While Engadget is
no stranger to wacky clocks and even the occasional
atomic goofiness, this is the first time we've seen them combined with a promise to make your musical creations sound better - but that's exactly what clock-obsessed Antelope Audio is claiming with its new Isochrone 10M atomic master clocker. Although most pro studios already rely on external clocks to keep all their gear marching to the same beat, Antelope claims that its rubidium-powered baby is 100,000 times more stable than traditional crystal oscillator clocks, an upgrade that'll allow you to pump out the jams for up to eight days without missing a step. No deets on pricing or availability, but Antelope says that the 10M is the first "affordable" atomic clocker, so we'll see what they think that means when this thing drops.
[Via
MusicThing]
posted Apr 19th 2007 1:02AM
All this technology and still, sound recordists on film sets ALWAYS forget to jam their slates to their audio recorders!!!
so... we as listeners are supposed to be able to hear the difference?
It's pretty though...
well, recordings are the sum of all parts.
if you hear a great recording done on digital, it was most likely tied to an external clock like this one. (apogee makes the most popular)
The point of having an external clock is to generate "house sync" -- that is, to rhythmically align various devices that use internal clocks or are clock-dependent. That way, your vintage sequencer/beatbox vocoder barbeque, a flick on VHS running on SMPTE and your trusty CPU may conversate on the beat with minimal timing issues and zero deviation.
Generally, house sync is just that: a unifying clock within a single setup. One possible use of an "atomic" house sync (if that literally meant syncing to the atomic clock) might be to allow people in different places to run the same sequence simultaneously and write tracks together in real time.
@ Scott
Well without an external clocking source, assuming the engineer is using a good array of outboard digital processors, they all need to adhere to a sample rate. If the Sample Rate varies between any of the individual components (even 10 samples can make a huge difference, think that on a CD, there are 44,100 Samples per second), you'll start to hear what's called "Jitter". Jitter represents itself as clicks and pops in the audio, so an external clock is essentially the heartbeat of the studio.
Not that any self respecting engineer would ever let a track go to Mastering with Jitter noise.
If you look at the jitter selector, you'll see that the point is to determine the output type to generate.
"Sample-accurate sync" means that nothing is dropped. It is a way of saying one's sync is very accurate, and has more to do with latency than the sort of jitter issues to which audiophiles commonly refer.
Various devices in my home and studio rig purport to be "sample-accurate" but are not immune to latency. A lot depends on the power of one's core CPU and/or workstation and the efficiency with which SW and plugins make use of it.
Your comments: If you look at the jitter selector, you'll see that the point
is to determine which kind of sync to generate.
"Sample-accurate sync" is suppoed to mean that no samples are dropped. It is a way of saying one's sync is very accurate, and has more to do with latency than the sort of playback jitter to which audiophiles commonly refer.
Various devices in my home and studio rig purport to be "sample-accurate" but are not immune to latency. A lot depends on the power of one's CPU and/or workstation and the ways in which SW and plugins make use of it.
there are no guarantees about the benefits of external clocking. most digital gurus agree that the best clock is most often the internal clock found inside the device where the conversion is taking place, as there is no Phase Locked Loop circuit in the way. PLL is responsible for resolving the external clock into the sample stream at 44,000+ samples a second. poor PLL design and implementation is the norm in most all consumer and prosumer devices (sub $1500), so clocking to outside wordclock is usually done out of sync necessity and not for sonic improvement.
on the other hand, many high end digital audio devices that have quality PLL circuits have the ability to resolve to incoming wordclock accurately and therefore dramatic changes in frequency response can be heard. i have owned many clocks (I am currently using the Apogee Big Ben and the Mytek 192) and I learned that changes in sound are usually a matter of taste. for example, I prefer the Mytek predominantly for acoustic music conversion because it seems to yield more transparency and the Big Ben for rock / pop music for its thicker mids & slightly hyped bottom end.
i imagine most readers here would be better off with a jitter reducing digital to analog converter that has the ability to clean up the sample stream. such devices have SPDIF (toslink or coax) inputs that interface with many consumer based digital devices. i like the Benchmark DAC-1, Lavry Black, or the Mytek Stereo DAC as sub $1000 options that will make an immediate difference for most any playback system. :-)
Oh so this is why my album hasn't gone platinum yet!! I thought it was because my music sucked, but apparently a clock makes all the difference. Once I get a clock I'm sure people will finally enjoy my music.
zuh?
With rubidium onboard i'd recommend that you dont get it wet!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCk0lYB_8c0
@Cody
Jitter is not a difference in sample rates, it is variation, or uncertainty, in the precise edges of the clock itself. It does not represent itself "as clicks and pops in the audio". Some audio data streams are self-clocking and it is the imprecise nature of that mechanism that is referred to as jitter. Clicks and pops are caused, among many things, by failures in the synchronization of a digital data stream using two different clocks. Self-clocking doesn't exhibit that.
The only area an accurate, syncronized clock have effect is A-D and D-A conversion. When processing data digitally, a clock just needs to run.
So, have they done any double-blind AB tests that show a perceptible improvement when using a clock like this?
Audiophiles (as opposed to audio engineers) seem remarkably unwilling to do AB testing. It's often quite embarrassing.
@ Burnin'
Actually, house sync traditionally refers to blackburst. I won't bore anyone here with the details.
------
@ Robbie
Not to put too fine a point on it, but you are almost entirely incorrect in your first paragraph. The benefits of external clock are widely known. External clock generators, such as the Big Ben and the Nanosyncs, are in use at virtually every major studio in the world. This sounds like a comment from someone who is familiar with PLL circuits in theory but has not much practical experience with them in real working situations.
@ Gopi
I don't know who "they" are, but we have. As robbie stated in his second paragraph, the changes (read: improvements) are perceptible and vary from box to box. Before I owned a studio, I had a similar device called an Aardsync that was great for me and my single 64-channel Pro Tools rig (pulldown with the turning of one knob was the best - no menus!). That was until I expanded and heard a Nanosyncs, which was great for larger setups, which was great until I heard... it's never-ending!