# Hifiman HM-801 RMAA Tests



## dfkt

I can't be bothered to repeat my post here, since Head-Fi's disgustingly idiotic new forum system makes it extremely hard to post images and links. So for everyone interested, here's some initial RMAA tests of the Hifiman HM-801, over on ABI:
   
  http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54879


----------



## JaZZ

Shocking! A case of sample variance, perhaps 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## SHADYMILKMAN

whoa, a lot of people will NOT be happy about that article.


----------



## dfkt

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Shocking! A case of sample variance, perhaps
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I still have a second, broken Hifiman at hand. I will swap its amp board with the one I measured to make sure. Will post the results soon.


----------



## Anaxilus

Let me be the first to say Thx.  If this is accurate, it will prove invaluable to those considering an $800 player.  SFlo2+Arrow for me!


----------



## dfkt

The s-flo is the same (according to Shigzeo, whom I trust). There is no magical player that sounds "better" than the next one. I'm sick and tired of trying out all that nonsense, like the AMP3, Hifiman, etc - when a $30 Sansa Clip gives the same or better audio quality. The s-flo is yet another nonsense product with horrible firmware and usability, with some advertising claims about "better" sound quality that's simply can't be true. People, don't be gullible fools.


----------



## mobbaddict

Could you do the line out as well?


----------



## kostalex




----------



## dfkt

Quote: 





mobbaddict said:


> Could you do the line out as well?


 

 Will do, also USB and S/PDIF.


----------



## KLS

Thanks for the info @dfkt. I trust you too.
   
  So you have confirmed me that I have spent $800 on a second hand piece of aluminium junk. The first time I am so disappointed with my audio equipment purchase...


----------



## woodcans

I would be interested in this as well, since I primarily use it as a DAC.
  
  Quote: 





mobbaddict said:


> Could you do the line out as well?


----------



## woodcans

Quote: 





kls said:


> Thanks for the info @dfkt. I trust you too.
> 
> So you have confirmed me that I have spent $800 on a second hand piece of aluminium junk. The first time I am so disappointed with my audio equipment purchase...


 

  
  Maybe not...my ears tell me it works great as a DAC. Hopefully they are not wrong. Would be much easier to replace the hifiman.


----------



## Sonic 748i

That's a frequency response graph. The standard amplifier in the HiFiMAN like I've said plenty of times is the weakest link of the unit. They should redo those tests with the GAME Amplifier or line out to a much better amplifier. Also, they must be deaf if they don't hear how much better the HiFiMAN sounds over other mp3 players. Every person who has bought the HiFiMAN immediately heard the sudden increase in sound quality including our very own jude over at Head-Fi who said the HiFiMAN sounds like anything but a portable audio player. It sounds like something that belongs in a full size rack plugged into a wall. They're reviews of the HiFiMAN compared to other MP3 players in which the HiFiMAN downright triumphs them. But anyways, lol, this article doesn't convince me one bit because what I'm hearing right now no other MP3 player can come close to mimicking.


----------



## odigg

This clearly illustrates why measurements should be a part of all eqiupment tests/reviews.  It's way too easy to get caught up in pricing and marketing and all "This the best sounding device I've heard" hype.  Manufactures can make fools of consumers if we don't subject their eqiupment to rigorous measurements.
   
   
  Quote: 





> The standard amplifier in the HiFiMAN like I've said plenty of times is the weakest link of the unit.


 
   
  That's no excuse.  At $800, it should perform as well the amp on the $30 Sansa clip.  If this device is not defective, I can only laugh at it.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> The s-flo is the same (according to Shigzeo, whom I trust). There is no magical player that sounds "better" than the next one. I'm sick and tired of trying out all that nonsense, like the AMP3, Hifiman, etc - when a $30 Sansa Clip gives the same or better audio quality. The s-flo is yet another nonsense product with horrible firmware and usability, with some advertising claims about "better" sound quality that's simply can't be true. People, don't be gullible fools.


 

 So the Sansa Clip sounds better than a Benchmark DAC or Grace M902? LOL. Don't make me spit up my drink.


----------



## dfkt

Here's more results, from Line-Out, USB, S/PDIF: http://rmaa.elektrokrishna.com/Comparisons/Hifiman%20Line-Out%2C%20USB%2C%20SPDIF.htm
  Same thing, it's just not a very good amp/DAC. I also tried the amp board from the second Hifiman, same results. Verified twice.
   
  Sonic748i,  I'm sorry, I know how proud you are of your Hifiman>RSA>JH13 rig. But yeah, maybe spend the $30 on a Clip+ and give it a listen. You might find that you really don't need to carry that brick around with you, and you get an actually working firmware (with gapless playback) as well.


----------



## Edwood

I have both the Sansa Clip+ and the HM-801 (along with a modded iRiver iHP-120 and Pico DAC).  And the HM-801 is easily better sounding to me than them. 
   
  What sound card, drivers, and OS are you using for these RMAA test, dfkt?
   
  -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Keep in mind that the USB DAC implementation is not very good.  It goes through SPDIF rather than straight to I2S.  I was never a fan of the SPDIF input, would much rather have a proper USB only implementation as I have very little use for coax SPDIF in a portable.
   
  -Ed


----------



## dfkt

Hard to believe I got two faulty Hifiman players, both sounding and measuring a bit worse than the next average player by accident... Not to mention the missing high frequencies are rather clearly audible with decent phones - the Hifiman lacks treble and sounds more veiled than the next average player. Last time I checked they did sound the same in a volume-matched AB-test to my ears, but now my ears seem to be less clogged, and I hear a difference.
   
  I'm using an Echo AudioFire4 for these tests, it's an accurate sound interface. I've been doing these tests for years, and I never heard of anyone finding any flaws with them, be it people from Hydrogenaudio, Rockbox, or others. You can have a look around: http://rmaa.elektrokrishna.com/


----------



## Achmedisdead

ftw!


----------



## Edwood

HM-801 lacking treble and sounding veiled?  Funny.  Doesn't sound that way with me.  Shall we post part hearing test results for proof too?  (Show me yours, I'll show you mine. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) The JH13's and Shure SRH840 are seeing the most time used with the HM-801 here.
   
  But then again, I spend my time listening to and enjoying music, not artificially measuring them.
   
  Perhaps I should fire up my old RME HDSP 9632 rig...
   
  -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> I can't be bothered to repeat my post here, since Head-Fi's *disgustingly idiotic new forum system makes it extremely hard to post images and links*. So for everyone interested, here's some initial RMAA tests of the Hifiman HM-801, over on ABI:
> 
> http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54879


 

   
  So it's "extremely hard" to click on the little "Insert Image" button at the top of the post formatting menu bar?
   
  Granted, the new forum is no longer allowing PHP codes for posting images.  It's an extra step and annoying for sure.  Extremely hard?   Hardly.


----------



## JaZZ

Well, the treble roll-off is definitely a flaw in my book. But keep in mind that it resembles Wadia's Spline filter which has this roll-off for a reason (namely for improved pulse response), so it can absolutely imply a sonic benefit, apart from the lack of upper treble. Although I don't sympathize with this approach as much as I did a few years ago, I still acknowledge a possible specific sonic advantage compared to the classic filter implementation. Wadia players do sound excellent despite (or due to) this measuring flaw, so let's not condemn the HM-801 just because of this feature!
   
  As good as the Clip+ sounds to my ears for its intended (portable) use, it's far from approaching the sound quality of my home rig. So there's definitely room for better sound even from portable players. And maybe the HifiMan is one of them nonetheless (I haven't heard one yet).
.


----------



## Bina

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> The s-flo is the same (according to Shigzeo, whom I trust). There is no magical player that sounds "better" than the next one. I'm sick and tired of trying out all that nonsense, like the AMP3, Hifiman, etc - when a $30 Sansa Clip gives the same or better audio quality. The s-flo is yet another nonsense product with horrible firmware and usability, with some advertising claims about "better" sound quality that's simply can't be true. People, don't be gullible fools.


 


 Have you ever try Imod or diymod?


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> The s-flo is the same (according to Shigzeo, whom I trust). There is no magical player that sounds "better" than the next one. I'm sick and tired of trying out all that nonsense, like the AMP3, Hifiman, etc - when a $30 Sansa Clip gives the same or better audio quality. The s-flo is yet another nonsense product with horrible firmware and usability, with some advertising claims about "better" sound quality that's simply can't be true. People, don't be gullible fools.


 

 The Sflo is not the same, only on the HPO it is, the LO is flat all the way across.  Shig said he would keep and use the SFlo2 over the others if it didn't have a big screen and was smaller.  I think you should read more reviews and look at the hardware specs on the Sflo2 if that is the conclusion you came to.
   
  BTW, the Clip+ doesn't sound as good as my 5 year old 2G iPod nano driving my dynamic IEM's go figure, might be a power issue.  A graph is a graph, take it for what its worth.


----------



## KLS

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> That's a frequency response graph. The standard amplifier in the HiFiMAN like I've said plenty of times is the weakest link of the unit. They should redo those tests with the GAME Amplifier or line out to a much better amplifier. *Also, they must be deaf if they don't hear how much better the HiFiMAN sounds over other mp3 players.* Every person who has bought the HiFiMAN immediately heard the sudden increase in sound quality including our very own jude over at Head-Fi who said the HiFiMAN sounds like anything but a portable audio player. It sounds like something that belongs in a full size rack plugged into a wall. They're reviews of the HiFiMAN compared to other MP3 players in which the HiFiMAN downright triumphs them. But anyways, lol, this article doesn't convince me one bit because what I'm hearing right now no other MP3 player can come close to mimicking.


 

 Unless I got a faulty unit, or I am deaf. When I first get them, using the GAME module, I certainly didn't have any wow factor. What I think HiFiMAN is better than iPhone 3G:

 HiFiMAN has a strong output, and music has more dynamic, or power.
 To my ears, HiFiMAN in fact has very good instrument separation and imaging. Good 3D presentation.
   
  I am using GAME module, which is designed to use with IEMs as far as I am concerned. However, it turns out that HiFiMAN has very bad synergy with SM3, which is my current favourite. I am assuming the 'Normal' EQ setting means flat (EQ off), and SM3 straight out from HiFiMAN headphone jack gives me the most forward mids I have ever heard. Just mids, and mids intruding into bass as well as treble. Actually I have to admit that my last post was a litlle bit exaggerated, but I am very disappointed with HiFiMAN, at least when pair with my SM3.
   
  I tried to pair SM3 and HiFiMAN as DAC, but not much changes compared when I use them as player.


----------



## Nankai

HiFi is not equal to a straight plot.
   
   

  Zanden 5000 Mk.IV/Signature D/A converter : $15,470
   
  From Stereophile
   
  http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/1106zanden/index.html


----------



## Anaxilus

Synergy is a big deal.  I think too many people chase their ideal flat DAP, flat amp, flat phone and expect nirvana.  It seems like chasing a mythical white unicorn and even if you catch it you won't necessarily like the ride.


----------



## Sonic 748i

That's exactly what I was after, a flat DAP ( HiFiMAN ), a flat AMP ( RSA The Protector ) and a flat earphone ( JH13 Pro ). I'm experiencing audio nirvana everyday.


----------



## Nankai

Wadia 861 from Stereophile
  $7950
  DAC: PCM1704K (same to HM-801)
  http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/540/index.html


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





nankai said:


> Wadia 861 from Stereophile
> $7950
> DAC: PCM1704K (same to HM-801)
> http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/540/index.html


 

 LOL, Thanks for the info Nankai,


----------



## Nankai

We experienced same "shock" two years ago when we were doing the experiement of PCM1704 circuit: The flater plot you have, the more "digital" sound you got. Finally we decide to follow the ears, not plot. Btw, RMAA is not professional enough.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





nankai said:


> We experienced same "shock" two years ago when we were doing the experiement of PCM1704 circuit: The flater plot you have, the more "digital" sound you got. Finally we decide to follow the ears, not plot. Btw, RMAA is not professional enough.


 

 Well, you have pretty much made dfkt look foolish trying to put down the best portable audio player in the market.


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





nankai said:


> We experienced same "shock" two years ago when we were doing the experiement of PCM1704 circuit: The flater plot you have, the more "digital" sound you got. Finally we decide to follow the ears, not plot. Btw, RMAA is not professional enough.


 

 Yea what if you don't like your music to sound flat? I hate flat sound, boring, non emotional, clinical.
   
  not for my tastes


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> Well, you have pretty much made dfkt look foolish trying to put down the best portable audio player in the market.


 

 You fanboys are always so impartial...


----------



## Sonic 748i

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way...


----------



## Ntropic

So what we've established is that it doesn't matter what your equipment is, all that matters is that it sounds good compared to whatever else you have.
   
   
  dfkt; any ETA (after release date) on the J3 review? I know you guys don't put out articles often, but I'd imagine the J3 would be one that's going to be out as soon as possible. Not that you should rush it, but I am a fan of your website's reviews (but not the articles. They're kind of stupid, in my opinion).


----------



## Bojamijams

Right so when stereophile reviewed it and named it the best sounding portable player, they too must've been deaf?  A cheap dac+cheap IC+cheap circuitry (I'm talking about the clip here) must be the same as a top of the line DAC and OPA627 amps right? I mean, what do electrical engineers know about good ICs right? Some dude on a forum MUST be the expert.
   
  Man dfkt, I actually thought you knew what you were writing about. Well everyone makes mistakes, I've learned from mine.
   
  If you think  a clip sounds as good as the hm801, you have no business delving into or writinganything about hi-fi. Skullcandy will be fine for you.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





bojamijams said:


> Right so when stereophile reviewed it and named it the best sounding portable player, they too must've been deaf?  A cheap dac+cheap IC+cheap circuitry (I'm talking about the clip here) must be the same as a top of the line DAC and OPA627 amps right? I mean, what do electrical engineers know about good ICs right? Some dude on a forum MUST be the expert.
> 
> Man dfkt, I actually thought you knew what you were writing about. Well everyone makes mistakes, I've learned from mine.
> 
> If you think  a clip sounds as good as the hm801, you have no business delving into or writinganything about hi-fi. Skullcandy will be fine for you.


 

 LOL!!! I don't think I've ever laughed this hard.


----------



## swanlee

I just think some people put to much int clinical graphs just like some people put to much into snake oil. We should be able to draw some conclusions from each side but in the end we have to decide what we like based on what we hear and our own personal preferences.
   
  A player that has treble roll off at 15K is not big deal for me cause that is where my hearing stops, for someone else this may be a huge deal. A player that dips in bass will not meet my approval as I like a lot of bass someone else may not care. A player with a crazy graph curve may match my personal preferences as to what I like in sound signature which is more enjoyable to me than a flat line.
   
  You simply can't look at a graph and get the complete picture on how a player REALLY sounds but graphs can explain why a player has certain charactoristics.
   
  At some point if you don't let your own ears decide what you prefer then why bother even listening to music, just look at straight line graphs all day then.


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





bojamijams said:


> Right so when stereophile reviewed it and named it the best sounding portable player, they too must've been deaf?  A cheap dac+cheap IC+cheap circuitry (I'm talking about the clip here) must be the same as a top of the line DAC and OPA627 amps right? I mean, what do electrical engineers know about good ICs right? Some dude on a forum MUST be the expert.
> 
> Man dfkt, I actually thought you knew what you were writing about. Well everyone makes mistakes, I've learned from mine.
> 
> If you think  a clip sounds as good as the hm801, you have no business delving into or writinganything about hi-fi. Skullcandy will be fine for you.


 
   
  Spent $800 on sub par DAC, must defend or look like fool, MUST DEFEND! MUUUUUUST!


----------



## SHADYMILKMAN

bojamijams, got real personal ... srsly What mate!?
   
  dfkt didnt say it sounded better, however the tests do show that the clip+ scores better in RMAA than an 801. citing subjective reviews to devalue test results is reaching, at best. now if you want to call into question RMAA, or BOTH of the 801s he used that would be a different story. but the scores are there, cant deny them regardless of what you hear.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





rockford said:


> Spent $800 on sub par DAC, must defend or look like fool, MUST DEFEND! MUUUUUUST!


 
  So we're suppose to sit here and let people throw out attacks at our purchases and not retaliate? Would you like if someone went about bashing why you don't just use iPod earbuds and music sounds the same through any speaker? No, you would defend yourself.


----------



## Anaxilus




----------



## prone2phone

why noone speaks about how good hm801's dynamic range is? or frequency is most important? do distortions show how good  instrument separation is?


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> So we're suppose to sit here and let people throw out attacks at our purchases and not retaliate? Would you like if someone went about bashing why you don't just use iPod earbuds and music sounds the same through any speaker? No, you would defend yourself.


 

 Why do you feel the need to defend a purchase you made? You are an ignorant fanboy whos opinion is purely based on the fact that you refuse to look silly for spending $800 on a brick of a player that doesn't perform better than any other player on the market.
   
  You are silly.


----------



## Edwood

Headphones are quite a different animal as well.  I trust measureabators even less with headphones.  There's as much art as science in high end audio.  The much beloved JH Audio JH13's do not measure ruler flat.  A ruler flat frequency response would sound terrible.  They are well known to have a rather noticeable bump in very specific area in the bass spectrum.  It was done on purpose by Jerry Harvey since kick drums seem to dominate that particular area of the frequency spectrum.  It's adds the "oomph" to the bass in that area without causing unnecessary distortion. 
   
  I tried firing up my old RME sound card Win XP rig, and it's not going well.  I tried the latest RMAA v.6 on it, and the results weren't pretty with anything I tried.  Something is definitely wrong.  LOL.  I'll have to look into it further.
   
  -Ed


----------



## electropop

While I appreciate criticism and those who are skeptic, dfkt really just ends up sounding like a Clip+ fan. His point against UI-functionality are given, but damn, he must've been using porta pros if he isn't hearing a difference. Or has clogged ears as he himself mentioned..
  I haven't heard the Sansa, but after long listening to my 160gb classic and Sony A816, the difference is substantial favoring the HM-801. I'm actually hearing this and I was very sceptical towards the upgrade myself first. Couldn't care less about the money involved. Can't lie to myself..
  I've been using the srh840s mainly with this player and while I'm longing for better portable cans, can't say that I could ask anything more from a portable player. The on-board amp is not bad when comparing to my voyager, but that's probably because the Shures arent' that amp-dependent but improved by switching to a better source greatly.
   
  Oh, and straight lines don't mean a thing when talking about the ability to play music and make "good sound".


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





rockford said:


> Why do you feel the need to defend a purchase you made? You are an ignorant fanboy whos opinion is purely based on the fact that you refuse to look silly for spending $800 on a brick of a player that doesn't perform better than any other player on the market.
> 
> You are silly.


 

 And you know that the HM-801 does not sound any better than other players because you, yourself have listened to them and compared?   Or you're just simply basing your opinion on someone else's, unlike dfkt who took the time to listen, measure, and come up with his very own conclusions?
   
  So which one is it?


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





electropop said:


> While I appreciate criticism and those who are skeptic, dfkt really just ends up sounding like a Clip+ fan. His point against UI-functionality are given, but damn, he must've been using porta pros if he isn't hearing a difference. Or has clogged ears as he himself mentioned..
> I haven't heard the Sansa, but after long listening to my 160gb classic and Sony A816, the difference is substantial favoring the HM-801. I'm actually hearing this and I was very sceptical towards the upgrade myself first. Couldn't care less about the money involved. Can't lie to myself..
> I've been using the srh840s mainly with this player and while I'm longing for better portable cans, can't say that I could ask anything more from a portable player. The on-board amp is not bad when comparing to my voyager, but that's probably because the Shures arent' that amp-dependent but improved by switching to a better source greatly.
> 
> Oh, and straight lines don't mean a thing when talking about the ability to play music and make "good sound".


 

 When you have a chance, try your SRH840's with a Pico Slim and the HM-801.  I was quite surprised at what I heard (good things).  I was skeptical at first, until I heard a friend of mine heard the difference as well.
   
  -Ed


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





edwood said:


> And you know that the HM-801 does not sound any better than other players because you, yourself have listened to them and compared?   Or you're just simply basing your opinion on someone else's, unlike dfkt who took the time to listen, measure, and come up with his very own conclusions?
> 
> So which one is it?


 

 I have no opinion on the matter, what i am commenting on is the blind idiocy of those who believe the hifiman is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
   
  dfkt is a skilled and respected reviewer and i trust his opinion when it comes to these issues, i am not basing my opinion on his conclusions but I unlike you respect differing opinions.
   
  If you like the hifi man that's great, but don't act like it is the be all end all like some ignorant shmuck.


----------



## Nankai




----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





rockford said:


> I have no opinion on the matter, what i am commenting on is the blind idiocy of those who believe the hifiman is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
> 
> dfkt is a skilled and respected reviewer and i trust his opinion when it comes to these issues, i am not basing my opinion on his conclusions but I unlike you respect differing opinions.
> 
> If you like the hifi man that's great, but don't act like it is the be all end all like some* ignorant shmuck*.


 

 Yeah, I like the HifiMan HM-801, but it's not I who is ignorant.  I actually have experience with the HM-801 and other players.  You do not.  So who's ignorant then?  When you have an actual, real opinion get back to us.  Until then, you're just regurgitating others posts without a clue.  Who's the fanboy then?


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> That's exactly what I was after, a flat DAP ( HiFiMAN ), a flat AMP ( RSA The Protector ) and a flat earphone ( JH13 Pro ). I'm experiencing audio nirvana everyday.


 

 For what that gear all cost, it better sound good!


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Yeah, I like the HifiMan HM-801, but it's not I who is ignorant.  I actually have experience with the HM-801 and other players.  You do not.  So who's ignorant then?  When you have an actual, real opinion get back to us.  Until then, you're just regurgitating others posts without a clue.  Who's the fanboy then?


 

 Well said...


----------



## SHADYMILKMAN

@Fang, 
   
  Post the AA of the 801 unloaded/loaded, with whatever "professional" audio analysis tools that you use, so that way we can see exactly what you mean. 
   
  however, posting the AA of an unrelated product that is neutral under no load at 0.0db while the 801 is not neutral (~0.3db) under no load, and comparing the roll-off is misleading.


----------



## Nankai

This is the RMAA of HM-801 we made a long time ago.If you check wadia 861 carefully in the bottom plot (no load), you will also find "not neutral" problem.


----------



## SHADYMILKMAN

@Fang, its not a problem but the fact that, the freq response curve is elevated means that theres a sharper roll off for the highs than would normally be associated with a neutral unloaded response. all im saying is that if i can read both (dfkt/nankai) graphs which appear identical, the roll off for the 801 starts at 2kHz, where the 861 that you used a reference earlier began the roll off at 7kHz (unloaded). im just playing devils advocate i have no pony in this race, but if all of our ears are subjective the only objective measurement we have, that we can all observe are these AA results then theres a stark reality when it comes to the fidelity of the device. in the end the conclusion about the 801 is that its up to the listener, however the data would lead me elsewhere. 
   
  edit: thank you for your response btw.


----------



## Nankai

I don't think SHADYMILKMAN's "HM-801 rolloff at 2K, Wadia 861 rolloff at 7K" is a fair statement. Actually between 2K to 6K, HM-801 plot's roll-off is very little. WADIA 861 plot pass 0db at 5.5K, HM-801 plot pass 0db at 4.5K.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Still, we don't began to really perceive roll off's or peaks within 1db.


----------



## odigg

Why don't we start posting graphs from all the CD players and sources with a flat FR in the audible range?  Stereophile has enough of them!  How about the professional audio equipment that is used to record the music we love?  Professional audio equipment is designed to be "flat."  If it isn't the manufacturer will tell you, or it is some equipment that is designed to change the FR.
   
  Providing graphs of "High End" CD players with rolloffs in the audible range only provides me of evidence of one thing - that some high priced eqiupment is not made properly or has been specifically designed to change the sound.  The goal of audio equipment is, typically, to transmit a signal in a transparent manner.  There is some equipment is that designed to specifically change the FR like an EQ, but then I know the changes are there or I make the changes to my liking.
   
  Nankai - Rather than coming here and defending this, why don't you ask HiFiman to address this?  Even a $20 Cmoy has a flat FR.  Then you won't have to defend the product to anybody.


----------



## Nankai

Did WADIA, NAIM, Simaudio, etc, address anything about "high freq roll off"? In my opinion,  making so called "flat plot" is a typical lazy way of making audio, esp. source and speaker/headphones. Do you really believe "flat plot on RMAA" means you can 100% reproduce real music? Human auditory system is not flat to different freq sound. 100% Flat plot means 100% not hifi, esp. when talking about headphones.


----------



## odigg

Quote: 





nankai said:


> Did WADIA, NAIM, Simaudio, etc, address anything about "high freq roll off"? In my opinion,  making so called "flat plot" is a typical lazy way of making hifi grade audio products. Do you really believe "flat plot on RMAA" means you can 100% reproduct real music? 100% Flat curve means 100% not real.


 

 Are you serious?  There are plenty of professional audio engineers who strive to make the FR as flat as possible! Why don't you visit AMB LABS and look at the specifications of their amps, DACS, etc?  Look at the measurements.  The FR is FLAT! Are you trying to say people like AMB are lazy?


----------



## Nankai

Amp is a different story when comparing to source or speaker/headphones. Amp need to amplify signal without any distortion, include freq distortion. If you measure any source and speaker/headphones, you will understand what I mentioned.


----------



## JaZZ

A flat frequency response is the norm, so there's no need to post corresponding graphs. The only question is if a deviation of the kind at hand is necessarily coupled with a severe loss of sound quality. As the Wadia example shows, that's not the case. Also note that the design philosophy behind Wadia's treble roll-off has nothing to do with being «not made properly» or «specifically designed to change the sound» – it's an individual attempt to circumvent the shortcomings of the Redbook CD format. You may like it or not. It certainly has its sonic consequences, but not in terms of perceived quality.
.


----------



## Ro-amp

You've got to be kidding me!
  I really really wonder why everybody in the industry is trying to meet a 20Hz-20khz +/- 0.5 db line, from a CD player to an amplifier ending with a speaker (anachoic)...
  WOW!!!!!!!


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





ro-amp said:


> You've got to be kidding me!
> I really really wonder why everybody in the industry is trying to meet a 20Hz-20khz +/- 0.5 db line, from a CD player to an amplifier ending with a speaker (anechoic)...


 
   
  No kidding involved. Frequency response it just one parameter for accurate music reproduction. There are others, such as harmonic distortion and transient response. The steep antialiasing filter which the CD format calls for poses massive problems for transient reproduction. There are several ways to overcome the problem, and the Spline filter is one of them.
   
  However, personally I would probably give up on a device with –1.45 dB at 10 kHz and –4.5 dB at 20 kHz, the more so if it's not clearly displayed as a consequence of a sonic philosophy. A drop-off of this level is audible as such and actually unnecessary for a possible transient-response improvement à la Wadia. It may still match well with a range of headphones, though, and it's the final total transfer function that counts, not the one of a single component. But a drop-off like this is a rather bad precondition for relative neutrality with a wide range of sound transducers, even though the concerned frequency range isn't of primary importance. Perfectionists will most likely not be happy with a device like this. But it definitely can sound good nonetheless, at least with some headphones. Even more so if it shines with other quality criteria.
.


----------



## WalkGood

I honestly can’t say I’m surprised by the fanboys defending their hefty investment but throwing stones and lashing out at the messenger won’t make the truth disappear 

 I for one can’t wait to read the full review and I know that dfkt won’t hold back any punches where honesty is concerned.


----------



## Punnisher

I hope for the hifiman's sake a new amplifier module is designed to remedy this.
   
  As far as "intentional" attenuation or coloration goes, I'd prefer to have every component in my audio chain have a relatively flat response. Speakers/headphones have more than enough coloration and variation for me to get the sound I want.
   
  Thanks for the measurements dfkt, they are much appreciated.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> I honestly can’t say I’m surprised by the fanboys defending their hefty investment but throwing stones and lashing out at the messenger won’t make the truth disappear
> 
> I for one can’t wait to read the full review and I know that dfkt won’t hold back any punches where honesty is concerned.


 

 This will nevertheless be just one person's perception and opinion.
.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





punnisher said:


> I hope for the hifiman's sake a new amplifier module is designed to remedy this.
> 
> As far as "intentional" attenuation or coloration goes, I'd prefer to have every component in my audio chain have a relatively flat response. Speakers/headphones have more than enough coloration and variation for me to get the sound I want.
> 
> Thanks for the measurements dfkt, they are much appreciated.


 

 An amplifier to 'remedy' a source?  Cart before the Horse perhaps?  JaZZ makes an excellent point about CD redbook.  From an audiophile standpoint CD redbook is not in the same league as any analogue signal like a vinyl LP as a source.  Since we are throwing stones in glass audiophile houses just thought I'd bring in my bulldozer!


----------



## Punnisher

I guess that would depend on where the attenuation is taking place, so you have a good point.


----------



## momomo6789




----------



## Sonic 748i




----------



## Ro-amp

Quote: 





punnisher said:


> I hope for the hifiman's sake a new amplifier module is designed to remedy this.
> 
> As far as "intentional" attenuation or coloration goes, I'd prefer to have every component in my audio chain have a relatively flat response. Speakers/headphones have more than enough coloration and variation for me to get the sound I want.
> 
> Thanks for the measurements dfkt, they are much appreciated.


 
  +1
  No wonder everybody is confused....
  Please let me color my world with speakers & headphones...
  And HRTF software...


----------



## shigzeo

I've not heard the HM801, but the S:Flo has a very similar treble roll off which I immediately heard. I noticed it with my DT880 and my Earsonics and afterward, when performing RMAA tests, I realised it wasn't just hearing a 'smooth' nature. I'll not apply that too the HM801 any more than by saying it is audible meaning that it is an applied filter. 
   
  Some people will like that 'smooth' sound, but others will wish for sparkle and higher resolution up top. I DID say that if the S:Flo's GUI was good, it was smaller and free of artefacts induced by the silly touchscreen, I'd buy it. The HM801 has some other tricks up its sleeve: performance as a DAC, etc., which is nice.
   
  But I've never even used a high-end amp that purposely rolls anything off, especially in the treble.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


>


 

 I'm with Anaxilus on this one. It's sad to see people instantly take sides. The fanboys and the haters.
  In my humble opinion not many of the posts here have been very subjective. It's either shoot it down or lift it up.


----------



## Edwood

Well you what they say about opinions. 
   
  Opinions are like a-holes.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  They stink.


----------



## mobbaddict

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> I've not heard the HM801, but the S:Flo has a very similar treble roll off which I immediately heard. I noticed it with my DT880 and my Earsonics and afterward, when performing RMAA tests, I realised it wasn't just hearing a 'smooth' nature. I'll not apply that too the HM801 any more than by saying it is audible meaning that it is an applied filter.


 

 Did you post your rmaa tests somewhere?
  My computer did not detect any roll off coming from the s:flo without load... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3199/clipvssflo.png


----------



## borrego

The S:flo2 treble roll off is at its headphone out. Its line out does not have obvious roll-off.


----------



## SHADYMILKMAN

people who would rather look at facts with regard to sources, than the succumb to the subjective nature of hype, and psychoacustics. some have made claims about wanting flat response from their encoded "96/24" files to their source to their iems ... only to be exposed as less than accurate with respect to the RMAA. to label a AA as an opinion is ludicrous, citing peoples (regardless of their headfi acumen) subjective reviews without showing tests to back it up IS an opinion, especially using it to defend against a simple AA.
   
  its not flat, its not 0db, and the treble rolls off. looking at stereophile i saw not one CD source deviate from 0db that wasnt a tube. to say this is hifi, is a mischaracterization of what is sought after in this community. to rely soley on opinions then when facts arrive having made your decision you cannot denounce them as wrong, just because you feel youre right. we call that "truthiness".
   
  it would seem to me that, the manufacturer made great choices about the equipment in the device, however did little in the way of tuning the final product. i find it particularly interesting that every highend manufacturer tries their best to stay flat, to let the music breathe on its own ... and then we have the hifi man.


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





jazz said:


> This will nevertheless be just one person's perception and opinion.  .


 


 Reading through all the posts I doubt that very much.


----------



## odigg

If some manufacturers choose to rolloff the treble for an "analog sound" (whatever that means) then they are free to do so.
   
  But a flat FR is the standard in the industry.  I can create a source with a non-flat FR and call it "High End" or whatever else, but that doesn't change the fact that a flat FR is THE standard the industry.
   
  Modern DSP software can create a treble rolloff without issue.  For $.50 in parts anybody with basic electronics knowledge can create a lowpass filter that does the same thing.  Do you mean to say this is "High End?" or that a designing to a flat FR is "lazy engineering?"
   
  As for the idea that RMAA is somehow not professional, I again point out AMB Labs and even Tangent Audio.  Do you know what they use to demonstrate the performance of their designs? RMAA!  AMB uses it to demonstrate the performance of their Y1 and Y2 DACs, both of which measure FLAT and have outstanding performance (probably better than a lot of the "High End" stuff out there).
   
  None of this is opinion.  I'm not making any comments about if a treble rolloff is desirable in terms of sound.  I'm merely pointing out standard practice in the audio industry.  If you want to argue that standard industry practice is bad, good luck with that.
   
  If you want to argue that a treble rolloff is good, I only have to say that the individual listener can decide how much they want to change the FR to their liking.  We have ears and we can adjust it however we want using an EQ or with transducers.


----------



## shigzeo

^^ what he said. If the HM801 rolls off the highs from the HPO, it is fully their prerogative, but the LO on the other hand, should probably (I say this softly for a reason) be flat. 
   
  All that means, however, is that the HM801 may sound 'smooth' or, in another frame of mind, 'dull'. The S:Flo is also highly cherished among some people here and its signal is very similar. I prefer more sparkle but that is just one arse hole.


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> ^^ what he said. If the HM801 rolls off the highs from the HPO, it is fully their prerogative, but the LO on the other hand, should probably (I say this softly for a reason) be flat.
> 
> All that means, however, is that the HM801 may sound 'smooth' or, in another frame of mind, 'dull'. The S:Flo is also highly cherished among some people here and its signal is very similar. I prefer more sparkle but that is just one arse hole.


 

 The SFLO:2 has no rolloff on the LO and someone in this very thread has posted RMAA tests showing no roll off with the HO, but even conceding the roll off at least you have an output on the SFLO:2 with no roll off at all and it really needs to be stated that graphs cannot show the total SQ of a device. Graphs are nice to look at but two devices that graph the same may sound completely different based on a lot of other factors not seen in any graph.
   
  RMAA does more than graphs, can someone post the technical specs like THD%, stereo seperation, Dyanmic Range etc. that would at least give more insight into the technical measurements besides a graph to look at.
   
  It boils down to do you want to look at graphs all day or listen to music?


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *swanlee* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> ... ... RMAA does more than graphs, can someone post the technical specs like THD%, stereo seperation, Dyanmic Range etc. that would at least give more insight into the technical measurements besides a graph to look at. ...


 
   
  Just follow the link that dfkt here.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





odigg said:


> If some manufacturers choose to rolloff the treble for an "analog sound" (whatever that means) then they are free to do so. But a flat FR is the standard in the industry.  I can create a source with a non-flat FR and call it "High End" or whatever else, but that doesn't change the fact that a flat FR is THE standard the industry. (...) None of this is opinion.  I'm not making any comments about if a treble rolloff is desirable in terms of sound.  I'm merely pointing out standard practice in the audio industry. If you want to argue that standard industry practice is bad, good luck with that. If you want to argue that a treble rolloff is good, I only have to say that the individual listener can decide how much they want to change the FR to their liking. We have ears and we can adjust it however we want using an EQ or with transducers.


 
   
  Yes, you can chose the device that fits your demands, and a DAP with a treble roll-off isn't to your liking, so your choice is clear. Just as well as the one of the Wadia customer who thinks Wadia's sonic philosophy results in a sonic characteristic that suits his taste. You just haven't grasped the technical aspect behind their philosophy. It's not about a treble roll-off for an artificially smooth sound, it's about the compensation for redbook CD's sonic limitations which may shine through in standard-filter implementations. So generally the ideal would still be a flat frequency response, but in the case of CD and other digital players which have to deal with the standard 44-kHz sampling frequency it is partly sacrificed in the interest of a less compromised transient response (which their measurements seem to prove, BTW). Again: frequency response isn't the only important component among the measuring specs.
   
  For me the treble roll-off in the HiFiMan would nevertheless be a personal deal-breaker. I have auditioned Wadia DACs, and while I appreciate some aspects of their specific sonic characteristic, I prefer conventional filter characteristics with a more sparkling treble, and be it at the expense of a worse transient response (which is still debatable). But it's not useful to spread misinformation about a product on the basis of one measuring criterion and a lack of insight into audio techniques. Or to think the reported sonic virtues are solely the result of an artificial recreation of an analog relict. Or to solely rely on one specific reviewer's opinion. Whereas the Head-Fi founder with its respected audio experience and other respected members think quite highly of the HiFiMan's sound. I would keep my mind open as long as I haven't auditioned it myself.
.


----------



## Nankai

In my opinion, look at a freq graph and say "high is roll-off so that treble no sparkling" is not right. "Bright" feeling is more related to 5 to 10K. Zanden 5000 MK IV is a perfect example. From the plot some people will believe it is "no high and no low". Actually it is the one of the best NOS DAC in the world. Lots of NOS DAC's freq plots are very messy so that you can not use plot to judge sound.


----------



## saykong

This type of test just can be as a reference, because I don't think out there got any equipment that can measure soundstage, vocal sweet or harsh, imaging, sound position/instrument separation, bass tight or not etc. A good sounding system/DAP is not just frequency range/response.
   
  Is just like did u believe in God/ghost, if yes can u prove or can u use some/any equipment to measure/prove?
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Sorry for my poor english.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





saykong said:


> This type of test just can be as a reference, because I don't think out there got any equipment that can measure soundstage,


 

 Stereo crosstalk measures this. The HM-801 performed poorly.


----------



## El_Doug

These graphs are very very interesting, and an excellent beginning for research into the matter   I'd love to see more info, such as THD, noise (the hiss is terrible on the hifiman stock amp), waterfall graphs, phase, etc.  I just may have to buy a clip to compare to my hifiman  
  
  Quote: 





mrgreen said:


> Stereo crosstalk measures this. The HM-801 performed poorly.


 

 Some of us actually purposely add crossfeed into our full sized rigs, to offset stereo separation that is too aggressive for headphones - pure separation alone, while it relates to soundstage, is not a measure of soundstage


----------



## prone2phone

hm801 has better crosstalk with 16ohm headphones than headstage-arrow amp, maybe dfkt started this thread just to entertain himself?


----------



## MrGreen

Quote:  





> Some of us actually purposely add crossfeed into our full sized rigs, to offset stereo separation that is too aggressive for headphones - pure separation alone, while it relates to soundstage, is not a measure of soundstage


 

 It's a measure of potential soundstage in electronic, non-mechanical components. As cross talk approaches -infinity, the soudstage approaches 1.0 of a headphones potential. It's basic maths.
   
  You're reducing how far apart the sounds are (the soundstage) when you apply a crossfeed to make them less fatiguing. Or are you going to argue that your audition works differently to everyone elses?
   
  Unless your comment was a jest at pedantry based on my choice of word (specifically "measures"), which was to make the concept easier to understand. In which case I forgive you


----------



## El_Doug

POTENTIAL being the key word.  Your statement is correct assuming we are using binaural, or even 2-mic live recordings.  However with today's overprocessed recordings, which make use of hard-panning, soundstage becomes non-existent when a guitar is "moved" all the way to the left during mixing.  A system with -infinity crosstalk and zero crossfeed, when driving headphones, would not display the guitar as being in the left of a soundstage, but rather directly blaring into our left ears. 
   
  We use crossfeed to purposely introduce crosstalk, in order to push such hard-panned instruments back into the soundstage.  It is from this perspective that I suggested that crosstalk measurements were only a beginning to understanding a certain device's soundstage, and not the end-all, definitive measure. 
  
  Quote: 





mrgreen said:


> It's a measure of potential soundstage in electronic, non-mechanical components. As cross talk approaches -infinity, the soudstage approaches 1.0 of a headphones potential. It's basic maths.
> 
> You're reducing how far apart the sounds are (the soundstage) when you apply a crossfeed to make them less fatiguing. Or are you going to argue that your audition works differently to everyone elses?
> 
> Unless your comment was a jest at pedantry based on my choice of word (specifically "measures"), which was to make the concept easier to understand. In which case I forgive you


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





mrgreen said:


> Stereo crosstalk measures this. The HM-801 performed poorly.


 
  Quote: 





el_doug said:


> Some of us actually purposely add crossfeed into our full sized rigs, to offset stereo separation that is too aggressive for headphones - pure separation alone, while it relates to soundstage, is not a measure of soundstage


 

 I agree with _El_Doug_. Soundstage isn't defined by crosstalk at all if it reaches 50 or 60 dB. I have crossfeeded my whole music collection, and soundstage is still excellent, in some respect (naturalness) even better than originally.

  
  Quote: 





mrgreen said:


> It's a measure of potential soundstage in electronic, non-mechanical components. As cross talk approaches -infinity, the soudstage approaches 1.0 of a headphones potential. It's basic maths. You're reducing how far apart the sounds are (the soundstage) when you apply a crossfeed to make them less fatiguing. Or are you going to argue that your audition works differently to everyone elses?


 
   
  You don't seem to understand the concept of crossfeed. It consists of a specific crosstalk, predominantly in the (low) bass, clearly less in the midrange and preferrably not at all in the treble. Additionally it implies a phase distortion mimicking the natural runtime differences of excentric sound events. With a good implementation (like mine 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) threedimensionality and realism of soundstage are fully left intact. Channel separation has nothing to do with it, apart from cases of extremely low figures not present in modern amps. Moreover the perception of sonic depth is a function of resolution and accuracy, insofar as they facilitate the (unconscious) detection of spatial cues on the recording (separation between direct instrument sound and reflections). With headphones the preservation of the outer-ear function for decoding spatial cues adds to this.
.


----------



## Anaxilus




----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


>


 

 I'm with ya'


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





saykong said:


> This type of test just can be as a reference, because* I don't think out there got any equipment that can measure soundstage, vocal sweet or harsh, imaging, sound position/instrument separation, bass tight or not etc. A good sounding system/DAP is not just frequency range/response.*
> 
> Is just like did u believe in God/ghost, if yes can u prove or can u use some/any equipment to measure/prove?
> 
> ...


 
   
  Quoted For Truth. 
   
  Bingo!  We have a winner here! 
   
  BTW, I don't think a lot of you guys realize, how high, the high frequencies we're talking here.  Little to no music exists in these ranges on purpose.
   
  Check it out for yourself.  My personal hearing tops out at about 17K, I can just barely hear 18K, but I need to turn up the volume a lot. 
   
  http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/hearing_test/
   
   
  -Ed


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





jazz said:


> You don't seem to understand the concept of crossfeed. It consists of a specific crosstalk, predominantly in the (low) bass, clearly less in the midrange and preferrably not at all in the treble. Additionally it implies a phase distortion mimicking the natural runtime differences of excentric sound events. With a good implementation (like mine
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


 Actually, you are the one who seems to have problems understanding the concept of crossfeed. Channel separation has everything to do with it. There is no possible way to crossfeed and have 100% of the "soundstage" intact. Can it be improved for headphone listening? Certainly it can, but you are_ reducing_ it by decreasing stereo bias.
   
  I suggest you at least do some preliminary reading on it before posting about it or think about this in a more logical (i.e. less false) way of thinking.
   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfeed
   
  You can use crossfeed all you like, but a device that has it without the ability to turn it off is inherently flawed. Ideally we should be aiming for channel separation that is of the same dynamic range as cds or higher, and crossfeeds should be left optional (as I think meier audio does on their amps if I recall correctly)
   
  The hifiman is -45dB crosstalk, so it doesnt reach your magic number. You can do the calculation regarding how much louder 50 dB is, as I am too tired


----------



## Edwood

Personally, I prefer not to use *artificial Crossfeed* software-wise or in amps.  The only natural crossfeed I liked was in the K1000, which operate more like speakers.
   
  -Ed


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Quoted For Truth.
> 
> Bingo!  We have a winner here!
> 
> ...


 

 Well, as someone who has spent some time doing RTA's on various systems I will say that even if you can't hear a particular frequency doesn't mean the presence or absence of that frequency does not impact the quality of other frequencies or sound in general.  Just my experience.  Back to my


----------



## Antony6555

I think the fr graph is pretty damning. I was looking forward to the hm801. Ha, at least now I feel better about my ipod set up right now.


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





antony6555 said:


> I think the fr graph is pretty damning. I was looking forward to the hm801. Ha, at least now I feel better about my ipod set up right now.


 


 And just think how many ipod's you could get for $790.00


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> Well, as someone who has spent some time doing RTA's on various systems I will say that even if you can't hear a particular frequency doesn't mean the presence or absence of that frequency does not impact the quality of other frequencies or sound in general.  Just my experience.  Back to my


 

  
  Not so much in this case, as I can hear a positive difference quite clearly.  Unless the measured roll off is responsible for the improved sound. 
   
  -Ed


----------



## tds101

I'm just enjoying the show,......................


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> And just think how many ipod's you could get for $790.00


 

 Just think, you could have 10 Honda Civics instead of 1 Ferrari F430.


----------



## SHADYMILKMAN

ive bought bad products before, i wouldnt go this far to defend any of them, a sunk cost is a sunk cost. however NEXT time i would be more careful about where i placed my money and whom i trusted with it. this product isnt one of them. if fang did in fact show off the AA test results and people still bought into it, then thats on them.
   
  to my man el_doug: http://rmaa.elektrokrishna.com/Comparisons/Hifiman%20Line-Out%2C%20USB%2C%20SPDIF.htm more results for your tastes. ill give it to dfkt for being thorough with his tests, if you ask him hell try to post the results but it looks like hes got the bases covered. all in all the 801 doesnt test horribly, but its not $800usd good ... an iphone 3GS (i *HATE* apple, im not sure why theyve earned my endorsement here ...) costs less and performs better, which to me equals value.
   
  deflecting the argument to cross-feed and semantics, distracts from the true discussion here, which is the AA results for the 801.


----------



## Edwood

LOL, the current Corvette ZR-1 has a faster 0-60 time than the Ferarri F430.  So naturally I think the Corvetter ZR1 is a far superior car than the F430 since I read that single spec.  
   
  I've never driven either car, but the truth is the truth.  The ZR1 is flat out faster 0-60 in tests.  Because that's all that matters.
   
  Well, except for those really curvy roads, interior and exterior build quality, road handling.........but I digress.
   
  Single benchmark results are all that matter right?
   
  Guess I'm selling my HifiMan HM-801 and getting an iPhone!


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Just think, you could have 10 Honda Civics instead of 1 Ferrari F430.


 

 Wow ignorance is bliss isn’t it, how in the world can you compare that POS to a Ferrari o_O BTW I too saw the internal pictures of the poor soldering, outdated parts and the internals, you need a reality check.


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





edwood said:


> LOL, the current Corvette ZR-1 has a faster 0-60 time than the Ferarri F430.  So naturally I think the Corvetter ZR1 is a far superior car than the F430 since I read that single spec.
> 
> I've never driven either car, but the truth is the truth.  The ZR1 is flat out faster 0-60 in tests.  Because that's all that matters.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Did you read this threads title before posting genius?


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





rockford said:


> Did you read this threads title before posting genius?


 

 Yes, thank you, I are a posting genius.


----------



## JaZZ

mrgreen said:


> _Actually, you are the one who seems to have problems understanding the concept of crossfeed. Channel separation has everything to do with it._


 
   
  And what was I stating instead?
   


> _There is no possible way to crossfeed and have 100% of the "soundstage" intact. Can it be improved for headphone listening? Certainly it can, but you are reducing it by decreasing stereo bias._


 

 Your problem is that for some reason you think that soundstage is identical with channel separation. Allow yourself some more fantasy! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Soundstage is a term used for describing the 3-dimensionality and spatial realism of a sonic presentation. Note that I say 3-dimensionality, not 2-dimensionality! And yes: a good crossfeed leaves the soundstage intact or even improves it in some aspects, like my own implementation. The latter implies that I know what I'm talking about.
   


> _You can use crossfeed all you like, but a device that has it without the ability to turn it off is inherently flawed. Ideally we should be aiming for channel separation that is of the same dynamic range as cds or higher, and crossfeeds should be left optional (as I think meier audio does on their amps if I recall correctly. The hifiman is -45dB crosstalk, so it doesnt reach your magic number._


 
   
  I would say it's still enough, since even vinyl records (with their 15-30 dB) usually provide a realistic soundstage. The number of 50 dB was just an arbitrary value known to be easily surpassed by dedicated amps. For a DAP, thus a drive+DAC+headphone amp, it's still a decent and uncritical value. 
   
  I don't have HiFiMan shares and no interest to defend a device with some questionable measuring specs, but other than you I don't see reason enough to conclude a heavily compromised sound quality from them. The treble roll-off would be a deal-breaker for me, but certainly not the channel separation, which is o.k.
.


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> Wow ignorance is bliss isn’t it, how in the world can you compare that POS to a Ferrari o_O BTW I too saw the *internal pictures of the poor soldering, outdated parts and the internals*, you need a reality check.


 
   
  Got links?


----------



## Rockford

You will have to wait for dfkt to post those if he is going to, or you can find yourself a screwdriver and open yours up.


----------



## JaZZ

edwood said:


> _Personally, I prefer not to use *artificial Crossfeed* software-wise or in amps.  The only natural crossfeed I liked was in the K1000, which operate more like speakers._


 

 The K 1000's crossfeed is very different from the «artificial» crossfeed (à la Meier-Audio's «Natural Crossfeed»). The latter serves for reducing channel separation at lower frequencies to make listening to extremely panned recordings (speak early Beatles and the like) more bearable. A one-sided bass is anything but natural, since such an experience isn't possible in reality. Now the K 1000 doesn't fulfill this requirement at all. At best it makes for some minute midrange crosstalk, but that doesn't help with the Beatles recordings. Not to my ears.
.


----------



## Currawong

Interesting measurements. I haven't read the rest of this thread, but it seems the digital filter has a very slow roll-off on the Hifiman (high-end DACs have a slow roll-off filter) and a sharp cut-off on the others (which isn't the most ideal, but looks more impressive on a graph). That roll-off in the Hifiman is only -1dB at 10k, above which it doesn't matter so much, so it'd be mostly if not entirely inaudible.  The rest of the measurements, if my understanding is correct, aren't as bad as they are making it out to be. I disagree with the conclusions about crosstalk, as the Hifiman's is at least flat, and the ones that supposedly best it have wildly varying graphs that will distort the music, such as the Cowan which I'll bet gives the music more bass. I wonder if the bass roll-offs were a result of the load of the computer being different to what  the DAPs would have to deal with when driving headphones? Also, the forum does seem to be very anti-head-fi, which is more likely why the OP in that thread made the comments he did, rather than because he understands what the graphs say.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





jazz said:


> And what was I stating instead?
> 
> 
> Your problem is that for some reason you think that soundstage is identical with channel separation. Allow yourself some more fantasy!
> ...


 
   
   
  Right.
   
  So how exactly does x (soundstage size) become larger when the determining factor is reduced? 0dbfs crosstalk (that is 100% crosstalk) is mono. You can't honestly believe mono has a "brilliant soundstage".
   
  Electronics dont have the benefits of mechanical parts where acoustic design, offset etc affects the perception of soundstage, they only present raw data (in essence), which is relied on by the quality of their parts.
   
  If I was to present you with a perfect device, only it output data in mono, you could not sit there and tell me it had soundstage through headphones, simply because of the way the audition works: it would perceive the sounds coming from the centre of your head (in ideal circumstances). I feel awkward arguing about this, because I think soundstage is probably up there with the least important qualities for headphones. Still I cannot sit there while you are being wrong.
   
   
   
  In other news. What are some things that RMAA do not test? Does it adequately test "quality of sound"? Or are we to believe the STX is the greatest thing since sliced bread? Mind you, I've seen results that put the STX at way lower than the advertised maximum of the dac chips it uses....


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Got links?


 
  I can not share what is not mine to share or I would, I would recommend since you have one look closely for yourself. Look at the solder joints, the old burr pcm1704 DAC used from 1998 which has been discontinued … the design flaws in the hifiman are clear and obvious, I didn’t need to look at graphs to determine my opinion, but it certainly helps.


----------



## Nankai

PCM1704 is still available from Ti now. Do you really think PCM1794 or WM8742 is better than PCM1704?
   
  http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/pcm1704.html#inventory


----------



## cocopro

Just out of curiosity, some pepple can notice -1db over 10k but unable to hear the difference between 801 and clip?


----------



## JaZZ

mrgreen said:


> _So how exactly does x (soundstage size) become larger when the determining factor is reduced? 0dbfs crosstalk (that is 100% crosstalk) is mono. You can't honestly believe mono has a "brilliant soundstage"._


 
   
  Your mistake is to think that a maximized soundstage width is desirable, moreover one with an unnatural feature: extreme channel separation at low frequencies. When I'm talking of «preserved» of «improved» soundstage I'm addressing lifelikeness, credibility and threedimensionality. A hard-panned recording doesn't provide this, despite the wide soundstage. Note that it suffices to reduce channel separation at low frequencies, so you don't lose any essential spatial cues.
   
   


> _What are some things that RMAA do not test? Does it adequately test "quality of sound"? Or are we to believe the STX is the greatest thing since sliced bread? Mind you, I've seen results that put the STX at way lower than the advertised maximum of the dac chips it uses._


 
   
  I don't understand your question concerning the «STX». An Asus soundcard? I can't speak for it. As to measuring sound quality: Without any extreme measuring data you can't predict the sonic characteristic or the sound quality of an electronics device. The only data I'd consider extreme with the HM-801 is the treble roll-off.  Everything else is decent and below the established hearing threshold. Sound quality can effectively only be judged by ear.
.


----------



## WalkGood

Ah yes they still sell them so they’re really not obsolete, even if technology has passed them by in the last 12 years and just because you can still buy them doesn't mean that they weren't discontinued at one point for more power efficient designs. I guess with the PCM1704 you get maximum street credibility from the self-professed audiophiles. No one would like them to make vague negative comments


----------



## High_Q

Thanks dfkt.  I always like to see objective test results on a product that cost $800.


----------



## h.rav

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nankai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Do you really think PCM1794 or WM8742 is better than PCM1704?


 

 I do think the Wolfson sounds better than the PCM1704. Have you ever heard PS Audio PerfectWave?


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> I can not share what is not mine to share or I would, I would recommend since you have one look closely for yourself. Look at the solder joints, the old burr pcm1704 DAC used from 1998 which has been discontinued … the design flaws in the hifiman are clear and obvious, I didn’t need to look at graphs to determine my opinion, but it certainly helps.


 

 I've been around for awhile, and I do know my way around with a soldering iron and such.  The back panel is quite easy to remove.  Here's my pics.
   
  There was indeed thought put into the internal design. Note the gold colored spring used to properly ground the metal back panel to the internal PCB.  Also a small heatsink with thermal paste applied to couple the DAC Chips to the rear metal plate to aid in heat dissipation as the specs call for only 85C max temps.

   
  And as you can see, the "K" version is used.

   
  -Ed


----------



## Nankai

Quote: 





h.rav said:


> Quote:
> 
> I do think the Wolfson sounds better than the PCM1704. Have you ever heard PS Audio PerfectWave?


 

 Wolfson WM874x's digital filter part is not good enough. It need an additional special digital filter to become hi-end. For example, Linn made a digital filter for WM8741 on Linn Klimax DS: They code on a FPGA chip and use it as digital filter. Think about how much current a FPGA chip will eat. A portable player can not afford this.


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





nankai said:


> Wolfson WM874x's digital filter part is not good enough. It need an additional special digital filter to become hi-end. For example, Linn made a digital filter for WM8741 on Linn Klimax DS: They code on a FPGA chip and use it as digital filter. Think about how much current a FPGA chip will eat. A portable player can not afford this.


 
   
  LOL, what?  Are you saying people would have a problem with carrying around a 10lb "portable" player with a 30 minute battery life?   I'm thinking the amp section should be 300B driven as well.  Well, then we'd be talking a 30sec battery life.


----------



## KLS

I am with some of the popcorn group 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Though I actually own one HiFiMAN.
   
  What can I say...Owners of HiFiMAN seems to prefer defend or debate more than to answer my little question in the appreciate post: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/447836/hifiman-801-appreciation-thread/210#post_6622121 Only @Bojamijams was kind enough to share his setting.
   
  I have PMed Nankai asking the 'Normal' EQ setting (along with other issue on HiFiMAN), and was ignored on the EQ part...
   
  Perhaps I just asked a stupid question.


----------



## rawrster

Well I gotta say..dfkt sure knows how to make threads that are highly controversial and very entertaining  This is even more so than his review of the amp3 pro1 (or whatever it is called) that got locked up pretty fast and I imagine this thread will be locked pretty soon. Until then..


----------



## CEE TEE

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> I can't be bothered to repeat my post here, since Head-Fi's disgustingly idiotic new forum system makes it extremely hard to post images and links. So for everyone interested, here's some initial RMAA tests of the Hifiman HM-801, over on ABI:
> 
> http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54879


 

 dfkt, you are NO SHILL.  THANK YOU.  You are the man.


----------



## WalkGood

CEE TEE within that thread you linked I especially enjoyed reading saratoga's (Rockbox Developer) reply to *nankai* here.


----------



## CEE TEE

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> CEE TEE within that thread you linked I especially enjoyed reading saratoga's (Rockbox Developer) reply to *nankai* here.


 

 I have to say that I DO NOT know if the performance of the player is good or bad and/or sounds good or bad.  I can say that based on my limited experience, I really enjoy the headphones that I have and that Head-Fi helped me get them.  
   
  I really appreciate the conversation back and forth between the manufacturer and the veterans (or anyone who wants to earnestly debate an aspect or provide some data) because it helps me figure out how to best spend my money or be happy with what I have.
   
  Feeling like I have the view of honest/earnest deliberations on specific equipment is a huge value of Head-Fi.  Nankai is trying to address the questions and stay cool while the player is being challenged.
   
  This is a chance to learn and evaluate.  May we get the information and insight we need to get satisfaction from our purchases and keep the "wow" going when we make purchases we can hear are good ones.
   
  I guess I'll need to stick around awhile.  The site seems to be burning in...


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





cee tee said:


> I guess I'll need to stick around awhile.  The site seems to be burning in...


 

 Want some popcorn?


----------



## CEE TEE

Yeah, I know my microwave is great!


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





kls said:


> That was purely a question. I never insult anything or anyone.


 
   
  Oh, I wasn't referring to you KLS.  I think we know who has been hurling popcorn around here.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





cee tee said:


> Yeah, I know my microwave is great!


 

 Anyone up for a Bonfire?!


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> Anyone up for a Bonfire?!


 

 I got the fire


----------



## Edwood

I'll bring the pretzels.


----------



## momomo6789

amp3 was spot on that thing sucked  besides the battery life


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> I can not share what is not mine to share or I would, I would recommend since you have one look closely for yourself. Look at the solder joints, the old burr pcm1704 DAC used from 1998 which has been discontinued … the design flaws in the hifiman are clear and obvious, I didn’t need to look at graphs to determine my opinion, but it certainly helps.


 

 It's pretty clear you're here to back up dfkt, but unfortunately you're doing it with a raft of gross misinformation and misunderstanding of the meaning of measurements. Some of the top DACs available today use the PCM1704UK or similar R2R DA chips, as, despite new advances, well-implemented they still reproduce music from a digital source better than just about everything else. Most modern DA chips are designed to be made cheaply, not to sound as good as possible.  If you guys believe that all this portable audio stuff is overkill and everyone should just buy an iPhone, iPod or Sansa Clip, then fair enough (quite understandable considering the Hifiman and many portable amps are quite large) but trashing someone's hard work with outright BS is trolling.

 Quote:


h.rav said:


> Quote:
> 
> I do think the Wolfson sounds better than the PCM1704. Have you ever heard PS Audio PerfectWave?


 

 A common misconception on this forum is that the DAC chip makes the sound.  It doesn't.  So while you might have preferred the Perfectwave to another DAC, that would be the result of the entire design of both.  Also, the popular WM8740 has pretty poor distortion measurements compared to other DA chips (the manufacturer measurements are available online), which is an incredible irony in this thread.  Yes, the Perfect Wave doesn't use the 8740, but my point still stands.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Your mistake is to think that a maximized soundstage width is desirable, moreover one with an unnatural feature: extreme channel separation at low frequencies. When I'm talking of «preserved» of «improved» soundstage I'm addressing lifelikeness, credibility and threedimensionality. A hard-panned recording doesn't provide this, despite the wide soundstage. Note that it suffices to reduce channel separation at low frequencies, so you don't lose any essential spatial cues.
> .


 
   
  I certainly don't think maximised soundstage width is desirable (for example I think some old _coltrane_ albums are unlistenable on headphones without a crossfeed of some sort). What I do think, however, is that if a device has high crosstalk (low separation), that cannot be turned off, it is an inherent flaw. I certainly agree with your sentiments when it comes to headphones or optional applications of crossfeed, however I cannot agree on a device with a fixed crosstalk, because some music (if I can use _shpongle_ for example) does not benefit from crossfeed in any way and forced crosstalk is only going to bottleneck your collection in some way at some point in time
   
  Quote: 





> I don't understand your question concerning the «STX». An Asus soundcard? I can't speak for it. As to measuring sound quality: Without any extreme measuring data you can't predict the sonic characteristic or the sound quality of an electronics device. The only data I'd consider extreme with the HM-801 is the treble roll-off.  Everything else is decent and below the established hearing threshold. Sound quality can effectively only be judged by ear.


 
   
  Thanks. The purpose of using the STX is that it boasts extremely good RMAA results, and in my opinion doesn't sound all that good, so I was just curious. Of course, it only scores very well in 24bit, at 16 bit I think it scores somewhere in the region of -95dB
   
  Have you got a link to these established hearing thresholds? I'd be delighted to see them.


----------



## JaZZ

mrgreen said:


> _I certainly don't think maximised soundstage width is desirable (for example I think some old coltrane albums are unlistenable on headphones without a crossfeed of some sort). What I do think, however, is that if a device has high crosstalk (low separation), that cannot be turned off, it is an inherent flaw. I certainly agree with your sentiments when it comes to headphones or optional applications of crossfeed, however I cannot agree on a device with a fixed crosstalk, because some music (if I can use shpongle for example) does not benefit from crossfeed in any way and forced crosstalk is only going to bottleneck your collection in some way at some point in time._


 

 My whole music collection is crossfeeded, and every single recording has benefitted from crossfeeding, even those which would have been enjoyable without. (But that's just because I have tailored my crossfeed to my own demands. Regular crossfeeds usually come at a price IMO.) As to the HiFiMan's crosstalk: it is inaudible and far from being a fixed crossfeed. Remember the vinyl example!

  


> _Have you got a link to these established hearing thresholds? I'd be delighted to see them._


 

This could be a starting point with several links.


----------



## shigzeo

Wow, what happened? I left on a short 100k bike ride, ate some heavy fried chicken, and come back to explosions of anger and popcorn! Way to go HF!


----------



## dfkt

Here's a little test for everyone interested.

 I've put a piece of music in FLAC on three different players and recorded the players' headphone outputs with Sound Forge 8.0, with a standard 16 Ohm load attached. My sound card is an Echo AudioFire, it's more precise and sensitive than these MP3 players, so the recording quality should be sufficient. Well, everyone can decide that for themselves when they listen to the tracks. For that reason I've also included the original file that I ripped directly from the CD in this test, to make it more conclusive. The only modification I did to the files was normalizing them to the same level (matching the player with the lowest recorded output).

 The audio track was ripped from CD by me, using EAC in secure mode, Test&Copy, and AccurateRip. It's a 100% perfect rip.

 So here are the four candidates, with a little description on what RMAA shows about those players - but of course you better listen for yourself instead of trusting graphs. Specs like SNR, THD, IMD don't really matter for these players, the differences should be inaudible and negligible.
   

 Hifiman HM-801: average sound quality, rolled off treble, mediocre channel separation
 Cowon V5: average sound quality, rolled off bass, better channel separation
 Sansa Clip+: average sound quality, linear frequency response, mediocre channel separation
 Original FLAC: exactly what is to be heard on the original CD
 

 Can you hear the differences? Also, always keep in mind that one of the four tracks is the original.

 Here you can download the test tracks. In that folder is also a password protected RAR archive with the solution key to the files. I will give out the password in a few days, after some people have listened to the files and posted their results.

 I recommend Foobar2000's ABX plugin for a comfortable way to test these tracks. But of course any other method works as well. Happy listening!


----------



## chinesekiwi

What people underrate, particularly in portable devices, is how important the firmware is in sound quality.
   
  Hardware specs are really meaningless (I do mean meaningless) if you do not have adequate firmware to help the user use it but also to adequately use the hardware properly.
  A great example is here but also say the difference between Rockbox'ed and non-Rockbox'ed players and tbh, the old iPods (see 'brick' ones) are quite good hardware spec wise but had inadequate firmware thus sounded bad.
   
  And yeah, measured specs like SNR, THD and jitter do not matter when it reaches the threshold of human hearing / software implementation (e.g. jitter below -80dB, SNR above 96dB [CD 16bit 44.1 kHz dynamic range] / 120dB [SACD / Blu-ray 24bit 96 kHz dyanmic range]).


----------



## FortisFlyer75

Interesting thread/debate going on here as i am on the verge of ordering either JH13 or 16 pros and once that is completed want to get a porta amp for my current dap the Sony X1060, but have been intrigued by the HifiMan if it is a realistic alternative for the outlay in terms of SQ to $$'s.
   
  So anyway after reading this informative info about the technical side of the 801 and just curious with all you techy guys on here that are immersed and educated in the technical side albeit it some of you agree to disagree on the same subjects! here is a tongue in cheek Q....  do any of you use all the data & stats (RMAA) influence you in purchasing gear like the 801 or any gear come to that or do you solely let your ears  at the end of the day decide? (or both in conjunction factor the decision?) 
   
  Has been informative and educational reading this thread even with all the popcorn throwing, jesting and baiting from offended remarks and if a lot of this needless crap bagging was not on here the thread be only four pages long!


----------



## Beefy

Ugh, what a train wreck. Despite my better judgment, I have a few comments......

 To all the people posting nothing but popcorn - you're not helping. Nobody even remotely cares that you are watching the thread with interest, so all you are doing is advertising that you are completely out of your depth with the subject material at hand. So please stop padding your post counts with pointless drivel.

 Now that is out of the way, onto the meat of it. I cannot fathom how anybody thinks that deliberate and severe frequency roll off at their source is a good idea. This was my opinion when I started in this hobby with no vested interest, and it still stands now. If you lose such a huge chunk of your response at this step you are never going to get it back at your amp or phones. Following on from this, I cannot fathom how anybody thinks that deliberate frequency roll off at the amp is a good idea. If you lose so much of your music at this step, you are never going to get it back at your phones. Considering there is a such a vast range of sound signatures available from phones and speakers, why not tune there where it makes most sense, and you only have to replace one component if the sound signature isn't what you hope for. This isn't to say that different DACs and amps with different sound signatures don't have their place, of course, but killing the frequency response is by far the least ideal tool to use.

 To anybody they can't hear several dB drop off at high frequencies, but still claim to hear ridiculously minute differences in other aspects of the sound signature...... well I just plain don't believe you. Either it is pure cognitive dissonance to defend an uncomfortable finding about your equipment, or the gold in your ears is actually just a very thin plating and you probably can't hear any real differences between anything. Further, if you deliberately have your source/amp rolling off at high frequencies because that is the only way to help it sound 'analogue', then I really just don't know what to say other than it is absolute nonsense. I wouldn't be surprised if these same people have previously claimed that frequency extension well beyond 22kHz is required for accurate music reproduction.
   
  Enjoy your popcorn.


----------



## JaZZ

dfkt said:


> Can you hear the differences? Also, always keep in mind that one of the four tracks is the original.
> 
> Here you can download the test tracks. In that folder is also a password protected RAR archive with the solution key to the files. I will give out the password in a few days, after some people have listened to the files and posted their results. tracks. But of course any other method works as well. Happy listening!


 

 I'm venturing a guess:
   
  1: Cowon V5
  2: original Flac
  3: HM-801
  4: Clip+
   
  They're really close, though, not one of them sounds bad. But why do such examples always consist of sonically relatively uncritical excerpts with lots of low-level passages with low overtone content – plus an unfamiliar, relatively dull instrument sound in this case (even reminds of electronically produced sound)!
   
  BTW, the sound through a headphone attached to the headphone out could possibly be another story.


----------



## dfkt

Give me a track you think is better suited, and I'll do the same again.
   
  About the headphone out - you did listen to the original, so you know what it should sound like, how different it is to the recorded tracks.


----------



## El_Doug

I dont know about you, but I have a hard time finding headphones which exactly provide my preferred frequency response, on top of having the soundstage I crave, a high level of comfort, etc. all at once.  I enjoy my HD800's to death, due to their comfort, soundstage, and extreme levels of detail.  However, their highs can be a bit obnoxious.  Do I reach for other cans?  No!  I simply adjust the input.  For many of us, our only choice is to have the frequency response adjusted somewhere upstream of the headphones. 
   
  Your logic is flawed, in that you suggest that EQ in the headphone is fine, while EQ in the source or amp is sacrilege - this is an odd statement indeed. 
   
  Quote: 





beefy said:


> Now that is out of the way, onto the meat of it. I cannot fathom how anybody thinks that deliberate and severe frequency roll off at their source is a good idea. This was my opinion when I started in this hobby with no vested interest, and it still stands now. If you lose such a huge chunk of your response at this step you are never going to get it back at your amp or phones. Following on from this, I cannot fathom how anybody thinks that deliberate frequency roll off at the amp is a good idea. If you lose so much of your music at this step, you are never going to get it back at your phones. Considering there is a such a vast range of sound signatures available from phones and speakers, why not tune there where it makes most sense, and you only have to replace one component if the sound signature isn't what you hope for. This isn't to say that different DACs and amps with different sound signatures don't have their place, of course, but killing the frequency response is by far the least ideal tool to use.


----------



## Beefy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *El_Doug* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> Your logic is flawed, in that you suggest that EQ in the headphone is fine, while EQ in the source or amp is sacrilege - this is an odd statement indeed.


 


 A deliberate choice to roll off the frequency at the hardware level does not qualify as EQ'ing.


----------



## Galatian

What to say? At first I was really shocked that my recent investment is supposed to be not such a good investment after all. But I just listened to it again and I can definitely say that it sounds much better then my iPod Classic or iPhone 3GS.
  I do have to thank everybody participating in this discussion though, as it made me research a few things and I would like to share those results and questions that arose.
  As I can see the frequency response is not flat, but the roll-off seems to be not so obvious until 10 kHz. I listen to a lot of Metal music and I could not think of one instrument that reaches that high anyway (other than subharmonics maybe). Aren't those frequencies cut off by mp3 encoding anway? To me it seems like we are not taking into account how the Hifiman actually sounds. I mean the graph is all nice and it is obviously not a flat frequency response but so what? Do you actually listen to music at those frequencies? I don't think I do, so saying the Hifiman is bad just because it has a roll-off in the high frequencies seems to be just as wrong as saying that all those test mean nothing. I think both parties are trying too much here to prove their point, but I say I rather enjoy my music on my Hifiman (and that is while it is under the normal return policy), because I like the sound even if or maybe because it has a roll-off.
   
  BTW: It would be nice to see such a test on cables especially those highly glorified TWag silver wires!


----------



## midoo1990

hmm,i will play .I Listened to the 4 test tracks and i have to say the difference is small but two tracks sounded better to my ears than the other two and the best one has a slight edge above the other three.now i dont know what tracks belong to whcih player because i havent heard the hifiman or the cowon but here are the results:
  track 2
  track 3
  track 4
  track 1
   
  track 1 is the worst one,but keep in mind that the differences are small that i wont bother to buy $800 or $400 dap,i would buy the cheapest of the pack because the difference is so small that it is definetly definetly not worth it.
  EDIT:i would make a guess
  track 2(original flac)
  track 3(clip+)
  track 4(hifiman)
  track 1(cowon)


----------



## dfkt

Midoo1990, to avoid misunderstandings, could you post which player you think is which number?


----------



## midoo1990

^^i edited my post


----------



## Galatian

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> Here's a little test for everyone interested.
> 
> I've put a piece of music in FLAC on three different players and recorded the players' headphone outputs with Sound Forge 8.0, with a standard 16 Ohm load attached. My sound card is an Echo AudioFire, it's more precise and sensitive than these MP3 players, so the recording quality should be sufficient. Well, everyone can decide that for themselves when they listen to the tracks. For that reason I've also included the original file that I ripped directly from the CD in this test, to make it more conclusive. The only modification I did to the files was normalizing them to the same level (matching the player with the lowest recorded output).
> 
> ...


 

 Seriously I doubt that a lot of persons will participate and even if they do you know what they will claim...
  But since you are already took your time to do this: I have read someone checking out cables and he did this with using a different phase or something for one of the cables so that both sounds would annihilate when played together. All the sound you could still hear was from the difference between cables. So why don't you do something similar and we can really hear what the difference in a real world example is? Sorry for the bad description of the process but I guess you know what I'm talking about


----------



## JaZZ

> Originally Posted by *dfkt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> _ About the headphone out - you did listen to the original, so you know what it should sound like, how different it is to the recorded tracks._


 

 What I mean is: making them drive headphones instead of line inputs could possibly show larger differences. After all my iAudio 7 and my Clip+ sound significantly different when heard through earphones – although not clearly in favor of one or the other. (I haven't tested them with your recording method.)
   
  Another point: Some time ago I have recorded music to my computer (by means of an E-MU 1212M) with two different interconnect cables (Zu Gede and Silver Dragon). With their inteded use between DAC and headphone amp they make a passably audible difference. After digitization the difference had disappeared, whatever the reason. So it's possible that digitizing a signal may even existing sonic differences. Just a consideration. – I don't know the Cowon V5, but I don't hear the sonic difference between the iAudio 7 and the Clip+ reflected in your samples.


----------



## dfkt

Galatian: What you mean is the delta of two or more signals. That would be "scientific", and wouldn't tell any more than the RMAA tests already did.
   
  With those ABX audio files I want to give people the chance to listen to music - since MP3 players are all about music, and tests don't mean anything to some people, as clearly seen. If you hear the difference between the tracks after my verbal description of the RMAA results, or if you don't hear anything is up to you. You make the results, not me. And if anything sound better or worse to you is also up to you, not me.


----------



## Galatian

dfkt said:


> Galatian: What you mean is the delta of two or more signals. That would be "scientific", and wouldn't tell any more than the RMAA tests already did.
> 
> With those ABX audio files I want to give people the chance to listen to music - since MP3 players are all about music, and tests don't mean anything to some people, as clearly seen. If you hear the difference between the tracks after my verbal description of the RMAA results, or if you don't hear anything is up to you. You make the results, not me. And if anything sound better or worse to you is also up to you, not me.





 Oh actually my test would be the best in terms for musicality because you would only hear the difference between two players. So this is actually less scientific and more reality related than you might think IMO because I bet you that even though you will propbably hear the roll-off it will only be on hissing sounds that I would really not miss anyway. If the product should be called hifi is a completely different story though, I'm merely just not satisfied with this easy equation roll-off = bad sq = bad product.


----------



## Beefy

Quote: 





galatian said:


> I'm merely just not satisfied with this easy equation roll-off = bad sq = bad product.


 

 And that is fair. But by the same token, I still cannot see how such a severe roll-off could be considered even remotely hi-fi. If that is the only way to make a particular chip sound good, then we should start looking for better chips.
   
  In a nutshell, there is no reason why we shouldn't demand that a product be both technically excellent _and_ sound good.


----------



## super_fied

wow, then i suppose this $5500 USD CDP is really over priced, given that it uses such "outdated" chips, which happens to be just what the Hifiman uses....
   
   
  I just saved some money!
   
http://www.ayonaudio.com/products/cd-player-dac/cd-player/cd-2.html


----------



## Beefy

Quote: 





super_fied said:


> wow, then i suppose this $5500 USD CDP is really over priced, given that it uses such "outdated" chips, which happens to be just what the Hifiman uses....
> 
> 
> I just saved some money!
> ...


 

 Ah, so you're saying that more expensive equals better?
   
  Yes, this is a MUCH more justified position to hold, versus demanding technical excellence.


----------



## dfkt

Galatian: If you can, please create the deltas of the four files. I couldn't get it to delta properly, because of the minuscule differences in playback speed between the players compared to the original file, which create a flanging effect rather than a proper delta. The tracks would have to be meticulously trimmed and time-stretched with a good algorithm to produce a valid delta. I just don't have the tools... or the patience.
   
  Not to mention the Hifiman inverts the phase of the playback signal 180° compared to the original and the other players (which of course is easily fixed).


----------



## fidele-caput

dfkt I'll take a stab if I may:
   
  1. Cowon V5
  2. Clip+ ?
  3. HM-801
  4. FLAC ?
   
  NB: It's important to be honest to yourself, and more so to be grateful with what you have, but it is most important be good to each other. Otherwise, how can you be happy?


----------



## High_Q

Quote:


super_fied said:


> wow, then i suppose this $5500 USD CDP is really over priced, given that it uses such "outdated" chips, which happens to be just what the Hifiman uses....
> 
> 
> I just saved some money!
> ...


 
  You should try to use your reasoning skills.  Backing up something because of its price is meaningless.  We can be here all day and talk about what we like and dislike, but data still stands at the end until someone can make a reasonable argument to counter it.  People here shouldn't be threatened by data, people use data all the time to build electronics.  Engineers have instruments to measure data objectively which helps them design the circuitry.  I could sell you a $1000 banana and tell you its the most healthy banana.


----------



## odigg

Quote: 





galatian said:


> As I can see the frequency response is not flat, but the roll-off seems to be not so obvious until 10 kHz. I listen to a lot of Metal music and I could not think of one instrument that reaches that high anyway (other than subharmonics maybe). Aren't those frequencies cut off by mp3 encoding anway? To me it seems like we are not taking into account how the Hifiman actually sounds. I mean the graph is all nice and it is obviously not a flat frequency response but so what? Do you actually listen to music at those frequencies?


 
   
  Let me present this from a different point of view.
   
  Let's say you go to the store and purchase an expensive product with a feature called X.  When you get home and play with the device you find that feature X does not work properly.  You go back to the store and a store employee says "Well most people don't use feature X so who cares if it works properly or works at all.  It's not like people will notice it."
   
  Would you then say "Oh, I guess that makes sense.  I'll just keep it."
   
  According to the Hifiman specs it supports 96khz files.  Yet, based on these graphs, it cannot fully support that feature.  The measurements show it cannot support the claim that it can accurately (according to industry specifications) reproduce the standard frequencies reproduced on a standard CD or FLAC file.
   
  If you cannot hear it, or if some people prefer the treble rolloff, does that mean everything is fine with the player?  What about the people that can hear 20khz?  What about the people who can successfully ABX the files dfkt has provided?
   
  Let me be honest, if this was a $50 mp3 player I wouldn't even post in this thread.  But this is an $800 player that IMHO, should be held to the highest standards.  That includes (as I've said many times before) industry standard measurements and specifications.
   
  As for where the EQ should be, let's remember that both the professional, home, and audiophile audio industry have striven to create products that are sonically transparent.  Products like the HD800 have been praised for the transparency.  The statement "I'm listening to the music, not eqiupment" is used as a blessing on the best eqiupment.
   
  The measurements RMAA provides are one indicator of just how "transparent" a piece of gear is.  A non-flat FR is an indicator that "transparency" is not where it should be.
   
  Perhaps you don't like a flat FR.  Myself, I find myself favoring headphones with a boosted bass or EQing the bass when using speakers or headphones that are designed around neutrality.  But that's my choice.  And I can do it for free with a software EQ or with changing my headphones or speakers based on measurements.  When my other eqiupment measures flat I don't have to think about how this eqiupment is deliberately changing the sound.
   
  And as a last point - I don't think I'm going to post in this thread any more.  I've made my point (repeatedly) and I'm sticking to it.  I have little to add beyond this.


----------



## h.rav

Quote:


currawong said:


> A common misconception on this forum is that the DAC chip makes the sound.  It doesn't.  So while you might have preferred the Perfectwave to another DAC, that would be the result of the entire design of both.  Also, the popular WM8740 has pretty poor distortion measurements compared to other DA chips (the manufacturer measurements are available online), which is an incredible irony in this thread.  Yes, the Perfect Wave doesn't use the 8740, but my point still stands.


 
   
  Agree, it's the implementation, I never meant to say that the chip itself makes the good sound 
  I was merely pointing out that I like what I hear from WM874x based DACs. The PerfectWave uses WM8741, AMB y2 also uses WM874x variant.


----------



## super_fied

I guess what I meant to say got interpreted at face value.hahaahah
   
  The entire point is if such premiums are being charged for such so-called high end players, we should all just look for what is cheap AND good right? 
   
  Then we will have absolutely no use for the big names charging such premiums for their products already, because we're all overpaying for stuff anyway. They should really simply sell it at cost price, for the components and chassis et al.
   
  What really constitutes a reasonable price then? If the person likes what he hears and feels that that is a fair price to pay, then so be it, it's not as if anyone's really pointing a gun at the person to buy anything.


----------



## buz

I fail to see how selling at cost (which is obviously not really feasible) follows from the premise that you should buy cheap but good stuff (which is a rather rational thing to do), really.
   
  But I have to hand it to dfkt, he sure knows how to start entertaining threads. Now how about a cable thread


----------



## Galatian

dfkt said:


> Galatian: If you can, please create the deltas of the four files. I couldn't get it to delta properly, because of the minuscule differences in playback speed between the players compared to the original file, which create a flanging effect rather than a proper delta. The tracks would have to be meticulously trimmed and time-stretched with a good algorithm to produce a valid delta. I just don't have the tools... or the patience.
> 
> Not to mention the Hifiman inverts the phase of the playback signal 180° compared to the original and the other players (which of course is easily fixed).





 I did not realize it would be so difficult but then again what you said makes perfect sense and the website I was talking about merely compared two cables through one source (a guitar). Although if technically possible it should be the right test for a difference in sound quality. Again I agree that the hifiman having a roll-off is not what I would consider hifi either but then again note how I said "what I consider". I suppose it is all a question of definition and personal preference. I for one am very happy with the hifiman and other are not. I really don't have any problems with the size (considering that an iPod + amp) will be roughly the same size or bigger) and the UI except for gapless playback, but then again that's something that could be fixed on later software version. For me the upgrade in sound quality was huge. 1000 $ (including the new amp plus SD cards?) huge? Probably not but is a sport shoe that costs 2 € in production worth 150 € street price? The better you want to get the more expensive it gets. It's not linear but expotential. Now I completely wrote somehing else from what I actually wanted to say so here comes my bottom line: Looking at some frequency curves and going out to bash some product is never a wise decision. You might not have done it but some other members here have been very direct in their posts. Same goes for all the fanboys though. I embrace science and i definitely accept it outcomes, no matter how devastating they might be. For me the conclusion is: yes the hifiman has a roll-off but it does not affect the sound quality. Again that's a subjective impression and if you think something else sounds better then I'm glad. Soundquality can't be measured.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





galatian said:


> I did not realize it would be so difficult but then again what you said makes perfect sense and the website I was talking about merely compared two cables through one source (a guitar). Although if technically possible it should be the right test for a difference in sound quality.Again I agree that the hifiman having a roll-off is not what I would consider hifi either but then again notehow I said "what I consider". I suppose it is all a question of definition and personal preference. I for one am very happy with the hifiman and other are not. I really don't have any problems with the size (considering that an iPod + amp) will be roughly the same size or bigger) and the UI except for gapless playback, but then again that's something that could be fixed on later software version. For me the upgrade in sound quality was huge. 1000 $ (including the new amp plus SD cards?) huge? Probably not but is a sport shoe that costs 2 â‚¬ in production worth 150 â‚¬ street price? The better you want to get the more expensive it gets. It's not linear but expotential. Now I completely wrote somehing else from what I actually wanted to say so here comes my bottom line: Looking at some frequency curves and going out to bash some product is never a wise decision. You might not have done it but some other members here have been very direct in their posts. Same goes for all the fanboys though. I embrace science and i definitely accept it outcomes, no matter how devastating they might be. For me the conclusion is: yes the hifiman has a roll-off but it does not affect the sound quality.


 
  Well said.


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





			
				odigg said:
			
		

> Let me present this from a different point of view.
> 
> Let's say you go to the store and purchase an expensive product with a feature called X.  When you get home and play with the device you find that feature X does not work properly.  You go back to the store and a store employee says "Well most people don't use feature X so who cares if it works properly or works at all.  It's not like people will notice it."
> 
> ...


 
    
  Quote:


			
				Galatian said:
			
		

> so here comes my bottom line: Looking at some frequency curves and going out to bash some product is never a wise decision. You might not have done it but some other members here have been very direct in their posts. Same goes for all the fanboys though. I embrace science and i definitely accept it outcomes, no matter how devastating they might be. For me the conclusion is: yes the hifiman has a roll-off but it does not affect the sound quality.


 
   
   
   
  I'll repost and clarify my analogy I posted earlier.
   
  A car that has a faster 0-60 time, does not always make it better at a race track.
   
  It only guarantees that it will go faster in a straight line.  There are many other factors to racing, and nearly all race tracks have curves.  Only drag racing tracks are completely straight. 
   
  I don't just sit there listening to nothing but frequency sweep tracks.  I listen to music.
   
  -Ed


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





edwood said:


> I'll repost and clarify my analogy I posted earlier.
> 
> A car that has a faster 0-60 time, does not always make it better at a race track.
> 
> ...


 
  And the HiFiMAN brings me closer to that then any other audio device has ever done.


----------



## Galatian

Exactly and I just wanted to express my support for this test and it has shown that although the Hifiman sounds good to me a generalized word like "hifi" should not be associated with it due to the roll-off, as I believe that the general consus on hifi is the reproduction of the music as closely to the original as possible. And I suppose we see clearly now that this is not the case. So the hifiman is best described as "musical" instead off staying it sounds "hifi", no? BTW: I also have to express my gratitude for choosing this thread title as it does not imply some off the bashing that has been written here. After all it is a product that does receive a huge amount of customers from people reading on this forum, so I'm glad that we can discuss the results of the test in an objective manner as we are. I know some threads where hype/bashing makes it extremely hard to come to a decision and I end up choosing not to buy a product at all because I'm more confused after reading the thread then before and I believe that this thread will clearify things for possible customers.


----------



## MrGreen

I shall take this challenge when I have some spare moments.


----------



## Nankai

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> Here you can download the test tracks. In that folder is also a password protected RAR archive with the solution key to the files. I will give out the password in a few days, after some people have listened to the files and posted their results.
> 
> I recommend Foobar2000's ABX plugin for a comfortable way to test these tracks. But of course any other method works as well. Happy listening!


 

 I am not sure if your method is a proper way. When you were doing your recording, you need to get analog signal from players, pass analog signals throw buffer on your recorder (soundcard), then do A/D converting to change the output analog signal to digital. After other head-fier download your files, they will have to do D/A again in their side.
   
  We don't know how good your D/A device is, and I don't know how good their A/D device is. I believe your A/D device should be a soundcard line-in. I guess most people here also use a soundcard in their computer to do their comparison. Most soundcards have very poor analoge buffer, and have below average A/D accuracy. In addition, computer is not a clean environment because computer power supply add way too much high freq noise to the sound card circuit. For example, My computer set up was RME 9652 soundcard with coax output. The coax output was connected to a Wadia 12 DAC. I can easily tell difference from regular power supply and a expensive fanless powersupply.
   
  All of these will add distortion to these tracks. After people download the track to their computer and play the track from their soundcard, the hole procedure of adding distortion will repeat again.


----------



## Galatian

Actually I listened to the tracks on my Hifiman...Dunno which one actually sounds better though... Sorry, couldn't resist :-D


----------



## dfkt

Nankai: Testing the quality of my sound card is very easy - listen to the tracks and tell me which one is the original CD rip, the one I didn't record.


----------



## Nankai

How about this: Add a $3000 price level CD player to this game？Say, Meridian 588 or G08.


----------



## Nankai

Another thinking: dfkt mentioned that HM-801 is worse than clip. Can anybody here tell the "clip" track is better than "HM-801" track?


----------



## Nankai

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> Nankai: Testing the quality of my sound card is very easy - listen to the tracks and tell me which one is the original CD rip, the one I didn't record.


 

 If people can not tell which one is the original CD rip, which one is the record you did, how can you defend your method is valid to let people tell difference from players?


----------



## prone2phone

just wanted to say that jh13 is 28ohm, ety er4s 150ohm, shure 530  36ohm, phonak 32ohm, so graphs with 32ohm load would be usefull for many armature lovers.


----------



## Nankai

Summary:
  1. dfkt declared that HM-801's sound quality is not as good as clip.
  2. dfkt made records of same track played from both HM-801 and clip's lineout,
  3. If people can tell clip's record is clearly better than HM-801's track, then dfkt win.
   
  Observation:
  1. people can not tell the difference of tracks.
  2. people said difference between HM-801 and clip tracks is very close.
  3. people said record tracks and original tracks sound very close.
   
  Conclusion
  1. dfkt's "record track" method does not valid.
  2. dfkt's declaration about "clip sound better than HM-801" has not been justified yet.


----------



## buz

That conclusion is valid only under the assumption that (1) dfkt's equipment is good enough to record the difference and (2) people have equipment that is resolving enough to actually hear the difference.


----------



## MrGreen

Hahah lol
   
  Okay, I've done the testing on a pair of $30 speakers (some creative POS's as I cbf setting up my stuff).
   
  I would say #1 is the Cowon V5
  I would say #3 is the Hifiman
   
  I cannot tell the difference between 2 and 4 (I have virtually 0 soundstage to work with)
   
  I'll get back to you when I have something that doesnt sound like its coming out a 1" box
   
   
  1 and 3 seem fairly obvious to me. I'd be shocked if I was wrong. I'm not sure if I am happy with the track for what i believe to be clip vs flac (due to familiary, the nature of the piece)
   
*Would you be able to do the first 5 seconds of "Bust a move" by infected mushroom? (It's a really simple section, featuring a guiro going from left to right.)*
   
  If I had to guess now, I would say 4 is the flac, 2 is the clip. I'm really not happy to commit to that one, though. Anyway, it's 3 am lol


----------



## High_Q

Quote: 





prone2phone said:


> just wanted to say that jh13 is 28ohm, ety er4s 150ohm, shure 530  36ohm, phonak 32ohm, so graphs with 32ohm load would be usefull for many armature lovers.


 
  Great point!  Something I've noticed about the graphs is that, graphs are made for ouput impedance of 16ohms.  Why didn't he do graphs for higher impedance outputs(which are what most headphones are)?  What is the output impedance of HiFiMan?  Mismatch of impedance at the output would definately effect the power delivery at the output.  At this point, the graph is biased to 16ohms.


----------



## WalkGood

Reposted from my response on abi:
   
   
  Quote: 





> Ok I installed the Foobar ABX Comparator 1.3.4 and have been testing the tracks back and forth on laptop > Pico DAC/amp > ue11s. I’ve always said I’m not an audiophile and the differences are too subtle for me to tell. That said it would be fraud or a blatant lie if I said I knew which player was playing which track out of the 4 so for now I’m taking a break from it.
> 
> On the other hand this clearly proves to me that the least expensive player preformed stellar enough for my ears and my guess is that it would be the clip +. Just think how much money you save by not going with an $800.00 player and be able to spend more on better phones/iem’s that make a much more noticeable difference IMO. I will probably keep trying for my own edification but not sure it will make a difference.


----------



## dfkt

Nankai: I will only repeat what I already said: Anyone criticizing my method of testing should simply point out which one's the original file from CD, which one isn't recorded over my sound card. There's no need to bring fancy Wadia players and such into the equation, since this thread is not about them. My premise is very simple: there are four files - which one is which? Is there a difference, compared to the Hifiman, Clip, Cowon? Is the difference huge or small? Is something "better" or "worse" sounding for oneself, subjectively?
   
  I only said that the Hifiman has less treble and sounds a bit more veiled than the other players. Statements I made about the Clip are blown way out of proportion. It's an average player with it's share of flaws, just like other players. It's just what I use the most, so I happen to compare it more than any of my other players.


----------



## Nankai

dfkt: I just want to repeat what I have already said: HiFi is not equal to a straight plot.
   
   



  Zanden 5000 Mk.IV/Signature D/A converter : $15,470
   
  From Stereophile
   
  http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/1106zanden/index.html
   
  Wadia 861 from Stereophile
  $7950
  DAC: PCM1704K (same to HM-801)
  http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/540/index.html


----------



## midoo1990

Quote: 





nankai said:


> Observation:
> 1. people can not tell the difference of tracks.
> 2. people said difference between HM-801 and clip tracks is very close.
> 3. people said record tracks and original tracks sound very close.
> ...


 


 actually i can hear a difference.track 2 to my ears is better than the others and track 4 is very close-to similar,but honestly the two seems  identical.anyhow if the hifiman is similar to the clip in terms of SQ(which i doubt) or only offer 5% as an improvement,then it is a rippoff,if not then i take back what i said.its just very hard to believe most headfiers here because they say statments like" wow this player blows X player out of the water" or "it is in entirely different league, no comparison" or " this Player walks all over X player and smash it to the ground"......
   
  what i found here is that most people exaggerate about the differences between X player or headphone and Y player or headphone, and when i buy it i become shocked about how much they are disshonest about the product and one of the reason is that they try to justify their purchase.
   
  Reviewers like DFKT and shigzeo dont do that and thats why their opinions are much trusted here,thats why i doubt when DFKT says that hifiman and clip+ are similar in SQ is because of his fanboyism to the clip or to sansa in general,he is simply observing what he hears.
  i dont get all the defending that you are making here,one dissatisfied customer wont make your business  close,he said his impressions and backed them up with data what else do you want?


----------



## El_Doug

Quote: 





			
				dfkt said:
			
		

> Here's a little test for everyone interested.
> 
> ...
> 
> Happy listening!


 

  
  1: Clip+
  2: Cowon V5
  3: Hifiman HM-801
  4: FLAC original
   
   
  I cannot wait to find out the results


----------



## buz

dfkt: are you sure your equipment is resolving and transparent enough so that people with good enough equipment could hear the differences (two big ifs, there)?
   
  Other than that, I sign what midoo says.


----------



## Sonic 748i

I'm going to get high blood pressure eating all this popcorn.


----------



## Nankai

Quote: 





midoo1990 said:


> i dont get all the defending that you are making here,one dissatisfied customer wont make your business  close,he said his impressions and backed them up with data what else do you want?


 

 Freq plot is a reflection of sound quality, but freq plot is not completely identical to sound quality. I always believe there are a lot of much more important issues other than freq plot. A comparison review between HM-801 and a clip will make sense. I plan to get three or four experienced headfiers to do such review. To help these headfiers finish the review, I will be happy to buy several clips and mail to them. I wish the review can be finished in the next a few weeks. In addition, welcome to our booth in Canjam and do your own judgement. Thanks.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





nankai said:


> Freq plot is a reflection of sound quality, but freq plot is not completely identical to sound quality. I always believe there are a lot of much more important issues other than freq plot. A comparison review between HM-801 and a clip will make sense. I plan to get three or four experienced headfiers to do such review. To help these headfiers finish the review, I will be happy to buy several clips and mail to them. I wish the review can be finished in the next a few weeks. In addition, welcome to our booth in Canjam and do your own judgement. Thanks.


 
   
  I will do this in reverse if you like. Kindly mail the HM-801 to me


----------



## Nankai

I noticed that you come from perth. You can try HM-801 at headphonic, which is our Australia dealer located in perth.


----------



## Beefy

Quote: 





super_fied said:


> I guess what I meant to say got interpreted at face value.hahaahah


 

 Or perhaps it is a lesson to you not to post silly strawman arguments.


----------



## Thermionic

Well Well, by chance I was having a careful listen to my 801 today and then stumbled upon this thread...
   
  I suppose as an owner of ‘this sad, expensive joke of an antiquated, unusable player’ I would only naturally feel somewhat defensive and be a little taken aback with the comments and tests done by the OP. He is obviously is not very impressed...
   
  Looking at the graphs I was also struck by the thought that he seems to be using an impedance of 16 Ohms across the output of what I presume is the standard headphone driver board. I am also not sure what actually is an ‘RMAA’ test, but there again there is much to learn.
   
  A while back I borrowed a friend’s Lindos automatic test system that is a broadcast industry standard over here (UK) an had a look at various audio recording systems I have including my laptop mp3 coder and Cowon D2 DAP. When looking at the output I was very careful to use realistic loads which included my Grado and Sennheiser headphones as ‘real world’ loads for the Cowon. The fact that the OP used a 16 Ohm load suggests that he was using a system more suited to loudspeaker testing than the higher impedances (30 – 300 Ohms) typically to do with headphones, and so would not be giving the ‘antiquated unusable player’ a fair crack of the whip.
   
  By coincidence my 3rdbatch 801 into Sen. IE8’s (32 Ohm) does have a slight but noticeable upper treble roll off in comparison to my Cowon D2. My own rough and ready tests consisted of playing some of my own recordings of live acoustic jazz (recorded on a Sony D50) copied to a pair of FLAC encoded SDHC cards, with each machine synced together. The players were held in one hand and the headphone jack swapped between the two machines.
   
  However, when changing to the higher impedance HD650’s I could detect very little difference in upper treble quantity. This led me to conclude that the standard headphone driver board in the 801 was more suited to higher impedance phones (are there any 16 Ohm impedance headphones?). Further A/B tests of line output or Cowon verses HiFiman through a 2007 Slee Solo (PSU1) into HD650’s or IE8’s produced undetectable (to my ears) differences in frequency responses (levels were matched as close as possible by ear).  So I conclude that the poor HF response shown in the OP’s graphs was simply a result of driving the 801 into a too low impedance.
   
  As regards how the 801 ‘sounds’ I can only remark that today it just sounded better than the Cowon D2 and my Laptop’s Foobar / M Audio Transit / Slee Solo combination, having what might be described a ‘smoother more refined presentation’ with ‘deeper and more defined’ lower bass (it just sounded better).
   
  I must borrow my friend’s Lindos system again and do some objective tests on the 801 for myself.


----------



## nc8000

I think the Etymotic HF5 is 16 or 18 ohm and the ER4-P is 25 ohm


----------



## Beefy

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Thermionic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Looking at the graphs I was also struck by the thought that he seems to be using an impedance of 16 Ohms across the output of what I presume is the standard headphone driver board. I am also not sure what actually is an ‘RMAA’ test, but there again there is much to learn.


 

 Other graphs posted by Nankai have clearly supported the graphs posted by the OP. Load is not the issue here.
   
  And you really should learn what RMAA is before commenting further on the technical aspects of the test.


----------



## bcpk

According to my 4P box, the P are 27, and the S/B are 100 ohm  don't know about the HF, but lower impedance would definitely make sense since they're more consumer-friendly.
  Quote: 





nc8000 said:


> I think the Etymotic HF5 is 16 or 18 ohm and the ER4-P is 25 ohm


----------



## Edwood

The HifiMan has plenty of amplification, so it would be better to go with the ER4-S rather than the ER4-P.  Or just use a P to S adapter.
   
  There are a few custom IEM's with very low impadence, the JH16 has an impedance of 18 Ohms, but the input sensitivity is 118dB at 1mW.
   
  -Ed


----------



## piotrus-g

Quote: 





edwood said:


> There are a few custom IEM's with very low impadence, the JH16 has an impedance of 18 Ohms, but the input sensitivity is 118dB at 1mW.
> 
> -Ed


 
  Mine customs are 119@1kHZ and 19 Ohms. The only player that doesn't hiss with them is s:flo2  however uDAC also is dead silent.
  Though, as we are speaking of impedance. I also don't think that 16 Ohm is appropriate load for a player. Typical headphone amp is suited for 32 Ohms load. That said when you load player with 16 Ohms the half of power accumulate on headphone amp. 16 Ohm earphones can't be driven properly with such an amp. The result is i.e less bass amount.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> As far as gross misinformation, I’ll let the measurements and opinion stated stand on their own as it’s more than what you have offered. If you have counter points please feel free to share them and if you call stating opinion trolling you should look at some of the outright defenders posts first as they are outright insults …


 

 I was referring to your completely wrong information about the PCM1704 and you know it.  Also, if you had taken the time to read my post, you'll note that my criticism is of the conclusions made, which are misleading.  You both need to read up about how digital audio works.  Google "digital slow roll off filter" for a wealth of links explaining them.  A snipped from the very first link I found:
   
   
  Quote: 





> A slow roll-off anti-imaging filter also has another consequence. Because of its slowroll-off rate, its impulse response exhibits less ringing and time smearing as compared
> to a conventional sharp oversampled anti-imaging filter. Fourier analysis shows that thetime resolution and bandwidth of all filters are inversely related. A slow roll-off filter
> allows more high frequency energy through compared to a fast roll-off filter. Therefore,the slow roll-off filter has better time resolution, or equivalently, less time smearing.


 
   
  However, a big curve on a magnified graph certainly looks more impressive when you set out to trash someone's gear, as well as every high-end DAC out there.  However, your contempt for the people here and subsequent negative bias is quite clear from this post by dkft on your forum, in reply to a bunch of posts trashing the 801 because of its size:
   
  Quote: 





> Yeh, I almost died laughing when I saw the photos of people using that ridiculous thing with the "balanced" RSA amp, or the nice looking, portable Pico Slim...


 
   



galatian said:


> Exactly and I just wanted to express my support for this test and it has shown that although the Hifiman sounds good to me a generalized word like "hifi" should not be associated with it due to the roll-off, as I believe that the general consus on hifi is the reproduction of the music as closely to the original as possible. And I suppose we see clearly now that this is not the case. So the hifiman is best described as "musical" instead off staying it sounds "hifi", no? BTW: I also have to express my gratitude for choosing this thread title as it does not imply some off the bashing that has been written here. After all it is a product that does receive a huge amount of customers from people reading on this forum, so I'm glad that we can discuss the results of the test in an objective manner as we are. I know some threads where hype/bashing makes it extremely hard to come to a decision and I end up choosing not to buy a product at all because I'm more confused after reading the thread then before and I believe that this thread will clearify things for possible customers.


 

 See what I posted above about filters.  The musicality of PCM1704-based DACs has to do with their lack of a "digital" sound, that is, instruments and vocals sound real, and not like a poor, digital reproduction.

 Quote:


dfkt said:


> Nankai: I will only repeat what I already said: Anyone criticizing my method of testing should simply point out which one's the original file from CD, which one isn't recorded over my sound card. There's no need to bring fancy Wadia players and such into the equation, since this thread is not about them. My premise is very simple: there are four files - which one is which? Is there a difference, compared to the Hifiman, Clip, Cowon? Is the difference huge or small? Is something "better" or "worse" sounding for oneself, subjectively?
> 
> I only said that the Hifiman has less treble and sounds a bit more veiled than the other players. Statements I made about the Clip are blown way out of proportion. It's an average player with it's share of flaws, just like other players. It's just what I use the most, so I happen to compare it more than any of my other players.


 

 I am criticising your conclusions, such as about the treble.  You said yourself on your own forum, _"Sad that people can't accept facts."_  You need to learn to accept some facts about how digital audio works, because while I applaud you for doing measurements, your understanding of the results you get is grossly lacking and, worse still, you are spreading your ignorance as facts.
   
  If anyone wants to do a simple test to understand why the slow roll-off filter would have essentially zero effect when listening, find that "Measure your ears' frequency response" page and listen for yourself how hard it is to tell the difference in volume of high frequencies.


----------



## Ro-amp

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> Here's a little test for everyone interested.
> So here are the four candidates, with a little description on what RMAA shows about those players - but of course you better listen for yourself instead of trusting graphs.


 
  dfkt,
  I'm sorry but I can't make the differences between the tracks the lower frequency seems to sound the same (was focusing on high frequency), the highest tone in your sample is the triangle and i would venture that it would hover in the 4-5-6khz range, I don't hear anything higher than that in your sample...
  just being honest 
  ***I usually hear 10khz @ -35 db no problem.
  cheers


----------



## super_fied

Quote: 





beefy said:


> Or perhaps it is a lesson to you not to post silly strawman arguments.


 


  Why would you consider it to be a lesson to me, when what i posted is a fact and not an argument.I'm not even attempting to argue for the Hifiman! It's not as if my life revolved around the player.
   
  I see the CDP as overpriced because I do not think the components inside justify the 5499 USD asking price.
   
  Therefore I do not think it is a fair price to me and hence will not purchase it,because i really think it should be priced at a way way lower price-which in turns helps me to save money.
   
  oh and btw, weren't there comments on how nobody will care if the hifiman cost way lesser than the asking price of 790 USD for the quality it gave? i.e overpriced POS as some put it eloquently.


----------



## Hero Kid

EDIT: F-ed that up.
   
  Quote: 





			
				dfkt said:
			
		

> ... You make the results, not me. And if anything sound better or worse to you is also up to you, not me.


 
  I think this potentially objective approach is exactly what this thread needs.
   
*My comment is that if you are having trouble noticing differences between the different tracks provided by DFKT imagine trying to hear differences when listening to them out and about. Also, if you can't easily determine between them, I don't think spending $790 USD on a player is going to do much for your listening experience, when a $50~ player sounds the same/similar to your ears.*


----------



## MrGreen

misunderstanding. Delete


----------



## mobbaddict

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Hero Kid* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> *My comment is that if you are having trouble noticing differences between the different tracks provided by DFKT imagine trying to hear differences when listening to them out and about. Also, if you can't easily determine between them, I don't think spending $790 USD on a player is going to do much for your listening experience, when a $50~ player sounds the same/similar to your ears.*


 

 That's exactly what i thought while listening to dfkt's tracks... i'm really unable to tell the difference, except maybe for track 1 which sounds worse.


----------



## kostalex

Quote:


hero kid said:


> Both of you grow up. Especially Beefy, you just provided a perfect example of immaturity.


   
  You quoted 3 people, and tell two grow up. Am I third or among these two?


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





kostalex said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> hero kid said:
> ...


 

 Looks like a glitch with the multi quoting, as he quoted your quote of Beefy, whom he was referring to, probably not you.


----------



## Hero Kid

EDIT: F-ed that up too.


----------



## Trysaeder

I tried the listening test, and I heard a difference that would give me confidence to choose any player based on utility rather than supposed sound quality. I do not want to spend a lot of money on audio, since I believe that when you get a certain piece of decent equipment and use it for a while, your mind with zero to that sound. It will use it as a reference point. I think the sweet spot for good audio is around $250 USD, which is like $330 Aud once it gets here. This thread has helped my finalize my opinion that spending more money for a small increase is not worth it, spending a relatively high amount for a nice piece of gear and leaving it is good enough.
   
  If I had to say, I'd go 2=>4>3>1.


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





currawong said:


> I am criticising your conclusions, such as about the treble.  You said yourself on your own forum, _"Sad that people can't accept facts."_  You need to learn to accept some facts about how digital audio works, because while I applaud you for doing measurements, your understanding of the results you get is grossly lacking and, worse still, you are spreading your ignorance as facts.
> 
> If anyone wants to do a simple test to understand why the slow roll-off filter would have essentially zero effect when listening, find that "Measure your ears' frequency response" page and listen for yourself how hard it is to tell the difference in volume of high frequencies.


 

 Quote:


currawong said:


> You can't hear it so it's justified.


----------



## Currawong

cegras: No, the other way around -- there apparently is distortion caused by NOT having it roll-off slowly.


----------



## JaZZ

jazz said:


> 1: Cowon V5
> 2: original Flac
> 3: HM-801
> 4: Clip+


 

 Additionally my ranking in terms of sonic preference:
   
  1:   . Track 2
  2:   . Track 3
  3a: - Track 4
  3b: - Track 1
.


----------



## SHADYMILKMAN

personally I can hear all of those available individual freq's (the mosquito hearing site, not the dfkt audio test). so glossing over them as though no one can appreciate them is sickening to me, that rationale is absurd, this site is predicated on the minutiae of detail. if you cant appreciate the intricacies of hifi, then this probably isnt the board for you. if you cant tell the difference b.w the tracks recorded by a $45 and $800 player, yet proclaim any kind of night and day difference, then its clear to me whats so inherently wrong with the community, which is the dishonesty b.w customers, potential consumers and manufacturers. its fine to spend YOUR money for some sort of e-fame/status but dont spread misinformation about the quality of the audio, it serves only to perpetuate poor craftsmanship. we as a community should demand the absolute best in audio reproduction. I dont know, if i was building a product that came under this scrutiny i hope i would be humble enough to address the concerns of ppl who purchased my product, but that would be admitting something is wrong.
   
  someone finally told the emperor that he wasn't wearing any clothes ... turns out he didn't care.


----------



## JaZZ

shadymilkman said:


> personally I can hear all of those available individual freq's (the mosquito hearing site, not the dfkt audio test). so glossing over them as though no one can appreciate them is sickening to me, that rationale is absurd, this site is predicated on the minutiae of detail. if you cant appreciate the intricacies of hifi, then this probably isnt the board for you. if you cant tell the difference b.w the tracks recorded by a $45 and $800 player, yet proclaim any kind of night and day difference, then its clear to me whats so inherently wrong with the community, which is the dishonesty b.w customers, potential consumers and manufacturers. its fine to spend YOUR money for some sort of e-fame/status but dont spread misinformation about the quality of the audio, it serves only to perpetuate poor craftsmanship. we as a community should demand the absolute best in audio reproduction. I dont know, if i was building a product that came under this scrutiny i hope i would be humble enough to address the concerns of ppl who purchased my product, but that would be admitting something is wrong.
> 
> someone finally told the emperor that he wasn't wearing any clothes ... turns out he didn't care.


 

 That's a premature conclusion. I can hear differences among the four samples. And if track 2 is indeed the original Flac file, I would rate track 3 as closest in sound quality and possibly worth the higher price – if the sound-quality advantage is consistent with other recordings. But I still have my reservations against the test method. Real headphones as loads instead of a line input with 16 ohm impedance could have shown different and maybe even clearer results. 
.


----------



## kostalex

Yes, test would be better with real headphones. Their dynamic resistance will load weaker amps (say internal in Clip+) hard. This will be a fair test.
   
  Other option is to measure both players as sources, then line-out should be used whenever is possible and load should be 10K - 50K Ohm.
   
  I appreciate dfkt efforts to bring us the graphs. Though I do not like aggressive comments here that HiFiMan had to create the device with linear FR. They mustn't, this is their design choice and right to choose any FR they like to provide the sound they intended.
   
  I suggest HiFiMan to add FR graph to official specs and then this discussion will take another route. It will probably continue though for better community knowledge and for the sake of HiFiMan brand recognition.


----------



## Beefy

Quote: 





hero kid said:


> Both of you grow up. Especially Beefy, you just provided a perfect example of immaturity.


 

 Go back and re-read it, KID. I was the one who posted that popcorn posts were useless; kostalex, Sonic 748i and others are the peasants posting popcorn.


----------



## Beefy

Quote: 





kostalex said:


> Yes, test would be better with real headphones. Their dynamic resistance will load weaker amps (say internal in Clip+) hard. This will be a fair test.


 

 You're missing the point - load is irrelevant. Nankai has all but admitted that the frequency roll off is there, and even hinted that it is deliberate in order to make the PCM1704 sound acceptable.


----------



## JaZZ

beefy said:


> You're missing the point - load is irrelevant. Nankai has all but admitted that the frequency roll off is there, and even hinted that it is deliberate in order to make the PCM1704 sound acceptable.


 

  This test is not about the HM-801's high-frequency roll-off. It's about the sonic differences among three DAPs and an original recording.
.


----------



## david1978jp

dfkt,
  I am a bit confused about the test. Should we get a marked known original track first, and then we compare four unknown tracks (including the original again) - to see whether we can tell the difference? In stead, we should look at graphics, and guess which-is-which? Since you already pointed out "roll-off", we probably look for the "roll-off" when we listen.


----------



## EddieE

Or we listen to them and think:
   
  If the difference between them is so minor, how can one justify one costing hundreds of pounds and the other about twenty?


----------



## momomo6789

i guess we need more popcorn O_O


----------



## david1978jp

EddieE,
  Thank you. That makes sense. I was caught up with graphics, I was not thinking.


----------



## striker

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> Hifiman HM-801: average sound quality, rolled off treble, mediocre channel separation
> Cowon V5: average sound quality, rolled off bass, better channel separation
> Sansa Clip+: average sound quality, linear frequency response, mediocre channel separation
> Original FLAC: exactly what is to be heard on the original CD
> ...


 
  Can't tell the difference from 2 and 4, the better sounding ones.
   
  As for the others, I'd say Hifiman = 1 and Cowon =3


----------



## MrGreen

Can the people posting their beliefs about which is which also post the system they are doing the test on as well please?
   
  I'll try and get the opportunity to do the test on some better gear, but I don't have any resolving headphones on me with a soundstage to speak of at the moment. So I'm not confident I can differentiate 2 and 4
   
  Also, can someone with the know-how tell us if these tracks have more or less in common than a flac vs an ogg aotuv beta 5 VBR (Q5)


----------



## Galatian

Actually IMO the test is flawed because there are to many stages in between that might affect the sound not to mention the fact that people listen to it on different amps and headphones as well. That's like transcoding a mp3 into aac and saying the aac sounds worse just to proove a point.


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





galatian said:


> Actually IMO the test is flawed because there are to many stages in between that might affect the sound not to mention the fact that people listen to it on different amps and headphones as well. That's like transcoding a mp3 into aac and saying the aac sounds worse just to proove a point.


 

 To me this test is almost like using your current TV set to watch a DVD of someone with a handycam video taping the PQ of several other TV's your consider buying.


----------



## Galatian

Good example. It's not like I don't appreciate the test itself as trying to proove your point but it lacks the power to do so. In fact can you post what headphones you used yourself when listening to the different PMPs? Reason why I ask is mainly because people (including me) got the Hifiman because they want something to drive their fullsized cans without the need of caring a seperate amp around. And I believe that's actually a valid point speaking against your comment of how "large that brick" is.


----------



## Rockford

You two seem to miss the point of the exercise completely, it's so very simple yet you can't grasp it.


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





rockford said:


> You two seem to miss the point of the exercise completely, it's so very simple yet you can't grasp it.


 
   
   
  He recorded tracks from several different players on his pc, and wants us to tell the difference between them.
   
  Problem being listening to these tracks recorded on his pc is in no ways the same as listening to each player individually using headphones.
   
  Hey maybe if I send him my music collection he can re record it all using his hifiman, then I can listen to his re recordings on what ever equipment I want and I'll never have to buy one.


----------



## Bojamijams

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> He recorded tracks from several different players on his pc, and wants us to tell the difference between them.
> 
> Problem being listening to these tracks recorded on his pc is in no ways the same as listening to each player individually using headphones.
> 
> Hey maybe if I send him my music collection he can re record it all using his hifiman, then I can listen to his re recordings on what ever equipment I want and I'll never have to buy one.


 
   
  DING DING DING! We have a winner.


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> He recorded tracks from several different players on his pc, and wants us to tell the difference between them.
> 
> Problem being listening to these tracks recorded on his pc is in no ways the same as listening to each player individually using headphones.
> 
> Hey maybe if I send him my music collection he can re record it all using his hifiman, then I can listen to his re recordings on what ever equipment I want and I'll never have to buy one.


 

 You just made my point for me, you really don't understand the test at all maybe you should forget about it since it is above your abilities of understanding.
   
  The point isn't to emulate the different players sound and have you compare which you prefer. The point is to see if you can actually tell the difference between the tracks and which ones sound different. Again i will say THIS ISN'T MEAN TO COMPARE THE PLAYERS OR TO FIND OUT WHICH IS BEST, it's meant to show there is a very miniscule difference if any difference between them and an unaltered copy.


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





bojamijams said:


> DING DING DING! We have a winner.


 

 Irony at it's finest.


----------



## david1978jp

Quote: 





bojamijams said:


> DING DING DING! We have a winner.


 
  You guys are being unfair. Here is quote from dftk
  "Nankai: Testing the quality of my sound card is very easy - listen to the tracks and tell me which one is the original CD rip, the one I didn't record."
  You can compare 4 tracks (one is original CD rip, not re-record); if dftk's soundcard degrade original CD, you will find out. The point is, did you guys compare them yet?


----------



## dfkt

Exactly, it's not that hard. One track is NOT recorded via my sound card, but is the ORIGINAL CD rip (via 100% secure EAC, AccurateRip, Test&Copy), as stated in my earlier post.


----------



## rymd

Quote: 





rockford said:


> You two seem to miss the point of the exercise completely, it's so very simple yet you can't grasp it.


 

 Actually..
  its so messed up we can't grasp it.
  I understand the concept, but it's too flawed.


----------



## JaZZ

galatian said:


> Actually IMO the test is flawed because there are to many stages in between that might affect the sound not to mention the fact that people listen to it on different amps and headphones as well. That's like transcoding a mp3 into aac and saying the aac sounds worse just to proove a point.


