Does a player exist with HiFiMan quality without the built-in amp?
May 8, 2010 at 5:24 PM Post #16 of 92

Anaxilus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Posts
12,065
Likes
337


Quote:
I know jerking off with sand paper isn't a good idea, doesn't mean i have to try it to know for a fact. Same reason i wouldn't waste $800 on DAP with 8 hours of battery life, junk fw without gapless!, junk build quality, and noticeable and treble roll off.
 
Enjoy your over price brick.


Enjoy your $30 slightly above average DAP.  I haven't listened to my boxed  Clip+ for more than 3 hours total, can't take the audible downgrade.  Great for running though...when you don't have a choice.  Sadly, you had a choice and chose to be a complete a-hole.  
 
May 8, 2010 at 5:27 PM Post #17 of 92

Rockford

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Posts
212
Likes
18
I have seen pics of the disassembled hifiman, which looks like a 8 year old child soldered it as far as build quality is concerned. It uses an op amp that was top of the line over 10 years ago and is now used in your every day run of the mill DVD players.
 
I suggest reading this thread abit http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/490698/hifiman-hm-801-rmaa-tests
 
May 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM Post #18 of 92

Sonic 748i

VoLTaG3 re-registered
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Posts
855
Likes
14
Quote:
I have seen pics of the disassembled hifiman, which looks like a 8 year old child soldered it as far as build quality is concerned. It uses an op amp that was top of the line over 10 years ago and is now used in your every day run of the mill DVD players.
 
I suggest reading this thread abit http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/490698/hifiman-hm-801-rmaa-tests

Care to share? I would see the components that create such amazing sound.
 
 
May 8, 2010 at 5:30 PM Post #19 of 92

Rockford

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Posts
212
Likes
18

 
Quote:
Enjoy your $30 slightly above average DAP.  I haven't listened to my boxed  Clip+ for more than 3 hours total, can't take the audible downgrade.  Great for running though...when you don't have a choice.  Sadly, you had a choice and chose to be a complete a-hole.  


Enjoy your placebo effect and ignorance guy.
 
May 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM Post #22 of 92

cegras

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Posts
426
Likes
10
I was about to point out how potentially ironic it would be if the people pimping the T51 or HiFiman haven't actually heard any other competitor's products.
 
May 8, 2010 at 6:09 PM Post #23 of 92

Bina

Sponsor: Shanling
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Posts
1,033
Likes
141


Quote:
noticeable and treble roll off.
 
Enjoy your over price brick.



It is interesting that dfkt is first and I think only one who notice treble roll off(if not, show some post, I would be happy to see other similiar opinions). And suddenly hifiman is player with avarage sound quality.
Before that, many experienced members here say only great things about sound quality and I agree with them, I heard hifiman and its SQ is really above  league of Sansa. Now after one graf and one member opinion, hifiman is piece of garbage.
 
And maybe here is some hifiman fanboys, but for sure is here also many Sansa fanboys and also dfkt's fanboys, who blindly follow what almighty dfkt say about player.
 
Shanling Have any question about our players? Just PM me or send me email. Stay updated on Shanling at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
 
https://www.facebook.com/Shanling-Audio-603230783166845/ https://twitter.com/ShanlingAudio https://www.instagram.com/shanlingaudio/ http://en.shanling.com/ frankie@shanling.com
May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM Post #24 of 92

Rockford

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Posts
212
Likes
18

 
Quote:
It is interesting that dfkt is first and I think only one who notice treble roll off(if not, show some post, I would be happy to see other similiar opinions). And suddenly hifiman is player with avarage sound quality.
Before that, many experienced members here say only great things about sound quality and I agree with them, I heard hifiman and its SQ is really above  league of Sansa. Now after one graf and one member opinion, hifiman is piece of garbage.
 
And maybe here is some hifiman fanboys, but for sure is here also many Sansa fanboys and also dfkt's fanboys, who blindly follow what almighty dfkt say about player.


Just because dfkt just recently tested the player doesn't mean that it WAS good and is all of a sudden bad. It means that it has always been in the same performance range as those player $700 cheaper but the hype/fotm/whatever reason has blinded people to the truth.
 
HiFiMan was influenced largely by this community, people feel some strange attachment to it as if they had a hand in it and do not want people speaking ill of it and they will defend it to the death.
 
 
May 8, 2010 at 8:45 PM Post #25 of 92

Anaxilus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Posts
12,065
Likes
337


Quote:
 

Enjoy your placebo effect and ignorance guy.


LOL!  Placebo affect? I dont even own the Hifiman.  The Clip+ sounds worse than my 2g iPod nano.  Since you won't answer the question you obviously haven't even heard the Hifiman.  I doubt you even own a Sansa but rather stare at response curves all day and troll around.  You're just another Clip fanboy who wants to go to sleep at night thinking he is better than everyone else because he only spent, or could spend, $50.  As for ignorance, your the one using one curve to imply the Clip is the best sounding player on the market, enough said.
 
May 8, 2010 at 8:48 PM Post #26 of 92

Drag0n

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
3,706
Likes
16
Although i havent had an extensive listen to the HiFiMan in my own home or anything, i did listen at a meet, using the HE5 Orthos, and it had a big round analog sound with that combo that sounded natural and fairly real, and as good as most home systems.
Maybe not as good as the best home systems ive heard, but i was impressed with it as a combo at the time.
I didnt get to listen with phones im more used to though. I did hear them with the G2 and some buds Fang had at his MOT table.
 
I think theres no reason to sound hateful over the product. The feeling behind the violent descriptions of it sounds almost serial-killer-like.  Its not THAT craptastic.
Some people prefer its full analog sound, rather than a thinner detailed clinical sound.
To each his own.  They can always return it if theyre not happy, and it seems most that have purchased it are happy.  I know a few moderators that are expericanced with audio equipment and have expensive high-end systems are happy with theirs, and if it sucked, they would have returned it and their reviews would have shown how ghetto-fabulous the product is. They wouldnt have just ate the $600+ dollars just to kiss some HiFiMan/Head-Fi behind.
I think its just a matter of preference.
 
As to the old design comments, new isnt always better. 
I have some old recievers here that will beat some new reciever ass, as well as some tauted headphone amps, and one of them was offered by RadioShack in 1980 or so.
Sometimes implementation can mean alot, and as long as they get the sound theyre after, its fine.
 
May 8, 2010 at 8:55 PM Post #27 of 92

MrGreen

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Posts
2,388
Likes
67
Question. How does rockbox "improve audio quality"?

Or do people just like the UI? I have a clip (v2) and I find the UI to be fine. Whats in for me if I rockbox it?
 
May 8, 2010 at 9:02 PM Post #28 of 92

shigzeo

The Hiss King
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Posts
12,931
Likes
1,070
I've both the clip and the S:Flo - both are pretty damn good.
 
I have the following gripes with the S:Flo - firmware, useless touchscreen, bad battery life, some audible artefacts, immediately noticeable sound smoothing (noticed this before ever doing RMAA tests)
 
I have the following gripes with the Clip: firmware is just okay, poor button layout, bad battery life, some hiss
 
I love both players for just sound (when they are in their element). The S:Flo IS more laid back - there is no denying it - but it performs certain instructions better: wider channel separation (closer to the CD), very little effect from hard to drive iems. The clip can be rockboxed and there is the real killer. It is easy to help it out PLUS enjoy gapless, REAL codec support, and in some ways, better sound.
 
The S:Flo is very good, but I won't be buying one. again, if it was smaller, had tactile controls, I could live with its faults. Both are good-sounding players. But personally, faults overall line up on the S:Flo.
 
That isn't to say the Clip is the be all end all - personally, it isn't. I prefer more stereo separation, gapless (Rockbox) and better codec support (rockbox).
 
But I understand why people like the S:Flo - but basing it only on SQ (or sound preference) takes the S:Flo way down in my books. It could sound like that for a LOT less and have fewer problems.
 
May 8, 2010 at 9:20 PM Post #29 of 92

Anaxilus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Posts
12,065
Likes
337
May 8, 2010 at 9:24 PM Post #30 of 92

Anaxilus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Posts
12,065
Likes
337


Quote:
I've both the clip and the S:Flo - both are pretty damn good.
 
I have the following gripes with the S:Flo - firmware, useless touchscreen, bad battery life, some audible artefacts, immediately noticeable sound smoothing (noticed this before ever doing RMAA tests)
 
I have the following gripes with the Clip: firmware is just okay, poor button layout, bad battery life, some hiss
 
I love both players for just sound (when they are in their element). The S:Flo IS more laid back - there is no denying it - but it performs certain instructions better: wider channel separation (closer to the CD), very little effect from hard to drive iems. The clip can be rockboxed and there is the real killer. It is easy to help it out PLUS enjoy gapless, REAL codec support, and in some ways, better sound.
 
The S:Flo is very good, but I won't be buying one. again, if it was smaller, had tactile controls, I could live with its faults. Both are good-sounding players. But personally, faults overall line up on the S:Flo.
 
That isn't to say the Clip is the be all end all - personally, it isn't. I prefer more stereo separation, gapless (Rockbox) and better codec support (rockbox).
 
But I understand why people like the S:Flo - but basing it only on SQ (or sound preference) takes the S:Flo way down in my books. It could sound like that for a LOT less and have fewer problems.

 
Well, if I ever get my SFlo2 to ship, my intent is LO not HO.
 
I still maintain the Clip+ does not provide enough resolving power to my dynamic drivers.  Just that lack of body or thinness across the whole spectrum.  I assume its due to power issues.  UI, firmware, tactile response, don't matter to me personally if it will play what I want to play.  For $109 the hardware coupled w/ the ability to go LO is a no brainer for me.
 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top