Implications of Esoteric G-0Rb atomic clock


The latest TAS (March 2008) has an excellent piece by Robert Harley: a review of the Esoteric G-0Rb Master Clock Generator, with sidebars on the history and significance of jitter. This Esoteric unit employs an atomic clock (using rubidium) to take timing precision to a new level, at least for consumer gear. It's a good read, I recommend it.

If I am reading all of this correctly, I reach the following conclusions:

(1) Jitter is more important sonically than we might have thought

(2) Better jitter reduction at the A-D side of things will yield significant benefits, which means we can look forward to another of round remasters (of analog tapes) once atomic clock solutions make it into mastering labs

(3) All of the Superclocks, claims of vanishingly low jitter, reclocking DACs -- all of this stuff that's out there now, while probably heading in the right direction, still falls fall short of what's possible and needed if we are to get the best out of digital and fully realize its promise.

(4) We can expect to see atomic clocks in our future DACs and CDPs. Really?

Am I drawing the right conclusions?
Ag insider logo xs@2xdrubin
Drubin, I just finished Robert Harley's complete review in AS and I was wrong!. Both 6 moons and AS have similar comments with use of G-0Rb clock. As 6moon best describes as "Zandenification" of sound. Not a bad thing!
There is some confusion in the above thread about USB (at least as we know it....) Here is what Steve Nugent has to say about this subject:

USB indeed does transfer a clock, similar to the way that S/PDIF has an embedded clock. The primary difference between the two is that the chips available for clock recovery for USB are actually better at jitter rejection than the receiver chips for S/PDIF clock recovery. That is the primary advantage of USB, as well as an apparent lower sensitivity over long USB cables compared to long S/PDIF cables.

And the Synchronization comment is false. These interfaces all use forms of Phase-locked-loops or delay-locked-loops. The rubidium clock or a Superclock are just providing a low-jitter clock for the PLL. Nothing to do with "synchronization". Both USB and S/PDIF have embedded clocks.

An I2S interface actually has separated clocks, so this is a big advantage and results in even lower jitter than USB or S/PDIF.

Steve N.
So let's try to make this less confused *. Here are some of my points:

- This Esoteric clock and other's like it are not the wave of the future IMHO. They are more 'band-aids" trying to correct issues of our past way of doing digital transports and DACS with that horrible SPDIF connection!

- The future of "amazing sounding digital" (read; As good as analog, if possible) will be coming from manufacturers NOT using SPDIF connections, or Esoteric re-clockers, but from OTHER forms of connectivity, such as USB.

- The "non-technical" reason that helps an audiophile "wrap their head" around the reason a USB connection can have the ability to sound much better is do with the fact that it doesn't interleave* clock signals on top of music data like the SPDIF format does.

*Please note; the above statement is a VERY SIMPLIFIED way of explaining this point. Not all of us went to engineering school! I will attempt to explain the technical detail in my direct response to Agear below;

Warning, the rest of this posting is VERY LONG.....

Yes Agear, your statements are absolutely true "in form". There is quite a bit of engineering "tech speak" that I didn't explain to Audiogon readers (such as yourself) who actually understand the detailed technical side of digital interface methodologies and their inherent topological underpinnings.

Such as;

-The clock signal itself on a USB is much different than that of a clock on a SPDIF. So much so in fact, that many engineers don't even think of it or label it as a clock anymore as compared to "the clock" within a SPDIF connection methodology. Here are some reasons why they think this way. The timing is sent on the USB sort of like a "when to start" signal. Sort of a "Hey USB! You are going to get a stream of digital data in the form of bits, now GO!" This is not the same as a clock being put on top of a continuous data stream like in the SPDIF. That is where the HUGE difference is that supports the "interleaving" statement. It also explains why you aren't having the major sync ssues associated with SDIF. In the end though we are talking about the actual interface between the transport and the DAC's input receiver and the inherent connectivity downfalls associated of the actual "clocking" data itself, how it is configured, how it is married to the data stream and how that clock information is different "in form" as opposed to a SPDIF and it's real ugly sonic mess comparably.

Both USB and I2S connectivity are a superior way of connecting digital transports and DACS than SPDIF comparably. The conversion to I2S can actually happen in a properly designed USB Dac too. This conversion to I2S would happen later time in the digital chain itself. With this in mind, I do think we need to think of a properly designed USB DAC as having I2S (it just starts with USB cable before I2S). What does this all mean to the comparison of USB versus I2S connections if we convert earlier in the chain as opposed to using a simple computer USB connection? Well, that is where the sound quality itself will show the merits of both of these connectivity methodologies. Here are my thoughts ; since a computer has a built in USB connection, it makes it much more straight forward to connect the computer via USB to the DAC (Can we say "elegant"?). It also makes it easier for the audiophile to hook up (Can we say "simple"?) There is less cost associated with the USB connectivity (Can we say "We like to save money"?). Lastly and most importantly; the most impressive DAC I've ever heard up to this point was a USB Dac. That is where the "proof is in the pudding" for myself. Whatever format gives us the best sound and is actually closest to analog is where are measuring stick should be. All of these technical "explanations" and "tearing down" the engineering side of digital is interesting but the end sonic result is what really counts IMHO (not necessarily the technical methodology).

Since Agear pointed to Steve Nugent, I'll let some of Steve's statements outline what I've been trying to convey also (this information is from Steve Nugent himself):

"In an outboard USB converter, the data is received from the sending computer and precise timing information is added. The jitter from the computer clock can be effectively eliminated. The interface is then translated into an interface that a DAC can understand, such as S/PDIF, AES/EBU or I2S (the native DAC chip interface). The clock that generates the timing can be very precise and does not depend on data rate coming from a rotating optical disk, like a CD player, or the rate at which a hard disk is read. It does however depend on uninterrupted data flow from the computer."
Enjoyed reading this thread, but until a stable, audibly proven, simple and affordable solution is in place with say, flash drive PC transmission (via which cable) to my Dac, my CEC transport might go to Joseph Chow for some power supply reworking around the clock, he's good at addressing low-level signals.
Eric, I agree in essence with what you are saying. S/PDIF is inherently flawed. USB has advantages in terms of the ease of reclocking, etc. However, not all USB interfaces are created equal. Steven Nugent himself told me that there is a fair amount of variability in the quality of USB reclocking chips, which is where the $ is. That being said, I wonder if the sonic attributes of this WDP (nice Dgarretson....) are simply a byproduct of the USB interface or is it something more? I think you are operating under certain assumptions about the purported sonic attributes of USB data architecture. There are USB products out there which, while very good, are not a quantum leap beyond current offerings.

I will leave you with a quote from the Benchmark gang taken from a Stereophile thread:

We did measure the audio performance (Freq response, THD, IMD, etc) of the USB input, and it was completely similar to the all other digital inputs of the DAC1 up to 96/24. We also did listening tests. I am continuously conducting this test (as we speak ), as are several others here at Benchmark. Testing with a CD transport feeding the Coax input, and the computer feeding the USB with the same music, no one has been able to differentiate the two inputs.

--------------------
Elias Gwinn
Engineer
Benchmark Media Systems, Inc
www.BenchmarkMedia.com