|
Post by Guitar on Feb 13, 2022 15:35:39 GMT -6
Got it set up...it's Super Bowl Sunday, and if history is any teacher, I won't really be able to tell with one mono vocal...maybe with acoustic...probably have more of an idea once I build some tracks with it. I guess I'm going to do some listening...wonder whether I should concern myself with having one master clock? I could just leave the Burl on its own internal and then use the Dangerous as the master for it and the Apollo, right? Wish the Apollo had freaking AES connections. Theoretically a converter will always sound better on its internal clock than any external clock. An external clock can do one of two things. Make the sound worse (likely) or no better at all/same performance (rare to find a converter like this, but there are a few.) If you want a Sound on Sound article to study I can link you in the face, haha. That's where this info comes from (as well as other experts stating similar things over the years.)
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Feb 13, 2022 15:56:05 GMT -6
Got it set up...it's Super Bowl Sunday, and if history is any teacher, I won't really be able to tell with one mono vocal...maybe with acoustic...probably have more of an idea once I build some tracks with it. I guess I'm going to do some listening...wonder whether I should concern myself with having one master clock? I could just leave the Burl on its own internal and then use the Dangerous as the master for it and the Apollo, right? Wish the Apollo had freaking AES connections. Theoretically a converter will always sound better on its internal clock than any external clock. An external clock can do one of two things. Make the sound worse (likely) or no better at all/same performance (rare to find a converter like this, but there are a few.) If you want a Sound on Sound article to study I can link you in the face, haha. That's where this info comes from (as well as other experts stating similar things over the years.) While this is often mentioned as being a Dan Lavry assertion--and I don't doubt why it may be theoretically true--it still always reminds me of the quote mistakenly attributed to Yogi Berra (probably first published by Benjamin Brewster in the Yale Literary Magazine, according to QI): "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 15:59:29 GMT -6
Theoretically a converter will always sound better on its internal clock than any external clock. An external clock can do one of two things. Make the sound worse (likely) or no better at all/same performance (rare to find a converter like this, but there are a few.) If you want a Sound on Sound article to study I can link you in the face, haha. That's where this info comes from (as well as other experts stating similar things over the years.) While this is often mentioned as being a Dan Lavry assertion--and I don't doubt why it may be theoretically true--it still always reminds me of the quote mistakenly attributed to Yogi Berra (probably first published by Benjamin Brewster in the Yale Literary Magazine, according to QI): "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." Well we can measure this stuff so it's certainly not a hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2022 16:02:28 GMT -6
that's what I've always heard too. In fact, I've read that sometimes the larger soundstage people hear could actually be jitter?
OK. I've gone back and forth 10 times. Dangerous using its own clock, then slaved to the Burl clock. Whether it's jitter, or whatever, the Burl clock seems to add more "3D-ness" or width and depth. Maybe wider isn't the right way to say it...there seems to be a "separation" of the center and the sides. Like - vocal is right there, and the piano is on the left. More realness or something. With the Burl clock, I hear tighter bottom and a "brighter" top.
The Convert using its own clock, has a bigger/rounder bottom and smoother top. I guess the ultimate judgement is mixing and seeing if there is any sort of incremental improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2022 16:04:20 GMT -6
Also - all separate DA's don't have their own clocks, right?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 13, 2022 16:06:53 GMT -6
John, Mark, yes absolutely "Maybe you like the sound of that jitter," or something like that. But Shadow is right it's not abstract, it's measurable: Here's the SOS article if anyone wants words and pictures for these ideas: www.soundonsound.com/techniques/does-your-studio-need-digital-master-clockAlso, "Nobody is wrong." Measurments are one thing, the sound is another thing. You can prefer whatever sound you like. But that doesn't change the measurements, the "facts" of the matter. But the "fact" that you like something obviously is worthwhile also. It will just turn into GS if people start confusing the two.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Feb 13, 2022 16:22:06 GMT -6
While this is often mentioned as being a Dan Lavry assertion--and I don't doubt why it may be theoretically true--it still always reminds me of the quote mistakenly attributed to Yogi Berra (probably first published by Benjamin Brewster in the Yale Literary Magazine, according to QI): "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." Well we can measure this stuff so it's certainly not a hypothesis. Maybe I should have explained more on this - I'm not suggesting it's not measurable. What I'm suggesting is that "what measures 'better' may not always sound better." At least to any particular individual. What sounds "best" is often highly individual and subjective. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2022 16:24:21 GMT -6
This is so interesting. Just playing around with SoundID when listening to both. There's a setting called Custom Target Mode in SoundID. So, you can disable the room correction where ever you want. Like - I'm pulling the correction off the low end - with a slider. My room has a big bump at 40-60 Hz, then a dip from 70-120 Hz. So, when I slide the correction off, I should be hearing way more bottom and less 100Hz ish stuff like Bass. When I do this with the Convert clock with the Convert clock, I hear exactly that. It's very noticeable. When I do that with the Convert clocked to the Burl, the change is much more subtle. Like struggling to hear the difference a bit.
Really makes me wonder if that stuff about jitter/phasing "tricking" the ear (pardon me I don't know if I'm using the correct terminology) is right.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2022 16:37:42 GMT -6
Guess all this clocking stuff is off topic, but I find it interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 16:39:45 GMT -6
Well we can measure this stuff so it's certainly not a hypothesis. Maybe I should have explained more on this - I'm not suggesting it's not measurable. What I'm suggesting is that "what measures 'better' may not always sound better." At least to any particular individual. What sounds "best" is often highly individual and subjective. That's all I'm saying. After years of test benching, end product dev etc. I really can't disagree with that statement. Also I've often pondered the question why is technically better actually better? More of a train of thought currently than it was 60 years ago when engineers fought tooth and nail with THD+N.. I don't mean to be blasé about the current state of audio equipment but we've got it good nowadays in terms of tools with options to fit most. Whatever works and all that..
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 13, 2022 16:45:53 GMT -6
Well we can measure this stuff so it's certainly not a hypothesis. Maybe I should have explained more on this - I'm not suggesting it's not measurable. What I'm suggesting is that "what measures 'better' may not always sound better." At least to any particular individual. What sounds "best" is often highly individual and subjective. That's all I'm saying. Most of Grandpa and Grandma's Favorite Audio Gear of the Past (tm) measures a lot worse than modern pro-sumer stuff.... A Rode NT1 is "better" than a U47. A Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 is "better" than a Studer tape recorder. just to prove your point. It's art in electronics with studio gear. Not "the computer is always right" or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2022 17:05:30 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2022 17:07:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 13, 2022 20:05:41 GMT -6
I only had the Burl for a week, but I used the Burl clock, and if memory serves, it sounded better than the Apollo. I thought the consensus was using the interfaces clock was preferable, hmm..
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2022 20:24:01 GMT -6
I only had the Burl for a week, but I used the Burl clock, and if memory serves, it sounded better than the Apollo. I thought the consensus was using the interfaces clock was preferable, hmm.. That’s what plenty of people said…that it shouldn’t make a difference. But clocking the Apollo with the Burl definitely made a positive difference. Don’t know if you read above, but it really does sound like it has more width and separation clocking with the Burl. Well - it’s not like it’s drastic, but it’s objective to my ears. Like I said, though. It kindve spooked me when I couldn’t hear as much change in the bottom when playing with soundid though.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 13, 2022 20:31:18 GMT -6
I only had the Burl for a week, but I used the Burl clock, and if memory serves, it sounded better than the Apollo. I thought the consensus was using the interfaces clock was preferable, hmm.. That’s what plenty of people said…that it shouldn’t make a difference. But clocking the Apollo with the Burl definitely made a positive difference. Don’t know if you read above, but it really does sound like it has more width and separation clocking with the Burl. Well - it’s not like it’s drastic, but it’s objective to my ears. Like I said, though. It kindve spooked me when I couldn’t hear as much change in the bottom when playing with soundid though. This has been a thing since forever, remember when the apogee Big Ben was a big deal? I think, and our more technical members can correct me, but basically an external clock introduces more jitter, which may widen the image at the expense of the center, and you are totally in your rights to like what it does. This is, after all, a subjective art form. On that note though, there are some perfectly fine widening plugins and my friend Jameson Durr said something that stuck with me: why widen everything on a mix when you can pick and choose? I’ve found I like widening on synths and ear candy. And microshfit is on most vocals here, as an aux. Sorry for the somewhat OT post. I just love this stuff… not saying these fx are the same as what you’re hearing. When I’ve used the Burl, I believe it was the master clock connected to a bunch of 192s. Definitely sounded good and at that point something has to be externally clocked one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Feb 13, 2022 21:22:52 GMT -6
Well...just sitting here listening to different reference songs. I do believe the Convert 2 sounds better clocked to the Burl. I swear there's more width in the stereo field. Maybe it's confirmation bias... Just to add to the confusion, I sold my Convert-2 when I got the Burl BDAM4. The difference was not subtle at all.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 13, 2022 23:21:56 GMT -6
Tell us more about the differences Bat.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Feb 14, 2022 2:13:34 GMT -6
I only had the Burl for a week, but I used the Burl clock, and if memory serves, it sounded better than the Apollo. I thought the consensus was using the interfaces clock was preferable, hmm.. That’s what plenty of people said…that it shouldn’t make a difference. But clocking the Apollo with the Burl definitely made a positive difference. Don’t know if you read above, but it really does sound like it has more width and separation clocking with the Burl. Well - it’s not like it’s drastic, but it’s objective to my ears. Like I said, though. It kindve spooked me when I couldn’t hear as much change in the bottom when playing with soundid though. Can you run a mix ….even verse chorus … of both would love to hear it Cheers Wiz
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2022 3:10:48 GMT -6
I only had the Burl for a week, but I used the Burl clock, and if memory serves, it sounded better than the Apollo. I thought the consensus was using the interfaces clock was preferable, hmm.. That’s what plenty of people said…that it shouldn’t make a difference. But clocking the Apollo with the Burl definitely made a positive difference. Don’t know if you read above, but it really does sound like it has more width and separation clocking with the Burl. Well - it’s not like it’s drastic, but it’s objective to my ears. Like I said, though. It kindve spooked me when I couldn’t hear as much change in the bottom when playing with soundid though. Well here's the thing, you're correct in saying that usually the internal clock of a converter should be more accurate than external clocking. It's easy to tell in some instances as despite what some say even basic specifications "should" show potential signs of jitter by degrading SNR values (1). However the Apollo X series has to be the most confusing "high end" conversion system I've come across, in short whilst it doesn't quite hit their quoted specs according to the article denoted below (2) it's technically speaking an amazing converter above many other coveted devices. However for some reason my ears aren't fond of it, that's not exclusive to "uber DAC's" either because I don't mind the sound of the MOTU Ultralite MK5 which isn't that far behind the Apollo in terms of testing results (3). Reason I'm quoting audio science review is because it covers most of the analysis tests you'd need to get a decent picture, look at how Benchmark for example measures jitter performance (4). When it comes to music I ignore my day job and go by ear. I could probably borrow a Keysight, take devices to pieces and analyse them but it's an epic waste of time. Why? A properly engineered DAC shouldn't sound all that different to any other unless there's an obvious intent to change that variable. The analogue implementation does play a big part but seen as I had multiple components of my SMT Shelford replaced for $20.00 and you can build a high bandwidth flat 20 - 20 pre-amp for about $30.00 I'd expect a $1500.00 mid ranged converter + to be pretty much flawless. It never concerns me when interfaces sound the same or very similar, I start questioning things when they sound different and that's when I might start analysing them (or send them back which usually happens). (1) training.ti.com/sites/default/files/docs/TIPL%204704%20-%20Jitter%20vs%20SNR.pdf(2) www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/universal-audio-apollo-x16-review.17649/(3) www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/motu-ultralite-mk5-review-audio-interface.24777/(4) benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/12142221-jitter-and-its-effects
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 14, 2022 3:13:28 GMT -6
Like vs better.
We are talking about sound you prefer and equating that with better, as if there is a measurable improvement.
Not certain how you measure more or less depth or resolution in switching clocks but keeping converters constant, but you may hear differences.
I’d just go with what ever set up you think you prefer.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 14, 2022 9:36:46 GMT -6
That’s what plenty of people said…that it shouldn’t make a difference. But clocking the Apollo with the Burl definitely made a positive difference. Don’t know if you read above, but it really does sound like it has more width and separation clocking with the Burl. Well - it’s not like it’s drastic, but it’s objective to my ears. Like I said, though. It kindve spooked me when I couldn’t hear as much change in the bottom when playing with soundid though. Can you run a mix ….even verse chorus … of both would love to hear it Cheers Wiz Would it even be printable?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 14, 2022 9:38:03 GMT -6
Like vs better. We are talking about sound you prefer and equating that with better, as if there is a measurable improvement. Not certain how you measure more or less depth or resolution in switching clocks but keeping converters constant, but you may hear differences. I’d just go with what ever set up you think you prefer. That’s usually what I do…but isn’t that what we’re all here for?
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Feb 14, 2022 10:27:04 GMT -6
Tell us more about the differences Bat. Sure, MJB. Should have stated upfront - the Convert-2 is an excellent unit. To me, the Burl was a step up. Much richer soundstage. Much deeper, smoother lows and more immersive depth to the entire spectrum. One of the songs I referenced was Kacey Musgraves' Oh What a World, for example. The Dangerous felt less detailed to me. I picked up the BDA4M before selling the Convert-2 so I was able to A/B them a bit which was helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 14, 2022 12:49:55 GMT -6
OK - very, very interesting. Mixing a tune. It's waaay brighter in the 1-3khz region clocking with the Burl. Like waaay brighter. I would make significant cuts in the upper mids listening this way. Going back to the Convert as master clock, the upper mids are much less and the sound stage kind of flattens out. I've been successfully using the Convert for a couple years with no issues (that I've necessarily noticed) in the mids. But maybe I'm magically hearing more detail. Or maybe the external clocking is degrading the Convert's sound. I need to print a mix with both, adjusting EQ to what I think is right...then see what's up.
|
|