Hey Sjoko, about those converters...
- Thread starter Henrik
- Start date
CyanJaguar
New member
Sjoko2,
Is it advisable to leave the clock on 24/7. I read somthing to this effect, but I need to check with you. I have been leaving it on for the past few days. Should I also leave the ad9624 on?
Is it advisable to leave the clock on 24/7. I read somthing to this effect, but I need to check with you. I have been leaving it on for the past few days. Should I also leave the ad9624 on?
sjoko2
New member
Cyan - there is no reason whatever to leave any gear on, unless you would prefer a higher electricity bill. Keeping solid state gear on all the time is a total waste. This fairytale stems from the "old days" - as some tube mics, and some old tube gear was really better left on all the time.
mixit - its mainly a question of insulation / isolation, there are many mechanical and layout reasons why "sharing" is to the detriment of clock accuracy, one of the key ones is the power supply, which needs to be very stable. This is also the reason why clocks in 'plug-in' cards (which optain power from a central power source which powers a load of stuff) , like for instance the card Apogee sells for the mackie D8B, are a joke.
mixit - its mainly a question of insulation / isolation, there are many mechanical and layout reasons why "sharing" is to the detriment of clock accuracy, one of the key ones is the power supply, which needs to be very stable. This is also the reason why clocks in 'plug-in' cards (which optain power from a central power source which powers a load of stuff) , like for instance the card Apogee sells for the mackie D8B, are a joke.
Henrik
Member
sjoko2 said:
But one thing here, Sjoko: Remember that the end user of the recordings made, the consumer, doesn't have Stagetec DA's, or even the Delta DA's. They have the DA's that are built into their CD players. So if the difference is barely audible through the Delta's DA's, then I can't imagine it will be audible at all when dithered down to 16/44.1 and played at a normal CD-player. Or am I oversimplifying here?
And the other thing, about leaving gear on - are you saying that tube gear is best left turned on all the time?
Still learning...
Cheers
/Henrik
sjoko2
New member
Yes you are "overessing" it a bit. I do agree that its seems all strange but just think - in the end its all pure logic.
What you just stated goes in the same bin everyone used some years ago, the one marked "why should I record at a higher sampling rate if it ends up on a CD anyway?"
Whatever format your music ends up to be - its all about getting it on there in the highest possible quality.
High quality converters, an accurate clock, a good I/O chain, good technique will allow you to record as high a quality sound as possible.
Say that you now have all the ingredients recorded to put a song together, now you have to mix it.
The better the quality of the D/A - the better you will HEAR what you have recorded, allowing you to put a mix together based on THE TRUE sounds of your tracks. You will hear exactly what it sounds like.
Say you now send your mixes away for mastering. The better the D/A of the mastering house, the better they will be able to do your mastering.
Take an other scenario. You record and mix in the digital domain, but in the mix you want to route something through an analogue processor, so your signal will go through a D/A conversion, processor and A/D conversion. Think about the effect that will have on your sound quality?
Regarding the tube gear. If you have tube gear you use every day, or most days, by all means leave it on - providing it is in a well ventilated space and does not overheat.
If you live / work in a place without regulated temperature and humidity (especially if you have high humidity), leave your tube gear on, as tube gear (especially microphones!!!!) simply last longer if / when they are kept at a constand temperature.
Note that the above is mainly appliccable to microphones, not so much "normal" tube gear, this a s a microphone has some very humidity sensitive and delicate parts. The benefits to normal gear will be much less.
Also, never forget that tube gear can only give you its best possible sound once the gear has reached it operating temperature. Everything should be on for AT LEAST an hour, preferably much longer, before you use it.
What you just stated goes in the same bin everyone used some years ago, the one marked "why should I record at a higher sampling rate if it ends up on a CD anyway?"
Whatever format your music ends up to be - its all about getting it on there in the highest possible quality.
High quality converters, an accurate clock, a good I/O chain, good technique will allow you to record as high a quality sound as possible.
Say that you now have all the ingredients recorded to put a song together, now you have to mix it.
The better the quality of the D/A - the better you will HEAR what you have recorded, allowing you to put a mix together based on THE TRUE sounds of your tracks. You will hear exactly what it sounds like.
Say you now send your mixes away for mastering. The better the D/A of the mastering house, the better they will be able to do your mastering.
Take an other scenario. You record and mix in the digital domain, but in the mix you want to route something through an analogue processor, so your signal will go through a D/A conversion, processor and A/D conversion. Think about the effect that will have on your sound quality?
Regarding the tube gear. If you have tube gear you use every day, or most days, by all means leave it on - providing it is in a well ventilated space and does not overheat.
If you live / work in a place without regulated temperature and humidity (especially if you have high humidity), leave your tube gear on, as tube gear (especially microphones!!!!) simply last longer if / when they are kept at a constand temperature.
Note that the above is mainly appliccable to microphones, not so much "normal" tube gear, this a s a microphone has some very humidity sensitive and delicate parts. The benefits to normal gear will be much less.
Also, never forget that tube gear can only give you its best possible sound once the gear has reached it operating temperature. Everything should be on for AT LEAST an hour, preferably much longer, before you use it.
Henrik
Member
Yeah, I see what you mean. Even I hear the difference between 24 bit recordings that have been dithered down to 16 bits, and recordings that are 16 bit all the way. But the situation here seems a bit different. Cyan, who appears to know a thing or two about these things, almost couldn't hear the difference between two different 24 bit recordings, one made with a Lucid A/D, and one made with a Delta A/D, when the recorded soundfiles were played through the Delta D/A. It just made me wonder if anybody else would be able to hear the difference through a consumer D/A.
But of course you're right, particularly I can understand that the difference becomes more obvious when recording multiple tracks. And I think it's a fair guess that it won't take many years before DVD Audio is the general consumer standard - which of course will increase the challenge for the people who record the stuff in the first place.
Also, thanks for the tips on tube microphones and gear!
/Henrik
But of course you're right, particularly I can understand that the difference becomes more obvious when recording multiple tracks. And I think it's a fair guess that it won't take many years before DVD Audio is the general consumer standard - which of course will increase the challenge for the people who record the stuff in the first place.
Also, thanks for the tips on tube microphones and gear!
/Henrik
CyanJaguar
New member
fwiw,
The prorec guy said he could not hear the difference between DAs. He said that the delta 1010 da sounded basically the same as a $3000 da.
I listenened on another system, with a different da, and most importantly, good headphones. I could hear a slightly more intimate low end.
Dont forget, this take had four tracks. I think it got messed up in the dithering stage somewhere is why I cant hear audible difference
The prorec guy said he could not hear the difference between DAs. He said that the delta 1010 da sounded basically the same as a $3000 da.
I listenened on another system, with a different da, and most importantly, good headphones. I could hear a slightly more intimate low end.
Dont forget, this take had four tracks. I think it got messed up in the dithering stage somewhere is why I cant hear audible difference
CyanJaguar
New member
sjoko2 said:
Hahahaha I am TROFL
Wow. I guess I'll have to eat come crow. I've never done any comparisons between converters myself, and although I've never come out and said it, I've always been a bit of a skeptic when people claim there are big differences in the sound of converters at the level we've been talking about. So when sjoko said the difference was night and day I'm thinking "yea yea maybe you hear a difference but I doubt I would"
Well I listened to those two takes, and through a PC soundcard, through headphones or even a normal PC speakers I can tell a difference. One is clear and feels like I'm in the room with the people and instruments being recoreded and the other is like listening through a veil. I can clearly hear some kind of phase shift artifact in the vocals on one, that is a bit harder to hear on the other. Wow.
Edit: BTW I might as well stick my foot fully in my mouth. The first take is the one I think is clearer so I'll guess its the Lucid.
Well I listened to those two takes, and through a PC soundcard, through headphones or even a normal PC speakers I can tell a difference. One is clear and feels like I'm in the room with the people and instruments being recoreded and the other is like listening through a veil. I can clearly hear some kind of phase shift artifact in the vocals on one, that is a bit harder to hear on the other. Wow.
Edit: BTW I might as well stick my foot fully in my mouth. The first take is the one I think is clearer so I'll guess its the Lucid.
Last edited:
CyanJaguar
New member
hey Kaydis, Good for you.
The genx6 is now $350 so you might want to snag one.
Which one was the one that sounded real?
