I've heard the same thing, K. Don't know the answer, but yeah, I've talked to cats who said the same thing to me.

The answer is to be found one step back from that. What you have to compare is the overall design of the equipment. It's no good saying that a well-regarded piece of gear uses the same chip as a cheap far-eastern import and therefore must sound the same. Every bit of an equipment's design has an effect on its performance, however small, and top designers go to great lengths to get as many as they can of these small effects working in the same direction within the product budget. In the right hands, standard chips can sound stellar; in the wrong hands the same chips can sound like mud.

I have done contract designs for a number of medium to high-end companies, and it's very surprising how different the attitudes are to the concept of overall design. I have been asked why I bothered about a particular detail when it would be cheaper to leave it out, and sometimes I have had to say "I can't demonstrate it to you, but I know it makes a difference." The companies that then remove that detail in manufacture to save the pennies I do not accept work from again.

So then, what you're saying is in support of the old saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I don't think that applies directly in this case. A good design can often tolerate some weaker links that may be in there for cost purposes ("value engineering") without greatly compromising their performance or specifications. However, the very top designs have no discernible weak links, and, often as a consequence, have no price limit.

I'm gonna chime in here for just a moment because I experienced this recently.

Of course the build quality throughout the device will be the key to it sounding better than a bag of the very same components assembled in a cave by blind monkeys...

To the 'clocking' thing.

I just finished a record that was recorded and mixed here at The DroolinDogg Ranch. Usually i go outside and mix at another facility with 'more stuff'. Not this time. Understand that my conversion isnt up to par with most of you. Really, it has been the last point on my list to upgrade because things simply sounded 'good enough' to my ear for release and playback on most earbud and iPod systems as well as computer stations and car stereos......isnt that where we deliver most of the goods too??
Anyway, I had a younger fellow come in and edit some tracks for me. (This IS a skill I ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE!!!!) He was fast and accurate and actually graduated from a well known recording school....His take was all about the clocking at mix. I have a Digi 003 factory that I use for my fingers-on automation primarily and thus am stuck with the Digi converters and clock........but not anymore. I also have an Alesis HD24 that I use as my ADAT conversion when I'm running a lot of tracks at tracking. In doing this it makes the HD24 the master clock and I used it almost exclusively throughout the tracking stages so the only analog through the Digi converters happened at basic tracks BUT ALWAYS with the HD24 as the clock.

So he tells me that simply having the ADAT pipe hooked up at mixdown and selecting the ADAt as my external clock makes this the master clock no matter what I'm doing in PT. The difference is audible immediately. It happens that the clock in the HD24 is 'better' in some way that my aged mind can't conceive but is willing to acknowledge.

So next is a clock. Before conversion. Black Lion maybe? Others I know will swear by the really really cheap ADA8000 conversions this company does to that coverter and I'm starting to believe. Its true that only a few companies make chips used by the companies building conversion these days.And of these only a small number take this past a certain level of development.

I dont know why......but I do know that the clocking makes a big difference....especially when you are using cheap crap like I have here.

well.....its not ALL cheap.+

hmmm intersting stuff as always fellas. even before i read dave's post, which re-inforced my next thought. lol, i think every few days.

very very hypothetically this would be a question of what makes more a drastic effect, given all other parameters the same. conversion or clocking.?

like if say there was a 1-5 scale for both, say a new design employed a level 4 all-round, but the suits said hey we need to save some money, lets go w/ a level 3 converter, or clocking (thing) (i'm very rudimentary in my understanding of circuits pretty much noob level so thanx for bearing w/ me). which level drop would preserve the overall quality level if it was between only those two components.?

interested in more depth of the topic. more than just yes or no, some basic explanation of why would really help me start wrapping my head around. also as sample rates and bit rates are becoming higher, how does that relate to conversion/clocking?

cheap, lol, what about audio is? lol i wish i was genius enough to be able to sell chunks of mahogany for 2500. ya know ber-copy-inger really does get it rite once in a while, def a try before ya buy company, but i don't don't their ability to get by patent issues. cheers all!

They are both important. The most expensive ADC in the world will sound bad if you force it to run on a rubbish clock. Looked at from the other side, the highest quality, most stable clock you can generate will allow a poor ADC to run to the best of its ability, but it won't turn it into a good ADC.

I don't think you can judge them by levels 1 - 5, as you have to look at the wider picture, including the purpose of the recording. Deficiencies introduced by lower quality clocking may be deemed acceptable for recording MP3s for YouTube, but might sound horrible in the studio.

There is a qualification to all this. Some of the higher-quality interfaces have clock flywheel circuits that can straighten out shortcomings in external clocks. Even boxes like the RME FireFace800 have sophisticated clock-regeneration circuits that result in there being little difference between moderate and high-quality external clocks. So I suppose one answer to your question is that if you go for the right type of ADC and DAC unit, you do not have to spend huge amounts on high-quality external clocks, and a simple box that keeps everything in sync could be all that is needed until the next spending round.

I covered a lot of stuff regarding clocks in the "What is clock jitter?" thread in the DIY pro audio forum which is relevant here. Particularly where external clocks are used or soundcards are slaved to others. In that thread I mentioned that for a given A-D chip, we know, from the datasheet, what the best possible performance is going to be. Once we start putting this chip on a soundcard PCB all we can do is detract from this optimum. We certainly can't improve on it as the chip makers spend a small fortune on getting the last drop of performance for their datasheets!

I am firmly with Boswell here, yes the clock is important but so too are the input conditioning amplifier/buffer (we cannot just connect a line input straight to the chip), internally generated power supplies etc. Poor design of any one item can throw away performance hand over fist and no circuit element should be the weakest link. This is all down to the design, both electrical and mechanical (good PCB layout is crucial).

In the past, some clock circuits have not received the attention they deserved in the design process (my gear included) and we end up with cautionary tales about clocks such as that given by Davedog. Certainly it is important to understand how clocks can affect our converters but, even if we may witness some stellar improvement on a particular set up by switching clocks around, this wisdom may well not hold true with other equipment.

This formed a large part of what I tried to suggest in the other thread as I believe a good understanding is more important than anecdotal evidence which may not hold up to closer scrutiny. Anecdotal evidence also has a nasty habit of "going viral" and being taken as gospel.

So yes, we can all probably come up with some surprises (as I did with my own set up in the other thread) and this should not cloud the facts but be used wisely within the set up that created the surprise.

interesting. i'm not in the market right now, was just kinda trying to expand my knowledge. good some good starting places. thanx!!!!

Dave, I hope you realize that the clock in the ALESIS HD 24 is only good at 48 kHz/96 kHz. It's not accurate at 44.1 kHz as it is a fudge, a kludge. And so the HD 24 needs an external clock for accuracy at 44.1 kHz and throws everything out of tune on other systems. Oy vey. And so, I can clock my HD 24 and 44.1 kHz using my MOTU 2408 as the master clock for 44.1 kHz. I have no budget currently for a better clock. In a similar but unrelated scenario... we all know that George Massenburg's ITI/SONTEC/GML, is some of the finest equipment available in the world today. And on his compressor/limiters, he was using DBX VCA's. And we all know that VCA's mush up sound. But his stuff is crystal clear overall and where the VCA doesn't do undue damage but it's still a VCA. And nobody in their right minds should want a VCA in their signal path unless they are George Massenburg, Bob Clearmountain, Elliott Scheiner and all the rest that they too use them. And that just craps up your sound unless you like that crappy sound which everybody likes. And where folks like Chris might prefer his optical tube limiter folks like George are going the VCA route. And that's not a good route. So what's that tell ya? That grunge is good... that's what.
I think I need a shower?
Mx. Remy Ann David

I actually knew that. All my tracks with it are at 24/48. My POINT being that clocking, is an important part of relative clarity in digital no matter the chipset or the quality of the converter build. My example, using less than normally desirable devices and achieving quality results, is proof to me. I will add a quality clock next and then converters. If I can afford it, it will be Burl.

MrEase, post: 399203 wrote: I covered a lot of stuff regarding clocks in the "What is clock jitter?" thread in the DIY pro audio forum which is relevant here. Particularly where external clocks are used or soundcards are slaved to others. In that thread I mentioned that for a given A-D chip, we know, from the datasheet, what the best possible performance is going to be. Once we start putting this chip on a soundcard PCB all we can do is detract from this optimum. We certainly can't improve on it as the chip makers spend a small fortune on getting the last drop of performance for their datasheets!

I am firmly with Boswell here, yes the clock is important but so too are the input conditioning amplifier/buffer (we cannot just connect a line input straight to the chip), internally generated power supplies etc. Poor design of any one item can throw away performance hand over fist and no circuit element should be the weakest link. This is all down to the design, both electrical and mechanical (good PCB layout is crucial).

In the past, some clock circuits have not received the attention they deserved in the design process (my gear included) and we end up with cautionary tales about clocks such as that given by Davedog. Certainly it is important to understand how clocks can affect our converters but, even if we may witness some stellar improvement on a particular set up by switching clocks around, this wisdom may well not hold true with other equipment.

This formed a large part of what I tried to suggest in the other thread as I believe a good understanding is more important than anecdotal evidence which may not hold up to closer scrutiny. Anecdotal evidence also has a nasty habit of "going viral" and being taken as gospel.

So yes, we can all probably come up with some surprises (as I did with my own set up in the other thread) and this should not cloud the facts but be used wisely within the set up that created the surprise.

May I assume that these tales will include the ones pointing at the differences in performance for a certain LE based converter set when used with a quality external clocking device? I've known guys with studios that still swear by a BigBen on a Digi LE system despite other limitations etc etc.....

I , myself, while not trying to be anecdotal or viral, nor does spreading anything unsubstantiated thrill me in the least, have simply discovered another segment to my digital education, whether this is true in a technical sense or not. Something is definately a difference maker here and when turning it on and off in side by side comparisons lend images perfectly audible, I gotta say, okay then....on we go.

