Big Ben vs. Antelope Audio Isochrone OCX

[jdunn]

Yeah, I can't imagine a Big Ben being the source of distortion.

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by rentedroom

I picked up the Antlope clock about 2 weeks ago and all I can say is that as soon as we connected it we heard dramatic changes in the sound quality. It sounds more cohesive, the top end is smooth and the low end is clearer than the Big Ben or any clock I have ever used. When we switched back and forth beetween the Big Ben and the Antelope, The Big Ben sounded distorted and harsh. I am not used to having such a dramatic change from a clock, when I first tried the Big Ben , I thought it sounded a little better and took care of some pops and clicks and maybe was a little smoother. But the Antelope clock is incredible. I also gave CD's with A/B mixes to engineers in the studio, without telling them what the differnce is and they both picked the Antelope mix over the Big Ben, everybody saying that it was easier to listen to and it sounded polished. Anybody who has been in the studio has been floored of what a clock can do for audio. If you have any other questions , please don't hesitate to ask.

Ok redeam you self post two wav files that I have too hear this.

[SoZo]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

Ok redeam you self post two wav files that I have too hear this.

He's full of crap. It’s either emotional or promotional.... Lets hear it.

SoZo

[rentedroom]

I posted my reaction to using the Antelope clock over the Big Ben and it seems like people are a little confused and hostal about my reaction. I am just giving my reaction, because I thought it may be helpful. I always feel that people should try it for themselves and that no one should just read a review or internet thoughts. I'm Testing the clocks with Protools HD using Cranesong converters at 44.1 & 96k.

1. My tests where using identical cables and just switching beetween the 2 units. There is no comparison beetween Big Ben and Antelope. The Antelope is incredible!

2. When I said Distortion , I meant that when you switch back and forth you hear more jitter, the lower and midrange are harder to work in when using Big Ben . When using the antelope clock the midrange and low end is more fluid, clearer and easier to work with. The high end also sounds more cohesive, smoother.

3. In the last few weeks of making recordings, I am seeing amazing results . including drums. Where I still use tape machines, but sometimes people don't have the time budget or chops so we have to go to Pro Tools HD. The cymbals are easier to listen to , more fluid.

4. Using Pro Tools HD with Antelope is like having a completly different sounding system. Using the same converters, cables , monitoring, etc.

Again, this is just my opinion and instead of being upset or weird about my thoughts on using this clock, I would love to hear other peoples reactions.

ANYONE who has listened to the A/B (Big Ben Vs. Antelope) tests (Some where blind tests , some where not) Has chosen the Antelope ove the Big Ben.

[Ruudman]

You have to excuse me, Rentedroom; but I always get a bit sceptical
when members raves about new products in their very first posts.
It has happened here before.
Nothing personal, and you will probably prove me wrong.

Any chance of putting up some files?



ruudman

[SoZo]

Also the whole session was done on the clock not just playback?

[rentedroom]

The reason why this is the first time I've posted on gearslutz is because I wanted to hear if anyone else has tried this and has had such dramatic results. I do not claim to be a no it all , I just was intersted to get some other feedback.

The tests where done with previously recorded tracks, tracks that we're done on tape and transfered to PT and brand new tracks. I saw great results on everything, but the most impresive was when I started fresh tracks, the soft and hard rock drums are much easier to listen to and the overall imaging, depth and ease to listen was dramatic.

If you want to talk more about this just send me a private message and I'll send you my email.

The music that I did the tests on belong to other artists and its not ethical for me to post sound files.

[Shaman]

rentedroom,

Thank you very much for your report !
I´m very interested finding the next Antelope and try it for myself.

When I tried the big ben half a year ago I found it to be quite an improvement over the sound of the 192 converters - hearing your report now - I´m glad I dind´t buy it

If 1000 bucks make my system sound 4 % better in the end it´s a bargain !

One remaining question: I´m using cranesong Spider convertors for myself and prefer them over the digi 192. Did you also clock your Hedd/Spider with the Antelope or just the 192 and how were the results ?

The idea of having an own atomic clock in my studio makes me feel like a spy in a secret, dangerous mission

[rentedroom]

I used the Antelope clock with the cranesong heads and 3 Rosetta 800's(With HD Cards) and some custom ad/da's. It helped everything. Much more of a change from ProTools clock to Big ben. I don't use 192's so I wasn't able to check that out. As soon as you try the Antelope post your thoughts. Very intersted.

[j 2]

** Let it be known that I have been a Big Ben user for enough time to know what it does.

Well...well...WELL.

Antelope Audio.

In very quick and simple terms, here's how I would describe the differences in the two Clocks.

OCX

1) Imaging -- nearly perfect. Meaning just that, no noticeable phase problems at any sample rate on my setup.
2) Low End -- Big Ben wins in this department for BOOM and POW, but is that what we want?! It's as if the Isochrone turned off the EQ for the low end - much more precise all around. Climaxes of songs ACTUALLY climax.
3) High End -- I am getting a much more emotional response from everything than I did with the Big Ben. Which one's more accurate to the source? You guess. The upper frequencies (past 16kHz) are not nearly as vibrant and piercing as they are on the BB, and to compare it to Big Ben's overall fidelity up here - definitely smoother.
4) Sample Rates -- switching sample rates is almost too easy on the OCX. There is an up and down button...no frills, 32k-192k. The button itself feels cheap, but I'm more concerned with the sound of my audio, not how cheap the clock's button feels.

Big Ben

1) Imaging -- Bigger. Just like they claim, definitely a magically bigger sound. Unfortunately, as a rep at Apogee told me in another discussion not too long ago, "bigger doesn't always mean better." Hmmmmmm. I've noticed also that the BB sounds most phase accurate at 96kHz - certain chipset could be the culprit.
2) Low End -- Bing, Bang, BOOM. Do we have a White EQ in our room? What I originally thought was just my room's acoustics, turns out to be an EQ'd low end coming from the BB. Noticeable filtering going on here, similar to the sound of the Mini-DAC.
3) High End -- Siss, boom, BAH. Can we say, thin? I mean, 'what I originally thought was just my room's acoustics,' turns out to be a noticeable filtered high end coming from the BB. If you alter what's really going on, how do you expect to give people chills??? I will say, however, it sounds... 'half-way realistic' Almost as if during proto stages, they did something and listened and went: "Whoa, great Scott, people will FLIP OUT over this." They got me.
4) Sample Rates -- Pain in the ass, jk. The myriad of options for up/downsampling clock ouputs 5 | 6 (and the hidden DSD rates) does make the Big Ben destroy the OCX here. Vari-Speed is something some people can't live without, another missing option in the OCX. Like I said before, it seems the unit is at its best @ 44.1 and 96kHz.

So now we contemplate.

* Do we want realistic sounding digital audio ?

or

* Do we want to hear fantastic frequencies coming out of our speakers that enhances everything we are MIXING TO....?!

If I had a custom-made unit that was the innards of an OCX with the aesthetics of a Big Ben, I'd be one lucky camper. Oh yea, and an official Atomic Clock would be nice. How does that make everything sound better again?

Antelope needs to improve the construction of their unit because it's very Toys 'R Us. The plastic contrast knob fell off when I took the unit out of the box.

BUT HEY, sound > plastic

[Ruudman]

Entertaining, but too broad strokes for me to comprehend..

The description of BB reminds me of Aphex 204...

ruudman

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by rentedroom

I am just giving my reaction, because I thought it may be helpful. I always feel that people should try it for themselves and that no one should just read a review or internet thoughts.

If you think that someone shouldn't just read a "review or internet thought" then how are you being "helpful" by supplying a theatrical "review" of your experience.... doesn't make sense.

Not trying to be a dick, but audio samples would definitely be more telling.

[Steven Bell]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

anybody try this yet?

Yes. I got my OCX a couple days ago.

I was hoping to use it with my two 828mkII's as well as my two delta 1010's.

The 828's do not allow separate word clock input for the slave, so it kind of defeats the whole purpose of the master word clock (unless it gets passed through at the same quality).

The delta 1010 emmits white noise when switched to word clock.

So, I'm not sure how much I will be able to "appreciate" this unit.

Sounds like I need to improve my converters instead.

Steven

[jdunn]

Yep. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Master word clock generators are used for syncing different digital devices together. That is why you buy one. This whole phenomenon of buying an expensive clock to improve cheap converters is total marketing B.S.

