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.... - Page 33  

post #481 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
Regal,

Have you triend the Hiface vs. the Teralink ?


2. The hiface has 2 clocks (One for 44.1 multiples and the second for 48 multiples). The Teralink-x has only one 12mhz clock which means that the 44.1 frequency must be derived from some sort of calculation.
.

I would like to try the Hiface, but it is a bit expensive and my laptop project has been put on hold, hopefully by then there will be more asynchrous usb options. I just can't be convinced that any power from the computer can be considered high end low Jitter. I think the Hiface is a fine product but more a step in the right direction and predict in a year or two there will be better options.

But I am investigating using the PCB of the Hiface to replace the USB input on my 19MK3 DAC, that would bypass the SPDIF and provide good power, just not sure I can make it fit.


Read this, these guys are the real experts in Jitter, nothing like the typical marketing snake oil the big DAC vendors pander, The Hiface doesn't have a PS at all resembling this:


http://www.cn.diyhifisupply.com/files/XO-DAC.pdf
post #482 of 1712
The guys over at M2Tech seem to know their game pretty well.
Considering they're engineers, AES members and everything, that's not suprising.

Including two Tent-type clocks on a HiFace-type device would mean it'd cost at least 3-4 times as much (or at least 5 times as much if you include a decent PSU) and, in terms of size, the device would hardly resemble a usb stick...
Still, it would be interesting to see a "no-compromise" USB transport from these guys.
post #483 of 1712
Thread Starter 

CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119

Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
Slim, a question for you:
Where did you read that the CM108 only gives 14 bits of resolution?
I would like to read up on that.
I read about the cmedia drivers here : Homebrew CMI 8738 drivers - Hydrogenaudio Forums

By the way, when I chose to uninstall the CMedia drivers the first time I tried them it was based only on my subjective listening. You can read my comment about them here : http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/rev...ml#post6042974

Also, since I was in a curious mood today, I did some RMAA measurements this morning for both the generic/stock driver of the Teralink and the CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119.

I put the results in a Zip file if anyone is intersted in them.

First, how did I test it ? I used to the EMU 0404 usb to record the output of my audio-gd dac-100 using the Teralink as a transport.

Since I have tested the EMU with a SNR of 113 db (the SNR drops to 96 db when tested in 16bits which is to be expected) and since the audio-gd dac-100 has a SNR over 100db, if anything is done wrong in the digital domain it would show in the analog stage. If data is lost somewhere in the path it cannot be retrieved.

For what is it worth, my findings are as follow :

The generic windows drivers do not seem to mess with the data.

The CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119 seem to have trouble outputting correctly 16/44 without messing with the data. The SNR is worse by a 4 (and up to 6db) compared to the best results I had with the generic windows drivers.

To my surprise, the 24/96 test with the CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119 drivers improved the results in SNR over 16/44. However the drivers are limited to 48khz. There is a cut-off at 48 khz.
After trying 24/48 and 24/44 I concluded that the benefits comes from going to 24 bits rather than from "upsampling" to 96.

I read in the Valab thread people linking the 24/96 upsampling with the CM-108 drivers. Since I don't own a NOS DAC, I cannot comment on that. All I know is that there is a real loss in transparency using the CM-108 drivers in my system. I understand however that some people might like the "sonic signature" of the CM-108 drivers, but it is not the most accurate driver in my opinion.
LL
LL
LL
post #484 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post
I would like to try the Hiface, but it is a bit expensive and my laptop project has been put on hold, hopefully by then there will be more asynchrous usb options. I just can't be convinced that any power from the computer can be considered high end low Jitter. I think the Hiface is a fine product but more a step in the right direction and predict in a year or two there will be better options.

But I am investigating using the PCB of the Hiface to replace the USB input on my 19MK3 DAC, that would bypass the SPDIF and provide good power, just not sure I can make it fit.


Read this, these guys are the real experts in Jitter, nothing like the typical marketing snake oil the big DAC vendors pander, The Hiface doesn't have a PS at all resembling this:


http://www.cn.diyhifisupply.com/files/XO-DAC.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShaman View Post
The guys over at M2Tech seem to know their game pretty well.
Considering they're engineers, AES members and everything, that's not suprising.

Including two Tent-type clocks on a HiFace-type device would mean it'd cost at least 3-4 times as much (or at least 5 times as much if you include a decent PSU) and, in terms of size, the device would hardly resemble a usb stick...
Still, it would be interesting to see a "no-compromise" USB transport from these guys.
I totally agree with TheShaman.