Hi Davedog,

I do not have any direct experience with the Digi LE and BigBen but from what I have heard from those with experience of them, it certainly does make a notable improvement. This indicates to me that the internal clocks on the Digi LE are poor although I cannot verify that.

I think the general point I am making is that any older equipment (that many of us have no immediate prospect of upgrading) will be far more likely to be improved by a good clock. From my experience, older gear is more likely to have had inadequate attention to the clocks. Hence we see so many aftermarket mods being offered.

The current trend is for new gear to herald their wonderful new and improved clocks. This is great marketing as so many have had bad experiences previously. Once bitten, twice shy as they say. I would certainly say that well designed modern gear should not show the same marked (if any) differences when used with external clocks.

P.S. My comments about anecdotal evidence were not directed at you per se but were meant as a general comment on the nature of the internet. This is why I did not and would not question your very real experience. I'm sure we all get frustrated when we see total rubbish presented as "fact" on various sites. I don't bother responding on such sites as all you can expect is a load of vitriolic bunkum in return. That's why I like it here and am happy to try and contribute.

I researched this to death between my update from Apple/ Pro Tools 24/888 to PC and RME converters.

One of many reasons I choose RME HDSP PCIe 32 interfaces is because of the "Steady Clock". I don't need a Big Ben for even 4 racks of 8 > 32 ADDA channels ( I think). Newer designs like this don't have the old Digi issues back in the day.

I'm with MrEase 100% but then still wonder. when I read stuff like below..

PS.

I have no idea about computer parts but, I've often wondered if all the Avid trade stuff isn't recycled... All they're interested in for trade is what? What do they do with it all?

MrEase,

Interestingly enough,

What are you thoughts on this: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.antelope…"]Orion32 Multi-Channel AD/DA Converter | Antelope Audio[/]="http://www.antelope…"]Orion32 Multi-Channel AD/DA Converter | Antelope Audio[/]
I have one coming next month. Trying it for my 24 channel Neos hybrid rig. Its a 32 channel ADC with USB or MADI interface. USB is where I'll try.
Just thinking out loud, I don't expect it to outperform my ADI-8 QS / PCIe combo for latency but this going one way at a time > DA to the Neos might be pretty cool. I'm monitoring OTB so latency isn't an issue for me.

But, like the dog, an area I'm most curious about is the 10M clock on these. I'm told its outstanding, their best yet. I'm clueless on this technical stuff and how do you know until you use something like this. Can you elaborate on their claims, what this means? Its been suggested I try this as my master clock now. But, RME is working great, how would it improve, I wonder?

A Rubidium atomic reference generator 100,000 times more accurate than the crystal oscillators, bringing vastly improved staging. transparency and imaging.

Maybe they are talking more about this: http://www.antelopeaudio.com/en/products/10M-atomic-clock in combination. But the specs on the Orion say 10M
http://www.antelopeaudio.com/en/products/Orion32-Multi-Channel-AD-DA-converter

And then there thread where guys I know are claiming this and the Big Ben are amazing, but the 10M is unbelievable:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/443209-antelope-audio-10m-atomic-clock-getting-sold-off-owners.html

And then there are these guys saying its hype:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/622491-antelope-trinity-10m-vs-internal-clock-comparison-2.html

At some point, Chris, ones mans hype is another mans truth in practice while being another mans hearsay.

That thing sounds like something they use to time things during the shuttle missions!

The deeper I go into digital work the more I see and hear what some folks have been talking about for ages. I still dont really care that much about having it technically perfect if it sounds good, but having gear that allows the 'sounding good' to be easily heard is certainly a powerful inducement for perfecting ones signal chains.

Having said that, I still get goosebumps when listening to well made vinyl recorded with great big headroom and large power supplies on large format equipment from the 70's golden age. The depth of field from the late 60's to early 80's recordings is still unmatched.

WTF don't know what is going on? My connection has gone screwy.

And I think as generally Dave, from all the analog stuff being in lockstep at the speed of light. I don't care what the digital coders and programmers say, I hear otherwise from all digitally based recording and mixing. And probably why Chris has gone so crazy over the hybrid stuff? This is nothing new to us old-school, old-timers. Nevertheless, we are basically now living in the digital age, where 24-bit, 96 kHz has become the norm. But transcoding down to 44.1 kHz is not mathematically precise and introduces artifacting. So why aren't people recording at 88.2 kHz? Because 96 kHz sounds better? With no regard to what happens later? But what does 96 kHz sound like after it is trans-coded down to 44.1 kHz? The answer: not pristine anymore.

