Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    M2Tech hiFace Asynchronous USB To S/PDIF Converter Review

    <img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/hiface-thumb.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 5pt 5pt;" align="left">The M2Tech hiFace has received a lot of press this year. It was one of the first very inexpensive asynchronous USB to S/PDIF converters to support all sample rates from 16/44.1 kHz through 24/192 kHz. The hiFace's good specs, good technical design, support for high resolution sample rates, and $150 price tag has had users from all over the world going gaga. While there is no such thing as bad press too much good press can make it very hard for a product to live up to expectations. Such is the case with the M2Tech hiFace. I tried for several months to pull every ounce of sound quality out of the hiFace. I began to wonder if I was the only person on Earth unsatisfied with this converter. I have no qualms about saying the hiFace, through no fault of M2Tech, is overrated. Fortunately this has nothing to do with value. At $150 it's well worth the price and has a very high price to performance ratio.

    [PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]

     

     

     

     

    <b>Preliminary Notes</b>

     

    There is no sense in writing a confusing review that interweaves terms like good performance, disappointment, overrated, and great value only to leave readers wondering what I really think. Let me lay some groundwork before going deeper into the hiFace review. As many Computer Audiophile readers know terms like overrated and good performance are not mutually exclusive. Neither are the terms great value and disappointment. Also the conclusions reached by me in my listening room with my components don't say anything about another individual's conclusion reached in his home or even in my listening room. There are so many variables involved when judging an audio component. Readers should only use reviews and others' comments as single data points that have nothing to do with their individual opinions and conclusions.

     

     

     

    <b>Got A Lot Going For It ...</b>

     

    <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/3.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/3-small.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 5pt 5pt;" align="left"></a>Designed and assembled by M2Tech in Italy the hiFace asynchronous USB to S/PDIF converter looks unbeatable on paper or screen. Async USB with dual crystal oscillators and support of sample rates up through 24/192 kHz are more than many manufacturers can say about their converters. Add the $150 price to this list and most of the competition falls to the wayside. On paper.

     

    The hiFace is nearly a self explanatory device. One end has a USB connector that can only fit into a computer's USB port. The other end has either a coaxial RCA or a BNC digital output. There are no switches or power cables to contemplate while physically connecting the hiFace to a computer and audio system. A single electrical digital cable connects the hiFace to an external DAC completing the physical setup.

     

    Asynchronous is currently the buzzword of all buzzwords. If a component does anything asynchronously manufactures frequently label it with the async buzzword. The hiFace is a true async USB device as it operates in asynchronous USB transfer mode. Async USB transfer mode has nothing to do with asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) even though some manufacturers would like listeners to believe ASRC is an equivalent competing technology addressing jitter reduction. Some manufacturers just use the plain asynchronous label and let consumers try to decipher what that means with regard to the component in question. The bottom line is these two technologies are vastly different and can have a major impact on sound quality.

     

    M2Tech's async USB implementation is pretty solid on paper. The hiFace uses two separate quartz precision oscillators instead of a PLL with a single oscillator and synthesized frequency. This enables very accurate clocking with less jitter or timing errors. Two oscillators allow the hiFace to have separate clock generators for 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz sample rate families. The 44.1 kHz family consists of 44.1, 88.2, and 176.4 kHz and the 48 kHz family consists of 48, 96, and 192 kHz. Nearly every engineer I talk to about this area of HiFi suggests a PLL with synthesized frequency based on a single oscillator that cannot be a multiple of 44.1 kHz and 48 KHz will result in much higher jitter. Since high end audio components shoot for extremely low jitter measurements in the single digit picoseconds many engineers will only opt for dual oscillator configurations similar to the hiFace. One notable exception is the Weiss Engineering DAC202. It uses the Jet PLL and synthesized clock frequencies to produce excellent results.

     

    In addition to this very good technical design the hiFace supports every relevant sample rate. It wasn't long ago that extracting quad speed sample rates of 176.4 and 192 kHz from a laptop was nearly impossible because there weren't any acceptable devices like the hiFace. If listeners wanted the higher sample rates they had to install a card like the Lynx AES16(e) or RME 9632 into a desktop computer. The hiFace was one of the first widely accepted devices in the audiophile community to free listeners from the unsightly and frequently noisy desktop computer.

     

    There's no denying the hiFace has a lot going for it with its async USB transfer mode, support of all sample rates, and very inexpensive price tag. If it wasn't for the music and the fact that I want to listen to said music at the highest quality possible the M2Tech hiFace would certainly make the Olympic podium (gold, silver, or bronze).

     

     

     

    <b>... But Far From Ideal</b>

     

    - Software

     

    Driver: Noun

    <ul>

    <li>the operator of a motor vehicle

    <li>someone who drives animals that pull a vehicle

    <li>driver (a golfer who hits the golf ball with a driver

    <li><b>a program that determines how a computer will communicate with a peripheral device</b>

    <li>number one wood (a golf club (a wood) with a near vertical face that is used for hitting long shots from the tee)

    </ul>

    Source [<a href="http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=driver">Princeton University</a>]

     

    <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/5.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/5-small.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 5pt 5pt;" align="left"></a>Until the recent release of Apple's OS X 10.6.4 proprietary drivers were necessary to reach the highest sample rates via USB audio devices like the hiFace. Windows based computers still require proprietary drivers for playback of high sample rates (176.4 and 192) because Windows does not support Class 2 Audio. When the hiFace was released proprietary drivers were required by all operating systems and USB hardware to reach these sample rates. M2Tech had no choice but to use its own drivers for the hiFace to function with Windows and Apple's OS X. In addition M2tech designed the hiFace with specific hardware that requires proprietary drivers even if the operating system supports Class 2 Audio. For example the hiFace will not work on a Mac running OS X 10.6.4 without installation of M2Tech's driver. Whereas devices like the Wavelength Audio WaveLink work as designed on OS X 10.6.4 without proprietary drivers at all sample rates.

     

    M2Tech's proprietary driver is necessary but not sufficient. Several of the first iterations of the driver required the use of Foobar2000 and manually placing specific files (dll) in a certain location on the computer. Each release has drastically improved the ease of use and eventually added options like WASAPI support. Now a simple double-click -> Next -> Next -> Reboot routine is all that's required. The insufficient part of the M2Tech driver comes from two fronts. Lack of an easy uninstall without contacting M2Tech for a special command run via the Terminal application and the confusing nature of M2Tech's driver delivery.

     

    It's entirely possible to use a Mac without uninstalling the hiFace driver. It's benign as far as I know. But when troubleshooting an audio issue it's very nice to rule out possible causes by uninstalling software. M2Tech's current hiFace driver removal process is unacceptable.

     

    On several occasions hiFace users have installed the incorrect version of the hiFace driver only to suffer frustrating and time consuming consequences. Just because most people haven't had an issue with this doesn't make it OK. Identifying the correct driver on the M2Tech website isn't rocket science and has been made easier over time. However, a simple line of code in the installation process could let users know if the downloaded driver was incorrect for their operating system. For example if someone downloads the Apple OS X 10.4 version of the software when they really need the OS X 10.6 version this operating system "pre-flight" check would remove the possibility of such frustrating issues before they happened. The last thing computer based audio needs to deliver is frustration to end users. Especially when it could easily be avoided.

     

    The fact that drivers are required, the inability to easily remove the driver easily, and the unneeded driver confusion have caused real world problems as evidenced by the users at CA and other sites. These users have sought help with installation, uninstallation, and related issues frequently after several hours of attempting to solve the issue themselves.

     

    Note: The vast majority of hiFace users have not experienced the aforementioned issues. I raise the issues only because they've appeared several times in the real world and they could be avoided altogether.

     

    - Hardware

     

    <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/13.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/13-small.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 5pt 5pt;" align="left"></a>The hiFace asynchronous USB to S/PDIF converter uses the Cypress Semiconductor ezUSB design. ezUSB provides the component designer (M2Tech) a Windows, OS X, and Linux base driver that operates in bulk mode. The designer then plugs in code for each operating system that creates whatever device is needed. Devices like the Wavelength Audio WaveLink and Halide Design Bridge require no proprietary device driver. These units use the driver supplied by the operating system in a true plug n' play fashion. Although the Bridge does not support quad speed sample rates and the WaveLink currently does not support quad speed on the Windows operating system. As the saying goes, there's no free lunch.

     

    <i>Correction: I was just informed a Windows driver is available on the Wavelength Audio website that enables the WaveLink to support quad speed sample rates.</i>

     

    Internally the hiFace uses three DCDC converters to power the Cypress USB controller, the dual oscillators, and the SPDIF converter. Unfortunately the ground of the digital output is connected via 1 kOhm to the USB ground instead of being galvanically isolated which is highly preferable on the S/PDIF output. If the digital input on a listener's DAC is not galvanically isolated either then computer's power supply will be connected to the audio system via the 1 kOhm on the digital input ground pin. This is a very good reason to use a MacBook Pro or different laptop running on battery power eliminating the direct connection to a noisy and cheap switching power supply.

