empirical Audio

Empirical Audio

Active Member
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 10, 2019
Messages
224
Likes
63
Location
Great Northwest, USA
Since we are talking about reclocking here -> I came accross this test while reading about Mutec MC-3+ which I just got. This test measures jitter with and without reclocking and the results seem pretty clear in favor of the Mutec. Have a look. This is a translated text from German and there's a link to the original test at the end.

https://www.mutec-net.com/artikel.php?id=1441822741

"In the listening test, the Mutec MC-3 + re-clocking did not emerge as an exaggerated effect but in a more musical way: instruments got a tighter tonal structure and were presented in a cleaner and dynamically more accentuated way. Regardless of the musical style, the sound became more concise and moving but was still flowing. The lower frequencies sounded tighter and more transparent with the MC-3 + re-clocking, especially noticeable with long sustain instruments such as low-tuned drums or deep piano chords. The overall musical performance was given more drive and charisma, without appearing thereby artificially brightened. The kind of muddiness in the sound that you usually hear only in direct comparison disappeared completely."

"Especially with jitter-prone digital output equipped digital sources, the difference was clearly noticeable: in my case it were a DVB-S PC card for satellite radio reception and a DJ CD player with speed setting. In such cases, the MC-3 + actually worked like a tonal autofocus."

Sounds a lot like my descriptions, including the word focus. I guess when I say it, it isn't credible. When Mutec says it, it's credible. Definitely a bias here.

Also, the CD player NAD C 542 that was used for the J-test had a lot of low-frequency jitter components, which were not improved by the Mutec re-clocker.
 
Last edited:

soundwave76

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
730
Likes
1,365
Location
Finland
Lets get my Mutec to ASR's test bench as well so we can get to the bottom of these reclockers!

Regarding the higher return shipping costs back to Finland @amirm, could we maybe ask some small donations from those members, who would like to see the Mutec measured? Just a thought, maybe there are a few? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom