Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER Compatibility

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2010, 09:07 AM   #1
DeyBwah
Human being with feelings
 
DeyBwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,572
Default Anyone using Lynx Aurora + AES16e w/REAPER?

Hey all,

I'm looking into the Lynx Aurora 16 + AES16e PCI Express card and just curious if anyone here is using that successfully with REAPER. I'm mainly concerned with how the drivers play with REAPER. Thanks!
__________________
HDSPe | D-Box | MP500-NV | Essence | Obsidian | SM57 | Beta52 | Equi=Tech | CMS40 | HS80 w/HS10W http://soundcloud.com/deybwah | http://www.facebook.com/pages/DeyBwah/208627672487538 | http://twitter.com/#!/DeyBwah
DeyBwah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 09:16 AM   #2
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeyBwah View Post
Hey all,

I'm looking into the Lynx Aurora 16 + AES16e PCI Express card and just curious if anyone here is using that successfully with REAPER. I'm mainly concerned with how the drivers play with REAPER. Thanks!
you may be ok with the AES16e, but be aware that if you have any issues, they probably wont be resolved quickly or at all and youll be caught in the eternal beta test. for years i used the AES16 then the AES16e, i was stuck using old drivers that were a couple of years old and not even intended for the OS im on. i finally got tired of it and recently made the switch to the RME HDSPe. I LOVE IT and i wish id changed much sooner. i ran both an aurora 16 and a rosetta 800 from the AES16 and now both from the RME without an issue from reaper. the only problems were the lynx drivers for the AES16(e). again, you might get lucky with the lynx, but id just get the RME and call it a day.
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 09:21 AM   #3
DeyBwah
Human being with feelings
 
DeyBwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,572
Default

Which OS are you on? Thanks!
__________________
HDSPe | D-Box | MP500-NV | Essence | Obsidian | SM57 | Beta52 | Equi=Tech | CMS40 | HS80 w/HS10W http://soundcloud.com/deybwah | http://www.facebook.com/pages/DeyBwah/208627672487538 | http://twitter.com/#!/DeyBwah
DeyBwah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 09:49 AM   #4
DeyBwah
Human being with feelings
 
DeyBwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,572
Default

So you're running a Lynx Aurora 16 to your RME HDSPe card? There's no disadvantages to using two different brands? In other words, they play well together?

What were the issues you were having when you ran the Aurora 16 with AES16e?
__________________
HDSPe | D-Box | MP500-NV | Essence | Obsidian | SM57 | Beta52 | Equi=Tech | CMS40 | HS80 w/HS10W http://soundcloud.com/deybwah | http://www.facebook.com/pages/DeyBwah/208627672487538 | http://twitter.com/#!/DeyBwah
DeyBwah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 12:01 PM   #5
audioguy_on_ca
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 259
Default

think of the card in your computer as the bridge between it and your converters that allow an AES signal to pass back and forth. brand is irrelevant as long as it speaks the same language (AES format) and does what you need it to do.
__________________
"We're like geeky and shit: I'm hanging out on a message board about a recording program. It's kinda expected to be all up in arms about something as ridiculously abstract as 24->16 bit dithering..." -RPR usr nickm
audioguy_on_ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 12:13 PM   #6
DBMusic
Human being with feelings
 
DBMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,195
Default

I recommend the RME AES-32. Used it for years here running to Lavry and HEDD converters (also in the process of adding an Aurora 8 to the mix). Never a single problem. RME writes some of the best drivers around.

Regards,

DB
__________________
My Stuff
DBMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 12:22 PM   #7
DeyBwah
Human being with feelings
 
DeyBwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,572
Default

Will the RME HDSPe AES card work with non-RME stuff? Namely the Aurora 16?
__________________
HDSPe | D-Box | MP500-NV | Essence | Obsidian | SM57 | Beta52 | Equi=Tech | CMS40 | HS80 w/HS10W http://soundcloud.com/deybwah | http://www.facebook.com/pages/DeyBwah/208627672487538 | http://twitter.com/#!/DeyBwah
DeyBwah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 01:37 PM   #8
davidandmary1
Human being with feelings
 
davidandmary1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeyBwah View Post
Will the RME HDSPe AES card work with non-RME stuff? Namely the Aurora 16?

Sure! The Aurora is just you AD/DA/ The RME HDSPe AES care is your interface. You get Total Mix with the RME as well. I used to use the RME FF400. I think Total Mix is nice. Anyway, the answer is yes. You get the best drivers in the Business with that RME card and the Converters from Lynx are close to "boutique" from what I hear. I have a Lynx TWO-A and the converters there are nice. I have tried it with Mac and PC. I hear that the Aurora is a noticeable step up in the converters. I bet that would be a great setup...
davidandmary1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 02:56 PM   #9
DeyBwah
Human being with feelings
 
DeyBwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidandmary1 View Post
Sure! The Aurora is just you AD/DA/ The RME HDSPe AES care is your interface. You get Total Mix with the RME as well. I used to use the RME FF400. I think Total Mix is nice. Anyway, the answer is yes. You get the best drivers in the Business with that RME card and the Converters from Lynx are close to "boutique" from what I hear. I have a Lynx TWO-A and the converters there are nice. I have tried it with Mac and PC. I hear that the Aurora is a noticeable step up in the converters. I bet that would be a great setup...
That's good to know.

The only issue is the discrepancy in price between the HDSPe AES and the Lynx AES16e... and not to mention the AES16e has a slight edge with latency..

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music...ta-test-i.html

I've spoken to many different folks including the customer service at Lynx, and they say the AES16e is compatible with Windows 7 64-bit. I may just go that route unless something else surfaces.

Thanks for you input, much appreciated!
__________________
HDSPe | D-Box | MP500-NV | Essence | Obsidian | SM57 | Beta52 | Equi=Tech | CMS40 | HS80 w/HS10W http://soundcloud.com/deybwah | http://www.facebook.com/pages/DeyBwah/208627672487538 | http://twitter.com/#!/DeyBwah
DeyBwah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 03:45 PM   #10
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeyBwah View Post
That's good to know.

The only issue is the discrepancy in price between the HDSPe AES and the Lynx AES16e... and not to mention the AES16e has a slight edge with latency..

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music...ta-test-i.html

I've spoken to many different folks including the customer service at Lynx, and they say the AES16e is compatible with Windows 7 64-bit. I may just go that route unless something else surfaces.

Thanks for you input, much appreciated!
yeah, thats my post from gearslutz. ive run all above mentioned on xp, w7x64, and w7x86. aes/ebu cards dont care what converter you use and vice-versa. there is no advantage to matching AES16(e) with the Aurora. the lynx appears to have an edge in terms of latency, but the difference is not noticeable and is far outweighed by the instability of the lynx card. the lynx starts to show artefacts at about 50% cpu and is pretty much unusable around 80% unless you are pretty lucky. the RME goes past 100% cpu and still plays without a glitch -- pretty damned impressive.

if you do flip the coin and go with the lynx with w7x64, and you have any issues, use driver version 16 and firmware version 7 as it tested to be the most stable in problem situations. if you have issues, hit up the lynx forum. nice guys, well-meaning, but cant seem to fix huge issues after many driver revisions.

Last edited by shawnguess; 04-23-2010 at 04:06 PM.
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 05:22 PM   #11
Shan
Human being with feelings
 
Shan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeyBwah View Post
Will the RME HDSPe AES card work with non-RME stuff? Namely the Aurora 16?
Ah...back to the original suggestion I gave you on the DUC awhile back:

http://duc.digidesign.com/showpost.p...5&postcount=11

Your going in circles bro-ski.

Buy it and let us know how it works out.

Shane
__________________
"Music should be performed by the musician not by the engineer."

Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM
Shan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 10:53 PM   #12
DeyBwah
Human being with feelings
 
DeyBwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnguess View Post
yeah, thats my post from gearslutz. ive run all above mentioned on xp, w7x64, and w7x86. aes/ebu cards dont care what converter you use and vice-versa. there is no advantage to matching AES16(e) with the Aurora. the lynx appears to have an edge in terms of latency, but the difference is not noticeable and is far outweighed by the instability of the lynx card. the lynx starts to show artefacts at about 50% cpu and is pretty much unusable around 80% unless you are pretty lucky. the RME goes past 100% cpu and still plays without a glitch -- pretty damned impressive.

if you do flip the coin and go with the lynx with w7x64, and you have any issues, use driver version 16 and firmware version 7 as it tested to be the most stable in problem situations. if you have issues, hit up the lynx forum. nice guys, well-meaning, but cant seem to fix huge issues after many driver revisions.
Nice, your post was very helpful all around. Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge on the two cards. Man.. the HDSPe is close to 2x the price of the AES16e... I'll have to sleep on this one. Is there anything else beyond stability(not to say stability isn't a good enough reason) where the HDSPe tops the AES16e? I know the latency is better on the AES16e but what about other variables.. although I don't know what other variables exist considering the converters are what really matter right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
Ah...back to the original suggestion I gave you on the DUC awhile back:

http://duc.digidesign.com/showpost.p...5&postcount=11

Your going in circles bro-ski.

Buy it and let us know how it works out.

Shane
Haha Shane.

It's funny because I didn't know what the HDSPe was exactly.. I'm recently talked to my friend who's an engineer, after about 2 hours of Q and A, I finally understand how the big boys do it. It's surprising how much hand-holding occurs when you use all-in-one interfaces like the 002 for many years. It never occurred to me the journey a signal makes from the source to one's monitors.

Thanks fellas!
__________________
HDSPe | D-Box | MP500-NV | Essence | Obsidian | SM57 | Beta52 | Equi=Tech | CMS40 | HS80 w/HS10W http://soundcloud.com/deybwah | http://www.facebook.com/pages/DeyBwah/208627672487538 | http://twitter.com/#!/DeyBwah
DeyBwah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2010, 11:55 PM   #13
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeyBwah View Post
Is there anything else beyond stability(not to say stability isn't a good enough reason) where the HDSPe tops the AES16e?
hdspe has a built in midi i/o with very tight timing, you can use multiple cards reliably, better mixer. . .but honestly, none of that mattered to me anyway, i just got tired of hitting play and hearing static randomly. then having to stop play stop play to make it go away or actually reset the card. doesnt take too many of those to piss you off bad enough to spend twice as much for a card that just works. and the problem was not unique to me. head over to the lynx forums, the driver release threads, youll see.
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 02:47 PM   #14
DeyBwah
Human being with feelings
 
DeyBwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnguess View Post
hdspe has a built in midi i/o with very tight timing, you can use multiple cards reliably, better mixer. . .but honestly, none of that mattered to me anyway, i just got tired of hitting play and hearing static randomly. then having to stop play stop play to make it go away or actually reset the card. doesnt take too many of those to piss you off bad enough to spend twice as much for a card that just works. and the problem was not unique to me. head over to the lynx forums, the driver release threads, youll see.
I guess I'll have to be patient and go with the HDSPe AES card.. I actually use quite a bit of MIDI so that's a plus. Thanks mate!
__________________
HDSPe | D-Box | MP500-NV | Essence | Obsidian | SM57 | Beta52 | Equi=Tech | CMS40 | HS80 w/HS10W http://soundcloud.com/deybwah | http://www.facebook.com/pages/DeyBwah/208627672487538 | http://twitter.com/#!/DeyBwah
DeyBwah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2010, 02:55 PM   #15
Shan
Human being with feelings
 
Shan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeyBwah View Post
I guess I'll have to be patient and go with the HDSPe AES card.. I actually use quite a bit of MIDI so that's a plus. Thanks mate!
Keep us posted on this venture, as many others are also looking into this card.

Shane
__________________
"Music should be performed by the musician not by the engineer."

Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM
Shan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2010, 01:27 AM   #16
DeyBwah
Human being with feelings
 
DeyBwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,572
Default

Will do Shane.
__________________
HDSPe | D-Box | MP500-NV | Essence | Obsidian | SM57 | Beta52 | Equi=Tech | CMS40 | HS80 w/HS10W http://soundcloud.com/deybwah | http://www.facebook.com/pages/DeyBwah/208627672487538 | http://twitter.com/#!/DeyBwah
DeyBwah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 01:27 AM   #17
DeyBwah
Human being with feelings
 
DeyBwah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,572
Default

So I'm finally getting ready to get my hands on a Lynx Aurora 16 and RME HDSPe AES PCIe card. I'm just looking into the DB25 cable... I've read that I need a tascam to yamaha pinout. Anyway, looking forward to a rock-solid stable system!! And TotalMix...!!
__________________
HDSPe | D-Box | MP500-NV | Essence | Obsidian | SM57 | Beta52 | Equi=Tech | CMS40 | HS80 w/HS10W http://soundcloud.com/deybwah | http://www.facebook.com/pages/DeyBwah/208627672487538 | http://twitter.com/#!/DeyBwah
DeyBwah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 04:26 AM   #18
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 3,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeyBwah
So I'm finally getting ready to get my hands on a Lynx Aurora 16 and RME HDSPe AES PCIe card. I'm just looking into the DB25 cable... I've read that I need a tascam to yamaha pinout. Anyway, looking forward to a rock-solid stable system!! And TotalMix...!!
Congrats man !!

Let us know how it turns out.

You're gonna love it like you love your Great River

Make sure you get that cable speced right !!
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 07:10 AM   #19
DBMusic
Human being with feelings
 
DBMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeyBwah View Post
So I'm finally getting ready to get my hands on a Lynx Aurora 16 and RME HDSPe AES PCIe card. I'm just looking into the DB25 cable... I've read that I need a tascam to yamaha pinout. Anyway, looking forward to a rock-solid stable system!! And TotalMix...!!
Yep, tascam from the RME and yamaha from the Aurora. I interface the two with a BOB-32.

Good choice. You won't be disappointed. Give yourself a little time with TotalMix to get your head around it. Once you get it though, it's pretty awesome.

Congrats!

DB
__________________
My Stuff
DBMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 07:20 AM   #20
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

then when youre ready for the system to sound even better, get a big ben =)
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 07:34 AM   #21
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 3,291
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnguess
then when youre ready for the system to sound even better, get a big ben
A big ol' +100 on that !

Check out what Fletcher had to say in the listening tests with the Big Ben added.

When Fletcher speaks, I listen:

http://www.mercenary.com/lyau16maco.html
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 11:34 AM   #22
audioguy_on_ca
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 259
Default

yeah, well, be sure to take what he says with a grain of salt...until you can repeatedly verify what he says with your own ears.
__________________
"We're like geeky and shit: I'm hanging out on a message board about a recording program. It's kinda expected to be all up in arms about something as ridiculously abstract as 24->16 bit dithering..." -RPR usr nickm
audioguy_on_ca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 11:43 AM   #23
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioguy_on_ca View Post
yeah, well, be sure to take what he says with a grain of salt...until you can repeatedly verify what he says with your own ears.
i do agree agree about the above fletcher statement. people seem to take his opinions as the final say on just about anything based on his self-proclaimed expertise. not to say that hes not right about some things, i just think his god-like status is a bit unjustified.

ive personally compared aurora vs rosetta vs big ben clocks -- do yourself a favor and get a big ben. but dont trust anything anyone says, including me, until you hear it with your own ears.
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 11:48 AM   #24
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 3,291
Default

Hey I just said "I listen" -- not "I fall down on my knees in awe"

That said, he is often close if not bang on.

But, you're right, I start from there and then use my own ears.
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 11:57 AM   #25
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 1,979
Default

Unless you need to clock a few pieces of digital equipment then an external clock, even one as good as the Big Ben won't give you any benefit.


S.O.S did a great article about external clocks recently which was very scientific and in depth,there conclusion was; the internal clock of your main audio device will always give better results than even the most expensive external one.

External clocks are only of use if you need to clock a few digital units in yor studio.


MC
__________________
www.norburybrookstudios.com
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:01 PM   #26
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
Unless you need to clock a few pieces of digital equipment then an external clock, even one as good as the Big Ben won't give you any benefit.


S.O.S did a great article about external clocks recently which was very scientific and in depth,there conclusion was; the internal clock of your main audio device will always give better results than even the most expensive external one.

External clocks are only of use if you need to clock a few digital units in yor studio.


MC
i completely disagree. obviously, people should use what works best for them in their situation. but when i flip the BB off and on vs the aurora clocking itself, i hear the difference and the difference is significant. its double blind, someone else is doing the flipping, and i can tell you which one is the clock with 100% reliability.

EDIT -- i should qualify this by saying that a great clock will not make a mediocre converter sound good. but if you have a good converter, a better clock can improve it even more. and by "significant" i certainly dont mean the difference in good mic position or bad, but a difference than can be heard by a a layman when a/b'd.

Last edited by shawnguess; 08-01-2010 at 12:14 PM.
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:15 PM   #27
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 1,979
Default

Even Dan Lavry makes the same point about external clocks.


Post Re: external clock - how much do I loose ?
musicsound wrote:
I saw/heard somewhere that it´s rather a sound decline than an improvement if I clock a converter externally.

I have just ordered a Lavry blue (2AD + 2 DA) but it will happen that I have to use the wordclock from my Antelope OCX to synchronize all my digital equipment incl. the Lavy converters.

How much will this affect my overall sound quality ?
The OCX is certainly quite a good clock BUT: external.


It is very difficult to quantify without looking at the whole system in place.
As a rule, you lose a lot if the converters are poorly designed, and you loose very little if the converters are deswigned well.

My comments about internal clocks being better are not aimed at discouraging people from using external clocks when they need to. There are many times when people need to use external clocks. For example, one may wish to converts many channels of converters (at different chassis) which calls for a comon clock. In such a case, an external clock is in order. A very good clock jitter rejection circuitry can yield results almost as good as an good internal clock.

My comments pointing out that internal is fundumentaly better were to let people know that claims by some clock makers are false. The claims that external clocking can improve conversion are conceptualy false, and in most real world cases those claims are false as well.

Thus one should apply an external clock when needed, and try to minimize the down side by use of good converters.

The Blue DA has a very good jitter rejection, it does not even have an external clock connector. Having external clock to a DA is asking for trouble - the jitter associated with the cable and clock reciever makes this approach "questionable".

The Blue AD can be operated with external clock and the loss of quality is very minimal. As always, I would highly recomand using short cables when possible. As a rule, a poor quality short 3 foot cable is better then a very good quality 30foot run...

Regards
Dan Lavry


I think Dan lavry needs no introduction and this was born out with in depth testing by SOS recently.

MC
__________________
www.norburybrookstudios.com
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:27 PM   #28
ReaDave
Human being with feelings
 
ReaDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia (originally from Geelong)
Posts: 5,485
Default

Um, cable jitter??? This is starting to sound like snake oil to me. I don't believe a decent cable run over a short distance is going to degrade a high quality, low jitter signal from a good external clock to the extent that it is worse than a lower quality internal clock.

I'd like to see technical evidence that a high quality external clock is going to be a step backwards from a typical internal clock of lower quality before I'll entertain that thought.

Perhaps then I'll also colour in the edges of my CD's with one of those special black pens to decrease their jitter too!!!!
ReaDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:28 PM   #29
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

well think of it this way, and lavry's statements certainly dont negate this:

if we're talking about the same clock either external or internal, then obviously the internal is better. ie, apogee ad16x or da16x when clocked internally or to a big ben, of course by the numbers the ad or da will be better (probably not audibly so). but take anything whose clock is not as good as the c777 found in both units, the benefit of the better clock will outweigh the miniscule difference made by the fact that it is derived externally, which is the situation with the lynx clock vs the c777.
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:34 PM   #30
ReaDave
Human being with feelings
 
ReaDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia (originally from Geelong)
Posts: 5,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnguess View Post
well think of it this way, and lavry's statements certainly dont negate this:

if we're talking about the same clock either external or internal, then obviously the internal is better. ie, apogee ad16x or da16x when clocked internally or to a big ben, of course by the numbers the ad or da will be better (probably not audibly so). but take anything whose clock is not as good as the c777 found in both units, the benefit of the better clock will outweigh the miniscule difference made by the fact that it is derived externally, which is the situation with the lynx clock vs the c777.
+1. That is exactly my point above.
ReaDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:39 PM   #31
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 1,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannii View Post
Um, cable jitter??? This is starting to sound like snake oil to me. I don't believe a decent cable run over a short distance is going to degrade a high quality, low jitter signal from a good external clock to the extent that it is worse than a lower quality internal clock.

I'd like to see technical evidence that a high quality external clock is going to be a step backwards from a typical internal clock of lower quality before I'll entertain that thought.

Perhaps then I'll also colour in the edges of my CD's with one of those special black pens to decrease their jitter too!!!!

Cable jitter is very easy to see on a word clock signal, why do you think there's a difference between regular mic cable and 75 OHM digital cable?

Also most internal clocks even on budget equipment are actually very good, it's not an expensive part of the interface.

I'm always wary of 'snake oil' statements in pro audio circles but this is a long way from that.

if you've a SOS subscription or you are intersted enough to spend £0.99 then check this out

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun1...sterclocks.htm


MC
__________________
www.norburybrookstudios.com
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:46 PM   #32
ReaDave
Human being with feelings
 
ReaDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia (originally from Geelong)
Posts: 5,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
Cable jitter is very easy to see on a word clock signal, why do you think there's a difference between regular mic cable and 75 OHM digital cable?

Also most internal clocks even on budget equipment are actually very good, it's not an expensive part of the interface.

I'm always wary of 'snake oil' statements in pro audio circles but this is a long way from that.

if you've a SOS subscription or you are intersted enough to spend £0.99 then check this out

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun1...sterclocks.htm


MC
I think perhaps my wording was misunderstood here. I am not debating the reality of cable jitter (I'm qualified in electronics with 1/4 century experience in design and construction). What I was calling into question was the significance (or lack thereof) that any jitter introduced by high quality, short run, properly impedance matched cable has on the impact of a high quality external clock signal when applied to a converter with lesser quality internal clocks.
ReaDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:48 PM   #33
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

jitter, c1, and c2 errors are very easy to detect on a cd as well, but their presence doesnt necessarily result in a negative affect to the audio due to the correction mechanisms that are in place. the same could be said here.
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:54 PM   #34
ReaDave
Human being with feelings
 
ReaDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia (originally from Geelong)
Posts: 5,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnguess View Post
jitter, c1, and c2 errors are very easy to detect on a cd as well, but their presence doesnt necessarily result in a negative affect to the audio due to the correction mechanisms that are in place. the same could be said here.
Spot on SG. Again, that is why I used that example.
I must add though that the CD player jitter correction is considerably different to the process of applying an external clock to a digital converter. By it's very application, the whole point of applying an external clock for the sake of audio quality is to, as faithfully as possible, transfer that lower jitter signal unimpeded to the converter. If jitter correction was appplied internally to the external signal, there'd be no point doing it other than to sync to house clock.

The jitter from the eye pattern of the laser on a CD player is extreme and clearly visible to the naked eye when viewed on a scope. The reason we don't hear that jitter degrading our CD listening enjoyment is because the data is sent to a serial shift register and clocked out of that via the CD player's digital clock, thus nulling completely the eye pattern jitter.

Last edited by ReaDave; 08-01-2010 at 01:02 PM.
ReaDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 12:58 PM   #35
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 1,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannii View Post
I think perhaps my wording was misunderstood here. I am not debating the reality of cable jitter (I'm qualified in electronics with 1/4 century experience in design and construction). What I was calling into question was the significance (or lack thereof) that any jitter introduced by high quality, short run, properly impedance matched cable has on the impact of a high quality external clock signal when applied to a converter with lesser quality internal clocks.

sure, I was pointing out as Dan lavry has said on many occasions that the internal clock of most soundcards is better than using a high quality external one.

Obviously as I've already said, if you have to clock lots of external digital signals the best quality of external clock is very important.

I was trying to save DeyBwah spending money on something he doesn't need



MC
__________________
www.norburybrookstudios.com
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 01:09 PM   #36
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
I was pointing out as Dan lavry has said on many occasions that the internal clock of most soundcards is better than using a high quality external one.
i think thats a generalization that cant be made due to the vast array of options. is the internal clock of most converters sufficient? sure. is it as good as a high quality clock? obviously not.

im sure no one would argue the quality of an aurora converter and its clock, or that its better than a substantial number of other converters up to and including a lot of pro level gear. but i can hear what the big ben provides (im not alone in this, others have concluded the same when using the aurora, steven slate being one) that is an improvement on the aurora. the rosetta was better than the aurora and the big ben better than both.

i should also add that the RME HDSPe clock was tested as well and was the worst of the bunch by far.

again, we're not talking about the difference in your mix sounding good or not, we're talking about that last 0.5% that us audio snobs like to spend time on to make sure when everything else is done correctly that is not lost.
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 01:11 PM   #37
ReaDave
Human being with feelings
 
ReaDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Adelaide, South Australia (originally from Geelong)
Posts: 5,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook View Post
sure, I was pointing out as Dan lavry has said on many occasions that the internal clock of most soundcards is better than using a high quality external one.

Obviously as I've already said, if you have to clock lots of external digital signals the best quality of external clock is very important.

I was trying to save DeyBwah spending money on something he doesn't need



MC
...and therein lies the crux of the matter. If the clock on a given interrface is indeed equal to something like a Big Ben, then yes, spending money on a Big Ben would be a futile waste.
I'd be interested in seeing some up to date technical comparisons of modern converter clocks with something like a Big Ben. Not too long ago, there was indeed a vast chasm between typical internal clocks and high quality external ones. That may well have changed recently.
ReaDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 01:16 PM   #38
Cableaddict
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,883
Default

"Quote:
Originally Posted by norbury brook
"I was pointing out as Dan lavry has said on many occasions that the internal clock of most soundcards is better than using a high quality external one."

"i think thats a generalization that cant be made due to the vast array of options. is the internal clock of most converters sufficient? sure. is it as good as a high quality clock? obviously not. "

Norbury is correct. I used to be good friends with Dan. I've also seen actual charts made from jitter read-outs, across the full frequency spectrum, of various converters with & without external clocks.

This has to do with how a phase-lock loop works. The difference can be quite significant, SONICALLY. Yes, you can hear it easily. The only clock I know of that doesn't add jitter, and in fact can LOWER it in most converters, is the Apogee digital, as found in the Big Ben, AD16X, etc.

Dannii may have a point, though, about newer clocks being better. Still, the clock is the most important part of the converter, and the hardest thing to make well. You can't just buy a good one on a chip, and slap it into your circuit. The easy solution, for the end-user, is to buy a Big Ben, with the option to return it, and do a quick A-B test.

I can tell you personally that an Apogee clock improves the sound of a Digi 192 (tightens the bass) and VASTLY improves an old RME Hammerfall, (cleaner / sweeter) but does nothing for a Lynx AD16e / Aurora.

Last edited by Cableaddict; 08-01-2010 at 01:24 PM.
Cableaddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 01:17 PM   #39
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 1,979
Default

I don't doubt your personal experience.I have done the same I have a tested a Big Ben and a rosendhal against my Apogee and RME internal clocks a few years ago and came up with the same agreement as Dan lavry and the SOS people

I fortunately don't need a common etrernal studio clock as I've got rid of all my digital external Harware so it's not an issue here



MC
__________________
www.norburybrookstudios.com
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 01:19 PM   #40
norbury brook
Human being with feelings
 
norbury brook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London UK
Posts: 1,979
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannii View Post
I'd be interested in seeing some up to date technical comparisons of modern converter clocks with something like a Big Ben. Not too long ago, there was indeed a vast chasm between typical internal clocks and high quality external ones. That may well have changed recently.
Just download that article http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun1...sterclocks.htm that's exactly what you'll get


MC
__________________
www.norburybrookstudios.com
norbury brook is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.