I own an Isochrone, and I've had a Big Ben as well. Both are great. I haven't done any extensive comparisons between any of these clocks, because honestly, I don't hear night and day differences. Maybe next time I track something I'll do some casual listening tests.

I'm not saying that a really good master clock has no chance of improving cheap converters, but you'll get a vastly bigger improvement by buying some better converters in the first place, or when you can afford them.

But if you need a master word clock to sync your studio (converters/digital console/DAW, etc...), by all means buy one. Just don't be fooled by marketing trolls. Spend your money on some Myteks. You won't be disappointed.

[Steven Bell]

Thank you for this, Jason.

What you've said seems consistent with my test (functional as well as listening) results.

Steven

[dasbin]

Yeah, finally a voice of reason in this thread. Some of the earlier claims make me want to throw up. People are making it sound like the sound of a clock is aural heaven or hell.

You can't even rightly claim "This clock sounds like _________."
A clock doesn't have a sound. Except maybe if you listen close enough, a really freakin' fast "tick tock tick tock"

Sound-wise each of these clocks will interact drastically differently with different converters - and most importantly, with the types of jitter those converter's PLL chips are already introducing (usually source of >90% of the jitter reaching the converters), and will continue to do so even after an external clock is hooked up.
If you hook up a clock you are definitely adding some kind of jitter. In a particular converter's case, it may be that the kind of added jitter from an external clock is inaudible or even pleasing. It may also reduce some other kinds of jitter (or not), which could also be either good or bad sounding depending on the particular converter.
It simply isn't right to make sweeping conclusions on the "sound of a clock" by testing through a single converter.

And besides, nobody is posting any files here.
That one guy that claimed to actually have some and done a proper A/B backed out for "ethical reasons," though he had no problem showing the exact same CD to all his engineer buddies...?

The one time I've ran an actual test with a good external clock, I proved my intial "ah, this seems to improve things" reaction very wrong. I did a blind ABX test on myself with and without the clock. I even phase-nulled the results and the differences were WAY down, we're talking like -80db... on the brink of the dynamic range limit of a CD, and also about the same value you'd get just from random errors and uncontrollable variables by running the exact same test twice, clock or no clock.

[Shaman]

Does someone know where I´m getting an Antelope test device in EUROPE ?

I mailed antelope and dind´t get a response

[Steven Bell]

They responded fairly quickly when I asked where to purchase.

That said, maybe I should sell you mine!

Steven

[AB3]

The antelope clock improved the sound of my Aurora converters, which are suppose ot be a high quality converter with a high quality clock. The difference is not drastic, but is is there. I sent it to some others who agreed. My wife thought so as well with a blind test. (synchrolocks were off on the Aurora and AES 16). Everyone seems to have a different opinion and it appears these clocks have different effects on different converters.

I would have been happy to sell the antelope and use the money for something else. It just did not turn out that way.

Someone else's experience may be different, and so be it.

[jdunn]

To be fair, I haven't really tracked with the Isochrone yet. I have done some critical transfers though, and despite what some may say, I believe clocking can make a difference when doing digital transfers.

I've been transferring from a Fairlight Merlin/QDC engine to a G5 w/ Lynx AES16. With Synchrolock disabled, I think I'm hearing some improvements in high end transients and midrange smoothness, but it's not a huge difference.

I will be tracking some overdubs in the studio on Wednesday. I'll use the Isochrone for that and see if it sounds any better than the internal Mytek ADC 8x96 clock.

Again, subtle improvements may be had in some cases by using a better master clock. But differences in the analog stages, components and layout of a converter are typically more audible than the addition of an external clock, IMO.

[garymusic]

I own a Big Ben. Big Ben told me I had a termination problem I didn't even know about. I use an RME Hammerfall 96/52 audio card which has a jumper that was not switched correctly. I was getting an occational click and pop before and thought it was the external clock I was slaving too. Wrong. It was the jumper. If I didn't purchase the Big Ben I would still be having trouble. Hats off to Apogee for including that feature.


-Gary

[jdunn]

Yeah, i like that feature too. I think it's the best thing the Big Ben has.