     

     

    The build quality is nothing to write home about and is probably what most audiophiles expect for a $150 device that offers quite a bit of functionality. I recommend using a little USB extension cable that connects between the computer and the hiFace. The hiFace is much wider than a USB port and may block or interfere with a neighboring USB port. Also, the extension reduces strain on the USB port and hiFace itself when heavier S/PDIF cables are used or when cables must be routed awkwardly to the audio component. Frequently pulling on the hiFace isn't a good idea. Especially if connected directly to the computer's USB port.

     

    It's hard to definitively say if using the operating system's built-in USB drivers or different hardware design decisions would have a big impact on sound quality from the hiFace. I can say the async USB to S/PDIF converters I've used, that don't require proprietary drivers, sound better and more accurate. More on sound quality a bit later.

     

     

     

    <b>Music Servers</b>

     

    During the review period I used several different music servers. The two main configurations used were based on a Mac Pro and the C.A.P.S. server [<a href="http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Computer-Audiophile-Pocket-Server-CAPS">Link</a>].

     

    The C.A.P.S. server runs Windows 7 32-bit and J River Media Center v15. The server accesses music on a NAS drive stored in WAV, AIFF, and FLAC formats. I used the Kernel Streaming and WASAPI output modes in J River. ASIO was unavailable with the hiFace and ASIO4ALL doesn't currently support quad speed sample rates of 176.4 kHz and 192 kHz. The hiFace Windows driver in use at the end of the review period was version 1.0.3.

     

    The Mac Pro runs OS X 10.6.4 and iTunes with and without Amarra version 2.1 (4244). It also access music on the same NAS drive as the C.A.P.S. server and accesses some music stored locally. The hiFace OS X driver in use at the end of the review period was version 1.0.45.

     

    I compared the hiFace to several components. The components range from a couple hundred dollars more expensive than the hiFace to several thousand dollars more expensive. These are the asynchronous USB to S/PDOF converters on hand during the review:

     

    <ul>

    <li>M2Tech hiFace

    <li>Halide Design Bridge

    <li>Wavelength Audio WaveLink

    <li>dCS U-Clock

    </ul>

     

     

     

    <b>Sound Quality</b>

     

    <a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/10.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace"><img src="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/10-small.jpg" style="padding: 5pt 10pt 5pt 5pt;" align="left"></a>I had the M2Tech hiFace here for several months. Quite a bit longer than normal component review periods. The only reason for such an extended period of time was so I could try every way I knew to squeeze the last ounce of sound quality out of the unit. Upon its arrival I immediately noticed substantial sonic differences between the hiFace and the Lynx AES16e internal digital audio output card I was using at the time. With over $500 difference between the two components, major design differences, and the fact I had just added the hiFace to my system I simply added this experience to my <a href="http://www.circusponies.com/">digital notebook</a> as a single data point among many I would gather throughout the review period.

     

    A couple weeks went by and I'd used the hiFace off and on in addition to using the Halide Design Bridge. The hiFace just didn't sound as good as everyone online and in personal conversations was claiming. Since I had already tested to make sure the digital output was bit transparent I knew I wasn't' altering the bits before entering the hiFace. I wondered what was going on so I emailed a few first rate engineers with decades of high end digital audio experience. CA readers would be surprised at how many engineers from top high end audio companies purchased the hiFace to test in their own systems. I was not interested in using their opinions to influence mine whatsoever. I just wanted to compare some external data points to my personal experience. (If many groups of people are claiming a color is red but I see it as blue it's never a bad idea to talk to some people who've reached their own independent conclusion). The possibility of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink">groupthink</a> was ever so present in my mind. Without revealing the details of private conversations these engineers told me a bit about how the hiFace was designed and what they thought about the device. Each one of them said the hiFace sounded pretty good for $150. If I gained anything from these conversations it was a bit of knowledge about the hiFace from sources outside of M2Tech and some data points from independent thinking engineers.

     

     

    In addition to several async USB to S/PDIF converters I used a few different DACs during the review period. I used my main DAC, Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC, as well as the Weiss Engineering DAC202 (now sent on to the next reviewer) and the Esoteric D-07.

     

     

    Through the Alpha DAC and DAC202 the sound quality via the hiFace was lackluster and uninspiring compared to the other converters on hand. After listening to something very good it's hard to take a step down in quality. The differences tend to be accentuated. If I didn't have the other units on hand I likely would have said the hiFace sounds a bit too dark for my taste but in general offers good performance. It certainly is not a bad sounding component by any means. It just doesn't match the level of the competition in my listening room.

     

     

    A week after the Esoteric D-07 arrived, and I had listened through the DAC enough to get a handle on its sonic signature, I began comparing the converters through the galvanically isolated RCA digital inputs of the D-07. Using the hiFace did not yield positive results at all. The sound I heard was really veiled and really dead. This was evident after long term listening sessions and A/B comparisons. I usually don't gain much from quick A/B comparisons and but I tried the method anyway because the D-07 and J River made it very easy. Using the hiFace and Halide Design Bridge configured as separate zones in J River MC I synchronized both zones and sent the output to two different coaxial S/PDIF inputs on the D-07. The d-07 doesn't offer BNC digital inputs. This worked well since the hiFace I reviewed was the RCA version. Once playback commenced I was able to switch inputs on the D-07 and hear the same audio stream as the previous input. Pretty cool, but ultimately not the best or most revealing way to review components in my opinion.

     

    I performed much more extended listening using all the S/PDIF converts and the Esoteric D-07. In every case music through the hiFace was much more veiled and dead. No matter what type of music I played from Reference Recordings HRx 24/176.4 material (via WaveLink only) to the new single mic'd John Mellencamp album produced by T-Bone Burnet as soon as I started using a non-M2Tech converter the sound opened up and the level of clarity was wonderful. Almost like I removed cotton from my ears. At the end of the review period I really concentrated on comparing the Halide Design Bridge to the M2Tech hiFace. I used Windows, OS X, iTunes, Amarra, J River etc... to make sure I reached an accurate conclusion. Every comparison ended the same way. Using the Bridge was like removing cotton from my ears as the greater level of clarity and detail were readily apparent. I try very hard not to make unsubstantiated mountains of difference out of realistic mole hills of difference as can be the case in so many audiophile conversations. I admit I am just as guilty of hyping a component as the next guy when we are sitting around chatting. When it comes to publishing a review, that is part of my permanent record :~), I never want to mislead a reader by making a big deal out of nothing. It's bad for both of us and the manufacturers involved. That said, with the components used during this review in my listening room I state unequivocally that the hiFace did not match the performance of the other asynchronous USB to S/PDIF converters. The difference was not subtle. I urge everyone considering the purchase of a converter like the ones used in this review to give them all a shot in a familiar environment.

     

    <i>Note: As shown in the measurements below the hiFace's output voltage is 2.328 Vpp. This is higher than the standard 0.5 Vpp. It is possible the D-07 does not handle higher voltages as well as the Alpha DAC or DAC202. The bottom line is readers should look at the specs of their DAC and test components in person before purchasing.</i>

     

     

     

     

    <b>Conclusion</b>

     

    The M2Tech hiFace entered the audiophile scene as a little known device from Italy. It soon surged to the top of several recommended lists. Groups of audiophiles on the Internet couldn't get enough hiFace-time. None of these hiFace users are wrong. It's a good component if it sounds good to the individual listener. Period. The hiFace does offer good specs and features on paper. There's no doubt the M2Tech design team had the right idea. After several months of listening and comparing I think M2Tech's implementation is a bit underwhelming. The hiFace offers good stand-alone performance and value while simultaneously disappointing me. The fact that I believe it's overrated has just as much to do with hiFace users' opinions as it does the hiFace's performance.

     

    I'm going to end on a positive note. I wish no ill will to M2Tech or any manufacturer. We are all part of the same industry and wonderful hobby. I hope M2Tech continues the success of the hiFace with its new upscale Evo product. At $150 the price to performance ratio of the hiFace has got to be at the top of the charts. Audiophiles used to spending tens of thousands of dollars for an extra 0.01% of performance may be a bit disoriented by the hiFace's value.

     

    One more time, don't take my word or anyone else's word to be the final answer. When in doubt check it out.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    <center><b>________________________________________________________________</b></center>

     

    Product Measurements (Using BNC version of hiFace):

     

    Output Voltage [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/HiFaceLoadVoltage.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">Image Link</a>]

    The output voltage with a 75 Ohm load is 2.328 Vpp. This is a lot higher than the nominal 0.5 Vpp desired at the digital input of most DACs. Sound quality may vary depending on how well a DAC handles this higher voltage. Some digital inputs can be over driven by this 2.328 Voltage PP when they amplify the digital signal, with an HC04UB inverter, that is the regular SPDIF recommendation for an input device.

     

    Output Resistance [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/HiFaceOpenVoltage.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">Image Link</a>]

    An approximate 73 Ohm output resistance can be calculated using the hiFace's 4.684 Vpp (without 75 Ohm load) and 2.328 Vpp (with 75 Ohm load). This is close enough to 75 Ohm for most engineers.

     

    Status Bit Information [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/HiFaceStatusBits.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">Image Link</a>]

    The transmitter in the HiFace always sends 48 kHz sample rate information in the Status Bits, no matter what sample rate is really playing. This is not really as big of problem to consumers as it is in the professional audio world. Consumer DACs by Theta, some by Mark Levinson, and others with a frequency synthesizer as a secondary PLL or those using use what is called slaving the SPDIF receiver could have issues with this status bit error. When reading the channel bit status area to find out what the frequency is the DACs sets the frequency synthesizer and uses either a digital PLL or analog one to determine if the synthesizer should be increased or decreased. Without the correct status bit as a foundation for this method problems will likely arise.

