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 6  

post #76 of 795

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. 

post #77 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

mail


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.

post #78 of 795

Well you what they say about opinions. 

 

Opinions are like a-holes.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They stink.

 

 

 

post #79 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post

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... cheeky

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

post #80 of 795

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

post #81 of 795

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.

post #82 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
This will nevertheless be just one person's perception and opinion.

.



Reading through all the posts I doubt that very much.

post #83 of 795

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.


Edited by odigg - 5/8/10 at 1:17pm
post #84 of 795

^^ 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. 

post #85 of 795

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post

^^ 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?


Edited by swanlee - 5/8/10 at 1:59pm
post #86 of 795
Quote:

Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

 

... ... 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.
 

post #87 of 795



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by odigg View Post

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.

.


Edited by JaZZ - 5/8/10 at 3:51pm
post #88 of 795

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.

 

dcf8c564_1106ZANFIG01.jpg


Edited by Nankai - 5/8/10 at 4:15pm
post #89 of 795

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.

post #90 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by saykong View Post

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.

 

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