Dan Lavry on jitter and the universe

PC Configurations, motherboards, etc, etc

Moderators: valis, garyb

User avatar
nightscope
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: UK

Dan Lavry on jitter and the universe

Post by nightscope »

More from Dan Lavry's posts on Reaper forum.

"Say you have a movie camera designed to take 100 picture frames per second, thus a frame every .01 second. You are pointing the camera at an ball moving from left to right at a constant speed, and you take a whole second of that motion, that is 100 picture frames. When you “play it back” with a movie projector that runs a picture each .01 second, everything would “be fine”, as intended.

But let us say that the camera is very “unsteady”. It takes a picture, then it waits .05 seconds, then it takes 5 frames within say .001sec, then a couple of frames at .01 second…. When you play it back, the projector “does not know” what happened at the camera, and the ball may like it is slowing at mid air for a brief time, then it zooms real fast some distance…. That is distortion due to timing error – time jitter. Note that if the camera was OK but the projector had jitter, that also would be a problem. So jitter counts at 2 places – at the camera (which is analogous to the AD), and at the projector (which is analogous to the DA). Jitter is important at the converters.

In one sense, jitter at the AD is more important, because once it takes place; it is in the signal forever. One can replace a bad DA with a good one, and that will eliminate the jitter issue of a poor DA, but what the AD does can not be undone.

Analogies can be misleading. In the case of movies, with enough still frames per second, the eye makes it looks like continues motion. In the case of conversion, it is the analog circuitry that takes the samples and makes them into a continues wave. But I chose the analogy of video, because audio and video (as well as many other applications) are fundamentally based on equal and precise time intervals. The time between each adjacent sample should be exactly the same, and if it is not, there is jitter, which will distort the outcome.

I said that jitter is important at the conversion. What about jitter in transferring say data from AD to a computer hard drive? The answer – it is not important, because we are just moving data from one place to another. You can move one frame every second, very slow indeed, or move a million frames a second, very fast. You can move half the data now, wait a while then move the rest of it… It does not matter, because you are not viewing it. But one you play it back you need the timing to be clocked precisely.
But some manufactures and sellers of clocks wanted to sell clocks, so they decided to convince the world that you need to clock everything. And with enough advertizing money, they where pretty successful doing just that. There are times when you need to use external clock box – when you want to have a lot of gear (AD channels) work together. But as long as you do not need external clock and you can use internal, use internal. It is not only cheaper, it is better!

What you need is the “best clock circuit you can make” that is very steady to be very near your AD circuit – short connection, good grounding… That is internal clock.

Say you take the same “best clock circuit you can make” and put it in another chassis. Will that be better? Not, it will be worse. You now have to deal with 2 chassis thus grounding issues. You have a cable that can pick interference, you have a cable termination imperfection, a cable driver, a cable receiver, and I did not even start… By the time your clock arrives from the clock box, it has so much jitter that it requires some “jitter cleaning circuitry” – typically a PLL circuit…. I pride myself for making very fine external clock circuitry, but no way can I make the external clock circuitry be as good as internal. Almost as good, yes, but never as good.

However, the clock BS’ers are still arguing that their external clock will improve the sound. There is some claim of a “proprietary clock signal” that will make things better. That is a crock if there ever was one! The clock box to the AD connection is a ONE WAY street. The clock “DOES NOT KNOW” what the AD is doing. What kind of a clock box signal is going to improve ALL the following an Ad's:

1. AD with a lot of jitter induce by 60Hz power line
2. AD with little jitter induced by 60Hz power line
3. AD with jitter induce from digital circuit noise
4. AD with jitter due to nearby radio transmitter
5. AD with jitter due to nearby power tools
6. AD with jitter induced from the digital audio data
7. AD with almost perfect timing
8. AD that is powered off…

This is analogous to a doctor that can cure all illness, doing so without any information about the patient…

One of the main offending marketing BS guys said that you can take a tone and have it sound better with jitter. You can alter a fixed tone with jitter, and can argue that you like it, or that you do not like it. But the alteration has to be deliberate for a specific constant tone (including fixed amplitude). You change the tone and the distortion changes... Jitter distortions are very complicated, and they are an INTERACTION between the clock timing AND THE MUSIC. The last I heard, music is not a constant fixed tone :-) The simplest of jitter (random jitter) will increase your noise floor. More complex jitter makes for all sorts of undesired at frequencies that depend on the music, but at frequencies that are not musical harmonics, thus sound bad….

I first stated that internal clock is best a few years ago, and had to deal with a lot of attacks on a forum I was moderating. I insisted that the technical folks come in, instead of the marketing types, and sure enough, the technical types backed off after a short “fight” because they had no leg to stand on. A couple of years later, Digidesign wrote a paper about clocks, and they second me by saying that internal clocks are the best (when you can use internal clocks). I pointed that out and that brought about more attacks… The low jitter crock (I meant to say clock) goes on, and people are clocking with external clocks a lot of stuff they do not need to.