     

     

    Jitter (Bi-Phase Signal)

    The average jitter measured on the Bi-Phase Signal from 700 Hz up to 100 kHz is about 284 picoseconds. [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/HiFaceBiPhaseJitterAVG.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">Image Link</a>]

    The peak jitter measured on the Bi-Phase Signal from 50 Hz up to 100 kHz is about 1.246 nanoseconds. [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/HiFaceBiPhaseJitterPK.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">Image Link</a>]

     

    Jitter (Bit Cell) [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/bit-cell.png" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">Image Link</a>]

    Measuring the Bi-Phase jitter over time shows about 1.2 nanoseconds peak (Blue line) in the data area and rises to about 2.1 nanoseconds peak, in the Staturs Bits and Frame Sync area. Thus, jitter is greatest at the Sync signals which is shown clearly in the J-Test.

     

    Assumed Analog Jitter FFT [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/fft-hiface.png" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">hiFace Image Link</a>] | [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/fft-belcanto.png" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">Bel Canto USB-Link Image Link</a>]

    Here a 16 Bit J-Test Signal (Julian Dunn) is sent. The frequency modulation of the carrier is analyzed via FFT in the audio band and compared to a PLL slave clock. This measurement has a limitation in resolution because the PLL also has its own phase noise characteristics. But, this is the only way to evaluate this without an actual DA converter. This is in principal an assumption of what it could look like after a DA converter. The jitter in the bass area is about 100 picoseconds. This is the measurement limit of the Audio Precision. From 1 kHz on, it is about 1 picosecond. This is also the measurement limit of the AP (similar behavior as the sensitivity of the ear to detect jitter). From 100 Hz to 1 kHz it drops slowly. Clearly visible is the frame sync signal at 229 Hz and multiples of that (44.1 kHz / 192).

     

     

    This is what really happens, when you connect the HiFace to good, but typical 96 kHz PLL DAC (with a 192 kHz DAC, it would be worse, because 192 kHz PLL Receivers have higher Jitter than 96 kHz PLL Receivers). Every good design, based on the Crystal CS8414 Receiver (96 K PLL) will have similar numbers. (This is just a typical graph, every DAC acts different, regarding suppression of jitter, but for comparison, one must use a “typical” PLL receiver, in order to get some graph). Here you can see that mostly the jitter that is correlated with the sync signal, creates the most variation compared, to what the signal should look like (red line).

     

     

    [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/hiface-real.png" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">hiFace Image Link</a>] | [<a href="http://images.computeraudiophile.com/graphics/2010/0822/belcanto-real.png" class="thickbox" rel="hiFace-measurements">Bel Canto USB-Link Image Link</a>]

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Product Information

    <ul>

    <li>Price - RCA $150, BNC $180.00

    <li>hiFace Product Page - <a href="http://www.m2tech.biz/hiFace.asp">Link</a>

    <li>hiFace FAQs - <a href="http://www.m2tech.biz/public/pdf/FAQ_eng.pdf">Link</a> (PDF)

    <li>hiFace White Paper - <a href="http://www.m2tech.biz/public/pdf/White%20Paper%20on%20hiFace.pdf">Link</a> (PDF)

    <li>Purchase hiFace (USA Only) - <a href="http://www.tweekgeek.com/_e/Portable_Computer_Audio/product/HiFace/M2Tech_HiFace.htm">Link</a>

     

     

    </ul>

     

     

     

    Associated Equipment:

     

    <a href="http://files.computeraudiophile.com/2010/0418/Brochure_Fidelio.pdf">Verity Audio Fidelio loudspeakers</a>, <a href="http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/mcintosh-mc275-vacuum-tube-power-amplifier.asp">McIntosh MC275 amplification</a>, <a href="http://www.richardgrayspowercompany.com/products.aspx?type=accessories">Richard Gray's Power Company High Tension Wires</a>, <a href="http://www.berkeleyaudiodesign.com/">Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC</a>, <a href="http://www.usbdacs.com/Products/Products.html">Wavelength Audio Proton</a>, <a href="http://esoteric.teac.com/dacs/d-07">Esoteric D-07 DAC</a>, <a href="http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Computer-Audiophile-Pocket-Server-CAPS">C.A.P.S. server</a>, <a href="http://www.belcantodesign.com/Product_USBlink.html">Bel Canto USB Link</a>, <a href="http://www.halidedesign.com/bridge/">Halide Design Bridge</a>, <a href="http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/product/debussy-dac"><i>d</i>CS Debussy DAC</a>, <a href="http://www.dcsltd.co.uk/product/puccini-u-clock"><i>d</i>CS Puccini U-Clock</a>, <a href="http://www.kimber.com/products/interconnects/digital/usb/bbus/cu/">Kimber USB Cu</a>, <a href="http://www.kimber.com/products/interconnects/digital/usb/bbus/ag/">Kimber USB Ag</a>, <a href="http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/system1/digital-analog-converter/dac1-pre">Benchmark DAC1 PRE</a>, <a href="http://www.kimber.com/products/interconnects/analog/select/singleended/ks1011/">Kimber Select KS1011 Analog Cables</a>, <a href="http://www.kimber.com/products/interconnects/digital/select/ks2020/">Kimber Select KS2020 Digital Cable</a>, <a href="http://www.kimber.com/products/loudspeakercables/monocle/x/">Kimber Monocle X Loudspeaker Cable</a>, <a href="http://usa.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=SPZfqXDJvadmFPoh&templete=2">ASUS Xonar HDAV 1.3 Slim</a>, <a href="http://www.apple.com/ipad/">Apple iPad</a>, <a href="http://www.amarraaudio.com/">Sonic Studio's Amarra</a>, <a href="http://www.m2tech.biz/products.html">M2Tech hiFace</a>, <a href="http://www.weiss-highend.ch/dac202/index.html">Weiss Engineering DAC202</a>, <a href="http://www.lynxstudio.com/product_detail.asp?i=13">Lynx Studio AES16 Digital I/O Card</a>.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    The input sensitivity of my Lyngdorf can be adjusted +/- 12dB in 0.1 dB steps. Is this the attenuation you folks are talking about to improve sound?<br />

    Sorry, I'm a software guy not a hardware guy.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I tried this device and did not like it. It buzzed. The Stello U2 at MSRP $350 is a better choice IMO.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    “…., I’d submit, there’s more to this hobby than merely plug & play ease. Both sides of the music coin must be seen for what it is. Prefferences on the one hand dictate some proclivity to pursue a particular type of sound. Disregard synergy of component integration during the assembly and one can easily find themselves in the “too much of a good thing” embrace. It’s about synergy too… and everything matters along the way. Money alone doesn’t insure all will be well in the end.”<br />

    <br />

    sq225917 & numerous others avowing some fault exists with the <br />

    review sample…<br />

    <br />

    with regard to the Hiface used in the review being substandard, I feel many of the notes from the above posters which indicated such, are spot on. It simply must be a wrong piece.<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    I had absolutely no input on how to install the device save for a thoughtful remark from another member who lent me the thing, of making sure to download the right driver off the web. I did. Plugged it in made the necessary changes in Windows, and never looked back! I endure even greater challenges than most people do and have only a scant but working knowledge of pcs from a self taught basis.<br />

    <br />

    The review makes no sense except to snub the thing outright. It also makes little sense to me, given the volume of overwhelmingly positive retorts from owners around the world as printed herein, that the sample itself was not seen as the possible culprit, and another unit acquired to ensure it all was sent in or bought straight out.<br />

    <br />

    As long as it took to ultimately jot down this condescending monologue , there sure was time to check that out as a possibility!<br />

    <br />

    Of course it could well have been, the actual integration of the unit and associated cabling/hardware were not optimized. But surely the setup at least mechanically was not synergistic based on the results Chris attained with his cabling…. And there was no mention of trying out other brands to see…. Over six months time, I think even I would have done that much if my experiences were so contrary to so many others.<br />

    .<br />

    As much as I am replete with immense gratitude for Chris, and ‘his’ website for gleaning me needed info and insights into all things personal confuser oriented and pertinent to higher performing audio from said resource, this account of the hiface in terms of it’s subjective content appears hurried, disdainful, and dismissive….. if it is not defective of course.<br />

    <br />

    If I were an uninitiated and prospective purchaser of some new more affordable gizmo, such as the Hiface… I’d have stopped reading after the first insinuation of “on paper” was made most likely. Naturally there were other mentions of hamstrung or unenjoyed listening sessions made even earlier on in this article prefacing the review And again, if the review sample was not found faulty, it carries a still darker message than how the unit fit one description by it’s author.<br />

