Clocks and such- Is Naim on the cheap?

Bruce,

the problem is I'm not sure many would agree with your first conclusion, about the "minimal theoretical benefits" (so minimal as to be theoretical rather than practical, I guess?) of a FC2 or Hi-Cap on a CD5.

Herman

There was a recent thread regarding PSUs and a homnemade "AndyCap") where I think that Dave Dever commented on the limited benefit of a high quality PSU on a CD5, something having to do with its limited current requirement I think?).

I do love the sound of my CD5- didn't mean to suggest otherwise-, just wondering aloud I guess..

Bruce

bec,

You are correct in that an accurate clock is critical in CD replay. Simply put, a better clock means better groove-factor.

It would of course be nice to easily upgrade the clock. However, to ensure optimimum operating conditions it is advised that signal paths from the clock should should be short and the lengths calculated to ensure timely delivery to the transport and DAC. This would mean that an upgradable clock would need to be available in a plug-in module.

This is no bad thing - if Naim is so inclined to develop a totally modular and upgradable CD player, then plug-in modules for vital components such as the clock and DAC may prove popular.

Andrew

Andrew Randle
Currently in the "Linn Binn"

bec,
Imagine you have just invented the sonic equivalent of a CDSII and you decide to start a hifi business. How would you choose to reduce the sound quality of this system in order to offer a wide product range whilst making the most money you can?
BAM

Bruce,

The answer lies, I believe in two areas, a balanced design approach, and protection of the differences between each level of the Naim hierarchy.

A better clock makes a MUCH bigger difference than any PSU upgrade to a CD3.5, but you'll never get it to be as good as a CDX, the changes would be too major. You will though reduce the margin so much as to make the price / performance arguments for a bare CDX a much more difficult decision (CDX+CDPS/XPS is a no-brainer).

Making an entry-level product upgradeable to the highest level increases entry cost, reducing market - not the idea of an entry level product.

A Hicap provides a more significant upgrade to a clock-modded CD3.5 than to a standard CD5, in my experience - a classic example of the front end first upgrades being more effective?

Personally I'd take the upgrade clock route, and then work to maintain the performance differentials at the levels above, but that's a lot of work, and you have to start by making your best product even better.

Not always an easy or quick thing to do.

Andy.

P.S. In effect, amongst other things, adding an XPS to a CDX provides a clock upgrade, by lowering supply noise and consequently jitter. I'm sure there would be a significant measured difference in jitter performance between the two. Adding a supply to the CD5 could be made to work in exactly the same way.

That little nugget is quite a thunderbolt. Anyway, do you know how good the CDS2 clock is to start with?

Alex

quote:

---

Anyway, do you know how good the CDS2 clock is to start with?

---

That is public domain data - it's very good, in the single digit picosecond range IIRC. Just one of the reasons it sounds so bloody good.

Andy.

So I don't have to change it then?

Alex

BTW I'm not sure picosecond is in my dictionary either.

Alex,
I'm just shining the light from a different angle to reveal another aspect of the madness behind the method as it were.
Bam

tera x1,000,000,000
mega x1,000,000
kilo x1,000
milli /1000
micro /1,000,000
pico /1,000,000,000

for a handy dictionary see www.m-w.com

Not very long then.

It was written:
tera x1,000,000,000
mega x1,000,000
kilo x1,000
milli /1000
micro /1,000,000
pico /1,000,000,000

Better:

tera = 10 **12 (US trillion, UK billion?)
giga = 10**9 (US billion, UK milliard?)
mega = 10**6
kilo = 10**3
milli = 10**-3
micro = 10**-6
nano = 10**-9
nano = 10**-9
pico = 10**-12

Phil

Hi Bruce

quote:

---

There was a recent thread regarding PSUs and a homnemade "AndyCap") where I think that Dave Dever commented on the limited benefit of a high quality PSU on a CD5, something having to do with its limited current requirement I think?).

---

I think what Dave was saying was that a preamp could gain "more" benefit from a separate power supply, not that a CD5 would receive limited benefit.

If you bought a CD5 and hicap new you're really in CDX territory and I think most will agree that the CDX would be a better long term bet. Personally I think it's a real bonus that you can upgrade your pre and CD player with an off-board power supply that can be exchanged between the two. It's an individuals musical and economic choice/trade-off whether you think it's worth it to upgrade.

