miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
So I'm curious how many folks here use (or have need for) a master clock in their audio rigs...and what clock it is that you are using and in what configuration?
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
I run a Lucid GenX6.
Mr Clean
AKA Teddy Wong
I use this one. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Farview
Well-known member
I absent used a dedicated master clock in a very long time. I don't have enough digital outboard gear that needs to be synced up any more.
Obviously, if you have a giant system of outboard stuff that is all linked digitally, you need a master clock. But if that's not the case, there is evidence that the pll Will add jitter that negates the extra accuracy of the master clock. So it becomes pointless.
Obviously, if you have a giant system of outboard stuff that is all linked digitally, you need a master clock. But if that's not the case, there is evidence that the pll Will add jitter that negates the extra accuracy of the master clock. So it becomes pointless.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
I do use a master clock (I have up to six items to synchronise in my standard set up)--it's a Drawmer M Clock Lite.
However, a couple of points.
First off, I moved to the master, not out of any idea that it would improve my sound quality (and it didn't) but just to simplify some wiring issues. Previously I'd nominated one device (generally my digital mixer) as the master and everything else was looped through. It worked but I've never been a fan of looping.
Second, even considering the above, I wouldn't have spent the money except I found the Drawmer Lite at an auction selling off gear from a post production facility--I got it for $60 instead of the $1000 a brand new one would have cost.
However, a couple of points.
First off, I moved to the master, not out of any idea that it would improve my sound quality (and it didn't) but just to simplify some wiring issues. Previously I'd nominated one device (generally my digital mixer) as the master and everything else was looped through. It worked but I've never been a fan of looping.
Second, even considering the above, I wouldn't have spent the money except I found the Drawmer Lite at an auction selling off gear from a post production facility--I got it for $60 instead of the $1000 a brand new one would have cost.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Yeah...for a long time I was just looping my three converters. The first one was synced internally to the computer, then output word clock to the second, and from there to the third.
When synchronizing my tape deck in the past, I would have "basic" sync, but because my 16-track ran under its own synchronizer/clock...it was never sample/frame perfect sync when dumping back and forth with the DAW.
So last year when I added a 2" tape deck, which doesn't have an on-board synchronizer, it forced a reevaluation and change in how I hooked everything together and locked it. I then added an external sync box (Micro Lynx)...and that brought the "house sync" and master clock consideration into focus.
Now I'm using an Aardvark Ardsync...but will be going with a Lucid master clock soon that I just picked up. The Aardvark is great, it just doesn't give me as much flexibility as the Lucid clock on the I/O and sampling rate options.
Anway...it certainly raised the complexity bar on my configuration --- Master Clock feeding word clock to three converters and also video black burst to my synchronizer, which then feeds SMPTE/MTC to my tape deck and also back to the converters----but now I do have sample/frame accurate between analog and digital devices...which is pretty cool, since I no longer have to "nudge" any tracks in the DAW when I do multiple or separate dumps from the tape, and of course, it also tightens up the sync between the three converters.
If I was just running one converter and nothing more...then a master clock would be overkill, and even if it was just the three converters, I would have left it as was before....but indirectly, it was actually the addition of the analog 2" tape deck that created the need for the digital master clock, which I guess is kinda funny.
So yeah...just curious whole else is using one.
When synchronizing my tape deck in the past, I would have "basic" sync, but because my 16-track ran under its own synchronizer/clock...it was never sample/frame perfect sync when dumping back and forth with the DAW.
So last year when I added a 2" tape deck, which doesn't have an on-board synchronizer, it forced a reevaluation and change in how I hooked everything together and locked it. I then added an external sync box (Micro Lynx)...and that brought the "house sync" and master clock consideration into focus.
Now I'm using an Aardvark Ardsync...but will be going with a Lucid master clock soon that I just picked up. The Aardvark is great, it just doesn't give me as much flexibility as the Lucid clock on the I/O and sampling rate options.
Anway...it certainly raised the complexity bar on my configuration --- Master Clock feeding word clock to three converters and also video black burst to my synchronizer, which then feeds SMPTE/MTC to my tape deck and also back to the converters----but now I do have sample/frame accurate between analog and digital devices...which is pretty cool, since I no longer have to "nudge" any tracks in the DAW when I do multiple or separate dumps from the tape, and of course, it also tightens up the sync between the three converters.
If I was just running one converter and nothing more...then a master clock would be overkill, and even if it was just the three converters, I would have left it as was before....but indirectly, it was actually the addition of the analog 2" tape deck that created the need for the digital master clock, which I guess is kinda funny.
So yeah...just curious whole else is using one.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
And here is that evidence: Does Your Studio Need A Digital Master Clock?
If at all possible use the internal clock of converters, especially AD converters because the degradation there can't be undone.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Well...I think it's a valid point in the article that any notion of a master clock always improving a single converter's quality is not the case....however, he is pretty clear that there are compelling reasons to use a master clock when multiple digital devices are being interconnected, because the out-of-sync issues will outweigh any slight audio hit from the master clock itself.
There isn't a clear answer that using master clocks is going to do more harm than good in any/every scenario, and as was also pointed out, in some cases the preference WAS the sound with the external master clock...so specs on a graph don't always provide a definitive answer. The article really says...it depends.
Anyway, I was more curious as to those folks who use them and in what conifiguration...rather than just the A/B test results of going with or without a master clock. I honestly didn't expect a lot of folks in this realm to be using them, as most wouldn't have need of involved analog/digital interconnection and synchronizations.
It's only a recent configuration change with my own rig...so, I was wondering what others here were doing.
There isn't a clear answer that using master clocks is going to do more harm than good in any/every scenario, and as was also pointed out, in some cases the preference WAS the sound with the external master clock...so specs on a graph don't always provide a definitive answer. The article really says...it depends.
Anyway, I was more curious as to those folks who use them and in what conifiguration...rather than just the A/B test results of going with or without a master clock. I honestly didn't expect a lot of folks in this realm to be using them, as most wouldn't have need of involved analog/digital interconnection and synchronizations.
It's only a recent configuration change with my own rig...so, I was wondering what others here were doing.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
^^^^ What Miroslav says.
In fact, it's what the SOS article says:
A few years ago there were lots of people claiming that an external word clock sounded better than the internal word clock in piece of gear XXXX. This sort of claim could almost always be debunked. However, this isn't really the purpose of the external word clock and, as systems get more complex (as Miroslav's has) there can be compelling reasons why a single central clock is better than lots of looping and BNC T pieces.
(As an aside, does anyone else read Dave Rat's blog about live sound? Dave is an incredibly knowledgeable live sound engineer but even he can get is wrong. A few years ago he blogged about the improvement he got by using an external clock rather than the "really bad" one internal to the Yamaha M7CL mixer. He illustrated this by including 'scope pictures of the Yamaha word clock (really bad with tons of overshoots etc.) and the proper external one. Crikey, I thought. That Yamaha word clock is appalling--and it was. However, the next blog featured Dave recanting it all. When he checked the Yamaha word clock on the scope, he'd forgotten to terminate the feed. As soon as a term was added, the Yamaha word clock could have been identical to the external one.)
In fact, it's what the SOS article says:
A few years ago there were lots of people claiming that an external word clock sounded better than the internal word clock in piece of gear XXXX. This sort of claim could almost always be debunked. However, this isn't really the purpose of the external word clock and, as systems get more complex (as Miroslav's has) there can be compelling reasons why a single central clock is better than lots of looping and BNC T pieces.
(As an aside, does anyone else read Dave Rat's blog about live sound? Dave is an incredibly knowledgeable live sound engineer but even he can get is wrong. A few years ago he blogged about the improvement he got by using an external clock rather than the "really bad" one internal to the Yamaha M7CL mixer. He illustrated this by including 'scope pictures of the Yamaha word clock (really bad with tons of overshoots etc.) and the proper external one. Crikey, I thought. That Yamaha word clock is appalling--and it was. However, the next blog featured Dave recanting it all. When he checked the Yamaha word clock on the scope, he'd forgotten to terminate the feed. As soon as a term was added, the Yamaha word clock could have been identical to the external one.)
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
To tell the truth...I was trying hard to avoid complicating my rig more than I had to...and my prior setup was to clock my first converter internally, and then from it send WC to the second, and from there to the third.
Once the Micro Lynx synchronizer was added, and the preferred usage of black burst to resolve the tape deck to was intorduced...it kinda' forced my hand on the master clock. I was now feeding BB to the Micro Lynx, but needed to also resolve the DAW to the BB. With the MicroLynx being an older piece, it can only do up to 48kHz, and only has a single WC output.
So...rather than getting a distro box...and I wanted to be able to use not just 44/48, but also 88/96...I got the Aardvark clock which has an on-board video generator, but it only could do 2X WC on two outputs...
....and I have three converters.
OK...so I could just run with 44/48 on all three converters for the most part, but for anything higher, opening up the Aardvark to switch jumpers and then doing two passes off the 24-track tape to only two 8-channel converters...was now going to make the whole thing messier.
So...now I'm going to go with a Lucid box that has the on-board video generator and more WC outputs than the Aardvark, plus it does everything up to 192kHz (though I've never gone past 88.2 for anything).
It got more complicated, but it also simplified and locked up the synchronization of the converters and the tape deck and the Micro Lynx. Whatever bit of jitter it may be adding I think is IMO offset by the better overall sync between devices.
I mean...in the end it was mostly about finding a working SOP for my rig...and I wasn't really getting the master clock just to try and improve the audio quality of the converters.
I will at some point do a few tests just for the hell of it to see if I can hear anything noticeable in the audio quality with and without the master clock...but for now I'm just trickled pink at how well I have the whole analog/digital rig synchronized!
Once the Micro Lynx synchronizer was added, and the preferred usage of black burst to resolve the tape deck to was intorduced...it kinda' forced my hand on the master clock. I was now feeding BB to the Micro Lynx, but needed to also resolve the DAW to the BB. With the MicroLynx being an older piece, it can only do up to 48kHz, and only has a single WC output.
So...rather than getting a distro box...and I wanted to be able to use not just 44/48, but also 88/96...I got the Aardvark clock which has an on-board video generator, but it only could do 2X WC on two outputs...
....and I have three converters.OK...so I could just run with 44/48 on all three converters for the most part, but for anything higher, opening up the Aardvark to switch jumpers and then doing two passes off the 24-track tape to only two 8-channel converters...was now going to make the whole thing messier.
So...now I'm going to go with a Lucid box that has the on-board video generator and more WC outputs than the Aardvark, plus it does everything up to 192kHz (though I've never gone past 88.2 for anything).
It got more complicated, but it also simplified and locked up the synchronization of the converters and the tape deck and the Micro Lynx. Whatever bit of jitter it may be adding I think is IMO offset by the better overall sync between devices.
I mean...in the end it was mostly about finding a working SOP for my rig...and I wasn't really getting the master clock just to try and improve the audio quality of the converters.
I will at some point do a few tests just for the hell of it to see if I can hear anything noticeable in the audio quality with and without the master clock...but for now I'm just trickled pink at how well I have the whole analog/digital rig synchronized!
Farview
Well-known member
Everyone is right. The only good reason to get an external clock is when you have to get more than two things in sync with each other. Not because it magically sounds better, but because it's the easiest/only way to avoid clicking and popping due to sync issues.