[StateRadioFan]

Here are some pics of the clocks in my Hiface. Not sure anyone has done macro shots yet. When I get some free time I will try an A/B test with SoX upsampling to 48khz.
 

 
 

 

 

[upstateguy]

 
Quote:

Here are some pics of the clocks in my Hiface. Not sure anyone has done macro shots yet. When I get some free time I will try an A/B test with SoX upsampling to 48khz.
 

 
 

 

 
very nice pics SRF.

 

 

[shawn_low]

So, after 15 pages, what is the net outcome?
 
I saw an earlier post that M2Tech acknowledged the use of two different clocks. So what? They seemed to think that it met minimum requirement standards: I repeat the post below:
 
For those that got the small clocks,is it a matter of 'tough' luck?
 
Hello Danny,
 
for what relates to performance, the only difference between small and large oscillators is... the size. The supplier who gave us the small oscillators during a period in which the larger ones were not available, gave us warranties about performance level of the small units, Particularly, low frequency phase noise figure is even better than the large units...
 
Best regMarco Manunta
M2Tech Snc di Manunta & Marino
Via Giuntini, 63
I-56023 Navacchio di Cascina (PI)
Italy
www.m2tech.biz
ards,
- Hide quoted text -
 
 
Original Message
From: Danny
To: m.manunta@m2tech.biz
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:43 PM
Subject: hiface

Hi,
I have a hiface that I purchased about 3-4 months ago.  I am sure you are aware of the confusion over how some of the hiface units have two bigger MEC clocks versus 2 smaller ones.
My unit happens to have one big clock (located near the BNC connector) and one small one.  A lot of people on the forums report considerable sound quality differences between the two, as the general idea is that the smaller clocks used are of lower quality. 
Can you please tell what differences (if any) are between the bigger and smaller clocks M2Tech used in some of their hiFace units?
Regards,
Danny

 

[shamu144]

Shawn_low, there is no clear consensus yet as we are waiting for more inputs and reports from Hiface users. I invite you to perform the SoX resampler test procedure described here : http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/503323/hiface-sensitive-information/195#post_6892237and check by yourself. Of course, please share with us your findings.
 
USG already did and seem to concur with my findings, so we might be on the right track this time.
 
I just find amazing that despite all the noise, M2Tech keeps claiming there is no difference. Let's proove them wrong, for their own good.

 
Quote:

So, after 15 pages, what is the net outcome?

 

[shawn_low]

@ Shamu144.
 
I'm going to do that test. But might get a friend to try it 'blind'.
 
What can M2Tech do anyway? Sure, they can replace the whole batch: but will they? I'll report back.
 
UPDATE:
 
So I've done the 'test', albeit not very intensively. Using the same tracks mentioned by Shamu.
 
You know what, both sound good to me. Differences, if any, are imperceptible. Maybe my system doesn't resolve well?
 
M2Tech Hiface -> Coax/RCA -> CA Dacmagic -> SPL Auditor -> HD800 (Cardas Single ended).
 
If you're going to go to M2Tech with this as proof, I'd find it hard for them to accept it. What one person perceives as 'better' might not apply to the next person.

In this case, the sample rates you are asking people to test don't vary much. 44.1 and 48 isn't very different.
 
Perhaps if you can give people specific cues or passages to listen out for, maybe it might help.
 
For now, I really can't tell.
 
PS: Can someone tell me how to open the Hiface? I know someone said 'use a knife' and that there are wires inside? Any tips appreciated. I'm considering opening it to have a peek. Thanks!
 
Quote:

Shawn_low, there is no clear consensus yet as we are waiting for more inputs and reports from Hiface users. I invite you to perform the SoX resampler test procedure described here : http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/503323/hiface-sensitive-information/195#post_6892237and check by yourself. Of course, please share with us your findings.
 
USG already did and seem to concur with my findings, so we might be on the right track this time.
 
I just find amazing that despite all the noise, M2Tech keeps claiming there is no difference. Let's proove them wrong, for their own good.

 

 

[shamu144]

Interesting...
 
You should focus on Diana Krall's voice in the first 30 seconds, and do quick A/B comparison. Does it sound fuller, richer, with better articulation and smoothness or thinner, more edgy and grainy....Differences (could be better or worst when resampling depending on your HiFace clocks set up) are not big, but should be noticeable in your system. Are you sure you have activated properly the SoX resampler ?

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

PS: Can someone tell me how to open the Hiface? I know someone said 'use a knife' and that there are wires inside? Any tips appreciated. I'm considering opening it to have a peek. Thanks!
 

 
Don't try to open it, it's glued together.  If you open it, you void the warranty and they won't take it back.
 
USG
 

 

[sleepy dan]

Some, perhaps, but plenty will have something to compare it to, and will be interested in sound quality.  Remember SQ is the whole point of this device.  A small change in sound quality would likey pass under the radar more easily, but not the near calamitous results that regal originally was claiming.
 
As for people selling them off, well some maybe, but plenty of these would surely investigate the issue via the internet and come across this thread, as shamu himself suggested.
Quote:

 
It might suggest that they had nothing to compare them to ........... 
 
And, many people were not happy with what they received during the time period in question and sold them off.
 
 

 

[sleepy dan]

I'm a little confused (happens a lot!) - am I right in understanding you have two Hiface units, one with both MEC clocks, one with one small and one large clock?  The one with the small clock, is that 22 or 24 MHz (determined by examining the device, not listening)?  Thanks for clearing this up for me - just want to make sure i understand your results properly.
 
Quote:

 
With the small clock unit, the resampled version at 48khz sounds better, with Diana Krall's voice fuller and richer, with more weight and better articulation. You will also notice that the violins are more realistic sounding, with better pace and with details and intonations that you simply miss at 44.1khz.
 
With the large clock unit, the resampled version at 48khz sounds worst than at 44.1khz by a fair margin. Diana Krall's voice sounds thinner, more aggressive, lacking emotion. Violins in the background will make you feel unconfortable, as they stop abruptely, unnnaturally, lacking decay.
 
I shall say that with both units, the resampled version at 48khz sounded identical to my ears. So it really goes like this:
 
large clock 44.1 > large & small clock resampled SoX 48 > small clock 44.1
 
Now I would be very interested to listen to other experience wrt this test.

 

[shamu144]

Yes, you are right, I currently have two units in my possession. The unit with the small clock is the 22 Mhz clock, of which you can find a picture at the beginning of this thread.
 
Quote:

I'm a little confused (happens a lot!) - am I right in understanding you have two Hiface units, one with both MEC clocks, one with one small and one large clock?  The one with the small clock, is that 22 or 24 MHz (determined by examining the device, not listening)?  Thanks for clearing this up for me - just want to make sure i understand your results properly.
 

 

 

[shamu144]

I have just happened to casually read the review of the HiFace by Chris Connaker, at computer audiophile:
 
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/M2Tech-hiFace-Asynchronous-USB-SPDIF-Converter-Review
 
To add to the polemic, he doesn't seem to be impressed by the Hiface at all. Fair enough. But how is that nobody is contemplating seriously this present clock issue, when all inputs clearly indicates strong divergences in users reviews. Please Hiface users, report back results of your SoX resampler tests.
 

 

[shawn_low]

Quote:

Interesting...
 
You should focus on Diana Krall's voice in the first 30 seconds, and do quick A/B comparison. Does it sound fuller, richer, with better articulation and smoothness or thinner, more edgy and grainy....Differences (could be better or worst when resampling depending on your HiFace clocks set up) are not big, but should be noticeable in your system. Are you sure you have activated properly the SoX resampler ?

@ Shamu
 
I definitely did it correctly. The Dacmagic shows which sample rate is coming through. I'll try again tomorrow.
 
Perhaps this needs more than an 'ear' test: someone needs to take measurements etc.
 
M2Tech admitted to changing the clock but can you get them to confirm that there is no discernable difference in terms of performance? However, settling on a clock that wasn't originally in their build specs strikes me as a compromise towards quality.
 
As for the Computer Audiophile review. Well, that's just one opinion. Do note that Chris' comparison was to gear that's price double (or more) than the hiface. We all want that 'giant killer' but ultimately, the Hiface may be just what is is: a bang for buck Asynch usb to spdif converter and the first in this price bracket. It might ultimately not be the best.
 
Shamu, what will you do? If let's say, 10 people chime in to say that they can tell a difference based on your test, then what?
 
Another suggestion: put all SoX test infomation in the first post. Use that to recap the findings and direct people to that post. This thread is becoming long and information is everywhere.

 

[shamu144]

Thank you for your excellent suggestion Shown_law,
 
I will update my first post with the SoX test procedure and the results reported by Hiface users willing to contribute to this thread.
 
If we gather enough feedback, users who received a small clock unit will luckily start to realize and hear by themselves in their own system (let us know the results of your further investigations) that their device is not working up to specs and I would hope they contact directly with M2tech to arrange a solution/replacement. This thread should be here to back up their claim to M2Tech. Once a solution/arrangement is agreed with M2Tech, it will be comunicated here and all Hiface users will be able to follow those same steps if they are convinced they have received a faulty device, without opening it. This should also contribute to end the polemic going on and finally allow the Hiface to live up to the expectations.
 
The Hiface may not be the best digital transport out there of course, but it does lot's of things incredibly right at this price point, that could in my opinion open a new era for digital playback for almost any audiophile, because it is cheap enough for the vast majority of us. This is why I feel this product is well worth defending. But maybe I am the only one...

 

[xdanny]

 
Quote:

 
If we gather enough feedback, users who received a small clock unit will luckily start to realize and hear by themselves in their own system (let us know the results of your further investigations) that their device is not working up to specs and I would hope they contact directly with M2tech to arrange a solution/replacement. This thread should be here to back up their claim to M2Tech. Once a solution/arrangement is agreed with M2Tech, it will be comunicated here and all Hiface users will be able to follow those same steps if they are convinced they have received a faulty device, without opening it. This should also contribute to end the polemic going on and finally allow the Hiface to live up to the expectations.
 
.......... This is why I feel this product is well worth defending. But maybe I am the only one...

 
Shamu, maybe I'm not understanding you but your post above contradicts itself:  first part urges owners to "realize... that their device is not working properly".  You are already telling them that it is not.  In the second part you claim to be the one defending M2Tech.
 
I don't remember whether or not you mentioned if your test was a true blind test.  Because if it wasn't, it does not carry much weight.  If it was done properly, accept my apology.
 
Also, when you modify your first post please let everyone who "suspects" they might have the small clock know to do the BLIND test BEFORE opening up their units.  Only this way we will have conclusive and true results.  Once you know which clock is the small one, and IF you have a small one the test is flawed and inconclusive.
 

 

[shamu144]

Xdanny, let's leave to each one the burden to perform the test the best they can in an open and transparent manner. I will not restrict this comparison to a blind test, because I don't believe in them.
 
And you understand - I am convinced - that not every user will hear those differences. I say I hear them and they exist in my system, with my ears, not in everyone system with their ears. That is something Hiface users will have to experience by themselfself and this is exactly what this thread is for.