For the price, the Hiface is very well designed and built. If we were to ask the designer to put ultra high quality clocks and PSUs they would need more space and the price would increase tremendously.

However, I would be also curious and even tempted to buy if m2tech designed a "no-compromise" usb converter with a linear power supply, ultra low jitter clocks, audiophile capacitors ...

By the way, they should use this rubidium clock for their next usb converter because if they don't do so, their product is probably going to suck (kidding)
post #485 of 1712
Hey slim.a you might be interested to hear that I bought a HiFace - should be delivered early next week. After a listening period, I intend to modify it with clean external PS and take I2S out to an external DAC. I don't know about changing the clock.

I also bought a Squeezebox receiver (well it is that time of year -) which I intend to also mod for I2S out, external PS & clock change.

Both of these will be Christmas presents from my family to me - A kind of reverse Kris Kindle

It will be interesting to compare these options against the Musiland which I expect, by all accounts, will be in third place!
post #486 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post
Hey slim.a you might be interested to hear that I bought a HiFace - should be delivered early next week. After a listening period, I intend to modify it with clean external PS and take I2S out to an external DAC. I don't know about changing the clock.

I also bought a Squeezebox receiver (well it is that time of year -) which I intend to also mod for I2S out, external PS & clock change.

Both of these will be Christmas presents from my family to me - A kind of reverse Kris Kindle

It will be interesting to compare these options against the Musiland which I expect, by all accounts, will be in third place!
Hi jkeny,

Congrats on your presents! It would intersting to know how the Musiland and m2tech compare to the Squeezbox. By the way, what dac will you be using ?
post #487 of 1712
Initially, I'll be using a 2 channel Sabre Vout DAC, the ES9022, which I find sounds very good. This accepts only I2S input but like all the ESS DACS it can accept it's clock either from I2S MCLK or from a local clock at the DAC. In this local clock mode the influence of the transport clock should be minimised but we'll see if that idea holds up.

So lots of fun to come over the Christmas holiday
post #488 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
I read about the cmedia drivers here : Homebrew CMI 8738 drivers - Hydrogenaudio Forums

By the way, when I chose to uninstall the CMedia drivers the first time I tried them it was based only on my subjective listening. You can read my comment about them here : http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/rev...ml#post6042974

Also, since I was in a curious mood today, I did some RMAA measurements this morning for both the generic/stock driver of the Teralink and the CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119.

I put the results in a Zip file if anyone is intersted in them.

First, how did I test it ? I used to the EMU 0404 usb to record the output of my audio-gd dac-100 using the Teralink as a transport.

Since I have tested the EMU with a SNR of 113 db (the SNR drops to 96 db when tested in 16bits which is to be expected) and since the audio-gd dac-100 has a SNR over 100db, if anything is done wrong in the digital domain it would show in the analog stage. If data is lost somewhere in the path it cannot be retrieved.

For what is it worth, my findings are as follow :

The generic windows drivers do not seem to mess with the data.

The CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119 seem to have trouble outputting correctly 16/44 without messing with the data. The SNR is worse by a 4 (and up to 6db) compared to the best results I had with the generic windows drivers.

To my surprise, the 24/96 test with the CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119 drivers improved the results in SNR over 16/44. However the drivers are limited to 48khz. There is a cut-off at 48 khz.
After trying 24/48 and 24/44 I concluded that the benefits comes from going to 24 bits rather than from "upsampling" to 96.

I read in the Valab thread people linking the 24/96 upsampling with the CM-108 drivers. Since I don't own a NOS DAC, I cannot comment on that. All I know is that there is a real loss in transparency using the CM-108 drivers in my system. I understand however that some people might like the "sonic signature" of the CM-108 drivers, but it is not the most accurate driver in my opinion.
Slim, thanks for the link and all your hard work, its been an interesting read.

Are you sure that the 14 bit resolution refers to the CM108 driver, it seemed to only be for the CMI 8738 driver, which seems to be different.

After looking at the link you gave: Homebrew CMI 8738 drivers - Hydrogenaudio Forums

I read something about a dogbert driver for these CMI 8738 ICs.
I tried to install it but it seems that these drivers don't work with the CM108 which makes me think that the 14 bits test only referred to the other driver for the older C-media IC...

