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
The 10MX clock has changed my studio Audio Interfaces
Old 31st December 2015
  #721
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by softshoe View Post
The common sense club says, "why wait weeks to months to end up at the same place?". Just audition it, Make a decision, and move on. Spend your time on more important things like song writing and tracking.
In my world it's common sense to want to know what something does, before finding out if what it does is something I need or want.

Let's say someone made a box that had no description, no title, no product class. It just has inputs and outputs and a power connector. And let's say that in order for it to work you need to wire every I/O in your studio through it. Conceptually it's not like a insert that you either use on a track or not...it's all or nothing.

Then people came online and said essentially everything about it. It's wider, more focused, more clear, more weight, more depth, etc, etc, etc.

So for me, it's common sense to want to know what it does. Not just because of listening fallibility, but also because I have a workflow, signal flow and overall aesthetic that has emerged over the years and I'm always looking at ROI of one purchase vs another.

I can look at the specs and design aesthetic of a U67 vs a pair of AT5040 and make a pretty damn good educated guess as to how those would fit my workflow, and which would be a better buy for me. And I can also make a pretty good guess as to rather buying either of those, or trying to improve my control room acoustics will be a better use of my time/money.

If the above 'mystery box' say added subtle distortion to everything, I'll pass, no listening test needed. I'm not chasing some erstwhile ghost of analog and have a plethora of square-wave-makers both ITB and OTB.

If on the other hand the box was somehow able to make any transfer of audio more true to the source, and they can show this, I would be very interested.

To me, especially given how many products are out these days, relying on a combination of user feedback, my own listening as well as specs, science and measurements is common sense.
9
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #722
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jproc View Post
Nothing to do with the subject of clocks, but in that video GW came across to me as a sincere, humble guy. I particularly enjoyed his answer to the guy who asked him how an unknown songwriter goes about becoming known. Anyway, back to digital clocking.
6
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #723
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by softshoe View Post
Anti-science would not be the box I would put myself in. If I had to take up a cause, it would be pro common sense.
OK, that's cool. The problem though with "common sense" is what people call "common sense" is not necessarily shared as "common sense" across culture, experience, etc. Thus, it's often not common at all.

But I can respect your perspective and maybe I can be less pedantic.

Quote:
If I'm auditioning a new piece of equipment then I know very quickly (10-15 minutes) if it's something that I'm going to find useful or not.
I think this is where you get into trouble. Anytime you audition a piece of gear and are making decisions on usefulness from a few minutes of non blind testing, if you understand your own unavoidable bias, you probably wouldn't make any grand pronouncements.

Something as extremely subtle as a clock does require a/b/x testing in order to know you are actually able to hear a difference.

But as you and others said, in this case the only negative to NOT doing a/b/x testing is possibly wasting money, as chances are the clock "upgrade" probably won't make things noticeably worse. The positive is you are not spending time doing careful evaluation.

But we humans are just plain are overconfident in our abilities to hear differences.

Quote:
If the differences between using and not using the new product was so subtle that I felt the need to do ABX testing then I would return the demo unit and say it's not for me. The differences would have to be obvious for me want to consider keeping a new piece. Minor differences become uninteresting.
But here lies the rub.

1. Only minor differences require a/b/x testing for you
2. If you can't pick out the difference in a/b/x testing, the difference is extremely minor or doesn't at all exist. OR maybe it's so subtle a/b/x testing is insufficient. In any of those cases... you would (as you state above) return it because the differences are minor.

But until you actually do an a/b/x test, you don't actually KNOW for certain whether you are spending your money on things that make a real difference. For some things it doesn't matter. I like the feel of different acoustic guitars. They sound different to me, but I don't need to test them to want to own different guitars. They even feel different to me.

But for other things you don't KNOW until you test.

It's OK to not know BTW... spend your money however you want, but then expect to be challenged when you come here touting huge "night and day" differences with pieces of gear that offer, at best, extremely subtle differences that require very specific listening conditions to be able to hear it.

Quote:
Now lets say I did it the academic way. I debated for weeks on a forum. Read white papers. Listened to clips. Debated some more. Ultimately, lets say that the Internet consensus is that product X has value. I would still need to audition it to see if it works for my needs.
Or, you could just buy what you want and what you find useful... but with a science based understanding of bias, the only thing you would need to change is your certainty about what you're hearing. With a science based understanding, you would know your own limitations, and know you MIGHT just be fooled by loving a particular piece of gear. It requires humility.

