Hey guys - The quality of the units you're considering would make it even harder to discern between (say) a Lucid converter running on its own (Lucid) clock, and being clocked by an external (Lucid) clock. I'm not saying that all clocks by Lucid, whether internal to a converter, or stand alone, are identical - However, there is another factor involved - When a converter is required to lock to an external source, a circuit called a PLL (Phase Locked Loop) comes into play. The PLL has to lock to the external clock and then provide clock pulses to the internal converter circuitry. In this process, there can be errors known as jitter, which are the reason cheaper converters usually sound better with an external (quality) clock generator. When you already have a good quality clock in a good quality converter, an external clock has to be noticeably cleaner and tighter than the internal clock becore you will notice any improvement. There have been listening tests done with just this sort of gear, and it seems like most people prefer the sound of the internal converter clock to the external, unless the external is an order of magnitude further up the food chain. Where another problem comes in is this: if you have several digital devices in your studio, there is a tendency to just loop-de-loop-de-loop the word clock signal from the master thru each one of the slaves, until all units are connected. This can cause problems such as phase shift, jitter, standing waves, and integration of clock pulses due to excessive cable capacitance, etc, and any or all of these problems will be audible - So, for a simple setup with only 2 or 3 digital devices, it is possible to get by without an external clock or a Distribution Amplifier, otherwise known as a DA, and just connect from master to slave to slave, using the best quality, shortest cables of the correct type that you can find. Beyond that, the least you will need is a DA, which can get its input from whichever device is the master's WC out, and connect each of the DA's outputs to no more than two daisy-chained devices, preferably only one. As the system gets more involved, it becomes simpler to use a master clock generator with multiple outputs, such as the Genx6 or similar, still keeping cabling short and high quality.

The only time you would need to spend the money for an Aardsync is if you decide to get into audio for video, post production, or anything where the system must be locked to Video and SMPTE as well as Word Clock. If this becomes the case, the Rosendahl Nanosync is as low-jitter as the Aardsync, costs about $150 less, and doesn't require an add-in board (More money) in order to genlock to incoming video - Also, each of the Nanosync's WC outputs is independently configurable to clock, hi-clock, or superclock, which is important if you have equipment that uses 48k clock even when running at 96k (case in point: Tascam DM-24), in a system with other gear that requires 96k clock to run at 96k. The Aardsync can do this, but only in groups if I remember correctly.

Most Word Clock connectors are BNC connectors that require 75 ohm video cable. Do NOT use 50-ohm BNC cables such as RG-58, or you will get the chance to troubleshoot the system from hell. Some WC inputs/outputs are found on 3-pin XLR connectors, which are known as AES Connectors when used as WC - They use 110 ohm balanced cable and will give you more fits if you try to use a mic cable to connect them - you might get away with it for a 2 foot cable, but that's about it. AES WC signals can go a lot further (I think at least 100 feet or more, not sure) but only if properly cabled as above. Some WC DA's have AES inputs with BNC 75 ohm outs, so you can run a long cable then split it out to several pieces of gear on short BNC's.

So, to recap - if you only have 2-3 pieces of digital gear and they are good quality, you probably won't see much difference with an external WC box. 4-5 pieces, and you should consider a DA, choosing the master by which sounds better. More than that, or if you're doing audio for video, and you're into the Nanosync/Aardsync with DA's where necessary. If you do the DA thing with the DA being fed from the best sounding master device, and can try out an external sync box, it's an easy A/B test by just switching one unit (the master) - Then if you can't hear the difference, just take the clock back and put the money toward another good mic or pre or whatever. BTW, Mitch, the popping and clicking can also be coming from WinXP, if you are running it without the latest Microsoft updates. Word is, there are a couple of fairly recent updates for XP that help it a lot. Hope this clarifies some things about Word Clock for you guys - I know a complete digital studio can be a nightmare to figure out - there is BNC Word Clock, AES Word Clock, SMPTE time code, Midi Time code, possibly Video black burst, Analog audio, which can be low impedance balanced, hi impedance balanced or unbalanced, MIDI, power, digital audio in AES, SPDIF, TosLink, ADAT, TDIF and now R-Bus, the list just keeps growing. The only way I've found to keep it all straight is to use a CAD program, draw boxes to represent each piece of gear, include connections for everything each box needs, then draw wiring subsystems for each protocol until all is connected on the drawing. Then you have the fun of figuring out cable routing for minimum crosstalk between all the various signals and power so your racks aren't just noise generators. If your system is small and will stay that way, you'll probably have an easier time of it, but systems have a way of growing, kind of like Demon Spawn. The more you learn now, the better you can plan for future additions, and the less likelihood you'll buy stuff that will be useless as you expand.
Try to have patience with the learning curve - pretty soon all this will seem like common knowledge and you'll be agonizing over something else. There, I bet THAT cheered y'all up... Steve

Great advice and information knightfly. There were so many juicy tech things in your post. Thanks for sharing your wealth of info, it's definitely not falling on deaf computer screens.

