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 53  

post #781 of 795

Answers in bold:
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor View Post

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.

 

EDIT: In this case, I believe you can hear all the roll off, at least for what the RMAA measurements show.

 

@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. (all of that made me giggle. That you change metrics doesn't mean those metrics aren't ridiculous. Plus your metrics examples are quite badly chosen)

 

So again YOU got it all wrong.

 

Well, I mentioned more than "one METRIC" as for why a Ferrari is a better car than a honda Civic. You can read back to see it. My logic is not flawed, and yours has bigger holes in it. (Just see how easy I am pointing at them).

 

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.

 

And getting back to your beloved car comparison (which still has nothing to do with audio), have you driven a Ferrari so that you can say that a Honda Civic is better? Maybe you haven't, but you don't need to drive it to know a Ferrari is better than a Civic. Unless you know nothing about cars. (Which seems can be applied as well to audio science)

 

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).

 

Congrats! You like coloration. You can forget now about Hi-Fi

 

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).

 

Talking from experience, hugh?

 

Listen to it first, THEN talk about it....

 

Learn something, THEN talk about it...
 

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
 


Edited by Bullseye - 8/30/10 at 10:20am
post #782 of 795

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?!

 

post #783 of 795
I have owned almost every dap available and the hm801 just sounds better. I don't need a test to tell me that.
post #784 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by travisg View Post

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.  

post #785 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullseye View Post

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.

post #786 of 795

Again, answers in bold:
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor View Post


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.

 

"You did." That has to be the best argument ever.  Kids use it when they are arguing... so it must be good  If you think I did say that then you have comprehension issues.

 

"Ears are irrelevant to audio equipment" Good lord! If you have the same sight as hearing then you must have it pretty tough... Don't put your words in my mouth. I did not say that.

 

To make it easier for you. That we can't rely on our ears as measurement equipment is not linked to being irrelevant to audio equipment. The reason humans decided to build equipment such as microphones, oscilloscopes, ... was because with our own hearing capabilities we could not know what else was there. Heck, if they hadn't invented them we would have not known how bats, dogs or whales communicate, or many things. (Using simple examples)

You did run out of arguments, didn't you?  

 

I have driven a Ferrari (not mine).  Honda Civics are way better for daily drivingthan Ferrari's.

 

Yeah, you might be right about that -for daily driving- But as we are speaking about one being TECHNICALLY BETTER than the other (same stuff as between the HM-801 and the Sansa Clip -for example-), the Ferrari is a better car (and the Clip is a better player than the HM-801).

I shouldn't need to go on with the following, but just in case you don't follow, if one is technically better then it has Higher fidelity than the other. (Here comes Jazz again :))

 

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).

 

I'll let Carthasis answer to this one, but I didn't see him calling you a moron. He is saying that as how you put it "All audio equipment uses $10-20 components" -direct quote- you are assuming the HM also has $10-20 components, yet you are paying $800 for it... Doesn't make much sense, right? It was you who said that...

 

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.

 

As I am interested in RMAA doesn't tell you ANYTHING about overall sound, according to you, then what does?

 

 

Oh, and a spoiler for you regarding the underlined sentence:

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

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... 

post #787 of 795

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?

post #788 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by travisg View Post

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?

post #789 of 795
Gapless playback is the last thing I worry about
post #790 of 795
Originally Posted by electropop View Post

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.

.


Edited by JaZZ - 8/30/10 at 5:30pm
post #791 of 795

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?

post #792 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catharsis View Post

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.

      


Edited by Anaxilus - 8/31/10 at 12:04am
post #793 of 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullseye View Post
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?

post #794 of 795

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:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




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.

      


Edited by Catharsis - 8/31/10 at 4:04am
post #795 of 795

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. 

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