RME or Lynx and external clocking

[edward]

Peter, I think this topic loosely came up recently, but I just wanted to get this in it's own thread. I am looking for your opinion (and anyone else who owns an RME or Lynx soundcard) - do you believe that using these cards with WordClock input (from an external DAC as Master) would be detrimental or negate all the positive accomplishments of XXHighEnd? I have read a statement from someone recently that achieving low jitter from the PC and using the PC (transport) as Master was better than using an RME or Lynx as Slave and synchronized via WordClock or SuperClock to an external DAC (as Master).

What do you think? Ever tried it? Does XXHighEnd still perform properly with an RME as Slave?

I know there are external clocking devices such as the Antelope Isochrone OCX
http://www.antelopeaudio.com/en/products_iso_ocx.html
And the only "DAC as Master" I can think of is the LessLoss
http://www.lessloss.com/

I'd love to hear all your opinions about this.

[PeterSt]

(For me) This is hard to say or predict. And as you implied : how to test it since my DAC has no wordclock connection.

I think though that clocking anything by means of the wordclock connection doesn't let perform the soundcard or DAC better to the respect of jitter. The jitter we'd be listening to will be the inherent jitter of soundcard / DAC, and that isn't going to be improved by external clocking (or slaving etc.). Again, that's what I think.

What I also think is that we all need a dose of "both legs on the floor" thinking. I mean, since it is known that DACs exist of 20ps and less, they should be infinitly better than a 1ns DAC, right ? but are they ? Oh, they could, but not per definition.

This was my 0c.

[manisandher]

What do you think? Ever tried it? Does XXHighEnd still perform properly with an RME as Slave?
And the only "DAC as Master" I can think of is the LessLoss
http://www.lessloss.com/

Edward,

I slave my RME FF800 to my DAC (i.e. I have a separate 75ohm BNC connector feeding a wordclock signal from the DAC to the FF800). My DAC is not a LessLoss but an Esoteric D70. And yes, XXHighEnd definitely still performs ‘correctly’ in the sense that it sounds great.

But actually, I think that when the DAC is Master, XXHighEnd has less impact on SQ.

What I mean here is that with the FF800 as master (PLL setting on DAC), any adjustments in XXHighEnd are more easily identified as compared to the D70 as master (wordclock out setting on DAC).

This was my impression last weekend when I spent some hours listening to various combinations. I need to do some more listening, but won't be able to until I resurrect my hifi in a week or so.

But in any event, switching to DAC as master provides a quantum leap in improved SQ - IMHO, greater than anything XXHighEnd itself can provide. In this respect, I agree 100% with the LessLoss guys in that the DAC should act as master, with the clock sitting right next to the dacs (though I’m less sure about their views on using a SuperClock, what with the frequencies involved).

When I find a nos dac with wordclock output, I'll give it a go...

Mani.

[edward]

What do you think? Ever tried it? Does XXHighEnd still perform properly with an RME as Slave?
And the only "DAC as Master" I can think of is the LessLoss
http://www.lessloss.com/

Edward,

I slave my RME FF800 to my DAC (i.e. I have a separate 75ohm BNC connector feeding a wordclock signal from the DAC to the FF800). My DAC is not a LessLoss but an Esoteric D70. And yes, XXHighEnd definitely still performs ‘correctly’ in the sense that it sounds great.

But actually, I think that when the DAC is Master, XXHighEnd has less impact on SQ.

What I mean here is that with the FF800 as master (PLL setting on DAC), any adjustments in XXHighEnd are more easily identified as compared to the D70 as master (wordclock out setting on DAC).

This was my impression last weekend when I spent some hours listening to various combinations. I need to do some more listening, but won't be able to until I resurrect my hifi in a week or so.

But in any event, switching to DAC as master provides a quantum leap in improved SQ - IMHO, greater than anything XXHighEnd itself can provide. In this respect, I agree 100% with the LessLoss guys in that the DAC should act as master, with the clock sitting right next to the dacs (though I’m less sure about their views on using a SuperClock, what with the frequencies involved).

