HM-901 - Page 17

Originally Posted by reginalb 

 

You do realize that Sprite is sold by Coke, right?

Haha.  Okay the Coca-Cola division within Coca-Cola, suddenly selling extra carbonated Sprite "Sprite x2" instead of Coca-Cola, so they have abandoned the 'Coke idea', which was quite essential to their company and customers, without even explaining why.

It's like Mr. Coke saying "I know I've supported Coke, but Sprite is selling more, so err..., we replaced Coke with Sprite x2, it'll sell for $1000, I hope you enjoy it more than Sprite x1, have a nice day".

The HM-601, HM-602 and HM-801 all used non-oversampling DAC chips, for their sweet / analog / pure / vintage sound whatever you want to call it.

The ES9018 is 64x-128x oversampling.

The only thing NOS and ES9018 have in common is they're both found in the most expensive DAC's in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

 

Haha.  Okay the Coca-Cola division within Coca-Cola, suddenly selling extra carbonated Sprite "Sprite x2" instead of Coca-Cola, so they have abandoned the 'Coke idea', which was quite essential to their company and customers, without even explaining why.

 

It's like Mr. Coke saying "I know I've supported Coke, but Sprite is selling more, so err..., we replaced Coke with Sprite x2, it'll sell for $1000, I hope you enjoy it more than Sprite x1, have a nice day".

 

 

The HM-601, HM-602 and HM-801 all used non-oversampling DAC chips, for their sweet / analog / pure / vintage sound whatever you want to call it.

 

The ES9018 is 64x-128x oversampling.

 

 

The only thing NOS and ES9018 have in common is they're both found in the most expensive DAC's in the world.

I didn't know that Hifiman ever argued that it was the lack of oversampling that gave them their sound signature. Perhaps I am ignorant on that one.

Not sure if sarcasm, well they did say something to that affect at least once.

The irony of the Coca-Cola example is that in 1985 they actually did abandon their traditional formula to make “New Coke”. The firestorm of public backlash was swift and within a few months Coca-Cola announced the return of the old formula calling it Coca-Cola Classic. It was too late to keep me as a customer, however,  because  I tried Pepsi (during that whole debacle) and I became a fan afterward.

Glad I don't drink much of any of that stuff. I remember I use to drink it a lot and would break out. Generally I drink water and 100% juice.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by truckdriver 

The irony of the Coca-Cola example is that in 1985 they actually did abandon their traditional formula to make “New Coke”. The firestorm of public backlash was swift and within a few months Coca-Cola announced the return of the old formula calling it Coca-Cola Classic. It was too late to keep me as a customer, however,  because  I tried Pepsi (during that whole debacle) and I became a fan afterward.

im not particular on soda brands but i prefer coke

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

Not sure if sarcasm, well they did say something to that affect at least once.

Nope, I didn't follow the 801, basically ever, and got a 601 based on a lot of reviews, none of which mentioned that. So I am being quite serious. Everything I had heard related more to the butterworth filter that results in the rolloff. Again, heard a lot about that, didn't hear about the oversampling thing. But again, I wasn't around when the 801 launched, and by the time I started thinking about getting a high end DAP, the DX100 had hit the market, and I would prefer that guy to the 801. I have only recently even started thinking about the 801, because if this 901 becomes not vaporware, then that, combined with all the other competition, is going to cause the secondary market for the 801 collapse. Prices are going to be pretty low (if people are willing to part ways with their players at the prices that the market will bear). 

EDIT: The Head-Direct site says that the 602 "is the first portable player using non-oversampling DAC" and that it uses this, not because that is superior, but because it is alleged that such a DAC gives you a pleasant sound for less money. And since the 602 came out after the 801, they seem to be saying that the 801 uses an oversampling DAC, but that such a DAC is more costly, and so to get their "house sound" with the oversampling DACs, you have a more costly unit. 

Note that I am not here to comment on if this is true, just pulling a claim off of their web site. 

Originally Posted by truckdriver 

The irony of the Coca-Cola example is that in 1985 they actually did abandon their traditional formula to make “New Coke”. The firestorm of public backlash was swift and within a few months Coca-Cola announced the return of the old formula calling it Coca-Cola Classic. It was too late to keep me as a customer, however,  because  I tried Pepsi (during that whole debacle) and I became a fan afterward.

Thanks for sharing!  Thank you everyone for that backlash 27 years ago so I can enjoy my classic Coke even today!

Originally Posted by reginalb 

Originally Posted by kiteki 

Not sure if sarcasm, well they did say something to that affect at least once.

 

Nope, I didn't follow the 801, basically ever, and got a 601 based on a lot of reviews, none of which mentioned that. So I am being quite serious. Everything I had heard related more to the butterworth filter that results in the rolloff. Again, heard a lot about that, didn't hear about the oversampling thing. But again, I wasn't around when the 801 launched, and by the time I started thinking about getting a high end DAP, the DX100 had hit the market, and I would prefer that guy to the 801. I have only recently even started thinking about the 801, because if this 901 becomes not vaporware, then that, combined with all the other competition, is going to cause the secondary market for the 801 collapse. Prices are going to be pretty low (if people are willing to part ways with their players at the prices that the market will bear). 

 

EDIT: The Head-Direct site says that the 602 "is the first portable player using non-oversampling DAC" and that it uses this, not because that is superior, but because it is alleged that such a DAC gives you a pleasant sound for less money. And since the 602 came out after the 801, they seem to be saying that the 801 uses an oversampling DAC, but that such a DAC is more costly, and so to get their "house sound" with the oversampling DACs, you have a more costly unit. 

 

Note that I am not here to comment on if this is true, just pulling a claim off of their web site. 

Didn't the HM-602 come out after the HM-601?  They both use the same DAC which is a TDA1543, the HM-801 uses a PCM1704 which is NOS -> http://e2e.ti.com/support/data_converters/audio_converters/f/64/t/57294.aspx

The roll-off in these DAP's is inherent to NOS, and has nothing to do with a butterworth filter.  If the HM-901 is using a modern chip it can use any kind of filter without any roll-off at all.

It's correct that NOS chips aren't superior, they have fairly weak specs, the only superior part is that they don't oversample which is theoretically more natural, since oversampling is sine waves made via mathematics, like turning a VHS tape into a blu-ray with advanced codecs, it may look nicer but it's not a natural image, something to that affect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddragon 


Maybe to give you the impression that they have better dac than ibasso dx100 that uses the same dac chip but only has one

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

 

OK, so they simply want to tailgate on the DX100 success?, and revamp the entire Hifiman line sound concept, which has been that vintage electronics with 0x oversampling is superior to modern chips like the ES9018, without so much as an explanation as to why they've been selling 0x to us all this time and suddenly changed thier mind.

 

It's like Coca-Cola suddenly selling Sprite.

That's pure speculation guys. The 9018 is a fotm dac chip that is implemented by many hi-end devices. As a sound engineer, I'm sure fann had legit reasons for improving SQ by physically using dual mono chips (& I know they can do 8 channels each).  People without his credentials and R&D  experience in implementing these chips should refrain from judging this move as purely getting one up on ibasso. ie "they use 1 so we'll use 2 even though it would have no difference on SQ" I've heard so many people claim this and it just shows ignorance on there part.

I'm personally not a huge fan of hifiman products but I judge each unit individually, based on personal experience ie using/testing it, or at the very least form an opinion based on a multitude of respected opinions & reviews.  

You have a point but  until they deliver the goods and if it even is better sounding than the DX100 (which has yet to be proved).
 

He's welcome to change from NOS to ES9018 which are worlds apart in sound (hydrogenaudio.org says they sound the same I don't know what they're smoking) but he should respect the customers with an explanation on the change that's all I'm sayin'.  To me the Hifiman players have both looked like and sounded like cassette tape players which Fang has supported and now he's "ditching that cassette tape player idea", and yes the reasons for why are only speculation and not necessarily related to iBasso.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee730 

You have a point but  until they deliver the goods and if it even is better sounding than the DX100 (which has yet to be proved).
 

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

 

Thanks for sharing!  Thank you everyone for that backlash 27 years ago so I can enjoy my classic Coke even today!

 

 

 

Didn't the HM-602 come out after the HM-601?  They both use the same DAC which is a TDA1543, the HM-801 uses a PCM1704 which is NOS -> http://e2e.ti.com/support/data_converters/audio_converters/f/64/t/57294.aspx

 

The roll-off in these DAP's is inherent to NOS, and has nothing to do with a butterworth filter.  If the HM-901 is using a modern chip it can use any kind of filter without any roll-off at all.

 

It's correct that NOS chips aren't superior, they have fairly weak specs, the only superior part is that they don't oversample which is theoretically more natural, since oversampling is sine waves made via mathematics, like turning a VHS tape into a blu-ray with advanced codecs, it may look nicer but it's not a natural image, something to that affect.

the 602 came first, then the cheaper 601. I bought the 602 and was personally not impressed by it at all. My iphone sounded far better to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

He's welcome to change from NOS to ES9018 which are worlds apart in sound (hydrogenaudio.org says they sound the same I don't know what they're smoking) but he should respect the customers with an explanation on the change that's all I'm sayin'.  To me the Hifiman players have both looked like and sounded like cassette tape players which Fang has supported and now he's "ditching that cassette tape player idea", and yes the reasons for why are only speculation and not necessarily related to iBasso.

Cassette players - good description. Thats exactly what I thought with the 602. Pretty bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki 

He's welcome to change from NOS to ES9018 which are worlds apart in sound (hydrogenaudio.org says they sound the same I don't know what they're smoking) but he should respect the customers with an explanation on the change that's all I'm sayin'.  To me the Hifiman players have both looked like and sounded like cassette tape players which Fang has supported and now he's "ditching that cassette tape player idea", and yes the reasons for why are only speculation and not necessarily related to iBasso.

Let's be honest here Kiteki. It is because he is trying to compete with the DX100. People are after a more detailed and neutral high end DAP and the DX100 delivers on that. In order for him to compete he has to offer something that will be able to and the NOS just won't cut it. It has it's own flavor yes but that doesn't mean it will sell. Hes going for the bigger market share in this area. I still don't see him taking it though but maybe taking a part of it. We'll see.