Firewire vs Hiface!

Did you compare output from the Mac using HiFace, Firewire and Optical with the DAC2?

Joe

Joe, I did, in my opinion firewire, hiface and then optical.

Sounds right. What PS was used with the 202? I don't think this is so much due to firewire but the JET topology, quality and attention to detail allowed by the INT202's price. Spdif isn't so bad when the signal is good. Most things don't clock this well regardless of interface.

I would have liked a higher floating bit rate for the V control when using HiDef but proof is in the listen. I suspect most will still prefer to use a pre as is often the case but the V control will certainly be a big plus for others.

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Joe, I did, in my opinion firewire, hiface and then optical.

I think it would be better or more useful for the rest of us, to learn about the sonic differences between the the different connection methods. There is a very good chance that something which is "better" for you can be not so important for others. For example I really do not care the "detail" or the "resolution" of the sound. So if you feel one is "better" because of more "detail", your judgement can be misleading without having to know what is the reasoning of your opinion. Sorry for my rant.

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Joe, I did, in my opinion firewire, hiface and then optical.

I think it would be better or more useful for the rest of us, to learn about the sonic differences between the the different connection methods. There is a very good chance that something which is "better" for you can be not so important for others. For example I really do not care the "detail" or the "resolution" of the sound. So if you feel one is "better" because of more "detail", your judgement can be misleading without having to know what is the reasoning of your opinion. Sorry for my rant.

I think that's a forlorn hope. "Detail" means different things to people for a start.

I found Firewire (only compared optical so far, HiFace turns up this week I hope) a large improvement to my listening with the DAC 2. I found it more detailed, but in the sense that the presentation seems more natural, less digital if you like. As with images, if the source (in this case, mastering) is good - the then the more transparent the replay equipment, the more there is to see/hear.

The description 'more detailed' can be fixed purely on the ability to hear new sounds or become aware of additional items. In which case, if that comes at the expense of the whole presentation gaining some etched presentation, I agree with you - it wouldn't interest me.

Joe

Ferenc Hi sorry I am not much of a writer but the firewire was better in every respect, bass mid and treble, resolution it is just more of what you want to hear, borrow one and write us a more eloquent review.

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bibb:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Joe, I did, in my opinion firewire, hiface and then optical.

I think it would be better or more useful for the rest of us, to learn about the sonic differences between the the different connection methods. There is a very good chance that something which is "better" for you can be not so important for others. For example I really do not care the "detail" or the "resolution" of the sound. So if you feel one is "better" because of more "detail", your judgement can be misleading without having to know what is the reasoning of your opinion. Sorry for my rant.

I think that's a forlorn hope. "Detail" means different things to people for a start.

I found Firewire (only compared optical so far, HiFace turns up this week I hope) a large improvement to my listening with the DAC 2. I found it more detailed, but in the sense that the presentation seems more natural, less digital if you like. As with images, if the source (in this case, mastering) is good - the then the more transparent the replay equipment, the more there is to see/hear.

The description 'more detailed' can be fixed purely on the ability to hear new sounds or become aware of additional items. In which case, if that comes at the expense of the whole presentation gaining some etched presentation, I agree with you - it wouldn't interest me.

Joe

I used to say to my hifi buddies, that "detail", "resolution", "3D space" somehow artificially created descriptions, probably originated from the HiFi Magazines of the eighties. These are not used to describe a music event or enjoyment when you here music live. This is why I call them artificial.

quote:

Originally posted by DHT:
Ferenc Hi sorry I am not much of a writer but the firewire was better in every respect, bass mid and treble, resolution it is just more of what you want to hear, borrow one and write us a more eloquent review.

I am certainly not against your opinion, but without knowing the system context, what equipments were around, what music were used, what cables, knowing what are you looking for in music reproduction etc, it is very difficult to understand your "better" judgement. I know it would mean to write and read more than 2-3 sentences, but probably worth the extra effort. I know the Weiss equipments are exceptional, but the majority of the forum users can not afford them probably, so if you can describe the difference between HiFace and Int202 on a bit more understandable way, it would help forum members to understand and compare HiFace and INT202 capability.

F Hi,it is hard to explain but very obvious when you hear it, I just noticed the very same comparison in a thread on 'computer audiophile'
The Weiss is a lot more and it would as always be down to the indivuidul's judgement regarding value for money .
The remote is cool though, my DACII doesn't have remote volume but the new dac 202 will!

DHT,

I hope I'm not stealing your thread to weigh in with my experience. My system for many months has used a Macbook, firewire into a Konnect8 interface, Naim DC1 RCA coax, to Lavry DA-10 in Narrow. (see profile for the rest). Inspired by web talk here and elsewhere, I bought a USB HiFace last week, and have been listening through it for several days. As is my custom (when introducing new gear), I changed back to the Firewire TC interface to confirm first impressions. Listening to several tracks before and after the change, I have left the TC in place. I used only 16/44 files ripped to wav and Apple Lossless via dbPoweramp. I have a few hires files, but have not tried them yet.

They both sound very nice, and the difference was not large. Not as large as going from generic coax to a DC-1. But I felt the Firewire TC was a wee bit more transparent, more coherent and "detailed" in a way that is revealing of the "rosiny" texture of a bowed double bass. Not by a wide margin, just a little. The HiFacce was "smoother" in a slightly blurred, euphonic sort of way. Bass using the TC had a little more "grip" to it, just a tiny bit more "solid." I could be imagining the bass difference...

Admittedly, the TC cost twice the price of the HiFace, which is a screamin' deal for the money. But, of course, the TC has headphone out, a DAC, ADC, etc. So maybe it is the bargain of the two!

