How is the "clock" in my Q10, or any system..changing the sonud?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wes480
  • Start date Start date
wes480

wes480

New member
I thought clocks only really came into play when you had lots of gear you were using. I guess I really still don't get it. I use an Aardvark Q10...i was reading this review:

""My new Echo Mia card provided much stronger competition than the 20-bit Echo Gina I've used as a benchmark in the past, but the Q10 still beat it quite easily, with noticeably sharper stereo imaging and focus, letting you hear further into the music. In an effort to isolate this improvement, I tried patching the S/PDIF out of the Q10 into the S/PDIF in of the Mia, and switching it to use this external clock. This tightened up the Mia sound quite a bit and made the two cards sound very similar, which would seem to prove the superiority of the Q10's clock. Aardvark has an enviable reputation in this area."

So...going digital to digital, and using the Q10s clock output....the sound is now better from the MIA? I don't get it...

Is my stuff really sounding better becuase of the clock built into the Aardvark? I thought that would only be useful if I were to link other gear to it?
 
I think you're on the right track there. My understanding is say if you had several DAT's linked together one of them has to be the master clock. The others are slaved to it. The Q10 is supposed to have a very stable/accurate clock so if it is linked to several different cards/devices the Q10 would supply the master clock.

I work in electronic calibration. When we test a frequency counter the main parameter checked is it's oscillator (might as well call it the clock). It might be a 10 MHz oscillator with an accuracy of +- 15 Hz. What's really important is it's drift rate. All oscillators drift. Some less than others. This drift (in frequency) is measured over a period of time (like 8 hours). I haven't looked at the specs but I'm assuming the Q10 oscillator (from where the clock is derived) is very stable and has a very small rate of drift.

I may be wrong but I don't see the Q10 clock having any effect on the sound when used by itself. It's simply a very good added feature when you have to tie multiple devices together (which are clock dependent). Keeps them all on the same sheet of music at the same precise time.

DD
 
While a master clock source is important to sync multiple digital devices, they're still extremly important to your audio even if you only have one device. One way clocks are rated is jitter. The lower the jitter, the better the audio performance. Digital signals get clocked a few different ways. One is the internal clock that's in all digital devices. In most prosumer gear and even some high end stuff, this clock is only OK. Another is when a device locks to the clock data that's embedded in a incoming digital signal, like in the case of the Mia recording digitally from the Aardvark. The Mia was clocking to the incoming clock stream generated by the Aardvarks clock which is superior to the Mia's, hence better audio. If your equipment has a Word Clock input, you can use a dedicated Word Clock Master source like Aardvarks Aardsync or (my personal fav) a Lucid GenX6. Even if I only had one piece of digital gear (as long as it has a Word Clock input) I'd use a Genx to clock it as the more stable word cclock would improve the way it sounds.
 
yeah I don't think the Aardvark has a world clock input, but only a word clock output...becuase supposedly the clock in the Q10 is pretty damn decent.

I dunno, but the longer I have the unit the more I really do like the sound of it.

What you said about the jitter etc, thanks...making more sense. have to read over that a couple times more though.

i love you trak rat!
 
"The Mia was clocking to the incoming clock stream generated by the Aardvarks clock which is superior to the Mia's, hence better audio. "

ok, I get what is happening (i didn't realize that digital signals had a clock steam imbedded in them, interesting).

But, when you say "better audio" - what are we talking about? More high/low end resolution? Less distortion? Dynamic range?
 
It's not a Gee Wizz difference but it's there. It's as if everything comes from a very, very slight blurr and comes into focus. Like a tightening of the low end and the air on top opens up a bit more. Stereo image improves a little too. The way I see it is this, on a single 24 bit/44.1 track, good clock vs VERY good clock, there's not a huge difference. It's when you 24+ tracks running that the better clock starts to become evident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top