Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Hifiman HM-801 RMAA Tests
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hifiman HM-801 RMAA Tests - Page 9  

post #121 of 795

 

Originally Posted by MrGreen View Post

 

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.

.

post #122 of 795

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 :p


Edited by WalkGood - 5/8/10 at 11:42pm
post #123 of 795

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


Edited by High_Q - 5/8/10 at 11:51pm
post #124 of 795

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nankai View Post

 

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?

post #125 of 795


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkGood View Post

 





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.

Edwood_HM-801_PCM1704K_01.jpg

 

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

Edwood_HM-801_PCM1704K_02.jpg

 

-Ed


Edited by Edwood - 5/9/10 at 1:09am
post #126 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by h.rav View Post

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.


Edited by Nankai - 5/9/10 at 1:10am
post #127 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nankai View Post




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.  
 

post #128 of 795

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.


Edited by KLS - 5/9/10 at 1:45am
post #129 of 795

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..

post #130 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt View Post

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.

post #131 of 795

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

post #132 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkGood View Post

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...  

post #133 of 795


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CEE TEE View Post

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


Want some popcorn?

post #134 of 795

Yeah, I know my microwave is great!  

post #135 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by KLS View Post

 


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.  
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Hifiman HM-801 RMAA Tests