 
   
  That's a good objection, albeit slightly caricaturing.

  


rockford said:


> You just made my point for me, you really don't understand the test at all maybe you should forget about it since it is above your abilities of understanding.
> 
> The point isn't to emulate the different players sound and have you compare which you prefer. The point is to see if you can actually tell the difference between the tracks and which ones sound different. Again i will say THIS ISN'T MEAN TO COMPARE THE PLAYERS OR TO FIND OUT WHICH IS BEST, it's meant to show there is a very miniscule difference if any difference between them and an unaltered copy.


 

 No, that's not the goal of the test. The goal is to show how uniform the players sound and how unjustified the price differences are. But _Galatian_'s above objection is a good one. If you audition the players to get familiar with their sonic signatures and find out which suits your taste best, you listen to them straight from their headphone outputs – loaded with a headphone. In the test at hand we have to deal with a headphone simulation – 16-ohm resistors – which doesn't exactly simulate all parameters of a headphone – a dynamic and complex load –, in contrast to a resistor – a simple and static load. You can't be sure if the sonic and metrological result be really the same. In fact I'm rather skeptic. The second aspect is the fact that we all test these signals through our imperfect, hence potentially coloring soundcards, plus  – maybe even more important – through our headphone amps with their guaranteed coloration. So our task is to judge a signal and its alteration by the test devices (under not real real-world conditions) by listening to it through signal-altering monitoring devices. That's not the same as testing the players under real-world conditions.
   
  I'm not saying the test is impossible to do, otherwise I wouldn't have participated. But it is at least more than slightly flawed.


----------



## MrGreen

The test seems pretty fair to me.
   
  More fair than listening to a pair of headphones out of the gear, actually, since we are hearing closer to what the player puts out at peak performance


----------



## dfkt

Jazz: Tell me what's the original track, and then tell me how this test is flawed.


----------



## JaZZ

mrgreen said:


> _The test seems pretty fair to me. More fair than listening to a pair of headphones out of the gear, actually, since we are hearing closer to what the player puts out at peak performance._


 

 I don't understand your argumentation. Moreover for most portable headphone outputs 16 ohm is not the ideal precondition for «peak performance».
.


----------



## JaZZ

dfkt said:


> Jazz: Tell me what's the original track, and then tell me how this test is flawed.


 

 Already done both. And what are your counter-arguments to mine? Do you think your test is flawless?
.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





galatian said:


> Good example. It's not like I don't appreciate the test itself as trying to proove your point but it lacks the power to do so. In fact can you post what headphones you used yourself when listening to the different PMPs? Reason why I ask is mainly because* people (including me) got the Hifiman because they want something to drive their fullsized cans without the need of caring a seperate amp around.* And I believe that's actually a valid point speaking against your comment of how "large that brick" is.


 
  Yet quite a few people are using separate amps with their HiFiMAN players.....we've even seen the pictures here on the site.


----------



## yuriv

Nice test, dfkt. I have done something similar for CD players and standalone DACs, but I haven't posted anything over at AVS in a while. Some folks are objecting that you're using 16-ohm resistors for test loads, instead of actual headphones. I don't see a problem with that, but I suppose you could post some recordings of these players while driving whatever headphones you have at hand--their choice, of course. I don't think it will make much of a difference, judging from a similar test that I ran a long time ago.


----------



## Edwood

You guys are treading a fine line here. 
   
  There is a reason why the Cables forum prohibits discussion of Double Blind testing.   With how this thread has progressed, it will end up in that direction as well.
   
  -Ed


----------



## dfkt

Yuriv, the 16 Ohm load is a V-Moda Vibe IEM. Same load I used for all my 16 Ohm tests on my RMAA site. (That's one IEM that's exactly 16 Ohm, and it's one I'm not scared it will get damaged in frequency sweep tests.)


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





jazz said:


> I don't understand your argumentation. Moreover for most portable headphone outputs 16 ohm is not the ideal precondition for «peak performance».
> .


 
   
  Is the test being done at 16 ohm? I was under the impression it was being done at ~0 (though I must admit I've been skimming the thread).
   
  Anyway, by introducing headphones you're introducing other variables such as amping, the kind of power available and what the headphone needs (say if I was to plug a K1000 into a speaker amp fed by the STX line out, and then into the headphone out of the STX, or if you are dealing with a headphone that requires a lot of current, but not so much voltage). Assuming the recordings are good (to be honest they sound pretty close and a lot of members are having trouble differentiating them), you have essentially elimated these extra variables. (fair being in the scientific sense - i.e. you're comparing a limited number of variables)
   
  I'd have no problem believing that, if one of these players had a significantly more capable amp, that the K701 would sound best from it, even if it had the poorest DAC, but something like an ER4P would sound comparable on all of them.
   
   
  That is, if my understanding of how this test is being performed is accurate. Feel free to correct me on that front


----------



## dfkt

The test is accurate, Jazz is just trying to distract people from the facts. It's not about what he calls "peak performance", it's just the standard at which these tests are usually done, which is 16 Ohm. The difference to, say, 32 Ohm loads is negligible.
   
  Anyways, it's still about the difference between any of the three players with a 16 Ohm load against the original file. That's all.


----------



## CSIR

There is only one way to settle this: volume match the three players people talk about clip+, s:flo2, and Hifiman 801 and let people listen to 4 clips of various genre's of songs.  Set up one station where people can plug in various headphones into a A/B/C selector (without seeing the players) and for each headphone type keep a log of which player people prefer (due to volume matching you would have to only do IEMS at one time and full sized at another).  In my view due to price, size, and battery life difference the Hifiman should be chosen 99% of the time and the second favorite should be the s:flo2 also by a large amount over the clip.  I know the hifiman can do higher bit rate files but even at the lower ones it should still be a clear winner.  Until then this other test that is being done is like picking which camera you like best by looking at a 3 pictures of a picture on your computer from three different camera's.  And I understand how the original picture should look the best but I still don't like the test although I appreciate what it is trying to do.


----------



## dfkt

You can clearly pick which camera you like best from three shots with exactly the same parameters, when looking at them on your computer screen. Given you have a quality screen.


----------



## striker

Exactly. No matter what coloration the sound card or the headphones are adding, they're adding it equally to every file.
   
  It's not an absolute evaluation of sound quality, it's a relative (and subjective) evaluation of sound quality.


----------



## Rockford

No matter what hardware you introduce into dfkt's test the premise remains valid as you are still using a controlled variable(the files).
   
  People are looking too much into the reason for this test, it is so bloody simple.

  
  Quote: 





edwood said:


> You guys are treading a fine line here.
> 
> There is a reason why the Cables forum prohibits discussion of Double Blind testing.   With how this thread has progressed, it will end up in that direction as well.
> 
> -Ed


 

 There is nothing wrong with AB testing, if this thread is closed it will be due to a contributors device being critiqued which might lower sales as this is a place of business when we really get down to it.


----------



## Bojamijams

I see you chose a loudmouth avatar to better represent you. Where's my $100?
  
  Quote: 





rockford said:


> Irony at it's finest.


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





			
				CSIR said:
			
		

> There is only one way to settle this: volume match the three players people talk about clip+, s:flo2, and Hifiman 801 and let people listen to 4 clips of various genre's of songs.  Set up one station where people can plug in various headphones into a A/B/C selector (without seeing the players) and for each headphone type keep a log of which player people prefer (due to volume matching you would have to only do IEMS at one time and full sized at another).  In my view due to price, size, and battery life difference the Hifiman should be chosen 99% of the time and the second favorite should be the s:flo2 also by a large amount over the clip.  I know the hifiman can do higher bit rate files but even at the lower ones it should still be a clear winner.  Until then this other test that is being done is like picking which camera you like best by looking at a 3 pictures of a picture on your computer from three different camera's.  And I understand how the original picture should look the best but I still don't like the test although I appreciate what it is trying to do.


 


  
   
  That would be my picture I took of my headphone amp switch box I made.  I use it to do head to head tests between headphone amps.  In that pic, I was comparing the stock HM-801 amp to the GAME amp.
   
  Mostly it's used to better match volume levels as CSIR correctly deduced.  I've found that most of the so-called audio improvements people hear with different amps is simply they are listening to one at a much louder volume level.  Especially in meet conditions where there is a lot of ambient noise.
   
  Either way, it's still not an end all be all testing methodology.  It's simply another tool.  As you need to spend a lot of quiet time comparing different songs, music types, and different sections of passages of music you are familiar with. 
   
  Either way, like I said, we're all treading a fine line here.  Trying to get people to "prove" their hearing prowess via ABX, DBT, etc. and then praising or condemning them for it is a quick trip to getting this thread locked and future discussions about the subject becoming a permanently banned topic.
   
  So, keep it civil.
   
  -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





rockford said:


> No matter what hardware you introduce into dfkt's test the premise remains valid as you are still using a controlled variable(the files).
> 
> People are looking too much into the reason for this test, it is so bloody simple.
> 
> ...


 

 You haven't been around here long enough to even know what I was talking about, so don't pretend otherwise.
   
  The thread can and will be locked for many reasons,  mostly because it will be going nowhere but beating a dead horse topic.
   
  The real problem is that the ABX Double Blind testing discussions will become a banned topic in this forum as well as others since it's already been banned in the Cables forum for exactly what's going on in this thread.
   
  Like I said, tread carefully.
   
  -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Oh wait.  Nevermind.  What I said did become true. 
   
  I just realized that this thread was moved to the sound science forum.


----------



## PockyMaster

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> You can clearly pick which camera you like best from three shots with exactly the same parameters, when looking at them on your computer screen. Given you have a quality screen.


 

 To be fair, cameras have other parameters to look at, such as AF speed, in the dark and light, noise, saturation, screen, ergonomics, ease of use, etc. that cannot be viewed on monitors. On top of that, skill is actually required for photography. I don't think listening to music is a skill.
  That's just me. (dfkt, you use a 40d yourself, don't you?, how did you pick out your camera?)
   
  That being said, audio devices that supposedly give characteristic properties that are supposedly "better" may just be fodder that makes it seem "better". Sure, some may like how Olympus's, or Pentax's, or Sony's colour is reproduced in jpeg, but in terms of technical quality, (RAW formats) They all differ in various areas that may make it a higher or lower performer. 
   
  With that also being said, the differences are minute when you observe it as art rather than data. So, just like photography, stop bigoting over which is better or worse or of higher or lower quality and appreciate the music as art rather than 0's and 1's with whatever device is within your price range. 
   

 I won't lie though. Without the hifiman, I wouldn't be able to have this much fun reading a forum.


----------



## dfkt

Quote: 





pockymaster said:


> stop bigoting over which is better or worse


 

 Wow, some of the guys that come out of the woodwork are just amazing. I give you the chance to evaluate all the options on your own, and that is how you (mis)interpret it?


----------



## JaZZ

dfkt said:


> The test is accurate, Jazz is just trying to distract people from the facts.


 
   
  Please?! That's a tough imputation. Why should I do that? The opposite is true: I'm interested in the facts. Therefore my objections, to which you haven't cared to respond so far.
   
   


> It's not about what he calls "peak performance"...


   
  That's not how I have called it, that's how _MrGreen_ has called it.
   
   


> ...it's just the standard at which these tests are usually done, which is 16 Ohm.


   
  I have no idea what standard you're referring to, but it makes no sense to stick to it if it doesn't reflect reality and poses problems to a lot if not most portable players.
   
   


> The difference to, say, 32 Ohm loads is negligible.


   
  I have to wonder how you come to this conclusion. Audio is your profession, right? So you don't know what the result of half the load impedance is in the case of undersized buffer capacitors? I will tell you: a doubling of the corner frequency of the bass drop-off. That's anything but negligible. Now add this insight to the fact that at least 66% of the DAPs have undersized buffer capacitors.
   
   


> Anyways, it's still about the difference between any of the three players with a 16 Ohm load against the original file. That's all.


   
  «That's all» is a good call! It reminds me of the infamous «blind cable test» in which people had to guess which cable is which and call by name, although they hadn't heard any of them before. Why do you think it's so easy to identify the original file? I guess because you think it should sound better than the other three. But that's a misconception. There are many amps which make the music sound better, more attractive than original. At times I have even found some MP3 tracks to sound better than the uncompressed originals.
   
  So I have to say: Despite your goodwill for undertaking this test which is certainly meant to do the community a favor, your precondition is as flawed as the test itself. A scientific approach is something else.
.


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





edwood said:


> You haven't been around here long enough to even know what I was talking about, so don't pretend otherwise.
> 
> The thread can and will be locked for many reasons,  mostly because it will be going nowhere but beating a dead horse topic.
> 
> ...


 

 I know about the thread you speak of thank you very much.
   
  If ABX does become as you believe a banned topic, it will be for no other reason than it's power to demystify the marketing BS used by these companies that make cheap players and sell them at a high mark up because people like you(audiophiles) are such a gullible breed.
   
  Interesting the thread was moved to Sound Science so less people see it and are thus sales will remain untainted, well played headfi!


----------



## PockyMaster

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> Wow, some of the guys that come out of the woodwork are just amazing. I give you the chance to evaluate all the options on your own, and that is how you (mis)interpret it?


 

 Sorry, I do have to admit, I have misinterpreted it. =| It just seemed so much like the threads I've read over dpreview. 
   
  I guess what I'm trying to get at is, in the end, what do we, as the general population of headfi,  expect out of all of this?


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





rockford said:


> I know about the thread you speak of thank you very much.
> 
> If ABX does become as you believe a banned topic, it will be for no other reason than it's power to demystify the marketing BS used by these companies that make cheap players and sell them at a high mark up because people like you(audiophiles) are such a gullible breed.
> 
> Interesting the thread was moved to Sound Science so less people see it and are thus sales will remain untainted, well played headfi!


 
   
  Again, you don't know what you're talking about.  It's not a SINGLE thread.  It was several that got the topic banned.  But due to popular demand, there is a forum dedicated to this subject matter, so quit your whining.  You can either accept the thread being here in Sound Sciences, or it can also completely go away like Certifiably Inane forum did before.  And be thankful that the forum subscription system automatically updates your subscriptions so that you can still keep track of where a thread moves.  There are a lot of forums that do not do such a thing, and it looks like a thread just got deleted when it was just moved.
   
  -Ed


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote:


beefy said:


> Go back and re-read it, KID. I was the one who posted that popcorn posts were useless; kostalex, Sonic 748i and others are the peasants posting popcorn.


 
  I apologize, being on this forum late in the morning shouldn't be allowed. I post stupid sh-t.


----------



## odigg

I said I wouldn't post but I want to point out using a 16 ohm load makes plenty of sense.  dfkt is also using a real IEM, not a dummy load (resistor).
   
  Many BA IEMs have an impedance that varies a lot across the FR.  In the case of some IEMs, the impedance actually dips well below 16 ohms.  Look at the following graphs.
   
  UE10
   
   
   
  UE11
   

   
  My own experiments with the JH13 (and various amp RMAA measurements by shigzeo) have led me to conclude the JH13 has an impedance that varies in similar fashion.  According to Headroom the SE530 impedance varies to a point near or below 16 as well.
   
  It's very reasonable to expect that people who own the Hifiman will use them with a top tier IEM that has an impedance that varies in similar fashion.  So the Hifiman should be able to deal with a 16 ohm load without issue.
   
  The High Performance version of the Mini3 can deal with these low impedance loads without issue or major detriment to it's measurements as compared to unloaded measurements.  I suspect the extended runtime version can do so as well.
   
  And BTW, the above graphs demonstrate a 16ohm load is not a "speaker" load.


----------



## Beefy

Quote: 





hero kid said:


> Quote:
> I apologize, being on this forum late in the morning shouldn't be allowed. I post stupid sh-t.


 

 No problems, and sorry for the nasty tone. The new quoting system sucks, and I can see how the errors are made.


----------



## JaZZ

odigg said:


> I said I wouldn't post but I want to point out using a 16 ohm load makes plenty of sense.  dfkt is also using a real IEM, not a dummy load (resistor). Many BA IEMs have an impedance that varies a lot across the FR.  In the case of some IEMs, the impedance actually dips well below 16 ohms.  Look at the following graphs (...UE10, UE11...)
> 
> My own experiments with the JH13 (and various amp RMAA measurements by shigzeo) have led me to conclude the JH13 has an impedance that varies in similar fashion.  According to Headroom the SE530 impedance varies to a point near or below 16 as well.


 

 I must have overlooked the passage with the headphone as load (from the previous page I take it that it's a Vibe). But instead of making things better, it makes them even worse.
   
  When you're listening to a headphone attached to a DAP, the former receives the signal from the headphone output according to its own complex-load properties. The dynamic aspect of it is that there may be some back EMF from the voice-coil which the amp reacts to. The complexity aspect is that the current flow is frequency-dependent according to the impedance curve of the sound transducer. In a real-life scenario that's o.k., since all variables match together, are dependent on and the result of each other. Whereas in the scenario at hand the recorded signal is colored by the headphone used.
   
  You could say that the conditions are still the same for all the options except for the original recording, but that poses the question what the goal of the test acually is. According to dfkt it's to find out which is the original Flac file. Since we don't know the original recording, we have no clue how it should sound. It seems that the unexpressed central idea behind this test is that the orignal file is the one that sounds «best». Now with all the variables in play – precolored recording signal, individual soundcards and headphone amps –, the probability is high to get a special synergy with a specific file from the list making it sound «best» in the individual configuration.
.


----------



## JaZZ

beefy said:


> The new quoting system sucks, and I can see how the errors are made.


 

 That I agree with.


----------



## Ro-amp

Quote: 





nankai said:


> HiFi is not equal to a straight plot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  Looking at this graph I was puzzled, I said to myself this is a bad signal graph or something like this, so I decided to read the article, and sure enough that was a defective unit, a new unit was sent and remeasured the low frequency is a lot better...no changes in the highs.
  Sometimes graph do speak...
  The fact that the hifiman tries to emulate a vinyl treble rolloff is fine with me as long as I am aware, but it ain't hifi, unfortunately the term as been distorted...
  Regards


----------



## Nankai

I like Zanden's sound personally. That Zanden review's first half is very positive (Although John wrote that he did not like it in the second half). We did not made HM-801 like Zanden's soundsignature because we know not 100% people can accept this kind of sound. That is why HM-801's freq plot is more like the Wadia 861.


----------



## limpidglitch

I did the blind testing of the soundfiles, but nothing really stood out. (Thomas Neuman? Reminded me about Six Feet Under and American Beauty)
   
  If I had to guess I would say either nr1 or nr3 is the 801.
   
  Thank you for the effort dfkt.


----------



## Danneq

This thread sure became ugly fast.
   
  I draw the following conclusions from all the wisdom on this thread: Some players, such as the Hifiman HM-801 are far better than others when it comes to SQ. However it cannot be compared directly to other players through ABX-ing as all tests are flawed. All is relative but still absolute. I am reminded of Galileo Galilei who was criticized and almost accused of heresy for promoting a sun-centered theory of the universe as opposed to the earth-centered theory that was dominant at that time. He offered his accusers to look though his telescope and see the moons of Jupiter as they orbited Jupiter, but they refused.
   
  In no way am I comparing anyone in this thread to Galilei nor am I comparing anyone to the religious/scientific establishment at that time. I just think it is a bit similar when a test is offered and promptly refused by the same people who are the biggest critics.
   
  The BIG question for me is: if the Hifiman is such a great player, is it justified to use it to listen to craptastic music such as Lady Gaga, Coldplay or whatever music is the flavor of the month? Is it better to listen to bad music on a good DAP than to listen to good music on a bad DAP?
   
  I haven`t really made any contribution to this thread, but at least I admit it unlike some other people. Now I`ll go and listen to Genesis on my Kenwood Hd20GA7. Good music on a good player (and mind you, the 70ies Genesis, not the 80ies pop disaster)


----------



## CEE TEE

Dear DFKT (and others),
   
  I have been following this thread avidly (sorry about any popcorn- I really am not here for the attitude or any drama, I hoped it would stay light).  
   
  I was excited by the fact that someone was challenging a piece of equipment and obviously not just trying to sell it (which I worry about from time to time).  
   
  I was also excited that I might be able to look at some objective information (graphs) and take that info + my experience with some equipment I like, in conjunction with their respective graphs to = a relatively informed decision about whether I would be happy with a purchase or not.  Another thing that I was hoping for in this thread was to learn about what an ideal "HiFi" DAP should look like (SQ-wise) if there could be an "ideal" DAP.
   
  However, I'm now unsure if the graphs mean anything to me (I checked out the hearing-tone site and I don't know if I can really hear above 15 khz) or if I would even be able to really tell at a noisy meet whether one thing sounded better over another (never been to a meet).  So, now I kind of think that I need to be able to borrow something and try it for a little while with all of my individual gear (like TTVJ's loaner program) or buy and sell (according to the synergy and improvement comparison with my own gear).  I am, however, believing the cumulative opinions across forums to shell out the money for the TTVJ Slim DAC + Amp as I feel like I have read that enough people have tried it in comparison to other new amps and have found it to be very nice.
   
But something that I wanted to revisit, dkft, if I may quote your ABI Post:  "Maybe my ears weren't up to the task (clogged, cold, tired, etc) when I did the AB comparison. I should repeat that."
   
  You didn't offer a follow-up *opinion* of whether or not you think the HiFi Man Player actually sounds better (or not) than the other players that you have.  (Maybe you did in another thread?)
   
  I know that my question may "detract" from the "objective" evidence that you are presenting, but since there has been a strong tone in your presentation anyway...could we know (when your ears are in condition) if your opinion is that the HiFi man sounds good to you or not?
   
  Do the graphs represent what you hear from the DAPs?  Or should that be obvious to me because you are presenting them and do use them?
   
  This is a SUPER-HONEST inquiry.  Now I just wanna know how average (or how bad or how good) this thing sounds against other DAPs in general to you.  Across your headphones/types of headphones/types of music...etc.
   
*Sorry if this in anyway starts to derail the already incendiary thread.  If so, IGNORE THE NEWB (me). This is my first participation in any forum or community and I am here to learn, enjoy, and be an enthusiastic supporter.  *
   
  Cheers,  
  CEE TEE


----------



## b0dhi

Seems to me the roll-off is due to using the 1704 without oversampling. The roll-off pattern certainly matches NOS response very closely, and doesn't look like poor analog fltering, since filtering that bad would have to be done intentionally. I personally don't like NOS but some people do.
   
  On the other hand, there's no justification for such poor crosstalk for such an expensive player. It's so bad that I thought it must be intentional, but then they could just as easily do it digitally and have an option to disable it for those that don't want it.
   
  Also, someone mentioned the PCM1704 is discontinued - it isn't.
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/pcm1704.html


----------



## Currawong

In a NOS DAC, from what I understand of things, the signal has to be filtered off to zero by 16k, as anything above that is completely distorted (though the treble below that is considerably distorted anyway). The FR graph only shows a 3dB drop at 16k.  If you re-scale dfkt's FR graph down to -80db (80dB is a "normal" listening level), what looks like a big roll-off will be tiny.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote: 





currawong said:


> In a NOS DAC, from what I understand of things, the signal has to be filtered off to zero by 16k, as anything above that is completely distorted (though the treble below that is considerably distorted anyway).


 

 The roll-off in a NOS DAC is caused by the fundamental nature of square waves (which is what an unfiltered NOS DAC produces as output) versus sine waves of the same fundamental frequency. Even if the output is low-pass filtered at 20khz, the roll-off will still be there. Sometimes the output is filtered to keep funny things from happening further down the chain (instability or slew-limiting in the amplifier or output stage, damage to sensitive tweeters, etc), but it's not really clear if that's done in the HM-801 since we only see measurement up to 20khz. It certainly looks like NOS response though.
   
   
  Quote: 





> The FR graph only shows a 3dB drop at 16k.  If you re-scale dfkt's FR graph down to -80db (80dB is a "normal" listening level), what looks like a big roll-off will be tiny.


 
   
  Scaling the graph down to -80dB isn't the same as listening at 80dB. What I think you're referring to is 80dB SPL, which is not at all the same measure. 80dB SPL is a ratio with reference to the smallest human audible sound. -80dB in the graph is a ratio with reference to the peak signal amplitude. They don't really translate, at least not directly.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Either way, like I said, we're all treading a fine line here.  Trying to get people to "prove" their hearing prowess via ABX, DBT, etc. and then praising or condemning them for it is a quick trip to getting this thread locked and future discussions about the subject becoming a permanently banned topic.
> 
> So, keep it civil.
> 
> -Ed


 
   
  The day that confronting the quality of equipment, and the audibility of difference in such equipment becomes a banned topic is the day I lose what little faith I have left in humanity.
   
  While we're in the mood of not testing gear and blindly following manufacturers, I've got a new product coming out! It's a cmoy amp I bought, removed the chassis of and put into a wood box. I will charge $800 for it.
   
  The objective of this thread, despite some of hte posts within it, is one of the better threads head-fi as seen; up there IMO with the Grado RA1 and the expensive cable that was chewed open. It certainly makes for a pleasant change to "what x with y?"
   
  Even if no meaningful conclusion is made, or if indeed the tests are invalid (something I sincerely doubt from even the most basic knowledge at my disposal), the very concept of questioning the quality of what we receive is one of the most noble in the business. Anyone willing to do it is more brave than a large majority of the people who have posted in the thread.
   
  I'd like to wonder how many other people would have the balls to make this thread.


----------



## JaZZ

mrgreen said:


> Even if no meaningful conclusion is made, or if indeed the tests are invalid (something I sincerely doubt from even the most basic knowledge at my disposal), the very concept of questioning the quality of what we receive is one of the most noble in the business. Anyone willing to do it is more brave than a large majority of the people who have posted in the thread.
> 
> I'd like to wonder how many other people would have the balls to make this thread.


 

 This thread is certainly a good one. It's interesting to see a device described from a metrological instead of a merely subjective perspective. I don't see in which respect this requires any «balls», but I appreciate this effort. However, the conclusions drawn from the thread starter are subjective, and the test is more or less made to get them confirmed (I'm not saying intentionally so!). I would have wished a more independent and less ideologic approach (à la «all electronics components sound the same anyway as long as the measuring specs don't tell otherwise»).


----------



## music_4321

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Oh wait.  Nevermind.  What I said did become true.
> 
> I just realized that this thread was moved to the sound science forum.


 
  This is what I consider a blatant 'veiled' attempt at censorship. Now it's only a handful of people who can see (and possibly benefit from) this thread. I know I myself didn't even know a 'Sound Science' forum even existed, and I've been round these forums for 1.5 years.
   
  What next now? Those who consider _The Wire_ to be a masterpiece will be banned from head-fi?


----------



## MrGreen

What a joke


----------



## nick_charles

If my memory is correct the unit described does not actually meet the the rather generous 1973 DIN 45 500 standard for "High Fidelity" and in fact is worse on some parameters than a decent quality late 1970s cassette recorder such as the 1978 Pioneer CT-F1000 - my how we have moved on


----------



## Galatian

nick_charles said:


> If my memory is correct the unit described does not actually meet the the rather generous 1973 DIN 45 500 standard for "High Fidelity" and in fact is worse on some parameters than a decent quality late 1970s cassette recorder such as the 1978 Pioneer CT-F1000 - my how we have moved on





 Have you actually listened to it? I don't think you did, otherwise you would not have made such a coment. Please specify actually what is required to achieve a hifi norm and where the hifiman lacks those. I can clearly hear a superior sound out of it then say my iPod or the cheap hifi system from Sony or so. I'm not trying to overly defend it but some people just bash it because they hear someone's opinion. If it is so easy to change peoples mind I wonder why I have not succeded in telling people that god does not exist...


----------



## Shike

Quote:


galatian said:


> Have you actually listened to it? I don't think you did, otherwise you would not have made such a coment. Please specify actually what is required to achieve a hifi norm and where the hifiman lacks those. I can clearly hear a superior sound out of it then say my iPod or the cheap hifi system from Sony or so. I'm not trying to overly defend it but some people just bash it because they hear someone's opinion. If it is so easy to change peoples mind I wonder why I have not succeded in telling people that god does not exist...


 
 He doesn't need to listen to it to note the measurements don't actually meet actual HiFi standards.  He's not talking about the layman's term either, but the actual standard.  Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity and you may actually understand.
   
   
  In other news, NOS designs still fail horribly at accurate reproduction and are still overpriced.
   
  PS:
   
  Shame on Head-Fi staff for trying to sift this dirt under the rug.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





galatian said:


> Have you actually listened to it? I don't think you did, otherwise you would not have made such a coment. Please specify actually what is required to achieve a hifi norm and where the hifiman lacks those. I can clearly hear a superior sound out of it then say my iPod or the cheap hifi system from Sony or so. I'm not trying to overly defend it but some people just bash it because they hear someone's opinion. If it is so easy to change peoples mind I wonder why I have not succeded in telling people that god does not exist...


 

 High Fidelity <> pleasant sounding
   
  The measurements on the unit fall short of even the 16 bit standard, and actually, now you mention it, the measured performance on the first gen iPod (Stereophile, 2003)
   
  http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/934/index5.html 
  
  is superior on several parameters.
   
  PS I am no great Apple fan, though in the spirit of full disclosure I do have an iPod I won in a raffle


----------



## Edwood

The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies.  And guess what?  The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed.  Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else. 
   
  It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.  
   
  It's distracting, and frankly the topic has been beaten to death beyond squeezing blood from this stone.
   
  Instead of crying foul of censorship, be thankful this Sound Sciences forum even exists as this thread would've just been locked a long time ago.
   
  -Ed


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Edwood

 The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies. And guess what? The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed. Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else.
   
  It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster. But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question. Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it. But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.
   
  It's distracting, and frankly the topic has been beaten to death beyond squeezing blood from this stone.
   
  Instead of crying foul of censorship, be thankful this Sound Sciences forum even exists as this thread would've just been locked a long time ago.
   
  -Ed

  
  ur a moderator?
   
   
  .


----------



## Edwood

C'mon, John.  Don't know how active you've been over the years, but if so, you probably remember all the nasty arguments over DBT in the Cables forums.  And then the Certifiably Inane forum getting shut down.
   
  -Ed


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote: 





edwood said:


> The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies.  And guess what?  The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed.  Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else.
> 
> It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Who needs to ride the coaster if the math says its slow as hell and doesn't pull many G's?  Its not complicated math, its very well explained, and it can easily be proven.  Why would I buy a ticket to an amusement park full of slow, over priced, poorly engineered roller coasters?  Oh wait, maybe its an audiophile park and it costs $800.  Then the people that do go can claim that everyone needs to go to this park or they can't talk about it.
   
  Artificial measurements?  You means like the pace, rhythm, timing, musical, "toe tapping," and the other words that people use?  Oh no, you are takling about frequency response graphs. 
   
  Maybe you should be happy people aren't held to truths elsewhere in this forum.
   
  What a joke.


----------



## /Fail

meh... the fact that this thread was moved to the Sound Science forum doesn't really change anything. This thread is extremely active, and usually has the most recent posts in it. I see it whenever I scroll down.
   
  $0.02


----------



## JaZZ

dayofthegreek said:


> What a joke.


 

 The subjectivist approach is that graphs and measurements don't tell everything about the sound. That's why I give some credit to the HM-801 despite my displeasure about its high-frequency roll-off. I can absolutely imagine that it nevertheless sounds good _and_ realistic (so not just provides the assumed fun factor), although it may not entirely be to my taste compared to available alternatives. What I miss from the objectivist side is at least some understanding for the concept of a smooth low-pass filtering with its pretended and perceived sonic advantage. There's too much aggressive criticism pointing out the bad design and leaving out these considerations. You don't have to agree with this sonic philosophy and preference.
   
  And note that in turn the attitude of judging gear by means of data instead of personal audition is perceived as a joke as well by a majority of subjectivists. Not to speak of a theoretical rollercoaster ride.
.


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





dayofthegreek said:


> Who needs to ride the coaster if the math says its slow as hell and doesn't pull many G's?  Its not complicated math, its very well explained, and it can easily be proven.  Why would I buy a ticket to an amusement park full of slow, over priced, poorly engineered roller coasters?  Oh wait, maybe its an audiophile park and it costs $800.  Then the people that do go can claim that everyone needs to go to this park or they can't talk about it.
> 
> Artificial measurements?  You means like the pace, rhythm, timing, musical, "toe tapping," and the other words that people use?  Oh no, you are takling about frequency response graphs.
> 
> ...


 

 Yeah, because overall and maximum speed can be calculated by only measuring the maximum G's in a roller coaster. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
   Anyways, I'm done participating with bludgeoning the thoroughly decomposed equine corpse here.  Have fun guys.
   
  I've got a lot of work to do including helping finish a lot of stuff in preparation for CanJam.
   
  Those that are attending will be in for a blast.  It's a great, fun time.  The rest of you in this thread can have fun here squeezing some more blood.
   
  -Ed


----------



## DayoftheGreek

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Yeah, because overall and maximum speed can be calculated by only measuring the maximum G's in a roller coaster.


 
   
  Yeah, because that's exactly what I said.  This is a terrible straw man.
   
  Sorry, I didn't want to bring any more artificial measurements to the table.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


edwood said:


> The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies.  And guess what?  The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed.  Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else.
> 
> It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.
> 
> ...


   
   
  How many issues with a player does it take before you classify it as defective?  The player measures poorly in spite of whether you enjoy it or not.  Besides, you're whining that you want to discuss the player and how much you enjoy it.  I'm pretty sure this thread isn't about that now is it?
   
  As for the coaster strawman, DayoftheGreek summed it up perfectly.


----------



## terriblepaulz

I spent some time this evening reading through this thread, and I am still trying to wrap my mind around spending $800 on a DAP.  Does this player do something other than play music?


----------



## kostalex

Thanks god, it does not. It works the same way as turntables or stationary CDP - just plays music. No bells, no whistles. No websurfing, youtubing, bookreading, etc.
  
  Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> I spent some time this evening reading through this thread, and I am still trying to wrap my mind around spending $800 on a DAP.  Does this player do something other than play music?


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Edwood* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.
> 
> ...


 
   
  You haven't taken children to an amusement park recently, have you?
   
  Not to mention I believe the creator of this thread has two of them and has listenned to both - one of which was defective.
  
  Just a question. Have you listenned to any of the devices he is comparing it to?

 Why are you refusing to do the DBT?


----------



## Edwood

Read through the thread, you'll find all the answers to your questions.  I have a lot of work I'm busy with, I know most of you aren't going to CanJam, so you wouldn't appreciate it anyways.


----------



## shigzeo

Wow, it's still going on... and I thought I was clear in the woods, lost among the bramble. Hope I don't get dragged back into civilisation...


----------



## Galatian

nick_charles said:


> High Fidelity <> pleasant sounding
> 
> The measurements on the unit fall short of even the 16 bit standard, and actually, now you mention it, the measured performance on the first gen iPod (Stereophile, 2003)
> 
> ...





 Actually that's exactly what I was talking about and the English wikipedia article is somewhat vague on describing what the actual standard of hifi is. The German wikipedia is a little bit more precise and they essentially state that there is no DIN norm anymore as almost all audio products buildt today easily surpass those old standarts. So if you make a point please clearly state what you are referring to. As of right now I just see you making a point without any reference. Tell us exactly where you think the Hifiman lacks any existing hifi standard.


----------



## music_4321

Quote: 





edwood said:


> The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies.  And guess what?  The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed.  Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else.
> 
> It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.
> 
> ...


 

 Did all the scientists who designed the Apollo 11 actually travel to the moon?
   
  And no, I'm not thankful the Sound Sciences forum exists; I don't see a legitimate reason why this particular thread should get locked. I liken what's happened to an important/ relevant news item which should appear on the front page or first few pages of a newspaper but is instead sent to the last pages of the paper for VERY few to see. To me, this comes across as a clear form of censorship.
   
  If dfkt had decided to start this thread in the Sound Sciences forum, that would've been his choice and I'd have been OK with that but he started it in what I regard to be the most relevant & appropriate forum, ie the Portable Source Gear forum.

  
  Quote: 





/fail said:


> meh... the fact that this thread was moved to the Sound Science forum *doesn't really change anything*. This thread is extremely active, and usually has the most recent posts in it. I see it whenever I scroll down.
> 
> $0.02


 
   
  I wonder how many people who come to head-fi looking for reviews on different DAP's actually know a Sound Sciences forum even exists -- I know I didn't and I've been round here for a while -- and even if they did notice it, would they bother at all? I think VERY few would.


----------



## Shike

And to think, this whole issue could have been avoided with a proper oversampling design.
   
  *oil on the flame, NOS vs. OS all over again, ducks*


----------



## b0dhi

I noticed another measurement in this thread that didn't have the terrible crosstalk of the first measurement. It's possible all or part of the original results were due to it being a defective unit.


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Yeah, because overall and maximum speed can be calculated by only measuring the maximum G's in a roller coaster.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. The roller coaster ride was designed entirely with physics and engineering; do you think they just looped some pieces of metal together and hoped that it would work? The maximum Gs and speed, along with acceleration and of course safety, are all predetermined. Apparently to you all these parameters are unknown until they are measured. All roller coasters work within some safety specs, but there are some that are obviously worse than others. People enjoy them differently, but that's because people are different. The specs of the roller coaster, like the HiFiman player, *are set in stone*. If one roller coaster provides worse G's or whatever and has no loops, you can bet the normal distribution of people liking it would be shifted lower (do you know what a normal distribution is?). That's because people really aren't very different; this includes so-called golden ears.
   
  Likewise if the hifiman is electrically worse (a rollercoaster with less loops and whatever), it's going to seem worse IN COMPARISON to other players. Nothing will change inferior technical specs, although Currawong made a point about something else I haven't taken the time to understand. You just belong in the plus plus standard deviation that proclaims anything expensive as great.
   
  Actually, you can calculate all these parameters very easily, as long as you know the maximum height of a loop. Kinematics is pretty simple.
   
  I'm just absolutely FLOORED that people like you have the audacity to disclaim hundreds of years of education and learning by the virtue of your ears alone. Your ignorance of physics is staggering; did you not even pass highschool physics?


----------



## Edwood

Uh oh.  I pissed off a Physicist.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





galatian said:


> Actually that's exactly what I was talking about and the English wikipedia article is somewhat vague on describing what the actual standard of hifi is. The German wikipedia is a little bit more precise and they essentially state that there is no DIN norm anymore as almost all audio products buildt today easily surpass those old standarts. So if you make a point please clearly state what you are referring to. As of right now I just see you making a point without any reference. Tell us exactly where you think the Hifiman lacks any existing hifi standard.


 

 That was the whole point , that the unit was technically worse than a generous standard long since surpassed by most audio devices. In specifics a FR of 20 - 20,000 +/- 2db was what I was referring to and the measurements bear witness that the 801 does not manage this, also the 801 does not manage a SNR of 96db so it fails to meet red book 16 bit CD standards, despite being described as a 24/96 device, however for a portable one can be more generous. Though the 1st gen iPod does manage the flat FR comfortably.


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Uh oh.  I pissed off a Physicist.


 

 Do people actually respect you?
   
  In any case, just don't talk about things you don't know about (which apparently is a lot and includes roller coasters). You're only making yourself seem more ignorant, bigoted, and inane.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Yeah, because overall and maximum speed can be calculated by only measuring the maximum G's in a roller coaster.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  I imagine there will be plenty of objectivists at CanJam.  For me, it will be a great opportunity to listen to gear that actually matters, like different headphones and sources.  It will also allow me to have a good laugh (to myself of course, no need to be rude) while looking at garden-hose size interconnects, 5 lb. "portable" rigs, and head-fiers showing off their ability to make nuanced distinctions between similar pieces of equipment (in the noisy atmosphere of a meet).


----------



## odigg

Quote: 





terriblepaulz said:


> I spent some time this evening reading through this thread, and I am still trying to wrap my mind around spending $800 on a DAP.  Does this player do something other than play music?


 

 Yes.  It has the capability to generate massive placebo effect and bring many running to defend it.  Nobody would much care if the exact same device was $100.
   
   
  Quote: 





> ...To me, this comes across as a clear form of censorship.


 
   
  Ultimately this, to me, represents to me what this entire website (perhaps audiophilia in general) has become.  Whenever we really start digging into engineering, science, testing methods that adhere to the scientific method, and explanations that follow decades (if not centuries) of scientific discovery, it's time to stuff the discussion in the same place we want all the "Dark Arts" to be.
   
  When the Hifiman was designed I'm sure it was first designed on a computer, in software, using these various equations, ideas, and theories so many people are quick to dismiss.  All the chips and bits in the HiFiman were designed the same way.  Somehow this science is enough to build this eqiupment, but it's all nonsense when we need to evaluate it.
   
  Maybe the admins didn't move this to censor it in an explicit sense, but they've censored it the same way society does with everything else we don't agree with - we just move it to a place where nobody will see it, but then we claim it's still there so we didn't censor it.


----------



## SHADYMILKMAN

I like how another review on wired came out about this device, proclaiming its the next coming for "audiophiles" ... so effing sad.
   
  801 fails the tests, but has the heart.    
   
  the main point is, the persons proclaiming to listen to 24/96 flac files and can hear a sonic difference, CANT. the player cannot reproduce the audio, plain and simple. so if it sounds better to you then say that. understand that youre music is getting pinned by the player before it hits these expensive porta. amps or headphones when the bottleneck happens at the source. If thats what sounds better, then thats awesome, however DO NOT CLAIM that its the "best" or "audiophile" grade mp3 player. If you like it then say that, you cannot however credit the device with the belt just because you "say" so. when you do, specifically at this price, you get observers who perform due diligence and come up with data to verify the technical aspects of the device, because fidelity can be measured. everyone is aware that ears are subjective, so its not enough to merely feel  this player is better, its smarter to have a frame of reference for the operational range of the unit. And that has happened here, but to say that data is irrelevant, is just bad audio science. however dont sit here and tell ppl who use an AA, that the results are designed into the unit for the AA to look that way, or that the hi-freq roll off is the special sauce, Fang has said as much. Its just hard to understand the _feeling _that its better rather than appreciating that someone took the time out to verify the quality of the reproduction. the fact that the FR isnt even flat is where this device fails for me, let alone the roll off. I just cant get on board, esp when this hobby is predicated on the transparency of equipment, as sonic puts it a flat FR.


----------



## limpidglitch

…


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote: 





odigg said:


> Maybe the admins didn't move this to censor it in an explicit sense, but they've censored it the same way society does with everything else we don't agree with - we just move it to a place where nobody will see it, but then we claim it's still there so we didn't censor it.


 

 "But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

 "Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

 "But the plans were on display ..."

 "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

 "That's the display department."

 "With a flashlight."

 "Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

 "So had the stairs."

 "But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

 "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."


----------



## Galatian

I sure would like Fang to answer on those pretty strong accusations further then he already had. I can't sleep well anymore knowing that I might have spent 800 $ on inferior sound quality 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Though I can't help but think that it sounds better...is that really just placebo?


----------



## odigg

Quote: 





galatian said:


> I sure would like Fang to answer on those pretty strong accusations further then he already had. I can't sleep well anymore knowing that I might have spent 800 $ on inferior sound quality
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  The files that dfkt posted were (I think) to illustrate an important point.  If you were compare the Hifiman to another player in a blind volume matched test you'd likely find it sounds no better or worse than another good PMP.
   
  Where it becomes "worse" is that the measurements just aren't up to what one would expect from a player that claims to be something revolutionary and costs so much. 
   
  As for the treble rolloff I suspect somebody with good hearing could (dfkt was able to) ABX it in a volume matched test, but would not be able to ABX it even if there was a 2 second gap between switching players. 
   
  As for if you are under the influence of placebo, that's something you can figure out with a volume matched test between players or with the recordings dfkt has posted.
   
*limpidglitch* - The answer is 42


----------



## JaZZ

cegras said:


> Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. The roller coaster ride was designed entirely with physics and engineering; do you think they just looped some pieces of metal together and hoped that it would work? The maximum Gs and speed, along with acceleration and of course safety, are all predetermined. Apparently to you all these parameters are unknown until they are measured. All roller coasters work within some safety specs, but there are some that are obviously worse than others. People enjoy them differently, but that's because people are different. The specs of the roller coaster, like the HiFiman player, *are set in stone*. If one roller coaster provides worse G's or whatever and has no loops, you can bet the normal distribution of people liking it would be shifted lower (do you know what a normal distribution is?). That's because people really aren't very different; this includes so-called golden ears.
> 
> Likewise if the hifiman is electrically worse (a rollercoaster with less loops and whatever), it's going to seem worse IN COMPARISON to other players. Nothing will change inferior technical specs, although Currawong made a point about something else I haven't taken the time to understand. You just belong in the plus plus standard deviation that proclaims anything expensive as great.
> 
> ...


 
   


nick_charles said:


> That was the whole point , that the unit was technically worse than a generous standard long since surpassed by most audio devices. In specifics a FR of 20 - 20,000 +/- 2db was what I was referring to and the measurements bear witness that the 801 does not manage this, also the 801 does not manage a SNR of 96db so it fails to meet red book 16 bit CD standards, despite being described as a 24/96 device, however for a portable one can be more generous. Though the 1st gen iPod does manage the flat FR comfortably.


 
   


cegras said:


> Do people actually respect you?
> 
> In any case, just don't talk about things you don't know about (which apparently is a lot and includes roller coasters). You're only making yourself seem more ignorant, bigoted, and inane.


 
   


> Originally Posted by *terriblepaulz*
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine there will be plenty of objectivists at CanJam.  For me, it will be a great opportunity to listen to gear that actually matters, like different headphones and sources.  It will also allow me to have a good laugh (to myself of course, no need to be rude) while looking at garden-hose size interconnects, 5 lb. "portable" rigs, and head-fiers showing off their ability to make nuanced distinctions between similar pieces of equipment (in the noisy atmosphere of a meet).


 
   


odigg said:


> Yes.  It has the capability to generate massive placebo effect and bring many running to defend it.  Nobody would much care if the exact same device was $100.
> 
> Ultimately this, to me, represents to me what this entire website (perhaps audiophilia in general) has become.  Whenever we really start digging into engineering, science, testing methods that adhere to the scientific method, and explanations that follow decades (if not centuries) of scientific discovery, it's time to stuff the discussion in the same place we want all the "Dark Arts" to be.
> 
> When the Hifiman was designed I'm sure it was first designed on a computer, in software, using these various equations, ideas, and theories so many people are quick to dismiss.  All the chips and bits in the HiFiman were designed the same way. Somehow this science is enough to build this eqiupment, but it's all nonsense when we need to evaluate it.


 
   


shadymilkman said:


> I like how another review on wired came out about this device, proclaiming its the next coming for "audiophiles" ... so effing sad.
> 
> 801 fails the tests, but has the heart.
> 
> the main point is, the persons proclaiming to listen to 24/96 flac files and can hear a sonic difference, CANT. the player cannot reproduce the audio, plain and simple. so if it sounds better to you then say that. understand that youre music is getting pinned by the player before it hits these expensive porta. amps or headphones when the bottleneck happens at the source. If thats what sounds better, then thats awesome, however DO NOT CLAIM that its the "best" or "audiophile" grade mp3 player. If you like it then say that, you cannot however credit the device with the belt just because you "say" so. when you do, specifically at this price, you get observers who perform due diligence and come up with data to verify the technical aspects of the device, because fidelity can be measured. everyone is aware that ears are subjective, so its not enough to merely feel this player is better, its smarter to have a frame of reference for the operational range of the unit. And that has happened here, but to say that data is irrelevant, is just bad audio science. however dont sit here and tell ppl who use an AA, that the results are designed into the unit for the AA to look that way, or that the hi-freq roll off is the special sauce, Fang has said as much. Its just hard to understand the _feeling _that its better rather than appreciating that someone took the time out to verify the quality of the reproduction. the fact that the FR isnt even flat is where this device fails for me, let alone the roll off. I just cant get on board, esp when this hobby is predicated on the transparency of equipment, as sonic puts it a flat FR.


 
   
You know, we're invited to participate in a test. It should be easy for you – as blind-test old hands – to identify a player so far off the norm.
   
This is the science forum. We all know that it's not a place where scientists meet. It's rather a place full of apprentices preaching the virtues of science. And at times it's the most unfriendly place on Head-Fi. Well, even science is not just about the curiosity about the truth, the history of science is full of intrigues, falsifications, attempts to defend the own hypothesis or defend the established doctrine against fresh ideas. At the moment this thread looks like it has developed into an attempt to make an example of a typical overpriced audiophile product with lots of hype around it and no technical merits except for a built-in flaw possibly made to provide a unique characteristic easily confusable with high-end sound. And the minds are already made up.
.


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





jazz said:


> You know, we're invited to participate in a test. It should be easy for you – as blind-test old hands – to identify a player so far off the norm.
> 
> This is the science forum. We all know that it's not a place where scientists meet. It's rather a place full of apprentices preaching the virtues of science. And at times it's the most unfriendly place on Head-Fi. Well, even science is not just about the curiosity about the truth, the history of science is full of intrigues, falsifications, attempts to defend the own hypothesis or defend the established doctrine against fresh ideas. At the moment this thread looks like it has developed into an attempt to make an example of a typical overpriced audiophile product with lots of hype around it and no technical merits except for a built-in flaw possibly made to provide a unique characteristic easily confusable with high-end sound. And the minds are already made up.


 

 Whoa, you're asking us to blind test these players when you won't blind test cables? I have never bothered to test my hearing, and I suppose one of these days I can try with those files. But calling us out on 'not blind testing' is pretty damning to your own philosophy.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


jazz said:


> You know, we're invited to participate in a test. It should be easy for you – as blind-test old hands – to identify a player so far off the norm.
> 
> This is the science forum. We all know that it's not a place where scientists meet. It's rather a place full of apprentices preaching the virtues of science. And at times it's the most unfriendly place on Head-Fi. Well, even science is not just about the curiosity about the truth, the history of science is full of intrigues, falsifications, attempts to defend the own hypothesis or defend the established doctrine against fresh ideas. At the moment this thread looks like it has developed into an attempt to make an example of a typical overpriced audiophile product with lots of hype around it and no technical merits except for a built-in flaw possibly made to provide a unique characteristic easily confusable with high-end sound. And the minds are already made up.


 

 Shrug, I am sure it sounds very nice, probably indistinguishable from peers, I defer to those with younger ears, though I will do the DBT thing for a laugh, but it is marginal as High Fidelity according to modern expectations and I really would expect rather better from something that purports to be 24/96 capable, that said for a portable it measures okay, not great, but it isn't just the FR that is disappointing the measured noise levels are also worse (albeit marginally) than 16 bit standards, again forgiveable in a portable perhaps but calling it 24 bit-able is misleading. But let's say it is as good as any other portable , how does it justify it's big price tag if it is no better ?
   
  Well, that seems to rest in its improved sound quality and in part its ability to render high res files , quoting Steve Guttenberg on CNET
  Quote: 





> Listening to a few high-resolution 24 bit/96 kHz sampled FLAC files the HM-801's proved its audiophile credentials were in order. The high-resolution files were more open, effortless and clear sounding. No iPod or Zune can play high-resolution files, so the HM-801's performance lead grows even wider.


 
   
  erm,  but it is a 16 bit player, so it may be fed 24 bits but it don't output them so what are these reviewers hearing, well perhaps they are hearing 8 extra bits that are just not there, an incredible feat I have to say. If I wish hard enough perhaps my Toyota hatchback willl become a BMW...
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
  EDIT....DBT under way.........
   
  DBTing files 1 vs 2 ........7/10 - probability of guessing 17%
   
  1 vs 4 ............17/20 probability of guessing 0.1% - I found a small but noticeable difference in stereo imaaaaaage at ~7.4 seconds - the boing is central or possibly slightly rightwards on one and *def* sligthly leftwards on the other - took a lot of repetitions to find it but once you find it you can hear it reliably again and again. My wild guess is that there may be a phase shift or channel imbalance.... neither sounds superior as such just different...now it just needs a few more tests...


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





cegras said:


> Whoa, you're asking us to blind test these players when you won't blind test cables? I have never bothered to test my hearing, and I suppose one of these days I can try with those files. But calling us out on 'not blind testing' is pretty damning to your own philosophy.


 

 Is that an excuse for you not to prove how bad the player is – with your preferred methodology?
   
   


nick_charles said:


> Shrug, I am sure it sounds very nice, probably indistinguishable from peers...


   
  You could test it to be sure. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



    
   


> ...but it is marginal as High Fidelity according to modern expectations and I really would expect rather better from something that purports to be 24/96 capable, that said for a portable it measures okay, not great, but it isn't just the FR that is disappointing the measured noise levels are also worse (albeit marginally) than 16 bit standards, again forgiveable in a portable perhaps but calling it 24 bit-able is misleading. But let's say it is as good as any other portable, how does it justify it's big price tag if it is no better?


  
And what is there to be gained by (even) better data?
.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jazz said:


> nick_charles said:
> 
> 
> > Shrug, I am sure it sounds very nice, probably indistinguishable from peers...
> ...


 

 testing under way, post edited. Agreed 16 bits is more than enough


----------



## EphemeralHope

This thread has become the hot-spot for what we call the leeches of society. One person makes an argument and then everyone else continues to make the same argument by rephrasing it over and over and over again. Dumb. DFKT has already made the argument on the first page better than anyone else in these 23 pages have, yet people who are completely unexposed to this topic continue to rehash the argument to death as if they were the ones in possession of a hifiman and assert: oh yeah....  see! at least an ipod with a muddled line/headphone out fares better than this piece of junk!
   
  It is already extremely obvious that these digital tests are not going to be an accurate test for these players - why dont we rip some music from a stax amp so that we dont have to buy one and then we can evaluate it's SQ for ourselves - obviously we would be able to judge any piece of equipment just by translating it onto a digital file - yeah right. And as many other users have agreed upon - these audio files are what they are... digital recordings that lack in capturing the full sound reproduction.
   
  I find it useless how people are going to troll on this thread because they want to justify their own need to not hear the hifiman - believe the argument if you want - don't repeat it. The argument from the digital point is already clear and there's no need to step on people who own a hifiman just because you are not planning to get one. This is a debate and not a "let me tell  you that your DAP is a waste of money" thread.
   
  People who own a hifiman are clearly happy with what they have either by placebo or actual improvement of SQ - the source obviously matters in music.. in fact headfi revolves around these components. If people find enjoyment in their upgraded sources - so be it. It's as if a superior product has just exposed a weakness and all the owners of inferior products jump on the attack which is feeding a frenzy of inexperienced people getting trigger happy and is now blown out of proportion.
   
  If these graphs and playback tracks were really able to recapture the full story: then many of the respected viewers of this forum would be considered a fraud and under a placebo effect. The hifiman is built of components very similar to those we use in home DACs - are we to say that an Ipod or measly 40 dollar clip+ sounds better than a home end DAC because of a few graphs? My opinion on this - HELL NO - a 300-400$ home dac that uses inferior parts to the hifiman would beat the living crap out of an Ipod anyday in sound reproduction, weight, clarity, warmth, separation, whatever.
   
  An argument only works if the premises are true - there is obviously something lacking here and though when people try to bring that up... the ignorant continue to pour on the same arguments over and over again based on faulty premises which means that we'll never see the end to this argument. Lovely, I'll let this thread now continue to fight on because I felt I wanted to at least post something about how hypocritical it is to believe that specs are the only thing that matters - this is like arguing with my friend over the fact that only megapixels of cameras matter... ugh....


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





ephemeralhope said:


> This thread has become the hot-spot for what we call the leeches of society. One person makes an argument and then everyone else continues to make the same argument by rephrasing it over and over and over again. Dumb. DFKT has already made the argument on the first page better than anyone else in these 23 pages have, yet people who are completely unexposed to this topic continue to rehash the argument to death as if they were the ones in possession of a hifiman and assert: oh yeah....  see! at least an ipod with a muddled line/headphone out fares better than this piece of junk!
> 
> It is already extremely obvious that these digital tests are not going to be an accurate test for these players - why dont we rip some music from a stax amp so that we dont have to buy one and then we can evaluate it's SQ for ourselves - obviously we would be able to judge any piece of equipment just by translating it onto a digital file - yeah right. And as many other users have agreed upon - these audio files are what they are... digital recordings that lack in capturing the full sound reproduction.
> 
> ...


 

 You my friend, have won the internetz.


----------



## odigg

Quote: 





> You know, we're invited to participate in a test. It should be easy for you – as blind-test old hands – to identify a player so far off the norm.


 
   
  Sure.  I didn't do a complete ABX though.  I listened to the files and concluded I probably wouldn't successfully ABX the files.  I then tried to ABX for a few minutes and gave up.  I would like to conduct an ABX of the Hifiman recording of the original FLAC just to see if I can ABX the treble rolloff.  I'll do that once dfkt releases the identifies the file.  But I don't count on passing since I'm not 18 anymore...
   
  But that's what I expected.  I never claimed the Hifiman sounds bad.  I've just said that the Hifiman doesn't measure to the standards the industry has come to expect from gear and it doesn't measure up to it's advertised standards of 16 bit or 24 bit reproduction.  None of the measurements are substantially better than the Clip+, which what I would expect from an $800 device.  In loaded stereo crosstalk it measures very much worse than many PMPs.
   
  Beyond all that, it's us DBT people who make statements like "Devices with a flat FR, not driven to distortion, blah blah, sound the same."  dfkt was able to ABX the Hifiman because of the the treble rolloff and even he said not to expect much difference beyond that.  In real world situations (e.g. sitting, relaxing, and listening) even that may not be audible.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





ephemeralhope said:


> This thread has become the hot-spot for what we call the leeches of society. One person makes an argument and then everyone else continues to make the same argument by rephrasing it over and over and over again. Dumb. DFKT has already made the argument on the first page better than anyone else in these 23 pages have, yet people who are completely unexposed to this topic continue to rehash the argument to death as if they were the ones in possession of a hifiman and assert: oh yeah....  see! at least an ipod with a muddled line/headphone out fares better than this piece of junk!


 

  Funny you should say this, because your argument here:
   
   Quote: 





> It is already extremely obvious that these digital tests are not going to be an accurate test for these players - why dont we rip some music from a stax amp so that we dont have to buy one and then we can evaluate it's SQ for ourselves - obviously we would be able to judge any piece of equipment just by translating it onto a digital file - yeah right. And as many other users have agreed upon - these audio files are what they are... digital recordings that lack in capturing the full sound reproduction.


 
   
  has already been made here. And it has already been refuted here.
   
  Lacking as they are, you'd think they'd be able to at least differentiate between a $50 and $800 player.
   
  Quote: 





> People who own a hifiman are clearly happy with what they have either by placebo or actual improvement of SQ - the source obviously matters in music.. in fact headfi revolves around these components. If people find enjoyment in their upgraded sources - so be it. It's as if a superior product has just exposed a weakness and all the owners of inferior products jump on the attack which is feeding a frenzy of inexperienced people getting trigger happy and is now blown out of proportion.


 
   
 People who own a Hifiman and now because of graphs do not like it are clearly unhappy with what they have either by peer pressure or disillusionment. Regardless, they aren't happy. The people who don't own one are obviously happy because now they don't feel the need to spend $800 on something without trying it first. Win win. If someone doesn't want to believe the graph, they don't have to. Is it wrong that a product is being criticized, and certainly for some good reason?
  
  Quote: 





> If these graphs and playback tracks were really able to recapture the full story: then many of the respected viewers of this forum would be considered a fraud and under a placebo effect.


 
   
  What's wrong with that? No one's immune to placebo. Just because they're golden-eared gods (by self-proclamation or seniority and respect) doesn't mean they can't hear something that isn't there. It's a flaw in our brains, not in our character. No one is any more inferior for succumbing to illusion.
   
  Quote: 





> The hifiman is built of components very similar to those we use in home DACs - are we to say that an Ipod or measly 40 dollar clip+ sounds better than a home end DAC because of a few graphs? My opinion on this - HELL NO - a 300-400$ home dac that uses inferior parts to the hifiman would beat the living crap out of an Ipod anyday in sound reproduction, weight, clarity, warmth, separation, whatever.


 
   
  My opinion on this - and I mostly agree with you - is that a statement like this is meaningless without at least a little data to support it. There may not necessarily be a correlation between cost and quality.
   
  Quote: 





> An argument only works if the premises are true - there is obviously something lacking here and though when people try to bring that up... the ignorant continue to pour on the same arguments over and over again based on faulty premises


 
   
  What is lacking here? I'll listen, I promise. I have neither heard nor seen an HM-801 or anything by Hifiman, so I'm open to enlightenment. At the moment everything I believe about this discussion and the player is what I know already: placebo is very real, audiophiles in particular are very keen on believing more cost == more sound in 95% of all cases, peer pressure and a good review by one of the Head-Fi Gods is extremely influential, and that those graphs are not reassuring.
   
  Anyone else see some wacky formating in this post? My font decided it wanted to change up on me partway through, then back again.

   It is already extremely obvious that these digital tests are not going to be an accurate test for these players - why dont we rip some music from a stax amp so that we dont have to buy one and then we can evaluate it's SQ for ourselves - obviously we would be able to judge any piece of equipment just by translating it onto a digital file - yeah right. And as many other users have agreed upon - these audio files are what they are... digital recordings that lack in capturing the full sound reproduction.
   
  I find it useless how people are going to troll on this thread because they want to justify their own need to not hear the hifiman - believe the argument if you want - don't repeat it. The argument from the digital point is already clear and there's no need to step on people who own a hifiman just because you are not planning to get one. This is a debate and not a "let me tell  you that your DAP is a waste of money" thread.
   
  People who own a hifiman are clearly happy with what they have either by placebo or actual improvement of SQ - the source obviously matters in music.. in fact headfi revolves around these components. If people find enjoyment in their upgraded sources - so be it. It's as if a superior product has just exposed a weakness and all the owners of inferior products jump on the attack which is feeding a frenzy of inexperienced people getting trigger happy and is now blown out of proportion.
   
  If these graphs and playback tracks were really able to recapture the full story: then many of the respected viewers of this forum would be considered a fraud and under a placebo effect. The hifiman is built of components very similar to those we use in home DACs - are we to say that an Ipod or measly 40 dollar clip+ sounds better than a home end DAC because of a few graphs? My opinion on this - HELL NO - a 300-400$ home dac that uses inferior parts to the hifiman would beat the living crap out of an Ipod anyday in sound reproduction, weight, clarity, warmth, separation, whatever.
   
  An argument only works if the premises are true - there is obviously something lacking here and though when people try to bring that up... the ignorant continue to pour on the same arguments over and over again based on faulty premises which means that we'll never see the end to this argument. Lovely, I'll let this thread now continue to fight on because I felt I wanted to at least post something about how hypocritical it is to believe that specs are the only thing that matters - this is like arguing with my friend over the fact that only megapixels of cameras matter... ugh....

   It is already extremely obvious that these digital tests are not going to be an accurate test for these players - why dont we rip some music from a stax amp so that we dont have to buy one and then we can evaluate it's SQ for ourselves - obviously we would be able to judge any piece of equipment just by translating it onto a digital file - yeah right. And as many other users have agreed upon - these audio files are what they are... digital recordings that lack in capturing the full sound reproduction.
   
  I find it useless how people are going to troll on this thread because they want to justify their own need to not hear the hifiman - believe the argument if you want - don't repeat it. The argument from the digital point is already clear and there's no need to step on people who own a hifiman just because you are not planning to get one. This is a debate and not a "let me tell  you that your DAP is a waste of money" thread.
   
  People who own a hifiman are clearly happy with what they have either by placebo or actual improvement of SQ - the source obviously matters in music.. in fact headfi revolves around these components. If people find enjoyment in their upgraded sources - so be it. It's as if a superior product has just exposed a weakness and all the owners of inferior products jump on the attack which is feeding a frenzy of inexperienced people getting trigger happy and is now blown out of proportion.
   
  If these graphs and playback tracks were really able to recapture the full story: then many of the respected viewers of this forum would be considered a fraud and under a placebo effect. The hifiman is built of components very similar to those we use in home DACs - are we to say that an Ipod or measly 40 dollar clip+ sounds better than a home end DAC because of a few graphs? My opinion on this - HELL NO - a 300-400$ home dac that uses inferior parts to the hifiman would beat the living crap out of an Ipod anyday in sound reproduction, weight, clarity, warmth, separation, whatever.
   
  An argument only works if the premises are true - there is obviously something lacking here and though when people try to bring that up... the ignorant continue to pour on the same arguments over and over again based on faulty premises which means that we'll never see the end to this argument. Lovely, I'll let this thread now continue to fight on because I felt I wanted to at least post something about how hypocritical it is to believe that specs are the only thing that matters - this is like arguing with my friend over the fact that only megapixels of cameras matter... ugh....


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Is that an excuse for you not to prove how bad the player is – with your preferred methodology?
> .


 

 Absolutely not. I don't mind doing it. But if I can't distinguish it, what does it prove?
   
  a) I can't hear the flaws in a $800 product; the rolloff is justified and doesn't matter. But that implies some things:
   
  b) If we can't distinguish such a difference, how will you ever hear the differences in cables?
  b) Is the price difference justified if you cant tell the difference? Which also leads in to a long problem in audiophilia:
  b) Does the song itself even have anything that goes into that high frequency? Perhaps DFKT had his song selection wrong
  b) Can my headphones go that high without rolling off on their own?
   
  c) People get cheated out of their money, because of the long perpetuated myth that higher priced = better
   
  And if I do a blind test, will you be willing to submit to a blind test on cables? Or are you a hypocrite?
   
  And if I do get it right, what does it prove? That the hifiman is inferior?


----------



## Sonic 748i

No offense to anyone, but why is it the people who are believing what dfkt has to say have low-fi audio setups?


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> No offense to anyone, but why is it the people who are believing what dfkt has to say have low-fi audio setups?


 

 "Don't throw stones at your neighbors', if your own windows are glass."
  —B. Franklin


----------



## Sonic 748i

I'm not throwing stones. I said "No offense to anyone".


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> No offense to anyone, but why is it the people who are believing what dfkt has to say have low-fi audio setups?


 

  
  No offense but a statement like that coming from a sound engineer in training who owns dr dre phones, not to mention a hifiman 801 owner. Sounds a bit defensive to me, does it sound as good as your grace M902 *rolleyes*


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> I'm not throwing stones. I said "No offense to anyone".


 
   
  How typical.


----------



## Currawong

cegras: I would imagine, in answer to your questions about cables, that they would alter the sound at frequencies where it was more easily distinguished due to the instruments playing at those frequencies in the music.  I can't find the link, but there's a "measure your ears" page where you are required to click on the different tones that are at the same loudness.  It's much harder to determine at high frequencies than low ones.  This illustrates the point about the roll-off.
   ​

  Quote: 





ephemeralhope said:


> This thread has become the hot-spot for what we call the leeches of society. One person makes an argument and then everyone else continues to make the same argument by rephrasing it over and over and over again. Dumb. DFKT has already made the argument on the first page better than anyone else in these 23 pages have, yet people who are completely unexposed to this topic continue to rehash the argument to death as if they were the ones in possession of a hifiman and assert: oh yeah....  see! at least an ipod with a muddled line/headphone out fares better than this piece of junk!
> 
> It is already extremely obvious that these digital tests are not going to be an accurate test for these players - why dont we rip some music from a stax amp so that we dont have to buy one and then we can evaluate it's SQ for ourselves - obviously we would be able to judge any piece of equipment just by translating it onto a digital file - yeah right. And as many other users have agreed upon - these audio files are what they are... digital recordings that lack in capturing the full sound reproduction.
> 
> ...


 

 Exactly.  This thread I'd say encapsulates the absolute worst of the forums I've ever seen in my time here.  We have a thread started with the intent to have a go at people here, using misinformation based on ignorance.  Adding to that is blatant trolling, more misinformation (a NOS PCM1704-based DAC? That's hilariously bad.) and the totally insane suggestion that moving a thread from one forum to another is censorship, despite the forum it was moved to having _fewer_ restrictions on the discussion permitted.  If there's a reason this thread shouldn't be in Sound Science, it's because the contents are so far removed from genuine science (the search for truth) and might better be associated with junk science and conspiracy theories.  Even what useful information dfkt gained from his measurements have been trampled by the awful behaviour by many people here.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Lol, forget it guys. I'm just going to ganged up on like a wild Gazelle.


----------



## bdr529

you are incredible.


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> Lol, forget it guys. I'm just going to ganged up on like a wild Gazelle.


 

 Nah, a Gazelle is graceful and intelligent.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> No offense but a statement like that coming from a sound engineer in training who owns dr dre phones, not to mention a hifiman 801 owner. Sounds a bit defensive to me, *does it sound as good as your grace M902* *rolleyes*


 
  It actually does which lead me to sell my Grace M902. I love the HiFiMAN, a portable Grace M902? What more could ya ask for?


----------



## bdr529

more evidence all dacs sound the same


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





bdr529 said:


> more evidence all dacs sound the same


 
  "Ignorance is bliss" applies to you.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> No offense to anyone, but why is it the people who are believing what dfkt has to say have low *price* audio setups?


 
  FTFY


----------



## bdr529

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> "Ignorance is bliss" applies to you.


 

 pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> "Ignorance is bliss" applies to you.


 

 Dude, if you keep using so much layered ignorance you're going to create a worm hole and consume yourself into another dimension or time.


----------



## Sonic 748i

This thread is filled with a bunch of people who need to justify the fact that they can't afford higher end equipment so they try to bash it, lol. Just came to say hi, now I'm gone. Later guys!


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> It actually does which lead me to sell my Grace M902. I love the HiFiMAN, a portable Grace M902? What more could ya ask for?


 


 Good to know I can knock another overpriced headphone amp off my list 
   

*Edit: Placebo is a wonderful thing isn’t it *


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> This thread is filled with a bunch of people who need to justify the fact that they can't afford higher end equipment so they try to bash it, lol. Just came to say hi, now I'm gone. Later guys!


 
   
  Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> This thread is filled with a bunch of people who need to justify the fact that they can't afford higher end equipment so they try to bash it, lol. Just came to say hi, now I'm gone. Later guys!


 

 It's a sin to not be able to afford an $800 portable player, I know. If the price went up to $1200 maybe the graphs would fix themselves?
   
  I'm sorry, but justifying not only the quality of your audio by price but also judging the quality of this thread's argument by lack of disposable funds is ridiculous.


----------



## terriblepaulz

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> This thread is filled with a bunch of people who need to justify the fact that they can't afford higher end equipment so they try to bash it, lol. Just came to say hi, now I'm gone. Later guys!


 

 Appeals to price tags are the last refuge of audio scoundrels.


----------



## JaZZ

cegras said:


> Absolutely not. I don't mind doing it. But if I can't distinguish it, what does it prove?


 
   
  That it doesn't deserve the premature criticism.
   
   


> And if I do a blind test, will you be willing to submit to a blind test on cables? Or are you a hypocrite?


   
  None of both. I have performed a cable blind test in the past and am not planning to do another. This thread isn't about me or blind tests or cables. Nor did I state anything about the HiFiMan's sound (quality). You don't have to do the test (I have, BTW), you're absolutely free in your decision.
   
   


> And if I do get it right, what does it prove? That the hifiman is inferior?


   
  Do I really have to tell you? If one file sounds clearly inferior to you and it turns out it's the HiFiMan, you have a good chance to look like a winner. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## b0dhi

Jazz, you have more patience than a swami. After I read the post you're replying to, I could only sit there and wonder how someone can make such an argument and not have their brain just give up and evacuate their skull. Seriously. Wow.


----------



## cer

I couldn't reliably tell the difference between those test files. Not enough high frequency content. With a little more "busy" music it would probably be easier to pinpoint the Hifiman. I have a v2 Clip and it sounds good enough for me.


----------



## JxK

Agreed. I just tried the files and the differences were tiny. I think I know which is the original CD since it sounds just a bit better, and which is the 801 thanks to the rolled off treble...but the other two are a toss up.  And in a portable set up (out and about) I don't think anyone would hear a difference. Which means that for all practical purposes the 801 doesn't sound worse, but is ~$750 more expensive than it should be.


----------



## midoo1990

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> This thread is filled with a bunch of people who need to justify the fact that they can't afford higher end equipment so they try to bash it, lol. Just came to say hi, now I'm gone. Later guys!


 

 we have the money,atleast i have but we are not dumb to get a $800 supposedly portable player(which by the way is not portable at all) when NOBODY care to hear the little micro tiny details in the music when out and about.you can justify your purchase thats fine,but with your arrogant tone that you have with your posts,you wont last here long or make any friends.
  EDIT:By the way,did you seek a proffesional help as some headfiers suggested in the jh16 thread to cure your obsessions?just curious..


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





midoo1990 said:


> we have the money,atleast i have but we are not dumb to get a $800 supposedly portable player(which by the way is not portable at all) when NOBODY care to hear the little micro tiny details in the music when out and about.you can justify your purchase thats fine,but with your arrogant tone that you have with your posts,you wont last here long or make any friends.
> EDIT:By the way,did you seek a proffesional help as some headfiers suggested in the jh16 thread to cure your obsessions?just curious..


 

 Actually it is portable, being that it is the size of a Walkman which was used to even go jogging with. Also, you haven't heard the HiFiMAN so therefore how do you know it only adds in the micro details to the music? I'm hearing improved bass that is more tighter, visceral and detailed. Midrange that is more natural in tone, transparent and detailed. Treble is less harsh, more natural sounding and detailed. Along with a soundstage that is more convincing on the go. When I'm inside I hear the improvements even more due to less ambience noise and distraction. Plus, I paid $1,100 for my JH13 Pro's, it only seems "smart" to not plug it into a iPod or any other DAP but rather a more sophisticated audiophile DAP, the HiFiMAN.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Exactly.  This thread I'd say encapsulates the absolute worst of the forums I've ever seen in my time here.  We have a thread started with the intent to have a go at people here, using misinformation based on ignorance.  Adding to that is blatant trolling, more misinformation (a NOS PCM1704-based DAC? That's hilariously bad.) and the totally insane suggestion that moving a thread from one forum to another is censorship, despite the forum it was moved to having _fewer_ restrictions on the discussion permitted.  If there's a reason this thread shouldn't be in Sound Science, it's because the contents are so far removed from genuine science (the search for truth) and might better be associated with junk science and conspiracy theories.  Even what useful information dfkt gained from his measurements have been trampled by the awful behaviour by many people here.


 
   
  1) Misinformation based on ignorance?  The graphs are now "ignorant"?  I'm sorry, I fail to see what you're getting at here.

 2)  Where is the intent to "have a go at people" in the first post exactly?  OP did a test, showed results, wasn't amused.  How is that exactly having a go at someone?
   
  3) Cite this example of blatant trolling.
   
  4) Which misinformation are you suggesting exists?  Surely you can provide us with contradictory evidence?
   
  5) Making this thread obscure is a very valid concern for censorship.  The CABLE sub-forum is the only DBT free one.  There was no need to move this as it didn't violate any rules.  Sound Science is practically a death sentence for controversial threads that raise concerns about products.

  
  Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> Actually it is portable, being that it is the size of a Walkman which was used to even go jogging with. Also, you haven't heard the HiFiMAN so therefore how do you know it only adds in the micro details to the music? I'm hearing improved bass that is more tighter, visceral and detailed. Midrange that is more natural in tone, transparent and detailed. Treble is less harsh, more natural sounding and detailed. Along with a soundstage that is more convincing on the go. When I'm inside I hear the improvements even more due to less ambience noise and distraction. Plus, I paid $1,100 for my JH13 Pro's, it only seems "smart" to not plug it into a iPod or any other DAP but rather a more sophisticated audiophile DAP, the HiFiMAN.


 

 1) Have you performed a level matched DBT to prevent placebo in your testing?
   
  2) A "sophisticated" player hm?  Sounds like your basing your purchase off using it as a status symbol and not off the merit of the player itself (which at this point, the merit is questionable at best going past the FR even).
   
   
  Let me guess, your attitude is "I SAY SO SO IT'S TRUE!", am I right?


----------



## Trysaeder

I make cables from $50 parts, which are no different from $20 parts. I then sell them at $200+ so they sound better. My customers are very happy and post great reviews.
   
  Sound like someone/thing you know?
   
  [edit] Sorry, I don't mean recabling headphones, I mean interconnects and stuff.


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> *snip*
> 
> Plus, I paid $1,100 for my JH13 Pro's, it only seems "smart" to not plug it into a iPod or any other DAP but rather a more sophisticated audiophile DAP, the HiFiMAN.


 

 At least the iPod, or any Rockboxed player, would give you gapless playback.....something that surely should be expected from an $800 device.


----------



## jelt2359

Quote: 





trysaeder said:


> I make cables from $50 parts, which are no different from $20 parts. I then sell them at $200+ so they sound better. My customers are very happy and post great reviews.
> 
> Sound like someone/thing you know?


 

 Sounds like someone ODed on the haterade, has some idea of how marketing works (at least in the luxury goods industry), but yet doesn't quite understand why people still go for it.


----------



## jelt2359

This thread is really amusing. Graphs don't lie.. How relevant that information is, however, seems to be up for debate. Can SQ be 'measured', or not? Beats me. I suspect the answer is that measurements go some way towards providing answers, but perhaps not all the way.
   
  Unfortunately some people have a natural aversion to anything that cannot be measured; and others have an aversion for those who would reduce everything to merely a set of numbers.
   
  Nice to see it play out here in such perfection


----------



## music_4321

Quote: 





currawong said:


> ​
> 
> 
> ...and the *totally insane suggestion that moving a thread from one forum to another is censorship*, despite the forum it was moved to having _fewer_ restrictions on the discussion permitted...


 
  We clearly have very different views on what insanity & censorship mean. My guess is that we'd also have very different views on the meaning of arrogance.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> This thread is filled with a bunch of people who need to justify the fact that they can't afford higher end equipment so they try to bash it, lol. Just came to say hi, now I'm gone. Later guys!


 

 O Contrare. This thread is filled with people like you who refuse to look at what the measurements tell us.
   

  
  Quote: 





			
				EphemeralHope said:
			
		

> This thread has become the hot-spot for what we call the leeches of society. One person makes an argument and then everyone else continues to make the same argument by rephrasing it over and over and over again. Dumb. DFKT has already made the argument on the first page better than anyone else in these 23 pages have, yet people who are completely unexposed to this topic continue to rehash the argument to death as if they were the ones in possession of a hifiman and assert: oh yeah....  see! at least an ipod with a muddled line/headphone out fares better than this piece of junk!
> 
> It is already extremely obvious that these digital tests are not going to be an accurate test for these players - why dont we rip some music from a stax amp so that we dont have to buy one and then we can evaluate it's SQ for ourselves - obviously we would be able to judge any piece of equipment just by translating it onto a digital file - yeah right. And as many other users have agreed upon - these audio files are what they are... digital recordings that lack in capturing the full sound reproduction.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  You should learn about relativity before you make such a misguided post in the future. Try the DBT or gtfo.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> No offense to anyone, but why is it the people who are believing what dfkt has to say have low-fi audio setups?


 

 Because they don't see the merit in spending so much money to see (arguably) slight improvements in sound quality?


----------



## Trysaeder

Cables is the only DBT free forum.
  If this isn't censorship, move it back into the Portable sources forum.
   
  oh wai-


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





trysaeder said:


> Cables is the only DBT free forum.
> If this isn't censorship, move it back into the Portable sources forum.
> 
> oh wai-


 

 The cables forum is DBT free because basic physics stipulates that cables make zero difference, provided they are functional. There are cable manufacturers that sponsor head-fi, and they would of course lose sales if every second cable thread was about the reality behind cables.


----------



## le masseur aveugle

I have a hm801 sample for a review. All i can say is it sound much better than my sansa clip and my cowon s9. The différence is not really noticeable if you use low end cans with low impedance, but this is more than obvious with  my jh13.
  The graph really surprised me, but i really don't feel the roll off. Of course if you connect it to a rudistor amp that's a major improvement.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





shike said:


> 1) Misinformation based on ignorance?  The graphs are now "ignorant"?  I'm sorry, I fail to see what you're getting at here.
> 
> 2)  Where is the intent to "have a go at people" in the first post exactly?  OP did a test, showed results, wasn't amused.  How is that exactly having a go at someone?
> 
> ...


 

 1: See my previous posts where I talked about how dfkt's conclusions from the graphs were wrong based on what appears to be a lack of knowledge on digital filters.
   
  2: Read the whole thread on dfkt's forum.  There is a clear disdain towards the Hifiman and portable amps in general.  From what I can see, he, and his friend Walkgood wanted an excuse to have a go at it, so have used their misunderstanding of what they are seeing in the graphs, especially with regards to the treble roll-off, to justify their opinion.  While I believe it's fair enough to feel all these things are "_way too expensive toys_" (dfkt from one of his posts on his site) I don't believe it's reasonable post falsehoods as fact, especially when one's motivation is to attack people rather than discover and understand the truth about something. Unfortunately, audio and electronics are complex things, the more of which you learn about, the more you realise you don't know.  It's very easy for people say "_Here! Look! This graph is flat so it's best!_" or "_These numbers are lower, so they are better!_" without understanding the limitations of those measurements, most importantly what they DO measure, and what they DON'T. 
   
  3: There are too many examples of blatant trolling in this thread.  I don't need to list them.
   
  4. All the information about digital to analogue conversion is readily available online and is supported by mathematics.  It's not my job to educate anyone.  People can google "soft roll off digital filter" and get all the information on why it's used themselves.  
   
  5. This thread isn't obscure.  It's equally public and equally shows up on the front page when a post has just been made. Considering the outright disgusting behaviour of many people in this thread, I'm surprised it hasn't been closed.  Anyway, who says that a topic should or shouldn't have particular presence somewhere?  What's special about this one?  If anything, because of its subject nature, it is now in the correct forum.
   
  music_4321:
  verb [ trans. ] (often be censored)examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it _:my mail was being censored._
   
  Unless posts have been deleted, nothing has been suppressed in this thread.  In my experience, people cry censorship on forums when they don't get (to do) what they want, even if that ultimately is detrimental for the forum and everyone else on it.


----------



## cer

Sure, the Hifiman has more power so it can drive more difficult phones. I can't use my DT880s with my Clip for obvious reasons, but with 16 ohm Denons it sounds pretty nice. Subjectively to me more power also means more fun. Not quality, but more fun. My EMU 0202 USB measures exellent with DT880s but is just too weak to drive them properly. So I prefer to use the headphone out of a mediocre Technics integrated amplifier which measures slightly worse (FR isn't so flat because of a high output impedance, otherwise the differences are small) but which has more than enough power.
  So yes, output power is also a big factor when talking about sound quality. Does it justify the cost? Probably not, because I guess you could get a top class portable amp for half the price and it would still be more "portable" than the Hifiman. But I agree, that people are free to spend as much as they want.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





le masseur aveugle said:


> I have a hm801 sample for a review. All i can say is it sound much better than my sansa clip and my cowon s9. The différence is not really noticeable if you use low end cans with low impedance, but this is more than obvious with  my jh13.
> The graph really surprised me, but i really don't feel the roll off. Of course if you connect it to a rudistor amp that's a major improvement.


 

 You might want to try listening harder. In the recording the roll-off was audible on terrible speakers


----------



## Galatian

Well I buy...I'm to concerned that I might have been a victim of some kind of fraud to just be trusting my ears and possible a placebo effect. I will make a comparison as soon as my JH 16 Pro arrive. Right now I own an iPod Classic 120 GB, an iPhone 3GS as well as a Corda 3 move. Just for the sake of it, I will also purchase a Sansa Clip+.
  Does anybody have a reference or an idea on how to properly do such a test? I was thinking about simply equalizing the players volume to the same level and then have my eyes blindfolded and have a friend switching out the PMPs while writing down my guesses. Is that the way to go?
   
  Also a note on the price of the player: While R&D as well as parts are undoubtedly more expensive for a one-man-shop you also need to consider all the licensing for mp3 and AAC. I know FLAC is free but on this website (http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html , how do I embed links as a simple word on the new forum system?) you can see how much mp3 licensing costs and here (http://www.vialicensing.com/Licensing/AAC_fees.cfm) are the fees for licensing AAC. I'm pretty bad in math but I believe that a huge chunk of the revenue of the Hifiman goes into the licensing.
   
  The other thing I'm just so confused about is, if the Hifiman really has an inferior sound quality as the graphs suggest, how can so many people - including well-recognized reviewers - be so wrong on their reviews. How can so many people become part of a big fraud (that is of course if this truly is one)?
  Also if test seems to be so easy why has nobody done that with cables or other alleged HiFi equipment so far? There is something really odd going on here and I'd like to get to the ground of things instead of circling around the same point over and over again as most of the contributors of this thread are doing. There has been no substantial "evidence" for either side for probably 20 pages (with exceptions that is).
   
  On a side note: I also disagree with this thread being moved to the Sound Science forum. I believe there is no difference to any other reviews we are reading here on head-fi albeit it actually has some measured hard evidence to prove its conclusion. Sure would like to hear the reason from the moderators’ side.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Galatian* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> The other thing I'm just so confused about is, if the Hifiman really has an inferior sound quality as the graphs suggest, how can so many people - including well-recognized reviewers - be so wrong on their reviews. How can so many people become part of a big fraud (that is of course if this truly is one)?


   
  It is not fraud it is just the nature of the HiFi sector, and the fallibility of sighted listening tests. Sean Olive at Harman did some blind tests with a variety of listeners - Students, Audio salespersons and hiFi mag reviewers. The hiFi mag reviewers were actually far worse at detecting differences between components than audio salespersons, the students were the worst. 
   
  Read a few Stereophile reviews and then look at the measurements sections, there are several cases of reviewers like Fremer and Dudley giving glowing reviews to really really technically ***awful*** things like the Zanden and the Harmonic Technology Cyberlight Wave interconnects, seriously it is a good laugh !


----------



## Galatian

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by *Galatian* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> ...


 

 See that is my entire problem. I would have never thought about actually getting something so expensive if I wasn't sure it sounds good. I make a great deal about keeping away from all those audiophile newspapers and online magazines as I have have seen some of those reviews and immediately realized even with my small knowledge on electronics how some of those claims are just wrong. Yet even some of the more conservative and recognized sites have states that the Hifimans sound is so superior to other PMPs. Again I still feel it is - don't get me wrong - but those graphs made me think that it really is placebo something I was trying so hard to avoid.
  See I don't believe in any of this cable stuff as there is no scientific explanation why it should sound better (say except those Twag cable because of the different material, but I still think it is to expensive for such a marginal if at all increase in SQ).
  Point I'm making is that of course I'm a little pissed that I've spend so much money if it truly is inferior but again it also seems conceivable that the test has been flawed or that those graphs truly do no say anything about the SQ at all, given all the good reviews.
   
  Best thing for me to do is to test for myself in an ABX and then decide for myself. I will share my results of course for whomever it might interest.


----------



## odigg

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Galatian* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Does anybody have a reference or an idea on how to properly do such a test? I was thinking about simply equalizing the players volume to the same level and then have my eyes blindfolded and have a friend switching out the PMPs while writing down my guesses. Is that the way to go?


 

 Sure.  On a different forum I posted a short tutorial for comparing an internal vs external soundcard.  Just adapt the tutorial for your PMPs.  Remember to volume match using a device designed to do this better than our ears - e.g. a multimeter or even piping it to a computer input with audio software.
   
  You can download a 1khz tone Here
   
   
  Quote: 





> Also if test seems to be so easy why has nobody done that with cables or other alleged HiFi equipment so far? There is something really odd going on here and I'd like to get to the ground of things instead of circling around the same point over and over again as most of the contributors of this thread are doing. There has been no substantial "evidence" for either side for probably 20 pages (with exceptions that is).


 
   
  Volume matched blind testing has been done over and over again by many people.  However, the results are typically posted on forums or in groups where the members are more friendly to such tests.  The same way people don't want to listen to ABX/DBT/Measurements comments on this forum, the people conducting those tests don't want to spend their lives arguing about the validity of such a method.
   
  nick_charles has actually measured cables, recorded them, etc.  He created a thread about it that stirred a lot of debate.  It's somewhere down the list in the Sound Science forum.


----------



## JohnFerrier

This may have already also been posted . . .
   

   
http://sonove.angry.jp/HiFiMAN_HM801.html


----------



## odigg

deleted my prior text in this post.
   
  For various reasons I'm going to take myself out of this discussion.  Galatian - If you want to talk more about how to conduct a volume matched test just send me a PM.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Quote: 





odigg said:


> Output impedance of ~18 ohms?


 



  "[size=x-small]18Ω output impedance is about how there had been higher than expected.[/size]
iPhone3GSの出力インピーダンスは2Ω程度であり、​ iPhone3GS output impedance is about 2Ω,"
   

   
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsonove.angry.jp%2FHiFiMAN_HM801.html&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8


----------



## music_4321

Quote: 





currawong said:


> music_4321:
> verb [ trans. ] (often be censored)examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it _:my mail was being censored._
> 
> Unless posts have been deleted, *nothing has been suppressed in this thread*.  In my experience, people cry censorship on forums when they don't get (to do) what they want, even if that ultimately is detrimental for the forum and everyone else on it.


 
   
  In my view this whole thread has been supressed by the simple fact it's been moved to a place where very few people will see it. Rather than moving this whole thread to a rather obscure place in Head-fi, I believe the mods should have deleted all those useless & irrelevant popcorn posts as well as some posts which were clearly offensive -- that, to me, would NOT have been censorship at all and might have actually helped to get a healthier & more useful discussion going.
   
  And I'll quote myself and repeat why I still feel this has been a clear form of censorship:
   
_"This is what I consider a blatant 'veiled' attempt at censorship. Now it's only a handful of people who can see (and possibly benefit from) this thread. I know I myself didn't even know a 'Sound Science' forum even existed, and I've been round these forums for 1.5 years."_
   
_"I liken what's happened to an important/ relevant news item which should appear on the front page or first few pages of a newspaper but is instead sent to the last pages of the paper for VERY few to see. To me, this comes across as a clear form of censorship."_


----------



## yuriv

The high output impedance of the HM-801 could explain the difference in sound with BA IEMs. Its frequency response should follow the impedance vs. frequency plot of the load earphones. A much stiffer voltage source like the Sansa Clip+ delivers almost the same voltage across the spectrum. Here are a few measurements that I made with various iPods and a Sansa Fuze:
   
  Shure E4:

   
   
  Shure E5:

   
   
  The iPods have about a 5-ohm output impedance at 1 kHz. If the 18-ohm measurement for the HM-801 is real, then you should see larger frequency response swings than these. Compare the above graph with the impedance vs. frequency plot:
   

   
  The same thing happens for the E4: http://www.laaudiofile.com/images/e4freq.jpg
   
  This kind of frequency response won't show up when the load is a 16-ohm resistor. We might not see it in a dynamic IEM like the V-moda, if they're anything like the JVC Marshmallows:
   

   
   
  I'd like to see the FR on the HM-801 when the load impedance has much change across the spectrum. The old E5, for example, is 120+ ohms at 1 kHz and ~12 ohms at 7 kHz. The SE530 is about 36 ohms at 1 k, 9 ohms at 5 k, and ~54 ohms at 20k. It's hard to see it in the graph they have at Headroom, so here's a more readable one: http://www.laaudiofile.com/images/e500pth_freq.jpg . The HM-801's response due to the rising impedance at higher frequencies might cancel the built-in treble roll-off.


----------



## yuriv

Aha, I should have checked the thread on the ABI forum before posting these graphs. They have frequency response plots of the HM-801 driving UE11, SE530, and SM3. The response is anything but flat.
   
  http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54879&page=5
   
  Maybe you can get the Clip+ to sound just like the HM-801 if you stick a 16-ohm resistor between it and the headphones. A simple inline volume control might do the trick.


----------



## dfkt

.


----------



## odigg

I know I said I was out of this thread (twice now!) but I just want to come to defend the Hifiman on one *important point*.  I'm copying my post from ABI.
   
  There is one more important point to add, just so we don't all stick our foot in our mouths and make any faulty claims.

 For the devices with crossovers, you are measuring the FR deviation BEFORE the crossover. You do not know what is going on after the crossover. So a measured (at the amp output) gain of X db at Y frequency is not automatically equivalent to a similar gain from the transducers or what you are hearing. You would have to measure the sound with a microphone for that.

 Hope that makes sense. If is very possible that the actual audible change in the FR is less than what is measured at the amp output.

 Just wanted to state that so people keep that in mind before cursing the Hifiman to #$*$.


----------



## prone2phone

those picasso-like graphs prove that hifiman is a piece of art


----------



## yuriv

Quote: 





odigg said:


> ...
> For the devices with crossovers, you are measuring the FR deviation BEFORE the crossover. You do not know what is going on after the crossover. So a measured (at the amp output) gain of X db at Y frequency is not automatically equivalent to a similar gain from the transducers or what you are hearing. You would have to measure the sound with a microphone for that.
> 
> Hope that makes sense. If is very possible that the actual audible change in the FR is less than what is measured at the amp output.
> ...


 

 Yes, that makes sense. But let's look at it this way:

 source ---> crossover ---> driver

 If the source is putting out a 100mV, 500 Hz tone, then some portion of the signal arrives at the driver. It'll be at the same level regardless of the source, i.e., it doesn't matter if it's the HM-801 or the Clip+ that plays that tone. Now stop both players and play a 2.5 kHz tone. The Clip+ is still at 100mV, but the HM-801 output is now at 168mV, which is 4.5 dB higher than before. If you compare what actually reaches the driver, it'll also be 4.5 dB higher than the signal that was there when the Clip+ was playing. Ditto for the other drivers, even if the frequency doesn't fall within the crossover's passband.
   
  Maybe the math for the voltage divider between the crossover and driver changes when you increase level, but I don't think that's what you were saying.


----------



## yuriv

Quote:


			
				odigg said:
			
		

> ...
> For the devices with crossovers, you are measuring the FR deviation BEFORE the crossover. You do not know what is going on after the crossover. So a measured (at the amp output) gain of X db at Y frequency is not automatically equivalent to a similar gain from the transducers or what you are hearing. You would have to measure the sound with a microphone for that.
> 
> Hope that makes sense. If is very possible that the actual audible change in the FR is less than what is measured at the amp output.
> ...


 

 Yes, that makes sense. But let's look at it this way:

 source ---> crossover ---> driver

 If the source is putting out a 100mV, 500 Hz tone, then some portion of the signal arrives at the driver. It'll be at the same level regardless of the source, i.e., it doesn't matter if it's the HM-801 or the Clip+ that plays that tone. Now stop both players and play a 2.5 kHz tone. The Clip+ is still at 100mV, but the HM-801 output is now at 168mV, which is 4.5 dB higher than before. If you compare what actually reaches the driver, it'll also be 4.5 dB higher than the signal that was there when the Clip+ was playing. Ditto for the other drivers, even if the frequency doesn't fall within the crossover's passband.
   
  Maybe the math for the voltage divider between the crossover and driver changes when you increase level, but I don't think that's what you were saying.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





galatian said:


> The other thing I'm just so confused about is, if the Hifiman really has an inferior sound quality as the graphs suggest, how can so many people - including well-recognized reviewers - be so wrong on their reviews. How can so many people become part of a big fraud (that is of course if this truly is one)?
> Also if test seems to be so easy why has nobody done that with cables or other alleged HiFi equipment so far? There is something really odd going on here and I'd like to get to the ground of things instead of circling around the same point over and over again as most of the contributors of this thread are doing. There has been no substantial "evidence" for either side for probably 20 pages (with exceptions that is).


 

 Do you know what the graphs mean?  There's a hell of a lot of cheap gear out there that measures very well but sounds like crap.  While the stereo crosstalk graph matches dfkt's impressions of the perceived soundstage, nobody seems to be interested in learning about digital filters, why they are there and why they can have either a sharp roll-off (which gives a flatter looking graph) or a slow roll-off to counter distortion which comes as a result of digital to analogue conversion.  This roll-off occurs at a rate at frequencies which should be essentially inaudible.
  
  Quote: 





yuriv said:


> Aha, I should have checked the thread on the ABI forum before posting these graphs. They have frequency response plots of the HM-801 driving UE11, SE530, and SM3. The response is anything but flat.
> 
> http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54879&page=5
> 
> Maybe you can get the Clip+ to sound just like the HM-801 if you stick a 16-ohm resistor between it and the headphones. A simple inline volume control might do the trick.


 

 Now I think we're getting somewhere.  I wonder how the graphs would look at medium or high volumes.  That low-volume performance DOES look terrible.  I hope dfkt takes the time to measure the results from other DAPs as well, as it would be interesting.

  
  Quote: 





odigg said:


> I know I said I was out of this thread (twice now!) but I just want to come to defend the Hifiman on one *important point*.  I'm copying my post from ABI.
> 
> There is one more important point to add, just so we don't all stick our foot in our mouths and make any faulty claims.
> 
> ...


 
   
  odigg: It's people such as you whom are most needed in this thread, to provide actual science and not nonsense.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


currawong said:


> 1: See my previous posts where I talked about how dfkt's conclusions from the graphs were wrong based on what appears to be a lack of knowledge on digital filters.
> 
> 2: Read the whole thread on dfkt's forum.  There is a clear disdain towards the Hifiman and portable amps in general.  From what I can see, he, and his friend Walkgood wanted an excuse to have a go at it, so have used their misunderstanding of what they are seeing in the graphs, especially with regards to the treble roll-off, to justify their opinion.  While I believe it's fair enough to feel all these things are "_way too expensive toys_" (dfkt from one of his posts on his site) I don't believe it's reasonable post falsehoods as fact, especially when one's motivation is to attack people rather than discover and understand the truth about something. Unfortunately, audio and electronics are complex things, the more of which you learn about, the more you realise you don't know.  It's very easy for people say "_Here! Look! This graph is flat so it's best!_" or "_These numbers are lower, so they are better!_" without understanding the limitations of those measurements, most importantly what they DO measure, and what they DON'T.
> 
> ...


 
 1)  Cool, the FR isn't the only issue.  There's various other poor measurements.
   
  2) Whether he feels the players cost is justified or not has nothing to do with his findings.  For example the crosstalk measurements are extremely poor for this player.  There wasn't swipe anywhere in the original post.  His tone didn't even begin to change until he started coming under fire from those quick to defend the player without any explanation besides they "liking how it sounds".
   
  3) Yes, you do.
   
  4)  It's a NOS player using a slow roll off filter rather than a steep filter.  Filters prevent aliasing, and a slow roll off rather than a steep filter prevents ringing.  It doesn't mean we have to like the implementation (it's a general complaint regarding NOS design when you get down to it).
   
  This coming from someone that owns both types of DACs mind you.
   
  5)  Agree to disagree, this is like a death sentence.  I also disagree that the conduct is "disgusting", at least not from those criticizing the player.  I see more swipes taken from those in the defense camp.
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> nobody seems to be interested in learning about digital filters, why they are there and why they can have either a sharp roll-off (which gives a flatter looking graph) or a slow roll-off to counter distortion which comes as a result of digital to analogue conversion. This roll-off occurs at a rate at frequencies which should be essentially inaudible.


 
   
  Quite a few of us understand it just fine.  Use of oversampling and a cheap digital filter would have worked better though in terms of measurements.  The "slow roll-off" is only useful is NOS designs to prevent aliasing.  The sharp filter works just fine with OS designs.
   
  Once again, when we get down to this the FR is just an example of the old NOS vs. OS debates ages ago.  The other poor measurements, however, aren't as easily explained.
   
  PS:
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> There's a hell of a lot of cheap gear out there that measures very well but sounds like crap.


 
   
  Subjective.  If it measures well in all categories it's reproducing the signal as intended.  It's your own prerogative if you dislike what's being reproduced.


----------



## midoo1990

so where are the test results Dfkt?


----------



## Bojamijams

Sigh. Except everyone who has reviewed it has said its miles above competition. 
   
  So conclusions?
   
  1) Dfkt's test on recording these is flawed
  2) None of you have a good enough ear to distinguish cheap from quality
   
  If its 2, consider yourself lucky in a way, since it saves you a lot of money. But its not the player, its you.
  
  Quote: 





jxk said:


> Agreed. I just tried the files and the differences were tiny. I think I know which is the original CD since it sounds just a bit better, and which is the 801 thanks to the rolled off treble...but the other two are a toss up.  And in a portable set up (out and about) I don't think anyone would hear a difference. Which means that for all practical purposes the 801 doesn't sound worse, but is ~$750 more expensive than it should be.


----------



## Hero Kid

bojamijams said:


> 2) None of you have a good enough ear to distinguish cheap from quality


 This may be true, but if "none of us" have good enough ears... Who the hell is the player selling to? Furthermore, which of those customers are actually hearing a sound improvement or just a placebo?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


bojamijams said:


> Sigh. Except everyone who has reviewed it has said its miles above competition.
> 
> So conclusions?
> 
> ...


   
   
  We can just make random accusations without evidence now?
   
   
  dftk's tests aren't flawed.  His recording interface is perfectly fine for the job.  If you're going to make such accusations maybe you should do RMAA and prove he performed it wrong.  Until then, libeling him isn't very becoming.
   
   
  You either can't tell the difference apart in players, or you can - but one still doesn't measure up to snuff.  It's fine if you subjectively like the player, but it surely isn't accurately reproducing a signal.
   
  Those are the facts as they stand.


----------



## Bojamijams

Its selling to audiophiles.  Just because you're on this forum doesn't mean you're an audiophile. Just because you REALLY love music and you have a lot of expensive toys doesn't mean you're an audiophile.  You have to have the ear to be able to tell these differences, otherwise you're just a sucker whose paying for way too much when you can't take advantage of it.
   
  And when I say you, I don't mean YOU personally.
   
  A LOT of people here think their ears are same as everyone's, or as good as the greatest ear.  They think because they can't hear a difference between this and that that there ISN'T a difference and thats a fact.  But not all ears are created equal. Not all brain audio receptors are created equal.  There are people who can name the note by hearing it.  There are conductors that can detect one violin out of 35 thats out of tune.  I do not have those ears and I bet 99.99999% people here don't either.  But there are varying degrees of sensitivity and acuity. 
   
  I'm quite surprised that people don't see the parallelism between people saying there's no difference between a Clip and Hifiman and all those teenagers claiming that Skullcandy is as good as it gets and there's no point paying for more.


----------



## Bojamijams

Sorry I should have phrased it
   
  1) *OR* 2)
  
  Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> bojamijams said:
> ...


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





bojamijams said:


> Its selling to audiophiles.


 

 So what?  Are we saying audiophiles have NEVER been suckered, ever?
   
   
  Quote: 





> Just because you're on this forum doesn't mean you're an audiophile.


 
   
  Same applies to you.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Just because you REALLY love music and you have a lot of expensive toys doesn't mean you're an audiophile.


 
   
  You really love these strawman arguments don't you?
   
   
  Quote: 





> You have to have the ear to be able to tell these differences, otherwise you're just a sucker whose paying for way too much when you can't take advantage of it.
> 
> And when I say you, I don't mean YOU personally.


 
   
  Cool, do a DBT.  If you don't succeed then there was no reason to buy the player.  If you do succeed you admit the player isn't properly reproducing the signal.  You may like the subjective sound produced, but guess what?  It's still wrong.
   
  Once again, these are the current facts. If you're saying the player IS reproducing the signal properly and you can DBT it, show contradictory evidence for RMAA.  You're saying dfkt did something wrong, SO PROVE IT.
   
   
  Quote: 





> A LOT of people here think their ears are same as everyone's, or as good as the greatest ear.  They think because they can't hear a difference between this and that that there ISN'T a difference and thats a fact.  But not all ears are created equal. Not all brain audio receptors are created equal.  There are people who can name the note by hearing it.  There are conductors that can detect one violin out of 35 thats out of tune.  I do not have those ears and I bet 99.99999% people here don't either.  But there are varying degrees of sensitivity and acuity.


 
   
  You really enjoy these strawman arguments don't you?
   
   
  Quote: 





> I'm quite surprised that people don't see the parallelism between people saying there's no difference between a Clip and Hifiman and all those teenagers claiming that Skullcandy is as good as it gets and there's no point paying for more.


 
   
  I see a parallelism, but you're not wanting to hear it.  It's more like the Beats crowd justifying the high cost and poor performance of their equipment when there's much better performing equipment at a lower price - empirically (not counting for subjective taste).
   
  Quote: 





> Sorry I should have phrased it
> 
> 1) *OR* 2)


 
   
  Or it could be placebo, or the player could really measure off like shown which allows people to identify it.
   
  Once again, show contradictory measurements if you're going to accuse people of doing improper measurements or being incapable of hearing.  We really don't appreciate libelous claims here.


----------



## dfkt

The RAR password is *sfjkw48uhsdgr8*.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> The RAR password is *sfjkw48uhsdgr8*.


 

 Hey, I was right! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   


jazz said:


> I'm venturing a guess:
> 
> 1: Cowon V5
> 2: original Flac
> ...


   


jazz said:


> Additionally my ranking in terms of sonic preference:
> 
> 1:   . Track 2
> 2:   . Track 3
> ...


   
The HiFiMan sample sounded second best to me behind the original recording.
   
(listened through Corda Symphony [DAC and amp] – Silver Dragon – HD 800)
.


----------



## striker

So, for me, only the Clip+ sounded as good as the FLAC. Interesting.
   
  The Cowon and the Hisound were inferior, couldn't tell which I preferred.
   
  PS: The phones were the RE0.


----------



## JaZZ

striker said:


> So, for me, only the Clip+ sounded as good as the FLAC. Interesting.
> 
> The Cowon and the Hisound were inferior, couldn't tell which I preferred


 

 I noticed the HiFiMan's treble roll-off, but it sounded cleaner to me than the other two players, virtually as clean and transparent as the original Flac.
.


----------



## fidele-caput

My guess from page 13:
   
  1. Cowon V5
  2. Clip+ ?
  3. HM-801
  4. FLAC ?
   
  I determined the treble roll-off from the last cymbal/hi-hat at the end of the track. The bass roll-off was a bit tricky so I eq-ed a bit to make it more obvious. Then took a punt on the rest. I used EeePC(vlc)  - *HiFiMAN EF2*






 - D2000


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





shike said:


> Subjective.  If it measures well in all categories it's reproducing the signal as intended.  It's your own prerogative if you dislike what's being reproduced.


 

 Do we have confirmation from Nankai that oversampling is turned off?  If not, we cannot say that it's non-over-sampling.  I just noticed when checking Head-direct.com that the 801 uses the OPA627 OPAMP which produces a very audibly rolled-off treble, so this could be the culprit.  A change of OPAMP in the design would likely produce a result that is very different.  It would be hilariously silly if this whole nonsense about the measurements were purely due to Nankai's choice of OPAMPs.
   
  However, my point about measurements is, just because we see a flat FR response from a device, doesn't mean that it will sound good.  As I pointed out, a sharp roll-off digital filter may actually be introducing distortion, so while it looks nice and flat, it's not ideal, which is why high-end DACs have a slow roll-off filter.  What a "good measurement is" doesn't seem to be understood here, with just the idea that "flat is good".  The same goes for the suggestion that "The graph looks like that of a NOS DAC, so it must be NOS", which is utter nonsense. It'd be like saying "A dingo looks like a dog, so a dingo is a dog."


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> The RAR password is *sfjkw48uhsdgr8*.


 

 Did alright for POS speakers. Got the flac and the clip mixed up if I recalle
   
  edit: Oh I said I wasn't happy to commit to them. Nice.


----------



## WalkGood

No need for overpriced dap for me, although I stated I couldn’t tell the difference in my earlier post the funny thing is; I thought #4 sounded the best. The more I tried the less I could tell differences in AB/X and I couldn’t identify which file was flac. To me this confirms my opinion that a spend of $800 would be better off spent on better phones than any overpriced dap.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> No need for overpriced dap for me, although I stated I couldn’t tell the difference in my earlier post the funny thing is; I thought #4 sounded the best. The more I tried the less I could tell differences in AB/X and I couldn’t identify which file was flac. To me this confirms my opinion that a spend of $800 would be better off spent on better phones than any overpriced dap.


 

 I thought the same regarding #4, but the main difference in theory was soundstage, but I had 0 to work with. Maybe theres something to it, maybe not. Who knows!


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





mrgreen said:


> I thought the same regarding #4, but the main difference in theory was soundstage, but I had 0 to work with. Maybe theres something to it, maybe not. Who knows!


 

  
  I’m sure that I’ll listen to it at one of the local meets if there’s one to test but I doubt my opinion will change all that much. These were unaltered tracks, one of the best things about the Clip is that you can run rockbox and to me that’s more important than all the hype as I can tweak to my preferences as needed.


----------



## MrGreen

I already have a clip. Not a clip+ though. Have for over a year now


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





mrgreen said:


> I already have a clip. Not a clip+ though. Have for over a year now


 


 A bit off topic but I don't have the "+" either, have had 3 Clips well over year and 1 over 2 years. All but 1 are running rockbox and one over a year before the release. I may get the + one day, not sure but the ones I have all get plenty of use in our family 
   
  Edit: back on topic its funny how we haven’t heard from all the owners who animatedly defended it, including the owner.


----------



## nick_charles

I blind detected a difference between the Cowon and the HM801 (17/20) but the difference was very small to me and was a matter of image , one was sligthly biased to the left, the other right or center ( I do have a slight imbalance between my two ears which is why I hedge on this) at the time I thought that perhaps one was out of phase, but frankly both sounded pretty good and quualititaively I could not give a preference either way.


----------



## midoo1990

Quote: 





midoo1990 said:


> :
> track 2
> track 3
> track 4
> ...


  well,if i heard the hifiman i would have guest correctly,i chose track 3 based on how clip+ would sound to me.
  well this test shows that it is infact there is no difference between clip+ and hifi except a small one(between track 3 and4)
   
  the test also shows that the cowon is rubish because track 1 sounded the worst to me.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> A bit off topic but I don't have the "+" either, have had 3 Clips well over year and 1 over 2 years. All but 1 are running rockbox and one over a year before the release. I may get the + one day, not sure but the ones I have all get plenty of use in our family
> 
> Edit: back on topic its funny how we haven’t heard from all the owners who animatedly defended it, including the owner.


 

 I think the fact that the owners of the device refused to do the DBT speaks more volumes than the fact that, I personally, was able to pick the Hifiman repeatedly, and that it sounded the worst to me of all four.


----------



## tranhieu

Uhm... interesting test. I got mixed up between 2 and 4. The bass roll off is the easiest to spot, then the treble roll off.
  Set up: foobar2k -> asio -> udac -> ad900
  Will listen again later. Maybe the lack of sleep reduced my ears' accuracy
  But if that's really how a hifiman would sound (file 3) then 800$ is quite silly imho.


----------



## nick_charles

I ran 1 and 4 through Audacity, there is a 0.018s difference in alignment so my DBT is flawed as there was a material difference between the tracks, also 1 and 4 are not exactly the same length. Tracks 1 and 2 are the same length but the alignment is still slightly off. 1 and 3 the phase is different, zoom in on 24 seconds and the peaks on 1 are valleys on 3 and vice versa...


----------



## jelt2359

DBT is a good methodology, but unfortunately when you're dealing with a sample size of one (yourself), you may simply be in the statistically insignificant minority. There's no way to tell unless we run a full-blown experiment, accounting for differences in hearing; age; gender; ambient noise; ability to perceive differences in gear; and anything else that may affect perception of audio quality.
   
  That would take at least a few hundred people, if not thousands.
   
  Just wanted to put it out there that DBT alone does not qualify as a completely scientific approach (it is necessary but not sufficient).


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Do we have confirmation from Nankai that oversampling is turned off?  If not, we cannot say that it's non-over-sampling.  I just noticed when checking Head-direct.com that the 801 uses the OPA627 OPAMP which produces a very audibly rolled-off treble, so this could be the culprit.  A change of OPAMP in the design would likely produce a result that is very different.  It would be hilariously silly if this whole nonsense about the measurements were purely due to Nankai's choice of OPAMPs.


 

 The PCM1704 is NOS be default and requires a digital interpolation filter for OS.  As for the OPA627, while possible, isn't plausible.  The OPA627 measures flat in numerous other designs.  Also notice Nankai pointed out this roll-off in numerous NOS designs with the question "what is hifi".
   
   
  Quote: 





> However, my point about measurements is, just because we see a flat FR response from a device, doesn't mean that it will sound good.  As I pointed out, a sharp roll-off digital filter may actually be introducing distortion, so while it looks nice and flat, it's not ideal, which is why high-end DACs have a slow roll-off filter.


 
   
  Not all high-end DACs use a slow roll-off, in fact I'd say the majority use the exact opposite unless they're NOS.  Once again, this has been explained clearly.  Or are you going to say the Benchmark, etc, which measure excellent aren't high-end or sound bad?
   
  Once again, your subjective impressions have no meaningful relation to the quality of reproduction - just your preferences.
   
   
  Quote: 





> What a "good measurement is" doesn't seem to be understood here, with just the idea that "flat is good".  The same goes for the suggestion that "The graph looks like that of a NOS DAC, so it must be NOS", which is utter nonsense. It'd be like saying "A dingo looks like a dog, so a dingo is a dog."


 
   
  You were the one that wanted to point out so much that it's using a slow roll-off filter.  If ones using a slow roll-off filter with an OS design then something is drastically wrong with the design approach and needs to be re-examined - there's no need for it.
   
  Flat is good - if it's done right.  Which is why a steep filter on a NOS design wouldn't work.  If this isn't a NOS design and he's used a slow roll-off filter than we have a larger issue at hand.


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> Not all high-end DACs use a slow roll-off, in fact I'd say the majority use the exact opposite unless they're NOS. Once again, this has been explained clearly. Or are you going to say the Benchmark, etc, which measure excellent aren't high-end or sound bad?


 

 What sounds good or bad is still in the ears of the listener. There's a reason why all high-end amps have a flat frequency reponse (which is accepted as the ideal), but not all DACs. Are you going to say that the Wadia players are not high-end or sound bad?
   
   


> Once again, your subjective impressions have no meaningful relation to the quality of reproduction - just your preferences.


   
  That's the case with every hi-fi component. Nevertheless it's wrong (and unscientific) to dismiss first-hand experiences in favor of an egomaniac remote diagnosis.
   
   


> You were the one that wanted to point out so much that it's using a slow roll-off filter. If ones using a slow roll-off filter with an OS design then something is drastically wrong with the design approach and needs to be re-examined - there's no need for it. Flat is good - if it's done right. Which is why a steep filter on a NOS design wouldn't work. If this isn't a NOS design and he's used a slow roll-off filter than we have a larger issue at hand.


   
  ...says the digital expert! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 A steep filter on a NOS design wouldn't work, despite the many first-generation players with exactly this design? And an oversampling DAC with a slow roll-off is a technical monstrosity? There are many such examples among high-end DACs and players. Wadia is a typical example, also Burmester, T+A, Meier-Audio... which all offer at least the option of this filter characteristic. As to the Meier DACs: they offer different filter settings, among them ones with a similar roll-off as the HiFiMan and Wadia's Spline filter – also called Bézier filter. Lately I have played with these settings, and although in the end I prefer a flat frequency response up to 20 kHz with a steep drop-off, I can absolutely reproduce a preference for the smooth roll-off. Note that it isn't less high-fidelity than the conventional filter and I don't consider it a coloration, just a variation with indeed some sonic advantage.
   
   
  I own a Clip+ and an iAudio 7. The latter now has about 70 hours on it. Before the 20-hour mark I preferred the iAudio 7 for its greater refinement and smoothness, after that the Clip+ was beginning to smooth out and lose its hardness, so I was beginning to develop a slight preference for it. This just to clarify that there are sonic differences among different DAPs. I don't have interest in the HM-801, as it's too bulky to carry around. With portable DAPs you have to make compromizes in terms of sound quality anyway, so I don't want to additionally make compromizes in terms of portability and flexibility (in favor of a sound quality reaching 65% of that of home equipment instead of just 62%). Moreover I would prefer a more extended treble response. But from the samples at hand I conclude that the HiFiMan sounds a bit better than my Clip+ or my iAudio 7 when listening through headphones attached to them. If the difference is worth the price difference is hard to say. But it's childish to believe you could judge the sound quality of an audio device by means of its measuring specs.
.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jazz said:


> What sounds good or bad is still in the ears of the listener. There's a reason why all high-end amps have a flat frequency reponse (which is accepted as the ideal), but not all DACs. Are you going to say that the Wadia players are not high-end or sound bad?


 

 They are certainly expensive , high fideliity,  by modern standards, is more open to debate...
   
   
   


>


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> They are certainly expensive, high fideliity, by modern standards, is more open to debate...


 

  Have you auditioned them?
.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





jazz said:


> What sounds good or bad is still in the ears of the listener. There's a reason why all high-end amps have a flat frequency reponse (which is accepted as the ideal), but not all DACs. Are you going to say that the Wadia players are not high-end or sound bad?.


 

 Don't put words in my mouth - there's subjectivity too.  Of course I WILL say the Wadia players aren't accurate, and that really can't be argued now can it?
   
  My credentials of what is HiFi are based on empirical accuracy.  Obviously we have different definitions.
   
