[Shahrose]

Interesting development...I'm noticing that along with the more focused sound, all the attenuators (10, 15, and 20dB) increase a certain portion of the treble. The higher the attenuation, the greater the treble and faster the sound. I initially said that the attenuators didn't do anything to the treble, but what I meant to say was that they don't attenuate the treble (as I was expecting them to). 
I really think it will depend on the system whether these changes are viewed as positive or negative. I'm ambivalent at this point. The attenuators give me something good, but also something unwanted.

 

[xdanny]

No, I wasn't saying that, sorry.  Room/sound measuring software requires calibration of the PC's soundcard to be used in a test.  The impulse test tone is generated at the current soundcard settings, in this case 48khz.  The claim was (correct me if I'm wrong) that the hiface exhibits an upward treble tilt of about 3db's with either clock - in your case you have two large oscillators so if it's 44 or 48 they should have the same output because they are identical. (This is what I was trying to say

).
 
Logic dictates that if you thought the improvement in detail at the upper range was due to the treble tilt - and measurements show there isn't a treble tilt - then perhaps the improvement in detail is legit?  Honestly, I am not telling you what you're hearing, just trying to look at this from another angle.  Sleepy dan's measurements have all of a sudden added a different perspective to this - including him physically measuring both the EMU and hiface at the output of the dac (identical readings).
 
Not speaking  for sleepy dan, but base on previous posts I think he has a stock unit.  And sorry but I also do not believe he'd be someone to fake this graph.
 
I'm not sure I'm understanding the PCI vs USB question.  The impact is in the results...
 
To be honest, no I hadn't looked carefully at the doctored graph you posted, it's actually pretty funny!!
 
Regards

 

[upstateguy]

 
Quote:

So it looks like everybody who's heard/measured different things than you is liar, fabricator or cover up operative. Be careful, these could be the first signs of mild paranoia. Did you use to dream about small clocks chasing you or similar things?

LOL, of course not!   ..................  but how did you know about the dreams?????

 
Quote:

Interesting development...I'm noticing that along with the more focused sound, all the attenuators (10, 15, and 20dB) increase a certain portion of the treble. The higher the attenuation, the greater the treble and faster the sound. I initially said that the attenuators didn't do anything to the treble, but what I meant to say was that they don't attenuate the treble (as I was expecting them to). 
I really think it will depend on the system whether these changes are viewed as positive or negative. I'm ambivalent at this point. The attenuators give me something good, but also something unwanted.

Hummm, you mean it is starting to sound, um, er, brighter?

 
Quote:

No, I wasn't saying that, sorry.  Room/sound measuring software requires calibration of the PC's soundcard to be used in a test.  The impulse test tone is generated at the current soundcard settings, in this case 48khz.  The claim was (correct me if I'm wrong) that the hiface exhibits an upward treble tilt of about 3db's with either clock - in your case you have two large oscillators so if it's 44 or 48 they should have the same output because they are identical. (This is what I was trying to say

).
 
Logic dictates that if you thought the improvement in detail at the upper range was due to the treble tilt - and measurements show there isn't a treble tilt - then perhaps the improvement in detail is legit?  Honestly, I am not telling you what you're hearing, just trying to look at this from another angle.  Sleepy dan's measurements have all of a sudden added a different perspective to this - including him physically measuring both the EMU and hiface at the output of the dac (identical readings).
 
Not speaking  for sleepy dan, but base on previous posts I think he has a stock unit.  And sorry but I also do not believe he'd be someone to fake this graph.
 
I'm not sure I'm understanding the PCI vs USB question.  The impact is in the results...
 
To be honest, no I hadn't looked carefully at the doctored graph you posted, it's actually pretty funny!!
 
Regards

 
Hi xdanny
 
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.  First, I only have  44.1kHz material, so the 48kHz clock is not used. The 3db number comes from the Legato review, in CA, that I linked to a number of pages back and it pertains to volume only.  What I noticed was that the HF plays louder than the BCT or the onboard dacs in my Constantine and Stello, which all play at the same relative volume. 
 
There is no getting around that, in many systems the HF plays noticeably louder. Gordon Rankin agreed, both in a post in the CA review explaining why, and again when I wrote to him about it.   The 3db number from the review sounded like it could be right, so I went with it.  Enough people have corroborated this so I'm not going to go into it further except to say that the exact db louder it plays is not important, what is important is that it plays noticeably louder.  I suppose if you need further clarification, you can write to Gordon Rankin yourself.  I found him very responsive.
 
The treble tilt or brightness is another issue.  Not only does the HF play louder, it plays brighter.  Many people have commented on this also.  I called it a treble tilt because the bass seemed to be attenuated by the amount the treble is boosted, changing the tone of instruments and vocals, and especially the piano.  Listening to the treble end, and shimmer of a drum kit with the HF  doesn't sound as realistic as listening to it with the BCT, (which is my control).  Brighter, treble tilted, yes, but more realistic or detailed, no.
 
Then there is the issue of upsampling DACs which neutralize the effects of low jitter sources.  I found a good narrative about this phenomena on the PS Audio site and posted links to it. This phenomena was real enough for jkeny to post about it on his web site (although he removed it when it became an issue).  If you haven't seen it, here it is. Please read it carefully.  It's exactly what they say on the PS Audio site regarding the masking effects of upsampling dacs on low jitter sources, and why their top of the line dac, even though it has 6 levels of upsampling,  has a bypass switch for use with low jitter sources.
 

 
So, here  I was,  listening with my T-1 headphones > GS-1 amp > North Star Mk II DAC > and HF and it sounded to me like what I was hearing was a louder playing, treble tilted, pseudo-detailed transport, that was using the "louder sounds better" treick to gain advantage over the masking effect of my upsampling dac. 
 
When I went back to the BCT, (which the HF was suppose to replace) everything went back to normal.  Pianos sounded like my piano again, and the bright, treble tilt was gone. 
 
I thought this might be a function of the small clock, and contacted Tweak Geek for an exchange,  but, even though the exchangeFace sounded noticeably better than the originalFace, it still had the same loud, treble tilted, pseudo-detailed sound signature... which makes it appear to sound better than other transports (when used with upsampling dacs), until you volume balance.....  Then you realize it was just louder and brighter, not better.
 
So I went back to the BCT, and that's where I am now until I find another transport.
 
USG
 
Edit to say that before you embrace those measurements as scientific fact, they need to be reproduced and until they are reproduced and verified,  they are merely anecdotal.

 

[xdanny]

About that screenshot from John's site:  he's never denied he had it up there, or that he said it.  Just a caution based on what some of his clients have reported.  He took it down because it got misinterpreted a lot.  Just thought I'd say this since he cannot be here to defend himself.  And I do agree with that statement, as on mine there is a very slight difference between the upsampled and the original format, but that is not only apparent with the hiface:  it's pretty much in all the sources I've tried.  Not significant to make an impact, I doubt regular people would notice, but for someone picky  it's enough to keep the upsampling switch to "off".
 
Also, I was not able to notice either a difference in volume or a brighter sound on mine.  We disagree here, so I guess we'll leave it at that.
 
Shamu, someone does not have to post a lot to be credible, nor to be a long time member.  Not because I agree with sleepy dan, but his posts have always made sense from a technical point of view.  Very level-headed and knowledgeable and in my opinion some of the most informative.

 

[shamu144]

Indeed, a bit too much knowledgeable about the Hiface for a new comer if you follow me.

 
Quote:

Shamu, someone does not have to post a lot to be credible, nor to be a long time member.  Not because I agree with sleepy dan, but his posts have always made sense from a technical point of view.  Very level-headed and knowledgeable and in my opinion some of the most informative.

 

[sleepy dan]

I don't know what Gordon Rankin has said, but it was you who made the claim here and that is what I am contesting.
 
If you find the Hiface bright in your system, that's one thing.  But you were making technical claims based on your impressions that weren't true.  There has been a lot of that around here with regard to the Hiface.
 
My tests were with the Stock Hiface, with both clocks the smaller ones.  But whichever clocks or other modifications are present will not make the slightest difference to loudness or frequency response.  Similarly 44.1KHz or 48KHz, and PCI vs USB will make no difference.  If you understood the issues at hand you would know that.
 
The point is that the Hiface doesn't alter frequency response or loudness, and the EMU is there as a comparison.
 
Quote:

If you want to argue the point of the stock RCA HiFace playing louder you'll have to take it up with Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio.  I wrote to him about it and I posted his reason why the HiFace plays louder.  If you think you know better, he's the man to argue with.
 
