Black Lion Audio...

[Hammyham]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

I kept up with the thread from the beginning, it was interesting. I have a BLA modded 1814FW with the TweakHead mod so I'm usually interested to read what other's say about their experience; "experience". Not conjecture or EE common sense. Without actual experience, the value of one's opinion is reduced by at least 50% (if not more).

So should you fork out for a modded unit? I feel you would benefit from it, yes. But only because the mods are worth every $. If you can borrow someone's modded unit...all the better. If you can hook up with someone who has a modded unit and hear a mod for yourself, that would be fantastic too I'd think.

The OP has repeated stated from the beginning, only post if you have actual experience with BLA product/s. Since you have no experience your opinion is clearly stated as unwanted in this thread. Since you insist on posting anyway, and insist on posting in a negative tone from a perspective that has no basis in reality/experience, well sir, that clearly makes you a Troll here in this thread and IMHO you might well be regarded as a trolling creep that could probably use an enema.

So consider passing on the Ear Candle, and consider instead an Enema. In the mean-time here's a big thumb up to plug your bleeding @$$ thumbsup

(No "dramatics" intended, I just thought folks could use a little humor today)

Hello all,

I have had my Signature Series 002 for 2 years now. I've posted numerous clips of recordings and shootouts I performed with the unit. You can find some clips I've posted here on the forum or email me at hamilton131@earthlink.net and I can send you some to hear for yourself.

At the end of the day, if you don't have a direction, understand the fundemental of audio and most of all have a burning desire to make music than all of this talk about gear is just meaningless especially without actually experience. As for anyone negative about BLA product or any other piece of equipment, let them be cause they only speak from their shallow ego.

Peace.

[madtheory]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

...

LOL! The fact that you can't present a reasoned argument speaks volumes. Welcome to my ignore list.

Instead of the drama, can anyone present specs, comparative measurements, or a result of a before and after modifications recording?

It's not reasonable to expect people to keep their opinions to themselves just because you disagree. This is a forum. A forum is for debate.

[mattyblue]

Anyways.............. let's try keeping the thread on topic. Those who have had experience with black lion audio's product please feel free to share that. Those who disagree with them, that's fine, but it would be best to keep those opinions to yourself. No disrespect. If you all want to debate then we can start a new thread, but let's just let people with experience comment or those who want to learn more about bla.

[zacheus83]

Originally Posted by madtheory

LOL! The fact that you can't present a reasoned argument speaks volumes. Welcome to my ignore list.

Instead of the drama, can anyone present specs, comparative measurements, or a result of a before and after modifications recording?

It's not reasonable to expect people to keep their opinions to themselves just because you disagree. This is a forum. A forum is for debate.

Sorry, you've got it wrong....

You would be invited to the club if you actually owned or used a BLA product. You're right that this is a forum, but this particular thread is for users only. Had you used the product and given data, specs, opinion, common sense, or whatever, you would be welcome.

If the word of the user, shootouts, and the words of the people at BLA aren't enough for you, then wait your turn for a few of us to run tests (heck I'd even ask you to outline the test) OR borrow or buy a unit yourself and run the test yourself. Other than that, case closed.


And PS. nothing personally against you, I actually like where you are coming from, you asking for the proof and all. It's just that, you are truly not helping your "cause" by saying you haven't used a unit, but continue to try to discredit with the product claims it can do.

[madtheory]

There's no reason why positive and negative experiences cannot be shared, both are relevant. A normal thread like this is not a place to start a "club" the only way to do that is to get the mod to set it up. We're all free to post what we want within reason.

I'm very eager to learn about this stuff. When I first heard of these mods I was excited, when I investigated I was disappointed. I'm happy to be proven wrong about my logic and views. I don't have a "cause" apart from encouraging scepticism. A reasoned debate will be far more useful than getting dramatic about it. As you say, it would be much better to have audible evidence.

Hammyham, I went looking for your posts but only found one mp3. Do you have anything else?

[djsmuv]

ummm ok ,
Bypassing this potential flamewar above , heres my 2 cents .

I purchased a bla 002r without the clockmod , audio only for 800
on ebay a couple weeks ago .

I turned it on and auditioned some random tracks and could not
get my jaw off the floor for 20 minutes .

I HEARD everything , for the first time ever . It was as if I HAD BEEN MIXING BEHIND A SHEET OF CANVAS .

I noticed that when I panned something , it was panned SPECIFICALLY WHERE I PUT IT . no mushy pan somewhere on the left or right , but , WHERE I PUT IT .

My vocals no longer need eq to get the sound im looking for by boosting , Im cutting freqs out , I actually need a deesser now .

I havent tried the pres yet , my super ratty ol tube pre sounds amazing now so its got that goin for it .

