Article: M2Tech hiFace Asynchronous USB To S/PDIF Converter Review

[Audio_ELF]

Chris ... one thing you have missed is how the HiFace sounds into a more modest DAC which is it more likely to be combined with. You mentioned the sound compared with other devices into Berkeley Alpha, Weiss DAC202 and Esoteric D-07 but these are all multi-thousand dollar DACs - but what about more real-world, comparable devices?<br />

<br />

If I've bought a £350 DAC, I'm not going to spend another £300 on a converter (Halide Bridge) but I might spend another £100. Even with a £1500 DAC such as Benchmark I may be reluctant to spend £350 on the Halide but £100 on the M2Tech would be more pocketable. How do they compare in these circumstances? Will the HiFace be a great device for bringing DACs from the 90's into 21st Century for computer use at a great cost ... I think the answer there is yes with a lot of DACs and will give some great bargains of DACs without good computer interfaces.<br />

<br />

Yes the ultimate performance of any device is important, but more important is its performance in a real-world likely system. To use another example... would expect a Arcam rDAC's performance to be the limiting factor in a Naim NAC552 / NAP500 system for instance, but in a NAC112XS / NAP150XS system it might suit perfectly.<br />

<br />

Actually Chris, overall I think your comments do follow what I've read elsewhere ... for £100 / $150 the M2Tech HiFace is stonking good value, but if you want to get the ultimate performance there are better devices. Now whether it's worth the $850 price rise to the WaveLength WaveLink, $350 to the Halide Bridge or £800 to the Weiss INT202 for examples (sorry for my mixed UK/US pricing there) is something dependent on the DAC used and your personal opinion.<br />

<br />

Eloise

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Eloise - Good points, thanks for the input.

[Audio_ELF]

PS. Did you try the HiFace with a back to back RCA connector and a USB extension cable as an alternative to HiFace into USB port and longer RCA digital cable?

[theotherkiwi]

Thanks for the great review, the perspective was a good one and the comments added value. An excellent post, thanks all. <br />

<br />

My view is that this device seems well suited to it's price point unless you can afford more and have a suitable system that matches<br />

<br />

:-)

[Lowlands]

Chris,<br />

<br />

Thanks for the review!<br />

The fact that you compare it to far more expensive (all a-sync)designs might be considdered praise for starters... <br />

<br />

I do agree with Eloise there's a lot of context & perspective in valueing a $150 device. On a related note.. If respected DACs (Bryston BDA1 / AR DAC7, Benchmark) carry USB inputs, that ARE bettered by this 'dongle' (I understand I might be assuming things, based on hype.. :-) ) .. what does that say about the rationale of buying a HiFace for such a DAC..?<br />

<br />

What a nice hobby this is... Wonder how that EVO would sound on my BADA...<br />

<br />

Hans

[jonmarsh]

as Eloise put it, is a good turn of phrase describing the Hiface; I've run it into an Antelope DA into my BADA, but with the trade in program offered in the US, it's been returned and an EVO paid for, as that will likely deliver performance similar to the modded standard Hiface (batteries or regulators) but with much more connectivity. <br />

<br />

The BADA does seem to be fairly sensitive to quality of incoming data stream, and depending on the type of material you listen to (RB or HD), spending some dollars on a good interface is a necessary investment. If you're only into RB, then one of the good 44.1 solutions will suffice, but for hi-rez, a few more coins will be needed. I expect the Wavelink will be rather good and well sorted, but it wasn't released by the time I ordered my Evo, and for the most part, I'm not worried....<br />

<br />

~Jon

[Erwin S]

"The last thing computer based audio needs to deliver is frustration to end users."<br />

<br />

Chris,<br />

I am rolling under the table! Computer = frustration! For mortals like me anyway. Glad that Mac's have the added choice for the optical Toslink for mid-price (free of headache) devices and the FireWire for high end connections...<br />

<br />

OT:<br />

Thanks anyone who enlightened me in search of my ultimate system. The Weiss DAC2 is very good, and I have not even tried the FireWire!

[ted_b]

but the device has brought HiRez to the many folks with average DACS, who couldn't get the right connectivity up till now.<br />

<br />

My HiRez Circle on Audio Circle has an 11 page HiFace thread that has morphed into a DIY mod discussion, complete with adapters, attenuators and outboard power supplies. The results are pretty satisfactory for the modders, and all is accomplished for little $$. Feel free to peruse.

