Best clock for 192's?

[fasttraxx]

I have Mac dual 1.8 G-5, HD Accel 3 and one 192 with 16 analog ins and 8 outs( as well as the AES, ADAT, optical, etc...)I mainly use my syste for tracking live instruments, bands and such. I have read the white parer from Digidesign about clocking and jitter. I have heard from apogee about their Big Ben, and Lavry about their 4496. I also know there is Lucid, and Benchmark stuff out there and probably others.
My question is -
1.) Do I need an external clock?
2.) What clock is the best?

Not to sounds like a jerk or unappreciative, but I am hoping to find those who have experiences with clocking and jitter, and as I hope not to have the brand name wars, just the facts.

[tINY]

An external clock is not likely to improve much at all. In fact, a PLL or a less than optimal routing inside your 192 may be the source of most of the jitter.

In that case, an external clock won't do anything for you. (Except synch two units...)




-tINY

[fasttraxx]

Originally Posted by tINY

An external clock is not likely to improve much at all. In fact, a PLL or a less than optimal routing inside your 192 may be the source of most of the jitter.

In that case, an external clock won't do anything for you. (Except synch two units...)




-tINY

tiny,
Thanks for the insight. By the way, what is PLL?

[TravisK]

Hi there,
I'm a Digi Certified instructor, and the folks at digi say that the best clock for the 192 is always going to be the 192.
we did some tests at the school and that does appear to be the truth.

[tINY]

Phase Locked Loop - it keeps one clock slaved to another or multiplies the rate.



-tINY

[CorkyTart]

I've got a MOTU HD192 and a Big Ben. I bought the BB to improve the clocking and to get rid of the clicks and pop I was getting from linking several units. It works great and there are no clicks and pops. As far is it improving the converters, I hear a slight and I mean SLIGHT difference in the converters now but not the dramatic improvements that some hear.

[raal]

some advice to fasttraxx as i see you're in the US:

a) get a dealer to let you demo the clocks that interest you.
b) compare the converted signal, locked to the different clocks, to an analog source.
c) you'll then know which clock to keep, or if 192 on its own suits you.

being in mexico, i usually have to buy stuff in order to try it, so i got an Isochrone clock, an Apogee DA 16X, and i already had 2 X Digi 192s. clocked a 192 to its own clock, to Isochrone and to the clock on the DA 16X (same as BB).

i found the 192 gets significantly closer to the analog source in sound and stereo image when clocked to the 16X, than when it's on its own clock or Isochrone.

one user's opinion.

[saint]

To be honest, with 192s or other all Digi hardware you don't need an external clock.

However, for what it's worth:

When I first came to the US I had to do a mix for someone so brought a MOTU 896 HD to use with my powerbook. The mix grew and I needed more Logic outputs as we were going mix up at the Plant on their 9000J and have the main audio fired from their PT whilst fireing the synths live with esx 24 etc as I need to make changes to the MIDI on the fly. At the time mac OS would only support one core audio device so I had to put some form of convertor on the toslink of the 896..... I ordered a Rossetta 800. Come mix day it hadn't showed so the local store lent me.....ready for it... a behringer AD8000!!!! However clocked off the MOTU it didn't sound that bad!(Mind you they were some pretty electronic sounds feeding throgh an SSL) When it was clocked off the PT sync it sounded better, so did the outputs of the MOTU!!!! This got me thinking....

When the 800 did arrive I clocked the 896 from it, the outs sounded even better again! I then added a Rossetta 200 which I used as the master...no change this time.

Next it was time for me to buy a new HD rig with the comming of PT7.

I wanted to keep using my Apogees so got a couple of X-cards. The manual delay comp started to get on my nerves though and as I needed more I/O decided not to stay Apogee with AD/DA16x but instead to go 192s. I took the x-card out of the 800 and physically to one of the 192s but kept the 200 as my main I/O with the x-card as I figured I would never use that as an insert.

To start with I had TERRIBLE jitter and pops I was trying to daisy change the 192s and 800 from the 200 and it wasn't working. I did some intense investigation...

