[Andrew_WOT]

It says it right there.
 
Quote:

What level of compatibility exists between XP and Windows Vista™ drivers?

Default Driver Model: WDM
As with Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, the foundation of Windows Windows Vista™ is the Windows NT kernel, and as with Windows 2000 and Windows XP, the default driver model is the Windows Driver Model (WDM). This portion of Windows Vista™ has remained remarkably unchanged with Windows XP.
WDM Port Class Models
Also, as with Windows 2000 and Windows XP, the foundation of any WDM audio device driver has remained unchanged. All PCI WDM audio drivers are based upon the WDM audio "Port Class" and Windows Windows Vista™™ supports all Windows XP "Mini Port" models, including "Wave Cyclic" and "Wave PCI". Also, all USB / 1394 WDM audio drivers are based upon "Stream Class" or "A/V Stream".
WDM Kernel Streaming
As a result of this, any WDM driver that was built under Windows XP should generally work as is under Windows Windows Vista™ without a recompile. Also, any user mode programs that use "WDM Kernel Streaming" (such as Cakewalk SONAR) in Windows XP would work exactly the same under Windows Windows Vista™™, when run on top of the driver that was built for Windows XP.

 
Audio kernel, WDM stays the same, so if kernel is there so is the streaming to it. WASAPI is nothing but another layer on the top of it. And speaking of buggy, WASAPI still has a long way to iron out all the wrinkles. Peter, creator of KS and WASAPI foobar2000 plugins, even put the latest WASAPI version in "sandbox" to avoid OS crashes.

 

[Solude]

One that's not a MSDN article and its in relation to Vista.  Two at least get to the bottom before coming to conclusions...
 
More User Mode, Less Kernel Mode
In this model, nearly all blocks in the picture above run in user space. The only portion of this architecture that runs in kernel mode is represented by the single block called "Audio Driver", and it contains only a minimal amount of Microsoft code. It contains only the Microsoft "Port Class" Driver, the Vendor "Miniport" driver and Vendor Hardware Abstraction Layer portions depicted in the XP driver architecture diagram. Note that the Windows "Kernel Mixer" (or kMixer) is completely gone.
 
I like Foobar but lets call it what it is, a project by a user group that isn't paid.  But they would tell you to use WASAPI.
 
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Components_0.9/foo_out_ks
 
Anyway, I'm out.  I use JRiver with WASAPI-Event Style and it works as advertised.  You couldn't pay me to return to Foobar.

 

[Roller]

KS is always more buggy than the worst case scenario for WASAPI, so if you don't care about system stability, feel free to use deprecated KS on Windows Vista/7/8, but it certainly is the worst option for bitperfect playback on those OSes.
 
Also, KS was already buggy on Windows XP, but that OS was limited to KS or ASIO compliant devices. Newer OSes have no such limitations.
 
EDIT: foobar2000 is, IMHO, the best audio player for Windows systems, and both WASAPI 2.1 and 3.0 Event mode work perfectly well. ASIO is the only viable alternative to WASAPI.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

KS is always more buggy than the worst case scenario for WASAPI, so if you don't care about system stability, feel free to use deprecated KS on Windows Vista/7/8, but it certainly is the worst option for bitperfect playback on those OSes.
 
Also, KS was already buggy on Windows XP, but that OS was limited to KS or ASIO compliant devices. Newer OSes have no such limitations.
 
EDIT: foobar2000 is, IMHO, the best audio player for Windows systems, and both WASAPI 2.1 and 3.0 Event mode work perfectly well. ASIO is the only viable alternative to WASAPI.

 
 
From the horse's mouth on WASAPI stability in foobar2000
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Components_0.9/foo_out_wasapi
 
Quote:

Unfortunately, WASAPI is affected by various bugs in both Windows mixer and soundcard drivers. To keep these from crashing foobar2000, all WASAPI access is now sandboxed in a separate process for better stability.

 
We can argue that till our faces turn blue but as far as I concerned if KS is what M2Tech recommends for use with their "proprietary driver", I am sticking with the manufacturer's recommendation.

 

[Roller]

I advise you to read http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Components_0.9/foo_out_ks instead of talking about something you have shown to have little experience with.
 
I'm done arguing. So, good luck.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

I advise you to read http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Foobar2000:Components_0.9/foo_out_ks instead of talking about something you have shown to have little experience with.
 
I'm done arguing. So, good luck.

What are your credentials to proclaim yourself an expert?
KS has been used since the dawn of time, I personally never had any issues with that, did take my time researching current Windows Audio stack architecture which (surprise) still support KS and based on the same old WDM core.
I am interested in the best performance I can get out of M2Tech HiFace Two and if the manufacturer still advocates KS as the best, cleanest, and the least resource consuming way to exercise their own driver why would I be interested in opinion of some wanna-be internet expert like you.

 

[Solude]

Pretty defensive over something you are simply a consumer of with no vested interest  Just an FYI, m2tech didn't design the HiFace2 circuit XMOS did, m2tech also didn't code the driver Thesycon did.  But it's your leisure time so if KS makes you happy don't let us stop you.