I mean we all heard the difference between 7.5, 15 & 30 IPS yet, not everyone recorded at 30 IPS. Was this a budgetary concern back in the days of 30-$50,000 recording budgets from the record labels? I think not. It was a decision the engineer and producer made to produce at 15 IPS. Does this make their recordings less professional than those who were recording at 30 IPS? I don't think so. We all do things for a reason sonically or otherwise. So while it's nice that George Massenburg tells us we should all be recording a 24-bit, 96 kHz, because you can definitely hear the difference... I could definitely hear the difference between 15 IPS and 30 IPS. And we still recorded at 15 IPS for various reasons. And this all translates over to the digital side as well. How big is the budget? How much are you getting paid? How many hard disk drives does the client want to purchase? It's a lot cheaper than 2 inch for sure. And again, probably why George tells everybody we should be recording at 24-bit, 96 kHz? And yet, maybe actually mixes down to 1/2 inch, Ampex, ATR 102, 1/2 inch, 30 IPS machines? Maybe not? And where 96 kHz would work out just fine for the multitrack recordings. But he doesn't say anything about that. That in fact might be his secret ingredient?? These guys are all getting paid to endorse some product by some manufacturer. And maybe George is no longer recording and producing because perhaps he has blown his hearing out over the years? Which I'm sure he would never tell anybody about. So you really have to read between all of the lines when you hear this stuff. Recording at 24-bit, 96 kHz, won't make anyone a better engineer without the technique to back it up. And I'm an ardent firm believer in technique. That's where it's at.

Of course you'll get goosebumps. Those guys knew how to record stuff. And the limited technology wasn't even a factor. And that's what I teach. These guys created great sounds simply through a finely polished technique. And they didn't use entry-level equipment most obviously. Only the stuff with high headroom. Whatever it was at the time? API, Neve, Electro-Dyne, Quad-Eight, Olive, Sphere, MCI, Flickinger, Helios, EMI, Phillips, Neumann, which were the consoles of the day. A couple of 1176's, LA-2/3 and that's about all. A PulTEC, API 550, Neve 1073/1081 et al., EMT plate, AKG BX 20. And no plug-ins. And then they had those noisy tube microphones and noisy KM-84's, 87's. So how the heck did they make such beautiful sounding pristine recordings? Answer: they knew what they were doing. And they didn't have much to do it with. Today, everybody has a $1 million control room in their bundled software yet they still can't make good recordings because they keep playing with stuff that doesn't need to be played with. It's the microphones. It's the room. It's the placement of the microphones within the room. These older rooms were not the lavish looking studios you see today. Yet they still made these incredible recordings on noisy analog tape. And does it sound noisy to you? Rarely do I hear any. So this tells you something doesn't it? LOL. They didn't have the finely honed artistically and acoustically designed facilities that everybody thinks is so absolutely necessary today. On location, mobile recordings have taught me otherwise. Well it really didn't teach me anything that I didn't already know. It just reinforced everything I had already learned. And another reason why really don't care about the acoustic environment unless I'm dealing with a Symphony Orchestra or an operatic recording and/or broadcast. Yet it still must be perfectly professional and perfectly listenable regardless of the acoustic environment. And you only learn how to do that when you have a thorough knowledge of the equivalent available or what you simply have. And it's really amazing how beautiful an orchestra can sound with a pair of Electro-Voice RE 10's into a tube microphone mixer and nothing else. Where's the condenser microphones? I didn't have any. Yet with a simple XY and a pair of out Rigger's and through beautiful custom tube preamps, it sounded wonderful. Of course I would've liked to have had some condenser microphones but I didn't have any when I was 16. Just that other stuff. And people really don't realize how fine dynamic microphones actually sound only because, " Studio" is written on most condenser microphone boxes. So all of the lemmings flock and are a bunch of Flockers because they just don't know any better.

I mean, I know that DSD is in fact the finest digital format ever conceived. Where the hell is it!? People are running around like the monkeys at monkey Island at the zoo going off about 24-bit and 96 kHz, 192 kHz, it's all crap PCM. I just happened to hear it differently than others do than George even does. George doesn't even know how to record a Baroque harpsichord for Christ's sake. He only does rock 'n roll as that's all he really knows how to do. And he's very good at that quite obviously. I'm better at recording Baroque music, operas, Symphony Orchestra's and so I know the real art behind the science. Art comes first science comes later. Science is simply encroached upon the performing arts and is utilized as such. It's not a replacement for the art of recording. And people are getting this very confused. Remember, some of those great sounding and most memorable hits, were all recorded with very rudimentary equipment. You have to learn how to print before you can learn how to write in longhand. And that's what I preach.

And that's the name of that tune
Mx. Remy Ann David

get this, I sold my DSD and mix into the second DAW at the destination SR ( usually 16/44.1 ). Why did I sell the DSD. What good is it when it still has to be converted anyway. But, the coolest thing about DSD is archiving, that I get.
And, there will be a day when what we have now, can be made better, so by having your gem archived on DSD, well, you have the best archive imaginable. But, here's the joke. Its still only as good as the source so , does that even make scene. I mean, you have a perfect archive of 2013 in 2020.

The ultimate reason to have DSD would be to track directly to that. Like using your finest micpre and mic and recording direct into the DSD ( 2 track) . Otherwise, I didn't need it. Tracking into the second DAW rocks.

Check this out now...

An LA mastering engineer sent me two tracks last night. One that he used a 10M clock on and one without. All I can say is I was totally blown away. The detail and center imaging was exactly how I wanted it to sound.

This meeting between him and I started while we were chatting about hybrid summing. I asked him for an example of his work. He gave me two versions and I had to ask him What the ^%$$^&, he did to the second mix. Because the first Mix, I knew I could do better. Then that second Mix came and OMG. He asked me to not play it. I wish I could for all. And, it could sound this good online.

So, I've contacted the company and I hope they send me one to try. I want to believe it. Its hard to believe that there is something that has this much impact on a mix. I'm hoping its not BS. Or, I'm hoping that it will make this much difference to my converter setup. I don't know his configuration in detail but I've read that AES EBU clocked internally is more stable with some systems and others.
Like MrEase say's, older converters had poor clocks and since then, things are improved to a point, its not an issue. And this could be why we see the odd Big Ben for sale now. But, this guy is no little league and no reason to BS me.

To Add, over the years Fletcher has not been my most favorite guy around here. I can't stand gear pimps on forums. But I've always trusted his choices on high end. He said this thing is amazing and I haven't heard him use that term to many times. If he could afford it, he would keep it. The people that all liked this thing, all relayed hearing the same thing I noticed in the recording last night. The guys that said they heard no difference, maybe their systems are running great like mine right now, or, maybe what...

Hopefully I report back with incredible news on this.

So there is my story from last night relevant to this OP.

One thing that was most obvious with the earliest of our digital recording, was the complete absence of wow & flutter. Even in comparison to the best analog studio recorders running even at 30 IPS. It's a discernible audible difference. And I believe that jitter is the digital equivalent from clocks that have little bumps on their rubber pinch rollers LOL. One recording would have this fabulous sound with a shimmer and the other recording wouldn't. And that was with those lousy first-generation clocks. That was 30 years ago already. And so it's only now that they're getting the clocks to work better LOL. But it's still PCM.

DSD trance codes mathematically perfectly to any other format. If it didn't, I wouldn't want to go there. So I still think it's relevant for commercial release that has been downconverted and for archiving. And if you can't hear that difference, how can you hear any of these other differences? Of course it has to do with the analog input electronics. That's why we all use the best, right? So maybe you just need to get beyond their input circuitry? Replace their input circuitry with a 2520 or a 990 how about a BA 238? No? OK maybe something with a 12AX7, as your front end? And directly into the converter bypassing their input circuitry of whatever the hell it is? Doesn't Prism or some other such company make a nice professional DSD converter? Something not made in Japan? Maybe except for the converter chip? Or by Texas Instruments, National Semiconductor or any of those other American companies, producing their chips in Malaysia or other such places? Am I getting too far off here?

Maybe I should just be getting off here? That didn't come out quite right? I recant my comment before last.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Not sure where you are going on this Remy but for me at least, the most proficient way to record and master is by using two computers. One for tracking and mixing and the second computer for archiving/CD whatever, or finishing the internet master. Its so slick and accurate. And if you want to really shake it up like me, put some analog in between.
I cannot rave enough about it. I'll doubt I'll return to using one DAW for everything this decade, if ever.

The DSD is incredible for sound but that's not the only reason I built my system the way it is. My idea is, make it the best you can for the internet. One direction with as little SRC as possible. ITB>OTB>WEB.

The DSD wouldn't change that. That's the beauty of that format. It is not a sample rate conversion. It's a mathematical absolute. So nothing lost. And with perhaps better choices of different kinds/types of brick wall filtering. Which everything will have to do to even record to 44.1 kHz. So while you have taken three steps forward, I think you should take one step back? If I had DSD, I wouldn't work in anything else. And I would have no misgivings about releasing a downconverted 16-bit, 44.1 kHz master from the originating DSD masterfile. And you really don't need two computers, if your converters are being externally clocked from a superior system clock. Not that we don't all have multiple computers all on, all sitting in front of us all of the time LOL. I just use a different interface for the input mix down side back into the same computer that is also running my 2408 MOTU. Even though I'm not using an external master clock. This isn't much different than when I capture 2 simultaneous DV camcorders along with 8 simultaneous audio inputs on a single laptop, with two external hard drives. And with only 2 GB of RAM on a 1.7 GHz core duo HP DV 8339 from 2006. So... I don't know? Two computers? Sure why not? You're just making two computers work half as hard as they could.

I'm a slave driver when it comes to my computers
Mx. Remy Ann David

i get what you are saying but I trust my setup is ideal. I use 3 converters and two licenses of Sequoia 12. I mix in Sequoia and master to it. So there are things I do at the end right before the web which wouldn't be possible on the DSD. It looks cooler than it is IMHO. Never the less, I sold it and I'm not looking back. An ME in your neck of the woods got a good buy. :)
But, I would never use it after what I am doing now. I can load a song in and have it ready so fast compared. And the sonic improvement if any at the end of the day, not even worth thinking twice about.

i just did the comparative listening test on the GS link between the 192, and the antelope. i heard a difference, and i guessed right as to which one was which. on a laptop w/ crappy speakers none-the-less. I don't claim to have superior hearing, and it was probably just as much luck as anything, but as soon as i heard the one w/ the more forward upper mids, i had an inkling that that was the 192, just cuz i associate to that characteristic to digi gear. I've bought enough cds done on it to have a feel for it. 'guess' is they key word there, as i was pretty not %75 sure. i'd like to try more comparisons down at the studio to really get a grasp of the depth, that people are talking about, which obviously isn't going to be translated to these terrible little gateway speakers, on a laptop. Especially since the 192's converters have a bad reputation anyway, i'd like to hear some comparisons between clocks more in the same league.

that said, there is other stuff that i would personally get more use out of for ten grand for a clock at my current state especially since i don't need to sync multiple digital units, but if i could notice a slight difference on a laptop, it's testament to me, at just how integral these pieces of equipment are to a signal chain. i am no doubt sold, just not yet($ restrictions), and not until i compare a bunch.

ya know, there's soo much talk about sample rates and why this format/meduim sucks or is superior, but that's never gonna change as long as there is recorded audio. It's just part of human nature to be insatiable. we always want more. more than finding that magic box, to me it's knowing how to work around the obstacles of a given medium, which there will inevitably always be. in some cases your work w/ them, jack white blunderbus 7ips. dragon force recorded solo's for a worldwide released album on a digi 002. it's how you work w/ the medium as much as the medium itself. just like maybe recording w/ a touch more highs cuz you know the tape is gonna dull it a bit, or whatever. we're just stuck w/ whatever is the state of the fart, or whatever older technology is preferred. i can't say for sure, but i doubt that the designers of yester year were sitting around saying lets make this transformer based thing have killer saturation, or wow this tape saturation is phenomenal. i dunno maybe i'm wrong, but i think it was the people using it as daily tools that figured that stuff out. What i don't get is why company execs think building a compromised product will increase profits, have they looked at the vintage market lately????

that all said the, word jitter is becoming very scary to me, i'm gonna spend some time wrapping my head around it.

audiokid, post: 399411 wrote: MrEase,

Interestingly enough,

What are you thoughts on this: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.antelope…"]Orion32 Multi-Channel AD/DA Converter | Antelope Audio[/]="http://www.antelope…"]Orion32 Multi-Channel AD/DA Converter | Antelope Audio[/]
I have one coming next month. Trying it for my 24 channel Neos hybrid rig. Its a 32 channel ADC with USB or MADI interface. USB is where I'll try.
Just thinking out loud, I don't expect it to outperform my ADI-8 QS / PCIe combo for latency but this going one way at a time > DA to the Neos might be pretty cool. I'm monitoring OTB so latency isn't an issue for me.

Hi,

Sorry, I've only just seen this. I did comment about atomic clocks in the "What is clock jitter" thread some time ago. My opinion hasn't changed!

As expected there are always comments varying from "stunning improvements" to "snake oil" just as in the hi-fi discussions. Sometimes, as a design engineer, this is very difficult to comment on so I try to stick to the facts. In this case, I already described the internals of atomic clocks in a very basic way. The upshot is that clock jitter arises from what we call "phase noise" and this is not dependent on the long term stability that atomic standards provide. In terms of things like wow and flutter, these were based on measurements IIRC less than a second (flutter) and greater (wow) but don't quote me on that! With an atomic clock we are talking about accuracy over years and more while the short term stuff (wow and flutter) is still dependent upon the particular type of atomic standard and the characteristics (stability) of the gas plasma used.

Now I could be naive but I don't think long term stability over several years is going to bother me when I'm only listening to a piece that is most likely to be much less that an hour long!

As I've mentioned wow and flutter I should also comment about Remy's mention of them. Although Remy is quite right to make an analogy the magnitude of the wow and flutter (even with the older soundcards) is very much less than we had with the mechanical transports used in tape or vinyl repro. What we do get though is a different problem all tied up with the A-D process. Those are what I addressed with the "clock jitter" thread.

I don't know if I've put all this very well so if you need more explanation let me know.

I heard a demonstration not too many years ago, from a company that was making a digital clock for audio purposes the difference between miniscule jitter and the average variety most everybody else lives with. And there was a significant difference that I heard. Not that I would spend that kind of money for their clock unless I could reap a return on that clock which wasn't cheap (at the time, still isn't). No, it didn't sound like wow or flutter. But it was just as annoying. It was a smear that did nothing for the music playback. You could definitely enjoyed the articulation of the recording better from the improved clock with miniscule jitter. But then why doesn't everybody own a Bentley, Lamborghini? Some do. I sure don't. Not even my motorcycle works anymore and it's too expensive to fix. About half the cost of an 87. It's not worth that much. But it does have antique tags. Not sure if I should sell one classic to fix another? One goes faster and one sounds better.

Decisions... decisions???
Mx. Remy Ann David

I've recently discovered RME has little benefit from these compared to other converters. I'm guessing RME
™ "Steady Clock" is pretty "steady" .

Chris, is the RME not less money than a stable deluxe clock? And of course you get something more than just a clock. You get a fine analog front end and rear end compared to my little Roland Toy. (UA 1EX) Which is just the toy I use on the laptop most of the time. At least it has goldplated RCA connectors. It actually seems to have some reasonable input headroom. Though you do have to select your sample rate via dip switches. Which can really screw you up when you select something different in the software. The software goes one direction while the audio gizmo goes in the other direction so to speak. It makes for good laughs when it plays back at the right tempo but the wrong pitch or vice versa.

No one's steady at 57 but with a 57 probably so. The clock I don't know about?
Mx. Remy Ann David

Hi Remy,

RME makes a lot of products, which hurts them because they have both high end and prosumer. As you can imagine, most people are not using their high end stuff (cost money) so , people use the word RME loosely when referring, often comparing example: the FF800 to the Aurora's. They are two different animals. FW isn't the best for hybrid but its wonderful for going one way at a time. HDSPe is the choice for hybrid.

I use a few of these for my hybrid rig: [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.sweetwat…"]RME ADI-8 QS | Sweetwater.com[/]="http://www.sweetwat…"]RME ADI-8 QS | Sweetwater.com[/]
I need 1 more of them ( Neos is 24 channel) so this is why I am selling mic's to pay for the 3rd one now. This is a $12000.00 ADC when you include the 4 HDSPe PCIe cards needed.

To answer your question then, I'm told "Steady Clock" is RME's secret weapon ( Big Ben). We don't need an external clock.
Antelope 10M, Big Ben Apogee etc....

My converters clock internally via HDSPe AES. Switching SR is all automatic on the fly and gain staging and a few other sweet things make this system simple and precise for hybrid. They work great. As both Boswell and MrEase have mentioned many times on the forums, the chip is just the start. All the other technology around converters is what makes the difference.

All the ITB OTB stuff I do, I didn't mind paying more for the extra functions over something more basic like Lynx Aurora's. But maybe that's why people find external clocks help for their converter chain over others. This is a classic example why you need to really study chains and methods each engineer does. Whats good for you isn't for me.

I asked Boswell and MrEase all about this back when MrEase was so kind to write all the information of Jitter. I'm really glad I paid attention to as much as I could absorb. I don't think I made a wrong choices so far.

I may be getting one of those clocks here to try. Who knows... At this point, improvements are increments so I don't expect anything is going to be very noticeable anymore. I'm satisfied with my gear and room. I need to get good at what I do now :)

Roger that Chris. Certainly not an inexpensive rig. Not for your average 18-year-old apartment bedroom hopeful. And I'm sure it sounds totally awesome! I too am salivating over your rig. Almost sounds light enough to carry around? I'll trade you my Neve for it?

Paper or plastic?
Mx. Remy Ann David

One thing I can say for sure is that if I was going to do a demo of my new superclock, I'd make damn sure that the customers would be able to hear a difference. Hence I would select the soundcard used with the superclock very carefully simply because it is the soundcard that will show up the differences. I would be interested to hear from Remy which soundcard was used for the demo she heard.

As I said earlier,I am quite sure that many people have heard the benefit of using an external clock. Those benefits though depend entirely on the soundcard being used when the benefits are heard. I stand by my comments that many of the newer soundcards have the clock very well sorted and these would be the ones I would not expect to be used for and "wonderclock" products.

This whole topic should soon be consigned to historic interest but I doubt vendors of "wonderclocks" would agree!

kmetal, post: 399593 wrote: What i don't get is why company execs think building a compromised product will increase profits, have they looked at the vintage market lately????

.

Well, K, when the bulk of the audio consumer base is made up primarily of twenty year old kids in their bedrooms with a $500 PC and a total of an additional $300 to spend on accessories, well, I guess what I'm saying is that the demand drives the market.

You're thinking like a professional, (stop doing that!!! LOL) and not like the CEO of a company that makes low-to-mid level gear and that caters to the majority of consumers, and who, at the end of the day, is concerned only in P & L. ;)

Of course there will always be high-end aficionados that have lots of cash to spend and want the best gear available, but that "Mix Magazine" mentality caters to a very few, when compared to the vast majority of users who think that dropping $200 on an audio I/O pre is plenty enough - and, to play devil's advocate for a moment, it probably is enough when you look at their field of play, and what most people - I call them "civilians" - are accustomed to hearing these days through 10 dollar ear buds or $20 computer speakers.

People like Chris with his Neos and other beautiful gear, or Remy with her Neves and API's, or yourself, K, who as a real engineer, working in a real room with real gear, is accustomed to a certain level of professional quality, really are in the minority these days. I know you can't help thinking that way, it's ok, you're a professional, it's ingrained in your genetic makeup. LOL

But the majority of consumers log onto Musician's Friend or Sweetwater, etc., and they are nickle and dime shopping, trying like hell to save $10 worth of shipping charges on a $50 purchase.

For these people, $10,000 dollar clocks and $5000 converters aren't even on their radar, when they are plenty happy to simply record a track and have it play back. For them, that in itself is enough, and a measure of grand success.

And, while I can't say for sure, my suspicion tells me that the profit margin for the retailer is much higher on a $200 Chinese Condenser mic than it is on a $5000 converter, (I could be wrong on this, but I don't think I am), and in the end, the numbers, that bottom line, is what inevitably drives the industry....any industry.

Now, whether or not that's a good thing is for another topic. ;)

fwiw
-d.

DonnyThompson, post: 399767 wrote: And, while I can't say for sure, my suspicion tells me that the profit margin for the retailer is much higher on a $200 Chinese Condenser mic than it is on a $5000 converter, (I could be wrong on this, but I don't think I am), and in the end, the numbers, that bottom line, is what inevitably drives the industry....any industry.

From my experience of supplying the international market in the marine leisure field, the norm is that distributors and dealers will all expect a certain percentage margin from the MRP irrespective of the unit cost. In that case, margins would be expected to be the same. The problem arises from the "stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap" nationwide dealers. In this market, the manufacturer has (and is technically allowed to have) no control of the "street price". Hence the lower cost but popular goods tend to have lower margins with the dealers than the "boutique" stuff. Of course, the turnover of the $200 dollar mikes will always be greater than the $5000 pro gear and folks considering such a purchase tend to want more support with their purchase decision - I doubt many get sold on the internet... Finally, dealers prefer product that does not tie up capital and that can move in smaller chunks. It's a better stocking option for them, 25 mic's that will move almost as soon as they hit the shelf or one unit that could take months to sell. Also if you have 25 outlets, they can all have a mic to sell.

In practise, the better margin is normally with the expensive low volume gear but the dealers cost of sale goes up.

As you say though, that's really another topic. I'm glad I no longer have to deal with such vagaries!

In that case, margins would be expected to be the same. The problem arises from the "stack '[[url=http://[/URL]="http://adesignsaudi…"]EM[/]="http://adesignsaudi…"]EM[/] high, sell 'em cheap" nationwide dealers. In this market, the manufacturer has (and is technically allowed to have) no control of the "street price". Hence the lower cost but popular goods tend to have lower margins with the dealers than the "boutique" stuff.

Back when I was working retail - and this was quite a few years ago so I wouldn't be surprised to hear that certain things have changed - items like Neumann mics, Mesa Boogie amps and Gibson guitars held very little profit margin for the store... there was maybe a margin of 10% or so to play around with - as opposed to models by manufacturers of mid-grade gear like Peavey, Fender, Tascam, Yamaha, Alesis, etc., where the margins on many of those items was nearly 50%.

In short, we made a lot more money from the sale of a DX7 than we did on the sale of a U87. ;)

fwiw

-d.

Just for your edification, I don't remember exactly what soundcard was used for this demonstration? I do know, it was a relatively high quality interface. Prism comes to mind? But my synapses won't reach back to verify this. It wasn't a cheap sound card interface that's for sure. That's what made the demonstration all the more substantial. It was actually a rather high end demonstration. Certainly way out of my budget when I had a budget. And my budget wasn't miniscule but it wasn't that big. Nevertheless, it was impressive. And not much impresses me.

The skeptic
Mx. Remy Ann David

Prism Orpheus is in the best of the best category. I'm going to use one this year in the same spot (close) and the same mic (Royer SF-24) recording the city Choirs festival on the 27th of this month. The first year I used a FF800, then the Lavry AD11 and this year it will be the Orpheus. The difference between the FF800 and the Lavry made me sell the FF800 right after that. Lavry is great. I'm looking forward to this.

Antelope Audio Isochrone OCX & 10M clock generators

posted at Tapeop:

Link removed

it’s hard to imagine a single purchase that would upgrade a system in this realm so significantly and pervasively.

In fact, with everything we put up, the 10M was a mind-blower,

So, can a clock make a difference? Ha! Especially when you’ve got a sensitive mixer/producer and a discriminating mastering engineer geeking out on a really nice system in a well-treated room. But what about the so-called real world? Is the OCX going to help a recording made with the clock wheezing its weary way through the world’s worst D-A converter and a pair of 10-cent laptop speakers? We printed mixes from the four different clocks to find out, and in a blind test, we were able to hear differences on a laptop, for sure. However, the differences were certainly diminished by the limitations of the playback system—if you can even call a laptop a playback system.

Interesting article. It does bring out that attention to clocking can make a difference.

The first of the quotes you put up was a comment on the difference between a Digi 002 box on internal clock and the same box fed with an external clock. Not really a contest.

Most of the comparisons seemed to be carried out by replaying commercial recordings. The problem with that is we do not know how the tracking sessions were clocked, although it would be reasonable to make the assumption that professional studios use good clocks.

What would have been really interesting is a comparison between different clocks being used for both recording and replay, where the only difference was the clocks. This would be difficult to set up, and would probably involve using several sets of identical converters and recording devices on different external clocks but being daisy-chained the same line-level signals from the mic pre-amps. Cue a rack of HD24s...

Boswell don't you mean HD 24 XR? LOL.

Certainly could do, but I was anticipating external converters with lightpipes into the HD24s.