mmerrill99
Member of the Trade: M2 Tech
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2006
- Posts
- 1,233
- Likes
- 46
Quote:
Theory is great to discuss but it only defines the limits of a particular approach not the reality of that approach - what I'm trying to say (awkwardly) is that it's down to implementation at the end of the day. You can see this in my mods - I didn't change the theory of how it was operating just the implementation.
The strengths of the Hiface are:
- it is outside the computer so it doesn't reside in an electrically noisy & hostile RF environment. In theory it's important to avoid as much disturbance both electrical & physical as possible.
- it operates asynchronously so it doesn't rely on the computers clock for it's timing. This is theoretically the best USB communication
- it has implemented the clocks in a very direct manner i.e. with as little processing as possible. I improve the power to the clock handling circuits which allows them to better reach their theoretical potential.
- I believe another theoretical advantage of these recent asynch 24/192 transports (the Hiface & the Musiland) is it's use of USB 2.0. I believe that the speed of USB 2.0 (480mBps) is also helping to make these transports to avoid glitches & jumps in sound i.e. they are more impervious to the processing going on at the computer. This may well help it to sound better?
- Another advantage may be the use of the Cypress USB receiver chip. This is used in both the Musiland & Hiface. I haven't looked into this chip too deeply to know what if any advantage it might have.
Is this enough to be getting on with?
Originally Posted by oqvist /img/forum/go_quote.gif What is the theory about this being better then say the spdif out of an elite Pro? How can USB to spdif be > spdif out of a better soundcard? Its not really that cheap 150$ which is essentially an Essence ST to put things into context. The mod adds some on top of that I am sure too. |
Theory is great to discuss but it only defines the limits of a particular approach not the reality of that approach - what I'm trying to say (awkwardly) is that it's down to implementation at the end of the day. You can see this in my mods - I didn't change the theory of how it was operating just the implementation.
The strengths of the Hiface are:
- it is outside the computer so it doesn't reside in an electrically noisy & hostile RF environment. In theory it's important to avoid as much disturbance both electrical & physical as possible.
- it operates asynchronously so it doesn't rely on the computers clock for it's timing. This is theoretically the best USB communication
- it has implemented the clocks in a very direct manner i.e. with as little processing as possible. I improve the power to the clock handling circuits which allows them to better reach their theoretical potential.
- I believe another theoretical advantage of these recent asynch 24/192 transports (the Hiface & the Musiland) is it's use of USB 2.0. I believe that the speed of USB 2.0 (480mBps) is also helping to make these transports to avoid glitches & jumps in sound i.e. they are more impervious to the processing going on at the computer. This may well help it to sound better?
- Another advantage may be the use of the Cypress USB receiver chip. This is used in both the Musiland & Hiface. I haven't looked into this chip too deeply to know what if any advantage it might have.
Is this enough to be getting on with?