Big Ben with Ensemble - HOLY SHITE!

[piano]

Ok, I just picked up a Big Ben from Mercenary.

I am listening to it right now with my best friend who is also a concert pianist.

We are listening to Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto with the great Emil Gilels.

DAMN, this clock makes us feel like we are sitting behind the nine footer.

Crisp highs and rich lows --- Audio Heaven.

I thought the Ensemble was good but this BIG BEN takes it to another level.

TOTALLY worth it.

I just wish I could stick a BIG BEN on some of the women I know.....

[piano]

We can also hear more separation between notes. Before, the notes ran together with OUT the Ben Ben.

On our own CD's we can hear EVERY separation and nuance that we played.

Really, for an audio file it's a good money spent.

[Tibbon]

Do a double blind A/B in the same room with multiple people writing down their results. If the results hold up later... awesome. If things are mixed, then you can thank the placebo effect.

Why for a single set of converters you need an external clock or think an external clock would be better is beyond me. If you have a stack of converters that you need locked I get it, but for just a stereo out as you're listening to.. not sure how/why it would help.

[Francis Vaughan]

OK, there is one thing missing from the equation here. What is the source? You can't just clock the Ensemble from the Big Ben, on playback you need to clock the source too. Now before you added the Big Ben, did you clock the source from the Ensemble or did you have the Ensemble derive its internal clock from the source (i.e. over S/PDIF) or did you slave the source over Firewire? What you had before can make huge difference.

[piano]

Originally Posted by Francis Vaughan

You can't just clock the Ensemble from the Big Ben,

You guys are funny.

Of course, you can clock the Ensemble from the Big Ben.

The better the CLOCK the better the sound. It's pretty impressive. Clocks make a big difference.

I know the clock in the Ensemble is good but with the Big Ben it sounds better.

This test was ONLY for play back of classical music. The Test was with the Ensemble only then with the Ensemble clocked from the Big Ben.

[Francis Vaughan]

Of course, you can clock the Ensemble from the Big Ben.

So how did the input digital audio stream get its clock in such a manner that it stayed in sync with the Big Ben and you didn't get any under/over runs of the signal? If the Ensemble was connected via Firewire to the source it will sync the source, and that is OK, but if it was sucking on S/PDIF or AES/EBU it would not. That was the question.

I said "you can't just clock the Ensemble" - I didn't write "you can't clock the Ensemble". The source must get a sychronous clock. I want to know how it is done now, and how it was done before.

[Roc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by Francis Vaughan

So how did the input digital audio stream get its clock in such a manner that it stayed in sync with the Big Ben and you didn't get any under/over runs of the signal? If the Ensemble was connected via Firewire to the source it will sync the source, and that is OK, but if it was sucking on S/PDIF or AES/EBU it would not. That was the question.

I said "you can't just clock the Ensemble" - I didn't write "you can't clock the Ensemble". The source must get a sychronous clock. I want to know how it is done now, and how it was done before.

If you are slaving the clock in the Ensemble to the Big Ben, the Ensemble's two stage crystal clock would be bypassed and the sampling frequency for ADC/DAC would be generated by the C777 digital synthesized clock.

Of course the data clock is carried over the FW connection so, in this test, a digital signal streams from the fire wire connection to the DAC of the Ensemble, but the digital signal is getting its sampling frequency externally from the C777,

which to my ears, would has a very positive effect on certain aspects of how the converter handles spectral information.

[piano]

Thanks Adam for chiming in.

Gotta say, you were right about the Big Ben improving the high and low end of the Ensemble's signal.

LOVE it!

[Tibbon]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

If you are slaving the clock in the Ensemble to the Big Ben, the Ensemble's two stage crystal clock would be bypassed and the sampling frequency for ADC/DAC would be generated by the C777 digital synthesized clock.

Of course the data clock is carried over the FW connection so, in this test, a digital signal streams from the fire wire connection to the DAC of the Ensemble, but the digital signal is getting its sampling frequency externally from the C777,

which to my ears, would has a very positive effect on certain aspects of how the converter handles spectral information.

Adam, keep in mind (regarding the Firewire data connection) that digital jitter from a playback source doesn't affect anything for the most part and it's clock could be entirely screwed. Bob Katz explains this pretty well in his book on mastering. Any decent D/A reclocks everything to it's internal clock so it's a nonissue.

It's not that I disbelief that you hear a difference, I'm just saying that I happen to trust Mr. Katz advice

[Roc Mixwell]

Ok, well I am not sure I understand exactly what you are saying in regards to my post. Not sure I said anything about jitter. And why is jitter the only spectral anomaly discussed when debating clock sources. I mean, the subject should be as easy as saying, yes all clocks are the same and every one operates the same because the physics say so.

Bull

If that was true, every converter would sound the same and there would be no reason for forums like this. All of this stuff sounds different. There are many different clock designs and I can tell that they don't all do the same thing. Its just, I like to use my ears, rather than RTFM'ing about the ppm accuracy and PLL's that can suppress X amount of jitter. I let my ears judge the accuracy of a digital clock (as well as all the other properties of a converter, like its analog section)

I record and mix music.......not specifications. YES........specs are important, but not everything.

I could be 100% wrong, as Bob Katz is a brilliant mind of our time, but I am pretty sure that when clocked externally, the Ensemble's DAC is looking to another clock source, other than internal (crystal clock) to reconstruct the frequency representation of the analog signal at the analog outputs.

peace
use your ears

[Francis Vaughan]

Just trying to get to the root of the test here.

Nothing has yet answered the question. Sure, if the Ensemble is sitting on the end of a FW link all will be fine. I simply asked if this was the case or whether the Ensemble was ever sitting on a S/PDIF or AES/EBU link. The original post stated that CDs were played. Now were these in the DAW or otherwise sourced? The Ensemble can operate standalone. So there are a great number of options possible. Just assuming that the setup that was used, both pre BigBen, and post, is obvious to all isn't helping understanding.

If the setup is a trivial: Big_Ben - Ensemble - FW - DAW. That is great. That is what I asked. But it seems the question never got answered. What I want to know is what the clock path is now, and what it used to be. That is all.

There are some technical issues with clock generation that are being glossed over in a lot of the usual explanations, but that can wait.

[chrispick]

Originally Posted by Francis Vaughan

Just trying to get to the root of the test here.

Nothing has yet answered the question. Sure, if the Ensemble is sitting on the end of a FW link all will be fine. I simply asked if this was the case or whether the Ensemble was ever sitting on a S/PDIF or AES/EBU link. The original post stated that CDs were played. Now were these in the DAW or otherwise sourced? The Ensemble can operate standalone. So there are a great number of options possible. Just assuming that the setup that was used, both pre BigBen, and post, is obvious to all isn't helping understanding.

If the setup is a trivial: Big_Ben - Ensemble - FW - DAW. That is great. That is what I asked. But it seems the question never got answered. What I want to know is what the clock path is now, and what it used to be. That is all.

There are some technical issues with clock generation that are being glossed over in a lot of the usual explanations, but that can wait.

Wait, isn't the Ensemble clocked to the Big Ben via BNC? I'm lost on all this FW chain order stuff and its relevance.

[Roc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by Francis Vaughan

Just trying to get to the root of the test here.

Nothing has yet answered the question. Sure, if the Ensemble is sitting on the end of a FW link all will be fine. I simply asked if this was the case or whether the Ensemble was ever sitting on a S/PDIF or AES/EBU link. The original post stated that CDs were played. Now were these in the DAW or otherwise sourced? The Ensemble can operate standalone. So there are a great number of options possible. Just assuming that the setup that was used, both pre BigBen, and post, is obvious to all isn't helping understanding.

If the setup is a trivial: Big_Ben - Ensemble - FW - DAW. That is great. That is what I asked. But it seems the question never got answered. What I want to know is what the clock path is now, and what it used to be. That is all.

There are some technical issues with clock generation that are being glossed over in a lot of the usual explanations, but that can wait.

I think he was playing the CD through Core Audio Drivers with his computer.

.....No?