192 on it's own fine. 192 clocked from 200 fine and sounded better!!! other 192 and 800 into system, problems! The 800 has no termination the 200 is switchable and 192s are full time terminated so you can't chain! Great. I needed a master clock!

As I had apogee I went staight to them.... firstly they said you should never chain any how. I never knew this, you should use BNC Ts even if there is an in/out. Anyway I got Dave overthere to send me a Big-Ben. When it showed it of course soved all my problems. But get this, not only did it make the 192 sound significantly better, but even the Apogee gear! I didn't think that the 200 and 800 could sound any better, which were already better than the 192s.

Long and short.....BIG BEN. It makes ANYTHING you hang off the back better, converts clock format and regenerates clock from burst or what ever. I can't sing about BB enough, it has since solved other issues when someone turns up with another digital bit of kit to interface.

That is my, rather long, will and testoment.

[fasttraxx]

Originally Posted by TravisK

Hi there,
I'm a Digi Certified instructor, and the folks at digi say that the best clock for the 192 is always going to be the 192.
we did some tests at the school and that does appear to be the truth.

Travis,
How did you guys do tests? Did try compare it with other clocks? Please explain.

[AndreH]

I just did an impromptu test between my 192 clocked internally vs. clocked to my Lucid Genx6/96, and I found the 192's internal clock to exhibit better imaging and high-frequency definition. Oh well, the Lucid still works great as a wordclock distributor.

Anyone know if the newer Lucid clocks are different aside from going up to 192k?

I'll try my Apogee Rosetta AD's clock soon as well, though it may be a bit dated compared to the Big Ben and other modern Apogee clocks.


Andre

[Rep]

Originally Posted by fasttraxx

1.) Do I need an external clock?
.

No ... tiny is right .
(try to understand the facts of what he is saying)
Unless you like buying into hype and swampland!
Internal clocking is always better ,
unless you have multiple digital devices attached to your system ,
...and then need a clocking source by default .

and yes ... lots of experience with it .

[fasttraxx]

So if I use two 192's then a clock might help? Or is it if I use two units in digital only ( ADAT, SDIF, etc...)? What about if video sync is introduced in the system?

[raal]

Originally Posted by Rep

No ... tiny is right .
(try to understand the facts of what he is saying) Unless you like buying into hype and swampland! Internal clocking is always better, unless you have multiple digital devices attached to your system ...and then need a clocking source by default .

and yes ... lots of experience with it .

i respectfully disagree.

after listening for hours with different clocks on different converters (calibrated to within .1dB and synced to an analog source) my findings vary from yours. i don't consider myself a beginner to recording, and don't usually 'buy into hype' before buying gear. i've read the white papers by digi and other respected gear manufacturers and undersand the theory, but if 'better' is closer to the analog source, my ears tell me different.

at any rate, if one has several things that need syncing there really is no option. if the verters are already high quality and don't need to be synced to anything, i of course wouldn't suggest an external clock.

Originally Posted by fasttraxx

So if I use two 192's then a clock might help?

digi 192s are terminated, so if you decide you need an external clock and you have more than one interface, you will need some kind of external clock distribution system.

[tINY]

It may well sound better, but it's not usually because of less jitter.....

The right kind of jitter may well sound better to you.



-tINY

[raal]

Originally Posted by tINY

It may well sound better, but it's not usually because of less jitter.....

The right kind of jitter may well sound better to you.

thumbsup

if distortion can make things sound better, and added noise (as in dither) can make things sound subjectively better, who's to say a certain kind of jitter won't add a little something? i'm not saying this is necessarily so, but i definitely know what my ears consider 'better'. if this means added jitter, so be it!

BTW in the case of these listening tests, 'better' was whatever was closer to the original analog source in sound and stereo image.

but this is the internet, my tests could've been flawed and i could be deaf, so i suggest fasttraxx listen for himself.

[fasttraxx]

Originally Posted by raal

thumbsup

if distortion can make things sound better, and added noise (as in dither) can make things sound subjectively better, who's to say a certain kind of jitter won't add a little something? i'm not saying this is necessarily so, but i definitely know what my ears consider 'better'. if this means added jitter, so be it!

