吃瓜等测试报告
小白 发表于 2019-9-1 18:42
提一下，如果愿意交钱的话，中科院计量所也是有条件测试这些时钟的。它测试后是可以出具报告的。就国内范围 ...
白版，这个测试结果再哪里公布呢？很好奇cybershaft顶级时钟到底参数几何
4979886 发表于 2019-9-1 19:14
白版，这个测试结果再哪里公布呢？很好奇cybershaft顶级时钟到底参数几何
如果是我请测试仪器代理商朋友私下测一下，不用花钱就可以测，结果公布。如果要权威的中科院计量所报告，那么就交钱，测试后可以拿到报告。这又不是机密文件，有就可以公布。
小白 发表于 2019-9-1 19:48
如果是我请测试仪器代理商朋友私下测一下，不用花钱就可以测，结果公布。如果要权威的中科院计量所报告， ...
明白了，您此番作为大善也.我的意思是您在此帖内留言公布还是坛里另开一帖做公布?
我们不如先愉快的猜猜答案？
我猜，参数测出来都很优秀，都符合标称值。
4979886 发表于 2019-9-1 21:25
明白了，您此番作为大善也.我的意思是您在此帖内留言公布还是坛里另开一帖做公布?
既然这个话题已经是公开的辩论，当然测量结果会公开。不一定另开贴，我不喜欢就一个话题或产品开多个贴。
小白 发表于 2019-9-2 10:41
既然这个话题已经是公开的辩论，当然测量结果会公开。不一定另开贴，我不喜欢就一个话题或产品开多个贴。
好，等候您公布的数据
作为Mutec Ref10的用户，为这贴加一把火。
看到楼主的测试后，我发了一份邮件给Mutec，把测试结果告知他们（包括本网页的LINK），并问询他们对此是否有相关解释。
首先为了免除误会，要说明下，我并不认为官方给出的任何说法就是正确的，我个人楼主一样，只相信事实数据测量。
无论官方说了什么，也不代表烧友们就可以作为凭证了。
事实上，我个人觉得MUTEC的官方数据确实显得极佳，有些虚标我也不会很惊讶。
但针对任何事情的观点与辩论就是这样，
至少双方都有发言的权利，
所以我贴一下MUTEC官方回复的邮件内容供大家参考，在此不翻译了， 有英语好的朋友代翻一下吧。
Dear Zhou Quan!
(I am sorry I don’t know which one is your first name?)
Thank you for your email and the link to the forum discussion. Something like that is at any time very interesting for us, of course, even if the content is problematic, like here. My first question is, are you the customer of the REF 10 which was measured here? Or is that the REF 10 of the guy who opened the thread in the forum?
I am sorry, but I am not able to read in Chinese language, thus I needed to use Google Translate to read the statements and I think that the translation is not the best one. I hope that I got the content correctly.
First off, the pictures shown in the thread of the different OCXOs were published by the author months ago to try to denunciate us and to present us as liar. Fact is, that the picture showing the larger OCXO shows a pre-production model. The smaller OCXO is the one we are selling. Anyway, both OCXOs are of same quality and manufactured in Germany, there are no differences. Thus, all speculations in regards of cost savings which lead to worse clock performance are lie!
As far as I understand the author has measured only the Grimm clock and the REF 10, all other plots shown are of other manufacturers or taken out of the web. The question is why did he not try to get the other clock products as well for his own (!) measurements? Why he is trusting the other manufacturer’s measurements, but our measurement is denunciated as lie? Why he is thinking that his way to measure is the only one right and not this one of a renowned manufacturer? At no point he is doubting at his measurements, but ours are the only wrong ones?
Secondly, when measuring a product like the REF 10 with a system like the presented Symmetricom 5115A, which is a bit dated because six years ago already the manufacturer was acquired by Microsemi, you definitely need a clock reference. That means a clock reference which is much better as the clock to be measured. That is ESSENTIAL because the 5115A has got no internal clock reference, as far as I know. Furthermore, the internal architecture of the 5115A is quite noisy, we would say too noisy to measure the REF 10 correctly, no matter how good the externally connected clock reference is. With a good clock reference you just about can measure the phase noise at 1 Hz, but already at 10 Hz the hardware noise floor is reached with the measurement system in use.
Nevertheless my question again, which clock reference was used – can you provide this answer? We could nothing find about that in the thread. The Symmetricom can only measure as good as the supplied clock reference is. I am sorry to say that, but it seems to us that here a clock reference was used which is of lower clock performance as the REF 10.
For your information, our oscillator manufacturer is measuring oscillators with various Noise XT systems, the REF 10 developer is measuring with a large Holzworth system and others as well. These are the most professional phase noise measurement systems, you are free compare those against the Symmetricom, if you would like.
All in all, the content of this discussion is very confusing in most parts and we think that many participants do not agree with the author. He also mired himself in contradiction what is not really trustful. But as said above, I am not sure whether the translator did a good job, or not. It may be that we can’t follow this discussion 100%ly. Thus, I will stop at this point with further impressions we have about that all.
:lol 旧时代的软文带着单反图, 新时代的带着表格图.
抱歉回复慢了，白版私信给个地址吧，我抽空把时钟发过去
Flysoftter 发表于 2019-9-2 13:43
抱歉回复慢了，白版私信给个地址吧，我抽空把时钟发过去
我昨天已经PM给你啦。看下信箱吧。
德国人玩的好6，插科打诨甩锅的水平不赖，点赞;P
本帖最后由 13hades 于 2019-9-2 18:16 编辑
时钟已经打包寄给白版了，关于这个钟有几个小tips我给大家分享一下 这个钟后面有两个小开关，一个是时钟信号强度的档位分为High和Low，我基本也没啥脑放金额闲情逸致去对比两个档位的声音差距，平时使用的话都是用High档，另一个小开关是根据音源的BNC接口类型可以调整时钟信号阻抗为75Ω或者50Ω，这个功能很实用，很适合我这种强迫症用来匹配BNC线和音源的阻抗。
我平时搭配的是Eso的K01X，这个一体机的BNC口的阻抗是75Ω的，我平时用的也是这个阻抗，不过因为白版要测试的原因，我记得测试仪器的标准一般都是50Ω所以在发出前把阻抗档位调整到590Ω那个档位了，如果白版有闲情逸致的话可以测试一下这个钟不同阻抗输出及不同信号强度下的搭配组合测试结果以及听感:P。
还有就是如果可以的话还是最好能跟Horae同场一起Pk一下听感和相关测试结果，因为Horae也是我未来的时钟升级目标之一，另外这个钟很吃热机的，一般至少要热机48小时以上才能达到最佳工作状态的90以上吧，官方甚至说要连续开机一个月才能达到最佳工作状态。
zhouquan198166 发表于 2019-9-2 13:03
作为Mutec Ref10的用户，为这贴加一把火。
看到楼主的测试后，我发了一份邮件给Mutec，把测试结果告知他 ...
很好，这就引出了不同测量系统之间可能存在的误差了。
horae最好也测一下吧 最好一样是中立用家的 厂商提供的“甄选”个体不做数
