HiFace vs. Benchmark USB DAC

[Deleted]

From Computer Audiophile :


Joined: 01/23/2008 .:. Offline .:. Comments: 31

Fri, 03/19/2010 - 14:35 — EliasGwinn Hello, The much-hyped
Hello,

The much-hyped asynchronous mode does not offer any advantages over Benchmark's AdvancedUSB solution. And to the contrary, there may be significant disadvantages due to async-mode requiring the computer to re-clock.

Benchmark prefers to not ask the computer to re-clock because the computer is not trust-worthy in this regard. This is why we are avoiding async (in addition to the fact that it offers no advantages to Benchmark's USB solution).

Best,
Elias

__________________

Elias Gwinn

Applications Engineer
Benchmark Media Systems, Inc
1-315-437-6300

Producer / Mixing / Recording Engineer
Subcat Studios
1-315-685-9064

[Spirit]

Did the benchmark you listened to feature this 'AdvancedUSB' solution Alex?

If it's as good as he says it is, it's a shame the subsequent DAC isn't up to scratch ;D

[leo]

Mar 23, 2010 13:09:59 GMT Spirit said:

If it's as good as he says it is, it's a shame the subsequent DAC isn't up to scratch ;D

Nice one Phil

BTW my emails jacking about again, I'll get back to you soon as its sorted, bloody Virgin

[Deleted]

Mar 23, 2010 13:09:59 GMT Spirit said:

Did the benchmark you listened to feature this 'AdvancedUSB' solution Alex?

If it's as good as he says it is, it's a shame the subsequent DAC isn't up to scratch ;D

Phil
I have already stated that with MY PC , I was surprised that USB sounded virtually identical to SPDF. I didn't say it was crap, I just said that it was not as good as my heavily modified X-DAC V3. It will almost certainly be better than many people are using, even without upgraded opamps in the analogue section. Of course it doesn't get the rave reviews that the HiFace gets, because it sells for >US$1,200, whereas the little in line HiFace is only around AU$200 delivered, so lots of people can afford to play around with one. THe HiFace is still NOT capable of turning Pig's ears into a silk purse either.Perhaps not even a Beresford DAC ?
It is still VERY dependent on the quality of the DAC that it feeds.
Alex

[Spirit]

Mar 23, 2010 20:59:35 GMT @sandyk said:

I didn't say it was crap, I just said that it was not as good as my heavily modified X-DAC V3.

You are just one of the many who've said they were disappointed with the sound relative to some other piece of gear Alex ;D

THe HiFace is still NOT capable of turning Pig's ears into a silk purse either.Perhaps not even a Beresford DAC ?
It is still VERY dependent on the quality of the DAC that it feeds.
Alex

Indeed! I'm pretty sure the BuffII will cut the mustard

[Deleted]

Mar 23, 2010 23:08:59 GMT Spirit said:

Mar 23, 2010 20:59:35 GMT @sandyk said:

I didn't say it was crap, I just said that it was not as good as my heavily modified X-DAC V3.

You are just one of the many who've said they were disappointed with the sound relative to some other piece of gear Alex ;D

THe HiFace is still NOT capable of turning Pig's ears into a silk purse either.Perhaps not even a Beresford DAC ?
It is still VERY dependent on the quality of the DAC that it feeds.
Alex

Indeed! I'm pretty sure the BuffII will cut the mustard

Phil
You keep pushing the cheaper better gear bit. The X-DAC V3 ,from memory cost me AU$999 quite a few years back. With all the mods it would be worth considerably more.
It would be a real hoot if the HiFace further improved your BuffII !
Alex

[mrarroyo]

I have listened to the Benchmark and it is ok but I much prefer the Monarchy NM24 DAC. Heck the Zhaolu DAC modded by Oritek sounded IMO better than the Benchmark.

[Deleted]

Mar 24, 2010 0:37:57 GMT mrarroyo said:

I have listened to the Benchmark and it is ok but I much prefer the Monarchy NM24 DAC. Heck the Zhaolu DAC modded by Oritek sounded IMO better than the Benchmark.

Miguel
My friend's Benchmark markedly improved after he replaced the SM NE5532 with SM LM4562. (the very next day !)
The later preamp version apparently uses LM4562. Almost all DACs and headphone amplifiers can be substantially improved over the original product. Especially with improvements to the PSU area.
Alex

[FauDrei]

Missed the point of this thread... Are we comparing USB to SPDIF converter with USB DAC?

It only makes sense to compare:

• [PC] ---USB cable--> [USB input of USB DAC]

with

• [PC] ---USB cable--> [USB to SPDIF converter] ---SPDIF cable--> [SPDIF input of USB DAC]

Had the opportunity to listen to "normal" DAC1 and some time latter to USB variant of the same... What to say? Good ΔΣ DAC implementation but nothing more. I do not like the Benchmark's brightness/harshness that some rave about as "superior detailness". As for "AdvancedUSB Audio Technology"... whatever... their USB receiver is in the SQ range of the receiver in my DacMagic (with exception that it can do 24/96) ergo nothing special. Can't believe that they market the "no drivers required" as advantage over dedicated low latency drivers...

So, IMO, the quoted message in Alex's first post is marketing talk. If you go for "bit-perfect", there is no need for computer to reclock or resample anything when using asynchronous data transfer. In properly implemented async mode the async device is the "master" and dictates when and how much data it requires so that computer influence(s) are minimized during those transfers. If a transfer fails, device asks for retransmission. USB 2.0 speeds and device's internal buffers allows for 20 or more realtime 24/192 retransmissions before you start losing data and became non bit-perfect (possible audio artifact). If computer can not follow device's requests - you do have a problem, but not with the async device - your PC is overloaded with other software or it is an archaic piece of c*ap. I'd say Benchmark (and many others) is avoiding async because they do not have the know-how for proper implementation (yet), but do watch out for their future USB input improvements and "rediscoveries".

[regal]

Mar 27, 2010 18:25:29 GMT FauDrei said:

but do watch out for their future USB input improvements and "rediscoveries".

I agree with this assesment. Benchmark can't honestly believe their USB implementation is the end all. With the Hiface the technology is just starting to mature into true quality audio, obviously Hiface made some real compromises which is ashame. Its fantastic that they developed an asynch driver, its fantastic that they use a second clock for 44.1khz audio, but the way they power the digital clocks leaves a black eye. I think the Hiface implementation is a huge step foward toward computer audio that is close to a decent transport, but the power supply compromise may leave such a black eye that the technology may stagnate again.

[Deleted]

I think the Hiface implementation is a huge step foward toward computer audio that is close to a decent transport,

regal

You should be able to not only get computer audio that is close to a decent transport, but MUCH better than a decent transport, especially at the LF end where most transports appear to be lacking.

SandyK

[jkeny]

Apr 24, 2010 11:10:14 GMT regal said:

Mar 27, 2010 18:25:29 GMT FauDrei said:

but do watch out for their future USB input improvements and "rediscoveries".

I agree with this assesment. Benchmark can't honestly believe their USB implementation is the end all. With the Hiface the technology is just starting to mature into true quality audio, obviously Hiface made some real compromises which is ashame. Its fantastic that they developed an asynch driver, its fantastic that they use a second clock for 44.1khz audio, but the way they power the digital clocks leaves a black eye. I think the Hiface implementation is a huge step foward toward computer audio that is close to a decent transport, but the power supply compromise may leave such a black eye that the technology may stagnate again.

I see you over here too Regal You're as ubiquitous & nomadic as I am ;D. Agreed, Benchmark can't be serious - smells of hype to me.

As one who has optimised the Hiface PS, I can tell you in it's modified form it beat a $4,000 Lector CDP (tube output stage) in listening tests.

