The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
10MX comparison files vs. Pure2 only and 10M/Pure2
Old 7th January 2016
  #61
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Alright... did more testing, and here's what I found....

I could not reliably pick out a difference between 1 vs. 2 (which were the Burls clocked with 10M vs. 10MX).

I *did* hit 11/11 again on 2 vs. 3 (which was the Burl vs. Pure2 both clocked on 10MX)

So... I'm not convinced that the master clock changed anything significantly, but the differences between the Burls and the Pure2 as converters was quite obvious, especially in the low end. That's not surprising, because the analog topology is quite different (transformers in the Burl), though I am amazed by how dramatic it was.

So... I'm still quite the skeptic on the difference the clocking is really making here. I can't hear it. But the Pure2s definitely have a very different sonic signature than the Burls. As to whether they're "better"? That's an entirely subjective question, but I do prefer the Pure2s on this material.
Old 7th January 2016
  #62
Lives for gear
 

I listened again to the master files, still prefer Sam. It's subtle but something made me stop on that one.

On Greg's files each recording seems to get progressively wider and more spacious. Then it becomes a subjective thing of which you prefer.
Old 7th January 2016
  #63
Lives for gear
 
DarkSky Media's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
I could not reliably pick out a difference between 1 vs. 2 (which were the Burls clocked with 10M vs. 10MX).
Surprised you could not reliably pick Greg's file 2 from 1.

Is this still on SHR840s?
Old 7th January 2016
  #64
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
Alright... did more testing, and here's what I found....

I could not reliably pick out a difference between 1 vs. 2 (which were the Burls clocked with 10M vs. 10MX).

I *did* hit 11/11 again on 2 vs. 3 (which was the Burl vs. Pure2 both clocked on 10MX)

So... I'm not convinced that the master clock changed anything significantly, but the differences between the Burls and the Pure2 as converters was quite obvious, especially in the low end. That's not surprising, because the analog topology is quite different (transformers in the Burl), though I am amazed by how dramatic it was.

So... I'm still quite the skeptic on the difference the clocking is really making here. I can't hear it. But the Pure2s definitely have a very different sonic signature than the Burls. As to whether they're "better"? That's an entirely subjective question, but I do prefer the Pure2s on this material.
If you couldn't pick out those differences on 10m vs 10mx your monitoring chain must be compromised or something. The difference was not subtle at all on my end...

What are you using for speakers/DAC/monitoring controller? Treated room?
Old 7th January 2016
  #65
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkSky Media View Post
Surprised you could not reliably pick Greg's file 2 from 1.

Is this still on SHR840s?
Yeah, that was still on cans. I'll try it in the studio when I get some time tomorrow. But if it's there, it's *way* more subtle than the difference in converters (at least for me). I couldn't find anything to reliably cue off of.

If someone else is able to reliably ABX those 2, I'm all ears!
Old 7th January 2016
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by b1daly View Post
So given this, Marcel, how can you be out here claiming these huge effects from clocking when I can see no convincing evidence beyond these celebrity testimonials? I can tell you are a sincere person, doing your best to do your job. What do think is going on here?

I am always seeking to improve my tracks, and I know that small differences matter. I am curious if any difference in clocking is one of those important differences. While I am not in the market for an external clock, I am in the market for a new thunderbolt interface. Because of my existing skepticism about the claims Antelope makes about their clock, I am leery of their converters. But if proven wrong, that would make me much more comfortable with them and I would put them back on the "consider" list.

Brian Daly
Hi Brian,

Where did I claim "huge effects from clocking"? I don't mean to play quote police as I'm not a fan when other people do it, but what I've consistently suggested is that people "listen" for themselves. I rarely post my own opinion about clocking, although I proudly list those who use them. I will also state Igor's approach in general terms to clocking. I stuck up for Greg, because I was there in the room with him and what I said was, this guy has great gear, great ears and he's honestly passionate about this gear. So much so (to my own surprise) today he posted the very clips he tested the clocks with. How much more transparent can one be?