[chilest]

Chris:<br />

Thanks for an objective (& honest) assessment of the M2 HiFace interface. Your review is one of many reasons why Computer Audiophile is the best informed source (outpacing the major print magazines and other web sites) for current and cutting-edge information on computer audio. <br />

<br />

I hope you are planning reviews of the new Wavelink USB and the Weiss INT202 Firewire interface in the near future. <br />

<br />

Tom<br />

[Audio_ELF]

I think we have to remember the context into which M2Tech launched the HiFace.<br />

<br />

USB (and FireWire) to SPDIF devices were pretty limited back then (still are a bit). There were audiophile devices such as the BelCanto which while they did a job, were still adaptive and not a huge improvement on the USB interface provided by TI with their PCM2704 and similar chips utilised by most DACs. Then there were the "pro-audio" devices - everything from M-Audio Transit right through to Weiss AFI1. Either they were limited in sound quality or very expensive.<br />

<br />

Your alternative was a PCI/PCIe card which limited you to full sized computers, or to use digital output built into the motherboard.<br />

<br />

Then along came the M2Tech HiFace, budget priced $150/£100 while providing good quality sound. Yes it's pretty basic, but it does what it set out to well. Compared with more expensive devices it's limited, but it allowed people with older non-computer-enabled DACs or those with limited capability DACs access to high resolution audio from their computer with no need to open cases or mess around too much, or spend too much money.<br />

<br />

So yes it was hyped, but if you keep in mind the cost, much of the hype IS based in reality.<br />

<br />

Eloise

[blueixus]

Chris, great review but why now?<br />

<br />

The Hiface has been with us for over a year which in this business is an eternity!<br />

<br />

I agree with Eloise that the Hiface brought many people into Computer Audio due to it's incredible (and still today) price performance ratio.<br />

<br />

It merits a place in the Computer Audio Hall Of Fame, as even today, nothing offers the same bang for the buck/pound/euro and low entry price.<br />

<br />

Sure, I have heard it bettered (The Weiss Int 202 etc) but I am using one presently with an decent spec Audio Note Dac and it sings. Point being I think it does suit some Dacs better than others.<br />

<br />

I think it easily earned it's hype, and here is another reason:<br />

<br />

It seems to be available everywhere. <br />

<br />

Many American Manufacturers treat Europe like an afterthought making it difficult to try/evaluate their products - I think The Bridge is here just now, for some reason Wavelenth Audio are only in Poland etc etc.<br />

<br />

So well done M2Tech for producing a game changing product AND letting everyone get their hands on it. <br />

<br />

Meraviglioso! <br />

<br />

[kamil]

Could it be that the tested Hiface was faulty?<br />

<br />

1) The jitter measurements look very different from what was measured by Audiophilleo. You measured about 1.2ns peak and they measured 175ps peak. Or is it just the different measurement technique that I'm ignorant about?<br />

<br />

http://www.audiophilleo.com/comparison.aspx<br />

<br />

2) Bad batch of crystals, see this post.<br />

<br />

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/503323/hiface-sensitive-information

[mikemercer]

Nice job Chris!<br />

<br />

Solid reporting as always. I love seeing what engineers are doing these days with less money. As you stated; audiophiles who are accustomed to spending TONS of money for small increases in performance should be psyched about alot of these more affordable products today.<br />

<br />

I'm psyched to be able to turn young people onto the notion of sonic integrity, and do it with a system THEY can afford now! When I first started in this business, it was rare when a friend of mine could even afford a pair of higher end speaker cables for their system!!<br />

<br />

Now we can help them get into an entire desktop system that'll give em good sound for under 500 bucks (been puttin together alot of those latey - affordable USB DAC and a pair of AUDIOENGINEs for example)<br />

<br />

It's also great to have a resource like ComputerAudiophile to point them over to---<br />

<br />

Keep it Up,<br />

<br />

Michael<br />

<br />

[rlodad]

Excellent review Chris, as well as excellent comments by Eloise and others. My experience may be different than most, but will be the same as some regarding audio affordability. I started as a college student listening to a reciever and cheapo altec lansing "Boom/Hiss" speakers. Went to Med school and had no time to listen to anything. As a resident had a little money and put together a $2k system that was the top of the world to me then- KJ Sonograph CD player, Adcom GFA 555 amp and similar preamp and Glenn Monitor speakers. In that system, the hiFace probably would have been just fine if I was using a computer and DAC. Now that I am out 10 years and working hard, my current system would not work with the hiface- but that doesn't mean it is not much better than some cheap cd player to someone with a system similar to my old one; and they spend a lot more time on the audio blogs than I do. For $150 (let's say $75 build cost), the hiFace is not only a triumph, it is nearly a miracle.<br />

