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

HiFace, sensitive information - Page 12

post #166 of 425


Quote:

Originally Posted by jkeny View Post

if the clock is the cause of such a night & day sonic difference then how come when you put a battery supply on it, it all comes good? This is a reasonable question & one that worries me about your conclusions of what is behind the sonic differences you hear. Surely you would hear the same night & day difference between small clock & large clock operating off batteries, no?


Couldn't the "small clock" version be more receptive to the battery mod?

 

Is this what it comes down to, the quality and/or capability of the substituted clock chip? It has been established that there are different chips, so this is the issue here right?

post #167 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post


Quote:


Couldn't the "small clock" version be more receptive to the battery mod?

 

Is this what it comes down to, the quality and/or capability of the substituted clock chip? It has been established that there are different chips, so this is the issue here right?


You could be right, grokit, I'm just not sure how it could be so big a change in sound from a PS change & I haven't heard of something like this before. Maybe I'm wrong & some other examples or mode of operation can be given to explain it but at the moment this is my stumbling block. And yes we are trying to establish that the smaller clock is a worse performer than the larger clock by whatever means possible - so far we have 3 reports of this but more are needed, I feel, to draw a conclusion!

post #168 of 425

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post


You could be right, grokit, I'm just not sure how it could be so big a change in sound from a PS change & I haven't heard of something like this before. Maybe I'm wrong & some other examples or mode of operation can be given to explain it but at the moment this is my stumbling block. And yes we are trying to establish that the smaller clock is a worse performer than the larger clock by whatever means possible - so far we have 3 reports of this but more are needed, I feel, to draw a conclusion!

 

It may be that the bigger clock chip had some kind of DC offset that wasn't needed with the battery mod, who knows. I can see why people are upset though, as there are physical differences between these two chips. Is it possible to compare the manufacturer specs for them?


Edited by grokit - 8/29/10 at 4:31am
post #169 of 425

Now, you are making some good points & asking some good reasonable questions - I think Marco said that the small clock manufacturer gave him assurances about the phase noise - I can't remember exactly what the quote was but it's not too far back in the thread.

post #170 of 425

I measured the BNC connector at 50 ohms,  the review on computer audiophile measured the output impedance of the entire unit which came out a few ohms below 75 because of the cheap BNC connector,  I tried to explain that to you in a PM but you obviously didn't understand as you don't have an engineering background or who knows maybe they bait and switched that part as well?

 

Again I spent very little time with the battery powered defective unit,  my statement was a casual one and not meant to be repeated by you as gospel a hundred times,  this is the last time I explain this. 

 

I obviously switched to the original Hiface version with battery power and would recommend that anyone with a battery modded Hiface get the original design (large clock version.)

  

 

 

I think this thread has run its course,   your non-ending posting here is turning troublesome,  the AudioGD DI is already getting better reviews than the Hiface in direct comparison,  its time to move on and let this thread serve as a warning to the past poor customer service at M2Tech,  hopefully they will find a better customer service rep and learn from their mistakes.  I wish you and M2Tech the best as both companies (yours and M2Tech) were innovators in USB audio.  Fortunately for us hobbiest there are now and will be in the near future many other exciting USB transports.


Edited by regal - 8/29/10 at 4:51am
post #171 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

 

 

It may be that the bigger clock chip had some kind of DC offset that wasn't needed with the battery mod, who knows. I can see why people are upset though, as there are physical differences between these two chips. Is it possible to compare the manufacturer specs for them?







I asked this question earlier in the thread. If the manufacturer and specs for the actual oscillators used(both large and small) could be given then one could do thier own research. There are many other crystals that could be used as replacements. Seems like an awful lot of emphasis has been given to the physical size of the part in question, and I'm not so sure size has anything to do with performance.



Also, there are tolerances for oscillators, and within any given number of parts there will be ones that measure better or worse than others. A misleading indicator is "PPM" which is a variance from the advertised frequency and has nothing to do with jitter or phase noise in any form.
Edited by digger945 - 8/29/10 at 5:04am
post #172 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post

I measured the BNC connector at 50 ohms,  the review on computer audiophile measured the output impedance of the entire unit which came out a few ohms below 75 because of the cheap BNC connector,  I tried to explain that to you in a PM but you obviously didn't understand as you don't have an engineering background or who knows maybe they bait and switched that part as well?

 

Again I spent very little time with the battery powered defective unit,  my statement was a casual one and not meant to be repeated by you as gospel a hundred times,  this is the last time I explain this. 

 

I obviously switched to the original Hiface version with battery power and would recommend that anyone with a battery modded Hiface get the original design (large clock version.)

 

, like you must get in the last word for fear of losing customers or something,  time to let it go man. 

 

 

I think this thread has run its course your non-ending posting here is turning troublesome,  the AudioGD DI is already getting better reviews than the Hiface in direct comparison,  its time to move on and let this thread serve as a warning to the past poor customer service at M2Tech,  hopefully they will find a better customer service rep and learn from their mistakes.  I wish you and M2Tech the best as both companies (yours and M2Tech) were innovators in USB audio.  Fortunately for us hobbiest there are now and will be in the near future many other exciting USB transports.

Well, jeez, if you don't understand that it's the characteristic impedance out of the unit that counts, then I'm wondering who has the lack of understanding of these things. You are really full of mis-information, Regal & should do the forum members a service by not posting. 

 

You also seem to change your story when it suits you, Regal because this is what you posted on computeraudiophile http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Just-received-M2Tech-Hiface-USB-interface

 

 

Quote:

I'll admit I wasn't to impressed with this unit. But I took it apart and powered the clocks with a $3 LiFePO4 battery and added a USB female-male extension.

Best digital I've ever heard, I have digital transfers of RTR SBDs from the 70's, this little unit takes me back to listening to these RTR master tapes 30 years ago. Its as close to listening to an analog master I've ever heard. Good vinyl transfers sound just like vinyl.

You attached to the above post a nice little picture of the mods showing that you used the small clock unit to do the mods. No mention of "pissant clocks" here, eh! No mention of out-of spec BNC connectors either, eh!  Best digital you ever heard, eh! So you only gave this a cursory listen, eh, & yet you are able to make the above pronouncements? Care to explain, eh? You never mentioned anything about small clocks to the CA posters who asked you about this mod? Anybody can check the thread linked. Who are you spoofing the CA members or the members here?

 

Regal unit & mod diagram

 

So yes, I think this thread has run it's course for you!
 


Edited by jkeny - 8/29/10 at 6:57am
post #173 of 425


regal, you throw insults around like they are confetti, the only person here to have done so .... and yet Jkeny is accused of not being constructive.  

 

Here's the thing with subjective assessments .... you ask 5 audiophiles to give their opinions on a component and you get 5 different answers.  It's simply human nature, but it's also our nature to fall into the trap of believing our own opinions are infallible.  It's just the way it is.  

 

This morning I listened to some music, and thought my system sounded fantastic.  A couple of days ago I felt really dis-satisfied with it.  My system hasn't changed, so what gives?  I've been designing/modifying/ building hifi for 20 years, so I know how to evaluate hifi, but I'd try not to believe that any one impression represents some infallible truth.  If I consistently hear the same thing, and others do too - and I have technical reasons to explain it, I feel much more confident in my initial impression.

 

Your process has been  1. I hear such and such .....2. I've been sold a bad product ......3. Marco is an evil $%&! who should be strung up

 

It would be more constructive to be 1. I hear such and such ........ 2.have I been sold a bad product? ....... 3. I'm going to investigate further (other's opinions, technical backup)

 

Going back to when you initially heard the small clock Hiface and was disappointed, and believed the small clock was to blame.  Here are some other possible explanations:

 

1. You have received a faulty unit e.g. a capacitor has a dry joint.

2. Your mains supply was particularly noisy that day

3. You were stressed / in a bad mood for other reasons - has a massive impact I find

4. You were feeling unwell - I'm diabetic and I can tell you blood sugar levels for one have an impact on what people hear.

5.  Some other aspect of your system was sub-optimal that day.

 

I'd want to be absolutely sure that none of the above applied, and get other corroborating evidence.  Asking the impossible?  No, just means I have to put some work in before publicly accusing a manufacturer of being dishonest.

 

Finally with regard to M2Tech changing back to the original clock when it became available again .... why wouldn't they?  What if the small clock was more expensive?  It apparently has a better jitter spec after all.  Can you offer a rational reply, free of insults?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post





Exactly, Jkeny knows he is asking for an impossibility,  classic trollish behavior IMHO.  The M2Tech original design had the larger clock,  and they quickly went back to the original design when the supplier made the correct clock available again.  Those actions speak louder than anything else.  End of story.


Edited by sleepy dan - 8/29/10 at 5:39am
post #174 of 425


Really interesting quote from regal below.  It's like saying "my car is running badly because I've got a hole in my exhaust, so I fitted new spark plugs and now everything is great".  Makes you think that perhaps the exhaust was just fine in the first place.

Quote:

I'll admit I wasn't to impressed with this unit. But I took it apart and powered the clocks with a $3 LiFePO4 battery and added a USB female-male extension.

Best digital I've ever heard, I have digital transfers of RTR SBDs from the 70's, this little unit takes me back to listening to these RTR master tapes 30 years ago. Its as close to listening to an analog master I've ever heard. Good vinyl transfers sound just like vinyl.

post #175 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dan View Post


Really interesting quote from regal below.  It's like saying "my car is running badly because I've got a hole in my exhaust, so I fitted new spark plugs and now everything is great".  Makes you think that perhaps the exhaust was just fine in the first place.


Makes you wonder about his claims in here, particularly when it is evident that he was using the unit with the small clock. And yet in this thread he states that he had no more than a cursory listen. Some consistency would make his statements a bit more believable and it his ridiculous accusations that are dragging this thread into unbelievable, crazy talk territory & quiet frankly losing any credibility that the thread might otherwise have!  

 

This thread started off admirably with the intention of investigating if the small clock was worse sounding than the MEC clock but it got pulled away from this goal despite many attempts calling for spec. sheets analysis & some more rigour. Why have people simply jumped straight to accusation? 


Edited by jkeny - 8/29/10 at 7:12am
post #176 of 425

There's won't be a DC offset with either chip.  I'd also very much like to see specs for the clocks in question, but I've never seen a manufacturer give PSRR specs for them.  Clocks are specified according to spurious tones and phase noise, which will have an inverse relationship to frequency.  A clock may be more sensitive to PSU noise if the internal oscillator has a low Q factor and accompanying higher phase noise, but to give results like those being claimed (worse than a $50 sound card) it would have to be extremely poor indeed, to the point of being broken.

 

To clarify, cheap sound cards (and cd players) generally form their clocks by using a cheap crystal, with the active part of the oscillator part of some larger DSP chip and as such is subject to the considerable noise from that chip.  The Hiface has a separate oscillator module, which will immediately put it on a higher quality level.  It also has a much less internal processing and typically more attention to the power supply, which will also help.  

 

If those claiming differences had noted a small reduction in low level detail, and a small flattening of the sound stage, I'd find that much more plausible.  Night and day differences?  Not impossible, but as they say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

 

Finally, Marco has already said that the small clock has better phase noise performance, so even if we could have access to comparative manufacturers data, would people accept that as proof?  Or would the clock producers be lying too?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by grokit View Post

 

 

It may be that the bigger clock chip had some kind of DC offset that wasn't needed with the battery mod, who knows. I can see why people are upset though, as there are physical differences between these two chips. Is it possible to compare the manufacturer specs for them?

post #177 of 425


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by upstateguy View Post


I see your point Regal. It would be virtually impossible to amass any real 'scientific' evidence, given the subjective nature of evaluating the HiFace by listening.


It's not impossible at all.  If there is a real "night and day" difference between the two clocks, with a large enough sampling a "statistical significance" will emerge.  

 

post #178 of 425

Gentlemen,

 

I received the "all big" clock unit from John yesterday (Saturday) about 3pm, charged it for a couple of hours and after the kids went to bed I tested it against mine (one big clock 48khz and one small clock 44.1khz), just by myself for about 4 hours.  Today, my friend Michael came by and we tested them again for about 2 hours.

 

WARNING:  BOTH UNITS ARE THE jkeny MODDED VERSION and the gear I used is listed in my sig line.

 

Setup:

- 2 computers about the same age and hardware specs, running foobar with KS.

- 2 identical 75 ohm 6 foot BNC cables from Radio Shack.

- 2 identical 6 foot usb cables

- no attenuators were used, no other foobar plugins, no equalizers etc etc

- both units were plugged into input 3 and 4 of my DAC, both BNC inputs

- a Harmony 880 remote was used to switch back and forth between inputs

- volume on the preamp was set once and then left alone at the same setting for both sessions, yesterday and today.

- cables were connected by a third party.  We did not know which was which until we finished.

- we listened to one track at a time.  Pushed the "Play" button at the same time on both keyboards, both foobars were set to "repeat track".  This gave us time to switch back and forth until ready to move to the next song.

- Michael knows nothing about hiFace and has not seen this thread/forum.  He does have a nice system at home and loves 2 channel audio.

- We used 16/44, 24/88 and 24/96 recordings from both HDTracks and 2L, together with some of the best sounding rips in my collection.  All FLAC.

- at the end of the test we played a bit with the upsampler (sox) in foobar, but this did not influence our decision about the outcome of the results.

 

Some of you probably know that regal labeled my system as inadequate for this test.  Let me assure you that while not on par with George Lucas' gear, it is very detailed, you can hear the singer's subtle and light breaths, lips separating, fingers lightly touching the piano keys and sliding up and down guitar cords, on Melody Gardot's "Baby I'm A Fool" (My One And Only Thrill) a slight non musical noise towards the end of the song was present, probably made by someone knocking something over in the studio...  My room is also treated, there are 12 4'x2'x2" absorption panels, 4 4' bass traps and 11 poly diffusers.  The room is 16' x 19' x10' tall, about 3000 cubic feet.

 

 

RESULTS:

 

During my session alone last night I tried really hard to hear a difference.  Really hard.  But could not.  Only that at times I found myself forgetting to switch between inputs, that's how good both units sounded.  This is consistent with my first blind test, where the foobar sox upsampler was used and I always liked the original version of a song not knowing that the small clock handled the 44.1khz.

 

Today, Michael's impression was that input 3 had slightly crisper highs than input 4 on certain songs only, but he thinks he liked the input 4 overall a bit better, especially with George Michael's "Patience" (Patience).  Since we were able to switch really fast back and forth between inputs, he did say that he would not be able to tell the difference had the switching took longer, like 10 seconds or more.   His closing statement: "if I were to walk home with either unit I would not care which one."   (Input 3 was the one big one small clock and Input 4 was the all big clock unit).

 

If anyone has any questions about the test or songs used please ask.  I took a few pictures of the messy room..

 

Please understand that the purpose of this test was not to convince anybody of anything.  It was for my peace of mind in light of all the controversy surrounding this little gadget, as like everybody else I only want what is best for my system.

 

I decided to keep the unit.

 

Now bring on the heat...


Edited by xdanny - 8/29/10 at 1:21pm
post #179 of 425

Danny,

Seeing as nobody else seems to want to acknowledge your post, let me thank you for doing the test & providing some more data about the clocks issue. I'm not going to say anything about the results, they speak for themselves.

post #180 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by xdanny View Post

Gentlemen,

 

I received the "all big" clock unit from John yesterday (Saturday) about 3pm, charged it for a couple of hours and after the kids went to bed I tested it against mine (one big clock 48khz and one small clock 44.1khz), just by myself for about 4 hours.  Today, my friend Michael came by and we tested them again for about 2 hours.

 

WARNING:  BOTH UNITS ARE THE jkeny MODDED VERSION and the gear I used is listed in my sig line.

 

Setup:

- 2 computers about the same age and hardware specs, running foobar with KS.

- 2 identical 75 ohm 6 foot BNC cables from Radio Shack.

- 2 identical 6 foot usb cables

- no attenuators were used, no other foobar plugins, no equalizers etc etc

- both units were plugged into input 3 and 4 of my DAC, both BNC inputs

- a Harmony 880 remote was used to switch back and forth between inputs

- volume on the preamp was set once and then left alone at the same setting for both sessions, yesterday and today.

- cables were connected by a third party.  We did not know which was which until we finished.

- we listened to one track at a time.  Pushed the "Play" button at the same time on both keyboards, both foobars were set to "repeat track".  This gave us time to switch back and forth until ready to move to the next song.

- Michael knows nothing about hiFace and has not seen this thread/forum.  He does have a nice system at home and loves 2 channel audio.

- We used 16/44, 24/88 and 24/96 recordings from both HDTracks and 2L, together with some of the best sounding rips in my collection.  All FLAC.

- at the end of the test we played a bit with the upsampler (sox) in foobar, but this did not influence our decision about the outcome of the results.

 

Some of you probably know that regal labeled my system as inadequate for this test.  Let me assure you that while not on par with George Lucas' gear, it is very detailed, you can hear the singer's subtle and light breaths, lips separating, fingers lightly touching the piano keys and sliding up and down guitar cords, on Melody Gardot's "Baby I'm A Fool" (My One And Only Thrill) a slight non musical noise towards the end of the song was present, probably made by someone knocking something over in the studio...  My room is also treated, there are 12 4'x2'x2" absorption panels, 4 4' bass traps and 11 poly diffusers.  The room is 16' x 19' x10' tall, about 3000 cubic feet.

 

 

RESULTS:

 

During my session alone last night I tried really hard to hear a difference.  Really hard.  But could not.  Only that at times I found myself forgetting to switch between inputs, that's how good both units sounded.  This is consistent with my first blind test, where the foobar sox upsampler was used and I always liked the original version of a song not knowing that the small clock handled the 44.1khz.

 

Today, Michael's impression was that input 3 had slightly crisper highs than input 4 on certain songs only, but he thinks he liked the input 4 overall a bit better, especially with George Michael's "Patience" (Patience).  Since we were able to switch really fast back and forth between inputs, he did say that he would not be able to tell the difference had the switching took longer, like 10 seconds or more.   His closing statement: "if I were to walk home with either unit I would not care which one."   (Input 3 was the one big one small clock and Input 4 was the all big clock unit).

 

If anyone has any questions about the test or songs used please ask.  I took a few pictures of the messy room..

 

Please understand that the purpose of this test was not to convince anybody of anything.  It was for my peace of mind in light of all the controversy surrounding this little gadget, as like everybody else I only want what is best for my system.

 

I decided to keep the unit.

 

Now bring on the heat...



I would want to see the modded hi-faces compared to the talked about DIGITAL INTERFACE.

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