Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › REVIEW: HiFiman HM-601
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

REVIEW: HiFiman HM-601 - Page 13

post #181 of 1379

I have tried the combination - excellent. I even tweeted about it without explaining myself well... bother. I only have the universal JH16Pro at my disposal, but I can tell you that it pairs very very well with the 601. The 601 hisses much less than the Sony (one of my other DAP loves), and has distinctly more sonorous upper bass and low mids than the X does with any exciting earphone such as the CK10, JH13Pro, JH16Pro, etc.. Again, more laid back earphones with less obvious treble such as EM3Pro or SM3 aren't as good of matches, but still sound excellent.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alyanm View Post


Am I correct in my assumption that my Walkman X is very similar in sound signature to the NWZ-A818 -- with the same bit of hiss?  If so, this is just the kind of comparison I've been hoping for -- and it makes me want to get a 601 even more than I already did :)  

 

I wonder if any of you have tried the 601 with JH16s (I just got my JH16s today!) and have impressions about that combination?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kernmac View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by sanity8me View Post

Thanks for your impressions.

 

I used to have the NWZ-A818 so I'm with you on it's SQ, but the hiss was a bit much for my customs. Would you say that the Sony is darker than the 601 or vice versa?

 



The HiFiman HM601 is definately more full bodied, has a bigger soundstage than the Sony NWZ-A818, and has a different sound signature altogether, I will keep both but prefer the HM601. I think I would describe it as "warmer".  The treble crispness is still there perhaps even more impactful, and there appears no additonal bass bloating (in fact bass is solid and tight) and the vocal presentation of the HIfiman is superb.  There is no hissing at all using my TMA-1 (very efficient supa-aural), however I will take the HM601 for a spin with the RE-Zeo to see if it is still black.


 

post #182 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post


 

The HD tracks somehow have more detail and more depth than regular 16-bit tracks a in general do sound better.

 

 

How is this possible? The player is downsampling to 16-bit anyway correct? (and sorry if I'm not). Is it just an increased sample frequency?


Edited by blockhead - 12/1/10 at 7:58pm
post #183 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanity8me View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post

They are very comparable. I know that Fang said the HM601 may have a heavier bass, but both sound very similar. Yooss's 602 proved that to me, though I only listened to it about 15 minutes. Still in that time (and with my SD card), I could tell that they are more similar than different, if not identical.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natha View Post

How does HM-602 and HM-601 compare in term of sound quality?


 


Thanks for sharing.

 

Which phones were you using?


As shigzeo said, HM601 is very identical to HM602, Hm601 has little more bass (just) but Hm602 has little more high and you should be able to hear these when using fully burned in RE262. IMO the HM602/RE262 pakage has been a better deal than Hm601/RE ZERo. Either way both are excellent DAPs gs1000.gif
 

post #184 of 1379

I don't think that the HM-602/RE-262 is a better deal. It really comes down to what you can afford and the HM-601/RE-ZERO in that respect is a better deal.

post #185 of 1379


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post

I don't think that the HM-602/RE-262 is a better deal. It really comes down to what you can afford and the HM-601/RE-ZERO in that respect is a better deal.


If you really do the math the price isn't that much different once you account for the DAC and IEMs.  I guess it matters when you bought as well.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by blockhead View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post


 

The HD tracks somehow have more detail and more depth than regular 16-bit tracks a in general do sound better.

 

 

How is this possible? The player is downsampling to 16-bit anyway correct? (and sorry if I'm not). Is it just an increased sample frequency?


If you check out a few threads in sound science there are tests that can be cited suggesting that 24bit superiority is a function of the mastering and question whether listening to 24 bit sources yields any audible improvement over listening to a 24 bit master resampled to 16 bit.  You can do an AB yourself.  I have my own opinions on the matter and will keep them to myself.  tongue.gif  So if that theory holds then downsampling to 16bit in the 60x series would not yield an audible loss.  

post #186 of 1379

The HM-601 is able to play HD files, which my s:flo 2 cannot play. I find that to be a great feature. Usually 24-bit tracks are good sounding tracks to begin with.


Edited by DJGeorgeT - 12/1/10 at 8:32pm
post #187 of 1379

For those that may be interested, here's the email reply I received from Head-Direct when I asked which DAP - 601 or 602 - would be a better match for my JH16's. I was hoping it would reach Fang, but it was somebody else:

 

 

"I will try my best to answer your question.

The 602 will have better sound output than the 601, which means the 602 is best suited for any headphones including the JH16's."

 

 

 

Hope this helps those who are in a similar dilemma. Definitely not me - too vague. I'm now even more perplexed. But I think what the replier really meant is that the 602 will have an easier time matching up with most phones while the 601 may be more picky.


Edited by sanity8me - 12/1/10 at 8:39pm
post #188 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

If you check out a few threads in sound science there are tests that can be cited suggesting that 24bit superiority is a function of the mastering and question whether listening to 24 bit sources yields any audible improvement over listening to a 24 bit master resampled to 16 bit.  You can do an AB yourself.  I have my own opinions on the matter and will keep them to myself.  tongue.gif  So if that theory holds then downsampling to 16bit in the 60x series would not yield an audible loss.  


