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

The Fiio X3 Thread. - Page 407

post #6091 of 12290
I see the custom title is strong with this one tongue.gif
post #6092 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

There's also xnor's piece here with lots and lots of examples...
http://www.head-fi.org/t/668238/headphones-sensitivity-impedance-required-v-i-p-amplifier-gain

Now this might be a bit awkward what with my new custom title but... where's this writeup on Fiio's website? tongue.gif I'm really new at my job tongue.gif edit: found it smily_headphones1.gif

http://fiio.com.cn/news/index.aspx?ID=100000046224759

And yes, that thing you posted really helps.

15db gain for that HE6, eh? jeez..... It will be mine, one day.
post #6093 of 12290

James,

 

Im new but NOT dumb!  :)   I ripped my Fleetwood Mac "Rumours" DVD-A three times for the three distinct sets of tracks.  The first set was a 6 channel set and I folded down into stereo ALACs upon conversion.  The second set was in stereo and I "simply" converted those tracks to ALAC (the stereo set is the same album as released in 1977 with an additional song and obviously higher fidelity; 96kHz/24 bit.  The 6 channel mix is quite differently mixed; even the vocals are different in places).  The third set of tracks was 48kHz/16bit- an audio documentary of the history of each song with interviews of the musicians over the musical track- vocals removed.  ALL three sets of tracks as ALACs freaked the X3 out. The unit couldnt play them and yet my computer could.

 

I re-ripped the second set of songs again today as FLACs; the X3 seems to play them flawlessly.  And Oh.My.G-d I cannot get over how fu#*%ing great it sounds!!!  Still, I'm a bit freaked out that I cant use ALACs.  A recent article in one of the high end audio magazines said that while on paper FLAC=ALAC, they felt FLACs were inferior in sonically.

post #6094 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTheGeek View Post
 

....

 

A recent article in one of the high end audio magazines said that while on paper FLAC=ALAC, they felt FLACs were inferior in sonically.

Is that available online and do you have a URL? I think I'd enjoy reading that article.

post #6095 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by good sound View Post
 

That's strange. With the new firmware gapless should work from either Browse Files or Category. I have files that require gapless playback in Flac, WAV, ALAC and AIFF and all of them now play gapless from Browse Files. However I do sometimes get a small crackle or noise when transitioning from one track to the next with files where one track runs into the next, but no actual interruption in the music. It is my understanding that with the X3 the gapless function operates from the files tagging properties so you may want to make sure all of your files are properly tagged. I know initially on an older firmware version, I had some issues with gapless playback from the Categories/Album menu until I properly tagged all of my files.


Dumb question, I'm using mp3tag to edit my files, which tags should I focus on to properly tag them for gapless playback?

post #6096 of 12290

http://www.head-fi.org/a/mp3tag-setup-guide

 

Don't know if that's any use.

post #6097 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTheGeek View Post
 A recent article in one of the high end audio magazines said that while on paper FLAC=ALAC, they felt FLACs were inferior in sonically.

this is obviously a very clever magazine ... 

both are decoded by any player into the exact same thing to the last bit before being used by the dac. that is what lossless means, both flac and alac are nothing more than an elaborated .zip. 

the only reason for one sounding better than the other would be, if possible, dap dependent. and suggesting that the selected dap messed up the decoding of the flac.

 

in any case the conclusion is plain wrong and a little stupid. so I suggest you stop reading anything coming from the guy writing this article. ^_^

post #6098 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

... so I suggest you stop reading anything coming from the guy writing this article. ^_^

That's why I wanted to see it...

post #6099 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

this is obviously a very clever magazine ... 

both are decoded by any player into the exact same thing to the last bit before being used by the dac. that is what lossless means, both flac and alac are nothing more than an elaborated .zip. 

the only reason for one sounding better than the other would be, if possible, dap dependent. and suggesting that the selected dap messed up the decoding of the flac.

 

in any case the conclusion is plain wrong and a little stupid. so I suggest you stop reading anything coming from the guy writing this article. ^_^

+1

I would like to see any theoretical reason this difference could occur (assuming there is not an implementation issue which has zip to do with the formats).

Were the FLACs and ALACs made from the same uncompressed source file? If not the comparison is meaningless. I have stated that before that I believe that many claims about the superiority of high bitrate formats result from different source files being used.

post #6100 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorn View Post
 


Dumb question, I'm using mp3tag to edit my files, which tags should I focus on to properly tag them for gapless playback?

 

Excellent article here: http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/GaplessHowTo

 

That is why the X3 needs Rockbox. Rockbox transformed my iRiver H320, and I'd like the same performance from my X3, though currently the X3 is far superior to the H320 native firmware.

post #6101 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbradley02 View Post
 

+1

I would like to see any theoretical reason this difference could occur (assuming there is not an implementation issue which has zip to do with the formats).

Were the FLACs and ALACs made from the same uncompressed source file? If not the comparison is meaningless. I have stated that before that I believe that many claims about the superiority of high bitrate formats result from different source files being used.

 

That´s true. During many listening tests for my blog I´ve found that the superiority of HiRes generally is exaggerated just as well as the so-called inferiority of lossy is exaggerated. In the end, the device playing back any format 'decides' if it sounds well or not, not the format itself (all assuming that well-encoded material is used).

post #6102 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightBlue77 View Post
 

 

 

true, but remember, impedance is not the only important attribute when driving headphones. E.g. Audeze LCD-3 has 45 ohms. Could you tell that X3 would be able to drive them? i'm sure it can't.

Anyway, it's great your headphones fit with X3.

 

Well, I only tried it, I´m not going to use the HD-600 with a portable like the X3. Not because it´s a portable, just because I won´t take my most favourite headphone out in the open. The HD-600 might be many things but it lacks all the things necessary for taking it outside. Just wanted to know if it works (for the article I plan for my blog).

post #6103 of 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlene View Post
 

 

That´s true. During many listening tests for my blog I´ve found that the superiority of HiRes generally is exaggerated just as well as the so-called inferiority of lossy is exaggerated. In the end, the device playing back any format 'decides' if it sounds well or not, not the format itself (all assuming that well-encoded material is used).

This article should be required reading on Head-Fi. I don't think he gives enough emphasis to the "different sources" theory for perceived differences. I am willing to bet in many if not most cases, when people say they prefer high bitrate, they are comparing a CD or similar to a high bit download. The masters are almost guaranteed to be different. To really compare you would need to take the high bit file as a source and then down convert (being very careful that your down-conversion is being done properly).

 

Anyway, you will notice that the number one item he recommends for better sound is "buy better headphones" :bigsmile_face:

post #6104 of 12290
I'm pretty sure it is undisputed that the improvement path goes headphone amp dac. And the only reason amp is before dac is because a standalone dac can't be use without an amp unless you want to damage something.

Personally I'd like to test out different diy amps with my hd650. Not because I'm after some sound perfection but because I'm curious. I'd so like to see what affect various amps have on speakers in ab tests.
post #6105 of 12290

Its nice to join this group and open up a fresh new can of worms!  There was a four part series of articles in the Absolute Sound magazine by Dr. Charles Zeilig and Jay Clawson beginning in 2012. Some of what was written was rather "deep" and beyond my comprehension.  There was comparisons of FLAC to WAV files and FLAC to ALAC.  Some of a response string I found here: http://www.theabsolutesound.com/forums/profiles/5606/ but one of the later articles favored ALAC over FLAC. This was their opinion and not mine.  Since I'm mac-based I figured I'd go with ALAC files.  Why not?  But now Ive got a situation where DVD Audio Extractor ripped my DVD-A into ALACs and the X3 cannot play them through.  It chokes.  Conversely when I ripped some of my CDs into ALACs through iTunes, the X3 played them with ease.  Of course the DVD-A are vastly larger files than the CDs are but today I re-ripped the DVD-A into FLAC and the X3 played them perfectly. It leads me to believe ALACs birthed by DVD Audio Extractor gave the X3 hives....

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.