Master Clock & RME vs Rosetta 200

Discussion in 'Converters / Interfaces' started by lvchief, Aug 3, 2005.

  1. lvchief

    lvchief Guest

    May be a silly question but the worst question is the one that is not asked

    Would you take a RME ADi 2 / Hammerfall with a Master clock ( ex Big Ben ) Over a Rosetta 200 with the firewire option

    1. I need no more than 2 inputs at a time
    2. Already have a Sebatron, looking to get a good solid state pre
    3. Heard a friends Acoustic guitar through an earthworks mic/pre/Rosetta and was blown away by the sound.
    4. Have an RME ADI sitting in front of me in the box and trying to weigh the options because the RME ADi 2 / Hammerfall with a Master clock would be more $$$
    5.Dont want to get sucked into the Master clock hype from salespeople.

    Thanks :D
  2. FifthCircle

    FifthCircle Well-Known Member

    Feb 12, 2001
    Los Angeles, CA
    Home Page:
    Look at it this way- a poorly desinged converter will benefit from a stable clock source. That is one of the places that many converters lack. Any of the RME converters will sound better with a good clock, but it won't be a massive difference.

    What would be a more important question is "how does my digital system integrate?" I find that a master clock makes everything easier to integrate when you have large setups (ie console, computer, converters, backup recorder, etc...). Just tell everything to sync to the external source and you'll be set. If you just have one set of converters going into a computer, you probably can survive just fine without.

    As for preamps- there are tons of choices out there. My personal flavor of the month that I've really been digging is the new A-Designs Pacifica. It is an absolute first rate preamp.

  3. Randyman...

    Randyman... Well-Known Member

    Jun 1, 2003
    Houston, TX
    I pretty much agree with your #5 :lol: . Any unit with a crappy clock will also have a crappy PLL that will add jitter to any external clock source. Any unit with a descent internal clock will not be improved drastically with a high dollar external clock (like 5th Circle mentioned). Dan Lavry has quite a few good reads on the drawbacks of external clocking that really make sense to me (and saved me money by skipping the whole standalone clock thing).

    Essentially, the theory is to have your primary AD converter run off it's INTERNAL crystal (assuming it is 1/2 way descent to begin with - as the RME certainly is). This eliminates the added jitter that PLL's induce when the WordClock is sent through BNC cables and extra circuitry. If you need to sync other digital gear, slave it to your primary ADC. The ADC is where you want the absolute LEAST amount of jitter, and this can be accomplished by using the ADC's internal clock. Digital-to-Digital transfers are not even affected by Jitter, and a descent DAC will be able to accurately resolve any added jitter picked up after the ADC converter (assuming the ADC capture was clean to start with).

    NTM - the ADI-2 does NOT have BNC Wordclock connections, so the external clock would not do any good unless you sacrafice your SPDIF Input on the ADI-2's DAC ;)

    I'd keep the ADI-2 (I have the older 48KHz ADI-8 Pro, and I love it), and save your money for the good pre to feed it. A good pre will SMOKE the small improvement a clock MIGHT make.

  4. Big_D

    Big_D Well-Known Member

    Aug 21, 2004
    Quakertown PA

Share This Page