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 37  

post #541 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosgr63 View Post
Amarra runs off iTunes, iTunes must be running for Amarra.
BTW I have tried it with 3 systems, a low end one where I noticed improvment, a mid level and a high end one where there was no improvement!
Please note these are my findings with my systems, I am sure Amarra is good it just didn't always work for me.
It seems that software and computer playback are rather unpredictabe in general. In fact, I have 2 laptops at home (The first one is using Windows XP Media Center and the second one is using Windows XP Pro) and when I tried the same usb dac with the same media player (foobar) I had very different results.
So even if I don't have a Mac, I am not a surprise to find that people have different results with Amarra. In my opinion, there are way too many things going on in computer playback (whether it is MAC or PC) to have consistent and predictable results without each one of us trying the equipment/software on their own system.
post #542 of 1712
slim.a I fully agree with you, I never generalise, I only state my findings based on my systems.
Some people may have similar results with their system, others oposite.
post #543 of 1712
Someone on Computer Audiophile reported ASIO4ALL working with the HiFace. Can anyone here verify?

thanks!
DC
post #544 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorcilantro View Post
Someone on Computer Audiophile reported ASIO4ALL working with the HiFace. Can anyone here verify?

thanks!
DC
I was also able to make the Hiface work with ASIO4ALL (with windows xp).

Below is a quote of the comparisons I made a few pages ago :

Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
Hi all,

I just wanted to share with you some findings with media players (based on subjective listening using the m2tech hiface).

Haloxt pointed to me about 2 months ago Cplay and CMP. At that time, I was so busy comparing different usb converters, that I didn't give it a fair listening. I found cPlay about the same level of foobar (using the Musiland). Since cPlay works only with ASIO, I tought that the sound would be compromised using the hiface since it is optimized for KS.

Anyway, I installed the latest version of cPlay yesterday (after uninstalling the old one) and hit play. The sound was so different than what I got used to with Foobar 0.8.3 that I tought, for a few seconds, that something was wrong with the file I played. The sound was cleaner (foobar sounds grainy in comparison) and the soundstage was pushed further back. The imaging was also more holographic.
I did many A/B trials with different files and different kinds of music and I got the same result favoring cPlay over foobar with KS.

This shouldn't have happened since the hiface is optimized for KS and cPlay outputs ASIO which is then "grabbed" by ASIO4ALL before being sent to the hiface.

However, I realized that my comparison was flawed. I was comparing foobar+KS with cPlay+ASIO4ALL.
When I tried Foobar+otachan ASIO+ASIO4ALL and the sound improved over Foobar+KS. However, I felt that the best playback was still done with cPlay.

So to sum up here is my subjective ranking of media players using the m2tech hiface :

1. cPlay (with asio4all)
2. Foobar 0.8.3 + Otachan asio 0.51.7 (with asio4all)
3. Foobar 0.8.3 + KS
4. Foobar 0.9.6 + KS
5. ...
Last. Windows Media Player with DS

It is really bad that the best sounding player happens to be the less user friendly. I think I will use cPlay only for critical listening and keep using Foobar (with otachan asio) the rest of the time.

I have yet to try MediaMonkey and the newest versions of Foobar with ASIO. However, from memory, when I tried MediaMonkey vs my old foobar back when I was using the Musiland, I found out that MediaMonkey was "compressed" and "squashed" a little bit the soundstage.

Also, keep in mind that those tests were done with the hiface in my system and with my ears. I totally understand that other people can find that there is no difference or that they would rank them differently.
I would be very interested in your findings about different media players.
post #545 of 1712
Very interesting points Slim. My impetus to going the HiFace was the direct connection from BNC to my upcoming DAC. KISS and you save some $.

I also found Lavry's comments here relevant and interesting; Steve's comments pointed one member to a white paper where it seemed ABX testing was not followed. Dan tried to explain the science; no one has refuted or challenged his math.

I don't blindly follow the Sabre PR but given that they do have the best jitter rejection yet, and Lavry's comments about jitter at the DA point, are we getting a bit OCD about the transport?

Keeping DA/AD out of the PC isn't a bad thing I guess, but PSUs are getting smaller and more efficient; hopefully their performance (ripple, etc.) is also.

DC

Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
Regal,

Have you triend the Hiface vs. the Teralink ?

I have spent many months with both units using different computers, different media players, different usb cables (for the teralink), different digital cables (including some "high-end" ones such as the Stereovox XV2 and Hifi Cables & Cie Sobek) and my conclusion is as follow.

The hiface is clearly superior sounding to a fully "tweaked" teralink using the following : the wireworld ultraviolet usb cable , ploytec usb asio ,a computer (with battery power). Even if an external power supply provided tremendous improvement, it wouldn't justify the cost of the set-up and it would still be limited to 16/48.

Here are some "logical" reasons why the hiface is superior :
1. the hiface uses Async protocol vs. adaptive for the Teralink. The Teralink tries to "cure" the incoming jitter from the computer while the Hiface derives the clock from its internal low jitter clocks.
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.
3. The hiface does not need a usb cable. Which saves both money, time trying different quality cables, and improves quality. No cable is always better than a very good cable.
4. The hiface can do 24/192 which is becoming more important every day. I know that you have a collection of HDCD discs that are played by both converters, but today it is better to have a converter that is future proof.
post #546 of 1712
Sorry, I completely missed that ASIO4ALL.

As a J. River user I will use that. I have Foobar here too but don't use it.

thanks
DC

Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
I was also able to make the Hiface work with ASIO4ALL (with windows xp).

Below is a quote of the comparisons I made a few pages ago :
post #547 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorcilantro View Post
I don't blindly follow the Sabre PR but given that they do have the best jitter rejection yet, and Lavry's comments about jitter at the DA point, are we getting a bit OCD about the transport?
If I understand correctly what Dan Lavry said, a low jitter DAC with a high jitter transport will be better than a low jitter transport with a high jitter DAC.
However, it doesn't mean that the transport is not important. It means, in my opinion, that it makes more sense to run a $200 transport with a $1000 than the other way around to give an example.

By the way, I read that someone on the m2tech thread using a Lavry DAC reported that he had very noticeable improvements when using the hiface. It implies that even a very well built dac such as Lavry still benefits from a good transport.
post #548 of 1712
Yes, I tend to agree. I was thinking of selling my 1616M but use the aux. inputs for a few other things besides it just being a transport. I'll have to compare the Musiland, 1616M, and HiFace directly just to be sure.

Any chance the HiFace user was use BNC or RCA; I think the DA series have Tos., AES.EBU, and BNC IIRC?
post #549 of 1712
Does anyone use the hiFace to listen to streaming music on the web, like from Rhapsody/Last.fm/Grooveshark.
Just wondering if it would convert without ASIO, etc. or without the use of a media player like JR/MM/FB, etc., and if so if it's possible to select the output at 44.1 or 48 to your dac.

Not really concerned with SQ, just if it will work(don't care if you gotta use ASIO and the proprietary drivers either). 0404usb wont convert without ASIO, etc., so no Grooveshark through spdif-input-only dacs.
post #550 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by digger945 View Post
Does anyone use the hiFace to listen to streaming music on the web, like from Rhapsody/Last.fm/Grooveshark.
Just wondering if it would convert without ASIO, etc. or use of a media player like JR/MM/FB, etc., and if so if it's possible to select the output at 44.1 or 48 to your dac.

Not really concerned with SQ, just if it will work. 0404usb wont convert without ASIO, etc., so no Grooveshark through spdif input only dacs.
You can use foobar2000 for that.
post #551 of 1712
You can stream Grooveshark from the web through Foobar?
If so this would be great, I'm all ears.
post #552 of 1712
I'd tend to agree as well, however some older NOS designs don't have great dac jitter reduction and really need a low jitter transport to shine. I find it a bit odd, but there are a few members runing pace car's with 200$ nos dac's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
If I understand correctly what Dan Lavry said, a low jitter DAC with a high jitter transport will be better than a low jitter transport with a high jitter DAC.
However, it doesn't mean that the transport is not important. It means, in my opinion, that it makes more sense to run a $200 transport with a $1000 than the other way around to give an example.

By the way, I read that someone on the m2tech thread using a Lavry DAC reported that he had very noticeable improvements when using the hiface. It implies that even a very well built dac such as Lavry still benefits from a good transport.
post #553 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by digger945 View Post
You can stream Grooveshark from the web through Foobar?
If so this would be great, I'm all ears.
There is one for last.fm
foo_lastfm_radio - Hydrogenaudio Forums
post #554 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by digger945 View Post
Does anyone use the hiFace to listen to streaming music on the web, like from Rhapsody/Last.fm/Grooveshark.
Just wondering if it would convert without ASIO, etc. or without the use of a media player like JR/MM/FB, etc., and if so if it's possible to select the output at 44.1 or 48 to your dac.

Not really concerned with SQ, just if it will work(don't care if you gotta use ASIO and the proprietary drivers either). 0404usb wont convert without ASIO, etc., so no Grooveshark through spdif-input-only dacs.
As far as I know, the hiface should work fine streaming music without the need of foobar with windows XP, windows vista and windows seven 32 bits. (Edit -- as of 29/12/09, it works only with XP)
If there is support for DS with your OS (you can look it up here), it should work like any other sound card.
As for the EMU 0404 usb, I used to have the same problem where the spdif out would work only with ASIO. That is one of the reasons I bought the Musiland 01 usd.
post #555 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
I'd tend to agree as well, however some older NOS designs don't have great dac jitter reduction and really need a low jitter transport to shine. I find it a bit odd, but there are a few members runing pace car's with 200$ nos dac's.
While I wouldn't personally use a pace care with a $200 nos dac, I totally understand the reason behind it. If someone likes the sound of their dac and finds that a better transport provides positive benefits to the sound (and not just sideways moves) why shouldn't they be able to do so ?
My guess is that the person finds that a pace car + $200 nos dac is more musically satisfying than a cheap transport with a higher priced (and different) dac.
However, if understand correctly what Dan Lavry said, if the money spent outside the ($1200 for a pace car reclocker) were spent inside the same dac, it would yield greater benefits.
Anyway, it is too bad that many "musical" and "nos" dacs don't have proper jitter reduction inside. It would avoid the issue of finding good transports.
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