[FauDrei]

Because those leds are input sample rate indicators.

 

[upstateguy]

 
Quote:

I was going to bite my tongue & stay out of this but you really are going too far.  
<snip>
 
The reason I said that it was a generalisation is that it won't apply to all upsampling DACs - I was hoping that you might have picked up on this!
 
<snip>
 

Let me start by saying that the last thing I wanted was to have an argument with you John, since I specifically didn't involve you or your modifications in what I said and feel you offer a respectable product at a fair price.
 
I am a consumer and  I am posting about a product I bought.   In this case I am the opposite of a fanboy, but no less valid.
 
That you have involved yourself, as a member of the trade, speaks for itself.
 
To that end, I have no intention of engaging you in a manner that might close the thread.
 
But, never the less, you raised an interesting question. You say in your web statement:
 
"This upsampling will mask the benefits of the low jitter output from the Hiface & will prevent it's true sonic benefits from being realised. Please be aware of this issue & unless you can use the Hiface into your DAC without upsampling you may well experience the same!" 
 
But then you go on to say in your post that "it won't apply to all upsampling DACs."
 
I'm sure more than a few of us would like to know which DACs you're referring to, and more importantly, what is it about those DACs that makes them immune to the upsampling bottleneck (other than a bypass switch of course)? 
(Please don't cite anecdotal reports as evidence, as they have little meaning in the scientific world).
 
USG

 

[mmerrill99]

USG, it was just a note of caution & yes it was anecdotal, not scientific - every statement of fact doesn't have to be scientific - it might lead to some conclusions eventually but I was simply reporting my findings. I have since taken it down.
 
I keep getting this MOT tag thrown back at me over any posting that isn't liked & frankly I'm fed up hearing this. If posters can't differentiate between information that's meant to help them in their audio quest from information that is just marketing then I give up. Judging by this thread & the "sensitive" thread, I don't feel that there is an open-minded attitude displayed here so I'm un-subscribing & will not be giving any information out in future - it has been a thankless & pointless exercise - I wish I could say it has been emotional  
 
In future all my posts will be of a marketing nature - starting with - there is a review due this weekend from enjoythemusic that compares the stock, modified, Evo Hifaces together with the Halide Bridge & Audiophileo. It will be much more in-depth (& informative) than the positive feedback article! Enjoy! 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

USG, it was just a note of caution & yes it was anecdotal, not scientific - every statement of fact doesn't have to be scientific - it might lead to some conclusions eventually but I was simply reporting my findings. I have since taken it down.
 
I keep getting this MOT tag thrown back at me over any posting that isn't liked & frankly I'm fed up hearing this. If posters can't differentiate between information that's meant to help them in their audio quest from information that is just marketing then I give up. Judging by this thread & the "sensitive" thread, I don't feel that there is an open-minded attitude displayed here so I'm un-subscribing & will not be giving any information out in future - it has been a thankless & pointless exercise - I wish I could say it has been emotional  
 
In future all my posts will be of a marketing nature - starting with - there is a review due this weekend from enjoythemusic that compares the stock, modified, Evo Hifaces together with the Halide Bridge & Audiophileo. It will be much more in-depth (& informative) than the positive feedback article! Enjoy! 

LOL, that's actually pretty funny.

 
USG

 

[Zorlac]

Oooh! Cant wait to read this one.  
 
Quote:

...there is a review due this weekend from enjoythemusic that compares the stock, modified, Evo Hifaces together with the Halide Bridge & Audiophileo. It will be much more in-depth (& informative) than the positive feedback article! Enjoy! 

 

[mmerrill99]

Quote:

Oooh! Cant wait to read this one.  
 

 

Sorry, it appears I'm wrong - the article is written & being submitted today but I believe it won't appear until the 1st October

 

[wuwhere]

Quote:

Sorry, it appears I'm wrong - the article is written & being submitted today but I believe it won't appear until the 1st October

Look forward to that comparisons. I have a stock HiFace but waiting for Evo reviews.

 

[upstateguy]

Still, the upsampling bottleneck remains a concern for current HiFace owners and future purchasers.
 
Until someone is able to answer the question of which upsampling DACs might be immune to the masking effects of upsampling, and what is it about those DACs that makes them immune, we, as consumers, will  be on our own to look further into the following statement to see if there is any truth in it:
 
 
That  upsampling will mask the benefits of the low jitter output from the HiFace and will prevent it's true sonic benefits from being realized.
 
 
 
Not content with the statement I found on jkeny's web site as my only source, I started to look around to see if any other manufacturers had posted information regarding the negative effects of upsampling on low jitter output devices.
 
Sure enough, on the PS Audio site, I found a discussion of upsampling, and why, on their flagship DAC, The Perfect Wave, which, btw, has 6 choices of upsample rates, they chose to incorporate a by pass switch, called the "Native Mode", for playing low jitter digital signals.  [[[  the entire discussion can be found HERE and HERE   (to skip all the promotional stuff, start about 1/2 way down the page at Sample Rate Converter (SRC)) ]]]
 
What they say is essentially this:   The function of  upsampling is to remove jitter and if you run low jitter data through an upsampler, it will be sonically inferior to the same data with the upsampler turned off.      .....So it looks like jkeny may have been essentially correct in his original statement.
 
Maybe some of you can find additional information on the effects of upsampling low jitter data?
 
USG

 

[zenpunk]

The idea that upsampling a low jitter source will degrade the sound is nonsense.There is no doubt that upsampling alter the sound (mainly by spreading jitter equally among samples so it is easily removed by the DAC) but you can't say it is inferior or superior. Some prefer the sound when upsampled (I do) while other would will do anything to make sure they get bit-perfect. Try both and choose the presentation you like the most and enjoy....

Looks like another case of audiophilia nervosa.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

The idea that upsampling a low jitter source will degrade the sound is nonsense.
 

 
 
I think that was PS Audio's reason for placing a bypass switch on their Perfect Wave DAC. (see links in my post)
 
I prefer "masks the benefits", as you stated in your 'sensitive information' post, "So if you have a well designed upsampling DAC there is just no need for the hi-face as it it will bring no further benefit or increase in SQ."
 
But what I don't fully understand is why upsampling would "mask" or "bring no further benefit" to a low jitter source.
 
USG
 

 

[Pacha]

to be deleted

 

[Bubu1]

Quote:

 
 
I think that was PS Audio's reason for placing a bypass switch on their Perfect Wave DAC. (see links in my post)
 
I prefer "masks the benefits", as you stated in your 'sensitive information' post, "So if you have a well designed upsampling DAC there is just no need for the hi-face as it it will bring no further benefit or increase in SQ."
 
But what I don't fully understand is why upsampling would "mask" or "bring no further benefit" to a low jitter source.
 
USG
 

USG,
I did a little experiment at work yesterday comparing optical out on a macbook and imac to the modded hiface feeding a headroom ultra micro dac (it has undefeatable upsampling). I also compared the optical out to the modded hiface with a 15dB attenuator.  I was using my SE530's, an inexpensive coax cable from esoteric usa and an optical cable from lifatech.  The DAC has a manual switch that I can flip to optical or coax input.
The setup I used included two computers with one computer feeding optical and the other feeding the Hiface and both coax and optical inputs of the DAC were simultaneously being fed signal.  Lest I be accused of not being thorough, I switched computers and checked my results and they were similar.  I had to sync iTunes/Pure music between the 2 computers and then changed inputs on the DAC as the tracks were playing.  This was no means a blind test.  
 
First off, I did not hear any volume differences between inputs in this setup. The optical out of the Mac's and modded hiface were similar sounding; however it was clear that the presentation with the hiface was more organic and had a bit more dimensionality.  When I added the attenuator the sound improved a great deal.  The presentation became 3 dimensional and the tonality of the instruments was much better than without the att. or the optical input.  The reverberation within the recording venue was revealed more clearly.  In addition there was a better lower end presentation that grounded the music and provided a more solid and satisfying experience.  I was listening to a redbook recording of Carmignola Vivaldi late violin concertos. 
 
Even using this modest setup consisting of the ultra micro stack with SE530's, I was able to detect these differences.
 
What I took away from this is that the attenuator helps as John has suggested by reducing reflections.  I have now tried 2 upsampling DACs and I can hear differences with the modded hiface feeding the DAC's  compared at least with optical out. The sound improves greatly by including the attenuator in the HIface setup!!!!!  In my experience, the benefits of feeding good (presumably low jitter) digital signal to an upsampling DAC can be heard but it becomes extremely obvious and clear with the addition of  the attenuator. As has been stated by Regal in other posts, using the attenuator makes the battery modded hiface a phenomenal transport!!

 

[zenpunk]

I find very strange that adding an attenuator can improve the sound so much. Logic suggest than any digital coaxial connection should benefit from adding one of those. How comes no company came up with a cable with a built-in attenuator?
I probably shouldn't have said that as few cable companies will start selling those for few hundreds...If they happen to work..or not 

 

[Shahrose]

Someone needs to check if all coaxial outputs can be made to sound good with merely an attenuator. What if we don't even need the modded HiFace?

 

[Bubu1]

I don't blame you guys for being doubtful.  I have no way to substantiate what I'm saying. I don't have the technical knowledge or equipment to test cables outputs etc.
John has explained elsewhere why he thinks using an attenuator works for the HiFace.  I just tried it and found that it improved the sound.  I don't think that this will work for all transports or digital cables as the Hiface has higher output voltage than spec'd for SPDIF coax and that's why the attenuator trick works.  I spent $40 to try this and I think it was worth it.