[kaushama]

All the RMAA results of so called "HIGH END portable players" have either bass or treble roll???? And they get amused and ridiculed by members of ABI forums???
 
How come?

 

[Inks]

Well they have roll-off but they also have bumps in other places that make them sound more "musical". They're pretty much just colored, but the S:Flo2 is actually pretty flat and makes the J3 look rolled off. 

 

[whoelse]

S:Flo2 LO is quite flat, HO is warm. Both are good

 

[kaushama]

But this player seems to have horrible quality issues?

 

[whoelse]

I'm not sure about that. As of quality, mine is about 1yr old and never had issue. Drop it onto concrete floor many times and had dents here and there.
 
The Gui need sometime to get use to it esp placement of features but I can navigate it like a champ probably because I have gotten use to it.
 
Quote:

But this player seems to have horrible quality issues?

 

 

[Bojamijams]

Hifiman 801 has the best dual DAC's out and the best buffer stage.. its as good as you're gonna get right now in the portable market. 
 
Quote:

All the RMAA results of so called "HIGH END portable players" have either bass or treble roll???? And they get amused and ridiculed by members of ABI forums???
 
How come?

 

 

[3602]

HM-801 is a FAIL device for the 4.5dB of roll-off at the extreme high-end.
 
But I will tell you one thing. It is musical for what it is, but it should not be called "high fidelity".

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

HM-801 is a FAIL device for the 4.5dB of roll-off at the extreme high-end.
 
But I will tell you one thing. It is musical for what it is, but it should not be called "high fidelity".

In that case, quite a few well regarded desktop DAC fail to be "high fidelity" as well... or may be Butterworth filter is no high fidelity enough compared to other type of filters? Hmm...
 
 

 

[3602]

So you see, you have pointed out a most unintended yet most troubling phenomenon right now in the hi-fi domain.
People aren't playing for sound quality anymore. People are playing for "pleasing sound coloration" and are going as far as saying true high-fidelity sources (such as real professional sound recorders) sound "too digital". People are going to what "sounds good", not what "sounds correct". It's called high fidelity, no high enjoyment.
You like it. Fine. Nothing wrong about that. Just don't call it "high fidelity".
I'm not going to get locked in an argument with you. Already banned from countless Chinese forums for doing so.
$800 to spend on a source, PCM-D50. $2000 to spend on a source, Sound Devices. Any higher, go Nagra or Sonosax.
No hope. This is not an insult, not an attack, not an attempt to humiliate: It is responses such as yours (and countless other responses in that RMAA thread) that strengthens my will to leave Head-Fi.

 

[Achmedisdead]

 

[Inks]

I agree with 3602 and it's actually one of the main reasons why I ditched the Hifiman line. I wouldn't be so dramatic about it though, I think ClieOS just wanted to emphasize that it's still well-regarded regardless of that frequency flaw. S:flo2 is very flat even through the HO via the last firmware update (not to mention outstanding crosstalk and dynamic range results), so I'll recommend that, it's main flaw is the UI. 

 

[ClieOS]

I don't see your argument being offensive, 3602, to be honest. But I do think that some of these quest for high fidelity is 'too 90's'. For the last decades or two, solid state technology has developed way beyond what we used to refer as high fidelity in the past. Now we have relatively cheap gears that can easily be close to bit-prefect, linear response and ultra-low distortion that people used to wish for 10, 20 years ago. If we are referring to the (close to) perfect reproduction from digital to analog signal, I think we are as close as being high fidelity as we have even been in the consumer market. The question is, if Sansa clip (or any similar devices) is the answer of high fidelity for those in the 90's, what is the answer of high fidelity for us now (or in the future)? If there is only device that can do high fidelity, then every other device that doesn't do it the same way is by definition, "fail", more or less. Then the only logical answer should be, we should all get that device X and nothing else.
 
My POV is, I really don't care that much in who is claiming he has the 'high fidelity' done right or what source has the best RMAA graph anymore. Sure measurement still serves a purpose, but in these days that most decent gears can do a fine job on music reproduction, I'll rather kick back and enjoy the music than argue about who is winning the number game. I think the answer should be between enjoyment and measurement, not one way or another. But that's just me.

 

[Inks]

Yes, we are closer to fidelity than ever before but there are still lot's of room for improvements and it doesn't negate the flaws of certain modern devices. High fidelity hasn't changed as we are still trying to keep the best reproduction of every frequency, dynamic range, etc. I do agree that a device will never be perfect and this is why it's going to be subjective to some extent. 
 
I think RMMA results are the best guidelines of fidelity for portable source gear and very reliable from hands on experience. Problem is,  it's not as straightforward to one's perceptions, certain small strengths or colorations may appeal a lot to certain users. But the topic is frequency response and the Hifiman isn't accurate and actually quite colored instead. I actually would not negate the "high-fidelity" connotation since that can vary a lot but it sure isn't "accurate". Still, I think that's a flaw that shouldn't be overlooked. 

 

[MayaTlab]

I do not think that RMAA is a particularly good indication of Hi-Fi in so far as it is incomplete. There is much, much more to sound quality and high fidelity than just frequency response. For exemple, RMAA does not mesure phase, which I read has a substantial importance in sound quality. We can mesure pretty much anything, but there's a long way to go before we understand what we just mesured.
 
Talking about the Hifiman, I actually think that from my experience, it is much less colored overall than many other DAPs - I've played piano since I'm seven and it currently is the closest to a decent rendition of that instrument I've heard from a portable device - with a pair of DT 1350 (still far from good IMHO). I agree that its high frequency roll off does not correspond to what I call high fidelity, but I'm ready to bet a leg that it would mesure more accurately on other aspects than many other DAPs - phase, impulse response, harmonics - stuff that RMAA doesn't take into account (If I'm right) ? In that sense, the total package might be more hi-fi than the rest.
 
I still do not understand why people divide themselves into two camps - the one that only takes measures for truth vs the one that only trusts one's ears. You know, you can perfectly admit that both evaluations are useful and participate into assessing the high fidelity of audio gear. Fighting over a bunch of graphs or one's own listening experience is simply juvenile.

 

[anadin]

Quote:

HM-801 is a FAIL device for the 4.5dB of roll-off at the extreme high-end.
 
But I will tell you one thing. It is musical for what it is, but it should not be called "high fidelity".

Or "portable".