I agree about it's weakness but you know any audio device that uses the computers PS as it's source is bound to be compromised, & this is designed for portability rather than absolute SQ.

[Deleted]

As one who has optimised the Hiface PS, I can tell you in it's modified form it beat a $4,000 Lector CDP (tube output stage) in listening tests.

John
Can you be more specific ? A HiFace is an interface from USB to a DAC.
(Unless we are talking about something else in their inventory) On it's own it can not beat a $4,000 Lector CDP . Which DAC were you using in conjunction with the HiFace ?
Alex

[FauDrei]

If I may jump in...

I think John (JKeny) was referring to Lector CD as transport only (SPDIF out to DAC). This way you can compare hiFace with Lector.

Otherwise, as you put it Alex, the DACs also came into play (internal Lectors DAC with it's tube output stage and "some DAC" connected to SPDIF part of hiFace), and we really are assessing Lector CD as a whole vs. hiFace + "some DAC" combo. It would make sense though, if Lector has SPDIF input - so we can compare Lector's CD transport with hiFace through Lector's internal DAC and output stage.

[jkeny]

Sorry about late reply, I never did get notification of a new post to this thread, doh!

Faudrei is correct - I meant using the Lector as a transport! He will shortly have a modified Hiface to hear & I hope he can report on it in this forum.

As to the hiface Vs Benchamrk, I'm quite happy, SandyK, to allow you to verify how the modified Hiface compares to the benchmark.

[Deleted]

Hi Guys,
I have recently taken delivery of the John Kenny mod'd Mark II HiFace - many thanks John, much appreciated - after having smoked my Mark I by careful application of brute force and ignorance, a speciality of mine . When I had the Mark I I posted that it had made the single biggest improvement to the SQ of my system of any changes I had ever made. Since smoking it I have swapped my Marantz integrated for a Cyrus pre and power combination and swapped my bookshelf speakers for mini-floorstanders, so direct comparison between Mk I and Mk II is not possible.
The signal path is Vaio MM PC into HiFace into heavily mod'd 7520 DAC into Cyrus pre etc.
The improvement obtained by inserting the Mk II JK HiFace between PC and DAC is immediately noticeable but not so dramatic as doing the same with the Mark I, but with improved speakers and amplification I would not expect it to be . I am no audiophile and my hearing is not as good as it used to be so I am going to struggle to detail the improvements I noticed but I can discern wider soundstage, clearer definition between instruments and better placement of them within the soundstage. I personally did not notice any change in the depth of soundstage but as I am still trying to find the optimum positioning of my 'new' speakers that is probably not surprising either .
Cheers,
Dave.

PS for the record I never had a standard HiFace - I liked what I heard about the John Kenny modifications and opted for one straight away, an act of faith that I have absolutely no reason to regret .

[jkeny]

Thanks Dave,
I only saw your post now - hope you are still enjoying it - thanks for the kind words

Regards
John

[jkeny]

A Positive Feedback article on USB transports says this about the modified Hiface positive-feedback.com/Issue51/usb_converters.htm

:
Which leads me to the modification of the M2Tech by sort of gutting it to run partially on batteries (about $330 in US dollars) by one John Kenny who aptly names the converter the JKM2Tech HiFace. What John does is to open up a HiFace, place it in a box and use rechargeable ion batteries to supply power to specific parts. Specifically, the modifications are performed on circuits normally supplied by the internal 3.3V regulator (USB powered). John bypasses the regulator and the required 3.3V is supplied externally from batteries. The USB still supplies power to some of the chips within the unit and the remaining 1.8V regulator. A charge will last you a good day or so but will only charge when the switched off. Oh, well… that is a fair amount of playing time.

