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

[Veri]

Ah! The placebo effect is strong in you, unlucky fellow!
No wonder you have some unsubstantiable views.

the aiff sounds more like something apple would make, the wave sounds profoundly more microsofty

 

[RayDunzl]

It always boils down to the same thing. If you don't appreciate/experience the improvement his products offer, then your system is not in the 1% of systems resolving enough and/or you don't have the listening/hearing ability.

I can accept both of those assertions, so I don't need the device.

Should I be glad or sad?

 

[jtwrace]

I just want to know when this device will get on the bench!?!?! Can't wait!

 

[Empirical Audio]

Improvement in what exactly? In jitter?

Yes, Jitter.

 

[Empirical Audio]

I just want to know when this device will get on the bench!?!?! Can't wait!

It's built and breaking in. I need to build the cable and the Dynamo still.

When my Off-Ramp 6 USB converter is in production, maybe this could be examined by Amir as well. It's my best sounding product now.

After thinking a bit more about analog measurements, it occurred to me what the ears do that none of the measurement systems do: listen in Stereo. If the measurement system could be modified to include two synchronized channels of capture and simultaneously analyze both channels instead of one at a time, I think this would more closely mimic actual listening. This is where I find the difference in most mid-fi and hi-fi systems: the imaging and focus of two channels simultaneously. This is what achieves depth in the recording reproduction as well as width outside of the speaker boundaries. This is what delivers the 3-D image and even sounds behind you using only 2 channels.

 

[Empirical Audio]

It's built and breaking in. I need to build the cable and the Dynamo still.

When my Off-Ramp 6 USB converter is in production, maybe this could be examined by Amir as well. It's my best sounding product now.

After thinking a bit more about analog measurements, it occurred to me what the ears and brain do that none of the measurement systems do: listen in Stereo. If the measurement system could be modified to include two synchronized channels of capture and simultaneously analyze both channels instead of one at a time, I think this would more closely mimic actual listening. This is where I find the difference in most mid-fi and hi-fi systems: the imaging and focus of two channels simultaneously. This is what achieves depth in the recording reproduction as well as width outside of the speaker boundaries. This is what delivers the 3-D image and even sounds behind you using only 2 channels.

 

[SIY]

AP analyzers (and most other ones) have two channels.

 

[Empirical Audio]

AP analyzers (and most other ones) have two channels.

Yes, but do they examine the interplay of the two channels in the measurements?

 

[SIY]

Define "interplay."

 

[Krunok]

That's why I proposed the old Modi as that one has issues. The D50 probably has decent de-jitter circuitery.
The jitter in the DAC ultimately comes from the clock it runs on, the DAC chip itself and power supply issues for clock circuits and other chips.
Most likely that jitter is far worse than that of Steve's product. So in case of the D50 there will probably be no improvement.
I would not conclude that it did not improve things... it just did nothing for that DAC could be the only conclusion.
This doesn't mean the digital signal isn't say 10x 'nicer' and 'better' in quality as it is 'undone' in a DAC.
So that's why he wants it tested but not through a DAC.

Agreed that in the end it is the DAC output signal that should need to improve. Highly unlikely the D50 will benefit tough, if any DAC benefits at all.
Maybe some very old DACs without any jitter rejection that use incoming retreived clocks directly ?

All good, but would you really improve sound of a bad DAC with $600 reclocker? Or you would buy decent $200 DAC?

 

[Krunok]

Yes, but do they examine the interplay of the two channels in the measurements?

Oh.. Sou your DAC is improving "interplay" between 2 channels?

 

[Empirical Audio]

Interplay is the effect of both channels playing a certain pattern that is different from left to right. This will have an effect on the measurement and an effect on the component being measured. Certainly there will be an effect on the component because the power subsystem will be delivering different transient currents to the left and the right channels at the same moment. If this effect can degrade the waveform of either channel, then this would be detected in the measurement system if it were looking for this effect synchronously in both channels.

Here are examples:
If you are only playing a stimulus track through one channel, this is not sufficient. If you are playing the same track through both channels, this is not sufficient. If you are playing different track through left and right channels, but you are only looking at one channel at a time for degradation in the waveform, you may miss degradation in the other channel. This is a lot like intermodulation distortion, but the stimulus and the measurement process must be designed to look for this.