   
  Quote: 





> That's the case with every hi-fi component. Nevertheless it's wrong (and unscientific) to dismiss first-hand experiences in favor of an egomaniac remote diagnosis.


 
   
  I can dismiss them if I want to.  It's not unscientific to dismiss an OPINION of how something sounds.  We have the facts of how it measures in front of us.  If someone likes how it sounds that's up to them, but it doesn't make it accurate.
   
   


> ...says the digital expert!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


   
  Maybe you're unfamiliar with why these players were tossed aside by many?  It's called ringing distortion - look it up.
   
  This is why I said "if done right".  This is why a steep filter doesn't work WELL on NOS and shouldn't even be bothered with.
   
  Quote: 





> And an oversampling DAC with a slow roll-off is a technical monstrosity?


 
   
  There's no reason for it at least.  One can avoid ringing and aliasing by using OS with a steep filter.  Cheap and effective.  Meier seems to want to make his design flexible for any sound, so it at least "kind of" makes sense for him to do such.  Wadia may like a chip that's OS by default but wants a NOS sound so forces a roll-off, but it seems kind of silly rather than just starting with a NOS design and being done with it (should that be the case).
   
  However, the reason I would have a trouble with an OS implementation with a slow roll-off in the HiFiman is why would one pay for a component to OS it (remember, the DAC is NOS by default requires another component to achieve this), only to remove the benefits of OS after the fact thus increasing the cost and complexity for no reason (not to mention impact battery life)?  This obviously wouldn't make sense, and really shows a logical conclusion that it's a NOS design or the circuit is more convoluted than it should have to be.
   
  Does that make enough sense for you?
   
   
  Quote: 





> Note that it isn't less high-fidelity than the conventional filter and I don't consider it a coloration, just a variation with indeed some sonic advantage.


 
   
  I'm sorry, you're going to have to clarify how a subjective preference equates to a "sonic advantage".  The measurements disagree with such a notion and empirically would consider it a disadvantage.
   
  When you get down to it it's a coloration whether you like it or not.  If you like it fine, but don't go screaming it's accurate and denounce people for faulting it since it's not.
   
   
  Quote: 





> But from the samples at hand I conclude that the HiFiMan sounds a bit better than my Clip+ or my iAudio 7 when listening through headphones attached to them.


 
   
  I believe Nick mentioned a problem with the samples, thought not sure how drastic it was.
   
   
  Quote: 





> But it's childish to believe you could judge the sound quality of an audio device by means of its measuring specs.


 
   
  Depends how you define sound quality.  If I define it based on measurable accuracy rather than subjectivity it fails my criteria.  I wouldn't call my Shek D1 hifi, even if I like the way it sounds on occasion.
   
  So once again we have very different definitions of HiFi.  Regardless it isn't accurate, and that's what this thread is about overall.  There's players that measure (perform) better in terms of reproduction which may make it harder for some to justify the pricetag of the hifiman.


----------



## Bojamijams

I've heard the DAC1-PRE (before HDR was out) and yes.. it sounds bad.. didn't like at all, way too sterile and digital. But hey.. it measures good!
  
  Quote: 





shike said:


> Or are you going to say the Benchmark, etc, which measure excellent aren't high-end or sound bad?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Have you auditioned them?
> .


 


 No, but given how unreliable sighted listening tests are that would prove nothing, besides which it might sound quite nice but that does not actually make it Hgh Fidelity...now if a Stereophile reviewer wants to try and DBT a Wadia and (say) a NAD C542  I would pay money to observe that...the Matrix Hifi folks DBT'd a $12K Oracle CD player and a $230 Pioneer DVD player and none of them could tell them apart...


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





bojamijams said:


> I've heard the DAC1-PRE (before HDR was out) and yes.. it sounds bad.. didn't like at all, way too sterile and digital. But hey.. it measures good!


 

 Cool, you don't like accurate reproductions of the music you're listening to.
   
  What does that prove exactly?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





shike said:


> I believe Nick mentioned a problem with the samples, thought not sure how drastic it was.


 

 I had a look at the samples and there are definitely some issues with some of them which make any conclusions based on DBTs questionable. I hate to say this , but I have spent hours and hours preparing samples and learned the hard and painful way that to get samples that can be validly compared requires that they are exactly the same length and precisely time-aligned. Also there was a definite phase reversal issue with one set of samples, now how audible that is is an open question, but you really need to fix these things before you can be confident of a fair test...It annoyed me a touch because I was congratulating myself on DBT'ing two samples but they were not perfectly aligned so of course they were different...


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> Don't put words in my mouth - there's subjectivity too. Of course I WILL say the Wadia players aren't accurate, and that really can't be argued now can it?


 
   
  Don't you think so? So what criteria define accuracy? It looks like in your view frequency response is the only one. And how about transient response?
   
   


> I can dismiss them if I want to. It's not unscientific to dismiss an OPINION of how something sounds. We have the facts of how it measures in front of us. If someone likes how it sounds that's up to them, but it doesn't make it accurate.


 
 It is clearly inaccurate in just one criterion: again high-frequency response. We don't know with certainty to which extent it is more accurate in terms of transient response (not measured by _dfkt_), but there's a high likelihood that it is clearly superior. However, in terms of frequency response it's still not inaccurate enough to sound worse or less natural than the contenders in the blind test. So your remote diagnosis has failed.

  


> > ...says the digital expert!
> >
> >
> >
> ...


 
  
  I'm very familiar with these players, as I had personal experience with a few and know their measuring data inside out. The «ringing distortion» (= Gibbs phenomenon) had a characteristic which has virtually disappeared after the introduction of oversampling: a heavy delay of decay on the low-pass filter corner frequency (~21.5 kHz). Oversampling additionally has introduced pre-ringing, now leading to an almost symmetrical pulse-response signal with reduced ringing amplitude. But the total amount of ringing is still the same – it's inevitably coupled with the filter abruptness. However, I agree that sound quality has improved since the early days, and that's primarily the merit of oversampling which has made excessive analog filtering with sonically harmful electronics components superfluous. The mere signal shape hasn't improved, though, as it's not justifiable to prefer pre-ringing plus post-ringing to mere post-ringing. So the sonic progress doesn't reflect itself in the standard measurements. There are certainly other measuring criteria, such as DAC linearity, the introduction of dithering and the care for low jitter values...
   
   


> There's no reason for it at least.  One can avoid ringing and aliasing by using OS with a steep filter.  Cheap and effective.


   
   No, you're wrong (see above). Steep filter slopes always and still come with the ringing, oversampling or not. 
   
   


> Meier seems to want to make his design flexible for any sound, so it at least "kind of" makes sense for him to do such.  Wadia may like a chip that's OS by default but wants a NOS sound so forces a roll-off, but it seems kind of silly rather than just starting with a NOS design and being done with it (should that be the case).


   
  Now you know why. The roll-off isn't end in itself, it's the cure against the ringing.

  


> However, the reason I would have a trouble with an OS implementation with a slow roll-off in the HiFiman is why would one pay for a component to OS it (remember, the DAC is NOS by default requires another component to achieve this), only to remove the benefits of OS after the fact thus increasing the cost and complexity for no reason (not to mention impact battery life)?  This obviously wouldn't make sense, and really shows a logical conclusion that it's a NOS design or the circuit is more convoluted than it should have to be.
> Does that make enough sense for you?


   
  In the light of your above misconception, yes.
   
   


> I'm sorry, you're going to have to clarify how a subjective preference equates to a "sonic advantage".  The measurements disagree with such a notion and empirically would consider it a disadvantage.


   
  We have already talked about it that «the measurements» are incomplete; transient-response measurements are missing.
   
   


> When you get down to it it's a coloration whether you like it or not.  If you like it fine, but don't go screaming it's accurate and denounce people for faulting it since it's not.


   
  I hope you see now that I just not solely rely on frequency response.
   
    
    


bojamijams said:


> I've heard the DAC1-PRE (before HDR was out) and yes.. it sounds bad.. didn't like at all, way too sterile and digital. But hey.. it measures good!


 

 I didn't find it bad sounding, but I agree on the «sterile». (Note that a live concert doesn't sound sterile!)
  


  


nick_charles said:


> No, but given how unreliable sighted listening tests are that would prove nothing, besides which it might sound quite nice but that does not actually make it Hgh Fidelity...now if a Stereophile reviewer wants to try and DBT a Wadia and (say) a NAD C542  I would pay money to observe that...the Matrix Hifi folks DBT'd a $12K Oracle CD player and a $230 Pioneer DVD player and none of them could tell them apart...


 

 So what's the point with talking about «High End» at all if everything sounds the same? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Note that it wasn't me who brought this term up!
  

  
   


shike said:


> Cool, you don't like accurate reproductions of the music you're listening to. What does that prove exactly?


 

 How come that you know that he likes coloration? How can you equate sterile with accurate? To me these are entirely different characteristics.
.


----------



## odigg

What?  I didn't even mean to post and it posted...somethings up with this system...


----------



## JaZZ

You can say that loud!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Don't you think so? So what criteria define accuracy? It looks like in your view frequency response is the only one. And how about transient response?


 
   
  What about the transient response?  How about the crosstalk measurements which are pretty poor too?
   
   


> It is clearly inaccurate in just one criterion: again high-frequency response. We don't know with certainty to which extent it is more accurate in terms of transient response (not measured by _dfkt_), but there's a high likelihood that it is clearly superior. However, in terms of frequency response it's still not inaccurate enough to sound worse or less natural than the contenders in the blind test. So your remote diagnosis has failed.


 
 And crosstalk.  I wouldn't assume ANYTHING is superior, if you want to prove it surely you can measure it.
   
  Also, the HiFi man does start to have a noticeable roll-off (2.5dB roughly) at around 15K.  Whether one finds this less natural or not isn't the point, it's still noticeable.
   
  Quote: 





> The mere signal shape hasn't improved, though, as it's not justifiable to prefer pre-ringing plus post-ringing to mere post-ringing.


 
   
  I disagree, the lower amplitude does indeed justify it.  Just like SNR, would you like noise all across the band but extremely low in amplitude, or would you like it smack dab in the center just as high as the signal?
   
  As for the other measurements, yes those are worth considering too.  However, we aren't measuring those right now.  We're focusing on the issues at hand.
   
  Quote: 





> No, you're wrong (see above). Steep filter slopes always and still come with the ringing, oversampling or not.


 
   
  Either way OS with a steep filter mitigates a large part of the problem by decreasing the amplitude, similar to how one would want to increase SNR.
   
   


> Now you know why. The roll-off isn't end in itself, it's the cure against the ringing.


   
  So our solutions against ringing are killing the HF or to reduce the amplitude before and after of something that's questionably audible anyway (but many felt the need to design past).
   
  I'll take the latter.
   


> In the light of your above misconception, yes.


   
  At least we seem to agree here.
   
   


> We have already talked about it that «the measurements» are incomplete; transient-response measurements are missing.


   
  You're assuming the sonic advantage exists.  Even if it's incomplete this is a definite step away from what was expected.
   
   


> I hope you see now that I just not solely rely on frequency response.


   
  I never said you did, and neither do I.  Crosstalk is an issue on this player too, but many want to discuss the FR.
   
   
  Quote: 





> So what's the point with talking about «High End» at all if everything sounds the same?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Different definitions in what we consider high-end.
  
   
  Quote: 





> How come that you know that he likes coloration? How can you equate sterile with accurate? To me these are entirely different characteristics.


 
   
  I equate the Benchmark with accurate.  If he finds something accurate sterile, then he may not like something that's simply accurate (see Benchmark).


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> What about the transient response?  How about the crosstalk measurements which are pretty poor too?


 
   
  Now you're avoiding a clear answer by posing another question. Let's discuss the possible (and likely) merits of the treble roll-off, not brush it under the carpet!
   
   


> And crosstalk.  I wouldn't assume ANYTHING is superior, if you want to prove it surely you can measure it.


   
  No, I can't. But someone has done the measurement for me.
   
  The first pictures shows the Corda Symphony's three different filter characteristics with 8x oversampling:
   

   
Filter 1 is the standard filter with steep slope and corresponding ringing. Filter 2 has a slightly earlier and smoother cut-off for slightly reduced ringing. Filter 3 kind of emulates a NOS DAC characteristic in that it removes the whole ringing to the back of the pulse (by means of phase tricks). – 2 and 3 are my preferred filters. The absence of pre-ringing or the mere post-ringing, respectively, provides a unique sonic characteristic; smoother than the standard filter (and filter 2), with more treble sparkle, also a bit less crisp.
   
And here's a filter with a Bézier characteristic à la Wadia or HM-801:
   
 
   
  As you see, there's almost no ringing left.
   
  Just learn more about the Gibbs phenomenon and see how abrupt and steep filters are inextricably coupled with it.
   
   


> Either way OS with a steep filter mitigates a large part of the problem by decreasing the amplitude, similar to how one would want to increase SNR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 You're of course free to chose your preferred kind of inaccuracy.
   
   


> You're assuming the sonic advantage exists.


   
  From my own listening experience. Which is in line with the measurements. And since you value the latter high, now there's at least a basis for you to occupy with the possiblity of a sonic impact of transient response.
   
   


> Crosstalk is an issue on this player too, but many want to discuss the FR.


   
  Not for me. I don't consider 45 dB crosstalk an issue, even it's above today's standards. Vinyl discs have crosstalk between 15 and 25 dB and can still sound very spacious. I will do a tets by mixing –45 dB crosstalk to a recording.
   
   


> I equate the Benchmark with accurate.  If he finds something accurate sterile, then he may not like something that's simply accurate (see Benchmark).


   
  Because you're the benchmark when it comes to rate accuracy and neutrality, whereas he is not? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## immtbiker

I have 3 modern day Sansa Fuse's (for myself, brownielady and Jr.) and they are great players for the price. No one can argue that fact. No need to Rockbox the modern ones, they already accept .flac. It serves it's purpose quite nicely
  When I first started reading this thread at inception, it seemed to me to be an aggressive attack against the 801.  But as the thread progressed, it brought out some very intelligent, interesting discussion about the differences between players and their pros and cons.
  We just need to steer clear of personal attacks, because that deteriorates any thread.
   
  We have a good group here. We are not sheep, and some interesting, factual points have been expressed. A lot of Head-Fier's *are* sheep ( buying things when they haven't even been released in at least the prototype stage... look at the Pico Slim and Protector), but this demographic seems well informed and have backed up their statements with factual data.
  Anyone who expresses their opinion on a component, without actually ever listening to or owning the product, should be immediately dismissed.
  I am a firm believer that something that contributes to creating sound, cannot be judged by measurements, but rather by subjective listening. I don't give a damn how something measures, because there are too many variables ruining the final outcome. A system comprises of multiple components in the chain, and anyone can bring down the house of cards on the climb to reaching Babylonia.
   
  The 801 has multiple offerings and the Sansa Clip+ doesn't. The ability to play 24/96 files, the option of using just the DAC (which is an upper tier DAC), unending storage capacity and so on. This has to be taken into consideration when considering price. It appears that when Fang started this project on White paper, his objectives were clear. Make a portable (don't tell me that it's not portable, because I used to walk around with a H120 stacked with a toslink'd HR Micro DAC, and an SR-71 in my quest to finding portable nirvana), give it versatility (the ability to swap out amp modules or create your own), use some of the finest components available, and make the battery user replaceable.
   
  I can't go by looking at any waterfall graphs or downloading files that were given to us to make comparisons. I wanted to simplify things, and not rely on files provided from others. So, for $33, I bought my own Sansa Clip+ 2G to use for comparisons. It won't go to waste when all is said and done. I received it yesterday and I will load it with 3 of the best reference recordings that I use when doing reviews. I know these reference tracks inside out and out, upside down and left and right.
   
  The HiFiMAN has been my favorite player to date using just flac files converted by me from my own collection. I can say, that even though it is vastly superior in sound quality to the Sansa Fuse, in every category, the Fuse is great for what it offers for the price. But, if you were to dissect each and every aspect of the sound output, it doesn't hold a candle to the 801. Is the 801 worth 7 times the price of the Fuse? Absolutely not. Is it vastly superior? Absolutely.
   
  After this weekend, I will post my impressions using the Clip instead of the Fuse. Why is the 801 rolled off at the upper register? I would take a guess and say that if it weren't, due to the amount of detail it portrays, then people would complain that it is too sibilant. But that is only my opinion. I did not design and manufacture the 801. But I heard it, bought it, and never looked back.
  I find myself listening to components half of the time and comparing, the other half. I would rather just listen, but like most people here, we are on a journey to find the best sound for the best money.
  Up until the introduction of the 801, my iMod 5.5 with accompanying LOD with .alac files was the best that I could use. The 801 is a giant step above that. Please note that everything that I've said thus far, is only through the headphone out, and that is the only way to really compare the 801 to the Clip.
  To me, all that matters is, what I hear, through my ears. And I suppose that's the same for most people here. Isn't obtaining the best sound possible the reason why we are here and get into both beneficial and ridiculously debates?
   
  Anyone who downloaded dfkt's comparison tracks, allowed too many variables in their tests. IMHO, the only way to do a true test, whether or not it's dbt, it to have both units, side by side, volume matched, with the same exact file on both.
   
  I will post my results this weekend.


----------



## JaZZ

immtbiker said:


> After this weekend, I will post my impressions using the Clip instead of the Fuse.


 
   
  Take care to give it enough time to burn in! Mine sounded considerably smoother and more refined after 20 hours. 50 is even better.
.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





jazz said:


> From my own listening experience. Which is in line with the measurements. And since you value the latter high, now there's at least a basis for you to occupy with the possiblity of a sonic impact of transient response..


 

 I don't see steep filters particularly impacting transients, at least not to a degree I'd call audible.
   
  Do you have any links to sources regarding the impact of pre and post ringing of filters in regards to transients, preferably not from a manufacturer?
   
   
  Quote: 





> Because you're the benchmark when it comes to rate accuracy and neutrality, whereas he is not?


 
   
  You know it.


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> I don't see steep filters particularly impacting transients, at least not to a degree I'd call audible.


 

 O.k. – your choice. But you see a clear impact from –45 dB crosstalk? 
   
  Moreover, what was that?:
   


> Maybe you're unfamiliar with why these players were tossed aside by many?  It's called ringing distortion - look it up.   This is why I said "if done right".  This is why a steep filter doesn't work WELL on NOS and shouldn't even be bothered with.


   
   


> Do you have any links to sources regarding the impact of pre and post ringing of filters in regards to transients?


   
  Don't you rather mean: in regards to sonic impact? The ringing itself _is_ the transient corruption. The answer is no. But I can test it myself and report it back.
   
   


> You know it.


   
  Not really.
.


----------



## immtbiker

Darn....didn't think of that! Thanks JaZZ.
   
  Burning in a Sansa Clip. The thing is like 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" big.
  Amazing that we can make a decent sounding DAP
  (that also encodes all of the file types, has a battery and a UI),
  but no cures for our own incurable  diseases.


----------



## JaZZ

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> The thing is like 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" big.
> Amazing that we can make a decent sounding DAP
> (that also encodes all of the file types, has a battery and a UI)...


 

 Plus a microSDHC slot for additional 32 GB, makes 40 GB of storage capacity without moving parts! (I'm just waiting for the card.)
.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> Anyone who downloaded dfkt's comparison tracks, allowed too many variables in their tests. IMHO, the only way to do a true test, whether or not it's dbt, it to have both units, side by side, volume matched, with the same exact file on both.
> 
> I will post my results this weekend.


 
  Looking forward to the results...


----------



## Shike

Quote:


jazz said:


> O.k. – your choice. But you see a clear impact from –45 dB crosstalk?
> .


 

 It just shows that there may be larger issues with the design.  It's not common for crosstalk to be that bad on well designed gear.
   


> Don't you rather mean: in regards to sonic impact? The ringing itself _is_ the transient corruption. The answer is no. But I can test it myself and report it back.


 
   
  Yes, I misspoke.  Nonetheless I'd like to see the decibel level of the ringing compared to the signal.
   


> Not really.


   
  No skin off my nose if you can't take a joke.


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





bojamijams said:


> Its selling to audiophiles.  Just because you're on this forum doesn't mean you're an audiophile. Just because you REALLY love music and you have a lot of expensive toys doesn't mean you're an audiophile.  You have to have the ear to be able to tell these differences, otherwise you're just a sucker whose paying for way too much when you can't take advantage of it.
> 
> And when I say you, I don't mean YOU personally.
> 
> ...


 


  
  ROFLMAO read number 10 you self-appointed expert  http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> It just shows that there may be larger issues with the design. It's not common for crosstalk to be that bad on well designed gear.


 
   
  So the motto is: in dubio contra reo. You didn't accept a benefit from the treble roll-off before the proof was on the table. But you don't hesitate to project the worst things into that poor player from a single criterion which doesn't really represent an issue itself.*

  


> No skin off my nose if you can't take a joke.


   
  True – that was a bit humourless. I was tired, and you have managed to avoid another response trying to excuse your subjectivity. But as it seems you're at least aware of it now.
   
   
  * BTW, I just added –45 dB crosstalk to a recording – I couldn't detect a difference.
.


----------



## dfkt

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Also there was a definite phase reversal issue with one set of samples, now how audible that is is an open question, but you really need to fix these things before you can be confident of a fair test..


 
   
  The Hifiman indeed has a 180° phase reversal, compared to the original and the other players - I don't think this should be "fixed", since it is how the player reproduces audio. It wouldn't be right if I reversed it back to how it actually should be.

  
  Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> Anyone who downloaded dfkt's comparison tracks, allowed too many variables in their tests. IMHO, the only way to do a true test, whether or not it's dbt, it to have both units, side by side, volume matched, with the same exact file on both.


 

 The problem with that is, not everyone has a Hifiman to test. You and I are lucky to hear it with our own ears, but I also made these samples for people who don't have one to test.


----------



## Nankai

Oops, 180 phasing? Joe Grado is coming.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> The Hifiman indeed has a 180° phase reversal, compared to the original and the other players - I don't think this should be "fixed", since it is how the player reproduces audio. It wouldn't be right if I reversed it back to how it actually should be.


 

  
   
  Hmmm, I wonder why they did that  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I wonder if that in itself makes an audible difference ?
   
  I feel a DBT coming on....


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Plus a microSDHC slot for additional 32 GB, makes 40 GB of storage capacity without moving parts! (I'm just waiting for the card.)
> .


 
   
  Yes, but it's going to be expensive!


  
  Quote: 





dfkt said:


> The problem with that is, not everyone has a Hifiman to test. You and I are lucky to hear it with our own ears, but I also made these samples for people who don't have one to test.


 
  That's true, but it's the only way to eliminate all of the variables.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *immtbiker* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> That's true, but it's the only way to eliminate all of the variables.


 

 It adds another variable, actually. Unless you can find me a headphone that performs equally well from all sources


----------



## udauda

Ringing(especially pre-ringing) shorter than 0.8ms is simply negligible. Not quite sure why they implemented such a radical filter when there were many options available that do not compromise frequency range. (reminds me of the room response compensation reflected on ER-4S LOL)
   
  Wel, maybe this was the reason why I was heavily unimpressed by Hifiman when I auditioned it at Canjam09 in LAX..


----------



## JaZZ

udauda said:


> Ringing(especially pre-ringing) shorter than 0.8ms is simply negligible. Not quite sure why they implemented such a radical filter when there were many options available that do not compromise frequency range. (reminds me of the room response compensation reflected on ER-4S LOL).


 

 Well, the «negligibility» doesn't work for me with my Symphony... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





udauda said:


> Ringing(especially pre-ringing) shorter than 0.8ms is simply negligible. Not quite sure why they implemented such a radical filter when there were many options available that do not compromise frequency range. (reminds me of the room response compensation reflected on ER-4S LOL)
> 
> Wel, maybe this was the reason why I was heavily unimpressed by Hifiman when I auditioned it at Canjam09 in LAX..


 
  Sorry for the naive question, but when you say ringing, what do you mean (in layman's terms...or, like me, in "wanna-be a real engineer, but only made it to Field Engineer", speak)? TIA.


----------



## JaZZ

immtbiker said:


> Sorry for the naive question, but when you say ringing, what do you mean (in layman's terms...or, like me, in "wanna-be a real engineer, but only made it to Field Engineer", speak)? TIA.


 

That. (The ringing [Gibbs phenomenon] is a natural by-product of a filter with high Q factor = sharp and steep slope.)
.


----------



## JohnD

Quote: 





bojamijams said:


> Its selling to audiophiles.  Just because you're on this forum doesn't mean you're an audiophile. Just because you REALLY love music and you have a lot of expensive toys doesn't mean you're an audiophile.  You have to have the ear to be able to tell these differences, otherwise you're just a sucker whose paying for way too much when you can't take advantage of it.
> 
> And when I say you, I don't mean YOU personally.
> 
> ...


 
   
  I am crying. Beethoven was deaf, Tchaikovsky did not have absolute ears, but stil was the best conductor of his time (for instance, the conductor on the official opening night of Carnegie Hall).
  
  How dare they to do something in music without "audiophile" ears?!


----------



## Bojamijams

Miss the point much?
  
  Quote: 





johnd said:


> I am crying. Beethoven was deaf, Tchaikovsky did not have absolute ears, but stil was the best conductor of his time (for instance, the conductor on the official opening night of Carnegie Hall).
> 
> How dare they to do something in music without "audiophile" ears?!


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> After this weekend, I will post my impressions using the Clip instead of the Fuse. Why is the 801 rolled off at the upper register? I would take a guess and say that if it weren't, due to the amount of detail it portrays, then people would complain that it is too sibilant.


 

 The response graph looks similar to a turntable to me! Not a bad thing either. Maybe they were trying to engineer a more "hifi" sound?
   
  People on here shouldn't get so hung up on figures/measurements - they dont always tell the whole story (which can be observed by listening to a turntable with its awfully rolled off upper frequencies)


----------



## Shike

Quote:


d.g said:


> The response graph looks similar to a turntable to me! Not a bad thing either. Maybe they were trying to engineer a more "hifi" sound?
> People on here shouldn't get so hung up on figures/measurements - they dont always tell the whole story (which can be observed by listening to a turntable with its awfully rolled off upper frequencies)


 
 The reason vinyl is still used a lot is the mastering can be better than on CDs.  Lookup the loudness wars.  It doesn't have a lot to do with the roll-off IME.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote: 





shike said:


> The reason vinyl is still used a lot is the mastering can be better than on CDs.  Lookup the loudness wars.  It doesn't have a lot to do with the roll-off IME.


 

 Can you cite some evidence for this? Namely that the same album is mastered twice - once for vinyl and once for CD.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


b0dhi said:


> Can you cite some evidence for this? Namely that the same album is mastered twice - once for vinyl and once for CD.


   

 White Stripes Icky Thump and Metallica Death Magnetic immediately come to mind.
   
   
  The mastering isn't always better, it's just that sometimes it is.  Odds have having actual dynamic range on a vinyl is usually better than CD.
   
  You can read a pretty nice write-up at audioholics regarding it:
   
  http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-2


----------



## udauda

I am trying to figure out the effect of the filter. This is what I've got so far:
   

  [PPHS has been used to simulate a practical case of resampling]
  [The custom filter effectively simulates analog characteristics]
   
  audible? I seriously doubt it..


----------



## shigzeo

@udauda - nice blog by the way.


----------



## immtbiker

OK, I have completed my comparative analysis. I must say, that the Sansa Clip, for it's size and it's
  price, is one hell of a player. I was amazed at the output, and the ability to encode .flac files (new version
  comes standard with .flac...no need for Rockbox).
   
  However, when comparing the Clip to the HM-801, it's like a number one rated college team, playing
  against a solid professional NFL team. In it's own right, it's amazing that a UI, rechargeable battery, an amp circuit,
  encoding abilities, and media storage (in this case the + came standard with 2Gigs onboard), it is a marvel
  of modern science. Perfect for the gym or while jogging. But holding a candle to the 801? Not going to
  happen.
  At first listen, one will be astonished at the Clip's output. It is clear, has balls, and goes pretty far into both extreme registers.
  When you first walk into a Bose store, you think, "Hey, that Wave Radio sounds pretty good". It fills the room with sound
  and musical notes. But when really reviewing the output, one notices that there is a huge gap somewhere between 
  200 Hz and 1000 Hz. Same with their Acoustimass systems. But the average consumer is perfectly happy with that.
   
  We are not "the average consumer". When comparing the 801 and the Clip, the first thing missing that you notice is depth.
  And headstage. On paper, the readings are desirable, but to the discerning ear, it is instantly noticeable that there are layers
  missing. That's where op amps and DAC chips play their role.
   
  If you listen to a 128kbps, you can listen to the song, maybe even tap your feet to it, but it is the equivalent of AM Radio.
  I would sum up the Clip as more of a 256kbps file, but it skips a lot of detail that the 320, or .wav, or Lossless file captures.
  The same exact flac file, played on both machines, using my JH-13's, instantly revealed a good deal of lost detail on the Sansa.
  If I were jogging in the park, or clanging weights at the gym, the Clip is a perfect player. But if I am sitting in my quiet room,
  comparing the 2 units, the difference is day and night. If you can't hear the difference, then consider yourself lucky. Number one,
  audio is not your favorite passion, and number 2, you have just saved yourself a lot of money.
   
  Is there a rolloff in the upper register of the HM-801? On paper, it seems obviously so. But when looking at the bigger picture,
  which is the total experience of your music listening session, the 801 has more meat, and sounds more realistic to being in the 
  room or the concert hall, listening to the music being played live. I believe that this aids to creating the midrange, but that is my opinion.
  The upper portion of the highs, that shows a roll off on paper, adds to sibilance and I believe that over emphasized bass or highs, can
  mess up the detail of the midrange. There's only so much room in a file which creates "the bigger picture". However the 801 was designed
  by it's engineer for whatever reason, using the existing components, and to my ears, it was done right. A circuit is like a recipe, and it takes
  all of the ingredients to work in harmony to create a masterpiece, and I believe that the sound output of the HiFiMAN is just where I like it. YMMV.
  The mids are sweet. They convey air and separation between the instruments and vocals, whereas the Clip is a little sloppy and everything is
  sort of stepping on top of each other. The bass on the Clip is surprisingly good, but it is more subsonic, visceral on the HiFiMAN.
  There's bass, and then there's *BASS*. The 801 has better bass, at least, to my liking.
   
  If given no choice, could I be happy living with a Sansa Clip loaded with flac files? Absolutely. If I could gain even just 10% better output
  by spending $400 or $700 would I do it? Isn't that what most of us do, here at Head-Fi? Diminishing gains on higher assets. As long as
  my family is taken care of, yes I would. Without that 10% (in this case, it's more than 10%), there would be no need for discussion here
  on Head-Fi. We'd all just motor along with our iPods and iBuds listening to iTune downloaded 128 kbps files like the average music listener does.
  Heck, I've seen friends walking down the street, each with one headphone in their ear, from the same headphone. They're happy, but that's
  not my thing, and I don't think that anyone reading this thread would have that "be their thing" also.
   
  Is the Sansa Clip a good player for the money? Without a doubt. Is the HifiMAN HM-801 much better in real life and not on paper?
   
  Hell yeah.


----------



## Shike

I'm sorry, but when did this become an impressions thread that didn't require testing methodology?


----------



## immtbiker

I had stated at the end of last week, that I was going to buy a Sansa Clip, put the same songs on both,
  listen to them, and post my impressions. 
   
  And that is what I did!


----------



## Shike

Quote:


immtbiker said:


> I had stated at the end of last week, that I was going to buy a Sansa Clip, put the same songs on both,
> listen to them, and post my impressions.
> 
> And that is what I did!


 
 Cool, so you level matched and DBT them too right?
   
  Otherwise subjective impressions belong over in the DAP section if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> OK, I have completed my comparative analysis. I must say, that the Sansa Clip, for it's size and it's
> price, is one hell of a player. I was amazed at the output, and the ability to encode .flac files (new version
> comes standard with .flac...no need for Rockbox).
> 
> ...


 

 Awesome write up! I couldn't agree more.


----------



## nick_charles

After immtbiker's post I feel it is now fair game to post unsolicited discussions of DBTs and measurements in any of the main forums. Thanks immtbiker.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





shike said:


> Cool, so you level matched and DBT them too right?
> 
> Otherwise subjective impressions belong over in the DAP section if I'm not mistaken.


 
   
  You are one tough customer. Audio should be enjoyed and not dissected and over-analyzed. I did

  not use any machines, I used only my ears and my heart. I get enjoyment from what I hear, and not what

  I read. Roosevelt promised a chicken in every pot. That was on paper.


----------



## udauda

To properly DBT HM801 and Clip, you must volume-match them within 0.1dB and use a music sample that does not have any spectral components over 2 kHz range(this is due to HM801's frequency alteration- bass has to sound better with this kind of coloration). If you do not have a voltmeter, I'd recommend recording the devices at the same time using a decent soundcard(make sure you use a 16-ohm dummy load in parallel), match the volume on a DAW, and ABX the files on Foobar2K ABX comparator.


----------



## qusp

to be fair, there is nothing remotely artificial about measurements; quite the opposite. but they dont always tell the whole story


----------



## limpidglitch

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> You are one tough customer. Audio should be enjoyed and not dissected and over-analyzed. I did
> not use any machines, I used only my ears and my heart. I get enjoyment from what I hear, and not what
> I read. Roosevelt promised a chicken in every pot. That was on paper.


 

 This is the _Science_ sub-forum. Here we base our theories on dissection and analysis, which often involve various machines.
  Science have no room for 'heart', that's an area for metaphysics.
  And I do not eat poultry, nor paper.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> When comparing the 801 and the Clip, the first thing missing that you notice is depth.


 

 Hey, don't put words in my head.
   
  That line plays out like a bad Choose Your Own Adventure.


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> You are one tough customer. Audio should be enjoyed and not dissected and over-analyzed. I did
> not use any machines, I used only my ears and my heart. I get enjoyment from what I hear, and not what
> I read. Roosevelt promised a chicken in every pot. That was on paper.


 
  Volume matching is very important for A/B comparisons, even non DBT ones.  I found that often times perceived differences in frequency response or dynamics could often be attributed to listening to one device at a louder volume level than the other one.  Immeasurable differences such as soundstage, imaging, and detail are a different matter altogether.  These sound qualities are very subjective and "non-scientific" methods of quiet, repeated listening are necessary.  But having a switch box helps.  Remember the switch box Ray brought to meets before?   I made a simple headphone switch box as well with a 3PDT Switch (Center=Off) to be able to accomplish direct A/B comparisons and volume matching, even by ear.  But it also makes it very simple for having someone else do the switching for you to conduct a true DBT.  (well, if you cover the devices being switched and label which way is what).
   

   

   
  I'll be bringing it to CanJam, Aaron, so if you want to try it out, you let me know.  Anyone else at CanJam is welcome to try as well. 
   
  -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





qusp said:


> to be fair, there is nothing remotely artificial about measurements; quite the opposite. but they dont always tell the whole story


 

 Absolutely true. 
   
  Unfortunately, there is currently no method for testing the "immeasurable" like Soundstage, Imaging, and Detail in sound when it comes to headphone listening.  These sound qualities are very important to many people here.  Frequency response is also important, but is only a part of overall headphone listening experience when listening to music.
   
  -Ed


----------



## Sonic 748i

Does anyone have pictures of a disassembled HiFiMAN? I would love to the components responsible for such amazing sound.


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> Does anyone have pictures of a disassembled HiFiMAN? I would love to the components responsible for such amazing sound.


 

 I didn't disassemble the entire unit, but I posted pics of the two different amp boards and the two PCM1704 K chips in the HifiMan HM-801 impressions thread.
   
  -Ed


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





limpidglitch said:


> This is the _Science_ sub-forum. Here we base our theories on dissection and analysis, which often involve various machines.
> Science have no room for 'heart'.


 
  I digress to the scientists.
  I'd rather not live my life in only an X and Y axis. Enjoy.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> I digress to the scientists.
> I'd rather not live my life in only an X and Y axis. Enjoy.


 

 Then ignore this thread 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  It was censored/moved here for a reason.


----------



## Ro-amp

Gents,
  I can't help but think that battery capacity as a lot to do with it...wonder how the Sansa would fair with similar oooomph.....
  Ooooomph being capacitance.........
  Capacitance being the true volume match...
  Regards


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





ro-amp said:


> Gents,
> I can't help but think that battery capacity as a lot to do with it...wonder how the Sansa would fair with similar oooomph.....
> Ooooomph being capacitance.........
> Capacitance being the true volume match...
> Regards


 

 Yeah, the current draw of the HM-801 is around 200mA.  The battery capacity and voltage in the HM-801 is massive compared to the Clip+.  In fact, the HM-801 has two LiPo cells in it, with +/- voltages.  The Battery alone is several times the size of the Clip+, heheh.
   
  Here's the HM-801's battery compared to two other well known portables.

   
  -Ed


----------



## Edwood

Gah, it quoted instead of edit.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Yeah, the current draw of the HM-801 is around 200mA.  The battery capacity and voltage in the HM-801 is massive compared to the Clip+.  In fact, the HM-801 has two LiPo cells in it, with +/- voltages.  The Battery alone is several times the size of the Clip+, heheh.
> 
> Here's the HM-801's battery compared to two other well known portables.
> 
> ...


 
  Thanks for posting that Ed. Now people will realize why the HiFiMAN is as large as it is. To house that powerful battery that allows those power hungry components to actually run.


----------



## High_Q

I thought the purpose of the HiFiMan was to have source and amp in one?  Why do people carry another amp for it?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose?  If you have very low impedance headphone with very good isolation(such as JH13 or 16) do you really need a HiFiMan??  Wouldn't a high quality source that is much smaller suffice?  It seams kinda rediculous to have HiFiMan to external amp to a very low impedance IEM.


----------



## h.rav

^ Good questions.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





high_q said:


> I thought the purpose of the HiFiMan was to have source and amp in one?  Why do people carry another amp for it?  Doesn't that defeat the purpose?  If you have very low impedance headphone with very good isolation(such as JH13 or 16) do you really need a HiFiMan??  Wouldn't a high quality source that is much smaller suffice?  It seams kinda rediculous to have HiFiMan to external amp to a very low impedance IEM.


 

 Yes, the purpose of the HiFiMAN is to be an all in one high end DAP. The reason why I carry an amp with it is because I want to maximize the DAC's potential, and the internal amplifier though a good amplifier is the bottleneck of the device. It doesn't defeat the purpose because the DAC inside the HiFiMAN is far superior to the DAC's in any other portable DAP. Once again the smaller DAP's do not offer high quality sound. They offer sound that is acceptable. The JH13 Pro may be a low impedance IEM but with those 12 drivers the impedance is constantly changing making most amps crap out and in return you get either a rolled off bass response or treble or both. Along with other sound degradation. Same applies to all multi-driver IEM's.


----------



## midoo1990

ok i have to ask immitbiker,what is the purpose of hifiman?isnt it designed to be the best portable solution with unmatched sound quality?
  well guess what,it is the worst DAP out there because of its size,weight, storage and interface.who would want to carry a brick while walking or runnung?who would want to take with him a small bag to put in it a dap?
  heck,sometimes i feel my touch is too big for portable use although it fits my jeans as it is very thin but still large.my dad has sansa fuze and frankly for its price,size,weight and SQ,it is one of the best portables out there and if i didnt need to check my email,i would have made it my primary palyer.
   
  The real question is,who wants to listen to the last detail in the music on the move or when in public transportation?and dont tell me audiophiles because i think 90% of us dont care about hearing a chair moving in the studio while jogging,riding,biking.....
  it will also never replace a home setup because of its poor storage and poor usability because of the small screen.
  so again,what is its purpose?


----------



## cer

And you know what? There never will be methods of objectively testing subjective impressions. Every last bit of the phenomenom called sound can currently be tested (and it has been the case for decades), its just the matter of choosing the right tools and methods and the right interpretation of the results. Clip measures better, but doesn't have enough power to drive difficult phones. End of the story.
  
  Quote: 





edwood said:


> Unfortunately, there is currently no method for testing the "immeasurable" like Soundstage, Imaging, and Detail in sound when it comes to headphone listening.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote:


> And you know what? There never will be methods of objectively testing subjective impressions. Every last bit of the phenomenom called sound can currently be tested (and it has been the case for decades), its just the matter of choosing the right tools and methods and the right interpretation of the results. Clip measures better, but doesn't have enough power to drive difficult phones. End of the story.


 
   
  Then please show me a some form of measurement that directly correlates to transient response difference between input and output signal...?
   
  THD, frequency response, crosstalk, are all valid measurements, but I fail to see that they explain every last bit of the phenomenon called sound.


----------



## Danneq

Quote: 





midoo1990 said:


> ok i have to ask immitbiker,what is the purpose of hifiman?isnt it designed to be the best portable solution with unmatched sound quality?
> well guess what,it is the worst DAP out there because of its size,weight, storage and interface.who would want to carry a brick while walking or runnung?who would want to take with him a small bag to put in it a dap?
> heck,sometimes i feel my touch is too big for portable use although it fits my jeans as it is very thin but still large.my dad has sansa fuze and frankly for its price,size,weight and SQ,it is one of the best portables out there and if i didnt need to check my email,i would have made it my primary palyer.
> 
> ...


 
   
  While I certainly would not want to go as far as saying that the HifiMan is the worst DAP there is, it does seem to fill a gap for those who seek that elusive "perfect sound" and do not care about UI or anything else. It might however not be such a good portable solution.
   
  Myself, I do not like to stick things into my ear canal except earplugs if I go to a concert (do not want that tinnitus to get worse). So that excludes IEM:s. Also I do not like to be completely isolated from those around me when being outside. Especially now when I live in Japan it would be suicide to not hear since there are people everywhere - walking, running, on bikes and in cars. In a busy environment such as this, I feel that people who isolate themselves from the surroundings must be secretly carrying a deathwish.
   
  I do agree with you about this: why would anyone expect to be able to hear and appreciate to every last detail in the music when on the move and/or on public transportation? For me, the HifiMan seems to be perfect for those who want to use it at home and be able to concentrate on the listening experience 100%. If you are on the subway in Tokyo, or in New York, I would not think it is the optimal device. However cool you might feel when you haul it up and people around you look. People look when I take my Creative Zen Vision M with a Fiio E5 attached to it out from my jacket pocket or my bag, but I guess they mostly look because it is not a iPod Nano... I do not think my ZVM setup would even come into the top 50 of best sounding DAP:s, but on the go in relatively noisy surroundings it sounds good enough. The Fiio E5 through line out adding that extra bass that is lacking from the ZVM headphone out.

 Anyway, some people will look for the "ultimate setup" while others will be satisfied with something that sounds good while on the go. For me, it seems to end up in this question: what is most important, how the music is reproduced by the DAP or the music itself?
   
  This is a place of different minds, and I like that difference and I hope it stays like that. To each his own!
  Ah, now I even feel like hugging an iPod owner!


----------



## cer

Quote: 





frederiks|tpu said:


> Quote:
> 
> Then please show me a some form of measurement that directly correlates to transient response difference between input and output signal...?


 
   
  How about a tape measure? Seriously though, if you can detect a difference between input and output, you have already measured it. There are all sorts of measurable properties, like rise time, settling time and so on.
   
  Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_system_measurements


----------



## qusp

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> Thanks for posting that Ed. Now people will realize why the HiFiMAN is as large as it is. To house that powerful battery that allows those power hungry components to actually run.


 
   
  yes indeed, the size is not surprizing. I have been shoping for similar batteries for a portable project i'm working on and I can tell you it will be larger than that the bipolar (1 for each pole @ 11.1vdc/3300mAh) LiFePo4 bateries are considerably larger than that. these are batteries used to power RC helicopters, cars and Jets. and are capable of Burst discharge of 132amps, continuous current of 66amps lol. so 22v point to point and a total size of 19 x 86 x 136mm hehe. thats enough grunt for anything you might want to connect to headphones. except maybe some higher voltage tubes, but I already ruled out a SET amp due to microphonics hehe. LiFePo4 cels are much safer than regular lipo4 and lion batteries thank god, because with the energy density of these batteries, a catastrophic failure could result in my torso being made to disappear 
   
  @ ED, yeah this immeasurable stuff is frustrating, but also pretty cool, its real alright but that being said, those specs for the HM801 are a deal breaker for me, as they tell a very real story that doesnt match with my tastes. I actually USE hirez content, so rolling off even before the bandwidth of CDs does is not an option FOR ME


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Alright then why do we never see those graphs? Rise time is presumably closely related to transient response so those would be way more interesting to see than how linear the frequency response is.
  THD, cross talk, and FR I just fail to see why these should be able to justify why A is better than B and so on.
   
  I have the HM-801 and I am willing to do the tests if there a valid setup can be obtained without the need for huge investments.
   
  I have a Cowon D2 which measures better in the RMAA tests, but it does not sound nearly as detailed as the HM-801. Also bass extension is audibly worse than the HM-801 with both in-ears and midrange headphones. The treble is less dominant on the HM-801, but only marginal. Both with GAME card and the standard module.


----------



## Currawong

Ok, the forum software is being a pain, so my attempt at quoting failed...anyway...
   
  To some degree, soundstage etc are measurable. We know, for example, that stereo crosstalk has various effects.  dfkt described the soundstage on the 801 as being poor, which correlated to the high crosstalk.  I've seen RMA'ed amps which had a bit of a "V" in the crosstalk measurement that corresponded to an increase in bass and treble (or slightly recessed mids, depending which way you look at it), giving the impression when listening of a greater soundstage.  It's worth reading the huge, 4 year review of the Stax Omega II headphones, which goes into depth about sound perception related to different frequencies.
   
  The problem (and my real issue about this thread) is that, as others have pointed out, "sound science" is not simple: You can't just RMAA something and declare you know all about it.  Everything from the location music was recorded in, the recording, mastering and playback gear and everything up to one's ears and even one's body affect one's perception of music.  _Genuine_ science is about proposing theories, setting up experiments that will test those theories in a manner that narrows down the variables as far as possible, gets results, then draws reasonable conclusions with caveats for variables and influences that might also be responsible.  While for the purposes of experimentation and discussion I don't imagine people will attempt to do thorough experiments every time, it is very important to understand the limitations of tests one does, and, more importantly, not make false claims about equipment as a result, and as clearly happened in this thread (though reasonable claims were made too). 
   
  I think it'd be great for people, in the wake of impressions of different headphones, amps, DACs or whatnot, to measure them (the founder of HeadRoom is actually in the process of setting this up), look at the results and say _"X seems to correlate with people's impressions that Y sounds Z"_ and discuss it.  Hopefully people who are very knowledgeable with headphones and electronics could chime in (especially the manufacturers) and we can all learn something useful.  This in turn will help clean up all the hype and generalisations that plague the forums and help people make more informed choices.


----------



## cer

Well, first you should do a proper blind test to prove you can really hear a difference between A and B, this being Sound Science forum after all. Granted, proper blind testing with earphones is difficult.
  THD, crosstalk and FR is a limited set of measurements. S/N comes to mind as a necessity to estimate hearable differences. Source slew rate, rise time - these might be hearable in extreme cases. With music and functioning gear, highly unlikely, though. It's the headphones that can't handle the transients because of the mechanical nature of the membranes.
  If something sounds better to you, there might be all sorts of reasons. Different levels for example. As I said earlier, Hifiman has a powerful amplifier which is uncommon to portable gear. I bet I could easily use my DT880s with Hifiman. These phones are useless with a Clip and the majority of portables. But when we compare the Clip and Hifiman as a line source, the Clip has measurable advantage. The difference is hearable, as proven in this thread. But preference is still totally subjective. Subdued high frequency content can easily contribute to a less fatiguing listening experience, if that is your preference. More high frequency content could subjectively be perceived as "harshness" and so on. But thats all individual. Measurements show that the Clip is more transparent as a line source. Whether it sounds better than something else - subjective preference, different phones, different levels - all of these contribute a lot more than differences in measurements.
  
  Quote: 





frederiks|tpu said:


> THD, cross talk, and FR I just fail to see why these should be able to justify why A is better than B and so on.


----------



## cegras

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> I digress to the scientists.
> I'd rather not live my life in only an X and Y axis. Enjoy.


 

 Anticlimatic cop out!
   
  I'm assuming you meant something along the lines of yield or defer, instead of digress ; ).
   
  Your writeup was interesting to read, sure, but how will it convince me to buy one? If I'm reading up your writeup, there's almost no factual information that I can base my information on other than how great it is, to you.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





frederiks|tpu said:


> Alright then why do we never see those graphs? Rise time is presumably closely related to transient response so those would be way more interesting to see than how linear the frequency response is.
> THD, cross talk, and FR I just fail to see why these should be able to justify why A is better than B and so on.
> 
> I have the HM-801 and I am willing to do the tests if there a valid setup can be obtained without the need for huge investments.
> ...


 

 How dare you dethrone the mighty D2! Haha. Well, the D2 isn't known for great bass performance anyway, so the HiFiman, I am sure, does the low notes better. How is hiss on the HiFiman using your sensitive customs? I hear it pretty well from the D2 and from my Fuze, a lot from my Sony's and from the AMP3. I'd like to hear about that. I used a lot of MD units from the end of the 1990's so size isn't an issue really. I'll have to admit that all this still piques my interest.


----------



## JaZZ

cer said:


> If something sounds better to you, there might be all sorts of reasons. Different levels for example. As I said earlier, Hifiman has a powerful amplifier which is uncommon to portable gear. I bet I could easily use my DT880s with Hifiman. These phones are useless with a Clip and the majority of portables. But when we compare the Clip and Hifiman as a line source, the Clip has measurable advantage. The difference is hearable, as proven in this thread. But preference is still totally subjective. Subdued high frequency content can easily contribute to a less fatiguing listening experience, if that is your preference. More high frequency content could subjectively be perceived as "harshness" and so on. But thats all individual. Measurements show that the Clip is more transparent as a line source. Whether it sounds better than something else - subjective preference, different phones, different levels - all of these contribute a lot more than differences in measurements.


 
   
  I think level matching is overrated. Between the internal DAC of my Symphony and the external UDP-1 via line in there's a (~1.3 dB) difference in favor of the latter. So when switching between the two I have to match the level. But if I chose one step (on the stepped attenuator) it's slightly undercompensated, if I chose two steps it's slightly overcompensated. However, in both cases the sonic difference and preference stays the same. You may have noticed that in cases as the one at hand the perceivedly «better» device has the upper hand all the time – so you would have to conclude it has been set louder than the competition in any case – which is a bit unrealistic and would require a bit too much naivety from the user.
  
   


> ...But when we compare the Clip and Hifiman as a line source, the Clip has measurable advantage. The difference is hearable, as proven in this thread. But preference is still totally subjective. Subdued high frequency content can easily contribute to a less fatiguing listening experience, if that is your preference. More high frequency content could subjectively be perceived as "harshness" and so on. But thats all individual. But when we compare the Clip and Hifiman as a line source, the Clip has measurable advantage. The difference is hearable, as proven in this thread.


   
  Just a reminder: I could identify the four samples. And I noticed the HM-801's treble roll-off (which the other samples didn't show). I prefer a linear treble response; nevertheless I found the HM-801 to be closest to the original Flac – not the Clip+.
   
   


> ...But preference is still totally subjective. Subdued high frequency content can easily contribute to a less fatiguing listening experience, if that is your preference. More high frequency content could subjectively be perceived as "harshness" and so on. But thats all individual. Measurements show that the Clip is more transparent as a line source. Whether it sounds better than something else - subjective preference, different phones, different levels - all of these contribute a lot more than differences in measurements.


   
  I agree on the latter. But you mix up transparency with a linear frequency response. In fact it was its transparency which made me prefer the HM-801 sample to the other two players in the test.
   
  After ~50 hours of burn-in I like the sound of my Clip+ (even) better than that of my iAudio 7. It has lost its initial hardness, and although it's still harder than the iAudio 7, it's rather the latter's fault, because it's too smooth and sleek in comparison and in terms of my sonic preference – which makes it sound less engaging and musical. On the other hand it sounds more refined, but that's just a superficial effect in my book. The Clip+ plays more to the point, as I hear it. Now these characteristics aren't reflected in the measurements. Granted, the iAudio 7 has a very slight treble roll-off and a more severe bass drop-off at low impedances such as the 27 Ω [size=x-small]of [/size]my reference earphone, the ER-4P (whereas the Clip+ is more extended to both directions). Luckily its semi-parametric equalizer allows for a wide variety of compensations which should perfectly account for both issues. But the characteristic smoothness and pronounced refinement never disappears. It doesn't sound bad at all, quite the opposite, but I perceive it as mannerism, as opposed to unvarnished realism which the Clip+ rather tends to.
   
  This just to point out again: measuring data don't tell the whole story, in many cases they tell very little.
.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





midoo1990 said:


> ok i have to ask immitbiker,what is the purpose of hifiman?isnt it designed to be the best portable solution with unmatched sound quality?


 
  Even though I am not a scientist, just a person who has been in the audio business since 1977, and this question was posed directly to me, I will "un-digress' and attempt to answer. 
  I have many needs when it comes to the world of portability, and the HiFiMAN fits *one* of my needs nicely, and that is the one reason that I use it.
  I live in a Garden Apartment Co-op, 15 miles away from a huge city, with a 1000 acre park directly across from my house.
  When I sit in my chair, outside my front door, and I want to have a higher-end listening session without the use of electricity, the HM-801 and some well recorded 24/96 files, fulfill my needs quite nicely. 
  If I want to walk across the street and watch an amateur softball or soccer game, with the use of mu UE-10's or JH-13's, I can sit on a bench or a chair, close out the audible world, while being visually stimulated, and hear music that to me, sounds better than any other portable setup I've ever heard or have ever owned (including iMod>portable amp of choice, or even and H-120 feed out optically to a HR MicroDac>portable amp of choice). The HiFiMan can fit in my jacket pocket or easily be carried in one hand.
  
  When I take my 2-3 business plane trips/week, and stay in hotels, then my 5G Nano w/ alac files velcro'd to a Shadow, meets a different need, perfectly. 
  I am a man of may needs, and I search the far ends of the earth to fulfill them (it's called a hobby) and all of this is done with any products without the name "Fluke" on it.
  I came into this thread (B4 it was moved to the Science Forum BTW) and read that a Clip measures better than a 801, and posted my intent, which was to buy a Clip+,
  listen to both with the same file on it, and post my results. I said what I was going to do, and stuck by what I said, and if I remember correctly, there were a couple of replies
  stating that they would be interested in hearing what I found. No one said that I would have to go to MIT and ask to borrow any measuring equipment. I went with what I've trusted
  for 50 years, and those are my ears.
   
  Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *cegras* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Anticlimatic cop out!
> 
> I'm assuming you meant something along the lines of yield or defer, instead of digress ; ).
> ...


 
  I think that if you are depending on me for your climaxes, you're looking in the wrong direction.
  My information was indeed factual, on the basis of what I heard. I am not trying to force my opinion on anyone else, just merely state what I hear, and how I feel about it.
  If you do want to base your information gathering on things other than "how great it is to me", then, by all means, seek other avenues. 
  I posted what I promised that I would post, and that was a side by side comparison of the 2 units.
   
  A gynecologist sees women's "private parts" all day. When he goes homes to his wife, that part of her body isn't as exciting to him as a guy who chases after beautiful
  women, merely to find one who will please him without using stirrups and a specula to perform a pelvic exam.
   
  In the end, you can use all of the measurement devices that you want, but in the end, it all comes down to what you hear and what you like! All the time that you are measuring
  (unless it is for a living), is time wasted that could be used for listening.
   
  Now I digress, _yield and defer!_


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> Even though I am not a scientist, just a person who has been in the audio business since 1977, and this question was posed directly to me, I will "un-digress' and attempt to answer.
> I have many needs when it comes to the world of portability, and the HiFiMAN fits *one* of my needs nicely, and that is the one reason that I use it.
> I live in a Garden Apartment Co-op, 15 miles away from a huge city, with a 1000 acre park directly across from my house.
> When I sit in my chair, outside my front door, and I want to have a higher-end listening session without the use of electricity, the HM-801 and some well recorded 24/96 files, fulfill my needs quite nicely.
> ...


 

 Nicely said...


----------



## udauda

From here
   
  Even if you've had a long experience with audio, it doesn't give you much of credibility as a reliable & critical listener. Without a proper DBT, it is well to consider most of 'claims' by unreliable listeners are pretty much meaningless.
   
  Also, you guys think preference solely lies in the domain of subjectivity, however it ain't so.


----------



## CSIR

It blows my mind that people would complain when someone takes time to write a thoughtful comparative review on products such as immtbiker did.  I realize this is in the "science" section but maybe you take this whole thing a little too seriously.  Actually, most of the people on here need to relax on both sides.


----------



## JaZZ

udauda said:


> ...Also, you guys think preference solely lies in the domain of subjectivity, however it ain't so.


 

 As your link shows, most listeners prefer a relatively neutral sound, the more so when it comes to the reproduction of acoustic instruments. I don't see a contradiction to the above subjective comments and ratings, so I don't know what your concern is.
.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


csir said:


> It blows my mind that people would complain when someone takes time to write a thoughtful comparative review on products such as immtbiker did.


 

 How are we to judge how accurate the comparison is ? Does the poster have godlike powers ? This is not a dig at immtbiker I don't particularly trust my own reviews either ...however if I or 20 other people can or cannot tell a difference in a DBT over 20 trials that is a much more useful data point


----------



## CSIR

I completely agree with you as reviewing involves memories and memories involve brain function and brain function involves cascading cellular events and those events create neural circuitry that changes with time.  Similar to why it is more useful to have a rapists semen found in a victim then the victim pick them out of the lineup.  Simply put are brains aren't that reliable for memories.  
   
  Having said all this I still am thankful for individuals perceptions of various equipment and think that if they put time in to describe what they remember (or at least think they remember) we should be appreciative. 
   
  I actually read some of udauda blog and think it is fantastic.
   
   
  Another thought that just came to my head though was if you were comparing 2 hockey players and hockey player 1 is faster, has a harder shot, etc that doesn't make him a better hockey player or mean he'll work better on your team (synergy).  My example would be that I think Steve Stamkos should have been put on Team Canada's Olympic team instead of Patrice Bergeron.  But there was about 8 "experts" picking the team.  Sure I think it is great to take a look at each players stats at the end of the year and go Stamkos had way better stats and has way better attributes he should have been chosen but this doesn't mean I wouldn't want to hear Steve Yzerman explain why he chose Bergeron.
   
  Make sense?


----------



## udauda

@JaZZ: Oops, it was a wrong link. fixed now. all from this study.


----------



## CSIR

Nice post udauda.  Wish they had a bigger spread of speakers in terms of cost or some 2ways in there.  Very pertinent to this thread about the preference for speakers that have a flat frequency response.  Now if someone did this for the Sansa Clip Plus, S:flo2 and Hifiman 801 then we would all know what to buy.


