Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Fiio X5 Thread - info updated on Jan 17th 2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fiio X5 Thread - info updated on Jan 17th 2014 - Page 1066

post #15976 of 15985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gangrel View Post
 

Dumb question time.......  It seems that the X5 converts DSD to PCM on the fly based on some posts in this thread.  What rate is this occurring at?

 

If I am listening to the X5 through headphones, is it worth it to get DSD files?  I.e.. will the converted bitrate still be higher than a 24/192 FLAC?  Or is there not much point to getting DSD's (unless you already have them of course and just need a way to play them)

 

 

I didn't check the rate - but this might interest

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

 

I also tried both DAPs with a couple of DSF files I own (Quiles and Cloud).  So the X5 playing converted to PCM, the X3ii playing natively.  I personally didn’t notice a difference in playback – they both sound pretty incredible (they are Blue Coast Records recordings – recommended!).

 

Highlighted bit was from a post in the X3 gen 2 thread comparing it to X5 (part of a bigger post comparison you can access HERE)

post #15977 of 15985
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ternalDr4gon View Post

I want to pair my X5 with a Schiit Lyr amp, but it looks like there is left and right line in jack on the Lyr. What cable do I look into to convert a single line out to duel line in?

You need something like this, 3.5mm to RCA.




Line out from X5 to RCA in on the Lyr
post #15978 of 15985

Digital-to-analogue «conversion» is indeed simpler with DSD, and it avoids the linearity problems some PCM DACs may suffer from. In exchange it's noisy, an issue under suspicion of being responsible for sound corruptions.

 

In any event it's of no use to store digital data as DSD files. Most of them have been PCM files at some point – for editing purposes they have to anyway. So they could be stored in PCM and as such require less space for the same data density. If need be they could still be converted to DSD in the digital domain (by a dedicated DAC) for simpler D/A conversion and for the devotees.

post #15979 of 15985

I forgot to mention: Due to its sampling rate of 2.822 MHz and its 1-bit architecture, DSD64 allows for just 176 amplitude steps per single wave at 16 kHz – the equivalent of 7,46 bit in PCM. And this under one ideal precondition: a pure triangle wave. At 20 Hz there are 141,120 amplitude steps available at best, corresponding to 17,1 bit in PCM.

post #15980 of 15985

Concur.  The big thing with DSD is how it was recorded.  Original DSD recordings were made with the belief that they would sound better because of the DSD process--or so Sony and partners would have had us believe.  If the recording was well made and mixed and not compressed or otherwise foolishly processed it will sound better when played back.  It makes no difference if DSD is converted to PCM first or not.  There is also very little high quality DSD recorded material out there.  Maybe that will change if the market is there.  There's no doubt that good recordings sound better than bad recordings.

 

There's a big discussion of all of this (e.g. HiRes, DSD, etc) in a number of threads over at the sound science sub-forum.  I concur that in principle uncompressed and lossless 16/44.1 plays back as good as humans need to hear everything that's in the music but there are still a lot of Head-fi-ers that can come up with technical reasons why the full resolution of Redbook CD is hard to recreate.  Hence the current interest in DSD which was once thought to be dead.  Many report hearing a difference between CD and HD sound.  Just pointing that out but this is not the place to discuss it.  All I can say is that I have some Chesky CDs that sound as good as a lot of Hi-Res recordings I have paid more for....

post #15981 of 15985
Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioBear View Post

Some have said that burn in for electronics is more our ears becoming accustomed to the electronics rather than the other way around.  I don't want to start another flame war about burn in but after the first few hours (some say minutes) there probably isn't much change in electronics. Tubes may be an exception here because they certainly do wear with time and eventually burn out so it's not unreasonable to expect their sound to change with time.  The heat they put out also has an impact on other components.  Back in the days before solid state, the materials used in electronics may have been more sensitive to the heat put out by tubes.  The concept of burn-in of electronics developed way back then, and is probably true today for tubed devices.

...

Speakers, cans and IEMs are another story.  Being a moving mechanical device they do have to be "broken in"--that doesn't sound good does it?  Mechanical exercise is required to loosen up and stretch all the elastic parts and wear is required to break-in all the moving parts. Every device is different but 100 hrs is a commonly accepted standard for electromechanical transducers.

...

The process of burn-in was originally developed as a tool for manufacturers to weed out weak components before shipping product to customers to reduce warranty costs and maximize profits.
Somehow audiophiles grabbed hold of the concept and decided it had something to do with electronic equipment improving with age.
Tubes and some types of capacitors usually need several hours to settle in, but transistors...I think not.
post #15982 of 15985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris J View Post

The process of burn-in was originally developed as a tool for manufacturers to weed out weak components before shipping product to customers to reduce warranty costs and maximize profits.
Somehow audiophiles grabbed hold of the concept and decided it had something to do with electronic equipment improving with age.
Tubes and some types of capacitors usually need several hours to settle in, but transistors...I think not.

 

Please, let's end this topic here! I don't agree with you, but don't want to argue about it in this thread.

post #15983 of 15985
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post

Please, let's end this topic here! I don't agree with you, but don't want to argue about it in this thread.

OK, let's drop it.
I'm an Electrical Engineer, so it is possible that I may know something about this...but never mind! biggrin.gif
post #15984 of 15985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

 

 

I didn't check the rate - but this might interest

 

 

Highlighted bit was from a post in the X3 gen 2 thread comparing it to X5 (part of a bigger post comparison you can access HERE)

Thanks.  My original question was more on how the X5 handled DSD playback and not a question on the format itself, but I learned a few new things ;)

 

So I guess a good DSD recording is still worth getting, and will sound "better" than the same mastered file rendered as a 24/192 FLAC is what I'm guessing from all the info.  realizing "better" is in the ears of the beholder!

post #15985 of 15985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gangrel View Post
 

Thanks.  My original question was more on how the X5 handled DSD playback and not a question on the format itself, but I learned a few new things ;)

 

So I guess a good DSD recording is still worth getting, and will sound "better" than the same mastered file rendered as a 24/192 FLAC is what I'm guessing from all the info.  realizing "better" is in the ears of the beholder!

 

Nope - IMO actual container has very little to do with it.  It is ALL to do with the mastering of the file.

 

I've taken DSD files and converted to redbook, then ABX'd them - no difference to my ears.

 

And as far as native playback of DSD vs a player converted to PCM on the fly - in my limited test of X3ii vs X5 - there was no real audible difference (not enough to worry about).

 

So whilst some people may say that native is better than converted - I simply don't hear it.

 

YMMV.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Fiio X5 Thread - info updated on Jan 17th 2014