|
|
Post by Shadowk on Apr 19, 2024 1:17:06 GMT -6
Satire my friend.  I've never use an external clock. That was good Bill, you got me there .. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 19, 2024 6:58:46 GMT -6
So modern converters don't need external clocking at all unless you need some semblance of sync between devices, which I don't think is necessary in any normal use case because DAWs allow you to nudge tracks to line up in phase anyway.
Huh. No sync necessary?
Recently I was trying to reamp a guitar through a digital Katana amplifer, sending the clean signal through its built-in soundcard, and then recording the miced up amp through my soundcard. The audio started to get out of sync as soon as ~10 seconds in. Luckily, I was able to fix it by lossless stretching, but I was surprised by the amount of clock drift.
Is this not a common occurrence, then, using multiple interfaces that are not clocked together?
I guess that would be a good example of a time you might want to sync, but it seems somewhat extreme. Easily fixed by using channels on the same interface if you need extreme phase alignment. But that's also not a symptom of jitter, that's frequency being off. One or more of the clocks is not precisely on the right frequency. It's a common problem if the division factor is low and the reference crystal is not temperature stable or is old or poor quality. |
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Apr 19, 2024 9:13:38 GMT -6
FWIW, jitter doesn't cause harmonic distortion for a richer sound. It causes inharmonic distortion for a harsher sound. I doubt that is what people like about external clocking. But that inharmonic distortion is usually so slight that it's hard to hear.
I remember when Eric Valentine posted a comparison with printed files of 192 I/Os with and without an Atomic Clock. The audible difference was that the Atomic Clock files had less crispness in the top end, making them seem smoother and warmer, basically "less digital" and more like analog tape. A touch of HF smearing. It was subtle, and I felt that I could engineer my way around it either way.
But there are so many different converter designs and studio configurations that we can't really generalize about what audible effect every combo of clock and converter will have. We have to try it out with our setups and make choices.
The most important thing I learned when I tested it was to print files for listening tests because it takes too much time to switch clocks and that makes memory too much of a factor. Expectation bias was especially powerful in this context, so blind testing was essential. And brutal honesty.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Apr 19, 2024 9:19:42 GMT -6
If I remember correctly, I had a conversation with the guys at Lynx about clocks. That was many many many years ago. They had said that the internal clocks are running at such a higher frequency that they will always sound better than an external clock. I just moved on after that. I don't even think about it. When I have to clock another source, I just use the clock out of the Aurora (n). Works great. It's another rabbit hole that isn't going to make or break a project. So many other factors play more imporatant roles. I will stick with internal clocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Apr 19, 2024 9:25:49 GMT -6
I've had more than one conversation with converter designers who were offended by the notion that external clocking would be better than the clocking they painstakingly designed and implemented. It makes sense! Unless sometimes we simply prefer less precision, like I described in my last post.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 19, 2024 9:46:53 GMT -6
FWIW, jitter doesn't cause harmonic distortion for a richer sound. It causes inharmonic distortion for a harsher sound. I doubt that is what people like about external clocking. But that inharmonic distortion is usually so slight that it's hard to hear. I remember when Eric Valentine posted a comparison with printed files of 192 I/Os with and without an Atomic Clock. The audible difference was that the Atomic Clock files had less crispness in the top end, making them seem smoother and warmer, basically "less digital" and more like analog tape. A touch of HF smearing. It was subtle, and I felt that I could engineer my way around it either way. But there are so many different converter designs and studio configurations that we can't really generalize about what audible effect every combo of clock and converter will have. We have to try it out with our setups and make choices. The most important thing I learned when I tested it was to print files for listening tests because it takes too much time to switch clocks and that makes memory too much of a factor. Expectation bias was especially powerful in this context, so blind testing was essential. And brutal honesty. Jitter can absolutely cause harmonic distortion. The primary clock frequency being offset for any small amount of time would be jitter and cause sidebanding, but that offset amount does not necessarily need to be an multiple of the primary frequency. It can modulate any fractional offset onto the clock and that offset need not be related to the primary frequency at all. A lot of PLLs use fractional dividers to keep complexity down, but these cause sidebands at strange fractions of the primary output that aren't necessarily related in harmonicity. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Apr 19, 2024 10:08:12 GMT -6
Here are some files if anyone wants to compare a few different clocking scenarios(including blind files): Clock Shootout FilesA few different clocking scenarios, Mutec master clock, Avid and Lynx, etc.. all explained in the video below if you'd like to check that out. My conclusion is that a master clock absolutely makes a difference, you just have to decide if that difference sounds better to you or not. I continue to use the Mutec as a master clock more for stability than anything but I do also enjoy what it does to the sound 👍🏼 |
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Apr 19, 2024 10:20:01 GMT -6
FWIW, jitter doesn't cause harmonic distortion for a richer sound. It causes inharmonic distortion for a harsher sound. I doubt that is what people like about external clocking. But that inharmonic distortion is usually so slight that it's hard to hear. I remember when Eric Valentine posted a comparison with printed files of 192 I/Os with and without an Atomic Clock. The audible difference was that the Atomic Clock files had less crispness in the top end, making them seem smoother and warmer, basically "less digital" and more like analog tape. A touch of HF smearing. It was subtle, and I felt that I could engineer my way around it either way. But there are so many different converter designs and studio configurations that we can't really generalize about what audible effect every combo of clock and converter will have. We have to try it out with our setups and make choices. The most important thing I learned when I tested it was to print files for listening tests because it takes too much time to switch clocks and that makes memory too much of a factor. Expectation bias was especially powerful in this context, so blind testing was essential. And brutal honesty. Jitter can absolutely cause harmonic distortion. The primary clock frequency being offset for any small amount of time would be jitter and cause sidebanding, but that offset amount does not necessarily need to be an multiple of the primary frequency. It can modulate any fractional offset onto the clock and that offset need not be related to the primary frequency at all. A lot of PLLs use fractional dividers to keep complexity down, but these cause sidebands at strange fractions of the primary output that aren't necessarily related in harmonicity. You are describing inharmonic distortion. |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Apr 19, 2024 10:42:33 GMT -6
I've had more than one conversation with converter designers who were offended by the notion that external clocking would be better than the clocking they painstakingly designed and implemented. It makes sense! Unless sometimes we simply prefer less precision, like I described in my last post. Yep, we (mostly) came up with the harmonic richness of tape, transistors, tubes and transformers, so accuracy is not necessarily everything. And I quite agree with your comment about being able to engineer around (for instance) the subtle softening of Valentine's external clock example. And therefore, absent an unlimited budget, I'd rather have a great piece of master bus outboard than an external clock or some high falutin converters. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 19, 2024 11:03:34 GMT -6
Jitter can absolutely cause harmonic distortion. The primary clock frequency being offset for any small amount of time would be jitter and cause sidebanding, but that offset amount does not necessarily need to be an multiple of the primary frequency. It can modulate any fractional offset onto the clock and that offset need not be related to the primary frequency at all. A lot of PLLs use fractional dividers to keep complexity down, but these cause sidebands at strange fractions of the primary output that aren't necessarily related in harmonicity. You are describing inharmonic distortion. Harmonic distortion: having to do with multiples or evenly divided fractional multiples of a tone. Inharmonic distortion: Having to do with harminics that do not fall on multiples or evenly divided fractional multiples of tones. Sidebands can be ANYwhere in relation to the primary tone, therefor can be harmonic or inharmonic depending on where they fall. Jitter can have either, or both. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 19, 2024 11:04:56 GMT -6
Here are some files if anyone wants to compare a few different clocking scenarios(including blind files): www.dropbox.com/home/Seawell%20Studios%20YouTube%20Channel/Mutec%20Audio%20FilesA few different clocking scenarios, Mutec master clock, Avid and Lynx, etc.. all explained in the video below if you'd like to check that out. My conclusion is that a master clock absolutely makes a difference, you just have to decide if that difference sounds better to you or not. I continue to use the Mutec as a master clock more for stability than anything but I do also enjoy what it does to the sound 👍🏼 Can't access without logging in.. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,087 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Apr 19, 2024 12:33:08 GMT -6
I've had more than one conversation with converter designers who were offended by the notion that external clocking would be better than the clocking they painstakingly designed and implemented. It makes sense! Unless sometimes we simply prefer less precision, like I described in my last post. I’m not disagreeing with you but I probably have had as many conversations with designers who have said their clock design was redone to hit a price point. I get it but the problem is communicating beyond ad speak that we actually took time and effort to design a decent clock. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Apr 19, 2024 12:49:52 GMT -6
Here are some files if anyone wants to compare a few different clocking scenarios(including blind files): www.dropbox.com/home/Seawell%20Studios%20YouTube%20Channel/Mutec%20Audio%20FilesA few different clocking scenarios, Mutec master clock, Avid and Lynx, etc.. all explained in the video below if you'd like to check that out. My conclusion is that a master clock absolutely makes a difference, you just have to decide if that difference sounds better to you or not. I continue to use the Mutec as a master clock more for stability than anything but I do also enjoy what it does to the sound 👍🏼 Can't access without logging in.. Should be fixed now: Clock Shootout Files |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 19, 2024 13:13:33 GMT -6
Got it. It's interesting. I can't hear any difference without doing a null test and honestly, the major things that remain ifrom the null test are modulated sounds. If this is a mix of yours, then I think the modulation effects added are non-deterministic which would render a null test impossible. Also, I do hear a phasing sound from the null test as well which tells me that one of the clocks is wandering around slightly. |
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Apr 19, 2024 14:29:42 GMT -6
You are describing inharmonic distortion. Harmonic distortion: having to do with multiples or evenly divided fractional multiples of a tone. Inharmonic distortion: Having to do with harminics that do not fall on multiples or evenly divided fractional multiples of tones. Sidebands can be ANYwhere in relation to the primary tone, therefor can be harmonic or inharmonic depending on where they fall. Jitter can have either, or both. Well a broken clock is right twice a day, so yeah, technically harmonics can be in there alongside the inharmonic nasties. |
|
|
|
Post by trakworxmastering on Apr 19, 2024 18:14:46 GMT -6
I've had more than one conversation with converter designers who were offended by the notion that external clocking would be better than the clocking they painstakingly designed and implemented. It makes sense! Unless sometimes we simply prefer less precision, like I described in my last post. I’m not disagreeing with you but I probably have had as many conversations with designers who have said their clock design was redone to hit a price point. I get it but the problem is communicating beyond ad speak that we actually took time and effort to design a decent clock. True dat. I was talking to Lavry and Burl. Some other companies I can imagine that happening. That's why we can't generalize about external clocking. It depends... |
|
..