Quote:
The common sense club says, "why wait weeks to months to end up at the same place?". Just audition it, Make a decision, and move on. Spend your time on more important things like song writing and tracking.
The "common sense club" also suggests not worrying at all about things like digital clocking that offers at BEST a very subtle difference... and instead spending your time on more important things like songwriting and tracking.
4
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #724
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
To me, especially given how many products are out these days, relying on a combination of user feedback, my own listening as well as specs, science and measurements is common sense.
This... plus adding in the knowledge of human bias.
5
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #725
Deleted User
Guest
Trusting your bias is one of the most important traits of a good record man.

Subjecting your bias to rigorous testing is good for scientific conventions but not for making records.

Or as Greg Wells put it, dive off that cliff.
4
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #726
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
Trusting your bias is one of the most important traits of a good record man.

Subjecting your bias to rigorous testing is good for scientific conventions but not for making records.

Or as Greg Wells put it, dive off that cliff.

Let's hope the gear makers aren't diving.
2
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #727
Deleted User
Guest
I dunno, Antelope said their designers don't exactly know why the 10mx sounds better, so dive away!
2
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #728
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
Trusting your bias is one of the most important traits of a good record man.

Subjecting your bias to rigorous testing is good for scientific conventions but not for making records.

Or as Greg Wells put it, dive off that cliff.
I'll bite...

Some, not all, but some of the most successful people I've been exposed to thrive on blind faith in their own abilities and judgement. They're not always "right", but they don't give 2 sh**s about whether they are or not. I think that creates an element of self confidence that liberates them, and removes inhibition. The result is better work. For them. You can see examples of this type of psychology in many "top performers" in various fields.

The problem comes when these types of people espouse their beliefs to others. Because they're necessarily not rooted in any basis of "reality".

I think the claims made about this clock are so far beyond "reality", it's bordering on insanity.

But... I get it. If the fabric of who you are is built around blindly running in a direction with reckless abandon, I can see how you would get caught up in this stuff. And who am I to argue with that if it's successful for you?

It really isn't about this clock. It's about a pattern of behavior and a psychology geared towards unadulterated confidence.
13
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #729
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
I'll bite...

Some, not all, but some of the most successful people I've been exposed to thrive on blind faith in their own abilities and judgement. They're not always "right", but they don't give 2 sh**s about whether they are or not. I think that creates an element of self confidence that liberates them, and removes inhibition. The result is better work. For them. You can see examples of this type of psychology in many "top performers" in various fields.

The problem comes when these types of people espouse their beliefs to others. Because they're necessarily not rooted in any basis of "reality".

I think the claims made about this clock are so far beyond "reality", it's bordering on insanity.

But... I get it.
What's the theory of the naysayers? That many of the most accomplished people in audio all love this clock because they're all biased suckers? That's what's bordering on insanity to me. You could claim the differences might be exaggerated, ok, but I'm sure some improvement is real, so I don't get the response to this thread.
8
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #730
Lives for gear
 
RightOnRome's Avatar
Wow this thread is exhausting .. I added a AD16X to my Apollo , thus clocking the Apollo and could hear a difference in the cymbals, lowmids,vocal midrange ..it's like things were a little smeared, and I'm talking a very fine amount.. I posted samples,and I have a/b'd and most pick the ad16x clocking so if it's snake oil then we are all crazy I guess - but speaking for my setup, it's sounding much better with the new clock and inspires me to work -

Last edited by RightOnRome; 31st December 2015 at 08:08 PM..
2
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #731
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redgrovesound View Post
I'll bite...

Some, not all, but some of the most successful people I've been exposed to thrive on blind faith in their own abilities and judgement. They're not always "right", but they don't give 2 sh**s about whether they are or not. I think that creates an element of self confidence that liberates them, and removes inhibition. The result is better work. For them. You can see examples of this type of psychology in many "top performers" in various fields.

The problem comes when these types of people espouse their beliefs to others. Because they're necessarily not rooted in any basis of "reality".

I think the claims made about this clock are so far beyond "reality", it's bordering on insanity.
This is a good comment, the first half anyway. The fact that his huge success seems to coincide with the timeline of his decision to choose antelope clocking, pretty hard for him to be impartial I'm sure.

Would he feel the same if nobody hired him after his purchase of the first 10m? Would he still feel the clock has caused the sky to part, and just having sound that it provides was worth possibly living in shambles, while inevitably bankruptcy approaches and all its stresses it puts on family, possibly ruining lives of not just his own, but of the others who are close to him? Would he still feel trusting his instinct was 'right'? Or would he feel tricked and duped by marketing reps?

Most of us wouldn't roll the dice like that. Some people go all-in, and sometimes it pays off. Often it doesn't.

And sometimes sound is just soooooo good that you KNOW what you want, and when you find it, it's impossible to let go. For me it was the first time I heard an acoustic guitar through a good mic, recorded to a 2" machine, monitored from an analog console.

The sky very much parted!
...Could digital EVER get there??? Not that I've heard.

...That said about an hour after sky parted for me, I started my long journey learning about the speed issues with tape machines...

So hey, I wonder... The things Greg is saying is pretty interesting. He knows how engineers are, yet brings some really fun sounding adjectives.
2
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #732
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
Trusting your bias is one of the most important traits of a good record man..
Your bias lies to you. It might take you further down the right path by making good seem even better, or off it into the wrong path, but either way it's lying.

What would you think of someone who said that to be good at a job you had to trust a habitual liar?

But for the most part as a record man you don't need to worry about your bias, you don't need to trust IT, just trust that you can IGNORE it most of the time.
3
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #733
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson View Post
Your bias lies to you. It might take you further down the right path by making good seem even better, or off it into the wrong path, but either way it's lying.

What would you think of someone who said that to be good at a job you had to trust a habitual liar?

But for the most part as a record man you don't need to worry about your bias, you don't need to trust IT, just trust that you can IGNORE it most of the time.
I feel a Les Paul would be better than a Fender for this part, but how do I know that's not just my bias? Must post blind ABX tests on the internet and gather anonymous opinion...that's the only way to get this guitar track recorded right!
3
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #734
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
What's the theory of the naysayers? That many of the most accomplished people in audio all love this clock because they're all biased suckers? That's what's bordering on insanity to me. You could claim the differences might be exaggerated, ok, but I'm sure some improvement is real, so I don't get the response to this thread.
Pardon my tone... but I don't care if it was written in the old testament that Jesus Christ himself preferred the sound of the Antelope 10MX. There hasn't been a shred of scientifically verifiable evidence presented that the difference is even perceptible, let alone subjectively better. And loads of it that supports the contrary.

If there's some level matched loopbacks posted that folks can show a statistical correlation detecting a difference in a blind ABX, specifically between the 10M/Trinity and the 10MX/Trinity clocking converters, I'll shut my mouth, and will gladly cower away with my tail between my legs. I'll be floored if it can even be done with modern converters internally clocked versus a 10MX/Trinity.

But I digress... I'm not a man of "faith".

Last edited by redgrovesound; 31st December 2015 at 08:47 PM..
6
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #735
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
I feel a Les Paul would be better than a Fender for this part, but how do I know that's not just my bias? Must post blind ABX tests on the internet and gather anonymous opinion...that's the only way to get this guitar track recorded right!
Are you intentionally picking ridiculous non-sequiteurs that could not be inferred from what I've said by anyone with an IQ greater than that of a banana, or do you actually think that was a logical response?
15
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #736
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
I feel a Les Paul would be better than a Fender for this part, but how do I know that's not just my bias? Must post blind ABX tests on the internet and gather anonymous opinion...that's the only way to get this guitar track recorded right!
Les Paul and Fender have been scientifically proven to sound like guitars. If you roll off the highs of a fender, they null perfectly.
6
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #737
Gear Addict
 

Btw, null test. I stopped doing them long time ago.

If there's a 3db difference in a certain frequency, but the rest is flat, what are you left with in a null? 3dB nothingness near the noise floor. You would assume they are practictilly no different, but in real life it's very audible. Null pretty much Tells you nothing!

If you do hear a big audible difference, it's almost always due to Mis-alignment of the sound files, improper levels, or a phase shift somewhere (ie EQ), which means nothing. Almost always there's tiny little quiet parts left. tells you nada.
4
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #738
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyhey View Post
Les Paul and Fender have been scientifically proven to sound like guitars. If you roll off the highs of a fender, they null perfectly.
Actually there are sound theoretical reasons as to why they should sound different... and they measure different too... and yes, if you were to set up a double-blind test, they would sound different.

A nice example of how theory, measurement and bias cancelling listening tests tend to match up.

But no, I wouldn't bother with the double blind test, in those circumstances.
4
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #739
Lives for gear
 
redgrovesound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyhey View Post
Btw, null test. I stopped doing them long time ago.

If there's a 3db difference in a certain frequency, but the rest is flat, what are you left with in a null? 3dB nothingness near the noise floor. You would assume they are practictilly no different, but in real life it's very audible. Null pretty much Tells you nothing!
Who said anything about a null test? ABX and null tests are 2 completely different things for 2 completely different purposes.
4
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #740
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson View Post
Actually there are sound theoretical reasons as to why they should sound different... and they measure different too... and yes, if you were to set up a double-blind test, they would sound different.

A nice example of how theory, measurement and bias cancelling listening tests tend to match up.

But no, I wouldn't bother with the double blind test, in those circumstances.
It's actually a very interesting exercise.. An abx test for something like les paul vs strat. I have done it and it is enlightening. In some cases it's not easy to tell them apart, especially in a mix.
Old 31st December 2015
  #741
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyhey View Post
Btw, null test. I stopped doing them long time ago.

If there's a 3db difference in a certain frequency, but the rest is flat, what are you left with in a null? 3dB nothingness near the noise floor. You would assume they are practictilly no different, but in real life it's very audible. Null pretty much Tells you nothing!

If you do hear a big audible difference, it's almost always due to Mis-alignment of the sound files, or a phase shift somewhere (ie EQ), which means nothing.
Actually you wouldn't, you forget that dB is a logarithmic relative scale.

So let's say you had a sine wave at that frequency that was full scale, and full scale was 1V pk

Your other path has a 3dB reduction at that frequency, so it is 0.708V peak

subtract one from the other, and you get 0.282V

20 * log (0.282/1) = -11dBFS

You're going to see that.

Of course I've taken the extreme example of a signal that is full scale, but hopefully you can see that your theory is incorrect.
4
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #742
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson View Post
Actually there are sound theoretical reasons as to why they should sound different... and they measure different too... and yes, if you were to set up a double-blind test, they would sound different.

A nice example of how theory, measurement and bias cancelling listening tests tend to match up.

But no, I wouldn't bother with the double blind test, in those circumstances.
It's a joke, sorry...
2
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #743
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyhey View Post
It's a joke, sorry...
I know it was intended to be humorous, but it smacked of the kind of joke that is intended to show that a particular viewpoint is wrong.

A Reducto Ad Absurdum

I was pointing out that although it was Absurdum, it wasn't actually a proper Reducto

Perhaps that was never your intention, but your post could certainly have been interpreted as such IMHO.
9
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #744
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson View Post
Actually you wouldn't, you forget that dB is a logarithmic relative scale.

So let's say you had a sine wave at that frequency that was full scale, and full scale was 1V pk

Your other path has a 3dB reduction at that frequency, so it is 0.708V peak

subtract one from the other, and you get 0.282V

20 * log (0.282/1) = -11dBFS

You're going to see that.

Of course I've taken the extreme example of a signal that is full scale, but hopefully you can see that your theory is incorrect.
Full scale? I'm gonna SEE that? And thats somehow better than trusting my ears? Just, wow.

If a signal is the same but at 10khz is -60dbFS on one track, the other is -63dbFS and you null, guess what... It sounds very very very quiet, and most people assume that to mean NO DIFFERENCE.

I honestly don't know what else to say.
1
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #745
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyhey View Post
Full scale? I'm gonna SEE that? And thats somehow better than trusting my ears? Just, wow.
I said nothing about ears. I was pointing out that a 3dB difference in an audible signal does not simply result in a 3dB difference at the noise floor after a null, as you claimed.

Quote:
If a signal at 10khz is -60dbFS on one track, the other is -63dbFS and you null, guess what... It sounds very very very quiet,
Well yes, the difference between two quiet and similar signals will be even quieter.

In this case it'll be -70.7dBFS

Quote:
and most people assume that to mean NO DIFFERENCE.
You might.

The problem isn't the test, it's your interpretation of the results.
4
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #746
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson View Post
I was pointing out that although it was Absurdum, it wasn't actually a proper Reducto
Old 31st December 2015
  #747
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by heyhey View Post
It's a joke, sorry...
Next time, come up with two jokes. Then post the one which passed the ABX test.
7
Share
Old 31st December 2015
  #748
Lives for gear
 
JulianFernandez's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jproc View Post
That was Greg just speaking his mind? No endorsement involved, right? Come on, guys... Nothing wrong with it, but no one is gonna believe he´s paying full price for those products...
2
Share
Old 1st January 2016
  #749
Lives for gear
 
Whack Doofa's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elgordito View Post
I'm a bit surprised by this question but I'll try to address it.
I'm surprised you are surprised. Does that surprise you?

Thanks for the excellent overview. Would I be correct in thinking there are no other variables between clocks besides their jitter?
Old 1st January 2016
  #750
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
Trusting your bias is one of the most important traits of a good record man.

Subjecting your bias to rigorous testing is good for scientific conventions but not for making records.

Or as Greg Wells put it, dive off that cliff.
actually 'trusting' one's bias(s) and not (what never? well, hardly ever!) rigorously testing the bias has always been a good way to go broke [in the music biz], & taking a lot trusting individuals with you

not, not trusting intuition but there's always that nasty back swing of a dual edged blade (or: "bias is always a broken clock" . . . little meaning in a digital 24 hr world but . . . )
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump