Review and Measurements of Empirical Audio Synchro-Mesh

[MZKM]

I guess the idea a few years ago was to give the DAC as little jitter as possible first. Now over the years I've got a bunch of DACs which measure almost perfect, but since I already have the SM, it is just easier to keep it in the system. But I agree it's usefulness now is not nearly as much as it was years ago.

I don’t know what the change in output from your pre/amp would be, but even in the Stereophile measurement, the highest spike is at -108dB. Now, going off the J-Test and THD measurements in this thread for the Schiit, maybe that jitter would or wouldn’t be an issue, as the J-Test for the Schiit has its highest spike around -110dB, but the THD plot (10ns at 10kHz) has it as high as -68dB. According to the measurements done by Steve (Empirical Audio), the SONOS has ~9ns of jitter.

 

[Deleted member 2944]

Where is the "Manufacturers Comment" for this review??

 

[gvl]

Where is the "Manufacturers Comment" for this review??

What's left to say?

 

[mansr]

Where is the "Manufacturers Comment" for this review??

In that other 35-page thread.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Where is the "Manufacturers Comment" for this review??

It’s Sunday.

 

[FrantzM]

Mind you in a studio environment where different gears are working . Sync is not a trivial issue. It is thus necessary to have a common clock , one of the utmost precision...


OTOH


Since this is a new box , the concept is sold to audiophiles to open their soundstage and make is so solid, it can be carved to allow the fleshing out of individuals instruments... Best to feed the soundstage , organic stuff so that the carving remain so.
The more precise the clock the more incisive the transients will be and the treble will extend too... Truth is an analog clock would have provided much more harmonically continuous reproduction.

 

[SIY]

Truth is an analog clock would have provided much more harmonically continuous reproduction.

Did I tell you about my newest product for reclocking digital datastreams? It will sharpen the definition of individual instruments, increase the sense of pace, rhythm, and timing, and make the soundstage nearly holographic.

 

[Empirical Audio]

Looks like a random one from the 90’s, so I’m sure any you have laying around would work .

I was only mildly interested in that (would be interesting if it had mains leakage, like many of the relockers and other similar products you measured).

Besides the fried D50, do you have any well performing DAC at or below the $700 base price of the Synchro-Mesh? Because, the jump from the Modi 2 to the Gustard is pretty high.

This is not just any SMPS. It is very fast reacting and lower noise. V-rated I believe so it's more efficient.

 

[Empirical Audio]

Let's route our S/PDIF signal through Synchro-mesh with the GPLL set to OFF (bypass) in DAC-X26:

Hopefully this is not too hard to see/understand. The graph in pink is the Synchro-Mesh loop. If we compare it to no PLL in light blue, it is much cleaner. Most but not all jitter/noise spikes have been removed. That is the good news.

One observation that I will make here is that the jitter around the tone is much less with the Synchro-Mesh. The baseline noise level is higher, but this is still in the noise and I would argue not audible. The difference in the hot pink plot and both the blue and flesh colored plots that concerns me about the Gustard is the widening of the tone spike at the bottom. I have correlated this shape to degradation in audio quality in the past. The Synchro-Mesh plot has virtually no widening at the base.

If you believe my premise that it's the correlated jitter that is more audible than random jitter, then the widening of the base of the fundamental in this plot is precisely that, jitter that is frequency modulation close to the the frequency of the fundamental. The Synchro-Mesh plot contains zero of this.

It think the interpretation of the measurements are as important as the measurements themselves. It's important to understand what relative importance each of these factors have when correlated to human hearing. After all, this hobby is about listening to music that inspires us, and it is a hobby, not national security.

And thanks to Amir for doing such a great job on this.

Steve N.

 

[Veri]

And thanks to Amir for doing such a great job on this.

Steve N.

And to you for sending it in!

Cheers.

 

[MZKM]

One observation that I will make here is that the jitter around the tone is much less with the Synchro-Mesh. The baseline noise level is higher, but this is still in the noise and I would argue not audible. The difference in the pink plot and the purple plot that concerns me about the Gustard is the widening of the tone at the bottom. I have correlated this shape to poor audio quality in the past. The Synchro-Mesh has virtually no widening at the base.

Those are valid points. Though, if you can argue (correctly) that the higher noise is too low to be audible, I can argue (presumably correctly), that at below -110dB, the widening of the tone at the base is also inaudible, as are the sideband tones “hugging” the main tone.

 

[jtwrace]

Where is the "Manufacturers Comment" for this review??

https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=163027.msg1733971;topicseen#new

 

[Empirical Audio]

Those are valid points. Though, if you can argue (correctly) that the higher noise is too low to be audible, I can argue (presumably correctly), that at bellow -110dB, the widening of the tone at the base is also inaudible, as are the sideband tones “hugging” the main tone.

Point taken. The difference though is that there are deviations even higher than -110dB although smaller. This behavior reinforces my argument that it's not random jitter away from the fundamental tones that humans are sensitive to, it's the correlated jitter. My experience is that extremely low levels of jitter are detectable in very resolving systems, but ONLY if the jitter is correlated to the music waveform.

This is not unlike the way our sight works. If we are watching a moving car, it is really difficult to see a person throwing a baseball in the park behind the car. We may recall movement, but not sure whether they were throwing a frisbee or a ball. The brain is focused on the movement just as the brain focuses on the music detail when listening.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Point taken. The difference though is that there are deviations even higher than -110dB although smaller. This behavior reinforces my argument that it's not random jitter away from the fundamental tones that humans are sensitive to, it's the correlated jitter. My experience is that extremely low levels of jitter are detectable in very resolving systems, but ONLY if they are correlated to the music waveform.

So how do you know what amounts of correlated jitter are present?

And could you rephrase "deviations even higher than -110 db although smaller". Disambiguate it.

 

[FrantzM]

One observation that I will make here is that the jitter around the tone is much less with the Synchro-Mesh. The baseline noise level is higher, but this is still in the noise and I would argue not audible. The difference in the pink plot and both the blue and purple plots that concerns me about the Gustard is the widening of the tone spike at the bottom. I have correlated this shape to poor audio quality in the past. The Synchro-Mesh has virtually no widening at the base.

If you believe my premise that it's the correlated jitter that is more audible than random jitter, then the widening of the base of the fundamental in this plot is precisely that, jitter that is frequency modulation close to the the frequency of the fundamental. The Synchro-Mesh contains zero of this.

It think the interpretation of the measurements are as important as the measurements themselves. It's important to understand what relative importance each of these factors have when correlated to human hearing.

And thanks to Amir for doing such a great job on this.

Steve N.

Actually Steve, I don't want to believe your premises, i want to be proven . Actual level , amount and type that are reliably perceived and/or deemed objectionable. Some studies or paper would help. You may notice that here we tend to "believe" the measurements and peer-reviewed papers more.

 

[Empirical Audio]

So how do you know what amounts of correlated jitter are present?

And could you rephrase "deviations even higher than -110 db although smaller". Disambiguate it.

Deviations from the fundamental, but amplitude higher than -110 dB.

 

[Empirical Audio]

Actually Steve, I don't want to believe your premises, i want to be proven . Actual level , amount and type that are reliably perceived and/or deemed objectionable. Some studies or paper would help. You may notice that here we tend to "believe" the measurements and peer-reviewed papers more.

I also want proof that humans are more sensitive to a -150dB to -140dB change in noise floor than tiny deviations in the fundamental. Why don't you guys setup a DBT to test this rather than just saying it's not audible. I want proof that it's not audible.

 

[maty]

Point taken. The difference though is that there are deviations even higher than -110dB although smaller. This behavior reinforces my argument that it's not random jitter away from the fundamental tones that humans are sensitive to, it's the correlated jitter. My experience is that extremely low levels of jitter are detectable in very resolving systems, but ONLY if the jitter is correlated to the music waveform...

I suspect think you are right but I can not prove it.

 

[MZKM]

The difference though is that there are deviations even higher than -110dB although smaller.

With the PLL off; with it active, the highest “deviation” point is not above -110dB.

I assume your SM and the Gustard with the PLL active would sound identical, the difference in noise floor and “deviations” should high be inaudible.

 

[FrantzM]

-140 dB is audible? Ok..