[b0ssMax]

I have both. As much as i love my hm901s...i do think pawgold might be a better dap in overall performance. Hm901s has more airyness..a slightly more wide sounding compared to pawgold. But pawgold is smoother..blacker background noise, slightly cleaner sounding.more neat sounding..better depth of sound..and more weight to the sound and makes it sounded a bit more hi-fi.

Details on hm901s is very good. But then depends on what card we use. I have balanced card and miniboxgold card. Personnally...i prefer miniboxgold card for the overall performance. But i need those warmth from balanced card brought to miniboxgold card.

Miniboxgold card is brighter than bal-card (using latest fw), but it does has a more precised and focused sounding than the bal-card. So is easier for me to catch the realisticness of instruments and vocals by using miniboxgold card. But it sounds a little bit dryer than bal-card. But not until a level of bothering me.

But yes..if i had to make one choice of dap..i will take pawgold for sure.

Noooooo!!!!

As I've been eyeing the LPG for quite a while now and my HM901S hasn't been with me 6 mos.

 

[muzic4life]

Noooooo!!!!

As I've been eyeing the LPG for quite a while now and my HM901S hasn't been with me 6 mos.

Lol! Dont worry. That was my views in overall performance. Honestly, i did ab-ed them side to side. And yes, pawgold achied more transparency during my listening. I believe that bcos a blacker background it has. Pawgold, imo, is very special when comes to that regards + the depth of sound is excellent + everything delivered with nice weight to its sound (even ak240s can not match it)

But at the end, in my rule, matching gear (and personal preference) is the most important in this game. By saying this...i never heard my shure 846 as good as i match it with hm901s (using miniboxgoldcard). IMO, is the best combo. Thou, with pawgold, i like it too.

 

[muzic4life]

If u like pawgold, u will love chord mojo too. They are different in signature..but to my ears they do have similarities in performance.

Hm901s is a tad dryer, airyer, faster, more dynamic, with a lighter sound signature - but driving power is also bigger than AKs.

 

[nakedtoes]

I compared both before too with TG334.. Prefer hm901s for the spacious and more enjoyable sound.

 

[muzic4life]

I compared both before too with TG334.. Prefer hm901s for the spacious and more enjoyable sound.

Yep. Can not argue with that. As i said, personal preference is all the matters

 

[nakedtoes]

Yep. Can not argue with that. As i said, personal preference is all the matters

Yes it's about preference..

 

[jelt2359]

I compared both before too with TG334.. Prefer hm901s for the spacious and more enjoyable sound.

You mean 901S and mojo? Or paw gold? And which card?

 

[nakedtoes]

You mean 901S and mojo? Or paw gold? And which card?

901S + balanced vs paw gold..

 

[LarsHP]

I have both. As much as i love my hm901s...i do think pawgold might be a better dap in overall performance. Hm901s has more airyness..a slightly more wide sounding compared to pawgold. But pawgold is smoother..blacker background noise, slightly cleaner sounding.more neat sounding..better depth of sound..and more weight to the sound and makes it sounded a bit more hi-fi.

Details on hm901s is very good. But then depends on what card we use. I have balanced card and miniboxgold card. Personnally...i prefer miniboxgold card for the overall performance. But i need those warmth from balanced card brought to miniboxgold card.

Miniboxgold card is brighter than bal-card (using latest fw), but it does has a more precised and focused sounding than the bal-card. So is easier for me to catch the realisticness of instruments and vocals by using miniboxgold card. But it sounds a little bit dryer than bal-card. But not until a level of bothering me.

But yes..if i had to make one choice of dap..i will take pawgold for sure.

 

If u like pawgold, u will love chord mojo too. They are different in signature..but to my ears they do have similarities in performance.

Hm901s is a tad dryer, airyer, faster, more dynamic, with a lighter sound signature - but driving power is also bigger than AKs.

When I read your posts again and notice your impressions about dryness, brightness, warmth etc. I guess that you compare the Paw Gold to HM901S with Minibox Gold.
- Am I right?
If so, how does the HM901S with Balanced amp compare to the Paw Gold?

 

[muzic4life]

When I read your posts again and notice your impressions about dryness, brightness, warmth etc. I guess that you compare the Paw Gold to HM901S with Minibox Gold.
- Am I right?
If so, how does the HM901S with Balanced amp compare to the Paw Gold?

Yes. You are right.
Actually, thou the sound is not bad, balanced card is a bit off to what i am liking from performance.

I am not so good at explaining, but i will try my best to share my experience with you. When i listen to music, the 1st most important to me is that i can focus correctly on each every part of the music. Meaning, the placement of vocal and all the instruments played must be easily imagined inside my head precisely of what they are and where they should be (the pin-point) No matter what kind signature they are. Bright or warm. I can enjoy both of them. With balanced card, the instruments is good, i like it. Airy, spacious, and dynamic. The problem is when the vocal is voiced. I dont know why, but everytime i wanted to focus on the vocal, the sound-image was hardly stick in the middle of my head. I loose realisticness-feel many times with bal-card. The sound was somewhat a bit confusing to me when my brain starting to pick up the image. This is what i dont like from bal-card. The pawgold and ak240ss is better in this regards. Where everything sounded more neat. And is easier for me to get the precise image of the vocal and all that.

Once i changed to miniboxgold card, i hear different. Everything in the sound is becoming more neat. Better focused. And the vocal is more precisely placed and so does all the instruments. This makes me a lot easier to catch the imaging and get more realistic sound from my iems/cans. Is the brighter sig of miniboxgold causing this? I think no. They way they deliver the presentation is different IMO. And i prefer MBG card bcos of this. So if i would to compare pawgold, i think HM901s with MBG card is the one. Honestly, i am a bit dissapointed with hm901s when using bal-card. Not saying they are bad, but thats the way my preference goes. I see the good side of hm901s is when i use MBG card. With bal-card..i actually almost sold it the 1s week i own it.

Pls note, i use Single Ended connection when using bal-card. Probably when bal-output used, i may sound different too. But i've never tried it. I dont hv the cable.

 

[jasoncd2]

Anyone have more info on the 802s compared to the 901s? It looks like it has the new aluminum case and other exterior upgrades. If it's the same device outside the Wolfson vs Sabre dacs and included amp card, it seems like a good value comparatively.

Started off a few days ago planning to replace my Onkyo DP-X1 with a cheaper DAP. And now I'm trying to pick PAW Gold or 802s. Sigh.

 

[drbluenewmexico]

Anyone have more info on the 802s compared to the 901s? It looks like it has the new aluminum case and other exterior upgrades. If it's the same device outside the Wolfson vs Sabre dacs and included amp card, it seems like a good value comparatively.

Started off a few days ago planning to replace my Onkyo DP-X1 with a cheaper DAP. And now I'm trying to pick PAW Gold or 802s. Sigh.

Tyll from innerfidelity.com reviewed the 802 and liked it a lot. this review was of the previous non upgraded model, but he liked the sound signature better than'
the 901!  warmer, old school sound, more analogue like the old NOS chipped   base cd and dap players!!  see the full review at ihttp://www.innerfidelity.com/content/survey-digital-audio-players-part-1-hifiman-hm-802#1IEqpXClbyMDrXcR.97     
at 699$ it certainly seems like the sweet spot in the hifiman reference line of DAPs! 

 

[jasoncd2]

Yes! I had seen that review, and that's what got the 802 on my radar. Then I saw on Hifiman's site the S model 802 was just $50 more and seemed to have all the same improvements the 901s got. Considering the jump from 901 to 901s now is $500, the 802s seems like a bargain.

Hifiman's site isn't great with details though so it's hard to see what exactly changed or compare models directly.

 

[jelt2359]

Well that's kinda what my 801 sounds like, and was fang's original "perfect sound".

 

[AbdullaSaleh]

If somebody have both : please compare 801 to 901 ? as muzic4life said : '' Hm901s is a tad dryer, airyer, faster, more dynamic, with a lighter sound signature - but driving power is also bigger than AKs.''
 
if I can just change the sound signature of 901 to be more wet ,lush with airy treble and precise imaging . is it possible ??