Anyone using Lucid Genx6 to clock your gear? Is this a good ext clock?

[PwAg]

Most will agree, having a good ext clock generator can make those so-so converter I/O boxes sound considerably better.

I'm currently running Motu 1224/RME Hammerfall-ADI8 Pro/ and numberable samplers/effects unit word clock capable. My Digi 001 Factory is on the way. Everything lives in Logic Plat, and some audio will be mixed in PT.

Talked with someone online...he was running MOTU 1224. When he clocked it off the Genx6, he said without exaggeration both A/D and D/A were completly superior. He said it sounded just as dynamic/clear/and punchy as his RME ADI-8 Pro DS.

So, $350 for this Lucid is a lucrative buy. Anyone say I should look at something else?

Can someone explain why the sound conversion increases in quality when clocking with a good ext unit? It reduces jitter...but what does this technically do to the signal flow? How does work clock sync? What kind of specs should I be looking for if I want the best possible?

Thanks.

Pete

[Lee Blaske]

Here's an interesting link you might wish to explore:
http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultim...c&f=3&t=001077

Several months ago, I installed a Genx6 to drive my two 888|24's and two ADAT bridges. I think it sounds better, but I have not done any exhaustive testing. It's not a knock-your-socks-off difference (and I really think that anyone who reports such a difference is a bit deluded).

Initial A/D is one thing, but remember that no matter how good a clock you have in your studio, when the consumer gets your product, they'll be playing it back using the clock in their CD player (which probably didn't cost more than a few pennies).

You might want to save your money, and simply buy a better A/D D/A convertor.

Lee Blaske

[heybluez]

Hello.

I currently have the Lucid Word Clock for my RME ADI-8 Pro. I recorded some guitar with it recently and must say while improving the sound a bit it was not that extraordinary. i think it would make more of a difference if I had a lot of devices that needed a clock source. It would not hurt but I agree with the previous post..preamps would be a better investment at this point. They do make a big difference in the sound...as well as the mics you are using of course.

Hope this helps....
-Michael

[Jules]

A Nanosyncs really cheered up an acc gtr via an 888/24 (more lush / classy sounding) so I bought it.

Since then the Ludic box has come out for less money..

Still, ther Nano has extra video features that have been handy for my studios clients..

Right now I am using it to distrabute Apogee cloick round my place.. I decided after tests that I prefered the Apogee clock to the Nano clock...

Bottom line is that new Lucid box is cheap, anyone with Digidesign interfaces should consider it for an instant sound quality boost..

[img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[kal]

Gen-x 6/96 clocking: 888/24, ADAT Bridge, Tascam TM-D8000 mixer & IF-AE8 aes interface, Presonus Digimax pre, Aphex 1100 pre all works fine!

[Greg Malcangi]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Can someone explain why the sound conversion increases in quality when clocking with a good ext unit? It reduces jitter...but what does this technically do to the signal flow? How does work clock sync? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't give you an in depth techincal explanation but I can tell you in layman's terms: Effectively wordclock defines the duration of a digital sample. So for the best results we need to have a very accurate and very stable clock source. Anything that deviates from the theoretically perfect clock signal is measured in pico seconds and termed jitter. The real problems start to occur when there is more than one digital piece of gear in the recording chain. Obviously you are never going to get the clock in the second unit to start, stop and continue exactly in sync with the first unit. This would cause so much jitter that the system would be unusable. So the second unit automatically bypasses it's own clock and instead uses the clock signal from the first unit that's embedded in the digital audio stream. So if you've got a system with more than one piece of digital gear in the chain and you can get a usable signal out of both of them then they are already wordclock sync'ed. Daisy-chaining the clock signal like this reduces the jitter to a level which allows the digital devices to operate together but is still far from perfect. If you think about it your clock signal is being generated and used by the first unit, it's then embedded in the digital data stream and passed onto the second unit via a connecting cable. The second unit then extracts and processes this clock signal to use as it's own clock reference. Obviously there is a delay between the first unit getting it's clock signal and the second unit. Depending on the length and quality of the connecting cable and the speed at which the clock signal is processed by the second unit there could be a delay of several hundred pico seconds. If you then add a third unit to the equation and daisy-chain the clock signal from the second unit you've then got an even bigger delay within the system, between the first and third units. The more pieces you daisy-chain the worse it gets. In this scenario you would use a dedicated masterclock. Each of the two units would receive a separate feed from the masterclock, which means that both units get an identical clock signal at exactly the same instant, provided both cables from your masterclock are of the same length and specification. So you've not only completely eliminated the jitter caused by daisy-chaining but you've also probably improved the quality of the clock source.

So what benefits are you going to hear by properly clocking your system: This of course depends on how much jitter your system currently has, how much can be removed by using a dedicated masterclock and of course your ears and monitoring environment. The worst case scenario is that you are not wordclock sync'ed and the system simply won't work. Next on the list is severe jitter, you get pops and crackles and even cut outs. These are extreme examples, most daisy-chained systems will have varying levels of moderate jitter. With moderate jitter the most likely improvements you will notice by properly clocking your system is a wider more defined stereo image, better separation, slightly less harsh mid highs and much tighter more defined low mids.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>What kind of specs should I be looking for if I want the best possible?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forget about printed specs. There is no standard method for measuring jitter specs so comparison is completely pointless. For instance most companies buy in the clock crystal from third party manufacturers and some of them just print the jitter specs provided by the crystal manufacturer. Other companies measure the jitter after the signal from the crystal has been processed by the unit. Therefore it's entirely possible that a unit with jitter specs of 80ps has a more accurate and more stable clock than a unit with jitter specs of 50ps!

Greg