Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Gear Shoot-Outs / Sound File Comparisons / Audio Tests (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/)
-   -   10MX comparison files vs. Pure2 only and 10M/Pure2 (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-shoot-outs-sound-file-comparisons-audio-tests/1055170-10mx-comparison-files-vs-pure2-only-10m-pure2.html)

Rea 25th December 2016 05:18 PM

Did the Greg files.... There is so much more bass on the 10MX+Pure2 file, it just dont make sense... i find it hard too believe that a clock completely changes the eq curve... anyone care to comment on that? Can this be scientifically checked? I mean, sound stage and "alignment", focus in fine detail level i can accept, but such a huge bass extension...? its like strapping a goddamn eq on the mix... I dunno...

And wondering about that bass extension, is it ADDED by the 10MX+Pure2, or is it in the original program material but trimmed down by the other configurations?

Greg Wells 27th December 2016 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rea (Post 12333970)
Did the Greg files.... There is so much more bass on the 10MX+Pure2 file, it just dont make sense... i find it hard too believe that a clock completely changes the eq curve... anyone care to comment on that? Can this be scientifically checked? I mean, sound stage and "alignment", focus in fine detail level i can accept, but such a huge bass extension...? its like strapping a goddamn eq on the mix... I dunno...

And wondering about that bass extension, is it ADDED by the 10MX+Pure2, or is it in the original program material but trimmed down by the other configurations?

For what it's worth, I immediately noticed more information down low, but it didn't sound to my ears like EQ. I'm the last person to attempt an explanation as to how this is happening, but there is definitely more information in every note and every drum hit. It's such a pleasure to mix through this configuration.

Greg Wells 27th December 2016 06:22 AM

Btw
 
It's worth sharing that my Pure2 likes to be calibrated two or three times in a row.
By the third calibration, the errors stay at 0.000.

Rea 15th January 2017 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Wells (Post 12336611)
For what it's worth, I immediately noticed more information down low, but it didn't sound to my ears like EQ. I'm the last person to attempt an explanation as to how this is happening, but there is definitely more information in every note and every drum hit. It's such a pleasure to mix through this configuration.

Thanks for replying Greg.

Im sure that while mixing you jumped at least once between listening to the direct feed off the mix bus and the print return after DA.

So, to one of my questions, is the extended bass ADDED by the DA or is it trimmed by the other DA configurations you
presented.

In other words, is the extended bass present in the direct mix bus feed or only after the 10mx+pure2?

There is indeed a ton more bass on the 10MX+Pure2...;-)

Patrick3000 26th August 2017 05:25 PM

The download is erased now !

[email protected] 22nd December 2018 05:27 PM

I just bought a Grimm CC2 (which is apparently similar to the Grimm CC1) and similar spec to the Antelope but much cheaper. And i have been a sceptic for years , happily going along with my HEDD crane song which sounds marvellous!

I A/B'd a number of tracks and i go through outboard on my mix buss and thats through the HEDD D to A then A to D.
So... Just looping the chorus of each song i opened and switching (and unplugging) between the two clocks (the HEDD and the Grimm CC2 clock) and to my amazement i can hear a difference.

On some songs its blindingly obvious, and others its subtle and i prob wouldn't notice unless you told me.

But in short its clearer... just more in focus.
Less smear in the mids ....i think is the shortest answer i can give...

abelux 18th July 2019 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redgrovesound (Post 11597670)
I can only speak for myself...

The subject of the sonic impacts of external clocking is a highly contentious one. The well understood mechanisms support that different clocks should not result in "significant" differences in sonics.

That said, there are many (some like Greg, who are undeniably perceptive and scrutinizing in their listening) who report hearing these differences.

I, and I think many other skeptics would like to see more "concrete" evidence as to the sonic differences the clocks are introducing.

The claim from Greg, that originally rattled this whole thing off, was that switching from the Antelope 10M to 10MX clock had "changed his studio"

To help "validate" / confirm what's going on from a technical perspective, I would like to see some positive ABX listening tests where the *only* difference between A and B is the 10M clock versus the 10MX clock.

Based on analysis of the files I don't believe File 1 and File 2 (Burl clocked by 10M, Burl clocked by 10MX) provided by Greg are adequate to perform this test, as there were several mix elements with dynamic / random processing that differ between the runs. Those additional variables make it impossible to confirm that perceived sonic differences between those files is due to the difference between the 10M, and 10MX.

Now... Marcel posted a set of files in the OP of this thread, and as he described the setup, the *only* variable that changed on each of the "copy" files was the clock. However, it has not yet been disclosed which file is using which clock.

After those files are revealed / identified, I would look for someone to achieve a positive ABX listening test using whichever were the 10M and 10MX, to essentially prove / validate that the differences are perceptible, and attributable to the clocks, and not some other mechanism.

Some people are uncomfortable, because this line of thinking can be seen as insulting to someone like Greg, as it's essentially challenging his observation. Another way to look at this is that doing this test very well could scientifically *confirm* his observation.

There's no ill will. Just a desire to confirm the mechanisms at play. The issue is a bit further clouded because within this thread, there are other variables that have been tested such as the sonic differences between the Burl and Pure2 converters. In that case, I'm personally satisfied that those differences are readily perceptible based on a number of ABX results (including my own).

Also would be great to have an example of the Burl using it’s own internal clock without the jitter introduced by the external clocking. Everyone knows that internal clock in the Burl is always the best choice as it is the closest to the conversion. Also would be great to see how the attenuators was set up and have multiple takes with different attenuation. -12 should create a crispy clear print. When ever I compared Burl against Pure2 always the low end of the Burl seems more accurate, with more realism and with way more clarity.