Thanks yeah I have been reading some threads in Sound Science

 

"Going the other way, 24bit to 16bit could be quite detrimental unless a good quality dither is used as part of the process. Most consumer programs will truncate when going from 24 to 16bit. In other words, the last 8bits are just hacked off. Truncation is not good, it introduces quantisation distortion which is correlated to the audio material and it's results are unpredictable. It could mean that you get unwanted tones or harmonics in the mix which may be noticeable. Some consumer programs 'round' the result, still not good but better than truncation. The effects of rounding are unlikely to be heard by most people but the chances are that some audiophiles would notice. Dither is the only real option if you are serious about SQ"

 

Seems the OP was referring to this in his review. From what I've read the TDA1543 does just truncate the extra 8-bits. Make me wonder why the EQ made things worse.

 

 

post #189 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by blockhead View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post

If you check out a few threads in sound science there are tests that can be cited suggesting that 24bit superiority is a function of the mastering and question whether listening to 24 bit sources yields any audible improvement over listening to a 24 bit master resampled to 16 bit.  You can do an AB yourself.  I have my own opinions on the matter and will keep them to myself.  tongue.gif  So if that theory holds then downsampling to 16bit in the 60x series would not yield an audible loss.  


Thanks yeah I have been reading some threads in Sound Science

 

"Going the other way, 24bit to 16bit could be quite detrimental unless a good quality dither is used as part of the process. Most consumer programs will truncate when going from 24 to 16bit. In other words, the last 8bits are just hacked off. Truncation is not good, it introduces quantisation distortion which is correlated to the audio material and it's results are unpredictable. It could mean that you get unwanted tones or harmonics in the mix which may be noticeable. Some consumer programs 'round' the result, still not good but better than truncation. The effects of rounding are unlikely to be heard by most people but the chances are that some audiophiles would notice. Dither is the only real option if you are serious about SQ"

 

Seems the OP was referring to this in his review. From what I've read the TDA1543 does just truncate the extra 8-bits. Make me wonder why the EQ made things worse.

 

 


EQ tends to make everything worse on all files for many DAPs not just 24bit w/ respect to noise and distortion.  Not sure if that's the case here specifically though or why it might impact hi-rez files more.  Some argue the truncation is just empty space usually beyond human hearing.  Take my comments to reflect 16 v. 24 bits unrelated to 44/48/88/96/192 khz.  Anyway, w/o giving anything else away I'll just say I like to preserve my data.    


Edited by Anaxilus - 12/1/10 at 8:52pm
post #190 of 1379

601 vs 602.

 

I may be looking at this a bit too simply, but if you need a DAC get the 602, if you don't then get the 601 and save. 

post #191 of 1379

I humbly agree with this. They are similar enough that if you need a DAC, the 602 looks damn tasty, but if you don't, the 601 should more than suffice.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kernmac View Post

601 vs 602.

 

I may be looking at this a bit too simply, but if you need a DAC get the 602, if you don't then get the 601 and save. 

post #192 of 1379

Shigzeo, thank you so much!  That is exactly what I was looking for.  I love my Walkman X but I have started to be aware of the hiss (maybe because everybody talks about it so much) and the JH16 Pros make the hiss more noticeable than it was with my UE11s -- I guess those UE11 recessed highs were doing my Walkman a favor, a match made in heaven right there.  Where did my wallet run off too...  I see a 601 in my future wink_face.gif
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post

I have tried the combination - excellent. I even tweeted about it without explaining myself well... bother. I only have the universal JH16Pro at my disposal, but I can tell you that it pairs very very well with the 601. The 601 hisses much less than the Sony (one of my other DAP loves), and has distinctly more sonorous upper bass and low mids than the X does with any exciting earphone such as the CK10, JH13Pro, JH16Pro, etc.. Again, more laid back earphones with less obvious treble such as EM3Pro or SM3 aren't as good of matches, but still sound excellent.

post #193 of 1379

That is funny that you didn't notice the hiss - you are lucky. The UE11 are sensitive enough that I am incredibly annoyed by the hiss. In fact, only my full size headphones that are over 100Ω don't bother me with the X or any sony. I like the thick sound signature, but the hiss simply kills me. 

post #194 of 1379

It is funny, I don't know what to say!  I started to notice the hiss especially when I put an amp on the sony.  I did notice that my Zune seemed to have less hiss, and it sounds better with the JH16 than it did with the UE11 -- I'm developing more respect for my Zune now.  I guess I'm just not very sensitive to those higher notes!

post #195 of 1379

I came home to see how my 601 was doing in it's charge and I found something odd. I was trying to use the usb connected to a wall adapter and for some reason the  battery got fully discharged. I was trying to see if usb would work since I can tell when it stops charging since there is a light that goes off when it is fully charged. I guess I'll just charge with the power adapter that came with the 601 and should be fully charged sometime during the night.

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-601