RD160 external clock inputs

ROSE Products RD160
#21

Frank,

The interesting thing is that per the magazine review they tested and found 50ns jitter. But that wasn’t at the clock but overall. (Maybe I’m missing something.)

These clocks that are in the HiFi Rose, Eversolo, etc … are femto acurate so the jitter is probably greater than your external clock, yet still well outside hearing. And Rose seems to have some sort of filtering to reduce perceived jitter.

The jitter if heard would probably come across as smearing of the sound, yet I don’t know if when you are casually listening you would hear it.

I think the rest of your gear would have an impact.

For me… I’ve got my Rose 520 connected to Mon Acoustic Supermon Mini s. When I listen to a good recording of Yo Yo Ma playing Bach’s cello pieces… there is no distortion from jitter. You can hear the fingering.

Note that it could be due to my age and my hearing that I don’t hear it.

I think you are going to be hard pressed to hear a lot of difference between your external clock and the clocks in the Rose gear. Only because the units have really good clocks to begin with.

I think w external clocks… a lot has to deal with the quality of the gear along w your hearing.
Honestly looking into this topic… it was interesting to find out that if you have overall some jitter in the 100ns or greater range that it was audible. I really do want to track down and find that BBC study.

1 Like
#22

:man_facepalming:t2: :man_facepalming:t2: :man_facepalming:t2: :man_facepalming:t2:

Virtually all modern streamers and DACs are equipped with excellent clocks, which is why I don’t understand this entire discussion. Listen to music, which is what the devices are made for.

Or should I start up a chat with Snake Oil Audio again? :wink:

#23

Hi Mike,
first of all I like my RD160 very much. Also with the built in clock! It outperformed my PS Audio DSD MK2 easily and was much more engaging in sound than a Meitner MA3 (not the current one with “i”). In my chain and with internal Clock! As Bonte is pointing out, I just could listen to music and it was enjoyable. Well, there are people outside the wilderness, liking music, others only sound, and others both. I would consider being a kind of this third party. Well, I like Bach, as you do. Cello Suites with Yo Yo Ma as mentioned, or the same composition cycle with Wispelwey’s recording, twelve years ago. Let’s speak about Harpsichord. Take the Sonatas for Viola da Gamba. Two completely differently sounding instruments. Subtle changes in a good chain will be easily audible. Always try to follow the two streams by the two instruments and their “get together”. The more “dialogish” it is, the better enjoying is guaranteed. For instance I also like Alexander Popov. Take the current mix, Attractive Force. For me it is good moving techno music. You may like it, but you won’t hear any difference in clock settings: internal or external with Mutec Ref10. Well a good point for checking clock-effects is i2s input on the RD160. Normally the clock is set by the source. With R.1.46 upwards, you are able to select internal source-clock, internal rd160-clock or external clock. Subtle changes will appear with good music …
I would appreciate a link to the BBC study, you mentioned. Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Frank

#24

Sigh.

If you followed this thread, you’d see that I’ve been talking about the fact that the clocks in these dacs are in fact good enough that you don’t need an external clock. One use of an external clock is to sync your components which unless you’re producing, doesn’t make sense… or as Frank is using the clock to replace the onboard clock.

This led me to look at the differences in Jitter and the accuracy of the clocks. Which led to the citation of a BBC study and the audibility of jitter at the ns level. (Which surprised me. )

I also made the point that if you’re just listening to enjoy the music, you really won’t hear the differences in the clocks, but that if you were carefully listening, some may hear the difference.

Along the research there was one audiophile magazine that tested the RD160 and found 50ns of jitter in the output of the RD160. Not so much the clock but the overall sound. This brings up another point that its not just the precision of the clock but the overall architecture / implementation.

This isn’t snake oil because there are measurable differences which when taking into account your entire chain of equipment, you have the potential of an audible difference.

One other interesting thing is that in some of the more detailed reviews of the HiFi Rose gear… parts of the reviews show poor measurements yet the underlying sound is great. This goes to the heart of the issue. You can’t just rely on measurements.

1 Like
#25

Yes the RD160 is an excellent DAC.
One of the reviews I found showed the high overall jitter which borders on the audible range, yet the reviewer found that it sounded better than it measured.

Since I live in Chicago, I try to attend AXPONA each year. When I go, one of the reference tracks is Yo Yo Ma playing Bach. In a good system, you can hear the fingering along w some of the bow work. To hear this you need a good source but also good speakers.

Another track is going to be Otyken (Siberian group) Just because of the range of vocals.
Or Snow tha Product (Hispanic female rapper)

But again, this gets away from the clock but more into the speaker.

I’ll try to find the BBC article, but if you find it first, please post it here.

The thing about audiophiles, its both the music and the tech. But ultimately the music.

1 Like
#26

Hi Mikey

Thanks for your reply. But I’ve read everything, and you came along at just the right time to type it up.

Start with proper room treatment, both physical and digital! Then buy different speakers, and if you then add an external clock that measures in nanoseconds, and one clock has a few more nanoseconds than another, which, as you say, is inaudible, then there’s no helping you.

On top of this high level of 160, adding an external clock is, in my opinion, pure snake oil.

But as always, I repeat my point:

Everyone burns their money where they see fit.

Cheers

#27

Thank you Frank, I am always on the lookout for music that will help me be more discriminating when looking for differences between components, especially DACs. I feel I might be a lost cause at this point but I never give up on the quest. I will listen to Cello Suites. I am not a big fan of the harpsichord but I will give it a whirl.

#28

Music is a journey, lifelong. Hifi is only one enabler within this journey.
Cheers,
Frank

#29

Well, Bonte. It depends on the snake oil you try. And just drink it on full moon nights, your eyes in south direction.
image

1 Like
#30

First, I don’t disagree with you.
Room treatment is the first and cheapest thing to fix.
Then speakers. (Lots of options at different price points. )
Then finding the right gear synergy.
For me… the Rose RS520 works well w my Mon Acoustic speakers. Not so great with my Vienna Acoustic Hadyns.

External clocks w Rose gear?
I won’t call it snake oil, but I would say its not the first place to make an investment.
And again, here’s the thing.

What I could find out online… its not just the clock, but the implementation.
Eversolo, Rose, etc … all have very accurate clocks. The issue however, is the implementation.
One of the Hifi Review sites measured the overall jitter to be 50ns. [Rose did confirm this]. Its just at the possibly audible threshold. 50ns and below is inaudible 50ns above might be audible.

So it could be possible that w an external clock, you can get less overall jitter. That’s why its not snake oil.

Would I spend money on a clock? Naw… there are a couple of speakers that I’d love to get first. (Some are DIY ‘kits’ which would mean also looking at the RS451 or something similar. )

The interesting thing about this discussion is that it forces you to look at the science behind the technology where you can make up your own mind.

This is also an area where the ASR crew and some audiophiles tend to get the science wrong.
I still need to find the BBC study.

1 Like
#31

I was able to find the report.
You can access it HERE:

1 Like
#32

Did I say that you hold a different opinion??? :tired_face:

I merely listed what you can actually hear—not the milliseconds of an external clock.

Can’t you Americans use a little deductive reasoning and read between the lines? One really has to chew the choicest morsels for you and just hope you’re actually able to swallow them… Man, oh man.

#33

That didn’t help even ten years ago—apparently, I’m allergic to snake oil.

1 Like
#34

:rofl: puuuh, o.k. but try something different. Measures very good. Much impact on sound. They changed my sound-universe: Neumann Speakers. Active. Try KH420. Really good. Neumann KH420 Review (Studio Monitor) | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
No snake oil. No allergy. Just good engineering!

1 Like
#35

No need to say another word about it:
Neumann studio monitors are simply incredible—because they were developed by sound engineers… real sound engineers. :+1:t2: :ear:t2::muscle:t2: :ear:t2::clap:t2: :ear:t2:

Applications:
They are the industry standard in professional recording studios, broadcasting facilities, and high-end home recording setups.

