| clock vs. converters [message #340279] |
Sat, 10 May 2008 16:12  |
 breathe
Messages: 214
Registered: April 2004 |
Active Member |
|
|
Okay so Fletcher says I can radically improve the sound of my Lynx Aurora 16 by clocking it to an Apogee Big Ben. I don't doubt that there would be an improvement, but what I really want is the 'analog' sound that I got when I used to have an Apogee AD-8000. As flawed as Fletcher says that converter was, I NEVER got the 'digititus' from it that I'm getting from my Aurora 16, even being mixed on a Yamaha PM2000 with a Drawmer 1968ME for bus compression! I'm thinking of selling the Aurora 16 and getting an Apogee Rosetta 800 paired with either a MOTU or RME interface, tracking all of my main sounds through the Apogee, clocking the other interface to the Apogee. Does this sound legit? Hell, I got less 'digititus' on my first digital rig, a MOTU 1224 running Digital Performer! The studio down the hall from mine runs their rig like that, an Apogee Rosetta 800 with two extra MOTU interfaces, and they've made records for some of the most famous artists in the Northwest.
Any advice would help!
Best,
Nicholas
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: clock vs. converters [message #341703 is a reply to message #341694 ] |
Thu, 15 May 2008 13:42  |
 |
Jay Kadis
Messages: 967
Registered: April 2007
Location: SF Bay Area |
Gold Member |
|
|
| Halfway Competent wrote on Thu, 15 May 2008 11:03 |
After watching a lot of this clock discussion, it brings to mind Fletcher's comparison of studio monitors and stereo speakers: "production" speakers vs. "reproduction" speakers.
Odds are, your mix will be heard on a standard CD player/DVD player/SACD player with a standard wordclock. So, if you're listening back with some magical clock that makes your "vocals jump in front" and "cymbals have that analog feel," doesn't this come back to the argument of production vs. reproduction? If you're mixing on equipment that flatters the mix already, you're not going to mix it such that it will sound good on the average Joe's stereo. If the clock as attached at the A/D stage, I could see that being beneficial. Not to start a flame war or anything, just curious about the methodolgies.
|
In this case, you're not just listening but exporting the sound files for replication. If the effects of jitter are present in the files from improper clocking it will be audible on every system used for playback regardless of its own clocking.
Clocking our Mackie D8B with a Big Ben made a very audible improvement in the sound of the run-of-the-mill A/D converters, but it also tightened up imaging in mixes of already-recorded material. I would have attributed this to the DACs, but we weren't even using the internal DACs.
-JK
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: clock vs. converters [message #343173 is a reply to message #340279 ] |
Wed, 21 May 2008 05:47 |
 |
Fletcher
Messages: 1982
Registered: April 2004
Location: Foxboro, MA |
Platinum Member |
|
|
I use them both... along with the analog deck. I still find RADAR far easier and faster for doing overdubs... and now with the iZ "ADA" converters I'm doing more mix work from Logic. Frankly my joint is getting to the point of conversion overkill and I'm going to have to make some serious decisions... we're about to add a Euphonix controller for the Logic setup which could make some of these decisions a hell of a lot easier... in the meanwhile I know where my "5 buttons" are [REW, FF, STOP, PLAY, REC] so that's where I do the majority of the work I need to do quickly [like where the machines won't interfere with the workflow].
Peace.
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
mwagener wrote on Sat, 11 September 2004 14:33
We are selling emotions, there are no emotions in a grid
"Recording engineers are an arrogant bunch.
If you've spent most of your life with a few thousand dollars worth of musicians in the studio, making a decision every second and a half... and you and they are going to have to live with it for the rest of your lives, you'll get pretty arrogant too. It takes a certain amount of balls to do that... something around three"
Malcolm Chisholm
|
|
|
|
| Re: clock vs. converters [message #345115 is a reply to message #341703 ] |
Wed, 28 May 2008 22:04 |
 |
mixwell
Messages: 43
Registered: April 2007 |
Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
Halfway Competent;
After watching a lot of this clock discussion, it brings to mind Fletcher's comparison of studio monitors and stereo speakers: "production" speakers vs. "reproduction" speakers.
Odds are, your mix will be heard on a standard CD player/DVD player/SACD player with a standard wordclock. So, if you're listening back with some magical clock that makes your "vocals jump in front" and "cymbals have that analog feel," doesn't this come back to the argument of production vs. reproduction? If you're mixing on equipment that flatters the mix already, you're not going to mix it such that it will sound good on the average Joe's stereo. If the clock as attached at the A/D stage, I could see that being beneficial. Not to start a flame war or anything, just curious about the methodolgies.
|
I'd just like to jump in and say, the reasoning for me [having the "X" Master clock attached to the DAC of the multi-track] would be that it changes the way the rest of the analog equipment sounds during the mixing process, which would eventually make its way to the final mix print through another clock/converter. Perhaps even the final mix print ADC is also controlled by the Master clock but if you wanna get SUPER ANALYTICAL, it might be best to use a completely separate clock/converter for that print.
Adam Brass
Mercenary Audio
"this is not a problem"
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
adam@mercenary.com
|
|
|
| Re: clock vs. converters [message #347564 is a reply to message #345115 ] |
Sat, 07 June 2008 15:43 |
breathe
Messages: 214
Registered: April 2004 |
Active Member |
|
|
HC's comment that Adam is responding to here only applies to people mixing in DAW's who are not doing any mixing or summing on analog hardware or even using outboard analog gear of any kind, and therefore the DAC of their workstation has no bearing on the sound of your mix. Any time you are mixing on an analog mixer your mixes are as much dependent on the clock the DAC's are running off of as you are the clock the ADC's of the recording were made off of.
The thing that confuses me is how the clock of the ADC in recording to the clock of the DAC on playback constitutes what you actually hear out of the speakers. Someone told me that the DAC just chases the clock imbedded on your recording from the clock that the A/D on the recording used. Is that true?
Finally (and weirdly), how come the clock a digital playback machine has effects the sound of of a digital audio copy (over AES/EBU or coaxial S/Pdif or ADAT) to another digital recorder? I would assume that the clock of a DAT machine strictly used for playback for example wouldn't effect the sound of it's copy made to my workstation (which is then played back clocked to a good clock). I remember when I transferred a gazillion DAT tapes of live show recordings I made in Santa Cruz into my computer, before I did that I listened to transfers made on a Tascam DA-45HR and a Panasonic SV-3800, and the transfers made on the Panasonic sounded way better than the Tascam.
Nicholas
| mixwell wrote on Wed, 28 May 2008 20:04 |
| Quote: |
Halfway Competent;
After watching a lot of this clock discussion, it brings to mind Fletcher's comparison of studio monitors and stereo speakers: "production" speakers vs. "reproduction" speakers.
Odds are, your mix will be heard on a standard CD player/DVD player/SACD player with a standard wordclock. So, if you're listening back with some magical clock that makes your "vocals jump in front" and "cymbals have that analog feel," doesn't this come back to the argument of production vs. reproduction? If you're mixing on equipment that flatters the mix already, you're not going to mix it such that it will sound good on the average Joe's stereo. If the clock as attached at the A/D stage, I could see that being beneficial. Not to start a flame war or anything, just curious about the methodolgies.
|
I'd just like to jump in and say, the reasoning for me [having the "X" Master clock attached to the DAC of the multi-track] would be that it changes the way the rest of the analog equipment sounds during the mixing process, which would eventually make its way to the final mix print through another clock/converter. Perhaps even the final mix print ADC is also controlled by the Master clock but if you wanna get SUPER ANALYTICAL, it might be best to use a completely separate clock/converter for that print.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recording Engineering & Production: The nuts and bolts of making records better, not just louder and cheaper. Some of the brightest minds from the creative and scientific world of audio discuss the elements of audio production that interest you most.
Members
Search
FAQ
Register
Login
Home
