1. Home
  2. digital
  3. 198238-159231

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.

kerrybh
kennyc
3,094 posts
 

@kerrybh “highly regarded designers like MSB and EMM Labs believe that an external dac cannot improve the performance…

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.

I think this is a case where they can’t both be right-someone is right, someone is wrong

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. 

kerrybh OP
704 posts
 

@kennyc  I think I agree on your first point but respectfully disagree with the second. I don’t see any way to rationalize the different design philosophies between a designer like Ed Meitner, and the designers of DCS products when it comes to external clocks. They have diametrically opposed points of view. I don’t know which is right, I’ve never designed a DAC. I do know that they are polar opposites on the point which is an important one when selecting a DAC.

kennyc
3,094 posts
 

 ….a hard time understanding the mechanism 

…..its an important consideration in making buying decisions.

This is your own “condition” you put on your decision making process. Personal sonic enjoyment is the goal, understanding the process is an option/restriction.

kennyc
3,094 posts
 

Maybe a hypothetical example might be helpful.

In opening a DAC design and manufacturing company, we wanted both market penetration and selling our best products we can produce.

For market penetration, we try to keep the cost/price low so more units sold increasing marketing exposure. Targeting the 4k market, we focused on the DAC  quality, but used more moderate cost/quality power supply and clock. To those who want to further our DAC’s performance, we allow for external PS and or master clocks to be utilized as an option. This is our DAC A offering.

To demonstrate our engineering and manufacturing expertise, we designed our best DAC B using top parts including power supplies and clocks. We feel that offering external PS and or clocks offer minimal to negligible sonic improvements so we choose not to offer as additional options.

If we release both DAC A and DAC B at the same time, is one wrong and the other is right? The answer is no. 

kennyc
3,094 posts
 

Also, your purchasing process seems to separate the DAC then decide on a clock.  Because of limited budgets, the decision should be Both DAC+clock combined simultaneously within budget.

So the decision within budget should be like: DAC A standalone vs DAC B + external clock + cabling vs DAC C standalone vs DAC D + PSU + clock + cabling….etc 

More to discover