I am German and I know the “new men”

:v:t2:

1 Like
#36

Gosh guys, I started this thread to ask a question about spec mismatching. How did it even come to this. You guys sounded like you’ve never even tried an external clock before calling it snake oil. What’s the point of throwing out reports and theories just to justify your own point and negating other’s personal experiences. Nowadays buying and returning things online is so convenient, just try it for yourselves. Sheesh.
What makes you guys better and smarter than all the engineers behind these audio companies? Or tens of thousands of fellow audio lovers that swear by the effect of clocks?

There are always multiple sides of things on these matters. I can also argue like sure, the human ear cannot directly hear a time difference measured in tenths of a picosecond. However, the human ear can easily hear the analog “byproducts” that 0.x picoseconds of jitter leave behind.

People might mistakenly imagine jitter as “the singer arriving 0.000000000001 seconds late to the note.” If that were the case, it would be completely imperceptible. However, a DAC uses the clock’s pulse to reconstruct the continuous analog wave. If the clock ticks irregularly (even by a fraction of a picosecond), it’d create micro-fluctuation that strips energy away from your pure musical notes and scatters it into the background as an artificial “noise skirt” or sideband noise around the music.

You don’t hear a time delay; you hear a microscopic layer of sonic fog. In fact, I just tried a budget external clock from a Chinese brand “Vezzoso” which costs $500 with quality clock cables included. I connected it to my Vezzoso DDC Upsampler and RD160 at the same time, and when the clock warmed up, the sound image indeed has clearer and more solid outlines. For $500, I think it’s a worthy upgrade.

Yes you may say that the clock cables or internal parts in the external clock might offset it’s effect. But I can also argue that the internal environment of a DAC is usually worse than an external clock, with all the inputs, processors, displays, they all create EMI along the way and degrades the clock signal. So an isolated environment with a better performing clock, might give a better head start for the clock signal. WHO KNOWS.

You guys like Hifi Rose’s products right? You think their engineers did a great job right? Guess what, THEY’RE THE ONES THAT PUT THE CLOCK INPUTS BACK THERE, AND THEY DON’T EVEN HAVE AN EXTERNAL CLOCK IN THEIR PRODUCT LINE. So PROBABLY they also think that adding an external clock could be an upgrade path for there users.

So just try it for yourselves for god sakes. Online shopping is so well developed now, the experiment cost is so low. If it doesn’t make a difference for you, then good for you, you can save some money. The blessing of old man’s ears/insensitive ears.

1 Like
#37

Once again!
In case it wasn’t clear!

Go ahead—do whatever you want and blow your money. If that’s what you believe, then go for it.

I have stated my point of view and typed that there are far more effective ways to improve one’s sound than using an external clock.

That is all I said.

Furthermore, I merely threatened to open a new chat thread dealing with “snake oil”—which had absolutely nothing to do with external clocks.

Those who can read have a clear advantage.

#38

Your so called more effective ways to improve sound is not even relevant to what an external clock is doing. It’s like when people are asking what type of guitar strings sounds better, and your reply is just buy a better guitar and practicing more will make you sound better. And you even feel smart saying that lmao.

Who doesn’t know room treatments and speakers can make more obvious changes. But many people have limits on their spaces and already have software room treatments, and they might love how their speakers sound, but just want a bit more improvement in the source. Adding a clock is quick and simple, and could be much cheaper than changing speakers. And the benefits of a clock can be retained even when you really want to change your speakers.

Btw I don’t say what I believe in. I only say it with my personal experiences. Not just making comments and pretend to know it so well when in fact you haven’t had any experience on that matter.

1 Like
#39

@likwacheng , slow your roll.
I’m not calling it Snake Oil, Bonte made that remark.

Since you raised this question.
Did a bit of research into the issue of clocking.

Yes Rose added the external clock input (10mHz iirc)

The point I’m making is that the existing clocks in the units are very good so the question is… will you hear a difference in sound quality?

The answer is … it depends.
Per the BBC, effective jitter below 50ns is not perceivable. Above 50ns it could be under certain conditions and then over a couple 100 of ns it is perceivable .

With jitter your sound is smeared. Not as clear and crisp.
The reviewer for the audiophile magazine showed a graph of a 1kHz signal and on the graph you could see the jitter around 50db down. Is it audible? The reviewer didn’t notice it, although I doubt he took a 10mHz clock input and ran the test to see what that graph looked like.

In terms of better clocks… Ian Canada sells some clock chips and Pi Hat boards with really good clocks.
A replacement clock for Rose would be around $45.00.
A better replacement clock chip would be $179.00 for his SC Pure. (Here the phase noise is -80db at 1Hz while at 1kHz that phase noise is -160db) [Note: Not sure its a drop in replacement for the Rose gear, just to give you the relative costs. ]

But back to the issue.
Can you hear a difference? You say yes… I have to question it. Did you do a blind A/B test?
I’m not saying you didn’t. Just that you’re on the edge of inaudible differences.
You also have to consider what you have connected to your RD160. If you’re using good studio monitors… sure. With my Mon mini s? Sure. With my Hadyn s that have an upgraded XO? Maybe.

There are a lot of factors at play.
While Bonte claims it to be snake oil… I don’t.

To your point of wanting to chase the best sound… IMHO adding an external clock isn’t my first choice.
Speakers would be it. But then again… spending $500.00 on a clock is a lot less than building a set of 2 way bookshelf / stand mount speakers using Accuton drivers.

Note: Maybe in the future… I may open up the RS520 and upgrade the clock(s) Who knows. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#40

Just to revisit this topic!
Mike, this has nothing to do with you—even though I’m replying to your post! It’s just that your post came along at exactly the right moment for me.

Modern clock generators (oscillators) in DACs or external clocks do not operate in the nanosecond (ns) range; rather, they are 1,000 times more precise.
The deviation—known as “jitter”—typically falls within the femtosecond (fs) range.
This corresponds to 0.000001 nanoseconds. Accuracy can be categorized as follows:
High-end clock generators (Femto-clocks): ≤ 500 fs (often even < 100 fs). These extremely low values ​​are utilized, for example, in high-quality external clocks (master clocks) or dedicated audio interface cards.
Good standard clock generators:
Less than 1 ps (picosecond). One picosecond corresponds to 0.001 nanoseconds. Why Jitter Is So Important: In digital-to-analog conversion, the critical factor is not the absolute frequency (e.g., 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz), but rather the exact temporal precision with which digital data is translated into analog voltages. 1 ns Jitter: If jitter were actually this significant, it would lead to massive distortion and audible noise in high-frequency signals. ≤ 1 ps to 100 fs Jitter: In the femtosecond range, phase noise remains so low that the converter can reconstruct the signal without errors or loss of detail. Why Are External Clock Generators (Clocks) Needed? Modern devices employ so-called Phase-Locked Loops (PLLs), which effectively decouple the internal clock from the jitter present in the incoming source signal (e.g., via USB). Consequently, an additional external clock is not strictly required for operation. However, it is utilized in professional recording studios or highly ambitious Hi-Fi setups to centrally synchronize all devices—streamers, converters, and interfaces—with a single, ultra-stable clock signal, thereby eliminating even minimal phase errors.

Alright, so now tell me: what is the point of this whole discussion? No Hi-Fi manufacturer is going to install a clock generator (oscillator) that would result in audible jitter. If they did, every unit sold would be back at the manufacturer’s within two days because buyers would simply return them. That’s why—faced with a discussion like this—I can only just shake my head in disbelief. :man_facepalming:t2:

In recording studios—where numerous digital devices need to be clocked in perfect sync—I can totally understand the need for this stuff. But in your own home—for a normal person who listens to music and typically owns, let’s say, two streamers, or perhaps a single DAC shared between a CD transport and a streamer, etc., etc.—the internal clock in a unit like the 160 is more than sufficient. It’s already a high-quality component—one that I certainly won’t be able to hear the difference from.

Oh, and one more thing:

How do you guys actually know what a cello sounds like in the original recording? Or what a guitar string really sounds like—exactly as it did when it was being recorded in the studio? How do you know? You don’t have any reference point for what the music sounded like in its original form! But go ahead—keep telling yourselves whatever you want. You’re really just trying to soothe your consciences for having spent money on this stuff; you feel like you have to hear a difference—as if the angels themselves should start singing! :rofl:

Cheers—that’s it… I’m out of here. It’s like kindergarten!

1 Like