To "Big Ben" or not to "Big Ben"?

[MAXIMUSIC]

Hey guys...
I've started this post to get a few feedbacks, little I knew.... so many opinions, so many controversies... all very interesting though !
After using the Big Bucks...sorry... Big Ben for a few days I can finally give my own judgment.
I do hear a difference, very subtle but it is there, in my search for the "perfect sound" I have spent lots of $ and I'm still missing several steps.
I cannot, in my clear mind say that it will change the way my sound sounds (poor rhyme) but if hear something better I keep it.
I will definitely try the rosetta800 maybe that will force me to return the Big Bucks... sorry again... Big Ben.
What am I saying? Rosetta800? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$$$$$$$$$$$$$ again.
Thanks for all your posts, keep'em coming.

ps:"Big Bucks" is just a joke ! (before it gets out of hand)

[DigiGeek]

everyone that I know who has an hd rig has said that there was significant improvement when they added big ben to the rig. In fact I only know one person who has hd that doesn't have it. Better stereo imaging and more definition in bottom end. the one thing that I've noticed is that you have to commit to using it or not meaning you can't start a mix and decide to use it in the middle of it. I'm a producer and not an engineer but I have it and so does every mix engineer I know and pt guy I know in L.A. and all are using it with their digi i/o's...so it's not just me.

my thoughts,

ej

I agree with this 100%. I know many people besides myself, all working engineers and producers, that swear by Big Ben, whether they have 192 I/Os, 888s or something else. That being said, a clock can only take you so far. If your converters are sub-par, Big Ben can only take it so far. My advice to those with 888s is to consider getting better converters before worrying about Big Ben. Although, I will say that I have done a great deal of listening to the 192I/O with and without Big Ben in different facilities, and to me the difference with and without it is not subtle. Big Ben is a must-have with a 192 I/o IMO.

[Rockman-Songwriter]

For me (as for most people), unfortunately, budget is very tight. This Apogee stuff sure ain't cheap. I'll probably return the Big Ben tomorrow (I've only had it 2 or 3 days)... since it hasn't really helped my sound very much, given the rest of my gear. I wonder if getting the Rosetta 800 96k instead, would help my sound to a greater degree than simply the Big Ben. (At this point, there's no way I can afford both at the same time). The Rosetta obviously has better converters than the 888, and apparently, a pretty good clock as well. Maybe that's my better option. Any thoughts?

[Adamsound]

I agree with the earlier post that the biggest difference is at lower sampling rates, and I can say from personal experience that the difference was MUCH more obvious with Mix systems. I have an Aardsync which I don't use much anymore because I cut a lot of stuff at 96k. I worked on one system with a Big Ben, and everything sounded fantastic, but there was no way to A/B. Having done A/B tests with my Aardsync before and after HD, I still think it sounds "tighter", but the effect is much more subtle with an HD system. I would love to try the Rosendahl.

[fifty8th1]

Annas,

I wrote you yesterday morning early but forgot to hit the send button !!!

With us also, we would love to get a Rosetta 800. But hek ... it takes two of them !
One for D to A and one for A to D .. So ya its pricey. To bad the Big Ben didn't work out for you.
It was the answer for us. Plus added the Trak2 ...but that was a huge expense too. I had to get the protools card 400.00 and also had to add the D to A converter card for it .. another 400.00. I bought the Tack2 on Ebay so I saved 500.00 but still a lot.
We use the Trak2 for everything that comes into the system that only needs 1 or 2 Tracks. We also fly out and in to the system thru the Trak2 when processing with out-board equipment. (something we do more and more of). The Apogee Trak2 has great converters .. has its own great clock .. ( which can clock the 888) . It has a pair of great mic pre ( oh that's right .. you have great mic pre's ..) It also has a lot of built in software and software for better burning of CD's ... Actually its full of stuff that is all good. Two great full length LED's that the Rosetta doesn't have.

So this is how we solved our problem. Still $$$$$$$........... Sorry !

Jon
58th ...........

