Almost without exception I see people put the DAC on top of the clock. Does it have any benefit? Is it just copying each other? Common sense and aesthetics dictate put the bigger box first to have a more stable foundation and put the smaller and lighter box on it.
I think I’ve even read somewhere that having the clock on top of the DAC keeps the power supplies further apart from each other compared to placing them the other way around.
I have the clock above the DAC, on different shelves.
This topic has been addressed before:
Thanks. Mine are on separate shelves on a proper rack. I was more interested in which should be above the other. Even in photos where they are on separate shelves I always see DAC on the top and the clock below.
I have DAC on a separate shelf below the Upsampler which sits on top of the Clock.
It’s stable, they are separate and all those big cables are hidden.
It’s important to understand that people often stack their devices due to space constraints, not because they are unaware that separate racks are optimal for performance.
As they are not stacked but on their own shelves I don’t think that it matters too much.
I have had some interesting ( 
) conversations with dealers during installations and when asked bout positioning got the reply that there was no intrinsic reason. They always did it like that and that habit came about because that was how they first saw it.
I have my clock (on a separate shelf) beneath my Puccini DAC/player. This is because the latter has a knob, a drawer and some buttons. If the clock was on top, I’d have to bend down further to put a disc in and press play.
It’s as simple as that.
Is it ok to leave the Lina Clock and Amp “on”, meaning via the front button?
Very nice looking system Jim.
What phono stage is it?
Ok, thank you, thought so but still reassuring to know, also proves how different I am 
BTW I use Kharma DB9S (need actual picture 
)
Found it, Esoteric E03.
Thanks all for the photos, nice systems, I have yet to see someone who, like me, has the Rossini clock above their DAC. Pls don’t cheat, only photos taken before this post count!
And the winner is…
Also found where this all originates from - DCS stock photos!
A quick photoshop to show what they would look like the other way around. I tend to agree with DCS and Ermos but only if they are stacked, which, as we all know, is a no no.
Going through that other thread with all the photos, it’s shocking how many systems worth half a million still have the Rossinis stacked. I have a bad feeling that the same stock photo is to blame…
That is the Esoteric E-03. My vinyl set-up never gets used, too much hassle. Unlikely there will be any more funds directed towards my analog setup.
Strange, any time I switch to vinyl I quickly conclude that even though digital has gone a long way with DCS being one of the best if not the best, I’m supposed to say the best here, analogue still sounds livelier and airier to me without that restriction I still feel with digital. It depends a lot on the type of music and the recording though.
Thank you for this nomination.
Well after the previous posts on this subject I decided not to be an outlier any more in this respect. So upon updating the preamp and monobloc amplication, as well as separation of legacy home cinema equipment from the two channel equipment, I conformed and placed the clock below the DAC. Another point made in an ealier post is that the sculptered design of the Rossini and clock lends itself to DAC on top.
Verdict - no difference in the slightest with regard to audioability.
Nooooooo!!! Can’t believe this!
That really makes me the last odd one and I’m supposed to feel guilty and rebellious!
@PAR a good example of what I tried to explain to you about the world beyond sciences.
Using a model in which time is not directional Brian gave in because I started this thread to let me be the only one. He did it before I started this thread, still my thread caused him to do that.
At the same time things have to and they do make sense using the scientific model too. Brian gave in independently of my post in the past just to fit in or to find out if it really makes a beneficial difference.
Of course if we asked Brian he would vote for the second one.
But I think it would not have happened without this thread in the future.
I know it sounds steep and I could have come up with an easier to digest example and that all of you think I’m not only a jinx but completely nuts still I wanted to share this for the generations that are coming and can still find this post when sciences are in a more advanced state embracing things we don’t even dare think of today.
Would you have believed a cat can be in a limbo state before Schrodinger came about?
Sorry for the off, admins please feel free to delete it if you find it too much.
