Gearslutz.com
All Advertisers

Go Back   Gearslutz.com > The Forums > So much gear, so little time!

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sync Question? macr0w So much gear, so little time! 8 4th July 2006 08:01 PM
sync adat to rme and nuendo stumped paulieg So much gear, so little time! 0 25th June 2005 12:13 AM
word vs. adat sync help needed TAVD So much gear, so little time! 3 5th November 2004 12:20 AM
motu digital timepiece/adat sync question... brownmouse So much gear, so little time! 0 8th July 2004 11:31 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 26th August 2006, 01:03 AM   #1
cchord59
Gear Head
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 65
adat sync question

So I just got an alesis ai3 ( analog optical interface) To run 8 more channels of audio on my 828. ( the alesis a/d's sound very bland and shallow compared to the black lion upgraded 828).

My questions is, Is it normal to have phase issues when running an adat interface with another interface like and 828 or the like? I find that when I run a stereo signal with one channel going through the 828 and the other through the ai3, I sounds out of phase. But when I run them both through the 828, or ai3 it seems fine.

I'm wondering if they are not totally synced up. I recorded something, and played it back, and it still sounded muddy and dead. Its not totally out of phase, but it sounds just a bit out. But when I look at the waveforms they are totally lined up.

So I guess if the waves are lined up and it still sounds off, then its not a phase issue, and I have no idea whats going on.


any thoughts?
thanks
cchord59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 05:52 AM   #2
Dave Peck
Lives for gear
 
Dave Peck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: S.F bay area
Posts: 1,354
Why would you patch one half of a stereo signal through one converter and the other half through a different type of converter? You will almost certainly have phase screw-ups due to different amounts of latency between the two converters.

And they waves may LOOK aligned but that's not an accurate way to tell if the phase has been messed up between the two channels. It could be off by only one or two samples and that would be enough to screw up the high end but you could never tell by looking at the waveforms.

All channels that share any signal in common (like eight mics on a drum kit that have some amount of bleed between the channels) should be put through the same converter to keep them in sync. If you need more converter channels for multichannel live tracking, send other signals that do not share any of that signal (like synth DI) through the other converter. It woun't matter if those unrelated channels are off by a few samples relative to the first group of channels.

DP
Dave Peck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 05:35 PM   #3
Snatchman
Lives for gear
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Peck View Post
Why would you patch one half of a stereo signal through one converter and the other half through a different type of converter? You will almost certainly have phase screw-ups due to different amounts of latency between the two converters.

And they waves may LOOK aligned but that's not an accurate way to tell if the phase has been messed up between the two channels. It could be off by only one or two samples and that would be enough to screw up the high end but you could never tell by looking at the waveforms.

All channels that share any signal in common (like eight mics on a drum kit that have some amount of bleed between the channels) should be put through the same converter to keep them in sync. If you need more converter channels for multichannel live tracking, send other signals that do not share any of that signal (like synth DI) through the other converter. It woun't matter if those unrelated channels are off by a few samples relative to the first group of channels.

DP
Yeah, this is what happens when I send a signal into my Adat based system.. ..I'm using an outboard converter/pre-amp into the first Adat lightpipe. The second/third Adat ( I'm using three), gets signals via analog inputs. ( using their own clock). I hear some weird stuff happening, so I'm going to get the Adat Extenders ( I/O), to hopefully be able to "split" the same clock signal coming from the external master clock to all three Adats at the same time! Hopefully this will tighten things up..!...
__________________
Thanks for your time and ears!
Snatchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 08:09 PM   #4
cchord59
Gear Head
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 65
thanks DP.

I would never normally patch a stereo signal through 2 different interfaces, but I was testing the unit to see if It synced up with my 828. I would be using them togather to record drums, were phase shift may be more subtle.

that kind of sucks if thats the way it is though. I will definatly be loosing sound quality if I want to put extra mics on a drum kit. Or mabye I'm being too picky.
cchord59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2006, 08:29 PM   #5
joeq
Lives for gear
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by cchord59 View Post
thanks DP.

I would never normally patch a stereo signal through 2 different interfaces, but I was testing the unit to see if It synced up with my 828. I would be using them togather to record drums, were phase shift may be more subtle.

that kind of sucks if thats the way it is though. I will definatly be loosing sound quality if I want to put extra mics on a drum kit. Or mabye I'm being too picky.
I would think that the latency that shows up on one half of a stereo pair would be much less than the kind that naturally occurs between mics several feet apart. If your snare mic is in one interface and your floor tom mic in another, the differences in latency of the converters should not be as critical as they would be from the two halves of an X-Y pair.

If you are using more than 8 mics on a drum kit, maybe use the second interface for room mics and front of kit and stuff that is already time-shifted because of distance.
joeq is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2006, 12:11 AM   #6
contempo
Gear nut
 
contempo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I would think that the latency that shows up on one half of a stereo pair would be much less than the kind that naturally occurs between mics several feet apart. If your snare mic is in one interface and your floor tom mic in another, the differences in latency of the converters should not be as critical as they would be from the two halves of an X-Y pair.

If you are using more than 8 mics on a drum kit, maybe use the second interface for room mics and front of kit and stuff that is already time-shifted because of distance.
yup. putting the kik, snare & toms through one interface and the rest of the kit through another is usually ok but splitting the overheads or whatever between two interfaces will case all kinds of audio hell
contempo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2006, 05:55 AM   #7
uncle duncan
Lives for gear
 
uncle duncan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,933
They should all be clocked by one clock. Otherwise. one clock is fighting with the other one, and it sounds like crap.
uncle duncan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2006, 01:30 AM   #8
cchord59
Gear Head
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 65
Yeah, they will both be clocked through my black lion modded 828.
cchord59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0