    <br />

    Although I seldom perceive snobbery fueling reviews here on the CA pages, a mention of the ‘mob’ perspective was made and I find myself laughing at that part a little. Throughout upper end audio, which seems the destination CA strives for these days, Elitism, arrogance, or in an other word ‘snobery’ is rampant in audiophile circles. It seems the dirty little secret and status quo audiophiles and enthusiasts alike have to contend with and abide it, regularly. It maintains anything worth having in one’s audio arrangement MUST be costly. I find it quite pleasing when some slam dunk affordable ‘giant killer’ steps onto the scene and shakes the ‘Pillars of Audiophile heaven’ so vigorously that only discounting it and supporting those discounts by still more audiophiliac entrepreneurs & it’s devotees, and/or noteable design types, is the path to cast any new uh…. OK… I’l say it, ‘CHEAP’ high value high performance gizmo into some dimmer light than it deserves..<br />

    <br />

    Eg., “Yes, it’s good for what it is.”<br />

    <br />

    This eletist atmosphere is so thick as to be invisible, yet it resides within the minds of everyone who has spent any time whatsoever in it’s surroundings…. It rugbs off onto you after a while to one degree or another. Yet more stable minded sorts won’t say it does or act accordingly with prospective akin pursuits. It’s evident in nearly every reviewed printing of costly devices. Lesser fare is met with simple derision as the rule.<br />

    <br />

    If in fact the Hiface sample turns out to be without error, I am however indebted to find out I’m apparently deaf and no longer need to pursue or maintain my audio outfits and can have a yard sale and extinguish them forthright… ASAP…. Weather permitting, this weekend.<br />

    <br />

    I mention the actual writing was hurried as some areas weren’t disclosed or illuminated better….<br />

    <br />

    BTW… What exactly was the note made about the disparity from the M2Tech & Lynx? It was mentioned yet I see no follow up there or any actual substance about which one was received better or worse? Or even to any subjective degrees.<br />

    <br />

    BTW… which cable was ultimately used to connect the Hiface to the ?? DAC? RCA or BNC? Which model then, the Kimber monacle in both or just one case (s)?<br />

    <br />

    BTW…. Did any or all of these on board DAC used in the review, possess both or either the galvanic isolation prerequisite to the employ of the hiface as stated in the article, and/or were these DAC capable of handling the greater voltage present on the digital wire adequately? <br />

    <br />

    I use mine with a Bel Canto e one DAC III via BNC, and have experienced no such anomalies. Or so I think, as no errant sounds seep into what I hear coming out of my 93db efficient speakers…. And I use tubes as well in the preamplification and amplification stages.<br />

    <br />

    BTW… was a USB cable actually used to extend the Hiface converter away from the servers? Which one? How long was it?<br />

    <br />

    As contentious a topic as the use of this wire or that can be, it’s been demonstrated here and elsewhere, and to myself, again and again, wires do matter…. A peek deper into the review reference components would support just that. To not investigate the employ of other cables in order to ensure the best match was made, seems either outright silly, or an immense oversight.<br />

    <br />

    So I’m wondering why… for yet another time… no mention of which wire was used where… or if any attempts were made to utilize some other contestants given the written results were unpleasant. It seems that matter was entirely vanquished from the extended review period <br />

    <br />

    That said, I still find the overall cast or taste of the review to be reproachful. For example, you denigrate by further delving deeper into the actual history of a media player that is NOT generally intended for a novice user, and it’s evolving status being ‘unfriendly’ or ‘clunky’, or it’s need to be used with the Hiface at some quite earlier date and at some length. This seems both unjust and fuel for the witch hunt, this looks to be in the guise of a review. <br />

    <br />

    Even iTunes isn’t perfect and has it’s own problems and learning curve.<br />

    <br />

    Exacctly why so much time was devoted to addressing it confounds me. For pete’s sake… it’s a free app afterall. Free media players by and large are strewn about the web and all of them come with the implication use at your own risk… there is always a learning curve too. Regardless the support available online. I know for a fact between J River, which I’ve owned a few versions, and Fubar, Winamp (another free app supported by forums alone), ALL have user config issues repeatedly.<br />

    <br />

    I’ve posed Q’s here and elsewhere on the web, inclusive of the J River Forum page, to gain setup solutions I could not get at the actual J River site! You have to hurry with those querries too for when new iterations are issued, you’re just about left out in the cold in terms of support for some previous version… or such has been what I’ve seen during the past few years of ownership.<br />

    <br />

    To include such outdated and occasional info on only one of the soft players, merely serves to be offputting in general, and as ‘caveat emptor’ to the plug & play aficionado. Given such is not the case now, So what? <br />

    <br />

    The wood burning guitar was never as good as the steam powered guitar!<br />

    <br />

    Additionally, it’s use herein sets some new found precedent, so it should ALWAYS THEN BE A PART OF ANY FORTHCOMING articles of similar content… shouldn’t it? Do reveal notes on former releases of hard or software which were subpar in the past, going forward… please..<br />

    <br />

    So it needs be said again, FUBAR is not the only player a properly set up Hiface unit can be engaged with and yield exceptional results.<br />

    <br />

    As well, if some PC or MAC user has some issues choosing the appropriate driver to download, perhaps they should stick to a Blackberry, or Palm Pilot, or still better, just a cell phone.<br />

    <br />

    Being unaware of the scant number of people having troubles surrounding removal of the wrong driver once input, and the insights on how the installation process could be improved upon, and should, hopefully will keep things in proper perspective…. Although the mention of “the vast majority” did not have these problems came only as an “oh, by the way” afterthought buried much deeper into the article and carried much less weight as the result. By then of course, the bad seed was already planted.<br />

    <br />

    Chris… Exactly how many first offerings in the high end market place have been without fault? I dare say none. You should revisit the halide Bridge folks and recount their history too… along with So many other makers of hardware or software which are routinely faulty with fledgling first off, promotions. It’s so much more the exception than the rule that home runs are hit the first time at bat. To expect such a thing is folly and foolhardy.<br />

    <br />

    BTW… how many revisions, and updates has J River had thru it’s series of releases? What about itunes: Wavelength? Weiss? All of ‘em have revamped, revised, and released later on, better products…. Because they were remarkably more pricey, they remained under the wrathful radar?<br />

    <br />

    As long as new accessory or software for personal confusers are being made, there are going to be issues. Issues with proper confuser setup, AND with proper implementation of the intended audio accessory…. Even Wavelength Audio has put up setup tips for use of it’s products with regard to PC configuration. So Does Ayre, Bel Canto, and others. In spite of those assets I’d wager each is inundated still, with questions parallel to that info. None of these manufactuer pages are any less clearly marked than the Hiface driver selection page online. <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    To indicate some negativity on behalf of M2Tech’s product info and setup info online, was simply unnecessary and it promotes unwarranted trepidation towards the prospective Hiface buyer and it’s support arm. Further, to make note that ‘several’ users have had problems properly engaging the Hiface without such mentions about other currently reviewed software or hardware that graces these pages, is tantamount to saying ‘everything else reviewed here has had no such problems. It’s naive ’ at least, and disparaging at most. It implies a less than ideal onto the minds of the readers, and such is surely not the case in fact with using and configuring the hiface converter. It was superfluous and only added a grimmer countenance to the monologue.<br />

    <br />

    Chris, If you’re going to take some hardware or software reviewed here to task, I would submit you revisit the J River media Player and the vast number of people asking for support for that app is surely more wide spread and voluminous than are the folks seeking aid for their Hiface USB converters. 100’s of times over! Easily! Don’t even look into the litany of querries regarding iTunes!<br />

    <br />

    I use both Fubar & J River, and for my purposes am quite happy with them both. Yet neither were without some hair pulling sessions, and learning curves. In fact JR MC does not or did not, tell you bit true playback wasn’t going to happen unless you went out and found, and downloaded and installed some 3rd party Direct show plug in too. You find that part out only by investigating and researching deeper into the use of the app itself. ….and reading the pages of this website, for which I am eternally grateful.<br />

    <br />

    To promote the J River media player, you posted an in depth configuration of it with ‘7’… and still there were scads of querries following that article about configuration and setup right here on the CA pages!<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    I’d submit too, thoughts posted herein regarding the recview sample is/was a bad apple must be the thing accounting for such poor results and such a disparaging review in general... <br />

    <br />

    I submit that given my own experience with two different and unaltered hiface units. One RCA, and one BNC. Both units revealed different representations of the audio being replayed thru them. However, this noted replay was not so dramatically different in presentation that it begged me thingk two different items were in play. Only some subtleties and the actual tenor of the sound was diverse. Timberally the contrasting number of items were marginal. In fact they were quite close to each other completely. Only a few areas begged strickter attention be paid to them to discern any differentiation in their replays. I heard no night and day untoward changes, from one to the other.<br />

    <br />

    Apart from the main dissimilarities of interface types, ie., RCA/BNC, in no case though was the sound stage arrangement unrelated…. Only the feel of the music was altered. Images are/were solidly set. Ambient retrieval was plainly evident given it was as well within the recording (s). the Bandwidth of the music was intently handed out, but evenly so. … and all of this despite which RCA or BNC unit was being used. <br />

    <br />

    I did ultimately find that the COMBINATION of BNC Hiface + oyaide BNC silver digital cable proved out to be a far more synergistic situation. <br />

    <br />

    In no case was the presentation dark, and I submit that as a certainty, not a subjective account. Dark meaning muddy or murky, unclear or unresolute, dim. Sorry… but nope. Not dark. Brilliant depending on the digital cable or cable type at times, perhaps, but without definition? Sorry.. no sale. <br />

    <br />

    The RCA unit saw 3 different cables. Two stereovox (including the Ultra XV2) and one Esoteric cable. It was a quite articulate and detailed rendering in my system (s). although I did not find it fatiguing it was clearly at the upper edge of where resolution and detail can make for a more scientific than musical event.<br />

    <br />

    But then I am fortunate to have arranged a system which can reproduce highly articulated and resolute information in such a fashion that it remains quite musical and involving.<br />

    <br />

    Knowing this going in, the Hiface’s ability to convey the recorded music with immense clarity and heightened resolution, It still led me to buy the BNC version and yet another digital cable. This time a 1.3 M Oyiade silver cable to match the new BNC hiface converter. Be it the BNC interface.or IMHO, more so the Oyaide all silver wire, everything did an about face from overtly articulate and detailed, nearly clinical presentation, to one of palpable ease with higher fidelity, resolution and greater immediacy.. the whole of the musical presentation was prescribed an added smoothness and nuance without sacrificing details or leading edge significance. Neither were decays truncated or squelched. In short, all was made more the natural sounding affair than the artificial one, as represented by the RCA & poorly mated Stereovox digital cables.<br />

    <br />

    Only when, following my perusing of a hiface thread on another site, did I add or affix my M2tech unit to a USB cable rather than it’s usual direct input into the Tower/server’s 2.0 USB port. Then and only then with the 3ft USB cable did the presentation take on lackluster status. I then tried a few more USB wires I had laying around, and for the most part the results were the same… the sheen, the glow, the gleam was removed from the sound. It became flat and less vibrant.<br />

    <br />

    On this last item alone, I’d submit, there’s more to this hobby than merely plug & play ease. Both sides of the music coin must be seen for what it is. Prefferences on the one hand dictate some proclivity to pursue a particular type of sound. Disregard synergy of component integration during the assembly and one can easily find themselves in the “too much of a good thing” embrace. It’s about synergy too… and everything matters along the way. Money alone doesn’t insure all will be well in the end.<br />

    <br />

    The Hiface converter deserves a better shake than it’s received here…. That’s for sure. This review made me go back and listen to it once again to confirm the thoughts I’ve posted. I’ve also repositioned myself in so far as selling off my main system or scheduling an appointment with my audiologist. Those are now both postponed indefinitely.<br />

    <br />

    But it does bug me a lot to read something here which defies my own first hand experiences so dramatically. It’s like one of those Arsenio Hall bits… “it makes me say… Hmmmmmm? What’s up with all that!?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    <i>There were two posts nearly identical to this post. I unpublished the first one thinking the second was supposed to be an edit of the first instead of a complete new post. I can always republish the first one if there are any censorship concerns.</i> - Chris<br />

    <br />

     <br />

    <br />

    “…., I’d submit, there’s more to this hobby than merely plug & play ease. Both sides of the music coin must be seen for what it is. Prefferences on the one hand dictate some proclivity to pursue a particular type of sound. Disregard synergy of component integration during the assembly and one can easily find themselves in the “too much of a good thing” embrace. It’s about synergy too… and everything matters along the way. Money alone doesn’t insure all will be well in the end.”<br />

    <br />

    sq225917 & numerous others avowing some fault exists with the review sample…<br />

    with regard to the Hiface used in the review being substandard, I feel many of the notes from the above posters which indicated such, are spot on. It simply must be a wrong piece.<br />

    <br />

    I had absolutely no input on how to install the device save for a thoughtful remark from another member who lent me the thing, of making sure to download the right driver off the web. I did. Plugged it in made the necessary changes in Windows, and never looked back! I endure even greater challenges than most people do and have only a scant but working knowledge of pcs from a self taught basis.<br />

    <br />

    The review makes no sense except to snub the thing outright. It also makes little sense to me, given the volume of overwhelmingly positive retorts from owners around the world as printed herein, that the sample itself was not seen as the possible culprit, and another unit acquired to ensure it all was sent in or bought straight out.<br />

    <br />

    As long as it took to ultimately jot down this condescending monologue , there sure was time to check that out as a possibility!<br />

    <br />

    Of course it could well have been, the actual integration of the unit and associated cabling/hardware were not optimized. But surely the setup at least mechanically was not synergistic based on the results Chris attained with his cabling…. And there was no mention of trying out other brands to see…. Over six months time, I think even I would have done that much if my experiences were so contrary to so many others.<br />

    .<br />

    As much as I am replete with immense gratitude for Chris, and ‘his’ website for gleaning me needed info and insights into all things personal confuser oriented and pertinent to higher performing audio from said resource, this account of the hiface in terms of it’s subjective content appears hurried, disdainful, and dismissive….. if it is not defective of course.<br />

    <br />

    If I were an uninitiated and prospective purchaser of some new more affordable gizmo, such as the Hiface… I’d have stopped reading after the first insinuation of “on paper” was made most likely. Naturally there were other mentions of hamstrung or unenjoyed listening sessions made even earlier on in this article prefacing the review And again, if the review sample was not found faulty, it carries a still darker message than how the unit fit one description by it’s author.<br />

    <br />

    Although I seldom perceive snobbery fueling reviews here on the CA pages, a mention of the ‘mob’ perspective was made and I find myself laughing at that part a little. Throughout upper end audio, which seems the destination CA strives for these days, Elitism, arrogance, or in an other word ‘snobery’ is rampant in audiophile circles. It seems the dirty little secret and status quo audiophiles and enthusiasts alike have to contend with and abide it, regularly. It maintains anything worth having in one’s audio arrangement MUST be costly. I find it quite pleasing when some slam dunk affordable ‘giant killer’ steps onto the scene and shakes the ‘Pillars of Audiophile heaven’ so vigorously that only discounting it and supporting those discounts by still more audiophiliac entrepreneurs & it’s devotees, and/or noteable design types, is the path to cast any new uh…. OK… I’l say it, ‘CHEAP’ high value high performance gizmo into some dimmer light than it deserves..<br />

    <br />

    Eg., “Yes, it’s good for what it is.”<br />

    <br />

    This eletist atmosphere is so thick as to be invisible, yet it resides within the minds of everyone who has spent any time whatsoever in it’s surroundings…. It rugbs off onto you after a while to one degree or another. Yet more stable minded sorts won’t say it does or act accordingly with prospective akin pursuits. It’s evident in nearly every reviewed printing of costly devices. Lesser fare is met with simple derision as the rule.<br />

    <br />

    If in fact the Hiface sample turns out to be without error, I am however indebted to find out I’m apparently deaf and no longer need to pursue or maintain my audio outfits and can have a yard sale and extinguish them forthright… ASAP…. Weather permitting, this weekend.<br />

    <br />

    I mention the actual writing was hurried as some areas weren’t disclosed or illuminated better….<br />

    <br />

    BTW… What exactly was the note made about the disparity from the M2Tech & Lynx? It was mentioned yet I see no follow up there or any actual substance about which one was received better or worse? Or even to any subjective degrees.<br />

    <br />

    BTW… which cable was ultimately used to connect the Hiface to the ?? DAC? RCA or BNC? Which model then, the Kimber monacle in both or just one case (s)?<br />

    <br />

    BTW…. Did any or all of these on board DAC used in the review, possess both or either the galvanic isolation prerequisite to the employ of the hiface as stated in the article, and/or were these DAC capable of handling the greater voltage present on the digital wire adequately? <br />

    <br />

    I use mine with a Bel Canto e one DAC III via BNC, and have experienced no such anomalies. Or so I think, as no errant sounds seep into what I hear coming out of my 93db efficient speakers…. And I use tubes as well in the preamplification and amplification stages.<br />

    <br />

    BTW… was a USB cable actually used to extend the Hiface converter away from the servers? Which one? How long was it?<br />

    <br />

    As contentious a topic as the use of this wire or that can be, it’s been demonstrated here and elsewhere, and to myself, again and again, wires do matter…. A peek deper into the review reference components would support just that. To not investigate the employ of other cables in order to ensure the best match was made, seems either outright silly, or an immense oversight.<br />

    <br />

    So I’m wondering why… for yet another time… no mention of which wire was used where… or if any attempts were made to utilize some other contestants given the written results were unpleasant. It seems that matter was entirely vanquished from the extended review period <br />

    <br />

    That said, I still find the overall cast or taste of the review to be reproachful. For example, you denigrate by further delving deeper into the actual history of a media player that is NOT generally intended for a novice user, and it’s evolving status being ‘unfriendly’ or ‘clunky’, or it’s need to be used with the Hiface at some quite earlier date and at some length. This seems both unjust and fuel for the witch hunt, this looks to be in the guise of a review. <br />

    <br />

    Even iTunes isn’t perfect and has it’s own problems and learning curve.<br />

    <br />

    Exacctly why so much time was devoted to addressing it confounds me. For pete’s sake… it’s a free app afterall. Free media players by and large are strewn about the web and all of them come with the implication use at your own risk… there is always a learning curve too. Regardless the support available online. I know for a fact between J River, which I’ve owned a few versions, and Fubar, Winamp (another free app supported by forums alone), ALL have user config issues repeatedly.<br />

    <br />

    I’ve posed Q’s here and elsewhere on the web, inclusive of the J River Forum page, to gain setup solutions I could not get at the actual J River site! You have to hurry with those querries too for when new iterations are issued, you’re just about left out in the cold in terms of support for some previous version… or such has been what I’ve seen during the past few years of ownership.<br />

    <br />

    To include such outdated and occasional info on only one of the soft players, merely serves to be offputting in general, and as ‘caveat emptor’ to the plug & play aficionado. Given such is not the case now, So what? <br />

    <br />

    The wood burning guitar was never as good as the steam powered guitar!<br />

    <br />

    Additionally, it’s use herein sets some new found precedent, so it should ALWAYS THEN BE A PART OF ANY FORTHCOMING articles of similar content… shouldn’t it? Do reveal notes on former releases of hard or software which were subpar in the past, going forward… please..<br />

    <br />

    So it needs be said again, FUBAR is not the only player a properly set up Hiface unit can be engaged with and yield exceptional results.<br />

    <br />

    As well, if some PC or MAC user has some issues choosing the appropriate driver to download, perhaps they should stick to a Blackberry, or Palm Pilot, or still better, just a cell phone.<br />

    <br />

    Being unaware of the scant number of people having troubles surrounding removal of the wrong driver once input, and the insights on how the installation process could be improved upon, and should, hopefully will keep things in proper perspective…. Although the mention of “the vast majority” did not have these problems came only as an “oh, by the way” afterthought buried much deeper into the article and carried much less weight as the result. By then of course, the bad seed was already planted.<br />

    <br />

    Chris… Exactly how many first offerings in the high end market place have been without fault? I dare say none. You should revisit the halide Bridge folks and recount their history too… along with So many other makers of hardware or software which are routinely faulty with fledgling first off, promotions. It’s so much more the exception than the rule that home runs are hit the first time at bat. To expect such a thing is folly and foolhardy.<br />

    <br />

    BTW… how many revisions, and updates has J River had thru it’s series of releases? What about itunes: Wavelength? Weiss? All of ‘em have revamped, revised, and released later on, better products…. Because they were remarkably more pricey, they remained under the wrathful radar?<br />

    <br />

    As long as new accessory or software for personal confusers are being made, there are going to be issues. Issues with proper confuser setup, AND with proper implementation of the intended audio accessory…. Even Wavelength Audio has put up setup tips for use of it’s products with regard to PC configuration. So Does Ayre, Bel Canto, and others. In spite of those assets I’d wager each is inundated still, with questions parallel to that info. None of these manufactuer pages are any less clearly marked than the Hiface driver selection page online. <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    To indicate some negativity on behalf of M2Tech’s product info and setup info online, was simply unnecessary and it promotes unwarranted trepidation towards the prospective Hiface buyer and it’s support arm. Further, to make note that ‘several’ users have had problems properly engaging the Hiface without such mentions about other currently reviewed software or hardware that graces these pages, is tantamount to saying ‘everything else reviewed here has had no such problems. It’s naive ’ at least, and disparaging at most. It implies a less than ideal onto the minds of the readers, and such is surely not the case in fact with using and configuring the hiface converter. It was superfluous and only added a grimmer countenance to the monologue.<br />

    <br />

    Chris, If you’re going to take some hardware or software reviewed here to task, I would submit you revisit the J River media Player and the vast number of people asking for support for that app is surely more wide spread and voluminous than are the folks seeking aid for their Hiface USB converters. 100’s of times over! Easily! Don’t even look into the litany of querries regarding iTunes!<br />

    <br />

    I use both Fubar & J River, and for my purposes am quite happy with them both. Yet neither were without some hair pulling sessions, and learning curves. In fact JR MC does not or did not, tell you bit true playback wasn’t going to happen unless you went out and found, and downloaded and installed some 3rd party Direct show plug in too. You find that part out only by investigating and researching deeper into the use of the app itself. ….and reading the pages of this website, for which I am eternally grateful.<br />

    <br />

    To promote the J River media player, you posted an in depth configuration of it with ‘7’… and still there were scads of querries following that article about configuration and setup right here on the CA pages!<br />

    <br />

    <br />

    I’d submit too, thoughts posted herein regarding the recview sample is/was a bad apple must be the thing accounting for such poor results and such a disparaging review in general... <br />

    <br />

    I submit that given my own experience with two different and unaltered hiface units. One RCA, and one BNC. Both units revealed different representations of the audio being replayed thru them. However, this noted replay was not so dramatically different in presentation that it begged me thingk two different items were in play. Only some subtleties and the actual tenor of the sound was diverse. Timberally the contrasting number of items were marginal. In fact they were quite close to each other completely. Only a few areas begged strickter attention be paid to them to discern any differentiation in their replays. I heard no night and day untoward changes, from one to the other.<br />

    <br />

    Apart from the main dissimilarities of interface types, ie., RCA/BNC, in no case though was the sound stage arrangement unrelated…. Only the feel of the music was altered. Images are/were solidly set. Ambient retrieval was plainly evident given it was as well within the recording (s). the Bandwidth of the music was intently handed out, but evenly so. … and all of this despite which RCA or BNC unit was being used. <br />

    <br />

    I did ultimately find that the COMBINATION of BNC Hiface + oyaide BNC silver digital cable proved out to be a far more synergistic situation. <br />

    <br />

    In no case was the presentation dark, and I submit that as a certainty, not a subjective account. Dark meaning muddy or murky, unclear or unresolute, dim. Sorry… but nope. Not dark. Brilliant depending on the digital cable or cable type at times, perhaps, but without definition? Sorry.. no sale. <br />

    <br />

    The RCA unit saw 3 different cables. Two stereovox (including the Ultra XV2) and one Esoteric cable. It was a quite articulate and detailed rendering in my system (s). although I did not find it fatiguing it was clearly at the upper edge of where resolution and detail can make for a more scientific than musical event.<br />

    <br />

    But then I am fortunate to have arranged a system which can reproduce highly articulated and resolute information in such a fashion that it remains quite musical and involving.<br />

    <br />

    Knowing this going in, the Hiface’s ability to convey the recorded music with immense clarity and heightened resolution, It still led me to buy the BNC version and yet another digital cable. This time a 1.3 M Oyiade silver cable to match the new BNC hiface converter. Be it the BNC interface.or IMHO, more so the Oyaide all silver wire, everything did an about face from overtly articulate and detailed, nearly clinical presentation, to one of palpable ease with higher fidelity, resolution and greater immediacy.. the whole of the musical presentation was prescribed an added smoothness and nuance without sacrificing details or leading edge significance. Neither were decays truncated or squelched. In short, all was made more the natural sounding affair than the artificial one, as represented by the RCA & poorly mated Stereovox digital cables.<br />

    <br />

    Only when, following my perusing of a hiface thread on another site, did I add or affix my M2tech unit to a USB cable rather than it’s usual direct input into the Tower/server’s 2.0 USB port. Then and only then with the 3ft USB cable did the presentation take on lackluster status. I then tried a few more USB wires I had laying around, and for the most part the results were the same… the sheen, the glow, the gleam was removed from the sound. It became flat and less vibrant.<br />

    <br />

    On this last item alone, I’d submit, there’s more to this hobby than merely plug & play ease. Both sides of the music coin must be seen for what it is. Prefferences on the one hand dictate some proclivity to pursue a particular type of sound. Disregard synergy of component integration during the assembly and one can easily find themselves in the “too much of a good thing” embrace. It’s about synergy too… and everything matters along the way. Money alone doesn’t insure all will be well in the end.<br />

    <br />

    The Hiface converter deserves a better shake than it’s received here…. That’s for sure. This review made me go back and listen to it once again to confirm the thoughts I’ve posted. I’ve also repositioned myself in so far as selling off my main system or scheduling an appointment with my audiologist. Those are now both postponed indefinitely.<br />

    <br />

    But it does bug me a lot to read something here which defies my own first hand experiences so dramatically. It’s like one of those Arsenio Hall bits… “it makes me say… Hmmmmmm? What’s up with all that!?<br />

    <br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    respectfully, have you made the comparisons that Chris has made? Have you directly compared the Hiface to the Halide Designs bridge? Or to a Lynx card?<br />

    The perspective I came away with from Chris' review was that the Hiface offers good sonic performance, especially considering the price, and that it would be a good upgrade for those who currently use a DAC with a poor USB interface (adaptive) or the optical digital output from a Mac. But, that other interfaces do outperform it. I trust that Chris honestly reported his findings, in his system. As to whether the device was actually flawed, well this is not really Chris' responsibility to sort out-if a manufacturer is actually knowingly distributing flawed products (I have not heard of a recall of the Hiface devices that purportedly have been shipped with the wrong clock modules) then the manufacturer needs to take care of the problem. It is likely that Chris was provided a sample for review by the US distributor of the device, as such, it is the distributor's job to be sure that they send out working samples for review, it is not the reviewer's responsibility to assume something is malfunctioning.<br />

    I respect Chris' review of the Hiface; way too many reviewers these days shy away from publishing any comment that could been seen as negative, especially if their observations might be somewhat contrary to popular opinion.<br />

    The Hiface is a cool little device, though obviously it has some technical flaws, and some design compromises were made to offer it at a moderate price, and in a small form factor. The mere existence of the higher performing and more expensive Hiface Evo offers strong evidence that the Hiface is what it is: a low cost, compact, decent sounding USB to SPDIF converter. That there are better USB-SPDIF converters available should not be considered "elitism, arrogance, (or)... snobbery".

