Neve 1073 DPD Clock vs. Lucid GENx192 Clock

[jbward]

Folks,

Long time reader first post as I haven't seen this discussed:

Which clock do you suppose I should use as a master, my Lucid GENx192 master clock or the clock in my Neve 1073 DPD?

The Lucid GENx192 is required to sync everything else I'm using (003R, SSL Alpha Channel with crappy non-word SPDIF-only option, POD XT Pro AES sync, etc). However, the Lucid can either drive everything using it's own internal clock or it can accept an external word clock as master and just act as distro.

My logic is that the Neve is probably pretty sweet, but also thinking that since the Lucid is *only* a clock that perhaps it might keep up or have the edge.

Unfortunately my ears can't do me any good right now as everything is ripped apart and I'm awaiting a few remaining cabling components.

Love to hear some thoughts or better yet experience.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by jbward

Folks,

Which clock do you suppose I should use as a master, my Lucid GENx192 master clock or the clock in my Neve 1073 DPD?

The Lucid GENx192 is required to sync everything else I'm using (003R, SSL Alpha Channel with crappy non-word SPDIF-only option, POD XT Pro AES sync, etc). However, the Lucid can either drive everything using it's own internal clock or it can accept an external word clock as master and just act as distro.

My logic is that the Neve is probably pretty sweet, but also thinking that since the Lucid is *only* a clock that perhaps it might keep up or have the edge.

Unfortunately my ears can't do me any good right now as everything is ripped apart and I'm awaiting a few remaining cabling components.

Love to hear some thoughts or better yet experience.

#1. recently I have purchased a Drawmer D-Clock that can measure clock accuracy in realtime.
but dont have the Lucid genx192 or Neve clocks around to test them.

i wrote to Lucid asking the Genx192 vs. 88192 performance...,
becouse the old .pdf brochure/spec, Lucid say it has +-25ppm
the new .pdf they removed that info.
GENx192_ds.pdf - 866.7 KB,
they wrote:
*******************************************
From:
"Symetrix" <support@symetrixaudio.com>
Add sender to Contacts



Update for Case #673 - "88192" Jitter measurements were made using the Stanford 610 Universal Time Counter. Jitter is expressed (in seconds) as the Mean Allan Variance of 10,000 measurements of the positive edge-to-positive edge period of the input clock, running at the frequency indicated. Arming mode is External-Time, positive edge. The devie and the Stanford counter were allowed to warm up for at least 30 minutes prior to taking the measurements. The test used BNC cable terminated at the counter with 50-ohm termination.
The word clock signals were generated internally by each device.
Here are the Gnx192 jitter specs using teh Standford method.

Word Clock Frequency
GenX192 MAV Jitter (picoseconds)
44.1 KHz
28
48.0 KHz
31
88.2 KHz
36
96.0 KHz
26
176.4 KHz
75
192.0 KHz
73
************************************************

#2. clocks are sensible/afected by dirty AC power.
be shure to buy a Furman AR-15 Series ][, minium.
also true 99.997% OFC cables like philips pxt1000 or better silver cables like acoustic zen silver byte.
also the crystal optimal operating temperature is 31° acording to wiki.

#3. You should try to do the loop back test to see any changes. if you have RME or Lynx soundcard disable DDS &/or SynchroLock(TM), if you input a better external clock DDS not disabled that will not allow the soundcard to freelly follow the ext.clock.

test A/D D/A - without personal bias & without ears!

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4277032-post3.html

Drawmer D-Clock

[Roc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by jbward

Folks,

Long time reader first post as I haven't seen this discussed:

Which clock do you suppose I should use as a master, my Lucid GENx192 master clock or the clock in my Neve 1073 DPD?

The Lucid GENx192 is required to sync everything else I'm using (003R, SSL Alpha Channel with crappy non-word SPDIF-only option, POD XT Pro AES sync, etc). However, the Lucid can either drive everything using it's own internal clock or it can accept an external word clock as master and just act as distro.

My logic is that the Neve is probably pretty sweet, but also thinking that since the Lucid is *only* a clock that perhaps it might keep up or have the edge.

Unfortunately my ears can't do me any good right now as everything is ripped apart and I'm awaiting a few remaining cabling components.

Love to hear some thoughts or better yet experience.

I would use the Lucid to clock all these devices, but the great thing about the box is using the distribution for your most important ADC. Since you have all these devices, as soon as your cabling shows up, you'll be able to tell for yourself, and report back.

[mobius.media]

According to Lucid, they have better jitter than Big Ben.

From e-mail:

A quick bit about jitter specs and why we (and most others) don’t publish them. First off, there is no standard way of measuring jitter. Since there is no standard, comparing between brands then becomes meaningless, unless the two companies use the exact same test and method…not too likely. Second, if a company gives a jitter spec in print, another company can see what the “number to beat” is, and do whatever test (in whatever way) will produce a number that is lower, regardless of how the clock ACTUALLY performs. It’s kind of like power amps….my car stereo doesn’t really produce 45W in each of the four channels of the little amp that’s built in.

So, we did our tests as fairly as possible, same day, same method, same test, same cables, with normal production units, etc. We needed to know how we stood up, and the short answer is, very well.

Jitter measurements were made using the Stanford 610 Universal Time Counter. Jitter is expressed (in seconds) as the Mean Allan Variance of 10,000 measurements of the positive edge-to-positive edge period of the input clock, running at the frequency indicated. Arming mode is External-Time, positive edge. Both devices and the Stanford counter were allowed to warm up for at least 30 minutes prior to taking the measurements. Both devices used the same inputs and BNC cable, terminated at the counter with 50-ohm termination.

The word clock signals were generated internally by each device.

Word Clock Frequency | GenX192 MAV Jitter (picoseconds) | Apogee Big Ben MAV Jitter (picoseconds)

44.1 KHz | 28 | 67

48.0 KHz | 31 | 42

88.2 KHz | 36 | 105

96.0 KHz | 26 | 57

176.4 KHz | 75 | 75

192.0 KHz | 73 | 80

If you have any questions, I’d be happy to discuss the results on the phone.

[dasoundjunkie]

When my Rosendahl Nanosync died we tried the Lucid and absolutely hated it ( and I really wanted to like it 'cause it was inexpensive and I was broke ). The stereo image got smaller and the frequency response seemed to lose top end. We then bit the bullet and bought the BB and where much happier. Specs are one thing but in our studio my partner and I liked the BB by a very large margin. I wonder how accurate that jitter comparison is because the BB, without a doubt, smoked the Lucid. Seems strange ( at least to me ) that the Lucid would out perform the BB in any way.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by dasoundjunkie

When my Rosendahl Nanosync died we tried the Lucid and absolutely hated it ( and I really wanted to like it 'cause it was inexpensive and I was broke ). The stereo image got smaller and the frequency response seemed to lose top end. We then bit the bullet and bought the BB and where much happier. Specs are one thing but in our studio my partner and I liked the BB by a very large margin. I wonder how accurate that jitter comparison is because the BB, without a doubt, smoked the Lucid. Seems strange ( at least to me ) that the Lucid would out perform the BB in any way.

Really? That's pretty discouraging. Personally, I'm not eager for the Big Ben sound - I find it has an exaggeration in the lows I'm not really looking for. I wanted something more neutral but didn't want to pay big for an Isochrone, so I thought the Lucid was it.

Any other thoughts?

Roc, I know you've had both in studio, if you're still reading this any comment would be appreciated.

[dasoundjunkie]

[QUOTE=mobius.media;4351366]Really? That's pretty discouraging. Personally, I'm not eager for the Big Ben sound - I find it has exaggeration in the lows I'm not really looking for. I wanted something more neutral but didn't want to pay big for an Isochrone, so I thought the Lucid was it.

Any other thoughts?

My experience with the unit is what sent me after the BB. Like I said, it just seemed to take away from the stereo image and made things sound like there was less top AND bottom. That said I do find that the BB does enhance the lows but in a way that to me at least is very flattering and complementary to my work. I think that the Antelope Isochrone OCX is in the same price range as the BB and even tho I've never used it everything I've read and heard about it suggests that it's a fantastic unit (and very neutral in character). I personally would LOVE the 10-M but that falls squrely in the silly money territory. Oh well someday....

[Roc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by mobius.media

Really? That's pretty discouraging. Personally, I'm not eager for the Big Ben sound - I find it has an exaggeration in the lows I'm not really looking for. I wanted something more neutral but didn't want to pay big for an Isochrone, so I thought the Lucid was it.

Any other thoughts?

Roc, I know you've had both in studio, if you're still reading this any comment would be appreciated.

Your right! This other post discouraging the use of the Lucid as the master does not hold water in my experience. He did not even list the converters he used to test, which I need to validate what happened. Perhaps he liked what you've disliked from the BB. I hear a "change" with the Ben, where I don't with the Lucid. I have a GENX192 clocking our entire Digital Rig Right now. It consists of many AD/DA16x's and other devices. We are of course in control of which device can be the master at any given time. We use the X192 to distribute RADAR V clock to our devices. Though on internal, NOT ONE PERSON has SAID ANYTHING about the sound of these converters "changing" because this clock does not change the response of the converters at all. To my ear anyway. Its a well designed, affordable clock source. The Antelope with 10M just injects all kinds of awesome harmonic distortion. It has this hard to describe performance, but the effect is kind of like listening to awesomely designed tube mono blocks with more headroom and bandwidth that has "more room to play" than you'll ever need. It made RADAR V sound more forward, bigger, etc.....

I would buy a Horch RM2J instead.

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

I hear a "change" with the Ben, where I don't with the Lucid. I have a GENX192 clocking our entire Digital Rig Right now. It consists of many AD/DA16x's and other devices. We are of course in control of which device can be the master at any given time. We use the X192 to distribute RADAR V clock to our devices. Though on internal, NOT ONE PERSON has SAID ANYTHING about the sound of these converters "changing" because this clock does not change the response of the converters at all. To my ear anyway. Its a well designed, affordable clock source.

Have you tried using the GENX192 as the full master clock source, not just as a clock distributer for the Radar?

Also, the Antelope OCX was the other one I was looking at. It's not super expensive like the 10M, but it is still over twice the price of the Lucid. Of course, I'd always rather put that money elsewhere if I can.

Looks like I'll have to try both for myself.

[Roc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

Though on internal, NOT ONE PERSON has SAID ANYTHING about the sound of these converters "changing" because this clock does not change the response of the converters at all.

----

[mobius.media]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

----

Gotcha. Didn't follow what you were saying there the first time.

[space2012]

Originally Posted by mobius.media

Really? That's pretty discouraging. Personally, I'm not eager for the Big Ben sound - I find it has an exaggeration in the lows I'm not really looking for. I wanted something more neutral but didn't want to pay big for an Isochrone, so I thought the Lucid was it.

Any other thoughts?

Roc, I know you've had both in studio, if you're still reading this any comment would be appreciated.

for what ive heard, ocx seems to lack lows, but dont know if its the clock or the cable used.

so far... my Drawmer M-Clock has a verry nice sound, Full Lows "not heavy", strong mid-bass vs. Alesis Ai-2., coherent & transparent mids & highs.

but the highs sound round like some Tube Equipment., not quiet, loud enough, balanced, and detailed but diferent than OCX, Mytek or the BLA MicroClock highs for example.
other clock i would like to test its the Teac Esoteric, becouse has atomic input.
....
i think the exagerated lows in the BigBen its becouse the Apogee ADC75 cable...

recently i purchased an Apogee Wyde-Eye 3ft. WordClock BNC cable.
75ohm coaxial Digital/Analog Audio Cable ADC75 Apogee Electronics.

and tested vs. Philips PXT1000, same everything.

in test #1. Mackie d8b DACs, Yamaha hs80, no processing, WMP, listening not the best recorded song, the song lacked lows and was a bit bright.

the Apogee Wyde-Eye added a lot of Low-MidBass, and for listening that song it was great.
...and same song with the PXT1000 it sounded like it is, bad recorded.

at that moment i thought the Apogee Wyde-Eye was better cable!!.
then i did a the second test, with lots other songs i know verry well.

It turned out that the Apogee Cable Adds too much hamonics in the low-midbass to all songs, maybe becouse signal reflections, even they say they dont have any becouse they are 75ohm.
anyway...
the Philips PXT1000 dont say its 75ohm, but was much more transparent,
mid range and highs, and bass was accurate.
if its bad recorded sounds like it is "annoing", if its well recorded sounds like a master piece, sometimes verry impressive.

bad clock cables add the "same thing" to all songs.
...
When i heard the Acoustic Zen Silver Byte, i knew its one of the best cables outthere no matter the price range, but... i want to test others, just to be shure & becouse i dont like the looks of the Silver Byte connectors, they look so ugly.

i will try to find the perfect cable for me, that looks as good at it sounds.

also i want to buy those Silver Gold Plated Fuses to replace the stock fuses inside my Drawmer M-Clock, and maybe some day ill purchase Balanced power too, to see/hear how good my Drawmer can it be.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
anyway... these is a partial list of the cables i want to test:
Oyaide's DR-510 "the BNC looks so pretty, i hope it sounds good", but looks a bit skinny/thin and that worries me.
http://www.thecableco.com/product.php?id=4083

...
Acoustic Zen's Silver Bytes "connectors look ugly, but sounds good"
http://www.thecableco.com/product.php?id=1991

...
Harmonic Technology's Digital Copper "they say 99.9997% OFC, better than Philips PXT1000 99.997% OFC" but strands conficguration?
http://www.thecableco.com/product.php?id=909

...
Tara Labs's Spectrum 2d "Hi quality copper Single Conductor, similar to Vovox, but not silver plated?"
http://www.thecableco.com/product.php?id=3159

...
VOVOX®link protect AD shielded digital cable , hi quality silver plated OFC.
VOVOX: Klangleiter - Sound Conductors

...
EvidenceAudio.com
Mono Rail, & Melody
...
DH Labs Silver Sonic's D-75 "the rca in these look pretty, some day ill see if not just a pretty face."
http://www.thecableco.com/product.php?id=5211

...
Audio Magic's XStream "look a bit ugly but seems creaper"
http://www.thecableco.com/product.php?id=2541

...
PSAudio.com Digital,
xStream Digital Cables : Product Details | PS Audio

...
the APC Digital, also the connector looks a bit ugly for my taste.
APCAV Product Technical Specifications: DIGCOAX15-1M

...
the monsterpower digital cable:
1GHz silver plater copper conductors + Quad Shield.
M1000 High Resolution Digital Coaxial Cable

...
the new Sony Digital triple shielded,
...
and the Empirical Audio Digital Interconnects also seems interesting.
but... a bit over priced.
Digital Interconnects > Cables : Empirical Audio

...
& Proelgroup.com DiaHard


i think one of these could be the true thing, no overpriced crap.
so far... Acoustic Zen Silver Byte and Philips PXT1000 are the clear winners. so far...

[dasoundjunkie]

[QUOTE=Roc Mixwell;4353627]Your right! This other post discouraging the use of the Lucid as the master does not hold water in my experience. He did not even list the converters he used to test, which I need to validate what happened.

The converters where the ones on the Alesis HD-24 thru an RME HDSP 9652 card into Nuendo. By the way I was in no way trying to discourage anyone from anything , simply stating what my experience with the unit was. To be clear, in my experience both the Rosendahl and the Apogee out performed the Lucid by a very large margin, as always YMMV.
Hope this helps.