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

HiFace, sensitive information - Page 3

post #31 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dan View Post

....

 

It's possible to select different sample rates on a PC - you don't need material recorded at that sample rate.  If you need help, then ask and someone will show how to do it.

 

...


Ok, I think I need a bit of help understanding this: the way I see it, it would be faster to switch back and forth between two recordings of the same song, at 44 and 48 in order to minimize the transition time.

 

Are you saying to activate the resampler in foobar's dsp manager, keep it open, plug in the desired sample rate and hit "apply"?   If this is the correct way, we could even have someone else plug in random values in order to satisfy those asking about charts and blind tests, right?

 

Sorry, not trying to argue just want to make sure I'm doing it right. 
 


Edited by xdanny - 7/22/10 at 11:52pm
post #32 of 425
I just got done doing some listening.  I used foobar's resampler (PPHS) in DSP Manager to quickly switch between the original and resampled rates.  I only have the jkeny modded version to test.  My DAC's led lights confirmed the incoming sample rates.
 
I used a few of the recordings I am very familiar with.
 
24 bit FLAC downloads from HDtracks
Chesky: Rebecca Pidgeon -  Spanish Harlem/The Raven original flac recorded at 24/88 - sounds a bit better at 44 than 48 or no change, very hard to tell.  Sounds best at original 88.
Chesky: Xiomara Laugart - No Creo/Xiomara   original flac recorded at 24/96 - same results as above
 
16bit FLAC rips from my CDs (used dbPoweramp to rip)
George Michael - Patience/Patience     original flac recorded in 16/44 - no change between 44 and 48, perhaps 44 sounds a bit better, again, hard to tell.
Tori Amos - Bells For Her/Under The Pink     original flac recorded in 16/44 - same results as above
 
So given my above findings and what shamu reported in the first post in terms of SQ differences between the two oscillators, do I have the right one?
 
Any observations about how I did this test and/or suggestions on how I could have done it better?

Edited by xdanny - 7/23/10 at 1:32am
post #33 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dan View Post

 

 

Honestly, you are seeing attacks where there are none.       



I apologize then, struggling sometimes on an engineers salary raising a family this issue just hit my hot button.  I don't think you understand that you can take a below par oscillator (clock) and feed it battery power and have significant improvements,  this is why I don't think Jkeny modded owners have much to worry about.

I was so pissed at the stock unit with the small clock  that I didn't spend a lot of time with it on the batteries but what I remember was the batteries mostly cured the condition.  Fricken Marco smerked that since I opened it I couldn't send it back knowing he the had supplied a subpar product,  that kind of business attitude won't get you far in today's www world.  I honestly hope he is fired for this, anyway I got rid of it and never A-B'd battery powered small clock vs correct clock.

 

 

XDanny,  it looks to me like you have the right one.  The difference is not subtle (at least with a quality amp/headphones.)  A sublte difference would be due to the resampling algorithm.


Edited by regal - 7/23/10 at 5:19am
post #34 of 425


Seems you've got nothing to worry about xdanny.  The test would be interesting for someone who is sure they own a Hiface with the smaller oscillator. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xdanny View Post
So given my above findings and what shamu reported in the first post in terms of SQ differences between the two oscillators, do I have the right one?
 
Any observations about how I did this test and/or suggestions on how I could have done it better?


 

post #35 of 425


No worries Regal.  Clearly you've been very disappointed with your experience.

 

Power supply to a clock is extremely important, far more so than the quality of the oscillator itself, that's why I'm suspicious that a change in clock (unless the new one is extremely poor) will result in the sound changes you've described.  You may be right, but personally I'd want more evidence before making serious public allegations. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post





I apologize then, struggling sometimes on an engineers salary raising a family this issue just hit my hot button.  I don't think you understand that you can take a below par oscillator (clock) and feed it battery power and have significant improvements,  this is why I don't think Jkeny modded owners have much to worry about.

I was so pissed at the stock unit with the small clock  that I didn't spend a lot of time with it on the batteries but what I remember was the batteries mostly cured the condition.  Fricken Marco smerked that since I opened it I couldn't send it back knowing he the had supplied a subpar product,  that kind of business attitude won't get you far in today's www world.  I honetly hope he is fired for this, anywaw I got rid of it and never A-B'd battery powered small clock vs correct clock.

 

 

XDanny,  it looks to me like you have the right one.  The difference is not subtle (at least with a quality amp/headphones.)  A sublte difference would be due to the resampling algorithm.

post #36 of 425
Thread Starter 

Xdanny, that seem to be a very smart idea, using a quality resampler. Is the Foobar resampler transparent enough though ?

 

The fact that you hear very little differences between both sampling rates makes me think as well that your HiFace comes with the original MEC oscillators. Are you using a stock or modified HiFace by the way.

 

As already mentionned by Regal, we are really talking significant degradation of the sound between the 2 versions of the stock HiFace, at least for multiples of 44.1kHz, and in my system (Lavry DA11 and Beyer DT48). I will also A/B both version with a more forgiving ring (LD mkIII & Sony CD900ST) to see if my conclusions remain valid.

 

Regal, I am glad you are back and contributing to this thread. After all the expectations the HiFace had raised, I was myself very disappointed by what M2Tech had done, despite not beeing among the "victims". Considering how well the HiFace is selling, more people out there have been promised gold and received carbon. This is why I started this thread.

post #37 of 425


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shamu144 View Post

Xdanny, that seem to be a very smart idea, using a quality resampler. Is the Foobar resampler transparent enough though ?

 

The fact that you hear very little differences between both sampling rates makes me think as well that your HiFace comes with the original MEC oscillators. Are you using a stock or modified HiFace by the way.

 

As already mentionned by Regal, we are really talking significant degradation of the sound between the 2 versions of the stock HiFace, at least for multiples of 44.1kHz, and in my system (Lavry DA11 and Beyer DT48). I will also A/B both version with a more forgiving ring (LD mkIII & Sony CD900ST) to see if my conclusions remain valid.

 

Regal, I am glad you are back and contributing to this thread. After all the expectations the HiFace had raised, I was myself very disappointed by what M2Tech had done, despite not beeing among the "victims". Considering how well the HiFace is selling, more people out there have been promised gold and received carbon. This is why I started this thread.

 

 

Same here, I'm glad to see Regal back!  Yeah, that was pretty lame of Marco to not want to accept your unit because you had opened it, especially given the fact that it is because of people like jkeny, you and others who opened up their units, modded them and made them sound better that there is so much positive buzz on the net now about the hiFace!!

 

I am using the modded version, jkeny did it for me.  I do believe that my system is transparent enough, but in this business you cannot be too sure...

 

I do not know if the foobar resampler is transparent enough, I have never used it before since I never apply any DSP to my music.  Perhaps other posters that have more experience using it can chime in as far as that is concerned. 

 

It seemed to me however that it is fairly transparent, but again I'd prefer some input on that.  I first played with lower sampler rates, around 22 and went up from there just to see what that resampler does.  I did notice differences/sound degradations going down below 32 or so, but that should be normal. 

 

From what I understood reading this thread, there should be a difference switching back and forth between the 44 and 48 sampling rates.  In my case, I firmly believe - just like I stated in my earlier post above - that the two rates sound identical, or if there is a difference the 44.1 sounds a tiny bit better.  This is assuming the resampler in foobar is transparent enough.  This begs the question, would using the same song correctly encoded both at 44 and 48 provide a more accurate test in order to avoid using the resampler?


Edited by xdanny - 7/23/10 at 7:14am
post #38 of 425

bl68vtbj6j7jf6l4d.jpghmmm...

 

looks like i have 2 small clocks ?!?

 

time to buy a DI.


Edited by shadowlord - 7/23/10 at 7:32am
post #39 of 425


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xdanny View Post


 

This begs the question, would using the same song correctly encoded both at 44 and 48 provide a more accurate test in order to avoid using the resampler?


I'd think resampling is a better option.  If done well, it's pretty transparent.  The trouble with comparing recordings made with different sample rates is that the higher one will contain more information, so should sound better anyway.

 

Comparing between 44.1 and 48KHz is not a perfect test, but a good enough one to see if there is the extreme degradation being claimed.

post #40 of 425

@sleepy dan: 

 

All right...  Now we just need to figure out if foobar's resampler is adequate for this test.  If anyone has more info on this, please post.  I'll try hydrogenaudio tonight to see what they say.

 


 

post #41 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowlord View Post

hmmm...

 

looks like i have 2 small clocks ?!?

 

time to buy a DI.

Why not just power the clocks off battery? You get a huge upgrade in sound & you can forget about the clock issue then!

 

post #42 of 425



the foobar SOX is the best resampler plugin

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xdanny View Post

@sleepy dan: 

 

All right...  Now we just need to figure out if foobar's resampler is adequate for this test.  If anyone has more info on this, please post.  I'll try hydrogenaudio tonight to see what they say.

 


 

post #43 of 425


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowlord View Post

bl68vtbj6j7jf6l4d.jpghmmm...

 

looks like i have 2 small clocks ?!?

 

time to buy a DI.


And  I saw this pic in the HiFace mods thread:  Now What???? 

 

 

019743612a.jpg

 

 

 

This is what Marco told me when I asked him when they changed back to the large clocks, "we have no records about that (please condier that we were told by the manufacturer that the small units had same performance as the large ones), but we used some small units between the beginning of December and the end of February."

 

USG

 

And glad to see Regal back in the thread.

post #44 of 425
Thread Starter 

Wow, so they actually messed with both clocks !

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowlord View Post

hmmm...

 

looks like i have 2 small clocks ?!?

 

time to buy a DI.


Jkeny, I think your comment was totally unappropriate here. After beeing ripped off 150$ with a device not working up to specs, your only recomendation is to spend another 200$ to fix this, a mod that you casually also happen to provide. I am sorry, but I can not agree with you here.

 

If, as I strongly suspect, the smaller clocks are responsible for poorer performance in stock form, M2Tech should indeed accept returns and fix this. There is no other way around. A full refund for all defective devices is probably getting too far and could indeed seriously impact on M2Tech viability, something we do not want to see happen.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post

Why not just power the clocks off battery? You get a huge upgrade in sound & you can forget about the clock issue then! 



 

post #45 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamu144 View Post

Wow, so they actually messed with both clocks !

Quote:


Jkeny, I think your comment was totally unappropriate here. After beeing ripped off 150$ with a device not working up to specs, your only recomendation is to spend another 200$ to fix this, a mod that you casually also happen to provide. I am sorry, but I can not agree with you here.

 

If, as I strongly suspect, the smaller clocks are responsible for poorer performance in stock form, M2Tech should indeed accept returns and fix this. There is no other way around. A full refund for all defective devices is probably getting too far and could indeed seriously impact on M2Tech viability, something we do not want to see happen.
 



 


Jeez, don't jump down my neck, I was suggesting he do it himself as he's already opened up the case & now only needs to remove a small smd inductor & connect to battery leads - I'll help him if he wants (there's a DIY thread showing how to do it - it's easy) I, in no way was suggesting he send it to me - jeez you guys are so trigger happy. I was actually trying to save him money by not throwing away his investment when a simple fix seems to do the job. 

 

I agree M2tech should fix this if it's indeed the problem!


Edited by jkeny - 7/23/10 at 11:26am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › HiFace, sensitive information