Better clocking - UA 2192 or RME Multiface II?

[B-San]

Hello felow slutz! I am adding a 2192 to my setup and would like to use it as a master clock for my RME Multiface II and ADI-8... Will I get superior clocking from this or am I fine with using my RME as a master clock?

Thanks!

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by B-San

Hello felow slutz! I am adding a 2192 to my setup and would like to use it as a master clock for my RME Multiface II and ADI-8... Will I get superior clocking from this or am I fine with using my RME as a master clock?

Thanks!

There is no comparison 2192 is 100x better, clock and i/o

[nickynicknick]

2192 no question

[Mayor999]

Hard to compare a $900 interface to a $3000 interface....

The RME is GREAT for the price, but the UA is in a better league.

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by Mayor999

Hard to compare a $900 interface to a $3000 interface....

The RME is GREAT for the price, but the UA is in a better league.

The 2192 is not an interface.

[Mayor999]

Originally Posted by nickynicknick

The 2192 is not an interface.

[nickynicknick]

Originally Posted by Mayor999

Attachment 93873

Ok Smartass...show us how this interfaces with your DAW....really I mean specifically yours...you know why I posted? because there are folks trying to use the outs directly in to their speakers...as you would with a proper firewire interface...you need to use the 2192 in conjunction with an interface or a console or central control...dig? BTW showing an advertisement to prove your point is dumb...tell us your experience with it...if you haven't used the unit then you are just being an assface aren't you?...I use this unit...and I'm trying to save someone some grief? That OK with you?

Nick

[Mayor999]

Originally Posted by nickynicknick

Ok Smartass...show us how this interfaces with your DAW....really I mean specifically yours...you know why I posted? because there are folks trying to use the outs directly in to their speakers...as you would with a proper firewire interface...you need to use the 2192 in conjunction with an interface or a console or central control...dig? BTW showing an advertisement to prove your point is dumb...tell us your experience with it...if you haven't used the unit then you are just being an assface aren't you?...I use this unit...and I'm trying to save someone some grief? That OK with you?

Nick

Settle down there sparky.

I use this unit with my PT HD setup.... AES/EBU outs of my last 192 patched to the 2192 to my patchbay...which I have half normaled to the stereo 1 input of the console. (I don't use the console much anymore (except for the pres, eq's, and comps)... the VCA's went funky when the computer started going and cannot be trusted.... too much money to fix the motorization and the computer so I gave up :( )

I also use this unit as the D/A to my (limited) mastering setup.

How is this not an interface? It does A/D & D/A.... am I missing something? Perhaps you mean a hookup straight to a computer....

I believe the question was is this a better master clock than the RME... not "oh my god I can't read a manual and figure out I -probably- should have some sort of level control before my monitors will the 2192 work?" (although I am sure you are right that people have asked that question before! but its all good, you answered it!)

Don't get so worked up man, its all good... lets have a beer and bitch about the economy sometime.

Although in Toronto you must be happy cleaning our clocks (excuse the pun!) down here!

[choinga]

I have a FF800 and a 2192 and the first damn thing I did was set the 2192 to the master clock.

I don't do it often, but was initially concerned about phasing and such if I were to record off the 2192 and RME's pre's simultaneously. The folks at UA said it shouldn't be an issue provided you don't record something in stereo and use the left channel off the 2192 and the right off the RME (why someone would do that is beyond me, but I digress...).

I am extremely happy with the 2192 both as an INTERFACE as well as a clock.

The one thing you have to keep an eye on though is the bit rate dial on the front. I move back and forth between 48 and 88.2 and have on occasion set my audio settings in XP to use the 2192 as the default output for Windows so that I can listen to audio files, youtube, myspace, etc... on my desktop. I run the analog outs of the 2192 to a passive headphone box to my Grado RS-1's and have to remember to set the 2192 back to 44.1 when playing anything outside of my DAW.

Other than that - it's worked like a champ for me. I had to seriously dial back the trim on the outputs though...it's super hot from the factory.

[peeder]

I do use with the 2192 or A2D as master clocks but really I have no way of knowing which is better and my ADI-4 DD everything runs through reclocks all signals anyway through a series of "SteadyClock" PLLs.

I don't think anyone really needs to sweat clock; just try to have your most important converters running on internal sync and sync everything else to those using word clock and T-connectors with proper termination (one and only one terminator per chain).

The 2192 has enough word clock outs you can avoid the T-connectors. Some people think that that might actually make a practical difference, arguing at 70% of the speed of light the different lengths of cables actually create picosecond delay differences, but I have my doubts (I ought to do the math on that).

OK I did look it up. Wikipedia says "one light-nanosecond is equal to almost exactly 30 cm (11.8 in or nearly a foot)". So one light picosecond is just 0.3mm or 300 microns, and at 70% we have just 210 microns per picosecond.

Huh. Does that mean the lengths of word clock cable should be cut to be even to tolerances of one hundreth of a millimeter?!?

I doubt it. I think all that matters in the end is that the digital words don't fall out of phase...the sequencing will be normalized when assembled at the DAC (or digital mixer/DAW) anyway. I would presume that phase relationship would be related to sample rate, and at 96KHz we're looking at samples being spaced on the wire effectively over 3 kilometers apart!

[krou]

The term "audio interface" in the audio community usually refers to a device allowing audio to be recorded to the computer (ie: FF800, Ensemble, Digi00_, etc.), and while those units have AD and DA converters built in, some folks prefer to look elsewhere for that task alone, and with good reason, as the 2192 in perhaps one of the best out there in terms of 2 channel AD/DA.

So I'm not sure what that ad poster is trying to say to the masses, but they are using the term 'interface' slightly out of context and it can seem rather misleading. Sure, it's a box, with buttons and dials, so essentially, yes, it does interface with the rest of your gear, but the 2192 is NOT an audio interface per se, it is simply a standalone AD/DA converter. You will not plug your synths, guitars or mics into it and expect it to record the signal in your software, that's what an actual "audio interface" is for. The 2192's only job in the chain is to make sure you that what you record and what you hear through your monitors once recorded sounds ****ing amazing, that's all.

[warhead]

I've not compared, but did want to add that "Steady Clock" is very good stuff and I've heard it make big differences with Digi and Tascam stuff.

Not all RME stuff is "Steady Clock" equipped though, the Multiface II does not have it.

War

[s.d.finley]

So I guess the maker of the 2192 is wrong in its description?

I have a 2192 and use it as a master clock for PTHD. I also use the analog outs for monitoring thru a pair of dynaudio BM6A's. The 2192 sound is awesome!!

[B-San]

I was thinking of monitoring through its D/A, but I'm being cautious as I don't neccesarily want to be 'fooled' by color added to my monitors which won't end up on the final product when playing through consumer grade systems...

Also, would using the RME's D/A outs for OTB mixing produce a more nuetral sound? I was thinking of doing this while using the 2192's A/D going back in for color/superior A/D conversion...

Thanks!

[peeder]

Most of the coloration on the 2192 is in the ADC, not the DAC. The 2192 DAC is probably one of the best made period...it will kick the cheap RME DACs all around the room, knock their teeth out, and leave them a quivering heap in the corner.

I highly recommend the 2192 DAC for monitoring. It may push the lows a hair more than you're expecting, but to me it just keeps me from adding a half-db too much.

[B-San]

Great advice Peeder... much appreciated! As my mixes tend to be a bit on the bassier side of the spectum, using the 2192 for monitoring purposes may prove to be extremely benificial! Good looking out

[petys]

I use the 2192 and a adi8ds and use the ua for da and it is so much better that the adi for the da part. The adi is great for ad and the ua is warmer but I was seriously blown away by the da of the ua when I first heard it. I have to agree with peeder. The Da is the shizzle.

By the way, I just use total mix to control the volume to my bm6a's. works perfectly.

[krou]

Originally Posted by B-San

I was thinking of monitoring through its D/A, but I'm being cautious as I don't neccesarily want to be 'fooled' by color added to my monitors which won't end up on the final product when playing through consumer grade systems...

Peeder is right in his reply above.
By not using the 2192's D/A, you're essentially defeating half the purpose of owning such a unit, which is meant to give you a more accurate representation of your mix without the color an additional piece of gear could impart between the interface and your monitors.

What are most people using in order to control the volume as there is no output volume knob on the 2192? You mention a Total Mix, which I'm unfamiliar with, but what else is there besides the Big Knob, Central Station, etc.?

[peeder]

Originally Posted by krou

Peeder is right in his reply above.
By not using the 2192's D/A, you're essentially defeating half the purpose of owning such a unit, which is meant to give you a more accurate representation of your mix without the color an additional piece of gear could impart between the interface and your monitors.

What are most people using in order to control the volume as there is no output volume knob on the 2192? You mention a Total Mix, which I'm unfamiliar with, but what else is there besides the Big Knob, Central Station, etc.?

I use the Dangerous D-box.