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 3rd February 2011
  #61
Quote:
Originally Posted by r4uz View Post
Sooo... Anyone care to record something with and without the antelope clock to give us a real comparison?
Wouldn't something like that be nice? Or an analog-summed mix with and without the external clock would be very welcome.

I doubt you will find any takers. I find it very telling that - in all of the threads about external clocks - and there are many - there is not one single real demonstration of their effect - at least not so far as I have seen - just testimonials. I think that by now, if there were a real effect, someone would have posted proof. Still waiting...

If there is proof posted and I have missed it, can someone please point me to it?

I once did my own blind contest, using a Big Ben, not Antelope, clocking Digi 192s. The Big Ben lost and I sold it. I'd love an opportunity to do the same with the Antelope, but the price is way too high.



.
Old 3rd February 2011
  #62
Lives for gear
 
cinealta's Avatar
 

Do you like the sound of Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms?" If so, it was recorded in 1984, using a 1981 clock, on a Sony PCM-3324. Forget picosecond, and nanosecond accuracy, it was probably not even microsecond stable. Just saying.
Old 3rd February 2011
  #63
Gear Maniac
 
Gearhero's Avatar
 

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?
What I have noticed on Gearslutz is that people that tend to hear huge differences in clocks, converters and mic pres don't understand how to set up a proper level matched double blind test. Secondly, they rarely understand psycho-acoustics and expectation bias. Finally, they don't make logical arguments and rely on logical fallacies.
Old 3rd February 2011
  #64
"the rest of the story" is the name of this game.

Without determining whether these "tests" are done to a single digital box or run as a system master clock is not stated clearly.

As a system clock, I see the benefits of everything being time based to a single source.

However, internal clocks are usually pretty good and low jitter. Even if an external clock is lower in jitter, it will be degraded by the drivers, cables and interface chips. Many times that jitter will be higher than the internal clock's errors. Trace impedance matching software is needed when laying out digital clock pcb traces as any misbalance or shift can easily degrade jitter specs.

I recall discussions with Michal at Mytek about this. He had developed with careful design a very low jitter internal clock of 10 ps. By the time it travelled through 3 inches of FR-4 pcb trace it grew to 100 ps. No, the common used Eagle layout software doesn't have impedance analysis, those are very expensive software programs that do.

What isn't determined here besides anectdotal evidence is whether that timing accuracy of an external clock improves over the internal clock of a stand alone digital device.
Old 3rd February 2011
  #65
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
What isn't determined here besides anectdotal evidence is whether that timing accuracy of an external clock improves over the internal clock of a stand alone digital device.
Does Your Studio Need A Digital Master Clock?

This article succinctly demonstrates that technical performance of ADAC's can not be improved by an external clock, unless the design of the ADAC was flawed to begin with.

And Michal from Mytek had this to say about it in another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mytek View Post
Right on. External clock is in most cases just a distortion inducing device and many people seem to like this coloration and call it improvement.

All evidence (in this case FFT distortion plots) has always proved only that.

External jitter induced by external clock typically emphasizes midrange what is then mistaken for "warmth" or "forward" or "focus", while at the same time bass and highs suffer loss of resolution.

Money would be better spent on a nice tube EQ instead.

External clock can make sense when used to synchronize complex digital systems but it "improving" sound is the biggest audio myth ever.

Michal, Mytek New York
Dan Lavry concurs with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Lavry View Post
Start out with understanding what you need:

If you can use internal clock, do so. Do you really believe that a clock designer will do a better clock just because it is in a different chassis then the AD?

Assuming the clock quality in the external clock box is the same as the clock quality in the AD, and then the internal AD clock offers better performance. Why? There are many reasons such as:

When using external clock, you still need a second clock inside the AD, to lock to the first clock. So you have the jitter (timing errors) of 2 clocks. Add to that jitter accumulated in the connecting cable, separate grounding, the PLL circuit that is there to synchronize the internal clock to the external... In fact, add to that the fact that the AD clock that matters is not even at the frequency of the incoming clock (it is at a frequency that is a high multiple of the sample rate)...

But there are times you do need an external clocks, to synchronize units together, and when you do, use an external clock. Just realize that you are using external clock to synchronize units, not to improve sound of AD's.

So say you do need an external clock. The goal is to synchronize units, but you need to make sure that the clock is low jitter (each clock cycle is as identical to any other cycle). Jitter is the important issue, clock absolute accuracy is not!
Say your clock is off by 100 parts per million, then a 3 minutes song will be off by .018 seconds. An hour performance will last longer (or shorter) by .36 seconds.
That is a non issue, because you are synchronizing all your tracks together.

Also, 100ppm (which is pretty loose clock accuracy) effect on the pitch is negligible; a human can not hear 100ppm. An A440 will be off by .044Hz. Given that 1 cent is around .26Hz, we are talking about around .16 cent in tuning accuracy. An ear can not hear that.

An atomic clock is all about absolute accuracy, which you do not need. There are many applications in science and technology where absolute accuracy matters, but audio is not one of them. The assumption that an atomic clock yields better jitter is simply wrong. So why spend a fortune on gear you do not need?

Most of the jitter rejection and all of the clock generation (frequency multiplication) takes place inside the AD. A clock is a relatively low technology, good converters is orders of magnitude more complex technology then a precise 1,0,1,0,1,0 generator (which is what a clock is). Despite all the hype, improving conversion is about better converters, not about clocking a lesser converter with a better clock.

Regards
Dan Lavry
Lavry Engineering
Old 3rd February 2011
  #66
Lives for gear
 
cinealta's Avatar
 

Atomic clock for audio? Transformers in converters? What's next, a tube stage after the DAC? LOL.
Old 3rd February 2011
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Rob King's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinealta View Post
What's next, a tube stage after the DAC?
Been done already. heh

JCF Audio DA8-V 8 Channel D/A Converter

Old 4th February 2011
  #68
Lives for gear
Correct me if somethings wrong. I had my 96 modified and I was monitoring through a 003 prior. On playback now, my mixes sound alive and full in the low end. The improved DA is leading my ears to this new found glory of sound right?
Old 4th February 2011
  #69
Lives for gear
 
DONNX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cinealta View Post
Atomic clock for audio? Transformers in converters? What's next, a tube stage after the DAC? LOL.
hehhehhehheh


Those converter makers need to focus on perfect reproduction. Not tone or color. Neutral as you can get. Or make an option to add color with insert cards or switch selector for Tape tone, non tape tone= neutral, or whatever else tube tone, 2nd harmonic, 3rd harmonic, but don't make it one choice unless it is complete neutral. Let conversion be conversion.

With no added preservatives or extra calories!!! I would take analog like resolution over all else offered. Digital Clipping feature to prevent it from ever happening. Lots of other stuff to do besides adding transformers.. I agree

Yes resolution!!! Simple target for conversion. Getting that digital unclearness (low, mid and top end) and sand paper grit top end out of the picture. GET us ALL OUT OF THE Matrix GRID. Superior headroom and ultra clean power supply. And one 24 or 32 channel I/O box. I hate having to buy 4 16 channel units and daisy chaining them with more cables, more money, more liablity for problems. I would love to have a one 4-5 U box with 32 channels I/O, 32 AES I/O, one digi link cord to my PT HD, No worries to buy stupid proprietary cards for this daw or that daw. or buying 10 digi link cords to connect them all. Commerical heavy duty military grade construction like the old days. What happened to Good OLD American quality!!! Seem like when plastic chairs and spoons were invented...we started to leave the picture of built tough quality goods and china came steppin in ..because we buy it..and rather have them do it. And we start bitchin about not having any jobs???

Built in CLOCK. No need to buy a BROTHER BEN or Einstein ATOM BOMB CLOCK. AND Plastic is a huge turn off for pro level users.. Just thoughts.

