Hifiman HM-801 RMAA Tests
May 16, 2010 at 1:34 AM Post #436 of 795
Ringing(especially pre-ringing) shorter than 0.8ms is simply negligible. Not quite sure why they implemented such a radical filter when there were many options available that do not compromise frequency range. (reminds me of the room response compensation reflected on ER-4S LOL)
 
Wel, maybe this was the reason why I was heavily unimpressed by Hifiman when I auditioned it at Canjam09 in LAX.. :p
 
May 16, 2010 at 8:15 AM Post #437 of 795


 
Ringing(especially pre-ringing) shorter than 0.8ms is simply negligible. Not quite sure why they implemented such a radical filter when there were many options available that do not compromise frequency range. (reminds me of the room response compensation reflected on ER-4S LOL).


Well, the «negligibility» doesn't work for me with my Symphony...
regular_smile .gif

.
 
May 16, 2010 at 11:06 AM Post #438 of 795


Quote:
Ringing(especially pre-ringing) shorter than 0.8ms is simply negligible. Not quite sure why they implemented such a radical filter when there were many options available that do not compromise frequency range. (reminds me of the room response compensation reflected on ER-4S LOL)
 
Wel, maybe this was the reason why I was heavily unimpressed by Hifiman when I auditioned it at Canjam09 in LAX.. :p

Sorry for the naive question, but when you say ringing, what do you mean (in layman's terms...or, like me, in "wanna-be a real engineer, but only made it to Field Engineer", speak)? TIA.
 
 
May 16, 2010 at 11:35 AM Post #439 of 795
 
Sorry for the naive question, but when you say ringing, what do you mean (in layman's terms...or, like me, in "wanna-be a real engineer, but only made it to Field Engineer", speak)? TIA.
 


That. (The ringing [Gibbs phenomenon] is a natural by-product of a filter with high Q factor = sharp and steep slope.)
.
 
May 16, 2010 at 1:36 PM Post #440 of 795


Quote:
Its selling to audiophiles.  Just because you're on this forum doesn't mean you're an audiophile. Just because you REALLY love music and you have a lot of expensive toys doesn't mean you're an audiophile.  You have to have the ear to be able to tell these differences, otherwise you're just a sucker whose paying for way too much when you can't take advantage of it.
 
And when I say you, I don't mean YOU personally.
 
A LOT of people here think their ears are same as everyone's, or as good as the greatest ear.  They think because they can't hear a difference between this and that that there ISN'T a difference and thats a fact.  But not all ears are created equal. Not all brain audio receptors are created equal.  There are people who can name the note by hearing it.  There are conductors that can detect one violin out of 35 thats out of tune.  I do not have those ears and I bet 99.99999% people here don't either.  But there are varying degrees of sensitivity and acuity. 
 
I'm quite surprised that people don't see the parallelism between people saying there's no difference between a Clip and Hifiman and all those teenagers claiming that Skullcandy is as good as it gets and there's no point paying for more. 

 
I am crying. Beethoven was deaf, Tchaikovsky did not have absolute ears, but stil was the best conductor of his time (for instance, the conductor on the official opening night of Carnegie Hall).
 
How dare they to do something in music without "audiophile" ears?!
 
May 16, 2010 at 7:28 PM Post #441 of 795
Miss the point much?
 
Quote:
 
I am crying. Beethoven was deaf, Tchaikovsky did not have absolute ears, but stil was the best conductor of his time (for instance, the conductor on the official opening night of Carnegie Hall).
 
How dare they to do something in music without "audiophile" ears?!



 
May 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM Post #442 of 795


Quote:
 
 
After this weekend, I will post my impressions using the Clip instead of the Fuse. Why is the 801 rolled off at the upper register? I would take a guess and say that if it weren't, due to the amount of detail it portrays, then people would complain that it is too sibilant. 


The response graph looks similar to a turntable to me! Not a bad thing either. Maybe they were trying to engineer a more "hifi" sound?
 
People on here shouldn't get so hung up on figures/measurements - they dont always tell the whole story (which can be observed by listening to a turntable with its awfully rolled off upper frequencies)
 
 
May 17, 2010 at 12:56 AM Post #443 of 795
Quote:
The response graph looks similar to a turntable to me! Not a bad thing either. Maybe they were trying to engineer a more "hifi" sound?  
People on here shouldn't get so hung up on figures/measurements - they dont always tell the whole story (which can be observed by listening to a turntable with its awfully rolled off upper frequencies)
 

The reason vinyl is still used a lot is the mastering can be better than on CDs.  Lookup the loudness wars.  It doesn't have a lot to do with the roll-off IME.
 
May 17, 2010 at 1:27 AM Post #444 of 795


Quote:
The reason vinyl is still used a lot is the mastering can be better than on CDs.  Lookup the loudness wars.  It doesn't have a lot to do with the roll-off IME.


Can you cite some evidence for this? Namely that the same album is mastered twice - once for vinyl and once for CD.
 
May 17, 2010 at 1:48 AM Post #445 of 795
Quote:
Can you cite some evidence for this? Namely that the same album is mastered twice - once for vinyl and once for CD.
 

White Stripes Icky Thump and Metallica Death Magnetic immediately come to mind.
 
 
The mastering isn't always better, it's just that sometimes it is.  Odds have having actual dynamic range on a vinyl is usually better than CD.
 
You can read a pretty nice write-up at audioholics regarding it:
 
http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4-page-2
 
May 17, 2010 at 3:40 AM Post #446 of 795
I am trying to figure out the effect of the filter. This is what I've got so far:
 

[PPHS has been used to simulate a practical case of resampling]
[The custom filter effectively simulates analog characteristics]
 
audible? I seriously doubt it..
 
May 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM Post #448 of 795
OK, I have completed my comparative analysis. I must say, that the Sansa Clip, for it's size and it's
price, is one hell of a player. I was amazed at the output, and the ability to encode .flac files (new version
comes standard with .flac...no need for Rockbox).
 
However, when comparing the Clip to the HM-801, it's like a number one rated college team, playing
against a solid professional NFL team. In it's own right, it's amazing that a UI, rechargeable battery, an amp circuit,
encoding abilities, and media storage (in this case the + came standard with 2Gigs onboard), it is a marvel
of modern science. Perfect for the gym or while jogging. But holding a candle to the 801? Not going to
happen.
At first listen, one will be astonished at the Clip's output. It is clear, has balls, and goes pretty far into both extreme registers.
When you first walk into a Bose store, you think, "Hey, that Wave Radio sounds pretty good". It fills the room with sound
and musical notes. But when really reviewing the output, one notices that there is a huge gap somewhere between 
200 Hz and 1000 Hz. Same with their Acoustimass systems. But the average consumer is perfectly happy with that.
 
We are not "the average consumer". When comparing the 801 and the Clip, the first thing missing that you notice is depth.
And headstage. On paper, the readings are desirable, but to the discerning ear, it is instantly noticeable that there are layers
missing. That's where op amps and DAC chips play their role.
 
If you listen to a 128kbps, you can listen to the song, maybe even tap your feet to it, but it is the equivalent of AM Radio.
I would sum up the Clip as more of a 256kbps file, but it skips a lot of detail that the 320, or .wav, or Lossless file captures.
The same exact flac file, played on both machines, using my JH-13's, instantly revealed a good deal of lost detail on the Sansa.
If I were jogging in the park, or clanging weights at the gym, the Clip is a perfect player. But if I am sitting in my quiet room,
comparing the 2 units, the difference is day and night. If you can't hear the difference, then consider yourself lucky. Number one,
audio is not your favorite passion, and number 2, you have just saved yourself a lot of money.
 
Is there a rolloff in the upper register of the HM-801? On paper, it seems obviously so. But when looking at the bigger picture,
which is the total experience of your music listening session, the 801 has more meat, and sounds more realistic to being in the 
room or the concert hall, listening to the music being played live. I believe that this aids to creating the midrange, but that is my opinion.
The upper portion of the highs, that shows a roll off on paper, adds to sibilance and I believe that over emphasized bass or highs, can
mess up the detail of the midrange. There's only so much room in a file which creates "the bigger picture". However the 801 was designed
by it's engineer for whatever reason, using the existing components, and to my ears, it was done right. A circuit is like a recipe, and it takes
all of the ingredients to work in harmony to create a masterpiece, and I believe that the sound output of the HiFiMAN is just where I like it. YMMV.
The mids are sweet. They convey air and separation between the instruments and vocals, whereas the Clip is a little sloppy and everything is
sort of stepping on top of each other. The bass on the Clip is surprisingly good, but it is more subsonic, visceral on the HiFiMAN.
There's bass, and then there's BASS. The 801 has better bass, at least, to my liking.
 
If given no choice, could I be happy living with a Sansa Clip loaded with flac files? Absolutely. If I could gain even just 10% better output
by spending $400 or $700 would I do it? Isn't that what most of us do, here at Head-Fi? Diminishing gains on higher assets. As long as
my family is taken care of, yes I would. Without that 10% (in this case, it's more than 10%), there would be no need for discussion here
on Head-Fi. We'd all just motor along with our iPods and iBuds listening to iTune downloaded 128 kbps files like the average music listener does.
Heck, I've seen friends walking down the street, each with one headphone in their ear, from the same headphone. They're happy, but that's
not my thing, and I don't think that anyone reading this thread would have that "be their thing" also.
 
Is the Sansa Clip a good player for the money? Without a doubt. Is the HifiMAN HM-801 much better in real life and not on paper?
 
Hell yeah.
 
May 17, 2010 at 5:19 PM Post #450 of 795
I had stated at the end of last week, that I was going to buy a Sansa Clip, put the same songs on both,
listen to them, and post my impressions. 
 
And that is what I did!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top