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Wow, I never expected such freely expressed views to be posted on this forum - it's very refreshing! I thought I was in a very closed club which had a particular mind-set & anybody not agreeing with this mindset was not welcome. Now I find you, a champion of democratic audio - right on brother (I mean that sincerely - this is not a send-up). I too am sick to death of audio snobbery & elitism & the stultifying mindset that is part & parcel of this attitude.<br />

    <br />

    You may be correct that this is what's on display here in this review - it certainly seems to have been tossed to one side as inconsequential. <br />

    <br />

    I posted a factual correction of the review a while back but I see no correction was made or my post responded to - there are only 2 DCDC converters in the unit, not three as stated in the review - I know it's not a big deal but it does point to a sloppy attention to detail, as you stated - it's kind of easy to see that there are only two DCDC converters & 6 months is a long time to not notice!<br />

    <br />

    Anyway, I applaud your post which took me by surprise & think you may have hit the nail on the head. Of course I will be discounted as I have a vested interest in the Hiface. Yes I do, but I also have an interest in great audio which isn't elitist & costly - that's why I first got interested in the Hiface & that's why I suggested the RF attenuators - at $12 these are the best cable investment you will ever make!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm sure Jim will answer the points you raised but I think the crucial point that he made was, given that Chris's impression of the Hiface was so out of kilter with the majority of feedback on it, would he not have contacted the distributor to enquire about this & get another unit? No mention was made of this in the review. Of course, speculation about this could be avoided by Chris himself posting a reply.<br />

    <br />

    One thing I would respectfully like to correct is your statement "I have not heard of a recall of the Hiface devices that purportedly have been shipped with the wrong clock modules" This an incorrect summary of the thread over on head-fi which I presume you are referring to. There is no "wrong clock" & this is a gross distortion. If you read that thread, there are 3 people who claim to hear a big difference between a Hiface with small clock Vs one with larger clock. Hardly a basis for a product recall, I would purport. The posts say that it sounds worse than a $50 soundcard. I don't hear the clamour of other people reporting this, do you? <br />

    <br />

    If you haven't read the thread then you are simply engaging in gossip, rumour & Chinese whispers; if you have then you are grossly distorting the thread. Respectfully, I don't think this warrants your statement above & I wonder why you mentioned it?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "I'm sure Jim will answer the points you raised but I think the crucial point that he made was, given that Chris's impression of the Hiface was so out of kilter with the majority of feedback on it"<br />

    <br />

    I guess I did not find Chris's review to be that far off from the majority of feedback on it. I do not think Chris's review said the Hiface was "bad", he just pointed out that in comparison to some competing (but admittedly more expensive) products it fell short. My point of view is that the Hiface has some technical flaws (out of spec SPDIF output) and compromises (power supplies) that do not allow it to reach the sonic performance of devices like the Halide Designs bridge. I think these same flaws and compromises are why you mod the Hiface, and use the attenuators, to improve its performance.<br />

    <br />

    Thanks for pointing out the facts re the clock situation, I read in another posters comments on this thread, that there was a batch of Hifaces shipped with incorrect clocks. From that post I got idea that these "wrong" clocks were not wrong frequency per se, but were not of the same quality level of the usual clocks. If that is not the case I stand corrected.<br />

    <br />

    In any case, I still maintain that it is not a reviewer's resposibility to confirm that a product submitted for review is functioning properly (outside of gross malfunctions). This is the responsibility of the manufacturer/distributor that provides the review sample. I formerly worked for an audio company, and one of my responsibilities was to furnish products and information to reviewers for review-I always made sure that samples sent for review were functioning properly, were at least partially burned in, and were listen tested before submission.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well I’m glad we live in a world wherein we can agree to disagree now and then.<br />

    <br />

    As much and as often as I went over my verbose post/comment prior to it’s posting, I've left something in question it seems and I’d like to try to make for a better understanding of it.<br />

    <br />

    My mention of the atmosphere surrounding audiophile interests is so pervasive it can’t help but enter into many written articles which attempt to convey accurate sentiments on the latest this or that… it’s a predisposing attitude and lives well under the radar within each of us to some degree…. More or less. Given the holes I pointed to in the review Chris penned here, I made an assumption I feel is more right than wrong…. So that’s my take. Nothing more. It’s also a predisposed one, yet based on my own quite different appraisal of the same gizmo sans alteration, in several systems using several cables, and OS… it raised both eyebrows during it’s reading.<br />

    <br />

    For example… if you own a $10K preamp, and are out seeking some change…. Would you seriously investigate one costing $2K? how about $3K or $5K? probably not so much, right? That’s what I’m talking about when I mention the “atmosphere of audio arrogance or eletism”.<br />

    <br />

    We all get it sooner or later, to some degree.<br />

    <br />

    I do feel it’s tuff to substantiate one product, for example, the halide design Bridge against the Hiface, given the HDB was glowingly reviewed already right here and placed into some premium status. Another rival product which can be less or even more costly, depending on the cabling in use, should then be seen as something less well received if indeed any allegiance or former account is to reamin ‘as’ valid. Or perhaps as importantly, not step onto any toes.<br />

    <br />

    ….unless…. unless… the object is to reside in a position of pure integrity and keep it well beyond reproach. This is I’m sure the direction going in for anyone… but it will limit those devices comings and goings pretty soon. Unless as with other online and press publications, the ‘less than gear’ gets no press at all and is summarily returned as graciously as it was received.<br />

    <br />

    Everyone has feelings… it’s what makes us who we are. I’d be prone to submitting a more diplomatic dissertation on a ‘poorly found out’ thing at times, if I didn’t want to ware out my welcome or develop a rep for being ungrateful for some manufacturer’s graceful effort, or further some accommodation. Pro reviewing IMHO, makes one tread a finer line, than do user or owner, reviews as a rule. It is what it is. Makers read the articles on their products too, ya know. Some makers carry more weight or have more widespread influence than do others too. Diplomacy and thoroughness, as wewlll as honesty MUST remain unimpeachable. That is a two edged sword at times…. I am sure of it. .<br />

    <br />

    It’s also a highly subjective assignment to any review as to it’s authors intent…. Yet it remains an underlying specter all pro reviews innocently enough, plant into the minds of the more sophisticated readers. It’s as well, perhaps a foregone issue often overlooked by them too. <br />

    <br />

    I didn’t feel Chris’ article was overtly infused or embedded with Arrogance, or elitism, per se. I felt it merely hurried and disconnected. I offered up this former notion of mine as why this review seemed to be tainted to some degree and deliberated on those points of contention at some length in my earlier post.<br />

    <br />

    Eg., Synergy, cabling, integration, no duplicate model to ensure proper performance, etc. There was time enough.<br />

    <br />

    Barrows, <br />

    I do agree were I the distributor or maker of a thing I wanted someone to reveal it’s ups and downs publicly, I’d have ensured it to be a good ‘un! A very good ‘un!!<br />

    <br />

    No, I’ve not done any measurements aside of those which my own ears gain for me. Numbers alone don’t typically tell anyone what some audio component is going to sound like… one has to use it to find out the Paul Harvey by line “the rest of the story” for themselves. Always. I’ve seen some poor measured items which explain themselves very well when in actual use.<br />

    <br />

    It seems I’m now almost forced to seek out a halide Design Bridge, weather and life permitting, ASAP, and find out for myself, IF the accounts listed here are factual. I’d not planned on it, nor considered it at all, but it seems I’m forced to now look into it a bit more.<br />

    <br />

    If anyone wishes to loan me one I’ll pay for the shipping expenses both ways.<br />

    <br />

    As for the Lynx card vaunted history, I’ve asked more times than I can recall about it’s added influence to an already in place computer based music system, and come up desperately empty each and every time!! Even though it’s often referred to here as a reference component which so many associated items are contrasted too time and again!! The Lynx AES 16 express card goes without a subjectively written remarks section.<br />

    <br />

    It’s on the CACHE list yet has no review of it’s own supporting it’s status. Forgive me, but somehow I find that odd. <br />

    <br />

    I was in fact about to buy one when I was apprised of the Hiface by another member who loaned me his RCA unit to try out. Thereafter buying the Lynx card became moot. <br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "I do feel it’s tuff to substantiate one product, for example, the halide design Bridge against the Hiface, given the HDB was glowingly reviewed already right here and placed into some premium status. Another rival product which can be less or even more costly, depending on the cabling in use, should then be seen as something less well received if indeed any allegiance or former account is to reamin ‘as’ valid. Or perhaps as importantly, not step onto any toes."<br />

    <br />

    It appears somewhat "arrogant" on your part to insinuate that the above quote reflects how Chris was operating during his review of the Hiface, especially considering that you have not made the comparison in question here, and Chris has.<br />

    <br />

    I agree that all listening has a subjective element to it, as does the appreciation of music in general. Anyone who takes a single review as the be all and end all of a given product is likely doing that product a disservice, whether in favor or disfavor of the product.<br />