I can't answer for anyone if the clocks or our converters are for them. I can pass on what others say. I can even state what I believe. But, ultimately, I believe we have to make our own decisions about what's right for us. Refining one's own recording environment is a very personal thing. We have to surround ourselves with what works for us and I believe what "feels" right, does very much matter.

I hope you'll consider Antelope converters and the rest of our products seriously. A lot of hard work went into making them the best we could and it's always rewarding when others find things they like about what we build.

Btw, I still plan on posting another song in a different style, I just had some other work to catch up on here. After letting the new files sink in a bit, I'll post which was sam, van, and dan.

Best Regards,
Marcel
Old 7th January 2016
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Empire Prod's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Wells View Post
Here's what sold me on the 10MX.
I'm finally back at the studio and had time to create these files. I may get in serious sh__ for posting but I'd like this cantankerous crew to hear what I heard. Remember, I heard it on painfully revealing PMC MB2S XBD speakers in my custom built control room but you'll hear the difference on any set of excellent headphones or great monitors. Imagine spending weeks and weeks on a record, and then quickly hearing it sound as different as the first file to the fourth file. Hence my euphoric flip out that everyone likes to make fun of. Listen to the files in numeric order, not the way GS uploaded them. 1 through 4.
That difference is NOT subtle. That is an absolute expansion of openness, space, depth and clarity. There is not one element that I can not hear improved in file 4. When you first posted about the clock I thought to myself "$10,000 on a clocking system? That's an awful lot of money for something so insignificant". I can now completely understand why you would immediately plop down your credit card for the 10MX. You can't get that kind of improvement from outboard gear. Incredibly impressive. I really wish I understood how a clock can make this huge of a sonic impact. Thanks for posting the files.
Old 7th January 2016
  #68
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerc View Post
If you couldn't pick out those differences on 10m vs 10mx your monitoring chain must be compromised or something. The difference was not subtle at all on my end...

What are you using for speakers/DAC/monitoring controller? Treated room?
Alright, ran in to the studio and gave it a go. Yes, well treated room, shot and measured to the hilt for frequency response, time domain, and stereo imaging.

I tried really hard, but could not find a reliable difference between 1&2 (10M vs. 10MX clock). 2&3 (Burl on 10MX vs. Pure2 on 10MX), I wouldn't call "night and day", but it was super easy to distinguish the low end. There is *no* question in my mind the differences between these converters are quite perceivable.

If someone can do an ABX with 95%+ confidence on 1&2, I'd love to see it. Maybe my ears or monitoring chain aren't good enough. I'm a big boy, it won't hurt my feelings. In fact, I'd geek out about it, I love to be surprised by the unexpected.

That said, I did a little more digging, and there *are* differences. Files 1&2 don't null (the files weren't perfectly sample aligned, so had to slide one over slightly by a a few dozen samples), and there was a fair bit of residual. The mid / upper mid range is most prevalent in the null, most obviously effected in the vocal and the rhythm guitar part. Even after knowing that was where the difference was centered, I still couldn't hear it. It's just far to subtle for me to reliably pick out.

I have a theory based on the "phasey-ness" of the null, that perhaps the way the 10M / 10MX clocks are managing jitter, multiple passes in the same configuration wouldn't necessarily null (and would perhaps sound different). It would be intriguing to see 2 passes through the same clock and converters.
Attached Thumbnails
10MX comparison files vs. Pure2 only and 10M/Pure2-abx-10m-10mx.png   10MX comparison files vs. Pure2 only and 10M/Pure2-abx-burl-pure2.png  
Old 7th January 2016
  #69
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
The low end is what gave it away for me (drum sound). No gimmics, no weird timing difference that gave it away, just sonics.
Yep, the "bloom" of the low end after each of the kick transients. Hard to miss that, and it makes everything else prettier further up. Actually, the open vowels in the vocals of #4 are a little more hashy to me, but overall I'd still take it over #1 . I'd love to hear this same comparison on something less sonically crowded.

Greg, thank you. A ton.
Old 7th January 2016
  #70
Lives for gear
 

I really feel like A LOT of people owe Greg a public apology from that last thread.

I think it's time someone writes a new white paper on clocking... The proof is clear as day now for anyone who hasn't tried the Antelope rig at home.

I would also urge anyone who hasn't tried the 10m (or now 10mx) in their studio to give it a try. The difference when mixing off a console (or using a lot of converter channels with hardware inserts) was even bigger than the loop back files posted for me.

Again - it's like asking what an SSL console does to the sound and posting a mix that's been run through 2 channels. It's an even far greater difference once you actually start using it in practice and making mix decisions based on what you are hearing in the moment.
Old 7th January 2016
  #71
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
Alright, ran in to the studio and gave it a go. Yes, well treated room, shot and measured to the hilt for frequency response, time domain, and stereo imaging.

I tried really hard, but could not find a reliable difference between 1&2 (10M vs. 10MX clock). 2&3 (Burl on 10MX vs. Pure2 on 10MX), I wouldn't call "night and day", but it was super easy to distinguish the low end. There is *no* question in my mind the differences between these converters are quite perceivable.

If someone can do an ABX with 95%+ confidence on 1&2, I'd love to see it. Maybe my ears or monitoring chain aren't good enough. I'm a big boy, it won't hurt my feelings. In fact, I'd geek out about it, I love to be surprised by the unexpected.

That said, I did a little more digging, and there *are* differences. Files 1&2 don't null (the files weren't perfectly sample aligned, so had to slide one over slightly by a a few dozen samples), and there was a fair bit of residual. The mid / upper mid range is most prevalent in the null, most obviously effected in the vocal and the rhythm guitar part. Even after knowing that was where the difference was centered, I still couldn't hear it. It's just far to subtle for me to reliably pick out.
You didn't answer my questions - what monitors/DAC/monitor controller are you using?

I highly doubt it's your ears, and knowing what rig you are using will probably back this up.... Your monitoring chain is only as good as the weakest link.

Granted the difference wasn't as big as file 1 vs 4, but it was the same changes, just not as obvious (tighter/bigger low end, more defined image etc).
Old 7th January 2016
  #72
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerc View Post
I really feel like A LOT of people owe Greg a public apology from that last thread.

I think it's time someone writes a new white paper on clocking... The proof is clear as day now for anyone who hasn't tried the Antelope rig at home.

I would also urge anyone who hasn't tried the 10m (or now 10mx) in their studio to give it a try. The difference when mixing off a console (or using a lot of converter channels with hardware inserts) was even bigger than the loop back files posted for me.

Again - it's like asking what an SSL console does to the sound and posting a mix that's been run through 2 channels. It's an even far greater difference once you actually start using it in practice and making mix decisions based on what you are hearing in the moment.
I'll be with you as soon as someone posts a 95%+ confidence on files 1&2. The obvious difference was between the converters (illustrated in files 2&3), *not* the clocks (at least in my case).

Even still... I don't think anyone needs to apologize for voicing skepticism. Hopefully folks' skin isn't so thin that some internet people questioning them makes them want to cry in a corner or punch someone in the face. I think it's okay to challenge each other's ideas and thoughts (as long as it doesn't become personal), no matter your "status" or standing. That's how we get better.
Old 7th January 2016
  #73
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerc View Post
You didn't answer my questions - what monitors/DAC/monitor controller are you using?

I highly doubt it's your ears, and knowing what rig you are using will probably back this up.... Your monitoring chain is only as good as the weakest link.

Granted the difference wasn't as big as file 1 vs 4, but it was the same changes, just not as obvious (tighter/bigger low end, more defined image etc).
If you want to prove me wrong by posting an ABX of 1&2, please do! I don't want to devolve into an analysis of my monitoring chain. As I stated before, maybe it *is* my monitoring chain. Would love to see if someone else can demonstrate the difference.

If you null the files (after sample aligning), the differences between 1&2 are definitely *not* in the low end.
Old 7th January 2016
  #74
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
If you want to prove me wrong by posting an ABX of 1&2, please do!


Will do tomorrow in the studio... It's not subtle on my system (Antelope Eclipse 384 + 10M / Amphion Two18's/ ATC 20 mkII).

Why do you feel the need to disclose your monitoring chain? It's a simple question that might help pin down the reason you can't hear it...I'm just trying to help and don't mean any ill will
Old 7th January 2016
  #75
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerc View Post
Will do tomorrow in the studio... It's not subtle on my system ( + / 's/ ATC 20 mkII).

Why do you feel the need to disclose your monitoring chain? It's a simple question that might help pin down the reason you can't hear it...I'm just trying to help and don't mean any ill will
I don't need someone to tell me a better one will let me hear better. But I digress... I'm listening through a TASCAM DM4800 console onto Yamaha HS series monitors (HS80s / HS10W in 2.1).

Look forward to seeing your results. I will genuinely be geeked out if there are reliable differences between 1&2 someone with better monitoring or better ears can pick out.

The differences I did observe in 2&3 already have me thinking about conversion, as that was quite obvious even listening through my humble chain.
Old 7th January 2016
  #76
Lives for gear
 
DarkSky Media's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
Yeah, that was still on cans. I'll try it in the studio when I get some time tomorrow. But if it's there, it's *way* more subtle than the difference in converters (at least for me). I couldn't find anything to reliably cue off of.

If someone else is able to reliably ABX those 2, I'm all ears!
Space, tails, upper mids texture, transient details.
Attached Thumbnails
10MX comparison files vs. Pure2 only and 10M/Pure2-abx23_gw_1vs2.png  

Last edited by DarkSky Media; 7th January 2016 at 07:42 AM..
Old 7th January 2016
  #77
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkSky Media View Post
Space, tails, upper mids texture, transient details.
I'll be damned, there it is! Thanks for taking the time to do it. Hat's off.

Bloody hell... this is going to keep me awake at night trying to understand what's happening on a technical level.

And guess who's in the market for new monitors...

Marcel / Greg.... I wish more gear companies / endorsers would go out on the limb you did here by posting files like this, and allowing this kind of objective analysis to occur in addition to subjective testimony. I know I've been a complete a-hole skeptic, but you really have fostered a very constructive analysis / debate to take place. And it opened some eyes that may not have otherwise been opened.
Old 7th January 2016
  #78
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
I don't need someone to tell me a better one will let me hear better. But I digress... I'm listening through a TASCAM DM4800 console onto Yamaha HS series monitors (HS80s / HS10W in 2.1).

Look forward to seeing your results. I will genuinely be geeked out if there are reliable differences between 1&2 someone with better monitoring or better ears can pick out.

The differences I did observe in 2&3 already have me thinking about conversion, as that was quite obvious even listening through my humble chain.
Ok great, well I can almost gaurentee you that it's not your ears and it's simply your chain.... Again I'm not trying to 'teach' you or lecture you, but you should know that just because you can't hear it that it doesn't mean the difference is not there.

Posting on here that you can't hear a difference, and therefore believe the 10mx doesn't make a "significant difference" is no different than Greg Wells posting about how much of a difference the 10mx made for him (which he got absolutely grilled for!).

Kinda makes you wonder what many of the previous 10m "Gearslutz haters" were listening on.

And before someone makes the argument of "well the end user won't hear it cause they're not using a 10mx", I call bullsh!t. If that were the case, we would all be mixing on iPhones and Dr. Beats and sell off our speaker systems costing more than most people's cars.

I'll post my ABX test tomorrow morning for you to see...
Old 7th January 2016
  #79
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerc View Post
Ok great, well I can almost gaurentee you that it's not your ears and it's simply your chain.... Again I'm not trying to 'teach' you or lecture you, but you should know that just because you can't hear it that it doesn't mean the difference is not there.
I said as much... that's why I asked (even expressed excitement) at the prospect of someone else doing it. I didn't say it "wasn't there". I said I couldn't hear it. At no point did I say "if I can't hear it, it's not there". I have no problem being "wrong" in my hypothesis.

But in defense of "low end monitoring chains", one of the claims made several times by folks to this point is that it was so incredibly obvious you could pick it out on earbuds. I think it's fair to say some of these differences are subtle (especially the clocking related ones) and do require pretty decent ears and pretty decent monitoring to pick up on.

The difference in the clocks, is definitely "there" as illustrated by the null test, *and* now a positive ABX listening test from DarkSky shows it's definitely "perceivable". No dispute from me on that point now.

But again, I digress, I think I'm coming off a bit "defensive" / butthurt, and I'm really not. This has been really cool to see unfold.
Old 7th January 2016
  #80
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
I said as much... that's why I asked (even expressed excitement) at the prospect of someone else doing it. I didn't say it "wasn't there". I said I couldn't hear it. At no point did I say "if I can't hear it, it's not there".

But in defense of "low end monitoring chains", one of the claims made several times by folks to this point is that it was so incredibly obvious you could pick it out on earbuds. I think it's fair to say some of these differences are subtle (especially the clocking related ones) and do require pretty decent ears and pretty decent monitoring to pick up on.

And the difference in the clocks, is definitely "there" as illustrated by the null test, *and* now a positive ABX listening test from DarkSky.
Point taken, but if you re read your posts (plus the last ones from the other thread), it certainly seemed like you wouldn't believe it until someone showed you cold hard proof. Your posts, and the hundreds from others being extremely skeptical/critical of the whole clocking issue made the rest of us who heard it seem to be crazies who had drank the Koolaid. Finally there is legitimate proof for all to see.

You also have to realize - a night and day difference to Greg Wells might be almost nothing/inaudible to most bedroom studio/hobbiest guys (which lets be honest, is probably 80% of the people on here). In the same way that "this preamp sounds night and day better than that one" for you or me compares to how your average joe blow on the street hears nearly no difference. Greg's ears are simply more trained than 99% of the people on this forum. I'm not talking super sonic "bat" frequencies - I'm talking about hearing the sublties of sound as obvious differences and knowing which are improvements and which aren't.

And of course you need good ears to hear the difference - we are supposed to be audio engineers after all! If this stuff was super obvious and easy everyone would be cranking out glorious sounding records.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything... I'm more just venting at the whole thread

(Ps just saw you edited your post - and cool, I'm glad and I also agree... Extremely interesting
To see this unfold and glad the truth is finally out there!)
Old 7th January 2016
  #81
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0se View Post
Actions speak louder than words.

Just tried ABX - got 90% the first time and thought I was awesome at it, then over 10 trials realised it was averaging at around 50/50. Can't tell them apart :¬)
Personally, I think that's how ABX works/is supposed to work. After bouncing back and forth so many times with multiple sound sources it all starts to sound the same, whether or not it is.
Old 7th January 2016
  #82
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by spencerc View Post
Point taken, but if you re read your posts (plus the last ones from the other thread), it certainly seemed like you wouldn't believe it until someone showed you cold hard proof. Your posts, and the hundreds from others being extremely skeptical/critical of the whole clocking issue made the rest of us who heard it seem to be crazies who had drank the Koolaid. Finally there is legitimate proof for all to see.

You also have to realize - a night and day difference to Greg Wells might be almost nothing/inaudible to most bedroom studio/hobbiest guys (which lets be honest, is probably 80% of the people on here). In the same way that "this preamp sounds night and day better than that one" for you or me compares to how your average joe blow on the street hears nearly no difference. Greg's ears are simply more trained than 99% of the people on this forum. I'm not talking super sonic "bat" frequencies - I'm talking about hearing the sublties of sound as obvious differences and knowing which are improvements and which aren't.

And of course you need good ears to hear the difference - we are supposed to be audio engineers after all! If this stuff was super obvious and easy everyone would be cranking out glorious sounding records.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything... I'm more just venting at the whole thread

(Ps just saw you edited your post - and cool, I'm glad and I also agree... Extremely interesting
To see this unfold and glad the truth is finally out there!)
All good. I will always push people to substantiate their claims with proof. Especially on issues where the science or existing understanding doesn't seem to line up. It's just my personality, the way I operate in the world. If something doesn't add up, I want to *really* dig in to what's happening. But I'm also the first guy to change my thinking if the proof is in the pudding. It's kind of a weird pair of traits, but it's who I am.

Genuinely, thanks for the dialog. No ill will. This has been extremely educational. And in the end Antelope has a pretty solid case for their products.
Old 7th January 2016
  #83
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Wells View Post
Here's what sold me on the 10MX.
I'm finally back at the studio and had time to create these files. I may get in serious sh__ for posting but I'd like this cantankerous crew to hear what I heard. Remember, I heard it on painfully revealing PMC MB2S XBD speakers in my custom built control room but you'll hear the difference on any set of excellent headphones or great monitors. Imagine spending weeks and weeks on a record, and then quickly hearing it sound as different as the first file to the fourth file. Hence my euphoric flip out that everyone likes to make fun of. Listen to the files in numeric order, not the way GS uploaded them. 1 through 4.
The differences on these are easily apparent to me, and the 10MX sounds better and really good. I can tell even better with Burl files because I am used to the sound.

I can't say whether I prefer the Pure 2 or the B2, however. The Pure 2 is more accurate, clear, and open but I still feel the B2 sounds more musical. I'm aware of the Burl shortcomings, they aren't the clearest or most detailed, but I think I would still prefer them on a lot of projects. Though in comparison, I can hear a lot of stuff that makes it through the Pure 2 that gets kind of obscured or clogged with the B2. Maybe the level is hot (B2 starts saturating around -6db).
Old 7th January 2016
  #84
Lives for gear
 
Greg Wells's Avatar
The levels were matched… we ain't complete dummies.

Here's what stuck in my craw. I got railroaded by a bunch of people who hadn't heard the thing I was flipping out over. I never said "my reaction to this gear is objective fact"…. I encouraged anyone crazy enough to spend a load of money on a clock to audition it for themselves and see if they liked it. Then I had people saying all I'd done was write a Selena Gomez song and my fragile ego had to clarify that I'm not quite that lame. So now I'm risking pissing off the artist and record company who's unreleased work is now up online JUST so I can stop envisioning terrible Saw-like acts of revenge on a few posters here.

Mixes sound better in my car. The devil is in the details. The change in my studio is very noticeable. Peeeeeeace out.
Old 7th January 2016
  #85
Lives for gear
 
b0se's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Wells View Post
The levels were matched… we ain't complete dummies.

Here's what stuck in my craw. I got railroaded by a bunch of people who hadn't heard the thing I was flipping out over. I never said "my reaction to this gear is objective fact"…. I encouraged anyone crazy enough to spend a load of money on a clock to audition it for themselves and see if they liked it. Then I had people saying all I'd done was write a Selena Gomez song and my fragile ego had to clarify that I'm not quite that lame. So now I'm risking pissing off the artist and record company who's unreleased work is now up online JUST so I can stop envisioning terrible Saw-like acts of revenge on a few posters here.

Mixes sound better in my car. The devil is in the details. The change in my studio is very noticeable. Peeeeeeace out.
I dabble in psychology - it's usually linked to the need to solidify an existing belief system or opinion ("clocks are pointless", in this case), and so people do it without the crucial element that is experience.

There is a concise term that defines this...

Quote:
ignorance

noun

1. the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.
TL;DR: people often post 'against' another simply to support their own choices, and nothing more. It's linked to the need to be 'right'.

Here's a slightly different example; on New Years night a few years ago, a bright blue orb appeared in our bedroom. It lit up the room from the inside (being a pro photographer I understand light rather well). It lasted about 1/2 a second. I only saw the room light up blue (I was facing the other way), but my partner (who was a skeptic for such) saw the orb with her own eyes - it appeared in front of her.

When telling certain people this, they do what we all tend to unconsciously - fit it into our own belief systems and world view. I've had people say:

A) WOW! What was it?!
B) It was a police siren/light
C) You're making this up

Luckily I have no need to get clarification of what I saw by the approval of another, and the response I get shows me quite clearly about their mind. Open or closed? Flexible or absolute? Trusting or cynical?

Why is all this relevant: be like Greg. Know what's good for you, have the balls to BE you, be excited about it and get about your stuff.

Those who do nothing but try to tell Greg about his own experience are categorically wasting their time and energy. Quite a pointless endeavour, is it not? All just to pat yourself on the back for being 'right'?

Old 7th January 2016
  #86
Thanks for posting those files Greg! Really liking what the 10mx does! God damn that's pretty wild. Honestly, I think the 10m is pretty amazing as well! Maybe I can snag one of those when people start selling them off for the 10mx.
Old 7th January 2016
  #87
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
Reading but not commenting on the tests as im no fulltime pro....

My 2c, both sides of this debate have the fair, open, measured and polite kind of commentators and... the other kind. Night and day
Old 7th January 2016
  #88
Lives for gear
 
Callison's Avatar
number 4 is the big winner listening in my control room (treated, john sayer design). only listening on Ns-10's witha sub but the diffrence in notable! btm end tightens up and the highs seem to some how gain focus and loose harshness and the i go from 1 to 4.. This might be pushing it Greg but would love more than anything to hear one with the straight burl and straight Pure 2.. not extra clocking.. i am on the burl but hear how much the difference is between those two.. that the only real affordable change for my studio at present!

cheers for posting

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Wells View Post
Here's what sold me on the 10MX.
I'm finally back at the studio and had time to create these files. I may get in serious sh__ for posting but I'd like this cantankerous crew to hear what I heard. Remember, I heard it on painfully revealing PMC MB2S XBD speakers in my custom built control room but you'll hear the difference on any set of excellent headphones or great monitors. Imagine spending weeks and weeks on a record, and then quickly hearing it sound as different as the first file to the fourth file. Hence my euphoric flip out that everyone likes to make fun of. Listen to the files in numeric order, not the way GS uploaded them. 1 through 4.
Old 7th January 2016
  #89
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callison View Post
number 4 is the big winner listening in my control room (treated, john sayer design). only listening on Ns-10's witha sub but the diffrence in notable! btm end tightens up and the highs seem to some how gain focus and loose harshness and the i go from 1 to 4.. This might be pushing it Greg but would love more than anything to hear one with the straight burl and straight Pure 2.. not extra clocking.. i am on the burl but hear how much the difference is between those two.. that the only real affordable change for my studio at present!

cheers for posting
If you compare files 2&3 the only difference is the Burl vs. Pure2 (both are clocked on 10MX). I personally found those two files to have the most dramatic difference (YMMV). I would postulate that the difference between those converters would be equally as dramatic no matter which clock was driving them due to the very different nature of their design (especially in the analog section). But again, just a hypothesis.
Old 7th January 2016
  #90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callison View Post
number 4 is the big winner listening in my control room (treated, john sayer design). only listening on Ns-10's witha sub but the diffrence in notable! btm end tightens up and the highs seem to some how gain focus and loose harshness and the i go from 1 to 4.. This might be pushing it Greg but would love more than anything to hear one with the straight burl and straight Pure 2.. not extra clocking.. i am on the burl but hear how much the difference is between those two.. that the only real affordable change for my studio at present!

cheers for posting
I doubt Greg will be able to post more files, these were already printed when I was there and his mix was up and being done. He wrapped up that project last month.

However, I am going to try to borrow his B2 soon and bring some masters, though they won't have the multiple I/O that his mix does, it might be helpful to some to have simple prints.

Regards,
Marcel
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump