or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HM-901 - Page 180

post #2686 of 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post

I don't have that fancy adapter thing for the AK240 so it'll just be a 3.5mm->3.5mm with the software setting enabled fro lineout. That ok?

Thanks so much! Would love to read your thought on these two DAPs
post #2687 of 3521

Attempt #2. Sorry I whacked out my "Live Notes" earlier this evening

 

Setup

- TG!334 with 000 FitEar cable in single ended Oyaide 3.5mm plug

- AK240 (1.09 firmware, nothing special enabled)

- HM-901 (on 1.084 firmware, HD Setting, balanced OPA627-based module)

 

 

- AK240 Jazz vocals are more front forward whilst on the HM-901 feels quite distinctively left & right (kind of like sitting too close to speakers)

- HM-901 has deeper and greater sub bass impact

- HM-901 also seems to have greater bloom in mid-bass to lower mid range

- AK240 seems to shift a little more towards the middle and upper of the midrange

- AK240 trebles seems to be a little bit more forward but a little compressed

- HM-901 trebles are slightly less crisp but feels more airy and spacious

- Overall staging though, AK240 feels more expansive but fills that space well whilst HM-901 sounds a little more intimate by comparison

- Both are highly detailed

 

The AK240 is very smooth though. Together with it's expansive soundstage, these would be the sonic selling points of the AK240. The HM-901, on the other hand with it's warmth and analogue-styled sound feels more mature.

 

P.S. I'll report on using the DAPs as "source only" with an external amp later.

post #2688 of 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwood View Post
 

 

AK240, AK120, HM-801, HM-802 so far. 

 

Haven't had quality time with the AK240 for head to head.  Had time spent listening at 2 different occassions.  But used same files on both players side by side.

 

The HM-901 UI is able to browse by Artist, Album, Genre, etc.  Works pretty well, but I prefer to folder browse.


thanks , I will try the UI when I made the time to visit the place thats selling it . Does the hifiman 901 still cuts off the beginning of songs ? Is it less than one second now ? or is it still couple of seconds cut off ? What other bugs do you have with it ?

post #2689 of 3521

Hello,

I just started researching the HM-901 today...

So far I have been really impressed with what I am reading.

I just have one question, regarding 901 vs DX100.

How does the 901 perform against the DX100 in AMp power and HP drive ability? With both the standard amp and the balanced card.

 

Cheers and thanks!

post #2690 of 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post
 

Attempt #2. Sorry I whacked out my "Live Notes" earlier this evening

 

Setup

- TG!334 with 000 FitEar cable in single ended Oyaide 3.5mm plug

- AK240 (1.09 firmware, nothing special enabled)

- HM-901 (on 1.084 firmware, HD Setting, balanced OPA627-based module)

 

 

- AK240 Jazz vocals are more front forward whilst on the HM-901 feels quite distinctively left & right (kind of like sitting too close to speakers)

- HM-901 has deeper and greater sub bass impact

- HM-901 also seems to have greater bloom in mid-bass to lower mid range

- AK240 seems to shift a little more towards the middle and upper of the midrange

- AK240 trebles seems to be a little bit more forward but a little compressed

- HM-901 trebles are slightly less crisp but feels more airy and spacious

- Overall staging though, AK240 feels more expansive but fills that space well whilst HM-901 sounds a little more intimate by comparison

- Both are highly detailed

 

The AK240 is very smooth though. Together with it's expansive soundstage, these would be the sonic selling points of the AK240. The HM-901, on the other hand with it's warmth and analogue-styled sound feels more mature.

 

P.S. I'll report on using the DAPs as "source only" with an external amp later.

 

Thanks Sean for the impression.  These matched my experience with them.  For me the compressed treble on AK240 is a love-hate affair, it gave the AK240 the smoothness but at times it also lacks the sparkles in cymbals despite more forward .  Vocals on AK240 at times can feel coarse also.  These are the two nitpicks I had with my AK240.

 

On balanced mode vs balanced mode, the soundstage gap is closer then SE vs SE.  (i.e. the 901 stage improved more on balanced vs the case for AK240).  Though the 901 also loses some mid-bass to lower mid range bloom which can be good or bad depending on genre of music.    Overall be it SE or balanced mode I rated both on the same level in terms of SQ.

 

Very interested to hear your impression on the source only mode.  I had been using both (901 with lineout dock cable, and AK240 with 3.5 to 3.5 line out) and in a nutshell I prefer the AK240 on instrumental tracks and prefer the 901 on most any tracks with vocals.

post #2691 of 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrias View Post
 


thanks , I will try the UI when I made the time to visit the place thats selling it . Does the hifiman 901 still cuts off the beginning of songs ? Is it less than one second now ? or is it still couple of seconds cut off ? What other bugs do you have with it ?


With 1.085b firmware it still cuts off the beginning of songs, but now it's a lot less.  Less than half a second now.

post #2692 of 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdourado View Post
 

Hello,

I just started researching the HM-901 today...

So far I have been really impressed with what I am reading.

I just have one question, regarding 901 vs DX100.

How does the 901 perform against the DX100 in AMp power and HP drive ability? With both the standard amp and the balanced card.

 

Cheers and thanks!


Well, the HM-901 can drive Orthodynamic Headphones pretty well, especially with the Balanced Card.

post #2693 of 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post
 

 

Thanks Sean for the impression.  These matched my experience with them.  For me the compressed treble on AK240 is a love-hate affair, it gave the AK240 the smoothness but at times it also lacks the sparkles in cymbals despite more forward .  Vocals on AK240 at times can feel coarse also.  These are the two nitpicks I had with my AK240.

 

On balanced mode vs balanced mode, the soundstage gap is closer then SE vs SE.  (i.e. the 901 stage improved more on balanced vs the case for AK240).  Though the 901 also loses some mid-bass to lower mid range bloom which can be good or bad depending on genre of music.    Overall be it SE or balanced mode I rated both on the same level in terms of SQ.

 

Very interested to hear your impression on the source only mode.  I had been using both (901 with lineout dock cable, and AK240 with 3.5 to 3.5 line out) and in a nutshell I prefer the AK240 on instrumental tracks and prefer the 901 on most any tracks with vocals.

 

Thanks for sharing. That's good to know. Sadly the AK240 isn't mine and is a loaner. I don't have a 2.5mm TRRS and probably won't bother buying a cable or adapter if I don't buy the AK240 so little chance of being able to compare balanced to balanced.

 

I forgot about comparing source-2-source!! Will try that tonight.

post #2694 of 3521

thanks for the answers, which one of the amp card is the most all rounder and can be used with both iem and headphone

post #2695 of 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsung View Post
 

Any difference in music detail retrieval between the iem card and using the balance card single ended ?

 

No, mainly a difference in loudness and dynamics.  They use the same OP Amps, just twice as many in the Balanced Card.

post #2696 of 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrias View Post
 

thanks for the answers, which one of the amp card is the most all rounder and can be used with both iem and headphone


Since the Balanced amp has a lot more power, it's able to drive full size headphones better than the IEM card. As the name implies, the latter is designed to drive IEMs. If you use very sensitive full size headphones it's probably still do fine.

 

For me the Balanced amp was an easy choice as a "do it all" amp card. I use it with my CIEMs (UM Miracle, 16 Ohm, 114dB/mW), and while there is less fine-tuning of volume (bigger steps in volume) than with the IEM card, it works just fine for me. I am able to turn down the volume level as much as I like and also more than I will ever use, so the Balanced amp won't be a problem for you if you like low level listening.

 

Since the volume is regulated by a stepped attenuator, there is no channel imbalance at any volume setting on any amp card.

post #2697 of 3521

so if i am going to get one card , i might as well get the balanced card instead of any other card

post #2698 of 3521
I agree...just get the balance card n balance your phones...you will get the best out of the hm901
post #2699 of 3521
Minibox card is another one-card-do-it-all option which I like better than the balanced card. Other than the max output power, it does everything as well if not better than the balance card in my experience. Other than full sized headphones, I t works surprisingly well with sensitive IEMs like K3003 too. And there is no need to re-cable/re-terminate your headphones/IEMs.
Edited by fengwei007 - 4/4/14 at 4:55am
post #2700 of 3521
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsung View Post

Do you mean the detail retrieval on the minimax card is at par with the balanced card ?

To me it is, if not better. Actually some users think minibox card can produce slightly more details than the balanced card (minibox seems to extend highs abit higher and lows a bit lower). I never compared them side by side, but I do know that I prefer Minibox over balanced card on 901.

 

Here some guy compared all amp cards for 901/802 (in Chinese):

 

http://www.erji.net/read.php?tid=1636619

 

高频(high frequency or tremble):minibox>iem=平衡(balanced)>分立(discrete)=天使(angel)=8397=经典(classic);   

低频(综合量、弹性、下潜)(low frequency or bass: quantity, decay, extension):minibox>分立(discrete)>平衡(balanced)>iem>天使(angel)>8397=经典(classic);


Edited by fengwei007 - 4/4/14 at 7:22am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear