Word Clock?

J

Jerry Kahn

New member
I am in the process of selecting a sound card, and buying a PC (I have an old tired MAC 7500 that has seen its days). I am thinking about digi 001, RME Hammerfall, and LynxOne or Two, based one all of your astute recommendations.







My main considerations are:











1) I want to be able to synchronize to my old MAC which I plan to use Performer on for midi











2) I would like to be able to use my very expensive Lexicon PCM 91, which I love, but I am wondering if I really should have blown two thousand dollars on last year.










The guy at sweetwater said that I can sync PT/digi001 with my Mac (midi), and also be able to use it with the Lexicon, but in the case of the Lexicon, i had to do some kind of 'tweaking'.. to do with synchronization (not too clear here). In any case, he said it was a minor thing, but it sounded like an annoyance to me.









I am wondering if this all has to do with "word clock"?









Also-- I looked into RME and Lynx -- both I am sure have far better converters than the digi001. Although I suspect the Pro Tools Editor is the most powerful.








The question is: can I sync to my Lexicon without tweaking using any of these other cards? And can I also sync to my old Mac via sympte or midi?






Much obliged for any thoughts!
--jk
 
nice link. I kindof thought it meant something like that. I think that the digi 001 is somewhat lacking in that area?
 
I like the "related topics" they give too. And oh-- just looked up Symte-- and oops! I should have spelled that S-M-P-T-E in the first post.

In any case, back to DigiDesign Digi 001 vs RME Hammerfall vs Lynx0ne/Two for a moment.

I did some checking out of specs online and here is what I came up with:

The Digi 001 has no reference to any 'word clock' sync mechanism in its specs. I am not sure, but I am guessing that this is what the guy at Sweetwater was talking about. It is lacking in this department.

On the other hand, the RME Hammerfall specs include references to such things as: "Clock modes slave and master", "asynchronous Full Duplex operation", "Enhanced Mixed mode: ADAT® input plus SPDIF input plus all outputs simultaneous operational", "Automatic and intelligent master/slave clock control", "Unsurpassed Bitclock PLL (audio synchronisation) in ADAT® mode", "realtime monitoring in all clock modes and even at different sample rates", "Complete interrupt sharing", "word clock (BNC)", "internal (Sync-Out), word clock (BNC)".

Seems like worlds of differences between the cards in this area.

I haven't checked out Lynx specs yet.

Comments?
 
Ehhhhhhh excuse my ignorance but............

Whatever system you use, you don't need SMPTE or wordclock to run a reverb unit, just a normal aux send and return, that's all.
The only thing you need to consider is that ANY stand alone processor you use with a DAW incurs latency, which in case of a reverb, which comes in after the original signal anyway, is neglectable. This latency when caused by a digital processing device is normally in the single figures microseconds, a little bit more when you use analogue and especially tube gear.

In other words:
Synchronisation, clocking, whatever you want to call it, ensures that different devices communicate in sync, and in time., so when you record stuff, its in the right place, even when you play it back.

None of the options you mentioned have particulerly briliant converters, there is very little to chose between them, and you cannot expect anything else in the price range concerned.
What should be more prevalent in your choice is the software you wish to work with. Pro Tools is the industry standard, and the reason it has achieved that status is because it is the best.
(unless you have about 2500 to spend, in which case there is now a fantastic option which gives you everything you need)

I'd consider PT as your main option, you can always buy a good external converter at a later stage (like: sell your Lexi - buy some good plug-ins and a good converter)
 
So, if you're gonna get your hands on a good external converter, does it make any sense getting a relatively good soundcard, since you're gonna bypass the card's converters? Is it worth spending the extra do-re-mi for the sake of circuitry? If you're not using the card's converters, then presumably the chief virtue you're looking for in a card is quietness, right?
 
Thanks Shailat, sjoko2, dobro!!

you are right dobro, I don't fully understand what to look for in a soundcard. I figured that once sound is converted to digital then what's left is handling editing, mixing and effects, but maybe that is mostly handled by the software? I didn't think much about quietness. That's signal-to-noise right? Were you thinking about specific cards that are particularly quiet?
I agree it doesn't make sense to pay for converter circuits that wont be used.

sjoko2 -- thanks, that all makes sense. I bought the Lexicon without really putting a lot of thought into it. Mostly because in a prior life I was stuck with a shitty reverb unit, and wanted to really "do it right" this time. So I got the Lex before I fully understood the current recording landscape-- plug ins, etc. Do you think there are any advantages at all to keeping Lex in my rack?
 
It depends which route you're going to take, what you are going to use when you record.
I used to have racks and racks of outboard gear, now all that's left is converters, preamps and a (very high end) set of stereo limiter/compressors mainly for mastering.
All the rest are plug-ins.
I made that decission after I decided to go all digital. For one, I had some high end TC processors, costing almost 4000 bucks. 2 inputs each. Then I got the plug-in TC equivalent, costing I believe $700, which sounded just as good, and I could run an aux of every channel using that plug-in if I wanted to....... Heaven!

I'm getting a lot of questions about cards, and, to be absolutely honest, I really don't know what is available out there. All I know is that I heard stuff some of my clients recorded at home, which led me to ask them to bring their systems in, so I could see why it sounded so bad (Note: to my ears, I'm very spoiled), which confirmed my suspician that cards had bad converters and bad clocks.

I promise as soon as I have some time, I'll look into cards.

And yes, it would be better to have a card just as an I/O without bad sounding stuff. Logistics and science are 2 things which would tell anyone that it is NOT possible to build an interface with good converters, a good clock, and a decent analogue section. For starters its impossible because of the power supply issues. Second, what you would need won't fit. Many more reasons.... The vast majority of cards are made by computer engineers - not audio people, and they have limited or no knowledge of analogue design issues, or sound even.
 
sjoko2: I hear you. Sounds like you have the kind of set up that I would soak my sheets over. BTW, based on some criteria-- frequency response and SNR-- from a soundcard website (http://www.pcavtech.com) that I was referred to by gnarled , I compared specs of the DIGI 001. Granted, we have already established that an external converter is in order with this card, but I was wondering about all its other characteristics. Plus I had nothing better to do.







In terms of frequency response, the DIGI 001 spec


says, "+/- 0.5dB (relative to 1kHz, 20Hz - 22kHz)"







whereas a 'good card,' according to this website will


have a spec of, "+/- 0.2 dB from 80 to 13 KHz,


and not peak or dip excessively--say more than




+/- 3 dB)  32 Hz-17 KHz".







I am assuming that this means the Digi 001 is not necessarily the best card in town. The question is, if I bypass with an external converter, is this particular spec of frequency response eliminated?





That leaves "quietness" or, signal to noise ratio. According to this soundcard website, If the SNR is above about 75-80 dB, then noise is not going to be too much of an issue, and above 80 is ideal -- then the noise from
the card still won't intrude at lower recording levels. The site also says that related to SNR are THD and IM-- but it doesn't say what "good" is for these.







The SNR is not mentioned in the DIGI 001 specs, but the "THD + N" is 0.003% (relative to 1kHz @ -0.5dB, 20Hz - 22kHz). Not sure if this is good or bad?



The sample rates for the DIGI 001are 44.1kHz/48kHz, so I guess that means I won't get 96kHz, even if my external converter will support it?







Incidentally-- what was that fantastic $2500 option? I promise not to tell anybody!!!







cheers and thanks for all your help!!!
-jk
 
BTW, you say that none of the cards I was considering (RME, Lynx, DIGI 001) had particulerly briliant converters. Aren't the first two's at least considered alot better than DIGI's?
 
:) No - and that is regarding the last part of your post.

The figures you quote are , once again, a superb example of people taking specs and screwing them over to get the results they like. I see this time and time again, and it really pisses me off. People who write stuff and take specs from product spec sheets, without doing their own testing, should be banned to outer mongolia and never be allowed to touch any gear again!

Just look at the bold printed figures. Take the Digi spec. +/- 0.5dB (relative to 1kHz, 20Hz - 22kHz). Now take the "good spec" quoted as +/- 0.2 dB from 80 to 13 KHz.
Now apply some un-human straight forward LOGIC, and ask yourself a simple question:
"what would the good spec figure be if I measured it at 1kHz, 20Hz to 22kHz???????????"

I am NOT saying the the 001 is brilliant, its a tool that does the job, and as it comes with the best software, its the most effective / cost effective option. Regarding sound quality, its marginally better than for instance stuff produced by MOTU.

The $2500 option? Apparently there is a $1200 version as well, in which case, if I had to choose............................................
http://www.iqsys.com/
and there is a good review at: http://www.digitalprosound.com/cgi-bin/getframeletter.cgi?/2001/07_jul/features/saw_newprod.htm
And... if you are not as yet subscribed to the Loud Emag, you better :) Good info, and JD is a cool guy.
 
sjoko2 -- checked out SAW. Looks great on the website. Has this software been reviewed yet by EM or the likes? Anyway -- the software seems real cool...

I noticed that they have selected the same soundcards as I have been talking about -- RME Hammerfall, LynxOne. They also use Lucid converters. So, when you say try the SAW 'lite' software for $1200, I guess you mean on top of a box I have built with an RME or Lynx? Or, with one of their pre-built boxes?

Do you use SAW software? The SAW box? Obviously it has a greater capacity than Pro Tools LE, but howzabout that editing?
Have you had enough questions????

Anyway-- thanks alot!! Like I said, looks real interesting!

-- jk
 
I have played with SAW, it sounded awsome through the Lucids, the editing functions were great, everything worked perfectly and sounded good.
If I was not in a commercial place, I would use it. However, I more or less have to use the industry standard, Pro Tools.
 
Wow -- sure wish I did this for a living! One thing I like about this SAW package is the upgrade path-- obviously much more reasonable $-wize, than Pro Tools. Also, it is entirely PC based, which makes it a lot more affordable than MAC, the preferred Pro Tools platform. Macs are just too overpriced. Finally, SAW is not dependent on proprietary hardware, like Paris (to my understanding), or DigiDesign. We all know that digidesign isn't going anywhere-- but if SAW flops for some reason, I will still be left with usable hardware. I think that's a plus?!

Maybe I will give "JD" a buzz tomorrow, and pick his brain on a minimum configuration -- that is, if you really think the editor competes with PT LE...

PS: Just for yucs, what do you think of Steinberg (Nuendo)? The little experience I have had with their products (Recycle V1.0 for Mac) was 'bug city'.

thx sjoko2!!!
 
SAW really is an awsome product, I'm not saying that lightly. The guys have been around for quite a while, they know what they are doing, and they have developped a really cool "family" of users (including some very high end guys). I have spoken to a number of users, all of them experienced, professional DAW users, whom had nothing but praise for the product.

I really think you ought to talk to the SAW people :) JD is the editor of Loud magazine;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top