Black Lion Microclock

[Gear Tramp]

Originally Posted by peeder

It's very unpleasant to confront it, because there's always the risk that you're wrong... I may in fact be wrong about BLA mods.

For once, you are right.

Maybe I'm too idealistic about it, or too obsessive.

Hey! Right again!

I can almost hear them snickering to themselves when people declare "I heard a profound improvement!" when none was in fact possible as a result of the part they sold and may have come from simply re-seating cables or something. That's illegitimate. It's not the way business is done online. Online is the antidote for that crap, provided people are willing to confront it.

Are you suggesting that BLA charges money to re-seat cables and call it a modification?

FYI, I've opened the 002 before and after the modification.

Now run along. I think it's past your bedtime. tutt

[Nu-tra]

I had two motu hd192's modded and I can hear a huge difference and I took pics of the op amps and circuit board before I sent it and I checked completed mods to make sure I didn't get ripped off.

I didn't get ripped off.

[invinco]

Originally Posted by Gear Tramp

FYI, I've opened the 002 before and after the modification.

Now run along. I think it's past your bedtime. tutt

I wish you wouldn't hijack my thread for the purpose of outright flaming, but there is the beginning of a point here.

Peeder stated that the internet is the "antidote" for a certain type of business practice, yet there is no way Black Lion or any similar modding enterprise (Stephen Sank for example) could exist without the internet. Companies like Lavry Engineering would be able to offer no competition whatsoever to Apogee or Digidesign, and Digidesign would likely own the entire market for converters (instead of 90% or whatever it is they own presently.)

As far as Black Lion is concerned, I see no technical reason why replacing cheap, crappy op-amps in a converter (or ANY piece of audio equipment for that matter) with better ones would not make a noticeable improvement in audio quality. This seems more like common sense than hype. If anyone has an informed argument against that then I think we deserve to hear it.

As far as word clock issues go, that horse has been beaten to death, then beaten back to life, then back unto death again before being ground into a fine powder and used as fertilizer for a cow pasture.
The hype about trying to "fix" your crappy clock with an external one did not originate with Black Lion, but with a far more prominent digital audio company whose marketing literature was thoroughly debunked by one of their competitors.

So yeah, this vitriol is somewhat justified but also misdirected. The big guys are waaay more talented at cramming snake oil down our throats than the little guys.

[peeder]

Originally Posted by invinco

I wish you wouldn't hijack my thread for the purpose of outright flaming, but there is the beginning of a point here.

Well, this is embarassing, so I can understand why people would want to make others feel better.

Peeder stated that the internet is the "antidote" for a certain type of business practice, yet there is no way Black Lion or any similar modding enterprise (Stephen Sank for example) could exist without the internet. Companies like Lavry Engineering would be able to offer no competition whatsoever to Apogee or Digidesign, and Digidesign would likely own the entire market for converters (instead of 90% or whatever it is they own presently.)

As far as Black Lion is concerned, I see no technical reason why replacing cheap, crappy op-amps in a converter (or ANY piece of audio equipment for that matter) with better ones would not make a noticeable improvement in audio quality. This seems more like common sense than hype. If anyone has an informed argument against that then I think we deserve to hear it.

"Cheap, crappy op-amps," a line also used for capacitors, is code that lights up by BS detector. It's beyond the ability of most people to judge. I'm sure op-amps and capacitors vary in quality and response (I've played with swapping them myself), but circuits have to be judged as a system, and if you make a change in one place, it will have effects elsewhere you might not have been warned about.

The very first thing a commercial modder does, usually IME, is make something brighter, or at least faster in transient response. "That'll impress'em" I imagine they say to themselves, even though your acoustic guitar is now all pick and no body. Then they might make it bassier too: the classic smiley EQ, that we see with things like Aural Exciters etc. Once they're done with that they might have it compress a bit and add harmonic distortion. Certainly, you might like this, and you might also like a BBE Sonic Maximizer dimed on every one of your tracks. No one can decide that for you.

As far as word clock issues go, that horse has been beaten to death, then beaten back to life, then back unto death again before being ground into a fine powder and used as fertilizer for a cow pasture.
The hype about trying to "fix" your crappy clock with an external one did not originate with Black Lion, but with a far more prominent digital audio company whose marketing literature was thoroughly debunked by one of their competitors.

Well, talking about lines that set my BS meter alight, here's one relevant to the thread: "...what it will do is provide a wide, separated soundstage and add smooth, neutral clarity to your digital conversion."

Wide soundstage! Smooth clarity! My BS meter just fell over and started smoking, because this line is being applied to external word clocks. And by whom?...

So yeah, this vitriol is somewhat justified but also misdirected. The big guys are waaay more talented at cramming snake oil down our throats than the little guys.

