This review originally appeared in Tape Op.

The Pro-Ac Studio 100s are passive two-way monitors sporting a 6 ½” cone and a 1” soft fabric dome tweeter housed in a traditional looking ported cabinet. The crossover allows for typical single input use, bi-wiring and bi-amping. All wiring and components are very high-grade stuff, including oxygen-free copper cabling throughout. Since 1990, the Studio 100 has been a big seller in the audiophile market, and this model caught on as a studio monitor sometime in the middle of that decade. They aren’t exactly ubiquitous, but they’ve earned a place in the pantheon of classic studio monitors and continue to weather the ever-changing fads of speaker-design.

The Studio 100s present a smooth, full-range sonic image that emphasizes deep bass and airy highs, and they have the overall sonic character of a very transparent yet flattering hi-fi speaker. However, don’t fall for the idea that “flattering” means inaccurate or colored. To the contrary, this is a speaker that you will enjoy listening to all day every day because it is offering up a full-range, uncolored experience without any notable harshness or ringing. I have used them extensively in conjunction with Yamaha NS-10Ms, and I’d say that they are almost exact opposites of each other sonically. The NS-10s are all about the midrange and can be very harsh while the Pro-Acs are all about the deep lows and airy highs and are as smooth as can be. Switching between these two speakers is like looking at negative images of each other. Each delivers its own kind of information, and both are very helpful during a mix.

Using the Studio 100s at very quiet levels is an excellent way to get a rendering of the complete sonic image. Employing very high shelf eqs (say at 20khz on a vocal or drum overheads) at low volumes is very revealing in a way that the NS-10s never seem to deliver. Similarly, the woofers are exceptionally responsive to deep bass at lower volumes (Tony Levin’s low B string was well represented, for example). Taking this quiet approach with the Studio 100s had me making decisions about the extended frequencies I’d often have left for mastering.

Turn them up and you’ll get way more low-end than you’d expect from such a small box with a 6 ½” driver. Part of this low end must be due to the fact that the woofer can really travel. This is an idiosyncrasy that turns out to be a huge advantage, as you can use the woofer as a visual gauge of your low-end. If that cone starts to travel indiscriminately far, start fishing for the build-up, give it a fix and you’ll notice improved clarity not just in the low-end but in the whole mix. Those who use these speakers seem to know this about them: get the cones to behave and your low-end wont over-tax real-world consumer speakers.

Overall, working on the Studio 100s is a full-range experience with no noticeable dips or peaks across the spectrum. One advantage with passive monitors is that they tend to have fewer issues around the crossover point than their powered cousins, and the Studio 100s are a great example of this phenomenon. They’re very flat. Of course, pairing passive monitors with amps adds to both the complexity and freedom of developing your monitoring situation. As Pro-Ac elegantly puts it: “The full potential of these thoroughbred designs will only be realized through the use of the highest quality partnering equipment.” Translation: “Use a great amp for best results.”

If you’re still searching for your dream monitors, and the current self-powered offerings aren’t floating your boat (and many complain of the crossover issues with many of today’s monitors), I’d highly recommend looking into these speakers as a different approach from that of the current trends. They aren’t going to blow clients against the rear wall, but if you want a very refined, non-fatiguing listening experience with almost no sonic anomalies, the Studio 100s are up there with the best of the passive monitors. They’ve remained popular for nearly twenty years for very good reasons. ($2000 MSRP www.proac-loudspeakers.com) Allen Farmelo www.farmelo.com

This review originally appeared in Tape Op Magazine.

The Arturia Analog Factory Experience is the first “hybrid synthesizer” – a hardware controller and soft-synth designed together, with the controller as an exact physical representation of what you see on the screen, with all controls mapped accordingly.

The controller is, simply, the best small USB keyboard MIDI controller I’ve come across. With cream paint over a metal body and wood end-caps, it has the look, feel and weight of a high-end synth. Upon touching the keys, wheels, knobs and buttons, I knew this was an instrument on which I could really make music. The feel is smooth, solid, positive and quiet – nothing like the flimsy, clacky plastic affairs that make up the bulk of the small keyboard MIDI controller market. I believe that any instrument should, though it’s tactile interface, inspire the user on a physical level, and the Arturia certainly does. You might think of the Arturia as the Les Paul of small MIDI controllers.