When I find a nos dac with wordclock output, I'll give it a go...

Mani.

Thanks Mani! That's exactly the information I was looking for. I bet one thing you do love, that both DACs have in common, is the PCM1704. 

[xp9433]

Mani

I slave my RME FF800 to my .. Esoteric D70.... switching to DAC as master provides a quantum leap in improved SQ - IMHO, greater than anything XXHighEnd itself can provide. In this respect, I agree 100% with the LessLoss guys in that the DAC should act as master, with the clock sitting right next to the dacs ...

I read the LessLoss website data. Interesting! You seem to agree with their general conclusions about DAC's capable of operating in Master Mode.

Especially interesting was their comments on Computer Audio & USB Audio, [ http://www.lessloss.com/computer_audio_usb.html ], where they say:
"The result is that a simply slaved CD player (not even synchronously re-clocked by LessLoss) outperforms even the most scrupulously slaved computer soundcard"  Basically they are suggesting PC Audio cannot compete.

While your D70 can act as master it probably does not operate the same way (syncronously) as the LessLoss DAC?

Do you have any comments about the LessLoss impression of PC Audio that you can share with us ?


Frank

[edward]

"The result is that a simply slaved CD player (not even synchronously re-clocked by LessLoss) outperforms even the most scrupulously slaved computer soundcard"  Basically they are suggesting PC Audio cannot compete.

What that means to me is that even a slaved PC (with DAC as master) is still affected by the quality of the PC (hardware, software). Otherwise, a slaved CD player should sound identical to a slaved PC. But if you look at their computer setup (including the use of foobar) you can see why it is inferior.

Mani

While your D70 can act as master it probably does not operate the same way (syncronously) as the LessLoss DAC?

Do you have any comments about the LessLoss impression of PC Audio that you can share with us ?


Frank

I think Mani already has mentioned that his CD transport sounds "better" (or at least "different") than his computer:
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=480.0

[xp9433]

I think Mani already has mentioned that his CD transport sounds "better" (or at least "different") than his computer:
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=480.0
[/quote]

Edward
Yes you are right of course!
Frank

[manisandher]

While your D70 can act as master it probably does not operate the same way (syncronously) as the LessLoss DAC?

Hi Frank,

When in Master mode, the D70 is acting synchronously, in the sense that the source (CD transport or PC soundcard) is synchronised to it.

The main difference between the D70 and the LessLoss is the latter's use of a SuperClock running at high frequencies. My understanding of SuperClock is that it creates more problems than it solves - from the RME FF800 manual:

"A square wave signal of 11 MHz distributed to several devices - this simply means to fight with high frequency technology. Reflections, cable quality, capacitive loads - at 44.1 kHz these factors may be ignored, at 11 MHz they are the end of the clock network. Additionally it was found that a PLL not only generates jitter, but also also rejects disturbances. The slow PLL works like a filter for induced and modulated frequencies above several kHz. As the Superclock is used without any filtering such a kind of jitter and noise suppression is missing. No wonder Superclock did not become a commonly accepted standard."

Another difference is that the D70 has four PCM1704s, not two like the LessLoss

Mani.

[manisandher]

Otherwise, a slaved CD player should sound identical to a slaved PC.

Yes, provided the soundcard isn't changing the data beforehand...

I think Mani already has mentioned that his CD transport sounds "better" (or at least "different") than his computer:
http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=480.0

Again, "Yes", if you are including my soundcard as part of the computer.

Can I just make it clear though that I think that the soundcard is at 'fault' here, and certainly not XXHE. But I'm hoping to find out once my system is up and running again.

Mani.

[PeterSt]

But I'm hoping to find out once my system is up and running again.

From one side I heard that you were moving.
From another, that you are looking for a house.

Did you gear up in a camper ?

[manisandher]

I have a very understanding brother who is happy to put us (my wife and me) up for a few months until we find 'the house of our dreams'. He's also happy for me to set up my hifi in his living room ...

... might even be able to persuade him to get a copy of XXHE...

Mani