Antelope Isochrone OCX vs Apogee Big Ben
- Thread starter shAkEz_gk
- Start date
If you really mean "world" clock... this holds no real value in a single studio environment... I would guess that "world" clock would let you share master clock duties across two synced devices at remote locations. Live feed...etc.
World clock is frequently used in the digital telephony world to sync multiple switchs and digital trunks where correct timing is critical
World clock is frequently used in the digital telephony world to sync multiple switchs and digital trunks where correct timing is critical
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
For me personally, I'm far more interested in the Isochrone than the Big Ben. I've considered buying it, but at present am using the clock in my UA2192 as the master clock for my studio. When I do go for a dedicated master clock, the Isochrone will be it. The guy that designed it is the same fellow that did the AardSync for the now defunct AardVark. I had an AardSync II and it was an excellent clock.
As far as gimmicky, my take on that is the complete opposite. The Big Ben has tons and tons of add on features, while the Isochrone does one thing and just that one thing: stable clock. Not knocking the Big Ben at all, as a lot of people use it and like it, but for me the one and only issue in a master clock unit is the clock. Everything else is secondary.
Along those lines, I like that in the Isochrone the crystal is oven controlled. This is extremely important, and should make the clock extremely stable.
As far as gimmicky, my take on that is the complete opposite. The Big Ben has tons and tons of add on features, while the Isochrone does one thing and just that one thing: stable clock. Not knocking the Big Ben at all, as a lot of people use it and like it, but for me the one and only issue in a master clock unit is the clock. Everything else is secondary.
Along those lines, I like that in the Isochrone the crystal is oven controlled. This is extremely important, and should make the clock extremely stable.
SonicAlbert said:
I was implying that the "world clock" was gimmicky... in fact my post before editing commented on the crystal oven as the more important factor in clock stability.
Any device that does one thing only, generally does it better than something that does a lot... but just how good do you have to get... at some point any jitter is so low as to have no audible effect on the source.
As I stated in my first post, world clock has been the traditional sync clock in DTS networks to syncronize vastly different digital timings to the same master clock source. Not something vital to a standalone clock source.
I'm not aurguing the point SonicAlbert, just explaining it... I have the deepest respect for the opinions that you express on this forum
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
That's being pretty harsh on Aardvark, as Aardvark's products were good. And I'm sure they didn't want to go under any more than you wanted them.
However, you could see the end coming for a long time, so I don't think they disappeared without warning. No public announcements, true, but the signs were there. At the NAMM show the Aardvark booth would be deserted, and the guys would have this sort of lonely look about them. You could literally see the lack of interest, and you wondered how long they were going to last.
The marketplace can be cruel. I don't know why the public lost interest in Aardvark products, as I thought they were good, and I also thought the guys that worked there were smart and knew what they were doing. Support was good, the one time I needed it.
They were a small company, and chances are they just got lost in the blizzard of competing sound cards. And the ovepowering blitz of bigger companies like Apogee and others that had deeper pockets and could afford to spend more on marketing and product development.
Just because the designer of the Isochrone did work for Aardvark is no reason to be nervous about the product in my opinion. The AardSync was (and still is for those that own it) a great word clock generator.
MOFO Pro, as far as the atomic clock thing, I understand where you were coming from now. Sorry about that. I'm sure there must be a reason the atomic clock feature is on the unit other than to add a gimmick, but I don't know what it is! Would it add more stability, or allow synchronization between remote units? I really don't know.
However, you could see the end coming for a long time, so I don't think they disappeared without warning. No public announcements, true, but the signs were there. At the NAMM show the Aardvark booth would be deserted, and the guys would have this sort of lonely look about them. You could literally see the lack of interest, and you wondered how long they were going to last.
The marketplace can be cruel. I don't know why the public lost interest in Aardvark products, as I thought they were good, and I also thought the guys that worked there were smart and knew what they were doing. Support was good, the one time I needed it.
They were a small company, and chances are they just got lost in the blizzard of competing sound cards. And the ovepowering blitz of bigger companies like Apogee and others that had deeper pockets and could afford to spend more on marketing and product development.
Just because the designer of the Isochrone did work for Aardvark is no reason to be nervous about the product in my opinion. The AardSync was (and still is for those that own it) a great word clock generator.
MOFO Pro, as far as the atomic clock thing, I understand where you were coming from now. Sorry about that. I'm sure there must be a reason the atomic clock feature is on the unit other than to add a gimmick, but I don't know what it is! Would it add more stability, or allow synchronization between remote units? I really don't know.
I dunno, my Lx6 sounded good for what it was, but the driver support was always abysmal.
But I really, knew that it was time to change brands when the tech guy gave me advice over the phone that caused the sound card to fry out, and then wanted $320 dollars to fix it. No way.
So I missed the fallout at the end, but was suprised by the suddeness of it all. I forget the brand because it was years ago, but another semi-major brupt sound card manufacturer had the kindness to post drivers for awhile. Aardvark just went lights out.
-Jtt
-Jtt
But I really, knew that it was time to change brands when the tech guy gave me advice over the phone that caused the sound card to fry out, and then wanted $320 dollars to fix it. No way.
So I missed the fallout at the end, but was suprised by the suddeness of it all. I forget the brand because it was years ago, but another semi-major brupt sound card manufacturer had the kindness to post drivers for awhile. Aardvark just went lights out.
-Jtt
-Jtt
SonicAlbert said:
Just checked the white pages on both products and neither mentioned actual jitter measurements... hard to compare performance with no specs...
I have no doubt that syncing to world clock would provide a more stable sync... but how much more... and is it subjectively better?
I would also hazard that the Antelope even without "world" clock enabled is a more stable sync source then the Big Ben... but even their own documentation doesn't provide details on the level of improved performance of this feature.
To cut to the chase... world clock was not developed as a sync source for single devices... but to syncronize multiple remote devices from individual digital networks. It just sounds like overkill as far as jitter reduction... It does sound like it may be useful if you're trying to sync two live digital streams from remote locations... say a live Cream concert televised from Madison Square Garden with Eric Clapton playing from his living room...
Guess I beat that horse to death...
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
There would still be a delay due to transmission times though. Just because units on both ends are synced to the same clock doesn't mean that the audio itself would be synced, there would certainly be a delay.
That's why I'm just not sure of the use of the atomic clock feature other than stability. And even then, wouldn't the transmission of the signal from the atomic clock through wire to the Isochrone introduce instabilities?
I wish there was more detailed info on the Antelope Audio web site. Right now, believeing in the product does seem to require a bit of a leap of faith.
That's why I'm just not sure of the use of the atomic clock feature other than stability. And even then, wouldn't the transmission of the signal from the atomic clock through wire to the Isochrone introduce instabilities?
I wish there was more detailed info on the Antelope Audio web site. Right now, believeing in the product does seem to require a bit of a leap of faith.
GrumpyJoeWalsh
New member
Ocx
To add .....
I have been testing an OCX for the last three weeks.
Whilst the OCX performed well, there was no noticable difference between it and the internal clock in my MOTU 896. This may seem surprising considering the 'hype', but I put this down firstly to the fact that the excellent quality of MOTU is already 'up there', and secondly, that my 50 year old ears are probably not as sensitive and discerning as they once were!!
The accompanying user manual is shocking, and has little useful info.... and has no explanation regarding the 'atomic clock' facility.
I loaned the unit to a local sound laboratory, who kindly did a comparison with their 'Big Ben'.... they percieved little or no difference, and were not swayed to think in terms of buying the OCX as a replacement for their BB.
The bottom line....
......I'm not convinced...yet.
To add .....
I have been testing an OCX for the last three weeks.
Whilst the OCX performed well, there was no noticable difference between it and the internal clock in my MOTU 896. This may seem surprising considering the 'hype', but I put this down firstly to the fact that the excellent quality of MOTU is already 'up there', and secondly, that my 50 year old ears are probably not as sensitive and discerning as they once were!!
The accompanying user manual is shocking, and has little useful info.... and has no explanation regarding the 'atomic clock' facility.
I loaned the unit to a local sound laboratory, who kindly did a comparison with their 'Big Ben'.... they percieved little or no difference, and were not swayed to think in terms of buying the OCX as a replacement for their BB.
The bottom line....
......I'm not convinced...yet.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
I find that hard to believe. I know that when I added my AardVark AardSync to my setup years ago I could hear the difference. And that was going from MOTU clock to AardSync clock.
I can understand the Big Ben and OCX being competitive as far as clocking quality, but MOTU clocks are just not as accurate. Are you sure you had it set up correctly?
I can understand the Big Ben and OCX being competitive as far as clocking quality, but MOTU clocks are just not as accurate. Are you sure you had it set up correctly?
I have been using the OCX for 2 years and I just bought the Big Ben last week for my live recording rig.
The OCX has a much cleaner top end and makes my Hi and Hi Mids stand out compared to the Big Ben which is almost the opposite - it is very solid in the Bass, Lo Mid and not so thin on the hi frequencies. I do find the Big Ben easier on my ears, it appears more analogue warm sounding versus cold accurate clean for the OCX.
They both improved the sound of my brand new Apogee Symphony I/O dramatically. I did shootouts with the Word Clock enabled and disabled for audiophile friend to judge for themselves. They picked the sound with the clock 100%. With interfaces in this price range, the clock does make a difference in terms of accuracy, image positioning and overall perception of quality. When I used the OCX with my old MOTU 896 Mk3, the results were not as immediately obvious.
For the arguments about "to use a clock or not" I am totally convinced that the clock will give another 5 to 10% improvement in sound reproduction depending on the interface. For my system, I used it for mixing and mastering so the added accuracy helped me get a more accurate finished product.
The OCX has a much cleaner top end and makes my Hi and Hi Mids stand out compared to the Big Ben which is almost the opposite - it is very solid in the Bass, Lo Mid and not so thin on the hi frequencies. I do find the Big Ben easier on my ears, it appears more analogue warm sounding versus cold accurate clean for the OCX.
They both improved the sound of my brand new Apogee Symphony I/O dramatically. I did shootouts with the Word Clock enabled and disabled for audiophile friend to judge for themselves. They picked the sound with the clock 100%. With interfaces in this price range, the clock does make a difference in terms of accuracy, image positioning and overall perception of quality. When I used the OCX with my old MOTU 896 Mk3, the results were not as immediately obvious.
For the arguments about "to use a clock or not" I am totally convinced that the clock will give another 5 to 10% improvement in sound reproduction depending on the interface. For my system, I used it for mixing and mastering so the added accuracy helped me get a more accurate finished product.