|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 27, 2014 14:27:17 GMT -6
Basically all I did here was take a mix that was clocked by the BLA Sparrow Red Mk II with the XB clock, and null it out to the same mix printed with the Apogee Ensemble's clock. I'm also putting files of the sides for both the Sparrow and Apogee because when you hear it you will think something went wrong because of what is coming out of the sides. Now, nothing has changed but the clocking, I powered all my gear up, let it sit for an hour, printed the XB version and then swapped over the WC cables so the Apogee was clocking and properly terminated, and printed the Apogee version. I did this for tonycamphd, but it seems like something people can dissect and study. I've always said that when I ever switched clocks it felt like a blanket was put over my speakers and the stereo image collapsed, so this pretty much sums up what I was hearing. You're welcome to take the original files and do your own testing, just keep the material in your possession and don't be doing any demonstrations elsewhere as this is a client of mine and they are about to release this. www.dropbox.com/sh/xn1yoah8sftsn43/AAB4RuQETkZ6qSv9Bv6lSRCga |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098 
|
Post by ericn on Jul 27, 2014 14:36:36 GMT -6
For clocks I don't think a Null test represents much of what it is doing, A Null shows us the audio example of how a specific converter deals with that clock.
It's very easy to see what a clock is doing with a scope.
One of my favorite clocks (as I show just how esoteric I can get in an esoteric arena) is the Brainstorm, simply becaus it shows what the clock is doing!
But hey I bought Aardsync II just to sync my 440 8 track!
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 27, 2014 16:30:40 GMT -6
I am not completely sure of what I am listening to.
I don't know what XB is.
I listened to all of them, and paid particular attention to the two FULL versions.
I liked the sound of the Apogee over the XB version. Stereo seemed more pleasant.
The Null has left a pretty big amount of stuff there, particularly the organ.
Could you explain a little better as to whats going on here if you have a minute or two?
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 27, 2014 16:50:19 GMT -6
Clocking only affects the playback D. to A. ao null tests are meaningless unless they involve an analog transfer. Even then digitizing it again can alter the FM distortion spectrum favorably or unfavorably.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 27, 2014 17:36:33 GMT -6
I am not completely sure of what I am listening to. I don't know what XB is. I listened to all of them, and paid particular attention to the two FULL versions. I liked the sound of the Apogee over the XB version. Stereo seemed more pleasant. The Null has left a pretty big amount of stuff there, particularly the organ. Could you explain a little better as to whats going on here if you have a minute or two? cheers Wiz The organ is pushed to the outside by the eventide and is really only meant to add fullness. I'm not exactly sure why it's sticking out like that, it seemed odd to me, but basically all this is, is the same mix clocked by the BLA Clock, it's XB because that's the name of the clock in the A/D converter. The other is clocked off my Ensemble and then both files are lined up, and the phase flipped on one. By doing this it's like nulling out say a kick, or anything for that matter, so if there are any differences between the files it will "slip" through. What you're hearing is information that is somehow different between the two clocks. But like I said, I still don't understand why the organ was so pronounced on the null, that seemed odd to me, but it's the same exact mix, just two different clocks. I had told Tony in another post I would do a null test for him because he is looking at getting the FM192 converters but with the clock that is in my A/D, the XB. I just thought I'd post it for others to chime in on what their impressions are. For me, I feel like the Apogee is the lesser, but to each is own. Bob pointed some technical stuff out below, and I trust what he's saying, although I don't have any other means to compare clocks besides using the null method. |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 27, 2014 17:44:02 GMT -6
is the organ printed? or is it running in real time, e.g. software instrument. The randomness in the rotor speaker might cause this is its not printed.. same with verbs.
Whats the AD converter that has the XB clock in it?
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 27, 2014 18:49:07 GMT -6
is the organ printed? or is it running in real time, e.g. software instrument. The randomness in the rotor speaker might cause this is its not printed.. same with verbs. Whats the AD converter that has the XB clock in it? cheers Wiz Yeah it's printed, everything is printed besides internal reverbs. I even make my own drum rooms and print those from the reverb send to a track so it feels more natural (if they are not any good of course) 8) It's the Black Lion Sparrow A/D Red MKII |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 28, 2014 9:06:47 GMT -6
I like the Apogee too. Just more full sounding. The XB has an edge on the top end and everything else sounds thinner.
Then again, it's such a very small difference, I would use either. For the XB, just not cut so much low end. For the Apogee, just add a little top end.
Done, no biggie, both are very usable.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 28, 2014 9:54:30 GMT -6
1st, thanx for doing this jeromemason I haven't had a chance to listen to all of these yet, but i did a quick listen to the main mix conversions this morning, i will listen to them again later also. When i listen to things analytically, i zone into certain elements, and then frisk them top to bottom/front to back with realism being the first thing on my mind. The intro acoustic, the intro drum fill, and the ride cymbal starting at around 3:20 really jumped out at me, they have a realism on the apogee version that the XB version seemed to lack by comparison? this sense of realism is what makes me love my FM002 so much, so i'm now wondering if i should save a few $'s and just have them do the FM clock instead of the XB clock on the 192? (with my quick listen)The only place i thought the XB beat the apogee was on the hi hats, the apogee had more of a sandy/grainy wash thing happening there, where the XB was more focused, but overall the apogee wins on my first listening. Both are really good Jerome, you do nice work man! for me, these types of samples are tough to decipher, Unfortunately for my wallet, it's living with gear that tells the true story IME |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 28, 2014 12:43:22 GMT -6
This is all very very interesting...... I was thinking the Apogee had some more low end too, but there's something about the overall sound to me that makes me want to keep clocking on the BLA...... not sure, it just sounds tighter in the lowend to me, and sparkles on the top. I mean like Svart said, you just add whatever is lacking, no big deal, but I suppose I trust the BLA more I guess. One thing that could be, and this is a theory by some out there, is that since the Apogee is doing all the D/A conversion to the summing unit, and the BLA is just converting the two mix from the summing unit, that it might be better to clock off it. I've heard the argument both ways, some will say to clock off the converter doing the most work, other will say to have a dedicated clock. Who knows, but I always enjoy my mixes and the BLA just does it for me. Now, another thing tonycamphd, since you're talking about using the clock in the multichannel converter, that could be similar to how my Apogee is going...in fact it is the exact same thing except the FM192 is a shit ton better. If it were me honestly, go with what Shipshape the shit said, get the one he had and call it a day. Not only him but Allison and the Union Station guys were all salivating over that converter and clock, and you better believe everyone in that room had a highly acute sense of hearing detail. I almost bought one, but I don't run HD, and you've got to have HD for those converters. I'm not spending 7k for entry into HD. |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 28, 2014 12:43:31 GMT -6
***
Double post
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 28, 2014 12:53:14 GMT -6
This is all very very interesting...... I was thinking the Apogee had some more low end too, but there's something about the overall sound to me that makes me want to keep clocking on the BLA...... not sure, it just sounds tighter in the lowend to me, and sparkles on the top. I mean like Svart said, you just add whatever is lacking, no big deal, but I suppose I trust the BLA more I guess. One thing that could be, and this is a theory by some out there, is that since the Apogee is doing all the D/A conversion to the summing unit, and the BLA is just converting the two mix from the summing unit, that it might be better to clock off it. I've heard the argument both ways, some will say to clock off the converter doing the most work, other will say to have a dedicated clock. Who knows, but I always enjoy my mixes and the BLA just does it for me. Now, another thing tonycamphd, since you're talking about using the clock in the multichannel converter, that could be similar to how my Apogee is going...in fact it is the exact same thing except the FM192 is a shit ton better. If it were me honestly, go with what Shipshape the shit said, get the one he had and call it a day. Not only him but Allison and the Union Station guys were all salivating over that converter and clock, and you better believe everyone in that room had a highly acute sense of hearing detail. I almost bought one, but I don't run HD, and you've got to have HD for those converters. I'm not spending 7k for entry into HD. HD, not the case, I though so also, but I've since been straightened out, pt10/11 non HD, with a HD native card supposedly works a treat, $1,200 gets u in that. Source BLA and vintage king |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 28, 2014 14:21:00 GMT -6
This is all very very interesting...... I was thinking the Apogee had some more low end too, but there's something about the overall sound to me that makes me want to keep clocking on the BLA...... not sure, it just sounds tighter in the lowend to me, and sparkles on the top. I mean like Svart said, you just add whatever is lacking, no big deal, but I suppose I trust the BLA more I guess. One thing that could be, and this is a theory by some out there, is that since the Apogee is doing all the D/A conversion to the summing unit, and the BLA is just converting the two mix from the summing unit, that it might be better to clock off it. I've heard the argument both ways, some will say to clock off the converter doing the most work, other will say to have a dedicated clock. Who knows, but I always enjoy my mixes and the BLA just does it for me. Now, another thing tonycamphd, since you're talking about using the clock in the multichannel converter, that could be similar to how my Apogee is going...in fact it is the exact same thing except the FM192 is a shit ton better. If it were me honestly, go with what Shipshape the shit said, get the one he had and call it a day. Not only him but Allison and the Union Station guys were all salivating over that converter and clock, and you better believe everyone in that room had a highly acute sense of hearing detail. I almost bought one, but I don't run HD, and you've got to have HD for those converters. I'm not spending 7k for entry into HD. HD, not the case, I though so also, but I've since been straightened out, pt10/11 non HD, with a HD native card supposedly works a treat, $1,200 gets u in that. Source BLA and vintage king Are you sure??? They both had told me that too, but then called back and said they were mistaken. It would be killer if true! Btw: I called up BLA and talked to them, the Sparrow Red does NOT have the xb clock, it has an upgraded version of what is in the Micro clock. So, someone there told me wrong, but that was over 2 years ago. I also talked to them to see if I can just have my Sparrow upgraded to the XB, not touching the analog section, sounded like they might work with me on that. The Micro clock is impressive for what it is though, I know a lot of guys that use them. So, with that said, you should still maybe pursue the XB because I was just told that it is far superior to the FM. In fact, They were telling me about an engineer that just put an order through for 6 units like you want that is tracking U2, so there ya go. Guy actually held the session off because 3 units were not done, and woldn't start the session until he had them all back. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098
|
Post by ericn on Jul 28, 2014 14:43:50 GMT -6
HD Native only works with HD 9-11 software ,
11 won't work with an old Blue face
New Avid 192s will work with 9-11
But good old PCI HD wich will work with anything before 11 is dirt cheap!
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 28, 2014 15:08:36 GMT -6
Interesting Jerome, HD Native card works with non HD pt 10/11 is what I've been told? I'm planning on going this route, so it better be true lol
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098
|
Post by ericn on Jul 28, 2014 15:14:13 GMT -6
Interesting Jerome, HD Native card works with non HD pt 10/11 is what I've been told? I'm planning on going this route, so it better be true lol I would double check with AVID directly, "works with" and Supported, stable and properly are different things. It might work for 32 I/O but I'm 99% sure your not going to get the low latency as with HD! |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 28, 2014 15:30:45 GMT -6
Interesting Jerome, HD Native card works with non HD pt 10/11 is what I've been told? I'm planning on going this route, so it better be true lol I would double check with AVID directly, "works with" and Supported, stable and properly are different things. It might work for 32 I/O but I'm 99% sure your not going to get the low latency as with HD! Hey Eric, I think we are talking about just having the ability to use the actual converters, not really anything to do with the HD functionality. Tony is wanting the FM192's, I was told to be able to use them you had to have an HD system with at least the entry level Omni and the native TB box/Native Card. But something might of changed, it would be sweet if it did. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098
|
Post by ericn on Jul 28, 2014 16:03:27 GMT -6
I would double check with AVID directly, "works with" and Supported, stable and properly are different things. It might work for 32 I/O but I'm 99% sure your not going to get the low latency as with HD! Hey Eric, I think we are talking about just having the ability to use the actual converters, not really anything to do with the HD functionality. Tony is wanting the FM192's, I was told to be able to use them you had to have an HD system with at least the entry level Omni and the native TB box/Native Card. But something might of changed, it would be sweet if it did. Jerome everything I have seen says to use an HD native card you need hd software, I even thought of HD native card with PT Soft last year and was Told no go by my source at AVID. If its anything like running an HD rig with Just PT soft I can tell you It will make you run out and buy the HD software ! It's barely stable on Software with 16 out and the latency was impossible. Also Avid will provide no support for this configuration . |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 29, 2014 13:26:27 GMT -6
ericn jeromemason here's the email I got from Jeff at Vintage king Hi Anthony, > > Thanks for your patience while I got a few things sorted out. First, you can indeed run Pro Tools 10 or 11 (non-HD) and use the HD Native PCIe card to connect your 192 or HD Series I/O. > > If you are looking to purchase just a card and an upgrade of Pro Tools 11 from Pro Tools 10 (still giving you a license to run 10) > Thanks! > Take Care,
|
|
