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 488

post #7306 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptravel View Post
 

Is there controversy?  No -- FLAC (and any compressed audio file, e.g. ALAC or WAV) will sound better on a high-res device like the X5 (assuming you're using decent phones or in-ear monitors, and not some $5 piece of garbage).

You mean un-compressed?

post #7307 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptravel View Post
 

....FLAC (and any compressed audio file, e.g. ALAC or WAV) will sound better on a high-res device like the X5 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiascogarcia View Post
 

You mean un-compressed?

 

Yes and no or 50/50...

 

ALAC is compressed: Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

 

WAV is not compressed:  Ref:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

post #7308 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by burtomr View Post
 

 

Yes and no or 50/50...

 

ALAC is compressed: Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

 

WAV is not compressed:  Ref:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

Yeah, this is where the "can you hear it or not" issue gets a little sketchy for me, because I would be hard pressed to tell you that I can hear the difference between ALAC and WAV, AIFF, or Flac, and I have tracks of all of them.  But, we digress.  On to the X5!


Edited by fiascogarcia - 4/20/14 at 1:34pm
post #7309 of 19484

I menat 

Quote:
Originally Posted by burtomr View Post
 

 

@ptravel 

 

FYI - WAV is not compressed.

I wasn't thinking -- I meant to write, "lossless."  Thanks for letting me know.

post #7310 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by angeche View Post

My friend is a telecom engineer but yes, he is wrong.....

Why would a telecom engineer be wrong?
It's like saying a lawyer doesn't know anything about law. confused_face_2.gif
Or a baker doesn't know how to bake bread. redface.gif

Hey, just askin'
post #7311 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiascogarcia View Post
 

Yeah, this is where the "can you hear it or not" issue gets a little sketchy for me, because I would be hard pressed to tell you that I can hear the difference between ALAC and WAV, AIFF, or Flac, and I have tracks of all of them.  But, we digress.  On to the X5!

 

Agreed, if the un-compressing/playback is correctly executed by the processor (DAC) you shouldn't hear any difference. 

post #7312 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by angeche View Post


My friend is a telecom engineer but yes, he is wrong.....

That's right -- he's wrong.  What has telecom engineering to do with high-end audio?

post #7313 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptravel View Post
 

That's right -- he's wrong.  What has telecom engineering to do with high-end audio?

 

It means he understands how data is packaged, similar to how my decade of technical computer experience shows me that there is truly no statistical difference between a LAME encoded MP3 file and any "lossless" format. Any difference you think you hear is from differences in volume on your player, or you're just not comparing the original file to the one you converted. You can't buy a track from HDTracks and expect it to sound the same as the one from CD, because those HDTracks files are mastered differently. 

 

The difference between a 16 bit and a 24 bit file is a bunch of null bits. 

 

In my experience, a DAC is a DAC, and a DAP is a DAP. There may be slight tuning differences, but the final result is always within one standard deviation or less. Focus the bulk of your money on better headphones or better mastered music files if SQ is your main goal. The most you'll get from a DAP is better "synergy". That's why you see the word touted around here so much. It's matching the slightly different sound signatures of these different DAPs to the iems you use. If your iem is too dark, a slightly brighter DAP would suit you more.

 

IMO, a Clip+ is absolutely as good as a HM-901, X5, ZX1 or whatever else is out there when it comes to pure sound quality. Driving power is the difference maker.

post #7314 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

It means he understands how data is packaged, similar to how my decade of technical computer experience shows me that there is truly no statistical difference between a LAME encoded MP3 file and any "lossless" format. Any difference you think you hear is from differences in volume on your player, or you're just not comparing the original file to the one you converted. You can't buy a track from HDTracks and expect it to sound the same as the one from CD, because those HDTracks files are mastered differently. 

The difference between a 16 bit and a 24 bit file is a bunch of null bits. 

In my experience, a DAC is a DAC, and a DAP is a DAP. There may be slight tuning differences, but the final result is always within one standard deviation or less. Focus the bulk of your money on better headphones or better mastered music files if SQ is your main goal. The most you'll get from a DAP is better "synergy". That's why you see the word touted around here so much. It's matching the slightly different sound signatures of these different DAPs to the iems you use. If your iem is too dark, a slightly brighter DAP would suit you more.

IMO, a Clip+ is absolutely as good as a HM-901, X5, ZX1 or whatever else is out there when it comes to pure sound quality. Driving power is the difference maker.

