|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.60.98.130
In Reply to: RE: Further Juli@ Follies... posted by GStew on October 13, 2011 at 18:17:53
Rick McInnis, Dawnrazor, & Mihaylov, thanks for the discussions about the Lynx recently in the cMP & cPlay threads. This prompted me to go to Mihaylov's site (which is a treasure trove... thanks Mihaylov!). There I found a link to the Fidelity Audio website where they have a small, dual output clock module (their Micro Clock) that looks like it would be a GREAT upgrade for the clocks on the Juli@. It comes stock with what on paper appears to be a good regulator & voltage reference right onboard plus it features two seperate clocks and can be had in the 22.5792 & 24.576 values needed for the Juli@! And at it's pretty affordable for two high-quality clocks with on-board power!
Yah, one building block found!
Everything matters!
Follow Ups:
Hey GStew,
I wish I could compare the lynx and the Juli@ for you guys, but I dont have the Juli@ and well I use the analog outs anyhow. But I think the Lynx can be everybit as good as the juli@ if not better in terms of the digital out. I say this because of Gordon Rankin:
http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=pcaudio&n=15599&highlight=stellar+Gordon+Rankin&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dcables%26searchtext%3Ddcca
High praise indeed considering the source.
The Juli@ though can do rates past 96k while the Lynx is limited to 96k. Looks like the Lynx has a smaller driver footprint.
Anyhow your post about a clock echos my own thoughts in a general sense. I have been looking at the antelope clock and wondering if that would be a good thing to add to the lynx. Though I cant quite figure out if it would work with the Lynx. I bet it does. Any thoughts??
No one here remembers the bending of our minds
is it almost too good a price?
Looks like it still uses crystals but maybe they all do. One wonders if you are going to go to the trouble if it would not be better to get two of the good ones? The good one is using a crystal too but looks like there is all kinds of other stuff on the board to "correct" it. Of course, there are those, namely Peter Daniel, who think these things sound worse than the crystals they replace. I have never experimented with any of this stuff but I tend to think Peter is right. I am sure the sound is different! Simplicity has much going for it and I tend to think the lowly crystal might be the best compromise.
I have seen somewhere someone selling calibrated crystals, or I suspect, more precisely, selected crystals to get as close as possible to the needed frequency. This seems the best way to me. I will try to find those again and let you know. I am nervous about removing components from the board.
I am intrigued with your improvement ideas but can tell you I would be really nervous removing those big IC's from the JULI@ board. It is fragile; bad enough using those SMD pads for "regular" caps, can't imagine what would happen from the heat required to remove something with forty pins! Micro dikes would be safer if there is such a thing.
Please tell me more about NOT using JULI@ CONTROLLER. Have you removed those drivers and does JULI@ still work? Sounds like a great idea if it will work!
Take care,
AFAIK. So that's not a problem.
My read of the additional circuits on their clocks are that both of them include significant power supply regulation and referencing... better on the premium, but not bad on the micro. Then the premium also has a buffered output (to drive longer cables from the clock) and divided outputs (1/2X, 1/4X) needed in some equipment, but not needed for the Juli@.
But since one of their premium clocks costs about 2x their micro clock with two clock outputs, you'd spend 4x as much to use two of them. And they look to use the exact same crystal module... just better power and optional outputs on the premium module.
I don't doubt their premium clock would be better, but I also have seen Peter D's comments and am looking for a way to try a better clock without breaking the bank in case I decide (like Peter) that I prefer the original clocks.
I also like the size. I'm planning to hang a lot of stuff off the Juli@ for this round of mods... their micro clock should still fit right on the board and give a very short clock signal path. And if I like it, I can do some power supply upgrades that will move it towards the premium clock's level.
And I think the main benefit of going with add-on clocks for the Juli@ is because you'd be powering them with separate power supplies which would be MUCH cleaner than motherboard power and even cleaner than the power on a Juli@ that has separate supplies (due to all the processing that's going on in the Juli@ itself polluting the voltage rails). Providing the clocks with their own cleaner supplies would improve their accuracy, stability, & jitter level. And probably sound better.
As far as selected clocks, my understanding is that clock stability & lack of jitter are more important than the absolute frequency. You don't want them to be far off, but I understand that high-quality crystals are pretty darned close. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Then as for un-soldering chips, I agree that could be a real pain. The devices I want to experiment with removing are the ones associated with the SPDIF output... U6 & U8, PC1 & PC2, J4, and OPT1. The harder ones are U6 with 44 pins & U8 with 14. When I experiment, I will use a 'junker' card & carefully pry up only the power supply pins. That way I can reverse it if there's a problem.
BUT if it works out ok, I'd just plan to cut them out with an X-Acto knife or similar, which shouldn't be too hard. The other devices are all much simpler to remove with most of them being through-hole devices.
Really, the hard part will be soldering on the additional filtering caps.
Later!
Greg in Mississippi
Everything matters!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: