This is a review written by Terry Ellis November 2025.

For my video review please see my YouTube channel link here

Please Note I am an Amazon Associate meaning links to Amazon are affiliate links, for more info about this please see here

The continuous search for the audio “Gem”

I am always looking for the next HiFi product that will give me significantly better digital audio sound quality within the remit of my own affordability. The developments that have happened recently in the £100k+ area of the industry I don’t care about specifically because it’s so well beyond me, however I can still learn from it. It feels like the digital audio realm in my price range of £2-6k has hit a plateau to some degree for sound quality so I am always asking where is the next digital audio “gem” going to come from? Maybe it’s from Matrix Audio with their SC-1 Reference Clock because this is one of those products where the manufacturer might to have to fight me if they want it back.

A big impact

This is my first ever Matrix Audio product review, but Matrix is a company I have had my eye on and especially since they launched their new 1 series with the really lovely silver casework. I do value nicely styled HiFi products, this is the future of HiFi we need, especially if a manufacturer is asking for a lot of money from me. Sound quality alone is not enough anymore.

I actually have two Matrix 1 series products here, I have their NT-1 digital audio transport and the SC-1 reference clock and of course they are designed to be used together. Sat side by side they are an exceptionally nice looking system and if you built a full system of components with this visual quality, sat on some nice furniture or racking, they would make a big positive visual statement in your home. This would make a difference to how you feel about owning them, a sense of pride of ownership for sure.

The SC-1 as a HiFi product is just a reference clock, that is all that it does and it can get a little confusing as to what that means. I am no engineer but I understand it to mean it’s the clock that dictates the accuracy of all the digital signals for the HiFi products that are connected to so it, so ideally all of them. In the case of the SC-1 it dictates the digital signals to a crazy high level of accuracy.

This seems like a very cool concept but it can also seem crazy to even consider using an SC-1 because all of our digital audio products have clocks in them already that all work perfectly, so a product like this seems ULTRA excessive. Sometimes excessive can be good, I will use the example of Roon. Roon requires the user to have a dedicated high power computer just to run it’s backend software that manages a music library, but then the user controls that library with a phone or tablet maybe, both of which are high power computers too. Needing two high power computers just to control a music library is ULTRA excessive but if the experience warrants it, who cares?

Understanding

Doing this review made me realise just how little I know about clocks in digital circuits, but like everything in life I know they are not all created equal. I know this as there are digital audio products on the market today where the only difference between two models is the clock and the power supply and the one with the better power supply and better clock sounds the better of the two. From this we know both are important but to what kind of extreme degree are they important enough to warrant a product like the SC-1. I had a conversation with an audio design engineer of more than 17 years at a recent event and I asked him the question and he told me for audio quality of medium level it would not be so important, but if your talking high level sound quality then yes clock quality accuracy is very important. Maybe we can all learn something from him there.

The SC-1 is looking to add a “mega” quality reference clock to multiple digital audio products in a system simultaneously and that is a very interesting concept to me hence the reason it’s here for this review, I asked for it specifically. It’s a super simple device to use, you have four independently buffered 10MHz synchronised clock outputs meaning you can improve the clocking of four digital audio products to the same level of accuracy at the same time. Matrix say it’s ideal for a system with a music streamer, a DAC, a CD player and a network switch, which is an interesting one for sure but it gives you an idea for its intended use case. With the biggest benefit being the more products you connect to it, the better the result seems to be and that is a very interesting thing I will get to.

What makes a good clock?

I had no real idea about what makes a good clock or one better than another so I asked Matrix and they told me;

• A better clock achieves purer time keeping through lower temporal distortion, minimising timing fluctuations or jitter.
• A better clock has a stronger environment immunity so better resistance to temperature, power changes and vibration
• A better clock has a tighter signal integrity – better at preserving the purity of their signal
• A better clock has longer term coherence, stays accurate for years and not minutes.

I found those descriptions very interesting if mostly technical jargon, but they do outline what we are looking for in an ideal digital audio clock and I can assume these are extremely difficult ideals to achieve because the design of the SC-1 seems focused on maximising them.

Seeing is…

I removed the lid to look inside and it was clear to me straight away that Matrix are not messing around here. You can see the power supply is very important here as that is obvious from the very sizeable toroidal transformer and the high quality capacitors and more. It’s the MASSIVE in relative terms chamber for the clock, that I assume is for optimum temperature management and vibration rejection, that was massively impressive to see it in the flesh. I have looked inside a lot of HiFi components and I have never seen anything this extreme for a clock, not even close in any of them. It’s all very clearly custom designed. This is a 10Mhz OCXO or oven controlled crystal oscillator meaning there is a crystal used that is cut in a certain way, called an SC cut, that Matrix say is highly complex but enables the clock to have superior phase noise and that is measurable.

The website claims a phase noise of below -118dBc at 1Hz but dissecting the chart more it’s also stating -159dBc at 1Khz a more common audio frequency for measuring. If you Google what is a good clock phase noise you see 1Khz at -130dBc being classed as excellent and used for radar purposes. The SC-1 is massively outperforming that I thought that very cool to know as it’s not really made obvious on the website why this is important. Matrix do say this is a new leading industry standard performance for a clock so maybe that one statement says all we need to know?

From a clock timing point of view this is also measurable. Each SC-1 is calibrated at the factory before it ships but can be recalibrated in the future if necessary and that would be free which is great to know. There is a port on the back specifically for this. The specification for the frequency accuracy once the SC-1 has warmed up is 0.003 ppm or parts per million and that converts to 3 parts per billion. I know that is a very good accuracy, seemingly better than some much more expensive HiFi clock products sold by high manufacturers in recent history.  Seeing that showed to me the quality level of product we are dealing with here, but I will admit it’s not easy getting this data for products on the market today.

Hearing is believing 

None of this technical explanation tells us if the SC-1 is going to be worth adding to our systems or what it might do for sound quality. Before moving I forward I think it’s very important to clarify I didn’t know or understand any of the technical stuff until right at the end of the review. I had to learn and understand things as best I could to explain them here and in my video review. I can clarify that the impressive technicals didn’t influence my opinion of what I heard. I am glad of this timeline of events because knowing this in advance it possibly could have influenced me, but everything I am reporting about the sound was purely based on what I heard and not what I knew.

I was using the SC-1 in my review HiFi system for around 6 weeks to get familiar with it. During this time I did a little bit of initial on off testing with it but sometimes you just know when you put something in your system that is good, or makes the system sound better than before. I think when you spend enough time listening to the same gear, especially source gear, it’s sound becomes second nature so when something changes you can just sense it even if your not paying 100% attention to it. When I added the SC-1 I noticed two key sonic improvements that I thought were excellent. But that is all, just two main differences.

The first difference was to what I am calling “timing clarity.” I used some simple pieces of music for testing this, one track was from the Squid Game sound track. In the opening track, with the SC-1 in use I could hear more detail, more clarity and more focus to the instruments being played. I never use these words but they sounded more realistic or had a greater sense of realism and I appreciated the added clarity came without a penalty to something else, There was not more clarity but less bass, something I have experienced before with different DAC’s for example. Improved clarity is always good but alone it would not be enough to justify the SC-1 to me or I would say it makes a small but still significant difference depending on how you see it.

The bigger difference the SC-1 made to the sound of my system was with the sound stage and the way music was being more clearly layered and organised front to back in my room. It seemed to massively extend the sound stage arena in the room with a much better organisation to very complex or intense music. This was with all music, even modern heavily compressed tracks from Lady Gaga sounded clearer and less tense, with audiophile classical music improving the same.

This was a really big one for me because I have a small room and anything that helps to improve the sense of sound stage space is huge for me. I would go as far as to say the timing of music has felt perfect with the SC-1. I would have said the timing of the system was already excellent, I would have thought it’s pretty much perfect already and I would have blamed any lack of timing or sonic mushiness you sometimes get with complex music as being a lack of quality to the music itself, it’s recording or its mastering. That proved to NOT be always true. It’s amazing how the SC-1 unpacks the layers of music better than anything I have tested so far, again without any penalty to anything else.

If I was being ultra critical I did notice a tiny shift in the tonal balance of the system, it was a smidgen leaner and a hair brighter but the music did not come across like there has been tonal balance change. It just sounded less congested with a little more clarity to the high frequencies, they get lost less. With a clearer treble and more well defined bass, less bloat of course there will appear to be some tonal shift but that is not really what has happened and I was aware of this.

This was all testing using two HiFi Rose products the RS130 digital transport and the RD160 DAC, both connected to the SC-1 as both Rose units can accept a 50Mhz clock signal. This was whole digital system being synchronised to the SC1, the ideal thing to do. The Rose products make it really easy to select between using the external clock or not (internal instead) in their menu systrem so this was ideal for an easy a/b listening test.

Comparison listening

I thought it was very important to test each Rose product individually with the SC-1 because I wanted to test its effect for a DAC and for a music streamer separately, would its effect be the same for both or different?  I thought this would be very useful information to many people, especially if they currently have only one product that can accept a 50Mhz external clock signal in their system, would it still be worth considering the SC-1?

I set aside a couple of days for what I expected to be difficult and extensive listening testing but it only took one song to hear pretty much everything I needed to know. I picked this song completely at random for the “ultimate test.” I did not cherry pick an audiophile well produced track, instead it was True by Spandau Ballet, but not the album version, it was from a Now compilation CD I had ripped to internal storage years ago.

I had forgotten how good this track is and how it reminds me of an Only Fools and Horses episode. I wonder how many of you will be old and English enough maybe to get that reference, Rodney’s wedding is what I have in my mind.

Listening firstly with the SC-1 engaged for both Rose products, this track sounded great in the main, very big for the sound stage, with the music coming right out into the room with a lot of insight and detail. More important to the presentation was it’s very nice smooth flow and I enjoyed the track for how it made me feel to listen it, relaxed with a smile. The bass was great, the vocals were great, there was not too much to complain about.

With the SC-1 off for both Rose products the difference was similar to as I mentioned before. True now sounded more flat in terms of the sound stage, more 2D left to right across the room and less 3D front to back in the room. This was a big and obvious difference. The song did sound a little warmer but that was from what I would describe as a blooming congestion rather a significant tonal change, with the treble being noticeably more brittle or edgy. There is a little bit of that in the track anyway but it was more obvious as some kind of “I don’t like it,” less pleasing, more jarring thing. I don’t know why I heard that difference, it felt odd to me but that is what I heard it, so that is what I am reporting. For me, True sounded night and day better with the SC-1 clock on for both Rose products, it was not even close and I appreciate that is big language to use but that is how I felt about it.

I now wanted to know how much of this difference was the a result of the SC-1 improving the DAC or how much was from the SC-1 improving the source, the digital transport. I expected it to make the biggest difference to the DAC so I started by engaging the SC-1 for the DAC on its own,  using the internal clock in the transport. Interestingly True now sounded the same in terms of the general music tonal presentation, the treble was still had that bit of extra glare and there was not the same silky smooth flowing nature to the music delivery as when the SC-1 was on for both products. However the sense of sound stage 3 dimensionality or sound stage extension front to back in the room was now mostly back. I did this listening test multiple times to be sure.

From this test it seemed like the SC-1 was helping the Rose DAC mostly with the sound stage and the way music is layered and organised in the room and it was a significant difference but I am not 100% sure it would be enough difference to justify the cost of the SC1.

Next I tested the same track again of course but now with the SC-1 engaged for the Rose RS130 digital transport and not the Rose DAC, so using the DAC internal clock. I think in terms of me enjoying listening to True this setup made the bigger or more obvious improvement and I was not expecting that. That treble etch was gone or at least back to being fine as part of the music but the overall smoothness and flowing pleasantry was fully back. This was huge as it meant I could better relax and enjoy the song much more as it felt more in line what how a “love song” should go, sounding romantic and graceful and dare I say it more musical. There was also a little bit of improved sound stage too so for the SC-1 as just an upgrade to the digital transport I can see more people being happy with the money spent for this improvement to their Rose RS130.

This whole experience made me think of the famous saying “source first” but also the accumulative effect. I definitely experienced the best improvement with the SC-1 in full synchronisation with both Rose products, the whole digital system and that is where it makes most sense from a value proposition too.  If one cost can improve multiple devices that cost gets divided by each of them and that is just common sense, but good HiFi math too.

I also made wonder if this is why Reference or Master clocks are important for studio use, something I have read a thousand times but did not fully understand the sonic truth behind it, now I do and it makes sense to me.

Price and negatives

One big negative of a product like this is compatibility. Not every digital audio product will accept an external clock signal, I would guess many more don’t than do. That is also why I used the HiFi Rose products to review the SC-1 and not the Matrix NT-1 it was to test it’s versatility and use case outside a Matrix only system. I wanted to know if a reference clock is worth considering for a high end HiFi system, I have always known they existed but didn’t fully understand their benefit, now I do and think they are well worth adding. Although I can’t speak for any other clock, so really what I am saying is the SC-1 is worth adding to a high end HiFi system.

The SC-1 costs £5400 and I appreciate that is a lot of money. In fact it costs more than the RS130 Rose transport £4,299 and more than the Rose RD160 DAC £4,699. The cost will be difficult for some to quantify and I appreciate that and it will sadly push it out of reach for many, which is of course is a shame. So it’s an expensive system upgrade for sure but we have no idea how much it cost to develop, I know it took Matrix a long time and required specialist knowledge, they told me so.

For comparison purposes there are not that many other clock products on the market to judge that price against and that makes me think these must be difficult to produce at a worthwhile level. There are a couple of alternatives on the market that cost less but have a considerably worse specification and I have to think specification is very important for a product like this. To find a closer competition in terms of specification it lead me to the reference clocks made by Japanese manufacturer Esoteric. They manufacture several different models with some being really expensive, as are the reference clocks from dCS, in fact they cost way more again. If the SC-1 does offer what is claimed, an industry leading clock performance and it costs about the same as the entry level reference clock from Esoteric the G05 and it comes in this lovely looking chassis maybe it’s price is justified by the market.

Final Thoughts

You can hopefully now see why I am willing to put up a fight with whoever tries to take the SC-1 from me because I have been loving what it’s been doing in my system. The thought of going back to how it was before, I think it would probably be more painful than getting punched in the face a few times and it amazes me how a HiFi product can get you like that. How they can bring out this kind of powerful emotion and that is nothing to do with data or measurements, it’s all about the listening experience and wanting it to be as special as possible every time.

That’s the powerful emotion in me that overrides my logic at times. I fully appreciate not everyone sees audio like this but I know there are many of you that do and I hope there has been something useful and interesting in this review for all.

An Essential Audition Award is granted in recognition of a products high performance but with a certain uniqueness that makes auditioning even more essential.

For the full specification of the Matrix Audio website here