Im considering running my reason tracks thru the pres to give them the sound of the bla and mixing in pt as a secret weapon

anyways , for those on the fence , just get the a/d d/a mods b4 springing
for the sig , you wont be dissapointed .

so , yeah ,im all ov er the place on this post but , there ya go

[shambles76]

Hey GS,
Does the BLA clock really works? Does it really delivers as what it's claims to do? Or is it just a scam?
Just read a long artical on SOS about clocking on how it doesn't really improves the audio quality. In fact it might even be more unstable. According to them the internal clocks this days are pretty good. Unless u have many gears, then u will need external clock

They never even mention anything about how external clock can give this 3D image in your mix position

Audio world is real tough to understand. Every Tom dick n Harry has their own input. And it can get real misleading when brands try to brain wash people into something that's not true!
Any comments on this?

[mattyblue]

Originally Posted by shambles76

Hey GS,
Does the BLA clock really works? Does it really delivers as what it's claims to do? Or is it just a scam?
Just read a long artical on SOS about clocking on how it doesn't really improves the audio quality. In fact it might even be more unstable. According to them the internal clocks this days are pretty good. Unless u have many gears, then u will need external clock

They never even mention anything about how external clock can give this 3D image in your mix position

Audio world is real tough to understand. Every Tom dick n Harry has their own input. And it can get real misleading when brands try to brain wash people into something that's not true!
Any comments on this?

It depends on the piece of gear you are using. Some circuits accept an incoming signal better than others. Usually most will be really good about being able tot accept the incoming clock signal and sync to it without a problem. The number one rule though is that a good internal clock is always better than an external clock. I have some bode plots that BLA sent me showing the difference their clock can make. I'll try and find it in my email and post it.

[madtheory]

Originally Posted by Azriel_7

Really depends on what you were using prior to the purchase?

+1. Only a reasonably rigorous blind AB test will give you reliable information for evaluation purposes.

Originally Posted by shambles76

Any comments on this?

Educate yourself, rather than relying on opinions. Beware of people selling stuff. Have good monitors and room acoustics. Do your own blind AB tests when possible. That article you mentioned is excellent IMO. Hugh Robjohns is an EE, ex BBC, a classical music recordist and is very good at explaining difficult concepts (he is an accomplished educator). Read his other articles on digital audio. John Watkinson's "Basic Digital Audio" is also excellent.

[zacheus83]

Originally Posted by madtheory

There's no reason why positive and negative experiences cannot be shared, both are relevant. A normal thread like this is not a place to start a "club" the only way to do that is to get the mod to set it up. We're all free to post what we want within reason.

I'm very eager to learn about this stuff. When I first heard of these mods I was excited, when I investigated I was disappointed. I'm happy to be proven wrong about my logic and views. I don't have a "cause" apart from encouraging scepticism. A reasoned debate will be far more useful than getting dramatic about it. As you say, it would be much better to have audible evidence.

Hammyham, I went looking for your posts but only found one mp3. Do you have anything else?

I totally agree with you. Positive and Negative should be shared. It's just that it was my interpretation that this thread was for people who have used the mod.

I'll be back when I have audio examples of modded and unmodded.

[T-Stag]

Hi all!

I've been reading this thread with big fascination since I bought an 002r with sig mod today. I've been planning on purchasing one for a while and today it became a reality. I should have the unit by wednesday. Can't wait!

I mixed a song recently and it was released as a single. The song was mixed on a stock 002r into 18 channels on a Souncraft DC2000 console. Besides a couple of hi shelves, all processing was done in Pro Tools LE. I took photos of the console so that I can re-create the mix and that's what I'm gonna do when I receive the unit. I'm very eager to hear the difference in D/A conversion.

The band, mastering engineer (Svante Forsbäck at Chartmakers, he recently remastered all Rammstein albums) and the label really liked the sound of the original mix. Now we'll see what the sig mod does to it... Soundbytes coming soon!

Erkka

[fjellstua]

....i sending my 002 in for the signiture mod in a week, and also am expecting to receive my auteur this week.... i did 4 different sessions this week using the stock 002, a CAD e200, Neumann tlm 103s, and a sm57. did acoustic guitar, vox, banjo, mandoline, and a few other things that came to mind...
come the 20th ill be re recording these sessions with the auteur and bla002 mod and will post the A/B with my thoughts....
the reason i post now is to see if there are any other things one my like an a/b on...

[madtheory]

Originally Posted by zacheus83

I'll be back when I have audio examples of modded and unmodded.

Cool!

[shipshape]

OK Im gonna chime in about the mods now that some of the original
posters after having spouted out misinformation on this topic without out prior knowledge of the BLA mods or having used them.
Firstly , I have no idea what the 002 or 003 mods are exactly , all I know is that Mutt Lange was extremely un happy with the sound of 192's especially when the track count is so high . With some songs at count of around 130 tracks per song , the build up of the 192 sound is too hard to take . He asked first , Danny Mckinney from requisite audio to first helped out as he wired the studio , anyway , Danny worked with the guys at BLA for over 18 months trying to mod the original 192's , Mutt kept getting "cant do it , not possible " from BLA largely cos of the cheap components and clock from Digi .
They persevered and came up with the new BLA 192's . I have no idea if this is the same mod as the 002 etc , dont use em , dont know .
All I can tell u is that speaking only for the FM 192's , there is nothing even close on the market , the clock is VERY important and blows all high end clocks away , as do the converters.
This is not here say or conjecture , I'm in the middle of an Alison Krauss record that I tracked thru the BLA's . Alison did 4 weeks of overdubbing while I was back in LA . She called me , very frustrated a number of times saying she couldnt even get close to the guide vocal sound from the tracking days .
I came back to Nashville realising the only thing different in the chain was the BLA 192 and Danny's cables . Alison re recorded everything over that was done using stock 192's
You may or may not know of Alison , but apart from being on of the best female singers in the world she is very smart and knows her craft and about sound , having worked analogue for so many years , and now , not missing it.
Mutt Lange is also pretty smart for a novice and the wool cant be pulled over his eyes either .
A bunchof Nashvilles top enginers producers etc came thru the studio and heard only an a/.b of the 2 mix from the BLA's as compared to the stock crap. Everyone heard the HUGE difference and all have put in orders .
Whatever any nay sayer's says really doesn't bother me , I have real world experience with this mod and its the single biggest step forward in digital recording in a very long time . No question.
Ill invite anyone who wants to to hear em at my studio in LA . I have a spare unit also. with a large track count , the difference is amazing and so pleasing .
There just isnt anything close , the new avid units nowhere near the same .
Shipshape
ps spicemix ..... ur turn

[extendedplay]

Mike, Thank you for your last post. I was hoping that you'd show up again. I was wondering if the 192 mod was significant because if the clock or converters, or if it was the sum of the parts situation. And it seems that you feel it is the latter. Have you tried clocking from something else?
I have just ordered a mod for the 002r, (my little editing rig at home) and next month or so doing the larger rig. I would like to know if you feel whether the FM192 is so superior to any options for converters for ProTools. The reason I ask is I have a large rig and modding 5 interfaces is a big expense for me.

There just isnt anything close , the new avid units nowhere near the same .
Shipshape

I assume from this comment that the Lynx Aurora or the Apogee converters still come up short. I was excited about the new Avids just for I/O convenience, but hadn't heard them yet.
I appreciate you expressing your experience.

Regards,
Steve McDonald

[Hammyham]

Originally Posted by madtheory

There's no reason why positive and negative experiences cannot be shared, both are relevant. A normal thread like this is not a place to start a "club" the only way to do that is to get the mod to set it up. We're all free to post what we want within reason.

I'm very eager to learn about this stuff. When I first heard of these mods I was excited, when I investigated I was disappointed. I'm happy to be proven wrong about my logic and views. I don't have a "cause" apart from encouraging scepticism. A reasoned debate will be far more useful than getting dramatic about it. As you say, it would be much better to have audible evidence.

Hammyham, I went looking for your posts but only found one mp3. Do you have anything else?

Yeah Madtheory, I do. I will email you a few things sometime this week.

[mattyblue]

Originally Posted by shambles76

Hey GS,
Does the BLA clock really works? Does it really delivers as what it's claims to do? Or is it just a scam?
Just read a long artical on SOS about clocking on how it doesn't really improves the audio quality. In fact it might even be more unstable. According to them the internal clocks this days are pretty good. Unless u have many gears, then u will need external clock

They never even mention anything about how external clock can give this 3D image in your mix position

Audio world is real tough to understand. Every Tom dick n Harry has their own input. And it can get real misleading when brands try to brain wash people into something that's not true!
Any comments on this?

Here is an email that I received from Black Lion with a bode plot of jitter before and after clocking a 003r with their microclock.

"I've attached a few A/B Bode graphs to this email for you to look at. They are in PDF format. These were tests taken using our Audio Precision SYS-2722, which is a state of the art audio analyzer. Both of these tests measure jitter performance at the converter chip itself; one is a stock 003 using its internal clock (int003), the other is a stock 003 clocked externally to our Micro Clock (wck003). Each unit was set to 48khz sample rate, and the jitter measurement was taken between 0 and 100khz. Since jitter typically resides in the low frequency domain (about 0hz on up to approximately 1/2 the clock frequency), you'll notice the amount of jitter in each graph is highest from 0-10k, and then slopes down gradually as it approaches the upper end of the test frequency. What's most interesting to note is that the jitter performance of the 003 clocked externally (wck003) is lower than the internally clocked 003 by roughly an order of magnitude! Not only is that pretty impressive, but it pokes a rather large hole in the prevailing theory."

[zacheus83]

Originally Posted by mattyblue

Here is an email that I received from Black Lion with a bode plot of jitter before and after clocking a 003r with their microclock.

"I've attached a few A/B Bode graphs to this email for you to look at. They are in PDF format. These were tests taken using our Audio Precision SYS-2722, which is a state of the art audio analyzer. Both of these tests measure jitter performance at the converter chip itself; one is a stock 003 using its internal clock (int003), the other is a stock 003 clocked externally to our Micro Clock (wck003). Each unit was set to 48khz sample rate, and the jitter measurement was taken between 0 and 100khz. Since jitter typically resides in the low frequency domain (about 0hz on up to approximately 1/2 the clock frequency), you'll notice the amount of jitter in each graph is highest from 0-10k, and then slopes down gradually as it approaches the upper end of the test frequency. What's most interesting to note is that the jitter performance of the 003 clocked externally (wck003) is lower than the internally clocked 003 by roughly an order of magnitude! Not only is that pretty impressive, but it pokes a rather large hole in the prevailing theory."

It would be nice to see those same graphs zoomed in on the X-axis to only show 0hz to 10khz or 20khz and zoomed out on the Y-axis to show the full curve. It's obvious that the non modded 003 averages between 10n and 100n, but it is impossible to tell exactly how high the jitter is on the micro clock between 0hz and 200hz because the graph is zoomed in...

[WunderBro Flo]

Interesting thread for sure. I have understanding for both "sides" because even though those who do not have any first hand experience with BLA modded gear, still can have a valid point from knowledge and experience. I for example did many converter and some clocking blind tests and have gotten to the point where I know that there are no severe night and day, good and evil, crap and goodness differences. On the other hand I can not say anything about the BLA stuff because I have not used and tested it - so maybe this is the exception we are all looking for. So when users shout out that something that was considered crappy sounding is now superior to almost any superhighend converter, my alarm bells are going on as well. Simply because 99,8% of exactly those posts on GS and other forums are simply gut feelings from guys who never put themselves into a proper calibrated, bias free, multiple times blind test situation.

There is only ONE thing that can bring such a discussion further: a simple, level matched, high resolution comparison-file between stock and modded. This is SO easy to do and still there is none here. Mike, thanks a lot for your contribution, but please understand that there will be lots of people who ask themselves "He said he did A-B tests and BLA blew everything else away. Other guys in the room heard it too...why didn´t anyone press "record" or export a file?" I really cannot understand this part. Of course those guys will also look at the fact that you wrote a review of the BLA FM192 for MixMagazine and that you are a BLA customer. Their conclusions will be along the lines of "ok, magazine review, greeeeat, they never write something bad as it would kill their business. He writes for the magazine, getting paid by the magazine, he is just as dependent as the magazine. He is a customer, does he pay full price for the mods? Before and/or after the fantastic reviews?...." This could go on and on and on. The only thing that can stop all those doubts and questions are simple files. It would be so friggin´fantastic to just upload some of the comparisons that BLA users did.
It was awesome reading the MixMagazine review and the part about the BLA drum recording, converters measuring flat +/- 0.25dB between 20Hz and 19kHz while still sounding as if someone cleared out the mud in the 200Hz area compared to the stock 192 interface. But those are "just" words, and words are so often wrong. Two simple files would make those words reality.
Why can´t someone just do it? The fact that despite so much talking has been done and noone has put up such files is another valid indicator for the "doubters" that there is a reason why noone has done it, it is avioded on purpose because the words do not meet reality, but business, egos and investment affirmation desparately want to make believe.

So please guys do not think I am a "basher" - I am open minded and would LOVE to find something that puts digital sound to the next level. It has simply been said and hyped a thousand times and it never really meets reality. So if the BLA users are on to something exceptional, please, please, make a valid(!) comparison and upload it somewhere so everyone can HEAR what it is all about!

Rock on!
Pat

ps - valid comparison means for example level matched conversions of the exact same signal into two systems at the same time (AD test). Or recording to a good analog multitrack and then converting the tracks through both systems (AD test). Or stemming out a mix into an OTB analog mixer once with stock and once with modded converters (DA test). Valid comparison does not mean recording something at one time and something else after and then thinking to be able to judge the sonic differences between two converters.

[Hammyham]

Originally Posted by WildCowboys

Interesting thread for sure. I have understanding for both "sides" because even though those who do not have any first hand experience with BLA modded gear, still can have a valid point from knowledge and experience. I for example did many converter and some clocking blind tests and have gotten to the point where I know that there are no severe night and day, good and evil, crap and goodness differences. On the other hand I can not say anything about the BLA stuff because I have not used and tested it - so maybe this is the exception we are all looking for. So when users shout out that something that was considered crappy sounding is now superior to almost any superhighend converter, my alarm bells are going on as well. Simply because 99,8% of exactly those posts on GS and other forums are simply gut feelings from guys who never put themselves into a proper calibrated, bias free, multiple times blind test situation.

There is only ONE thing that can bring such a discussion further: a simple, level matched, high resolution comparison-file between stock and modded. This is SO easy to do and still there is none here. Mike, thanks a lot for your contribution, but please understand that there will be lots of people who ask themselves "He said he did A-B tests and BLA blew everything else away. Other guys in the room heard it too...why didn´t anyone press "record" or export a file?" I really cannot understand this part. Of course those guys will also look at the fact that you wrote a review of the BLA FM192 for MixMagazine and that you are a BLA customer. Their conclusions will be along the lines of "ok, magazine review, greeeeat, they never write something bad as it would kill their business. He writes for the magazine, getting paid by the magazine, he is just as dependent as the magazine. He is a customer, does he pay full price for the mods? Before and/or after the fantastic reviews?...." This could go on and on and on. The only thing that can stop all those doubts and questions are simple files. It would be so friggin´fantastic to just upload some of the comparisons that BLA users did.
It was awesome reading the MixMagazine review and the part about the BLA drum recording, converters measuring flat +/- 0.25dB between 20Hz and 19kHz while still sounding as if someone cleared out the mud in the 200Hz area compared to the stock 192 interface. But those are "just" words, and words are so often wrong. Two simple files would make those words reality.
Why can´t someone just do it? The fact that despite so much talking has been done and noone has put up such files is another valid indicator for the "doubters" that there is a reason why noone has done it, it is avioded on purpose because the words do not meet reality, but business, egos and investment affirmation desparately want to make believe.

So please guys do not think I am a "basher" - I am open minded and would LOVE to find something that puts digital sound to the next level. It has simply been said and hyped a thousand times and it never really meets reality. So if the BLA users are on to something exceptional, please, please, make a valid(!) comparison and upload it somewhere so everyone can HEAR what it is all about!

Rock on!
Pat

ps - valid comparison means for example level matched conversions of the exact same signal into two systems at the same time (AD test). Or recording to a good analog multitrack and then converting the tracks through both systems (AD test). Or stemming out a mix into an OTB analog mixer once with stock and once with modded converters (DA test). Valid comparison does not mean recording something at one time and something else after and then thinking to be able to judge the sonic differences between two converters.

I have posted two clips of a 96I/O and a Signature Series 002 using a U87 thru a Mackie Onyx mullted at the patchbay. Thus making is a "true" A/B test. If your not able to locate the clips I can email them to you if interested.

[Budda]

Originally Posted by T-Stag

Hi all!

I've been reading this thread with big fascination since I bought an 002r with sig mod today. I've been planning on purchasing one for a while and today it became a reality. I should have the unit by wednesday. Can't wait!

I mixed a song recently and it was released as a single. The song was mixed on a stock 002r into 18 channels on a Souncraft DC2000 console. Besides a couple of hi shelves, all processing was done in Pro Tools LE. I took photos of the console so that I can re-create the mix and that's what I'm gonna do when I receive the unit. I'm very eager to hear the difference in D/A conversion.

The band, mastering engineer (Svante Forsbäck at Chartmakers, he recently remastered all Rammstein albums) and the label really liked the sound of the original mix. Now we'll see what the sig mod does to it... Soundbytes coming soon!

Erkka

Sorry, man.

If all processing was done in the box - save for some hi shelves - you will likely get 100% the same mix. It may SOUND different to you because of the better D/A section (if you're using the 002r as your monitor source), but the mod will do nothing to improve the sound files you have already recorded nor the RTAS processing. If you RE-record whatever you did, or if you bounced your mix out to some analogue gear before and recorded the final print back into your box, THEN you might start to get an actual different mix. Depending on those hi-shelves - if you even run the mix through them, or if you already printed them into the box - your mix will be 100% the same.

Improvements are:
1) input stage: better front end, so analogue signal is better captured and the A/D better converts it
2) output stage: better front end, so analogue signal is better reproduced on the outputs and the D/A better converts it
3) clock: improved monitoring

So, to reiterate:

An in-the-box mix will not BE different, and your mastering house will tell you the same. It may SOUND different to you because of your improved analogue stages and D/A, but that is just translation error: your mix WILL BE THE SAME.

You will only realize the benefits of the modded box if you REMIX your original mix, making different mix decisions.

You will also, of course, realize its benefits next time you track into it and mix something else.

Also, Mr. Shipley - peeder-peppertree-spicemix has been found out. As opposed to being an honest, scientific naysayer as he claims to be, he engages in unfounded criticism of BLA to the extent that Jules has removed his comments from this thread. He has changed his user ID a few times after having been banned. He will have nothing more to "contribute" here.

[WunderBro Flo]

That would be fantastic! Can you post the link again or pm me with it?

Now if we could carry more of such files together and post the links on the first page of this thread, I think we could stop the arguing and find out about reality. With other examples that include full mixes, transient rich material like drums, percussion and acoustic guitars, maybe reflection/ambience rich signals we would have pretty much all relevant sound aspects covered and everyone could decide for themselves if BLA is the real deal or just another snake oil company.


Rock on!
Pat

[T-Stag]

Originally Posted by Budda

Sorry, man.

If all processing was done in the box - save for some hi shelves - you will likely get 100% the same mix. It may SOUND different to you because of the better D/A section (if you're using the 002r as your monitor source), but the mod will do nothing to improve the sound files you have already recorded nor the RTAS processing. If you RE-record whatever you did, or if you bounced your mix out to some analogue gear before and recorded the final print back into your box, THEN you might start to get an actual different mix. Depending on those hi-shelves - if you even run the mix through them, or if you already printed them into the box - your mix will be 100% the same.

Improvements are:
1) input stage: better front end, so analogue signal is better captured and the A/D better converts it
2) output stage: better front end, so analogue signal is better reproduced on the outputs and the D/A better converts it
3) clock: improved monitoring

So, to reiterate:

An in-the-box mix will not BE different, and your mastering house will tell you the same. It may SOUND different to you because of your improved analogue stages and D/A, but that is just translation error: your mix WILL BE THE SAME.

You will only realize the benefits of the modded box if you REMIX your original mix, making different mix decisions.

You will also, of course, realize its benefits next time you track into it and mix something else.

Also, Mr. Shipley - peeder-peppertree-spicemix has been found out. As opposed to being an honest, scientific naysayer as he claims to be, he engages in unfounded criticism of BLA to the extent that Jules has removed his comments from this thread. He has changed his user ID a few times after having been banned. He will have nothing more to "contribute" here.

Hmm...

Since I'm spreading it to analog summing (my Soundcraft) and recording it back into Pro Tools, it's not ITB (how did you come to that conclusion in the 1st place?). As I said, I'm not gonna change a thing. The mix will be re-created based on the PT mix session and my photos of the console. Yes, the mix is the same, but it will be coming through better D/A coversion and the mix will be recorded back into PT through better line inputs and A/D conversion. I dare say that there's gonna be a difference in the end result if the modded unit does what BLA (and several happy users) says.

I know very well that I can't change the fact that the song was recorded through the lesser line inputs (all preamps were Soundcraft) and A/D conversion. Those things I will test later. And yes, I'm monitoring through my console.

Kindest rergards,
Erkka

[WunderBro Flo]

Originally Posted by Hammyham

I have posted two clips of a 96I/O and a Signature Series 002 using a U87 thru a Mackie Onyx mullted at the patchbay. Thus making is a "true" A/B test. If your not able to locate the clips I can email them to you if interested.

Thanks again man, I have found them and put them into my DAW. It´s a nice test setup but could be even better. This setup is the 96io vs the 002 modded, so it does not really say much about what the mod improved or not, and on top of it it is mp3 files. Anyways, I enjoyed it. First thing to do: the modded file was about 0.2dB louder in RMS. After adjusting that and blind testing myself in several loop positions across the file I came across about 70% of loops where I could not blindly pick one system consistently. On the other 30% of loops I set up I could consistently pick out one or the other. In those cases the BLA file sounded slightly more "open" and clear. Slightly. Interesting. But the difference was in no case close to the enthusiastic reports I can read here. But it makes me more curious to do hear more of such A/B tests, especially on full bandwidth material with fast transients and in WAV or AIF format!
Anyone?

Rock on!
Pat

ps - totally looking forward to the OTB summing comparison, makes total sense!!! If BLA improves DA then there must be an audible difference in the pre summing stage and if it improves AD then the summed mix will sound better from that stage too as the mix is printed back into the DAW through the AD. Thanks!

[madtheory]

Wildcowboys, well put, I agree

Originally Posted by mattyblue

Here is an email that I received from Black Lion...

"Not only is that pretty impressive, but it pokes a rather large hole in the prevailing theory."

Again, more alarm bells. What exactly are they implying? They have not stated a reference for this "prevailing theory". Why? Because there isn't one. At best the "prevailing theory", is that most, but not all, modern converters are jitter immune, or perform worse, when clocked externally. That's stated in Mr. Robjohn's recent article on clocking, among others.

This is another example of sciencey language that is vague and does not survive under scrutiny.

[T-Stag]

Originally Posted by WildCowboys

ps - totally looking forward to the OTB summing comparison, makes total sense!!! If BLA improves DA then there must be an audible difference in the pre summing stage and if it improves AD then the summed mix will sound better from that stage too as the mix is printed back into the DAW through the AD. Thanks!

If this was for me, I should get the unit by wednesday, and after that you can't get me out of my studio... I'm gonna do different mixes (dry, eq only, eq+dynamics, eq+dynamics+spaces etc.) for educational purposes too so it'll take a little time. I guess that I'll be posting 30 sec wav (24 bit/44.1 kHz) files of the full mix before and after the mod. I'll post the link after it's done and uploaded. As I said, I can't wait!

Erkka

[mattyblue]

Originally Posted by madtheory

Wildcowboys, well put, I agree


Again, more alarm bells. What exactly are they implying? They have not stated a reference for this "prevailing theory". Why? Because there isn't one. At best the "prevailing theory", is that most, but not all, modern converters are jitter immune, or perform worse, when clocked externally. That's stated in Mr. Robjohn's recent article on clocking, among others.

This is another example of sciencey language that is vague and does not survive under scrutiny.

Sorry that was only part of the email explaining the actual test. Didn't mean for that to get taken out of context. Here is the whole thing.



"Hi Matt,
We are aware of Dan Lavry's feelings about external clocks. Oddly enough, we know quite a few people who re-clock their Lavry systems. Below is something the owner/designer of BLA wrote about external clocking.

What's the use of an external clock?
Clocking is an incredibly complex subject, and one that is hotly debated within the pro audio community right now. Unfortunately, most external wordclocks represent an expensive enough investment that there's still quite a bit of mystery surrounding them. We're hoping to change all of that.
First, of all, it's common for a digital audio system to utilize a method to accept incoming clock, and then generate a signal internally that is in phase with the received data. This is a form of what's known as 'clock recovery,' and it's done using a phase locked loop (a PLL). The 'loop' portion of a PLL is a filter that is designed to help remove unwanted signal--jitter. One can design a PLL to reject in-band jitter, or out-of-band jitter, but it's considered a rarity for a PLL to be able to do both. In addition, there are real-world limitations to how well the filter can perform. It has a slope, measured in dB, and a frequency cutoff point, but they are limited in their filtration capacity (like every filter). To make things more complicated, if we design a PLL with a really steep cutoff, it may filter out too many of the desirable harmonics within the data/clock signals and the converted audio will sound lifeless, compressed, and overly processed.
Now, imagine for a second that we have a hypothetical PLL that is designed to filter out out-of-band jitter--something that is common in digital pro audio. In other words, it would filter out unwanted harmonics within the clock signal that reside OUTSIDE of the wordclock frequency's normal harmonic content. This is content that has 'accidentally' crept into the signal, typically created by power supply noise, digital switching, circuit crosstalk, and other factors. Then, we'll imagine that we re-clock this system using something like the Microclock. The Microclock has very, very little out-of-band jitter (we measured around 10 picoseconds RMS at the output), but since the outputs are galvanically isolated using pulse transformers, the in-band harmonic content is affected in a way that yields a very harmonically pleasing outcome during conversion. The hypothetical PLL we mentioned a few sentences ago was designed to filter out-of-band harmonics, but does nothing to the in-band harmonics, which means that the Microclock will indeed affect the audio signal.
But we have more than just theory to back this up. We have many, many customers who are using the Microclock mk2 to re-clock their HD systems. We have a local customer who borrowed an mk2 from us for a few days, then returned to purchase it because he said it outperformed his Big Ben; in blind A/B listening tests that he and his studio partner performed, the Apogee came in dead last EVERY time. We have customers like Grammy award winning mastering engineer Harry Brotman using the Microclock mk2. In fact, we just got an email from a customer named Jay Ruston--he's done mix-down work for Diana Ross, Morrissey, Brian Wilson, The Donnas, and several other high-profile clients. He's using aBlack Lion Audio mk2 with his HD system. He commented, "As soon as I connected the Black Lion clock to my Pro Tools HD rig, I could immediately hear a difference in the depth of the mix. I also noticed a wider bottom end, and the vocal seemed to have more focus, like a veil was removed from the speaker."
You also might consider contacting the folks at Front End Audio to ask them about their experiences with it. They have done several tests with the Microclock mk2, including using it to re-clock their new SSL system.

Here is another response about clocking from Matt/BLA Owner:

I have been told, that it is not possible to improve on jitter with an
external clock. Can this be tested? If so how?
I'm glad you asked this question. Popular theory within pro audio tells us that any time we try to obtain master clock rate by multiplying word clock rate, jitter performance will be worse than simply using the internal master clock no matter how bad that master clock might be. The basis for this is the notion that any PLL that's forced to multiply a signal will generate excessive jitter, resulting in higher jitter at the converter itself. I've always maintained that this theory is too broad to be used as a rule of thumb, because there are too many unaccounted-for variables involved. What's funny is that I've never seen anyone generate test measurements PROVING that this theory is true; it's simply accepted without question.
I've attached a few A/B Bode graphs to this email for you to look at. They are in PDF format. These were tests taken using our Audio Precision SYS-2722, which is a state of the art audio analyzer. Both of these tests measure jitter performance at the converter chip itself; one is a stock 003 using its internal clock (int003), the other is a stock 003 clocked externally to our Micro Clock (wck003). Each unit was set to 48khz sample rate, and the jitter measurement was taken between 0 and 100khz. Since jitter typically resides in the low frequency domain (about 0hz on up to approximately 1/2 the clock frequency), you'll notice the amount of jitter in each graph is highest from 0-10k, and then slopes down gradually as it approaches the upper end of the test frequency. What's most interesting to note is that the jitter performance of the 003 clocked externally (wck003) is lower than the internally clocked 003 by roughly an order of magnitude! Not only is that pretty impressive, but it pokes a rather large hole in the prevailing theory.
We appreciate your interest in our company and external clocking!
Thank you for being a loyal client. Hopefully this email helps.
Cheers!"

[WunderBro Flo]

Originally Posted by T-Stag

If this was for me, I should get the unit by wednesday, and after that you can't get me out of my studio... I'm gonna do different mixes (dry, eq only, eq+dynamics, eq+dynamics+spaces etc.) for educational purposes too so it'll take a little time. I guess that I'll be posting 30 sec wav (is 24 bit/44.1 kHz) files of the full mix before and after the mod. I'll post the link after it's done and uploaded. As I said, I can't wait!

Erkka

Awesome! Thanks!!! totally looking forward to this!
can you also do a da ad loopback of a slow sinesweep from 20Hz to 20kHz? Those things are quite useful for analysis!
best,
Pat

[Budda]

Originally Posted by T-Stag

Hmm...

Since I'm spreading it to analog summing (my Soundcraft) and recording it back into Pro Tools, it's not ITB (how did you come to that conclusion in the 1st place?). As I said, I'm not gonna change a thing. The mix will be re-created based on the PT mix session and my photos of the console. Yes, the mix is the same, but it will be coming through better D/A coversion and the mix will be recorded back into PT through better line inputs and A/D conversion. I dare say that there's gonna be a difference in the end result if the modded unit does what BLA (and several happy users) says.

I know very well that I can't change the fact that the song was recorded through the lesser line inputs (all preamps were Soundcraft) and A/D conversion. Those things I will test later. And yes, I'm monitoring through my console.

Kindest rergards,
Erkka

My apologies. You said in your post that "besides a couple of hi shelves, all processing was done in Pro Tools LE". You also said that you took photos of the console so you could re-create the mix, but you didn't mention that this was the summing portion of the mix. So I started off my response by explaining "if all processing was done in the box..." Some people mistakenly think that the box will make their already-printed mixes sound better just because the monitoring sounds different - it seems you know the difference. Ideally re-printing the mix WILL give you some sort of different sound, something beyond the board being ever so slightly different than the first session, despite your pictures - and you will be able to decide if it's "better" or "worse".

[T-Stag]

Originally Posted by Budda

My apologies. You said in your post that "besides a couple of hi shelves, all processing was done in Pro Tools LE". You also said that you took photos of the console so you could re-create the mix, but you didn't mention that this was the summing portion of the mix. So I started off my response by explaining "if all processing was done in the box..." Some people mistakenly think that the box will make their already-printed mixes sound better just because the monitoring sounds different - it seems you know the difference. Ideally re-printing the mix WILL give you some sort of different sound, something beyond the board being ever so slightly different than the first session, despite your pictures - and you will be able to decide if it's "better" or "worse".

No problem. I did, however, say that "The song was mixed on a stock 002r into 18 channels on a Souncraft DC2000 console." and also mentioned being very interested in hearing the difference in D/A conversion... Analog summing wasn't literally mentioned but that should give it away pretty well.

As said, the photos are just to re-create the fader positions and hi shelves on the console. All other processing (eq, comp, reverb, delay etc.) and automation is indeed done in PT. To be honest, I use a master eq/enhancer in the console master insert. Someday I hope to have an Empirical Labs Fatso jr. and Aphex Studio Dominator there as well...

Anyway, I hope that my unit arrives tomorrow!

Kindest regards,
Erkka
Erkka Korhonen on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Videos