Topic: Sibilance
Just getting going with my new Fireface UCX 2 and noticed there's more sibilance in recordings.
Any idea what this could be?
M1 Mac Mini (2020)
Fireface UCX 2
Fireface UCX 2
Check the TotalMix forum!
Pages 1
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → Sibilance
Just getting going with my new Fireface UCX 2 and noticed there's more sibilance in recordings.
Any idea what this could be?
Hi
More sibilance compared to another audio interface? If so, to what unit?
Is it meant on playback or recording? What gear do you use (microphones, headphones, speakers…)?
Does it irritate you or is it something you’ve just recognised?
Just getting going with my new Fireface UCX 2 and noticed there's more sibilance in recordings.
Any idea what this could be?
But don't you think that's a bit little information on the subject?
I would expect at least a few before/after examples as a sound demo and a description of the previous and current equipment.
compared to my UA Apollo Twin.
Using a 416 condenser, connected via ADAT on a Focusrite Octopre. The 48v phantom power is supplied by the Octopre.
Headphones are Austrian audio Hi-X60. No monitors.
Noticeable only after switching over to the Fireface from the Apollo.
Here's a before and after recording.
The first part was recorded thorugh the Apollo. The second was with the Fireface UCX 2.
https://soundcloud.com/moose-658416930/ … al_sharing
Senn. MKH 416? And Octopre connected by ADAT to UCX2? That would mean that AD is done in Octopre.... If signals differ... What about clock synch? Which device is master and which slave? And what way do you synchronize devices? ADAT, WC, .... And is setting right?
Here's a before and after recording.
The first part was recorded thorugh the Apollo. The second was with the Fireface UCX 2.
https://soundcloud.com/moose-658416930/ … al_sharing
Second excerpt sounds horrible. There is clearly something wrong somewhere in the recording chain. But as already said, with the Focusrite as preamp and AD converter, the UCX II has no direct influence to the sound. It receives the digital audio data over ADAT and send it over USB to the computer. I know, there are things like wordclock synchronisation and jitter… But even with my colourful mix of equipment (different brands, low to mid budget), connected together over ADAT and/or SPDIF I didn’t had such a bad sound yet.
Regarding clock synch:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ent … ios-en-de/
What OctoPro do you have exactly? Can you please link to the product, there are different type of devices.
Some allow routing from ADAT IN to analog outputs, then you can clock sync via ADAT and do not need Word Clock.
I would configure the UCX II as clock master (driver settings: clock source = internal). Then the slaves can follow the sample rate configured in the application. Once this has been configured you should also try the Mic inputs of the UCX II which might be better than those of the OctoPre.
Depending on whether the Octopre has ADAT IN or not, you can clock synch the device either via ADAT IN or you need to use Word Clock.
Or Octopre may be Master and clock UCX2 using ADAT.
Is not it better if AD uses its internal clock? It should be more precise than any clocking via ADAT ot WC. Of course, if internal clock is not bad. I may be wrong. Just I have read it somewhere....
My opinion about this: with none of the units related to the topic (Focusrite Octopre, UA Apollo Twin, RME UCX II) one would get such a bad sounding recording only caused by a 'wrong selection' of clock master / slave.
But possibly due to clocking / synchronisation problems though.
Was the two recordings made with a loudspeaker in front of the microphone to ensure both recordings had the exact same situation ?
Otherwise a small difference in the position of the speaker to the mic is probably a reason for the difference.
Or Octopre may be Master and clock UCX2 using ADAT.
Is not it better if AD uses its internal clock? It should be more precise than any clocking via ADAT ot WC. Of course, if internal clock is not bad. I may be wrong. Just I have read it somewhere....
My understanding of SteadyClock FS is that it removes clock jitter to a high degree and also passes this cleaned / "refreshed" clock signal on all its digital outputs to all slaves connected to it.
TOSLINK is an optical cable for digital data without any losses. What you put in "optically" as combined data and clock signal, clock will come out on the other side just as jitter-free.
I therefore tend to think that it would be better in principle to use the UCX II as the clock master.
Firstly because it provides a precise jitter-free clock signal and secondly because it would have the operational advantage that you wouldn't have to change the clock on the Focusrite again. Focusrite has AFAIK no FS clock.
Minus the fact that switching between single and double or quad speed only works reliably with AES, SPDIF or MADI with 96k frames. Switching between 44.1 and 48 kHz or 88.2 and 96 kHz would at least work automatically via ADAT or WC.
The manual switching at the Focusrite as slave would be minimized and only occur between e.g. single and double speed.
My opinion about this: with none of the units related to the topic (Focusrite Octopre, UA Apollo Twin, RME UCX II) one would get such a bad sounding recording only caused by a 'wrong selection' of clock master / slave.
But possibly due to clocking / synchronisation problems though.
Exactly this. When set up correctly there shouldn't be so much distortion on the signal.
By the way, I suggest to use "main clock / secondary clock" as a better terminology without bad connotations.
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → Sibilance
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.