Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The Fiio X3 Thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Fiio X3 Thread. - Page 865

post #12961 of 12974

I bet fiio X3 will support larger cards in the future, now with FW 3.0 it supports 128GB microSD

post #12962 of 12974
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmartinl View Post
 

I only used the x3 for a few hours before installing the new software, and I paired it with new, not-burned-in V-moda V100's (which do empathize the bass a lot) ...

 

I would suggest roll back to FW3.0 for a more 'accurate' sound presentation since both your devices are new (unless you like the current FW3.2 SQ) and are getting to know their respective sound signature.

 

Here's my own findings after trying the different firmware (ymmv):-

 

FW3.2 gives brighter presentation but lose out some bass, also bugs on last resume function (my least prefer FW).

FW3.0 thicker, warmer SQ but could be overbearing for some.

FW3.00EX (beta firmware) brighter presentation but doesn't lose bass like FW3.2, also bugs on last resume mode not functioning properly.

FW2.14b Vol mod version (beta firmware) also brighter presentation but personally, I find sound presentation on this FW better than FW3.00EX.    

post #12963 of 12974
Mega post time!
lmartinl Reply (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmartinl View Post
 

I only used the x3 for a few hours before installing the new software, and I paired it with new, not-burned-in V-moda V100's (which do empathize the bass a lot) but I share your experience.

 

I find it hard to describe, but before the upgrade the bass did not really overrule the mid/high's but it felt like it tried to smooth out all the low tones, which made it sound a bit fuzzy when a lot of instruments such as drums, bass guitars and such are playing in parallel and you are still trying to enjoy all the individual notes played in combination with the high-pitched female voice. As for the smoothing I mean.. I can't describe in technical terms but it looks like when a low tone is played instead of stopping it at the right time, it faded out to be faded in by another tone at the same time which causes interference... at least, that's how I visualize it. 

 

But like I said, don't take my word for it. I haven't had much experience with different headphones/players yet and I just transitioned from using another player (iaudio 7) and my in-ear Beyerdynamics which excelled at mid-high but really suffered in the lower regions.

 

In my opinion (like all subjective user experiences),

I think the M100's are a bit at fault in terms of instrument separation, and this has to do with their full bass body. I have great experiences in picking out busy tracks with my IEM's that are treble/mids happy with the X3 (firmware 3.2 beta/Etymotic ER4S) even on the bus. However the M100's are a fun headphone and took me some time for my ears to adjust in order to fully enjoy what they produce.

Now in regards to your "before the upgrade", what did you mean by that? Before your Beyer IEM + iAudio 7's? 

puppyfi reply (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by puppyfi View Post


In this firmware, Fiio 'changed' the sound signature as if your 18" subwoofer had changed to a smaller 15".
Some tracks you will unfortunately be hearing less sub bass.
So...not necessary better.
I personally feel the sound signature in this FW is not 'correctly' tuned...listening to some albums ( Eric Clapton's unplugged for example)/songs, they do not sound right.

I feel as if the FiiO X3 is tuned to be V shape sounding. Whereas the line out is totally flat.
wcfieldskx reply (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wcfieldskx View Post
 

Hey guys,

 

Newb here looking at buying one of these.

 

Question - in the future will the x3 support larger Micro SD cards? Say for example when the 256gb comes out...

 

Thanks

Wc


Might have to wait until a FiiO representative can answer this. I don't know of any devices that increase their external storage capacity by firmware though :confused_face_2:


I did a measure on 2.14 Beta firmware (2.14 being the calibrated soundcard default),  3.0 firmware, and 3.2 Beta firmware.
All measurements were in a closet, equipment stated in the graph.
Microphone and in-ear kit proudly (temporarily) sponsored by @bluemonkeyflyer.

Opinions are all up to you guys. What you should really be comparing is 3.0 (blue) and 3.2 Beta (green). I apologize for the weird legend placement.

To me, I'm enjoying my 3.2 Firmware. I'm able to enjoy my M100's and MDR-1R Mk2's thanks to this.
Just remember they're set to a 1db scale, so don't go crazy about how exaggerated this graph looks!

Note that this is a measurement of the FiiO X3 and the comparison of each firmware when used with an Audio Technica A900X, not a headphone measurement in particular.
The FiiO X3 is actually a flat frequency response graph, it just so happens that the calibration did not go so well.


But here's a realistic difference of what you actually hear when comparing the firmwares...


Edited by Nec3 - Yesterday at 7:22 pm
post #12964 of 12974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nec3 View Post
  wcfieldskx reply (Click to show)


Might have to wait until a FiiO representative can answer this. I don't know of any devices that increase their external storage capacity by firmware though confused_face_2.gif


I did a measure on 2.14 Beta firmware (2.14 being the calibrated soundcard default),  3.0 firmware, and 3.2 Beta firmware.

All measurements were in a closet, equipment stated in the graph.

Microphone and in-ear kit proudly (temporarily) sponsored by @bluemonkeyflyer
.


