Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphone Amps › FiiO E17 "ALPEN" - First Impression + Final Thought
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FiiO E17 "ALPEN" - First Impression + Final Thought - Page 238

post #3556 of 6582
Theres the telecast and its cousin its an oem for that is the same thing. Forgot the name but I didnt get it as there were mass reports of buggy UI and verycrappy build.

FiiO was supposed to build one but stopped. You need a plethora of engineers for hardware and software and you have to absolutely have a good UI which will take too many of fiios resources I have heard and they dont have the engineers or I guess time to just releSe one product.

Give tht to me for $200 and ill buy it. And remember. Extra features will make it more buggy. I dont need a stupid half working UI with camera or crap features. Make it play music very well on a nice UI and all that I specified


And TAKE MY MONEY!
post #3557 of 6582

Hey,

I am wondering.. If I plug my fiio e17 into my macbook pro should it sound different then when I plug it into my desktop computer?

 

Or am I just imagining things?

post #3558 of 6582
Through USB or Optical? Its sure to be different if you use aux


Technicay if we were pefrfect audio robots... Yeah. Different circuitry, slightly different hard drives and how it carries music.

Also remember. Both systems have their own controls. For the Mac, audio midi setup is what you should use to chrck the dynamic range and sampling rate settings its on or change it. For windows its in your sound properties of the device.

Also remember software that is enabled could also change it. If you are using foobar on one and itunes on the other. They have different audio playback settings that may make it very ery smally different but delending on you and the settings it may not be audible. Also remember that windows sound properties sometimes has crap enabled like dolby so uncheck a that stuff. Dolby that you buy like the astro is goo. Ones that come with suck.
post #3559 of 6582
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodleBoy91 View Post

Hey,
I am wondering.. If I plug my fiio e17 into my macbook pro should it sound different then when I plug it into my desktop computer?

Or am I just imagining things?
If there is a difference it is most likely software related and not hardware related. Digital transmission over USB tends to be bit-perfect in all except extreme cases. Like Bowei said, different software and settings or different drivers may affect sound quality.
Unless you listen to the same music at the same volumes on the other hand, observed differences may very well be caused by psychological factors.
post #3560 of 6582
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowei006 View Post

Through USB or Optical? Its sure to be different if you use aux
Technicay if we were pefrfect audio robots... Yeah. Different circuitry, slightly different hard drives and how it carries music.
Also remember. Both systems have their own controls. For the Mac, audio midi setup is what you should use to chrck the dynamic range and sampling rate settings its on or change it. For windows its in your sound properties of the device.
Also remember software that is enabled could also change it. If you are using foobar on one and itunes on the other. They have different audio playback settings that may make it very ery smally different but delending on you and the settings it may not be audible. Also remember that windows sound properties sometimes has crap enabled like dolby so uncheck a that stuff. Dolby that you buy like the astro is goo. Ones that come with suck.

Through USB... i don't know if I am hearing things but it sounds slightly more bassy and a bit more muddled when playing from the macbook through itunes.

 

When using the desktop I am using media monkey.

 

How should I set it up? Is there a set of steps? Sorry I am new to this I thought I just plug it in lol :P.

post #3561 of 6582

As mentioned, the software that you are using to play back the music itself could be affecting the music in some way (i.e. perhaps you have the equalizer enabled, etc).

 

I would check your settings first.

 

How are you plugging in your E17?

post #3562 of 6582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilpo View Post


If there is a difference it is most likely software related and not hardware related. Digital transmission over USB tends to be bit-perfect in all except extreme cases. Like Bowei said, different software and settings or different drivers may affect sound quality.
Unless you listen to the same music at the same volumes on the other hand, observed differences may very well be caused by psychological factors.

Oh okay then :P Maybe I'm just tired then.

post #3563 of 6582
Like I said check your settings. Look at sampling rate and dyanmic range. Having both at 24bit and 96KHz is standard but doesnt fix the problem.

Media monky is more audiophile accepted than itunes but both of this doesnt explain mudiness which makes me think that you had an EQ on the e17 when testing one and not on the other. Do a test where you plug it in right after so you dont use one day and another the other day.

But ifthat doesnt change and you are sure of muddiness thn like I said. Software. This could inude "enhancements" or anything . Hardware is also there but you cant tell a difference. Remember to try a different port on the Mac and even if or when the mac is plugged into a charger.

But software "enhancements" be it itunes with an eq you forgot you added or something in your mac or an rnhancement enabled on your pc that gives you illusion of cleaner.
post #3564 of 6582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkblade48 View Post

As mentioned, the software that you are using to play back the music itself could be affecting the music in some way (i.e. perhaps you have the equalizer enabled, etc).

 

I would check your settings first.

 

How are you plugging in your E17?

The equalisers are flat.

 

I have it plugged in via USB to my macbook pro. 

 

I clicked on audio midi setup and there are a few options that I have no idea what they do lol. 

post #3565 of 6582
In audio midi you will first have to select your E17 and then chrck the settings. There should be a channel balance and dynamic rnage and sample rate. Make it 96KHz at 24bit.

See if itunes has an eq on. Its in the songs properties menu or an all song wide itunes eq. And remember like I said . It could also be the opposite and that your song is "musdy" to you and that its widows that has a consumer enhancement on that makes you think its cleaner. Check windows as well and do consecutive tests.

If that fails use another media organizer and player for your ma or use itunes on your pc.
post #3566 of 6582

Okay I changed it to 96000.0Hz and 24bit. 

 

Before it was on 44100.0Hz and 16bit.

 

Wow I never knew that I just read a bit about it just now and apparantly listening to it with these sample rates it is 65536 times more precise then a cd?

 

:P sorry I am new to this high quality audio stuff. It's all a bit exciting for me.


Edited by NoodleBoy91 - 5/27/12 at 8:21am
post #3567 of 6582
Pleasedont enforce the placebo.

The benefits of anything over 44.1KHz 16bit(unless its classical) theoretically can not be heard differently from a human if we base it off the sinplest calculations and theory. It is that many times "better" yes but as humans we cant hear it. The highest a human can ever hear is 22KHz and that is as a baby. The average person hears at 17KHz maximum. So following Nyquists theorem te sample rate has to be half and more than the maximum hearing so 44.1KHz was used. Supposedly we arent hearing anything past that but tests have confirmed thr we do get benefits. A sample rate of 96KHz is already way tok high to handle and decode which will add jitter to the audio but at 96KHz the audio will add sharpness to it and there is some "hardware" audio from the encoding process that will also influence how it sounds. 192KHz is even more taxing on a system due to the sheer number of times the audi is sampled per amount of time and thus adds more jitter to the audio but also sharpness.

Its up to you which tradeoff you want. 96KHz /24bit or 192KHz/24 bit. 192KHz thus is not superior in hat sense. Due to the encoding of 192KHz it could add hardware noise that make a sweet sound some like. It can also be said that when 192KHz first started the people that used it were faniliar with oldies and noise due to vinyls an thus didnt mind the extra jitter of 192KHz(if they can hear and differentiate even) and thus prefere 192KHz to its extra sharpness and hardware added noise. This preference skyrocketed an led to the misconceptionthat 192 and a bigger number is superior.

16bit is a number that represents the dynamic range. 16 bit X 6 =96dB noise floor. 24bit isnt "better" so much as it allows for a higher noise floor of 144 dB(24 X 6) which js great for old recordings and classical music that has many instruments that want to go past 96dB. There are higher dynamic ranges but at the moment arent popular.



I hole you learned real sound science today. Head fi has changed due to more new members(yay real audio) but at the cost of values and real info. There is lots of noise these days and hard to pick info out from the sea. Always keep an open mind smily_headphones1.gif


There is an upvote thumbs ul button near the "multi" button near where you press quote or reply. I deserve an upvote.
post #3568 of 6582

Hey,

thanks for the information. So we cannot hear the differences as humans, even if it is actually better, I understand now. Most of this may just be a placebo effect.

 

 

My music is in 44.1khz even if it is in flac format.. How would you even get it in 96khz?

 

Or are there files that are in 96khz?

 

Also, is it better to set my audio settings to play in 96khz/24bit when I don't have any songs that are even at that sample rate? Or is it just a waste?


Edited by NoodleBoy91 - 5/27/12 at 9:05am
post #3569 of 6582

For me, it depended on what I was currently listening to.

 

For some albums/styles of music. I craved more impact/oomph out of the notes, the drums, and the bass hits (so I'd adjust the gain upward and match the volume downward).

For other things, I craved less impact/oomph...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

If you use 0db gain on the E17.......what's the point? Just wondering.. I love the sound of 12db so much more and there is no distortion at all.... So not sure why people would use 0dB gain. Are they even utilizing the E17 at all? I can't hear much of a difference at all with 0dB... 6, and especially 12 sounds wonderfully full and alive
post #3570 of 6582
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilky61 View Post

For me, it depended on what I was currently listening to.

 

For some albums/styles of music. I craved more impact/oomph out of the notes, the drums, and the bass hits (so I'd adjust the gain upward and match the volume downward).

For other things, I craved less impact/oomph...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

If you use 0db gain on the E17.......what's the point? Just wondering.. I love the sound of 12db so much more and there is no distortion at all.... So not sure why people would use 0dB gain. Are they even utilizing the E17 at all? I can't hear much of a difference at all with 0dB... 6, and especially 12 sounds wonderfully full and alive

ah okay.  :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Headphone Amps
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphone Amps › FiiO E17 "ALPEN" - First Impression + Final Thought