HD clock or external clock

[Beegster]

I have been holding out on upgrading to HD, but I think that will change shortly. In your opinion, is the clock in the new HD 192 good enough, or do you think it is worth the extra cash for an Aardsync, or lucid clock?

[sdevino]

IMO the 192 clock is VERY good.

If you are planning to use the converters in the 192 then using an external clock will not change the clock performance of the converter clock in the 192 (based on my understanding). The internal clcok is generated from a PLL which means it regenerates its own clcock whetehr you apply an external clock or use the internal reference.

[Allan Speers]

Actually,

If you are planning to use the converters in the 192 then using an external clock will likely make the jitter WORSE. Even an Aardsync. I've seen test results.

Use an external clock only if you must lock to something. If you want lower jitter, you must use an external CONVERTER. -There are a few available with better sound than the 192, but they are expensive. Be prepared to dig deep.

The 192 is really pretty good. Not as world-class as some would have you believe, but unless you have a SERIOUS mic & pre collection, your money would be best spent elsewhere.

[Ray Fabi]

I for one have a few 192's, and I have clocked the system with my Apogee PSX 100, for digitizing sound from a 3/4'' machine. I have done some quick tests, and can't seem to notice a difference between the clocked and internal clocked 192...

[Jules]

I wonder how my 96k Prism Dream ADA'a will fare clockwise when coupled to a HD Digi i/o at 96k via AES?

Anyone care to hazard a guess?

[Allan Speers]

Jules, send them to me for a week and I'll let you know! [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

Ray, I'm not surprised by what you (don't) hear. With a very good external clock, like the Apogee, the increase in jitter is extremely small, and so probably not audible (but this is only with the 192, not an 888.) The point is, it didn't make things better, so an external clock is not something to consider for users who are not locking to b-burst or code.

[Kenny Meriedeth]

I used an Aardsync for the 3 years I owned my Mix+ system with 888/24's and an Apogee AD8000. Definately made a difference especialy with the 888's. Since getting my HD system with the 192's, I really couldn't detect a difference using the 192 clock or Aardsync. Off to Ebay it went. I do not miss my Aardsync or AD8000's at all. I could not make this same claim with the Mix+.

Kenny Meriedeth

[jphurst]

With the 888|24, using a Nanosyncs as the word clock master yielded a small but usually noticeable improvement on all sounds coming in and out. With the 192 I/O, I find that the changes in sound quality when using the Nanosyncs are either *extremely* subtle (but still positive), or nonexistant to my ears, depending on the source material. More often than not, I couldn't identify any sonic improvements, but it did happen sometimes.

-Jason

[ThomasAdler]

Hello everyone,

This morning, at a major Pro Audio dealer in LA...I did an A/B playback listening test between the HD 192 internal clock and the HD 192 clocked externally with the AardSync II.

Not surprisingly, the AardSync II made a clear cut difference. The results were quite apparent: Much increased stereo imaging, tighter bass, clarity in highs, ability to pick out various characteristics of the mix. Everyone in the room agreed that the AardSync II made a significant improvement over the HD 192 internal clock.

At first glance, it may appear that I am here to trumpet the AardSync II and to sell product... and while it is true that I do work for the company and am appropriately biased, there is more to it than that.

Im not really here to sell things... Im here to let you know that the advantages of a superior low-jitter external clock, such as the AardSync II is something that you really need to hear for yourself with your own ears... and is not something that can be put into a "spec", a "theory" or on a piece of paper.

I'd encourage all of you to do your own listening tests with ours, or any other external word clock, even if it means having to beg, borrow or rent one. You just may be pleasantly surprised at what you hear.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions or would like more details on this mornings session.

Thomas Adler
Aardvark Digital Audio
[email protected]

[Lee Blaske]

This morning, at a major Pro Audio dealer in LA...I did an A/B playback listening test between the HD 192 internal clock and the HD 192 clocked externally with the AardSync II.
Not surprisingly, the AardSync II made a clear cut difference. The results were quite apparent: Much increased stereo imaging, tighter bass, clarity in highs, ability to pick out various characteristics of the mix. Everyone in the room agreed that the AardSync II made a significant improvement over the HD 192 internal clock.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Was everyone else in the room also on Aardvark's payroll? [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

I don't mean to be flip (well maybe I do, just a little), but I can only view the above post to be somewhat desperate.

I'm sorry, but I've read a few too many claims of spectacular, take-your-breath-away improvements from a few too many companies. While I'd like to believe that dramatic improvements are still possible, I'm more and more coming to the conclusion that we're very much into the land of diminishing returns for audio equipment. That's not a bad thing, though, because the tools we have are very good. The skill which with we use these tools is going to mean a whole lot more as we move forward.

and is not something that can be put into a "spec", a "theory" or on a piece of paper.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Then what is it? Religion? Magic? Was the Aardsync II designed by Uri Geller?

This is verging on being biblical.

Lee Blaske