In Reply to: I know, right? posted by jusbe on March 31, 2015 at 16:40:55:
The aftermarket clock industry has probably cooled off because the original motivation for this tweak has now largely gone! In the 90s, stock designs were comparatively poor compared to the "modded" version partly due to the (often) poor clock stability, but also due to board layout. Additionally, when digital filters were only available in separate ICs they often degraded the bitclock (for example PMD-100 digital filter). There is now little benefit from retro-fitting a clock PCB into a "modern" CD player partly due to the fact that CDP product category is now very niche, and secondly because it is now comparatively well understood how to minimise jitter through various strategies such as distributed PLL, reclocking, SRC etc. Often grafting a second board with flying wires etc will often make things worse no matter how good the specification of the clock!
If using a separate DAC, a real benefit can still be had by using a separate master clock between the source and DAC (with the shortest possible connection and preferably AES balanced between clock and DAC). Then it *almost* doesn't matter what you have upstream.
I now use an Oppo 103 (completely stock) exclusively as a transport and fileserver between a Grimm CC1 and NAD M51. I wouldn't bother touching anything inside the Oppo as the gains would be insignificant.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: I know, right? - flood2 18:07:38 03/31/15 (6)
- Most informative! Thanks! (nt) - Crazy Dave 09:32:01 04/01/15 (0)
- RE: I know, right? - geoffkait 04:50:21 04/01/15 (2)
- RE: I know, right? - flood2 17:12:19 04/01/15 (1)
- RE: I know, right? - geoffkait 07:03:03 04/02/15 (0)
- RE: I know, right? - jusbe 20:33:58 03/31/15 (1)
- RE: I know, right? - flood2 20:54:33 03/31/15 (0)