Going the battery route clearly alters the sound in terms of becoming warmer and richer, with an overall more organic and 'substantial' sound while still retaining all the positives of the stock M2Tech. You still the 'tinkle' but with more decay and air… the 'tinkle-ness' now sits more 'among the group' as opposed to standing out from the crowd. The Upgraded M2Tech presents music with a greater sense of density and heft… reminds me of other battery-powered devices. Yeah, running batteries does have a house sound as well, but this is still cool. Sweet!

Now what you have is actually an M2Tech HiFace with all the benefits (24/192), but the computer still needs the driver installed meaning that it works just like a stock HiFace, except it is now sitting in a box… a plastic box that now needs a male A to female A USB cable. You might be able to plug it directly to your computer if everything lines-up just right, in my case it doesn't. So a generic USB cable to the rescue. All things considered this is clearly a step-up over that from the stock M2Tech, which suggests that getting better power to the right circuits/parts is just as important as getting the bits from A to B. Yeah, nice indeed and not for a lot more money though it is a simply plastic box so no points for being glitzy and fancy. Big deal so it is not eye-candy, but it does address some of the perceived faults of the stock unit. It is less aggressive and in a way, more organic. Gee, who would have thought that power noise and whatnot would be such an issue? But yeah that is exactly what noise can sound like… a bit more aggressiveness, more perceived resolution via etch caused by there being more grain that is riding along with the music. Take that away and you actually hear more while hearing less: more music and less fatigue and whatever. Of course I am only speculating here that by going the battery route over 100% USB power is removing or mitigating to some degree noise or whatever that is mucking up the sound in terms of the stock unit having more this or that… or less whatever. Which is not to say that the stock M2Tech is not good, yeah, it is quite amazing for what it is and for what it does, but at $150 obviously trade-offs and compromises had to be made… so as good as it is, going with a $140 upgrade in terms of how the device receives power moves the M2Tech up quite a few meaningful notches on the musical scale. Highly recommended.

A more in-depth review from enjoythemusic is due out at the end of the month. This will compare the stock, modified, Evo Hiface along with the Halide Bridge & Audiophileo

[jkeny]

Here's what he said about the RF attenuators that I recommend with the Hiface

It is interesting though in how both the Bridge and the M2Tech are quite small and appear to feature similar approaches to passing the bits and yet while sounding so much alike, clearly sound different. Could it be the issue of the Bridge being at the end of a USB cable without the need for a digital cable as opposed to the opposite with the M2Tech? Or is it more an issue of the higher output of the M2Tech that pushes things a wee bit too much? Since the M2Tech has a higher than normal SPDIF signal voltage perhaps what I am hearing here is some artifact caused by this signal? Kenny suggests trying the M2Tech (and his version as well) with some attenuators to reduce this. From John Kenny, "What they do is reduce the SPDIF signal voltage level in the HiFace. The attenuators bring the SPDIF signal down to standard level BUT (this is the important bit), it doubly reduces reflections on the SPDIF cable. These reflections normally give rise to jitter & by reducing them you reduce the jitter on the cable."

Okay… so in goes an attenuator and… yeah less of the glare and presence. More air, more space, more decay, more music and less of the stuff that was getting in the way. Nice and at only $12 a pop an easy fix. Will they work with other devices? Not sure, but next time as I have enough here on my plate already… no seconds just yet.

[Deleted]

John
Please post the CRO shots as soon as you get approval, or when the article is published.
I have been privileged to see the photos, and they clearly show reduced "Jitter" when using the attenuator.