Rather than offer full-on replicas of analog synths as they do with their other products, Arturia has packaged together 3500 presets derived from their digital replicas, incuding the Mini Moog V, Moog Modular V, Jupiter 8V, Phrophet V, Prophet VS, Arp 2600 V and Yamaha CS-80 V. To select the presets you use the on-screen browser, a very flexible database manager that lets you easily filter through the massive list of presets (and you can use the controller to select presets, too, abandoning the mouse all together). For example, click on Mini Moog, then on Bass, then on Aggressive, and you’ve narrowed your search down to a handful of presets. Click on Jupiter 8, Strings and Ambient and you’ve got a whole different subset of the presets to chose from. You can also skip any of the search criteria, or compile them. Perhaps you want to search all synths for sequences, or both Moogs for complex ambient pads. All presets can be tweaked and saved as a User Preset, which you can name and also assign the various search criteria. Within minutes I had modified a Moog bass and named it “Allen’s Minimoog Thumper.” It couldn’t be easier.

For tweaking, every preset has controls for volume, cutoff, resonance, LFO rate, LFO amount, chorus, delay, ADSR (on faders) as well as four “key parameters.” The key parameters control the important aspects of the preset as chosen by the programmer, allowing you to tweak the “key” aspects of the sound. I’ve found that these controls are more than enough to highly modify the sounds and create my own distinctive presets. To know what the four key parameters are for each preset, version 2.2 of the software includes four small panels on the screen describing them (e.g., Envelope Amount, Osc 1 Level, etc.). For people who want to call up some great sounds, tweak them, and start making music, the Analog Factory offers just enough control over the presets to customize them without overwhelming the user with programmability.

The sounds are amazing. Huge Minimoog basses, brash Prophet brasses, elegant Moog Modular sequences, lush Jupiter 8 string patches, bizarre sound effects, cool electro percussion stabs, angelic CS-80 organ sounds, nasal square-tooth and buzzing saw-tooth leads. warbly Arp 2600 sweeps, lacey ring-mod chimes. I’ve created whole productions of songs using only the Analog Factory (drums included) and am thrilled with the results. These are fat, thick, rich, three-dimensional tones that inspire me every time.

Yes, it’s true that there is an appreciable difference between the real-deal and these models, but I’m willing to say that Arturia has made that difference as small as I’ve seen it to date. For $300, I’m creating fat, warm, lush synth tracks that would have cost many thousands of dollars to create from analog synths. Hitting some transformers on hardware inserts during mix down adds just enough extra sonic girth to bring these tracks into full bloom. I’ll also mention that the digital system you’re using makes a big difference. On Pro Tools HD, clocked to a Cranesong HEDD, all running on balanced power and coming out of my Focal Solo6 monitors, the sound is “there” in a way that isn’t going to happen on a USB-powered mBox with headphones.

As Thom Monahan mentioned in his review of the Arturia Jupiter 8V in the last issue (Tape Op #67), the software is fairly processor intensive, especially in Pro Tools. I did find myself increasing the hardware buffer size when using multiple instance of the synth, and there were times when the controller wasn’t talking to the software. But, by the time this goes to print, Arturia may have already offered a bug-fix, or I might have upgraded to Pro Tools 8 – software is a moving target. The stand-alone version has been flawless. (Visit www.arturia.com for details on compatibility with your system).

To be honest, I was ready to buy just the physical MIDI controller for $300 – it’s that nice – and, yes, you can use it to control any MIDI software. When you include the perfectly integrated software synth in this package, it’s a pretty insane deal. Go download the demo and hear it for yourself, but don’t underestimate how important the integration of the hardware and software are in making this hybrid synth a winner. This design gives me a lot of hope for the possibility of having increasingly soulful connections to modeled analog instruments. Allen Farmelo www.farmelo.com

This review originally appeared in Tape Op and was co-written with Jessica Thompson.

