Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[breathe]

I've received a project to mix that was recorded on a Digi002.  The jitter in the sound is killing me!  I mean, I can fucking clean up cassette 4-track material and make it sound great (I own FIVE different cassette multitrack machines), but jitter, is there anything that can be done to remove or lessen it?  NOTHING smacks of a bullshit home recording like a shit ton of jitter.

I tell all of my artists who home record, do it on cassette or 1/4" or 1/2", ANYTHING but bad digital!

Many thanks,
Nicholas

[ssltech]

If you're looking for more input, I'd ask how you know it's jitter?

Keith

[pete andrews]

i'm not convinced he knows what "jitter" is.

-pete

[tom eaton]

So, uh... okay.  For those that came here because of the thread title, the answer is:

Once you record a signal with bad clock you will never be able to hear it correctly on playback.  You can remove jitter at the d/a stage, but if you've recorded using a bad clock, it's all over in terms of accurately reproducing the signal that arrived at the a/d converter.

So yes, an impossible request because you have no idea after the fact where the samples were taken with respect to one another.

Whether anyone could actually tell that a recording suffers specifically from bad clock at the a/d conversion is open for discussion.

t

[Otitis Media]

tom eaton wrote on Thu, 09 September 2010 21:02

So, uh... okay.  For those that came here because of the thread title, the answer is: Once you record a signal with bad clock you will never be able to hear it correctly on playback.  You can remove jitter at the d/a stage, but if you've recorded using a bad clock, it's all over in terms of accurately reproducing the signal that arrived at the a/d converter. So yes, an impossible request because you have no idea after the fact where the samples were taken with respect to one another. Whether anyone could actually tell that a recording suffers specifically from bad clock at the a/d conversion is open for discussion. t

You may, however, find that playback sounds "better" when clocking your rig to different master clocks in the search for the least bad sound upon playback.

I have never worked in an environment quiet or well-tuned enough that jitter became one of my worries.

[Fletcher]

I'd like to know what you're hearing as "jitter" as well -- there are some D/A's that [at least advertise] that they remove the printed clock information and have their own independent clock system for playback... perhaps this might be a solution [though I'm not convinced you're hearing "jitter" per se in a readily apparent manner -- cumulative effects I could buy, but on "single track" - I'm having a tough time].

Peace.

[Bill_Urick]

Switch to decaf?

[NelsonL]

Well, I'll probably regret this... but here's a pertinent example:

http://www.turnrecords.com/audio/TDC_Blurred_Just_The_Same.m p3

Recorded by me with mostly API or Quad Eight pres into a stock 002r.

Mixed on an HD rig with 192s through an Amek Big by the one and only J. Hall.

Not perfect at all, but I hardly think the song is ruined by the humble tracking rig.

[ssltech]

Fletcher wrote

...there are some D/A's that [at least advertise] that they remove the printed clock information and have their own independent clock system for playback...

Wow.

That's some deceptive weasel-speak right there.

That's like saying you can put a lens on your projector which removes and random ripple-distortions of the original camera lens.

No, Jitter at the time of recording is in there for good.

It's just not commonly an issue, other than in the minds of people who don't understand it. -Of course it can be induced, it doesn't sound good and the worth of a reliably stable clock is a no-brainer, but it really doesn't need to be obsessed about.

Go put ceramic standoffs under your speaker wires and a magnet on your fuel line, instead, and start listening to the MUSIC.

Keith

[Jim Williams]

ADC induced jitter will not be removed later by any means. You are screwed. Once encoded it's there to stay. DAC induced jitter is a playback problem but the files are not affected.

Avoid Digidesign hardware and those problems can be prevented. This sounds like a classic "Doc, it hurts when I raise my arm" scenerio.

[breathe]

It seems like there's a little (?) disagreement on this issue, but I am inclined to side with the people who say the Digi002 record presented to me in question is fucked.  You'd think there is a market for a relatively cheap word clock accessory the Digi LE crowd can buy.  I have a LOT of clients that use Digi002's and the like.  Maybe I should start recommending they buy used Lucid 2 channel converters to use as a master clock?  None of the people I know using this kind of Digi hardware are running them at 2X sample rates.

Nicholas

P.S. My experience of "jitter" is this quality of the sound of a digital recording that makes me feel REALLY queasy/nauseous.  It's just like the sound has no point of gravity, it's vibrating and it makes me sick.

[Otitis Media]

sure it's not just the cheaper preamps and amateur users?

I clock my 002 Rack to my Audient ASP008's optical output often, FWIW.

[J.J. Blair]

breathe wrote on Fri, 10 September 2010 09:04

\My experience of "jitter" is this quality of the sound of a digital recording that makes me feel REALLY queasy/nauseous.  It's just like the sound has no point of gravity, it's vibrating and it makes me sick.

That could be the drugs, man.

[ssltech]

Jitter doesn't sound like it's "vibrating".

It's probably the music/recording just plain sucking.

(nobody EVER wants to consider this seriously, for some reason, yet it's almost ALWAYS the case...)

I use a 002 from time to time... matter of fact, I'm using one tomorrow on a location classical gig. I've never had unlistenable results.

I have to disagree with Jim on that... but then Jim wrote that the 9098 was an 'unlistenable piece of plastic', so either I have tin ears (quite possible) or we just don't think the same way.

Keith

[Fletcher]

ssltech wrote on Fri, 10 September 2010 08:11

Fletcher wrote ...there are some D/A's that [at least advertise] that they remove the printed clock information and have their own independent clock system for playback... Wow. That's some deceptive weasel-speak right there. That's like saying you can put a lens on your projector which removes and random ripple-distortions of the original camera lens. No, Jitter at the time of recording is in there for good.

Fair enough - I can be susceptible to "weasel speak" from time to time until I hear otherwise.  Never said I heard the "benefit" only that the marketing rhetoric [a.k.a. "weasel speak"] suggested the possibility.

Peace.

[ssltech]

Oh, maybe I wasn't clear...

I wasn't suggesting that you were presenting it as your view, or that you were claiming to have heard it doing so; I hope you didn't take that impression!

I heeded the "[at least advertise]", which I took to mean that you were relaying the claims of others, not making the claim yourself.

But certainly; as has been agreed by others, once the damage at A/D is done, it's done for good. You can't un-bake that cookie.

Not to say that playback jitter can't compound the problem yet further, so a stable sample timing interval at D/A is also equally important, but that's to prevent fathering a SECOND bastard... it doesn't remove the first.

Keith

[tom eaton]

Fletcher wrote on Fri, 10 September 2010 03:46

there are some D/A's that [at least advertise] that they remove the printed clock information and have their own independent clock system for playback

I'm not sure what you mean by "printed clock information" here, but every D/A clocks the output stream with no regard to the clock used at the A/D stage (unless the processes are simultaneous, as in a digital processor used analog i/o).

Just to clarify, there is no "printed" clock information other than the manipulation of intersample timing caused by the clock at the a/d.  There is no clock (positional reference) information that "travels" with a digital audio stream.


tom

[breathe]

Okay, I OFFICIALLY ADMIT to not knowing everything.  With that established, the clock of a converter determines the timing of the samples, and with a bad clock the spacing between the samples is irregular?  And therefore it is impossible to restore a digital recording made with bad clock because there's no way to determine the original spacing of the samples?

Many thanks,
Nicholas

[tom eaton]

Precisely!

[Otitis Media]

Yes on the clocking explanation. BUT - seriously here, because I own one and have plenty of experience with it - the 002's clock isn't the source of something sounding bad. Really. The preamps aren't anything exceptional, though they boost mic level signals up to line level quite nicely, and there are the Black Lion mods that are purported to make a big difference, and therefore, one must conclude that whatever inferior sound you're getting is due to both inexpensive analog-side componentry and less-experienced users. Likely the latter more than the former.

[Tomas Danko]

ssltech wrote on Fri, 10 September 2010 22:13

Jitter doesn't sound like it's "vibrating". It's probably the music/recording just plain sucking. (nobody EVER wants to consider this seriously, for some reason, yet it's almost ALWAYS the case...) I use a 002 from time to time... matter of fact, I'm using one tomorrow on a location classical gig. I've never had unlistenable results. I have to disagree with Jim on that... but then Jim wrote that the 9098 was an 'unlistenable piece of plastic', so either I have tin ears (quite possible) or we just don't think the same way. Keith

FWIW, my perception of "high jitter" is that the depth and reverberation tails diminishes, the "3D" quality (even if it's a mono recording) will also decrease. Sometimes, but not necessarily, the stereo width may get a bit more narrow.

In other words, I don't find high jitter to be nauseating as described by the in- and exhaling dude.

YMMV, as always.

Cheers,

Danko

[breathe]

Really, you don't get a queasy feeling in your belly when you hear a really jittery digital recording?

Nicholas

[Fletcher]

I think what you're probably hearing is something other than "jitter".  There are elements of "jitter" that can make a recording some "thin", and add some rather unmusical distortions, but at the same time, nothing that would be quite a overtly noticeable as what you seem to be trying to describe.

Peace.