Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › HiFace, sensitive information
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HiFace, sensitive information - Page 9

post #121 of 425

Hi John!!

 

I am ready!  I keep watching that tracking site like a hawk, it somehow got stuck on Aug.17, I'm guessing it's still in customs.  I have everything ready, computers, cables, etc and will ship it out to Randy the next day.  I really appreciate him and you making this possible...

 

Are you back?

 

Thanks!!!!

post #122 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post

 

Sleepy-dan has answered correctly your question about the operation of the clocks! The clocks will have 22.5792 & 24.576 marked on them!  


Ok, this is getting more interesting!   So according to the pics I posted, the small oscillator has 22.579 marked on it, so it's the one handling the 44.1 khz...
 

post #123 of 425

That's right, so in other words you preferred the small clock / non sample rate converted setup.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xdanny View Post




Ok, this is getting more interesting!   So according to the pics I posted, the small oscillator has 22.579 marked on it, so it's the one handling the 44.1 khz...
 

post #124 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dan View Post

That's right, so in other words you preferred the small clock / non sample rate converted setup.
 


 


Yes, it is interesting - I sense more than a little of the expectations effecting the listening results in this thread & wonder how many would be able to tell the difference between the units in a double blind test?

 

Of course, I could be considered to be biased but I really have no position on this other than to say that there is a rush to condemn these smaller clocks on the flimsiest of grounds. Marco has said that they are equivalent & there has been no technical information shown to suggest otherwise.

 

If, as the original posters have stated, that the sonic difference is so evident, there should be no doubt about this & lots of people should be hearing this difference. If, as Danny has, there are a mix of clocks inside the unit, there should be evident differences between playback at the speed families associated with each clock.

 

A number of blind tests are needed, I feel, before any conclusions can be drawn. Just my 2c (& please don't post to tell me I shouldn't be posting my views about this as I have vested interests) 

post #125 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dan View Post

That's right, so in other words you preferred the small clock / non sample rate converted setup.
 


 

 


Absolutely! 

 

Like I stated in my post before opening the unit, I preferred whatever was playing provided that it was in its original format over it's upsampled version.  I think that's a pretty good blind test...  I am almost dissapointed - just kidding guys, I am actually half way relieved...


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post




Yes, it is interesting - I sense more than a little of the expectations effecting the listening results in this thread & wonder how many would be able to tell the difference between the units in a double blind test?

 

Of course, I could be considered to be biased but I really have no position on this other than to say that there is a rush to condemn these smaller clocks on the flimsiest of grounds. Marco has said that they are equivalent & there has been no technical information shown to suggest otherwise.

 

If, as the original posters have stated, that the sonic difference is so evident, there should be no doubt about this & lots of people should be hearing this difference. If, as Danny has, there are a mix of clocks inside the unit, there should be evident differences between playback at the speed families associated with each clock.

 

A number of blind tests are needed, I feel, before any conclusions can be drawn. Just my 2c (& please don't post to tell me I shouldn't be posting my views about this as I have vested interests) 


As soon as you told me the sample rates are written on the oscillators, I blew up that close up picture and saw it.  And I tell you, I must have spent at least 7 hours over 3 sessions switching back and forth between the original and the upsampled song and I always reached the same conclusion.  And I had no idea what clocks I had, remember we both thought it was the larger MECs...

 

Like I said, I will try to make this test as unbiased as possible by having someone else hook up the BNC cables to the dac inputs, so that I won't know which one is which.  Everything will be hidden, same playlists are loaded in foobar and the only thing I will be doing is flipping the dac switch between input 3 and 4.  If anyone can think of other things I could do to improve the quality of this test, please do not hesitate to post.
 

As an unrelated side note, I totally dig the attenuators, I got two 10db one for each end of the cable.  Great find!

post #126 of 425

Yes, Danny, you arrived at your conclusions based on blind tests which is just what is needed. Your results are counter to what you found when you opened up the Hiface & saw which was the small clock. It's interesting & something that should be pondered. 

post #127 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post

Yes, Danny, you arrived at your conclusions based on blind tests which is just what is needed. Your results are counter to what you found when you opened up the Hiface & saw which was the small clock. It's interesting & something that should be pondered. 


