External Clocking - is it all that?

PaulBrewer

kfoltman wrote: »

Actually, I don't see it as agreement at all.

Also, "appeal to authority" is a weak argument. It's like citing doctors who trust homeopathy.

That's a bit of an In Joke K, apologies.

I take your 'appeal to authority' point to - but it's a well worn path at this stage.

Anyone I know who's heard a Big Ben clock a 192 hears a difference.

That's my final post on the subject - I am, and I'd imagine everyone else is, bored with the subject.

Until we give Antelopes 10M a spin , that is !

jtsuited

kfoltman wrote: »

Actually, I don't see it as agreement at all.

to be fair, it is rare me and Paul agree on something. but the rest of your post is correct imo.

Clocking debates are where the height of esoteric nonsense gets spouted. Everyone wants to show how great their ears are by saying they hear a 'huge' difference. But the difference is negligible.

It's funny to see people go on about scientific tests, when they have never undergone anything resembling an education in proper scientific experiments. If this were a new pill being tested in double blind trials versus placebo, the conclusion from the vast majority (probably all) of proper scientists would be .......that the difference is negligible.

Arguing about the whole debacle is interesting because it's fun to learn and it's pretty mad sh1t when you think about it (i'm still baffled by quartz as a substance anywho).

Taking the debate to a 'oh there's a difference, you need to investigate a clocking solution for your studio' is frankly silly.
As an academic discussion it's got it's merits but to jump to conclusions based on valid but irrelevant and misinterpreted science is bullsh1t.

And don't get me started on the whole 'well this is what x,y and z say on the matter'. Until there is a formal system in place, the 'experts' in production are nothing to go by.
Big shot producers don't need golden ears. Big shot scientists and engineers don't need musical aptitude. There's a huge gap in the spheres of skills there, so take each piece of information for what it is.

woodsdenis

Bloody feck this again.

1. This is not a specific discussion about the merits of a Big Ben and a 192 it is about the whole nature of external clocking in general.

2. It would be naive to think that all converters with PLL ( according to madtheory all converters made in the last 6 years I think ) could not benefit from external clocking. It seems like blindly clinging on to a belief, just because one of your internet gurus says so. The fact you cant hear a difference between in this instance between a Big Ben and a 192 scientifically doesn't prove anything, to do this you would need to take a variety of different clocks and interfaces to test. The difference may be subtle or not depending on you setup. I simply do not know I have not tested them all, and dont intend to so.

What I do know is that in my experience it has made a difference on specifically HD 192 with various different clocks ranging from Big Ben to Digidesign Sync IO.

The fact that A or B engineer says so doesn't make it fact either of course, but if I am thinking of purchasing a new piece of equipment I will canvas for other peoples thoughts on the matter and make my own mind up then. The fact is that amongst my peers, all of them agree that external clocking makes a difference. If you want to say they are all deluded and imagining it then so be it , I dont really care.

Just to clarify we are talking about externally clocking a standalone rig not
multiple devices where external clocking is vital

Finally, which was the point of the thread initially is it worth it. Now that is a debatable issue depending on your setup. Try it out, if you dont hear a difference dont buy it, but dont tell everyone else they are wrong just because you dont.

As a side note coincidentally I saw one of those Atomic clock things recently which was used to clock a PT rig. According to the engineer it was amazing, but what does he know, it not scientific:D
Would I buy one, Nope, I could think of more important things to spend my money on. Does it mean it does'nt work, of course not. I cant afford and dont need an SSL either, doesn't mean its pointless
just because it doesn't suit my needs.

madtheory

Some folk are taking this personally, let's stick to the science maybe? If people are bored with it, then just ignore the thread.

Anyway, my test was scientific, it was a true blind A/B. The only shortcoming was that there was only two people, as I've already made clear already, and that needs improvement obviously. However, both were experienced engineers.

Paul, you haven't posted results of any blind A/B tests, did I miss that? I do remember you posting a non blind test alright.

If someone can explain how you can improve the clocking on a PLL, I'm all ears. I did a lot more than just look it up on the web . To the best of my understanding, you can't do it with an external clock. I would love to be proved wrong; the best way to do that is a blind A/B with several engineers.

madtheory

References:
1. John Watkinson- The Art of Digital Audio, third edition. pp.211 to 215.
2. Bob Katz- Mastering Audio, second edition. pp.255 to 270.

They're both saying basically that a converter with a PLL should sound the same when clocked externally and internally. It's possible to have a poor PLL, in which case the converter will sound worse. Therefore a HD192 cannot sound better when clocked externally, assuming no other digital gear in the chain which is a separate issue.

madtheory

From Digidesign's own white paper on the subject:
CONCLUSION
It’s clear from these examples and from discussions with audio engineers from around the world that it is difficult if not impossible to come to a single conclusion when subjectively identifying the audible effects of jitter. While jitter is quantifiable and relatively easy to measure, how it affects complex waveforms such as music is much harder to quantify.

Many consider the 192 I/O to have the finest sounding clocking scheme while others prefer third party dedicated clocks and using the distributed technique in their systems—even though the effect of external clocks often produces higher amounts of jitter. On the bench, the 192 I/O compares favorably with all of its similarly priced competitors producing low jitter across the spectrum. In fact, it has far less jitter than many dedicated clocks and yet many prefer the sound of these clocks over the 192’s internal clock.

Because of this apparent lack of consistency between theory and actual experience, more science and measurement is called for, particularly on the perceptual side. Controlled listening tests involving a cross section of participants using established standards need to be done in order to more fully understand the issue. Marketing materials from many manufacturers use anecdotal evidence and testimony from highly regarded individuals to promote their products and while that is powerful product endorsement, it needs to be recognized as such. Subjective reactions and uncontrolled listening tests should not be used as a substitute for science and it’s clear that more study needs to be done to fully understand the audible effects of jitter on digital audio.

Please send your feedback on this article and requests for other discussion topics to techpapers@digidesign.com

fitz

So, basically, no-one knows wtf is really going on.

madtheory

Kind of... there's a subjective element that apparently can't be measured. But my guess is that's down to people not doing blind A/B testing, resulting in bias. The bias is in the form of generalised corporate hatred directed against Digidesign (even though they're not really a corporation). There's also the marketing spiel, where manufacturers basically stretch the truth in order to sell you stuff. Apogee do that a lot IMHO. Digidesign generally don't (as evidenced by the above white paper). The manual for the Drawmer clocking box is also very sensible about the issue.

Ultimately I think it's best to ignore the hard sell, use blind A/B tests and trust your ears.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

trust your ears.

Yes

like I, WoodsDenis, JT, Peter in Middlewalk, Joe in Nutshed, Philip Begley, Ciaran Byrne in Cauldron, Mick Glossop, Eddie Ciletti, Alastair McMillan of Windmill/U2 etc etc etc said .....

Is this thread not over yet ?

PaulBrewer

And wasn't StudioRat in there too ?

madtheory

No, trust your own ears, not someone else's. Once again, you miss the point, and you've ignored the engineering issues I've cited- John Watkinson and Bob Katz have published their views on the issue, and it's more than just an opinion... apart from anecdotal evidence, can you cite where the others you've mentioned have stated their angle on it? Such as Mike Glossop and Eddie Ciletti? What converters were they using?

Actually, most of those folk would surely go for a set of Prism converters to completely replace a HD192, if they wanted to have the last word in conversion. Or the Radar boxes. It's certainly within the budget...

PaulBrewer

http://www.mbrauer.com/aes/28CLOCKING.mp3

madtheory

Again, that is just an opinion, there is no scientific validation, no mention of blind A/B testing, he can't even remember the name of the clock, and it's a small mention of the issue at the end of a talk about much mroe useful stuff...

Try this instead:
http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=804565&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1

PaulBrewer

It's not just any opinion.

It's the opinion of a guy who is on top of his game where hearing is what he does for a living.

I'd be inclined to listen.

madtheory

Yes, he is well known and does world class mixes. But where's the science? Are we to conclude that his mixes are great because he uses an external clock? That's a bit of a leap, to say the least. We also don't know:
What converters he was using
How it was wired
When he did the "test"
What other digital devices were being clocked
What room and speakers
If he did a blind A/B test

There are too many variables to warrant using that opinion as a reason to spend EUR1000+ on a clock box.

PaulBrewer

I agree that 1 opinion alone doesn't warrant expense by itself - but it's ANOTHER top level opinion by someone who relies on his experience to express that opinion.

If it were science alone that made the best recordings everything would be so simple ..... but like most things in life ......... it's not.

madtheory

I agree, science is not the be all and the end all, but it helps. One is not an engineer if one does not make the effort to investigate these things. Blind belief is a hindrance, and a waste of money. It would be better to spend the money on a better guitar/ amp/ ADA converter/ keyboard/ coffee machine than to spend it on a word clock, in the majority of cases, because most converters are jitter immune.

It will be very interesting to read Hugh Robjohn's review on the issue (as per link above).

PaulBrewer

Hugh or Michael ? I'd listen to Michael every time.

It's the guys who make the hits have it worked out either consciously or subconsciously

To quote Douglas Adams -

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.


I want to here 'what' from the lads who clearly know - the 'why' can come later.

madtheory

That's an illogical syllogism, i.e. Mr. Bauer doesn't make good mixes because he uses an external clock. It's just a coincidence.

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

That's an illogical syllogism, i.e. Mr. Bauer doesn't make good mixes because he uses an external clock. It's just a coincidence.

A coincidence ......:rolleyes:

In your mind his choice of gear has no bearing on the quality of his work - it's a 'coincidence' ?

I've heard it all now.

madtheory

No, don't be silly. It's not his choice of gear, just his choice of clock.

Maybe a stupidly extreme example will help: M Bauer eats cornflakes for breakfast, therefore my mixes will sound better if I eat cornflakes for breakfast too. Similarlly, M Bauer uses an Antelope clock, therefore etc. etc. That's an illogical syllogism- making a false conclusion based on a coincidence.

So Paul, what brands of cornflakes do you stock?

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

No, don't be silly. It's not his choice of gear, just his choice of clock.

Maybe a stupidly extreme example will help: M Bauer eats cornflakes for breakfast, therefore my mixes will sound better if I eat cornflakes for breakfast too. Similarlly, M Bauer uses an Antelope clock, therefore etc. etc. That's an illogical syllogism- making a false conclusion based on a coincidence.

So Paul, what brands of cornflakes do you stock?

But that's not what he said was it ? Breakfast wasn't referred to as sounding better, a specific clock was.

madtheory wrote: »

The high quality equipment just allows a guy to work more efficiently.

My point exactly.

madtheory

Ya don't geddit... I know that's not wot e said. I am using analogies to illustrate a point. You're such an engineer sometimes with your taking things literally!!

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

I know that's not wot e said.

That's a coincidence isn't it ?

Neurojazz

Behave!

jtsuited

this thread is turning into a joke. brewer needs to learn what a false syllogism is.

btw in case anyone didn't see, paul recommended someone on the dance music production forum look into clocking as they found they hadn't enough width in their mixes!!lol

PaulBrewer

jtsuited wrote: »

brewer needs to learn what a false syllogism is.

Classic !

Seziertisch

jtsuited wrote: »

Ebony and Ivory
Live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard
Oh Lord, why don't we

PaulBrewer wrote: »

We all know that people are the same
Where ever you go
There is good and bad in ev'ryone
And we learn to live
We learn to give each other
what we need to survive
Together alive

There, that's more like it.

studiorat

jtsuited wrote: »

this thread is turning into a joke. brewer needs to learn what a false syllogism is.

btw in case anyone didn't see, paul recommended someone on the dance music production forum look into clocking as they found they hadn't enough width in their mixes!!lol

I had to look up what a syllogism is... Still not sure I understand |. That's the sort of talkk you'd expect from someone who studied sound engineering as an add on in a seminary.

I've always found that a good DA will give a more solid image. However I think the subtlety of the changes would not be enough to be appreciated over there.


I don't think it's been mentioned yet about the other factors that also cause jitter... The crystal clock thingy is not the only cause, so while the clock on a piece of gear may be measured to be accurate to a couple of pico seconds or whatever, it's other components may cause jitter to the signal. Switched mode power supplies etc. Why do you think the Black Lion Mods are so popular? I don't think they change the clock do they?

PaulBrewer

studiorat wrote: »

. However I think the subtlety of the changes would not be enough to be appreciated over there.

Over where? The Seminary ?