Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Review: HiFiMAN HM-602 vs. HM-801 Comparison (56K Warning)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: HiFiMAN HM-602 vs. HM-801 Comparison (56K Warning) - Page 11

post #151 of 233

Personally, I don't listen to measurements, I listen to music. The 602 plays music better than any other dap I've ever heard. That's all I need to know.

post #152 of 233

"If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing." - Daniel R. von Recklinghausen

post #153 of 233
Quote:
Signature by xnor View Post

"You're bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything." - Donald E. Knuth


Well, you should stand by your signature biggrin.gif


Edited by xabu - 11/20/10 at 10:59am
post #154 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by xabu View Post

Well, you should stand by your signature biggrin.gif

 


I do. I guess the device could be optimized in a couple of ways (I'd start with price) but you'd still be far away from "everything being optimized". wink.gif

post #155 of 233


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by xabu View Post

Well, you should stand by your signature biggrin.gif

 


I do. I guess the device could be optimized in a couple of ways (I'd start with price) but you'd still be far away from "everything being optimized". wink.gif


No wonder so many people are that happy with the device wink_face.gif       beerchug.gif

post #156 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by xabu View Post
No wonder so many people are that happy with the device wink_face.gif       beerchug.gif


^ That's either a fallacy or sarcasm WIN.

 

But I get it. beerchug.gif

 

Anyway, I was just providing some, imo meaningful, information. If one cannot or doesn't want to make use of it.. fine. Others can, and I'm happy either way.

 

I guess it could look like product bashing to those who own the device, but that's not what I'm after, not at all. The measurements aren't even mine. But when I saw them I was quite surprised to see that sound quality suffers so much ... and wanted to share that.


Edited by xnor - 11/20/10 at 2:58pm
post #157 of 233


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xnor View Post

 

But when I saw them I was quite surprised to see that sound quality suffers so much ...



That's also a nice one biggrin.gif


Edited by xabu - 11/21/10 at 1:32pm
post #158 of 233

Didn't we have enough at the other thread... guys pleasebiggrin.gif

post #159 of 233

NOS Dacs are a different animal. They produce analog-like output, and the sound signature can be wonderful. I can't comment on the 602 but USB Monica with the TDA1545 EIJA Dac chip is excellent so it won't surprise me if the 602 is compelling.

 

Compare the measurements of a good turntable with vinyl and an OS Dac ouput. You will probable see similar differences.

post #160 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickosiris View Post

Personally, I don't listen to measurements, I listen to music . . . 


Me too, which is why some of us cringe when we see how the poor performance is impacting our music.  Some of us rather it not be distortion ridden, rolled-off, and sent with a high output impedance also impacting our headphone performance.

post #161 of 233

I'll make this my last statement on the graphs/measurements thing, and I'll try and make it as simple as possible:

 

If something sounds good to me, then I like it. The HM-602 sounds fantastic. Have you heard one?

post #162 of 233


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickosiris View Post

I'll make this my last statement on the graphs/measurements thing, and I'll try and make it as simple as possible:

 

Good, then I don't need to worry about another empty response.

 

If something sounds good to me, then I like it. The HM-602 sounds fantastic. 

 

Okay, so if something sounds good to you, then we should all excuse what many would consider poor circuit design?  So if someone listens to (crap) Skull Candies, because they like them, then you should not take note of any fault they have correct? And if others endorse them whole heartedly you shouldn't dare say a word opposite of it correct? Same with Bose, or a fart canon subwoofer in cars correct?  Because they like it now excuses the product from having any issues whatsoever!

 

In case the point isn't highlighted effectively through my overbearing sarcasm, when do we actually say something is bad regardless of whether people like it or not?  It's common here to point at Bose speakers as overpriced and underperforming, but Bose people for some reason still like them.  This is the exact same situation here.  There's definite performance issues, but because a group of people like the sound we're expected to bite our tongues in the name of audiophillia.  It's like a really bad joke at a funeral; not funny and not cool.

 

Have you heard one?

 

 

I've heard similar topologies, I've used TDA1543 DACs with the roll-off present.  I've owned one actually, still do.  It's pretty ho-hum in the scale of things.  I wish those measurements were the only issue with the 602, the output impedance sitting at 10 ohms is pretty inexcusable for those using extremely inductive headphones.  There's a good chance it's modifying how headphones react changing the FR, which makes me wonder if people actually like the 602 or just dislike the way their headphones sound normally.

 

It doesn't matter if I heard one and liked/disliked it though.  There's plenty of people with what I'd consider poor taste when it comes to "subjective" matters as I pointed at earlier.


Basically, the point is that whether you like it or not it does have what a good chunk of people would consider design flaws for such an expensive piece of equipment.  Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to that fact, so coming back and saying "but I listen to music" really is empty and pointless.  People that listen to Bose, Skull Candies, and subwoofers bottoming out in their cars are liable to make the same remark.

 

So if you subjectively like it fine, but don't cry or make snide remarks when we point out that it isn't the perfect piece of kit some owners make it out to be.  It has issues, some of us are going to highlight those issues, and some will probably proceed to criticize it for said issue.

post #163 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

Basically, the point is that whether you like it or not it does have what a good chunk of people would consider design flaws for such an expensive piece of equipment.  Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to that fact, so coming back and saying "but I listen to music" really is empty and pointless.  People that listen to Bose, Skull Candies, and subwoofers bottoming out in their cars are liable to make the same remark.


This is a misperception that the rolloff is a design flaw.  If you read LFF's review of the 601 Fang responded why the roll off exists.  It was put there intentionally.  It is not an accident or oversight as the result of flawed design.  The 801 has the same roll off, by design.   

post #164 of 233


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Shike View Post

Basically, the point is that whether you like it or not it does have what a good chunk of people would consider design flaws for such an expensive piece of equipment.  Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to that fact, so coming back and saying "but I listen to music" really is empty and pointless.  People that listen to Bose, Skull Candies, and subwoofers bottoming out in their cars are liable to make the same remark.


This is a misperception that the rolloff is a design flaw.  If you read LFF's review of the 601 Fang responded why the roll off exists.  It was put there intentionally.  It is not an accident or oversight as the result of flawed design.  The 801 has the same roll off, by design.   


Then I'll rephrase and call it a bad design choice (I still consider it a flaw whether it's on purpose or not, but I understand the connotations).  I remember he said it wasn't a flaw and used the excuse that it leads to better sound and pointed at Wadia one time iirc, which unfortunately I hold the same argument against (culmination of bad design choices).

post #165 of 233

LFF writes something like "the roll-off is very pleasing". How can that be pleasing if my headphones already sound fine and pleasing from a non rolled-off / flat source? wink.gif

And bdr529 also explained in the 601 thread that it is an inaccuracy because that's what "happens if you use an old DAC or don't upsample [...]".


Edited by xnor - 11/25/10 at 11:03am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Review: HiFiMAN HM-602 vs. HM-801 Comparison (56K Warning)