I would be happy at that point. No need for added trannies, ampex studer line amp, Flashing lights or mirrored balls
Old 4th February 2011
  #70
Quote:
Originally Posted by DONNX View Post
Commerical heavy duty military grade construction like the old days. What happened to Good OLD American quality!!!
I own a fair amount of that gool old American "military grade" gear, and I love it. Some of it is 70 years old and still kicking ass! Thing is - all of that gear is full of big colorful iron transformers, tubes, oil-filled caps, etc. This is not "transparent" gear in the slightest. So isn't wishing for the good old days and for transparency at the same time a contradiction?

Furthermore, I think transparent conversion is a myth. Or it could be stated - "Transparent" is a color. Every converter has a "sound" - how else could there be so many different converter-related opinions and preferences among GS members, you and I included?

Reproduced music can never sound exactly like the original performance. There is no such thing as a perfect uncolored circuit, microphone, or speaker. Everything is colored. All we ever do is pick the colors we prefer.

And isn't it ironic that the companies that are actually hand-building converters like tanks in America are Burl and JCF?

.
Old 5th February 2011
  #71
Lives for gear
 
DONNX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trakworx View Post
I own a fair amount of that gool old American "military grade" gear, and I love it. Some of it is 70 years old and still kicking ass! Thing is - all of that gear is full of big colorful iron transformers, tubes, oil-filled caps, etc. This is not "transparent" gear in the slightest. So isn't wishing for the good old days and for transparency at the same time a contradiction?

Furthermore, I think transparent conversion is a myth. Or it could be stated - "Transparent" is a color. Every converter has a "sound" - how else could there be so many different converter-related opinions and preferences among GS members, you and I included?

Reproduced music can never sound exactly like the original performance. There is no such thing as a perfect uncolored circuit, microphone, or speaker. Everything is colored. All we ever do is pick the colors we prefer.

And isn't it ironic that the companies that are actually hand-building converters like tanks in America are Burl and JCF?

.


I hear what you are saying about the Good Old Gear. I was referring to not the caps, tubes, but the construction quality. The old stuff was built like it was for the Military. Thats what I was wishing for on our converters of today an WITH ALL GEAR that I spend 2K or more on...

Some converters just look awful cheap for the cash you spend on them...Everyone is trying to save a penny hear and there. And plastic is the way to go, not aluminum or steel. I just bought 4 racks from HEstudiotecnik in Germany. EXPENSIVE. But built out of steel construction. So I got what I paid for. Apogee has some of it going on with their older versions. But the newer stuff? Plastic SPOON thing man is what I seeing..

. Converters are expensive at the range of toys we play it. It should be buillt like a tank. I can't tell you how many times I sent my Apogee X units back for that stupid power plastic power button not working. The most common flaw to the entire design. Other than that. I am 100% content with it. And I am one of thousands with that NOTORIOUS complaint. They should have just changed the switch to something of better reliability and quality. To reduce the incoming repairs and loss of $$$ to their business. But I guess there was some sort of business contract they had to follow. Maybe? Or they bought too many of those damm switches

You are right. Every converter does have a sound. I want someone to come up with one that doesn't or is so minimal, you can't tell by the human ear. That would be a step into the future for conversion what conversion should be IMHO. Analog To Digital, Digital To Analog. PERIOD.

Conversion should not have any color IMHO. It should be about retaining the sources true resolution detail to the max, and reproducing the sound to digital form with no analog additives that weren't there to begin with. Unless you want that. But then again, Tape machines added a lot of things. And we all love it. But wouldn't it be nice to have just a take recorded with pure Neve or Vintage tube pre's sound, no added carbs for a change?

And if you wanted to ad...then run it through tape, or run it through whatever "colored" device you are craving. But the core of the converter, I wish was transparent 100%. Analog to Digital 1s and 0s, no spices added to the recipe. I haven't heard of this yet being done by anyone. Kinda wish I had the knowledge and brains to do it. Since I am having the thoughts about this subject.

Perfectly uncolored circuit with gear, i.e. Mics, pres, limiters, is a myth. yes I AGREE..

But we need someone who is smart enough to break this scratched CD. It can be done I am sure. Probably take a lot of brains to do it or a who new approach. I leaning it will be a software engineer/computer scientist that will make this invention first.

Imagine have like a Digital AES cable if you will. A cable. Plugs from the out of your last piece in the chain, and goes into a AES input. Nothing in the path but 1s and 0s. Then the software converts the incoming Analog signal to Digital and vice versa. The software would need to be 50 time above Plug in quality sonics. No 2 D nish whatsoever. Total 100% reproduction of the given signal. Thats what I dreaming for us all in the future of recording.

Also, the converter chip has a color. Analog designs, Cirrus Logic, AKM, etc. They all have a finger print sound. They remind me of opamps ICs. Same thing. Guys will add a certain Burl Brown Chip to their guitar effect pedal to make it sound different than a JRC chip. So the chips need to disappear, I am sure these chip companies wouldn't want to listen to me right now... And software needs to make it happen. Unless a you can develop a transparent analog passive design.

Something new would have to be invented. That would take an original analog sound and transform it to 1 and 0s without adding more analog circuity color or footprint..

I agree with ya, there are a handful out there doing the construction quality at a pro commercial/military use level... Like Shadow Hills too. Or Cranesong. But as a whole. I say not. I have not used or touched JCF or Burl. The burl guy is on the "tank quality" thing I know. I used his UA 2192. Thats built like a shxt brick house as well.

I love gear that is built that way. It makes my studio look more pro to the clients and it makes me feel I spent my money well for the long haul. It glows "READY FOR WORK!" thumbsupheh
Old 5th February 2011
  #72
Lives for gear
 
surflounge's Avatar
pro commercial level...
something like this Stagetec? TrueMatch RMC Characteristics

.
Old 5th February 2011
  #73
Don,

I totally agree with you about build-quality. I try to only give my money to companies that spare no expense on their construction.

Those are some interesting ideas about how a transparent converter might be created. I think it will be hard to get past the fact that there has to be some kind of analog front end to any converter, and that circuit would have to be perfect, whatever that means.

I still have doubts about whether it is really possible because the sound wave will always be quantized into whatever digital resolution you are using, and that is a fundamentally invasive process. Perhaps DSD has a better shot at it...

Personally, I have never wished for transparent converters, just musical-sounding converters. All of my favorite music was recorded using Ampex, Studer, Neve, Helios, etc. - all colored gear. So I don't fight it, I try to harness it and use gear coloration to my advantage, converters included. I think of converter choice today like tape machine/tape type choice was yesterday. I use what makes my ears happy. After all, I'm making music, not scientific test recordings.

It would be nice, if at all possible, to have a truly transparent option for those who desire it. Then I might have to buy two entire sets of converters - ugh!

.
Old 5th February 2011
  #74
Lives for gear
 
bassjam's Avatar
 

I really dont agree with a lot of what Lavry says!
Old 6th February 2011
  #75
Lives for gear
 
Zep Dude's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassjam View Post
I really dont agree with a lot of what Lavry says!
Like what for example? Most of what he says is based on scientific principle so unless you have a new theorem what is there to disagree with?
Old 6th February 2011
  #76
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zep Dude View Post
Like what for example? Most of what he says is based on scientific principle so unless you have a new theorem what is there to disagree with?
only that music is about sound and listening, not scientific theorems. I have done listening tests comparing internal clocks to a fancy external master clock, and my ears tell me different than what Lavry says. . . What should I do? Should I ignore my ears and says, "well, Lavry says the external clock scientifically cannot be improving my sound, so my ears must be lying to me. . ."

Follow your ears if you make music, follow scientific theorems if you are a scientist.
Old 6th February 2011
  #77
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Kowmashev View Post
only that music is about sound and listening, not scientific theorems. I have done listening tests comparing internal clocks to a fancy external master clock, and my ears tell me different than what Lavry says. . . What should I do? Should I ignore my ears and says, "well, Lavry says the external clock scientifically cannot be improving my sound, so my ears must be lying to me. . ."
Of course you shouldn't ignore what your ears are telling you. But if you have a somewhat credible (i.e. scientific) indication that there may be more (or less) to it than your ears are telling you, just put them to a proper blind test.

It only takes a few minutes, it is interesting no matter the outcome, and you'll be training your hearing in the process.

It's a win - win - win situation...

Just be careful to devise the test in a way so that bias of testee or helpers cannot become a factor.

Quote:
Follow your ears if you make music, follow scientific theorems if you are a scientist.
Better skip all schools and learning if you want to be a musician... make sure all that education and training doesn't get in the way of your inate creativity.
Old 6th February 2011
  #78
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering View Post
Better skip all schools and learning if you want to be a musician... make sure all that education and training doesn't get in the way of your inate creativity.
You certainly can skip all school and training to be a great musician, but I personally enjoyed what I learned in school and being exposed to different ideas (not that I agreed with everything I was told). I agree with the second part about not letting the education get in the way of your creativity, though. . .
Old 6th February 2011
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Kowmashev View Post
only that music is about sound and listening, not scientific theorems.
Yes, and listening is fraught with expectation bias and placebo effects that all humans are susceptible to. It is a proven fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Kowmashev View Post
I have done listening tests comparing internal clocks to a fancy external master clock, and my ears tell me different than what Lavry says. . . What should I do? Should I ignore my ears and says, "well, Lavry says the external clock scientifically cannot be improving my sound, so my ears must be lying to me. . ."
Your ears just might be lying for the reasons stated above. What should you do? - Conduct an honest blind comparison with tracks that have been printed and played back on the consumer playback device of your choice, because if it can't be heard on the final master in the real world then it doesn't matter. Some of these clocking effects can only be heard in the studio, in which case they are lying to your ears about how good your music will sound outside of the studio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Kowmashev View Post
Follow your ears if you make music, follow scientific theorems if you are a scientist.
So by following that code, do you ignore scientific knowledge of acoustics, electricity, phase relationships, psycho-acoustics, etc. as well? Or are you choosing which science to follow and which to ignore?

Recording requires a combination of science and art. Both are important.

.
Old 6th February 2011
  #80
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Kowmashev View Post
You certainly can skip all school and training to be a great musician, but I personally enjoyed what I learned in school and being exposed to different ideas (not that I agreed with everything I was told). I agree with the second part about not letting the education get in the way of your creativity, though. . .
I don't think it does, unless the two really are competing for limited time.

I replied sarcastically because I think there's no substance to the idea that education in field X (science, for example) somehow denies ability in field Y (music, for example). Personally, I've only ever heard that point being made in order to say something positive about / defend ignorance.
Old 6th February 2011
  #81
Lives for gear
 
cinealta's Avatar
 

My *guess* is that the Honeywell, Atmel or ST Micro, radiation-hardened, extreme-thermal and vibration protected, ADC chips that fly on the shuttle, and are in M1A1 Abrams tanks etc, would be at least $10k alone. Probably exorbitantly expensive for a gear manufacturer to build a box around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DONNX View Post
Commerical heavy duty military grade construction like the old days. What happened to Good OLD American quality!!!
Old 6th February 2011
  #82
Lives for gear
 
airmate's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Kowmashev View Post
only that music is about sound and listening, not scientific theorems. I have done listening tests comparing internal clocks to a fancy external master clock, and my ears tell me different than what Lavry says. . . What should I do? Should I ignore my ears and says, "well, Lavry says the external clock scientifically cannot be improving my sound, so my ears must be lying to me. . ."

Follow your ears if you make music, follow scientific theorems if you are a scientist.
you are talking about different things than dan lavry. he basically says that an external clock makes the overall jitter worse in most cases. i think we can all agree this is a proven fact - unless the converter to be clocked externally is a pretty poor design to begin with.

have a look at the sound on sound article that has been quoted somewhere in this thread...

but if you personally like the sound of more jitter (and therefore more distortion) better in a given situation, that is a totally different story.

as far as i have understood lavry, he only talks about (easily measurable) facts like jitter. so from a technical point of view, an external clock is very often worse, indeed.

but that does not mean that an external clock could not be perceived as subjectively better - which is basically what you are saying.

but that is no contradiction to what lavry states.
Old 6th February 2011
  #83
The real secret of pro audio is the fact that most converter builders are not using the best stuff but mid level silicon.

Open the hood and more than likely you will find low cost silicon from Crystal or AKM. What you are not likely to see is top level parts like the BB PCM/DSD1792A DAC and the PCM4222 ADC.

Those parts are more often seen in high end consumer gear, not recording equipment. It used to be the other way around.
Old 6th February 2011
  #84
Lives for gear
 
cinealta's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
What you are not likely to see is top level parts like the BB PCM/DSD1792A DAC and the PCM4222 ADC.
Jim, how does the 6.144MHz modulator clock in the TI compare with the Antelope in jitter spec?
Old 6th February 2011
  #85
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Kowmashev View Post
only that music is about sound and listening, not scientific theorems. I have done listening tests comparing internal clocks to a fancy external master clock, and my ears tell me different than what Lavry says. . . What should I do? Should I ignore my ears and says, "well, Lavry says the external clock scientifically cannot be improving my sound, so my ears must be lying to me. . ."

Follow your ears if you make music, follow scientific theorems if you are a scientist.
Euphonic glorifaction is the audio fashion of the day. Many here have set their careers upon the colorization of their clients to which a certain mount and flavor of dirt presented with their music is a desirable goal.
Old 6th February 2011
  #86
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinealta View Post
Jim, how does the 6.144MHz modulator clock in the TI compare with the Antelope in jitter spec?
I don't know anything about the Antelope. I suspect the jitter specs are better on the modulator than you will get from a 44.1k LR clock sent down a few feet of cable. LR clocks are not master system clocks. External clocks do not replace system clocks, just the LR clocks running the sample rate.
Old 6th February 2011
  #87
Lives for gear
 

Of course, the people who stand the biggest chance of hearing the impact, better or worse, are the people who have multiple AD/DA units. Only one of those historically is the master clock. The rest are slaved to it. So, if you allow that clocks can impact the sound of AD/DA, then you *should* hear some difference with different clocks.

My system is comprised of 2-AD16x's, and 2-DA16x's. One of the AD and both of the DA essentially were clocked to a big ben, when fed by the first unit. Now all are clocked to a trinity. I did a money back test on the antelope and kept it. Now if I were running only one unit and it did both AD and DA I might feel differently than I do. But in my real world setup where I had 3 of 4 units as slaves, it made a difference that I could not deny. I certainly feel that it made my job easier. I have not tried the 10M.

josh
Old 7th February 2011
  #88
Gear Maniac
 
CacoV.'s Avatar
 

Originally Posted by Dan Lavry
Start out with understanding what you need:

If you can use internal clock, do so. Do you really believe that a clock designer will do a better clock just because it is in a different chassis then the AD?

Assuming the clock quality in the external clock box is the same as the clock quality in the AD, and then the internal AD clock offers better performance. Why? There are many reasons such as:

When using external clock, you still need a second clock inside the AD, to lock to the first clock. So you have the jitter (timing errors) of 2 clocks. Add to that jitter accumulated in the connecting cable, separate grounding, the PLL circuit that is there to synchronize the internal clock to the external... In fact, add to that the fact that the AD clock that matters is not even at the frequency of the incoming clock (it is at a frequency that is a high multiple of the sample rate)...

But there are times you do need an external clocks, to synchronize units together, and when you do, use an external clock. Just realize that you are using external clock to synchronize units, not to improve sound of AD's.

So say you do need an external clock. The goal is to synchronize units, but you need to make sure that the clock is low jitter (each clock cycle is as identical to any other cycle). Jitter is the important issue, clock absolute accuracy is not!
Say your clock is off by 100 parts per million, then a 3 minutes song will be off by .018 seconds. An hour performance will last longer (or shorter) by .36 seconds.
That is a non issue, because you are synchronizing all your tracks together.

Also, 100ppm (which is pretty loose clock accuracy) effect on the pitch is negligible; a human can not hear 100ppm. An A440 will be off by .044Hz. Given that 1 cent is around .26Hz, we are talking about around .16 cent in tuning accuracy. An ear can not hear that.

An atomic clock is all about absolute accuracy, which you do not need. There are many applications in science and technology where absolute accuracy matters, but audio is not one of them. The assumption that an atomic clock yields better jitter is simply wrong. So why spend a fortune on gear you do not need?

Most of the jitter rejection and all of the clock generation (frequency multiplication) takes place inside the AD. A clock is a relatively low technology, good converters is orders of magnitude more complex technology then a precise 1,0,1,0,1,0 generator (which is what a clock is). Despite all the hype, improving conversion is about better converters, not about clocking a lesser converter with a better clock.

Regards
Dan Lavry
Lavry Engineering
-------------------------------------------
This thread reminds me of one of GS most controversial threads ever:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-...new-clock.html

Very well known names in audio participated in the above mentioned thread with different opinions. Lots of insults apart, this thread is worth reading. Ethan Winer and a buch of followers agree with Lavry: external clock is useless. Lavry says something I agree: external clock is usefull to sync different sources. I have a Big Ben myself synicin' a HEDD, a 192 and 1 Alpha & 1 Delta Link together. Adam from Mercenary ( Roc Mixwell ) and a lot of other well experienced people such as Michael Brauer do find that clock makes a difference. Moreover, the 10M is mentioned in this thread and Michael Brauer himself says he guarantees that there is a big difference and not only him, but other great engineers such as Bob Ludwig found the same.

Well, I'm nothing close to these guys, but as far as my experience goes, I can't say yes or no to the fact that external clock makes a difference in all aplications. I've never done a blind test. However, I've done a blind test and it sure makes a difference clocking my converters together.

It is well worth reading the thread.
Old 7th February 2011
  #89
Lives for gear
 
GoldMember's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering View Post
may be more (or less) to it than your ears are telling you, just put them to a proper blind test.

It only takes a few minutes, it is interesting no matter the outcome, and you'll be training your hearing in the process.
ask someone to rename the files... and write down the key file.
there you have your blind test...
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/attac...-24bit-dry.wav
vs.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/attac...-24bit-dry.wav
from:
Drawmer M-Clock DMS-1 vs. Apogee Big Ben
or...
Digi002 BLA clock VS BIG BEN
or..
Motu HD192 Black Lion vs Motu 2408
for fun:
With and without power conditioner and Voltage Regulator

Playback & Recording:
Same Signal, same converters, same cables, same drivers, same soundcard, same software, same AC power, DIFFERENT CLOCKS!
5.5KHz Saw Wave @ 44.1Khz
______________________ vs. __________________
External.Clock............(L) vs. Internal.Clock.......(R)

from:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-...hout-ears.html

Bouncing & Export only!
10M vs. ocx vs. internal
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/5906411-post6.html
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/5919848-post37.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by CacoV. View Post
Originally Posted by Dan Lavry
Start out with understanding what you need:

Assuming.
Old 8th February 2011
  #90
Lives for gear
 
DONNX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trakworx View Post
Yes, and listening is fraught with expectation bias and placebo effects that all humans are susceptible to. It is a proven fact.



Your ears just might be lying for the reasons stated above. What should you do? - Conduct an honest blind comparison with tracks that have been printed and played back on the consumer playback device of your choice, because if it can't be heard on the final master in the real world then it doesn't matter. Some of these clocking effects can only be heard in the studio, in which case they are lying to your ears about how good your music will sound outside of the studio.

So by following that code, do you ignore scientific knowledge of acoustics, electricity, phase relationships, psycho-acoustics, etc. as well? Or are you choosing which science to follow and which to ignore?

Recording requires a combination of science and art. Both are important.

.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
The real secret of pro audio is the fact that most converter builders are not using the best stuff but mid level silicon.

Open the hood and more than likely you will find low cost silicon from Crystal or AKM. What you are not likely to see is top level parts like the BB PCM/DSD1792A DAC and the PCM4222 ADC.

Those parts are more often seen in high end consumer gear, not recording equipment. It used to be the other way around.




Jim, I am a constant "POP THE HOOD" type of guy. I can't resist looking inside. I had those BB PCM/DSD 1792A DAC in my studio. With that HUGE 129db spec!!! I can attest that for me, (before knowing what chip was inside) those must be the best D/A chips out right now that I ever heard. I believe Allen Sides is a fan of those as well. I use a cranesong avocet now. But I won't say it was better or a lot worse. But good enough for what I need in a D/A section for monitoring. For me to have another box just for those chips, I couldn't justify the rack space (3U more), power consumption, and extra cash. But I was impressed with those more than any other.

Its too bad there is no monitor controller with Speaker and source switching with those inside yet. Or a D/A 16 channel converter. Not sure what is being used on the Apogee Symphony I/O or new AVID yet. But.. I would be on it and the avocet may have to go. Also.. A/B Lavry Black DA/10 and Benchmark to it. Also both good enough and their own sound that I appreciated. But those BB DSD chips, whooaaa. Just another world man!




When I did my personal A/B test long ago with clocking external and internal with a full mix. That was tracked clocked,mixed clocked, and mastered clocked.
Vs Tracked clocked, mixed not clocked, and mastered not clocked.

I listened and listened for a week. Because one listening test, in one day or at one time, isn't accurate as a multiple spaced listening over a week for me at least. My ears, brain and body are more probable to be in a fresh state for an good evaluation. For those who don't know, Your hearing ability or perception changes with everything you endured, mentally and physically throughout your normal day. I listed to the mixes blind with my IPOD, with my car stereo, boom box, studio etc. And the most important thing for me at that time was what would the consumer hear?

From my observation, and if you got decent ears for hearing music quality. The fine difference can be heard on an IPOD clear as day. Maybe not everyone can hear the subtle difference in the tighter bottom end or blurred top detail. I did. And that was enough for me to keep my clock in the house. I run multiple converters all locked into a master clock. Hardware inserts all over the mix. So the AD and DA are constantly working on my sessions.

I imagine for those who test word clocks are not all in the same playing field or sport. If you are a guy who does a mix ITB, tracked it clocked, and use only plug ins, staying in the digital domain, and bouncing to disc or using very little tracks. You may not hearing a difference.

But if you are a guy tracking Analog to Digital, then inserting hardware AD/DA through the majority of a 24+ tracked session and then summing out/DA to a tape machine, then back in A/D to burn. Then mastering with more Analog hardware. The clocking benefit may seem more beneficial. Its my best guess why there is so much debate on this. Who knows how the last guy tested his clock, how much experience he has and how good his ears are?

And not only the clock has an influence. But ever little electronic device you add to the mix / changes the mix. I am believer of this and seen the light! Analog or digital gear or BNC gear. I ran a final master via AES to a digital disc burner. Technically there should be no sound difference right? Its digital to digital? Well, there was a difference with even that. According to Monster Cables (not a huge fan). There is jitter in poorly made digital cables. Don't know if that is 100% true. But I do believe digital gear has an influence just like analog gear. I ran a master from PT to a Sony CDRW66. It warmed up the mix. So I think clocks add something just like plug ins algorithms add something to the sound that analog cannot do. Everything you add to your mix, if its a plug, hardware, cables, certain power filtering devices, grounding, soldered or neutrik'ed, tape or pcm, whatever..it contributes to the final result. For the good or the bad. You may disagree.
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