When your AD is using the internal clock for conversion, you are doing the best you can. The data sent forward to a computer, DAW or what not, is “after the conversion” so it does not need to be clocked with special care for jitter, and a “standard” link (say AES or SPDIF) is just fine for data transfer.

There are times when you need to use external clock, and when you need to, use external, when it is a needed trade off. For example, say you want to clock 2 or more AD chassis together... But other then that, internal is the better way to go!

Regards
Dan Lavry"

ns
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

but a good external clock is a good idea if there are a number of devices to be synced.....
User avatar
nightscope
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: UK

Post by nightscope »

garyb wrote:but a good external clock is a good idea if there are a number of devices to be synced.....
Yeah, I got that bit. Worth knowing that, apart from using multiple devices when A>D'ing, there's no jitter issue. For me, anyway. Being a jitter dumbo. :-?

ns
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

yeah, sales text is irresistable sometimes... :lol:
User avatar
astroman
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman »

well, Mr. Lavry completely misses to mention the precision of the respective clock signal, leaving an 'apple versus oranges' impression to his elaboration about internal-external clock banalities... :D

the point is: why do only the makers of the (supposedly) most sophisticated gear publish their clock's specs in error ppm ?
RME does it, the so-called BSers usually do it, but where's EMU, M-Audio, VIA, Realtek etc ? Even SonicCore is missing... :-? ;)

cheers, Tom
User avatar
nightscope
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: UK

Post by nightscope »

astroman wrote:well, Mr. Lavry completely misses to mention the precision of the respective clock signal, leaving an 'apple versus oranges' impression to his elaboration about internal-external clock banalities... :D

the point is: why do only the makers of the (supposedly) most sophisticated gear publish their clock's specs in error ppm ?
RME does it, the so-called BSers usually do it, but where's EMU, M-Audio, VIA, Realtek etc ? Even SonicCore is missing... :-? ;)

cheers, Tom
Well, you could always ask him. Then you'd find out. He's answered everyone's questions in great detail so far. Here's the link:-

http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19675

ns
User avatar
darkrezin
Posts: 2132
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: crackney

Post by darkrezin »

I think what he's saying is pretty reasonable - I don't detect anything in there beyond 'an internal clock will always inherently be less susceptible to jitter than an external clock', which seems fair and logical enough to me. As far as I know wordclock is unbalanced and prone to picking up interference. Whatever the theory, I'm clocking my setup with a Rosetta over wordclock at the moment, and it sounds great to me. I haven't got the simplest clocking chain either.
User avatar
Neutron
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Great white north eh
Contact:

Post by Neutron »

so whats better? the clock in an a16 ultra or the one in a scope card?
normally I use the scope as the master, but according to this i should use a16.

i always thought part of the reason scope sounds good is because it has a good clock. but if i can make it better for free?

is there any way to measure jitter on a recorded sound?

I also have a couple of things connected to scope by SP/DIF now those will have an even longer route for the clock if i use a16u

SP/DIF unit -------------rca------------SCOPE-------------adat----------A16u
SP/DIF unit--------------rca------------/
User avatar
astroman
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman »

you may find some note about RME Steadyclock interesting in this context

cheers, Tom
User avatar
darkrezin
Posts: 2132
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: crackney

Post by darkrezin »

Neutron - as far as I can understand, Lavry's comments refer to an ideal digital system which does not contain multiple devices (in practice, this is a very rare situation).

There's nothing in what he said that would make your A16U or Scope card inherently better for clocking.

In practical terms though - I always had very good results when I was using the A16U as master, but if you can't hear any difference it's easier not to change it - apart from anything the sync settings are saved with a Scope project and its a PITA to change them all if you have a lot of projects that you go back to.
User avatar
darkrezin
Posts: 2132
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: crackney

Post by darkrezin »

Astro - interesting sidenote.. something in the RME wordclocking doesn't particularly like the Scope wordclocking here for some reason. I can't have the RME and Scope cards in the wordclock chain. I do of course use BNC T-Pieces and terminators on each end instead of using WC in and out ports on each device - this means that everything in the chain should be in sync - using in and out chaining leads to a delay of at least a sample on each device - this means that if they are connected to each other there will be problems. The way I had to chain everything was like this:

Apogee Rosetta (master) - wordclock to A16U, Scope rig 1, Scope rig2
- ADAT to RME 9652 (9652 slaves from ADAT)

Apogee DA12 - slaved to Scope rig 1 over ADAT

Eventide eclipse - slaved to RME with SPDIF in/out

RME connected to Scope rig 1 over 2 ADAT i/o

Scope rig 1 - connected to Scope rig 2 over 1 ADAT i/o
- connected to A16U over 2 ADAT i/o

In this config everything that connects to something else digitally is properly in sync where it matters. It took me quite a while to arrive at this routing setup :D
User avatar
valis
Posts: 7681
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Post by valis »

I've got an RME Multiface clocking my Scope cards (Pulsar2 master) without any issues. Your setup is quite a bit more esoteric than mine but I don't think the issue is inherently RME's, though it might be in the ways that the various devices sync to external clocks.
Fluxpod
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Telefunkenland

Post by Fluxpod »

valis wrote:I've got an RME Multiface clocking my Scope cards (Pulsar2 master) without any issues. Your setup is quite a bit more esoteric than mine but I don't think the issue is inherently RME's, though it might be in the ways that the various devices sync to external clocks.
Almost the same exept the rme is the master in my setup.
Dan is right tho..i hear it waay to often that people claim that an externel clock improoved the sound on their ...mbox...etc i think its stupid to buy a clock that costs twice or more then the converter its attached too.
No idea if you people seen these.http://www.antelopeaudio.com/de/index.html

Dont get me wrong tho..if you have multiple ad/da units it makes sense to have a good Masterclock but often people without any clue buy one to gain an advantage on some subpar single converters.Buy a better ad/da in the first place!
External clocks change the sound and some people like that..but it is not Better its just..well changed. /rant...this clocking hype needs a stop!!! :x
User avatar
Neutron
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Great white north eh
Contact:

Post by Neutron »

:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

This would be perfect for the home theater enthusiast who already spent $100,000 on speaker cables but still cant seem to get that perfect sound.
it must be the crappy quartz clock! get an atomic one! (even though the original recording used a soundblaster as the clock source)
Fluxpod
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Telefunkenland

Post by Fluxpod »

Neutron wrote:
:roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

This would be perfect for the home theater enthusiast who already spent $100,000 on speaker cables but still cant seem to get that perfect sound.
it must be the crappy quartz clock! get an atomic one! (even though the original recording used a soundblaster as the clock source)
To be fair...i heard it on a protools hd 7 setup with 4 apogee da 16x and ...it was the real shit.Tested instead of the standart digi sync device it really had something that is very hard to describe but i dunno if the price is worth it.The difference( i wont say improvement) was small but there.
User avatar
Neutron
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Great white north eh
Contact:

Post by Neutron »

If you see something very expensive like that in a room your brain will make it sound better just from knowing how much it costs. this is how monster cable and boutique stereo equipment works anyways :)
Fluxpod
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Telefunkenland

Post by Fluxpod »

Neutron wrote:If you see something very expensive like that in a room your brain will make it sound better just from knowing how much it costs. this is how monster cable and boutique stereo equipment works anyways :)
Yes! Thats why i wont say that it was better...you should see the warmup phase on the 10m....nightriderstyle...warm up warm up...the thing gets heated and cooled.Its such a complicated sector i dont know what to say about it really.At least it looks super amazing pro :D
User avatar
astroman
Posts: 8455
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by astroman »

Neutron wrote:...your brain will make it sound better just from knowing how much it costs. this is how monster cable and boutique stereo equipment works anyways :)
hey, stupid me just bought a Monster special Bass cable for 50 Euro :lol:
it lacks 2 annoyances of it's Neutrik predecssor:
it doesn't self open the plugs (which almost drove me nuts) and it doesn't get stuck with edges or wiggle around things like my pedalboards on the floor because it's more stiff.
The tone is indeed a bit more pronounced, but actually the most stunning effect is that the bass simply appreciates the exclusive treatment and plays more responsive than before - it feeeeels good, Lord I knew if it wouldn't :D

to be honest the true reason was that I owed Monster...
while talking about electrosmog related to guitar pickups the dude from the shop offered me to try out his $100 Monster power plug, which was supposed to improve line quality etc.

Of course it didn't change a thing when I used it instead of my 'standard' powerplugs. There was still that bit of a buzz - kind of frustrating, so I thought '...well, if you're at it...' and unplugged all an every audio connector, except one.
Still buzzing - so I removed that S/PDIF coax thing from the PC to the Digital tape I use as a converter.
holy sh*t - silence - what a relief the lack of (a really faint, tho) noise can be :o :D

I dunno why I never considered the S/PDIF line before :roll: and I wouldn't have without the Monster test - so they really deserved a purchase.

cheers, Tom
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

the 500 and studio series cables actually are quite special in their contruction and they do have a specific sound. cables are where most of the room for improvement is in most studios, all the audio goes through them. they are the most important and least thought of pieces of equipment. most people treat them very poorly on top of ignoring them.

there's really quite a difference between different cables. that said, there's a lot of voodoo that's only real in the minds of the department making the ad copy...
User avatar
at0m
Posts: 4743
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Bubble Metropolis
Contact:

Post by at0m »

nightscope wrote:
astroman wrote:well, Mr. Lavry completely misses to mention the precision of the respective clock signal, leaving an 'apple versus oranges' impression to his elaboration about internal-external clock banalities... :D

the point is: why do only the makers of the (supposedly) most sophisticated gear publish their clock's specs in error ppm ?
RME does it, the so-called BSers usually do it, but where's EMU, M-Audio, VIA, Realtek etc ? Even SonicCore is missing... :-? ;)

cheers, Tom
Well, you could always ask him. Then you'd find out. He's answered everyone's questions in great detail so far. Here's the link:-

http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19675

ns
Good idea. Or would that be too confronting, Tom? :D :] :lol: :D
more has been done with less
https://soundcloud.com/at0m-studio
Post Reply