Ok, so I know about SPDIF and AES/EBU and ADAT formats. What about these TDIF and R-Bus modes, what's that all about? How are those Tascam DM-24's anyway?

-Jon Best
What do you think about Avalon preamp's? I hear they were top notch, and they look (physically) really cool, just wondering. I also posted in my other thread on mic pre's asking what the diff. between the great river MP-2 and MP-2MH was, and is it really worth the extra $500 bucks, cause I found the MP-2 (non-MH) for like $1,450, and that's absoloutely my limit (I guess I could spring for a LITTLE more : () for money spent on mic pre's. Thanks again.

knightfly - thanks very much for the information. let me tell you (if i may) what i'm trying to do. i just bought a laptop and want to create a second system i can use on location. i was looking to use a digiface unit (and pc card) from rme. the unit has all sorts of digital i/o- including word clock.

I want two channels of top-notch quality ad and 8 i/o of decent ada (use to get rest of synths in the computer and the da to use for monitoring).

i have been considering the lucid ad9624 and apogee rosetta as the 2-channel top-notch ad. the problem, i think, is that the lucid unit only has wc input, not output - whereas the apogee has wc out (which i guess, basis your info above, would be useful to use for clocking the whole system). should this disqualify the lucid unit?

as for the "decent" 8 i/o unit, i had already been looking at rme's adi8-ds (yeah, i know this unit is probably better than "decent") - and it has wc in and out. i'm open to any other ideas on this one too.

so my problem is that both the rme digiface and rme adi8 i/o have wc i/o, and the lucid doesn't. not sure why they would leave it off. any advice here? perhaps i shud stick with the apogee (or for the price difference can get the lucid with the lucid external clock - don't know if there's any advantage to that) -

teddancin - only good things to say about the avalon pre's -- soon to pick myself up a 737sp .. worth checking out !

thanks for help folks

Hey TD - TDIF stands for Tascam Digital Interface Format, and is sort of a copper wire version of ADAT. It has been used for several years, on all of Tascam's digital 8-tracks, mixers, etc - They just started referring to "TDIF 2" on their Digital Mixers forum, where I finally got an un-wanted answer to my questions about interfacing the DM-24 to a DAW. The $1700 worth of RME stuff I was going to use is (finally, after 2 months of questions to the Tascam guys with no response) NOT GOING TO WORK. I have more posts in awaiting answers, but as of now there doesn't seem to be any DIGITAL way to interface the DM-24 with a DAW (at 24/96), only with the Tascam stuff.

My DM-24 and meter bridge have been sitting in the boxes for 2 months in the middle of the floor, along with several other large piles of gear, while I completely redesign my studio (both acoustically and equipment-wise, everything from the computer to mixer to new V-custom Roland drums, new sync/MIDI/Video/5.1 surround, yikes... Sooo, I can't yet tell you how the DM-24 sounds (I've heard that it's close to the same quality as the Panasonic DA-7, but since I have yet to actually HEAR either one of those, the info is meaningless to me), but even though 24/96 is difficult to incorporate without Tascam recorders, I would buy it again JUST FOR THE CONTROL SURFACE ! Look at Digidesign's control surface/pre's box, at $8500 or so, then look at the DM-24 at $2400 - In my book, anything you get beyond the faders/MIDI out is FREE...

R-BUS is Roland's new 8 channel digital interface, used on their porta DAW's and some of the newer keyboard stuff. That's the sum of my knowledge on that, I don't use Roland except for two keyboards and a couple of rack modules so I don't really care about it - I gotta say, though - do we really NEED yet another proprietary 8-track digital interface? C'mon, guys, take a lesson from the MIDI spec and try to get along, give us poor end-users a break for once! (I will retract that last statement if I find out that the R-BUS lets you do ALL 8 at 96k, and is compatible with ANYTHING else)

Mitch - Re-read my first paragraph in this post, and you'll note that I too need to do more research, since what I thought I knew is now dried dog shit on the bottom of my shoe. First I need a good shoe scraper, then I'll be checking out tech specs on the Apogee 16 channel units and how they can interface with a DAW, also maybe a 2-channel 96k AES approach to at least get 2 channels of 24/96 between the DM-24 and the DAW -

I have no idea why Lucid would leave off WC out - Maybe they want to sell more Genx6's? - Now I'm as pissed off as TD was, and I don't even have the excuse of bein' (physically) sick - :=) So, the short answer(too late, I know)is, I don't know yet, subject to change (hopefully) soon...

Instead of the Digiface for your location rig, what about using the Multiface? You get 8 channels of TRS 24/96, ADAT, SPDIF, etc, and less boxes to carry around. It looks like you could run whatever 2-channel high-end unit you get into the spdif, and only need a 2-space rack bag (get a 4-space, use the rest for cables, etc) Just a thought, got a lot more looking to do yet, thanks Tascam... Steve

thanks. let's say i did go with the multiface and a lucid ad 9624 -- the multiface has wc i/o and the lucid, well we've been there already. would i need to have these two devices run off the same clock? bringing me back to the original problem that lucid doesn't have wc out.

as far as price goes, it costs more to buy the apogee rosetta 96k than it does to buy the 96k ready lucid ad 9624 PLUS the lucid clock. don't want to make things more complicated than they have to be, but that cost is something to consider.

one of the reasons why i like the multiface better was because it has 2 midi ports.. i will have to think if i could get by with one.

apprec any thoughts you have on our issues ...
cheers

Mitch, one way to handle your situation, is get the Lucid and the Multiface, find a good quiet room with as many things "right" as possible, hook up your high end nearfields/farfields/whatever you're going to listen on, and set up some listening tests. Try internal clock playback with the Lucid and a super clean recording of (say) a well-tuned piano or a great guitar, recorded with the highest quality gear (and technique) you can - try recording using the internal clock of the Lucid, play it back using internal clock, then compare the sound to Lucid playback with the Multiface as master clock. take notes. Now, do the recording again using the Multiface clock into the Lucid, and listen to the recording both ways again. Try to decide which of the combinations is best. If the Lucid internal is best, buy the Genx6 and clock both units with it. The quality should be comparable to the best you heard in your tests. Remember when doing this, that a great playback system can't make a piss-poor recording sound great, only better than a piss-poor playback system.

And yes, in a digital studio, just as for Duncan MacCloud, "there can be only one" Only in the studio, you'll only lose your mind, not necessarily your head. All digital devices in the studio MUST be synchronized to the same sample clock (Word Clock) so that all samples are aligned in time or there will be pops and clicks. No two sync sources will run precisely the same speed, and even if they could they would not run in the same phase, unless one is being triggered by the other.

I have heard that the Rosetta, while quite good, is somewhat colored - Again, this statement is coming from READING, not listening. Also, bear in mind that when you see a "shootout" of 10 different monitors/mics/bicycle seats with 4 "golden ears" types, you usually see 3 different "clear winners" and one "fence walker" - so the only true test is the one you do for yourself, in your habitat, with your situation.

Midi connectors kind of depend on how much Midi gear you have and how you want to hook it up for what you want to do with it. You can theoretically connect 16 different Midi devices by daisy chain to one midi port. You could then program each device to only respond to one channel, and the system would (sort of) work. If you're like me, an 8-port Midi interface is marginal. On one port I may have only 2-3 devices, another may have 6, some only one, but the 8-port allows me to organize and route things so I can use them intuitively. two midi ports would be minimum if you plan to use a digital mixer with automation, because one of the ports would most likely be used just for Midi Time Code in order to sync the automation, or for midi out of the mixer to be recorded into the sequencing software. Remember, even though you CAN run MTC and other Midi signals on the same cable, it is NOT a good idea. Any sync signal needs its own un-impeded path for tightest control. Gotta run, keep studying... Steve

Some observations about clocks & AD/DA's. I just did a transfer of analog 2" 16-trk to my daw (Nuendo) using AD8000SE's (rented), connected to my Hammerfall 9652, all clocked to an Aardsync II (rented). I also tested these Apogees against the Lucid 8824 (rented) with the same setup. I'm using an Apogee DA 16 to route all 16 channels from Nuendo to my Soundcraft Ghost analog console. All transfers were done at 48k.

Here's what I noticed:

The Lucid wasn't as smooth & open as the AD8000SE & didn't have the bottom end roundness. Of course, it's about 1/3 the price of the AD8000, but I thought it was worth commenting about.
I also own an Apogee Rosetta A/D & SEKD 2496 ADDA that I've been using for years now, which I'll bring into this equation further below.

After tranfers were complete, I packed up the AD8000's & the Lucid for return but left the Aardvark in the system. I decided to test the clock in the Aardvark against the clock in my Rosetta, that I had been using for the last year. For just playback from Nuendo through the DA16 to the console it was a no brainer. The Aardvark was a "lot" better sounding than using the Rosetta's clock. Much more open, the imaging was immediately wider & the tracks were just a lot cleaner & punchier. Needless to say I went on an immediate hunt for a used Aardsync II, found one this week & bought it. I'll never go back to the clock in the Rosetta & this is only with 2 pieces being used in the system.