 

[silversurfer616]

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

Pretty defensive over something you are simply a consumer of with no vested interest  Just an FYI, m2tech didn't design the HiFace2 circuit XMOS did, m2tech also didn't code the driver Thesycon did.  But it's your leisure time so if KS makes you happy don't let us stop you.

 

[K_19]

With my Hiface 1 (into my Stello DAC in Windows 7), I definitely notice some sound differences between the WASAPI and the KS. The WASAPI sounds more forward in midrange/upper midrange with tighter upper bass, and KS sounds like it has more emphasis down low and up high but with more of a withdrawn midrange. This always made me curious as I always figured that the two modes should sound exactly the same if they are bitperfect... but somehow I'm hearing differences here so I guess that means one of them is not doing it right... or that I'm imagining things 

.  Not sure if this is relevant to this current debate at hand, but just thought I should mentioned it.

 

[Acix]

Quote:

 
 
 
[size=10pt]My listening experience in regard to Naim DAC was close to yours. I would only be reserved towards your Rega DAC and Naim DAC [/size]comparison. To my ear it was really having a big difference, especially in the perception of the soundstage, details, it was really feeling more “achieved”; When you add the external power supply, it also raise to a new level of quality which cannot be reasonably compared.
 
[size=10pt]Regarding U3 facing hiFace 2, I happen to have the two pieces of equipment at the same time to test; switching from one to another was a bit difficult because they happen to use the same piece of software but not the same version from Thesycon… So to be sure I have added the hiFace EVO in between, compared hiface 2 to EVO, hiface 2 to U3 and EVO to U3. To be honest, even if the components are very close to each other inside (I am preparing the article on the U3 at the moment, I will publish it soon), the hiface 2 does not sound as well as the EVO which itself does not sound the same than the U3 [/size][size=10pt]J[/size][size=10pt]. In the overall, at iso-setup (computer/cables/amp/speakers) the EVO is softer and mellower than hiFace which sounds more “analytic” without the brio of  Antelope or Weiss in this register. The U3, to my ear, gives a cleaner picture than the EVO, especially in details, this is sharper and the planes are sometimes better defined. I find that the EVO is warmer in sound signature than the U3, this last one sounds sharper, one could say “cleaner”... [/size]
 
[size=10pt]So…….This is more a question of taste, in the overall I would say that these products fall in the same range, not especially “better” or “worst”. Depending on my additional tests for my article, I might change of opinion though. If ever I had a wrong setup during my first test session …the second session planned will tell! [/size]
 

 
 
I was wondering if you, or anybody else had the chance to compare both to the Halide Brige in terms of [size=10pt]details, and sound separation[/size]?

 

[TheWuss]

acix -
i have owned several SPDIF converters.
and i would rank them:
 
1.  audiophilleo2 with pure power
2.  bridge by halide powered by vaunix USB hub
3.  hiface evo with evo battery supply
4.  bridge by halide (powered by computer USB)
5.  hiface evo (powered by switching power supply included)
6.  hiface mk1 (powered by computer USB)
7.  audiophilleo2 (powered by computer USB)
 
hope that makes sense.
i guess the overarching theme here is that the clocks inside all these converters are incredibly sensitve to power.
every one i've ever owned has improved by being run off batteries or a low-noise power supply.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

acix -
i have owned several SPDIF converters.
and i would rank them:
 
1.  audiophilleo2 with pure power
2.  bridge by halide powered by vaunix USB hub
3.  hiface evo with evo battery supply
4.  bridge by halide (powered by computer USB)
5.  hiface evo (powered by switching power supply included)
6.  hiface mk1 (powered by computer USB)
7.  audiophilleo2 (powered by computer USB)
 
hope that makes sense.
i guess the overarching theme here is that the clocks inside all these converters are incredibly sensitve to power.
every one i've ever owned has improved by being run off batteries or a low-noise power supply.

That's very interesting. Have you had a chance to test Hiface Two or One with separate power supply?
There is a good discussion on Aqvox power supply and cheaper alternative
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=97076.120

 

[Acix]

Quote:

acix -
i have owned several SPDIF converters.
and i would rank them:
 
1.  audiophilleo2 with pure power
2.  bridge by halide powered by vaunix USB hub
3.  hiface evo with evo battery supply
4.  bridge by halide (powered by computer USB)
5.  hiface evo (powered by switching power supply included)
6.  hiface mk1 (powered by computer USB)
7.  audiophilleo2 (powered by computer USB)
 
hope that makes sense.
i guess the overarching theme here is that the clocks inside all these converters are incredibly sensitve to power.
every one i've ever owned has improved by being run off batteries or a low-noise power supply.

 
 
Thanks a lot for your recommendations, the Vaunix USB hub looks like a great solution for the halide and probably for the hiface 1 as well. Have you had the chance to check out the Stello U3?

 

[TheWuss]

no.  i haven't heard the stello.
nor have i heard the second hiface design.
 
i have a jkenny dac headed this way, which has his implementation of the hiface built in (powered off batteries).
i have heard very good things about it...