[Nankai]

I like Zanden's sound personally. That Zanden review's first half is very positive (Although John wrote that he did not like it in the second half). We did not made HM-801 like Zanden's soundsignature because we know not 100% people can accept this kind of sound. That is why HM-801's freq plot is more like the Wadia 861.

 

[limpidglitch]

I did the blind testing of the soundfiles, but nothing really stood out. (Thomas Neuman? Reminded me about Six Feet Under and American Beauty)
 
If I had to guess I would say either nr1 or nr3 is the 801.
 
Thank you for the effort dfkt.

 

[Danneq]

This thread sure became ugly fast.
 
I draw the following conclusions from all the wisdom on this thread: Some players, such as the Hifiman HM-801 are far better than others when it comes to SQ. However it cannot be compared directly to other players through ABX-ing as all tests are flawed. All is relative but still absolute. I am reminded of Galileo Galilei who was criticized and almost accused of heresy for promoting a sun-centered theory of the universe as opposed to the earth-centered theory that was dominant at that time. He offered his accusers to look though his telescope and see the moons of Jupiter as they orbited Jupiter, but they refused.
 
In no way am I comparing anyone in this thread to Galilei nor am I comparing anyone to the religious/scientific establishment at that time. I just think it is a bit similar when a test is offered and promptly refused by the same people who are the biggest critics.
 
The BIG question for me is: if the Hifiman is such a great player, is it justified to use it to listen to craptastic music such as Lady Gaga, Coldplay or whatever music is the flavor of the month? Is it better to listen to bad music on a good DAP than to listen to good music on a bad DAP?
 
I haven`t really made any contribution to this thread, but at least I admit it unlike some other people. Now I`ll go and listen to Genesis on my Kenwood Hd20GA7. Good music on a good player (and mind you, the 70ies Genesis, not the 80ies pop disaster)

 

[CEE TEE]

Dear DFKT (and others),
 
I have been following this thread avidly (sorry about any popcorn- I really am not here for the attitude or any drama, I hoped it would stay light).  
 
I was excited by the fact that someone was challenging a piece of equipment and obviously not just trying to sell it (which I worry about from time to time).  
 
I was also excited that I might be able to look at some objective information (graphs) and take that info + my experience with some equipment I like, in conjunction with their respective graphs to = a relatively informed decision about whether I would be happy with a purchase or not.  Another thing that I was hoping for in this thread was to learn about what an ideal "HiFi" DAP should look like (SQ-wise) if there could be an "ideal" DAP.
 
However, I'm now unsure if the graphs mean anything to me (I checked out the hearing-tone site and I don't know if I can really hear above 15 khz) or if I would even be able to really tell at a noisy meet whether one thing sounded better over another (never been to a meet).  So, now I kind of think that I need to be able to borrow something and try it for a little while with all of my individual gear (like TTVJ's loaner program) or buy and sell (according to the synergy and improvement comparison with my own gear).  I am, however, believing the cumulative opinions across forums to shell out the money for the TTVJ Slim DAC + Amp as I feel like I have read that enough people have tried it in comparison to other new amps and have found it to be very nice.
 
But something that I wanted to revisit, dkft, if I may quote your ABI Post:  "Maybe my ears weren't up to the task (clogged, cold, tired, etc) when I did the AB comparison. I should repeat that."
 
You didn't offer a follow-up opinion of whether or not you think the HiFi Man Player actually sounds better (or not) than the other players that you have.  (Maybe you did in another thread?)
 
I know that my question may "detract" from the "objective" evidence that you are presenting, but since there has been a strong tone in your presentation anyway...could we know (when your ears are in condition) if your opinion is that the HiFi man sounds good to you or not?
 
Do the graphs represent what you hear from the DAPs?  Or should that be obvious to me because you are presenting them and do use them?
 
This is a SUPER-HONEST inquiry.  Now I just wanna know how average (or how bad or how good) this thing sounds against other DAPs in general to you.  Across your headphones/types of headphones/types of music...etc.
 
Sorry if this in anyway starts to derail the already incendiary thread.  If so, IGNORE THE NEWB (me). This is my first participation in any forum or community and I am here to learn, enjoy, and be an enthusiastic supporter.  
 
Cheers,  
CEE TEE
 

 

[b0dhi]

Seems to me the roll-off is due to using the 1704 without oversampling. The roll-off pattern certainly matches NOS response very closely, and doesn't look like poor analog fltering, since filtering that bad would have to be done intentionally. I personally don't like NOS but some people do.
 
On the other hand, there's no justification for such poor crosstalk for such an expensive player. It's so bad that I thought it must be intentional, but then they could just as easily do it digitally and have an option to disable it for those that don't want it.
 
Also, someone mentioned the PCM1704 is discontinued - it isn't.
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/pcm1704.html

 

[Currawong]

In a NOS DAC, from what I understand of things, the signal has to be filtered off to zero by 16k, as anything above that is completely distorted (though the treble below that is considerably distorted anyway). The FR graph only shows a 3dB drop at 16k.  If you re-scale dfkt's FR graph down to -80db (80dB is a "normal" listening level), what looks like a big roll-off will be tiny.  

 

[b0dhi]

 
Quote:

In a NOS DAC, from what I understand of things, the signal has to be filtered off to zero by 16k, as anything above that is completely distorted (though the treble below that is considerably distorted anyway).

The roll-off in a NOS DAC is caused by the fundamental nature of square waves (which is what an unfiltered NOS DAC produces as output) versus sine waves of the same fundamental frequency. Even if the output is low-pass filtered at 20khz, the roll-off will still be there. Sometimes the output is filtered to keep funny things from happening further down the chain (instability or slew-limiting in the amplifier or output stage, damage to sensitive tweeters, etc), but it's not really clear if that's done in the HM-801 since we only see measurement up to 20khz. It certainly looks like NOS response though.
 
 
Quote:

The FR graph only shows a 3dB drop at 16k.  If you re-scale dfkt's FR graph down to -80db (80dB is a "normal" listening level), what looks like a big roll-off will be tiny. 

 
Scaling the graph down to -80dB isn't the same as listening at 80dB. What I think you're referring to is 80dB SPL, which is not at all the same measure. 80dB SPL is a ratio with reference to the smallest human audible sound. -80dB in the graph is a ratio with reference to the peak signal amplitude. They don't really translate, at least not directly.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Either way, like I said, we're all treading a fine line here.  Trying to get people to "prove" their hearing prowess via ABX, DBT, etc. and then praising or condemning them for it is a quick trip to getting this thread locked and future discussions about the subject becoming a permanently banned topic.
 
So, keep it civil.
 
-Ed

 
The day that confronting the quality of equipment, and the audibility of difference in such equipment becomes a banned topic is the day I lose what little faith I have left in humanity.
 
While we're in the mood of not testing gear and blindly following manufacturers, I've got a new product coming out! It's a cmoy amp I bought, removed the chassis of and put into a wood box. I will charge $800 for it.
 
The objective of this thread, despite some of hte posts within it, is one of the better threads head-fi as seen; up there IMO with the Grado RA1 and the expensive cable that was chewed open. It certainly makes for a pleasant change to "what x with y?"
 
Even if no meaningful conclusion is made, or if indeed the tests are invalid (something I sincerely doubt from even the most basic knowledge at my disposal), the very concept of questioning the quality of what we receive is one of the most noble in the business. Anyone willing to do it is more brave than a large majority of the people who have posted in the thread.
 
I'd like to wonder how many other people would have the balls to make this thread.

 

[JaZZ]

 

 
Even if no meaningful conclusion is made, or if indeed the tests are invalid (something I sincerely doubt from even the most basic knowledge at my disposal), the very concept of questioning the quality of what we receive is one of the most noble in the business. Anyone willing to do it is more brave than a large majority of the people who have posted in the thread.
 
I'd like to wonder how many other people would have the balls to make this thread.

This thread is certainly a good one. It's interesting to see a device described from a metrological instead of a merely subjective perspective. I don't see in which respect this requires any «balls», but I appreciate this effort. However, the conclusions drawn from the thread starter are subjective, and the test is more or less made to get them confirmed (I'm not saying intentionally so!). I would have wished a more independent and less ideologic approach (à la «all electronics components sound the same anyway as long as the measuring specs don't tell otherwise»).

 

[music_4321]

Quote:

Oh wait.  Nevermind.  What I said did become true. 
 
I just realized that this thread was moved to the sound science forum.

This is what I consider a blatant 'veiled' attempt at censorship. Now it's only a handful of people who can see (and possibly benefit from) this thread. I know I myself didn't even know a 'Sound Science' forum even existed, and I've been round these forums for 1.5 years.
 
What next now? Those who consider The Wire to be a masterpiece will be banned from head-fi?
 

 

[MrGreen]

What a joke

 

[nick_charles]

If my memory is correct the unit described does not actually meet the the rather generous 1973 DIN 45 500 standard for "High Fidelity" and in fact is worse on some parameters than a decent quality late 1970s cassette recorder such as the 1978 Pioneer CT-F1000 - my how we have moved on

 

 

[Galatian]

If my memory is correct the unit described does not actually meet the the rather generous 1973 DIN 45 500 standard for "High Fidelity" and in fact is worse on some parameters than a decent quality late 1970s cassette recorder such as the 1978 Pioneer CT-F1000 - my how we have moved on

 

Have you actually listened to it? I don't think you did, otherwise you would not have made such a coment. Please specify actually what is required to achieve a hifi norm and where the hifiman lacks those. I can clearly hear a superior sound out of it then say my iPod or the cheap hifi system from Sony or so. I'm not trying to overly defend it but some people just bash it because they hear someone's opinion. If it is so easy to change peoples mind I wonder why I have not succeded in telling people that god does not exist...

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Have you actually listened to it? I don't think you did, otherwise you would not have made such a coment. Please specify actually what is required to achieve a hifi norm and where the hifiman lacks those. I can clearly hear a superior sound out of it then say my iPod or the cheap hifi system from Sony or so. I'm not trying to overly defend it but some people just bash it because they hear someone's opinion. If it is so easy to change peoples mind I wonder why I have not succeded in telling people that god does not exist...

He doesn't need to listen to it to note the measurements don't actually meet actual HiFi standards.  He's not talking about the layman's term either, but the actual standard.  Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity and you may actually understand.
 
 
In other news, NOS designs still fail horribly at accurate reproduction and are still overpriced.
 
PS:
 
Shame on Head-Fi staff for trying to sift this dirt under the rug.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Have you actually listened to it? I don't think you did, otherwise you would not have made such a coment. Please specify actually what is required to achieve a hifi norm and where the hifiman lacks those. I can clearly hear a superior sound out of it then say my iPod or the cheap hifi system from Sony or so. I'm not trying to overly defend it but some people just bash it because they hear someone's opinion. If it is so easy to change peoples mind I wonder why I have not succeded in telling people that god does not exist...

High Fidelity <> pleasant sounding
 
The measurements on the unit fall short of even the 16 bit standard, and actually, now you mention it, the measured performance on the first gen iPod (Stereophile, 2003)
 
http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/934/index5.html 
 
is superior on several parameters.
 
PS I am no great Apple fan, though in the spirit of full disclosure I do have an iPod I won in a raffle