So . . . you absolutely 100% "can" hear a noticable difference in what clock you use, even though you are only using 1 multi-channel DA hooked up to your DAW. Believe me - well recorded 2" 16-track analog will show up deficiencies in digital transfers quite easily & also gives you some fat & open sounds to make judgements in sound quality for converters & clocks, etc.

Now - 3 months ago I had to transfer tracks again. This time I had 3 different AD & DA units. I had the RME 96k 8 ch box, the Apogee AD16 & an AD8000. Again, the AD16 & the RME were not in the same league as the AD8000, Similar things were noticable with either the AD16 or the RME at 48k - the soundstage closed in, the highs were more brittle & the bottom end was not as deep & round. I must say that I tried the RME box in 96k also & in that mode it sounded great - put it back to 48k & it wasn't very impressive. I did like the DA section of the RME converter, but it's an all in one AD & DA & I bought the Apogee DA16, which also sounds great, was a few hundred more than the single RME box & had double the outputs.

I know that many folks would love to have the opportunity to get all this gear in one place & run some listening tests, including me. Fortunately, I "did" because I needed to transfer tracks & I thought it was a perfect opportunity to spend a few extra bucks & rent a few extra pieces for my own first hand testing. After all, I was considering a purchase of any of the above mentioned converters & clocks, so this was the time to try them out.

In conclusion, I felt that it wasn't worth the $1700 to $2500 for either the RME, AD16 or Lucid 8824 for A/D only. After tracking drums, or doing 2" transfers, I usually only need 1 or 2 inputs at a time for overdubs, so I figure I'll rent top quality multi-AD boxes for those special occasions & just keep a really good quality 2 channel AD. At the moment the Rosetta & SEKD have worked out nicely for this use. I just can't justify spending over $12k for 2 AD8000SE's when I only have a few occasions to use all those inputs during the course of a project. I'll just continue renting them as needed.

However, the difference in the quality of the sound using the Aardvark unit "was" worth the dough (for me), since it effects all the sound, all the time. And it's just a good idea to clock your card, AD & DA converters to a high quality source.

Cheers.

Congratulations, Sotagear, you're now officially "published", and a welcome post at that. All of me (except my budget) was glad to read your "shootout" results. When I went back to the part of my posts I assumed you were referring to, I noticed that I wasn't clear on what I meant by "good quality", as far as what could benefit by a high quality external clock. Sometimes, especially when I'm frustrated about the difficulty of operating from "stickville USA", my comparatives aren't "good, better, best", they're more like "good, sorta OK, crappy" -

Your observations on Aardsync-clocked Rosetta fall in line with other comments I've seen, and if I bought a Rosetta I would probably order a high quality clock such as the Aard or Rosendahl at the same time. I am in the middle of a complete redo, both acoustically and equipment-wise, of my studio. Since I need to plan for Video, I am leaning toward the Rosendahl Nanosync - It is slightly cheaper than the Aard, reportedly as tight on clock, and has much better video and clock flexibility.

The one thing I miss about living in the Bay area (it's been 24 years now) is the ability to physically audition anything I wanted to without having to "buy" it, try it, return it, etc.

I was on the phone yesterday to the head of tech support at Creamware, talking about their new A16 Ultra ($1100, 16 AD/DA, Z-link/firewire, USB2...) and he claims that they are nearly at cost on this box because they want to provide it as an expansion to all their other products (yeah, right) Anyway, I would think that such a box, at least at 96k external clock, would be a good way to get lots of inputs relatively cheaply - Then, for playback use a higher quality converter, especially if the output will be at 44 or 48k for CD. Your observations about 48 vs. 96k on the RME unit agree with statements I've seen in other posts in this forum - apparently, a large part of the cost difference is in filters, since it is so difficult to do good filters at 44/48k due to lack of bandwidth headroom for them to work. This is probably why most mid-price 96k boxes sound pretty good at 96, but not too impressive at 44/48k.

Living in the boonies as I do and being on a budget smaller than Bill Gates would drop into a Salvation Army pot, I tend to read voraciously and surf wherever I find useful information on equipment pros/cons, so I really appreciate posts from people who've had the chance at "real world" listening tests. Thanks again for your valuable input, and would welcome any other insights you're willing to share (as would the rest of the people here, I'm sure) BTW, if you haven't read many of my posts here, I am definitely a smart-ass at times but I'm NOT inclined to use sarcasm - I meant everything just as I wrote it... Steve