Clocking- The real deal (I believe) or Hype

[Reitzas]

Am I being too sensitive in assumimg and expecting that the mastering engineer for our project, mastering my mixes of a major label release for a mega-superstar Artist -should be using a high quality clock souce?
He is using a 003 protools system internally clocked which plays the mixes through his analog gear and then into Sonic Solutions.

I went the other day to see how thing were going and immediatly was dissapointed that my mixes were coming off the 003 using it's internal clock as opposed to using a Bib Ben or other top notch clock. ( BTW, i was wondering last week why the test masters he did a few weeks earlier drifted about 10ms from the top to the end of the songs I gave him when I compared them to the flat mixes. With a little engouaragement to the techs (my friends) they were abe to get it hooked up properly and I heard the difference like night and day. I also got a little pissed when I was trying a few things on the ProTools playback and discovered that he had added a Chamber effect to the all of my mixes . He calls it shimmer, I call it mush. Without getting deep into questions and I have many. Can we start with your opinions about how clocking to a good source is important or if you think it doesn't matter to use the internal sync of a 003 . IMHO I think every place that calls themselves a mastering studio should have the best clocks and converters money can buy and not rely on the internal clock of a 003 ProTools.

Feel free to tell me I'm being too picky, because I actually don't mind spreading a reputation of somebody who cares about every stage of the recording process and I don't mind being picky when the end result will get someone to do their job better and improve the final release.
Thanks for you responses.

Best,
David Reitzas : Mixer - Engineer - Producer

[Darius van H]

You're mixing several things up here...............clocking, converter quality, bad mastering.

To answer your question, in a normal mastering situation, there's no need to use an external clock, providing you're using top-notch converters / gear.

So what if your mix is a few milliseconds longer or shorter then the original? How does it sound? (er, ok, bad, you already said that) (i guess there could be situations where that matters, like syncing to video)

I checked out your site.....you seem to be pretty serious....why are you going to someone with a Protools 003 as part of their mastering rig?

[peeder]

The 003 runs best on internal clock...I've verified this to my satisfaction with a variety of other clock sources.

The 003 is not a converter quality I would consider adequate for professional mastering applications.

I would stay ITB if I only had an 003 to convert with...I wouldn't use analog gear in the processing chain that case.

I don't believe external clocks help any converters sound better, although they may help avoid digital errors in complex topologies.

[just.sounds]

But bad clocking does degrade the signal especialy with A-B spaced recordings.
The stereo image is destroyed!! And clocking errors as low as and under 50ps can be heard.

[just.sounds]

Friends of my are testing audio interfaces for a magazine right now and they tested the 003 side by side with a metric 2882. And the 003 lost big time on sound quality!!!

The metric 2882 is a fine device but if you listen to it in comparison with mastering grade converters there is still a big difference. (we are talking about a firewire powered device)

So i would not go to a mastering enigineer that uses a 003 as an interface for analog signals! If he/she has an external converter and it is clocked properly it is not a problem.

If he uses something like a benchmark dac1 it is also not too problematic because it it can clean up signals that jitter far worse than the 003

[just.sounds]

Originally Posted by peeder

I don't believe external clocks help any converters sound better, although they may help avoid digital errors in complex topologies.

I'm not totaly with you on this one. I heard some really dramatic changes with a very good external clock. And i believe it improved the quality a whole lot. It depends on the clocking topology. If the DAC has a samplerate converter in it to isolate it from the incoming clock it has no use to have an external clock. But when it has a normal PLL like most it improves very much! With the right clock you make a digi 192 sound 4 times the price :-)
(to my ears of course)

[arf]

Just curious, how does such a project, with a mega-hit artist and one of the top engineers in the country end up in a mastering room with a prosumer rig??

What were the monitors, I almost hate to ask?

But, giving the benefit of the doubt, if the 003 was playing dig out into a self-clocking DA converter like a Weiss or Lavry Gold, then the digi clock is irrelevant. The DA conversion is reclocked by the DAC.

Adding chamber to a Dave Reitzas mix? Now that's chutzpah.

[phild]

Originally Posted by Darius van H

....why are you going to someone with a Protools 003 as part of their mastering rig?

Hey, wait a minute! I use a 002! (but have a MBox2Pro as a backup - lol!)
Internal clock setting, too.
I love that P.O.S.
Sold my Rosendahl/BigBen ages ago.

Just clocking the Sequoia to the AD now....

