3 Sync Boxes (Rosendahl / Aardsync / Genx) which one sounds best

[Daniel_Dettwiler]

Hi there

I wonder if sombody has compared different clocking sources. I either go for

-Aardsync
-Nanosync (Rosendahl)
-GenX (Lusid' Syncbox)

I'm looking for answears from people who compared at least two of them. I know, that if someone never had a sync with ProTools Systems, and then both eitner one of this gears the improovments were there. But I'm interessted in a comparisation.

daniel
ideeundklang

[audiaudio]

Check out this link for an interesting comparison:

http ://www.audiomedia.com/archive/features/uk-0401/uk-0401-wordclock/uk-0401-workclock.htm

[Daniel_Dettwiler]

Thank you, I already read this in audiomedia. Indeed interessting, toobad that they did not also test the GENX. Also they don't really write what they listened exactly, and I think they did not record and listen to different material. Also they gave notes to the units, but exept the describtion that the stereoimage is not so good with 888 24 Clocked with usd they did not really discribe what the difference was soundwise...
Daniel

[Haniel Trisna]

Here it is,

http://www.mackie .com/scripts/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000624


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Daniel_Dettwiler:
Hi there

I wonder if sombody has compared different clocking sources. I either go for

-Aardsync
-Nanosync (Rosendahl)
-GenX (Lusid' Syncbox)

I'm looking for answears from people who compared at least two of them. I know, that if someone never had a sync with ProTools Systems, and then both eitner one of this gears the improovments were there. But I'm interessted in a comparisation.

daniel
ideeundklang<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

[SmlTwnGuy]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Haniel Trisna:
Here it is,

[URL=http://www.mackie.com/scripts/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000624]http://www.mackie .com/scripts/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000624[/URL

[img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That guys test is flawed. He simply remixed songs using various clocks that were originally recorded with yet a different clock. To be an accurate test, in the way he intended, the material would have to be both A to D'ed and then D to A'ed with the various clocks, and still then transferred to an analog storage medium for final playback. External clocks only help at the point of conversion. Since most people are mixing to digital, the only conversion relevant to the external clocks would be on the way in, which is the only way he didn't do it! So, his test means nothing.

[Noiz2]

Thats not quite corect. If you read his original post outlining the tests he also recorded the demo out of his keyboard, that would have gone through the full proses... providing he recorded analog to CD. The part of this test that bothered me was he remixed for each clock, so the mixes arn't the same, making comparison almost imposable. I think this is more of what you originaly asked for, someone who tried all three and he is giving you his experience. It's his opinion and he spent a fair amount of time with all three so I would give creedence to his opinion...but it's just that opinion. This is not a scientific test... but still I think usefull.