[jude]

 
Quote:

those graphs doesn't look like real measured data, they look idealized.  They look simulated rather than measured from real hardware.
 

Just to be clear, I didn't make those, I pulled those out of an Ayre white paper.  And I also included John Atkinson's measurements of the QB-9.

 

[Currawong]

I have to say, if measurements of an audio device aren't directly relatable to the ability to enjoy using music with it, then they are useless.

 

[WalkGood]

Seriously I am at a loss for words, first I did not take those pictures and my comments are based on my observations as one who solders for a hobby to accomplish my own needs. I would be interested in your opinion as professional Electronics Field Tech about your observations of the solder joints or is this a ruse to quash the facts presented?
 
Quote:

@Walkgood,
Please refrain from insinuations and accusations.
 
Guys, you are one step away from having this thread locked.

 

[Currawong]

Walkgood: Did you read any of Nankai's posts or do you only see what you want to see?

 

[WalkGood]

 
Quote:

Walkgood: Did you read any of Nankai's posts or do you only see what you want to see?

So reading your post or his post makes a difference in what one sees o_O
 

 

[xnor]

Quote:

I have to say, if measurements of an audio device aren't directly relatable to the ability to enjoy using music with it, then they are useless.

With the same attitude and reasoning you can conclude that subjective reviews are even more so or just completely useless.
 
People hear what they want to hear.

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

 

So reading your post or his post makes a difference in what one sees o_O
 

No, it makes a difference to its relevance. If the photos are of a hand-soldered prototype built most of a year ago, then what you're seeing is irrelevant to currently shipping machine-soldered 801s and you've been bashing on about nothing at all.

 

[JaZZ]

 

 
Quantitatively the 801 fails. Some posters like nick charles were polite and quite politic about this...but basically, from an electrical engineering perspective it fails.

That's a premature judgement. The only measuring criterion that hints at an audible flaw is the treble roll-off. Indeed it's audible, but it doesn't come without an at least theoretical benefit: improved transient response. You should occupy yourself with Wadia's filter philosophy. The roll-off isn't an audiophile end in itself, but a means to an end, serving for making the best out of redbook CD's (at least practical) shortcomings. You don't have to agree on the approach, but it would be fair to at least acknowledge that it's more than a pleasing coloration. Personally I favor the linearity approach, but I can absolutely reproduce the Bézier-filter approach and even hear some sonic benefits from it.
 

Qualitatively, it's huge. It's unwieldy. And the UI is...less than adequate. Considerably worse than, say, the stock firmware of our venerable sansa clip.

 
Since I don't know the HM-801, I can't comment on its UI. But from the equalizer characteristic I would at least agree on a less than ideal implementation. However, that's up to each owner's and potential buyer's opinion and taste.

 
 

...Beyond that, if you find it does make a difference all it comes down to is that you subjectively enjoy an inaccurate player.
I've made this point to you what . . . three times now?

See above! How many times have we disussed exactly that point?

 And yet you keep on spreading your one-sided viewpoint.

 
 

And somehow, in all that self-righteous bluster, you conveniently ignore the suggestion argument. And the unarguably negative test scores.

I don't know what you mean by the «negative» test score. I have unarguably passed the test. And this despite its flaws explained in an earlier stage: It doesn't enable to judge the behavior of a real headphone on the headphone out; moreover there are other variables introduced: A/D and D/A converters, soundcards, amps, additional sound transducers – all with the potential to color the sound, thus both to create unwanted synergies and even possible differences.


 

The source in a professional capacity MUST be flat, must be as close to the nature as possible. HiFi and audiophiles on the other hand hardly ever care about fidelity of the signal - they care about 'pleasing' and that is okay. Pleasing doesn't mean SQ and SQ doesn't mean anything. If you like it and the hardware is worth it to you, then great. If not, then great.
 
Bringing headphones into this is silly. Headphones aren't like source/amp components. They should have their own flavour at any cost. Phones for those who love succinct separation are great for those who like that sound, the same goes for those who love bass; or, those who love flat flat flat will like still different phones.
 
Sources only come in two flavours: professional and audiophile, the latter catering to any price, to any mindset, and to any level of quality. 

Your post is full of unsupported subjective categorizations. Moreover like many other so-called science-oriented posters you have made linear frequency response you credo, irrespective of other metrological consequences.
 

 

Walkgood: Did you read any of Nankai's posts or do you only see what you want to see?

So reading your post or his post makes a difference in what one sees o_O
 

Maybe we could focus on the measuring «flaws» again, now that the soldering arguments have been invalidated (as I see it) – for those who have an issue with a $800 PDAP.
 

Why am I not interested in the HM-801? Firstly, I absolutely believe that it has a sound quality superior to other DAPs such as mine (also somewhat confirmed by the test samples, but primarily based on user reports, which I never ignore). On the other hand, I don't really like the treble roll-off, irrespective of the acknowledged sonic benefit that might come with it – just a personal preference. Moreover I don't like the equalizer characteristic at all. If it is reduced to the basic functions (as a simple graphic equalizer) it should at least take more account of typical earphone colorations, such as rolled-off extremes. The HM-801 is too bulky for jogging and walking. To me a portable player with its inherent compromises compared to home setups should not require compromises in terms or portability and flexibility. Granted, it may weigh and measure less than the ancient Sony Walkmen, but technology has developed further since those days and so has the demand on portable players and comfort. Nevertheless I can imagine that I would enjoy it in more contemplative situations in the open (like the ones described by immtbiker) where highest possible sound quality would pay off, therefore I'm far from calling it a useless device.
.

 

[WalkGood]

 
Quote:

No, it makes a difference to its relevance. If the photos are of a hand-soldered prototype built most of a year ago, then what you're seeing is irrelevant to currently shipping machine-soldered 801s and you've been bashing on about nothing at all.

 
What the hell are you talking about my relevance? What about your own?
 
I based my opinion on the pictures another member posted within this thread (not mine) and then a secondary picture (again not mine) that was pm’d to me by another member. Yes one who obviously had a unit and opened it up, I’m really surprised more owners haven’t as it won’t void a warranty that is over in 60 days. How am I to know the production run of either of these units in 2 different pictures and if only 15 were hand made, I find hard to believe that both could be from the same run, but I guess anything is possible.
 
If you see anything about my comments based on the pictures presented incorrect please feel free to correct my comment. If you had bothered to clearly read my first comments, which were actually run by a professional that makes a living analyzing pass/fail components including solder joints and later I even when as far as asking a comment from the admin here, a professional Electronics Field Tech for his observations of the solder joints.
 
Edit: At first I thought asking a field electronics tech would be a good idea and now I realize asking your opinion was a mistake as I remember earlier in the thread you gave two subjective opinions or impressions bordering on mini reviews within the science forum. In fact another member even commented the first was a “thoughtful comparative review.” Both posts were subjective opinions leaning towards how great the hifiman is and all without a though of attempting DBT.
 
After both my observations and pictures were posted the owner posts stating that the product has changed or is made differently now and says he will post pictures. After which you question my post and motives, hey I posted valid observations and have no profit in this equation, seriously what’s in it for you? Are the intelligent open discussions of good or bad equipment such a wrong thing?

 

[swanlee]

 
Quote:

^No I haven't.
 
But that's my point. Even if I did, it wouldn't matter, because people are impressionable. Even if I said it was the best player ever created, the best I've ever heard, it would not matter one bit. Read my last post.
 
It is easy to "convince" someone of a product's supposed superiority, even when none is there. Facts thankfully, can't be convinced away. And that's what the RMAA results are: facts. That's why they carry more weight than opinion.
 
Facts, objective facts, carry more weight than opinion because facts can be proven, and they can be reproduced.

 
 
Well why bother listening to anything? People are so impressionable then everyone is just listening to music and being fooled into how it sounds according to you. Just look at charts and drool, but don't ever put that audio near your ears cause you will be fooling yourself cause people are so impressionable.
 
The facts are dismissing an audio product because of measurements and  graphs while never ACTUALLY listening to it is pretty silly.
 

 

[udauda]

Continued from my previous post:

 
This time I actually captured IR from my consumer-quality ALC888 via loopback. Not sure how decent its DAC & ADC are, but it should be sufficient to simulate an extreme case of ringing. The lowpass filter(analog) effectively simulates the filter(-3dB @ 16kHz) HM-801 has. Again, the ringing should not be an audible issue if it's less than 0.8ms.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Well why bother listening to anything?
 

Because we enjoy it. Your argument is strange.

 

[immtbiker]

 
Quote:

Seriously I am at a loss for words, first I did not take those pictures and my comments are based on my observations as one who solders for a hobby to accomplish my own needs. I would be interested in your opinion as professional Electronics Field Tech about your observations of the solder joints or is this a ruse to quash the facts presented?
 

 

What purpose would I, as a Moderator, have to create a "ruse to quash the facts presented"? Another opinion and not a
statement of fact. A paranoid opinion, at that.
My comment to you and others were not because of the factual data that is being presented here. A lot of posted comments are
just downright mean-spirited. Words like "disgusted" and "having the hearing of Van Gogh" are libelous accusations and have no
place in posts, here at Head-Fi. Instead of being observations, these comments have become personal affronts that are "attacks" on member's personas and are not tolerated. 
I pruned 30+ off-topic posts last night. If this thread should stick to Sound Science, then name calling and personality attacks should be left at the door.
The Manufacturer has already told us that the pictures that you showed were from an early batch of prototypes that were hand made, and when the second batch came out, those with the existing units had an opportunity to have them replaced. If so, then why is the conversation of poor soldering skills and the use of thermal grease, still going on. It is now a non-entity.
I have both amp modules available, and (as you asked me) the soldering is professionally done.
 
Other comments like "I can teach my 7 year old sister how to solder in less than a half an hour" is not a professional statement that has proof behind it, is an opinion, and, as I've already been told off, has no place in a Science forum.
So, unless anyone has something new to say, backed up by real scientific proof, Then I feel that this thread has run it's course.
 
Science or not, how can anyone who has never listened to a component, or at least held it in their hands, sit there and bash the product unless there is an ulterior motive. 
 
Stick to the facts, show results that you (meaning anyone here) have taken, discuss those results in a factual manner which omits personal attacks, or else this this product bashing thread has reached the end of it's run.
 

 

[JaZZ]

 

Continued from my previous post:

 
This time I actually captured IR from my consumer-quality ALC888 via loopback. Not sure how decent its DAC & ADC are, but it should be sufficient to simulate an extreme case of ringing. The lowpass filter(analog) effectively simulates the filter(-3dB @ 16kHz) HM-801 has. Again, the ringing should not be an audible issue if it's less than 0.8ms.

The upper graph shows a filter with a relatively smooth slope, so the contrast to the lower graph is lower than it would be with a typical frequency-optimized anti-aliasing filter like number 1 of my Symphony examples.
 
Now we could debate on and on about audibility. You simply can't display the ringing as inaudible and at the same time a considerable number of audiophile listeners swear by the time-optimized approach, and not all of them are advocates of a euphonized characteristic. I for one can hear clear (although subtle) effects from different filter settings with an impact on shape and intensitiy of the ringing, even those with quasi-identical frequency response (particularly between filter 2 and 3). I hope that's enough.
.

 

[patate]

Quote:

Here's a little test for everyone interested.

I've put a piece of music in FLAC on three different players and recorded the players' headphone outputs with Sound Forge 8.0, with a standard 16 Ohm load attached. My sound card is an Echo AudioFire, it's more precise and sensitive than these MP3 players, so the recording quality should be sufficient. Well, everyone can decide that for themselves when they listen to the tracks. For that reason I've also included the original file that I ripped directly from the CD in this test, to make it more conclusive. The only modification I did to the files was normalizing them to the same level (matching the player with the lowest recorded output).

The audio track was ripped from CD by me, using EAC in secure mode, Test&Copy, and AccurateRip. It's a 100% perfect rip.

So here are the four candidates, with a little description on what RMAA shows about those players - but of course you better listen for yourself instead of trusting graphs. Specs like SNR, THD, IMD don't really matter for these players, the differences should be inaudible and negligible.
 

1. Hifiman HM-801: average sound quality, rolled off treble, mediocre channel separation
2. Cowon V5: average sound quality, rolled off bass, better channel separation
3. Sansa Clip+: average sound quality, linear frequency response, mediocre channel separation
4. Original FLAC: exactly what is to be heard on the original CD

Can you hear the differences? Also, always keep in mind that one of the four tracks is the original.

Here you can download the test tracks. In that folder is also a password protected RAR archive with the solution key to the files. I will give out the password in a few days, after some people have listened to the files and posted their results.

I recommend Foobar2000's ABX plugin for a comfortable way to test these tracks. But of course any other method works as well. Happy listening!

Track1 is obviously the original, the sound is richer and clearer than on the three other files (which sound exactly the same).