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 14

post #196 of 233
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyph666@gmail.com View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by warp08 View Post

As a self-contained portable source, the HM-801 stands alone at the moment, IMHO, followed by the 602.  The difference is more evident when testing with higher end cans and IEMs.  I have never auditioned the RE262s, transitioned to customs about a year ago.

 

On a general note, dedicated DAPs tend to outperform portable media players in overall SQ.


So you consider the hifiman 602 to have higher SQ than the whipmod then? I'm trying to decide if i should get a whipmod or get a hifiman. Also does the whipmod LOD work with other ipods other than the whipmod? Thanks!

 

To my ears the quality of the LOD you use with the WhipMOD or iMod matters a great deal.  The "Fat Boy" Reference LOD is downright amazing with amps such as the Pico Slim or the new SR71B in terms of added detail, soundstage and instrument separation.  Granted, the cost of one of such LOD equals the price of the 602 itself.  But you have greater level of freedom to pick your amp and LOD to arrive to the desired overall SQ.  The 602 is a great deal for what you pay and one of the best players out there period, all things considered, IMO, but only if you prefer its sound signature.  If you have to put a mini-to-mini to a portable amp, the value proposition is lost, considering you still have to deal with smaller storage capacity, lack of gapless playback and playlist support, etc.

 

If you buy any LOD with built-in BG caps, it will still work with non-modded iPods, but the signal path will not be as clean, because of the extra caps there.  But you should still be OK. 
 

post #197 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by david1978jp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickosiris View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by david1978jp View Post

Both PO and LO are colored. I still have funny feeling about how much they cost (I got 602). One can still get old portable CD player, mp3 player, mini disc for not much money - you can asked yourself,  what kind of colored sound do you really want? 602 and 801 are  obviously more powerful than others.

 

Old portable CD players, ordinary mp3 players (including all iPods) and mini discs can't play 24 bit files, which is one of the big plus points of the HiFiMan players as far as I'm concerned.

You play 24 bit files, you got a winner. After I have 602 for a while, I dug out my old mp3 players (back then, both end extention and details were not selling points or emphasized), I found they sounded "sort of similar" - they don't hurt my ears, they don't hit low low end well, their treble roll off - they mellow the sound in the same manner. In certain days, I preferred 602; other days, otherwise. I dno't regret my purchase of 602, but I do have funny feeling when I have old players out (especially, I recalled, I didn't care about some of them when I was young) ....
 


Seriously though, the only difference you notice is the signature coloration?  If that was true for me I would have sold the 602 ages ago.  The detail, resolution and musicality are superior to any old MP3 player I have heard.  MiniDisc and CD players is a whole other can of worms.

post #198 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by david1978jp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickosiris View Post

Old portable CD players, ordinary mp3 players (including all iPods) and mini discs can't play 24 bit files, which is one of the big plus points of the HiFiMan players as far as I'm concerned.

 

You play 24 bit files, you got a winner...

 

Well all this talk about 24 bit files got me interested and I read up a bit on these. You live and learn.

post #199 of 233

That's a topic that requires more than just a 'bit' of reading.  There isn't even a debate as to which offers better resolution but the question is audibility and implementation.  Like many things in the 'science' forums I find it one example of over simplifications often tied into 'theoretical' limitations.  As we often say listen for yourself.  If it sounds better ask yourself why but know that it does sound better to you.  If not then save your money, simple.  I'll just say I enjoy listening to my HD audio on the 602 and DACPort.  wink.gif

post #200 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

That's a topic that requires more than just a 'bit' of reading.  There isn't even a debate as to which offers better resolution but the question is audibility and implementation.  Like many things in the 'science' forums I find it one example of over simplifications often tied into 'theoretical' limitations.  As we often say listen for yourself.  If it sounds better ask yourself why but know that it does sound better to you.  If not then save your money, simple.  I'll just say I enjoy listening to my HD audio on the 602 and DACPort.  wink.gif

 

Let's just say I'm no pro and it didn't appear overly simplified to me. wink.gif

post #201 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

That's a topic that requires more than just a 'bit' of reading.  There isn't even a debate as to which offers better resolution but the question is audibility and implementation.  Like many things in the 'science' forums I find it one example of over simplifications often tied into 'theoretical' limitations.  As we often say listen for yourself.  If it sounds better ask yourself why but know that it does sound better to you.  If not then save your money, simple.  I'll just say I enjoy listening to my HD audio on the 602 and DACPort.  wink.gif


Hilarious. I personally think that 24 bit recordings sound better than 16 bit recordings because of their re-mastering. I assume they put in more effort in mastering a 24 bit recording (where they know only audiophiles will listen to it) rather than 16 bit (anyone).

post #202 of 233

I personally think that it's the mastering as well. The real question is will be there be a difference if you take a well mastered 24 bit and then make it into a 16 bit and compare the two.

post #203 of 233

Right, whatever the reason the 24 bit sounds better (usually).  The details of being the master or the technology are largely irrelevant IMO.  If something sounds better and there is no alternative choice the debate is just academic.  I refer to my previous response.

post #204 of 233

Recent jazz SACDs hyrids from AP (Kevin Gray/Hoffman mastered) kind of opened my eyes in regards to 16bit vs 24bit. While both sides are really well mastered as one would expect from Gray and Hoffman, there's just a tad more resolutions on the 24bits IME (ymmv).

post #205 of 233

The 24bit argument can be one of the most ill-informed and frustratingly pointless discussions I've yet seen on Head-Fi, so I'd like to see it restricted to the appropriate threads, where I can ignore it most of the time. All I know is that a 24bit file that I've made myself directly from vinyl can be the most satisfying digital music experience I've yet come across, and the 602 is an ideal portable vehicle for that experience. And that's scientific fact.

post #206 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickosiris View Post

The 24bit argument can be one of the most ill-informed and frustratingly pointless discussions I've yet seen on Head-Fi, so I'd like to see it restricted to the appropriate threads, where I can ignore it most of the time. All I know is that a 24bit file that I've made myself directly from vinyl can be the most satisfying digital music experience I've yet come across, and the 602 is an ideal portable vehicle for that experience. And that's scientific fact.


You wish. tongue.gif

post #207 of 233

Considering getting either the 602's or an amp for use with my iPhone 4. What do you guys reckon? Which would offer me better audio quality?

post #208 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naim.F.C View Post

Considering getting either the 602's or an amp for use with my iPhone 4. What do you guys reckon? Which would offer me better audio quality?


The iPhone 4 is a much better designed player that doesn't have the terrible treble roll off of the 602. You're better off buying an amp for it, assuming you even really need one.

 

post #209 of 233

Get HM-602 for diversification. Amp will not improve iPhone sound much with the headphones in your sig.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naim.F.C View Post

Considering getting either the 602's or an amp for use with my iPhone 4. What do you guys reckon? Which would offer me better audio quality?



 

post #210 of 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by evanft View Post




The iPhone 4 is a much better designed player that doesn't have the terrible treble roll off of the 602. You're better off buying an amp for it, assuming you even really need one.

 


Wow, there must be a huge difference between the 601 and the 802.  The 802 isn't even close to the same league as an iphone or ipad in sound quality-it's a whole different world.

 

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)