----------



## hannyjuca

[size=small]Sansa Clip FTW.[/size]
  [size=small]This [/size][size=small]_pretty much sums it all up_[/size][size=small] for me.[/size]


----------



## High_Q

No way.  Sony all the way.  Size and sound quality, it can't be beat.  Sufficient for IEMs.  Estimating 1/6 of the size of HiFiMan battery?


----------



## momomo6789

Quote: 





hannyjuca said:


> [size=small]Sansa Fuze FTW.[/size]
> [size=small]This [/size][size=small]_pretty much sums it all up_[/size][size=small] for me.[/size]


 

 Fuze > clip


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





udauda said:


> Even if you've had a long experience with audio, it doesn't give you much of credibility as a reliable & critical listener. Without a proper DBT, it is well to consider most of 'claims' by unreliable listeners are pretty much meaningless.


 
  I never claimed that I am a reliable listener. I only offer my opinion. As with all opinions, take it FWIW. 
  However, as far as being a critical listener, I do feel that I am a critical listener, to the best of *my* particular ability.
  I never try to force my opinions on anyone. Without opinions, there would be no Head-Fi, good or bad.


----------



## shigzeo

^^ how can an opinion be good or bad?


----------



## cer

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *JaZZ* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> Just a reminder: I could identify the four samples. And I noticed the HM-801's treble roll-off (which the other samples didn't show). I prefer a linear treble response; nevertheless I found the HM-801 to be closest to the original Flac – not the Clip+.
> But you mix up transparency with a linear frequency response. In fact it was its transparency which made me prefer the HM-801 sample to the other two players in the test..


 

 Well, when you noticed the treble roll-off, you identified the Hifiman and that was exactly the moment when your test got subjective and prone to placebo and bias. If you had not seen the FR graph before the test, your transparency assessment could have easily been different.
   
  IMHO:
  1) Sighted listening tests and subjective impressions are mostly meaningless, unless the differences are massive. For example big speakers vs small speakers, crappy headphones against good headphones, clipping vs non-clipping and so on.
  2) When you do identify something in DBT, the differences are easily measurable with simple tools and simple concepts, mostly it's rather big variations in FR (as is the case with the Hifiman).
  3) Anecdotes based on sighted tests and subjective immeasurable "properties" tend to get extremely boring after the first two observations.


----------



## JaZZ

cer said:


> Well, when you noticed the treble roll-off, you identified the Hifiman and that was exactly the moment when your test got subjective and prone to placebo and bias. If you had not seen the FR graph before the test, your transparency assessment could have easily been different.


 
   
  That can't be absolutely excluded. On the other hand, I  don't own the HiFiMan, have no interest in it and don't exactly like the treble roll-off. So a bias is unlikely.
   
   


> IMHO:  1) Sighted listening tests and subjective impressions are mostly meaningless, unless the differences are massive. For example big speakers vs small speakers, crappy headphones against good headphones, clipping vs non-clipping and so on.
> 2) When you do identify something in DBT, the differences are easily measurable with simple tools and simple concepts, mostly it's rather big variations in FR (as is the case with the Hifiman).
> 3) Anecdotes based on sighted tests and subjective immeasurable "properties" tend to get extremely boring after the first two observations.


 
 «Extremely boring»: That's of course the expression of an extremely unbiased attitude, right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 But it seems that you haven't really opened up your mind enough to grasp what I was stating.
.


----------



## cer

Quote: 





jazz said:


> «Extremely boring»: That's of course the expression of an extremely unbiased attitude, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> Quote:
> 
> How are we to judge how accurate the comparison is ? Does the poster have godlike powers ? This is not a dig at immtbiker I don't particularly trust my own reviews either ...however if I or 20 other people can or cannot tell a difference in a DBT over 20 trials that is a much more useful data point


 
   
   
  It's called an opinion, it's understood when someone posts about there opinion that it is just that an opinion. We are not robots and no amount of graphs in the world can tell us exactly how something actually sounds to a human being so sometimes it is at least somewhat useful to get the opinion of another person about audio equipment we may be interested in.

  
  And when it comes to ABX tests I already know the results, the results either are NULL or on the off hand chance that they produce a positive result, Pro ABX people will dissect the conditions of the test to the point that the conversation spirals out of control and goes completely off topic. Very pointless.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> ^^ how can an opinion be good or bad?


 
  Not sure if this is a positive or negative response to my post, but either way, I agree. Like I said, without opinions
  forums would be non-existent. 
   
  I feel that besides some obvious animosity posted in some posts here, this is a very good conversation. I feel that the 
  entire thread can be broken down into two entirely different directions. One direction that is based on pure facts (graphs, readings,
  and measurements) and the second direction is what we each hear, which will always vary greatly. But, as I've said before,
  if every man on earth, thought the same woman was beautiful, then there would be a whole lot of lonely people in the world.
  Diversity is why there are so many choices, and although a lot of us like the same things, there's nothing wrong with varied
  opinions.
  If some members want to keep this thread based on purely scientific measurements, then I can understand, but the problem
  started when a mod moved the thread from "portables" to "Sound Science". 
  This is fine, but when I first posted, it was in portables, and then when I stepped out of it because of the move, specific 
  questions were posed to me specifically, to which I responded. No malice was intended on my part. I was answering as a member
  because one of the Moderator's credos is "Member first, moderator second". I can only respond to listening comparisons with my 
  own criteria because I don't analyze music through graphs, just what makes me happy and what dosen't.


----------



## hannyjuca

This thread just made me feel Head-Fi is not worth looking anymore, when trying to find truthworthy reviews of audio equipment. Based on all I've read on it, to me it looks like the contributors, moderators, headphoneus supremus, and all of the "more experienced listeners" are the ones who tries the hardest to indulce the newcomers to the Audio Voodoo falacy, using all kinds of unmeasurable adjectives to describe clear design flaws as HiFi. It makes me sad, because i've been visiting and "learning" from this forum for years, and now it just looks like a bunch of bald liars playing with everyone's intellect and good sense to me. My pockets appreciate that, but my heart is broken in countless ways.
   
*You should be ashamed of yourself.*


----------



## hannyjuca

momomo6789, don't change my words while quotting me.
 Fuze is useless to me, even though I respect you like them.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> And when it comes to ABX tests I already know the results, the results either are NULL or on the off hand chance that they produce a positive result, Pro ABX people will dissect the conditions of the test to the point that the conversation spirals out of control and goes completely off topic. Very pointless.


 


 Actually not quite true. There are many examples of positive DBTs, I've done several myself. There is good evidence to suggest that DBTs are more sensitive than sighted listening tests (e.g Tom Nouisane : Flying Blind) so that rather than obscuring differences they make them easier to detect. Sean Olive does blind tests on loudspeakers to good effect. It is true that positive results are rarer than negative results but in fact it is the negative results that attract more criticism, see the furore raised by Meyer and Moran's 2007 paper on high res audio vs 16/44.1. That said it is right and proper to be critical *on both sides* no published study should escape robust examination, but the critiques have to be rational. What the broadly scientific-inclined members (I loosely include myself) believe is that a real audible difference as opposed to a psychological artifact is rooted in some rational cause which is to do with physics rather than some unspecified magical property. But to examine causes you must first establish that there is a real effect to be examined.

  
  Quote: 





hannyjuca said:


> This thread just made me feel Head-Fi is not worth looking anymore, when trying to find truthworthy reviews of audio equipment. Based on all i've read on it, to me it looks like the contributors, moderators, headphoneus supremus, and all of the "more experienced listeners" are the ones who tries the hardest to indulce the newcomers to the Audio Voodoo falacy, using all kinds of unmeasurable adjectives to describe clear design flaws as HiFi. It makes me sad, because i've been visiting and "learning" from this forum for years, and now it just looks like a bunch of bald liars playing with everyone's intellect and good sense to me. My pockets appreciate that, but my heart is broken in countless ways.


 

 It isnt quite true that all experienced listeners are unfettered subjectivists. What is true is that just length of service is no measure of listening abilities, taste or critical powers. I've been into HiFi since the early 70s but I would not stake my life on telling a $12K CD player from a $200 DVD player in a DBT of course. I am skeptical about subjective reviews since so often they are materially incorrect i.e A does not have a more extended treble than B they are both flat to 20K. You are quite correct that here and in the audio rags apalling units are lauded highly they forget what hiFi is short for. That said I mostly believe that they are quite sincere about their views.
   
  PS I am both a contributor and a headphoneus supremus


----------



## hannyjuca

Taken from the HiFiMan review, written by jude[size=medium].[/size]
   
   
"He then said something like, "Good, because I want to sell it as a Head-Fi support project, like Grado's HF-1 headphone and Meier Audio's HeadFive and HeadSix headphone amps, *with a portion of the proceeds going to Head-Fi*." And thus was born Head-Direct's HiFiMAN HM-801"
   
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/424091/hifiman-hm-801-portable-player-dac-review-part-one-of-two
   
  Doesn't it tell a lot?


----------



## swanlee

All future reviews according to this thread should look like this?
   

   
   
  DBT Scores 15/20
   
  End review
   
  Yea that's pretty freakin useful isn't it?


----------



## hannyjuca

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> All future reviews according to this thread should look like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
 [size=medium] 
  Swanlee, being sarcastic won't help, we're all adults here.
  This thread has not been based around that frequency response alone, to me it's more about the enormous price difference per poor if any sound improvement HiFiMan brings to the table, comparing to a gapless, ReplayGain capable, energy efficient, memory card expandable, neutral responder, truly portable $40 DAP.​[/size]


----------



## hannyjuca

DP


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> All future reviews according to this thread should look like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
   
  Yeah, subjective sighted opinions are pretty freakin' useful too.
   
  Reviews should have opinions, but I also think that, if possible, they should have measurements as well. Then both camps are happy, and everyone can make up their own mind based on what they think is more helpful. Look at HeadRoom. That's a great setup they have there. Couple paragraphs of sighted listening impressions, several graphs on the side.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> All future reviews according to this thread should look like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Arguably that is more useful than a large majority of reviews.
   
  The aim of a good DAC should be, in essence technical excellence. A roll-off like that is not really the sign of a "technically excellent" dac, as it were, even though it performs better in other measurements.


----------



## udauda

FYI a Japanese headphile named ソノベ *measured* his HM-801 too- and he doesn't seem to be very happy with the result.


----------



## JohnFerrier

Nice case. More pics.
   
   
  .


----------



## WalkGood

Pictures of the internals ...
  
  Quote: 





johnferrier said:


> ... ... Nice case!


 


 I'm so happy you posted that link for all to see the soldering and spew on the pcb board, I think this speaks volumes without having to say much other than my 12 year old son can solder cleaner ... this finally shows the poor quality of solder joints, judge for yourself. Is this a DAP that is worth $800.00 and the size of that power supply reminds me of what I used in the mid to late 80's, there are more pictures as I only posted a few from your link JohnFerrier, http://light-widely.blogspot.com/2009/10/hifiman-hm-801.html  You really need to use the link to see close up the poor quality, huddler just resizes the pictures too small ...


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> I'm so happy you posted that link for all to see the soldering and spew on the pcb board, I think this speaks volumes without having to say much other than my 12 year old son can solder cleaner ... this finally shows the poor quality of solder joints, judge for yourself. Is this a DAP that is worth $800.00 and the size of that power supply reminds me of what I used in the mid to late 80's, there are more pictures as I only posted a few from your link JohnFerrier, http://light-widely.blogspot.com/2009/10/hifiman-hm-801.html  You really need to use the link to see close up the poor quality, huddler just resizes the pictures too small ...


 

 Thanks for the pictures! It's nice looking at the components responsible for such amazing sound quality.


----------



## WalkGood

For an $800.00 DAP, the pcb not to be set up via on a soldering robot is a joke. Any reputable company would use soldering robots, if the manufacturer did it might look something like the Sansa Clip inside. And don’t come back with the argument that it’s hand made, it's just stock electronic parts pieced together by unskilled hands. The yellow is questionable, red is so bad that it should be rejected and the uppermost red circle is the scariest with the huge wad of solder around it that tiny resistor almost touches the memory chip. Seriously, as a commercial product there is no excuse for mediocrity, especially at that price this is totally unacceptable.
   
  Beyond the graphs, if you add up lack of batter life, build quality, UI, sound quality all that matters when coming to a conclusion. Not to mention that wonderful 60 day warranty it’s a clogged artery just waiting to happen 
   
  here's the link so you can see close up: http://i41.tinypic.com/2wcmvz8.jpg


----------



## Sonic 748i

As long as the device is safe to handle, doesn't fall apart in my hands and does what it claims to do and that is output audio never before achieved by portable DAP's than it's worth every penny. The HiFiMAN lives up to all 3 of those rules.


----------



## cegras

WalkGood: The first set of pics you linked showed (what seems to me) excellent soldering. Maybe they cleaned up their practice?


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> As long as the device is safe to handle, doesn't fall apart in my hands and does what it claims to do and that is output audio never before achieved by portable DAP's than it's worth every penny. The HiFiMAN lives up to all 3 of those rules.


 
   
  Judging from your posts you seem to be the most stubborn fanboy or are you fang’s son? I guess what they say is true, “ignorance is bliss isn’t it.”   
   
   
  Quote: 





cegras said:


> WalkGood: The first set of pics you linked showed (what seems to me) excellent soldering. Maybe they cleaned up their practice?


 

 If you use the link to bring up a respectable size you'll see what I mean, if you can live with that quality it's non of my concern but with the limited warranty I'd bet for real postable use there will be problems ...
   
  Edit: BTW they were from the JohnFerrier link, not mine


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





cegras said:


> WalkGood: The first set of pics you linked showed (what seems to me) excellent soldering. Maybe they cleaned up their practice?


 

 Does that excuse selling the above horribly done soldering job when it was old at the same cost, that shows horrible quality control.


----------



## Region2

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> Unlike you, I prefer to judge for myself when I test them, now stop taking the thread off topic if you have nothing valid to post other than boasting, it's meaningless.


 

 x2
   
  I read a lot about the Denon D7000 and a few friends told me that since I love the AKG sound sig, I would probably hate the D7000, but I love them.  I wish the bass wasn't as boomy and I don't find the mids all that recessed, just that the bass comes off as too powerful though not muddy.
   
  Sonic, have you personally tried all the other gear or is it just a coincidence your rig happens to have every FOTM in one portable setup?


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





region2 said:


> x2
> 
> I read a lot about the Denon D7000 and a few friends told me that since I love the AKG sound sig, I would probably hate the D7000, but I love them.  I wish the bass wasn't as boomy and I don't find the mids all that recessed, just that the bass comes off as too powerful though not muddy.
> 
> *Sonic, have you personally tried all the other gear or is it just a coincidence your rig happens to have every FOTM in one portable setup?*


 
  I have tried a lot of other gear and at the time I ended up with the AKG 702 and Grace M902 combo. I've heard universal earphones such Westone 3, Shure SE530, Westone UM3X, UE Triple. Fi, Sennheiser IE8, and Klipsch Custom 3 all through my Grace M902 and preferred the AKG 702 with the Westone 3 as a close second. The day I got my JH13 Pro, straight out of my iPod it absolutely made everything else sound inferior. Now with my ultimate rig, I don't think I can get similar sound quality until I spend ungodly amounts of cash. $10,000+


----------



## K3cT

The soldering is actually pretty good but what are those white blobs? They look like... melted blu-tak?


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





k3ct said:


> The soldering is actually pretty good but what are those white blobs? They look like... melted blu-tak?


 

 I think it's thermal paste.


----------



## WalkGood

The solder is not good, the comments I posted about the yellow and red joints were actually made by a professional in the field and the white blob is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_grease
   
  Quote: 





k3ct said:


> The soldering is actually pretty good but what are those white blobs? They look like... melted blu-tak?


----------



## K3cT

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> I think it's thermal paste.


 

 That's possible although I'm fairly sure that's not the normal way of using it. Besides, the location seems inconsistent from one build to another.


----------



## Sonic 748i

You guys haven't seen poor soldering until you've seen the first batches of Xbox 360's.


----------



## K3cT

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> The solder is not good, the comments I posted about the yellow and red joints were actually made by a professional in the field and the white blob is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_grease


 

 Actually I am looking at it now and I'm having difficulties finding the exact soldering faults at some of the circles. Besides, all these random guessing of which locations are poorly soldered or not is useless since we don't have the schematics.


----------



## WalkGood

You don’t need schematics to tell if a solder joint is good or not, but hey if you like the craftsmanship enjoy …


----------



## WalkGood

Seriously all the justification in the world couldn’t make up for all the failings of this overpriced product. Against what I preach about not reposting pictures in quotes I just have to …

  
  Quote: 





walkgood said:


> Pictures of the internals ...
> 
> I'm so happy you posted that link for all to see the soldering and spew on the pcb board, I think this speaks volumes without having to say much other than my 12 year old son can solder cleaner ... this finally shows the poor quality of solder joints, judge for yourself. Is this a DAP that is worth $800.00 and the size of that power supply reminds me of what I used in the mid to late 80's, there are more pictures as I only posted a few from your link JohnFerrier, http://light-widely.blogspot.com/2009/10/hifiman-hm-801.html  You really need to use the link to see close up the poor quality, huddler just resizes the pictures too small ...


 

  
  Quote: 





walkgood said:


> For an $800.00 DAP, the pcb not to be set up via on a soldering robot is a joke rather than hand soldered by kids in China. Any reputable company would use soldering robots, if the manufacturer did it might look something like the Sansa Clip inside. And don’t come back with the argument that it’s hand made, it's just stock electronic parts pieced together by unskilled hands. The yellow is questionable, red is so bad that it should be rejected and the uppermost red circle is the scariest with the huge wad of solder around it that tiny resistor almost touches the memory chip. Seriously, as a commercial product there is no excuse for mediocrity, especially at that price this is totally unacceptable.
> 
> Beyond the graphs, if you add up lack of batter life, build quality, UI, sound quality all that matters when coming to a conclusion. Not to mention that wonderful 60 day warranty it’s a clogged artery just waiting to happen
> 
> here's the link so you can see close up: http://i41.tinypic.com/2wcmvz8.jpg


----------



## K3cT

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> You don’t need schematics to tell if a solder joint is good or not, but hey if you like the craftsmanship enjoy …


 

 I'm just saying you're exaggerating your claim of bad soldering. Though I agree the white blobs look really icky.


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





k3ct said:


> Actually I am looking at it now and I'm having difficulties finding the exact soldering faults at some of the circles.


 

 Luckily for you the blatantly bad solder is circled in bright colours making it easy to see for those such as yourself without the knowledge of what good solder jobs look like.


----------



## Sonic 748i

As long as data is able to travel through the circuit board and it's safe to handle, it's fine.


----------



## K3cT

Quote: 





rockford said:


> Luckily for you the blatantly bad solder is circled in bright colours making it easy to see for those such as yourself *without the knowledge of what good solder jobs look like*.


 

 Wooo... straight to the baseless generalizations, very amusing. I have a feeling that you yourself do not know what _*bad *_solders look like. 
   
  Anyway I'm done here.  Please carry on with your hate campaign.


----------



## Sonic 748i

LOL "Hate campaign".


----------



## d.g

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> As long as data is able to travel through the circuit board and it's safe to handle, it's fine.


 

 High resistance and dry joints are acceptable then are they?


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





rockford said:


> Luckily for you the blatantly bad solder is circled in bright colours making it easy to see for those such as yourself without the knowledge of what good solder jobs look like.


 

 Maybe the bad solder is why some of the owners feel it's necessary to add an additional amp the the $800 DAP , so that it can sound its best.


----------



## Rockford

Quote: 





k3ct said:


> Wooo... straight to the baseless generalizations, very amusing. I have a feeling that you yourself do not know what _*bad *_solders look like.
> 
> Anyway I'm done here.  Please carry on with your hate campaign.


 
   
  Hey there rainman, you yourself admitted knowing nothing about soldering simply by saying that horrible job didn't look bad. Anyone who has soldering skill or has done any in the past know what that garbage looks like.


----------



## xnor

Even a software guy can see the big blobs and cold soldier points and ...


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





k3ct said:


> I'm just saying you're exaggerating your claim of bad soldering. Though I agree the white blobs look really icky.


 


 Read Wiki here: “Various problems may arise in the soldering process which lead to joints which are non functional either immediately or after a period of use. The most common defect when hand-soldering results from the parts being joined not exceeding the solder's liquidus temperature, resulting in a "cold solder" joint.”
   
  A good joint is nice and shiny and concave shaped, while a cold joint is dull and convex, but the best way to judge a solder joint is to look at the meniscus (the curved upper surface) on both sides of the solder joint. If there is no meniscus, it is a cold solder joint. And per the quote from Wiki it’s only a problem waiting to happen and the repair isn’t easy. To repair a cold solder you have to remove all the solder or reheat it and use new flux to activate the surfaces.
   
  With all that said, keep in mind that soldering is not gluing the joint together; you can not just melt the solder and let it drip over the joint (look closely at the pictures again). The joint has to be hot enough for the solder to form an alloy with the other metal. From these pictures it appears some joints are acceptable while others the solder got hot enough to melt it, but not hot enough to form an alloy, fail! That's why it’s called a "cold solder" joint, I could go on but what’s the use you have already been presented the facts …
  
  Quote: 





d.g said:


> High resistance and dry joints are acceptable then are they?


 

 That's high fidelity *roll eyes* ... No seriously you have a good eye 
  
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> Even a software guy can see the big blobs and cold soldier points and ...


 

 Another good eye in the house, not to mention all this for $800.00 makes you wonder why they cut corners for quality or maximum profits ...


----------



## Sonic 748i

WOW! I just went back to my iPod as a DAC feeding my Protector and it just about made me value this poorly soldered brick even more. The sound quality from the HiFiMAN is on different league! I don't care one bit about the soldering. As long as it won't fail on me because of it and it won't cause damage to me from failure and it outputs hi-fi sound. I'm fine with the device. So far it's doing those things. But, man, does the iPod touch sound like ***.


----------



## Trysaeder

I could teach my 13 year old sister to solder better than that.
   
  For the idiot who said that's good soldering, I can tell from seeing many beginners solder, that to solder that bad, you either have to have ~1 hour's experience, or ~half an hour to solder.
   
  To the thermal paste, I'd imagine whoever built that had about 0.03 seconds left to live and just had to finish it off. It's not that bad, but it's like painting a Ferrari with a fully automatic paintball gun, except the Ferrari can actually live up to its specs.
   
  Anyway, I'm quite put off buying FOTMs by the thick skulled, placebo drunk fanboy (I can't see it but I can see the void in intelligence it has left behind).


----------



## Nankai

The picture from Japanese website last year is a first-first batch unit on Sept 2009. The first batch 15 pcs are all handbuilt. We have replaced most of those 15pcs at the 2nd batch. We will post some current HM-801 inside pictures next week.


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> WOW! I just went back to my iPod as a DAC feeding my Protector and it just about made me value this poorly soldered brick even more. ...


 

  
  What can one say other than you must have Van Gogh's ear for music.
   
  Quote: 





nankai said:


> The picture from Japanese website last year is a first-first batch unit on Sept 2009. The first batch 15 pcs are all handbuilded. We have replaced most of those 15pcs at the 2nd batch. We will post some current HM-801 inside pictures next week.


 
   
  Are you saying that the later batches are made with a soldering robot or still by hand and what of the people who received the first batch are they getting replacements too or is that just the pictures being replaced.


----------



## immtbiker

@Walkgood,
  Please refrain from insinuations and accusations.
   
  Guys, you are one step away from having this thread locked.


----------



## Region2

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> What can one say other than you must have Van Gogh's ear for music.


 

 LMAO!


----------



## Shike

Quote:


immtbiker said:


> @Walkgood,
> Please refrain from insinuations and accusations.
> 
> Guys, you are one step away from having this thread locked.


 
 I believe Walkgood has made a valid point here though.  Those solder joints are not properly done and show VERY poor quality control.  That's not an opinion - that's a fact.
   
  It should be a valid concern to any Hifiman owner or anyone considering purchasing one.  Would you disagree?


----------



## Nankai

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> Are you saying that the later batches are made with a soldering robot or still by hand and what of the people who received the first batch are they getting replacements too or is that just the pictures being replaced.


 

 The very beginning of first batch is 15pcs, all made by hand. We shipped 15pcs at the beginning to let people try its sound quality. We contacted most of them successfully and replaced more than 10 pcs in the 2nd batch. Later batches are all made by soldering machine. I will post pictures later.


----------



## leberserkfury

looking forward to the updated pics. I'm actually on the fence of buying one. some professional soldering job might just push me over (hopefully there won't be a HM-802 around the corner). 
   
  i was a bit shocked to see the non-professional soldering job. i assumed that a piece of hardware of ~$800 value should have very high quality controls in place.


----------



## Currawong

If, as Nankai has said, they are not soldered by hand and those pictures were of a prototype (which is confirmed by both the English and Japanese on the web-site) then this whole effort by Walkgood to trash the 801 is a non-issue.  
   
  What is more disturbing is that someone sees fit to try and destroy the reputation of a product and company purely because their ego was hurt in a thread.


----------



## JohnFerrier

My feeling is that over-inflated egos are a larger problem. Regardless of ego, great products will stand the test of time.
   
  The printed circuit board layout looks decent (with a nice ground pour).


----------



## JxK

Would anyone who owns an 801 be willing to open it up and take pictures? That would at least put this current question to rest.


----------



## boozcool

I feel like its necessary to step in with a fresh, first hand experience with the HM-801
  Comparing it to my Pico feeding a Corda Headfive, the Hifiman is superior to the Pico. In comparison, the Pico lacks in instrument separation, soundstage, and 3-d imaging. I have no vested interest in this player one way or another, but to think this sounds like an iPod, Clip, Sony, or any other mainstream mp3 player is ridiculous


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by boozcool* /img/forum/go_quote.gif*
> 
> I feel like its necessary to step in with a fresh, first hand experience with the HM-801
> Comparing it to my Pico feeding a Corda Headfive, the Hifiman is superior to the Pico. In comparison, the Pico lacks in instrument separation, soundstage, and 3-d imaging. I have no vested interest in this player one way or another, *but to think this sounds like an iPod, Clip, Sony, or any other mainstream mp3 player is ridiculous*


 

 Same thing I'm saying, lol.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





boozcool said:


> I feel like its necessary to step in with a fresh, first hand experience with the HM-801
> Comparing it to my Pico feeding a Corda Headfive, the Hifiman is superior to the Pico. In comparison, the Pico lacks in instrument separation, soundstage, and 3-d imaging. I have no vested interest in this player one way or another, but to think this sounds like an iPod, Clip, Sony, or any other mainstream mp3 player is ridiculous


 
   

  This isn't an impression thread though.  If you want to note impressions you can go to a thread about player impressions. We rather see results of a DBT to tell whether the measurements are actually audible.
   
  It then raises other large questions in regards to accuracy of the player among other things if it is found audible.  If it isn't found audible then one must question whether the dollar amount is worth it.
   
  For these reasons the HM-801 is caught in a catch 22.  The only way to justify it at that point is to say it's an inaccurate but subjectively pleasing device worth $800.  Of course, if it can't be identified in a DBT then that's a larger issue as the question of what one is paying for comes to the forefront.
   
  Quote: 





currawong said:


> If, as Nankai has said, they are not soldered by hand and those pictures were of a prototype (which is confirmed by both the English and Japanese on the web-site) then this whole effort by Walkgood to trash the 801 is a non-issue.
> 
> What is more disturbing is that someone sees fit to try and destroy the reputation of a product and company purely because their ego was hurt in a thread.


 

 Or could it be Walkgood was actually concerned with potential quality problems?


----------



## boozcool

IMO, sound quality is the ultimate deciding factor when discussing audio equipment. If somebody finds a stock ipod and stock earbuds as good as the most expensive audio rig, then fair enough, and I'm SURE there are many many people who would not be able to tell the difference if they A/B'd. But I would take the opinion of someone who has experienced the sound quality of a piece of equipment over someone who has not
  And clearly, this thread has deviated from the RMAA results long ago


----------



## JxK

Quote: 





boozcool said:


> It amazing how Walkgood, dfkt's number-one fanboy, is basing all of his arguments on graphs and photos of prototypes, yet completely neglects actually sitting down and listening to it


 

 Meaning no offense, but you _do_ realize I hope that this is the sound _science_ forum. Measurements are sort of expected here. They certainly don't tell you everything, but they do tell alot. And in this case, whatever you may believe about the sound quality of the device, the measurements show it to be very much sub-par. Those results are solid, undisputable evidence. The rolled off treble is there. It is proven to be there, and (based on dfkt's downloadable clips) is audible.
   
  Audio will always have a subjective component, I'll agree to that in a heartbeat. Happily in fact. I want there to be subjective opinions. But _objective_ measurements have their place. And if a device fails to meet a certain baseline, which the hifiman did not meet, than it is fair to call it flawed.


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





trysaeder said:


> It amazing how sonic847u, hm-801's number-one fanboy, is basing all of his arguments on not much at all, yet completely neglects actually looking at some solid evidence.


 

 Problem is we are talking about an audio device,one that is meant to be listened to, the evidence is actually listening to the dang thing instead of looking at graphs.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





boozcool said:


> IMO, sound quality is the ultimate deciding factor when discussing audio equipment. If somebody finds a stock ipod and stock earbuds as good as the most expensive audio rig, then fair enough, and I'm SURE there are many many people who would not be able to tell the difference if they A/B'd. But I would take the opinion of someone who has experienced the sound quality of a piece of equipment over someone who has not
> And clearly, this thread has deviated from the RMAA results long ago


 
   
  Once again - that's not what this thread is about.  As for the A/B - transducers are much more easily distinguishable.
   
  Once again, let's argue your opinion is right - that the hifiman sounds different (better isn't a really good argument) - then we'd argue that it's also grossly inaccurate.  Many argue that the source shouldn't change the signal, and it creates the argument of how we identify hifi.  Should fidelity be considered the most accurate reproduction of material, or just what one finds pleasing?
   
  If it's the former, than the hifiman can't be considered hifi.  If it's the latter any equipment that anyone enjoys can be considered hifi regardless of how they perform (ibuds).


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> Problem is we are talking about an audio device,one that is meant to be listened to, the evidence is actually listening to the dang thing instead of looking at graphs.


 

 This is one funny thread. Good Point.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





shike said:


> Once again - that's not what this thread is about.  As for the A/B - transducers are much more easily distinguishable.
> 
> Once again, let's argue your opinion is right - that the hifiman sounds different (better isn't a really good argument) - then we'd argue that it's also grossly inaccurate.  Many argue that the source shouldn't change the signal, and it creates the argument of how we identify hifi.  Should fidelity be considered the most accurate reproduction of material, or just what one finds pleasing?
> 
> If it's the former, than the hifiman can't be considered hifi.  If it's the latter any equipment that anyone enjoys can be considered hifi regardless of how they perform (ibuds).


 
  So this means that since all headphones change the signal, none are considered Hi-Fi? Hey JH13 Pro, HD800, Sony R10, Stax 02, Beyerdynamic T1, Grado PS1000, etc... you all are not HiFi headphones because your frequency response isn't ruler flat.


----------



## boozcool

Graphs provide quantification, but they can not substitute the qualitative results our brains provide
  I am completely in favor of measurements, but IMO they do not take precedence over first hand experience. Assuming we all listened to white noise instead of music, perhaps the graph would hold more weight but we are not computers


----------



## Shike

Quote:


sonic 748i said:


> So this means that since all headphones change the signal, none are considered Hi-Fi? Hey JH13 Pro, HD800, Sony R10, Stax 02, Beyerdynamic T1, Grado PS1000, etc... you all are not HiFi headphones because your frequency response isn't ruler flat.


 
 Cool, so the ibuds should be able to be considered HiFi then right? [/sarcasm]
   
  I'd argue whichever is closest to flat, with a decent waterfall plot, and low distortion would be the closest to the definition of HiFi.
   
  Out of those the HD800 or T1 would probably be best, but there's arguably better for the purpose of reproduction yet.
   
  Thanks for the assumption though.  If you notice my post just before this one I refer to specifically whether a source should impact the signal - not transducers which is a different animal.


----------



## JxK

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> Problem is we are talking about an audio device,one that is meant to be listened to, the evidence is actually listening to the dang thing instead of looking at graphs.


 

 Perhaps a simple analogy will help elucidate the concept you're having trouble grasping: subjective vs objective
   
  Let's say I'm test driving a nice new car. It has a nice V8 - I don't know how many horsepower, but it's very loud. When I'm driving it gets really loud when I accelerate. I feel that it's a fast car. I'm sure of it. I then drive a tiny little economobile. It has a puny 4 cylinder engine. It's also dead silent (we're pretending here). I feel it isn't very fast b/c it's so quiet, and it doesn't shake my bones with its basso rumble. I'm totally unaware of the turbocharger hidden underneath the hood.
   
  What should I believe more? My personal impressions, or the raw data concerning top speed and 0-60mph acceleration? Subjective vs objective. If I'm talking about comfort and amenities, that's subjective. If I'm talking about speed and acceleration, that's objective.
   
  The hifiman's poor RMAA tests are objective. They are facts. What you hear is subjective. It is an opinion. Does that make sense?


----------



## boozcool

Sure, if acceleration and top speed are your ONLY considerations. But in relation to sound quality, comfort and drive-ibility also are really what matters. Its the experience of the ride, not purely how fast you can go. Hence quantitative vs. qualitative


----------



## JxK

Quote: 





boozcool said:


> Sure, if acceleration and top speed are your ONLY considerations. But in relation to sound quality, comfort and drive-ibility also are really what matters. Its the experience of the ride, not purely how fast you can go. Hence quantitative vs. qualitative


 

 No, not quantitative vs. qualitative, but quantitative *and *qualitative. You take them together.
   
  Quantitatively the 801 fails. Some posters like nick charles were polite and quite politic about this...but basically, from an electrical engineering perspective it fails.
   
  Qualitatively, it's huge. It's unwieldy. And the UI is...less than adequate. Considerably worse than, say, the stock firmware of our venerable sansa clip.
   
  So I would hazard to say that the 801 fails on both fronts. Or if not fails, than at least performs far worse than it should. Far worse than an $800 device should.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


boozcool said:


> Sure, if acceleration and top speed are your ONLY considerations. But in relation to sound quality, comfort and drive-ibility also are really what matters. Its the experience of the ride, not purely how fast you can go. Hence quantitative vs. qualitative


 
 No, that's subjective vs. objective again.  You can argue that the HiFiman drives better to you, but to someone else the clip can drive better.  It's a subjective opinion.
   
  The graphs are objective - they don't lie.


----------



## boozcool

Shike and JxK, congratulations on your ability to read a graph. Now, have you actually listened to the HM-801?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


boozcool said:


> Shike and JxK, congratulations on your ability to read a graph. Now, have you actually listened to the HM-801?


   
  Congrats on your inability to read a thread title or sub-forum.
   
  Have you DBT the HM-801?  If not you're completely fine posting you're SUBJECTIVE THOUGHTS in a thread made for them.


----------



## JxK

Quote: 





boozcool said:


> Shike and JxK, congratulations on your ability to read a graph. Now, have you actually listened to the HM-801?


 

 Have you taken in anything that has been posted?
  People are impressionable. May I direct you to look up suggestion and its close friend placebo?
   
  There are lots of DBTs - not audio - where so called experts were taken in by the power of suggestion. One involved letting people try two glasses of the same wine, but they were told that one was many times more expensive. To a man they preferred the more "expensive" one. Another involved letting water connoisseurs try different brands of bottled water - except each "brand" contained the same water from a garden hose outside. And again, each "expert" talked about the different flavors each bottle had.
   
  Do you get the idea? Opinions mean very little sometimes. And it is easy to trick people. If someone wants their 801 to sound better, if they expect it to sound better, they by Cthulhu it will sound better, facts be damned.
   
  Does that make sense?


----------



## boozcool

So I take that as a no?
  And Shike, this is a discussion about RMAA results providing quantitative data, and how it relates to actual SQ. Thus, they are related and relevant to this thread
  Fortunately, everyone has the ability to read a graph and express their opinions about the data. But not everyone has listened to the equipment to provide their opinions on how they interpret the resulting sound. Ergo, readers of this thread should be wary of those who issue one sided opinions


----------



## JxK

^No I haven't.
   
  But that's my point. Even if I did, _it wouldn't matter, because people are impressionable._ Even if I said it was the best player ever created, the best I've ever heard, _it would not matter one bit. _Read my last post.
   
  It is easy to "convince" someone of a product's supposed superiority, even when none is there. *Facts* thankfully, can't be convinced away. And that's what the RMAA results are: facts. That's why they carry more weight than opinion.
   
_Facts, objective facts, carry more weight than opinion_ because facts can be proven, and they can be reproduced.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


boozcool said:


> So I take that as a no?
> And Shike, this is a discussion about RMAA results providing quantitative data, and how it relates to actual SQ. Thus, they are related and relevant to this thread


 

 The point is cited listening impressions are meaningless to this thread.  Your straw man argument has ZERO relevancy.
   
  If you're arguing it's relevant to this thread, then first you must do a level matched DBT.  Beyond that, if you find it does make a difference all it comes down to is that you subjectively enjoy an inaccurate player.
   
  I've made this point to you what . . . three times now?  It's about time you actually leave and stop spamming or actually refute this.  Some of us are actually waiting for valid DBTs beyond the sound clips used.


----------



## boozcool

Hahahaha, you are silly Shika. Nice try to discredit my posts even though they are more related than the quality of the soldering points from previous posts
  You still haven't answered my question by the way


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





boozcool said:


> Hahahaha
> You still haven't answered my question, Shike


 

 You mean your straw man?
   
  Go away troll, your spam isn't welcome here.


----------



## boozcool

Wow, and now calling people names
  And I thought I've seen everything
  I will not stoop down to your level, thank you for imparting your superior prowess upon us mere mortals


----------



## JxK

^Shike, perhaps there is a limit to pressing a point? I'm quickly coming to the idea that if someone wants to fall for a scam, regardless of the evidence shoved into his face,  then I may as well sit back and chuckle. Now, I'll still make a few arguments at the start of course. No reason for new members or people who don't have a physics or electrical engineering background to be taken unawares. But at some point, you must accept that _infinitus est numerus stultorum - _infinite are the number of fools. Sad but true.
   
  And doesn't the occasional latin proverb just add that wonderful bit of extra gravitas? Of course it does. Never think otherwise.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





boozcool said:


> Wow, and now calling people names
> And I thought I've seen everything
> I will not stoop down to your level, thank you for imparting your superior prowess upon us mere mortals


 

 Oh, nice retroactive edit!
   
  You just accused me a troll just a moment ago.  Thought better and edited your post eh?
   
  Doesn't matter though.  This is the last time I ask.  TAKE YOUR SPAM ELSEWHERE.
   
  @JxK
   
  I agree with you 100%, unfortunately.


----------



## boozcool

You guys is so dern smart
  I think that's the third time you mentioned you are an electrical engineer, but somehow I'm not impressed. Being in the science field, I've come across more than a few belligerent and self righteous engineers
  And Shike, you still haven't answered my question. But I think its safe to assume that you have not


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





boozcool said:


> You guys is so dern smart
> I think that's the third time you mentioned you are an electrical engineer, but somehow I'm not impressed. Being in the science field, I've come across more than a few belligerent and self righteous engineers
> And Shike, you still haven't answered my question. But I think its safe to assume that you have not


 

 I'll bite your strawman, but expect an answer to MY question.  No, I haven't heard it.  Do you understand why that's not important to this thread - a thread about measurements and audibility of said measurements?


----------



## JxK

And somehow, in all that self-righteous bluster, you conveniently ignore the suggestion argument. And the unarguably negative test scores. And the horrible UI. And the ridiculous size.
   
  Perhaps, instead of spouting empty words, you should consider addressing one (and preferably all) of the above points? I mean come on, us science-y types got them inflated egos just waitin' for ya to burst. I dare ya.
   
  But remember: we like brevity, us physics lovers. So stay on track and focus on the arguments, not blather.


----------



## High_Q

Quote:


boozcool said:


> You guys is so dern smart
> I think that's the third time you mentioned you are an electrical engineer, but somehow I'm not impressed. *Being in the science field, I've come across more than a few belligerent and self righteous engineers*
> And Shike, you still haven't answered my question. But I think its safe to assume that you have not


 
  Just out of curiosity, what science field are you in?


----------



## shigzeo

Round and round in circles we go: those who believe in the HM801 on one side, those who don't, on the other. Honestly, this thread is now boring. No one will prove anything.
   
  Obviously, the HM801 has a certain slant programmed in. Whether it is good or bad doesn't matter - those who like it, or like the idea of it, will like it. Those who don't, won't.
   
  As for Hifi - hifi is so much a subjective sport anyway, it gets boring. The source in a professional capacity MUST be flat, must be as close to the nature as possible. HiFi and audiophiles on the other hand hardly ever care about fidelity of the signal - they care about 'pleasing' and that is okay. Pleasing doesn't mean SQ and SQ doesn't mean anything. If you like it and the hardware is worth it to you, then great. If not, then great.
   
  Bringing headphones into this is silly. Headphones aren't like source/amp components. They should have their own flavour at any cost. Phones for those who love succinct separation are great for those who like that sound, the same goes for those who love bass; or, those who love flat flat flat will like still different phones.
   
  Sources only come in two flavours: professional and audiophile, the latter catering to any price, to any mindset, and to any level of quality. The problem is that audiophile also rings in subjective marketing tactics. I've witnessed it time and time again. A thing may sound good, it may sound bad, but in the end, neither matters. What the item is catered at most will in the end matter. Many amps have been put into high end systems and been known to sound great, possibly 'better' than others, possibly 'worse'. But after the person knows what is playing, their opinions will change.
   
  If they prefer higher priced stuff, they will find fault with the cheaper stuff. The opposite is true for the cheap stuff. I also think a lot of people don't know what they are listening for, or even what they like. It is a game. Sometimes it is won by honesty, sometimes by marketing, and sometimes, it is won by volume. 
   
  I probably won't bother too much with this thread anymore. DFKT started something that was a mere comment and this thread for some reason has gone around in circles and is now pointless - completely.


----------



## jude

Since this is _Sound Science, _I'm not going to say any more in here about what I think (subjectively) about how the HM-801 sounds than this:  I like it.  A lot.  (I do own other digital audio players, including a variety of iPods, and iPhone, a Sansa Clip, and others.)
   
  The main point of my post in this thread is to discuss frequency response, as represented in the graphs, and which (for many) seems to be the primary determinant (within the context of this thread) of performance.  Here's one that's been used in here (below):
   
​   
  Here's are some frequency response plots of the Ayre QB-9 (a USB DAC that I've heard and used, and that has been pretty universally praised, at least from what I've read), taken from an Ayre white paper:
   
   
  Using the QB-9's "Measure" setting, intended (per Ayre) for better accuracy in the frequency domain (below):
   
​   
   
  Using the QB-9's "Listen" setting (which is the setting it was on when Ayre handed it to me), and which is intended by Ayre to produce more accuracy in the time domain (below):
   
​   
  To put numbers to it, it's -6 dB at 22.025 kHz (exact numbers provided by Ayre).  Eyeballing it at 20 kHz suggests to me that it's about -4 dB at 20 kHz.
   
  This is the Ayre QB-9's frequency response, as measured by John Atkinson in _Stereophile _(below):
   
​   
  A quick glance at the Ayre-provided graphs (when compared to _Stereophile's_) might suggest that Ayre's FR representation is flatter.  Independent of Y-axis scale, it certainly does look flatter; but take into account the actual Y-axis scale, and you see that they're actually pretty close.
   
  My point?  Take into account the Y-axis scale.  In my opinion, -4 dB at 20 kHz does not constitute a major roll-off, but it can be made to look like a giant drop.  And the roll-off does _look_ steep on that graph, and does start off at a lower frequency than the Ayre QB-9, but (and this is an opinion) it does not constitute a major roll-off to the ears at all.
   
  If someone would rather listen to the Sansa Clip than the Ayre QB-9 in "Listen" mode (based on it being flatter to 20 kHz), I'm not going to argue the point.  If someone's going to argue it's better for that reason, I'm not going to argue that either.
   
  Some time ago, a headphone manufacturer asked me to listen to a headphone, and give my opinion on whether or not they should drop the response centered at around 8 kHz, about 2.5 dB down (the width of the notch approximately 0.75 octave).  What I thought isn't relevant without revealing much more information (which I can not do, for obvious reasons).  To approximate the effect, I used the parametric equalizer in Amarra.  What might be relevant to this discussion is that it did have an effect (a lot of us are rather sensitive to things going on at 8 kHz), but this whole notion of _major roll-off_, especially when we're talking primarily at 20 kHz is interesting.
   
  While I can not say whether or not the reasons for the HM-801 being that way are analogous to Ayre's reasons for rolling off, or Wadia's reasons for rolling off, etc., I can say that, in my opinion, again, this is not a major roll-off.  Yes, yes, argue that point all you want (and some of you will), but that's my opinion.
   
*As I said in another post*, I'm not much of a measurements guy, but admit it can make for interesting discussions, as it has here.  As I state in that other post, I haven't heard any digital I've preferred to a good turntable setup--and, yes, that Sansa Clip just might slaughter even the finest of turntable rigs in most measurements, most certainly including frequency response, crosstalk, dynamic range, wow-and-flutter (which only the turntable will be measurable for), noise floor, etc., etc.  And if you've heard a good vinyl rig, and feel the Sansa Clip sounds better, that's something else I'm not going to argue about.
   
  As someone who bought the HM-801 and listens to it a lot, I'm not at all perturbed by these measurements.


----------



## High_Q

Quote: 





jude said:


> ​
> 
> 
> ​


 
  those graphs don't look like real measured data, they look idealized.  They look simulated rather than measured from real hardware.


----------



## jude

Quote: 





high_q said:


> those graphs doesn't look like real measured data, they look idealized.  They look simulated rather than measured from real hardware.


 

 Just to be clear, I didn't make those, I pulled those out of an Ayre white paper.  And I also included John Atkinson's measurements of the QB-9.


----------



## Currawong

I have to say, if measurements of an audio device aren't directly relatable to the ability to enjoy using music with it, then they are useless.


----------



## WalkGood

Seriously I am at a loss for words, first I did not take those pictures and my comments are based on my observations as one who solders for a hobby to accomplish my own needs. I would be interested in your opinion as professional Electronics Field Tech about your observations of the solder joints or is this a ruse to quash the facts presented?
   
  Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> @Walkgood,
> Please refrain from insinuations and accusations.
> 
> Guys, you are one step away from having this thread locked.


----------



## Currawong

Walkgood: Did you read any of Nankai's posts or do you only see what you want to see?


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





currawong said:


> Walkgood: Did you read any of Nankai's posts or do you only see what you want to see?


 

 So reading your post or his post makes a difference in what one sees o_O


----------



## xnor

Quote:


currawong said:


> I have to say, if measurements of an audio device aren't directly relatable to the ability to enjoy using music with it, then they are useless.


 

 With the same attitude and reasoning you can conclude that subjective reviews are even more so or just completely useless.
   
  People hear what they want to hear.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> So reading your post or his post makes a difference in what one sees o_O


 

 No, it makes a difference to its relevance. If the photos are of a hand-soldered prototype built most of a year ago, then what you're seeing is irrelevant to currently shipping machine-soldered 801s and you've been bashing on about nothing at all.


----------



## JaZZ

jxk said:


> Quantitatively the 801 fails. Some posters like nick charles were polite and quite politic about this...but basically, from an electrical engineering perspective it fails.


 

 That's a premature judgement. The only measuring criterion that hints at an audible flaw is the treble roll-off. Indeed it's audible, but it doesn't come without an at least theoretical benefit: improved transient response. You should occupy yourself with Wadia's filter philosophy. The roll-off isn't an audiophile end in itself, but a means to an end, serving for making the best out of redbook CD's (at least practical) shortcomings. You don't have to agree on the approach, but it would be fair to at least acknowledge that it's more than a pleasing coloration. Personally I favor the linearity approach, but I can absolutely reproduce the Bézier-filter approach and even hear some sonic benefits from it.
   


> Qualitatively, it's huge. It's unwieldy. And the UI is...less than adequate. Considerably worse than, say, the stock firmware of our venerable sansa clip.


 
   
  Since I don't know the HM-801, I can't comment on its UI. But from the equalizer characteristic I would at least agree on a less than ideal implementation. However, that's up to each owner's and potential buyer's opinion and taste.

  
   


shike said:


> ...Beyond that, if you find it does make a difference all it comes down to is that you subjectively enjoy an inaccurate player.
> I've made this point to you what . . . three times now?


 

 See above! How many times have we disussed exactly that point? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 And yet you keep on spreading your one-sided viewpoint.

  
   


jxk said:


> And somehow, in all that self-righteous bluster, you conveniently ignore the suggestion argument. And the unarguably negative test scores.


 

 I don't know what you mean by the «negative» test score. I have unarguably passed the test. And this despite its flaws explained in an earlier stage: It doesn't enable to judge the behavior of a real headphone on the headphone out; moreover there are other variables introduced: A/D and D/A converters, soundcards, amps, additional sound transducers – all with the potential to color the sound, thus both to create unwanted synergies and even possible differences.


  


shigzeo said:


> The source in a professional capacity MUST be flat, must be as close to the nature as possible. HiFi and audiophiles on the other hand hardly ever care about fidelity of the signal - they care about 'pleasing' and that is okay. Pleasing doesn't mean SQ and SQ doesn't mean anything. If you like it and the hardware is worth it to you, then great. If not, then great.
> 
> Bringing headphones into this is silly. Headphones aren't like source/amp components. They should have their own flavour at any cost. Phones for those who love succinct separation are great for those who like that sound, the same goes for those who love bass; or, those who love flat flat flat will like still different phones.
> 
> Sources only come in two flavours: professional and audiophile, the latter catering to any price, to any mindset, and to any level of quality.


 

 Your post is full of unsupported subjective categorizations. Moreover like many other so-called science-oriented posters you have made linear frequency response you credo, irrespective of other metrological consequences.
  

  


> Walkgood: Did you read any of Nankai's posts or do you only see what you want to see?


 


walkgood said:


> So reading your post or his post makes a difference in what one sees o_O


 

 Maybe we could focus on the measuring «flaws» again, now that the soldering arguments have been invalidated (as I see it) – for those who have an issue with a $800 PDAP.
   

 Why am I not interested in the HM-801? Firstly, I absolutely believe that it has a sound quality superior to other DAPs such as mine (also somewhat confirmed by the test samples, but primarily based on user reports, which I never ignore). On the other hand, I don't really like the treble roll-off, irrespective of the acknowledged sonic benefit that might come with it – just a personal preference. Moreover I don't like the equalizer characteristic at all. If it is reduced to the basic functions (as a simple graphic equalizer) it should at least take more account of typical earphone colorations, such as rolled-off extremes. The HM-801 is too bulky for jogging and walking. To me a portable player with its inherent compromises compared to home setups should not require compromises in terms or portability and flexibility. Granted, it may weigh and measure less than the ancient Sony Walkmen, but technology has developed further since those days and so has the demand on portable players and comfort. Nevertheless I can imagine that I would enjoy it in more contemplative situations in the open (like the ones described by _immtbiker_) where highest possible sound quality would pay off, therefore I'm far from calling it a useless device.
.


----------



## WalkGood

Quote: 





currawong said:


> No, it makes a difference to its relevance. If the photos are of a hand-soldered prototype built most of a year ago, then what you're seeing is irrelevant to currently shipping machine-soldered 801s and you've been bashing on about nothing at all.


 


  
  What the hell are you talking about my relevance? What about your own?
   
  I based my opinion on the pictures another member posted within this thread (not mine) and then a secondary picture (again not mine) that was pm’d to me by another member. Yes one who obviously had a unit and opened it up, I’m really surprised more owners haven’t as it won’t void a warranty that is over in 60 days. How am I to know the production run of either of these units in 2 different pictures and if only 15 were hand made, I find hard to believe that both could be from the same run, but I guess anything is possible.
   
  If you see anything about my comments based on the pictures presented incorrect please feel free to correct my comment. If you had bothered to clearly read my first comments, which were actually run by a professional that makes a living analyzing pass/fail components including solder joints and later I even when as far as asking a comment from the admin here, a professional Electronics Field Tech for his observations of the solder joints.
   
  Edit: At first I thought asking a field electronics tech would be a good idea and now I realize asking your opinion was a mistake as I remember earlier in the thread you gave two subjective opinions or impressions bordering on mini reviews within the science forum. In fact another member even commented the first was a “thoughtful comparative review.” Both posts were subjective opinions leaning towards how great the hifiman is and all without a though of attempting DBT.
   
  After both my observations and pictures were posted the owner posts stating that the product has changed or is made differently now and says he will post pictures. After which you question my post and motives, hey I posted valid observations and have no profit in this equation, seriously what’s in it for you? Are the intelligent open discussions of good or bad equipment such a wrong thing?


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





jxk said:


> ^No I haven't.
> 
> But that's my point. Even if I did, _it wouldn't matter, because people are impressionable._ Even if I said it was the best player ever created, the best I've ever heard, _it would not matter one bit. _Read my last post.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  Well why bother listening to anything? People are so impressionable then everyone is just listening to music and being fooled into how it sounds according to you. Just look at charts and drool, but don't ever put that audio near your ears cause you will be fooling yourself cause people are so impressionable.
   
  The facts are dismissing an audio product because of measurements and  graphs while never ACTUALLY listening to it is pretty silly.


----------



## udauda

Continued from my previous post:

   
  This time I actually captured IR from my consumer-quality ALC888 via loopback. Not sure how decent its DAC & ADC are, but it should be sufficient to simulate an extreme case of ringing. The lowpass filter(analog) effectively simulates the filter(-3dB @ 16kHz) HM-801 has. Again, the ringing should not be an *audible* issue if it's less than 0.8ms.


----------



## MrGreen

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> Well why bother listening to anything?


 

 Because we enjoy it. Your argument is strange.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





walkgood said:


> Seriously I am at a loss for words, first I did not take those pictures and my comments are based on my observations as one who solders for a hobby to accomplish my own needs. I would be interested in your opinion as professional Electronics Field Tech about your observations of the solder joints or is this a ruse to quash the facts presented?


 
  What purpose would I, as a Moderator, have to create a "ruse to quash the facts presented"? Another opinion and not a
  statement of fact. A paranoid opinion, at that.
  My comment to you and others were not because of the factual data that is being presented here. A lot of posted comments are
  just downright mean-spirited. Words like "disgusted" and "having the hearing of Van Gogh" are libelous accusations and have no
  place in posts, here at Head-Fi. Instead of being observations, these comments have become personal affronts that are "attacks" on member's personas and are not tolerated. 
  I pruned 30+ off-topic posts last night. If this thread should stick to Sound Science, then name calling and personality attacks should be left at the door.
  The Manufacturer has already told us that the pictures that you showed were from an early batch of prototypes that were hand made, and when the second batch came out, those with the existing units had an opportunity to have them replaced. If so, then why is the conversation of poor soldering skills and the use of thermal grease, still going on. It is now a non-entity.
  I have both amp modules available, and (as you asked me) the soldering is professionally done.
   
  Other comments like "I can teach my 7 year old sister how to solder in less than a half an hour" is not a professional statement that has proof behind it, is an opinion, and, as I've already been told off, has no place in a Science forum.
  So, unless anyone has something new to say, backed up by real scientific proof, Then I feel that this thread has run it's course.
   
  Science or not, how can anyone who has never listened to a component, or at least held it in their hands, sit there and bash the product unless there is an ulterior motive. 
   
  Stick to the facts, show results that you (meaning anyone here) have taken, discuss those results in a factual manner which omits personal attacks, or else this this product bashing thread has reached the end of it's run.


----------



## JaZZ

udauda said:


> Continued from my previous post:
> 
> 
> This time I actually captured IR from my consumer-quality ALC888 via loopback. Not sure how decent its DAC & ADC are, but it should be sufficient to simulate an extreme case of ringing. The lowpass filter(analog) effectively simulates the filter(-3dB @ 16kHz) HM-801 has. Again, the ringing should not be an *audible* issue if it's less than 0.8ms.


 

 The upper graph shows a filter with a relatively smooth slope, so the contrast to the lower graph is lower than it would be with a typical frequency-optimized anti-aliasing filter like number 1 of my Symphony examples.
   
  Now we could debate on and on about audibility. You simply can't display the ringing as inaudible and at the same time a considerable number of audiophile listeners swear by the time-optimized approach, and not all of them are advocates of a euphonized characteristic. I for one can hear clear (although subtle) effects from different filter settings with an impact on shape and intensitiy of the ringing, even those with quasi-identical frequency response (particularly between filter 2 and 3). I hope that's enough.
.


----------



## patate

Quote: 





dfkt said:


> Here's a little test for everyone interested.
> 
> I've put a piece of music in FLAC on three different players and recorded the players' headphone outputs with Sound Forge 8.0, with a standard 16 Ohm load attached. My sound card is an Echo AudioFire, it's more precise and sensitive than these MP3 players, so the recording quality should be sufficient. Well, everyone can decide that for themselves when they listen to the tracks. For that reason I've also included the original file that I ripped directly from the CD in this test, to make it more conclusive. The only modification I did to the files was normalizing them to the same level (matching the player with the lowest recorded output).
> 
> ...


 

 Track1 is obviously the original, the sound is richer and clearer than on the three other files (which sound exactly the same).


----------



## JaZZ

patate said:


> Track1 is obviously the original, the sound is richer and clearer than on the three other files (which sound exactly the same).


 

No.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




.


----------



## patate

I'd like to see that. I just listened to it again twice and there is no comparison between the first one (more presence and attack during the busy passages) and the three others (sound very much alike), no need to ABX them to figure that out on decent monitors (DSM1 here). The best sounding is not necessarily the original but knowing that three files have been recorded through an audio interface, it's all clear to me


----------



## JaZZ

Maybe you have missed that my «No» is linked.
.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





patate said:


> The best sounding is not necessarily the original but knowing that three files have been recorded through an audio interface, it's all clear to me


 

 What is clear, what do you conclude from these files being recording through an audio interface?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


jazz said:


> See above! How many times have we disussed exactly that point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Even though you've already responded, udauda's points pretty much kill the potential advantages you spoke of earlier and brought us back to the beginning.
   
  You can argue they're audible all you want, but studies show different.


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> You can argue they're audible all you want, but studies show different.


 

 O.k. ( 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )  So if it's more than 0.8 ms you would believe it?
   
  Now look at these graphs and note the time scale! (More to it later!)
.


