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 54  

post #796 of 1712
yay, slim.a you don't understand sarcasm either...I never said that there were any "good" jitter, I never suggested to try Reclock in anything but fully bit-perfect mode over S/PDIF.

and anyway, you're running your tests on an HD650...that's the grand finale I guess, now who's misguiding ppl when he talks about soundstage...it's not the HD650 that will allow you to judge a "soundstage", try a cd3k or a r10 maybe.
I'm sure your posts must be very successful on HCFR, I wish you well
post #797 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
yay, slim.a you don't understand sarcasm either...I never said that there were any "good" jitter, I never suggested to try Reclock in anything but fully bit-perfect mode over S/PDIF.

and anyway, you're running your tests on an HD650...that's the grand finale I guess, now who's misguiding ppl when he talks about soundstage...it's not the HD650 that will allow you to judge a "soundstage", try a cd3k or a r10 maybe.
I'm sure your posts must be very successful on HCFR, I wish you well
2 quick facts:

1) If you read thoroughly the threads I have started, you will see that I have never tried to misguide people. I have always done a lot of research before posting and I also avoid talking about stuff that I don't understand (unlike other people). If you think that my ears or the sivler cabled hd-650 I use are not accurate to describe the soundstage. That is your personal opinion.

2) I have never posted on HCFR. The only forum where I post is here on head-fi and it is already very time consuming. So that is another wrong assumption you did : once again, please do a little bit of reasearch before posting.
post #798 of 1712

slim.a

I understand what you are saying without any difficulty and I am a neophyte here. There is a difference between being technologically correct and being audiologically correct. The human ear does not necessarily appreciate technologically correct. It has a complicated physiology and varies tremendously with age and other variables. The classical music community is well aware of this. In the best of all possible worlds, the best technology would sound the best to one's ears, but there is no perfect technology and therefore what we are left with is compromises. In the end, it is not specs that determine whether a listening experience is pleasant of, but what the music sounds like to the human ear. Two different issues. The reason I liked your initial review was because you were honest about the strengths and weaknesses of the different convertors. In my case, my listening experience was unpleasant because of too analytical a DAC and a perceived harshness to the strings in my classical music. Knowing that the Terralink was not perfect because it introduced a warmness (and probably some noise) into the process was helpful. I now have a system that I can listen to all day without getting a headache.
I was interested in what you had to say about the PCM 1704 and wondered whether you knew whether the current Audio gd DAC 19Df differs significantly from your current Audio gd DAC?
post #799 of 1712
I think you're misunderstanding slim.a's intention. He's not just saying audio needs to sound good on paper before it does to our ears. For something like jitter, it is an absolute necessity to talk about the technology/specs behind the various devices that try to address jitter. Music is as you said, subjective, but jitter is most certainly not.
post #800 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumping View Post
I understand what you are saying without any difficulty and I am a neophyte here. There is a difference between being technologically correct and being audiologically correct. The human ear does not necessarily appreciate technologically correct. It has a complicated physiology and varies tremendously with age and other variables. The classical music community is well aware of this. In the best of all possible worlds, the best technology would sound the best to one's ears, but there is no perfect technology and therefore what we are left with is compromises. In the end, it is not specs that determine whether a listening experience is pleasant of, but what the music sounds like to the human ear. Two different issues. The reason I liked your initial review was because you were honest about the strengths and weaknesses of the different convertors. In my case, my listening experience was unpleasant because of too analytical a DAC and a perceived harshness to the strings in my classical music. Knowing that the Terralink was not perfect because it introduced a warmness (and probably some noise) into the process was helpful. I now have a system that I can listen to all day without getting a headache.
I was interested in what you had to say about the PCM 1704 and wondered whether you knew whether the current Audio gd DAC 19Df differs significantly from your current Audio gd DAC?
As noinimod pointed out, I think that you didn't totally understand what I was trying to say. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
I believe that the most important thing in audio is that a component sounds good to our ears. If a component sounds bad but measures well, then it is probably measuring poorly in some way that we didn't measure.
Jitter is a complicated matter. If I had to choose between 2 jittery devices I would personally choose the warmest sounding one. However, if I can find and afford a transport that significantly reduces jitter over both jittery devices, I would choose it without hesitation.

I listen to a lot of classical music. If I want to get the closest representation of a Steinway piano or a Stravarius violin, I would need a very low jitter transport and a transparent DAC. So even if they are some transports that are warm sounding, the end result would be warm, fuzzy and luck the harmonic richness and detail that a low jitter transport will let you hear.

As for your question about the Audio gd DAC 19Df, as far as I know, it is a slightly improved version of the dac19mk3 I am currently using (according to Kingwa).
post #801 of 1712
I tried the J River media center and noticed a difference in sound as well, coming from foobar. However, unlike slim.a, I didn't like all the changes I heard. Overall I prefer foobar, especially for the non-SQ aspects such as responsiveness, stability and ease of use (without being featureless).

The J River player had a brighter and sharper sound. I can see how this kind of sound could be perceived as having more detail, but it didn't actually have more.
post #802 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post
I tried the J River media center and noticed a difference in sound as well, coming from foobar. However, unlike slim.a, I didn't like all the changes I heard. Overall I prefer foobar, especially for the non-SQ aspects such as responsiveness, stability and ease of use (without being featureless).

The J River player had a brighter and sharper sound. I can see how this kind of sound could be perceived as having more detail, but it didn't actually have more.
Shahrose,

I was going to update my findings as they were only early impressions and I pretty much agree with what you said

I described the sound before as : "improvement in perceived details, there was an enhanced sense of realism and better imaging". While I still think that the imaging became more precise, the overall sound became much sharper as you described. I think that J River has a slightly more forward upper midrange/lower treble which enhances the perceived details on quick A/B tests but lacks the low level details and harmonic richness of Foobar.
This was similar to what I have noticed when I reviewed the Purepiper DAC A-1 (here: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/rev...et-dac-476557/). When compared to the Audio-gd FUN, the sound seemed sharper and more detailed at first but on long term listening and when playing high quality files there was a definite loss in harmonic richness and low level resolution. However, since I took a few days (in purpose) to review the unit, I didn't post early impressions but I mentioned it in the review. Quick A/B tests can be tricky.

So I totaly agree with you. The J River is voiced slightly differently than foobar and can fool for more details in quick listening sessions. However in longer listening sessions, Foobar is more balanced and has actually more low level resolution. After using for a few hours, I got tired and switched back to Foobar (which has also the advantage of having a superior upsampler).

By the way, I have only used the Hiface for my review. So I don't know if the results will be the same with the Teralink-x and Musiland. It might be possible that different drivers interact differently with different media players.
post #803 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
Shahrose,

I was going to update my findings as they were only early impressions and I pretty much agree with what you said

I described the sound before as : "improvement in perceived details, there was an enhanced sense of realism and better imaging". While I still think that the imaging became more precise, the overall sound became much sharper as you described. I think that J River has a slightly more forward upper midrange/lower treble which enhances the perceived details on quick A/B tests but lacks the low level details and harmonic richness of Foobar.
This was similar to what I have noticed when I reviewed the Purepiper DAC A-1 (here: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/rev...et-dac-476557/). When compared to the Audio-gd FUN, the sound seemed sharper and more detailed at first but on long term listening and when playing high quality files there was a definite loss in harmonic richness and low level resolution. However, since I took a few days (in purpose) to review the unit, I didn't post early impressions but I mentioned it in the review. Quick A/B tests can be tricky.

So I totaly agree with you. The J River is voiced slightly differently than foobar and can fool for more details in quick listening sessions. However in longer listening sessions, Foobar is more balanced and has actually more low level resolution. After using for a few hours, I got tired and switched back to Foobar (which has also the advantage of having a superior upsampler).

By the way, I have only used the Hiface for my review. So I don't know if the results will be the same with the Teralink-x and Musiland. It might be possible that different drivers interact differently with different media players.
Yea, long-term listening and comparisons are the only way to work with these things, since the changes are so subtle and require time to adjust to. I've found that people in general like a change in sound. Even if it's worse in the long-run, the fact that it's different from the sound they've been listening to constantly makes it pleasing upon first listen.

I've also consistently found that equipment which sounds exciting and engaging initially is fatiguing in the long-run and that which sounds dull and unimpressive initially sounds better in the long-run. Foobar is a program I'd put in the latter category in terms of sound.

The J River Media Center is the more feature-filled and comprehensive player no doubt, having the ability to play a lot more media types and providing some tweaking options absent from foobar. But, as a standalone audio player, I'd pick foobar over it.
post #804 of 1712
I also test the J river and i find the sound more open, with slight more air between instruments, a cleaner sound, foobar sound closed and too much "in your face" (maybe a little distorted) for comparison but they are indeed small differences and i suspect placebo for such things.

Overall i prefer J river and he have many useful features too.

I will try one day to test many different players.
post #805 of 1712
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega17TheTrue View Post
I also test the J river and i find the sound more open, with slight more air between instruments, a cleaner sound, foobar sound closed and too much "in your face" (maybe a little distorted) for comparison but they are indeed small differences and i suspect placebo for such things.

Overall i prefer J river and he have many useful features too.

I will try one day to test many different players.
What was your transport/Source (usb converter, ...)? There might be a relationship (perhaps) between the drivers/converter and the performance of the media players ... But that is only a personal guess and speculation from my part.
post #806 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
What was your transport/Source (usb converter, ...)? There might be a relationship (perhaps) between the drivers/converter and the performance of the media players ... But that is only a personal guess and speculation from my part.
I found the same differences using the motherboard coax-out, so I don't think the transport is a meaningful variable here.
post #807 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post
What was your transport/Source (usb converter, ...)? There might be a relationship (perhaps) between the drivers/converter and the performance of the media players ... But that is only a personal guess and speculation from my part.
I was using the usb input of the compass with earth OPA in "soft mode 2" with the Denon D2000 and i only use 2 tracks "22" and "Not fair" of Lily Allen so it was just a quick impression nothing wrote in stone, i forgot to add that precious information.

But yeah impressions depend vastly of the gear,tastes,music,mood,recording etc...
post #808 of 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by slim.a View Post

So I totaly agree with you. The J River is voiced slightly differently than foobar and can fool for more details in quick listening sessions. However in longer listening sessions, Foobar is more balanced and has actually more low level resolution. After using for a few hours, I got tired and switched back to Foobar (which has also the advantage of having a superior upsampler).
I find it completely opposite I use ASIO with Musiland USD1 and have compared alot between the players and having used foobar for many years i now find it sounding abit grainy and fatiguing comparing to using jriver with asio.

For some reason wasapi sounds too harsh for me in both . Do not know the internal technical reasons for it but it never sounds very musical on my setup.

(btw i dont have any software resampling on etc)
post #809 of 1712
In contrast to what has been said, I but I find Foobar more detailed compared to J River.
J River sounds like Windows Media player with less sound coloration.
I used both WASAPI and DS and listened to the song Kanye West - Amazing in .FLAC format for comparaison.
J River has a lot more options and tweaking features that I don't understand.
I'll do some more tests.
post #810 of 1712
I just picked up a M2Tech Hiface BNC, noticed that J. River doesn't work with WASAPI - i think they are working on a fix. Interesting read, curious to know what people think are the best settings here. I think foobar is slightly less fatiguing than j. river; at least to my ears - however, something tells me that j. river is so dedicated to SQ, that they might release their own KS mode to compete with foobar.
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