Piano;

Can you tell us the signal flow? Were you using the SPDIF inputs from your CD player, or were you using the FW connection with "preview" or Itunes?

If using the FW connection, it would be resolving from Core Audio Clock and the PCM encoded signal from the CD.

Core Audio is the master and there should be no change in digital information by the time it gets to the receiver, same as a SPDIF interface.

If Maestro is set to EXTERNAL, than the Ensemble would be looking for sample clock information elsewhere, and the clock source from Core Audio would be re clocked before the analog section of the converter

..............no?

Francis;

I am very curious and intrigued to hear your thoughts,
Would you share?

[piano]

Signal chain:

CD (In my MacPro) > via Firewire cable to Ensemble (which is receiving external clock signal from the Big Ben via WC cable) >Mogami Cable out from the Ensemble > Monitors

That's it --- no big deal.

The play back with the Big Ben sounds better.

[Roc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by piano

Signal chain:

CD > via Firewire cable to Ensemble (which is receiving external clock signal from the Big Ben via WC cable) >Mogami Cable out from the Ensemble > Monitors

That's it --- no big deal.

The play back with the Big Ben sounds better.

Thanks!!!!!

[Francis Vaughan]

I am very curious and intrigued to hear your thoughts,
Would you share?

I'm sort of intrigued to know about exactly what is going on. The engineering answer to a lot of external clocking is that it usually results in worse, not better jitter, as seen by the DAC. This is because it is hard to get the recovered clock - after it has transited the vagaries of the transmission and recovery mechanisms - better than can be achieved by a good quality internal clock. Even if the originating clock was itself intrinsically better.

But we are hearing a lot of anecdotal stories where the sound improves. Understanding exactly what the before and after clock paths in each case might be helpful.

If the Ensemble was forced to recover sync from an external S/PDIF link before and now is able to force sync itself (whether the clock is external or not) would account for possibly big changes in the sound. This would involve two changes to the configuration, not one. Which is really what I am asking. If the simple case of the Ensemble only ever being fed over Firewire and not changing to an external clock is the case, the use of the Big Ben becomes interesting. But if in the past the listening was done with a CP player over S/PDIF and now is done over Firewire, then there have been two changes and we must be clear about the impact of all of them.

So, when I wrote "you can't just clock the Ensemble" I was asking if the Ensemble was passing the clock onto the source or not. In which case the Big Ben is also implicitly clocking the source. Another possibility is yet another source. (i.e. many adaptor cards that take a word clock and can output S/PDIF). If one of those was used, and that card was now also clocked to the Big Ben we have another scenario.

The issue with word clocks is that by themselves they are not used to control the ADC/DAC. Except for older parallel DACs almost everything we see in modern gear is some form of oversampling noise shaped DAC/ADC. These don't use the word clock directly. It must be multiplied up to some significant multiple of the word clock rate. Quite often this is achieved with the same clock circuitry that is used when the unit runs standalone. I.e. a crystal, and programmable divider circuit. The only difference is that a PLL mechanism is used to lock the local clock (by pulling the crystal, changing divider rates) to the word clock. Thus is becomes difficult to see how even the best external word clock is helping. The naive idea that the internal clock mechanisms are totally bypassed is simply not how most systems work. The more advanced clock recovery systems, i.e. C777 are even more remote from the external clock.

There are other external clock mechanisms, SuperClock passes the high frequency clock (20+ MHz) about, and does not use a local PLL. But it is not a standard and only works with compatible units.

It is also important to differentiate between clock stability and clock jitter. Both are important, but serve different purposes. Arguably stability comes under jitter, but conventionally we talk about jitter as synonymous with phase noise, where the variations in timing are very small but have high frequency, whereas stability is long term variations in frequency. The long term stability of crystals is nothing special, but the short term, jitter performance is usually very good. The long term stability is why an external clock is important - so that variations in frequency don't wreck the ability of multiple digital devices to stay in sync. But it is very difficult to work out a system that can improve on the phase noise of a well designed local crystal oscillator.

