Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Stereophile May 2011 issue reviews HM-602
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stereophile May 2011 issue reviews HM-602

post #1 of 8
5/20/11 at 3:14am
Thread Starter 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/head-direct-hifiman-hm-602-digital-audio-player

 

Widely-circulated (and in print since the early 1960s -- FWIW, of course!!), U.S. print magazine, Stereophile, recently reviewed the popular HM-602. (I wonder why didn't they review HM-801? It is priced similar to the budget of their target audience...meaning priced higher.)

 

The 602 measured very bad:

Way worse than iPod Classic (from 2003 Sterephile review). But it does seem to sound better, the reviewer hints, than iPod Touch. [Actually, the subjective review by Stephen Meijas is pretty confusing -- it's hard to tell if he really liked it or not -- he makes a lot of around-the-main-issue comments. Maybe if Head-Direct spend a bit more $$ for ad-space in that mag., they'd squeeze out a better (more concrete) review ...?]
 
I don't personally like NOS (non-oversampling -- aka zero-OS) sound: some of its SQ aspects are euphonic, and I've heard (FWIW) far more-$ NOS gear than the humble 602. But if you put NOS in a topology with good PS/regulation and decent output stage -- and use HQ components and good PCB layout techniques -- you can  improve "around" NOS digital -- above/beyond an OS (aka digital-filtering) design which neglects these niceties. This is called, in American idiomology, "polishing  a turd". I haven't heard either the 602 or the 801. I suspect the 801 is quite a bit better.
 
Given NOS nature of the 602 DAP, I think my modded QA350 (with better LO opamp capacitor upgrades) is probably much-better sounding -- and definitely much-better measuring. Stereophile is arguably -- and FWIW, of course -- the most-popular audiophile magazine in the world (newstands and airports carry it; and you need a min. of 5-dealers to qualify for a review. All thier reviews are online for free). If you could get them to review your unit, even an "OK" review would get you a lot of sales.
 
Oh, be sure to read the Manuf. Comments ...

 


Edited by alphaman - 5/20/11 at 3:34am
Reply
post #2 of 8
5/21/11 at 6:12am

It is the same old same old discussion in the forum..

 

BTW, they did reviewed HM801. It was mentioned in the first paragraph.

Reply
post #3 of 8
5/21/11 at 7:11am

High-end headphones don't measure perfectly either but yet they sound great. Forget the mechanical things and focus on what's important, the music. smily_headphones1.gif

Reply
post #4 of 8
5/21/11 at 11:02am

I always like an engineer that 'knows what he doesn't know'. I believe that what the 1543 and 1704 have in common is that they're both ladder type dacs that don't need sophisticated filtering. Everything else has gone Delta-Sigma which requires noise shaping and is less critical of trim. The 1704's oversampling is a big advantage compared to the 1543. It's not upsampling but samples a standard def bit eight times instead of one or 2. The higher sample rate(frequency) is easier to filter correctly. I would wager that the output filtering in the 602 is why we get a rolled off highs measurement. I suspect the amount of roll was chosen by ear and this was the most musical compromise. Sounds like Fang did well on the voicing.

 

I see no hint of an Ipod touch in the review. Only classic and nano which, for me, the touch also beats. No idea how it and the 602 compare. Just a note relative to the OP.


Edited by goodvibes - 5/21/11 at 11:11am
Reply
post #5 of 8
5/21/11 at 5:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post
BTW, they did reviewed HM801. It was mentioned in the first paragraph.

Not for print version, which is a bit more exhaustive as it reaches a broader audience and (often) includes Measurements.
 

 

Reply
post #6 of 8
5/22/11 at 12:23am

This thread seems a bit late and redundant as it's already been discussed in the 601/602 threads.  That's a pretty snide remark saying Fang should pay more in ad money and they might like it even more than they did already?  Wow dude.


Edited by Anaxilus - 5/22/11 at 12:25am
Reply
post #7 of 8
5/22/11 at 2:31am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post
This thread seems a bit late and redundant as it's already been discussed in the 601/602 threads. 


I searched head-fi.org for "HM-602 Stereophile", prior to posting and found no hits ... so no "redundancy", AFAICS ;) I did not exhaustively search this forum, so the same info may be scattered about in a manner not as conveniently self-contained as in the Stereophile article.  

 

The Stereophile Measurements are unique AFAIK.

 

Also unique are Fang's Manuf. Comments -- possibly the best part of the review article. I generally agree with Fang that there are likely scientific attributes of digital-audio science that have not yet been quantified. Hence some of appeal of NOS sound. Those with a long memory may remember how "oversampling", "dithering", "linearity", "jitter" and the latest ("minimum phase"/"apodizing" reconstruction)  entered the scene years after CDs hit the market. 

 

 

 


Edited by alphaman - 5/22/11 at 2:32am
Reply
post #8 of 8
5/23/11 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaman View Post


I searched head-fi.org for "HM-602 Stereophile", prior to posting and found no hits ... so no "redundancy", AFAICS ;) I did not exhaustively search this forum, so the same info may be scattered about in a manner not as conveniently self-contained as in the Stereophile article.  

 

The Stereophile Measurements are unique AFAIK.

 

Also unique are Fang's Manuf. Comments -- possibly the best part of the review article. I generally agree with Fang that there are likely scientific attributes of digital-audio science that have not yet been quantified. Hence some of appeal of NOS sound. Those with a long memory may remember how "oversampling", "dithering", "linearity", "jitter" and the latest ("minimum phase"/"apodizing" reconstruction)  entered the scene years after CDs hit the market. 


No worries.  The article links are in the threads.  Myself and others posted them a few weeks ago.  The article basically confirms all the discussions about what the player and and can't do and how it measures versus how its sound might be perceived or even appreciated.  It's FR curve is not an accident and a deliberate design choice.  The problem is just having the article bypasses all the prior discussion about various 'controversies".

 

I do agree, Head-fi 'search' is often not your friend but a PITA.  wink.gif

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Stereophile May 2011 issue reviews HM-602