<br />

Now Chris, on to the miracle I need, you tease! What about the BADA with the Wavelink vs. the Lynx? Can I get rid of my noisy, big nasty G5 beast yet?<br />

<br />

Huh?<br />

<br />

Thanks in Advance!<br />

<br />

:^)

[JR_Audio]

@Kamil: I just want to add a small comment about jitter, not directly meant to you, but more target to all who are interested in jitter.<br />

<br />

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 />

If someone has time and interest to learn more about jitter, I ask to read the book from Julian Dunn about “Measuring techniques for digital audio and the AES paper of Wolfson about “Specifying the Jitter Performance of Audio Components” (just to mention some).<br />

<br />

What is more important than just one number, is how the jitter is distributed over the audio band, after DA converted, and these are the measurements below.<br />

<br />

As one point to think about is, that a 44.1 kHz SR system needs about less than 100 ps RMS (SNR = 6.02 x N + 10 log (fA / 2 x Bo) + Cs), or 280 ps Peak to not compromise 16 Bit and if a system does disturb the 1/192 FS LSB Signal of a 16 Bit J-Test signal significantly, it can't have less than 280 ps peak jitter, that counts in the end. So for example in the Wolfson Paper you can see, that there are units, that are more than 10 times better in one jitter number, but in the same time 10 times worse in another jitter number.<br />

<br />

So if I repeat myself, in my opinion it is more important to look at the jitter distribution over the audio frequency, and not just one jitter number.<br />

<br />

Juergen

[Purite Audio]

I hardly recognise the hiface I use every day from your review Chris are you sure there wasn't something wrong with your example?<br />

Keith.<br />

Purite Audio represent M2Tech in the UK.

[Matias]

Eloise has excellent points here. <br />

HiFace was game changing because it was easy for the average person to get very good resolution into any desktop or notebook, be it Mac or PC. Sound quality IS better than many USB implementations found on mid-level and entry-level DACs.<br />

<br />

The device was so succesful that many other companies copied its basic async USB-to-SPDIF design. Nowadays it is unfair to compare the original HiFace to those second generation devices, specially if they are a lot more expensive (although I agree they might have improved sound quality). That is where the EVO is supposed to compete, a more mature market, not again as a pioneer.<br />

<br />

PS: don't forget the original HiFace is a small device that you can order from anywhere around the globe paying cheap shipping without customs. That does make a difference in TCO.<br />

<br />

So good article overall, true in its statements, but unfortunately lacks context.<br />

<br />

Greetings from Brazil!

[sq225917]

I'm not sure how other people use their Hiface but for me, I upgrade from one driver to the next when the new ones come out. Seems a sensible way of doing it, though what harm a driver for an unplugged hardware device could do on your system who knows, probably none and not worth worrying about.<br />

<br />

For me the Hiface replaced the optical out from my macbook pro, I suspect this is how many people use it, as a tsolink replacement. Still more I expect use it as a repalcement for the crappy USb connection that their own DAC has, and as such it's a huge step up. <br />

<br />

I don't think any of us expected it to compete against a DCS Udac, or thought it would turn a $300 DAc into a Berkeley or a Metric Halo beater, and as such framing it against those DACS is unfair and makes the review read like a hatchet job. Neither did we think it was likely to be better than the 6x more expensive competition from Wavelength and honestly no one has ever pitched it as such or made those kind of claims. The amount of F.U.D in the review certainly doesn't help it read like a balanced review.<br />

<br />

If there are indeed Hifaces out there with poor quality chips then it's worth investigating to see if Chris's review sample was one of those. In fact being aware of that possibility surely it would be beholding of Chris to find out one way or the other- after all the rep of the product that Marco has built his brand on is being brought into question, potentially somewhat unfairly it feels

[Audio_ELF]

Sq said... <em>If there are indeed Hifaces out there with poor quality chips then it's worth investigating to see if Chris's review sample was one of those. In fact being aware of that possibility surely it would be beholding of Chris to find out one way or the other- after all the rep of the product that Marco has built his brand on is being brought into question, potentially somewhat unfairly it feels.</em><br />

<br />

Actually I would say it's not the reviewer's job to check up is the device is faulty - the supplier should check that before sending it for review; however if on reading the review Marco (M2Tech) feels this maybe the case Chris should be prepared to re-review the device and print corrections / updated views. The fact some HiFace interfaces are sent out "faulty" - if true - is a negative point on the device.<br />

<br />

Eloise

[PeterSt]

The first 100 were faulty allright (admitted by Marco; wrong firmware).<br />

But I don't think this was about sound quality.<br />

<br />

Peter

[4est]

The aforementioned head-fi link indicates a statement by Marco that late last winter a batch with different (presumably worse) crystals were sent out. If Chris has been using his for 6 months, it might be one of those. Marco would be smart to send him a new one, but the damage may very well be done.