My two cents...

Charlie

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

I used to say to my hifi buddies, that "detail", "resolution", "3D space" somehow artificially created descriptions, probably originated from the HiFi Magazines of the eighties. These are not used to describe a music event or enjoyment when you here music live. This is why I call them artificial.

Let's face it, we use descriptions that suit us. I ask one basic question after any change:

Does it take me closer to my idea of how my music should sound? The less I'm distracted by any aspect of sound - the more I enjoy music, whether that's at a live gig or at home. I've generally found the better the kit, the less I'm aware of it.

One thing that is very interesting to me, having met up with several guys on the forum is how little disagreement there is when you listen to anything in the same place. To read these pages you would often think otherwise. Get folks into the same demonstration or bake off, I could count on one hand the amount of times there has been much disagreement and in a couple of those cases sacred cows were involved.

Joe

Joe

I'd agree with that sentiment completely. You stop listening to a really good piece of kit and start listening to music. It opens the door wider.

If one describes difference in terms of 'presentation' - then its merely preference.

Still missing the Naim DAC - even purchased a powerline to ease the pain, but that didn't work.

quote:

Originally posted by paremus:
Joe

I'd agree with that sentiment completely. You stop listening to a really good piece of kit and start listening to music. It opens the door wider.

If one describes difference in terms of 'presentation' - then its merely preference.

Still missing the Naim DAC - even purchased a powerline to ease the pain, but that didn't work.

Hi,

Did you get a HiFace or similar? Would be useful with any DAC with a coax option.

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bibb:

quote:

Originally posted by ferenc:

I used to say to my hifi buddies, that "detail", "resolution", "3D space" somehow artificially created descriptions, probably originated from the HiFi Magazines of the eighties. These are not used to describe a music event or enjoyment when you here music live. This is why I call them artificial.

Let's face it, we use descriptions that suit us. I ask one basic question after any change:

Does it take me closer to my idea of how my music should sound? The less I'm distracted by any aspect of sound - the more I enjoy music, whether that's at a live gig or at home. I've generally found the better the kit, the less I'm aware of it.

One thing that is very interesting to me, having met up with several guys on the forum is how little disagreement there is when you listen to anything in the same place. To read these pages you would often think otherwise. Get folks into the same demonstration or bake off, I could count on one hand the amount of times there has been much disagreement and in a couple of those cases sacred cows were involved.

Joe

This is why I am against all short term comparisons.

The only useful test is for me to get the goods at home and live with it for a week or two. Then I can make a decision if I can live with it and listen music all day long. I have never attended to any short term ( I mean few hours) test where I could focus on the music. You are somehow forced to focus on the sound and on the difference of different hardware. According to my experience it happened several times that the "winner" or the "better" piece of kit was boring and not musical on the long term. This is why I like the Uniti and HiFace so much from my Mac. It is nothing extraordinary, the equipments do not force me to think of how it can be upgraded or made "better". It just plays my music all day long.

Listening music is not a competition where you have to find the best or the better and there will be always a better deal, better sound, so you are not in a hurry to find out who is the winner.

But I know how exciting the feeling can be to find the new ace
If I would have the Naim DAC at home, I probably would not think about things like these...

F I agree about short term comparisons in general, but this was such an obvious improvement, not difference but improvement.

DHT

Interesting results. Personally I think the DAC2 offers better value given the interface is nearly £1,000 RRP. I'd buy a DAC2!

Playing with the Bel Canto USB Link 24/96 at the moment and getting very good results.

Peter

PMR I was told £850 but point taken,I haven't seen ( or heard ) the bel canto 24/96.

This little beauty.

I suppose a hiface /belcanto comparison is in order?

I have been using the HiFace for a while now on my work PC via coax into a DACmagic (my better DAC is now needed at home). Running WAV files ripped in iTunes. I think the HiFace is absolutely brilliant, and miles better than previously using a USB out into the DACmagic.
It is clearly a very good "cheap" solution for those wanting to use a PC with a DAC which does not have USB connectivity.

There are also plenty of other cheaper firewire units that use the JETpll topology and DICE II chip like Weiss. TC has just introduced the Impact Twin to replace the Konnekt 8 and M Audio ProFire 610 use the same bits and can be had for $400 US.

Weiss buys the tech like everybody else. Whether he gets more out of it remains to be seen but I also think these alternatives are viable choices for a Bel Conto/HiFace comparison if not the also INT202. TC now also has a 64 bit driver.

Do the others have remote control, and properly dithered digital attenuation?
It seems to me that the INT could relace your preamp if you only have one source of course.

The TC has 48 bit dithered processing which includes volume and EQ if you choose so it's theoretically better at HiDef volume attenuation, 24 bit 128 x oversampling A2D to digify your records, headphone jack for it's own built in DAC and can be controlled via a laptop or the front panel which the INT cannot. No remote available at extra charge or not. Not saying it's as good because I haven't compared but yes, it's plenty versitile and comes with an outboard PS, also without extra charge though I'd still replace it for top performance. I like that the Weiss is less versitile and more purpose built with top quality though I could have done without the V control. Personally I wouldn't use these things as preamps anyways but that's me. My past experience is that source componenets with V controls aren't the way to go. The Weiss will also be pushing $2k by the time you add remote Volume and reasonable linear supply.

I would certainly use a source as preamp, every preamp only adds more distortion, I can't wait to trythe new Weiss 202 which has analogue and digital attenuation and a remote.

I thought the attenuation was dig domain only. Of course the result is a lower analog signal. To each his own. This is the passive preamp argument. Also not something I care for generally but each piece of kit needs to be evaluated independently. Hope it does what you're looking for.