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

HiFace, sensitive information - Page 4

post #46 of 425

 

 

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."

 

 

hmm, i got mine in March.

 

 

Jkeny,

thanks for the suggestion! (don't know why shamu found it so offending :( )

I followed your mod thread and considered modding my unit as well.

But i won't perform it when i don't have the best material to start with. A battery modded unit with the lesser clocks will still perform worse than a battery mod unit with the better clocks right ?

 

I think i wait how this turns out. Maybe M2tech starts to replace them for free or at least only a small fee.

 

EDIT: even when they start replacing them i may be out of luck since i opened the unit. I think i mail them if they can send me the bigger clocks and i perform the upgrade myself.


Edited by shadowlord - 7/23/10 at 11:38am
post #47 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowlord View Post

 

hmm, i got mine in March.

 

 

Jkeny,

thanks for the suggestion!

I followed your mod thread and considered modding my unit as well.

But i won't perform it when i don't have the best material to start with. A battery modded unit with the lesser clocks will still perform worse than a battery mod unit with the better clocks right ?

 

I think i wait how this turns out. Maybe M2tech starts to replace them for free or at least only a small fee.


I'm glad you took my suggestion in the spirit it was intended. 

 

I don't know if a battery modded unit with smaller clocks sounds worse than one with MEC clocks - I couldn't hear any difference & Regal seems also to concur!

 

I too said that I first saw the units with smaller clocks in March but these may well have been from a manufacturing batch done in Feb, however, I seem to remember units bought in Feb all had the MEC clocks so Marco's timing doesn't concur with mine unless units were randomly chosen for shipment rather than a FIFO arrangement?


Edited by jkeny - 7/23/10 at 11:44am
post #48 of 425
Thread Starter 

Sorry Jkeny, my bad. I actually didn't read it that way, but this is because I am no DIY expert, like the vast majority of us I would guess. I didn't even know such a DIY thread existed for this mod. Now it makes sense to me, and while it could be a good suggestion indeed, this will only concern a minority, and even in that case, I am not sure a swap of clock wouldn't be better in the first place, thinking in resale value or intrinsec sonic qualities.

 

Thanks for the clarifications. I think it is normal some of us get nervous considering the situation, and your recomendation to look at it in a calm and rational way is most appropriate. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post

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!

post #49 of 425

Oops, missed your question (below) ....

 

Still really pleased with the batteries.  With the LT chip doing charging duties, it's just fit and forget.  I've also built a circuit to do synchronous clocking off the Sabre, but am still trying to figure out the firmware code.  Look forward to hearing how you get on with the batteries and the Acko DAC.  Careful not to praise it too highly though, otherwise you'll just get accused of trying to expand your money-grabbing global corporation ....
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkeny View Post

 

 

How are those batteries going? I'm just wiring up a Sabre based AckoDAc to run off battery (only 4 at the moment) - should be interesting.


 

post #50 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dan View Post

Oops, missed your question (below) ....

 

Still really pleased with the batteries.  With the LT chip doing charging duties, it's just fit and forget.  I've also built a circuit to do synchronous clocking off the Sabre, but am still trying to figure out the firmware code.  Look forward to hearing how you get on with the batteries and the Acko DAC.  Careful not to praise it too highly though, otherwise you'll just get accused of trying to expand your money-grabbing global corporation ....
 


 

Great, those batteries are really great for 3.3V digital :)

 

Yes, Dan, I'll have to be very damning of the product otherwise the "Overseer" (Jocko, aka Pat,, aka ART) will come looking for royalty cheques from any sales - he will find it hard to get into my 400 acre estate on Maui though

 

PS, I'm listening to it now & ...................
 


Edited by jkeny - 7/23/10 at 3:52pm
post #51 of 425


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post



the foobar SOX is the best resampler plugin

 

 


 

  Thanks regal, I downloaded and installed it.   I will post again after I test it.
 

post #52 of 425

I will do some tests with files generated from my own songs (which I know quite well) with logic studio in both 44.1/48khz sample rates so there will be no resampling done as the track I will use is generated with hardware instruments, I will include an extra track with a piano played with great range of soft and loud strikes to be as dynamic as possible. of course you will have to take my resulting comments with the seasoning needed; taking into account I am an OEM. I want to get to the bottom of it as well, because this is the first time I have really used the product and I would prefer it not be marred with low quality clock signals. I will do the test with a dac that does not have its own MCLK, meaning the hiface will be the master clock. 

 

the only problem is i'll have to be careful not to post subjective appraisals being MOT aarrgghh, that pretty much renders it useless. perhaps i'll just do it and watch you guys results without posting.


Edited by qusp - 7/23/10 at 8:49pm
post #53 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by qusp View Post

 I will do the test with a dac that does not have its own MCLK, meaning the hiface will be the master clock. 


The Sabre has plenty enough sensitivity to jitter for such a test.

post #54 of 425



Synchronous clocking is the holy grail for DAC digital sides IMO,  which VXCO are you using?   You should be able to determine relative jitter by watching the control of the VXCO on a scope because it directly correlates to the amount of jitter of the transport.  You could even do a Jitter vs freq plot,  just not get a deterministic number.   Impressive stuff Mr Sleepy !

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dan View Post

 

 

  With the LT chip doing charging duties, it's just fit and forget.  I've also built a circuit to do synchronous clocking off the Sabre, but am still trying to figure out the firmware code.  


 

post #55 of 425

Heh, thanks!  I'm not using a VCXO, I'm planning to send the master clock back to a sound card then reclock the incoming S/PDIF with a flip-flop.  I'll also need to disable the internal ASRC in the Sabre DAC.  Then I'll be able to sell my Hiface - i was originally planning to mod it as you and jkeny have done, but driver issues have turned me off that idea, and with no new drivers on the horizon .....
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post



Synchronous clocking is the holy grail for DAC digital sides IMO,  which VXCO are you using?   You should be able to determine relative jitter by watching the control of the VXCO on a scope because it directly correlates to the amount of jitter of the transport.  You could even do a Jitter vs freq plot,  just not get a deterministic number.   Impressive stuff Mr Sleepy !

 

 


 
post #56 of 425



Ah thats a more elegant method.  I've been lucky to have no driver issues,  but I've heard a lot of folks have.  With my MB & Win7x64 it seems more stable than any sound card I've owned.  But if the company won't continue to support their drivers it makes it a very vulnurable product,  especially when win 8 comes out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dan View Post

Heh, thanks!  I'm not using a VCXO, I'm planning to send the master clock back to a sound card then reclock the incoming S/PDIF with a flip-flop.  I'll also need to disable the internal ASRC in the Sabre DAC.  Then I'll be able to sell my Hiface - i was originally planning to mod it as you and jkeny have done, but driver issues have turned me off that idea, and with no new drivers on the horizon .....
 


 
post #57 of 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy dan View Post




The Sabre has plenty enough sensitivity to jitter for such a test.


you think so?? without MCLK being used and with the internal 8 x OS mode and asrc meaning the internal sample clock is running in the Mhz range (close to the edge of my NDA there), I dont know that the test is really that valid for the sabre, there would be many other dacs including a couple I own that would be more suitable, specifically one that uses the incoming MCLK unchanged (NOS). that was the main point, I have others that would be much more sensitive to the potential differences in jitter. of course its not invulnerable, but much less vulnerable than most


Edited by qusp - 7/26/10 at 8:19am
post #58 of 425

Back to the 2 different HiFaces, if a person has both of these versions and an ADC, they could measure them using RMAA and if they is a difference it may be noticeable using this method.

post #59 of 425



Would tak a hell of an ADC to measure jitter differences don't you think ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROBSCIX View Post

Back to the 2 different HiFaces, if a person has both of these versions and an ADC, they could measure them using RMAA and if they is a difference it may be noticeable using this method.

post #60 of 425

I agree that there are more jitter sensitive DACs around than the Sabre, but my ears tell me the Sabre still sounds different with each transport I've tried it with - many others have found the same.  Although the MCLK on the Hiface isn't directly used by the Sabre, it is still responsible for the timing of the other clocks.
 

Look forward to hearing how you test - with whatever DAC - goes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qusp View Post




you think so?? without MCLK being used and with the internal 8 x OS mode and asrc meaning the internal sample clock is running in the Mhz range (close to the edge of my NDA there), I dont know that the test is really that valid for the sabre, there would be many other dacs including a couple I own that would be more suitable, specifically one that uses the incoming MCLK unchanged (NOS). that was the main point, I have others that would be much more sensitive to the potential differences in jitter. of course its not invulnerable, but much less vulnerable than most


Edited by sleepy dan - 7/26/10 at 5:12pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › HiFace, sensitive information