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

REVIEW: HiFiman HM-601 - Page 6

post #76 of 1488
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post


@ LFF.  I think this would be a great post to add to the front IMO.  



Done!

post #77 of 1488



Once you stop learning your ready for the grave. Take the Clip+ to the coffin with ya brother. I dunno Anaxilus some people just get stuck in the mudwink_face.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Antony6555 View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rawrster View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Antony6555 View Post

@DJGeorge

 

No, audiophiles are naive when they assume their sighted listening is telling them the truth. Anyone with a professional background in audio knows this is not the case.

 

 


LFF has a professional background in audio who also wrote this review in the first page.


 

And he said the clip+ is more accurate in his review


It's funny you equate FR to overall sound.  You are operating on tons of assumptions and simply reveal your ignorance on the matter of sound by claiming such knowledge.  What is sad are people like you who have no faith in their hearing and listen w/ their eyes.  Of all the variables related to producing sound you cling to FR and noise and scream bloody murder against 'audiophilia' to boost your ego because you feel so insecure you need to reaffirm your genius in buying the most perfect player ever conceived on earth for a mere $40.  LFF said the FR is more accurate but the 602 is more musical and possibly more natural depending on how one defines the term.  Removing Noise and FR from the equation the NOS DAC sounds way closer to a real musical experience in real life than the Clip+.  Of course, to you and your kind we are just 'audiophiles' that feel the need to justify our large purchases to soothe our egos after getting ripped off by marketeers.  Your arguments are old, predictable and boring.  It's funny it is beyond conceivable to your brain that something that doesn't measure as well in 2 aspects could sound better in every other way.  I pity your dogmatic certainty.  I can tell you the reason I have had more than 6 different DAPs is due to people like you that claimed how perfect and awesome the Clip+ was only for my ears to scoff at your claims and continue searching.  If I could have perfect sound for $40 I would have stopped and called it a day.  But for some reason your little cherished miracle falls short in many respects which you would know if you weren't busy having everyone else tell what to think.  I know LFF loves his Clip+ for what is and can do, I respect that and agree w/ him.  I know for a fact he loves what the 601 brings to the table and if he didn't he wouldn't have even wasted his time reviewing it.  Even his friend, the professional studio engineer, uses a NOS DAC in his home setup.  I guess he's another 'delusional audiophile' who just happens to work in audio because McDonalds wasn't hiring.  It's really astonishing to me how those who claim such familiarity w/ science translate that into certainty and dogma.  I was a Bio major in Pre-Med and love reading about theoretical Physics and am continuously shocked by the certainty people in this forum have that they know everything there is to know.  That's poor scientific practice and philosophy IMHO.  Consider the complexities of studying Aerodynamics/Fluidynamics and melding that w/ Biology/Physiology and toss in innumerable variables related to Electrical Theory (sources, gear and synergy) and you want to just drop a frequency response curve and crap all over something?  Yeah, you look brilliant.  RMAA measurements and the like provide a useful tool.  Do I give it more significance than my decades spent on this earth listening to sound w/ ears that have evolved over millions of years?  No.  I'm not insane enough to do that.  Enjoy your Clip+.  I know it's impossible for you not to, the graph says so.

 

 

Edited to be more polite out of respect for Jude and the forum.  Really holding back here guys.....          

post #78 of 1488

Why do you have to quote all that text to say that sentence? Gosh.

post #79 of 1488

Probably the same reason you felt compelled to make your comment.popcorn.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero Kid View Post

Why do you have to quote all that text to say that sentence? Gosh.


Edited by Guidostrunk - 11/23/10 at 10:29pm
post #80 of 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nankai View Post

Digital audio data need to be converted to analog before we listen to it because digital signal is actually high freq noise to human ears. After D/A process, there will be a lot of digital signals, which is actually high freq noise, staying in the analog signal.  In audio industry, engineers use digital filter and analog filter to solve this problem. Digital filters are like scissors, which can easily shave the freq curve, but it need help from analog signal to kick out high freq noise completely. Most consumer grade mp3 player designs are to set up 20- 20K flat in digital filter (normally the digital filter, d/a converter and cpu controller are build in one $5 to $10 mp3 player chip, such as sigma-tel 3770), and do not build the analog filter. Analog low pass filter actually is the key to eluminate most digital noise. This is the important reason why normal mp3 player are "digital sound", "lean, sharp, dry, ...," : they do not have a real, well designed analog filter. Setup a flat line between 20 to 20k in digital filter is deceiving oneself as well as others because too much digital signal will pass through D/A convertor and stay with analog signal, end with "digital sound". Most hifi grade DAC have high freq roll-off because they do have a well-designed low pass filter. If you carefully check hifi player or DAC's freq curve, you will find that they normally are one of the types in the following four filter types: butterworth, chebyshev or Elliptic".

 

For a digital player or DAC, filtering digital high freq noise is more important task than make 20-20k flat because the bottle neck of not to be flat actually is in speaker/headphones. It is well known that the final sigal getting to human ears from headphone/speakers is far from flat. However, digital high freq noise is the killer to sound quality because it will make sound signature "lean, dry, not natural".

 

We are using a special butterworth filter in our players because such filter can keep high-freq digital noise at a lower level. Benefiting from this, our products have very analogue and natural sound signature. For anybody who is really interested in what's going on about rolloff, pls go to sound science and discuss the following link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterworth_filter

 

500px-Electronic_linear_filters.svg.png



Thank you for those informations. That post actually sent me all over the internet out of curiosity. Do you know a website where I could find more info on DACs and analog / digital filters ?

post #81 of 1488

That's great stuff (from Fang?).  I'm wondering what the X Axis of that graph is supposed to be?  I was thinking it must be frequency but the numbers appear to be between 0 and 1? 

 

Also, I wonder what the differences are for the sound signature on those four filter types...


Edited by alyanm - 11/24/10 at 9:15am
post #82 of 1488

Sure, personal preference is subjective and we should respect personal preference. For non-professional audio enthusiasts, the ultimate goal is pleasure and that can be reached in different ways. That said, we both know there is a difference between personal preference and accuracy, and I think others should be aware of this as well.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post

Guys...please take my review for what it is....a review of a quality product. If I get something that I think is utter crap, I won't review it. I'll inform the manufacturer very politely and tell him/her that his/her product is crap and that I won't review it. Simple.

 

As I said in my review...this comes down to sound signature preference. In the end, the sound you prefer is completely dependent on your imagination and subjectivity. Imagination and Subjectivity are paths into perceiving reality. Mindless philosophy and materialistic individualism result in nothing good and bind us to a limited "sense world" where the blind lead the blind, or in this case, the deaf lead the deaf. These reviews and all others are simply starter guide maps - not final destinations. Listen to these things for yourselves and come up with your own conclusions for yourself! Music is here for us to enjoy and inspire us...not argue for or against.

 

If Einstein developed and worked on general relativity by playing the violin and listening to Mozart, can't we agree and work on the fact that some sound signatures work for some and not for others? Neutral, Colored, Dark or Bright...these basic sound signatures are there to please us as an individual to share music as a collective whole. I like my music to sound neutral and natural. Am I absolutely right in this preference? No. It's just my individual preference.

 

Stop arguing and accept that there are different strokes for different folks. If it helps, consider music and it's rituals an individual religion. wink_face.gif

post #83 of 1488


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antony6555 View Post

Sure, personal preference is subjective and we should respect personal preference. For non-professional audio enthusiasts, the ultimate goal is pleasure and that can be reached in different ways. That said, we both know there is a difference between personal preference and accuracy, and I think others should be aware of this as well.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post

Stop arguing and accept that there are different strokes for different folks. If it helps, consider music and it's rituals an individual religion. wink_face.gif


I really like what LFF said -- after all our love of this equipment is based on the inspiration that we receive from the music we listen to.  Well, and our love of gadgetry!  I think that's what you are missing from your equation there Antony6555 -- the pure joy of playing with all these cool little boxes with knobs and switches and blinking lights -- its just fun ;)

 

There is some magic formula that combines the subjective with the objective, science and art, and the result is ecstasy through the ear drums.  The only part that we can all agree on is the objective and scientific part and even that gets a bit dicey at times.


Edited by alyanm - 11/24/10 at 9:12am
post #84 of 1488

 Yes as stated by Fang, the roll-off isn't actually an inaccuracy but the effect of using a good digital filter that removes artifacts in those high-regions. So even graphs are iffy and don't tell the whole story. 

post #85 of 1488

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

 Yes as stated by Fang, the roll-off isn't actually an inaccuracy but the effect of using a good digital filter that removes artifacts in those high-regions. So even graphs are iffy and don't tell the whole story. 


 

Sure it is inaccurate, if people want that sound who is to tell them otherwise though. The roll off is just what happens if you choose to use an old DAC or don't upsample with a low order analog filter. Like he said, most new DAC designs will upsample where you can use a high order digital filter without hurting the high frequencies. Whether "too much digital signal will pass through D/A convertor and stay with analog signal", I am not sure.

post #86 of 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by alyanm View Post

I'm wondering what the X Axis of that graph is supposed to be?  I was thinking it must be frequency but the numbers appear to be between 0 and 1? 

 

You are correct. The numbers refer to the frequency on a relative scale between 0 and 1, 0.5 is the cut-off frequency. 

post #87 of 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by JahJahBinks View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by alyanm View Post

I'm wondering what the X Axis of that graph is supposed to be?  I was thinking it must be frequency but the numbers appear to be between 0 and 1? 

 

You are correct. The numbers refer to the frequency on a relative scale between 0 and 1, 0.5 is the cut-off frequency. 


Ah, thanks, I see, its a generic graph. 

post #88 of 1488

Well that's easy. The scale is in per unit, i.e., assuming 1 means 20 kHz, then 0.6 is 12 kHz. If you would like to think of per unit in percent, you can do so as well. The scale would be from 0 to 100%.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alyanm View Post

That's great stuff (from Fang?).  I'm wondering what the X Axis of that graph is supposed to be?  I was thinking it must be frequency but the numbers appear to be between 0 and 1? 

 

Also, I wonder what the differences are for the sound signature on those four filter types...

post #89 of 1488

Actually I find it ironic when people take a consumer product like the Clip+ and glorify it to audiophile or hi-fi status. And the same people think that they are in the position to evaluate other audio equipment. Ridiculous. You really have absolutely no shame.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antony6555 View Post


I basically agree with this opinion. If you like it, that's fine. Just don't claim it's high-fidelity or something

 

 


 
post #90 of 1488
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJGeorgeT View Post

Well that's easy. The scale is in per unit, i.e., assuming 1 means 20 kHz, then 0.6 is 12 kHz. If you would like to think of per unit in percent, you can do so as well. The scale would be from 0 to 100%.

 


Right, thanks.  I wonder does that mean the HM-601 Butterworth filter cut-off is set at 12KHz?  (Why do I feel like there should be pancakes involved in that sentence??)

 

 

Quote:
Sure it is inaccurate, if people want that sound who is to tell them otherwise though. The roll off is just what happens if you choose to use an old DAC or don't upsample with a low order analog filter. Like he said, most new DAC designs will upsample where you can use a high order digital filter without hurting the high frequencies. Whether "too much digital signal will pass through D/A convertor and stay with analog signal", I am not sure.

 

Does this mean that the Butterworth filter is obsolete, is that what you're saying?  Clearly I'm out of my depth here...

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