Yes, I went down the clock rabbit hole and found no difference in anything I did. I spent a lot of money and got nothing for it so I sold all the stuff on reverb. Don’t waste your time find another hobby make some suspension feet for your speakers or something
DACs, external clocks, and what's what
There seems to be more hype about DACs than about anything in this overhyped hobby. I'm considering a new DAC and have been dragged down this external clock rabbit hole.
It seems that lots of DAC vendors are pushing external clocks. Even high end DACs like Wadax studio player, dcs products, Master fidelity NADAC-C, etc., claim that an expensive external clock is absolutely necessary to reach peak performance. Others, such as MSB and EMM Labs-its owner, Ed Meitner, in particular, counter that the clocking function is best performed closest to the conversion so as not to introduce the inevitable issues-noise, etc., that can come with adding more cables and connectors to the process. Most importantly, they point out that the internal clock still performs the ultimate clocking function, not the external clock. According to this camp, a well designed DAC with a high quality internal clock cannot benefit from an external clock and the added box may even be a detriment in addition to a waste of money. Cynics imply its just a money grab.
I understand how external clocks can benefit professional setups where there are multiple components to consider. I have a hard time understanding the mechanism by which a simple, typical two channel dac would benefit. Both my dcs Bartok and the Studio Player are one box solutions. I've auditioned the Studio Player (no external clock) and think its really good. Also have recently heard the EMM Labs and Berkeley Reference 3P, all sound really good without an external clock.
On the other hand, these clocks are selling-even very expensive ones-and lots of folks say they hear a difference.
I'm certainly not a DAC designer. I think no one knows more about this stuff than Meitner, or the MSB folks, but this is quite confusing, at least to me. Lots of stuff in our hobby comes down to subjective preference, but this seems to be a case where one side must be right and the other is wrong. Which is which? If you think an external clock provides a substantial improvement, how so?
Just looking for insights and opinions from this esteemed group. Not trying to start a fight-just hoping to shed some light on this because its an important consideration in making buying decisions.
Thanks.
- ...
- 42 posts total
@kerrybh - your perspective seems to be in error.
Other “Relevant” considerations:
Bottom line- when purchasing digital, look at your budget then look at options within your budget “including” if want an external PS and/or Master clock with additional cabling. Personally, I dislike extra LPS or master clock boxes with spiderweb cabling so am avoiding for now. I suggest the OP try a used/returnable master clock to scratch that curiosity itch which seems to be driving him a bit crazy. |
@rman9 Thanks for the response. DCS makes quality goods. I once thought its products could be a bit analytical as the price for achieving superb detail and imaging. To my ears, the Apex upgrade largely mitigated that issue and was a significant leap forward.Not surprised about the clock. |
@kennyc You make interesting observations. I agree that dacs are not created equal. What is interesting to me-and a bit confusing-is that there are seemingly irreconcilable competing design philosophies at work. Obviously, DCS, Wadax, Master Fidelity and others push their external clocks as enhancing performance. On the other hand, highly regarded designers like MSB and EMM Labs believe that an external dac cannot improve the performance if the internal clock is properly designed and implemented.I think the former would agree with your point of view, while the latter would not. In fact, those designers believe that the most likely result of adding an external clock is reduced performance because of the additional cables, connections, etc., IF the internal dac is properly implemented. I think this is a case where they can't both be right-someone is right, someone is wrong. Interesting question. |
It’s simply that if better clocks were included internally at a cost (nothing is free), that external clocks have a lesser to negligible influence.
This black and white, true or false thinking is in error. The real issue is how much accuracy/performance do DACs require of the clock? Maximum performance costs top dollar which most cannot afford. Instead, we try to get the best performance “within our limited budgets”. If DCS simply created a bigger box to include there top clock with their DAC, we would expect higher price to include the additional parts and casework. Would they be “switching camps”? - of course not. You’re still paying for better parts and engineering. Merely giving external options to use better performing power or clock alternatives is NOT saying the current DAC is lacking, just like saying improvements in parts for a tube amp, speakers, etc doesn’t mean the original design is flawed- it was built to a price point. |
- 42 posts total