 

[Krunok]

Interplay is the effect of both channels playing a certain pattern that is different from left to right. This will have an effect on the measurement and an effect on the component being measured. Certainly there will be an effect on the component because the power subsystem will be delivering different transient currents to the left and the right channels at the same moment. If this effect can degrade the waveform of either channel, then this would be detected in the measurement system if it were looking for this effect synchronously in both channels.

Here are examples:
If you are only playing a stimulus track through one channel, this is not sufficient. If you are playing the same track through both channels, this is not sufficient. If you are playing different track through left and right channels, but you are only looking at one channel at a time for degradation in the waveform, you may miss degradation in the other channel. This is a lot like intermodulation distortion, but the stimulus and the measurement process must be designed to look for this.

Ok, so this simething like IMD but between channels?

Maybe you can measure one channel using standard sine waves while playing pink noise on another?

And how exactly is your reclocker hepling with DACs that have "interplay" issues?

 

[Empirical Audio]

All good, but would you really improve sound of a bad DAC with $600 reclocker? Or you would buy decent $200 DAC?

This is not about improving the sound of a DAC. It's about improving the sound of the source. It's like asking whether the performance of a phono preamp will be better if you by a better arm and stylus. No, but the source quality is better, so the overall "system" should sound better.

It's like asking whether the re-clocker will improve the sound of a poor amplifier or preamp. No, but the overall system will sound better.

Every single component and cable in the system matters and contributes in some way to the overall sound quality. IME, the two most important things to optimize are: speakers and source. Each of these two I have found is equally important. Once that is done, one can go about optimizing the DAC, the preamp, the amps and the cables. These are of less importance, but also important. It's a system.

 

[Krunok]

This is not about improving the sound of a DAC. It's about improving the sound of the source.

Well, IME every element in the chain is important, but let's put that aside. The point here is if your device would really improve the sound of the source than the effect should be measureable at the analog outputs of the DAC. Otherwise it's a snake oil.

 

[solderdude]

All good, but would you really improve sound of a bad DAC with $600 reclocker? Or you would buy decent $200 DAC?

Wouldn't buy any reclockler but am confident my system doesn't fall in the 1% category so have no need for it

 

[Empirical Audio]

Ok, so this something like IMD but between channels?

Exactly.

Maybe you can measure one channel using standard sine waves while playing pink noise on another?

Not even close. You need dynamic signals on both channels, sometimes on only one side or the other or both at the same time.

And how exactly is your reclocker helping with DACs that have "interplay" issues?

It's not just the DAC that has these issues. The preamp and amp also have these issues. We are talking about the shortcomings in the current audio measurement process, not my reclocker.

What my reclocker does is to minimize the jitter that can cause the image to become smeared. This smearing of the image will definitely change the two-channel behavior by reducing the dynamics (response to transients) of one or both channels compared to the ideal response. Jitter can also create what appears to be a louder presentation, when it is actually creating a sort-of echo chamber for both channels that is not real, but contrived.

 

[Krunok]

Wouldn't buy any reclockler but am confident my system doesn't fall in the 1% category so have no need for it

You're sceptical that this reclocker would help D50 but IMHO a device worth $600 should be able to improve sound of Gustard DAC-X26 as well.

 

[SIY]

Interplay is the effect of both channels playing a certain pattern that is different from left to right. This will have an effect on the measurement and an effect on the component being measured. Certainly there will be an effect on the component because the power subsystem will be delivering different transient currents to the left and the right channels at the same moment. If this effect can degrade the waveform of either channel, then this would be detected in the measurement system if it were looking for this effect synchronously in both channels.

Here are examples:
If you are only playing a stimulus track through one channel, this is not sufficient. If you are playing the same track through both channels, this is not sufficient. If you are playing different track through left and right channels, but you are only looking at one channel at a time for degradation in the waveform, you may miss degradation in the other channel. This is a lot like intermodulation distortion, but the stimulus and the measurement process must be designed to look for this.

Can you give a specific example of a test waveform and analysis that you're talking about here? As written, this is pretty vague.

 

[solderdude]

We are talking about the shortcomings in the current audio measurement process

Why not design a measurement process that solves all these issues ?
When designing electronics and knowing where the problems are this should be a walk in the park.