----------



## xnor

Hmm one question regarding those 4 samples, scanning them with replaygain gave me the following numbers (1-4): +7.82, +6.95, +7.12, +7.19 dB. Why?
   
  That's why I can abx e.g. 1 and 2 quite easily. (10/10)


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





xnor said:


> Hmm one question regarding those 4 samples, scanning them with replaygain gave me the following numbers (1-4): +7.82, +6.95, +7.12, +7.19 dB. Why?


 


 Line levels vary enormously from player to player and DAC to DAC, for home players Line level is by convention about 2V but my Entech is hotter than any of my CD players and all my CD players have slightly different levels on the line-outs. The iPod 5g is about 0.7V but some players are even quiter than that, the old Creative players could be as low as about 0.5V.


----------



## patate

Quote: 





jazz said:


> Maybe you have missed that my «No» is linked.
> .


 

 I did. Funny. Then what I can say is that the Cowon V5 is definitely the least faithful, while the clip and the hm801 are both very close to the original (no ABX listening) in this test. Maybe the OP should provide a more appropriate audio sample to try to show us any significative "average sound quality, rolled off treble, mediocre channel separation"


----------



## MrGreen

IMO the hm801 was the most easily identifiable of samples (and I got it right from a very cheap pair of creative desktop speakers)
   
   
  Quote: 





			
				nick_charles said:
			
		

> Line levels vary enormously from player to player and DAC to DAC, for home players Line level is by convention about 2V but my Entech is hotter than any of my CD players and all my CD players have slightly different levels on the line-outs. The iPod 5g is about 0.7V but some players are even quiter than that, the old Creative players could be as low as about 0.5V.


 
   
   
  Line Level should be 1 volt from peak to peak. The difference in volume could be a slight mismatch (should be roughly inaudible), or due to compression imposed by the player. Someone would have to analyse the waveform.
   
  Anything else does not count as line out afaik? Instruments like guitars tend to output higher levels and are termed "instrument level".


----------



## Shike

Quote:


jazz said:


> O.k. (
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Unless those graphs are of the HM-801 they're pretty irrelevant aren't they?


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> Unless those graphs are of the HM-801 they're pretty irrelevant aren't they?


 

 Is that really what you'd like to think? No interest in a refreshed world view?
.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


jazz said:


> Is that really what you'd like to think? No interest in a refreshed world view?
> .


 

 I fail to see what a "refreshed world view" has to do with the topic at hand.  The graphs provided aren't as relevant as the ones provided by udauda which shows time scale of the ringing of a simulated HM-801 in relation to other devices.


----------



## JaZZ

> Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> I fail to see what a "refreshed world view" has to do with the topic at hand.  The graphs provided aren't as relevant as the ones provided by udauda which shows time scale of the ringing of a simulated HM-801 in relation to other devices.


 

 ...not to other devices, but one other device (with a similarly smooth roll-off, BTW).
   
  Whereas the Symphony's filter 1 shows the characteristic of a typical conventional DAC.
.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





jazz said:


> ...not to other devices, but one other device (with a similarly smooth roll-off, BTW).
> 
> Whereas the Symphony's filter 1 shows the characteristic of a typical conventional DAC.
> .


 

 Okay, how about the Benchmark DAC for example?  It has less than 0.8ms of ringing including pre and post ringing from stereophile measurements:
   

   
  That's a rather typical DAC implementation too.
   
  So obviously there's ways of implementation without ringing being audible even without a slow roll-off filter.
   
  BTW:
   
  Do you have a link to where you got the Symphony measurements by chance?
   
  -Nevermind, found some in an online Meier manual.  Wonder why his designs ring for so long . . .


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> Do you have a link to where you got the Symphony measurements by chance?
> 
> -Nevermind, found some in an online Meier manual. Wonder why his designs ring for so long . . .


 

 Yes, it's from the user manual. And it doesn't really ring longer than the Benchmark or other conventional DACs. Look at this:
   

   
  The white field is the Symphony's pulse response transplanted into _udauda_'s graph. The resolution is that the time denominator in the Symphony manual is a joke: it should mean 100 μs, not 10 ms. I have wondered that you haven't discovered it! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 
   
Nevertheless, both the Benchmark's and (probably) the Symphony's ringing borders on 0.8 ms or even (by far!) exceeds them (hard to tell from the measuring/graphic resolution), so it's not a clear case of officially approved inaudibility. Moreover those established hearing-threshold values are just guidelines, not fixed numbers; they have to be modified from time to time (like e.g. the values for harmonic distortion which are now considered audible down to 0.003% in some cases – no surprise to me, apart from the official acceptance). 
   
So mental flexibility and openmindedness is still a virtue. The more so as (you know) many people swear by the time-optimized filters from their listening experiences. 
.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


jazz said:


> Yes, it's from the user manual. And it doesn't really ring longer than the Benchmark or other conventional DACs. Look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> The white field is the Symphony's pulse response transplanted into _udauda_'s graph. The resolution is that the time denominator in the Symphony manual is a joke: it should mean 100 μs, not 10 ms. I have wondered that you haven't discovered it!


 

 I was starting to wonder honestly, but I questioned if Meier would let such a large oversight go into his documentation like that.
   
  Needless to say, I rather see a documentation error rather than such a large on in his circuits . . . still, lack of oversight ftl.
   
   
  Quote: 





> Nevertheless, both the Benchmark's and (probably) the Symphony's ringing borders on 0.8 ms or even exceeds them (hard to tell from the measuring/graphic resolution), so it's not a clear case of officially approved inaudibility. Moreover those established hearing-threshold values are just guidelines, not fixed numbers; they have to be modified from time to time (like e.g. the values for harmonic distortion which are now considered audible down to 0.003% in some cases – no surprise to me, apart from the official acceptance).


 
   
  To me it looks like the Benchmark would be .7 at worst, but I agree the resolution on the time domain sucks quite badly.
   
  Quote:


> So mental flexibility and openmindedness is still a virtue. The more so as (you know) many people swear by the time-optimized filters from their listening experiences.


 
   
  Of course - if it was found that any ringing or less than .8 ms were found audible I would correct my stance and be more inclined to agree with you.  However we can't abandon scientific findings just because it's is more agreeable for us - by doing so humanity would be stunted in progress on many fronts.


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> However we can't abandon scientific findings just because it's is more agreeable for us - by doing so humanity would be stunted in progress on many fronts.


 

 Now that's too big words and too much dramatization for me... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## immtbiker

Good job getting the thread back on track!


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Thank you JaZZ for taking the time to explain the impact of different filter implementation techniques, very good read!


----------



## udauda

I just found out Mr.ソノベ measured HM-801's IR:

   
  and the results seem to correspond to my simulation quite well. For its timid effectiveness on the transient response, I still think the filter was too much trade-off.


----------



## b0dhi

Those results show that the HM801 is using a sharp roll-off output filter. The slower roll-off is either due to an additional filter, possibly internal EQ, or due to NOS.
   
  Gibbs phenomenon is roughly as bad as other DACs, as expected from the sharp roll-off. There's nothing special about the ringing in this DAC.


----------



## JaZZ

udauda said:


> For its timid effectiveness on the transient response, I still think the filter was too much trade-off.


 

 I agree.
.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Hey, don't tell me this thread is dying. I love reading this thread while listening to my setup.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Don't know whether to call you a masochist or sadist...


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

I think anything audio has to be heard before you pass judgment on it, especially when it is a case of whether a filter is too much of a trade off or not. Personally I notice the roll off on some recordings, but it only if I listen for it and compared it to my other sources. Compared to my Marantz CD6002 the HM-801 generally sounds better, except for the roll off. Imaging, bass, detail is just in a different league (tested using the same CD and either using the analogue outs from the CD6002 to my EF1 or via the coax out to the HM-801).
   
  I do not like the idea of a non linear frequency response, but given that that is the premise for having a DAC that sounds like that of the HM-801 then it is something I am willing to accept.
   
  Of topic'ish: Anyone know a RMAA equivalent that works with Mac? was thinking that I might run by a friends recording studio and do some measurements with their pro tools setup.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





frederiks|tpu said:


> *I think anything audio has to be heard before you pass judgment on it*


 

 You speak the truth.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> You speak the truth.


 

 He speaks opinion.


----------



## ajkda

I don't get it.
   
  Hifi man haters posted alot of graphs and charts to prove their point.
   
  Hifi man lovers posted alot of nonsensical hear it comments and attacked other users in the process ... etc to prove theirs.
   
  Who will you believe?


----------



## Sonic 748i

This thread is slowly dying.


----------



## DameNinngen

Hello.
  
   
  I am from Japan.
 So, Please forgive *my poor English*. 
   
  For a personal interest,
 I roughly　measured the setting range of the equalizer of HiFiMAN.
 It would be greatly appreciated if it helps your EQ setting.
   
  Grazie.
   
http://sonove.angry.jp/HiFiMAN_HM801/ARTA_FR/PCM_D50/HM801_EQ_Range.gif


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote: 





> Hifi man lovers posted alot of nonsensical hear it comments and attacked other users in the process ... etc to prove theirs.


 
  If you look at some of the graphs posted you would know that the reason for the roll off is due to the implementation of a filter that reduces ringing. The only reason why I promote the radical idea of listening to it before passing judgment on its performance was that the treble roll off is hardly noticeable, and the theoretical (and audible?) improvement to transient response it brings perhaps makes it worth the -3 dB roll off.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


frederiks|tpu said:


> If you look at some of the graphs posted you would know that the reason for the roll off is due to the implementation of a filter that reduces ringing. The only reason why I promote the radical idea of listening to it before passing judgment on its performance was that the treble roll off is hardly noticeable, and the theoretical (and audible?) improvement to transient response it brings perhaps makes it worth the -3 dB roll off.


   
  It's actually a -4dB roll off.
   
  It rolls of 2dB easily before 16K even.  We've covered the transients - the odds of them be audible is low to non-existant.  On the other hand, I can guarantee the roll-off is :|


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> frederiks|tpu said:
> ...


 


 Actually it is by no means certain that many people would be able to hear the roll-off. Experiments back in 1978: "Sampling-Frequency Considerations in Digital Audio" , TERUO MURAOKA, YOSHlHlKO YAMADA, AND MASAMI YAMAZAKI provides evidence that a roll-off can be as low as 15K before it is reliably audible, a hard cut-off at 20K, 18K and 16K was not reliably audible (p < 0.05) by any of the 31 trained subjects and only some of them detected the 14K cut-off , in my own experiments I was unable to detect anything above a 13K roll-off, but I am 51 so that is explicable.


----------



## shigzeo

^^ you look pretty good for 51 mate. Maybe too good.


----------



## GreenLeo

Quote: 





> I think anything audio has to be heard before you pass judgment on it


 
   

 This statement has a lot of wisdom.  
   
  There were/are and will be lots of examples of using scientific facts to prove something but ultimately the proof is futile.  It's not because the facts were/are wrong but there are other considerations neglected or misconceptions.  
   
  This is a post in the science forum so I would like to put in more terms that are used in science.
  In terms of Maths:
  I remember someone said something like "once the device rolls off, you can never get the original data back".  This is not exactly true because in principle one can design a device that have the frequency response as the inverse function of the roll off, then the original can be recovered.  Similarly, someone said that over-sampling adds pseudo-data into the original data and that could not make the output sound better is not always true.  Ultimately we want to recover the original wave pattern which is continuous in the time domain.  The PCM is discrete in the time domain.  If the pseudo-data added is actually the same as the original wave pattern at that time, the output can be better.
   
  In terms of engineering:
  A headphone that has treble roll off coupled with an amp that over-emphasis the treble may produce pleasing results--in fact should be better than when the same headphone coupled with an amp that has a totally flat frequency response.  This is why the term "synergy" exist in the real world and basically why 1st class device should be matched with 1st class devices.
    
  In engineering, basically everything is a compromise due to the limitation of the technology or the environment.  For example, why the cut-off sampling frequency of the red-book CD is 44.1 khz?  I know, I know -- everyone said, "Human can hear only up to 20k, the higher range of the frequency spectrum is useless".  However, in the real world higher frequency does exist, and an aliasing frequency will enter the lower frequency spectrum due to the 44.1k sampling rate.  For example, a 24k signal will become a 2k signal using the red book coding.  The SACD or the DVD-A format are some of the ways to overcome this aliasing problem.  Why they could not replace the CD is another matter.
   
  When CD just came out in the 80's, lot of people were speculating that vinyl would be dying quickly because the SNR(or other parameters) of CDs were much better.  Now the history has proven that the speculation was wrong.  It's not the fact of the SNR was wrong but they have overlooked other considerations.
   
  This shows that using only one parameter/test to make a conclusion could be very wrong.
   
  In computer science:
  We use benchmark programs to guess the performance of different computer systems.  But the ultimate test is to run the intended applications on the systems and pick the system that runs quickest/ best/steadiest whatsoever.  This demonstrates the limitation of the benchmark programs.  
   
   
   
  What I'm trying to say is as a thread in the science forum, we should be open-minded and try to solve the contradicting facts rather than just take side.  There were posts from the Hifi man lovers that were never answered by the other side.  For example, someone posted some high end DAC does roll-off in the treble and then conclude that hi-fi is not equivalent to the flat FR response.  Note, the roll off of the other DAC is a fact.  So the haters need to prove the other DAC is not hi-fi in order to establish the conclusion that HiFiman is bad because it rolls off in the treble.  I’ve never seen such proof.  Another post said that the RMAA of the recorded output from a sound card cannot be used solely to determine the SQ of a device--otherwise all equipment can be tested that way and there is no need to have impressions, reviews, meets, etc.  This is a very strong argument because most of the head-fiers believes in honest impressions rather than just numbers/graphs.  Whether one can tell if an impression is honest is another matter.  The existence of the meets, reviews, impressions rather than just downloads of the RMAA testes of different equipment shows the RMAA is also a kind of benchmark programs and cannot supersede real experiences.
   
  My own thought:
  I accept that the FR response of the HiFiMan 801 is less than perfect and I truly thanks dfkt for his hard work.  Also I accept that the HiFiMan 801 sounds superb in general from the impressions of most of the head-fiers who have tried the unit and truly thanks for their impressions.  Quite a few of these head-fiers have long time track record, have high reputation and might have dispute Head-Direct before and they all provide excellent feedback on the SQ of the HiFiMan,  Certainly, these two facts (bad FR and great impressions) seems contradicting.  Then we should try to find the reasons why such discrepancy can be existed.  This may lead us to design a better DAP in the future and make this thread much more useful for the other head-fiers.
   
  I shall end my sharing by the following case:
  Initially many people thought that the FR of a loudspeaker should be as flat as possible.  This approach was then applied to the design of headphones and it was by ear found that a flat FR headphone would produce funny sounds.  If the dead-core engineers followed that the flat FR MUST be the holy grail in headphones rather than following their ears, the performance of the headphones nowadays would not be as good.  Now we know that the influence of the ear and a headphone with flat response would not be ideal and the contradiction was resolved.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





greenleo said:


> This statement has a lot of wisdom.
> 
> There were/are and will be lots of examples of using scientific facts to prove something but ultimately the proof is futile.  It's not because the facts were/are wrong but there are other considerations neglected or misconceptions.
> 
> ...


 

 Awesome post man.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Here's a picture of the HiFiMAN's PCB board that have put together by machines and not hands:


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





ajkda said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> Hifi man haters posted alot of graphs and charts to prove their point.
> 
> ...


 
   
   
  I'll believe the ones who have actually heard the hifiman, be it good or bad I'll always take the opinion of someone with actual listening experience with a piece of equipment as opposed to looking at some graphs and try and determine the SQ from graphs and charts. Graphs, charts and measurements simply will not tell you how something sounds, you have to actually hear it for yourself.


----------



## b0dhi

Correct me if I'm wrong but that PCB looks like its been soldered by hand. There's even a pair of bridged pins on the top left.
   
  The two channels are virtually crammed up against each other, which, if the layout isn't effective, would explain the cross-talk. The digital side of the PCM1704s have power decoupling ceramics bypassed with smaller yet further away ceramics, which is just a waste of parts for a package having the parasitic inductance of a SOIC20. The bottom channel seems to be missing a (useless as mentioned) bypass cap.
   
  That said, there is use of high quality parts around the DACs and analog stage.


----------



## Trogdor

How about another question, WHAT is particularly innovative or new in the HFM that would justify the $800 cost?
   
  The numbers show even if it does sound good, it probably doesn't sound $800 good.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





swanlee said:


> I'll believe the ones who have actually heard the hifiman, be it good or bad I'll always take the opinion of someone with actual listening experience with a piece of equipment as opposed to looking at some graphs and try and determine the SQ from graphs and charts. Graphs, charts and measurements simply will not tell you how something sounds, you have to actually hear it for yourself.


 
   
  Science, mathematics, and physics, simply will not tell you how something flys, you have to actually fly it yourself!
   
  I guess?
   
  I suppose to determine whether something sounds pleasing or not one must make subjective remarks based on interpretation.  But I think the $800 issue becomes more acute given the numbers above.


----------



## swanlee

Quote: 





trogdor said:


> Science, mathematics, and physics, simply will not tell you how something flys, you have to actually fly it yourself!
> 
> I guess?
> 
> I suppose to determine whether something sounds pleasing or not one must make subjective remarks based on interpretation.  But I think the $800 issue becomes more acute given the numbers above.


 
   
   
  So something has to measure a certain way to be worth 800$? Science math and physics cannot tell me if I will personally enjoy the sound quality of any piece of audio equipment. It's pretty simple if people  don't deam a piece of audio equipment worth the price they won't buy it and it won't be made anymore.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





b0dhi said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but that PCB looks like its been soldered by hand. There's even a pair of bridged pins on the top left.
> 
> The two channels are virtually crammed up against each other, which, if the layout isn't effective, would explain the cross-talk. The digital side of the PCM1704s have power decoupling ceramics bypassed with smaller yet further away ceramics, which is just a waste of parts for a package having the parasitic inductance of a SOIC20. The bottom channel seems to be missing a (useless as mentioned) bypass cap.
> 
> That said, there is use of high quality parts around the DACs and analog stage.


 

 Thanks for taking a closer look. The bridged pins surprised me quite a bit, is this how it's supposed to be or an "epic fail"?


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





ajkda said:


> I don't get it.
> Hifi man haters posted alot of graphs and charts to prove their point.
> Hifi man lovers posted alot of nonsensical hear it comments and attacked other users in the process ... etc to prove theirs.
> Who will you believe?


 
  I am in the Hi-FiMAN lovers group, and I don't care what scientific graphs are showing me, 
  The bottom line IMO is the best sound that I hear in my ears, and all the graphs and scientific data that you can muster
  doesn't change my opinion on the sound.
  In the end, it's all about the sound. And the 801 sounds spectacular.  This is the end justifying the means.
  What good is a graph if you don't care for the sound? 
  Is it rolled off? Yes, the measurements seem to qualify this. But dollars to donuts, I want to hear something that fulfills my needs.
  And I feel that the price is justified by this. Using better op-amps and buffers in a proper configuration to obtain this, is working.
  So, you can say all that you want about ringing and rolloff, but bottom line, the 801 sounds better than any other DAP that I have
  had the pleasure to listen to. And to me, that's what counts.
  It's easy to play armchair quarterback, but in the end, it's either a win or a loss in the standings, and for me, the 801's are a big win.
  In sports, a year later, when people look at the standings, no one remembers how the game was one by walking in the last runner
  in the bottom of the 9, what they do see, is a "1" in the win column.
  So tear it apart all that you want, analyze the graphs 6 ways 'til Sunday. I want the best sound that my hard earned money
  can purchase, and I'll never have remorse about buying them, because they fulfill my needs and my needs are simple.
  Give me a player that has versatility, the ability to upgrade, and the best sound that I can find.
  Will there be a player that does the same options or even more that sounds better?
  If there is, I will save my pennies and buy that one.
   
  The HM-801 sounds better than any other Dap that I have tried, and I will continue to enjoy it immensely, until something 
  better comes down the pike.
   
  I was at CES this year, and there were many chinese manufactures who wanted to buy it, reverse engineer the technology,
  and try to come out with something competitive . That speaks volumes about the HiFiMAN. It is a compliment.
   
  To Me, with all of the options, no other player can touch the 801 with a 10' pole. So enjoy you graphs, and I will enjoy my music.


----------



## Edwood

Quote: 





b0dhi said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but that PCB looks like its been soldered by hand. There's even a pair of bridged pins on the top left.
> 
> The two channels are virtually crammed up against each other, which, if the layout isn't effective, would explain the cross-talk. The digital side of the PCM1704s have power decoupling ceramics bypassed with smaller yet further away ceramics, which is just a waste of parts for a package having the parasitic inductance of a SOIC20. The bottom channel seems to be missing a (useless as mentioned) bypass cap.
> 
> That said, there is use of high quality parts around the DACs and analog stage.


 
   
  Definitely hand soldered for all the through hole components (a bit excessive use of solder, but at least they're nice and shiny and not dull looking cold solder joints), and quite a few of the SMD parts. 
   
  b0hi, the shorted pins on the PCM2706 chip are 25 and 26, (ZGND and AGNDL). 
  http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm2707.pdf
  
  -Ed


----------



## Shike

Quote:


nick_charles said:


> Actually it is by no means certain that many people would be able to hear the roll-off. Experiments back in 1978: "Sampling-Frequency Considerations in Digital Audio" , TERUO MURAOKA, YOSHlHlKO YAMADA, AND MASAMI YAMAZAKI provides evidence that a roll-off can be as low as 15K before it is reliably audible, a hard cut-off at 20K, 18K and 16K was not reliably audible (p < 0.05) by any of the 31 trained subjects and only some of them detected the 14K cut-off , in my own experiments I was unable to detect anything above a 13K roll-off, but I am 51 so that is explicable.


 
 Sorry, I should remember there are age groups and those with hearing loss on the forums.  Nonetheless I have hearing up to a bit above 17K, so the roll-off is relatively noticeable under scrutiny for me at least.
   
  @immtbiker
   
  If you like the way the player sounds that's fine - that's subjective.  You can feel it's the best sounding, the thing is the best at reproducing a signal it is not - hence it is inaccurate.  There is no debating that fact unfortunately.
   
  I don't care if it sounds like it's able to gloss over mastering flaws or sounds more revealing than listening to a live band - if it's not accurate it's not what was intended for you to hear.
   
  Personally, I think for $800 they could have done a lot better honestly.
   
  Also, this:
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> I was at CES this year, and there were many chinese manufactures who wanted to buy it, reverse engineer the technology,
> 
> and try to come out with something competitive . That speaks volumes about the HiFiMAN. It is a compliment.


 
   
  Sounds more like they have an idea of how much it actually costs to build, but they know there's plenty of room to under-cut and sell to "audiophiles" who claim it's the best thing since sliced bread.
   
  So in reality if it says anything it says there's demand and money to be made.  That's all really.


----------



## immtbiker

...and the Manley Steelhead is worth $7000? 
   
  Whether I agree with you or not, I always pose the question to people who say that something is too expensive, "How
  do you know how much money went into R&D and manufacturing"? Industry standard for markup is typically 100%.
  Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, but it is up to every consumer to decide whether or not something is worth the asking price.
   
  Are any of the better amps that we buy, really worth the msrp price?
   
  I'm sure other products will come out in my buying history that I will like better, but right now, the 801 sounds better than
  anything  else that I have heard, right out of the headphone jack. I can't prove it, I can only state my opinion.


----------



## Currawong

Quote: 





shike said:


> Sorry, I should remember there are age groups and those with hearing loss on the forums.  Nonetheless I have hearing up to a bit above 17K, so the roll-off is relatively noticeable under scrutiny for me at least.


 
   
  Have you done a DBT to determine for sure that you can hear the roll-off and that it's not just because you know there is one? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


immtbiker said:


> ...and the Manley Steelhead is worth $7000?


 
   
  Probably not.
   
  Quote: 





> Whether I agree with you or not, I always pose the question to people who say that something is too expensive, "How
> do you know how much money went into R&D and manufacturing"? Industry standard for markup is typically 100%.


 
   
  Well the circuit design has other issues, so obviously it seems not a lot of R&D went into it or major oversights were made.  The parts aren't exactly exotic so they're easy to source in decent quantities.  Oh, and it seems like it's still hand soldered in China - extremely cheap source of manufacturing.
   
  Quote: 





> Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, but it is up to every consumer to decide whether or not something is worth the asking price.
> 
> Are any of the better amps that we buy, really worth the msrp price?


 
   
  Sure, it's always up to the consumer . . . however, I've seen choices that "consumers" make that repulse  (look at stupid fads that wouldn't die in the past - there's your proof).
   
  As for the amps being worth MSRP - depends on the amp honestly.  One of the worst cases of price gouging was the Gain Card, which was praised up and down till someone popped open the chassis to find an opamp.  People became furious they had been duped into buying such an amp for $3K - and yet they didn't have a problem till they knew what it was they actually purchased.
   
  Obviously, some companies seem a bit more in line with common (and often considered fair) pricing structures than others.  $800 for a NOS DAP just doesn't seem to scale well - it's more an example of they're the only ones in the market (with a NOS DAP design), so what are you going to do about it?



  Currawong: 
  Quote: 





> Have you done a DBT to determine for sure that you can hear the roll-off and that it's not just because you know there is one?


 
   
  I used the recorded files like everyone else, but after Nick said there was an issue with phasing I bit my tongue since arguably the results were no longer valid.  A fair question though actually.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote: 





shike said:


> Obviously, some companies seem a bit more in line with common (and often considered fair) pricing structures than others.  $800 for a NOS DAP just doesn't seem to scale well - it's more an example of they're the only ones in the market (with a NOS DAP design), so what are you going to do about it?


 

 Judging by the oscillator frequency it looks like this is an oversampling DAC after all.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


b0dhi said:


> Judging by the oscillator frequency it looks like this is an oversampling DAC after all.


 
 Can you highlight in the image?  I'm not seeing it.
   
  If it is an oversampling design than I fail to see why they even bothered with the slow-roll off.
   
  EDIT:
   
  nvm, see it now.  An oscillator at 24.576 . . . with a DF1704 sitting right next to it.


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> If it is an oversampling design than I fail to see why they even bothered with the slow-roll off.


   
  Oversampling isn't responsible for the ringing, it's the filter implementation. You can prefectly reproduce the high-frequency characteristic of a NOS DAC (in the audible range) _with_ oversampling – as _Wadia_ shows.
   
  And BTW, it's the sound that counts, not the measurements. Many (actually most) amps and DACs measure perfect yet sound significantly different (to my ears at least).
.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


jazz said:


> Oversampling isn't responsible for the ringing, it's the filter implementation. You can prefectly reproduce the high-frequency characteristic of a NOS DAC (in the audible range) _with_ oversampling – as _Wadia_ shows.


 

 I understand that - oversampling is there to avoid aliasing.  I think we've already had this conversation of why oversampling is pointless in this instance though.  One could have gone NOS and used the slow roll-off anyway - both the ringing (which is questionably audible) and the aliasing would be attenuated without even needing to oversample.
   
  It seems redundant honestly.  Maybe I should have phrased it as "why even bother oversampling".
   
   
  Quote: 





> And BTW, it's the sound that counts, not the measurements. Many (actually most) amps and DACs measure perfect yet sound significantly different (to my ears at least).


 
   
  And there's DBTs that have shown different, but that's really besides the point.


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> I understand that - oversampling is there to avoid aliasing.  I think we've already had this conversation of why oversampling is pointless in this instance though.  One could have gone NOS and used the slow roll-off anyway - both the ringing (which is questionably audible) and the aliasing would be attenuated without even needing to oversample.
> 
> It seems redundant honestly.  Maybe I should have phrased it as "why even bother oversampling".


 
   
  You're missing the point. Oversampling is the technically best implementation of an anti-aliasing low-pass filter independent of the filter characteristic. It enables the use of very few analogue filter components. There's no benefit from pure analogue filtering, if that's what you understand by NOS. Actually the term NOS is mostly used for completely filterless DACs which have the benefit of renouncing analogue filters with their signal-corruption potential after all. And since there are no higher frequencies than 22 kHz in the signal which could interact with the music signal in the form of aliasing (if it has passed a corresponding low-pass filter in the ADC), the only downside is ultrasonic noise which could do harm to voice-coils and maybe some electronics components.

  


> And there's DBTs that have shown different, but that's really besides the point.


 
   
  I don't do DBT for comparing gear, and luckily it's very hard to compare different DAPs that way. If I like the sound of a component better than another in real life, the purpose is served. You can't always get away with the DBT argument. I have different DAPs with different sonic characteristics – not even clearly better or worse – which are absolutely consistent. You can doubt that as long as you want!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote: 





> If it is an oversampling design than I fail to see why they even bothered with the slow-roll off.


 
   
  I'm a little puzzled by the slow roll-off. The DAC already implements a brick-wall filter so there's no point in the slow roll-off. It doesn't reduce Gibbs phenomenon since the filter slope is very high anyway, due to the brickwall. I can only guess that either it's a poorly implemented analog filter (unlikely) or it's intentional (also unlikely).
   
  It's also possible that the guy that measured the FR, even though it was sampling at 96khz, had an anti-aliasing filter around 22khz in the recording chain.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


jazz said:


> You're missing the point. Oversampling is the technically best implementation of an anti-aliasing low-pass filter independent of the filter characteristic. It enables the use of very few analogue filter components. There's no benefit from pure analogue filtering, if that's what you understand by NOS. Actually the term NOS is mostly used for completely filterless DACs which have the benefit of renouncing analogue filters with their signal-corruption potential after all. And since there are no higher frequencies than 22 kHz in the signal which could interact with the music signal in the form of aliasing (if it has passed a corresponding low-pass filter in the ADC), the only downside is ultrasonic noise which could do harm to voice-coils and maybe some electronics components.


 
 I'm not talking about pure analog filtering, I'm saying the filter didn't even need to oversample.  NOS does not mean completely filterless DAC, without a filter you'd be begging for tweeter damage as you even mention.
   
  NOS just means it doesn't oversample - and usually either has a brick wall filter (uncommon today with complaints of ringing) or slow roll-off.  It doesn't matter if it's digital or analog.
   
  In fact, judging by your earlier arguments wouldn't this be the worst solution since it's adding pre-ringing with little to no benefit?
   
  @b0dhi
   
  It's either intentional or an oversight, the slow roll-off is a feature that can be enabled/disabled in the DF1704 (a digital filter).


----------



## b0dhi

Quote:


shike said:


> @b0dhi
> 
> It's either intentional or an oversight, the slow roll-off is a feature that can be enabled/disabled in the DF1704 (a digital filter).


 

 Ah yes, that looks like the best explanation. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  Matches up pretty well from memory.


----------



## JaZZ

b0dhi said:


> I'm a little puzzled by the slow roll-off. The DAC already implements a brick-wall filter so there's no point in the slow roll-off. It doesn't reduce Gibbs phenomenon since the filter slope is very high anyway, due to the brickwall. I can only guess that either it's a poorly implemented analog filter (unlikely) or it's intentional (also unlikely).
> 
> It's also possible that the guy that measured the FR, even though it was sampling at 96khz, had an anti-aliasing filter around 22khz in the recording chain.


 

 The latter is imaginable – but I doubt that there's an ADC with a 22-kHz anti-aliasing filter at a sampling rate of 96 kHz. If it's a feature of the player, it is a technical flaw in my book. At least it's a missed chance of deriving advantage from the smooth roll-off.
  

  


shike said:


> I'm not talking about pure analog filtering, I'm saying the filter didn't even need to oversample.  NOS does not mean completely filterless DAC, without a filter you'd be begging for tweeter damage as you even mention.
> 
> NOS just means it doesn't oversample - and usually either has a brick wall filter (uncommon today with complaints of ringing) or slow roll-off. It doesn't matter if it's digital or analog.


 
   
  It doesn't _need_ oversampling, true, but there's no benefit from renouncing it either. Oversampling is the best, simplest and cheapest filter implementation, so it makes no sense not to use it. Wadia DACs use it – _despite_ (in your understanding) their smooth treble roll-off.

  


> ...In fact, judging by your earlier arguments wouldn't this be the worst solution since it's adding pre-ringing with little to no benefit?


   
  Yes, certainly – not specifically because of the pre-ringing, but because of the still high amount of ringing. Another reason for not being interested in this player. But I'm rather confident that I would appreciate its sound quality nonetheless despite the not so glorious technical data. They simply don't tell the whole story. Believe me! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



.


----------



## b0dhi

Quote: 





jazz said:


> The latter is imaginable – but I doubt that there's an ADC with a 22-kHz anti-aliasing filter at a sampling rate of 96 kHz. If it's a feature of the player, it is a technical flaw in my book. At least it's a missed chance of deriving advantage from the smooth roll-off.
> .


 

 Agreed. But when dealing with oversampling there's always some trade-off. If you use slow roll-off you get higher aliasing. Less aliasing, more Gibbs. And it's not even certain to what extent either of these are audible (if at all). All these (and many other) "issues" would very cleanly disappear if music was recorded at 192khz in the first place. This is a much better solution, IMO, than the very sophisticated research needed to properly address the "audibility" question. Why answer a question when you can render it moot instead?
   
  Sigh.


----------



## Antony6555

Quote: 





jazz said:


> I don't do DBT for comparing gear, and luckily it's very hard to compare different DAPs that way. If I like the sound of a component better than another in real life, the purpose is served.
> .


 

  
  It's hard to compare DAPs through dbt because...most daps sound about the same. The real meaning of this thread: don't waste too much money on overpriced daps.


----------



## Anomaly2

Quote: 





antony6555 said:


> The real meaning of this thread: don't waste too much money on overpriced daps.


 
  For those individuals who have already bought one, they are probably experiencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization.


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





antony6555 said:


> It's hard to compare DAPs through dbt because...most daps sound about the same. The real meaning of this thread: don't waste too much money on overpriced daps.


 

 Have you heard the HiFiMAN HM-801? No.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





shike said:


> Sorry, I should remember there are age groups and those with hearing loss on the forums.  Nonetheless I have hearing up to a bit above 17K, so the roll-off is relatively noticeable under scrutiny for me at least.


 


 You are missing the point, even if your hearing threshold is 17 or 18 or 20K it does not mean that a roll-off applied to a musical signal below those thresholds will be audible, my hearing goes above 15K (just) but a 13K roll-off is inaudible to me in a musical signal. Detecting a pure tone is one thing detecting its absence in a complex signal is quite another, otherwise MP3 would not work at all. Try adding a low pass to a copy of a familiar piece and run a few DBTs changing the low pass, you might be surprised...quite stern low pass filters can be perceptually innocuous in practice


----------



## KLS

Quote: 





anomaly2 said:


> For those individuals who have already bought one, they are probably experiencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization.


 

 Thanks for the links. I gain knowledge today.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





nick_charles said:


> You are missing the point, even if your hearing threshold is 17 or 18 or 20K it does not mean that a roll-off applied to a musical signal below those thresholds will be audible, my hearing goes above 15K (just) but a 13K roll-off is inaudible to me in a musical signal. Detecting a pure tone is one thing detecting its absence in a complex signal is quite another, otherwise MP3 would not work at all. Try adding a low pass to a copy of a familiar piece and run a few DBTs changing the low pass, you might be surprised...quite stern low pass filters can be perceptually innocuous in practice


 

 What software would you recommend for adding the low pass?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





shike said:


> What software would you recommend for adding the low pass?


 


 I like Cool Edit Pro


----------



## Shike

I found a straight cutoff at 15khz was almost impossible to discern scoring about 20% probability of guessing.
   
  However, I thought for amusement I'd do my best to mimic the HiFiman frequency response - here's the filter I performed:
   

   
  I put 5K as the last non-rolled off frequency (a benefit of a doubt based on dfkt's measurements), -1dB at 9K, -2.5dB at 16K, -4dB at 20K, and complete roll-off after that to 22khz.
   
  The sample was a wav file of Lamb of God's Laid to Rest set to a loop on a rather heavy cymbal section.  Using the Foobar ABX Comparator I managed to get ten out of ten  - though it took more concentration than I'd like for sure.  Still, it leads me to believe that there is indeed enough difference in the HFMan's FR to be identifiable.  It seems that it's not the highest roll-off that would probably allow it to be identifiable, but the smaller changes that happen much earlier.  Technically the HiFiMan is still a bit bumpier than this in the FR actually being a bit hotter and having a small peak which I would suspect make it a bit more obvious too.
   
  Learned a bit more about my hearing too ^_^


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





shike said:


> I found a straight cutoff at 15khz was almost impossible to discern scoring about 20% probability of guessing.
> 
> However, I thought for amusement I'd do my best to mimic the HiFiman frequency response - here's the filter I performed:
> 
> ...


 


  
  Interesting, that it does not even get to 9K without dropping 1db is pretty extreme, worse than FM radio in fact. In fairness to the HFMan usings cymbals segments is loading the dice a touch, but if it your filter is a decent facsimile of the HFman roll-off then the roll-off clearly is audible , to some at any rate. I'll rry it myself tomorrow...


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> I am in the Hi-FiMAN lovers group, and I don't care what scientific graphs are showing me,
> The bottom line IMO is the best sound that I hear in my ears, and all the graphs and scientific data that you can muster
> doesn't change my opinion on the sound.
> In the end, it's all about the sound. And the 801 sounds spectacular.  This is the end justifying the means.
> ...


 

  
  Ok Aaron, so you are saying I can borrow it for an extended period of time.  Right?  
   
  Alex


----------



## immtbiker

Sure NJ Alex.
  Do you have an amp you can lend me at the same time that will mate well with
  some K1000's?


----------



## Trogdor

Hmmm....I sold it, damn it.   I used to use believe it or not the Class T switching one you buy from Target (I forgot the name of it), but it wasn't bad at all.
   
  I am told the BEST amp in the world for it is a F1.
   
  When the heck did you get a K1000?  (I thought you didn't like them)
   
  EDIT:  Class T and it was this:
   
  http://www.amazon.com/Sonic-Impact-15-Watt-Portable-Amplifier/dp/B00009W44B
  http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/t-amp_e.html
   
  I realize this is the $60 special but it wasn't that bad at all.  I think this was the best solution for the AKG K1000 under a million dollars (well you know what I'm talking about).


----------



## xnor

Dunno if this has been mentioned already, but the hm-801 also has a output impedance of over 18 Ω. Combine that e.g. with the SE530 and you will get HUGE FR deviations. (up to 7 dB according to my calculations)


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





trogdor said:


> When the heck did you get a K1000?  (I thought you didn't like them)


 
  I have bought and sold 3 different pairs of O2 Mk1's, each time hoping, that I would
  finally get fulfillment out of them. They are just not my cup of heapin' hot Joe.
   
  I didn't like the K1000's because the gave me unbearable cranial pressure, and I
  never got to spend some intimate uninterrupted time with them.
  Now, that I have a pair that don't make my head feel like a squished grape, I can
  decide whether or not they get to keep in my stable.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Well, I swore that I would not post in this thread, because many people's minds in this thread are already made up about the HM-801.  But now I am convinced that these RMAA tests have little to do with just how good the HM-801 sounds.  I've had a loaner 801 here for a week, playing a multitude of 24/96 hi-res downloads, and all I can say is that I want one to replace my iMod/Vcaps.  
   
  I took it to Westone today to try out the ES5 demos which were great, and during our 2 hour listening session p0derh0und23 (Doug) agreed with me that the 801 with 24/96 FLAC sounds more accurate and spacious than my iMod rig with 16 bit ALAC (it's max).  We tried it with the 801's built-in amp and with line-out into Pico Slim and Protector, with stock earphone cables and balanced TWag cable (with SE adapter for Slim).  And we even fed it into an Audiocats SuperFatCat ++ modded SR-001 Mk2 which everyone loved.  
   
  The 24/96 from the HM-801 was also superior as a line-out source to my iPad with 16 bit lossless > iPad camera connection kit > iBasso D4 USB DAC line-out > Pico Slim, Protector and SR-001 mk2.  Most of our time listening today with the 801 was via the line-out jack, but we did use the built-in headphone amp which sounds very good and is easily on the level of these other amps.  I won't rank them right now because which is best also changes depending on what phones they are driving.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


xnor said:


> Dunno if this has been mentioned already, but the hm-801 also has a output impedance of over 18 Ω. Combine that e.g. with the SE530 and you will get HUGE FR deviations. (up to 7 dB according to my calculations)


   
  That's . . . wow.  That's about all I can say, wow.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> But now I am convinced that these RMAA tests have little to do with just how good the HM-801 sounds.  I've had a loaner 801 here for a week, playing a multitude of 24/96 hi-res downloads, and all I can say is that I want one to replace my iMod/Vcaps.


 
  But I've been told in this thread that these opinions are worthless in this thread without actual measurement equipment.
   
  I say that with obvious sarcasm because music and art are measured by the heart and not a machine when it 
  comes to different sparking different emotional experiences and fulfillment of one's hobby.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> But I've been told in this thread that these opinions are worthless in this thread without actual measurement equipment.
> 
> I say that with obvious sarcasm because music and art are measured by the heart and not a machine when it
> comes to different sparking different emotional experiences and fulfillment of one's hobby.


 

 Well, I find that music/sound like cars are the perfect blending of both art and science, not one or the other.  Back to the flame war!


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> But I've been told in this thread that these opinions are worthless in this thread without actual measurement equipment.
> 
> I say that with obvious sarcasm because music and art are measured by the heart and not a machine when it
> comes to different sparking different emotional experiences and fulfillment of one's hobby.


 

 The HM-801 is not music, only a means with which to listen to the music. So shouldn't it reproduce the music as faithfully as possible? Machines can measure _that_, and they _did_.


----------



## El_Doug

It just goes to show you that some people do not like the sound of pure reproduction, and to them the musical EXPERIENCE improves with some coloration
  
  Quote: 





head injury said:


> The HM-801 is not music, only a means with which to listen to the music. So shouldn't it reproduce the music as faithfully as possible? Machines can measure _that_, and they _did_.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





el_doug said:


> It just goes to show you that some people do not like the sound of pure reproduction, and to them the musical EXPERIENCE improves with some coloration


 

 I never denied that. After all, that's exactly what the measurements show the HM-801 is: colored. And _I'm_ listening to Grados, so I agree.
   
  Though I'm with Shike and think a source should be as neutral as possible, with colorations coming in further down the path. At least $800 sources.


----------



## El_Doug

I figure the EQ can be at any stage in the game.  Many "purists" insist on a perfectly flat response from source and amp, and say that any and all coloration should come from the transducers - I say humbug!  If I can get the coloration into the system and I like it, who gives a hoot where in the chain it comes from?


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

The only "coloration" I know of is that the RMAA tests show it rolls off a bit in the treble region, exactly where my 48 year old ears roll off as well.  Otherwise it sounds more natural, realistic and transparent than other portable players that I have tried.  I suppose that my brain could be filling in whatever is missing; because it's not sounding, dull or soft, veiled or dark in any way as a result of the roll off.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


headphoneaddict said:


> The only "coloration" I know of is that the RMAA tests show it rolls off a bit in the treble region, exactly where my 48 year old ears roll off as well.  Otherwise it sounds more natural, realistic and transparent than other portable players that I have tried.  I suppose that my brain could be filling in whatever is missing; because it's not sounding, dull or soft, veiled or dark in any way as a result of the roll off.


 
 So you're saying you can't hear to 9Khz?  I mean, it rolls of -2dB around 12K, and -1dB around 9K afterall.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

I can hear well to just past 12K, and at 16K my hearing is at a somewhat lower level but still audible with all my good phones, but anything past 16K is missing for me.  The 801 does not seem any more rolled off to my ears than any of the other gear I have here.  
   
  You have to remember that the +/- variation in frequency response with various headphones can be widely different between models and brands, with fluctuations much bigger than the roll off in the 801.  I could likely listen to the HD600 on the 801 and get flatter or more extended treble than the HD650 on the flattest measuring DAP you can find.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


headphoneaddict said:


> I can hear well to just past 12K, and at 16K my hearing is at a somewhat lower level but still audible with all my good phones, but anything past 16K is missing for me.  The 801 does not seem any more rolled off to my ears than any of the other gear I have here.
> 
> You have to remember that the +/- variation in frequency response with various headphones can be widely different between models and brands, with fluctuations much bigger than the roll off in the 801.  I could likely listen to the HD600 on the 801 and get flatter or more extended treble than the HD650 on the flattest measuring DAP you can find.


 
 I wouldn't argue against transducers making a larger difference, but that's not the point.  If you're using the same headphones to compare players then they're still going to sound different if your ears can hear a decibel difference in that range.  For me it was rather hard, but I imagine if you had a transducer that was peaky around those frequencies the difference might be easier to pick out (other frequencies not blending making it hard to notice with music playing).


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> headphoneaddict said:
> ...


 

 That's not really my point.  The implication was, why is it okay for the HD650 to have such a big high frequency roll off, but it's not okay for the 801 to have a smaller one if it isn't impacting the sound quality in a more significant way?  
   
  Or, what absolute or scientific relationship does the 801's mild high frequency roll off have in regards to it's sound quality; primarily when it comes to things like timbre, tone, speed, attack, decay, transparency, realism, soundstage and spaciousness (among others things that I missed)?  If you guys are so high on measuring things, then surely you can present us with an X vs Y graph that shows dB roll off on one axis and the true level of performance on the other axis?  Well you can't, because even with a ruler flat frequency response you will have 10 different people give 10 different impressions of the source's performance, with one saying it was too bright, and another complaining it was too dark, and another saying the soundstage wasn't deep enough or too forward, and another saying the bass was sloppy, etc.  And many of those subjective measures of performance cannot be measured by equipment, or be predicted reliably by measurements.  Frequency response and separation can be measured, but it's even possible that less stereo separation is not such a bad thing when using headphones, where many times the imaging becomes artificial with too much left-right spread between instruments.  Otherwise why do we need cross-feed?
   
  I contend that after spending over a week with the 801 that it's superior to other portable sources that I have heard, regardless of the measurements presented here.  I will concede that maybe a person might possibly mis-identify the make of a violin if trying to identify it entirely by listening through the 801, IF that extra 3db of treble at 15K is really the "make it or break it" deficiency standing in the way.  But I highly doubt that is the case.  And, if that is the kind of thing that you need to do with your headphone rig, then maybe a portable DAP isn't what you really need in the first place.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


headphoneaddict said:


> That's not really my point.  The implication was, why is it okay for the HD650 to have such a big high frequency roll off, but it's not okay for the 801 to have a smaller one if it isn't impacting the sound quality in a more significant way?
> 
> *Personally, I've never said it's okay for accurate reproduction.  You'll notice my headphones, K601s, were chosen due to their rather linear FR.*  *Assumption didn't pay off now did it?  If you're a subjectivist - fine - you're completely in line saying you like how it's colored.  Just refrain from saying it's the best at reproducing music - key word reproducing - when it's factually false.*
> 
> ...


 

 Responses in bold.


----------



## electropop

Quote: 





shike said:


> That's not what this thread is about.


 

 Yes it is. I'm sure I read something on the first page about dfkt saying it doesn't "sound" any different, or at least better, than a relatively cheap DAP. Pretty subjective. And everyone who has had a HM-801 to compare has stated that there are clear audible advantages, me included. While he is a respected reviewer and mainly objective, I, however, can't trust his hearing one bit. Or more accurately, what he claims to hear or not to hear.
   
  How about other high end source manufacturers, by the way? Are the differences or their own flavors just matters of FR and coloration? Why does a Linn DS or a CD player have its own sonical benefits over a Marantz one, even though they both scale well and exactly similarly on measurements? Right now I'm talking about differences that are easily discerned by ear, not necessarily benefits. I'm sorry if I've missed something in this thread, but I was only wondering, since I haven't read that any scientific direction has established this point..


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





electropop said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> *No, it wasn't.  It was about the performance issues and measurements that came up.  Various other sub-topics popped up such as whether people could tell a difference.  They could, so we can end on the conclusion it's both audible yet still inaccurate.*
> 
> ...


 

 Response in bold.
   
  Why we keep in going in the same circles over and over again I'll never know.


----------



## xnor

Yup. And properly implemented crossfeed has little to do with sound bleeding uncontrolledly from one channel into the other.


----------



## JaZZ

shike said:


> No, it wasn't.  It was about the performance issues and measurements that came up.  Various other sub-topics popped up such as whether people could tell a difference.  They could, so we can end on the conclusion it's both audible yet still inaccurate.


 
   
  Whereas I could hear the roll-off (and didn't like it), I could also hear a greater refinement from the HiFiMan sample (which I liked). 
   


> Audible advantages?  Okay, rather than subjective crap let's talk about MEASURABLE advantages?  Liking an inaccurate sound is one thing, proving it is "better" (advantageous) is another thing entirely.


 
 What is there to be proved? If it sounds better in the sense of more refined and better resolving, it is better. As to measurements, you still seem to deny the possibility that two devices may measure identical and sound different.
   
  The Corda Symphony (as shown earlier in this thread) enables different filter settings, some of them with a treble roll-off. It is audible to my ears, nevertheless these settings have the typical Symphony characteristic which makes a classic, linear filter setting more similar to them than to the DAC2 or UDP-1 characteristic with quasi-identical measuring data.

  


xnor said:


> Yup. And properly implemented crossfeed has little to do with sound bleeding uncontrolledly from one channel into the other.


 

 What are you talking about? The relatively high crosstalk? I have simulated a crosstalk of –40 dB and couldn't identify it.
.


----------



## Anomaly2

Quote: 





shike said:


> Why we keep in going in the same circles over and over again I'll never know.


 
  Many subjectivists will always reject evidence because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization as this thread has already demonstrated.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





jazz said:


> What are you talking about?


 

 HeadphoneAddict's (closed-ended) question.


----------



## immtbiker

Even though this is the science forum (and I truly respect that) it seems that we have two entirely separate camps here.
  1- Those who believe that if a component doesn't measure well, how could it possibly sound good at all, and...
   
  2- Those who say that they don't care how a component measures, and what's important to them is how the component
  actually sounds to there ears.
   
   
  Of course, I've been very clear that I am in the second camp, but I do respect both camps. One of the problems that I see
  here, is that there are many components in the chain that attribute to the end result. What is the weakest link? If you have
  a unit that measures poorly, goes through some less than stellar interconnects and an average headphone, then I think that
  everyone can agree that the end result will probably not be favorable.
  Take that same source, and put it through some decent wire, and a great pair of headphones, and the end result is going to be
  totally different. 
  Using my JH-13's, straight out of the headphone jack of the 801 yields good results for me (using the lower gain game card).
  Plugging in a B&W P5 which is known to have a serious high end roll of, is a recipe for disaster.
  Anything can be the weakest link in the chain.
  As we can see with most headphones, the source can render even the finest headphones less than optimal if the source is
  pretty bad. I'm 50 and have some well trained years (that have taken years of training to detect even the smallest nuances)
  and I can still hear up to 17K, and I find the 801's sounding excellent with a good headphone, or using the line out into a better
  amp, still find the sound better than most DAPs that I've tried. 
  Multiple component synergy cannot be measured but it can be heard.
  I enjoy looking at amp measurements (been doing so for many years via Stereophile and Headroom). But when I plunk down some $erious cash, it has to be what I hear and not what the published specs are.
  When the 800's first came out, many members exhibited concern of the 600 ohm spike in the mid bass, and yet, it does not affect my listening pleasure with a darn good amp. Case in point.
  We can go through this argument all day long, but I feel that the end must justify the means, and if you put on a pair of headphones from any source, and it sounds good, but doesn't measure well, I still will stick with what I hear. Others might hear the same exact setup differently and that's ok, which is why we have so many choices and swapping in and out various components in the chain to find "nirvana", but when it comes to the end of the day, what is really important if your are a serious music enthusiast, is what you hear with your ears. Bottom line. 
  Measurements can help to show us what the output of a component is, but it doesn't necessarily show us if something sounds good. Only your G-d given ears can make that decision.
  All of this is IMHO, of course.
  I'll bet you, that if that 801 was measured in 3 different environments, testing with three different measuring devices, then the results would not be the same, especially (in Tyll's case) where expensive scotch might make the results slightly different. J/K Tyll.
  When you read a Road and Track magazine, no one achieves the same results in a real environment. You never et the claimed gas mileage or 0−60. Every motorcycle magazine has different dyno results on my ZX-14. Why is that?
  So I take measurements with a grain of salt.
  OK, I'm done. Agree or disagree. My ears and my heart is what I go by, and so far, it has worked for me.
  People said the CAL-15 is the greatest CDP, but when I took it home, I yielded different results, and exchanged it for a Cary 306/200 which eventually got replace after a short time. Half the fun of a hobby like this, is the thrill of the chase, otherwise we would all be content, and wouldn't need Head-Fi.
   
  If you took every component out there, I'm pretty sure that you could find something that you wouldn't like about it. Of course, this is my opinion, and cannot be backed up by scientific facts, alone.


----------



## Danneq

@immtbiker
   
  I just quickly want to say that I'm in the same group as you, i.e. the "ear-trusting group", before I leave the Sound science forum and go to other forums here.
  I went though the same thing in the Kenwood RMAA thread. I still do not understand how someone can dismiss something they have not used only based on some graphs. My opinion is that the quality of musical equipment from a consumer perspective should be decided with your ears. However I know that people might think differently, different strokes for different folks.
   
  What I dislike is how test results and measurements are sometimes used in the Sound science forum to try to push your opinion on someone. Because that is what it does boil down to in the end: opinions about what constitutes "correct music appreciation".


----------



## Anomaly2

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *Danneq* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> My opinion is that the quality of musical equipment from a consumer perspective should be decided with your ears.


 
  It is decided with one’s ears—e.g., http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_plac.htm, http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf, http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Wired%20Wisdom.pdf, http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm, http://www.theaudiocritic.com/, http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm, etc.


----------



## xnor

This is not only completely off-topic, I'm also in complete disagreement.
  First of all, dividing people into camps is stupid - for a couple of reasons, and you know that. Secondly superficial knowledge is very dangerous. Thirdly, nobody cares what you go by, that's not what this thread is about.  And of course there's always someone who thinks he need to analyze the situation, knowing everything better, summarizing and throwing random things together etc. and in the end this derails just about any thread.
   
  If you don't know how to interpret the data or just cannot accept any kind of criticism then why are you here? To mess around I guess.
  And I don't think anyone said it sounds like crap so stop thinking that way and open your mind for a more healthy discussion, but this just plain sucks.
  I hope I'll see less of this crap in the future, thanks.


----------



## DameNinngen

(sorry,my poor English.)
  To examine the influence that output impedance would exert on the frequency response, I added the measurement example in Westone3.
  I think that I cannot disregard the influence by output impedance of HM-801 with the model with a large ups and downs of impedance like multi BA driver.


----------



## Danneq

Directed at me or at immtbiker? He is a senior member compared to me, so it might be directed at me. Anyway, sorry I did not want to irritate you.
   
  Well, it is not that I cannot interpret data nor accept criticism. I would have been happy if someone said that, in my case, the Kenwoods sounded like crap. Then they based their opinions on experience and *that has been my point the whole time*. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion and that is what it boils down to and something we cannot escape. We all have preferences and opinions.
  Anyway, since our views are worlds apart, I will lurk in the sound science forum instead of contributing. I will write in forums that are more relevant to me, i.e. portable sources, headphone amps and headphones...
  
  Quote: 





xnor said:


> This is not only completely off-topic, I'm also in complete disagreement.
> First of all, dividing people into camps is stupid - for a couple of reasons, and you know that. Secondly superficial knowledge is very dangerous. Thirdly, nobody cares what you go by, that's not what this thread is about.  And of course there's always someone who thinks he need to analyze the situation, knowing everything better, summarizing and throwing random things together etc. and in the end this derails just about any thread.
> 
> If you don't know how to interpret the data or just cannot accept any kind of criticism then why are you here? To mess around I guess.
> ...


----------



## Sonic 748i

Quote: 





danneq said:


> Directed at me or at immtbiker? He is a senior member compared to me, so it might be directed at me. Anyway, sorry I did not want to irritate you.
> 
> Well, it is not that I cannot interpret data nor accept criticism. I would have been happy if someone said that, in my case, the Kenwoods sounded like crap. Then they based their opinions on experience and *that has been my point the whole time*. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion and that is what it boils down to and something we cannot escape. We all have preferences and opinions.
> Anyway, since our views are worlds apart, I will lurk in the sound science forum instead of contributing. I will write in forums that are more relevant to me, i.e. portable sources, headphone amps and headphones...


 

 It was directed at immtbiker.


----------



## Danneq

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> It was directed at immtbiker.


 

  
  Okay, then I know. We had our disagreements before so I wasn't sure...
  I'll just go back to the portable source forum now.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

I see that trying to make a point in this thread is impossible without it being dissected in the *wrong* direction.  
   
  I've confirmed for myself that there is no point in further addressing any of this here, in the middle of a witch hunt and straw man tactics - "if you like the HM-801 then you must like colored sound", ignoring the question of what real effect the small treble roll-off has on other areas of sound quality other than the treble, saying it's "colored" which implies the timbre and tone or remainder of frequency response is off too, insulting others for their use of audiophile terms and minimizing the terms as trivial and inconsequential when they are useful to many readers, or changing a question about the roll off into a rant about output impedance and resistive loads.  Great.  
   
  We're not even on the same page, and will never see eye to eye.  So, I'll stop trying to convince you that the 801 is a good sounding player, and you can stop trying to convince me that you know what you are talking about.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





xnor said:


> This is not only completely off-topic, I'm also in complete disagreement.
> First of all, dividing people into camps is stupid - for a couple of reasons, and you know that. Secondly superficial knowledge is very dangerous. Thirdly, nobody cares what you go by, that's not what this thread is about.  And of course there's always someone who thinks he need to analyze the situation, knowing everything better, summarizing and throwing random things together etc. and in the end this derails just about any thread.
> 
> If you don't know how to interpret the data or just cannot accept any kind of criticism then why are you here? To mess around I guess.
> ...


 
  You sir, are an evil person, and the world would be a better place without you.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> You sir, are an evil person, and the world would be a better place without you.


 

 I was just thinking aloud.
   
  I posted maybe 3 or 4 lines of information in this post, and that is about what the posts of others could be reduced to as well - the rest is, well see above.
   
  My last reply wasn't targeted at you specifically, anyway, have a nice day.
   
  PS: It's not my intention to stop anyone _contributing _around here.


----------



## fishski13

Quote: 





dameninngen said:


> (sorry,my poor English.)
> To examine the influence that output impedance would exert on the frequency response, I added the measurement example in Westone3.
> I think that I cannot disregard the influence by output impedance of HM-801 with the model with a large ups and downs of impedance like multi BA driver.


