fireface 800 to lynx aurora

[SAGABEBA]

hello ,

I am an owner of a fireface 800 interface and after one year of use and working
I got a good picture of this unit character ( and don't like it too much )
I started to get more deep in the importance of the converters that I use and realized what a realy good converter can make to my music .
It's not that It's not a good card but I feel I want something better
can the lynx aurora make a big improovment from the fireface ?
or in other words , which one have a better convertion ?

I am new here

Thanks

[thermos]

I just upgraded from the Fireface to the Lynx Aurora 16. It is a large jump I feel especially in the A/D department. Its nice BUT I think both units have not so good clocks.

I was clocking the fireface to my lucid genx6-96 which was a huge inmprovement. the converters sounded smeary and dull in comparison when clocked internally.

My Lucid clock broke just as I got my aurora up and running, so I worked on the internal clock for a while. when I got the Lucid clock back and hooked it up, it was a dramatic improvement. The lows went down another octave (you could feel the floor tom) and the cymbals were way over there now (wider stereo image). This alien high end also smoothed out into something more listenable.

The lucid clock I'm sure isn't the best, but it sure makes a hell of an improvement with both of these units. I would consider picking up an external clock maybe first, or at least trying one.

[SAGABEBA]

Thanks for your answer

you say it's only nice ?

so , if I stay with my fireface and bay a better clock like the big ban

will it be better solution then to bay the aurora ?

what will you recommand for clocking ?

[thermos]

No, the Aurora is definitely way better than the fireface. The A/D especially is way clearer and you can clip it without hearing it, which is great. But I didn't totally love it without a better clock. I'm sure an Aurora with a big ben would be awesome, but I can't afford a big ben. I would say maybe buy a Big Ben first and see if that makes the difference you are looking for with the Fireface.

[Ashermusic]

Originally Posted by thermos

No, the Aurora is definitely way better than the fireface. The A/D especially is way clearer and you can clip it without hearing it, which is great. But I didn't totally love it without a better clock. I'm sure an Aurora with a big ben would be awesome, but I can't afford a big ben. I would say maybe buy a Big Ben first and see if that makes the difference you are looking for with the Fireface.

(sigh) Once again, an external clock like a Big Ben only helps jitter when clocking multiple interfaces. As Dan Lavry, Bob Katz, Nikka Aldrich etc. have repeatedly stated, a properly designed internal crystal will always have less jitter than an external clcok.

The Auroras have a terrific clock. The Fireface is a nice box with a decent clock but the Auroras definitely are a step up IMHO.

[Matthew Murray]

Asher -- so tests like Fletcher's, as posted on Mercenary, comparing the Aurora clocked internally and then compared with it clocked to a big ben -- were either stacked, bullshit, or marketing tactic? Is that what you're saying?

[mds]

Originally Posted by Ashermusic

(sigh) Once again, an external clock like a Big Ben only helps jitter when clocking multiple interfaces. As Dan Lavry, Bob Katz, Nikka Aldrich etc. have repeatedly stated, a properly designed internal crystal will always have less jitter than an external clcok.

The Auroras have a terrific clock. The Fireface is a nice box with a decent clock but the Auroras definitely are a step up IMHO.

This is a common discussion on this group. I've read the same thing from Lavry, Katz, etc. but the gearslutz paradigm seems to very much support that adding a better clock to a standalone converter will improve it every time. I suppose it is possible that some lesser priced units do not have "properly design internal" clocks, but at this point in digital evolution it seems unlikely for anything other than the most cheaply designed units...many seem to notice a marked improvement with external clocking, but I always suspect psychosomatics due to marketing manipulation, hearsay, etc.

Mike

[Ashermusic]

Originally Posted by Matthew Murray

Asher -- so tests like Fletcher's, as posted on Mercenary, comparing the Aurora clocked internally and then compared with it clocked to a big ben -- were either stacked, bullshit, or marketing tactic? Is that what you're saying?

I am saying that Dan Lavry, who makes some of the finest converters in the world,and Bob Katz and Nikka Aldrich who have written renowned books on digital audio, can tell you the science why this is so whereas Fletcher can only give you anecdotal evidence as to what he and others hear.

Your choice.

BTW, if you think it sounds "better" Dan i.e. will not take issue with that. That is subjective. He is saying that the "better" you hear cannot be dues to less jitter.

Many musicians who listen to mixes on less accurate speakers and converters think it sounds better.

[Matthew Murray]

That may be the ticket there, just as you described. We can educate ourselves on the technicalities and numbers that supposedly tell us that clocking a single converter won't improve it -- but there sure are a lot of people, both musicians AND engineers, who seem to feel it imparts something positive. Something inside me trusts that a lot more than numbers. But I'll know soon enough -- I'll be clocking an Aurora with a Weiss ADC2 here in a couple weeks

[SAGABEBA]

Is there any headphones jack in the AES16 and AURORA combination ?

if not how can I connect one ?