Opinions are all up to you guys. What you should really be comparing is 3.0 (blue) and 3.2 Beta (green). I apologize for the weird legend placement.


To me, I'm enjoying my 3.2 Firmware. I'm able to enjoy my M100's and MDR-1R Mk2's thanks to this.

Just remember they're set to a 1db scale, so don't go crazy about how exaggerated this graph looks!




But here's a realistic difference of what you actually hear...


Would be interesting to see this graph set to 5 dB scale.

 

Edit: Either you're fast or I missed the second graph on first look...probably the latter.


Edited by bluemonkeyflyer - Yesterday at 7:14 pm
post #12965 of 12974

So basically your graphs are saying that all these folks who are hearing differences are perhaps wrong?

post #12966 of 12974
@Nec3 Thanks for the comparison. Nice to see some data added to the mix.
post #12967 of 12974
Ya. I heard a difference in sound going into 2.14b, then to 3.0, but 3.0 and 3.2 sound the same.
post #12968 of 12974
Quote:
Originally Posted by aangen View Post
 

So basically your graphs are saying that all these folks who are hearing differences are perhaps wrong?


I heard differences, not significant differences but there were differences.
When I'm suddenly enjoying my MDR-1R Mk2's now just because of the update is quite something :D
I think that the FW 3.2beta firmware took a step towards the "brighter/lighter/tighter" end of the spectrum though.

If I said people were wrong I would have said so in the first place and then show some data =P


Edited by Nec3 - Yesterday at 9:51 pm
post #12969 of 12974
Quote:
Originally Posted by aangen View Post

 

So basically your graphs are saying that all these folks who are hearing differences are perhaps wrong?





No, your ears can hear a 1 db difference.  FW3.0 seems to create a less accurate sound.



 



http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_level.php?lvl=1



 



Under the "Files being tested", each test sound starts the tone at a flat signiture and then changes the frequency up or down by 1 db.  You can also hear a difference at 0.5 fb.  Any lower and it is even harder.  FW3.2 is probably your best.


Edited by domino584 - Today at 7:03 am
post #12970 of 12974
Quote:





So it really had a small decrease in the bass and a smaller one in the treble. Probably just barely perceptable hm.. Wonder if the mids 'increase' lead to my Nana Mizuki songs suddenly sounding more enjoyable haha.. In any case, an EQ would be nice~ :D

post #12971 of 12974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nec3 View Post
Mega post time! ...

 

If ,as you say the X3 output is flat, the only thing that could cause a variation in output would be the interaction between the amp and the load; as these are the same any variations would have to be random measurement errors, wouldn't they?

How many samples of each did you average to get your results, and did you run the test in different orders and check variations?

 

Not trying to be mean, I appreciate the effort and time you put in; I just wonder if the results are meaningful.

post #12972 of 12974
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmers View Post
 

 

If ,as you say the X3 output is flat, the only thing that could cause a variation in output would be the interaction between the amp and the load; as these are the same any variations would have to be random measurement errors, wouldn't they?

How many samples of each did you average to get your results, and did you run the test in different orders and check variations?

 

Not trying to be mean, I appreciate the effort and time you put in; I just wonder if the results are meaningful.


- Other than changing firmwares, I didn't really touch the x3 itself
- It's really weird because when I use other headphones, none of them would calibrate to a flat frequency response.
- I did 5 samples of each firmware (2.14 beta volume mod being the base calibration. If at least 3 graphs didn't match then I would redo the test.

That's a good suggestion though. When I get home I'll try different base firmwares and try open-back headphones instead.

The only variations from human error is that the in ear microphones capture my hearbeat which is under 40hz. Which is why you don't see anything lower than that in my charts.
First I'll see if my university sells mannequin heads in the art department.

post #12973 of 12974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nec3 View Post
  wcfieldskx reply (Click to show)


Might have to wait until a FiiO representative can answer this. I don't know of any devices that increase their external storage capacity by firmware though :confused_face_2:


I did a measure on 2.14 Beta firmware (2.14 being the calibrated soundcard default),  3.0 firmware, and 3.2 Beta firmware.
All measurements were in a closet, equipment stated in the graph.
Microphone and in-ear kit proudly (temporarily) sponsored by @bluemonkeyflyer.
 

 

Is this an one time measurement of all three firmwares (*2.14 once, 3.0 once, 3.2 once), or have you repeated the measurement multiple times on each firmware to check for consistency?

 

Just saw you post above. Any chance you have the average graph of each firmware version?


Edited by ClieOS - Today at 8:28 am
post #12974 of 12974
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post

Is this an one time measurement of all three firmwares (*2.14 once, 3.0 once, 3.2 once), or have you repeated the measurement multiple times on each firmware to check for consistency?

Just saw you post above. Any chance you have the average graph of each firmware version?

Unfortunately I do not, I deleted the unused graphs. I'll be addressing all the issues mentioned in the above posts when I get home from classes =)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The Fiio X3 Thread.