Something else to ponder is : I listened to my stock Hiface and thought it sounded worse than a $50 soundcard before I opened it up to see the pissant clock,  that was just as blind but it was with a much more revealing system.  No offense to Xdanny but he's got a budget dac, a mid-budget preamp, a bottom dollar crossover,  a wonderful top end amp ,  then expensive "monitor" speakers in the signal path. 

 

It is a bit of an "unbalanced" system where the front end is of much lower quality than the amp & speakers which is typical of speaker setups because they aren't as revealing of transports & DAC's as headphones can be.

 

 

 

So  I count three negative reviews against one positive review,  not saying anyone is wrong but I don't see how you claim one person's system/ears better than the others? 

 

 

And if the small clock wasn't inferior why wasn't it used in the original design?  And why have they dropped it like a hot potato?

post #128 of 425

regal,

 

First, my apologies for the crappy, unbalanced system.  Like everyone else, I try to do the best I can given my budget and my ears, and believe me I have made quite a few sacrifices to get there.  Had I had a million or so under the mattress, rest assured I would roll with a different one.  Until then, this will have to do whether or not you like it.  LOL, it's nice to know you sat there with your little calculator adding up the cost of my system: "ok, this is a buget dac, this is mid-budget preamp" dude you're killing me!!

 

Allow me to correct you on a few issues which you are completely wrong:

 

1.  Bryston BDA-1 dac may be a budget dac, but it sure won a few awards.  You're smart enough to use google so I'll leave it at that. Oh, and it did cost double than my preamp, just so you know you were wrong there too.

2. The bottom dollar crossover as you so elegantly put it, makes absolutely no difference in sound.  Again, for someone as knowledgeable as you in the hardware dept. you should know that.  I have decided to keep it only because to my ears, and a few others' it made no change in sound.  Wassup with you going after my crossover like that??

3. Kindly let everyone know what kind of room adjustments/correction I am using to ensure a proper response from my system. 

4. Please make comments about my system AFTER you actually hear it.

 

Have you seen the email I sent Marco?  Like everyone else I was tripping over this big clock/small clock ordeal - just ask jkeny, I must have sent him close to 16 private emails over this. To an extent, I am still tripping. 

 

All I did, was followed a procedure which quite a few gentlemen on this forum agreed on, the original vs. upsampled version of a song.  In the spirit of camaraderie, I have posted my results.  I have no clue about chips, soldering etc.  It was this past day when I actually identified that the small clock was doing the 44.1 and multiples.

 

I am doing this test for my peace of mind, and believe me if I don't like what I find Marco will hear from me.  I have not discredited any of the people who said they did not like it, (I'm here on this thread putting up with this when I could be doing something else, am I not?) but it really surprised me that I liked both clocks equally better than their upsampled versions.

 

I would like more people to come forward and do some of these tests.  It would benefit all of us.

 

regal, I am sorry to have disappointed you by not trashing the small clock.  It seems that all you're doing is attacking those who do not agree with you.  It's the second time you're going after me in this thread, and I'm trying really hard to figure out why. Look, it's what I heard.  I can't change that.  Not for you, not for Marco either.

 

Yours truly.


Edited by xdanny - 8/26/10 at 1:09am
post #129 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by xdanny View Post

I must admit that I have never had the desire to dig deeper into headphone setups so I do not know much about the advantages of cans vs speakers except for you don't have to worry about speaker placement and room acoustics / treatment - and spending too much...

Just for curiosity, then what are you doing on Head-Fi?

post #130 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post




Something else to ponder is : I listened to my stock Hiface and thought it sounded worse than a $50 soundcard before I opened it up to see the pissant clock,  that was just as blind but it was with a much more revealing system.  No offense to Xdanny but he's got a budget dac, a mid-budget preamp, a bottom dollar crossover,  a wonderful top end amp ,  then expensive "monitor" speakers in the signal path. 

 

It is a bit of an "unbalanced" system where the front end is of much lower quality than the amp & speakers which is typical of speaker setups because they aren't as revealing of transports & DAC's as headphones can be.

 

 

 

So  I count three negative reviews against one positive review,  not saying anyone is wrong but I don't see how you claim one person's system/ears better than the others? 

 

 

And if the small clock wasn't inferior why wasn't it used in the original design?  And why have they dropped it like a hot potato?

Regal,

Yes, your test was blind but how many of the others were?  I respect your opinion/results. What I don't respect is the way you choose to express them by making wild & unfounded statements. You misinterpreted me - I don't "claim one person's system/ears better than the others" but I do contend that expectations do influence results & the only way to do this is blind. I suggest this as there seems to be varying reports about whether this difference is subtle or not - if this wasn't a subtle difference then no blind test is needed. You are a technical guy & know about this sort of thing!

 

 "And if the small clock wasn't inferior why wasn't it used in the original design?  And why have they dropped it like a hot potato?" Another wild, unfounded & irresponsible statement, Regal, I'm afraid - As Marco stated, the small clock was used as a substitute due to supply problems of the Mec clocks - how was it dropped like a hot potato?  I really don't know what's behind these statements of yours - yes, if you have had unfair treatment from Marco then I understand your anger but you should curtail your expression & try to give a balanced view.  
 

post #131 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post

 

 "And if the small clock wasn't inferior why wasn't it used in the original design?  And why have they dropped it like a hot potato?" Another wild, unfounded & irresponsible statement, Regal, I'm afraid - As Marco stated, the small clock was used as a substitute due to supply problems of the Mec clocks - how was it dropped like a hot potato?  I really don't know what's behind these statements of yours - yes, if you have had unfair treatment from Marco then I understand your anger but you should curtail your expression & try to give a balanced view.  
 


Respectfully John, you did not answer regal's question here. Why did M2Tech not use the small clocks in the first place? ...and when they were using the small clocks, why did they revert back to the larger ones later?

post #132 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post




Respectfully John, you did not answer regal's question here. Why did M2Tech not use the small clocks in the first place? ...and when they were using the small clocks, why did they revert back to the larger ones later?


How do I know? - all I have to go on is Marco (the manufacturer's) statements - possibly they didn't get them as cheaply as the MEC clocks, who knows?, certainly not me. But I will not make suppositions into statements like Regal has - it leads to Chinese whispers. Let's investigate the clocks issue calmly & without bias rather than pre-judging the whole thing. Marco isn't the enemy, is he?


Edited by jkeny - 8/26/10 at 2:32am
post #133 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post

Marco isn't the enemy, is he?



Jnenky,  He sure hasn't treated any of us that were bait and switched, like customers,  he doesn't rank high in my book.  You are frankly grasping at straws,  I'm sure you will offer to replace the pissant clock with the original design spec for all your customers who were tricked,  its not your fault but you are a good supplier.

 

 

XDanny,  don't be so thin skinned you should see my speaker rig!  All I was pointing out is yes this is a head-phone forum and if you intend to compare your system to headphones you better be prepared to take some critism cause the fact is you have to spend a small fortune on a speaker rig to match a good headphone as far as detail and revealing transport and DAC flaws.   I wasn't trashing your system,  just stating facts.  I really I didn't like being put in that position but expect it from me if you compare a speaker rig to others headphone rigs in a headphone forum.

post #134 of 425

I'm sure if sufficient proof can be shown that the smaller clocks are detrimental to the sound then a case can be made for him to replace them. So far all we have are 3 random reports of varying rigour, hardly a reliable proof. You are convinced, I know & maybe on your system the difference is night & day, as you said but others are less sure. All I'm asking for is sufficient evidence! Until then I think that unfair & unfounded claims/statements should be avoided.


Edited by jkeny - 8/26/10 at 5:28am
post #135 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebhelyesfarku View Post

Just for curiosity, then what are you doing on Head-Fi?


I am on the "COMPUTER AUDIO" section, am I not?  All it takes is a PM from one of the mods and I will respectfully bow out.  Please show me where it says "you must have headphones to post". 
 


Edited by xdanny - 8/26/10 at 6:52am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › HiFace, sensitive information