I doubt that view is held very widely when it counts. Most people would rather buy something from an established store than a wandering street peddler. It's sentimental to root for the little guy, and I share that sentiment all things being equal, but I think the burden of honesty is greater upon them, not less. They are fighting against economies of scale and increasing returns. So they need the help they can get, sure. But I'm frankly doing the little guys a favor helping them see that the only way they can sustain that kind of goodwill is by educating their customer base...bringing them up to the level of real expertise, which they can apply in these forums without being tripped up by someone like me.

Dan Lavry gets this better than most of them, although I think he could take it further, and include references in his white papers and have them peer reviewed. He's got the idea however. Most of the successful little guys are working with color...like preamps and mics and compressors...and in those cases it's purely a matter of taste, so be your own judge. The areas that I criticize...cables, converter mods, external clocks, summing buses, monitors...are all things where one would think fidelity would be the primary objective, not coloration. They are sold that way at least, and that's what I'm responding to.

I've read Fletcher go on for ten years now about how you can't trust online reviews from anyone and you have to judge things for yourself in your own room...his standard disclaimer, which he repeated here today. But with mods it's not that easy...they generally aren't returnable, or reversable, and you can't get your warranty or standard service options back. You would need to know someone who had them done, and get them to let the box out of their room so you could A/B it. Who's going to put their studio out of commission to help you like that? How can you trust someone's posted shootout (I haven't seen a really impeccable one yet) when they themselves won't have the before and after present at the same time? Add all the biases already discussed.

So there's a special hurdle for a modder to achieve credibility. I have no malice to the concept, I'm not doing it (although the mod I would like on the 003 would be a way of bypassing the preamps), it's no skin off my nose. But when I see something as obvious as the subject of this thread come along, I find it hard to not put in a big "Caveat Emptor."

Prove these challenges wrong and it will really help the credibility and the little guy. I'm very comfortable with the idea of being wrong. I don't take it personally.

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by peeder

1) What is this doing in "High End?" Anyway, since it's here...

2) External clocks only help with synchronization issues with multiple otherwise independent devices. They do not improve the sound of converters, other than in very specific (and increasingly rare) circumstances. There are numerous reasons for the mythology of jitter that Bob Katz' book covers quite well. For nearly everyone with fewer than, say, four or five digital devices that must run simultaneously, a dedicated clock is a waste of money and has a better than even chance of decreasing sound quality.

Your best bet is to have your most critical ADC as master during tracking, your most critical DAC as master during mixdown, and for the remainder of your digital work, to stay ITB, where there is no clock. Signal can interfere with clock, so use word clock cable when available.

3) The Black Lion company runs on a common psychological pitfall called "the sunk-cost trap." This is also known as "throwing good money after bad." People feel they need to make good on their existing investment in an interface...they are loathe to take a loss on it, since interfaces are basically disposable like 1GB hard drives and CRT monitors. So everyone dearly wants to believe that somehow they will come out ahead plowing more money into outdated technology. Meanwhile the cost and quality of new interfaces continues to improve dramatically, powered by the scale economies of consumer audio.

Really the best justification for arguing in favor of these mods is enticing someone to buy your old interface off of you for top dollar and have it modded and think they are coming out ahead. That way you get to put that money plus the money you might have spent on a mod into a new device that will far exceed the potential of the old one. Too bad for the other guy of course.

4) I think it's our responsibility to call bullspit on crap we see online, as we see it. Online forums must not become havens of hucksters and shills, however subtly (and even innocently) they may operate, if online forums are to have value. But of course people making legitimate products aren't going to be the type that hound online forums looking to make money off the unsuspecting: they naturally have faith that their products will speak for themselves. And it's just too tedious to go around debunking the crap people get all breathless about all the time. A handful of deluded fanatics will call me on this and I'll throw my hands up and walk away.

So go ahead and waste all your money and fund the development of effective marketing practices and ineffective products that people convince themselves "make a huge difference, dude. trust me."

Great post.

There's a of the "dude, trust me" comments on this forum with not a lot of audio to back it up. You pretty much have to do your own tests to decide what's real and what's marketing.

I've read the Bob Katz book (twice) and was a big opponent of external clocking for awhile. But I also continued to read comments from engineers (who I knew had an ear for sound) that celebrated the audible benefits of external clocking.

I finally decided to do my own tests. I mated a Apogee Big Ben with my two Behringer ada8000 (yes, the crappy 8 channel $200 jobbers). I did some A/B comparisons with a few different 16 channel mixes I had up. I really didn't think I was going to hear a difference. But I did. I heard a change in the low end and a softer high end. It was subtle, but there. I did my own blind A/B/X testing to ensure I could pick out the differences on my own.

At first I thought the difference was an improvement (confirmation bias really). In the end I decided the differences where just that... subtle differences. It almost sounded like someone applied a subtle eq to the whole mix. I could see how someone who was able to hear these differences might mark them as an "improvement". It wasn't compelling enough for me. I ended up selling the clock.

There's a big gap in knowledge regarding external clocking. I've searched but can find no good technical explanation as to why my Big Ben external clock caused my Behringer ada8000's to take on the different sound.

The Big Ben manual makes an allusion to "moving jitter to different parts of the frequency spectrum" or something to that effect... and I visualized it like how dither might work. But I'm not sure if that's technically correct.

It would be GREAT if the guys from Black Lion Audio could come and provide a technical explanation for HOW an external clock like the one they sell might transform X converter into something with a " a wide, separated soundstage and ... smooth, neutral clarity" as they claim on their website.

I, for one, would love to know how this works.

[invinco]

Originally Posted by peeder

Well, this is embarassing, so I can understand why people would want to make others feel better.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Who's embarassed? I came here with a question and have received a number of enlightening and well-thought-out answers. "Embarassed" isn't the proper descriptor so much as "astonished" at the idea that something useful could come out of an online forum.

Originally Posted by peeder

The very first thing a commercial modder does, usually IME, is make something brighter, or at least faster in transient response. "That'll impress'em" I imagine they say to themselves, even though your acoustic guitar is now all pick and no body. Then they might make it bassier too: the classic smiley EQ, that we see with things like Aural Exciters etc. Once they're done with that they might have it compress a bit and add harmonic distortion. Certainly, you might like this, and you might also like a BBE Sonic Maximizer dimed on every one of your tracks. No one can decide that for you.

I'm afraid I have no experience with whatever commercial pro audio modders have existed in the past. How is it that you are so familiar with how they operate? Do you have experience with modded equipment, or have you actually witnessed them perform the modification or discussed the process with them?

Originally Posted by peeder

Well, talking about lines that set my BS meter alight, here's one relevant to the thread: "...what it will do is provide a wide, separated soundstage and add smooth, neutral clarity to your digital conversion."

Wide soundstage! Smooth clarity! My BS meter just fell over and started smoking, because this line is being applied to external word clocks. And by whom?...

I still don't see how these claims are any more outlandish than Apogee's. The most startling example is too lengthy to repeat here but can be found at this site: Apogee Electronics: Products: BIG BEN under the heading <i>A Cure for the Jitters – Apogee’s new “C777” Clock</i>
Here they have explicitly stated, not just implied that "Big Ben is able to re-clock devices with excessive jitter and function as if it were the master clock."
But is a specious faux-technical marketing blurb less reprehensible than a subjective collage of aesthetic buzz-words? In any case, Apogee has both bases covered. The key difference is that they can pay spokespersons to deliver the non-technical side of the spiel. In the sidebar you'll find all the comments about "clarity", "coherency" and "dimensionality" you could ever want.

Both companies are at fault here and both ideally should be stating in their literature that their products will <i>not</i> reduce jitter unless you have previously been syncing multiple digital devices with <i>no</i> master clock.

Needless to say BS is an integral part of marketing, though at this point we're assuming that Black Lion is <i>trying</i> to imply that hooking a single cheap converter up to their clock (as opposed to using their clock to sync an array of devices) is going to make these differences in "clarity" and "sound stage". This of course could be something we're projecting onto them based on prior industry hype.

Originally Posted by peeder

I doubt that view is held very widely when it counts. Most people would rather buy something from an established store than a wandering street peddler.

This metaphor is misleading and contextually meaningless. Black Lion Audio is not a "wandering street peddler". This is equivalent to me comparing Black Lion to an independent boutique store and Apogee to Wal-Mart, which would have emotional impact but makes no sense in terms of scale (on the other hand, anyone with half a brain would much sooner buy a hot dog from a wandering street peddler than from Wal-Mart and doggone it now you've made me hungry.)

In any case, I have to disagree. I think that my view is held very widely when it counts, in a number of fields. Music equipment would be just one of them. Small-time workshops have proven in many cases to be more reliable and accountable than monolithic manufacturers. Both should be held to the same standards, but I don't see any reason to be predisposed toward one or the other.

You concluded your post with the statement "prove these challenges wrong", yet the only challenge you seem to have made as far as the analog mod is concerned was that the modded device should be A/Bd in the purchaser's own studio. Ideally this should be done with <i>any</i> piece of studio equipment. The most compelling point you've made is that the mod is not reversible, whereas certain audio equipment dealers have a simple and liberal return policy.
So theoretically yes, one can order equipment from Mercenary, test it in their own room and send it back repeatedly until they've found the perfect studio configuration, and this is a peace of mind which modders cannot offer.

Now that BLA has embarked upon the enterprise of stand-alone hardware design (with the appropriate money-back guarantees and such,) will they go any further with it? I hope they embark on some sort of proprietary preamp design in the not-too-distant future, if only for curiosity's sake. Maybe it's not all cheap EQ parlor tricks as some skeptics might assume.

[invinco]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

It would be GREAT if the guys from Black Lion Audio could come and provide a technical explanation for HOW an external clock like the one they sell might transform X converter into something with a " a wide, separated soundstage and add smooth, neutral clarity" as they claim on their website.

I, for one, would love to know how this works.

This would indeed be great. It would also be great if Apogee would do the same, only using a technical explanation that <i>isn't</i> total crap.

In any case, it's being implied that a <i>greater</i> burden of proof exists for Black Lion. This might be the case if the clock were not returnable, but it is.

So while "don't knock it till you've tried it" may not be applicable for the analog mod since trying it could be very inconvenient, I suppose the maxim <i>could</i> still apply for the clock.

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by invinco

This would indeed be great. It would also be great if Apogee would do the same, only using a technical explanation that <i>isn't</i> total crap.

In any case, it's being implied that a <i>greater</i> burden of proof exists for Black Lion. This might be the case if the clock were not returnable, but it is.

So while "don't knock it till you've tried it" may not be applicable for the analog mod since trying it could be very inconvenient, I suppose the maxim <i>could</i> still apply for the clock.

Yes. The burden of proof exists for any manufacturer making any technical or empirical claim about any product they sell. I posted the same request/question of Apogee in a thread awhile back when I owned the Big Ben but never got a response...

Actually... I don't care if either Apogee or Black Lion are the ones to explain it..

I just want someone from a place of knowledge to come in and give a technical explanation as to exactly how an external clock can improve the sound of a converter despite the fact that it will inherently introduce more jitter due to the sheer mechanics of how an external clock functions....

I'm genuinely curious.

[peeder]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

I finally decided to do my own tests. I mated a Apogee Big Ben with my two Behringer ada8000 (yes, the crappy 8 channel $200 jobbers). I did some A/B comparisons with a few different 16 channel mixes I had up. I really didn't think I was going to hear a difference. But I did. I heard a change in the low end and a softer high end. It was subtle, but there. I did my own blind A/B/X testing to ensure I could pick out the differences on my own.

At first I thought the difference was an improvement (confirmation bias really). In the end I decided the differences where just that... subtle differences. It almost sounded like someone applied a subtle eq to the whole mix. I could see how someone who was able to hear these differences might mark them as an "improvement". It wasn't compelling enough for me. I ended up selling the clock.

That's what jitter sounds like. Doubtless someone will chime in that the PLL in the B-word box is too lame to be externally clocked, but somehow, miraculously, other converters that need improved clocks have better PLLs than that and won't suffer increased jitter...

On the topic of returning mods and A/Bing them, this brings up an idea. What a modder really ought to do if they truly believe in their work, is sell already-modded boxes on approval, with an added deposit covering the cost of the unmodded device. You can then A/B what you'll actually receive to your heart's content. If you like it, you send in your old box (which gets modded and sold on approval to someone else) and are reimbursed the deposit when it arrives in good order. If you don't like it, you send the modded version back and are refunded all your money and keep your old box. (If you can't afford to put up the deposit you can just send your box in for modding and hope.)

That's the way to do business, oh modders. Sure there's a bit of inventory overhead getting started, but on the other hand, you have much easier fulfillment and scheduling...

Note: this will only work if your mods are actually worth it.

[invinco]

Originally Posted by peeder

On the topic of returning mods and A/Bing them, this brings up an idea. What a modder really ought to do if they truly believe in their work, is sell already-modded boxes on approval, with an added deposit covering the cost of the unmodded device.

Somehow I doubt that anyone who is this skeptical of the company to begin with would trust them with such a deposit.

[Ackman]

Originally Posted by uncle duncan

I agree with you. There is misleading information out there, coming from people with no firsthand knowledge of a product. If you've never compared a BLA modded piece to a comparably priced unit, how are you qualified to dismiss the BLA mod as crap on a stick?
I have a BLA modded motu interface, and even my clients noticed the before and after difference. So, at least I'm qualifed to give an informed opinion on the subject. Hopefully, my informed opinion will help to balance out the misleading information you so disdain, but also perpetuate.

Great point! AS I mentioned earlier, I have a BLA mod too - and there's no question that there is a significant improvement in sound quality. How much comes from the clock or improved audio circuitry is debateable - but BLA made a marginal product - a very good and useable one.

I will go on record to say - this was one of very few instances in my life where I spent good money on a purchase (gear or otherwise) that I felt like a got a real bargain. When I received my mod back, plugged it in and heard the sound, my only thought was "Why didn't I do this earlier".

I have no affiliation with BLA. I often wondered myself - why doesn't motu use the same approach to improve their gear? Oh well.

[Ashofapheonix]

>You would need to know someone who had them done, and get them to let the box out of their room so you could A/B it. Who's going to put their studio out of commission to help you like that? How can you trust someone's posted shootout (I haven't seen a really impeccable one yet) when they themselves won't have the before and after present at the same time? Add all the biases already discussed.

That's a great comment... Its one of the biggest mistakes I see around here... people judge sound quality off someone elses A/B test. If you don't know what the source sounds like how can you judge if its a quality improvement. If you don't know the mic placement, how do you know the flaws isn't the engineer?


I'm still curious about the BLA stuff however. I do not find it unbelievable, that modifications can be cheap enough and make profit. The thing is they're dealing with pre manufactured units... and as bad as Motu and M-audio are, there certainly not that bad... you can make good records with them. Usually with gear most of the units you pay for is labour (Well technically everything you pay for is labour, but i'm not going that direction). The cost isn't that unbelievable either. The moderator of a DIY forum on another site has built Neve Preamps, 1176LN, SSL Bus Compressors, and usually the price of the actual components have only added to a few hundred dollars. But one has to remember the labour, and engineering ect.

[peeder]

Originally Posted by invinco

Somehow I doubt that anyone who is this skeptical of the company to begin with would trust them with such a deposit.

And as if I'm going to trust them with my equipment instead? If I don't trust them, I don't do business under any circumstances...

With this system, you don't have to take your studio out of commission to get the upgrade. You order, and you can have the modded version sent overnight, and can A/B it with your unmodded version for a month or whatever. The modder collects the deposit and can fund the purchase of boxes to mod with it...that helps them bootstrap. They can buy 2nd hand boxes or even new ones, and they can have pricing and refund schedules based on the condition of the equipment (if you buy a new unit but send back one coated in beer and bandmember etchings you don't get full deposit back). After a while they don't need to buy in any more as enough units come back in to cover fluctuations in demand, although they will probably want to offer non-trade in modded versions as well. Maintaining the same serial number for a user is irrelevant as the warranty gets fried anyway. The modder will have to test the units, but they really should be doing that anyway, and clean them up a bit ("factory reconditioning").

It would work fine for both parties, provided the mods were clearly worth it (and the units are common enough to assemble inventory of). I would even consider buying a modded 003 under these circumstances.

[smilinjames]

I'm finding this all fascinating, especially when I skim past the ranting. Peeder, you seem really knowledgeable about word clock science, but your attacks on the op-amp mods (the subject was the microclock, btw ) without firsthand experience was pretty much a violation of site policy as far as my understanding. That having been said, I welcome yours and everyone's input into these technical questions, as I am considering selling my big ben and buying a microclock:

So if I'm understanding correctly, when I select my big ben as my clock source with my MOTU HD192's I'm actually creating jitter, because the crappy clocks are attempting to sync with the big ben...

So what happens when I'm using two HD192's? Is the one that's the clock source going to sound less jittery? What if I select the 424 card as the source? Then both are jittery?

What about different clock speeds? If the HD192's can go to 192khz, how hard can it be for the clocks to slave to an external at 48 or 96? Does that make a difference?

[thermos]

Originally Posted by peeder

Well, this is embarassing, so I can understand why people would want to make others feel better.



"Cheap, crappy op-amps," a line also used for capacitors, is code that lights up by BS detector. It's beyond the ability of most people to judge. I'm sure op-amps and capacitors vary in quality and response (I've played with swapping them myself), but circuits have to be judged as a system, and if you make a change in one place, it will have effects elsewhere you might not have been warned about.

The very first thing a commercial modder does, usually IME, is make something brighter, or at least faster in transient response. "That'll impress'em" I imagine they say to themselves, even though your acoustic guitar is now all pick and no body. Then they might make it bassier too: the classic smiley EQ, that we see with things like Aural Exciters etc. Once they're done with that they might have it compress a bit and add harmonic distortion. Certainly, you might like this, and you might also like a BBE Sonic Maximizer dimed on every one of your tracks. No one can decide that for you.



.

Man, you truly shot yourself in the foot on that one. Better components are just that, better. They aren't "more hyped", "more scooped" or playing at tricks to make something seem like its better. Better op amps, convreters, power supplys, and clocks make the signal more transparent and closer to what you will find in a high end piece of gear. Any good designer (the bla guys?) know how to put these components to get the best result, not just randomly throw in better components without seeing how they work with eachother. These guys would have no buisness if they did that.

I honestly think you are trying to justify buying an 003 and not a Bla product. I wouldn't do it, but to each his own.

[thermos]

And I think you may be wrong about the fireface/ m audio 1814 being better piececs than the bla after mods. I had 2 firefaces, and there were definitely some sub par components in there, I could sure hear them. Still great for the money, but not without their fair share of cost cutting measures.

[thermos]

Oh, and anyway I have a microclock on order. I have a Lynx Aurora 16, and I figured I might as well try it. I've done some limited testing with a big ben, so I thought I'd do a little more. Should be here in a week or so.

I had a long discussion about the creator, (Matt) at BLA. Super interesting guy and discussions about word clocks in general, (I've read a fair amount about the subject and he definitely told me stuff I had ever heard before). He shot his clock out with the lucid 192 clock and the big ben, and tried to make his similar but better than both. We'll see.

[andremattos]

More than words

I would like to hear the "diference" does the microclock makes

A/B test , samples posted here by users ..

This is the best way ..

[peeder]

Originally Posted by andremattos

More than words

I would like to hear the "diference" does the microclock makes

A/B test , samples posted here by users ..

This is the best way ..

The best way would be to measure jitter on a scope. That would make everything painfully clear.

If proper test protocols and equipment were commonplace, I'd have nothing to say about any of this. We'd just review the tradeoffs in new equipment as it appeared, and make intelligent choices.

[Snatchman]

I look at this way. If I have to use Test Equipment to varify a difference in a mod. Then the mod is irrelevant.... To me anyway! ( YMMV).. For starters, I don't own any!.. .. I don't claim to be an expert at any of this stuff, but as the saying goes" The best test equipment is your ears" comes into play here. I've had gear modded by Matt@ BLA and I've heard improvement in all of it! Whether or not it would be a major difference, its up to the individual. If not, I wouldn't have went back. If there's not anything to be gained by modding, why would some of the "Big Guns" mod a SSL, Neve,etc. when they cost so much already!.....I guess even "Hi-End' companies has a price point to meet. Just at a higher level..( YMMV)

[andremattos]

-->" The best test equipment is your ears"
I agree!

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by andremattos

-->" The best test equipment is your ears"
I agree!

Your ears are your most IMPORTANT test equipment -- to be sure!

But they are not necessarily your most ACCURATE, reliable, or immutable (ie, what you like today may sound wrong tomorrow).


With regards to what one likes -- it is up to the individual.

If you say you LIKE or prefer something -- who can argue with you?

No one. (At least you wouldn't think they'd try.)


BUT... strictly with regards to sample timing accuracy -- this is very MUCH something that is subject to measurement and is inarguable.

Because an ADC's internal clock is ALWAYS part of the process and must continually make small adjustments to its own timing in order to stay synchronized with an external clock, it is therefore safe to say that in the case of professional ADCs, a standalone ADC's sample timing will always tend to suffer from increased jitter when synching to an external clock source.

Again, some people may well PREFER that. No one can argue with them, if they do.

[peeder]

Your ears can certainly betray you. The "wider soundstage!" codeword is so effective, because everyone can get themselves one without even noticing:

Lean forward a couple of inches.

[Snatchman]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Your ears are your most IMPORTANT test equipment -- to be sure!

But they are not necessarily your most ACCURATE, reliable, or immutable (ie, what you like today may sound wrong tomorrow).


With regards to what one likes -- it is up to the individual.

If you say you LIKE or prefer something -- who can argue with you?

No one. (At least you wouldn't think they'd try.)


BUT... strictly with regards to sample timing accuracy -- this is very MUCH something that is subject to measurement and is inarguable.

Because an ADC's internal clock is ALWAYS part of the process and must continually make small adjustments to its own timing in order to stay synchronized with an external clock, it is therefore safe to say that in the case of professional ADCs, a standalone ADC's sample timing will always tend to suffer from increased jitter when synching to an external clock source.

Again, some people may well PREFER that. No one can argue with them, if they do.

I can agree with this!....thumbsup ..( from the technical stand point of the timing/jitter issues). but from the audible side, hearing is believing!.. ..You know, you can't help but think about onboard stuff "should" be better since it has less distance to travel. ( not thru a cable) . Oh well, I've always been a big fan of components in a system as opposed to integrated. Just seems that one dedicated thing should work better than, one thing trying to do many things!..

[starfighter]

Originally Posted by peeder

1) What is this doing in "High End?" Anyway, since it's here...

2) External clocks only help with synchronization issues with multiple otherwise independent devices. They do not improve the sound of converters, other than in very specific (and increasingly rare) circumstances. There are numerous reasons for the mythology of jitter that Bob Katz' book covers quite well. For nearly everyone with fewer than, say, four or five digital devices that must run simultaneously, a dedicated clock is a waste of money and has a better than even chance of decreasing sound quality.

...and for the remainder of your digital work, to stay ITB, where there is no clock.


...products that people convince themselves "make a huge difference, dude. trust me."

WTF? This is absolute BS. Period. "to stay in the box where there is no clock" ???? Whaddya mean no clock? Free floating?

I bought Universal Audio's 2192 a while back; and that superaccurate clock makes my Yamaha 01v96, Focusrite Octopre and Pulsar II card sound more open and detailed and I can easily hear improved imaging, a wider stereo field and deeper into the mix. I challenge you to do a shootout with me on any clock and I will tell you what the differences are. Every time. Any time.

Morten

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by peeder

If proper test protocols and equipment were commonplace, I'd have nothing to say about any of this. We'd just review the tradeoffs in new equipment as it appeared, and make intelligent choices.

What kind of ridiculous world are you living in.

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by Snatchman

I look at this way. If I have to use Test Equipment to varify a difference in a mod. Then the mod is irrelevant.... To me anyway! ( YMMV).. For starters, I don't own any!.. .. I don't claim to be an expert at any of this stuff, but as the saying goes" The best test equipment is your ears" comes into play here. I've had gear modded by Matt@ BLA and I've heard improvement in all of it! Whether or not it would be a major difference, its up to the individual. If not, I wouldn't have went back. If there's not anything to be gained by modding, why would some of the "Big Guns" mod a SSL, Neve,etc. when they cost so much already!.....I guess even "Hi-End' companies has a price point to meet. Just at a higher level..( YMMV)

Fo sho. You're ears should be the ones calling the shots. But every once in awhile it's good to engage that frontal lobe in a little detective work to determine WHY you like what you like so you're not just buying the most expensive jitter box because you happen to like the sound. I mean. You might be able to buy a $100 external clock that does the same thing.

All of the other BLA mods make sense. Opamp upgrades, cap upgrades or cap bypassing, converter chip replacement, internal clock upgrade. Those mods all lend themselves to better fidelity that can be measured with ears and scopes. I've heard some of them in action. They sound good. I think Matt does good work.

But the external clock thing is a whole 'nother befuddling issue that seems to leave a nice comfy space for gear manufacturers to capitalize on ignorance.

Maybe I'm ignorant. But I'd still like to hear a proper technical explanation as to how an external clock can improve the quality of a converter box when everything that Bob Katz and Dan Lavry have to say about the issue speak to the contrary.

Apogee... Lucid... BLA... Beuller?

[theblue1]

Lemme tell ya a little story about ears...


As I sometimes like to point out, I did my first overdub recording in 1962. I was a kid, then, but deeply into audio, hi fi, and electronics.

But life intervened... I discovered girls (thank you, God!), I discovered life, I went to college, I became a hippie. I learned to play guitar. I lived, I loved, I did a lot of things I can't quite remember clearly. And I barely did anything more than occasionally sit in behind one of the era's live boards.

When, around '77 or so, I decided to buy a tape recorder again (my beloved Sony deck had long since been stolen one dismal day along with my guitar and 300 LPs) I found myself contemplating what I had always considered an abominatoin: a stereo cassette deck.


I hadn't been in a stereo store in a long time (I was running an old Williamson tube amp and a pair of huge folded horn speakers) and I found myself in one of the big name stereo discounters (they came, they went -- I think it might have been Federated).


So, I'm in the showroom.

I'm there specifically to look at a Teac deck on sale for a couple days at $130, a good price for the deck, for sure, even though, as you know $130 back then was a chunk of change -- almost a month's rent in my tiny beachside apartment.

So the shiny-suit salesman is working me...

He shows me the Teac and I'm ready to buy -- but he says, wait, don't you think you ought to see what else we have in the same general range?

I'm suspicious but, you know, I'm a wise guy, so I say, yuh, sure.

So we're looking at some house brand for about $40 more. And it's pretty sleek looking, all right.

He says, let's hear it, OK? I'll use the same tape so you can see the difference between the units.

And he pops the tape in and it's like -- wow -- big difference. The highs are bright and clean and sharply detailed... it's like bright sunshine.

And I'm mentally counting my checkbook balance, thinking, yeah, I could do this.


And suddenly I think -- WAIT! Stop a second, this is classic bait and switch behavior. There's gotta be a catch.

So I study the faceplates for a second and notice this little switch on both for Dolby (B) noise reduction.

Sure enough, Dolby' is on on the Teac and off on the house brand.

I say, let's make this a fair comparison, why don't we? And I switch the house brand's Dolby on -- it's immediately much duller. It sounds about the same or a little worse than the Teac, right off the top.

The salesman says, oh yeah, but you'll never use that... it makes everything dull.




Now, obviously, this situation was very different -- it's not even an analogous situation -- but it does show you how even a pretty savvy guy can come right up to the brink of being taken -- and I use it to point out one very important thing:

Subjective, situational judgements are just that. The ears can be fooled and can be used to fool you.



Anyhow -- if we want to talk about measurable science, you will find that all responsible parties will agree that external clocking tends to increase jitter.

It's easy to understand how that would happen, since asking a converter to synchronize to an external clock source does not take that converter's internal clock out of the picture -- it makes the internal clock work harder to continually adjust itself to the incoming clock source -- and that will always tend to increase interstitial timing inaccuracy in a given externally-clocked converter-- jitter, IOW.


You might like the sound better -- and that's fine. (With me, anyhow.)

As Apogee's Max Gutnick will assert: Apogee's testing shows a significant number of people hearing a converter using a Big Ben for externally clocking say it sounds more accurate to them. (And if I'm mistrepresenting him, here, I hope he will correct me.)

But if there is a real difference in sound, it is likely at least in part to be the result of increased jitter in AD conversion.

[Snatchman]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Lemme tell ya a little story about ears...


As I sometimes like to point out, I did my first overdub recording in 1962. I was a kid, then, but deeply into audio, hi fi, and electronics.

But life intervened... I discovered girls (thank you, God!), I discovered life, I went to college, I became a hippie. I learned to play guitar. I lived, I loved, I did a lot of things I can't quite remember clearly. And I barely did anything more than occasionally sit in behind one of the era's live boards.

When, around '77 or so, I decided to buy a tape recorder again (my beloved Sony deck had long since been stolen one dismal day along with my guitar and 300 LPs) I found myself contemplating what I had always considered an abominatoin: a stereo cassette deck.


I hadn't been in a stereo store in a long time (I was running an old Williamson tube amp and a pair of huge folded horn speakers) and I found myself in one of the big name stereo discounters (they came, they went -- I think it might have been Federated).


So, I'm in the showroom.

I'm there specifically to look at a Teac deck on sale for a couple days at $130, a good price for the deck, for sure, even though, as you know $130 back then was a chunk of change -- almost a month's rent in my tiny beachside apartment.

So the shiny-suit salesman is working me...

He shows me the Teac and I'm ready to buy -- but he says, wait, don't you think you ought to see what else we have in the same general range?

I'm suspicious but, you know, I'm a wise guy, so I say, yuh, sure.

So we're looking at some house brand for about $40 more. And it's pretty sleek looking, all right.

He says, let's hear it, OK? I'll use the same tape so you can see the difference between the units.

And he pops the tape in and it's like -- wow -- big difference. The highs are bright and clean and sharply detailed... it's like bright sunshine.

And I'm mentally counting my checkbook balance, thinking, yeah, I could do this.


And suddenly I think -- WAIT! Stop a second, this is classic bait and switch behavior. There's gotta be a catch.

So I study the faceplates for a second and notice this little switch on both for Dolby (B) noise reduction.

Sure enough, Dolby' is on on the Teac and off on the house brand.

I say, let's make this a fair comparison, why don't we? And I switch the house brand's Dolby on -- it's immediately much duller. It sounds about the same or a little worse than the Teac, right off the top.

The salesman says, oh yeah, but you'll never use that... it makes everything dull.




Now, obviously, this situation was very different -- it's not even an analogous situation -- but it does show you how even a pretty savvy guy can come right up to the brink of being taken -- and I use it to point out one very important thing:

Subjective, situational judgements are just that. The ears can be fooled and can be used to fool you.



Anyhow -- if we want to talk about measurable science, you will find that all responsible parties will agree that external clocking tends to increase jitter.

It's easy to understand how that would happen, since asking a converter to synchronize to an external clock source does not take that converter's internal clock out of the picture -- it makes the internal clock work harder to continually adjust itself to the incoming clock source -- and that will always tend to increase interstitial timing inaccuracy in a given externally-clocked converter-- jitter, IOW.


You might like the sound better -- and that's fine. (With me, anyhow.)

As Apogee's Max Gutnick will assert: Apogee's testing shows a significant number of people hearing a converter using a Big Ben for externally clocking say it sounds more accurate to them. (And if I'm mistrepresenting him, here, I hope he will correct me.)

But if there is a real difference in sound, it is likely at least in part to be the result of increased jitter in AD conversion.

You are right of course. But this is what I mean "The ears are the best test equipment". Your ears, his ears, her ears. Everybody ears will hear different. If everyone ears heard exactly alike as test equipment does, basically all mixes would sound alike. Everyone would pick the same equipment ( if you could afford it) etc. And I guess everybody would have the same...... clock!.... ..( YMMV)

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by Snatchman

You are right of course. But this is what I mean "The ears are the best test equipment". Your ears, his ears, her ears. Everybody ears will hear different. If everyone ears heard exactly alike as test equipment does, basically all mixes would sound alike. Everyone would pick the same equipment ( if you could afford it) etc. And I guess everybody would have the same...... clock!.... ..( YMMV)

And here is where I don't get things...

I want my converters to sound as close as possible to what is going into them.
You hear a lot about some sounding nicer than others or deeper or wider etc, but surely they are tools to capture what YOU send into or out of them.
The SSL I am using is fine for me. I am REALLY happy with them. I can compare to others and they all just sound different, but I think converters are to be treated like monitors. You need good ones, but more importantly you need to trust them by getting used to them and having them not colour your judgement.
Personally I don't consider them part of the "creative" tools in the studio. They should be as much of a straight line as possible.

It is certainly easy to make things sound "nice" but pure and transparent is another thing altogether.