or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The Fiio X5 Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Fiio X5 Thread - Page 242

post #3616 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenTiger View Post
 

So you guys saying WOW etc, is this based off regular 320kpbs MP3/FLAC. Will the X5 benefit most source material or does it have to be HighRes or whatever the gimmick is for more frequency etc

 

First of, read this.

 

Secondly, saying 24/192 is totally useless isn't completely true either. Some of the original mastering and remastered music from HiRes site are better mastered and only available in HiRes format, so getting the 'better' music does make sense. But it has less to do with bitdepth / bitrate and more to do with the mastering technique. With the right mastering, the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 isn't really that big, if at all. But 24/192 decoding still provide some other hardware based benefit that can be positive to SQ, however a bit of clever engineering can make sure the same benefit applies to 16/44.1 material as well. In the end, it really isn't about 16/44.1 vs. 24/192 but good mastering vs. bad mastering and good engineering vs. bad engineering.

post #3617 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post
 

 

This is not an argument that I am going to indulge you on.

 

Ah, but I will:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

 

I seriously love that thread.

post #3618 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by aangen View Post
 
Quote:
For portable use I re-encode to 320kbps in Lame. The X5 does a great job with those files.

An iPod works perfectly well with such files too, but the point of the X3 / X5 is to go beyond mp3. Sigh.
I'm not saying you can't like what you like, but it's sad when people buy sports cars and use them to drive to work only.

The iPod also boasts a feeble headphone out that can't power anything remotely demanding, yet will hiss with most iems. 

 

In a blind test, I don't think I would be able to tell between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, but I do think the difference between the headphone outs would be substantial, or at least much more noticeable. 

post #3619 of 19490
I know the importance lies in the mastering process, didn't mean to sound flippant sorry. Anyways, the X5 seems amazing. Its like getting a E18 and a kickass DAP. It's pretty expensive though, don't know if I feel good using that as a daily use player out and about. Can someone point me in the direction of info for the new X3? That and the X1 might be more aligned with my use case.
post #3620 of 19490

One thing I do like to say about X5 is - it isn't light.: Nano 7G (40g) < X3 (136g) < DX50 (162g) < X5 (216g) < HM901 (259g)

 

...or small, it has the same footprint as HM901, but about 3/5 the thickness.

 

I'll say it is near the edge of what all-in-one DAP maximum size / weight should be. Won't be too portable if it is any noticeably bigger or heavier.

post #3621 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post
 

One thing I do like to say about X5 is - it isn't light.: Nano 7G (40g) < X3 (136g) < DX50 (162g) < X5 (216g) < HM901 (259g)

 

...or small, it has the same footprint as HM901, but about 3/5 the thickness.

 

I'll say it is near the edge of what all-in-one DAP maximum size / weight should be. Won't be too portable if it is any noticeably bigger or heavier.

Good to know.

post #3622 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post
 

 

First of, read this.

 

Secondly, saying 24/192 is totally useless isn't completely true either. Some of the original mastering and remastered music from HiRes site are better mastered and only available in HiRes format, so getting the 'better' music does make sense. But it has less to do with bitdepth / bitrate and more to do with the mastering technique. With the right mastering, the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 isn't really that big, if at all. But 24/192 decoding still provide some other hardware based benefit that can be positive to SQ, however a bit of clever engineering can make sure the same benefit applies to 16/44.1 material as well. In the end, it really isn't about 16/44.1 vs. 24/192 but good mastering vs. bad mastering and good engineering vs. bad engineering.

 

This is a good read.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post
 

 

Ah, but I will:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

 

I seriously love that thread.

 

As is this thread.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 96rubberduckys View Post
 

The iPod also boasts a feeble headphone out that can't power anything remotely demanding, yet will hiss with most iems. 

 

In a blind test, I don't think I would be able to tell between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, but I do think the difference between the headphone outs would be substantial, or at least much more noticeable. 

 

And this is the key point. The X5 raises the bar a fair bit. The headphone out is excellent and that is rare in a DAP.


Edited by cooperpwc - 1/24/14 at 8:50pm
post #3623 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by aangen View Post
 

How fortunate for me.


LOL....that avatar that you use is hilarious.

post #3624 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post
 

 

First of, read this.

 

Secondly, saying 24/192 is totally useless isn't completely true either. Some of the original mastering and remastered music from HiRes site are better mastered and only available in HiRes format, so getting the 'better' music does make sense. But it has less to do with bitdepth / bitrate and more to do with the mastering technique. With the right mastering, the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 isn't really that big, if at all. But 24/192 decoding still provide some other hardware based benefit that can be positive to SQ, however a bit of clever engineering can make sure the same benefit applies to 16/44.1 material as well. In the end, it really isn't about 16/44.1 vs. 24/192 but good mastering vs. bad mastering and good engineering vs. bad engineering.


Yes...this post is certainly true as some of my FLAC CD 16/44.1 rips seem to sound just as good as my hi res 24/192 downloads from HDTracks.

post #3625 of 19490

I was totally happy with my LAME encoded (extreme mode,V0 VBR) mp3's on my 160 GB Apple iPods running to a Fiio E7. I know that many believe 320K CBR is better than VBR anything and I won't argue the fact, I'll buy it. You win. I just wanted to have as much music in my hands as I could carry. Then I bought an X3 and a 64 GB card and filled it with FLAC files created from CD Rips I personally made. I heard a difference, a very nice difference, and then some. But to go from 160 GB of everything to 64 GB of just a few things was too painful. So when I heard I could get 128 GB on the X3 I jumped at it. There are two songs on my X3 that are not FLACs and that is because I never had access to a FLAC or CD source for them. Otherwise it's all 16/44 loss-less, thank you very much. I hear and very much appreciate the difference. I have not mentioned 24/192 because I am one step up and enjoying it. Please don't make my 5400 songs 540 songs with infinite black backgrounds. Please, I beg you. I listen in random mode using the entire device as a source, it's my personal radio station and it plays all my favorite songs. (with no annoying chatter)

 

I am drinking the Koolaid and it tastes marvelous. I can't wait to swap the little X3 for a heavier and more expensive X5. It can keep my three iPods company in the laundry room.

 

I have one question that it appears too many of you will answer soon: How many 128K mp3's can you fit on an X5?  ;)

post #3626 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by aangen View Post

I was totally happy with my LAME encoded (extreme mode,V0 VBR) mp3's on my 160 GB Apple iPods running to a Fiio E7. I know that many believe 320K CBR is better than VBR anything and I won't argue the fact, I'll buy it. You win. I just wanted to have as much music in my hands as I could carry. Then I bought an X3 and a 64 GB card and filled it with FLAC files created from CD Rips I personally made. I heard a difference, a very nice difference, and then some. But to go from 160 GB of everything to 64 GB of just a few things was too painful. So when I heard I could get 128 GB on the X3 I jumped at it. There are two songs on my X3 that are not FLACs and that is because I never had access to a FLAC or CD source for them. Otherwise it's all 16/44 loss-less, thank you very much. I hear and very much appreciate the difference. I have not mentioned 24/192 because I am one step up and enjoying it. Please don't make my 5400 songs 540 songs with infinite black backgrounds. Please, I beg you. I listen in random mode using the entire device as a source, it's my personal radio station and it plays all my favorite songs. (with no annoying chatter)

I am drinking the Koolaid and it tastes marvelous. I can't wait to swap the little X3 for a heavier and more expensive X5. It can keep my three iPods company in the laundry room.

I have one question that it appears too many of you will answer soon: How many 128K mp3's can you fit on an X5?  wink.gif
X5has 2 TF slots that each can support 128GB officially. So each 128GB card can hold 32,000 songs with 128kbps bit rate that makes a total of 64,000 songs on both. X5 doesnt have internal memory to store a single song on its own.
post #3627 of 19490

From the same article suggested by ClieOS:

 

Quote:
It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate. But what of badly encoded files?

 

I rip everything lossless and that is what I have on my 2TB hard drive at home to feed Foobar. Why compress when storage is essentially limitless? I also re-encode everything to 320kbps MP3s using the latest iteration of the Lame encoder. This is what the author refers to as "properly encoded". For my purposes, these files are suitable for portable use and can fully air out the capabilities of a good DAP and IEMs. That's me.

post #3628 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperpwc View Post
 

From the same article suggested by ClieOS:

 

Quote:
It's true enough that a properly encoded Ogg file (or MP3, or AAC file) will be indistinguishable from the original at a moderate bitrate. But what of badly encoded files?

 

I rip everything lossless and that is what I have on my 2TB hard drive at home to feed Foobar. Why compress when storage is essentially limitless? I also re-encode everything to 320kbps MP3s using the latest iteration of the Lame encoder. This is what the author refers to as "properly encoded". For my purposes, these files are suitable for portable use and can fully air out the capabilities of a good DAP and IEMs. That's me.

And the one difference between you and me is I did V0 VBR instead of 320K CBR. Otherwise I have multiple 2 TB drives for my FLAC files. I have one for the main computer, one plugged into my Oppo 105, one at my lake home, and two for backup. (Ripping right takes a ton of time.) But I'm doing FLAC from now on for portable use. I deserve it.

post #3629 of 19490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn71 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by aangen View Post

Your math dodges the reality of song length, but you appear headed  for nothing good soon.

??? Is your comments for my reply? Clarify.

Your calculations for how many songs the X5 can hold is flawed in that it doesn't take into account that song lengths (time) varies. Is that clearer? The last sentence was just a dumb poke. Speaking of dumb pokes, how's your Oh never mind.... wink.gif
post #3630 of 19490

The two primary (psychological) afflictions of head-fiers:

 

1. Upgrade-itus

 

2. Know-it-all-itus

 

This thread has both in spades.

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 X5 Thread