[Roc Mixwell]

Thanks for sharing your insight,

Good read,

However; who is to say a crystal clock is "better" than a digital synthesized one and visa versa. I guess in the end only our ears can estimate whether or not there is a positive, or negative affect on the sound of the converter.

As I have found, and this is evident around here, not everyone hears a difference in using different clock's with different converters.

What if transparent meant "more analog"
Just a thought

[Kiwiburger]

What CD players have Firewire output? Is this a computer CD player?

Would it be right to assume that the Ensemble would have been synced to the incoming digital audio - therefore the computer soundcard or whatever the CD player was using to send over Firewire?

So is this really an A/B of Ensemble clock vs Big Ben?

[Francis Vaughan]

What if transparent meant "more analog"
Just a thought

Indeed. This is where life gets really messy, and if we are not careful, all sorts of arguments break out. We quickly start to use lots of loaded terms. "Transparent" typically is taken to mean an antonym of opaque, or obscuring. Thus it is often loaded with an assumption of greater absolute accuracy. Yet "more analog" is clearly meaning "more like not-digital" or for all intents "more like tape." Which is by any metric not something that boasts absolute accuracy. But sounds great to a lot of ears.

(Pet peeve, digital systems are just as analogue as tape. The word is appallingly misused. But it got out the door decades ago, there is no getting it back in.)

I'm not interesting in dismissing anecdotal stories of improvements in sound, there is value in keeping track of them and deciding if there is some underlying pattern. But right now I'm highly sceptical that the simple "better clock, sounds better" answer is the underlying truth. It might be. But it almost certainly isn't going to be a simple answer. The interplay between the manner in which a modern ADC/DAC works, its clock and the jitter spectrum is going to ensure that. Knowing exactly the before and after conditions is crucial.

It could be placebo - never discount that - so eventually one always want to ground truth a theory in some properly conducted trials. But it is churlish and silly to dismiss these claims as placebo out of the box. Science never advances if you do that.

It could really be an important fixing of a critical range of phase noise spectrum that has come in under the radar. Digital systems are now highly complex (the messy grief ridden sort of complex) and the possibility of unfortunate second order effects occurring does increase. I don't think this is especially likely, but I'm not privy to the inner workings of the various bits of gear, so can't comment much more.

It could be an interesting euphonic effect that simply does achieve something akin to the well loved sound of tape. Hard to see how it is universally so, with so many different DAC and clock implementations, but maybe.

It could be a very interesting psycho-acoustic effect that allows the ear-brain to differentiate important musical information at the cost of damaging unimportant information that the ear never bothers with. Pretty unlikely, to say the least, but not to be dismissed out of hand.

[Player1]

Piano, I'm glad you like the new clock! It always feels good to spend money and feel like it made a difference!

[piano]

Guys,

Its the CD player in the MacPro computer.

[elkpantscamino]

Originally Posted by Francis Vaughan

Indeed. This is where life gets really messy, and if we are not careful, all sorts of arguments break out. We quickly start to use lots of loaded terms. "Transparent" typically is taken to mean an antonym of opaque, or obscuring. Thus it is often loaded with an assumption of greater absolute accuracy. Yet "more analog" is clearly meaning "more like not-digital" or for all intents "more like tape." Which is by any metric not something that boasts absolute accuracy. But sounds great to a lot of ears.

(Pet peeve, digital systems are just as analogue as tape. The word is appallingly misused. But it got out the door decades ago, there is no getting it back in.)

I'm not interesting in dismissing anecdotal stories of improvements in sound, there is value in keeping track of them and deciding if there is some underlying pattern. But right now I'm highly sceptical that the simple "better clock, sounds better" answer is the underlying truth. It might be. But it almost certainly isn't going to be a simple answer. The interplay between the manner in which a modern ADC/DAC works, its clock and the jitter spectrum is going to ensure that. Knowing exactly the before and after conditions is crucial.

It could be placebo - never discount that - so eventually one always want to ground truth a theory in some properly conducted trials. But it is churlish and silly to dismiss these claims as placebo out of the box. Science never advances if you do that.

