Etch-A-Sketch wrote on Fri, 13 October 2006 17:58 |
I read the paper, and was under the impression that they were saying the 192 will have higher jitter when using an External clock, not that it has a higher jitter than other external clocks... |
Socrates wrote on Sat, 14 October 2006 18:52 |
Its been a long time since I discussed such matters, but I recall that the cable from the dedicated external clock can introduce jitter of its own.... |
Ronny wrote on Sun, 15 October 2006 10:32 | ||
True, I'm in Dan's camp as far as clocking from outboard sources, it's really only needed when linking multi-devices. I've always thought that clocking from the source of the audio made more sense and in the olden days, it provided a more stable system for most of my apps involving only 2 or 3 devices in the clock chain. |
danlavry wrote on Tue, 17 October 2006 19:57 | ||||
If you look at page 8, upper right (digidesign article) it says: "Internal clock provides the lowest jitter in a single interface system". So the digidesign article supports what I have been saying. The article states a lot of other facts that I have been saying for a long time, though I was not mentioned in the bibliography of that paper. It would have been great to have Digidesign support a year ago, during my back and forth with that "other company" that makes clocks. I did not really expect Digidesign support, given all that I said about 192KHz, which they were selling at the time. It would be worth noting that the new digidesign product, the Venue, is basically a 48KHz rate unit. It certainly does not support 192KHz. How does Digidesign explain it? I guess I will have to wait a year or 2 (similar to the clocking issue) for them to come around with a paper stating that 192KHz is not really needed, again, rehashing all that I said as if it were discovered by them. Meanwhile, all my efforts regarding proper clocking ended at Saloon. My technical comments, posts and graphs are surrounded by posts about drunk monkeys and political junk. One PSN moderator put the thread back on my forum, and the next day another moderator put it in Saloon. I consider putting the thread in Saloon very offensive. PSN has been ignoring the emails regarding the matter. You can see the "Proper Word Clock Implementation" thread at Saloon: http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/23134/1684/?src h=dan+lavry#msg_23134 Regards Dan Lavry http://www.lavryengineering.com |
bushwick wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 13:21 |
My only question is, how can a moderator's posts be moved by another moderator? If that is the case, there is something really crap goin on here. Who would do that and why? Is this a mistake? |
danlavry wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 11:45 |
Does anyone have any comments regarding the above post? |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 19:39 | ||
No, only Admin can move threads around like that. Fletcher explained it to Dan fully, if he has questions, he should contact Fletcher privately. |
danlavry wrote on Thu, 19 October 2006 12:45 |
Does anyone have any comments regarding the above post? Regards Dan Lavry http://www.lavryengineering.com |
Ronny wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 01:40 |
"Censorship can never be a good thing." Exactly. Not only does PSW censor members that don't post agreeable posts to the moderators, but they delete some of the moderators posts when they aren't agreeable with the owners. We aren't dumb asses, we know that you make money on the advertising and over cater to some manufacturers who pay the bills. It's obvious what's been happening for quite a while now. |
Tom C wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 08:13 |
Fletcher, is the version down in R/E/P Saloon the censored or the uncensored one? |
danlavry wrote on Tue, 17 October 2006 19:57 |
It would be worth noting that the new digidesign product, the Venue, is basically a 48KHz rate unit. It certainly does not support 192KHz. How does Digidesign explain it? I guess I will have to wait a year or 2 (similar to the clocking issue) for them to come around with a paper stating that 192KHz is not really needed, again, rehashing all that I said as if it were discovered by them. |
Fletcher wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 13:02 | ||
What happened with the original thread was that Mr. Lavry decided to edit several posts made by Lucas (sp?)... When Mr. Lavry edited the posts of a fellow designer that poisoned the thread in my opinion, which meant that the thread was no longer of fact but skewed in a manner that only supported Mr. Lavry's position. Peace. |
danlavry wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 13:59 |
And BTW as a moderator, I do not have the access to edit other posters massage! I CAN DELETE a post, but I CAN NOT EDIT the content of a post. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 20:05 | ||
Not true. |
danlavry wrote on Tue, 22 March 2005 01:03 |
Max, You said: Dan had deleted a number of our responses in this regard, so we have opted not to continue this discussion in his forum. I deleted some of your repetitive salesman, non-technical responses but none of Lucas's. |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 29 March 2005 14:18 |
Well, we're all about free speech here, but sometimes mods have a different perspective than the masses. That being said, Nika has brought up some good points which should be heard. This will be dealt with, and we thank you all for your thoughts. |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 29 March 2005 18:13 |
Both Nika and Max have been un-banned. |
Max wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 19:08 |
Actually Dan deleted a number of responses that I posted that were directed at his attacks on Apogee: |
Max wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 23:57 |
It is certainly possible to design an external clock in such a way that the increased amount of jitter that results will have less of an audible impact than the internal clock by itself. For this reason one cannot claim that an internal clock will always be more accurate - merely that it will theoretically always have less jitter. There is a significant difference between the two, and the testimony we have been seeing on the market and in our own testing with respect to Big Ben over the last few years certainly attests to this. |
Max wrote on Sat, 21 October 2006 02:08 | ||||||
Actually Dan deleted a number of responses that I posted that were directed at his attacks on Apogee:
Dan also deleted posts by Nika that agreed with Apogee's point of view, and subsequently banned both of us from posting. If you recall Brad, you were the one who reinstated us:
As to whether my responses were any more repetitive salesman, non-technical responses than Dan's comments about Apogee should have been left up to the reader. Again, a moderator should not be allowed to delete posts by a competitor that the moderator is attempting to paint in a negative light. And for the record, Apogee has never been an advertiser on Pro Sound Web. |
Max wrote on Fri, 20 October 2006 23:57 |
While it may be true that Dan did not edit any of Lucas' posts.... |