BTW in the case of these listening tests, 'better' was whatever was closer to the original analog source in sound and stereo image.

but this is the internet, my tests could've been flawed and i could be deaf, so i suggest fasttraxx listen for himself.

Thumbsup,
I have done a comparison with 192 and th Big Ben. I don't think the answer is one is sounds better then the other. They just sound different. To my ears, the 192 has more of the whole sound spectrum, more lower mids. The Big Ben seem to have that radioish high end sheen and more compression sound. Of course everyone has their own opinions, these are just my findings. I was hoping someone would have compared more then two units at the same time (example: Apogee, Lavry, Lucid, Benkmark, etc...). A true test of multiple units, not just what they own, or what a mag says, or what a she says she says, but a true listening comparison.

[RoundBadge]

After plenty of tests..my fav clock w/ the 192's is the Lavry M-sync.
The difference in detail and depth was like snapping a nice picture into even better focus.
Also very noticeable on good headphones.
Picked it over the BBen.although the BBen was a noticable improvement over the Digi clock as well.just the Lavry was even better.sent the Big Ben back.
interesting,we even found Lavry clock improved the AD16X's stereo image and high end detail.hair splitting though on that level.
so the Lavry happily clocks the whole rig now[192 & AD/DA16X's]
Heard great things about the isochrone
Try some demos and report your findings .good luck

[Ruudman]

Originally Posted by tINY

In fact, a PLL or a less than optimal routing inside your 192 may be the source of most of the jitter.

What do you mean by 'less than optimal routing inside your 192'...?


Ruudman

[fasttraxx]

Originally Posted by RoundBadge

After plenty of tests..my fav clock w/ the 192's is the Lavry M-sync.
The difference in detail and depth was like snapping a nice picture into even better focus.
Also very noticeable on good headphones.
Picked it over the BBen.although the BBen was a noticable improvement over the Digi clock as well.just the Lavry was even better.sent the Big Ben back.
interesting,we even found Lavry clock improved the AD16X's stereo image and high end detail.hair splitting though on that level.
so the Lavry happily clocks the whole rig now[192 & AD/DA16X's]
Heard great things about the isochrone
Try some demos and report your findings .good luck

RoundBadge,
I to got a chance to try the Lavry 4496 ( i think this is the model number). A couple of engineers friends and I compared the 192, Big Ben and the Lavry. We all agreed that Lavry sounded better and clearer then the rest. Although each one had their own sound, and I guess it depends on what you are looking for in terms of sound. To me the Lavry is more detailed and clear sounding.

[Orange_METaL]

Hey all...



This might not be the right thread but I'll ask here anyways...

Running PT HD2 with Sync I/O, 3x 192's and A BB. All is hooked up like apogee recommends (Sync is master clock. BB slaves to it and outputs WC to the 192's) and PT is setup to EXT (192s only, The Sync set to internal/VSO) in the session setup window

My issue is @ high sample rates... The systems seems to work awesome @ the usual 44.1K and 48K but when I run higher sample rates (88.2K and up) I seem to get pops/clicks when tracking (never really notice anything on playback)
I'm wondering if anyone has had this issue or now what the problem might be?
Thanks

[tINY]

Your DAW is too slow or your D/A is loosing synch.




-tINY

[fasttraxx]

Orange_METaL,
Make sure what you are clocking to. Is your PT system clock set to internal or external? Are you using any digital light pipe (ADAT optical)? There can only be one master clock. Are the sample rates the same in PT and Apogee? If I remember right, when using the Big Ben with PT, you cannot change sample rates in PT and it work with the Big Ben unless you change the sample rate, close PT and then open it again. For some reasno the Big Ben doesn't change to what you do in PT unless you reboot PT after making changes.