Did you know a Sony DMX R100 is overterminated when unpowered?

[Steven Bell]

A rep from Antelope Audio called.

He was asking if the delta 1010 had such an internal switch. I'll look into that for the noise problem. It's also an older model and it's possible they didn't have word clock working that well at the time.

He is going to hook up a 2nd MOTU 828mkII in his test lab. He couldn't believe they don't allow you to bring a separate word clock into the slave.

Steven

[jdunn]

Really? It doesn't surprise me at all, especially with the experience I've had dealing with MOTU drivers, etc....

Why would they have 2 clock references? The clocking hub of the MOTU setups is the PCI card. If it's a firewire system, then it's either one clock or the other, and the second unit will slave to it.

If they were only converters I would understand it, but the MOTU systems are integrated with the computer drivers, etc... Therefore it's perfectly logical to me that they don't require multiple word clocks for each interface.

I wouldn't worry about it. Just clock the master MOTU interface to it, and let the slave interface lock to the first one. No big deal. You're still clocking the entire MOTU system from the Antelope I believe.

Even in the case of the Lynx AES16, if you disable Syncrolock, you're still going through the clock chip. Maybe you're bypassing the active phase-locked-loop, but you're still referencing the unit's internal clock, after the external clock.

[Steven Bell]

Thank you, Jason. I appreciate the help and the explanations.

The thing is, I am forced to worry about it because my slave 828 keeps losing sync with the master. Audio goes silent (on/through that unit) and there are often glitches, too.

When I was testing the Isotrope yesterday (with nice big buffers and latency) the slave's clock rate indicator started blinking even though I wasn't stressing the system at all. It was just idling.

This never happens to the master.

That's why I was hoping for a direct link to the slave.

Granted, there's more to all of this than word clock and if the slave isn't talking to the master, having a direct word clock input is not going to solve anything.

I performed two sets of tests. First was a single saxophone track. The other was to play a sample project on one system and route 1/4 cables to the system with the Isotrope.

I thought the Isotropoed sax track sounded cleaner than the 828 Internal clock'd version, but it was a later take and the performance could be clouding things more than I can compensate for.

On the Identical Playback test, I could NOT hear any difference. Even after chopping up the two and having the playback of one follow the other seamlessly.
The interesting thing though, is that I COULD see a difference when I zoomed in.
Also, when I performed the tests yet again (so I have two versions of Internal and two versions of Word Clock) I could tell to what extent the tracks lined up.

The Internal tracks wandered and I could not ever get them to nullify.
The Word Clocked tracks could be nudged such that they nullified, but it was not the same amount for the entire duration.

Granted, the playback system could (probablyly) is not providing exact timing.

Steven

[jdunn]

That sucks about the MOTU units. I've heard that PCI based systems often have a strong preference for internal clocking.

I'd imagine you're using the latest drivers, etc... The MOTU's are a little buggy. Maybe you should ditch those and get a Lynx AES16/Aurora setup. You might be a much happier camper.

[Steven Bell]

Yeah, I was checking out the street prices for used 828's on eBay last night.

Just for clarification: these are firewire, not PCI devices.

And yes, I have the latest drivers. It's just that MOTU hasn't dusted off the code for quite a while, now.

No firmware updates available, either.

Steven

[jdunn]

Oh yeah, my bad. The firewire ones are even worse than the PCI. I had one of the first 2408's they ever built, and it was better than my 896 for clocking stability.

Go with Lynx, or a Lynx card and Mytek converters if you can afford it!

[edit] I should add that although I really like the Myteks personally, there are other converters on the market that kick the sh!t out of the MOTU's. Prism (expensive!), Lavry (less expensive, but still a bit), Benchmark, Lynx and others.

Just pick the best one you can afford and go with it. You don't have to obsess endlessly over which one. Your recordings won't suck with any of the above as much as they suck with MOTU converters. Not that MOTU is horrible, but the stability, overall build quality, and clocking leaves something to be desired.

[raal]

my report here:

Isochrone/16X/HD192

[bigbongo]

just to balance things a little I have 3 x MOTU PCI interfaces that I clock via spdif to a Lucid and it's rock solid.

presumably it'd be just as solid via a antelope ; )