I am far from the only person who has posted about the brightness of the stock RCA  HiFace.  My experience is that a stock RCA HiFace, has a treble tilted pseudo-detailed sound that gives impression of greater details, when played through an upsampling dac like my North Star Mk II.
 
You didn't say if you were testing the stock RCA HiFace that my impressions were based on, or you were measuring a modified unit that  doesn't pertain to my discussion.
 
I also noticed that your measurements were done at 48kHz while my impressions were obtained with music using the 44.1kHz clock.
 
Then there's the issue of PCI Vs USB......  apples to oranges.
 

 

[sleepy dan]

Honestly, if you knew what happened at the input of a DAC, you would not be saying this.  2V S/PDIF will not upset a DAC.  Plenty of DACs actually boost the S/PDIF level up to the logic level maximum (3.3V or 5V) because the interface receiver likes a higher level.
Quote:

 
However, we all know at this point that the SPDIF output of the Hiface is out of specs, at 2Vpp if I remember correctly, and some DAC SPDIF receivers don't like it. Maybe some DACs do actually play louder, as the SPDIF receiver is overloaded, and it is not something that should be ignored, especially if more people than USG did notice it. The Hiface certainly do not play louder in my system than say native USB from the Lavry, or optical out from my Macbook. But it doesn't mean it can't play louder with another DAC.
 

 

 

[sleepy dan]

I think I'll take that as a compliment.  Thanks!  

 
Quote:

SUBMIT


Indeed, a bit too much knowledgeable about the Hiface for a new comer if you follow me.

 

 

 

[sleepy dan]

Sure.  The software is DSSF3 from http://www.ymec.com/  Downloadable for free in case anyone wants to replicate my results.  No microphone is used - it's a straight loop-back, DAC out -> PC in.
 
My DAC is based on the Twisted Pear Buffalo, but heavily modified.  The rest of my system is DIY too, except the heaphones of course which are made by Koss, although I use speakers most of the time.

 
Quote:

Would you be so kind as to share with us what kind of software and microphones you used for recording?
Also it wouldn't hurt to know what the "dac" used for playback would be, and amp and cans wouldn't hurt as long as we're at it.
Just for reference of course.

 

[K3cT]

You know, the rising trend of these jitter reducer solutions have been really interesting so I snagged a Musiland 01 USD (I couldn't get the HiFace because the friend who had it has sold the thing already) along with a fairly transparent Stax system (SR-404LE) for a simple assisted blind test. My DAC of choice is my old and trusty DIY AMB γ2 which has an ASRC circuitry built-in. 
 
The result? I couldn't tell any difference between USB and S/PDIF using the Musiland unit. That's right, USB straight to my notebook sounds as similar as ever with coaxial via the 01 USD. Upon speaking with other Head-Fiers, it seems that the ASRC upsampling circuit does help in this respect somewhat so perhaps that's the reason why I failed the blind test. Perhaps the Hi-face will produce different results with different DACs so one cannot expect it to automatically improve your system. My conclusion? Good design is indeed everything. 
 
Or perhaps my ears are crappy. 

 

[Nebby]

gah, didn't notice that a new page had appeared...redundant question has been answered already

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

You know, the rising trend of these jitter reducer solutions have been really interesting so I snagged a Musiland 01 USD (I couldn't get the HiFace because the friend who had it has sold the thing already) along with a fairly transparent Stax system (SR-404LE) for a simple assisted blind test. My DAC of choice is my old and trusty DIY AMB γ2 which has an ASRC circuitry built-in. 
 
The result? I couldn't tell any difference between USB and S/PDIF using the Musiland unit. That's right, USB straight to my notebook sounds as similar as ever with coaxial via the 01 USD. Upon speaking with other Head-Fiers, it seems that the ASRC upsampling circuit does help in this respect somewhat so perhaps that's the reason why I failed the blind test. Perhaps the Hi-face will produce different results with different DACs so one cannot expect it to automatically improve your system. My conclusion? Good design is indeed everything. 
 
Or perhaps my ears are crappy. 

I heard a difference with the Musiland 02US + y2 (not sure about the 01). It really depends on the amp and headphones as well. I couldn't hear the differences with a couple of my previous amps. The only ones that were transparent enough to reveal differences were the M^3 and GS-1. I passed a blind test between the HiFace (stock) and USB of the y2. It required a lot of concentration though, since I'm used to forming impressions over long periods of time. I find that's a more effective way to discern subtle differences in audio.