[Ashermusic]

Originally Posted by Matthew Murray

That may be the ticket there, just as you described. We can educate ourselves on the technicalities and numbers that supposedly tell us that clocking a single converter won't improve it -- but there sure are a lot of people, both musicians AND engineers, who seem to feel it imparts something positive. Something inside me trusts that a lot more than numbers. But I'll know soon enough -- I'll be clocking an Aurora with a Weiss ADC2 here in a couple weeks

Interesting and here is where you and I differ.

Many people trust their instincts and when the science disagrees wonder, "Where is the science
failing here?"

I trust the science and when my epxerience contradicts it I think, "Where am I going wrong here?"

I am not saying my way is more correct but it has opened me up to acquiring knowledge that I would not have if I only trusted my gut reation.

And btw I tried clocking a RME Fireface 800 with a Big Ben at audiomidi.com and both myself and the tech guy I tested with agreed that it actually sounded worse.

[danasti]

Sometimes adding jitter can fool people into thinking they hear a more "analog" sound. Wider, deeper, fatter, smoother highs with more air. I've heard people say all this stuff when they were really only introducing more jitter on their system. If they think it sounds "better" with more jitter thats OK in my opinion. Music and recording is for individual taste in my opinion. Not everyone has good ears or is meant to be a sound engineer.

The question for me is: Does the clock reduce jitter on the equipment you hook it up to? I want my converters to have less jitter and a more stable clock.

Internal jitter on the Aurora should be lower than on the Lucid or Big Ben. Lower jitter should be better conversion. I'm not going to talk about it sounding better because that's subjective. Maybe higher jitter sounds better to some people, right? I prefer less jitter though just as a rule.

A mix or sound that has lost its center could actually be interpreted by someone as a "wider image".

Lows going down and extra octave - I read that on Mercanary too. Hmm... Test them out yourself is what I say. I found that comment strange although I've used them both I haven't put them head to head like that. Maybe they do "sound" like that - maybe they don't. But an accurate measuring mic wouldn't pic up an extra octave on the rosetta.

[Ashermusic]

Originally Posted by danasti

Sometimes adding jitter can fool people into thinking they hear a more "analog" sound. Wider, deeper, fatter, smoother highs with more air. I've heard people say all this stuff when they were really only introducing more jitter on their system. If they think it sounds "better" with more jitter thats OK in my opinion. Music and recording is for individual taste in my opinion. Not everyone has good ears or is meant to be a sound engineer.

The question for me is: Does the clock reduce jitter on the equipment you hook it up to? I want my converters to have less jitter and a more stable clock.

Internal jitter on the Aurora should be lower than on the Lucid or Big Ben. Lower jitter should be better conversion. I'm not going to talk about it sounding better because that's subjective. Maybe higher jitter sounds better to some people, right? I prefer less jitter though just as a rule.

A mix or sound that has lost its center could actually be interpreted by someone as a "wider image".

Lows going down and extra octave - I read that on Mercanary too. Hmm... Test them out yourself is what I say. I found that comment strange although I've used them both I haven't put them head to head like that. Maybe they do "sound" like that - maybe they don't. But an accurate measuring mic wouldn't pic up an extra octave on the rosetta.

That is it in a nutshell. Better or worse sound is subjective. not measurable. Jitter is measurable. Read Dan Lavry's white paper on his website.

And since the Big Ben is a clock only then all it theoretically affects is the amount of jitter right? So if an Aurora or Fireface or any interface with a decent internal crystal clock sounds better to a listener with a Big Ben clocking it then the only conclusion I can reach is that the listener likes the sound of more jitter. Fine.

BTW, no one disputes that if you are using multiple interfaces that a good clock like Big Ben running everything improves the sound.

[thermos]

Man, I don't know about all that science stuff, but I do know what sounds better. Don't know why it does, don't care. It just sounds better with an external clock, not different, better.

[Ashermusic]

Originally Posted by thermos

Man, I don't know about all that science stuff, but I do know what sounds better. Don't know why it does, don't care. It just sounds better with an external clock, not different, better.

Fine. As I said I listened to an RME Fireface 800 clocked by a Big Ben and to me and the tech I tested it with it sounded worse.

There are people who think Nine Inch Nails sound better than the Beatles. A whole bunch of people believe that we never landed on the moon and it was staged in a studio, and 10% even believe Elvis is still alive

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by Ashermusic

... A whole bunch of people believe that we never landed on the moon and it was staged in a studio...

Careful what you say. Buzz Aldrin might get ya!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo

[danasti]

Originally Posted by Ashermusic

Fine. As I said I listened to an RME Fireface 800 clocked by a Big Ben and to me and the tech I tested it with it sounded worse.

A clock is only there to reduce jitter. That is its only function. Sometimes adding an external clock will INCREASE jitter.

Some people swear that they hear a "wider stereo image" when I hear the center falling apart.

So increasing jitter by adding an external clock is good for some people but I like less jitter.