Review: HiFiMAN HM-602 vs. HM-801 Comparison (56K Warning) - Page 7

I guess what I'm most surprised about this review is that it misses the entire raison de etre of the Hifiman -- THE ABILITY FOR A PORTABLE DEVICE TO PLAY HI-RES AUDIO FILES.  I.e. 24/96 FLAC files, the kind you can buy and download from www.hdtracks.com and from the Linn website.  For some reason every comparison review I read nobody ever compares a CD-quality track (i.e. 16bit) with a studio master quality track (i.e. 24/96).

The perfect album exists in the Robert Plant / Alison Krauss album which can be had from hdtracks in both formats.  I would love to know how much of a difference 24/96 makes on a hi-end rig (i.e. custom IEMS + good amp + good cables).

I mean that really is the only compelling reason to carry around a brick like the 801.

Very disappointing that the small brother doesn't play 24/96.  What is the point then?

I think that the 801 sounds great with 24 bit but it sounds better than anything else i have heard with normal 16 bit as well.  Hands down.

Well, I'd like to buy this album, and tried to ... but unfortunately hdtracks does not sell outside USA yet.

Anybody who could buy this for me and than upload to my server? I would pay e.g. via PayPal?!

Or, Pegleg85, do you know any other internet shop where this album is sold?

Thanx for any help.

You might find differences easier than you think since a lot of re-mastering is done with different volume levels and pretty prude engineering/compression. I've yet to hear two Redbook/SACD recordings that sound perfectly alike; most have different volume levels (a bad sign) that often favour one or the other. There simply isn't a comparable media - not now nor ever. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by warp08 

You bring up some interesting questions.  The debate over high-res vs. Redbook standard rages on and it's a can of worms not worth opening up--although some helpful volunteer usually bites anyway when he or she sees a thread like this.

 

I love high-res reference recordings, own a bunch of SACDs, XRCDs and HDCDs.  They sound great on my home system.

 

However, in a portable form factor, especially on-the-go, even with the best interconnects and custom IEMs, I predict you will be hard-pressed to distinguish between the same recording master recorded in 24/96 or downsampled to 16/44 or 24/48.  The actual sonic differences will be so minute (if detectable at all) that it is hardly a deal-breaker over which of these two players should you pick.  And the HM-602 will play those same files, just downsampling them.  It still sounds awesome.

 

Jude's recent review of the HM-801 demonstrating the capabilities as a standalone DAC in a stationary desktop application, highlights the superiority of the HM-801, including the ability to natively process 24/96 files, but as you pointed out, the disadvantage is the power requirements and the size of those high-end components require.

 

so, I have pretty much determined that I am going to give the HIFIMAN 602 a try. My credit card does change a fee for international transactions. Can anyone tell me if this is an international or US transaction?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo 

You might find differences easier than you think since a lot of re-mastering is done with different volume levels and pretty prude engineering/compression. I've yet to hear two Redbook/SACD recordings that sound perfectly alike; most have different volume levels (a bad sign) that often favour one or the other. There simply isn't a comparable media - not now nor ever. 
 

 

@ warp08 and other who already have the HiFiMan 602

What FLAC level are you using?

I heard that some people have problems with compability using level 8 FLAC files (on other DAPs), and say that using level 4 solves their problem.

I use level 8. No problems here either.

Great news! It is on order.

Thanks for the answers! Good news, because I have ripped on level 8 ...

You see this is the exact question I'm hoping someone will actually try to test.

I have an iMod which runs through an ALO cable to a RSA Hornet which connects to UE10 IEMs.  I have found my stock Nano unlistenable when compared with the iMod (too much fatigue).  In hifi, the source is everything as once the signal is generated by the source the other components downstream can only lose fidelity they can't add anything.

So the question stands, how much better does studio master quality sound (if at all) over redbook.  Another good comparison (but off topic) is how does a redbook quality download sound in comparison to a computer-ripped cd (whether using iTunes or a method like EAC (Exact Audio Copy).  To me I think redbook downloads (again from HDTRACKs and Linn) sound better.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by warp08 

<snip>

 

However, in a portable form factor, especially on-the-go, even with the best interconnects and custom IEMs, I predict you will be hard-pressed to distinguish between the same recording master recorded in 24/96 or downsampled to 16/44 or 24/48.  The actual sonic differences will be so minute (if detectable at all) that it is hardly a deal-breaker over which of these two players should you pick.  

 

<snip

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pegleg85 

... Another good comparison (but off topic) is how does a redbook quality download sound in comparison to a computer-ripped cd (whether using iTunes or a method like EAC (Exact Audio Copy).  To me I think redbook downloads (again from HDTRACKs and Linn) sound better.
 

 

There would be absolutely no difference (presuming the download is also a lossless ripped CD), because if you ripped as wav it was lossless and you could always burn a new CD which would be the same as the original one.