Fireface 800 connected to a Pulsar

claudioD · Post by **claudioD** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:20 am

hello
I'm planning to buy a RME Fireface 800 to expand my Analog IO converters . I have a Pulsar 2 Z-link and a A16 ultra. The questions are : how can I connect the the Fireface ? Via Adat to the Pulsar ? Should I use a BNC cable for the digital synch between the A16 and the FF to use both the converters togheter ? Can I use it as main clock if I connect it via ADAT ?
The more infos you can give me the better is, it is appreciated
thanks

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:23 am

You can use the ADAT outputs from the fireface to connect to the pulsar, yes.

And yes, I would sync things up via wordclock (the bnc connectors)

Post by **garyb** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:00 pm

but you can use adat for sync if you prefer.

valis · Post by **valis** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:51 am

ADAT sync should work fine in most cases. In my previous studio I had to use a rather lengthy optical cable run from my Scope to my Hammerfall Multiface and so I would see occasional errors, bnc solved that. I've seen no actual data errors since, but for 6 feet or less (2 meters?) I can't imagine you having a problem with ADAT alone.

claudioD · Post by **claudioD** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:11 am

thanks for your replies

should I use the Adat out of the A16 (that is the clock master in my system) or I can use the ADAT out the the Pulsar ?

manfriday · Post by **manfriday** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:55 am

seems like I read somewhere that there is less jitter when clocking via bnc as opposed to optical.
Anyone know if this is actually the case?
I'm just a button-pusher, so I just go by what folks say who is smarterer than me.

Post by **garyb** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:39 pm

yes, bnc is typically less jitter than adat, but that doesn't assure you of a better sound. personally, i prefer an external master clock and bnc, but adat is more than sufficient for most project studio work. most people wouldn't know the difference.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:50 pm

isn't that because the (dedicated) clock source feeding the BNC cable is more stable than the 'regular' clock on the card and not the 'transmission error' induced by the cable type ?

Post by **garyb** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:58 pm

yep, probably....
thanks for the clarification.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:07 pm

oops, if I may hi-jack...
do you still have an old A16 (somewhere) around ?
if so, could you run it's BNC sync against your studio clock ? i.e. let the A16 provide the signal and tell if there's a difference noticeable or not ?

I recently found a passage in the old manual that the A16 was supposed to act as a studio clock and had dedicated circuitry for this purpose - of course it's somewhat inferior as it's chaining from a single source only, and not star-connecting, but anyway...

cheers, Tom

Post by **garyb** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:47 pm

sorry, i can't help. i don't have the a16 around...
i would bet the clock on the a16 to be very good.