[wushuliu]

More or less: I tried the Hiface for several weeks last month and felt it was overrated as well. I did not find it dark though. The mids and treble were a little too forward for my taste. It was clean, but too clinical to my ears. It's possible I may have gotten one w/ the lesser chips. <br />

<br />

The review IS slightly unfair in that it's compared to some pricey alternatives. For that to be more balanced, it would be better to use the modified version sold by Jkeny at ~$350, which apparently yields substantial improvement.<br />

<br />

The Hiface hype has ignored some other great - and to me, better - sounding options, like the Teralink X2, which I believe was released at the end of last year. It is warmer, just as detailed, and costs only $80. An Upgraded version can be bought for only $30 more. Add to that a USB isolator ($60) for galvanic isolation and a linear power supply (You can buy a Teradak X2/PS combo for $135). For $200, you have a better sounding unit. More analog, just as detailed, wide soundstage.<br />

<br />

And no drivers needed.

[Sherwood]

Chris,<br />

<br />

I really appreciate this thorough review. It seems to me that you're rather taking a drubbing in here from various HiFace owners, and that's a shame. I think you took care to point out that the HiFace was a good value, even if you didn't care for it, and here's why:<br />

<br />

This product fills a new and unique niche. As you pointed out, it was the very recent past when such products simply did not exist. While this might lend credence to m2Tech as innovators in a field, it also goes to show that many of us as consumers have no idea what to expect from this field. In simple terms, I don't know what to expect from a USB to S/PDIF converter. I can't honestly say what effect that single component has on the sound of a system, or if a "better" converter will yield a "better" sound. I think part of the excitement over the m2tech came because consumers viewed this device as functionally perfect, rather than simply a great value. This is a pervasive myth of digital playback. <br />

<br />

I don't think your review did anything to dissuade potential purchasers from the hiface, but it did point out your view that different converters do, indeed, have a different sound. This is valuable information, and it's not to be sneezed at. Perhaps many devoted Computer Audiophile readers accept it as truth already, but I didn't know I was supposed to, and I wager I'm not alone in that.<br />

<br />

So thanks for an honest review, and I hope you don't get in too much trouble for it.<br />

<br />

[michael123]

I had a (more expensive) BNC version in my system for couple of months, and was able to compare it to Squeezebox Touch (both were connected to modded SlimDevices Transporter via S/PDIF)<br />

<br />

HiFace produced much better channel separation, precise bass response comparing to smeared image coming from Touch and boomy bass. High-resolution playback was very good as well - good imaging, precision and low noise floor.<br />

<br />

Next week I am supposed to have EVO and DAC202 in my system..<br />

<br />

[firedog]

Chris-<br />

Even though you wrote that this wasn't your intent, the piece comes off as a negative review of the HiFace.<br />

<br />

A bit unfair I think, to base the review around comparisons to equipment costing 10 or 20 times more.<br />

<br />

I think you should have gone to the trouble to compare the Hiface to devices costing something more like $50-$500 (maybe $750 on the outside and include the Empirical Audio Offramp). Then you could tell readers about how good a value it is (or isn't), and how much they need to spend on a USB DAC (or USB converter + DAC combo) to significantly outperform it. <br />

<br />

As written, your review only tells us that the HiFace is okay, but isn't as good as your super hi-end rigs.<br />

<br />

Did anyone really expect a different result? <br />

<br />

You wrote your review in reaction to the "hype" for the HiFace: But I think if you read carefully, you'll see that most of the hyper praise reaped on the HiFace is from users with mid-fi equipment or lower end audiophile equipment (including relatively modest DACs), and/or those who previously didn't do much with Computer Audio other than connect to their hi-fi directly from the analogue outs of their sound card. Not from users with hi-end DACs like Alpha's and Weiss. <br />

<br />

I agree with sq225917 above, who noted that most HiFace users are probably using it to replace relatively modest equipment, or equipment like a lot of more basic USB devices, that doesn't even give them the ability to play 96k and above files.<br />

<br />

For these people the HiFace IS a revelation, and probably the best digital audio they've ever heard. And probably the only way they've come across to get bit perfect streaming (especially for hi-res) from their PC to their DAC or HT receiver - at a price they'd consider.<br />

<br />

I think if the HiFace had been reviewed in that context, the tone of the review would have been different, and more suited to the actual market for the HiFace.