Aardsync II to HD192 won\'t lock

Hello I am wanting to use an Aardvark Aardsync II as the master wordclock in my PT HD rig. I have taken the word clock out from the aardsync into the HD192 "loop sync in". In "hardware setup" I selected clock scource "word clock (48kHz)". . . but no lockup. What am I missing?

Anyone who is doing this setup care to help ? Thanks

Erinugene, If you want to check out this setup, just take a "word out" of the Ardsync and feed it into the "word in" of the Sync IO. In the session setup window make the Sync IO look at Word input. If it does not lock, make sure the jumpers in the Ardsync are set correctly and you are indeed sending out "word 1xs". Listen to Lee and make sure your external clock is at the same rate as your session, it is a nightmare when they differ. Good luck

Thanks for your input. Lee, I am trying to get the highest level of performance in audio quality out of PT HD possible. Many of my recordings are 2 track stereo "classical" choir. I have an Aardsync II here from when I was running an 888 24 setup and according to a topic I read here thought I should try the Aardsync. Topic: "HD clock or external clock" had some positive posts using the aardsync over the HD192 internal clock. Also if you care to take the time Aardvark has a post on their website at : Go to Aardvark Cafe, to Aard Notes, to August 2002, go down to the "Pro Tools HD article", than to the "Click here to learn how.." They give a positive report . Thanks

Thanks Lee, going in the HD192 at "external clock 1x/256x" worked. My Aardsync is 48k, not 96k. I did however experience that sessions recorded at say 44.1k , 96k or 192k did not play back at correct pitch when clocking to the Aardsync. Here is what I am trying to determine. #1. Should I just record using the HD192s at 192k "internal clock" and trust that its A to D and D to A are as good as it gets. OR #2. Clock with external clock "Aardsync II". OR #3. Is there an improvement in using high end outboard A to D "dB tech , AD122, etc." and D to A " dB tech DA924 " . . . and if so than I would need to have "one master clock" to clock the A to Ds, the HD192s , and the D to A's to, . . . which I believe would limit me to 96k as thats the highest rate AES/EBU on single wire today. OR shall I just do it the easy way . . . HD192s, internal clock and done. Thanks

There's a couple things you might keep in mind here while using the Loop Sync ports as suggested by Aardvark. First, you are breaking the "loop" effectively negating the benefits of having a looped clock scheme. See your 192I/O manual for details. Second, remember that Loop Sync uses "base rate". This means that if you are recording at 44.1, 88.2, or 176.4, loop sync is set to 44.1k, always. If you are recording at 48, 96, or 192k, loop sync is set to 48k, always. Also, all clock and digital inputs on the 192 (as well as the 96 I/O and sync I/O) utilize PLL's (phase lock loops) which means that this clock you are feeding into your interface is being re-clocked by the internal clock of the 192 I/O anyway. While this still may have a slight effect of the sound, keep in mind it will be far less pronounced than with your older 888/24 set-up. Which is a good thing considering the clocks in the 192's are excellent. Good luck. -Jake

Thanks Jaco for your input.

fwiw i retired my aardsync when i went to HD with a sync i/o, for ease of use more than anything else. the clock is alleged to be excellent in the 192, and i had so many little snafus with the aardsync mis-set on my mix rig... life is simpler now! -a-

I'm using the Adsync II w/ a 192. Word clock out of the Ardsync to ext. word in on 192. In PT hardware setup choose external clock. I have done blind listening tests and have found the Ardsync to improve the sound just a hair. Barely noticable but can be picked most times in a blind test. If you change the sampling rate on the Ardsync your recorded music will change speed/pitch. If you have something already recorded that did not use the Ardsync going in you must set the sample rate (on the Ardsync) the same as the original recording. Again, very small but detectable difference. Slightly clearer audio.