[music_4321]

Quote:

The Sound Sciences forum is a perfect avenue for legitimate and focused discussions for those that want to nitpick and debate ad infinitum about theories and testing methodologies.  And guess what?  The vast majority of the participants in this thread have not actually taken the time to listen to the Portable Players being discussed.  Rather pointing to artificial measurement graphs created by someone else. 
 
It's like a bunch of physics undergrad college students debating about the fundamental max G-Forces that are present in a new roller coaster.  But then never actually taking a ride on the roller coaster in question.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of people have ridden that roller coaster that had a great time and want to talk about it.  But here are a bunch of people standing nearby shouting about how the Max G-Forces are too low for it to be fun at all.  
 
It's distracting, and frankly the topic has been beaten to death beyond squeezing blood from this stone.
 
Instead of crying foul of censorship, be thankful this Sound Sciences forum even exists as this thread would've just been locked a long time ago.
 
-Ed

Did all the scientists who designed the Apollo 11 actually travel to the moon?
 
And no, I'm not thankful the Sound Sciences forum exists; I don't see a legitimate reason why this particular thread should get locked. I liken what's happened to an important/ relevant news item which should appear on the front page or first few pages of a newspaper but is instead sent to the last pages of the paper for VERY few to see. To me, this comes across as a clear form of censorship.
 
If dfkt had decided to start this thread in the Sound Sciences forum, that would've been his choice and I'd have been OK with that but he started it in what I regard to be the most relevant & appropriate forum, ie the Portable Source Gear forum.

 
Quote:

meh... the fact that this thread was moved to the Sound Science forum doesn't really change anything. This thread is extremely active, and usually has the most recent posts in it. I see it whenever I scroll down.
 
$0.02

 
I wonder how many people who come to head-fi looking for reviews on different DAP's actually know a Sound Sciences forum even exists -- I know I didn't and I've been round here for a while -- and even if they did notice it, would they bother at all? I think VERY few would.
 

 

[Shike]

And to think, this whole issue could have been avoided with a proper oversampling design.
 
*oil on the flame, NOS vs. OS all over again, ducks*

 

[b0dhi]

I noticed another measurement in this thread that didn't have the terrible crosstalk of the first measurement. It's possible all or part of the original results were due to it being a defective unit.

 

[cegras]

Quote:

 

Yeah, because overall and maximum speed can be calculated by only measuring the maximum G's in a roller coaster.

 
 Anyways, I'm done participating with bludgeoning the thoroughly decomposed equine corpse here.  Have fun guys.
 
I've got a lot of work to do including helping finish a lot of stuff in preparation for CanJam.
 
Those that are attending will be in for a blast.  It's a great, fun time.  The rest of you in this thread can have fun here squeezing some more blood.
 
-Ed

Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. The roller coaster ride was designed entirely with physics and engineering; do you think they just looped some pieces of metal together and hoped that it would work? The maximum Gs and speed, along with acceleration and of course safety, are all predetermined. Apparently to you all these parameters are unknown until they are measured. All roller coasters work within some safety specs, but there are some that are obviously worse than others. People enjoy them differently, but that's because people are different. The specs of the roller coaster, like the HiFiman player, are set in stone. If one roller coaster provides worse G's or whatever and has no loops, you can bet the normal distribution of people liking it would be shifted lower (do you know what a normal distribution is?). That's because people really aren't very different; this includes so-called golden ears.
 
Likewise if the hifiman is electrically worse (a rollercoaster with less loops and whatever), it's going to seem worse IN COMPARISON to other players. Nothing will change inferior technical specs, although Currawong made a point about something else I haven't taken the time to understand. You just belong in the plus plus standard deviation that proclaims anything expensive as great.
 
Actually, you can calculate all these parameters very easily, as long as you know the maximum height of a loop. Kinematics is pretty simple.
 
I'm just absolutely FLOORED that people like you have the audacity to disclaim hundreds of years of education and learning by the virtue of your ears alone. Your ignorance of physics is staggering; did you not even pass highschool physics?

 

[Edwood]

Uh oh.  I pissed off a Physicist.  

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Actually that's exactly what I was talking about and the English wikipedia article is somewhat vague on describing what the actual standard of hifi is. The German wikipedia is a little bit more precise and they essentially state that there is no DIN norm anymore as almost all audio products buildt today easily surpass those old standarts. So if you make a point please clearly state what you are referring to. As of right now I just see you making a point without any reference. Tell us exactly where you think the Hifiman lacks any existing hifi standard.

That was the whole point , that the unit was technically worse than a generous standard long since surpassed by most audio devices. In specifics a FR of 20 - 20,000 +/- 2db was what I was referring to and the measurements bear witness that the 801 does not manage this, also the 801 does not manage a SNR of 96db so it fails to meet red book 16 bit CD standards, despite being described as a 24/96 device, however for a portable one can be more generous. Though the 1st gen iPod does manage the flat FR comfortably.
 

 

[cegras]

Quote:

Uh oh.  I pissed off a Physicist.  

Do people actually respect you?
 