[TLmix]

Digidesign's main engineer for the 192 I|O went into detail some time ago about how the clocking works for the 192 I|O. Based on a composite of several of his comments, this is my understanding: During A to D conversion the 192 I|O ALWAYS uses the clock from the 192 I|O as the conversion clock regardless of whether or not an external clock is driving the system. It is true that an external clock can drive the PLL of the 192 in order to synchronize it with other digital devices, but at the point of A to D conversion it is the 192's clock that is affecting the process. This is why the designer of the Nanosyncs told me that his box would not affect the sound quality of the 192. He could have told me otherwise and tried to sell me his box, but he didn't. I presented this argument to someone at Apogee and all they would say is that "users have reported" an improvement in sound quality when using their clock.

Here's a link to one of digidesign's engineer's comments:

D Clementson

He is saying that if you use an "inferior" external clock then the 192 I|O will attenuate the inferior clock and it is then less likely to have a "negative" influence on the sound quality. If you are not synchronizing other digital devices to your system then you should not need an external clock. If you need to synchronize other digital gear to your system and you end up using a good stable clock, like Big Ben, then it won't have ANY "negative" effect on the sound quality, but it won't have a positive one either because in the end the internal 192 I|O clock is driving the converters, regardless of whether or not an external source is driving the system.

I agree 100%. The only noticeable difference that I have detected is when referencing the Sync I/O to video. Particularly with multiple 192's and having PT lock to LTC. I've only noticed it for playback.

T

[losttimestudios]

Why not get a Rosetta 800 and use it for your master clock? Although the 800 and Big Ben clocks are slightly different, with the 800 you would have both Apogee conversion and clock.

[Logichead]

Annas,

I wrote you yesterday morning early but forgot to hit the send button !!!

With us also, we would love to get a Rosetta 800. But hek ... it takes two of them !
One for D to A and one for A to D .. So ya its pricey. To bad the Big Ben didn't work out for you.
It was the answer for us. Plus added the Trak2 ...but that was a huge expense too. I had to get the protools card 400.00 and also had to add the D to A converter card for it .. another 400.00. I bought the Tack2 on Ebay so I saved 500.00 but still a lot.
We use the Trak2 for everything that comes into the system that only needs 1 or 2 Tracks. We also fly out and in to the system thru the Trak2 when processing with out-board equipment. (something we do more and more of). The Apogee Trak2 has great converters .. has its own great clock .. ( which can clock the 888) . It has a pair of great mic pre ( oh that's right .. you have great mic pre's ..) It also has a lot of built in software and software for better burning of CD's ... Actually its full of stuff that is all good. Two great full length LED's that the Rosetta doesn't have.

So this is how we solved our problem. Still $$$$$$$........... Sorry !

Jon
58th ...........

The Rosetta 800's are 8 channels of AD and 8 channels of DA. Two Rosetta 800's gives you 16 channels of i/o.

Best....H

[Rockman-Songwriter]

Hello again Jon (and hello everyone),

Yea Jon... actually the Rosetta 800 has 8 inputs AND 8 outputs. I think I've pretty much decided on returning the Big Ben and getting the Rosetta instead (at more than twice the price of the Big Ben, but oh well...). I gotta do what I gotta do...

I was just really suprised (and disappointed) that the Big Ben did very little for my current setup. I had thought that it would do wonders, especially for a Mix Plus system, with an 888/24, and recording at 44.1. I had thought that this recording setup (at this sampling rate) was exactly the kind of situation where the Big Ben would make the MOST difference. But for some reason, I could hardly hear the difference. Really strange. Let's hope the Rosetta will do better for me, than the Big Ben did.

[Donny]

Hi Annas,

I'm surprised you didn't find that much of a difference using your Mix system with 888/24s. I know you said that Apogee support said you were connecting everything up correctly but I have to ask anyway - is the "Slave" light lit on your 888/24(s)? Are you using good quality clock cables (nice and short length)? Also, as someone else pointed out, if most of the tracks in your session are midi tracks controlling midi gear, you're probably not going to hear much of a difference. Where I really heard a difference is sessions where all midi tracks were converted to audio tracks and sessions where all the tracking had been done. Part of the difference I noticed was the clarity and seperation between instruments while mixing, and particularly in the low and high departments. Like I said, though, these were sessions where everything was an audio track in PT and no midi tracks as any midi tracks in any of my sessions get converted to audio tracks before beginning the mixing process.

-Donny