I use i2s output from the Teralink, do you think this is affected as well as the SPDIF? the C-media driver i use 5.12.8.1803 allows me to turn off the SPDIF, I find that this gives better sound quality when using the i2s.

Funny thing is that i have heard a 14 bit NOS dac and it did sound dynamically limited and like the sound was changed, but my 16 bit dac does not sound like this is happening when i use the teralink. But i have noted your meaurements about the SN ratio of the CM108 driver. Perplexing....
post #489 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by gattari View Post
I prefer (very very slightly) the musiland 02 us.
I compared with coaxial no with BNC.
Do you mean you are using the US 02 as DAC, not only as a usb S/PDIF converter?
post #490 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post
Initially, I'll be using a 2 channel Sabre Vout DAC, the ES9022, which I find sounds very good. This accepts only I2S input but like all the ESS DACS it can accept it's clock either from I2S MCLK or from a local clock at the DAC. In this local clock mode the influence of the transport clock should be minimised but we'll see if that idea holds up.

So lots of fun to come over the Christmas holiday
Have fun John, some nice toys to keep you busy!

Is your DAC's I2S based on a RJ45 socket?

What kind of signal (XXbits/XXXkHz) do expect to get from the hiFace via I2S?
post #491 of 1712
How do these USB transports compare sonically to a typical PCI Card like the EMU series ?
post #492 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
I read about the cmedia drivers here : Homebrew CMI 8738 drivers - Hydrogenaudio Forums

By the way, when I chose to uninstall the CMedia drivers the first time I tried them it was based only on my subjective listening. You can read my comment about them here : http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/rev...ml#post6042974

Also, since I was in a curious mood today, I did some RMAA measurements this morning for both the generic/stock driver of the Teralink and the CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119.

I put the results in a Zip file if anyone is intersted in them.

First, how did I test it ? I used to the EMU 0404 usb to record the output of my audio-gd dac-100 using the Teralink as a transport.

Since I have tested the EMU with a SNR of 113 db (the SNR drops to 96 db when tested in 16bits which is to be expected) and since the audio-gd dac-100 has a SNR over 100db, if anything is done wrong in the digital domain it would show in the analog stage. If data is lost somewhere in the path it cannot be retrieved.

For what is it worth, my findings are as follow :

The generic windows drivers do not seem to mess with the data.

The CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119 seem to have trouble outputting correctly 16/44 without messing with the data. The SNR is worse by a 4 (and up to 6db) compared to the best results I had with the generic windows drivers.

To my surprise, the 24/96 test with the CM-108 Driver v.5.12.8.2119 drivers improved the results in SNR over 16/44. However the drivers are limited to 48khz. There is a cut-off at 48 khz.
After trying 24/48 and 24/44 I concluded that the benefits comes from going to 24 bits rather than from "upsampling" to 96.

I read in the Valab thread people linking the 24/96 upsampling with the CM-108 drivers. Since I don't own a NOS DAC, I cannot comment on that. All I know is that there is a real loss in transparency using the CM-108 drivers in my system. I understand however that some people might like the "sonic signature" of the CM-108 drivers, but it is not the most accurate driver in my opinion.
The Cambridge Dacmagic also uses the cm-108 driver, and i have used the windows 7 default driver for a while and it has worked great. I briefly tried the driver which CA recommends and i think it sounded very muddy for some reason in comparison to the default windows 7 driver. It also installs alot of software which I don't need + enables volume control in windows if i remember correctly.

The CA cm-108 recommended driver is here: Customer Care System (which I don't recommend on win7)

The windows 7 default driver version is much newer from July this year and is driver version 6.1.7600.16385.

So we have observed the similar things in sound signature differences I believe.

I have a Musiland 01 USD coming soon so I will compare with that too
post #493 of 1712
Kevin from Vintage Audio Lab on eBay messaged me saying he's getting a new USB to SPDIF/I2S converter that has native 24/96khz by next week. This is the same guy who sells the Teralink-X converter.
post #494 of 1712
Could post a link please?
post #495 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post
Kevin from Vintage Audio Lab on eBay messaged me saying he's getting a new USB to SPDIF/I2S converter that has native 24/96khz by next week. This is the same guy who sells the Teralink-X converter.
I said it 5 or 6 posts ago, it's the Teralink X2. Still some bugs with Mac but already ok with Xp and I guess even Vista.
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