Jay

quote:

---

pico /1,000,000,000

---

Not quite.

nano - 1/1,000,000,000
pico - 1/1,000,000,000,000

A thousand pico-seconds is a nano-second.

Erik

quote:

---

I've heard theories that the human ear can filter out jitter, and that it's oversampling, noise shaping , reclocking etc that turns it into audible artefacts.

47 Labs seem to reckon that the amount of jitter is irrelevant. Rather, processing the signal can form particular patterns that upset our ears.

---

Not quite true.

Jitter has a direct, calculatable and measurable effect on the ultimate resolution of any D-A / A-D conversion process. By this measure jitter needs to be low enough to resolve the available number of bits used in the encoding scheme.

The interesting bit though, which the above alludes to, is that jitter much below the theoretical minimum required for a given system is clearly audible and even measurable if you're well-heeled and have some nice test kit.

This is because the jitter present in various areas of the digital replay / record chain can also be viewed as a modulating process, which makes the spectral content of the jitter an important factor, based upon the ear's sensitivity to the artifacts generated in the finally decoded signal. Jitter is not just added in the master clock, but in other areas too (e.g. RF eye pattern read from a CD), which the players are sensitive too in varying degrees, depending upon their complexity

It's all really complex and based upon my own experience jitter can never be too low.

A.

quote:

---

I think what Dave was saying was that a preamp could gain "more" benefit from a separate power supply, not that a CD5 would receive limited benefit.

---

That's exactly what Dave was saying - as the man who made the AndyCAP, I'd not hestitate to buy a secondhand Hicap for a CD5, once serviced they are very impressive indeed. A new one would not provide enough bang-for-my-buck, in this application.

A Hicap does though provide a significant upgrade to a CD5 or similar, and the difference between it and a Flatcap is not remotely subtle.

If I was in that territory though, I'd buy a CDX.

A.

Thank you for all your helpful comments. My main motivation in starting this thread was simply wondering if a better clock was so good and relatively cheap, why it wasn't a no-brainer for Naim to install em in all the CDPs. Granted that there must be somewhere to start whittling away as you go from a CDSII down, but maybe a lesser clock isn't the place to start.

As I have said recently, in my system (FC/CD5/Hi/92R/90.3), I have found that the FC greatly improves the CD5, and that I don't find much additional benefit from my HiCap (old, but just serviced by NANA with new regulators and re-capped). In contrast, the Hicap is way ahead of the FC on my preamp. Maybe this is just in my system or to my ears.

On an unrelated note, I'm thinking of ungrading the pre. I tried a bare CDX and I didn't like it more than my CD5/FC, and the XPS/CDX isn't going to happen anytime soon. I was thinking of trying a 102, but maybe a 72 would do. Is a 72 likely to be a big improvement? I don't think I need more power right now-I almost never go past 10:00.

Thanks all,

Bruce

Hi Bruce

It never hurts to ask

A 72 or 102 is going to be big upgrade over the 92R. The choice is completely up to you and your hi-cap will be put to good use. A 72 will be cheaper but I think that the 102 is ultimately better (pass me the opener for that can of worms ).

Something else to consider is how far you ultimately plan to go. If you see an 82/52, CDX, CDSII, etc on the horizon it might be better to get a cheap 72 save the money for a CDX, then get an 82, then go broke, etc....

Jay

The Hi-cap into a CD3.5 or 5 is better than a Flatcap(2) by a big margin - more authority, and a cleaner top end.

Otherwise, something is wrong somewhere...

Regards,

Steve.

The proof of the pudding...

IMO, yes the 72 is much better than the 92R.
But you'll loose the remote

Emmanuel

Sod the remote

Unless of course your legs are broken.
I changed a 92R for a 72 a couple of months ago and would have no hesitation in doing it again. The 72 is more musical, more together sounding and one hell of a lot less messy on busy music.

A cooler head without ever becoming boring..

102, because its bigger innit?

Why does every one lose sleep over their clocks when you are talking about pico seconds, surely sound waves and our ears capacity to hear are slower than that by a fair margin.

Sit back and enjoy the sound, try less to worry about how fast its getting through its chips.

jesus.

It just took me 3 picoseconds to realise that you seem to have missed the point.

Alex

Phil, Dr E, yes of course. A giga "d'oh" back there on a femto-brain day.