TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Using a master clock such as Big Ben
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by CReddick This wouldn't work because you'd be playing the clip back with your clock source. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT36uditN78

While this may be true, my request to hear an A/B sample is still perhaps somewhat valid for two reasons:

1) as already discussed, any recorded audio should theoretically be different, and

2) the person doing the mixing is presumably hearing a more accurate representation of the audio when using a master clock and should, therefore, mix differently when using a clock vs. not; otherwise, what's the point in having an ultra-precise master clock, right? In this case, perhaps my request should probably be for someone to post two different mixes: one in which the producer uses a master clock to get the mix he/she wants, and one in which the producer attempts to get the same mix without a master clock. Obviously, that would be an exercise in futility because of the numerous other confounding factors that would come into play, which leaves me thinking, what's the point anyway?! As I mentioned, I have no intentions of ever wasting my money on one. That said, I'd still like an opportunity to hear the difference for myself, but I guess that will simply require me to check it out the next time I'm in a pro studio.

Regardless - this is a very interesting and informative discussion. I love this forum!

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik That said, I'd still like an opportunity to hear the difference for myself, but I guess that will simply require me to check it out the next time I'm in a pro studio.

You're on! Too bad you're not any further south or I'd have ya over for an A/B demo. lemme know next time you're in LA!

DJ RANN - Are these worth getting for syncing digital mixers?

quote:

Originally posted by Ry Thomas DJ RANN - Are these worth getting for syncing digital mixers?

Any device that converts digital to analog benefits from a quality clock source. Less jitter = cleaner D/A conversion.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips Whats your background in? You speak like you've used this stuff a fair bit, so do you believe there is a difference, having done AB comparisons? As far as their endorsements go, I think the one of first things I learnt when looking at gear was to never trust endorsements. What people say they use and what they really use are two different things. I think I'm with RANN on all of this really... Although I think if master clocks really do make a difference, then there would be a point in EDM producers buying them. Most EDM is made in bedrooms these days, and if you're going to get released, I think you have an obligation to make sure your signal chain is as good as possible.

To explain, a very good friend of mine runs the US operations for Antelope Audio. http://antelopeaudio.com/ As somewhat of an audio enthusiast, I'm around for a lot of the R&D at their new studio space in Santa Monica. We're uber nerds. We have 'Terminator Vision' at any digital audio device and try to figure out how we can re-clock it.

I was skeptical of this entire concept before I got to actually hear it for myself. I always kinda knew that a good clock was beneficial, but once you start using these things, you don't ever want to go anywhere without it. Currently, I'm using the OCX at home... but when connected to their 10M atomic add-on, its like a whole new world of audio clarity I didn't even know existed.

quote:

Originally posted by Ry Thomas DJ RANN - Are these worth getting for syncing digital mixers?

Yes, especially with the d8b, as it does both audio conversion and automation. It will not only help audio clarity as Chris mentions, but also with automation timing and the accuracy of fx timing.

You have to decide if the money is worth the improvement - especially as the improvement will only be worth it if you can take advantage of it. By that I mean your studio must be up to the level where minor increases in performance are actually noticeable, so you have to have good monitors, a good interface (d8b) - even cables and power conditioning come in to it at this point.

Antelope are becoming the new standard - they aren't cheap but I've heard nothing but good things about them.

I would say Ry, if you can afford it, go for it, you will notice a difference and as you add other things to your studio, the clock will only become more vital.

By the way, it's not as simple as buying a clock, and what kit you have will greatly affect they way you connect it and what I/o cards you need. For instance you could get the apogee d8b clock card which will reduce jitter and sync extrenal units but when you go above one external unit, some argue it's better to go with an external clock and get the d8b clock I/o card, unless you want to do your snc via adat (not great) or AES/EBU (good)....see what I mean?

Also, Chris, we should talk - we've worked on a lot of the same projects (at different stages though) and I'm based in Santa Monica......

Before you make the mistake of buying into the external clock BS I suggest you read this thread.
Let Bob Katz And Dan Lavry explain to you why not to waste your money on something like that.

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/14324/0/

No! word clocks actually introduce more jitter...

This was exposed by dan lavry who creates the Lavry converters and was the guy that created all the early apogee converters that rose the company to fame.

''Converters should be on their own clock'' said the former apogee engineer.
''Apogee is intentionally missleading concumers to think that a word clock will enhance the sound to make money.''

AGAIN According to DAN LAVRY AND MASTERING ENGINEER BOB KATZ THE EXTERNAL WORD CLOCK BS IS A SCEME. READ ON:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/14324/0/

That thread you link to is misleading.

The linked thread explains that a quality converter shouldn't need an external clock. agreed. However, most mediocre priced gear that us dance music folks use DON'T have the high end technology implemented (quartz crystal). The gear we all have use synthesized clock by either a chip, or (god forbid) software. This is where an external quartz or rubidium oscillator saves the day.

Anyone who has sat down and heard this gear knows what these clocks can do.

quote:

Originally posted by CReddick That thread you link to is misleading. The linked thread explains that a quality converter shouldn't need an external clock. agreed. However, most mediocre priced gear that us dance music folks use DON'T have the high end technology implemented (quartz crystal). The gear we all have use synthesized clock by either a chip, or (god forbid) software. This is where an external quartz or rubidium oscillator saves the day. Anyone who has sat down and heard this gear knows what these clocks can do.

Again a mediocre clock running internally would have better & lower jitter values than a word clock running externally.

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/in...g/14324/0/16/0/
It was closed by someone who makes a living selling these things. lol.

The misconception is that if you would slave a converter to a word clock you are not using the units word clock any more you are using the external. Absolute Bullshit. The units internal word clock is not bypassed it is constantly trying to sync to the external word clock and that introduces MORE jitter.

Read the thead till the end.

The folks over at gearslutz know this one well by now:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-m...ry-tape-op.html

quote:

Originally posted by Existo22 The misconception is that if you would slave a converter to a word clock you are not using the units word clock any more you are using the external. Absolute Bullshit. The units internal word clock is not bypassed it is constantly trying to sync to the external word clock and that introduces MORE jitter.

That is absolutely retarded. Again, I'm sure you've never heard any of this gear with your own ears. I'm unsubscribing to the thread.

I'd like to hear some results for myself, personally...

quote:

Originally posted by CReddick That is absolutely retarded. Again, I'm sure you've never heard any of this gear with your own ears. I'm unsubscribing to the thread.

DAN LAVRY WAS THE APOGEE ENGINEER THAT DESIGNED THE FKN APOGEE CONVERTORS THAT ROSE THE COMPANY TO FAME AND ARE CURRENTLY AT THE APOGEE LEGACY WEBSITE USED IN MANY SSL STUDIOS WORLDWIDE. MOST NOTABLY THE AD-8000.

BOB KATZ IS AN EXCELLENT MASTERING ENGINEER. MOST OF YOU HAVE PROBABLY HEARD OF HIM.

THEY BOTH AGREE THAT EXTERNAL CLOCKS INTODUCE MORE JITTER.
I CAN QUOTE THEM AND PROVE TO YOU THAT THIS WORD CLOCK BULLSHIT IS JUST HYPE DESIGNED TO GET THE MONEY FROM NOOBS LIKE YOU.

GO HEAD AND LEAVE THE THREAD NOOB.

I would love to hear the difference between some high end converters using their internal clock and again using the big ben.

CReddick, I have read that clocking a lower quality converter to an external clock such as the big ben will introduce even more jitter than if clocking to a higher quality converter.

Big ben and such are excellent products for syncing multiple digital devices though. Thats what they are designed for, not to improve the quality of your audio converter.

I would listen to Dan Lavry and the guy from apogee. They clearly state that jitter is increased when using an external clock. This is coming from the guy who made the product.

Cheers lads, lot of good info here

quote:

Originally posted by dannib CReddick, I have read that clocking a lower quality converter to an external clock such as the big ben will introduce even more jitter than if clocking to a higher quality converter. Big ben and such are excellent products for syncing multiple digital devices though. Thats what they are designed for, not to improve the quality of your audio converter. I would listen to Dan Lavry and the guy from apogee. They clearly state that jitter is increased when using an external clock. This is coming from the guy who made the product.

Obviously what is being messed up here is the context in which the clock is used in. The way Existo puts it would render any word clock useless while they are not.

quote:

Originally posted by Existo22 DAN LAVRY WAS THE APOGEE ENGINEER THAT DESIGNED THE FKN APOGEE CONVERTORS THAT ROSE THE COMPANY TO FAME AND ARE CURRENTLY AT THE APOGEE LEGACY WEBSITE USED IN MANY SSL STUDIOS WORLDWIDE. MOST NOTABLY THE AD-8000. DAN LAVRY IS AN EXCELLENT MASTERING ENGINEER. MOST OF YOU HAVE PROBABLY HEARD OF HIM. THEY BOTH AGREE THAT EXTERNAL CLOCKS INTODUCE MORE JITTER. I CAN QUOTE THEM AND PROVE TO YOU THAT THIS WORD CLOCK BULLSHIT IS JUST HYPE DESIGNED TO GET THE MONEY FROM NOOBS LIKE YOU. GO HEAD AND LEAVE THE THREAD NOOB.

Yawn I read them (ages ago) too.

Firstly, Dan Lavry is MATHEMATICALLY correct (i.e. "in theory"). Unfortunately, that does not pan out in the real world and ,I have heard myself, the serious difference and benefit that a master clock provides. Please, go speak to a few working engineers and they will tell you in detail how the sound quality positively affected by the addition of a clock.

Secondly, Dan Lavry also concedes that in systems that require anything more than one converter unit (or unit that need to in sync with anything else in the studio), a clock is needed. Period.

Thirdly, Dan Lavry (although he is indeed a ninja + genius) has a commercial reason to say that clocks don't work. Apogee (his competition and former employer) make more money from one product (the Bigben - which he had a lot to do with) per year than Lavry make in sales for the entire range of products. Funny that he'd spend a large chunk of his career designing locks for Apogee, to then leave, start a competitor, that doesn't make clocks and call all clocks unnecesary.

Dan also got fired as a moderator on PSW for posting that about clocks, as they deemed his post grossly misleading. His real world example was actually based off hooking up an external clock to an IZ radar system, to re-clock it, instead of using it's own clock. This was kind of a poor example as the IZ radar is a stand alone HD unit that has perfectly good internal clocks, (and it should at $20,000 for 24 track recording).

Yes, if you are using a single, high quality audio interface, and by that I mean, Lavry, Apogee, Mytek, etc., and you are not syncing to anything else other than a single DAW, then yes, Dan Lavry has a point that a clock MIGHT not improve sound quality. If you are sycing to any more units, more interfaces, digital mixing consoles, multiple computers, then a clock is essential.

Finally, Even if you are using a single unit that has a decent clock, many people prefer the sound improvement that clock adds, so before you go calling people noobs (especially those that know far more about this than you and actually work with this stuff everyday), check yourself so you don't get owned (because you just did ).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Yawn I read them (ages ago) too. Firstly, Dan Lavry is MATHEMATICALLY correct (i.e. "in theory"). Unfortunately, that does not pan out in the real world and ,I have heard myself, the serious difference and benefit that a master clock provides. Please, go speak to a few working engineers and they will tell you in detail how the sound quality positively affected by the addition of a clock. Secondly, Dan Lavry also concedes that in systems that require anything more than one converter unit (or unit that need to in sync with anything else in the studio), a clock is needed. Period. Thirdly, Dan Lavry (although he is indeed a ninja + genius) has a commercial reason to say that clocks don't work. Apogee (his competition and former employer) make more money from one product (the Bigben - which he had a lot to do with) per year than Lavry make in sales for the entire range of products. Funny that he'd spend a large chunk of his career designing locks for Apogee, to then leave, start a competitor, that doesn't make clocks and call all clocks unnecesary. Dan also got fired as a moderator on PSW for posting that about clocks, as they deemed his post grossly misleading. His real world example was actually based off hooking up an external clock to an IZ radar system, to re-clock it, instead of using it's own clock. This was kind of a poor example as the IZ radar is a stand alone HD unit that has perfectly good internal clocks, (and it should at $20,000 for 24 track recording). Yes, if you are using a single, high quality audio interface, and by that I mean, Lavry, Apogee, Mytek, etc., and you are not syncing to anything else other than a single DAW, then yes, Dan Lavry has a point that a clock MIGHT not improve sound quality. If you are sycing to any more units, more interfaces, digital mixing consoles, multiple computers, then a clock is essential. Finally, Even if you are using a single unit that has a decent clock, many people prefer the sound improvement that clock adds, so before you go calling people noobs (especially those that know far more about this than you and actually work with this stuff everyday), check yourself so you don't get owned (because you just did ).

DAN LAVRY (FORMER APOGGE ENGINEER) & MASTERING GURU BOB KATZ VS THE APOGEE SALES & MARKETING PEOPLE! LOL!

A MARKETTING COMPANY �X� sells cable that they claim are: ULTRA LOW JITTER CABLE and TEMPERATURE COMPENSATED CABLE. I do not know what temperature compensated cable means but I KNOW that THE CONCEPT OF �ULTRA LOW JITTER CABLE� is not true. Cables don�t have jitter . A cable is a PASSIVE device. It is just a �piece of material�. The level of jitter is determined by the electrical signal driving the cable! There may be other factors (variable load, induced noise and more). One thing for sure: but there is no such a thing as ultra low jitter cable.

�Jitter to cable� is like a �laptop to Moses�
�Jitter to cable� is like a �Pistachio nut to a whale�
�Ultra Low jitter cable� is like �super high speed tree�
�Ultra Low jitter cable� is like �butter to a headphone jack�

Guess who the marketing company X is? Apogee with their �ULTRA LOW JITTER CABLE�.

Folks, we have the double whammy solution. A clock box that was touted as �the cure for the jitters� (which is not being claimed explicitly any longer, only indirectly) and the �ultra low jitter cable�.

At this point, I am adding question # 4 and 5 to Apogee:

4. What the heck is TEMPERATURE COMPENSATED CABLE?


5. HOW DOES A �ULTRA LOW JITTER CABLE WORK�?

a. WHEN YOU DRIVE A ULRAT LOW JITTER CABLE WITH A JITTERY SIGNAL, DOES THE CABLE SUCK THE JITTER OUT?

b. IF THE CABLE IS REALLY LONG, DO YOU GET NEGATIVE JITTER?
These are 2 of the questions asked previously on 11 6 2004. They are still not answered.

�THE BOTTOM LINE:�

I. QUESTION: WHICH SOLUTION PROVIDES LESS JITTER AT THE AD LOCATION?

1. A REASONABLE FIXED CRYSTAL
2. BIG BEN DRIVING A CLOCK INTO A CHASSIS EQUIPPED WITH A PLL VIA A 10 FOOT CABLE?

II. QUESTION: CAN ONE EVER CANCEL OR REDUCE A RANDOM NOISE AT ONE END OF A CABLE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT KIND OF JITTER ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING AT THE OTHER END?
(can one cancel, remove or reduce the receiver and PLL noise, some of it unknown, some totally random, by driving it with a clean low jitter clock? Driving it with any clock?)


So now you are back once more still without technical input. You say:

�You think it is ok to down our products without knowing how they work, spec our and/or perform.�

I also know you cannot fly by waving your arms, which is equivalent to the claim that you can have better jitter performance by driving an AD externally. And yes, lets stay technical: YOU SAID SPEC OUT: Thanks for reminding us all. What are the JITTER SPECS? We are particularly interested in data supporting the claim regarding reduction of the jitter inside the AD when Big Ben is hooked as external source.

�You use your platform for pure marketing against us, while you claim in the same response that is not on topic.�

First, you guys came in here displeased with my general statements that internal clock is a preferred method. I guess it went against your marketing propaganda, and you tried to intimidate with �your engineering of the 21st century� and the rest of the bull. You are claiming it was started as pure marketing against you EVEN AFTER BEING SET STRAIGHT by some people on the thread. (Selective memory?)

Second, as you said, I do not make a crock, uh clock, so I am not in competition with you on that product. I feel clean. Do you?

�The reason people prefer the Big Ben over Aardvark is very simple. We perform better specs wise, we offer more features and our box is better value.�

Hopefully you will desist from spinning �value and features� and talk like an engineer. Please remember this thread had nothing to do with values and features. The subject we are talking about is JITTER.

But now that you are here lets get into the engineering. Many people bought into your claims that driving their AD with Big Ben will reduce their AD clock jitter. We are not talking about whether people like what they hear when they use your clock. We are speaking as engineers about actual physical engineering principles that are SOLID. Your claims go against those SOLID ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES.

One of the visitors previously on this threat asked if you were going to offer an official apology to people around the world who believed the misinformation spewed about this product and purchased it.

�You have yet to design a product that can beat the Big Ben, so I understand your frustration.�

My dear boy trying to insult me is silly especially since I was the one who designed the first Apogee �low jitter clock� and created the concept. I may design another one in the future. Thanks for the idea.

�But I do not understand your abuse of the PSW platform to release this anger. I consider that to be a sign of very low quality.�

No technical comments? Only more personal attacks?

------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------
Let us see your �high quality� comments in the form of a technical defense of your design.

We begin with the following questions:

Question: Does an average AD operating with reasonable internal crystal clock have less jitter when driven by Big Ben? YES OR NO

If you say NO, the group will need to determine what steps your company should take to remedy the wrong that was done.

If you say YES, Then:

LETS HAVE YOUR TECHNICAL COMMENTS ANSWERING MY TECHNICAL COMMENTS (I and II above) (Marketing and personal attacks qualify as �low quality� responses. If you choose to disappear as you did last time without answering, well that is certainly your choice).

One can discuss concepts and principles without divulging what you call your �secrets�. I can help you along with the following comments in the form of general principles.

EXAMPLEBox A) cannot correct for jitter in another (Box B) without knowing what takes place at (Box B) is as universal and general as gravity! This is no secret.

EXAMPLE: An ideal clock with least jitter is based on having all cycles identical, thus there is no room for ANY modulation of the clock. This is another universal and general principle.

I look forward to hearing a professional design engineer�s response from you Lucas.

Dan Lavry


�l. The Big Ben is an excellent low jitter solution if you need a master clock.�

Your literature makes people think they do need one when they don�t. But aside from that I am reminded of a scene from Monty Python. A knight on the ground with limbs cut off from a battle, lay there still cajoling the other guy present to come and fight. Here you are after all that has transpired, still trying to sell your clock on a forum dedicated to engineering issues.

Your second statement
�2. If you have to clock to a very jittery source, you�ll get better results most of the time by having the Big Ben cleaning it up first.�

How much is �very�. Also This statement hedges your previous statements.

NEXT:
�We have not CLAIMED that this is due to an external clock lowering the jitter. This is your own presumption and it is wrong.�

If I state that a door is painted white, and you say I am wrong, you are in fact saying the door is NOT painted white without having to say the words. (The door is not painted white.) On Oct, 27, 04 an Apogee rep came here taking issue with my statement that the best method to achieve lower AD jitter is to use a good internal crystal whenever possible instead of an external clock (See my previous postings)

You did, in fact, take a stand that was OPPOSITE of what you are now saying. Regarding your current sentence,

ALSO 2: "We haven�t claimed anything else.�

OK. Yes, �Let�s get it straight�. Apogee is not claiming that Big Ben will improve ADs as a clock source, compared to using AD under internal crystal operation!! It does not claim to clean jitter when used as a master clock.. Only when it resends a �very jittery source.�

AND AGAIN Your back door insult to me. �but unlike Dan I do not say: �that cannot be�. I do trust the critical thinking and listening of my customers and investigated the results.�

What results? Researched It? How investigated? What measurements? Graphs? Published where? We are not about listening tests here. But then again, I previously STATED why you could not publish results. Your claim to impact the sound ahead is an impossibility. I can investigate how I can fly like a bird. A gullible person may confuse investigation with actual results coming from an investigation.

So Lucas, what do you say to all the people that interpreted your �A Cure For the Jitters� coupled with the claims of sonic improvements of ADs when driven by Big Ben as a master clock (You do not claim it any more) as a sure way to enhance conversion (relative to internal clocking?) Do you take no responsibility for it? Do you blame the dealers?

Apogee has done an excellent job of overstating the ability of this piece of gear. Your company�s marketing line, �A Cure for the Jitters� coupled with claims of sonic improvements when the clock is used as a master clock, is at best misleading. Many do not understand the many types of jitter created during recording and transmission, where the problems are and are not and what the remedies are.

It has been my goal on this thread to try and enlighten people about the clocking concept and to raise the level of understanding. You could have help the enlightenment process. Instead we get hype and �leaders with 21st century (secret) technology". And yes, taking a cheap shot by calling me an old 20th century theoretical guy. Well you are way out of your league.

The company you work for has gone a long way with advertising and a reputation made on the quality of my designs now called �legendary and legacy� on the Apogee website. I am the authority on jitter and have been in this business from tubes to ICs. Leave the lame statements home and send the measurement results with a clear description of the test setup.

Dan Lavry
www.lavryengineering.com

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Obviously what is being messed up here is the context in which the clock is used in. The way Existo puts it would render any word clock useless while they are not.

If you need to sync multiple devises like a digital mixer then yes it might be necessary to got hat route.

But it won't improve the jitter specs like apogee claims. It is not an addon to improve the sound of your soundcard. It won't.

quote:

Originally posted by Existo22 If you need to sync multiple devises like a digital mixer then yes it might be necessary to got hat route. But it won't improve the jitter specs like apogee claims. It is not an addon to improve the sound of your soundcard. It won't.

Not "might" be neccessary to go that route - best to go that route.

Don't know how you edited those posts from psw/gearslutz, but they make very little sense and you haven't done any favors for your argument of a clock being useless.

Read the quotes, he actually contradicts himself several times - i.e. saying "I developed the low jitter clock" (for Apogee), then goes on to say that clocks cannot reduce jitter. He also, concedes that he does not make a clock, is in direct competition (as well as being an ex employee) and this is why the guy from Apogee accuses him of being bitter.

I'll actually give Mr Lavry the benefit of the doubt, and say that it's the way you have cut and copied the posts which makes them valueless.

What he is simply talking about is the theory of jitter, and in this respect in a single unit using a clock wouldn't make any difference worth buying a clock for.

Frankly it's a moot point - If you spent that sort of money on a single pro interface, why would you spend upwards of $1000 on a clock? You wouldn't because a pro interface on it's own does not need clocking as it should have a decent internal clock (which is obviously one of the factors that define it as "pro" quality).

However it is essential for syncing various machines to the same source because the moment you try to clock more than one device from another, jitter will be introduced (due to various factors) in the path of data so it is incredibly beneficial to have multiple feeds of the exact same clock source, so that all devices are reading from the same page. There is no argument against the fact that this will increase or at least get the most in terms of sonic quality from your devices.

As for cables, there is an argument (extremely theoretical and esoteric) about the quality of materials used (for conductance, insulation, shielding) affecting the tranmission of complex data, such as work clock signals. Personally I don't believe that you need a Apogee cables to receive accurate clock, but this is same argument of buying just good pro quality cables such as van damme/mogami/canare opposed to those seriously expensive audiophile cables.

quote:

Don't know how you edited those posts from psw/gearslutz, but they make very little sense and you haven't done any favors for your argument of a clock being useless.

I said the clock wont improve jitter at all. It will introduce more.

quote:

Read the quotes, he actually contradicts himself several times - i.e. saying "I developed the low jitter clock" (for Apogee), then goes on to say that clocks cannot reduce jitter.

You idiot he is talking about the INTERNAL CLOCK.
He said designed a good low jitter internal clock for the converters to run on.

Now tell me bozo how in the f**K does that contradict him saying that EXTERNAL Clocks introduce more jitter? I wanna know.

quote:

He also, concedes that he does not make a clock, is in direct competition (as well as being an ex employee) and this is why the guy from Apogee accuses him of being bitter.

He does not make a external clock because he does not believe in the concept nor does he want to intentionally mislead noobs like yourself. This is the Guy that desined the apogee product that made apogee the company it is today!

quote:

I'll actually give Mr Lavry the benefit of the doubt, and say that it's the way you have cut and copied the posts which makes them valueless.

Yeah you I bet can't understand them ''the way they were posted'' in chinese and everything.
Sorry next time I will translate them to english.

quote:

What he is simply talking about is the theory of jitter, and in this respect in a single unit using a clock wouldn't make any difference worth buying a clock for.

Correct. Glad we agree on this.

quote:

Frankly it's a moot point - If you spent that sort of money on a single pro interface, why would you spend upwards of $1000 on a clock? You wouldn't because a pro interface on it's own does not need clocking as it should have a decent internal clock (which is obviously one of the factors that define it as "pro" quality).

But even if you are using an interface that has a cheapo clock you still can't fix the problem by clocking it externally because converters perform better when they are on their own clock.

quote:

Originally posted by Existo22 I said the clock wont improve jitter at all. It will introduce more. You idiot he is talking about the INTERNAL CLOCK. He said designed a good low jitter internal clock for the converters to run on. Now tell me bozo how in the f**K does that contradict him saying that EXTERNAL Clocks introduce more jitter? I wanna know. He does not make a external clock because he does not believe in the concept nor does he want to intentionally mislead noobs like yourself. This is the Guy that desined the apogee product that made apogee the company it is today! Yeah you I bet can't understand them ''the way they were posted'' in chinese and everything. Sorry next time I will translate them to english. Correct. Glad we agree on this. But even if you are using an interface that has a cheapo clock you still can't fix the problem by clocking it externally because converters perform better when they are on their own clock.

I can't be bothered with you, because you're just believing what you've read and not from anything you've actually ever used. You just posted parts of an argument (please read what YOU posted - you make no sense because they are all in the context of a specific response to specific accusations, and I know this because I read the whole thing a good while back).

Now tell me genius, if this is the case why do motu units sound better when synced to an external clock? Because their internal clocks are very average, whereas an external clock has a much more accurate clock. Do it - get an 828 or 2408 and do an AB between it's own clock and synced to a basic clock such as a bigben (let alone antelope) and you'll hear a huge difference. In fact don't bother - you'll probably just get someone else to do then post what they said too.

I've unsubbed to this thread and should have done it when Chris did. He was on to you a lot earlier....

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I can't be bothered with you, because you're just believing what you've read and not from anything you've actually ever used. You just posted parts of an argument (please read what YOU posted - you make no sense because they are all in the context of a specific response to specific accusations, and I know this because I read the whole thing a good while back). Now tell me genius, if this is the case why do motu units sound better when synced to an external clock? Because their internal clocks are very average, whereas an external clock has a much more accurate clock. Do it - get an 828 or 2408 and do an AB between it's own clock and synced to a basic clock such as a bigben (let alone antelope) and you'll hear a huge difference. In fact don't bother - you'll probably just get someone else to do then post what they said too. I've unsubbed to this thread and should have done it when Chris did. He was on to you a lot earlier....

Unlike yourself noob I research the stuff before I buy them.
I know very well that $1400 receipt for the Big Ben will prevent someone from listening objectively - the physiological aftereffect of product marketing also known as the placebo effect or in this case the crapogee effect.

I have gone to the music store and asked to listen to it.
It did not sound any f****N better.

It did sound better to the sales people there because a few hundred dollars in comisions always sounds better.

But with regard to something sounding better -- as Lavry will noted that is a subjective evaluation. If DJ RANN the Engineer feels something sounds better (or better yet puts himself and his gear options through rigorous ABX testing to test and confirm that it really does sound better to him), who is someone else to tell him that it doesn't.

However, signal accuracy is something that can be tested and increased jitter will tend to decrease sampling accuracy (jitter is, in a crude sense, divergence from regularity in sample timing).

External clocks cause more jitter. It would be more honest if they said more jitter but hey... it sounds better. Very different from ''the cure for all jitters''.

Go ahead and unsbscribe NOOB. You can't argue against the truth.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.