Without Prejudice:
I want to be very clear about this post. I appreciate good gear that helps the mutual advancement toward better recording. I will try to be careful with my words.
Fact or fiction? Hype or BS?
Demystifying Super Clocks. Who needs an external clock?
I used the 10m for over a year. I am a guy looking for any improvements at this point so when someone says, hey, this thing makes "Huge" (not subtle") improvements to your sound... I am all over it!
I understand that once you are up to a certain level of sound, the last 5% towards pristine sound is baby steps that come at a price$.
I put this super clock to the test using it with the Orion 32 (including RME, Lavry and Prism converters).
After a year in my rack, I must be honest here and say, I never heard a bit of difference with or without the 10M.
I even doubted my ears so I had young ears (better than 18k hearing) spend time on this test and not one person heard the value with the 10M. We did numerous advanced null tests, all of which proved worthless. If this clock intended to "improve" the sound quality of your existing converters, it sure didn't do that for me.
What could be wrong I ask so I called the rep and began searching forums for answers on this product.
My finding and gut feeling about this clock look like snake oil and I will tell you why.
When I called the rep in this video he exclaimed I needed better speakers or better treatment. He cared nothing about what I heard or had any interest in the system I use, which btw ranks as a world-class hybrid tracking and summing system.
I'm disturbed by how this product is being marketed and shilled. It has me questioning the integrity of company marketing and why top-level engineers are promoting it to the mass as a sound improvement tool just by connecting it to your converters.
Well-respected people are claiming huge improvements so much so, that they are suggesting people doing electronic music get on the chain with this.
In fact... this was how the rep sold it to me too. He sent me a mastered track that was a before/after of electronic music :cautious: The difference between both versions was HUGE! This was electronic music, ITB music so I am thinking. WOW! This thing is amazing. I want one.
But... the videos, forum and direct marketing say a much different story.
As we see in the above video, here are world-class guys claiming huge improvements in their sound using the 10M, yet I am using it, running a very sophisticated mixing and mastering system and hearing no change. Why them, not me? How come the rep sent me a before-after example and said...
The rep says to me: "don't tell anyone about this track but you have to hear this... this is what tracks sound like with the 10m".
Let's get a few scenarios out of the way.
- Could the reason I don't hear any change be that I use Sequoia and do not have added ADDA products messing, or reducing the stability of my internal clock?
- Could it be because I do not round trip process back to the tracking DAW?
- Could it be that my system is simply telling the truth and exposing something?
Internal vs external clocking
Numerous top-level testimonials say internal clocking is a choice.
Something worth mentioning. I notice the majority of users who claim this clock is improving their sound are either on Pro Tools or Logic.
I have read less trusting comments from people claiming huge improvements in PC systems.
Being said, I feel there is a placebo effect and/or support of purchase going on here more than anything though, and let's not forget that the rep also sent me an audio example that he did, claiming it was the difference between the 10M in and out.
To even put more questions out, I have asked for proof it in a public A/B and no one has stepped up. We just read the hype without hearing the comparisons online.
This product is only good for those having seriously bad clocking, to begin with. It's certainly not for the guy with one converter in a simple system. Especially if all your mixing is ITB.
My feelings are, if a hybrid system is clocked properly, to begin with, your clock should be just fine. This is suited for a studio running all sorts of digital products in a rats nest going round and round.
Thoughts?
Comments
cyrano, post: 464758, member: 51139 wrote: Crystal driven clocks
cyrano, post: 464758, member: 51139 wrote: Crystal driven clocks get stabler over time. An older clock is better than a new one.
I'm assuming you are talking about any particular crystal clock in its time course following burn-in at manufacture. In all my years as a professional electronic design engineer, I have never come across any credible evidence that supports that notion as a general concept.
Hello folks, I've not been around for a while (not that anyone s
Hello folks, I've not been around for a while (not that anyone should miss me) but I got a email regarding this "watched" thread and saw I'd been quoted!
I've designed quite a few oscillators in my time including many crystal oscillators. I think what cyrano's engineer friend was referring to is the ageing characteristic of crystal oscillators. This is a drift in absolute frequency with time which reduces over time with an exponential decay. Most oven based crystal oscillators are burned in as Boswell said but I've not seen that done with "normal" crystal oscillators other than temperature compensated types. The magnitude of the frequency drift is usually measured in parts per several million or less over the early years!
What this ageing will not do is change the clock jitter or phase noise over time and hence is irrelevant for our needs. It's totally irrelevant if the oscillator is locked to an external reference. An older clock is therefore better than a new one (of the same design and source) only in the ageing characteristic and is no better from the audio perspective.
What can happen, in very rare cases, is that the vacuum in the crystal packaging reduces in time causing the crystal to go "soft" which affects not only frequency but also the "Q" of the oscillator which will increase jitter and phase noise considerably and may even stop the oscillator completely. This should be regarded as a fault condition.... In such cases you might not notice initially but as time goes on this type of problem would get progressively worse.
MrEase, post: 464765, member: 27842 wrote: Hello folks, I've not
MrEase, post: 464765, member: 27842 wrote: Hello folks, I've not been around for a while (not that anyone should miss me) but I got a email regarding this "watched" thread and saw I'd been quoted!
Great to hear from you!
Your comments about crystal ageing are spot-on, as the predominant characteristic of an oscillator is its frequency. The rate of frequency drift decreases with age, assuming constant supply voltage and environmental factors. The magnitudes of other characteristics such as jitter and phase noise tend not to improve with age, and may in fact worsen. That said, I've found that the specifications of some of the newer types of low-cost oscillators can match or exceed those of many of the more expensive types from 15 - 20 years ago.
As far as I know, most UK and USA manufactured low-cost crystal oscillators (as opposed to plain crystals) are at least powered up and checked for frequency at the production stage. Higher-precision oscillators along with TCXOs and VCXOs get more testing than that.
Boswell, post: 464762, member: 29034 wrote: I'm assuming you are
Boswell, post: 464762, member: 29034 wrote: I'm assuming you are talking about any particular crystal clock in its time course following burn-in at manufacture. In all my years as a professional electronic design engineer, I have never come across any credible evidence that supports that notion as a general concept.
You made me doubt my memory, so I spent a few minutes searching for other opinions.
And this guy seems to agree:
Quote: "It’s well known that just about all oscillators drift, or “age”, in frequency with time. In crystal oscillators, the most drift occurs when the oscillator is young, and over time the aging rate decreases. Power-cycling the oscillator results in a new stabilization period before the aging rate stabilizes. The best aging is seen in oscillators that have been running uninterrupted for years. So, I like to say my goal is that my best OCXO won’t get cold before I do!"
Of course, he words it about a million times better :D
EDIT: should read before posting. Mr.Ease already explained where my understanding went wrong...
audiokid, post: 464756, member: 1 wrote: Well, Since you quoted
audiokid, post: 464756, member: 1 wrote: Well,
Since you quoted me and suggested I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to the 10m , including Lacking experience... I know many professional, including myself that think the 10m is and was a complete ripoff. I have over 20,000 hours in programming and sound so I do know a bit more than you suggest. I have had one the the worlds finest mixing/mastering systems that was designed to hear precisely.
In case I may have old ears... I won’t mention names but we also used people with the ability to hear above 18k and no one heard any difference with it in or bypassed.
My unit was given to me by Marcel from Antelope and he gave it to me because he likely hoped I would promote it. I lost total respect for antelope after numerous tests and conversation that were misleading people over this total BS product.
Think what you like. If you heard a difference that would only be because your clocking was screwed to begin with. Or possibly because you needed some help in the clocking to keep a lot of gear clocked.There is more I could say on my results but that’s old news as none of these clocks are necessary today.
Being said, This website is full of real engineers that have been around for decades.
We love good conversations on recording.org but clamp down on the bogus stuff. We take pride in keeping it real Around here. I personally never promote gear that doesn’t pass my personal tests of being useful for members. The 10m was the most disappointing product I’ve used in 45 years.
I look forward to many more conversations with you and your circle.
cyrano, post: 464768, member: 51139 wrote: You made me doubt my
cyrano, post: 464768, member: 51139 wrote: You made me doubt my memory, so I spent a few minutes searching for other opinions.
And this guy seems to agree:
Quote: "It’s well known that just about all oscillators drift, or “age”, in frequency with time. In crystal oscillators, the most drift occurs when the oscillator is young, and over time the aging rate decreases. Power-cycling the oscillator results in a new stabilization period before the aging rate stabilizes. The best aging is seen in oscillators that have been running uninterrupted for years. So, I like to say my goal is that my best OCXO won’t get cold before I do!"
Of course, he words it about a million times better :D
EDIT: should read before posting. Mr.Ease already explained where my understanding went wrong...
What many may not know here is that t he Antelope Audio Rubidium Atomic clock is by the company’s description, “disciplined” by the crystal oscillator of the the (required for use) satellite unit of a Isochrone unit or other Antelope unit linked to it that has an Oven crystal oscillator. I don’t know if the newer and highly praised 10mx unit does this but the 10m does.
I challenge anyone to post an audio example “before after “ of t
I challenge anyone to post an audio example “before after “ of the Antelope Audio 10m in use.
Then we can openly and calmly talk about it after to learn and discuss it all here. :)
maybe the famous mixerman will do that for us here where we don't sensor topics effecting paying advertisers > payola.
He was given one too, then coincidentally spent time on gearsluts raving... shilling about it until I asked this same question... "lets hear the difference". Rather than him posting an example, he freaked out and then my comment was blocked from talking about it over there. :censored:
I should mention... Antelope Audio was all over gearslutz forums. Payola was so obvious.
It was outright misleading marketing.
Eric Valentine tells a story on his podcast where a rep came dow
Eric Valentine tells a story on his podcast where a rep came down to show him the 10m (i believe, or some converters) and the rep was raving about clarity and depth of feild yaddda yadda.
So he set up two idebtical pro tools rig and did a blind test, asking the guy to identify which was which.
Guess what. He couldn't.
I know one thing, eric doesn't own a 10m. He does use Orion converters as well as some others, feeling that orion is a good value overall.
In a mastering context with two computer rigs, and a bunch of digital gear in racks i could see where external clocking may be usefull. I would love to see / hear some a/b with a cheap (berringer) vs mid level, vs a premium like a 10m to determine if any differences are related to the 10m directly or just an external clock.
The 10m may help a poorly clocked rig. But it doesn’t improve a
The 10m may help a poorly clocked rig. But it doesn’t improve a good converter. So if someone claims it’s improving their system, it’s because their system is poorly clocked.
today, The internal Clock is better located internally opposed to an external clock .
Remember the Big Ben . It came along to help the old digidesign protools systems back in yesteryear. If you do research on who endorses the 10 M... many of those engineers are old school still using old crap or badly clocked rigs needing help.
Another topic but start with who is really needing them and we soon realize it’s a waste of money for the new studios of today... Especially ITB rigs.
audiokid, post: 464776, member: 1 wrote: The 10m may help a poo
audiokid, post: 464776, member: 1 wrote: The 10m may help a poorly clocked rig. But it doesn’t improve a good converter. So if someone claims it’s improving their system, it’s because their system is poorly clocked.
today, The internal Clock is better located than an external .
Remember the Big Ben . It came along to help the old digidesign systems back in yesteryear. If you do research on who endorses the 10 M... many of those engineers are still using old crap. Another topic there but start there...
Yeah i remember the big ben. I also remember people clocking those old digi192 from alesis hd recorders and claiming good results. Which sort of reinforces your point about it fixing an existing problem. Its also what makes me curious about how good does the external clock need to be to show similar improvements in systems that need it. ie is it the 10m or just any stable external clock.
Ive found that digititus was cured when i switched to Samplitude. Things just got easier.
No one with record label credibility ( people who endorse the 10
No one with record label credibility ( people who endorse the 10m) will ever post an audio example of the 10m improving their rig here, because it can eventually expose their system needing Clock repair and/or.. is outdated (bad for business).
I like to describe a bad clocking system like running water in a gas line (or bad timing chain etc).. people using it play with it like switching on the gas. They do their AB like that and go wow.
- Rather than buying a 10m, find out why you have water in your lines.
- Learn why your rig needs an external clock.
But please don’t shill it so uninformed people buy it thinking they are going to have an amazing improvement with a properly clocked rig.
If antelope addressed this in their marketing, I wouldn’t have made such a buzz about this.
But many people that own a 10m have serious support of purchase GAS too.
When I dumped mine, I told the guy it didn’t help a properly clocked rig. He bought it anyway.
Long live RO.
My rack with the 10m
Boswell, post: 435577, member: 29034 wrote: .....modern equipmen
Boswell, post: 435577, member: 29034 wrote: .....modern equipment still uses its internal clock that has good jitter properties, but uses the external clock input as a long-term frequency reference source to lock the internal clock's frequency to that of the external clock to keep them in sync. In this way, short-term effects such as jitter are not propogated into the internal clocking.
That was from earlier in this thread.
A lot of gear from 15 - 20 years ago can be improved in performance by supplying a quality external clock. Most modern gear can use an external clock to make it run at exactly the same rate as something else, but the clocking quality is unchanged. The 10m had its time in the spotlight.
As a long time pro player (1000’s of live shows) and engineer, I
As a long time pro player (1000’s of live shows) and engineer, I find it interesting that extreme gear like Mike Shipley building a $10000 silver stranded mic cable to work with Alison Kraus or Benot, (tech at Grundman mastering) swearing by $200 Cardas USB cables and THE ANTELOPE 10M as well, get ignored by hobbyists strong opinions. I will just say that BIG ears that have to compete everyday to make a living from Star artists expectations Add all these 5-10% improvements and end up with their mixs/masters sounding WAY better than the people who don’t. The day I changed all my cables and power and many other small details in my studio I heard the difference. This conspiracy theory that high end gear is all paid off endorsements is silly and untrue of the big engineers I’ve talked to and worked with.
Clark, post: 464787, member: 51967 wrote: As a long time pro pla
Clark, post: 464787, member: 51967 wrote: As a long time pro player (1000’s of live shows) and engineer, I find it interesting that extreme gear like Mike Shipley building a $10000 silver stranded mic cable to work with Alison Kraus or Benot, (tech at Grundman mastering) swearing by $200 Cardas USB cables and THE ANTELOPE 10M as well, get ignored by hobbyists strong opinions. I will just say that BIG ears that have to compete everyday to make a living from Star artists expectations Add all these 5-10% improvements and end up with their mixs/masters sounding WAY better than the people who don’t. The day I changed all my cables and power and many other small details in my studio I heard the difference. This conspiracy theory that high end gear is all paid off endorsements is silly and untrue of the big engineers I’ve talked to and worked with.
More like gullible or uninformed ears that support it because it costs $5000.
Clark, if you really believe that,
The best example proving the 10m is useless for all modern converters would be to get someone to post a before after here on recording.org
The pros here will study it under our tests...
I would expect any pro using one would truly want to know the truth. wouldn’t you?
audiokid, post: 464788, member: 1 wrote: More like gullible or u
audiokid, post: 464788, member: 1 wrote: More like gullible or uninformed ears that support it because it costs $5000.
Clark, if you really believe that,
The best example proving the 10m is useless for all modern converters would be to get someone that claims it’s so awesome would be to post a before after here on recording.orgThe pros here will study it under our tests...
I would expect any pro using one would truly want to know the truth. wouldn’t you?
A posted A-B would be good, sure. But as I pointed out in a previous post every mix and master has its ultimate test in portability. So all with an opinion would have to have checked it in 2 or more real listening environments. Earbuds, car, home stereo system, club system, etc. not the antiseptic studio listening. I rent them when I mix and master so I don’t have one (or the time) to present an A-B. Cheers
Here is a Tune from one of my 7 records. An Electronic Chill piece.
https://open.spotify.com/track/0Xmpv1vouZVaRXUs7qTKqK?si=c_s6Q7caSHyZlOxg1jx5qA
Clark, post: 464789, member: 51967 wrote: A posted A-B would be
Clark, post: 464789, member: 51967 wrote: A posted A-B would be good, sure. But as I pointed out in a previous post every mix and master has its ultimate test in portability. So all with an opinion would have to have checked it in 2 or more real listening environments. Earbuds, car, home stereo system, club system, etc. not the antiseptic studio listening. I rent them when I mix and master so I don’t have one (or the time) to present an A-B.
Nope, not true. I owned one and know how simple the test is.
It's not about gear. It's not about ears, even. Some of the bigg
It's not about gear. It's not about ears, even. Some of the biggest names in the business are close to deaf anyways.
What it's about, is which song, which sound goes with the season. When to do what. Sounds real simple. And it is, if you have that "je ne sais quoi".
It's a business. And the big names know very well how networking and marketing works.
I see many talented musicians out there who will never make it, cause they never met a guy with "je ne sais quoi".
Gear and ears don't mean a thing. I've seen Behringer gear behind a curtain. It drives the customer away, so we don't want to admit that we use it.
Business is not art. Let's not mix the two and start believing you can make a song great by running it through a certain compressor...
A great song starts with an inspired artist. Add some great company and enjoy what you're doing. And maybe someone is daft enough to record it.
You can't produce art. Period.
Clark, post: 464789, member: 51967 wrote: A posted A-B would be
Clark, post: 464789, member: 51967 wrote: A posted A-B would be good, sure. I rent them when I mix and master so I don’t have one (or the time) to present an A-B. Cheers
Here is a Tune from one of my 7 records. An Electronic Chill piece.
https://open.spotify.com/track/0Xmpv1vouZVaRXUs7qTKqK?si=c_s6Q7caSHyZlOxg1jx5qA
Are you 100% ITB?
audiokid, post: 464790, member: 1 wrote: Nope, not true. I owned
audiokid, post: 464790, member: 1 wrote: Nope, not true. I owned one and know how simple the test is.
Yes, it is true. How many charting mixs/masters have you done? Do you make your living only from
Music? Because ears forced to listen closely from the pressures of competing in big music are better than those who don’t. And there is a reason they spent $60000 mastering Thriller and checking it over and over in many places. It’s a recording and music legend for such reasons. The studio is deceptive unless it’s been a DAILY environment of professional output like a very busy mix or mastering engineer who prob knows their speakers well enough to trust them for where-ever they make get playback.
audiokid, post: 464796, member: 1 wrote: Clark Are you 100% “in
audiokid, post: 464796, member: 1 wrote: Clark
Are you 100% “in the box” (ITB)?
Yes. And don’t say the clocking does not matter if I am. Because it does. My brother did a bit to bit analysis (he is a high end programmer ) of bounces with and without the 10M and the bit profile was significantly different. So as a mathematical fact it was different. You could still argue if it improves the sound but it did have an impact.
Clark, post: 464797, member: 51967 wrote: Yes. And don’t say the
Clark, post: 464797, member: 51967 wrote: Yes. And don’t say the clocking does not matter if I am. Because it does. My brother did a bit to bit analysis (he is a high end programmer ) of bounces with and without the 10M and the bit profile was significantly different. So as a mathematical fact it was different.
What converter are you using?
Burr-Brown in a Revive audio moded interface.But internal bounce
Burr-Brown in a Revive audio moded interface.But internal bounces are not affected by converters, only the sound of your playback into your speakers. Clocking does affect internal bounces. Paul Grundman claims he can hear other programs running on a computer if bounces are done with them open. Better ears than me!
Clark, post: 464799, member: 51967 wrote: Burr-Brown in a Revive
Clark, post: 464799, member: 51967 wrote: Burr-Brown in a Revive audio moded interface.But internal bounces are not affected by converters, only the sound of your playback into your speakers. Clocking does affect internal bounces. Paul Grundman claims he can hear other programs running on a computer if bounces are done with them open. Better ears than me!
Thanks for the info. I have never heard of a burr brown converter
It’s pro audio to my books.
Clark, post: 464799, member: 51967 wrote: Burr-Brown in a Revive
Clark, post: 464799, member: 51967 wrote: Burr-Brown in a Revive audio moded interface.
audiokid, post: 464801, member: 1 wrote: Thanks for the info. I have never heard of a burr brown converter
It’s not pro audio to my books.
oh really? Never heard of it? Their converters are some of the earliest used in digital and are used in TONS of units including the Pure 2 by Antelope Audio. Not pro audio in your books? Read the Wikipedia. You simply don’t know much about converters it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Brown_Corporation?wprov=sfti1
https://maps.apple.com/?ll=55.878750,-3.533972&q=Burr-Brown%20Corporation&_ext=EiQpfPA64XrwS0AxgEU8NpNFDMA5fPA64XrwS0BBgEU8NpNFDMA%3D
Clark, post: 464799, member: 51967 wrote: Burr-Brown in a Revive
Clark, post: 464799, member: 51967 wrote: Burr-Brown in a Revive audio moded interface.But internal bounces are not affected by converters, only the sound of your playback into your speakers. Clocking does affect internal bounces. Paul Grundman claims he can hear other programs running on a computer if bounces are done with them open. Better ears than me!
Clark, post: 464804, member: 51967 wrote: oh really? Never heard of it? Their converters are some of the earliest used in digital and are used in TONS of units including the Pure 2 by Antelope Audio. Not pro audio in your books? Read the Wikipedia. You simply don’t know much about converters it seems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr-Brown_Corporation?wprov=sfti1
https://maps.apple.com/?ll=55.878750,-3.533972&q=Burr-Brown Corporation&_ext=EiQpfPA64XrwS0AxgEU8NpNFDMA5fPA64XrwS0BBgEU8NpNFDMA=
Clark Beyond this point...
Please stay civil and refrain from insulting members. If you want to learn more about audio engineering, (same goes for myself) you will find great help here.
The info you’ve provided tells me that you need to read a lot more about converters used in pro audio.
Clark, post: 464799, member: 51967 wrote: Burr-Brown in a Revive
Clark, post: 464799, member: 51967 wrote: Burr-Brown in a Revive audio moded interface.But internal bounces are not affected by converters, only the sound of your playback into your speakers. Clocking does affect internal bounces. Paul Grundman claims he can hear other programs running on a computer if bounces are done with them open. Better ears than me!
So you have Burr-Brown chip set in a Revive Audio interface. Then you use the 10m as the master?
You use a $5000 Master clock and hear a difference.
sorry but I just don’t follow what you are clocking to if you are ITB and how this makes any sense.
audiokid, post: 464808, member: 1 wrote: So you have Burr-Brown
audiokid, post: 464808, member: 1 wrote: So you have Burr-Brown chip set in a Revive Audio interface. Then you use the 10m as the master?
You use a $5000 Master clock and hear a difference.
sorry but I just don’t follow what you are clocking to if you are ITB and how this makes any sense.
Read my previous post about it. I addressed this ahead of time. Clocking occurs internally. Not just between devices. Read my post.
Clark, post: 464809, member: 51967 wrote: Read my previous post
Clark, post: 464809, member: 51967 wrote: Read my previous post about it. I addressed this ahead of time. Clocking occurs internally. Not just between devices. Read my post.
Of course. Lol
Why are you using the 10m ($5000 clock) when you could simply buy a good converter lol. Especially if you don’t use analog hardware and are ITB.
Your setup seems really backwards and ridiculous .
cyrano, post: 464758, member: 51139 wrote: Crystal driven clocks
is stabler a word? there was a quarterback named Kenny Stabler, they called him "The Snake" ....