Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The FiiO X3 Thread UPDATE: Project Back On! Read the First Post for Information.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The FiiO X3 Thread UPDATE: Project Back On! Read the First Post for Information. - Page 228  

post #3406 of 3613

The Cowon J3's issue is a file limit. The X3 doesn't have a file limit. And we'll get a verifiable card size limit if & when the larger sized SDXC cards become available. Remember, FiiO can't confirm they'll work if they don't exist ATM.

post #3407 of 3613

Veering towards the iBasso as it's running a modified Android system, which means that I can load Spotify on it.

post #3408 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by tds101 View Post

The Cowon J3's issue is a file limit. The X3 doesn't have a file limit. And we'll get a verifiable card size limit if & when the larger sized SDXC cards become available. Remember, FiiO can't confirm they'll work if they don't exist ATM.


My point was, the SDXC standard (and cards up to 64gb in micro, and 256GB in CF) exists, so either the X3 will conform to the standard, or it won't.  SDHC is (confirmed) good up to 32GB... after that, it's anybodies guess if a larger capacity SDXC card will work.  So, is the X3 built to conform to SDHC or SDXC standards?  If it's the latter, then it should (in theory) be able to accept cards up to the theoretical 2TB limit.

 

Why build a new device in this day and age that would not at least conform to the most current standard that exists?

post #3409 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hard Head View Post


My point was, the SDXC standard (and cards up to 64gb in micro, and 256GB in CF) exists, so either the X3 will conform to the standard, or it won't.  SDHC is (confirmed) good up to 32GB... after that, it's anybodies guess if a larger capacity SDXC card will work.  So, is the X3 built to conform to SDHC or SDXC standards?  If it's the latter, then it should (in theory) be able to accept cards up to the theoretical 2TB limit.

 

Why build a new device in this day and age that would not at least conform to the most current standard that exists?

I think the confusion with some manufacturers is that the current batch of sdxc cards aren't utilizing the new hardware configuration yet. When they do 99%, of the available "compatible" devices will no longer work with the sdxc cards. Then it'll all hit the fan. Until that occurs all sdxc cards will work when formatted correctly. I do understand why you'd like conformation tho,...future proofing!!! L3000.gif

post #3410 of 3613

It isn't as simple as SDHC vs. SDXC - to make the transition from SDHC into SDXC easier, the SD association puts out some intermediate level within the SDXC standard. The current 'low speed' SDXC standard is meant to be pins and power compatible to the SDHC standard, by actually running at lower speed (the SDHC speed instead of full SDXC speed) which makes it less power demanding. That is why most up-to-date SDHC controller can read and write SDXC card - at least under 128GB should theoretically work in most case - but there is no guarantee. The real SDXC card (which is not common beside some concept products), the one that supports up 2TB in full speed, will need an extra power pin on the card and it will not be compatible to current SDHC reader and even some of the current SDXC reader that doesn't have that extra pins.

 

It is kind of a confusing era for SD standard, but it is mainly because of SD association trying to sell more cards before making the current SDHC products obsolete.

post #3411 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by tds101 View Post

I do understand why you'd like conformation tho,...future proofing!!! L3000.gif

 

 BINGO!!  beerchug.gif

post #3412 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post

It isn't as simple as SDHC vs. SDXC - to make the transition from SDHC into SDXC easier, the SD association puts out some intermediate level within the SDXC standard. The current 'low speed' SDXC standard is meant to be pins and power compatible to the SDHC standard, by actually running at lower speed (the SDHC speed instead of full SDXC speed) which makes it less power demanding. That is why most up-to-date SDHC controller can read and write SDXC card - at least under 128GB should theoretically work in most case - but there is no guarantee. The real SDXC card (which is not common beside some concept products), the one that supports up 2TB in full speed, will need an extra power pin on the card and it will not be compatible to current SDHC reader and even some of the current SDXC reader that doesn't have that extra pins.

 

It is kind of a confusing era for SD standard, but it is mainly because of SD association trying to sell more cards before making the current SDHC products obsolete.

Thank you for that enlightening bit of info.  This explains quite a lot (and is par for the course for some companies trying to turn a profit by conning consumers into thinking we're getting the next generation devices).

 

So, I guess this means we should never expect to see the intermediate level cards in capacities higher than 64GB?  I mean, what would be the point of pushing that development further, rather than transitioning to the true SDXC standard?

post #3413 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hard Head View Post

So, I guess this means we should never expect to see the intermediate level cards in capacities higher than 64GB?  I mean, what would be the point of pushing that development further, rather than transitioning to the true SDXC standard?

 

True SDXC gears are still very few and far between, mainly as concept gear or ask for over-the-top price. SD Association is concerned that the rushing of SDXC standard will destroy the current SDHC market, which is already dominating the removable memory world. Of course, they also want to protect their members who already have spent billions on SDHC product development. That's why they come out of the low speed SDXC to tie everything over, as it is still relatively easy just to change the firmware of the old SDHC reader to make it compatible to low speed SDXC (which is what most SDXC reader in the market are right now). I guess you can also say that the last few years of poor global economy also hold back the SDXC standard as most manufacturers are trying to play it safe with the old standard rather than investing into the new standard. The rapid development (and price dropping) of SSD and cloud storage also are not helping.

post #3414 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post

There are FiiO products that have SPDIF output, The reason why coax output is chosen over Toslink on X3 is because it has better jitter performance, IIRC.

Any idea what kind of DAC chip is used in X3?
Does X3 support 64GB micro SD card?
What is the anticipated sound quality in X3? Will it sound better than Colorfly C3 ?
post #3415 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberalpha11 View Post


Any idea what kind of DAC chip is used in X3?
Does X3 support 64GB micro SD card?
What is the anticipated sound quality in X3? Will it sound better than Colorfly C3 ?

 

FiiO has used mostly Wolfson chips, so I'll expect it will be a Wolfson in X3 as well, likely WM8740.

 

64GB should be supported, but we will have to wait till the final products to be sure.

 

Amp section should be close to that of E17 as announced before. I have no idea on how C3 sounds and can't give you any estimate.

post #3416 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberalpha11 View Post

Any idea what kind of DAC chip is used in X3?
Does X3 support 64GB micro SD card?
What is the anticipated sound quality in X3? Will it sound better than Colorfly C3 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishcabible View Post

F, DAC, one WM8740, not so perfect, but still very good to an DAP which designed for audiophile, we notice that SONY, iRiver also used WM8740 in their new portable DAC/AMP and DAP.

H, AMP section change from TPA6130A to AD8397 which used in our ALPEN ( E17 ), I think most of our fans already know how good it will be in sound quality.

The E17 uses the same DAC chip and the same amp section introduced in this new DAP. We still don't know if it will sound as "bassy" as our beloved E17. smily_headphones1.gif
post #3417 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post

 

FiiO has used mostly Wolfson chips, so I'll expect it will be a Wolfson in X3 as well, likely WM8740.

 

64GB should be supported, but we will have to wait till the final products to be sure.

 

Amp section should be close to that of E17 as announced before. I have no idea on how C3 sounds and can't give you any estimate.

 

WM8740, and support 64GTF card but it should be format to FAT32.  and As I known ,t he Colorfly C3 has not individual DAC chip. the DAC is integrated in the Soc.

post #3418 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesFiiO View Post

 

WM8740, and support 64GTF card but it should be format to FAT32.  and As I known ,t he Colorfly C3 has not individual DAC chip. the DAC is integrated in the Soc.

Wolfson WM8740 DAC audio chip is very welcome!
The question here is how well can Fiio unleash the real potential of Wolfson WM8740 in X3?

My expectation on X3 is at least must be way better than C3 in term of sound quality but at affordable price.

post #3419 of 3613

Does anyone know when will Fiio X3 to be released to market?

I checked back the 1st thread about Fiio X3 was way back December 2010. 

It means more than 2 years has passed but Fiio X3 is still under "product development" ????

post #3420 of 3613
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberalpha11 View Post

Does anyone know when will Fiio X3 to be released to market?
I checked back the 1st thread about Fiio X3 was way back December 2010. 
It means more than 2 years has passed but Fiio X3 is still under "product development" ????
The product was put on hold for quiet a while and I think someone mentioned end of march as a possible releasedate.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The FiiO X3 Thread UPDATE: Project Back On! Read the First Post for Information.