In any case, just don't talk about things you don't know about (which apparently is a lot and includes roller coasters). You're only making yourself seem more ignorant, bigoted, and inane.

 

[terriblepaulz]

Quote:

 

Yeah, because overall and maximum speed can be calculated by only measuring the maximum G's in a roller coaster.

 
 Anyways, I'm done participating with bludgeoning the thoroughly decomposed equine corpse here.  Have fun guys.
 
I've got a lot of work to do including helping finish a lot of stuff in preparation for CanJam.
 
Those that are attending will be in for a blast.  It's a great, fun time.  The rest of you in this thread can have fun here squeezing some more blood.
 
-Ed

I imagine there will be plenty of objectivists at CanJam.  For me, it will be a great opportunity to listen to gear that actually matters, like different headphones and sources.  It will also allow me to have a good laugh (to myself of course, no need to be rude) while looking at garden-hose size interconnects, 5 lb. "portable" rigs, and head-fiers showing off their ability to make nuanced distinctions between similar pieces of equipment (in the noisy atmosphere of a meet).
 

 

[odigg]

Quote:

I spent some time this evening reading through this thread, and I am still trying to wrap my mind around spending $800 on a DAP.  Does this player do something other than play music?

Yes.  It has the capability to generate massive placebo effect and bring many running to defend it.  Nobody would much care if the exact same device was $100.
 
 
Quote:

...To me, this comes across as a clear form of censorship.

 
Ultimately this, to me, represents to me what this entire website (perhaps audiophilia in general) has become.  Whenever we really start digging into engineering, science, testing methods that adhere to the scientific method, and explanations that follow decades (if not centuries) of scientific discovery, it's time to stuff the discussion in the same place we want all the "Dark Arts" to be.
 
When the Hifiman was designed I'm sure it was first designed on a computer, in software, using these various equations, ideas, and theories so many people are quick to dismiss.  All the chips and bits in the HiFiman were designed the same way.  Somehow this science is enough to build this eqiupment, but it's all nonsense when we need to evaluate it.
 
Maybe the admins didn't move this to censor it in an explicit sense, but they've censored it the same way society does with everything else we don't agree with - we just move it to a place where nobody will see it, but then we claim it's still there so we didn't censor it.
 
 
 
 

 

[SHADYMILKMAN]

I like how another review on wired came out about this device, proclaiming its the next coming for "audiophiles" ... so effing sad.
 
801 fails the tests, but has the heart.  
 
the main point is, the persons proclaiming to listen to 24/96 flac files and can hear a sonic difference, CANT. the player cannot reproduce the audio, plain and simple. so if it sounds better to you then say that. understand that youre music is getting pinned by the player before it hits these expensive porta. amps or headphones when the bottleneck happens at the source. If thats what sounds better, then thats awesome, however DO NOT CLAIM that its the "best" or "audiophile" grade mp3 player. If you like it then say that, you cannot however credit the device with the belt just because you "say" so. when you do, specifically at this price, you get observers who perform due diligence and come up with data to verify the technical aspects of the device, because fidelity can be measured. everyone is aware that ears are subjective, so its not enough to merely feel this player is better, its smarter to have a frame of reference for the operational range of the unit. And that has happened here, but to say that data is irrelevant, is just bad audio science. however dont sit here and tell ppl who use an AA, that the results are designed into the unit for the AA to look that way, or that the hi-freq roll off is the special sauce, Fang has said as much. Its just hard to understand the feeling that its better rather than appreciating that someone took the time out to verify the quality of the reproduction. the fact that the FR isnt even flat is where this device fails for me, let alone the roll off. I just cant get on board, esp when this hobby is predicated on the transparency of equipment, as sonic puts it a flat FR.

 

[limpidglitch]

…

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

Maybe the admins didn't move this to censor it in an explicit sense, but they've censored it the same way society does with everything else we don't agree with - we just move it to a place where nobody will see it, but then we claim it's still there so we didn't censor it.
 

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
 

 

[Galatian]

I sure would like Fang to answer on those pretty strong accusations further then he already had. I can't sleep well anymore knowing that I might have spent 800 $ on inferior sound quality 

Though I can't help but think that it sounds better...is that really just placebo?

 

[odigg]

 
Quote:

I sure would like Fang to answer on those pretty strong accusations further then he already had. I can't sleep well anymore knowing that I might have spent 800 $ on inferior sound quality 

Though I can't help but think that it sounds better...is that really just placebo?

 
The files that dfkt posted were (I think) to illustrate an important point.  If you were compare the Hifiman to another player in a blind volume matched test you'd likely find it sounds no better or worse than another good PMP.
 
Where it becomes "worse" is that the measurements just aren't up to what one would expect from a player that claims to be something revolutionary and costs so much. 
 
As for the treble rolloff I suspect somebody with good hearing could (dfkt was able to) ABX it in a volume matched test, but would not be able to ABX it even if there was a 2 second gap between switching players. 
 
As for if you are under the influence of placebo, that's something you can figure out with a volume matched test between players or with the recordings dfkt has posted.
 
limpidglitch - The answer is 42

 

[JaZZ]

 

Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. The roller coaster ride was designed entirely with physics and engineering; do you think they just looped some pieces of metal together and hoped that it would work? The maximum Gs and speed, along with acceleration and of course safety, are all predetermined. Apparently to you all these parameters are unknown until they are measured. All roller coasters work within some safety specs, but there are some that are obviously worse than others. People enjoy them differently, but that's because people are different. The specs of the roller coaster, like the HiFiman player, are set in stone. If one roller coaster provides worse G's or whatever and has no loops, you can bet the normal distribution of people liking it would be shifted lower (do you know what a normal distribution is?). That's because people really aren't very different; this includes so-called golden ears.
 
Likewise if the hifiman is electrically worse (a rollercoaster with less loops and whatever), it's going to seem worse IN COMPARISON to other players. Nothing will change inferior technical specs, although Currawong made a point about something else I haven't taken the time to understand. You just belong in the plus plus standard deviation that proclaims anything expensive as great.
 
Actually, you can calculate all these parameters very easily, as long as you know the maximum height of a loop. Kinematics is pretty simple.
 
I'm just absolutely FLOORED that people like you have the audacity to disclaim hundreds of years of education and learning by the virtue of your ears alone. Your ignorance of physics is staggering; did you not even pass highschool physics?

 

That was the whole point , that the unit was technically worse than a generous standard long since surpassed by most audio devices. In specifics a FR of 20 - 20,000 +/- 2db was what I was referring to and the measurements bear witness that the 801 does not manage this, also the 801 does not manage a SNR of 96db so it fails to meet red book 16 bit CD standards, despite being described as a 24/96 device, however for a portable one can be more generous. Though the 1st gen iPod does manage the flat FR comfortably.

 

Do people actually respect you?
 
In any case, just don't talk about things you don't know about (which apparently is a lot and includes roller coasters). You're only making yourself seem more ignorant, bigoted, and inane.

 

Originally Posted by terriblepaulz 
 
I imagine there will be plenty of objectivists at CanJam.  For me, it will be a great opportunity to listen to gear that actually matters, like different headphones and sources.  It will also allow me to have a good laugh (to myself of course, no need to be rude) while looking at garden-hose size interconnects, 5 lb. "portable" rigs, and head-fiers showing off their ability to make nuanced distinctions between similar pieces of equipment (in the noisy atmosphere of a meet).

 

Yes.  It has the capability to generate massive placebo effect and bring many running to defend it.  Nobody would much care if the exact same device was $100.
 
Ultimately this, to me, represents to me what this entire website (perhaps audiophilia in general) has become.  Whenever we really start digging into engineering, science, testing methods that adhere to the scientific method, and explanations that follow decades (if not centuries) of scientific discovery, it's time to stuff the discussion in the same place we want all the "Dark Arts" to be.
 
When the Hifiman was designed I'm sure it was first designed on a computer, in software, using these various equations, ideas, and theories so many people are quick to dismiss.  All the chips and bits in the HiFiman were designed the same way. Somehow this science is enough to build this eqiupment, but it's all nonsense when we need to evaluate it.

 

I like how another review on wired came out about this device, proclaiming its the next coming for "audiophiles" ... so effing sad.
 
801 fails the tests, but has the heart.  
 
the main point is, the persons proclaiming to listen to 24/96 flac files and can hear a sonic difference, CANT. the player cannot reproduce the audio, plain and simple. so if it sounds better to you then say that. understand that youre music is getting pinned by the player before it hits these expensive porta. amps or headphones when the bottleneck happens at the source. If thats what sounds better, then thats awesome, however DO NOT CLAIM that its the "best" or "audiophile" grade mp3 player. If you like it then say that, you cannot however credit the device with the belt just because you "say" so. when you do, specifically at this price, you get observers who perform due diligence and come up with data to verify the technical aspects of the device, because fidelity can be measured. everyone is aware that ears are subjective, so its not enough to merely feel this player is better, its smarter to have a frame of reference for the operational range of the unit. And that has happened here, but to say that data is irrelevant, is just bad audio science. however dont sit here and tell ppl who use an AA, that the results are designed into the unit for the AA to look that way, or that the hi-freq roll off is the special sauce, Fang has said as much. Its just hard to understand the feeling that its better rather than appreciating that someone took the time out to verify the quality of the reproduction. the fact that the FR isnt even flat is where this device fails for me, let alone the roll off. I just cant get on board, esp when this hobby is predicated on the transparency of equipment, as sonic puts it a flat FR.

 
You know, we're invited to participate in a test. It should be easy for you – as blind-test old hands – to identify a player so far off the norm.
 
This is the science forum. We all know that it's not a place where scientists meet. It's rather a place full of apprentices preaching the virtues of science. And at times it's the most unfriendly place on Head-Fi. Well, even science is not just about the curiosity about the truth, the history of science is full of intrigues, falsifications, attempts to defend the own hypothesis or defend the established doctrine against fresh ideas. At the moment this thread looks like it has developed into an attempt to make an example of a typical overpriced audiophile product with lots of hype around it and no technical merits except for a built-in flaw possibly made to provide a unique characteristic easily confusable with high-end sound. And the minds are already made up.
.