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by Reitzas

...( BTW, i was wondering last week why the test masters he did a few weeks earlier drifted about 10ms from the top to the end of the songs I gave him when I compared them to the flat mixes....

This is an indication of a serious problem.... or the result of using the "Shimmer"effect... which is a serious problem.

Originally Posted by Reitzas

... Can we start with your opinions about how clocking to a good source is important or if you think it doesn't matter to use the internal sync of a 003 . IMHO I think every place that calls themselves a mastering studio should have the best clocks and converters money can buy and not rely on the internal clock of a 003 ProTools.

Check this thread out:

Antelope Audio Isochrone 10m???

[phild]

Originally Posted by Masterer

Check this thread out:Antelope Audio Isochrone 10m???

Yo, Chris!

How does your 10M generally compare to your Prism clocks?

[Masterer]

Originally Posted by phild

Yo, Chris!

How does your 10M generally compare to your Prism clocks?

They are really close. The Prism is exceptional. The Atomic is as good as I've heard as clocks go. I've been using it to clock my pro tools rig lately.

Greg uses it on his pro tools rig often as well. That rig is very expensive so we're sharing it for now.

We're also working on something in-house that specs out better than either the Atomic or the Prism. No telling how it will work in the real world yet though.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Masterer

They are really close. The Prism is exceptional. The Atomic is as good as I've heard as clocks go. I've been using it to clock my pro tools rig lately.

Greg uses it on his pro tools rig often as well. That rig is very expensive so we're sharing it for now.

We're also working on something in-house that specs out better than either the Atomic or the Prism. No telling how it will work in the real world yet though.

Clocks can be spec'ed scientifically. There is only one right clock. The rest just sound "different". I suggest you take a look at what Grimm audio has in store, it's the real deal.

BK

[glassmaster]

Originally Posted by Masterer

They are really close. The Prism is exceptional. The Atomic is as good as I've heard as clocks go. I've been using it to clock my pro tools rig lately.

Greg uses it on his pro tools rig often as well. That rig is very expensive so we're sharing it for now.

We're also working on something in-house that specs out better than either the Atomic or the Prism. No telling how it will work in the real world yet though.

The Rubidium 10MHz atomic clock reference is not a proprietary thing - it's used for cell phone and GPS communications; one of those atomic clocks (available surplus and on ebay) can be used to drive an Antelope too.

[phild]

Originally Posted by Masterer

They are really close. The Prism is exceptional. The Atomic is as good as I've heard as clocks go. I've been using it to clock my pro tools rig lately.

Greg uses it on his pro tools rig often as well. That rig is very expensive so we're sharing it for now.

We're also working on something in-house that specs out better than either the Atomic or the Prism. No telling how it will work in the real world yet though.

It wouldn't surprise me with Barry & Phil on the job.
But, I officially can't get one now anyway.... Noah (my partner @ LC) just told me he'd tell my wife if I bought one. So, it's over.

I'll just have to slum it with my Prism's.

[grandmasters]

Originally Posted by phild

It wouldn't surprise me with Barry & Phil on the job.
But, I officially can't get one now anyway.... Noah (my partner @ LC) just told me he'd tell my wife if I bought one. So, it's over.

I'll just have to slum it with my Prism's.

Just use this clock and be done with it...

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by grandmasters

Just use this clock and be done with it...

Nice! Comes with headphones, too,

[chrismack]

Originally Posted by Masterer

We're also working on something in-house that specs out better than either the Atomic or the Prism. No telling how it will work in the real world yet though.

Interesting... me too... I am about to enter the schematic capture phase for something that should augment and surpass specs.... Fits in with previous lives working with cell phone radio chips that we designed and tested, I suppose....

Cheers,
-chris
--
Chris Mack
Electrical Engineer / Mastering Engineer

[lucey]

Originally Posted by Reitzas

, i was wondering last week why the test masters he did a few weeks earlier drifted about 10ms from the top to the end of the songs I gave him when I compared them to the flat mixes. With a little engouaragement to the techs (my friends) they were abe to get it hooked up properly and I heard the difference like night and day. I also got a little pissed when I was trying a few things on the ProTools playback and discovered that he had added a Chamber effect to the all of my mixes . He calls it shimmer, I call it mush.

Added a verb? What? This all sounds bad to me, and if you don't like the results, then there you are. Trust yourself, that's my motto.

I can't speak to the 003 clock, have only used the 002 for the very rare stem job and the clock issue (if any) off was worth it.