 

[upstateguy]

 
Quote:

About that screenshot from John's site:  he's never denied he had it up there, or that he said it.  Just a caution based on what some of his clients have reported.  He took it down because it got misinterpreted a lot.  Just thought I'd say this since he cannot be here to defend himself.  And I do agree with that statement, as on mine there is a very slight difference between the upsampled and the original format, but that is not only apparent with the hiface:  it's pretty much in all the sources I've tried.  Not significant to make an impact, I doubt regular people would notice, but for someone picky  it's enough to keep the upsampling switch to "off".
 
Also, I was not able to notice either a difference in volume or a brighter sound on mine.  We disagree here, so I guess we'll leave it at that.
 

 
Ah, I see you're using a macbook.  That is why you hear no differences.  There are several people who report no differences in volume or being able to hear the brightness I spoke about, with macbooks.  Aimlink reports hearing no difference at all between his jkeny mod and the optical out of his mac book and Shamu also reports that he doesn't hear the volume or brightness issues with his. Now you're reporting the same thing.   I'm not sure why this is peculiar to macbooks but it seems to be consistently reported with them. But if you go through this thread and the other HF thread you will find ample posts where people have reported otherwise.... and then there is the Legago review I linked to and Gordon Rankin's explanation of why the HF plays louder.  Regal said Gordon over simplified it when he explained it to me, but that doesn't change the fact that it plays louder.
 
No one is saying that upsampling dacs completely negate the effect of low jitter sources to the point where you hear no difference at all, but they certainly level the playing field to the point where those who have the option, turn it off.  This is why jkeny posted what he did and why PS Audio designed their top of the line DAC with a bypass switch.
 
To clear something up, Jkeny's "caution", as you call it, was well stated and my posting it is in no way an attack on him nor does he have to be defended.  It was just an additional illustration of the problem the HF encounters with uspampling  DACs....that the HiFace does not work well with upsampling dacs, is a fact  and even you have upsampling turned off because of it. 
 
Regarding "regular people" or "picky people", I think it would be safe to assume that the ones you find here are of the "picky" variety and a even slight difference is enough for them to turn upsampling off.  I'm not even sure how "regular people" would even find out about something like the HF if they didn't frequent audio forums.  New Egg doesn't sell it, nor does B&H and it's not listed on Amazon.  And once "regular people" start frequenting the audio forums, it won't be long before they become converted to the "picky" variety, don'tchathink?

 
As an aside, you are basing what you say on your modified unit which doesn't sound anything like the stock unit I've been discussing.... this, according to most of the people who have heard both versions, including jkeny himself.... not looking for a fight, just saying.

 
Quote:

I don't know what Gordon Rankin has said, .....
 
 

If you're interested, I posted the link to the entire CA Legato review and Gordon Rankin's response in that review, as well as links to the PS Audio discussion.  I also posted my correspondence with Mr. Rankin. 
 
Not being an engineer like yourself,  I guess I'll have to go with Gordon Rankin's take on the loudness issue.  I would like to think that he has, at least, a working knowledge about usb transports.
 
Quote:

My DAC is based on the Twisted Pear Buffalo, but heavily modified.  The rest of my system is DIY too, except the heaphones of course which are made by Koss, although I use speakers most of the time.

 

 
I'm curious if you can disable upsampling on your Twisted Pear Buffalo DAC?
 
I'm also curious which Koss headphones you have and what speakers you have, as you have no profile for me to reference.... and I'm sorry if you have mentioned this already, but what is your source?
 
The other thing in question is whether the nuances that can be readily detected with headphones can be detected with speakers and at what volume and with what room treatments and at what distance?
 
As I said to xdanny, I'm not looking for a fight, just continuing the discussion.
 
 
USG

 

[momomo6789]

so much debate over this surprising, considering the price it costs is very cheap.

 

[Sebhelyesfarku]

 
Quote:

Aimlink reports hearing no difference at all between his jkeny mod and the optical out of his mac book and Shamu also reports that he doesn't hear the volume or brightness issues with his. Now you're reporting the same thing.   I'm not sure why this is peculiar to macbooks but it seems to be consistently reported with them.
USG

I report no volume diff but "brightness" compared to optical from my MacBook! Just to make it simpler! MWUAHAHA