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

The Fiio X3 Thread. - Page 661

post #9901 of 12286

@Dkhand I work in the audiology field (hence my avatar^^) and what you say is in general perfectly true. The whole topic of how someone perceives sound, or in our case, sound quality (sound signatures of the hardware used) is veeery subjective and depends on a huge variety of circumstances. Nonetheless, for healthy, normal hearing persons using nearly the same hardware setup, I personally tend to trust the statements which are made here in this thread. ;) But thx for your info anyway and godspeed!

post #9902 of 12286
Quote:
Originally Posted by goody View Post
 

Guys i am on fw2.1 i have just bought my x3,there might be a bug when ever i play an album when i play a song on the album and go back the list of songs just disappear i find myself back to the main menu again so annoying as i cant pick a song.... 


this issue has been already addressed at FiiO's bugzilla site with a good number of votes. IMHO chances are high, that this will be solved in a future firmware release.

post #9903 of 12286

Wow, this was pretty much the least painful/obnoxious FW update I've ever see on a device.  Wonderful job not making it a pain in the butt like so many other products, thankya Fiio!

 

Hmm, the bass certainly feels less prevalent than it was before, I used to use a +2, now it needs either a +4 or 5 to reach the same level.  I do like the OS layout though, its quite nice and pretty.  I could be wrong, but I think the mids are slightly more forward than on the previous firmware as well, which is nice on the he-400.


Edited by Saoshyant - 5/8/14 at 10:19am
post #9904 of 12286
Quote:
Originally Posted by droid23 View Post
 

@Dkhand I work in the audiology field (hence my avatar^^) and what you say is in general perfectly true. The whole topic of how someone perceives sound, or in our case, sound quality (sound signatures of the hardware used) is veeery subjective and depends on a huge variety of circumstances. Nonetheless, for healthy, normal hearing persons using nearly the same hardware setup, I personally tend to trust the statements which are made here in this thread. ;) But thx for your info anyway and godspeed!

 

Thanks! Just thought that despite what all have said in this thread, people should still take each other's sound perspective with a grain of salt w/ so many unknown that can't possibly mentioned in here regarding conditions, environment, and personal health.  Even an allergy acting up can affect that perspective a little bit.

post #9905 of 12286
I agree. There's definitely a noticeable difference.
post #9906 of 12286

just wondering if fiio will work on changing the sound signature in their final update as I feel the bass is barely there, also i feel i need to raise the volume to at least 95 with Mad dog headphones. I feel the volume is low and lacks impact.

 

the eq is not even worth using at this point in 2.14.

post #9907 of 12286

Do you remember what volume you set it at in the previous FW for Mad Dog?

post #9908 of 12286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dkhand View Post
 

I personally think these sound perceptive is really down to the person experiencing the sonic signals from the X3 and their chosen headphones.  Personal taste, environment, cables, and even health of a person listening makes a difference in the perception of sound.  I respect both camps of thoughts on how the new 2.14b sounded.  I personally have found even a different time of day, altitude (yes, altitude. The subway or a high-rise building) do makes some minor difference in sonic perception of the music I'm listening to.  Every ear is different, every ear channel is different. (That's why custom in-ear can't be used by other people)  When sound traveling down each person's ear channel will be slightly different because of the different of the curvature on each person's ear.  It is completely normal for each person to perceptive the sonic signature a little bit differently with others.

 

If I'm wrong, I apologize.  As I am just an amateur sound guy at my local church.  It is just a thought that I had for a while and would like to share with you all.

I would think this is a subjective yet sound assessment of the subjective sound assessment. :beerchug: 

post #9909 of 12286
I couldn't resist anymore so uptdated to the 2.14beta and so far I'm really happy with sound quality/signature and response time. Great improvement in both areas!
post #9910 of 12286
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter123 View Post

I couldn't resist anymore so uptdated to the 2.14beta and so far I'm really happy with sound quality/signature and response time. Great improvement in both areas!

:beerchug:

post #9911 of 12286

i really started to doubt my ears, i for one like what fiio is trying to do in their update, but i did a A to B comparison between the modded 2.14b and 2.1 and to me and I hope no one takes it in a negative way, I find that the sound quality in 2.1 is way way way better than 2.14b

 

in 2.1 the sound is more ful and nice bass impact. with 2.14b i find the volume too low and thin and no impact

post #9912 of 12286
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorblader View Post
 

I would think this is a subjective yet sound assessment of the subjective sound assessment. :beerchug: 

in 2.1 i am happy with 25-40 with 2.14 I need to reach 95-100 and still the sound is not as good as in 2.1

 

I think I will stay on 2.1 if that will be the sound signature in the new update, especially after rethinking about having an eq, I realised that using an eq will not work as is the case in most DAP


Edited by hykhleif - 5/8/14 at 1:46pm
post #9913 of 12286

ok, hykhleif now it's beginning to get interesting ;-)

 

I (and so far I guess I was the only one here) also find the sound signature of FW2.05 and FW2.1 better than the actual beta. But first I wanna comment on what you stated: "with 2.14b i find the volume too low and thin and no impact" >> did you use the FW2.14beta including the volume mod?

 

I also experienced, that the 2.1 (and also the 2.05) are more natural sounding, e.g. there is less bass compared to the 2.14beta and overall I think it is more linear over the FQ range. As I stated earlier, the sound sigature of 2.14beta is what I would call "more intimate" with a smooth but not overdone velvety warm blanket over the music, and with -excuse me- much more bass than the previous FWs ;-)).

 

An hour ago I rolled back from 2.14beta to 2.1 and could easily reconfirm my previous experience....at least with my cans I use for testing.

post #9914 of 12286
Cita:
Iniciado por nmatheis Ver Mensaje
 

 

Wow, eso es extraño. Usted tiene la reacción opuesta a la mayoría de nosotros a 2.14b. La mayoría de quienes han pesado en el 2,14 encontrar que es más neutral, con puntos bajos más controlados, altos claros y sonora más amplia.

+1

post #9915 of 12286
Quote:
Originally Posted by droid23 View Post
An hour ago I rolled back from 2.14beta to 2.1 and could easily reconfirm my previous experience....at least with my cans I use for testing.

And that's the whole point, depending on your gear, your ears, your sound signature preferences, your volume levels, your mood and many other factors you'll prefer one sound signature over the other. I think we can all agree that there's a change in sound signature from 2.1 compared to the 2.14beta which has a different gain structure making 120 volume steps possible on the X3 and it might be a one off in that respect, in functionality and sound. ;)

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.