 
   
  if accurate, puts a lot of things into perspective.


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote: 





dameninngen said:


> (sorry,my poor English.)
> To examine the influence that output impedance would exert on the frequency response, I added the measurement example in Westone3.
> I think that I cannot disregard the influence by output impedance of HM-801 with the model with a large ups and downs of impedance like multi BA driver.


 

 I do not see the issue here. HiFiMAN has a designated amplifier module specifically tailored towards use with low impedance loads like IEMs and earbuds. It would be great if that module was measured instead of the old high gain standard card which was not made with in-ears in mind.


----------



## Danneq

@immtbiker - ironic or at loss for words?
   
  I had to check in how this thread is going. It would be very amusing if Xnor's post was directed at me. I must be akin to a science and technology hating hermit in Xnor's eyes in that case. It is interesting to see yourself through others eyes...
  Thinking out loud is a good way to show your opinions and prejudges, so now I understand your stance even more, Xnor. I see not evil as immtbiker writes (ironically?), just a slight superiority complex against people who lack the deep knowledge that one should have to be relevant. The only time I find superficial knowledge dangerous by the way, is if a professional only has superficial knowledge of his/her work. When it comes to hobbies deep knowledge of the workings of that particular hobby is not necessary (music listening is a hobby).
   
  This thread could be reduced to 1 page if all redundant opinions and bickering was removed (of course my posts as well, as I am the first to admit).
  It basically said:
  A. Hifiman 801 did not do well in RMAA tests.
   
  To go from here and say:
  B. Hifiman sounds bad
   
  is a bit too steep if someone has not heard the DAP in question. If someone who has heard it and likes it, does that mean that the person is hearing wrong? Or listening in the wrong way? Or simply cannot appreciate music correctly?
  I cannot see any definite connection between a certain piece of musical equipment doing good or bad in tests and how it is perceived and enjoyed by people who listen to it.
   
  If someone can link to any article or source where a definite connection between these two things is shown I will be grateful.
   
  PS. I like how you put italics on _contributing._ Done in a very subtle and at the same time condescending way. Another case of different definitions of a word, btw...


----------



## Anomaly2

Quote: 





danneq said:


> I cannot see any definite connection between a certain piece of musical equipment doing good or bad in tests and how it is perceived and enjoyed by people who listen to it.
> 
> If someone can link to any article or source where a definite connection between these two things is shown I will be grateful.


 
  Please see post 697 in this thread.


----------



## xnor

TOO LONG, DID NOT READ.
   
   
   
  Doesn't superiority complex refer to a mere _feeling _of being superior? In that case your psychoanalysis must be wrong!
   
  (btw, that italic text thingy is called emphasis)
   
   
  Sorry.


----------



## Danneq

Quote: 





xnor said:


> TOO LONG, DID NOT READ.
> 
> Doesn't superiority complex refer to a mere _feeling _of being superior? In that case your psychoanalysis must be wrong!
> 
> ...


 
   
  Haha! That was funny. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Well, this is pretty pointless discussion, but I did notice that this thread spun out of control and in the end is was about opinions and preferences. Some did not justify their opinions and just said that they enjoy the Hifiman. Some used test results as a means to justify their opinions.
   
  I understood well that the italics were used to suggest that some people "contribute" (i.e. not really) and some people _contribute_ (i.e. they do). As a thread needs posts to grow, I simply see all posts helping the thread grow as contributing to it. If they help to bring meaning to the thread is another question...
   
  Anyway, as I do not bring anything to the case in question in this thread I will try my best to keep away (no matter how much I enjoy verbal jousting). I hope more people had that self criticism...


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> I see that trying to make a point in this thread is impossible without it being dissected in the *wrong* direction.
> 
> *The only thing that's wrong about it is that you don't like it.  Others here are just fine with how your post has been dissected.*
> 
> ...


 

 Responses in bold.


----------



## electropop

Placebo is no worse or different than making a conclusion of how the player conveys a musical signal, based on graphs. While I appreciate and concur that the music must be heard accurately and realistically (I like the K601s, by the way, mainly because they play pitches accurately, not because they're "flat"), I have to say that the source plays a significant part in this and NOT just because the FR must be flat and "colorless".
   
  Even if I might be accused from going off topic, I have to say that you must have not made proper comparisons between "uncolored" digital sources to claim that all differences are placebo. A realistic, though in this case a tad nihilistic, approach is always for the better of things. For where would this world go, if we weren't rational? Regardless, I can hear the advantage with better, non snake-oil, source design. (Don't ask me about the technical aspects of the design, heh)
  Has anyone heard or got accustomed with Linn DS equipment? I think they're quite wild.
   
  Just to put in the quotes from dfkt I missed:
  "_The s-flo is the same (according to Shigzeo, whom I trust). There is no magical player that sounds "better" than the next one. I'm sick and tired of trying out all that nonsense, like the AMP3, Hifiman, etc - when a $30 Sansa Clip gives the same or better audio quality. The s-flo is yet another nonsense product with horrible firmware and usability, with some advertising claims about "better" sound quality that's simply can't be true. People, don't be gullible fools._"
   
  To continue my point, I think it's pretty clear that he let the measurements cloud his judgments (as high $$$ does with placebo). I didn't see which IEMs he tested the player with. Is it mentioned here on this thread? I'm curious, since I didn't hear an improvement using my RE0s, but a clear one with all of my full-sized cans. Edit: All low impedance, though.
   
  Also, claiming that "there is no magical player that sounds "better" than the next one" renders all source and amplifiers identical, which is rather interesting again..
   
  This is my pathetic attempt of finding the root of this conversation. It's baffling to me. And sorry if my post comes on as rude. English is not my native language either... Edit: I'm not irritated by the facts and not claiming that the roll off isn't audible and thus not protecting nothing more than the "fact", heh, that not all source equipments with same measurements sound the same, as Jazz said.
   
  This post was pointed towards Shike, who made me a bit jumpy with his post.  To annoy you further with this subjective mumbo jumbo, I'd like to ask you a quick thing: How do you yourself listen to music? Do you mainly pay attention to FR, melodies, hearing instruments as they should be, transients or pitch accuracy? And what kind of music do you listen to as well? I think this is important information when making such statements as "placebo" and "all flat sources with good transients are equal" (not a direct quote from you, but my abbreviation of what I've understood, correct me if I'm completely at bay).
   
  Thank you and sorry


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





electropop said:


> To continue my point, I think it's pretty clear that he let the measurements cloud his judgments


 

 Look, he's done measurements. A lot of them. And his measurements are comparable, as are the products' prices (and advertised performance).
   
  He's actually trying to help people. But looking at threads like this I'm not surprised that he's annoyed.


----------



## electropop

My point stands. AND I actually said that I respect his work, just that I don't trust his ears. And yes, he helps to keep things in perspective. Cost-performance wise though, have you seen a more versatile player, that functions as a dac, has an integrated amplifier capable of driving more difficult cans as well AND sound better?
   
  Of course the player isn't for everyone and on the road, who cares about minute differences in sound quality? Probably permille of DAP owners..
   
  I bet that if I played a few setups (blind test) for a number of people with different digital sources, they couldn't tell how they measured (the digital source). They could distinguish differences (probably hear a treble roll off that was or not due to an impedance issue), sure, and pick out a favorite as well. But the differences would probably be heard by listening to music, preferably with live instruments, and see which sounds "most real". Subjective, yes, but one would be hard pressed on saying how each set measured, based on hearing evaluation.
  Point being, measurements don't tell you how a system sounds holistically, period.
   
  I like Jazz's objective approach. He wouldn't buy the player due to its roll-off and I have nothing against that or the measurements per se. I played 600usd for the player (pre-order) and don't think that's too much for what I'm getting. 800usd would have been maybe.. As said many times, each makes his or her own decision (and a financial assessment) and I'm sure you can hear the advantage over cheaper DAPs with low impedance, bit better full sized cans. (Why not with the higher end IEMs, at least with the GAME module?)
   
  If one doesn't "hear the difference" and only uses porta pros or cheaper IEMs on the go, he definitely shouldn't invest. If you think you have enough money to try it out and are interested in a good quality (at least sound wise) product that performs well with better headphones, do it!
   
  Here's for a fail at trying to bring the debate to an end, yet again, haha.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


electropop said:


> If one doesn't "hear the difference" and only uses porta pros or cheaper IEMs on the go, he definitely shouldn't invest. If you think you have enough money to try it out and are interested in a good quality (at least sound wise) product that performs well with better headphones, do it!
> 
> Here's for a fail at trying to bring the debate to an end, yet again, haha.


 
 What of those that hear a difference, but don't like the adverse effect to accurate reproduction?  How do you define that it is "good quality - sound wise") meaning "better than dap x, y, or z", empirically without subjective taste (possible FR inconsistencies, etc)?
   
  The most one can say about the 801 is that they like it more or enjoy it.  "Better in SQ" requires an empirical level of measurement, as SQ could infer quality of reproduction of the original signal, at least IMO.
   
  PS:
   
   
   
  Quote: 





> I'm sure you can hear the advantage over cheaper DAPs with low impedance, bit better full sized cans.


 
   
  What advantage, empirically?  If we're going to argue that everyone has different perception of sound (in your words " I can't trust his hearing")  then we need some measurable sign of improvement of it over other players for this claim to be factual.
   
  What you hear as an improvement may in fact be contrary to the accurate reproduction of a signal.  Just because it sounds better to you does not mean it will be universally accepted as an advantage for music reproduction.  I believe I covered this in my PM reply, but felt it needed to be stated here.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





electropop said:


> Cost-performance wise


 
  It doesn't have a chance in my book.
  
  Quote: 





> who cares about minute differences in sound quality


 
  We do. And those who spend lots of money usually do too, else they wouldn't spend lots of money in the first place.
   
  Quote: 





> I bet that if I played a few setups (blind test) for a number of people with different digital sources, they couldn't tell how they measured (the digital source). They could distinguish differences (probably hear a treble roll off that was or not due to an impedance issue), sure, and pick out a favorite as well.


 
  If they hear a treble roll-off and the measurements show this (objectively, accurately), either because of a real roll-off or impedance mismatch, then I don't understand your reasoning here.
   
   
  Quote: 





> As said many times, each makes his or her own decision (and a financial assessment) and I'm sure you can hear the advantage over cheaper DAPs with low impedance, bit better full sized cans. (Why not with the higher end IEMs, at least with the GAME module?)


 
  Everyone who buys something wants to see advantages. Or the other way around.
*Q:* And what is the advantage you're talking about that is worth the additional expense over more reasonably priced DAPs? Higher output power/volume?
   
   
  Quote: 





> If you think you have enough money to try it out and are interested in a good quality (at least sound wise) product that performs well with better headphones, do it!


 
  dfkt tried it out:
  "At least the $800 Hifiman sounds like an average MP3 player, while the $300 AMP3 sounds just bad (I'm talking about my ears, not measurements)."

 "[...] they could, you know, just use a $30 Sansa Clip, get better frequency response, better battery life, gapless, a usable UI, etc, etc - and if they really need to drive their HD650 on the go, they could add a better amp than the Hifiman's (like the Arrow or Pico) to the Clip and still only pay a third the price of that thing."
   
   
   
  And this must be a joke or something, but the specifications say the _amp module_ goes up to 60 kHz @ -1 dB.
   
   
   
  edit: btw, he also posted audio test files from different DAPs for comparison. listen and compare them for yourself... (anyone with decent equipment can do this, and will probably be surprised)


----------



## electropop

Quote: 





> Originally Posted by *xnor* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> It doesn't have a chance in my book.
> 
> ...


 

 I like this quoting style. Thanks Shike 
  Responses in bold.


----------



## electropop

Let me go find that test dfkt made.. I haven't tried it but became interested. Though I don't have a desktop dac at the moment, at least one that's resolving enough.


----------



## xnor

Check the link in the OPs thread. Should be within the first 3 pages.


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





xnor said:


> I was just thinking aloud.
> 
> I posted maybe 3 or 4 lines of information in this post, and that is about what the posts of others could be reduced to as well - the rest is, well see above.
> 
> ...


 
  OK Cool. As I said in my post, this is a Science forum and I respect that. I will stay away from including responses of emotion in this thread. There are plenty of
  other threads where I can post how I "feel" about the sound, or what I get from it "emotionally", and I will do that in the proper threads.
   
  I have no vested interest in the unit's measured results, good or bad. My point was stating that it still sounded good to me, regardless of how it measured.
  Even though it is a science forum, people still have "unmeasured feedback", and I feel that it should should be allowed, in small quantities, to be included in the conversation.
  If the majority disagrees with me, then I digress to consensus. Forums do consist largely of sharing opinions.
   
  Also, that same component can be measured 5 different times, _possibly_ yielding 5 slightly different results. I learned that from a tour of the Sure laboratories.
   
  I will no longer play a role in steering this thread into an off-topic one. My apologies. Seriously.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> OK Cool. As I said in my post, this is a Science forum and I respect that. I will stay away from including responses of emotion in this thread. There are plenty of
> other threads where I can post how I "feel" about the sound, or what I get from it "emotionally", and I will do that in the proper threads.
> 
> I have no vested interest in the unit's measured results, good or bad. My point was stating that it still sounded good to me, regardless of how it measured.
> ...


 

 I think its more interesting to see a graph or chart indicating less than stellar performance and to hear great sound only to make you wonder what I am not understanding or considering.  That's the better learning experience rather than clinging to an empirical chart and claiming omniscience on the matter then calling it quits.


----------



## DameNinngen

Quote:


frederiks|tpu said:


> I do not see the issue here. HiFiMAN has a designated amplifier module specifically tailored towards use with low impedance loads like IEMs and earbuds. It would be great if that module was measured instead of the old high gain standard card which was not made with in-ears in mind.


 

 Hello, FrederikS|TPU.
  (I'm sorry, my poor English,again.)
   
  When I read your post yesterday, I did not have the material that was able to be judged.
  Therefore, I decided to obtain IEM amp module in Akihabara (Yeah!), and to measure it.
  The following are the results.
   
  fortunately,exchange was easy.

  
   
  I was surprised at the output impedance a littlebit.
  ...around 34 ohms Wow!　

   
  Therefore (As everybody forecasts) ･･･,

   
*my conclusion:*
  The output impedance of IEM amp module is about 34 ohms.
  Therefore, the influence on the frequency response by the output impedance(especially, multi BA Driver) is larger than Default amp module(about 18 ohm).
   
  so.....just in my opinion,
  I think that the audition is preferable,before you bought it.　(Not like me!)
   
  I am sorry in my long sentences,
  thank you,


----------



## anetode

The threshold for quality from pmps is lower than most wish for in terms of RMAA measurements. A good learning experience would be to read up on those instead of arguing. And not just on message boards (looking things up, that is).
   
  As for liking things in spite of measurements, look at vinyl! :O Easier to convince yourself that something sounds great than to deal with the engineering flaws.


----------



## testrichard

i m too late to join the party and too lazy to read all the post~~
   
  it just makes me wonder what exactly is colorless~ neutral ~ and balanced sound ??
   
  a guitar used different wood to make, made by different maker and using different material of strings with different adjustment play out different kind sound......
   
  i know one thing, i like my Ultrasone pro 900 because of it's crazy bass ~ even though some said the bass is fake, but hey~ i love Hipop and RnB kind of music and the techno bass is made from mixer any way so whats real whats fake or colorless? as long as i feel good and can shake my body on the dance floor while teasing with beautiful girls, having bit of fun in the moment is what music mean to me~ its about having fun.
   
  (i should not post here as i m out of topic, my bad)


----------



## electropop

That's what the argument is about.
   
  There's nothing wrong with liking a "fun" or "colored" presentation. Just that the product shouldn't be called hi-fi and the justification for the price is difficult given the RMAA measurements.


----------



## bangraman

What a fascinating discussion.
   
   
  I don't think we'll ever know for sure until some enterprising guy sticks a factory-set Cowon inside an equally impressive case and tells you that it costs $999, will we?


----------



## immtbiker

Quote: 





			
				electropop said:
			
		

> Just that the product shouldn't be called hi-fi and the justification for the price is difficult given the RMAA measurements.


 
  Hi-Fi has been a word that has been thrown around too loosely, just like "audiophile".
   
  We have to just take it with a grain of salt. In the 90's, products started hitting the shelves everywhere with the word "natural" on the
  package everywhere...the only problem is that sugar is "natural" whether or not your body can break it down easily or not.
   
  Sales and reality tend to blur.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


immtbiker said:


> Hi-Fi has been a word that has been thrown around too loosely, just like "audiophile".
> 
> We have to just take it with a grain of salt. In the 90's, products started hitting the shelves everywhere with the word "natural" on the
> package everywhere...the only problem is that sugar is "natural" whether or not your body can break it down easily or not.
> ...


 
 It's a word that shouldn't just be thrown around.  It used to stand for a set of standards till it got gutted for marketing.
   
  There's HiFi, then there's "HiFi" - the only way to tell one from the other is the graphs some people here seem to hate so much.


----------



## Edwood

Most people fall into one of these two camps:
   
  - People who rationalize not spending a lot of money.
   
  - People who rationalize spending a lot of money.


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





edwood said:


> Most people fall into one of these two camps:
> 
> - People who rationalize not spending a lot of money.
> 
> - People who rationalize spending a lot of money.


 

 That's much too simple.
   
  Everyone has their breaking point, the point where spending more won't give them enough benefit to justify the cost. That point is "a lot of money", and everything beyond it is "too much money". "A lot of money" differs for every person, so "two camps" is impossible.
   
  Unfortunately for "hi-fi" (or fortunately, depends on which way you look at it), that point is the same if the consumer _thinks_ they're getting enough benefit as it is if the consumer really _is_ getting enough benefit. Placebo and all that.


----------



## Blueswyh

I think, first, FR does not equal to what we hear.
  second, just *as** immtbiker* stated, whether or not will you pay for the little differences is really matters.


----------



## bangraman

Quote: 





head injury said:


> That's much too simple.
> 
> Everyone has their breaking point, the point where spending more won't give them enough benefit to justify the cost. That point is "a lot of money", and everything beyond it is "too much money". "A lot of money" differs for every person, so "two camps" is impossible.
> 
> Unfortunately for "hi-fi" (or fortunately, depends on which way you look at it), that point is the same if the consumer _thinks_ they're getting enough benefit as it is if the consumer really _is_ getting enough benefit. Placebo and all that.


 

 Well put.
   
   
  Having said that, if 'spending a lot of money' is not ultimately a big deal in the market under discussion for you, and you do have half an objective brain, it gets even more confusing as complete BS tends to coexist with some element of merit in the marketplace of the 'high end'. And audio is perhaps a more unusual marketplace in that both the people who sell you complete BS and products that are engineered objectively equally actually personally believe in their product, along with a buyer base that is equally passionate about products developed either way. If this translated to the aircraft industry for example however, half of the planes wouldn't fly.
   
   
  These days I'm just counting on something not to offend my sonic palate, be comfy and to look nice. But I'm not going to tell you it sounds much better because it's made out of heavier gauge alloy or wood.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote: 





bangraman said:


> ... if 'spending a lot of money' is not ultimately a big deal in the market under discussion for you, and you do have half an objective brain, it gets even more confusing as complete BS tends to coexist with some element of merit in the marketplace of the 'high end'. And audio is perhaps a more unusual marketplace in that both the people who sell you complete BS and products that are engineered objectively equally actually personally believe in their product, along with a buyer base that is equally passionate about products developed either way. If this translated to the aircraft industry for example however, half of the planes wouldn't fly.


 

 Indeed, I find Stereophile reviews/measurements to be a good example of this kind of split-personality. You can see the graphs for products that are frankly apalling by any rational definition of high fidelity side by side with CD players with admirably flat FRs. The really amusing part is that the reviewers frequently cannot hear just how *terrible* some of the bad products (such as a cable with 10% distortion or a NOS CD player with 25% distortion up to 100hz) really are. This also illustrates the problem of sighted reviews where you know how pretty and/or expensive the products under review are...


----------



## fark

This have been very funny to read, most of it anyway! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  Emotions, emotions...  However, I think it´s good that dfkt started this dicussion, the tradgic thing to me seems to be moore of people trying to forse thier supposedly correct ideal down the thoaths of others, waivering graphs, thronging around namnes etc..
  Grownups should have no problem accepting what others thought of a particullary player after having listened to it, it seems we all have different ideals anyhow, but that´s just my humble opinion. 
   
  Anyway, I´m new to all this audio stuff and just ordered the 801, can probably take my money back tho since it hasn´t been shipped yet?  (or at least I don´t think it has?)
  But I´m not going to, to me graphs and "bashing vs fanboyism" doesn´t meen "@#/´¤ ! 
  I´m simply going to recieve my product, pack it upp, load it with music and start listening to it for at least a week before I make my mind up about anything, but that would be my normal approach to anything so nothing unusal there.  When i do start listening I will do it with an open mind, if I for any reason shouldn´t like it I´ll just sell it, no harm done!
   
  I am curious tho and I´m looking forward to it, especially to compare it to the Clip+ I have been using for a while now. But probably I don´t have good enough gear for the Clip+ sinse I don´t like the way it sound at all, or pherhaps it´s a combination between to cheap gear and having non audiofile ears?
   
  I senserly appologize if I somehow said the wrong things or have a non accepted opinion, also my english isn´t the best but thats a completely different matter.
   
  Till later m8´s


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





fark said:


> This have been very funny to read, most of it anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I too received my 801 well after this thread was out, and it didn't deter me at all. I am thrilled with the sound.  I posted my review in the review section, so i wont get into all that here.


----------



## Shike

Quote: 





headphoneaddict said:


> I too received my 801 well after this thread was out, and it didn't deter me at all. I am thrilled with the sound.  I posted my review in the review section, so i wont get into all that here.


 

 I think this is an important point: those that like the sound won't care about the measurements anyway.  Those that do care about measurements (prefer accuracy) are more likely to be disappointed with a purchase of this.
   
  By having this thread it gives a more accurate representation of the product - many will probably pick it up despite this thread if they enjoy it.  This may help a few avoid what they consider a potentially regrettable purchase while others will pay little mind to it.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote: 





shike said:


> I think this is an important point: those that like the sound won't care about the measurements anyway.  Those that do care about measurements (prefer accuracy) are more likely to be disappointed with a purchase of this.
> 
> By having this thread it gives a more accurate representation of the product - many will probably pick it up despite this thread if they enjoy it.  This may help a few avoid what they consider a potentially regrettable purchase while others will pay little mind to it.


 

 Normally I'm the OCD type that would avoid a product that didn't measure well, because the "thought" of it would bug me all the time.  I read this thread and then listened to the 801, and I quickly realized that the measurements didn't totally represent what the 801 is capable of sounding like.  Maybe it's only us old folks with hi-freq hearing loss that can enjoy it the most, I don't know.  But I'd bet my iMod measures better and yet it doesn't sound as good.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


headphoneaddict said:


> Maybe it's only us old folks with hi-freq hearing loss that can enjoy it the most, I don't know.  But I'd bet my iMod measures better and yet it doesn't sound as good.


 
 And that's your opinion.  I can appreciate a fun sound too - I just have a disagreement that a tuned sound that measures worse is worth the asking price.  Not to mention thanks to that output impedance the DAP can be highly erratic with reactive loads - meaning it can measure much worse in the real world.
   
  In terms of quantifiable performance the 801 loses.  In terms of enjoyment that's obviously going to vary - such a subjective criteria is going to need to be decided by the individual.  The former fact still stands though.


----------



## electropop

Were there any other besides FR graphs of the 1st 160gb iPod classic here, like transient response etc.?


----------



## FrederikS|TPU

Quote: 





dameninngen said:


> Quote:
> 
> Hello, FrederikS|TPU.
> (I'm sorry, my poor English,again.)
> ...


 

 Very interesting, I would have thought that with an output impedance of almost double the frequency response would be more messed up, than with the standard module.
   
  Guess I need to dig up my old design of electronics book and read up on it.
   
  Anyhow thank you for putting the the work and doing some measurements!


----------



## fark

Have got it now, will listen a while befor making up my opinion.
   
  I think at least this product deserves that much, that I listen to it for while that is. I meen, how could I even begin to make statements without really knowing how the  SQ sounds to my ears.  I´m so new in this buisseness that I don´t even know what my ideal sound should sound like?
   
  However, wheter I like it or not I´ll have no problem telling how it is, to my ears that is!  When I´m on a Swedish computer tech forum there is one thing I really don´t like, that is when fanboys (of any camp) trying to force their oppinion on others and behave like 12 year old schoolgirls when others doesn´t think the way they do.
   
  The never ending Intel vs AMD anyone?


----------



## Shike

Quote:


fark said:


> The never ending Intel vs AMD anyone?


 
 Hm, interesting example.  The problem is those are easily benchmarked and performance can actually be measured by % to dollar.  Well, technically this could too; however argument here is that the experience is entirely subjective - which seems contradictory to the hobby when considering the objective is quality (i.e. fidelity) IMO.


----------



## shigzeo

Quote: 





immtbiker said:


> You sir, are an evil person, and the world would be a better place without you.


 

 Kind of reminds me of the 'Axis of Evil' comment asserted years ago.


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> Kind of reminds me of the 'Axis of Evil' comment asserted years ago.


 

 Look at how inaccurate that turned out to be.  Oh wait a second......


----------



## shigzeo

As long as that axis keeps expanding, the good get fewer! I just don't want the tables to turn ... I swear _I_ ain't evil!


----------



## Max F

Ignore.


----------



## xnor

Quote: 





shigzeo said:


> Kind of reminds me of the 'Axis of Evil' comment asserted years ago.


 

 Knowledge is evil, science is evil, ... back into your cave!


----------



## shigzeo

Indeed. So this thread hasn't really gone anywhere, I see. Tis a shame, but not really. Hell, if I had the money, I'd probably buy the HM-801 despite its ... tendencies. I don't feel like spending the money for the SQ, but more for the fact that it would be a sweet item to collect. My hobbies lie elsewhere, however, so my dosh is spoken for. 
   
  I understand there are other companies trying similar products and whom are watching this thread (probably) closely. The HM-801, good or bad, is the first of its kind, at least in a production sense. 
   
  I'd like to weigh in here that I have a favourite portable player: iPod touch 2G. Like it or loath it, I use it almost every day. The S:Flo sits on my desk gathering charge for a day I will use it. I would if it were smaller. The HM-801 I'd probably use too if it... you know were smaller. Size is important to me and the output, but if the thing works is pretty important.
   
  It took Rockbox to finally get me to use the worst DAP eve: the Fuze 2G. I am holding out to hear the HM-801 though if it sound anything like the S:Flo's roll off, it has certain phones that work and more than don't.


----------



## JxK

Maybe the 801 is sort of like a harley? There's no real advantage when compared to japanese bikes, not really, but owners will claim to their deathbeds that their harley is a superior machine.  Perhaps you have to just be in the club to properly appreciate the thing.


----------



## khaos974

One opinion is that measures don't matter much and that the HM-801, despite its obvious flaws sounds really good, this could be true, the measures taken that is to say THD+N and crosstalk are not spectacular but good enough to make the HM-801 pretty transparent. The drop at high frequencies, considering the human ear is inaudible to most people. In short the measures don't say much about how the HM-801 is supposed to sound.
   
  That said, the ergonomics are miles behind an ipod or a Cown S9, the autonomy is dreadful and except in quites environments, ie. not in transports even with good iems, I doubt any difference could be heard. To ne it performs badly for DAP compared to an ipod. As a dedicated source, there are other devices which sound just as good and measure much better, with better ergonomics as well.


----------



## JxK

Plus it lacks a crossfeed. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  IMO crossfeed is very nearly mandatory for headphone listening. Especially when you listen to older recordings from the 70s with 100% channel separation. The clip + RB has crossfeed. The clip + headstage arrow reportedly has an even better one. And as you've said, both have a much smaller footprint.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


khaos974 said:


> One opinion is that measures don't matter much and that the HM-801, despite its obvious flaws sounds really good, this could be true, the measures taken that is to say THD+N and crosstalk are not spectacular but good enough to make the HM-801 pretty transparent. The drop at high frequencies, considering the human ear is inaudible to most people. In short the measures don't say much about how the HM-801 is supposed to sound.


 
 It drops a full decibel at 9khz - and that's without the output impedance causing an issue.  Using a pre-equalized sample to mimic it I was able to DBT it.


----------



## khaos974

My bad, I didn't recheck the RMAA measures before posting and it's been quite a long time since the first measures was posted, I thought the -1db drop occurred much later like at 15 kHz. At 9 kHz, it's fully detectable by most people, including non audiophiles. But, it's actually less important than moving a few degrees off-axis of a speaker or getting 1 meter further away, still that's no excuse to engineer such a drop.
  
  Quote: 





shike said:


> It drops a full decibel at 9khz - and that's without the output impedance causing an issue.  Using a pre-equalized sample to mimic it I was able to DBT it.


----------



## Hero Kid

My god this broke 50 pages. I gave up on following it around 20.... What more is there to talk about?
  I found it repetitive after 20


----------



## fark

Quote: 





jxk said:


> Maybe the 801 is sort of like a harley? There's no real advantage when compared to japanese bikes, not really, but owners will claim to their deathbeds that their harley is a superior machine.  Perhaps you have to just be in the club to properly appreciate the thing.


 

 You forgot, Harley has a patent for their sound!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  (exhaust etc..)


----------



## fark

Sorry, that was a joke. 
   
  But I´m sure you´ll get that since everyone (exept a few then) knows that (most) Japanese bikes are superior in most ways.
   
  However, the markets couldn´t been moore widely spread apart cause a H.D. is moore aboud sound, feeling, "riding iron" and it of course!  It has the it factor that is so hard to put your finger on, just like Angelina Jolie isn´t the most beautiful woman out there, not by a longshot!  But she does have some sort of attraction magnet build inside of her, she glows, she got the it factor.
   
  Now, under my very short time as a audio interested guy I have come to understand one thing about audiofiles, they often have their own ideals they worship and love to shovel it down the throats of other audiofiles.  They also love to trump one another on forums around the world with their cable a la $2000 etc.. and brag about how good that piece of cable is and how much of a difference it really made on their mega buck stereo.  And they can´t take a: No you´r wrong man!  Uooppss, almost forgot: They also wanna have a large group of followers, lets call them wanna be´s.  Those wanna be´s are going fo follow his master to the end of time, claiming he´s god and can never ever be wrong.
   
  That is the audiofile my friends 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  No just kidding, don´t beat me up for it now!  (I blame it on the beer, I´ll think I start to feel the effect by now)  Come on now, honest, it really was a joke.
   
  Anyway, I have had my HM-801 for a few days now and have start to build my self an oppinion about it. 
  I could have choosen not to go through with the purchase if I wanted, after seing this thread that is. But I´m thinking lile someone posted earlier here, it´s the first of it´s kind and it can be fun to have owned one later, pherhaps it even become valuable later? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  I think it´s not very practical, it´s heavy and have no finess what so ever.
  The menu/firmware is not what it is suppose to be, not even close + where is the Rockbox support?
  It chews batteries like crazy and become so hot it makes me nervous actually.
  I can´t reach Fang or someone else whenever I want, not exactly like Sandisk is it? ? Regarding that GAME card etc.., to me it feels like they targeting mostly the JA/IEM market when speaking of new amp cards? I´m not 100% sure but if that is the case? But it would be very unfair for us that doesn´t use IEM, earbuds etc..
   
  To be honest my Clip+´s completely destroys my new 801 in almost every way, except for one that is!
  I have now walked around for days testing the 801 + 2 different Clip+´s with my non super high end headphones, the 770 pro/80 + HD550 + some IEM´s my buddy had??  I went into this with the ide that 801 is no better than nothing else at all. 
  First thing I noticed was that 801 (to me anyway) is a lot moore sensetive what earphones I use. To me the HD550 was the phones that sounded best with 801, but lack some bass + are open (yes I do like bass, at least to some degree.)
   
  I´m sorry guys, but I can not lie to my self like a fool anymoore.  I have tried my best to not like the 801 for all it´s negative stuff, so that I could convince my self to go buy something a new smaller DAP again and get rid of that powerhungry, warm, heawy, box I´ll have to carry around right now. (did I mention it´s out of battries whithin hours at high volyme?)
  I can´t help it, there could be no doubt 801 (in my ears) delivers a better SQ than Clip+, it was so notable that my friend who also blind tested SQ for me said there was not one single fault, it was obvious.  I dont know if I did something wrong when comparing, also I tried with my friend Fiio + my Icon Mobile connected to Clip+ and still there was not hard to tell.
   
  So my jorney towards finding something as lovely small etc.. as the Clip+ with the SQ of 801 or better has just begun.  Though I will try again when I have bought some good high end headphones.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


fark said:


> I´m sorry guys, but I can not lie to my self like a fool anymoore.  I have tried my best to not like the 801 for all it´s negative stuff, so that I could convince my self to go buy something a new smaller DAP again and get rid of that powerhungry, warm, heawy, box I´ll have to carry around right now. (did I mention it´s out of battries whithin hours at high volyme?)
> I can´t help it, there could be no doubt 801 (in my ears) delivers a better SQ than Clip+, it was so notable that my friend who also blind tested SQ for me said there was not one single fault, it was obvious.  I dont know if I did something wrong when comparing, also I tried with my friend Fiio + my Icon Mobile connected to Clip+ and still there was not hard to tell.


 
 SQ might as well stand for "subjective quality" on this forum - few seem to care about accurately reproducing a signal anymore.
   
  Your tests says nothing of actual accuracy, just what you like.


----------



## Head Injury

fark, you say your friend did a blind test. How did you go about testing and what were the results? Meaning, what source material was used, what headphones, how did you blind him, how did you switch, how many times did you test, etc.


----------



## electropop

Quote: 





shike said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> fark said:
> ...


 

 Accuracy can be many things. More inner detail (yes, the hm-801 let me hear a drummer's stool squeak in Herbie Hancock's song 'Chameleon', not that it matters) with Shure 840s. Pitch-accuracy (No significant difference with the Shure's, except that the system seems to drive them better which I hear as more accurate bass notes and more air around instruments. No distinct audible differences with my K272HD's when comparing the Hifiman against my 160gb Classic, regarding accuracy in anyway.)
  Flat FR? Nope. I can agree that it's flawed/colored this way, but it is accurate in many other ways.
   
  Nevertheless, it gets almost zero use now that I'm using my AKG's as portables. But as Fark mentioned, it's up to the headphones if the machine really is beneficial in any terms. At least that's what I've concluded as well.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


electropop said:


> Accuracy can be many things. More inner detail (yes, the hm-801 let me hear a drummer's stool squeak in Herbie Hancock's song 'Chameleon', not that it matters) with Shure 840s. Pitch-accuracy (No significant difference with the Shure's, except that the system seems to drive them better which I hear as more accurate bass notes and more air around instruments. No distinct audible differences with my K272HD's when comparing the Hifiman against my 160gb Classic, regarding accuracy in anyway.)
> Flat FR? Nope. I can agree that it's flawed/colored this way, but it is accurate in many other ways.


 
 I'd love to see measurements for "more inner detail" and "pitch accuracy" - because at this point is sounds like mere audiofoolery that you've convinced yourself with.


----------



## electropop

Heh, not really.
   
  I'm convinced I'm hearing correct notes with better distinction instead of one or two notes that are hard to distinguish from each other. I don't know if "pitch accuracy" is the right term, but it's clearly audible. Only with the 840 though. As I said, no difference with the 272s. The iPod 160gb + K272s are superb in this regard though. It's easier to tab songs / write sheet music of what you're hearing, with these headphones. What do you call that besides pitch accuracy? Pitch = sävelkorkeus (in finnish). Sävel = note, tone, key, melody, tune. Korkeus = height.
  I might've mistranslated, but correct me if I'm wrong..
  Of course, this has nothing to do with the 801 anymore, except that I still think that it's crucial to match phones with it. I'm actually planning on selling it now that I have settled for the 272s.
   
  "More inner detail" might sound like audiofoolery as well, but I do hear that specific detail with the 801, but not so much with the 160gb classic. I'll refrain from using audiofoolery, since I don't know what the terms really stand for, except just for that.
   
  But c'mon, I'll send you the player for loan and you can make your own conclusion. We split the postage. Deal?


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





electropop said:


> Heh, not really.
> 
> I'm convinced I'm hearing correct notes with better distinction instead of one or two notes that are hard to distinguish from each other. I don't know if "pitch accuracy" is the right term, but it's clearly audible. Only with the 840 though. As I said, no difference with the 272s. The iPod 160gb + K272s are superb in this regard though. It's easier to tab songs / write sheet music of what you're hearing, with these headphones. What do you call that besides pitch accuracy? Pitch = sävelkorkeus (in finnish). Sävel = note, tone, key, melody, tune. Korkeus = height.
> I might've mistranslated, but correct me if I'm wrong..
> ...


 

 It would be cheaper for both involved if you blind tested this pitch accuracy and inner detail instead. Also much more conclusive and objective.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


electropop said:


> Heh, not really.
> 
> I'm convinced I'm hearing correct notes with better distinction instead of one or two  . . .


   
  I'm cutting it off there.  Without measurements your claims are extraneous and have no real findings.  They don't belong here.
   
  Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Head Injury*
> 
> It would be cheaper for both involved if you blind tested this pitch accuracy and inner detail instead. Also much more conclusive and objective.


   
  If there was a good way to measure it exclusive of the 801's FR than that would work, but before that even I'd love to see how we'd test for this.  Pitch would be related to frequency reproduction I'm guessing . . . inner detail . . . transient response maybe?  But if that were the case the measurements already shows the transient response of it and many other DACs are already beyond differentiation via audibility.


----------



## fark

First off I would like to say I have not done what some of you pherhaps might require (???) for it to be called a "test", I meen I didn´t use some $50000 studio gear or whatever.  Only plugged in different headphone and listened at the device the way I intent to bare it outside.
   
  Same thing with Clip+ and a few other sources + also used some different  amps,  sources and headphones in some of the "tests" or whatever I shall call it?  The only maeasuring device was my hearing, that´s all.  The blind test was my friend letting me wear headphones (whitch I know the brand of of course) and played back with a source + sometimes an amp with that I didn´t know what it was
   
  I´m so sorry I can´t express myself better guys, my English is rubbish and it actually make me feel like an idiot very often. It feels like someone just stripped me out of my vocabulary and I´m left with the leftovers. Very sad and just like being handicapped in my mounth/fingers. Then again pherhaps I´m not that smart to begin with since my latest IQ test was only: 126 I belive it was. So I might have done it all wrong actually??? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 But there is one thing I cannot do wheter I´m smart, dum or in between, that is to lie to my self. You see I´m strongly despise lies!  With that being said, I found the 801 to sound (for portable of course) very good in my ears, better that any other of the DAP´s being tried out by me, for me. Though it seemt to be very sensetive to different headphones?
   
  So with all do respect, the graph (to me anyway)  is pherhaps not everything??? At least that to me is my humble opinion, when testing on my own ears. Whweter you think I´m wrong or right please accept how it sounded to me with my non golden ears anyway, that is all I can do.
   
  But I´ll gladely take some advice if you have any to give me, I´m all open to new ideas that makes me a better listener.


----------



## 3602

Auditioned the HM-801 at a local store.
  Clerk told me that it was a *Batch 1*.
  Compared to my *PortaRig* (see sig), it *did not sound superior*, *nor inferior*.
  Price for both rigs are about the same.
  So that was my result.
  Disagree? Sue my ears.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





3602 said:


> Auditioned the HM-801 at a local store.
> Clerk told me that it was a *Batch 1*.
> Compared to my *PortaRig* (see sig), it *did not sound superior*, *nor inferior*.
> Price for both rigs are about the same.
> ...


 


 My lawyer is drawing up the paper now...just kidding...
   
  Anyhoo...I am still going back and forth with it.  Its certainly not a mediocre player, so I stand corrected in this thread.


----------



## DaveBSC

I've spent quite a bit of time comparing an HM-801 to my Cowon S9 using my 32 Ohm Beyer DT880s to compare the straight headphone outs of both players. With the Cowon's EQ flat and all enhancements off, the 801 just rips it to shreds. Absolutely no contest. With my preferred EQ settings and other enhancements on, the Cowon kept up a little more, but the bass sounded bloated rather than anemic, and there was still that "hole in the mids" feeling that I never got with the HM-801. From deep bass up through the treble region, the HM-801's sound is well balanced and transparent. That being said, its highs are a bit on the sweet and laid back side. This is easily noticeable on the Beyers, which when used with the Cowon set to flat sound excessively bright and have a glaring, spitty response.
   
  Headphones with neutral to forward highs should mate very well with HM-801. The DT880s high frequency response with it was just about perfect. Headphones that are dark up top may not work so well. If you're planning to use $100 headphones with the HM-801, you're wasting your time. The $250 DT880/990, K701 etc. level is probably the minimum if you want to get the most out of the HM-801.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





davebsc said:


> I've spent quite a bit of time comparing an HM-801 to my Cowon S9 using my 32 Ohm Beyer DT880s to compare the straight headphone outs of both players. With the Cowon's EQ flat and all enhancements off, the 801 just rips it to shreds. Absolutely no contest. With my preferred EQ settings and other enhancements on, the Cowon kept up a little more, but the bass sounded bloated rather than anemic, and there was still that "hole in the mids" feeling that I never got with the HM-801. From deep bass up through the treble region, the HM-801's sound is well balanced and transparent. That being said, its highs are a bit on the sweet and laid back side. This is easily noticeable on the Beyers, which when used with the Cowon set to flat sound excessively bright and have a glaring, spitty response.
> 
> Headphones with neutral to forward highs should mate very well with HM-801. The DT880s high frequency response with it was just about perfect. Headphones that are dark up top may not work so well. If you're planning to use $100 headphones with the HM-801, you're wasting your time. The $250 DT880/990, K701 etc. level is probably the minimum if you want to get the most out of the HM-801.


 
   
  The laid back sound is what threw me off before I bought it.  Especially given the music you and I frequent.  I believe that is due to the Burr Brown Ops in it which is known for this house sound.  The other aspect is I beleive the HM-801 DAC stage is a roll-off filter which has its own unique characteristic and presents to you a very big soundstage.  Fang was very deliberate in his design.  He wanted a portable with a very very big sound (jude was spot-on) and achieved it in spades.
   
  I compared the Flo2 vs HM-801 vs the Pico DAC/amp.  The HM-801 is by far the most balanced sound.  The Pico has the more forward intimate sound but definitely a bit compressed compared the HM-801.  And frankly, the Flo2 is the most musical and fun.  The bass is loud and proud but certainly a bit rough around the edges.  Also its treble extension is not nearly what the HM-801 and Pico offer (the dual Wolfson DACs are really nice though in the Flo2).
   
  Despite the RMAA tests, I have to say, immtbiker was right.  The HM-801 is a serious rig and can hold its own with a lot of multi-thousand dollar transports.  Fang really did something special for us HeadFiers and should be commended.


----------



## Anaxilus

Trogdor.  Which Flo2 FW are you using?


----------



## Bullseye

You people praising the HM-801 are missing what the point of High Fidelity is. If it had the price of a sansa clip it wouldn't need to be mentioned, but costing so much it is just a rip off.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





bullseye said:


> You people praising the HM-801 are missing what the point of High Fidelity is. If it had the price of a sansa clip it wouldn't need to be mentioned, but costing so much it is just a rip off.


 
   
  You people praising the Ferrari's are missing what the point of High Automotive Performance is.  If it had the price of a Honda Civic it wouldn't need to be mentioend, but costing so much it is just a rip off.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> Trogdor.  Which Flo2 FW are you using?


 

 Have no idea...I'd have to ask....I returned the Flo2 since I now own the HM-801.


----------



## Bullseye

You got it all wrong then.
   
  First audio and cars are two different things.
  Second, in the case you mentioned you screwed up, because it explains my point perfectly.
   
  A Ferrari has great performance is very exclusive and its engine (V8 or V12) will perform better than that of the Honda Civic. The work inside the car is mostly handmade in the Ferrari in contrast to the automated one of the Honda car. (If you want to know more about how Ferraris are made I think there's a video out there on how they are made)
   
  And getting back to this product, which has nothing to do with cars, it has a very poor performance (as measured by DFKT with RMAA) it is extremely expensive, it is like a brick, has FW issues; yet it performs worst than the Sansa Clip (for example), which is smaller, doesn't have FW issues, better performance (= higher fidelity).
   
  As a note, high fidelity means less coloration, a flatter response, less variation over the original.
   
  Quote: 





trogdor said:


> You people praising the Ferrari's are missing what the point of High Automotive Performance is.  If it had the price of a Honda Civic it wouldn't need to be mentioend, but costing so much it is just a rip off.


----------



## JaZZ

bullseye said:


> As a note, high fidelity means less coloration, a flatter response, less variation over the original.


 

 Hey, I strongly disagree with your implication that a flat frequency response (plus decently low HD/IMD/noise) automatically means absolute fidelity.
   
  I have auditioned numerous headphone amps with virtually perfect measuring data – and each of them has an individual sonic signature.
   
  So a flat response is one thing (which I attach importance to), but the sonic characteristic of an amp isn't solely defined by it. Let alone resolution, transparency and other subtle variations independent of the sonic balance.
.


----------



## Bullseye

You can disagree if you want, however looking for those things mentioned (flat FR, low noise, IMD, etc) is what makes equipment better than other.
   
  At the moment of listening you might find some individual sonic characteristics between amps, but in most cases (SS, speaking here), you won't be able to tell in a DBT.
  
  Quote: 





jazz said:


> Hey, I strongly disagree with your implication that a flat frequency response (plus decently low HD/IMD/noise) automatically means absolute fidelity.
> 
> I have auditioned numerous headphone amps with virtually perfect measuring data – and each of them has an individual sonic signature.
> 
> ...


----------



## JaZZ

bullseye said:


> You can disagree if you want, however looking for those things mentioned (flat FR, low noise, IMD, etc) is what makes equipment better than other.


 

  Yes, but only in the mentioned criterion. As explained, there are other, hard to measure criteria with equal importance (at least to my ears).
   
   


> At the moment of listening you might find some individual sonic characteristics between amps, but in most cases (SS, speaking here), you won't be able to tell in a DBT.


 
   
  Since I don't do DBT, the moments of listening (to music) are my all-time reference.
.


----------



## Catharsis

Quote: 





sonic 748i said:


> So we're suppose to sit here and let people throw out attacks at our purchases and not retaliate? Would you like if someone went about bashing why you don't just use iPod earbuds and music sounds the same through any speaker? No, you would defend yourself.


 

 If you were a little more rational or had the forethought to understand audio science before delving foolishly into this hobby, then you wouldn't be under attack for purchasing a ridiculously expensive piece of sub-par equipment.  I can speak from experience, as I was a poster child for foolishness before I started to understand audio science - I recommend you do the same and save yourself some money. 
   
  Do you feel that objective evidence (RMAA measurements) are threatening to you?  The OP is just posting some interesting RMAA measurements that are worthy of discussion and are quite revealing of the bull that is embedded into the audiophile world. 
   
  No matter which way you put it, why kind of magical DACs and opamps did you expect to find in a $800 MP3 player.  We're talking $5,00 / $.10.00 components that measure and sound totally transparent (which are found in pro-audio gear btw).  How do you figure a $800 MP3 player or $8000 Wadia CD player can be justified?
   
  I don't know why I bother as it boils down to objectivist (rationalilty) vs subjectivist (belief) arguements.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





catharsis said:


> If you were a little more rational or had the forethought to understand audio science before delving foolishly into this hobby, then you wouldn't be under attack for purchasing a ridiculously expensive piece of sub-par equipment.  I can speak from experience, as I was a poster child for foolishness before I started to understand audio science - I recommend you do the same and save yourself some money.
> 
> Do you feel that objective evidence (RMAA measurements) are threatening to you?  The OP is just posting some interesting RMAA measurements that are worthy of discussion and are quite revealing of the bull that is embedded into the audiophile world.
> 
> ...


 
   
  Even though I am in the RMAA and DBT camp some of these comments are extremely ignorant on how performance is measured.
   
  I will keep it short:
   
  RMAA is ONE metric not THE metric.  That is all what JaZZ is saying.
   
  @Bullseye:
   
  Your logic is still flawed regardless of products for the same reason above.  You are using one overriding METRIC as the overall determining factor for performance.  Again I can reverse your own example and say the Honda Civic is much much better than the Ferrari, its easier to maintain, easier to find, more socially accepted, prone to get less tickets or stolen.  If I change the metrics, I can change it up on you. 
   
  So again YOU got it all wrong.
   
  Have either you (Bullseye and Cartharsis)  actually listened to the HM or are you trolling?  Answer this right now else its a complete waste of time arguing about it.
   
  I was in your camp, borrowed the unit for 2 months, listened to it non-stop, compared it to other pieces of equipment, and you know what...it sounds orders of magnitude better than a Sansa Clip (thats apparent after the first 20 seconds of listening).
   
  All audio equipment uses $10-20 components - same goes for computers (the PS/2 port was typically one of the most expensive parts to produce - but that CPU design is worth billions in development).
   
  Listen to it first, THEN talk about it....


----------



## Catharsis

I have a better question for you - have you ever compared the HM to another well measuring source such as the Clip+ using proper volume matched, blind ABX tests?  I doubt you have either - don't make me start re-hashing the effects of psychoacoustics and expectation bias.
   
  And no, I haven't listened to the HM (and I never will) because I have the sense to spend my money elsewhere after reading the measurements.  Audio science has determined all of the factors responsible for sound reproduction.  If you care to suggest another undetermined variable with evidence I'll eat my words and you'll win a nobel prize.  But you can't...so I won't.
   
  Sorry to sound so abrupt, but this conversation has been done a million times over and it's always an objective vs subjective argument.  I get a little tired of it at times.

  
  Quote: 





trogdor said:


> Even though I am in the RMAA and DBT camp some of these comments are extremely ignorant on how performance is measured.
> 
> I will keep it short:
> 
> ...


----------



## Bullseye

Answers in bold:
  
  Quote: 





trogdor said:


> RMAA is ONE metric not THE metric.  That is all what JaZZ is saying.
> 
> *Ok, then if you say RMAA it is ONE metric (which is not totally incorrect, but enough for us humans to determine what is better than other), what are OTHER metrics? Tell me. Are they your ears? They are not. You don't have the ability to register a very small change in sound that other equipment DESIGNED for it (as we couldn't rely on our ears to do so) is. So you can't tell by using your ears.*
> 
> ...


 
  I could go on and on. You opened a lot of holes with your argumentation. But as you said, it is a complete waste of time talking to you about it...
   
  No hard feelings


----------



## Catharsis

x2 bullseye.
   
  I guess some people are okay with wasting money on sub-par sound.
   
  What I'm hearing is "I acknowledge that my mp3 player has only about $20 worth of technology in it, and that I bought it for $800."  How moronic is that?!


----------



## travisg

I have owned almost every dap available and the hm801 just sounds better. I don't need a test to tell me that.


----------



## Catharsis

Quote: 





travisg said:


> I have owned almost every dap available and the hm801 just sounds better. I don't need a test to tell me that.


 

 If it sounds better, it's because you like high frequency roll off or because you are suffering from the effects of expectation bias or psychoacoustics. You like coloured sound and expensive gear.
   
  I'm not pointing fingers at you travisg (not at all actually), but if anyone can specify the reason as to why the HM801 sounds better (aside from citing high frequency roll-off and other conclusions already obtained by RMAA measurement or audio science) I'll contact AES and you'll be a hero for your contributions to an entirely new scientific discovery.


----------



## Trogdor

Quote: 





bullseye said:


> Answers in bold:
> 
> I could go on and on. You opened a lot of holes with your argumentation. But as you said, it is a complete waste of time talking to you about it...
> 
> No hard feelings


 

 Just for the record...
   
  I didn't say RMAA was ridiculous.  You did.  You also said that ears are irrelevant to audio equipment.  Shweet.  Definitely continue to run with that.
   
  I have driven a Ferrari (not mine).  Honda Civics are way better for daily driving than Ferrari's.
   
  I have designed a CPU (parts of them anyway) in graduate school. 
   
  Fom Carthasis, I'm a moron because I bought a HM-801 (I even demoed it for other a month too and STILL thought it sounded better than a lot of higher end equipment, talk about total lunacy).
   
  You didn't even bother to read my argument (again RMAA is just one metric and it doesn't tell you anything about overall sound because if you do some research you'll find as MANY people have pointed out that flat freq response != good sound) or you just failed to understand it.   You also clearly haven't listened to the HM-801.  At least if you listened to it and said, yeah totally worth about $20 bucks...I'd have some respect for the last couple of posts.  I'm out.


----------



## Bullseye

Again, answers in bold:
  
  Quote:


trogdor said:


> Just for the record...
> 
> I didn't say RMAA was ridiculous.  You did.  You also said that ears are irrelevant to audio equipment.  Shweet.  Definitely continue to run with that.
> 
> ...



   
   
  Oh, and a spoiler for you regarding the underlined sentence:
   
   


Spoiler



They can be wrong.
   
  If you deny what measurements say, why can't you deny subjective opinions as well? From your perspective both could be wrong. Denying both is a good start point towards learning.


  Maybe you should do your own research (as I have done and others) and get the context of that. Not going to do the work for you. 
   
  So many holes left...


----------



## electropop

I'm interested in these other measurable variances. I know you can measure transient response. Does this have to do with pre-/post ringing? If so, are there measurements of a Sansa Clip (or iPod 160gb classic) vs. the HM801? This is quite easily measurable though as I've understood.
   
  Since I hear differences and/or improvements (yeah yeah, placebo and all that) between source-gear that basically measure the same, at least FR and impedance wise, what other little but substantial (to the sound, it seems) variables might there be as you (Jazz) pointed out?


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





travisg said:


> I have owned almost every dap available and the hm801 just sounds better. I don't need a test to tell me that.


 

 So I take it you don't have any albums that are meant to be played back gapless?


----------



## travisg

Gapless playback is the last thing I worry about


----------



## JaZZ

electropop said:


> I'm interested in these other measurable variances. I know you can measure transient response. Does this have to do with pre-/post ringing? If so, are there measurements of a Sansa Clip (or iPod 160gb classic) vs. the HM801? This is quite easily measurable though as I've understood.
> 
> Since I hear differences and/or improvements (yeah yeah, placebo and all that) between source-gear that basically measure the same, at least FR and impedance wise, what other little but substantial (to the sound, it seems) variables might there be as you (Jazz) pointed out?


 

 I'm not an amp or electronics expert, but the info I have gathered from audio test magazines makes it look like the distortion pattern is of primary importance for the sonic characteristic of audio electronics – and not so much the distortion intensity, as long as it's decently low.
   
  Transient response is actually a function of frequency response, so an infinitely flat response means perfect transient response – but I wouldn't bet my life on this scenario under real-life conditions. I consider it very possible that complex signals can cause relevant (potentially audible) signal deviations among different amps with virtually flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
   
  In my experience frequency response has an absolutely minor relevance when it comes to modern audio electronics (with a few exceptions; the HM-801 is one of them). The same can be said of harmonic distortion data gained with conventional measuring and evaluation methods. The perceived sonic differences have other causes.
.


----------



## Catharsis

OK....wait.
   
  You're all aware that you're paying $800 to hear a $50 DAC and a $20 opamp right?  No matter which way you toss it, that's what you're hearing.  You can spin it any direction you like, but at the end of the day, that's what you're hearing.  High frequency roll-off, and mediocre measurements at best.  Why not go with a Sansa Clip again?


----------



## Anaxilus

Quote: 





catharsis said:


> OK....wait.
> 
> You're all aware that you're paying $800 to hear a $50 DAC and a $20 opamp right?  Why not go with a Sansa Clip again?


 

 I didn't want to interject but this false praise of the Clip+ as the be all and end all of SQ is ludicrous.  If you cannot tell w/ your ears that the Sansa products are above average at best I feel for you.  I'm glad you enjoy listening to music by looking at graphs.  When data shifts from being a tool to a maxim that governs your existence that's sad.  It's a shame you can't trust your ears to tell you what real life sounds like.  If you intend to claim some sort of moral high ground via mathematical purification of your soul, go ahead.  The rest of us don't need to follow you down the rabbit hole.  Always beware the man that claims he has nothing left to learn.  You should also feel free to claim that *all *high end audio is a rip off because it's not limited to just the 801.  The fact that so many 'knowledgeable' proponents of the Sansa line fail to decry the lack of depth, body or sonority of their signature is more proof to me of their fanatic blindness beyond what any graph can convey.  Catharsis and those like him are just extreme opposite examples of the type of dogmatic 801 fanboy they decry.  You want to claim people like 'colored' sound.  Go for it because life sounds far more colored than your precious Clip-.  I swear most of you neutrality experts have never pressed a key on a Piano in your life.


----------



## Hero Kid

Quote: 





bullseye said:


> *You don't have the ability to register a very small change in sound ... So you can't tell by using your ears.*


 

 And hearing it by reading graphs achieves something?


----------



## Catharsis

Err....okay.  If real life sounds like high-frequency roll-off, then yes, the 801 is more faithful to real life.  Is it more audibly transparent and faithful to the original recorded material (all those 1's an 0's that are ultimately converted to sound), *no*.  Do you understand anything about how sound reproduction works?
   
  I feel like I'm talking to pre-schoolers around here at times. If by dogma you mean "science" then yes - I'm guilty.  That nasty scientific method has really upset your fanatical belief system hasn't it.  Are you angry at the theory of evolution too?
  
  Quote: 





anaxilus said:


> I didn't want to interject but this false praise of the Clip+ as the be all and end all of SQ is ludicrous.  If you cannot tell w/ your ears that the Sansa products are above average at best I feel for you.  I'm glad you enjoy listening to music by looking at graphs.  When data shifts from being a tool to a maxim that governs your existence that's sad.  It's a shame you can't trust your ears to tell you what real life sounds like.  If you intend to claim some sort of moral high ground via mathematical purification of your soul, go ahead.  The rest of us don't need to follow you down the rabbit hole.  Always beware the man that claims he has nothing left to learn.  You should also feel free to claim that *all *high end audio is a rip off because it's not limited to just the 801.  The fact that so many 'knowledgeable' proponents of the Sansa line fail to decry the lack of depth, body or sonority of their signature is more proof to me of their fanatic blindness beyond what any graph can convey.  Catharsis and those like him are just extreme opposite examples of the type of dogmatic 801 fanboy they decry.  You want to claim people like 'colored' sound.  Go for it because life sounds far more colored than your precious Clip-.  I swear most of you neutrality experts have never pressed a key on a Piano in your life.


----------



## Currawong

I think that everything being discussed has been flogged to death so severely, multiple times over, that it's time to put this thread to rest.


----------

