New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HM-901 - Page 44

post #646 of 2947

If the 901 gets it right, there's a clear advantage to not needing to use SPdif or USB. Dig out probably can't improve anything without going to a true HiEnd DAC.

post #647 of 2947

From some of the impressions so far, a not yet fully burn-in HM-901 already sounding like DX100 (or close enough).

 

Very impressive progress. smile.gif

post #648 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenz View Post

From some of the impressions so far, a not yet fully burn-in HM-901 already sounding like DX100 (or close enough).

 

Very impressive progress. smile.gif

Not "sound like" or "close enough", 901 already sounds better than DX100 for me, easy.

post #649 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post

Not "sound like" or "close enough", 901 already sounds better than DX100 for me, easy.

please stop! now i really want to  get it. May i ask you this question and give me your honest answer XD. If someone blind folded you, and you compared both the 901 and dx100 in a blind test. Would you be able to tell which is the 901 and dx100 and which sounds better ?

 

if you tell me yes you've already set my quest to get the 901 exactly when it releases here, but i still should wait and see other impressions of the sound compared to the dx100. the 901 could knock the dx100 off the throne o.o


Edited by Poetic - 4/2/13 at 10:30am
post #650 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poetic View Post

please stop! now i really want to  get it. May i ask you this question and give me your honest answer XD. If someone blind folded you, and you compared both the 901 and dx100 in a blind test. Would you be able to tell which is the 901 and dx100 and which sounds better ?

 

if you tell me yest you've already set my quest to get the 901 exactly when it releases here...

YES. every single time.they sound very different in terms of treble once you get used to both soundings.

 

But when i say 901 sounds better than dx100, that's only for me because I prefer more relaxed rather than sparkle sound, so this doesn't mean dx100 isn't good. It's just not as musical, lifelike as 901. Listening with my SE 5 way which has the best treble extension within all my CIEMs, 901 is -4% from perfect treble (to me), dx100 is about +4% from perfect treble. 


Edited by tupac0306 - 4/2/13 at 11:34am
post #651 of 2947

Okay! This treble amount difference could actually be the reason DX100 sounds more "airy" than HM-901.

 

This is my experience with headphones also: LCD-2 has less than neutral treble and doesn't sound airy at all. HE-6 has more treble than neutral and does sound airy.

post #652 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarsHP View Post

Okay! This treble amount difference could actually be the reason DX100 sounds more "airy" than HM-901.

 

This is my experience with headphones also: LCD-2 has less than neutral treble and doesn't sound airy at all. HE-6 has more treble than neutral and does sound airy.

LCD 2 sounds airy enough to my ears, it does have a cut around 8-10k, but it's ultra treble from 12k are very well extended which makes up for its transparency,resolution and airiness. LCD 2 sounds dry sometimes because of that, LCD 3 improved this with more liquid like treble (linear, smoother upper treble), but brighter, so the imaging is better.

 

Anyways, 901 sounds a tap warmer than dx100. Although, it doesn't have the large space on the instant listen, but this leads to a better depth and body to the presentation. dx100 on the other hand, will sound a bit small when I A/B them.They both sound transparent and airy enough to my ears. This is all relative talking and nit picking, you gain some, you lose some. Like I said, some people like very airy sound. I just like it neutral with just enough sparkle in the treble. If I can't choose 100% neutral, I will pick 5% warmer source than 5% brighter one, because it suits my headphones better.This is all subtle difference because 901 and dx100 do share similar characters because of the same chip. I used 901 as a DAC only, actually it has almost no difference compared to dx100 in terms of treble (maybe brighter), so hifiman's amp modules play important parts here. Therefore I am only talking about combos here, 901 probably won't sound good with a overly warm, relaxed headphones, dx100 certainly fails when pairing with a bright, analytical headphone. But with fairly neutral headphones, I will pick 901 first.


Edited by tupac0306 - 4/2/13 at 1:05pm
post #653 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post

LCD 2 sounds airy enough to my ears, it does have a cut around 8-10k, but it's ultra treble from 12k are very well extended which makes up for its transparency,resolution and airiness. LCD 2 sounds dry sometimes because of that, LCD 3 improved this with more liquid like treble (linear, smoother upper treble), but brighter, so the imaging is better.

 

Anyways, 901 sounds a tap warmer than dx100. Although, it doesn't have the large space on the instant listen, but this leads to a better depth and body to the presentation. dx100 on the other hand, will sound a bit small when I A/B them.They both sound transparent and airy enough to my ears. This is all relative talking and nit picking, you gain some, you lose some. Like I said, some people like very airy sound. I just like it neutral with just enough sparkle in the treble. If I can't choose 100% neutral, I will pick 5% warmer source than 5% brighter one, because it suits my headphones better.This is all subtle difference because 901 and dx100 do share similar characters because of the same chip. I used 901 as a DAC only, actually it has almost no difference compared to dx100 in terms of treble (maybe brighter), so hifiman's amp modules play important parts here. Therefore I am only talking about combos here, 901 probably won't sound good with a overly warm, relaxed headphones, dx100 certainly fails when pairing with a bright, analytical headphone. But with fairly neutral headphones, I will pick 901 first.

For the He-500 and He-6 would the 901 be a better pick than the dx100? Those will be the two headphones ill be using. Also I actually understand your POV of the dx100 on some analytical headphones, the dx100 makes my AKG Q701's treble waaay to strong, I do not consider the dx100 a good pair with the Q701's IMO


Edited by Poetic - 4/2/13 at 3:23pm
post #654 of 2947
Thread Starter 

Tupac, how much better sounding is the 901 compared to the 801 in your opinion?  For an 801 owner, is the extra cost of the upgrade to the 901 worth it?  Also, I can't remember if you have JH16s or not but if you do, have you tried the 901 with them?  Thanks.

post #655 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post

LCD 2 sounds airy enough to my ears, it does have a cut around 8-10k, but it's ultra treble from 12k are very well extended which makes up for its transparency,resolution and airiness. LCD 2 sounds dry sometimes because of that, LCD 3 improved this with more liquid like treble (linear, smoother upper treble), but brighter, so the imaging is better.

 

Anyways, 901 sounds a tap warmer than dx100. Although, it doesn't have the large space on the instant listen, but this leads to a better depth and body to the presentation. dx100 on the other hand, will sound a bit small when I A/B them.They both sound transparent and airy enough to my ears. This is all relative talking and nit picking, you gain some, you lose some. Like I said, some people like very airy sound. I just like it neutral with just enough sparkle in the treble. If I can't choose 100% neutral, I will pick 5% warmer source than 5% brighter one, because it suits my headphones better.This is all subtle difference because 901 and dx100 do share similar characters because of the same chip. I used 901 as a DAC only, actually it has almost no difference compared to dx100 in terms of treble (maybe brighter), so hifiman's amp modules play important parts here. Therefore I am only talking about combos here, 901 probably won't sound good with a overly warm, relaxed headphones, dx100 certainly fails when pairing with a bright, analytical headphone. But with fairly neutral headphones, I will pick 901 first.


If I understand you clearly, technical proficiencies of both players are quite comparable, but the 901 is on the warmer side of neutral and DX100 on the brighter side, so the 901 is more pleasing to your ears ? It is funny because I never thought the DX100 to be bright or fatiguing contrary to some opinions, except maybe with my most fatiguing iems such as the Kaede. I really want to try this 901 :)

post #656 of 2947

I suspect those differences he's talking about are subtle and are simply relative descriptions as opposed to overall character. I certainly didn't find the 901 'warmer' than neutral without a comparator..

post #657 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

I suspect those differences he's talking about are subtle and are simply relative descriptions as opposed to overall character. I certainly didn't find the 901 'warmer' than neutral without a comparator..

Exactly, it's like if you love non-fatiguing sound, you will love 901, but if you don't like warm sound, 901 won't disappoint you either. 


Edited by tupac0306 - 4/3/13 at 1:38am
post #658 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by tupac0306 View Post

Exactly, it's like if you love non-fatiguing sound, you will love 901, but if you don't like warm sound, 901 won't disappoint you either. 
I just received the Tera, would love to get the 901 to do a 3-way comparison with DX100 !
post #659 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post


I just received the Tera, would love to get the 901 to do a 3-way comparison with DX100 !

 

you can get a headstart by telling me how the tera fares with the dx100 first!!!
post #660 of 2947
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddragon View Post

 

you can get a headstart by telling me how the tera fares with the dx100 first!!!

Exactly! lol

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear