# What´s next from RME?



## Shantar (Sep 23, 2008)

I often find myself many steps behind most people here when it comes to DAWs. For example, these days, when considering a new Audio Interface, I´ve wondered if I should wait a little longer or if I should take the risk buying a new soundcard (or another piece of gear) which shortly after ends up being yesterdays news. 
I´ve been looking at the FF800 for almost a year now but it been out for like 4 year or so and I´m sure if I buy it now something else will catch everyones eyes the next week, making me regret buying it. Technology is almost impossible to keep up with, but I feel I don´t even manage to see the tail of it before all my gear have become museum artifacts. 

Unfortunately a computer or any other digital gear is not the same as good old analog gear like mics, preamps or instruments for that matter, which can be just as valuable today as the day it was bought.

I wonder if it is possible I´ll be satisfied with a Fireface 800 4 years from now or if it is more likely I´ll discover that it is more or less useless to me and end up having trouble selling it even for just a fraction of the original price which is the case with my 3 year old PCI Echo Layla 3G sound card right now.

Chris


----------



## StrangeCat (Sep 23, 2008)

I just went with a 9632 and I know how old that is but the card is bad ass! as well as the DSP Mixer.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 23, 2008)

StrangeCat @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> I just went with a 9632 and I know how old that is but the card is bad ass! as well as the DSP Mixer.



I never understood how to use the DSP Mixer. :oops: 

W


----------



## StrangeCat (Sep 23, 2008)

http://vimeo.com/1665619?pg=embed&amp;sec=1665619

^_-


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 23, 2008)

I have the RME FF800 and absolutely love it. The converters are quite nice and I kicked myself for not getting it sooner. Drivers are rock solid. It was only because my Motu PCI card started acting weird that I took the chance - and never looked back since. The difference in audio quality is astounding compared to what I had. I also have an Apogee Big Ben I've had for about a year which coupled with the RME gives plenty of clarity and imaging. 

Waves now runs package specials regarding RME FF400 so its a pretty big thumbs up sonically speaking from an industry leader. I think you will be very pleased.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 23, 2008)

StrangeCat @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> http://vimeo.com/1665619?pg=embed&amp;sec=1665619
> 
> ^_-



Dang! I've been looking for this! :D 

o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 23, 2008)

Shantar, higher-end FireWire audio interfaces are unlikely to become disposable the way a lot of others do. (PCI is another story, because card slots change every two weeks.)

Metric Halo came out with their FireWire interfaces years ago, for example, and they're still viable.


----------



## Shantar (Sep 23, 2008)

Strangecat: Good to hear RMEs older cards are still rock solid. Makes me even more sure RME is the right thing for me.

Frederick: Thanks for the info. I´m hoping to find the FF800 second hand somewhere. I´m actually saving up for an insanely spec´d Mac Pro, but I guess I could put myself two months behind schedule going for an RME. Besides, I need an audio interface for my MBP to actually be able to do some music now that my PC is dead so why not go for the best thing right away! 

Nick: This is exactly what my problem is right now. My old Echo Layla 3G PCI is not compatible with Mac Pro, which is only PCIe AFAIC. Its good to hear higher-end FW audio interfaces don´t expire after a few months.


----------



## hbuus (Sep 24, 2008)

I am still happily using my M-Audio Delta 44, which I bought in 2002


----------



## musicpete (Sep 24, 2008)

I recently bought a RME 9632 to replace my old trusty M-Audio 24/96. The latter was a really decent workhorse, but the RME is like... It's like the difference between night and day.

Even in this horrible sound environment, this untreated room with all it's awful reflections and distorted sound, the RME goes a LONG way in drawing a less muddy and more defined acoustic picture.

Drivers work 100% rock solid on XP64, too. Get one, you'll never regret buying RME.


----------



## Shantar (Sep 24, 2008)

At $2000 (the Norwegian retail price) I think it is a bit too expensive for me right now. They are about $1500 second hand, which still is pricey but I guess I have to live with it. I´ll keep look for it second hand and hope to find it. If someone here is living in Norway, and has a FF800 for sale, just PM me.. 

-Chris


----------



## JohnG (Sep 24, 2008)

Hi Shantar -- that price in Norge is outrageous; have you tried eBay?


----------



## Shantar (Sep 24, 2008)

No, but even if I buy from eBay I will have to pay 25% taxes of everything bought outside Norway. For instance, I had to pay $125 just in taxes for Gold XP when ordering it from Soundsonline. But hey, you have to pay $18 to get a mediocre wine in the shop, or $10 for a single bottle of Erdinger Weissbier in the store. A whole bottle of Vodka/Smirnoff is $65. You almost have to be rich get drunk in this country... Multiply those numbers with 4, and thats the price for those things in any restaurant here in Norway... Yes it´s outrageous but thats life here...


----------



## synthetic (Sep 24, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> Shantar, higher-end FireWire audio interfaces are unlikely to become disposable the way a lot of others do. (PCI is another story, because card slots change every two weeks.)



I think interfaces are going to quickly lose their value no matter what format. Just plan on them being disposable and buy more than you need so it can grow with you. What 10 year-old interface is worth anything? Even the Apogee AD-1000s and Digi 888-24s that people loved then are doorstops now. Your M-Audio Firewire 1814 or MBox 2 won't fare much better. Who knows if FireWire will still be around in 10 years. My money is on some kind of Cat5 protocol. 

I have an RME RAYDAT for PCIe and it's great. 32x32 ADAT I/O, though the word clock is sold separately and you need it. ADAT is crap for clocking.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 25, 2008)

This is probably my next one. They are supposed to send me one to test in late October.
http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_hdspe_aio.php


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 25, 2008)

Frederick Russ @ Tue Sep 23 said:


> I have the RME FF800 and absolutely love it. The converters are quite nice and I kicked myself for not getting it sooner. Drivers are rock solid. It was only because my Motu PCI card started acting weird that I took the chance - and never looked back since. The difference in audio quality is astounding compared to what I had. I also have an Apogee Big Ben I've had for about a year which coupled with the RME gives plenty of clarity and imaging.
> 
> Waves now runs package specials regarding RME FF400 so its a pretty big thumbs up sonically speaking from an industry leader. I think you will be very pleased.



No disrespect intended Frederick but I cannot let this pass unchallenged. I am sorry but using an external clock on a SINGLE audio interface increases, not decreases, the amount of jitter over a properly designed internal crystal, according to the laws of physics. Read Dan Lavry on this subject, if you are interested.

So if you are hearing better "clarity and imaging", it can only mean either:

1. You like the sound of an interface with more jitter, because it masks deficiencies in your listening environment.

2. You are the victim of or recipient of the benefit of psychoacoustics

And yes, I tested it for myself at AudioMIDI.com's place 3 years ago. The Fireface sounded worse clocked to the Big Ben.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2008)

"What 10 year-old interface is worth anything?"

Metric Halo.

The difference is that ten years ago, every generation of digital converters totally kicked the one before's ass. Also, China wasn't as far along - overseas manufacturing hadn't reached its full impact on the prices of audio toys. Neither of those is true anymore; a decent audio interface that's good today is unlikely to become disposable in a hurry.

Ten years is optimistic, of course, but I don't think something like an RME interface is going to become useless in a hurry. M-Audio interfaces are cheap and cheerful, another story entirely.

Also, people didn't love the 888-24, they grumbled about it and bought it.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 25, 2008)

Funny you bring up MH Nick. That was the only other box that I went up against when looking for a new interface. I needed an extra ADAT which the MH didn't have so I went with RME instead. Converters and even Pres in MH are pretty stellar from what I've read - either way, not bad choices at all.

And thanks Jay for the insight. I don't plan on ditching the Big Ben anytime soon though. Entire system - RME & all ProFires - are locked to the same source and daisy chaining wasn't an option here. I like Big Ben as a master clock distribution center mainly - its negotiable however how much it actually improves RME which is probably a wash. The combined audio from all sources sound great with no clicks, pops, and artifacts with RME converters sounding best on live recorded material.

Cheers,


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 25, 2008)

Frederick Russ @ Thu Sep 25 said:


> Funny you bring up MH Nick. That was the only other box that I went up against when looking for a new interface. I needed an extra ADAT which the MH didn't have so I went with RME instead. Converters and even Pres in MH are pretty stellar from what I've read - either way, not bad choices at all.
> 
> And thanks Jay for the insight. I don't plan on ditching the Big Ben anytime soon though. Entire system - RME & all ProFires - are locked to the same source and daisy chaining wasn't an option here. I like Big Ben as a master clock distribution center mainly - its negotiable however how much it actually improves RME which is probably a wash. The combined audio from all sources sound great with no clicks, pops, and artifacts with RME converters sounding best on live recorded material.
> 
> Cheers,



Oh, so you are using multiple interfaces? In that case, of course, the Big Ben is very helpful, indeed, probably essential.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 25, 2008)

hv @ Thu Sep 25 said:


> I think the audible benefits of an ultra high quality clock like the Big Ben depend on how high quality your onboard clocking system is. I think Dan Lavry's point was that it wouldn't help his units. But single-interface Apogee Rosetta users say it improves their sound. I'm sure Dan's response would be they should have got a Lavry. A pretty decent cost effective alternative might be a Mytek 8x192 converter which has a bunch of wc-outs that also let it function as a studio master clock.
> 
> Howard



No, Dan says that any one audio interface with a properly designed internal crystal will have less jitter than when hooked up to an eternal clock.


----------



## hv (Sep 25, 2008)

If that is his position, it seems overbroad. And refuted by posts I've read from Rosetta owners that also own a Big Ben. And reviews like this one from Mix:

http://mixonline.com/products/review/audio_apogee_electronics_big/ (http://mixonline.com/products/review/au ... onics_big/)

And apparently inconsistent with the pride he expresses about all the error correction and compensation circuitry he designed into his clocking. Which if I understand him correctly... (anyone who's ever discussed things like this with him will know what I mean) he attributes much of the lower jitter and improved sound quality he achieves. 

Howard


----------



## synthetic (Sep 25, 2008)

Ashermusic @ Thu Sep 25 said:


> So if you are hearing better "clarity and imaging", it can only mean either:
> 
> 1. You like the sound of an interface with more jitter, because it masks deficiencies in your listening environment.
> 
> ...



I could not let this pass unchallenged: There's a third possibility that Frederick is hearing something that Jay and Dan have not. 

I haven't done the blind test myself. TEAC has a brand called Esoteric that makes a sample clock generated by Rubidium, which is used mostly for satellites. This clock generator costs $16,000! One of these days I'll take it home for a test, but not before I'm sure I can afford at least a Big Ben or Antelope. Maybe I'll host a listening party over expensive scotch. But if I can't hear a difference with that piece, I'll know word clock is bogus as far as improving audio quality. 

I used to think summing mixers were probably nonsense, but I just did a blind test and picked the ITB mix every time. Crap. Now I have to start saving for a %$# summing mixer (or build one, more likely). 

As for the claim made in Mix Magazine review, ____________*__________. 



* Statement to be finished in one weeks time after TEC awards are announced. Though I didn't buy a table this year so it doesn't look good.


----------



## synthetic (Sep 25, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Sep 25 said:


> "What 10 year-old interface is worth anything?"
> 
> Metric Halo.



Glad you're happy with it. We have customers who like their old DA-30 DAT recorders better than modern stuff, or Eventide H3000 converters because they were delta sigma, before the 1-bit converters came along. I just know that a lot of the stuff recorded in the 90s sounds like harshy trash now.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 25, 2008)

hv @ Thu Sep 25 said:


> If that is his position, it seems overbroad. And refuted by posts I've read from Rosetta owners that also own a Big Ben. And reviews like this one from Mix:
> 
> http://mixonline.com/products/review/audio_apogee_electronics_big/ (http://mixonline.com/products/review/au ... onics_big/)
> 
> ...



There is physics involved, if you read his White paper. 

People may indeed hear something they like that it is doing to the sound, but whatever it is, it is not less jitter.


----------



## hv (Sep 25, 2008)

My apologies if we've hijacked this thread on a side issue. But fwiw, when I clock my ff400 from my psx100, which I don't usually do, the stereo imaging via both the audio out and headphone out sound obviously different to even my tired old ears. I may not hear all the frequencies I used to but imaging clarity is still a bid deal to me. f64 and all that. Of course this isn't necessarily inconsistent with anything Ashermusic's said... unless one assumes that RME or Apogee clocks are properly designed by Lavry standards.

Synthetic, that Mytek converter I mentioned above also has a built in analog summing buss on analog outs. Its a fav for analog-device mastering inserts. But I should also mention that its db25's follow the Digidesign spec rather than Tascam's. I know they're a match with the Lynx AES cards but I'm not sure which standard RME's AES cards follow.

Howard


----------



## synthetic (Sep 25, 2008)

hv @ Thu Sep 25 said:


> But I should also mention that its db25's follow the Digidesign spec rather than Tascam's. I know they're a match with the Lynx AES cards but I'm not sure which standard RME's AES cards follow.



TASCAM and Digi use the same pinout for DB25 analog. AES too, I thought. 

I'm going to AES next week, converter disneyland.


----------



## synthetic (Sep 25, 2008)

> There is physics involved, if you read his White paper.



You're killing me. I'm not going to read a paper to see if something sounds better or not.  

I see that Antelope has a Rubidium clock generator for only $6000. Chances are there are better things you could do with your audio chain with that $6000 though.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2008)

This is an old argument. Bob Katz says the same thing: it's much harder to clock to an external converter than to clock to the internal crystal; if your converter sounds better clocked externally, there's something wrong with it and you should complain to the manufacturer.

The other side is "I don't give a rat's ass about the theory, I know my Big Ben makes my [MOTU boxes, for example] sound way better."

Both sides are irreconcilable, and the manufacturers of word clock generators start breathing fire when you ask them for an explanation.

I haven't actually listened to a tweaky word clock generator for comparison, but I did a lot of fooling around with clocking about 12 years ago and found that daisy-chaining clock sounds worse than distributing clock from a single source (usually your A/D converter). It didn't matter how crummy the device doing the clocking was, the result was always the same.

The other thing I found is that lightpipe is jittery, so if you're using it to transfer audio it's a good idea to clock both ends with a wired clock. Even the ADATs used the 9-pin connector for clock - they just used lightpipe to transfer audio between machines.

Having said that, it was a long time ago. A lot of the chips today have better jitter reduction circuitry built in than the standard phase locked loop. RME wrote their own, but there's a standard chip with it now. 

Jeff, actually the Metric Halo boxes were more recent than ten years ago - maybe seven. But the point is that they still sound good.


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 25, 2008)

synthetic @ Thu Sep 25 said:


> > There is physics involved, if you read his White paper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, you should read the paper to understand the science.

I am not going to tell someone that if they think something sounds "better" that it does not, at least to them. What I AM saying is that an external clock's purpose is to reduce jitter and if you use it with only one interface it will produce more, not less, jitter, unless the internal crystal is very poorly designed, which i.e. a Fireface 800's is not.

And as I said, I did test a Fireface 800 clocked to a Big Ben in an admittedly unscientific test, and to my ears, and the engineer who was with me, the sound was more blurry.

But hey, if you like it, you like it . And also, once agin, if you are using multiple interfaces as Frederick is, a good clock certainly helps a lot.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 25, 2008)

The question is whether sending S/PDIF and/or word clock from the RME to the other interfaces will sound worse than using the Big Ben.

I just use a video distribution amp ($30 on ebay) to send S/PDIF from my main audio interface to everything else.


----------



## hv (Sep 26, 2008)

Guess I've been informally researching upgrading my converters ever since Apogee discontinued the psx100se about 3 years ago. I never went with the Rosetta mainly because users that did almost all told me their psx100's sounded better unless they also added a Big Ben. Which they then tell me brought them both up to a similar improved level of sonic quality. A number of psx100 users, like Kip over at Bardstown, switched to Benchmark back then instead.

I got into RME mainly because their driver support and performance was so good. For instance, their x64 Windows drivers were the 1st available that I knew of. And their gsif 2 implementation beat everyone to market, including Tascam. Their latest stuff has been their lines of internal cards: PCIe and MADI. Their PCIe cards have amazingly low latency and ultra high throughput. Synthetic's RayDat is one of them. The latest I think, is the HDSPe AES, with... I just checked... Tascam pinouts. Which is indeed different from Digidesign's. The MADI cards (also PCIe) have ADAT-like optical connectors as well as copper connectors similar to timecode and video cable which handles something like 64-channel audio. 

In mulling a possible upgrade of my own converter, I occasionally drop in on engineering design discussions. Info I picked up from RME engineers is that the ff400, multifaces, and all of their PCI cards use a single chip design centered on the AKM Semiconductor 6420 ADDA converter chip. The ff800 and ADI series use a more elaborate design centered on the same manufacturer's 4395 DAC / 5385 ADC pair... the reason given for the difference in designs being the reduced board real estate on their smaller form-factor products. I assume constraints like this impact all internal PC audio cards that don't use a cabled remote... and from a physics point of view there's probably no functional difference between a PC card with a rack-mounted cabled remote box and a rack-mounted clock box... and I understand that getting them out of the noisy PC case cleans up things a bit. For those of you into the physics (or should I say applied math), the chips RME uses are spec'd to achieve 24-bit operation by way of 128x oversampling... suggesting that they're native 22-bit converters without oversampling. Which should be significant to anyone who groks certain white papers which presuppose 256x oversampling 20-bit native chips. Ok, now I've really dated myself.

Speaking of dates, I got one late this winter at a mastering facility down near Brownsville and am dying to check out the converter setup they use. Since his processing gear is all analog and his ears are as golden as they get, one would think his choice of mastering converter would be of particularly critical importance to him. Could you imagine if he says, "They're all the same garbage?" I'll definitely report back on that.

Howard


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 26, 2008)

"But will it do it $1200 worth better? I dunno."

Probably not, but you know how the market pyramid works: higher-end = fewer sales = lower economy of scale = diminishing smack per sesterce. (Or you can be an optimist and look at it the other way, but we're talking about a fricking $1200 word clock generator!)

And then there's the cachet factor, of course.

One thing's for sure: converters make about as much difference as mic cables. Mics and preamps are much more important...and none of that is as important as the room and how the performer and mics are positioned in it.

That doesn't mean I'm pshawing the importance of clocking and converters, though - everything is worth paying attention to.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 26, 2008)

Not to hijack, (okay, to hijack.) but with RME experts roaming, I wanted to ask... though this is a broader point I suppose...
If I upgrade to a couple of RME cards but they go into my 2408 mk II instead of an RME box... how much of the benefit do you think I'll get?


----------



## synthetic (Sep 26, 2008)

I was at Danny Elfman's studio once, and he clocks his system to a Big Ben, then clocks THAT to a Horita blackburst generator. I guess that's why he makes the Trans Am Bucks.


----------



## Synesthesia (Sep 26, 2008)

I have to say that I tried all ways round in my studio, and the best so far was clocking to the Fireface 800 (this was driving a 192 and various other bits all daisychained)..

Then I started using a Rosendahl Nanosyncs to drive everything, and the difference - while not of an earth shattering nature - was quite noticable.

These things are kind of chimeric, but its a bit like getting used to certain glasses and then swapping them for another pair (I presume, although I dont actually wear glasses!) - you only notice your increased definition by contrast, and then you get used to it.

I think its all helpful, but as Nick said, its good to focus your efforts in the correct order to get the most for your money, so decent mics and a decent preamp come first, then your ADs, then your DAs/Speakers, and I guess once thats all good you can get your clocking in order.

Problem is any chain is only as good as the weakest link!!

One things for sure, to get back on track, the FF800 will still be a great bit of kit years down the line, its quality and rock solid. They were also first with the GSIF2.1 drivers and 64bit compatible, its a good and comforting sign that they keep right on top of drivers.

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## Shantar (Sep 26, 2008)

I was lucky finding a used FF800 that goes for approximately 1200USD here in Norway. I´ll get it sometime early next week, and then I´ll be a whole person again.


----------



## synthetic (Sep 27, 2008)

I guess my point is if a clock generator is technically more distorted but sounds better, then who cares? 'Sounds better' is the goal. Leave it to the EEs to figure out why, and try to keep them from making stuff worse by "improving" things.


----------



## Dan Lavry (Sep 27, 2008)

Hi,
Why is it that locating the clock in a separate chassis make it better then a clock located in the same chassis near the AD? 

I stated in other forums a lot of reasons why the opposite is true. Here are some:

Internal clock: One internal crystal circuit closely coupled to the AD.

External clock: One internal clock circuit in ANOTHER CHASSIS, powered by a separate supply, a far away ground, followed by cable (exposure to noise pickup and termination issues), and more circuitry (such as PLL which includes a SECOND oscillator with LOWER Q thus not as good).... 
But even if you assume that there is no cable issue, no grounding issues, no noise pickup, no cable termination issues, no PLL, then, why will anyone believe that a clock designer that decided to put their clock in another box is capable of delivering a better clock design? What would happen if they put that same circuit in the AD box? Will it become a worse clock?
And the fact is that you do not get to assume that the cable, the grounding, the additional circuitry is to be ignored! 

In addition to the above:
Due to the one way communication (clock to AD only) the CLOCK DOES NOT KNOW what the AD is doing, therefore it can not "compensate" for anything. So the wide spread advertizing that "The clock knows", is the type of marketing such as calling an unreliable car "reliant", naming a car that uses a lot of gasoline may "the economizer", and a car that has poor acceleration "Cheetah". 

The lowest jitter clock circuits are based on fix crystal design. Of course some circuits are better then other but that does not answer my first question: 
Why is a clock in another box is capable of delivering a better clock performance then a clock inside the AD chassis?

Until that question is answered, the rest of the conversation is just more noise… Sadly, those that prefer to be “believers no matter what” will continue to block reality. A while back, I posted: “I do not respect BS, and I do not know any high caliber engineer that is free of commercial motivations and disagrees with what I said about internal vs. external clocks.” 

Who is willing to state and defend the false position that: 

"A given clock circuit, when located in another box is capable of delivering a better clock performance then the same clock circuit inside the AD chassis".

No one can defend that statement. 

The fact that many people are willing to block such basic reality is very sad, and it does explain a lot. When enough people chanting falsehood, they draw "strength of conviction" from the fact that others "think" alike. That is how you sell speaker cables with arrows pointing directionality. That is how you sell a war (the majority did support it for a while). That is how some get to sell more external clocks then are needed, at the expanse of those that are willing to buy it...

Regards
Dan Lavry


----------



## Frederick Russ (Sep 27, 2008)

Hi Dan and welcome to VI! Great having you here.

Question: based on your findings, seems it would it be better to source my RME as the master and let the Big Ben distribute that clock info to the rest of my audio interfaces. Suggestions?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2008)

Yeah, glad to have you here, Dan.

I have a related question. Is it just WMD-type propaganda, or can one actually help the sound of *lower-end* boxes with a high-end clock generator? (I'm not talking about your boxes, I'm talking about less expensive ones.)

The reason I ask is that time and time again, people swear that their devices sound markedly better with a Big Ben. I've heard that said by people whose opinions I respect about such devices as the Panasonic DA7 mixer, MOTU 2408s, and (back in the day) Digidesign 888/24s.

In other words, is your opinion absolute or does it just apply to high-end converters?


----------



## Dan Lavry (Sep 27, 2008)

Hi Fredrick

It all depends on what you need to do, and what gear you have. 

Say you want to have some "main channel" (such as a vocal or some other), wher the audio quality is most important. Then I would tend to use the best AD for that, and set it to operate on it's internal clock, which means that everything else should be locked into that AD. The down side to that scheme is that the other channels must operate in external clock mode, so all other channels may operate with lesser quality. 

But say you have a very good AD with good capability to reject jitter. Then you may just take any mediocre clock source, and have that good AD yield good conversion. That would allow you to use another AD in internal clock mode, and as a source for a clock. 