This afternoon I was able to listen to a friend's new Firewire M Audio 610 through my PC into my modified X-DAC V3 via SPDIF,
and it does seem to confer advantages, perhaps in line with that of the HiFace which improves performance via USB output.
The M Audio 610 also has the ability to run from an external 12V 2A PSU,
and I was fortunate to find that the 12V 2.5A PSU with JLH, that I constructed for use with the WD TV Live,
was compatible with the M Audio 610.
Just as John Kenny has found when using 3.3V Lithium batteries to ensure a clean supply for critical areas of the HiFace,
this linear outboard PSU improved SQ quite noticeably when compared with using power via the Firewire cable from the PC.
My friend will now be constructing a Linear PSU with a JLH to feed his M Audio 610, which will ultimately be used to facilitate high resolution rips from his packed away vinyl collection. My friend will also be disabling all auxilliary PWM motherboard controlled fans when doing this.
Not only do these pulses of several hundred mA reflect right through the PC/Mac, they are also likely to degrade the ultimate stability of the Master
Oscillator, despite local regulation.Running these auxilliary fans directly from the PSU iat a lower steady voltage, instead of drawing extra current from the Motherboard, is also surely beneficial ?
It would be interesting to do a comparison between a JK HiFace and a Firewire M Audio 610 when supplied via a good linear PSU.

Alex

[jkeny]

Thanks Alex - I'm not called the battery man for no reason
Here's some other scope shots that show the work that the attenuator does:
www.4shared.com/photo/uQR5dMxB/att_noatt.htmThis is two overlaid scope shots showing the SPDIF out. The top one is without attenuator & the bottom one with atten. Although this isn't the Hiface output it shows the reduction of reflections when the attenuator is put in-line.

Here's Hiface SPDIF output with/without attenuators www.4shared.com/dir/Ka6GJ82i/sharing.html

There are other scope shots showing the SPDIF output differences between stock & JK Hiface but I can't post these until the review comes out. Suffice to say that they are very interesting

I too would love to see the test you mentioned but Oz is so far away!

[Deleted]

John
Just make sure in future that you do not post any NEGATIVE or adverse test results , before listening tests are completed.
This practice may influence the results of DBT testing.
Alex

[jkeny]

Sept 11, 2010 12:29:12 GMT @sandyk said:

John
Just make sure in future that you do not post test results , before listening tests are completed.
This practice may influence the results of DBT testing.
Alex

Yes Alex, that is some incredible logic over on DIYA, isn't it - some lack of objectivity is being revealed!

Does anybody get the feeling that they are like eye of Sauron & his wraiths

[Deleted]

Sept 11, 2010 12:46:10 GMT jkeny said:

Sept 11, 2010 12:29:12 GMT @sandyk said:

John
Just make sure in future that you do not post test results , before listening tests are completed.
This practice may influence the results of DBT testing.
Alex

Yes Alex, that is some incredible logic over on DIYA, isn't it - some lack of objectivity is being revealed!

Does anybody get the feeling that they are like eye of Sauron & his wraiths

John
Yes, tell everybody that their "thorough" testing has not shown any valid reasons why something should sound better/different before DBT listening procedures, and many people will go into the session certain that there will be no audible differences. So unless the differences stand out like dog's balls, then they will almost certainly hear no differences.If they then do notice what appears to be minor differences, then they are more likely to dismiis these differences as imaginary.
Why is it that Scientific test results can't be released at the same time as the results of DBT procedures ?
Perhaps they do not wish the DBT results to have a positive outcome ?
That may bruise their collective egos !

Alex

[jkeny]

Sept 11, 2010 13:10:19 GMT @sandyk said:

John
Yes, tell everybody that their "thorough" testing has not shown any valid reasons why something should sound better/different before DBT listening procedures, and many people will go into the session certain that there will be no audible differences. So unless the differences stand out like dog's balls, then they will almost certainly hear no differences.If they then do notice what appears to be minor differences, then they are more likely to dismiis these differences as imaginary.
Why is it that Scientific test results can't be released at the same time as the results of DBT procedures ?
Perhaps they do not wish the DBT results to have a positive outcome ?
That may bruise their collective egos !

Alex

Yes, Alex, your posts along these lines were deleted, I think? I seem to remember that there was going to be a splitting of the thread into a thread where discussion of how the test was going to be carried out was being hosted - did this ever happen? I can't find it.

No doubt I will be attacked or my posts pulled. The Eye of Sauron strikes again