Thanks and God Bless!
Sincerely,
Y.B.I.C.
Bill

[Orange_METaL]

[QUOTE=fasttraxx;1389922]Orange_METaL,
Make sure what you are clocking to. Is your PT system clock set to internal or external? Are you using any digital light pipe (ADAT optical)? There can only be one master clock. Are the sample rates the same in PT and Apogee? If I remember right, when using the Big Ben with PT, you cannot change sample rates in PT and it work with the Big Ben unless you change the sample rate, close PT and then open it again. For some reasno the Big Ben doesn't change to what you do in PT unless you reboot PT after making changes.]



the Snyc I/O is the master clock... the BB then slaves to it and distriubtes the WC to the 192s... the 192s are all set to ext sync
When everything is hooked up in this format the BB will change sample rates automatically with PT... and then spit out WC @ that sample rate
I'm not using anything digital @ all...

[Dan]

In that configuration, the BB is not doing you any good. Just use the loop sync on the 192s if you're not going to use the BB as the master.

[Dan]

What are you using the Sync I/O for? Tape machine? Video?

[Orange_METaL]

Originally Posted by Dan

In that configuration, the BB is not doing you any good. Just use the loop sync on the 192s if you're not going to use the BB as the master.
What are you using the Sync I/O for? Tape machine? Video?

The reason that the BB is hooked up in that way is so that it slaves to protools and you don't always have to change the sample rate on the BB whenever you have a session @ different sample rates... (I've been burned before using the BB as the master and then using protools in loop sync)
you can't use loop sync if you are clocking to an external source which I am in this configuration

We are using the Sync I/O for video lock and TC Gen..

[Dan]

Yes, you can. I do. I have a Sync I/O, and I have an Apogee Rosetta 200. (Which is not BB, I know) I also have 4 192s. Depending on what I'm doing, the configuration will change slightly.
However, when you use the BB in this manner, it's only acting as clock distribution, and the Sync I/O is the master clock. The BB may regenerate the clock, but you're losing the advantage of the PLL built into the 192. Your clock will be cleaner if you take the BB out of the equation entirely, and connect the Sync I/O according to the manual.

That being said, the BB is reportedly a better clock than the SYNC I/O, but if you need SMPTE, and resolve it to black burst, the Digi piece is pretty much the way to go.

[Mario-C.]

Originally Posted by RoundBadge

After plenty of tests..my fav clock w/ the 192's is the Lavry M-sync.
The difference in detail and depth was like snapping a nice picture into even better focus.
Also very noticeable on good headphones.
Picked it over the BBen.although the BBen was a noticable improvement over the Digi clock as well.just the Lavry was even better.sent the Big Ben back.
interesting,we even found Lavry clock improved the AD16X's stereo image and high end detail.hair splitting though on that level.
so the Lavry happily clocks the whole rig now[192 & AD/DA16X's]
Heard great things about the isochrone
Try some demos and report your findings .good luck

the focus analogy is a great way to describe it ...
Raal and I tested the Isochrone and a DA16x vs. the 192's clocks, I'd say the Isochrone sounds slightly "sharper" and the DA16x's clock sounds slightly "fatter" both were very noticeable improvements over the stock 192s

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Ruudman

What do you mean by 'less than optimal routing inside your 192'...?
Ruudman

Even if one designs a very low jitter clock, other effects can degrade it quickly. I had disscussions with Michal Jurowitz of Mytek Digital about this when we designed the PCM/DSD BurrBrown dac for Mark Levenson.

He had designed a very low jitter clock, 10 ps jitter. After doing a pcb layout, the jitter raised up to 100 ps. This was due to just circuit board traces affecting the clock. Trace inductance and stray capacitance will mess with hf clock frequencies.
Ground planes around the clock traces will add more capacitance and round off square wave edges. It's very important to optimize the ground pour in the CAD program to minimize this effect.

Bottom line, the layout is just as important as the design. Short, impedance controlled pcb traces are the best solution to maintaining a quality clock. Just feeding an external clock will not fix the effects of the cabling which can also degrade the jitter specs fast.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Jim Williams]

BTW, the best clock for Pro Tools is the one on the wall. The one that's telling you that you are wasting too much time on this mix.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades