Ignorant Word Clock Question

[joswil44]

I know nothing about Word Clocks.

All I do know is that my Nuendo 96K 8 I/O A/D Converters' Word clock settings are set to Internal and I believe my Nuendo/RME 96/52 recognizes that.

I believe it says they are synced and assumed I never needed to do anything else.

But I also notice that my 96/52 audio card, Nuendo 96k A/D converters and other gear all have BNC connectors for Word Clocks.

My Line 6 POD Pro also has a BNC connector.

Am I supposed to have these connected to eachother with a BNC cable?

If so or if not, what is the difference either way.

Thanks.

 

[bennychico11]

no. the word clock connections are for external, dedicated word clocks. Like this:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/BigBen/
This just allows you to have a master clock for ALL your digital gear.
If you did get a word clock, I'd plug it into your 96kHz I/O and set that unit to external.

however, if you're going in digital to your computer you'll want to set your software (Nuendo I'm guessing) to use external clock. That way it clocks off your digital signal.

 

[mixsit]

Another couple of general ideas on this..
The A/D and D/A's are where clock quality has the impact on the sound quality, and internal' is the default closest/tightest link to the converters.
Other digital functions -digi inputs, data routing to/from the daw for example and general sync tasks mostly just need a good solid signal and that can be had at the digi in/out or from word clock.

 

[MessianicDreams]

Always use your converters as clock source - as long as its a semi-decent converter. even a mediocre internal clock *should* always produce less jitter than using something like the Big Ben (i've done some research into this stuff...bottom line, apogee don't deliver what their blurb says they do).

if you're doing digital interconnects, for example your ADC to RME interface, set the ADC to be master source, and either using a wordclock BNC connection with RME in slave, or using the imbedded clock signal (it will be imbedded in any AES/EBU, ADAT lightpipe, S/PDIF, T/DIF signal).

If you have multiple digital interconnects, for example to external digital outboard, daisy-chaining clock signals isn't a great idea. Digital interfaces have PLLs (Phase Locked Loops) which are supposed to remove clock jitter, however going through multiple PLLs can actually add jitter to the signal. Either way, the PLL completely removes the clock and generates a new one, hopefully synchronus with the old one. either way, each time you're one generation removed from the clock source.

If you're going the imbedded clock way, thats fine as long as it's only a few units. however, if you've got more than that, then WC BNC is the best way to go. again, most units will have WC i/o, but daisy-chaining like that does not get around the PLL issue. so the best way is to use a star-shaped distribution system. Many people would suggest using a distribution amplifier, however this can add jitter and induce phase issues with the clock (an you have to buy lots of cable and the DA itself). I would suggest using BNC T-connectors, so that you never actually using the WC out (ie post-PLL). it means, whilst you can daisy-chain, you don't have any of the adverse effects - just make sure the last unit is properly terminated.

i think that, if you can get away with it, stand alone clocks like the Big Ben are a complete and utter waste of time. as are distribution amplifiers.



YMMV

 

[Ford Van]

Always use your converters as clock source - as long as its a semi-decent converter. even a mediocre internal clock *should* always produce less jitter than using something like the Big Ben (i've done some research into this stuff...bottom line, apogee don't deliver what their blurb says they do).



YMMV

Boy, mine did! This is about as fringe of a opinion as I have ever seen concerning word clocks!

 

[MessianicDreams]

Boy, mine did! This is about as fringe of a opinion as I have ever seen concerning word clocks!

well hey man, i'll let you argue it out with Bob Katz and Dan Lavry...




they're of identical opinions.





as i said, YMMV....



Ford Van vs the combined knowledge of BK and DL...i know who my money's on

 

[Gilliland]

This is about as fringe of a opinion as I have ever seen concerning word clocks!

Well, it's likely to be a "fringe" opinion if the bulk of the opinions come from people who make money selling external clocks. But the basic issue is this - it's much easier to generate an accurate and precise clock from an internal crystal than it is to capture one from an external source using a phase-locked loop. So in general, you are better off using an internal clock than an external clock - even if the external clock is the better unit.

And since the clock accuracy only matters at conversion time, it's the clock in your converters that you want to use.

The exception, of course, is where you have to sync converters in multiple units - in that case, you may be better off with an external clock. So studios that need to drive every piece of gear to a common clock really are better off with a good clock and a good distribution system. But for simpler needs where all conversion is being done in the same place, the internal clock is almost always the better choice.

The Big Ben may well start out as a cleaner clock than the one in whatever device you use for your converters. But by the time you've routed that clock signal through a cable into the PLL of your converter, it's no longer quite so precise.

 

[Ford Van]

Well, it's likely to be a "fringe" opinion if the bulk of the opinions come from people who make money selling external clocks. But the basic issue is this - it's much easier to generate an accurate and precise clock from an internal crystal than it is to capture one from an external source using a phase-locked loop. So in general, you are better off using an internal clock than an external clock - even if the external clock is the better unit.

And since the clock accuracy only matters at conversion time, it's the clock in your converters that you want to use.

The exception, of course, is where you have to sync converters in multiple units - in that case, you may be better off with an external clock. So studios that need to drive every piece of gear to a common clock really are better off with a good clock and a good distribution system. But for simpler needs where all conversion is being done in the same place, the internal clock is almost always the better choice.

The Big Ben may well start out as a cleaner clock than the one in whatever device you use for your converters. But by the time you've routed that clock signal through a cable into the PLL of your converter, it's no longer quite so precise.

Well, most of what you are saying is in fact true. But, I have used full digital systems AND stand alone recorders with and without a Big Ben clock. The difference between it on and off is OBVIOUS in both cases.

I could give a fuck what Katz and Lavry "talk" about, I trust what my EARS tell me! I have HEARD the difference a high quality word clock makes in a system, and have invested in the past based on that! One of those purchases was a Big Ben. I have FAR from regretted that investment.

Trust me, I don't like spending money on stuff that is not needed, and won't. I am VERY skeptical, and try to employ meaningful tests before purchasing things that many claim "don't make much of a difference".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I gotta agree somewhat with Ed on this one (Merry Christmas, Ed ), but without the bile. My experience has been that there's no substitute for a great sync signal. Internal clocking is fine, and yes it does make the most difference in the converters themselves, but a lack of syncronization across the board is often one of those factors that keep home wreckers from soundling like the pros.

Of course there are technical issues involved in sync signals. There are always technical issues involved with anything here. But with all due respect to Bob Katz, sometimes he has a tendency to lose the forest of reality for the technical trees. He gets so buried in the theory and the numbers that he has a tendency to end up at destinations that bear no resemblance to what actually happens on the macro level in the real world.

This sounds to me like it might be one of those cases again. There is no question in my mind - based upon my own experience that has nothing to do with numbers - that a signal chain that includes quality converters with quality master clocking will more often than not sound better than the identical chain without the master clocking.

Is master clocking clocking necessary? No. Neither is a Neumann U47. But it's sure nice to have.

G.

 

[MessianicDreams]

Well, it's likely to be a "fringe" opinion if the bulk of the opinions come from people who make money selling external clocks.

exactly - i think the bottom line is if you find that using an external clock - such as the Big Ben - and you're hearing a significant difference, then your converters are flawed.


that being the case - perhaps it would be better to invest in not flawed converters rather than expensive band-aids.

I've used quite a few converters which do sound MUCH better with a Big Ben, but I've also used quite a few that sound just the same, or even slightly worse, when clocked externally (which is the way it should be).

I am VERY skeptical, and try to employ meaningful tests before purchasing things that many claim "don't make much of a difference".

