there are some really expensive DACs that can benefit from an external clock, and there are some pretty modestly priced DACs that would not. IMHO, if a DAC either reclocks or effectively filters jitter (e.g., PLL), an external clock is a waste of money. HiFi News feeds DACs a dirty (jitter-y) signal and then measures jitter at the analog output stage. So you can see an £1800 Topping has one hundred times le’s jitter than an £8000 Aqua La Scala, which is an NOS design. The latter would benefit from an external clock, the former would not.
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.
- ...
- 58 posts total
@ericrhodes1 wrote:
Even so; if an external clock makes a difference for the better in a specific setup context - distance, cables and connectors be damned - isn’t that an improvement to be embraced like in other areas of the system chain, not to mention if the improvement is substantial and it can be had for an acceptable outlay? Put that into the perspective of money used on cables, coupling/decoupling and network optimizations, for example. So, everything apparently matters, but not actual experience had with external clocks other than theorizing? @erik_squires wrote:
Expensive "standalone" DAC’s and sources fall short compared to using external clocks (if at all possible) - going by reviews and user feedback we know that to be true in some cases. Whether it comes down to the built-in clocks here are only so-so or the external dittos are just that much greater because of dedicated PSU’s, overall design and clock quality that would be deemed too expensive and take up too much space in a single chassis, well, who knows. I would suggest that the urge to have everything built-in comes with a compromise performance-wise, even with the proximity criteria accommodated, and maybe the incentive behind that urgency has a hard time coping with that possible fact?
I buy that which makes an improvement in my setup (why would an external clock be subject to skepticism more than other component categories - I mean, is actual experience the basis for this?), and I’m not in the habit of throwing coins left and right in a frivolous manner to achieve that, on the contrary. With regard to "... gear deliberately degraded," I believe that’s an assumption that is perfectly applicable in many cases for the reason pointed out by you (and that’s exactly one of the reasons why I went with the gear choices in my setup that I’ve made). If we’re to apply that to external clocks however, here’s another perspective: some people feel that the much better value in addition to maximizing the performance envelope is holding back on DAC and/or source expenditure and instead invest in an external clock for what is an overall cheaper solution - if the connectivity choices allow, that is. I’ve compared much more expensive standalone streamers to my DIY music server/streamer + external clock combo, and I comfortably say that I prefer the latter scenario for sound quality alone. Isn’t that what they call a win-win scenario? :) |
@ericrhodes1 wrote:
Come on, now you’re just being obtuse. Look, I know very well what’s merely "different" and what’s better - I have both the setup and ears/years to tell the difference. And besides you don’t appear to have made your own experiences in this field other than leveling preconceived, obstinate assumptions, so there’s really no point in continuing this discussion with you. |
- 58 posts total