If you like what a good clock does to the sound, wait till you hear 96khz.
last night,I plugged a cd player's outputs into the inputs of my lucid and varied between 44.1, 48 and 96 khz
Even though the material going into the converter was 44.1 from the cd player, at 96 khz, the width of the stereo was amazing. Almost double the width at 44.1 the depth was amazing and there was not a trace of harshness in the vocals. They were smooth smooth smooth. THe highs were not pinched, but natural.
I Love my lucids. I tried the test with the delta 1010 and even though they initially sound alike, once you start listening to details, you realize that the lucid lets way more detail through. I was listening to a live recording of pavarotti, and with the lucid, you can pinpoint where pavarotti is standing, where the piano is emanating from, what material is on the walls, etc
Now to clocks. I also tested the clocks with live input from my cd player, so it was the same thing everytime. The difference clocks make is no small difference. I only compared the ad9624 clock and the delta 1010 clock since the genx6 does not go to 96khz.
The ad9624 clock sounded smooth, like it was meant for classical music. YOu could hear more room and everything was more silky.
The delta 1010 clock sounded more pop. the whole mix sounded louder cos I think it had more bass, the background singers were less in the background, and the kick had more thump. It was not as silky as the lucid.
I just cant wait to start recording at 96khz. Man it sounds soooo good.
The genx6 is now $350 so you might want to snag one.
Which one was the one that sounded real?
If you like what a good clock does to the sound, wait till you hear 96khz.
last night,I plugged a cd player's outputs into the inputs of my lucid and varied between 44.1, 48 and 96 khz
Even though the material going into the converter was 44.1 from the cd player, at 96 khz, the width of the stereo was amazing. Almost double the width at 44.1 the depth was amazing and there was not a trace of harshness in the vocals. They were smooth smooth smooth. THe highs were not pinched, but natural.
I Love my lucids. I tried the test with the delta 1010 and even though they initially sound alike, once you start listening to details, you realize that the lucid lets way more detail through. I was listening to a live recording of pavarotti, and with the lucid, you can pinpoint where pavarotti is standing, where the piano is emanating from, what material is on the walls, etc
Now to clocks. I also tested the clocks with live input from my cd player, so it was the same thing everytime. The difference clocks make is no small difference. I only compared the ad9624 clock and the delta 1010 clock since the genx6 does not go to 96khz.
The ad9624 clock sounded smooth, like it was meant for classical music. YOu could hear more room and everything was more silky.
The delta 1010 clock sounded more pop. the whole mix sounded louder cos I think it had more bass, the background singers were less in the background, and the kick had more thump. It was not as silky as the lucid.
I just cant wait to start recording at 96khz. Man it sounds soooo good.
CyanJaguar
New member
Kaydis,
You could not be more.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
correct.
Very good ears.
some sound engineers suggest using good quality headphones to hear minute details. Headphones will usually show you the differences quite quickly.
now, can someone make a pc fast enough so that I can start recording at 24/96
Henrik. The purchase of a lucid ad9624 is something you will never regret. Harvey gerst uses it, so does sjoko2, so does Fletcher at Mercenary. They all say that it sounds sweet. And it does.
You could not be more.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
correct.
Very good ears.
some sound engineers suggest using good quality headphones to hear minute details. Headphones will usually show you the differences quite quickly.
now, can someone make a pc fast enough so that I can start recording at 24/96
Henrik. The purchase of a lucid ad9624 is something you will never regret. Harvey gerst uses it, so does sjoko2, so does Fletcher at Mercenary. They all say that it sounds sweet. And it does.
Well, thanks for posting the comparison it was enlightneing. Now I'm thinking that I really should get a clock unit. It's suprising that it would make such a difference, but I'm now past doubting people when they say there is one 
It's plausible too I suppose, jitter would result in what is essentially frequency modulation (as in FM radio) of the audio signal. The resulting sum and difference frequencies could easily wind up in the audible range, coloring the original signal.
I know from first hand experience the issues involved in clock distribution. Mostly from designing telcom equipment, but the basic priciples are the same. You need a stable source and a propperly designed clock regeneration unit in the A/D or D/A. It's possible to operate without a stable source, but removing the jitter from a jittery clock source is a much more daunting task, involving many not so pretty tradeoffs. It also requires careful design and can involve expensive components. A stable clock from a decdicated unit like the genx6 sounds like a much simpler and more reliable solution.
So I guess I'm convinced.
I've been thinking too about the ability to hear differences, even on low end equipment and I think its entirely possible I hear the difference between the two A/Ds better on my PC speakers than you do on studio equipment. I think the assumption that consumers won't hear such small differences is based on a faulty assumption. The assumption being that the differences lie in details that can't be produced on lower end equipment. This may be true in some cases or for some types of distortion, but it is certainly not true for all cases. Low end consumer equipment tends to distort sound more than studio equipment, and in doing so is every bit as likely to distrot it in a way that accentuates a fault in a recording as hide it. For example, my PC speakers are much less adept at reproducing high and low frequencies than a studio monitor. In filtering out high and low frequencies they may accentuate a problem that is more appraent in the mid range. A problem that may have actually been harder to hear on good speakers. Likewise some low end equipment deliberately boosts high end making a wide variety of problems more apparent.
OK... I'll shut up now.
It's plausible too I suppose, jitter would result in what is essentially frequency modulation (as in FM radio) of the audio signal. The resulting sum and difference frequencies could easily wind up in the audible range, coloring the original signal.
I know from first hand experience the issues involved in clock distribution. Mostly from designing telcom equipment, but the basic priciples are the same. You need a stable source and a propperly designed clock regeneration unit in the A/D or D/A. It's possible to operate without a stable source, but removing the jitter from a jittery clock source is a much more daunting task, involving many not so pretty tradeoffs. It also requires careful design and can involve expensive components. A stable clock from a decdicated unit like the genx6 sounds like a much simpler and more reliable solution.
So I guess I'm convinced.
I've been thinking too about the ability to hear differences, even on low end equipment and I think its entirely possible I hear the difference between the two A/Ds better on my PC speakers than you do on studio equipment. I think the assumption that consumers won't hear such small differences is based on a faulty assumption. The assumption being that the differences lie in details that can't be produced on lower end equipment. This may be true in some cases or for some types of distortion, but it is certainly not true for all cases. Low end consumer equipment tends to distort sound more than studio equipment, and in doing so is every bit as likely to distrot it in a way that accentuates a fault in a recording as hide it. For example, my PC speakers are much less adept at reproducing high and low frequencies than a studio monitor. In filtering out high and low frequencies they may accentuate a problem that is more appraent in the mid range. A problem that may have actually been harder to hear on good speakers. Likewise some low end equipment deliberately boosts high end making a wide variety of problems more apparent.
OK... I'll shut up now.
Henrik
Member
Kaydis,
no need to shut up! Good post, and I guess you are right that low end gear may accentuate faults in the recordings, even more that high end studio monitors and D/A's.
One day I will no doubt invest in some better converters, but there are things that have higher priority for my studio right now - such as getting a decent place to have it! Not easy in an overcrowded city, I tell you.
Cheers
/Henrik
no need to shut up! Good post, and I guess you are right that low end gear may accentuate faults in the recordings, even more that high end studio monitors and D/A's.
One day I will no doubt invest in some better converters, but there are things that have higher priority for my studio right now - such as getting a decent place to have it! Not easy in an overcrowded city, I tell you.
Cheers
/Henrik
Henrik
Member
Sjoko and you other guys,
here's a thread that is somewhat related to this one. I'd very much appreciate your input!
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38253
Thanks
/Henrik
here's a thread that is somewhat related to this one. I'd very much appreciate your input!
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38253
Thanks
/Henrik
When use clock??
Right now, I have a Delta 1010. I don't record any digital signals, so a clock isn't going to do much for me right? Also, Does Lucid have an 8 channel converter set? How much is it? Do I hook this up to the 1010, or will it replace the 1010?
No one has ever explained to me how to actually hook-up an outboard converter to my system.
Please help---your talking above my head--and I want in.
Right now, I have a Delta 1010. I don't record any digital signals, so a clock isn't going to do much for me right? Also, Does Lucid have an 8 channel converter set? How much is it? Do I hook this up to the 1010, or will it replace the 1010?
No one has ever explained to me how to actually hook-up an outboard converter to my system.
Please help---your talking above my head--and I want in.