[Galatian]

 
 
Yes, I read the part where you posted "Seriously I use my hifiman".... 

 
I was also referring to that RMAA thread, and if it bothers you that much, then just do what others did in that thread and don't take the time to listen to or buy a HifiMan HM-801 and get a Sansa Clip+ instead, read through the RMAA thread each time to comfort yourself in a blanket of sheer ignorant bliss...
 
Oh wait.  You didn't do that.  

 
-Ed
 

Hey I wasn't the one starting the argument, nor was I complaining about the sound! I just still feel I lack an explanation from the manufacture (Fang) why there is a treble roll-off. The explanation with the NOS filter design actually came from some members of this forum if I remember correctly and NOT from the designer of the Hifiman.
Seriously I enjoy the sound of the Hifiman, but some songs just seems dull which I believe is because of the treble roll-off. And obviously other people hear it as well otherwise there wouldn't be some many persons who correctly guessed which player is which in the RMAA thread.

And besides where are we heading if we simply purchase something without thoroughly testing it and questioning it claims? I just like some transparency and hence I'd like an explanation from Fang and NOT necessarily a different design on a possible successor.

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Ed, I can hear a 0.5 dB drop at 40 kHz. Not a big deal if you ask me, it is not as impressive as seeing the wings of an in-flight hummingbird. 

Sigh.  No you can't.  Period.  Before you argue with me, please verify your facts on the limitation of human hearing.

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Hey I wasn't the one starting the argument, nor was I complaining about the sound! I just still feel I lack an explanation from the manufacture (Fang) why there is a treble roll-off. The explanation with the NOS filter design actually came from some members of this forum if I remember correctly and NOT from the designer of the Hifiman.
Seriously I enjoy the sound of the Hifiman, but some songs just seems dull which I believe is because of the treble roll-off. And obviously other people hear it as well otherwise there wouldn't be some many persons who correctly guessed which player is which in the RMAA thread.

And besides where are we heading if we simply purchase something without thoroughly testing it and questioning it claims? I just like some transparency and hence I'd like an explanation from Fang and NOT necessarily a different design on a possible successor.

Its not the roll off.  That's for sure.  The areas in which we are talking about are dubious at best.
 
I was on the RMAA thread and instead of going forward with a lot of bickering I decided to actually borrow the HifiMan for an extended period of time (I may buy it in the end but I have ran into a snag which I hope Fang's new power supply will fix).
 
What YOU ARE HEARING for sure and I don't see this in the reviews I've read is that its presentation is much different than other portable players (e.g. Pico (which is what I am comparing it to), on the record I disagree with Edwood that the Pico is veiled compared to the HM-801).
 
The HM-801 is much less forward than say my Pico I've had what feels like forever  The soundstage of the HM may lack a sense of intimacy you get with a  more forward and/or brighter sound (one of John Grado's magic tricks).  I am still in the process of the review but I can see why a lot of folks who listen to classical or jazz with fall over for the HM-801 house sound while others listening to more electronic music might feel like they are missing some magic.  This is more to do I believe with the NOS filtering that Fang employed than the frequency response range of the HM (btw this HM does the best bass I've ever heard out of something this size).
 
Most classical/jazz nuts want a large musical soundstage where individual sections are distinct but well integrated in the overall acoustic topology.  While other forms of music, say like heavy metal (close to my heart) , will benefit from a forward presentation at least psychoacoustically!  In this case its not a question of frequency response accuracy but more of listener preference (that's why we have Grado vs Senn wars!).

 

[mrarroyo]

Quote:

Sigh.  No you can't.  Period.  Before you argue with me, please verify your facts on the limitation of human hearing.

It was a joke based on an earlier statement by another poster. In the future read the thread before you quote me out context. 

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

It was a joke based on an earlier statement by another poster. In the future read the thread before you quote me out context. 

I apologize, I think I get it now!

 

[Galatian]

Quote:

Its not the roll off.  That's for sure.  The areas in which we are talking about are dubious at best.
 
I was on the RMAA thread and instead of going forward with a lot of bickering I decided to actually borrow the HifiMan for an extended period of time (I may buy it in the end but I have ran into a snag which I hope Fang's new power supply will fix).
 
What YOU ARE HEARING for sure and I don't see this in the reviews I've read is that its presentation is much different than other portable players (e.g. Pico (which is what I am comparing it to), on the record I disagree with Edwood that the Pico is veiled compared to the HM-801).
 
The HM-801 is much less forward than say my Pico I've had what feels like forever  The soundstage of the HM may lack a sense of intimacy you get with a  more forward and/or brighter sound (one of John Grado's magic tricks).  I am still in the process of the review but I can see why a lot of folks who listen to classical or jazz with fall over for the HM-801 house sound while others listening to more electronic music might feel like they are missing some magic.  This is more to do I believe with the NOS filtering that Fang employed than the frequency response range of the HM (btw this HM does the best bass I've ever heard out of something this size).
 
Most classical/jazz nuts want a large musical soundstage where individual sections are distinct but well integrated in the overall acoustic topology.  While other forms of music, say like heavy metal (close to my heart) , will benefit from a forward presentation at least psychoacoustically!  In this case its not a question of frequency response accuracy but more of listener preference (that's why we have Grado vs Senn wars!).

I guess you are right after all, after I did some more critical listening comparing the Hifiman to the iPod and also using the custom EQ on the Hifiman. I would always set the custom EQ to make the Hifman sounds more like the iPod (the EQ would have a stong V-shape with the 60 Hz and 6 kHz on 8) and you are right about the Hifiman with flat EQ not being as forward as the iPod. I listen to Metal mainly, so at first I was lacking that forward sounds, but now that I have grown accustomed to the Hifiman sounds I feel like it is more revealing, airy and controlled vice the iPod sound. Also see my response on exactly that topic on warp08 review thread. 

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

I guess you are right after all, after I did some more critical listening comparing the Hifiman to the iPod and also using the custom EQ on the Hifiman. I would always set the custom EQ to make the Hifman sounds more like the iPod (the EQ would have a stong V-shape with the 60 Hz and 6 kHz on 8) and you are right about the Hifiman with flat EQ not being as forward as the iPod. I listen to Metal mainly, so at first I was lacking that forward sounds, but now that I have grown accustomed to the Hifiman sounds I feel like it is more revealing, airy and controlled vice the iPod sound. Also see my response on exactly that topic on warp08 review thread. 

I think that is the core difference between the HM-801 and all the other portable players:  a real soundstage!  Even my beloved Pico does not give you that *big* sound folks talk about with the HM.
 
I am very curious on what are the differences with the GAME module.