[alpha421]

I feel you as I owned the HM-801 three times since its debute.  I wouldn't take too personal with the "upgrade to X or screw you" perception. Every product has a finite lifecycle. I assume a decision was made and it was decided to let Rockbox fill in the firmware gaps/promises over time. I've been on the fence of spending big money for another DAP like the HM-802, but at least HifiMan has a 30-day trial period for one to compare it to the HM-801.

 

[Tympan]

  am i the only person on this earth who loves what the 801 sounds like but wonders why the hell hifiman thinks its cool to just stop supporting it with any type of firmware updates at all, despite the fact that they made all these grand but totally empty promises about apple lossless support and gapless playback!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Its so frustrating that they just walked away from the 801, and left all the 801 owners out to dry, saying basically "upgrade to the 901 or screw you".
 
thoughts?

 
No, you are not the only one who loves the HM801, we are at least two ; )
Gapless was never much of an issue for me but I can understand your frustration.
 
As Far as Apple "lossless", you would be better off using true lossless: .wav or .flac files recorded from an original CD or downloaded as lossless .flac on peer to peer websites, or buying lossless .wav from such websites as Beatport... Apple's so called "lossless" uses 256 kbps compression = not as good as I thought.
 
I wasn't aware of that for the longest time and since I used to have an ipod, I had a fair amount of files that needed conversion in order for the HM801 to play them. 
I got these two programs:
 
1. XLD: It is free and allows you to convert itunes files into .wav files: easy drag and drop but the files are as large as they get, yet with no added sound quality since it comes from 256 kbps.
2. Aiseesoft FLAC converter: I paid $20 for it but it allows you to convert itunes files into your choice of 13 most popular formats, including .Flacs, which is half the size of .wav (you can also choose bit rate... It's more flexible and easy to use too)
 
At the time, I assumed that Apple "lossless" was indeed equal to CD quality and converting them to lossless .wav or .flac would give me the exact same quality as if I ripped a lossless CD.
 
For about two years, it sounded great to my ears, yes the HM801 still sounds great BUT I always noticed a very small background electronic noise at the beginning of each song until the music kicked in full volume. I assumed it was just a "limitation" of the HM801... Turned out, one day I decided to buy a file from Beatport in true .wav lossless to compare with an itune file converted into .wav format. Well, guess what?  No more background noise at the beginning of the song! Dead silent! And the overall song sounded a little bit more dynamic and deep, better!
 
... Yes would be nice if Hifiman kept the updates going for the HM801 but I'm still pretty happy with the HM801 as it is, especially now that I use the optimal files !!!

 

[DJ LP]

Hello everyone. I have a question. Has anyone listened to the hm-802 with the he-560's. If so, what cards where used and which ones sound the best for all types of music. I own the hm-601 and I'm using Ultrasone pro-900's. If anyone is familiar with that sound, how much better will the new set up be? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

 

[fengwei007]

Hello everyone. I have a question. Has anyone listened to the hm-802 with the he-560's. If so, what cards where used and which ones sound the best for all types of music. I own the hm-601 and I'm using Ultrasone pro-900's. If anyone is familiar with that sound, how much better will the new set up be? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

I didn't try 802 with HE560, but I did try the HM650 (prototype, which is known to sound close to HM802) with HE560 at the product launch party, the sound was pretty good. I know they used the current stock amp card (which is the 2nd version classic card) in all their players (802/901/650) on that day. 
 
Currently I'm using 901 w/ discrete amp card (it's designed and made by a third party supplier, you won't be able to buy it easily though, sorry), compared with balanced card in balanced mode, I prefer the discrete amp card to drive the HE560. The combo sound very nice for some slow and sweet vocals. But it doesn't have enough juice to make 560 shine. I know some guys like the balanced card w/ 560, but also feel it's lack of power. 
 
Anyway, better get a dedicated amp to match HE560s, and a good one if possible. They deserve it. 

 

[DJ LP]

Thank you. That's a good starting point for me because I'm all set to buy the combo but I didn't know how they worked together and never read about anyone talking about using the two together.

 

[Kiats]

Thank you. That's a good starting point for me because I'm all set to buy the combo but I didn't know how they worked together and never read about anyone talking about using the two together.

If you crave more power, try the minibox amp card. It was designed for difficult to drive cans.

 

[DJ LP]

That's good to know, so I will order it with that card.

 

[Kiats]

That's good to know, so I will order it with that card.

Let me know how you like it.

 

[bahamot]

This DAP intrigued me... Just a question, will you buy HM901 if you currently have HM802? Is the HM901 superior enough to justify the price difference? 

 

[Kiats]

This DAP intrigued me... Just a question, will you buy HM901 if you currently have HM802? Is the HM901 superior enough to justify the price difference? 

I have both. Different sigs. And yes to your question.

 

[DJ LP]

@ Kiats, I will let you know. This is my birthday gift to myself.

 

[Kiats]

@ Kiats, I will let you know. This is my birthday gift to myself.

A very good birthday present indeed!

 

[yugopotamia]

hi Kiats, mind give me a bit comparison between this 802 and Calyx M??

 

[Kiats]

Hmmm... Let me try.
 
Both have very organic sigs. In that both are not quite digital sounding at all.
 
However, what I have to say is that the Calyx M shades it insofar as the layering and texturing is concerned. It has a deeper soundstage and you do get much more richness in the tone of the music.
 
That being said, the 802 is not something to be sniffed at. I do like the 802. I run it with the "new" standard amp card which comes with it and it is fantastic with vocals. Yes, the 801 is probably the pinnacle of vocal centric Hifiman products, but it is so limited (in terms of memory, formats, etc).
 
So, overall the Calyx M is stronger as a DAP if you love an overall lush sig. If vocals are what you are after, the 802 is something to seriously consider.
 
Oh yes! The Calyx M can play DSD files. Which may or may not matter to you. Insofar as UI is concerned, despite complaints about both DAPs, I think they have their own strengths and weakness. 
 
I hope that helps, yugopotamia. 

 

[yugopotamia]

  Hmmm... Let me try.
 
Both have very organic sigs. In that both are not quite digital sounding at all.
 
However, what I have to say is that the Calyx M shades it insofar as the layering and texturing is concerned. It has a deeper soundstage and you do get much more richness in the tone of the music.
 
That being said, the 802 is not something to be sniffed at. I do like the 802. I run it with the "new" standard amp card which comes with it and it is fantastic with vocals. Yes, the 801 is probably the pinnacle of vocal centric Hifiman products, but it is so limited (in terms of memory, formats, etc).
 
So, overall the Calyx M is stronger as a DAP if you love an overall lush sig. If vocals are what you are after, the 802 is something to seriously consider.
 
Oh yes! The Calyx M can play DSD files. Which may or may not matter to you. Insofar as UI is concerned, despite complaints about both DAPs, I think they have their own strengths and weakness. 
 
I hope that helps, yugopotamia. 

 
thanks a lot, that helps me makes decision