Antelope Trinity 10M vs. Internal Clock comparison

[u b k]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

I don't think he's buying it, Greg.

And the real irony is that I got nothing to sell here.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[StewartFang]

Originally Posted by u b k

What I said is extremely clear: of the various clocks I've had and currently have, I hear no difference among them. That may be down to my tin ears, or my hideously short sighted and skewed agenda towards staying focused on things that are simple and meaningful to me. I trust my judgment, this approach works quite well for me. I don't need it to work for you or anyone else, what you do is none of my business.

If I had a motu here, and I heard no difference when using its clock, I wouldn't hesitate to use it if that's what made sense for the rig. I made some very good sounding records using three 1224's back in the late nineties, I'm certain I could do way better using Burls clocked to them.





Gregory Scott - ubk

the point ...that Gregory is choosing to ignore for his own reasons...is that ...yes...when you get into a certain range of gear...the differences in clocks gets much smaller and...dare I say maybe even neglegable ( I haven't tried them all though!)...the problem with UBK's position is that a lot of folks are using MOTU etc...what I would call...good low end stuff...where if you clock from say a Big Ben, the difference can be quite dramatic...so the reality is ...that most people aren;t using Burl. Lavry, Prism so the quality of external clock comes into play


PS When people announce that they are going to ignore someone rather than just going ahead and doing it without saying anything... it seems intended to insult that person in a slimy way....if I ever chose to ignore someone, i would do just that...I would not try to incite a riot

That's just me though.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by u b k

I choose whom to ignore the way I choose my clocks: I don't think too hard about it, and I trust that I know what's right for me.


Gregory Scott - ubk

Well as a general comment, I will say that the ignore feature has always made my gearslutz experience more pleasant and productive. People should use it more often.

-R

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by StewartFang

...the problem with UBK's position is that a lot of folks are using MOTU etc...what I would call...good low end stuff...where if you clock from say a Big Ben, the difference can be quite dramatic...so the reality is ...that most people aren;t using Burl. Lavry, Prism so the quality of external clock comes into play

Here is a story from another thread that kinda turns the whole argument on it's head:

Originally Posted by Mo Facta

An interesting take on clocking was demonstrated to me (and a room full of others) by Graham Boswell of Prism Sound on his Mic to Master workshop tour.

Using Prism's DScope software and hardware he was able to produce certain audio environments for testing and in this case he generated an excessively jittered clock and fed it into certain pieces of gear he had on display while playing a 1kHz tone. He could then produce graphs and data readouts based on the reaction of these units to the jitter along with the resulting clock readout. Two converters were put up against one another, one being the Prism Orpheus and the other a Behringer A8000. I realise the difference in price and quality is astronomical, but bare with me.

The Orpheus, of course, excelled at perfectly reconstructing the incoming clock, whereas the Behringer failed miserably. As he gradually increased the jitter it was actually quite pitiful to hear the Behringer crumple under the pressure and finally completely dropout. The Orpheus maintained a clean and clear signal throughout, even at the most extreme jitter settings.

To describe what I heard - presumably the sound of "jitter" - the signal started exhibiting that low level, chimey, ring modulator-type sound which progressed to full-on clicks and pops, and eventually to a full dropout when the Behringer could no longer sync to the clock. I hear a similar effect when my Apogee is synced to it's own internal clock while the rest of my system is synced to the AES16e card.

Basically, in a nut shell, he was able to show that it was not actually the quality of the clock in question that was the real issue, but the quality of the clock recovery facilities of the slaved unit. His recommendation was to use your worst clock as the master if you're syncing more expensive converters with a lesser specimen. The reasoning was that the more expensive converters will be more robust when it comes to jitter and clock recovery and the the lesser converters will perform best run on their own internal clock. Thus, they will never have to attempt to reconstruct a faulty clock, which may be disastrousa for the lesser converters but not so much for the more expensive varieties.

Cheers

An interesting different perspective IMO.

J~

[StewartFang]

You can;t turn an argument on it's head with a third party quote really...can you?

In My EXPEREINCE...meaning I've done this many times....MOTU stuff BENEFITS greatly from a decent external clock...and as the converter design in general gets better, the clocking becomes less of an issue.

SO if you have first hand info that will turn that experience on it's head...great!...but really anybody can quote anything from anywhere they want and pass it off as knowledge.

So let me ask you this...when you have clocked lowish end converters externally and printed internal/external mixes back to back...at least 100 times over the course of a year, what were your observations?....

[Trakworx]

I said "kinda".

To me it's interesting to look at it from the other direction; the receiving end mattering as much as (or more than) the sending end. WC is just a square wave. Perhaps PLLs do the real heavy lifting.

Not singling out MOTU gear BTW, or making a blanket statement. There are many different possible clock masters and slaves out there and it is logical to me that in some cases the quality of the PLL in the slave will have more effect than the quality of the master clock source. That's all.

brotha,

J~

[Svenarne]

I think it's funny how the general stance regarding the audible benefit of external clocking seems to have changed over the last few years.

There's a number of old "clocking" threads that get revived periodically. From reading through these posts from OP to current (I know, it's a slow day), it seems to me that in 2005, almost nobody questioned the sonic superiority of using a dedicated external clock, while in the more recent posts, I feel there's more like a 30/70 spread between "pro-" and "anti"-clock posters.

What's changed? Clocks, converters or ears?

ven

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by Svenarne

What's changed? Clocks, converters or ears?

Sometimes it just takes time for people to experience gear, test it and evaluate it.

In 2005 I too was proudly rocking a Big Ben and was convinced it was improving my Digi 192s. I recommended it to others. I even mentioned it on my website. Then I finally did a blind listening test and was forced to confront my own expectation bias, placebo effect, what have you. Maybe it's just a matter of more and more people getting around to testing things for themselves like EV did here in this thread.

I think the term "anti-clock" is a misnomer. Most of us are slaving devices in some way or other. To me at least, it's more about clarifying what the purpose/value/effect of a dedicated external clock really is.

J~

[Casey]

Originally Posted by Svenarne

What's changed? Clocks, converters or ears?

The technology required to build better clock receivers has improved. But that does not explain why an internal clock would not sound as good as an external one.

But the more comparisons at this level I make, my ability to ascribe the results to specific technical reasoning becomes weaker and weaker. At some point I began believing that root cause is overated.



-Casey

[bushwick]

In mulitiple converter set ups, only one unit runs an internal clock. Usually the internal clock is the first AD converter. The rest are slaved to that, which for all purposes is just acting as an external word clock for the other units.

[Svenarne]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

I think the term "anti-clock" is a misnomer. Most of us are slaving devices in some way or other. To me at least, it's more about clarifying what the purpose/value/effect of a dedicated external clock really is.

J~

Sure, but if you go to an Audiophile forum and try to argue that a more expensive speaker cable couldn't possibly make the high range of a flute sound less nasal and a bassoon sound woodier, you'd be "anti-cable" even though you appreciate the need for speaker cables.

[StewartFang]

Originally Posted by Trakworx

Most of us are slaving devices in some way or other. To me at least, it's more about clarifying what the purpose/value/effect of a dedicated external clock really is.

J~

yes

Originally Posted by bushwick

In mulitiple converter set ups, only one unit runs an internal clock. Usually the internal clock is the first AD converter. The rest are slaved to that, which for all purposes is just acting as an external word clock for the other units.

yes...but what about proper distribution feeding the same length cables at the same time...which makes sense when timing is of the uptmost essence

Originally Posted by Svenarne

I think it's funny how the general stance regarding the audible benefit of external clocking seems to have changed over the last few years.

There's a number of old "clocking" threads that get revived periodically. From reading through these posts from OP to current (I know, it's a slow day), it seems to me that in 2005, almost nobody questioned the sonic superiority of using a dedicated external clock, while in the more recent posts, I feel there's more like a 30/70 spread between "pro-" and "anti"-clock posters.

What's changed? Clocks, converters or ears?

ven

I'll tell you what's changed...those that "rock" with an external clock because it has improved their situation have tried time and again to explain how this could be occurring only to be met with hostility, name calling and taunts of trying to sell snake oil...so instead of trying to convince other people that there can be an improvement....they just carry on making music with the tools that allow them to do that...and frankly heavy recordist and mixers dont really post here anymore that much...so that's what has changed...


You kinda have to ask yourself at some point...should I lean towards what Mike Shipley and Greg Wells have to say about it...or do I take Ethan Whiner's opinion and amatuer tests as fact?



Me? I do my own testing when I want to know something.

[a2dpapi]

I'm with UBK in that I personally cannot discern a very meaningful difference when clocking a single converter externally. If you do, god bless America....buy it up in droves. Buy clocks for your clock's clock.
I have too much respect for some of the people who do celebrate the "magic" that these boxes might impart to fully discount them. This is why we sell them.

This being said, my choice would always be to address the primary tools (mic, pre, outboard, monitoring, and ROOM acoustics) and develop my usable palette of sonic choices long before getting into clocking.

Have you invested in multiple converters, tons of integrated outboard, and reverb outside of the box? Give high end clocking a shot. Try it and then see if it justifies the expense, or helps you sleep at night.

I would love a flash based ABX test that could give listeners the ability to choose which is which from a randomly selected pool of clips clocked either internally or externally would be good. No more than 25 clips in one sitting. Come in and repeat once a day but no more if you wish.

18 of 25 would consistently need to be chosen correctly to be considered statistically significant. Let's get the sample size up!

[muziekschuur]

Sometimes the ear/brain know something but technical it aint there yet. When I heard time aligned speakers I was surprised. When I heard them with neodynium speakers I was surprised again. Fast transients. Not available on other systems...

So I have accepted that on older systems some stuff is not yet available. So maybe "good internal/external clocks" are yet to come.

[soundeq]

Ok, sorry to re-hash and old topic. But I'm putting together a new mix rig, and was looking into possible master clock usage, and doing some research into the antelope 10M.

I think this was a great test of real-world usage of master clock usage. Kudos to OP for setting this up.

Just a brief BG on my ears/opinion on the technical side:
I worked about 2 years for Lexicon (yes reverb fame Lexicon) A while back before I started my mixing career. (Nothing too glamorous, just alpha testing and building presets)
We often did jitter spec tests on the new (at that time) high end MC-12 receiver that Lexicon made for audiophile consumers. Many of the engineers (lab engineers) would get it right %50-70% of the time, there were a few of us (myself included) that got it nearly 100% whenever the tech guys would drop in a new improved jitter-spec chip. (blind tests where there was a test master doing random switching) So yes, you can quantitatively hear improved jitter.

I listened to these files in my mixing room where I mix every day. Properly treated, floating floor, sandbags below.. 3', yes feet, of rockwool/insulation behind the back wall, ect... You get the point.

Converters used for listening. Digi 192 (clocked internally) also tried Apogee PSX-100 as well. (yeah I know I need to upgrade hence the new system)
Monitors I used were my JBL LSR-28's that I have been mixing on for about 10 years. Also listened through my custom designed soffit mains for sh*&^s and giggles.

IMHO: The variations are so slight, I can't say If I like one or the other. I'm %50 on this one. Sometimes I prefer the "&" in sections, sometimes the "#". First listen (before I saw the results) I thought "&" was maybe slightly better.

I thought I preferred the "#" where i could hear the room reverb on the strings, only to like the vocals at the top through "&". Then went back and listened again, and thought something else.

These are not night and day differences. I wouldn't even say %1-2 (improvement) because it's hard to honestly figure out what is an "improvement" between the two.

I'm going to pass on the external clock at this point. I may demo one, and perhaps try a repeat sort of test (I use summing mixers so it's easy). If I do a test, I'll post it on here (if I get the time).

My professional exp can be found in a link below on my site if anyone wants to look. Since this is more of a technical thread I don't think it carries as much weight. Often I find lots of people at the top can vary in technical skill, and can make up for it in taste/politics, so I'm gonna leave judgement up to the end user. Meaning, some mixers/engineers don't get the "best sound" but realize that the bass needs to be up 4db in the choruses to add the best "feel".

[YOHAMI]

Thanks for sharing

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by soundeq

IMHO: The variations are so slight, I can't say If I like one or the other. I'm %50 on this one. Sometimes I prefer the "&" in sections, sometimes the "#". First listen (before I saw the results) I thought "&" was maybe slightly better.

Yep, same here. I think most of us could easily engineer our way around whatever small differences exist between the 2 clock sources as represented in this test. Thanks for chiming in. Nice discography BTW

J~

[bushwick]

External Clocks. . . .Myth busting. . . .

[Trakworx]

Originally Posted by bushwick

External Clocks. . . .Myth busting. . . .

"Noise shaping" from a clock?

[Mosaico]

When I heard both files, the first thing I noticed that struck me was a mix difference, specially the guitar, it felt like 2 different mixes. As a whole, the antelope was a more glued mix and the 192 everything was more separate. Did anyone perceive this??

[YOHAMI]

I did

[beatbanga77]

Yohami wdup.. I have been reading this thread to bordem props to you for keeping up with these dudes emotional nonsense. I have bumped into you on another thread. I was the one with a B2 ADC and 10M collecting dust, till I make a move on a trinity and B2 DAC.. I plan to do this in 2012.

I will be in touch with my thoughts as long as your still willing to read. Keep in mind everyone has his or her way of doing things so I keep my questions of how very limited so I can have the fun of finding out on my own lol.. Yeah does it cost me a lot to do so? yes. Do I know anyone with the gear set up the way you speak? Nah.. I have been thinking about this and planned many checks to get it how I want.

I hope to send you some tracks done with it and with out once its set up since you have been patiently asking people for their thoughts. Your better than me fam.. It seems like these dudes know everything about something they don't own, and they'll probably go on another 15 pages arguing on that.. The funny thing is I read the first 15 pages and still no nothing about the setup that we want.. lol Hype or not a budget is a budget and people around the world had no problem diggin in their pockets to get a 10m and trinity.. Burl's got things on point Antleope has things on point put em together lets make music. If I don't like em together Im still gonna keep them for the war story alone.. lol

[Morrillo]

I did the same test using an studer 827- apogee ad16x 10M Trinity combo
with nuendo,Internal and external AND I DID HEAR THE DIFERENCE!!
I did not returned the clocks back!
I think you gearslutz friends have to do this test by yourselves
to judge!
just my two cents
chears

[Clybourne]

fwiw. Might as well let Alan Meyerson have a word in this debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvhsi...ature=youtu.be

[deft_bonz]

I just downloaded the files. Thank you very much EV for doing this test, although it's been 2 years

Does anyone know a ABX blind test software for Mac, that's free and NOT in the App store?

[raal]

can't believe i missed this thread.

anyway, @ ev33: which do you feel best represented the sound of the original tape recording?

IFO look for the closest represention of what's being converted - not interested in wider or deeper image or even better sounding program material, just in replicating what went in as accurately as possible. in that context i believe it would do me little good to decide which file is 'better' without having the original analog source for comparison. we've performed blind tests with different clocks and converters here and the conclusion has been that the 'better' sounding file isn't necessarily the most accurate representation of the original analog source.

thank you all for bearing with me and if this queston was answered earlier in the thread i apologize for taking your time.

[ev33]

Originally Posted by raal

can't believe i missed this thread.

anyway, @ ev33: which do you feel best represented the sound of the original tape recording?

IFO look for the closest represention of what's being converted - not interested in wider or deeper image or even better sounding program material, just in replicating what went in as accurately as possible. in that context i believe it would do me little good to decide which file is 'better' without having the original analog source for comparison. we've performed blind tests with different clocks and converters here and the conclusion has been that the 'better' sounding file isn't necessarily the most accurate representation of the original analog source.

thank you all for bearing with me and if this queston was answered earlier in the thread i apologize for taking your time.

raal,

The simple answer is that, for me, the 2 different clocks had no influence on how the original tape recording was being represented. No one in my studio has been able to correctly identify the 2 different versions 100% of the time when listening blind.

I never specifically listened to/tested a comparison to the original analog version (the test wasn't set up for that), but based on my experience in the past, both of the digital mixes equally represent the short comings inherent in PCM digital technology. Un-digitized analog recordings tend to have a more seamless, silky high end, while digitized versions seem to get a little grittier and transparent sounding in the high end.

Thanks for chiming in! I think your point is a good one and it seems we approach the digital side of things in a similar way. I am not looking for coloration from my converters/clock etc. I want them to be as sonically invisible as possible.

best,

EV

[raal]

Originally Posted by ev33

raal,

The simple answer is that, for me, the 2 different clocks had no influence on how the original tape recording was being represented. No one in my studio has been able to correctly identify the 2 different versions 100% of the time when listening blind.

I never specifically listened to/tested a comparison to the original analog version (the test wasn't set up for that), but based on my experience in the past, both of the digital mixes equally represent the short comings inherent in PCM digital technology. Un-digitized analog recordings tend to have a more seamless, silky high end, while digitized versions seem to get a little grittier and transparent sounding in the high end.

Thanks for chiming in! I think your point is a good one and it seems we approach the digital side of things in a similar way. I am not looking for coloration from my converters/clock etc. I want them to be as sonically invisible as possible.

best,

EV

thank you sir, i appreciate your answer.

[CPhoenix]

Look.... I don't believe in this "blind testing" bullshit.


Why? Because if you take a pack of Wildberry Skittles... separate them by color... close your eyes and eat them... I guarantee you most of you would not correctly guess the right flavor. But... does that mean there's no difference between Berry & Fruit Punch? Hell no.... blind tests just confuse the brain.


Now.. when I listen to both... the 2nd one clearly has a better shaped bass sound. It's obvious. I'm listening on earbuds. I can feel the rumble of the bass in my ears. I can not feel it on the 1st one. it also does sound a little wider, and a little clearer.

Honestly... being able to hear those minute differences would dramatically change my mixes personally. I want to be able to mix to the poitn where I know a certain sound is going to rumble your chest a certain way. Yes.. you can get that detailed in a mix. But you can't do it on surpar gear.


Anybody who doesn't hear this difference... you shouldn't be mixing in the first place. Stick to tracking or just production. It's a clearcut difference. A producer-only might not need this level of detail if you're not getting intricate w/ your mix... but a mixing engineer absolutely needs these minor differences.

[cianthreetimes]

Originally Posted by CPhoenix

Look.... I don't believe in this "blind testing" bullshit.

I know. Science can be a real drag sometimes, especially when it doesn't align with your own personal beliefs.