It could really be an important fixing of a critical range of phase noise spectrum that has come in under the radar. Digital systems are now highly complex (the messy grief ridden sort of complex) and the possibility of unfortunate second order effects occurring does increase. I don't think this is especially likely, but I'm not privy to the inner workings of the various bits of gear, so can't comment much more.

It could be an interesting euphonic effect that simply does achieve something akin to the well loved sound of tape. Hard to see how it is universally so, with so many different DAC and clock implementations, but maybe.

It could be a very interesting psycho-acoustic effect that allows the ear-brain to differentiate important musical information at the cost of damaging unimportant information that the ear never bothers with. Pretty unlikely, to say the least, but not to be dismissed out of hand.

bla bla bla bla.....

i've done careful tests... and a great clock like bigben CAN improve the sound of d to a.

[macleodgrant]

i don't see the big deal really! this is very often done

like you can use big ben to improve the timing of a MOTU 828 interface and the sound will improve (this is subjective, YMMV)

there is also now the feature of aggregate devices in os x now where you can merge several devices and then choose which clock is the master

in essence you can make an aggregate device using the DUET and MOTU 828 and then choose for the DUET to be the master clock and it SHOULD then tidy up the 828 clock, that is if the DUET's clock is better than the 828 which is likely

[Francis Vaughan]

then choose for the DUET to be the master clock and it SHOULD then tidy up the 828 clock

I'm not sure if this is intended to be a solid example or just a "sort of like this" example.
The Duet does not have a word clock output. But being a Firewire device it is allowed to assert that it is the cycle master. In this case the other devices in the Firewire chain would be forced to sync to the Duet's clock as they manage to recover it from the Firewire bus. This isn't going to be pretty. It most certainly will not allow any sort of quality improvement.

On the other hand, assuming it was just an ill chosen device name, and you really intended it to be a Firewire device that has a word clock output that clocks the other devices, the example is fine.

There are still people missing the nuances of the point I am making earlier. There are lots of cases when adding a clock can improve the sound, however there are also lots of cases where it is much more equivocal. So often there is just this bland assertion that "the clock made things better" with no useful additional information. Like what the clock chain was before. Without this it is essentially a useless statement.

Anything that gets a DAC away from having to recover the clock from an external data source is good. So there are a huge number of examples where adding an external clock to a system can be for the better. But also lots of cases where it probably does not.

[Arthur]

Although I find this discussion very interesting, I'd love to hear samples of this Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto passed through the Ensemble output, recorded with and without Big Ben.
This way everyone could weight clock theory, designs and implantations, placebo effect and other possible parameters at play here...

[piano]

Originally Posted by Arthur

Although I find this discussion very interesting, I'd love to hear samples of this Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto passed through the Ensemble output, recorded with and without Big Ben.
This way everyone could weight clock theory, designs and implantations, placebo effect and other possible parameters at play here...

I wish I could get a recording out to every one but I don't see how this is possible.

You need a Big Ben clock to hear it's effects on play back. It's loverly.

I paid the cash for it and I'm keeping it. My initial worry was if it was worth $1350 in improvement. It is.

[Arthur]

Originally Posted by piano

I wish I could get a recording out to every one but I don't see how this is possible.

You need a Big Ben clock to hear it's effects on play back. It's loverly.

I paid the cash for it and I'm keeping it. My initial worry was if it was worth $1350 in improvement. It is.

Do you mean the improvements Big Ben imparts on a recording or a mix will translate only to systems clocked with Big Ben?

[Kiwiburger]

Digital audio depends on a stable sampling rate, where the time between each sample is always the same. That is the assumption that all converters are based on - that the time between each sample is always the same. But with cheap converters, such as computer soundcards doing other processing or subjected to very noisy electrical environments, the time between samples may not be perfectly the same.

For best possible audio integrity, the A to D conversion has to be made with a very stable clock, and the D to A conversion has to be made with an equally stable clock.

In between - it doesn't matter how unstable or erratic or slow or fast the data is transfered.

Listening to a CD - the data is already encoded and there is nothing we can do to change it. The only way to hear this perfectly is to play it back with a very stable clock.

[807Recordings]

Quote: