Yeah... I wasn't quite sure what you meant? Of course there wouldn't be any difference with the light pipe. And everything is clocked from the light pipe. But you know there can still be jitter concerns from within the optical thread. And it doesn't like taking sharp turns without some kind of repercussion. (I only said that so that everybody could know that). And even when you have a stable clock source, the refractive nature of the light filament can still be a source of jitter. Or so I have been told?

I still use copper mostly.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Sorry for not being clearer. What we're talking about in this part of the thread is clock jitter during the conversion process from analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog and its effect on the sonic quality of the audio.

What happens to the digital data during its transit and storage is largely irrelevant as long as there is no bit-corruption or other gross error. As with any digital transmission system, there are opportunities for problems to creep in, but jitter at the 11.2896 MHz or 12.288 MHz ADAT clock rate is only a concern at the bit level where data recovery takes place, e.g. conversion from light pulse intensity to electrical voltage levels.

Universal mastering uses the 10M:

://youtu.be/lo00D1bu56o

ok Guys, i din´t had the time to read all the posts here, i´m an experienced user of gear and i do mixing recording at pro level grade. What i can say is at this level the converters and clock´s had a big jump forward, specially converter´s in last 10 years!!! The electronic industry developed new standard chips, with higher dynamic range, and many things better then we had to 2006...to not mention 90´s.

When we work with high grade acoustics, and speakers, Converters and clock gain all the meaning for recording, mix and mastering jobs. At this level all the diferences, and i mean small diferences that are almost impossible to detect at semi-pro Rooms or with Gear, are big diferences for pro Rooms and jobs. For Pro People Any diference is a diference, when you start to sum all this diferences in pro level, you gain a big diference compared to a semi professional developed work...

If you love music at high standards in all manners, you should have always the proper conditions and ability´s to evaluate at this level, of course if you intend to achieve this and to give credits at this level to a work Done.

I use.
Antelope 10m Clock
Antelope eclipse mastering converters
focusrite rennet line converters

audiokid, post: 400217, member: 1 wrote: Universal mastering uses the 10M:

://www.youtube.com/wat…

That is a Isochrone OCx in the picture not a 10m.

This is the 10 M http://en.antelopeaudio.com/products/10m/

Mdb Audio, post: 445598, member: 48274 wrote: This is the 10 M http://en.antelopeaudio.com/products/10m/

Hm... I see that, thank you.

For some reason that link may have been updated. Being said... Whats the difference, they are both atomic clocks. Been there done it.

I wish all these guys raving about them would do (before after) upload / publish it here so we can hear the difference they make. 10 different age groups in my studio using various monitoring tools (serious gear the best studios have btw) never heard a bit of difference with it in or out. I'm baffled as to why these are even sold as improving sound devices. Was mine broken? Not accordingly to Marcel.

It would be interesting to discuss why an improvement happens for some studios and not for others. I understand studios that are using current top level still hear improvements. I am also led to believe a guy only using an Orion32 could buy one and hear improvements. This is what Mixerman claims. I don't believe that one bit so lets put this to rest and prove that.

Until then... As of now, I don't believe those who cannot hear these differences have hearing problems. Does Bob Katz have a problem?
I can't hear any change with these clocks in or out.

I love high end gear, invest in the finest equipment made. I also took this even further, did null tests, used kids with superior hearing to listen for any high freq change. They heard nothing in blind tests.

I have a bone of contention after reading threads on GS (that were endorsed by reputable engineers, later removed when this was challenged btw).
I've been questioning threads over at GS that were leading trusting people, whom just bought an Orion32 , that a 10M would make their new converters sound even better. Huge was even said. The sound improvements were not subtle!

If I am wrong about this product, I would admit it. But, I did every test I could with one of those and never experienced a 'bit" of sonic improvement. I called the US Distributor and he did not accept this, nor offer to replace mine if it was broken. All he said was I need better monitors lol.

I come to the conclusion, these atomic clocks are best suited for studios with clocking issues.
If you don't have clocking issues, it would never change your sound. Which is why I most likely never heard a difference.

There is a lot of hype through support of purchase. I'm not one of those people. If I don't like something, or feel it needs to be questioned, I question it even if I loose a deal.

I am calling this one out as total hype and possibly even snake oil. After using one for 24 months I suspect they are suited for studios with clocking problems that may be due to excessively long digital runs between the interfacing, have a rats nests of digital gear built prior to 2006 or need a common clock because they are in sync with other rooms like broadcasting where you need to be connected to a master clock. Just a guess.

They sure look good though.... and I am happy for the people that find them helpful (y)