Hi Nick

My point is simply that the claim that external clock can improve an AD, leaves much to be desired. For that to happen, you would need to find a converter that has a seriously poor internal clock WHILE AT THE SAME TIME offer you a very good internal locking circuitry (which by the way would requires a good INTERNAL CLOCK for locking to the external signal). Add to that all the other factors I mentioned (cable, grounds, supply, interfernce electrical noise, phase lock loop circuitry), and the whole thing becomes rather unlikely. The general claims that external clock actually improves AD's is a marketing driven crock, and sadly a lot of folks fell for that. 

A clock is a relatively low end technology. It is a signal generator that does a simple 1,0,1,0,1... It is a child's play to design a clock, compared to an AD converter. I work hard to make the best converters, and I really do not like it when those clock makers try to wrongfully take the credit for good conversion. 

Regards
Dan Lavry


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2008)

Thanks Dan.

And that begs my next question, if you don't mind: is there $1200 worth of engineering in any stand-alone clock generator? (In your opinion, of course.)

Also, what about D/A converters? Same thing? If not, that right there would explain all the reports about the Big Ben.


----------



## synthetic (Sep 27, 2008)

Sorry if I was misunderstood. I'm not defending outboard word clock generators as I haven't used them. I was merely saying that critical listening is more important than theoretical discussion. One of these days I'm going to take home the $12000 Esoteric clock generator and listen for myself. 

I need to figure out how to do a blind test. I'll probably need to annoy my wife...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 27, 2008)

It's very hard to test different clocks, because you have to swap wires and change the set-up a lot of the time. That's why I'm either a little skeptical about peoples' impressions or impressed by them (because the improvement has to be pretty good for it to survive that amount of time between comparisons).


----------



## JohnG (Sep 27, 2008)

synthetic @ 27th September 2008 said:


> One of these days I'm going to take home the $12000 Esoteric clock generator and listen for myself.



Before buying my own clock / converters, I searched tenaciously for an objective benchmark test that I could understand. Not sure there is one. Coincidentally, given Dan Lavry's posts in this thread, I bought a LavryBlue A/D and D/A because my engineer recommended it but also because, honestly, I found the competitors' "testimonials" approach so annoying; even insulting. 

Example: "I got a [brand] clock and now everything sounds better."

Well, "duh." Of course it sounded better compared with some kluged daisy-chain of mis-matched terminations and what-not, which is what most people suffer through before breaking down and getting a master clock. Compared with that, no wonder the testimonial-provider gets a better sound.

I applaud your willingness, synthetic, to seek an objective comparison but I don't know any dealers willing to let one take home a bunch of converters, open the boxes, compare them side by side, and then return the losers; it's just a lot to ask these days when the stores have to compete with internet prices. 

If you (or others on this thread, of course) find a good comparison study, please let us know; I for one would be very interested.


----------



## Synesthesia (Sep 28, 2008)

I'm not entirely sure whether I am supposedly one of those who has been 'taken in by the Clock merchants' or denying basic reality (!) but I stand by my statement that adding the Rosendhal improved my sound.

Now it may be either because previously all my units were clocked serially, and now they are clocked in parallel, or it may be that the clock in the nanosyncs is simply better than the clock I was using as the master clock.

I don't think anyone is saying (not here anyway) that to remove a clocking circuit from an AD and put it in a new box and use it externally will sound better. That surely is absurd.

I also wouldn't just use an external clock if I only had one device. The reality however is that most of us have more than one device that need clocking, and the more you have, the more useful is the external clock.

Theres an interesting article here:

http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/42-02/clock_optimization.html (http://www.analog.com/library/analogDia ... ation.html)

I would be very interested to know how the jitter is affected by the degradation of the clock signal as it is passed from device to device in serial, so that for example given x number of devices jitter is increased by a factor of y.

Then, compare that with the increase in jitter when using a (perfect) external clock compared to a (perfect) internal clock with one interface.

Without the figures obviously one cant make any kind of statement, but my scientific gut tells me that if you have more than one device you won't be any worse off, but if you have only one device you should use the internal clock (unless it is so badly designed that it has more jitter than adding the external clock even with cable and EMF interference).

Food for thought!

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## Dan Lavry (Sep 28, 2008)

Synesthesia @ Sun Sep 28 said:


> Now it may be either because previously all my units were clocked serially, and now they are clocked in parallel, or it may be that the clock in the nanosyncs is simply better than the clock I was using as the master clock....
> 
> Then, compare that with the increase in jitter when using a (perfect) external clock compared to a (perfect) internal clock with one interface.
> 
> ...



I am not against external clocks. I am not against distribution amps. They have been around for a long time, and they serve a purpose. When one needs to synchronize many pieces of equipment (such as many channels of conversion), they may need such gear.

I am against the false notion that external clocks improve AD conversion. 

Indeed, it is about jitter. A good clock is a low jitter clock. That means a steady rate of 1,0,1,0,1.... signal. 

The best you can do is have a real good crystal based circuit near the AD converter circuitry, thus in the same chassis.

If you put such a circuit in a different chassis, the clock signal has to go through a cable, thus exposed to electromagnetic signals in the air (from line to radio to cell phones and so on). Any tiny amount of noise pickup makes the signal less clean, thus it increases the jitter. Then there is a potential cable termination impedance mismatch. Then you get that signal into the AD chassis, which has a different ground. By now, the signal may be very "dirty", so you need to add circuitry to try and clean it up. That is typically the PLL circuitry, which has its own clock. That second clock needs to be "yanked around" by the PLL to track the incoming AVERAGE frequency and phase of the incoming "dirty signal". So that second clock is not a fixed frequency device, it can be pulled up or down (in frequency), thus it is inherently more susceptible to jitter. The PLL circuitry also adds jitter....

An internal lock circuitry (PLL and clock) can be done very well, but the single fixed clock near the AD offers less jitter.

Some of the arguments about the external clock having some "special proprietary signal" are a complete crock. That one is easy to refute (the clock does not know what signal is needed by the AD, it is a one way communication, from clock to AD. A doctor can not cure various illnesses of people that he does not know and does not communicate with. The clock does not know what the AD is doing. After I pointed it out in some forums, I saw a new clock advertisement appear - “the clock knows”. Did you see it? Do you think it is a coincidence? 

Regards
Dan Lavry


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2008)

"I don't think anyone is saying (not here anyway) that to remove a clocking circuit from an AD and put it in a new box and use it externally will sound better. That surely is absurd."

You're nò‹   †‘)‹   †‘*‹   †‘+‹   †‘,‹   †‘-‹   †‘.‹   †‘/‹   †‘0‹   †‘1‹   †‘2‹   †‘3‹   †‘4‹   †‘5‹   †‘6‹   †‘7‹   †‘8‹   †‘9‹   †‘:‹   †‘;‹   †‘<‹   †‘=‹   †‘>‹   †‘?‹   †‘@‹   †‘A‹   †‘B‹   †‘C‹   †‘D‹   †‘E‹   †‘F‹   †‘G‹   †‘H‹   †‘I‹   †‘J‹   †‘K‹   †‘L‹   †‘M‹   †‘N‹   †‘O‹   †‘P‹   †‘Q‹   †‘R‹   †‘S‹   †‘T‹   †‘U‹   †‘V‹   †‘W‹   †‘X‹   †‘Y‹   †‘Z‹   †‘[‹   †‘\‹   †‘]‹   †‘^‹   †‘_‹   †‘`‹   †‘a‹   †‘b‹   †‘c‹   †‘d‹   †‘e‹   †‘f‹   †‘g‹   †‘h‹   †‘i‹   †‘j‹   †‘k‹   †‘l‹   †‘m‹   †‘n‹   †‘o‹   †‘p‹   †‘q‹   †‘r‹   †‘s‹   †‘t‹   †‘u‹   †‘v‹   †‘w‹   †‘x‹   †‘y‹   †‘z‹   †‘{‹   †‘|‹   †‘}‹


----------



## hv (Sep 28, 2008)

Hi, Dan. Thanks for stopping by. Figured you were the best person to properly express your opinions on these things.

Most of your reasoning seems to apply to outboard ADCs. Would you conclude the same for an ADC on a computer card located within the chasis of a PC? Considering its not exactly a clean environment in there. Or would you suggest moving the whole operation ouside the PC, converter and clock? I tend to do that for critical recording, using an outboard ADC and clocking the PC audio card from it, in effect reducing the PC audio card to a word-clocked spdif or aes device.

Also, given your logic, I assume you applaud designs like Mytek's that provide for clock distribution and ADC in the same box. Pretty much obviating the need for a separate clock box regardless of the number of devices you need to sync up. Have you ever considered adding distribution beyond just 1 clock-in and clock-out to your own converters? It kind of seems like a sin to almost invite those with multiple devices to sync up to clock a converter like yours externally.

Howard


----------



## synthetic (Sep 28, 2008)

I currently clock everything to my DM-3200 console. The way I would do an A/B test would be to connect a clock generator to the console, then switch between internal clock and word clock as the clock master. Everything would still clock to the console. I wouldn't have any other digital devices connected to the system for the test, just an ITB mix and maybe some analog inputs to the console. Perhaps I can do this test after AES.


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 28 said:


> > The best you can do is have a real good crystal based circuit near the AD converter circuitry, thus in the same chassis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes - all clocking/jitter issues on the A/D side show up on the D/A side. Basically, the further the timing is off, the more likely you are to produce some frequency content that's not actually there because samples wind up in the wrong spot in the analog signal.

I think the question of improving the quality of cheaper converters depends on how the clock circuitry is set up. If the circuit uses the external clock as a reference but uses the internal clock to latch the A/D and/or D/A then I don't think an external clock would help much: you're still no better than the precision of the internal clock. Unless, of course, your internal clock is SO BAD that it produces errors greater than the sample period. But I can't imagine that would ever happen.

I'd like to follow-up on Dan's comment about clocks being easy to make. I agree 100%. So why do we pay so much for them? The test/measurement world uses clocks that are much more accurate than what the audio industry uses. And those timing sources are much less expensive. Go figure...

rgames


----------



## Dan Lavry (Sep 28, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 28 said:


> "I don't think anyone is saying (not here anyway) that to remove a clocking circuit from an AD and put it in a new box and use it externally will sound better. That surely is absurd."



Let me be a little clearer about it:

The folks that tell you that the external clock is better then internal clock, are in fact saying just that they can design and provide a better clock when they place it inside a separate chassis. They are not suggesting that you do it. They are sugesting that they did it for you, and that when you buy the external clock box, it will be better for you.

Regards
Dan Lavry


----------



## Synesthesia (Sep 28, 2008)

Nick - I was being ironic..!

Dan - 

Are you saying that it is impossible to build a better 'outside chassis' clock than *any* internal clock, when driving an AD?

I am sure your products have great clocks - maybe even the best as some here are saying (I haven't used one yet) - but I'm not sure why you are tilting so hard against this particular windmill?

A person would have to be an idiot to buy a high end AD and then clock it externally for no reason.

However I would guess that most of the folks here (and I may be wrong) have multiple devices that all need a ref clock. 

I think you may be preaching to the converted!

Cheers,

Paul o=<


----------



## Synesthesia (Sep 28, 2008)

For the sake of clarity, I should state that I would not consider my 192 to have a high end clock, but I would consider my Neve pre to have a high end clock - and when tracking with my Neve I let it be the master.

P :idea:


----------



## Ashermusic (Sep 28, 2008)

synthetic @ Sat Sep 27 said:


> Sorry if I was misunderstood. I'm not defending outboard word clock generators as I haven't used them. I was merely saying that critical listening is more important than theoretical discussion. One of these days I'm going to take home the $12000 Esoteric clock generator and listen for myself.
> 
> I need to figure out how to do a blind test. I'll probably need to annoy my wife...



You still don't get it...when it's physics, it isn't "theoretical."


----------



## synthetic (Sep 28, 2008)

Here's what I mean: Show me the response chart for a $200 Audio Technica mic vs a vintage U47 or C12, which one will have better specs? The Audio Technica. Which sounds better? The old mics. Why? Who knows, and it _doesn't matter_ unless you're trying to design a microphone. Logic would say that the flatter microphone would have truer response, but that isn't always the case. 

Why do you need an external clock when using multiple interfaces? Why not just choose one to be the master?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2008)

Just for the record, I wasn't the one who posted what Dan quoted in his last post.

"Yes - all clocking/jitter issues on the A/D side show up on the D/A side. Basically, the further the timing is off, the more likely you are to produce some frequency content that's not actually there because samples wind up in the wrong spot in the analog signal. "

Just out of interest are you a designer? I'm not trying to be rude, but if not then this is the blind leading the blind. And not to bristle too much and sound too egotistical, I've been reading and experimenting with this stuff a lot for a very long time now, so I'm a little beyond the "go read Bob Katz' website and you'll know everything there is to know about digital audio" stage. 

What I'm asking Dan - who *is* a designer! - isn't what you're answering. The question is related to a vague understanding that the D/A has to recover the clock from the digital datastream differently from what the A/D does. That's why I'm asking whether a more accurate clock source - even after traveling over the wire - might affect the D/A differently from the way it affects the A/D.

In other words, if you have an existing recording, say something you sucked off a CD, and played it with the internal clock on a mediocre box and then with a tweak external converter, does the game change at all? Because I suspect that's exactly what people who rave about these boxes are doing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2008)

"Why do you need an external clock when using multiple interfaces? Why not just choose one to be the master?"

That's exactly what I do, and I've put my money into a better front end rather than into a tweak word clock box. (I sold all my outboard boxes and bought two Millennia Media channel strips a few years ago.)


----------



## Dan Lavry (Sep 28, 2008)

synthetic @ Sun Sep 28 said:


> Here's what I mean: Show me the response chart for a $200 Audio Technica mic vs a vintage U47 or C12, which one will have better specs? The Audio Technica. Which sounds better? The old mics. Why? Who knows, and it _doesn't matter_ unless you're trying to design a microphone. Logic would say that the flatter microphone would have truer response, but that isn't always the case.
> 
> Why do you need an external clock when using multiple interfaces? Why not just choose one to be the master?




Flatness response is only one of many factors for mic quality. I do not see how that has anything to do with the clock question. 

I did not rule out using one of the AD's as a master clock.

No one can ever argue with subjective remarks such as "this sounds good to me" or "that sounds bad". But none of what I said is subjective! What I said is analogous to 1+1=2. The fact that the external clock drives the AD, but the AD does not send a signal back to the clock is not arguable. The clock does NOT know if

1. The AD it is driving is near perfect, or 
2. If it has line frequency jitter, or
3. If it has some digital audio signal coupled in to the signal path, or
4. The AD has random noise jitter or....

So the clock DOES NOT KNOW what to do to improve the AD. The best clock remains a precise and clean low jitter 1.0.1.0.1... 

That is not an opinion, a like or a dislike. This is just a fact. I think that the truth is a good thing, and it is sad to see that some people fight it so hard. There are people that insist that arrows on a speaker wire sleeve make sense, though the current is bi-directional and the copper material is non directional. They also argue that "it sounds better", and of course there are no real double blind tests to prove that garbage. 

I am glad to state clear technical objective facts. I have no interest in subjective never ending arguments. This is not a contest of who is more stubborn or who said the last word. 

Someone mention a $12000 clock. I can tell OBJECTIVELY that you do not need an atomic clock for audio, because those atomic clocks do not offer better jitter than crystal clocks. When one realizes it, they can save thousands of dollars and get better results. Atomic clocks are about absolute (longer then sample time) time precision, and that is what is needed for audio. Low jitter is the key. 

Regards
Dan Lavry


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 28 said:


> In other words, if you have an existing recording, say something you sucked off a CD, and played it with the internal clock on a mediocre box and then with a tweak external converter, does the game change at all?



Again, it depends on how the circuit is set up. And no, I am not a designer, but I've spent a lot of time setting up A/D systems spec'd much higher than what we use in the audio world. So I know them from a user's perspective.

Here's an analogy: let's say you have to press a button every 30 seconds. Let's also say you have a stopwatch. You have three options:

1. Use your stopwatch exclusively and hit the button every thirty seconds.
2. Have someone else give you a reference at 25 seconds and use your stopwatch to count the last 5
3. Completely ignore your stopwatch and just watch the reference

The advantage of options 2 and 3 is that if you have a bunch of different people doing it, they're running off a single master reference, so there's no "drift" in the overall accuracy of the times at which the buttons are pressed. However, with option 2, nobody can ever be more precise than his individual stopwatch regardless of how good the master reference is. If you use option 3, then both accuracy and precision (aka jitter) are determined by the master.

So that's where I can't answer the question: I'm not familiar enough with the audio converters we use to know whether they use #2 or #3. Hopefully Dan can chime in there. My guess is that it's basically like #2 above and we really can't do any better (in terms of precision, aka "jitter") than the clocks on the individual converters.

Outside the audio world, option #2 is the one I encountered most often. So you can improve timing accuracy with a better external clock but precision (aka jitter) was always a function of the individual converter.

One other point I haven't seen mentioned here is that jitter is only a converter issue. Unless you have a REALLY BAD clock (i.e. precision worse than the sample period) then digital transfers are not affected by jitter. It only matters at the D/A and A/D stages. So claims that you can improve the quality of digital transfers using a better clock are nonsense.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 28, 2008)

Thanks Richard. Yes, hopefully Dan can chime in.

As to the what you're saying in the last sentence, I know that's the conventional wisdom, but I've heard some differences between different transfers that by all logic should sound identical yet don't (even though they cancel audibly). Is the difference due to jitter? Errors? Something else?

I have no doubt there's a rational explanation, but I've heard differences with my own ears and know that this was not my brain playing tricks on me; just changing digital cables when you transfer can result in slightly (yes slightly) different-sounding transfers.

Okay, now I've opened up the can of worms.

By the way, I'd love to get an answer to my question about the D/As. I don't see anybody here arguing Dan's point about external word clock boxes, but I do think there are a couple of unanswered questions still.


----------



## hv (Sep 29, 2008)

I think there's a fine point here that might be getting missed. Everything Dan's said in this thread relates to an ADC... generating a digital output given an analog input. Problem is we're often presented with a combo situation.. having 2 separate devices, one ADC and another discrete DAC, and both needing to be clocked. If used concurrently, as you would when mastering a digital recording with analog processors, at least one of them needs to be clocked externally. I'm guessing Dan would concede clocking the DAC externally is a totally different deal from clocking an ADC. 

I think this distinction is also important in evaluating listeners who report hearing better sound quality using an external clock. You need to determine if they're talking about the DAC sounding better on playback, or the recording they've made with their ADC sounding better being played back regardless of whether the playback DAC is clocked internally or externally. I've yet to see an evaluation report that makes that clear.

My own take is that external master clocks may in fact be great for monitoring and analog mastering. But probably not so much for recording analog tracks via an ADC. And in all cases, a computer audio card would probably be better off clocked externally with its ADC only used as a last resort.

Howard


----------



## rgames (Sep 29, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 28 said:


> As to the what you're saying in the last sentence, I know that's the conventional wisdom, but I've heard some differences between different transfers that by all logic should sound identical yet don't (even though they cancel audibly). Is the difference due to jitter? Errors? Something else?



The difference you hear might be a result of an external clock driving the conversion but there's really no way the digital part could be affected so long as the cable is not total crap. It can be mostly crap, but not total crap. Basically, if you can get a lock using some cable, then that cable is good enough.

Does your hard drive send "better" data to your motherboard when you use a "better" SATA/IDE/SCSI cable? Have you ever heard of anyone using an external clock to replace the piece of crap on the motherboard? That's the same thing: digital transfer, and it's pretty robust to changes in cable type and clock quality.

Clocks and cables in computers are basically crap and they work just fine for digital transfers with bandwidth far in excess of what's used for digital audio.

Furthermore, if the digital audio is entering or leaving the computer at some point, then it's using its crap clock and crap cables to drive the data across the PCI bus, or USB, or Firewire. And all of those seem to work just fine.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 29, 2008)

Well, what you're saying is the way it should work, yet I've heard it not work that way. Of course - logic says that either the transfer succeeds or it fails.

And no, it was not the clock, and this was heard by several professional people with trained ears who know what they're doing, all of whom reported the same thing double-blind - on two separate occasions. (And I've heard the same thing other times too.)

That's why I say there's something else going on with different digital cables. I've heard it - although it's subtle as hell and not something I lose sleep over.

But we're going astray...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 29, 2008)

hv, I think people have said the same thing you're saying earlier - although Dan is only talking about that one case, and he disagrees that any external clock is better with a sound card.


----------



## Dan Lavry (Sep 29, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Sep 29 said:


> Well, what you're saying is the way it should work, yet I've heard it not work that way. Of course - logic says that either the transfer succeeds or it fails.
> 
> And no, it was not the clock, and this was heard by several professional people with trained ears who know what they're doing, all of whom reported the same thing double-blind - on two separate occasions. (And I've heard the same thing other times too.)
> 
> ...



First, as was mentioned, I was talking about clocks and AD converters. Digital transfers and DA's are different subjects.

First, regarding the digital transfer: 

When moving data around from say an AD to a hard drive or other memory type storage, if each and every 0 registers as a zero, and each and every 1 is registered as a 1, it is clear that the transfer is perfect. In fact, moving data from one memory storage to another memory does not even need to be done in real time. You can do it at 10 times the speed, or just hire a caveman to engrave the data on a rock... 

So for data transfer, small jitter is not an issue.

However, there are all sorts of things that may happen during transfer that the listener may not know about. For example, some interface may be truncating from 24 bits to 16 bits. Or some devices may have some other algorithms in the signal path. So the idea would be to check that the data is not altered badly.

BTW, a sample rate converter in series is not always a bad thing. Virtually all DA's today up sample by a large factor, such as X64 or even X512. So almost all the samples in a DA are calculated from very few original samples. At 64Xfs, less then 2% of the data is original, and the rest is done by interpolation, and it is a good thing, assuming that the algorithm is good. But a poor algorithm will be a problem...

Second, clocks for DA's:

An external dedicated clock for a DA causes the same set of problems I mentioned. The clock inside the external clock box may be very good, but you have the cable issue, the noise pickup issue, the separate grounding and supply issues... By the time the clock gets inside the DA chassis, you may have a lot of jitter, thus you will need to "clean it up", which calls for a PLL and that second (pullable) oscillator (clock). 

I am not at all for external clocks driving DA's. There is already a clock in the AES (or SPDIF) data (on the same cable that carries the data). We call it "preamble", and it is a unique "signature" once per sample time. This signal is extracted, and a good PLL can lock to that, instead of locking to an external separate clock. It works just as well, and often better, and it saves the extra cable and connection, which are not really needed.

Third, hearing digital cables was mentioned here. Yes, one can hear a digital cable when listening to a DA. This is not the same thing as digital transfer. When listening to a DA, the time of sample arrival does matter. For digital transfer, the time does not matter. 

The mechanism of how a cable can impact the timing of sample arrival is a bit complex. It is a combination of 3 factors:
1. There is a high pass in the signal path (such as a transformer or capacitor), that causes signal "droop".
2. There is a low pass (bandwidth limit) such as a transformer, cable or circuit limitations), that causes limitation in signal "rise time" 
3. The data changes all the time with music (unlike a clock that is always the same pattern).

With those 3 factors in play, the signal wobbles a lot and the "sample time recognition" becomes less accurate and in fact it varies with the data itself.

The mechanism was discovered by Hawksford (Essex University, England). He wrote about it in a paper (around 1995). The Title is something like “Is the digital audio AES/EBU interface flawed?”. That paper was vey excellent work!

A good clock recovery in a DA will overcome that cable issue very well. But a poor DA (with poor clock recovery) will make the bandwidth limitation of a cable audible. That is particularly noticeable with very long digital audio cables. 

I often say, whenever possible, use short cables. That is a good advice for analog as well as for digital. I would not rewire a studio just to make the cables short, but if you can use a 6 foot length, and you use a 20 foot cable, I would go for the 6 foot...
I hope what I wrote is not too confusing. I am getting ready for the AES in San Francisco, thus will be away from the web. I hope to see some of you there.

Regards
Dan Lavry


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 29, 2008)

Not at all confusing. Thanks for clearing up the mystery, and I hope to see you at AES.


----------