This is a soggy mess.
I would think a telecom engineer knows more than any of us here.
OTOH, an MP3 file is not supposed to sound the same as a lossless file.
It's like saying a low bit rate JPEG file is the same as a RAW file.

We're getting so far off topic that the mods are going to break some bones....
post #7315 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptravel View Post
 

Is there controversy?  No -- FLAC (and any lossless audio file, e.g. ALAC or WAV) will sound better on a high-res device like the X5 (assuming you're using decent phones or in-ear monitors, and not some $5 piece of garbage).

 

You should check out the sound science forum. Plenty of research out there that proves otherwise (that our ears CAN'T hear the difference between FLAC and 192 kb MP3s).


Edited by pachoo5 - 4/20/14 at 3:07pm
post #7316 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post
 

 

 my decade of technical computer experience shows me that there is truly no statistical difference between a LAME encoded MP3 file and any "lossless" format.

 

Umm, throwing away about 7/8th of the sound information shows no statistical difference? I guess a jpg heavily compressed picture has all the info of the original as well?

post #7317 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewH13 View Post
 

 

Umm, throwing away about 7/8th of the sound information shows no statistical difference? I guess a jpg heavily compressed picture has all the info of the original as well?

 

That doesn't matter if our ears can't tell the difference. Our ears aren't perfect tools, not even close. 

post #7318 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewH13 View Post
 

 

Umm, throwing away about 7/8th of the sound information shows no statistical difference? I guess a jpg heavily compressed picture has all the info of the original as well?

 

And there is the problem with the current paradigm. There is no sound information lost at all..in a 320kbps file.

 

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

 

I'm a photographer myself. In some sense, the only difference between a JPEG and RAW file is editing headroom. 

 

You're right. This is getting OT.

post #7319 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post
 

 

It means he understands how data is packaged,similar to how my decade of technical computer experience shows me that there is truly no statistical difference between a LAME encoded MP3 file and any "lossless" format. Any difference you think you hear is from differences in volume on your player, or you're just not comparing the original file to the one you converted. You can't buy a track from HDTracks and expect it to sound the same as the one from CD, because those HDTracks files are mastered differently. 

 

The difference between a 16 bit and a 24 bit file is a bunch of null bits. 

 

In my experience, a DAC is a DAC, and a DAP is a DAP. There may be slight tuning differences, but the final result is always within one standard deviation or less. Focus the bulk of your money on better headphones or better mastered music files if SQ is your main goal. The most you'll get from a DAP is better "synergy". That's why you see the word touted around here so much. It's matching the slightly different sound signatures of these different DAPs to the iems you use. If your iem is too dark, a slightly brighter DAP would suit you more.

 

IMO, a Clip+ is absolutely as good as a HM-901, X5, ZX1 or whatever else is out there when it comes to pure sound quality. Driving power is the difference maker.

Telecommunications, by definition, is about packaging as much data as possible into as little bandwidth as possible.  It has nothing to do with achieving the highest quality audio reproduction.

 

Your technical computer experience demonstrates how specialization in a related area doesn't imply knowledge of a specific field.  The difference between 16-bit and 24-bit audio is in the noise floor and dynamic range.

 

I don't buy tracks from HD tracks.  I have my own home studio and track, mix and master at 96K/32-bit.  I'd do it all at 192K, but on my budget, I can't afford the gear.  The reason I (and every commercial recording studio) use high sampling rates and bit depth is to avoid rounding errors and losing harmonics generated by frequencies above human hearing.  Those harmonics translate to instrumental texture.

 

You're right about one thing: a poorly mastered recording won't sound much different at 44.1K/16-bit or 192K/24-bit.  However, a well-mastered one most certainly does.  You're also right that a lot of it is personal preference:  That Dr. Dre can build a viable business model on crappy headphones that overemphasize bass for an audience that listens to hiphop -- primarily vocals over over-driven bass -- proves that point.

 

However, none of this has anything to do with whether there is a perceivable difference between MP3 and FLAC, i.e. lossy versus lossless.  Given a high-quality DAC, there most certainly is.  Will everyone hear the difference?  Probably not, depending on what someone is used to listening to.  On genres like jazz, classical, opera, etc., the difference is pretty clear.  Try some experiments yourself and you'll see.

post #7320 of 19484
Quote:
Originally Posted by pachoo5 View Post
 

 

You should check out the sound science forum. Plenty of research out there that proves otherwise (that our ears CAN'T hear the difference between FLAC and 192 kb MP3s).

No offense, but I don't get my information on audio science from web forums.

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