Perhaps you've been misreading, or misinterpreting what people are saying. It's not that it doesn't make a difference, it's that it SHOULDN'T make a difference. A good internal crystal oscillator (using it's fundamental, none of this DDS-IC-chip running on harmonics) implementation should always beat, or at least be equal to, external clock.



Ford, you brought up a very interesting point - about it sounding better to your ears. I always try to be wary of subjectivity - it's just like saying "this mic sounds better on this voice", it will vary from person to person. Numbers often allow for a more objective look at the subject matter - here, it would be important to measure clock jitter & phase, just as when looking at microphones frequency response, SNR etc would be important.

don't get me wrong - what sounds better to you is what is the most important at the end of the day. I just think the discussion stops working when people start saying that others are wrong because it "sounds better to my ears".

 

[Ford Van]

Of course there are technical issues involved in sync signals. There are always technical issues involved with anything here. But with all due respect to Bob Katz, sometimes he has a tendency to lose the forest of reality for the technical trees. He gets so buried in the theory and the numbers that he has a tendency to end up at destinations that bear no resemblance to what actually happens on the macro level in the real world.


.

Happy Holidays Glen.

What is funny was I was going to post something very similar to this when I checked back into this thread. LOL

 

[Ford Van]

As to the "the converters must be flawed" comment.

Flawed is a VERY misleading statement to make about something that works just fine, but could work better. Simply, different converters are engineered to meet a price point! Man, if I can make a cheap ol' Delta 1010 sound pretty darn close to a $2000 Apogee simply by using a $1200 word clock, that sounds like VALUE to me!

You can't have both sides of the issue go your way! Either budget converters DO or DO NOT sound better with a great external word clock!

I have heard first hand a NUMBER of DIFFERENT POPULAR converters clocked with an without a Big Ben. ALL have sounded better. These included: Apogee AD and DA 16's, Alesis HD24 96k, ADAT XT 20's, Delta 1010, Alesis Masterlink (clocked via the AES/EBU digital connection via a RME Hammerfall card).

Certainly not the most prestigious collection of converters on the market, but a very REALISTIC representation of what is out there that is popular.

 

[Gilliland]

I gotta agree somewhat with Ed on this one (Merry Christmas, Ed ), but without the bile. My experience has been that there's no substitute for a great sync signal.

Running multiple clocks is exactly the scenario in which I stated that a studio-wide clock was a necessity. So there's no argument there. If you run multiple digital devices without synchronization, you are asking for trouble. I can't even imagine trying to operate that way.

But many of us here are operating simple environments where all the conversion is being done in one unit. In that situation, an external clock is much more likely to make things worse than better (though the difference will be quite subtle in either direction).

I didn't detect any "bile" from Ed - he stated pretty clearly that he accepted what I said as true. He just believes that he hears an improvement when he uses the external clock. That's fine, but it's purely subjective. Other listeners might come to the opposite conclusion. There's just no way to be sure how much is real and how much is imagined. And that's not a slam on Ed - the placebo effect is real and it affects each and every one of us.

In any event, unless your clock is seriously flawed (ie, defective), you're going to find that this is way down the list of things that impact your recording quality. Musicianship, instruments and voices, microphones and mic placement, mic pres, converters, mix bus, outboard gear, software plug-ins, all of these are going to have more impact than changing the clock.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Running multiple clocks is exactly the scenario in which I stated that a studio-wide clock was a necessity. So there's no argument there. If you run multiple digital devices without synchronization, you are asking for trouble. I can't even imagine trying to operate that way.

But many of us here are operating simple environments where all the conversion is being done in one unit. In that situation, an external clock is much more likely to make things worse than better (though the difference will be quite subtle in either direction).
...
In any event, unless your clock is seriously flawed (ie, defective), you're going to find that this is way down the list of things that impact your recording quality. Musicianship, instruments and voices, microphones and mic placement, mic pres, converters, mix bus, outboard gear, software plug-ins, all of these are going to have more impact than changing the clock.

OK, we're pretty much in agreement down the line on this one, especially the gist of that last paragraph.

The only point on which I might comment would be the one about the exception being a flawed/defective clock. Maybe this is dancing with semantics a bit, but the mobo clock in your average PC-based DAW platform is not going to be what I would consider flawed or defective; at least not for it's designed purpose of clocking general purpose computer curcuitry. But it certainly isn't something I would consider to be operationally stable enough to call a quality house synch signal.

I think Ed makes a valid point (I must be feverish today ) when he alludes to the fact that the clock in a Delta 1010 (just for example) is not necessarily flawed or defective, it's just designed to a less-than-perfection spec in order to hit a price point in the product line. Would it be nice if every converter had an atomic clock in it? Sure. It would also be nice if the injectors in my Impala were as well-engineered as those in the BMW 7-series (they're not, by a long shot). But, whether one likes Chevy or not, I probably not call my Impala is not flawed - it does what it's designed to do how it's designed to do it, error free - and certainly not defective (well, OK, there is a very slow valve leak in the left front tire that I should take care of, but that's beside the point .)

But other than that little bit of picky-picky, I'm with your last post pretty much all the way.

G.

 

[MessianicDreams]

a Delta 1010 (just for example) is not necessarily flawed or defective, it's just designed to a less-than-perfection spec in order to hit a price point in the product line..

we agree on this point - by "defective" i meant "deviating from the perfect", or something to that effect at least. Of course, as with everything in audio, it is price dependant. I would not expect a Delta 1010 to be in any way, shape or form anything less than a BUDGET converter. That being said, a Big Ben (which has been refered to multiple times in this thread) is not a budget device either. So perhaps we need to discuss things on a similar level - just as comparing a car with another worth 5 times the price is not a fair comparison

of course a $1500 clock is going to improve a $200 converter. The point is, a $1500 clock should NOT improve a $1500 converter. If that is the case, why anyone would deem appropriate to buy a $1500 clock and a $1500 converter instead of buying a $3000 converter with a better performance than the latter combo, escapes me.

You can't have both sides of the issue go your way! Either budget converters DO or DO NOT sound better with a great external word clock!

of course. i'm not trying to say that - please don't put words into my mouth! Sure, BUDGET converter will sound better - again, what's the point of buying an expensive clock to improve (what is basically) a shitty converter? (i'm comparing it to converters in the Big Ben price range)

the point is, whether you like it or not, a converter SHOULD (i put that word in capitals as you seem to be ignoring it) work better with its internal crystal oscillator than an external WC input.

 

[MessianicDreams]

But, whether one likes Chevy or not, I probably not call my Impala is not flawed - it does what it's designed to do how it's designed to do it, error free

i've just been thinking about this and how it fits in to my way of regarding this issue.

No - your Impala is not flawed, and it is working the way it's designed to do - the point is, it is basically badly designed, due to being forced to use less expensive components. this, of course, affects its performance compared to the BMW - however, this is to be expected when considering the price tag.

For me, the point is what's the point in buying an Impala and then spending 3 times the price of the car to make it perform better - surely you should just buy a car at 3 times the price.


The way i see it, i don't see a point in buying a 1010 and using a Big Ben to make it sound better.

 

[bigwillz24]

So is using the word clock off of my Rosetta a lost cause or not?

I'm still trying to hear the differance.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

of course a $1500 clock is going to improve a $200 converter. The point is, a $1500 clock should NOT improve a $1500 converter. If that is the case, why anyone would deem appropriate to buy a $1500 clock and a $1500 converter instead of buying a $3000 converter with a better performance than the latter combo, escapes me.

I think we're arguing apples and oranges to a degree here. I don't disagree with your point or your logic.

Where we disagree, (I think) is happening because we are looking at it from different perspectives; you seem to be looking at it in the raw terms of a good internal is usually better than a good external (which I don't disagree with), whereas I'm looking at it as a quality synched signal chain is usually better than a quality unsynched one.

In other words, I think maybe I'm looking at external clocking in terms of use as house sync, whereas you may be referring to one-on-one matchups of external vs. internal.

When we're talking setups that actually have $3000 converters or $1500 word clocks, we're rarely talking about setups where all a guy has on either side of the converter is a VLZ mixer and a PC running Audition. Usually by the time somebody is looking at spending a grand a channel or more on conversion or four digits on external clocking, they have already invested in or resolved to invest in a signal chain that will benefit from (and in fact sometimes downright need) house sync.

At that point I'm no longer talking about whether a Big Ben is better at clocking a UA 2192 than the UA is at clocking itself. I'm talking about whether it's better to use a Big Ben (or even the 2192, FTM) as the master clock for the whole chain or to let everything in the chain use their own clocks.

The way I understood your original thread - and maybe I misunderstood your point - was that it took the position that there were too many technical problems involed to make external master clocking worthwhile, which to me sounded like a back door way of saying that it was better not to sync, even with a decent master clock source. That concept is one that I have trouble with in a few different ways, and the main thrust of where I have been coming from.

Of course it's kinda silly to buy a Big Ben just to control a 1010 (for more reasons than just the conversion angle). But when the 1010 is just one link in your digital signal chain, a chain which in total may have cost several grand, synching the whole schmeer with a Big Ben make much more sense to me - and usually sounds *decisively* better, even to a tin ear - than usiing a PC or a 1010 as the master clock or just letting everything clock itself internally.

IMHO, YMMV, MC* and HNY*

*Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! And thanks for the useful info and conversation

G.

 

[MessianicDreams]

Glen, you've touched on so many levels here which i totally agree with - that much is certain.

Whether or not it would be worth, in the case you stated, using a Big Ben or a 2192 as a house clock becomes a moot point, and subject to what you believe sounds best in the particular circumstance - and at the end of the day, that is what is most important, despite anything I can say or that can be measured, if it sounds better, use it. end of story.

At that point I'm no longer talking about whether a Big Ben is better at clocking a UA 2192 than the UA is at clocking itself. I'm talking about whether it's better to use a Big Ben (or even the 2192, FTM) as the master clock for the whole chain or to let everything in the chain use their own clocks.

The way I understood your original thread - and maybe I misunderstood your point - was that it took the position that there were too many technical problems involed to make external master clocking worthwhile, which to me sounded like a back door way of saying that it was better not to sync, even with a decent master clock source. That concept is one that I have trouble with in a few different ways, and the main thrust of where I have been coming from.

there has been a misunderstanding here. Of course, it is of upmost importance to have everything clocking properly - ie everything running of one master clock source - and i think anyone who tries to disagree with this is sorely mislead. There is no substitute for this, and of course it will greatly improve your sound, and keep you safe from bit loss and bit repitition (drop-outs and clicks). The big question is - what should be the master source?

I'll try and summerise all my posts here:


As long as you're only using 1 converter, you're much better clocking everything off the converter (assuming its got a good clock design, ie works better, or as good as, using it's internal clock vs an external clock). If you've got multiple converters, then use the converter with the most stable clock as your master source.



Of course, all this has been taken to another level and does not reflect what would go on in a home studio, where everything is built from the ground up and all the gear is probably at different performance levels - in which case, i go back to the "use whatever sounds the best", which in 75% of the cases is using an dedicated external clock.





Glen, thanks for an interesting conversation, and in your own words, MC & HNY!

Joswil44, i hope i haven't hi-jacked your thread too badly and that somehow all of this will help you! MC & HNY!

 

[mixsit]

So is using the word clock off of my Rosetta a lost cause or not?

I'm still trying to hear the differance.

So basically are you comparing the two converters on internal and maybe the Motu clocked off the Rosetta as a third?
I just run my RME's here so just curious.
Wayne