[xdanny]

Quote:

...I will not restrict this comparison to a blind test, because I don't believe in them.
 
 

What is wrong with doing a listening test not knowing what clocks you have??  Without being rude, I think your statement above is unreasonable. I thought we were trying to reach a fair conclusion in this matter.  I do not need to go into the benefits of the blind testing here.  I agree that each has his/her own preferences when it comes to sound, but when serious accusations are made then it is only fair to call for a blind test.
 
Regards

 

[shamu144]

It is up to each one to decide what comparison method they are more confortabel with, not up to me, nor to you.

 

[xdanny]

 
 
Okey - dokey...

 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

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
 

Thanks for the article. 
 
Unfortunately my results were very different from the reviewer's. 
 
I found the HiFace to be treble tilted and bright, rather than veiled.  In fact, that's the first time I ever heard someone say the HiFace was "really veiled and really dead."
 
I guess the Halide Bridge is that much better.  He says,  "Using the Bridge was like removing cotton from my ears as the greater level of clarity and detail were readily apparent."
 
USG

 

[mmerrill99]

I'm glad to see this thread moving along calm & constructive lines.
 
Can I say something that might have relevance, Shahrose got one of my JKHiface units - he reported that the attack & transients weren't as good as the USB input on his Misterx Y2 DAC. He later reported that this was because of the Oyaide DB-510 SPDIF cable. This cable is universally recommended here as synergistic with the stock Hiface, maybe because it tames the mid/HF brightness some are reporting. This taming was not wanted on the JKHIface, in fact it killed the dynamics somewhat. 
 
Just an example of why Chris might find it veiled & USG find it bright?

 

[Shahrose]

Yea, the HiFace is sensitive to the coax cable used with it.

 

[volume]

Would there be any comparisons with other transports.

 

[shawn_low]

Quote:

Would there be any comparisons with other transports.

I think this exercise is solely trying to identify the two different batches of the Hi-Face.
 
I am doing the SoX test and can't really tell a difference.
 
At times, I get the sense that the 48 sample is airier...but the result is that the midrange becomes slightly recessed. The 44 version of Diana Krall sounds warmer, midrange is more upfront. We're talking something minute...I'm not even sure that I'm sure!
 
I'd like to get a blind test going as well.

 

[xdanny]

Quote:

Yea, the HiFace is sensitive to the coax cable used with it.

Shahrose, if I understand correctly, you used an Oyaide 510 and did not like it;  what did you replace it with??

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

Shahrose, if I understand correctly, you used an Oyaide 510 and did not like it;  what did you replace it with??

I preferred the tonal balance of the cheap BJC over it in my system. IME, the Oyaide works well for systems that are bright and thin because of its smooth, warm and slow nature.
The soundstage and treble quality of the Oyaide were better, but the BJC was the more neutral, quicker and transparent of the two.

 

[shamu144]

Shawn_low, I think you are on the right track. But obviously, those differences will show up differently in every system, specially depending on your DAC I believe. Could the Dacmagic somehow be the limiting factor here... In such a case, I guess not everyone will notice those differences, if they require a better DAC to show up.
 
Quote:

I am doing the SoX test and can't really tell a difference.
 
At times, I get the sense that the 48 sample is airier...but the result is that the midrange becomes slightly recessed. The 44 version of Diana Krall sounds warmer, midrange is more upfront. We're talking something minute...I'm not even sure that I'm sure!

 

 

[sleepy dan]

 
Quote:

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.
 

This is a good point.  The thread seems to be moving away from the hyperbole "night and day" differences that it started with, to people trying to pick out subjective preferences, which are notoriously difficult to repeat in any controlled way.
 
My own experience with the Hiface is positive, and I have a unit with two of the small clocks.  Of course I can't compare it to the MEC unit, but regal's original claim was that it sounded absolutely dire, and he couldn't listen to it for 10 minutes, in fact he preferred his EMU 0404 sound card.  He decided this must be due to the small clock.  If find this really hard to believe, 'cos I think it sounds great, and way better than the EMU 0404 that I own.  In particular it's much more transparent.  Certainly not particularly warm, and if someone was looking for a dose of warmth to massage rough recordings or some other cause of harshness in their system, I can understand why they might be disappointed.  

 

[sleepy dan]

Quote:

It is up to each one to decide what comparison method they are more confortabel with, not up to me, nor to you.

And it's up to M2Tech to decide on the standards they require for a credible test.

 

[regal]

 
Quote:

 

 
.  If find this really hard to believe, 'cos I think it sounds great, and way better than the EMU 0404 that I own.  In particular it's much more transparent.  Certainly not particularly warm, and if someone was looking for a dose of warmth to massage rough recordings or some other cause of harshness in their system, I can understand why they might be disappointed.  

You must own the 0404 USB which has some of the highest jitter ever measured,  I have the 0404 PCI.  What DAC are you using?
 

 

[shawn_low]

I'm with Sleepy Dan on this.
 
At this point, unless someone is able to go with M2Tech with some hard facts, it's all subjective. It would be all to easy for them to reject all such subjective tests.
 
The point is: will and have M2Tech admitted to there being a SQ difference between clocks.
 
If so, it should be well within the rights of the consumer with the small clock to ask for the product as originally designed.
 
There obviously isn't a clear way to telling (externally) whether one has a version large or small clock. Perhaps all this requires is consumers writing in to ask M2Tech if they can get their Hiface replaced with one with a large clock.
 
Has anyone actually tried this?