In a digital system, the clock signal is used to generate a common time reference for the flow of data in the system. The clock signal goes to all the elements that need it and basically regulates the flow of zeros and ones so that everything works together synchronously. Clocks are a hot topic right now, with debates showing up on gearslutz.com, here in Tape-Op (see last issues letter section), and generally among record makers. Why so hotly debated? Because clocks can have a highly significant impact on sound, yet there is no solid consensus as to why that is. Regardless of the hard math and science behind digital clocking, the aesthetic impact of different clocking systems remains both subjective and context dependent, as with any piece of gear in our racks. So as reviewers, we have chosen to sidestep the technological debates as much as possible, and move forward with two simple assumptions: 1) different clocks make the same recordings on the same system sound different; and 2) in some cases, that difference is big enough to convince one to buy a new clock.

The heart of the Isochrone OCX ($1500 street) is a temperature-controlled oven housing a discrete transistor crystal oscillator. This translates to higher stability and four to ten times lower jitter than competitors, according to Antelope. It supports sample rates from 32 to 192khz, and – this is a bonus – it is capable of outputting multiple sample rates simultaneously (thought we didn’t use this feature). Take a look at its back panel, and you’ll find eight word clock outputs, two AES/EBU, two S/PDIF outputs, as well as compatability with Digidesign’s 256x Superclock. This sleek, 1RU silver box could easily be the classiest looking piece of gear in your rack. One design element we particularly liked is the prominent red LED read-out of the sample rate. It’s front-and-center enough to remind you which sample rate you’re clocked to, which we suspect will prevent the occasional clocking mishap[.] (Allen confesses to having mixed a song tracked at 48khz at the slower and lower-pitched 44.1khz for about twenty minutes before catching on).

The Isochorne 10M Rubidium Atomic Clock, the OCX’s sleeker, more expensive 2RU companion ($6000 street), is designed to enhance the OCX with atomic clocking technology. When interfaced with the 10M, the OCX switches from its crystal oscillator to the 10M’s Rubidium core. Basically, the rubidium element disciplines the crystal to its hyperfine oscillation (over 6.8 billion Hrz), which produces 100,000 times better accuracy than your Swiss-made quartz-driven Rolex. We’re talking a deviation of one second in 1000 years. This is the same technology used for GPS and broadcast clocks. (Just in case you’re worried, the manual assures us it’s not actually radioactive).

In our test of the OCX and the 10M, we first used The Farm (Allen’s mix room in Brooklyn), a system that relies on the clock to regulate the flow of data among a handful of digital units. Here’s the setup: Pro Tools HD interfaced directly from the Core Card to a Lynx Aurora 8 converter, which is connected digitally to both a Cranesong HEDD 192 for A-D-A conversion to a stereo analog mix-buss insert, and to a Dangerous Audio D-Box for monitoring. By connecting the OCX to the word clock input on the HEDD, we were able to switch the system’s master clock between the Lynx (Pro Tools sees it as the internal clock), the HEDD (Pro Tools sees that as the external Word Clock), the OCX (by telling the HEDD to use its external Word Clock input) and the OCX with the 10M attached. The D-Box uses its digital input as its clock source, so it conformed to whatever master clock we assigned. If you’re still reading, what this all means is that we could easily switch between four different clock sources and all the digital gear would conform to whichever clock we selected.

We threw up a number of different mixes, and our first impression was: “hey, different clocks really sound different.” Both the HEDD and the OCX seemed to deliver a similar amount of information and fidelity, but the HEDD had a stronger center, while the OCX offered a slightly wider stereo field. One way to describe it is that the HEDD presented a convex soundstage and the OCX a concave soundstage – two rather different shapes holding about the same amount of information. The HEDD also seemed to have a bit more midrange presence, while the OCX was a little more elegantly detailed in the highs. In less abstract terms, the HEDD rocked out with a bit more sonic glue, and the OCX was a little more elegant and spacious. The Lynx clock didn’t reveal as much detail, especially in the airy region, but also in the deeper lows (and Allen always clocks his HD system externally to the HEDD for this reason). On the whole, the OCX would be an excellent choice to anyone looking to find an external clock to improve the sound of any digital system with internal clocks that might be worth improving.

Where the OCX really showed its stripes was on a Digi 002 system, belonging to Brooklyn-based engineer, Matthew Agoglia. Matt’s room is a great example of a “real world” mixing and tracking room: Digi 002 running through a Hafler power amp into Yamaha NS-10Ms that were awaiting new woofers. From within Pro Tools LE, we put up Emmylou Harris’ song “Deeper Well” off of the Daniel Lanois produced album Wrecking Ball, a track filled with endless sonic details and effects tumbling around in the background. The difference between the 002 and the 002 clocked to the OCX was absolutely revelatory! There were elements in the tracks that simply didn’t make it to the speakers without the OCX. We listened to a lot of stuff and found the same thing over and over. It’s hard to imagine a single purchase that would upgrade a system in this realm so significantly and pervasively. Everything one does on this system – tracking, monitoring, mixing, printing, bouncing – is going to be significantly improved.

Back in Allen’s studio we hooked up the 10M to the OCX (a simple BNC patch), threw up one of Allen’s mixes, and the whole world changed. It felt like there were about five extra spaces in the stereo field where one might have placed an element of the mix, and elements we hadn’t heard before were plain as day. Things like acoustic guitar finger squeaks, the singer’s moist mouth mutterings, more of a ride cymbal’s over- and under-tones, aspects of a kick drum’s raspy attack, reverb tails, tape-echo trails, and even compression artifacts were showing up, seemingly from out of thin air. The soundstage gained a depth that seemed to reduce masking between elements that occupied the same frequency range, as if they instinctively found space in front of and behind each other based on how wet or dry they were. Apparent loudness went up a notch, without changing the volume of anything (a psychoacoustic phenomenon? – we’re not sure), and there was a noticeable low-end extension. Beyond the details, the whole of the parts was a total pleasure to listen to, and evoked a far more vivid image of all the aspects of whatever mix we put up. The10M just made the music far more engaging and emotional (and only made the current MP3 paradigm seem more criminal).

In fact, with everything we put up the 10M was a mind-blower, but on one track we actually found ourselves more interested in the lyrics. Fascinating. A stripped-down, crawling version of Neil Young’s “Harvest Moon” by the nomadic singer Jess Lee with Allen backing on a simple organ part was rendered in such detail with the 10M that individual harmonic overtones in Jess’ voice (tracked with a SM58) almost seemed like individual sonic elements. The organ (run through a vintage RCA tube PA into a Senheizer 421) fanned from one warm shade of orange into a complex spectrum of warm, burnished tones, and previously subtle oscillations became rhythmic pulses Allen hadn’t heard so clearly since tracking it. Somehow, these details drew both of us far more deeply into the story Mr. Young weaves in his lyrics, and into Jess’ lonesome interpretation. The recording took on a vitality and intimacy that was, it seems, hiding somewhere in the digital code.

So, can a clock make a difference? Ha! – especially when you’ve got a sensitive mixer/producer and a discriminating mastering engineer geeking out on a really nice system in a well-treated room. But what about the so-called real world? Is the clock going to help a file weezing its weary way through the world’s worst D-A converter and a pair of 10-cent laptop speakers? We printed mixes from the four different clocks to find out, and in a blind test we were able to hear differences on a laptop, for sure. However, the differences were certainly diminished by the limitations of the playback system – if you can even call a laptop a playback system. But we don’t work our butts off to make laptops bring people to tears; we do it so that no matter where a recording ends up, it has the best chance of being rendered in all its intended qualities. And, as we look toward brighter days when MP3s have gone the way of the Edison Cylinder, there is no time like the present to consider tools that will generate zeros and ones that will outlive the current lo-fi trends and shine like diamonds in the high-fidelity renaissance of the future.

Whether you’re on a pro-sumer system and can use the OCX to bump up your rig, or you’re a world-class mastering engineer or mixer who can afford the 10M, both of these clocks are capable of making a big enough difference to warrant serious consideration of a purchase. In the case of the discerning, high-level professional, it’s apparent that the margin for sonic improvement is often pretty narrow, yet we assure you that trying the 10M is worth it. As we said, we’ll leave the technological arguments to those with the minds for it, but if you’re like us and want to do all you can to render human musical performances with as much depth, dimension, detail and love as possible, give the Antelope clocks a listen and hear for yourself what they can do for your recordings.