or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › USB to SPDIF converters shoot-out : EMU 0404 USB vs. Musiland Monitor 01 USD vs. Teralink-x vs. M2Tech hiFace
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USB to SPDIF converters shoot-out : EMU 0404 USB vs. Musiland Monitor 01 USD vs. Teralink-x vs. M2Tech hiFace - Page 85  

post #1261 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post

This is only speculation from my end and I might be wrong.

 

What does Musiland say?

post #1262 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post

This is only speculation from my end and I might be wrong.

 

What does Musiland say?

post #1263 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post

This is only speculation from my end and I might be wrong.

 

What does Musiland say?

post #1264 of 1712

post #1265 of 1712

post #1266 of 1712

Musiland says: "use of hdcd is (currently?) strictly prohibited because they have not passed Microsoft authorization". I have summarized here: http://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/new-musiland-driver/

 

post #1267 of 1712



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post




I think that the most likely scenario is #2.

 

I doubt it is possible to make a true HDCD decoder at the transport level. HDCD decoding implies among other thinhs a particular (and multi-step) 8x oversampling (according to the datasheet of the PMD100). The way I see things, the only way to properly implement HDCD decoding at the transport level would be to use a 352khz (8x 44.1) capable transport into a NOS DAC. Any other combination would mean that the HDCD signal will have to go through the filtering/oversampling of the DAC which will probably cause some harm to the data.

This is only speculation from my end and I might be wrong. However, I just don't see how it is possible to replicate the full HDCD decoding (of something like the PMD100) at the transport level when using conventional oversampling DACs.


Slim,  this is a very good post,  I never looked at it this way but it makes great sense.  Guess I'll be waiting another 10 years when we have 352khz computer transports before I can finally upgrade to a DAC other than one with a PMD100 filter !   

post #1268 of 1712

Found some more info:" the HDCD chip has various filter settings which are changed "on the fly" by the HDCD codes. The differences in the filters are designed to maximize performance of different parameters, such as impulse response, frequency response, phase linearity, etc. The HDCD encoding process determines when each filter will provide the best sonic performance and the control codes to select that filter are included in the HDCD data stream"

 

Further supports Slm's post,  no way WMP or hdcd.exe is taking full advantage of this code because it is impossible to get a 352kz out of a computer and I think SPDIF as well.

 

Sorry I blew the wistle on Musiland guys,  but the feature wasn't any different than the free foobar + HDCD plugin.

post #1269 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post

Found some more info:" the HDCD chip has various filter settings which are changed "on the fly" by the HDCD codes. The differences in the filters are designed to maximize performance of different parameters, such as impulse response, frequency response, phase linearity, etc. The HDCD encoding process determines when each filter will provide the best sonic performance and the control codes to select that filter are included in the HDCD data stream"

 

Further supports Slm's post,  no way WMP or hdcd.exe is taking full advantage of this code because it is impossible to get a 352kz out of a computer and I think SPDIF as well.

 

Sorry I blew the wistle on Musiland guys,  but the feature wasn't any different than the free foobar + HDCD plugin.

 

Thanks for digging that up! It is another clue suggesting that it will be hard to make perfect HDCD decoding at the transport level. Again, it is amazing what those guys at Pacific Microsonics did almost 2 decades ago. One of their founders is behind the highly regarded Berkeley Alpha DAC: too bad it uses opamps and not discrete components like the mighty Pacif Microsonics Model Two. My guess is that the main reason it sounds so good is their digital filter (which decodes HDCD). Too bad Microsoft didn't take full advantage of all the work Pacific Microsonics did ...

 

Another possibility is to have 384khz capable USB DACs in the future which allow to bypass their digital filter/DSP... That would allow the end user to select different digital filters directly at the media player level ...
 

post #1270 of 1712

I'm thinking about getting a hiFace and I was wondering if it's gonna be a significant improvement over my current ASUS Xonar Essence ST ( the audio setup is the one in my signature, and in a few days I'll add an AudioGD DAC19DF to it ) ?

post #1271 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpionro View Post

I'm thinking about getting a hiFace and I was wondering if it's gonna be a significant improvement over my current ASUS Xonar Essence ST ( the audio setup is the one in my signature, and in a few days I'll add an AudioGD DAC19DF to it ) ?


Yes. Use "Search this thread" with keywords "ASUS Xonar".

post #1272 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpionro View Post

I'm thinking about getting a hiFace and I was wondering if it's gonna be a significant improvement over my current ASUS Xonar Essence ST ( the audio setup is the one in my signature, and in a few days I'll add an AudioGD DAC19DF to it ) ?


I owned both and my answer is No. I preferred the STX/ST's coaxial output over the HiFace, although they're both good in their own ways.

post #1273 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post

I owned both and my answer is No. I preferred the STX/ST's coaxial output over the HiFace, although they're both good in their own ways.


That's new.

 

Well.. 100 men, 100 opinions. 100 women, 200 ti*s.

post #1274 of 1712

Tried the stock hiface, didn't really like it as it sounded too bright in my system even though it brought slightly more detail to the table.  Just made my music more edgy sounding which I do not like.  I much prefer the Terlink usb converter.  It's more natural and analog sounding with a bit of warmth to my ears.


Edited by tamahome77 - 5/15/10 at 2:43am
post #1275 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamahome77 View Post

Tried the stock hiface, didn't really like it as it sounded too bright in my system even though it brought slightly more detail to the table.  Just made my music more edgy sounding which I do not like.  I much prefer the Terlink usb converter.  It's more natural and analog sounding with a bit of warmth to my ears.


These were my findings as well. I preferred the Teralink-X2 over the HiFace, but liked the Essence STX/ST even more because the Teralink didn't have the greatest bass quality or attack.


Edited by Shahrose - 5/15/10 at 3:21pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › USB to SPDIF converters shoot-out : EMU 0404 USB vs. Musiland Monitor 01 USD vs. Teralink-x vs. M2Tech hiFace