    <br />

    The Halide Designs bridge has a no questions asked return policy if you would like to audition one, you are free to do so with only a very small financial risk (shipping costs). If you do make this comparison, I would love to hear about your listening experiences.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Hi Jim - Thanks for sharing your opinions about the hiFace, the review, the site, etc... I disagree with nearly all of your comments but such is life. I can't please everyone all the time and I certainly won't suggest your opinions are wrong. <br />

    <br />

    One point I want to address is the mention of snobbery, elitism, and arrogance. There is no place for snobbery, elitism, or arrogance here at Computer Audiophile. Those who've briefly met me, spent time with me, or attended one of my seminars can attest to my lack of snobbery, elitism, and arrogance. Listen Up recorded two of my seminars from the Digital Music Matters events last week. I hope the videos will make it to the Listen Up website for everyone see or hear. On the videos it should be easy to see or hear that I'm as far from a snob as one can get. In fact, I frequently joke with colleagues about some of the snobby people in the industry. <br />

    <br />

    <br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It's just a review. How is this such a sore spot? You'd think he posted a pic of the hiface and wrote: 'it sucked'.<br />

    <br />

    And people wonder why published audio reviews are so vague, wordy, with nothing negative. It's because of responses like these. <br />

    <br />

    Crazy.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ..because people have 180 degrees opposite view on this device.<br />

    For 150$ RCA or 180$ BNC it is not just "crazy" value for money, it is much more.. It allows now many people to build computer-based playback with ease..that will 'beat' many CD costing $$$$<br />

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As I said, I don't believe that 3 posters claims on that thread is sufficient as a basis for repeating the claim.<br />

    <br />

    As regards the power supplies, I believe any digital audio device that uses USB power as the foundation of it's power is compromised - this includes the Halide Bridge.<br />

    <br />

    The purpose of my use of attenuators is not to bring the SPDIF signal down as in most cases DACs are quiet happy with high SPDIF signal level (in fact the commonly found CS84** SPDIF receivers prefer a higher SPDIF signal) - the purpose of the attenuators is to reduce reflections/jitter on the SPDIF line. These can be used on any SPDIF line once the SPDIF signal isn't reduced below what the SPDIF receiver can work with. In a recent meeting a 6dB one was used on a Squuezebox digital out to great effect (a 10dB was too much and SPDIF lock was not achieved by the DAC). <br />

    <br />

    So you see it has nothing to do with a high SPDIF signal being a problem. It just so happens that on the Hiface a higher dB attenuator can be used because of the higher SPDIF out & this affords a higher reduction of reflections.<br />

    <br />

    I hope this explains these issues? <br />

    <br />

    Jim, as I have said before a professional review of stock, modified Hiface, Evo, Halide Bridge & audiophileo is due out very soon so another voice/opinion should be available shortly. I also believe Dave Clarke from PFO & poster here is doing a round-up of all these devices but this is a bit further away to being finalised.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "The transmitter in the HiFace always sends 48 kHz sample rate information in the Status Bits, no matter what sample rate is really playing."<br />

    <br />

    We found out this is a "feature" of a certain TI chip. Undocumented, of course. How they managed to do this, and why, is still a mystery. (Changing from "Consumer" mode, to <br />

    "Pro" mode, causes it to do something equally strange. The way the bits are arranged in the channel status block are different, between the 2 modes.)<br />

    <br />

    We solved the problem (with a tip of the hat to Gordon Rankin, who said "Hey, this may sound stupid, but what if you.............."). So, there you have it: some inside trivia on what the hold-up has been.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "Why does everyone just want to ask for one number, to characterize the jitter of a device? The field of jitter is too complex to be explained with only one number."<br />

    <br />

    Because it looks good, in print, and takes no knowledge to comprehend. Also, does not require the person making the measurement to have the right equipment, or comprehension, to do it right.<br />

    <br />

    Without the context of amplitude, spectral content, and possibly more important: Gaussian or correlated, it is just a meaningless number. Some are more meaningless than others.<br />

    <br />

    It also helps to know what the frequency at which the jitter is measured. Jitter numbers that are good at 44 kHz (word clock) are horrible at 11.2896 MHz (256x word clock, or bit clock, in a lot of units.)<br />

    <br />

    And there is one last problem...........<br />

    <br />

    What is the measurement limits, of the equipment used? Insufficient, in a lot of cases.<br />

    <br />

    OK, I'll shut up, now.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    There are allowances made everywhere for differing views, but I've honestly not seen many here in this thread.<br />

    <br />

    Very few of the posters have stated that they compared the M2Tech to other components listed here and found it wanting, which is what Chris did.<br />

    <br />

    A modifier with a financially vested interest in the sound of the device has defended his modifications, but they weren't up for review. Others have questioned the fitness of the unit itself, but they could only compare their impression of the device itself to Chris' impression, by and large. <br />

    <br />

    While there is indeed a lengthy thread on Head-Fi debating the merits of different specs of this seemingly fungible device, I am not inclined to place too much stock in it. Head-Fi is rank with such speculation about every product, and so often this turns out to be more a bugaboo than a substantive change. In short, a head-fi thread is nowhere near enough proof to me that something is amiss with Chris' device. If M2Tech feels otherwise, they will send him another sample -- until then, I think we should let that speculation die as unsubstantiated to the extreme. I use the same username on head-fi as I do here, for bonafides of my "been around the block" status over there.<br />

    <br />

    This product may well be revolutionary at its price point, but that does not mean it can't be bettered. If someone is arguing that it is indeed unbeatable, or that these other devices are not the improvement Chris purports them to be, then they should speak up. That would be actual 180 degree disagreement. What we've got here in this thread is defense, not 180 degree opposite views.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I had the chance to compare the Halide Bridge to a 'Hiface' recently, my thoughts were diametrically opposite Chris' , in my system I found the Bridge soft and diffuse bass in particular was disappointing.<br />

    In the UK the Bridge would be three and a half times more expensive than the hiface ,I would have happily stocked it,if I believed it offered an improvement.<br />

    Purite Audio represent M2Tech in the UK.<br />

    Keith.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Promised I would shut up, but then I read this:<br />

    <br />

    "The HiFace has a far too high digital output voltage, why should Chris mod this with a 75 Ohm voltage divider, because this is a fault from M2Tech. Sure it would also be good, if a DAC does have a good handling capability of this high voltage, and I do know some DACs, that can handle very well over 10 Volt on the SPDIF input, but first, M2Tech is responsible to be not compatible with the level."<br />

    <br />

    This is called "We just did what they told us to do, in the data sheet." Which is why most of us know better than to trust what is in the data sheet.<br />

    <br />

    I can think of worse examples, of gross overdrive, by companies held in higher esteem, than these people. Who also charge a helluva lot more. So, keep that in mind, if you want to skewer them. (Said unit also had DC offset!)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    <cite><br />

    I am only aware of three people in the UK who I know have made the comparison, ( I am sure there must be more )I would be interested to hear from any others?<br />

    Keith.<br />

    </cite><br />

    I own the Halide Bridge since June, and I recently compared it against a Hiface (on loan from an Italian friend)<br />

    <br />

    The difference was quite obvious in my setup (I listen only through headphones): the Halide has a more natural sound, less emphasys in the higher frequencies and a darker background. <br />

    <br />

    The Hiface has a wow effect due to its bright treble, it seems to have a better detail retrieval, but has a higher listening fatigue. The soundstage on the Hiface seems a little wider, but the instruments position is less precise, and with complex music (a Mahler's symphony for example) the scene simply collapses and gets congested.<br />

    <br />

    Another strong point of the Halide is the bass frequencies, considerably more present and tighter.<br />

    <br />

    Use hi-res files and the difference gets bigger and bigger, the hiface is almost unlisteneable to my ears, actually similar to the toslink into the DAC.<br />

    <br />

    This is the comparison on my Mac mini setup (unfortunately the Hiface will not work on Linux). <br />

    With my Linux box (ubuntu and MPD) the sound is even better (every parameters).<br />

    <br />

    But, on my Windows XP laptop the difference between the two interfaces is smaller...don't ask me why :-)

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think what has incensed some people is the obvious disparity in the price of comparisons used. The Halide Bridge is the same price as the Hiface Evo, not the basic unit, I don't think anyone expects the Hiface basic to better all items of significantly greater cost. <br />

    <br />

    The fact that it has done so with many popular converters and DACs is why people bought it. The fact it is bettered by newer designs is probably why Marco updated it.<br />

    <br />

    I look at the price of many components, the Halide bridge and the $900 Wavelength converter included, and think WTF? $450 and $900 for something that does what the Hiface does, what are they smoking.<br />

    <br />

    I'm sure many readers look forward to trialling the Hiface Evo for themselves to see if it represents the same value for money and quality vs competitors as the original Hiface did- maybe that's the terms the review should have been couched in, rather than pitting an already superseded design against current, more expensive references.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    There's an obvious difference in price, but the Halide doesn't need any digital cable, and a good digital cable is more than $100 (if you're a believer). <br />

    Buy a couple of them and you'll end up spending more!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "There's an obvious difference in price, but the Halide doesn't need any digital cable, and a good digital cable is more than $100 (if you're a believer).<br />

    Buy a couple of them and you'll end up spending more!"<br />

    <br />

    Use a $12 RF attenuator & you can use a standard SPDIF cable, no need for $100 cables!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments




×
×
  • Create New...