The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Antelope Audio 10m Atomic Clock getting sold off by owners? Digital Converters
Old 12th October 2010
  #31
Lives for gear
 
DONNX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studio57 View Post
i have 10M now here in test and i does improve the sound someway... you can hear the details better.. did few test drives with and with out it.
stereo export tru hedd+some out board.. and yes there is a difference.. but is it worth 5k you have to calculate it your self...
we are blanning to use the same atomic on two differend OCX one in mastering room and one in studio so then it is only 2.5k / room !
Also i did try it with OCX-V alone and we didnt find anything segnificant between protools clock vs. that OCX-V alone.
with lot of converters /tracks i think you will hear bigger differences.

Nice report. I am still contemplating on buying the trinity and 10M. Still happy with my Big Ben. Maybe after I get off of my addiction on buying mics and tube preamps. I will get this rig!
Old 13th October 2010
  #32
Q & A Guest
 
ev33's Avatar
Is anyone using one of these 10M + OCX/Trinity setups on a PT rig with 192s?

Just wondering if anyone thinks it makes a significant difference in that context, or if it only really helps when your using external converters.

EV
Old 14th October 2010
  #33
Personally, having used some of this hardware - I'd own a JCF DA [which is a slave to AES] before I bought into an expensive external clocking system for special tonal variety of galactic appeal. In my experience, when you sit and listen to a clock, the time passes by.
Old 18th October 2010
  #34
Gear Head
 

the JCF would be mad better carrying a clock signal derived from a 10m


lol
Old 18th October 2010
  #35
Just a thought: How many of those hearing a huge improvement with an external clock (as opposed to the A/D being the clock master) have compared this double blind?

If you think that's a ridiculous question, consider that we've all at some point fiddled with an EQ for a while, only to realize it was in bypass. With clocking, you have no mechanism of finding out such error. Unless you test double blind, multiple times, with high identification accuracy.

That's not to say that external clocking / distribution can't make a difference, and in some instances it certainly will. But in a simple, straight signal chain where the (single, recent, high quality) A/D is the clock master, it shouldn't.
Old 18th October 2010
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mundy View Post
the JCF would be mad better carrying a clock signal derived from a 10m


lol
Yea, how so?
Old 18th October 2010
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Marcocet's Avatar
When we demoed the 10M we did a double blind test on a two track output between that and the digi 192 internal clock. We only did three or four tests but even the band members in the room picked the 10M every time. It wasn't subtle.

And I certainly can't claim that I've never fiddled with an EQ only to realize it's in bypass. In the heat of a session things can get crazy!

I wish people were still selling off their 10Ms. I could really use one right now.

-marc alan


Quote:
Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering View Post
Just a thought: How many of those hearing a huge improvement with an external clock (as opposed to the A/D being the clock master) have compared this double blind?

If you think that's a ridiculous question, consider that we've all at some point fiddled with an EQ for a while, only to realize it was in bypass. With clocking, you have no mechanism of finding out such error. Unless you test double blind, multiple times, with high identification accuracy.

That's not to say that external clocking / distribution can't make a difference, and in some instances it certainly will. But in a simple, straight signal chain where the (single, recent, high quality) A/D is the clock master, it shouldn't.
Old 22nd October 2010
  #38
Gear Head
 

check it out yourself double blind


https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-...ml#post5906411


I exported and dithered this tune to create the final 16 bit file

this tune has already been released

savory audio put out the "independence day" tune

the sonic power of the 10m inspired me to go back and re export the tunes with the 10m clocking my antelope ocx

independence day tune was only exported using the 10m ocx combo not mixed


-Bone Loc - "Independence Day" - Savory Audio
1 Stage of 10m "mst or export" (mixed at 24_882 )


AUDIO CLIPS PRE AND POST ATOMIC_.zip - DivShare
Old 22nd October 2010
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mundy View Post
check it out yourself double blind


https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-...ml#post5906411


I exported and dithered this tune to create the final 16 bit file

this tune has already been released

savory audio put out the "independence day" tune

the sonic power of the 10m inspired me to go back and re export the tunes with the 10m clocking my antelope ocx

independence day tune was only exported using the 10m ocx combo not mixed


-Bone Loc - "Independence Day" - Savory Audio
1 Stage of 10m "mst or export" (mixed at 24_882 )


AUDIO CLIPS PRE AND POST ATOMIC_.zip - DivShare
You exported the tune using the 10m?

When you word it like that, it sounds like you simply used the export function of your DAW to generate a 16 bit dithered file.

Is that what you're saying, or was there an analogue stage involved?

Also, would you say that in your opinion the results in those two files clearly demonstrate the sonic power of the 10M?
Old 23rd October 2010
  #40
Gear Head
 

MORE SAMPLES 24_48k to 16_441 with 10m vs internal

Quote:
You exported the tune using the 10m?

When you word it like that, it sounds like you simply used the export function of your DAW to generate a 16 bit dithered file.

Is that what you're saying, or was there an analogue stage involved?

Also, would you say that in your opinion the results in those two files clearly demonstrate the sonic power of the 10M?
Also, would you say that in your opinion the results in those two files clearly demonstrate the sonic power of the 10M?- YES I would say that it is very clear example of how powerful of a box it is when all I changed was from my 1300 dollar master clock to the same master clock clocked to the 10m



the mix was mixed in cubase with a m audio I/ O, then the 2 track was dithered to 16 bits in PT HD


Is that what you're saying, or was there an analogue stage involved? -No, I am saying exactly what I said.. re read posts and read me file again



one is good and one is way better
the difference is extremely noticeable


the mix was mixed in cubase at 24_882 with a m audio I O then the 2 track was only dithered to 16 bits in PT HD

there was no volume changing or adjustments on the 2 track export session

*******


I have decided to post more samples

here is an example at 48k the previous the independence day example was a 24_882 export



Both of these samples where mixed and exported at my mundy sound lab Studios

Both clips came from the same 24_882 2 track mixdown.The two track 24_48k mixdown was made on a PT HD system reclocked with an antelope ocx
here is where things get different


CLIP_WHEELS_16_441_c17atomic.wav- the 2 track 24bit 48k mixdown is reclocked to the 10m to create the dithered file

CLIP_WHEELS_16_441_c17internal.wav - the 2 track 24bit 48k mixdown is reclocked to the internal 192 clock to create the dithered file

DOWNLOAD LINK:
TST_WHEELS_CLIPS_10m...: TST_WHEELS_CLIPS_10m_vs_Internal.zip - DivShare Show More Sharing Options


both use exactly same "master chain"

only difference is internal vs 10m clocked ocx
Old 23rd October 2010
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Marcocet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mundy View Post
[

the mix was mixed in cubase at 24_882 with a m audio I O then the 2 track was only dithered to 16 bits in PT HD

there was no volume changing or adjustments on the 2 track export session



only difference is internal vs 10m clocked ocx


Okay, now you've got me really confused too. You're saying all you did was bounce it in the box, once with the 10M on and once with it off? If you didn't do an Analog/Digital conversion at some point the clock wasn't even in the chain. It was only in between the computer and your ears, not between the raw files and the mix. The files should be absolutely identical.

If you DID bring it out of the box and back in could you let us know how? If not then what are you even talking about?
Old 23rd October 2010
  #42
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Okay, now you've got me really confused too. You're saying all you did was bounce it in the box, once with the 10M on and once with it off? If you didn't do an Analog/Digital conversion at some point the clock wasn't even in the chain. It was only in between the computer and your ears, not between the raw files and the mix. The files should be absolutely identical.

If you DID bring it out of the box and back in could you let us know how? If not then what are you even talking about?
yes exactly all I did once bounce it once with the 10m clocking the ocx and then one time using digi internal clock

[IMG]<img src="http://www.divshare.com/direct/12946744-ea9.jpg[/IMG]

look, I have attached a screen shot of the clocking options for pro tools


please read about digital clocking

and then re read my post

Quote:
Okay, now you've got me really confused too. You're saying all you did was bounce it in the box, once with the 10M on and once with it off?
I DID THIS EXACTLY !

Quote:
If you didn't do an Analog/Digital conversion at some point the clock wasn't even in the chain.
This statement is wrong ... the clock was always in the chain when I told pro tools to CLock to wordclock in
Quote:
it was only in between the computer and your ears, not between the raw files and the mix. The files should be absolutely identical.
this is not a true statement as well





in a digital audio system when you select a master word clock in or define clock source ... that audio system is now governed by that master clock

hence when I clock pro tools to an outboard clock good or bad it has an effet



I have posted examples

I am going to stop going back and forth


Quote:
If not then what are you even talking about?
I am talking about the effects of a clock on a digital audio system


if you clock your pt internal and do an internal bounce to disk

and if you clock your pt to an ocx with a 10m the difference is drastic


the 10m tells protools how to stay in line while doing all the math of the samples

so let me repeat if you have a clock clocking your system and you do something a rendering of anykind the clock is affecting your audio


THE END
Old 23rd October 2010
  #43
Gear Head
 

Old 23rd October 2010
  #44
Mundy,

An external clock source will only have an effect on the A/D and the D/A process in a digital workstation.

The process you are performing, which is bouncing the audio internally (effectively a D/D conversion) is completely unaffected by the clock source.

We've just tried a very similar test (with a digi 192 clocked internally vs. external Lavry clock source) and the two files nulled, meaning there was no difference at all.

While you think you have explained this issue ad nauseam, we the general public have no idea how the hell your system is setup and/or how you are performing your test.
Old 23rd October 2010
  #45
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mundy View Post
the 10m tells protools how to stay in line while doing all the math of the samples

so let me repeat if you have a clock clocking your system and you do something a rendering of anykind the clock is affecting your audio


THE END

seriously ..what the?
I have an Isochrone Trinity/Atomic clock here .
please explain how its "telling protools how to stay in line while doing all the math of the samples" please?
as far as I can tell its only effecting my actual AD/DA.

..
Old 23rd October 2010
  #46
Gear Head
 
Indigital's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ev33 View Post
Is anyone using one of these 10M + OCX/Trinity setups on a PT rig with 192s?

Just wondering if anyone thinks it makes a significant difference in that context, or if it only really helps when your using external converters.

EV

My 192's clocked to my 10m trinity combo is like digi interface on steroids. Read up, everyone that has em loves em. I guess if you are already ok with spending $5-6000 on a clocking system, wait, save up, and then spring for the $8-9000 Trinity & 10m. or maybe ocx 10m, or buy used. You wont be disappointed.
Old 23rd October 2010
  #47
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge View Post

seriously ..what the?
I have an Isochrone Trinity/Atomic clock here .
please explain how its "telling protools how to stay in line while doing all the math of the samples" please?
as far as I can tell its only effecting my actual AD/DA.

..
I agree, and I think this is the kind of thing that gets the technical people all riled, because even to me what Mundy is suggesting sounds crazy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but his assertions is as follows:-

An internal bounce WITH NO A/D or D/A sounds better when using the Isochrone OCX than when clocked to internal.

WTF? Is this even remotely possible with no A/D D/A ???
Old 23rd October 2010
  #48
Q & A Guest
 
ev33's Avatar
Listening test at Barefoot Recording.... anyone?

Hey,

I am doing my final preparations for an AES presentation on comparative listening today. I have been trying to get an Antelope clock (either OCX+10M or Trinity+10M) in my room to create source material for one of the example listening tests. My other attempts to get them have fallen through (Antelope won't have any demo inventory in town until next week and local rentals wont be available til next as well). I had set aside time to get this stuff done today and am a bit stuck without the Antelope stuff.

Does anyone in the Los Angeles/Hollywood area have any time/interest in bringing their Antelope clock to my studio (Barefoot Recording) and participating in some very disciplined listening tests today 10/23/10?

Let me know!

Thanks

Eric Valentine
Old 23rd October 2010
  #49
Lives for gear
 
bassjam's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge View Post

seriously ..what the?
I have an Isochrone Trinity/Atomic clock here .
please explain how its "telling protools how to stay in line while doing all the math of the samples" please?
as far as I can tell its only effecting my actual AD/DA.

..
We use ours to clock our SYNC IO's then set tools to external sync from the SYNC IO boxes. Does this not Sync tools to the 10M???? Surely it does? Then everything that it attached to the master clock is in sync?
Old 23rd October 2010
  #50
Lives for gear
 
evangelista's Avatar
 

My mastering engineer has one. He has a ridiculously high-end setup, in a great sounding room.

When he got the Atomic Clock, my jaw dropped. I couldn't believe that sound could get so much better.

Unlike most Gearslutz, I don't like buying gear that much. I've had all I need for a while. But I really wish I could afford this clock, I'd buy it in a heart beat.
Old 23rd October 2010
  #51
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev33 View Post

Does anyone in the Los Angeles/Hollywood area have any time/interest in bringing their Antelope clock to my studio (Barefoot Recording) and participating in some very disciplined listening tests today 10/23/10?

Let me know!

Thanks

Eric Valentine
Darn.I would've loved to have done it.
already booked today /tomorrow and my antelope stuff is in full swing.
Old 23rd October 2010
  #52
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassjam View Post
We use ours to clock our SYNC IO's then set tools to external sync from the SYNC IO boxes. Does this not Sync tools to the 10M???? Surely it does? Then everything that it attached to the master clock is in sync?
Yes its all locked up via word clock.I'm just wondering how it would affect the audio of an internal bounce.
Old 23rd October 2010
  #53
Q & A Guest
 
ev33's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge View Post
Darn.I would've loved to have done it.
already booked today /tomorrow and my antelope stuff is in full swing.
Hey,

Its unfortunate you are not available. I recall you expressed some interest in the undertone audio consoles. There are 3 of them here at Barefoot Recording 2 of which are up and running. Today would also be an opportunity to get a very up close look at the consoles and hear them in action as some of this source material was being worked on.

Maybe some other time!

EV
Old 23rd October 2010
  #54
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ev33 View Post
Hey,

Its unfortunate you are not available. I recall you expressed some interest in the undertone audio consoles. There are 3 of them here at Barefoot Recording 2 of which are up and running. Today would also be an opportunity to get a very up close look at the consoles and hear them in action as some of this source material was being worked on.

Maybe some other time!

EV
Sounds good,thanks for the offer Eric.

I'm now also booked through AES so I won't be there either.

I still want to see/hear them [after AES?]
Old 23rd October 2010
  #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mundy View Post
in a digital audio system when you select a master word clock in or define clock source ... that audio system is now governed by that master clock


the 10m tells protools how to stay in line while doing all the math of the samples

so let me repeat if you have a clock clocking your system and you do something a rendering of anykind the clock is affecting your audio

Hey Mundy, FYI, Clocking only governs converters, not the entire DAW.

.
Old 24th October 2010
  #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by gollumsluvslave View Post
An internal bounce WITH NO A/D or D/A sounds better when using the Isochrone OCX than when clocked to internal.
WTF? Is this even remotely possible with no A/D D/A ???
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundBadge View Post
Yes its all locked up via word clock.I'm just wondering how it would affect the audio of an internal bounce.
It has no effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mundy View Post

if you clock your pt internal and do an internal bounce to disk

and if you clock your pt to an ocx with a 10m the difference is drastic

the 10m tells protools how to stay in line while doing all the math of the samples

so let me repeat if you have a clock clocking your system and you do something a rendering of anykind the clock is affecting your audio

THE END
That is not correct. Clocking can not have any influence on an internal bounce, only on digital / analog conversion. Calculations on a file / bitstream do not require - or consider - converter clocking.

Your previously posted 'with' and 'without' atomic clock samples illustrate this... they null down to dither. I.e. both files are the same (-dither). If you heard a difference between them (when playing both recorded samples back, using the same D/A clock), then that is a testament to the power of perception bias.
Old 24th October 2010
  #57
Lives for gear
 
DONNX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering View Post
It has no effect.



That is not correct. Clocking can not have any influence on an internal bounce, only on digital / analog conversion. Calculations on a file / bitstream do not require - or consider - converter clocking.

Your previously posted 'with' and 'without' atomic clock samples illustrate this... they null down to dither. I.e. both files are the same (-dither). If you heard a difference between them (when playing both recorded samples back, using the same D/A clock), then that is a testament to the power of perception bias.
This is corrrect. Anything going in and out digital to analog or analog to digital has the benefit of a good clock. thumbsup
Old 25th October 2010
  #58
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mundy View Post
Also, would you say that in your opinion the results in those two files clearly demonstrate the sonic power of the 10M?- YES I would say that it is very clear example of how powerful of a box it is when all I changed was from my 1300 dollar master clock to the same master clock clocked to the 10m



the mix was mixed in cubase with a m audio I/ O, then the 2 track was dithered to 16 bits in PT HD


Is that what you're saying, or was there an analogue stage involved? -No, I am saying exactly what I said.. re read posts and read me file again



one is good and one is way better
the difference is extremely noticeable


the mix was mixed in cubase at 24_882 with a m audio I O then the 2 track was only dithered to 16 bits in PT HD

there was no volume changing or adjustments on the 2 track export session

*******


I have decided to post more samples

here is an example at 48k the previous the independence day example was a 24_882 export



Both of these samples where mixed and exported at my mundy sound lab Studios

Both clips came from the same 24_882 2 track mixdown.The two track 24_48k mixdown was made on a PT HD system reclocked with an antelope ocx
here is where things get different


CLIP_WHEELS_16_441_c17atomic.wav- the 2 track 24bit 48k mixdown is reclocked to the 10m to create the dithered file

CLIP_WHEELS_16_441_c17internal.wav - the 2 track 24bit 48k mixdown is reclocked to the internal 192 clock to create the dithered file

DOWNLOAD LINK:
TST_WHEELS_CLIPS_10m...: TST_WHEELS_CLIPS_10m_vs_Internal.zip - DivShare Show More Sharing Options


both use exactly same "master chain"

only difference is internal vs 10m clocked ocx
I've been away for the weekend, but I see people have picked up on what I was wondering and responded to you already.

Firstly the clock has no effect on an internal bounce, or indeed on any purely digital process (with the possible exception iof asynchronous SRC).

Secondly, those two files with the big difference that shows the superiority of the 10M...

Not only can I not hear a difference, if I null them the only difference is broadband noise, exactly what I would expect from two seperate runs through the same dithering process with no other differemce, which from your description of what you did is exactly what happened, so no surprise there.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating what many people here seem to doubt, the power of the placebo effect.
Old 25th October 2010
  #59
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mundy View Post
the JCF would be mad better carrying a clock signal derived from a 10m
The funny thing is, the JCF doesn't even have an internal PLL (phase locked loop). The designer says it doesn't need one, the sync is good enough with the digital receiver chip alone.

I use master clocks to sync digital gear if necessary, not to change/improve the sound.
Old 3rd February 2011
  #60
Gear Maniac
 

Sooo... Anyone care to record something with and without the antelope clock to give us a real comparison?

I reckon most people don't have 2 identical converters and two compters laying around to clock one with and the other without the antelope 10m, so I suggest you'd make a midi track that triggers some hardware synth, then record it first without the clock, then with the clock, and post the two files for a double blind test.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
vinlo / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
2
naomix / Gear Shoot-Outs / Sound File Comparisons / Audio Tests
2
numrologst / So much gear, so little time
30
Stitch333 / High end
6

Forum Jump
Forum Jump