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 630

post #9436 of 19524

Question for the FiiO guys here..

 

Are there plans for a 1/8 to RCA high quality Coax cable for use with the X5?  It wound be great not to use the (cheap) adaptor.

 

To everyone else..

 

Has anyone tried to take a regular Coax cable and add a 1/8 mono plug.  I'm thinking of getting an AudioQuest Cinnamon cable, cutting of the end and soldering a 1/8 plug on it.  Would that work?

 

OK.. I'm a little anal and would like a decent cable to hook up the X5 to my DAC.

post #9437 of 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by x RELIC x View Post



The large bit depth (word length) and sample rate are what is in studio masters for headroom. There is a lot more information in 24bit/192kHz and DSD than in 16bit/44.1 lossless (CD redbook standard) and that's where the headroom is. I find 16/44.1 lossless perfectly acceptable but going to lossy there is a clear and distinct difference. Just like a photograph or video (pixels/color depth vs bits/sample rate), when info is lost it's not going to come back.

 

 

I also do a lot of photography work. Ever shot with a 46 megapixel Foveon sensor? What about medium format cameras?

 

 

This is the major misconception in audio. There is no extra info in these larger files. Even if there were, 16/44 covers more than the human ear is capable of picking up.

 

I'll not have this argument personally, as it'll just be deja vu for me. There are plenty of threads here on the site that show you how to test for yourself. And lol at DSD.

post #9438 of 19524

What I will add though, is that I have the X5 here with me, playing DSD files, and I've used it with several TOTL phones like the 1plus2 and ASG-2. I've compared it with other TOTL DAPs, plus the Geek 450 from Light Harmonic, which I think destroys everything in the DAP realm (slight exaggeration warning).

 

My thoughts aren't based on conjecture.

post #9439 of 19524
Thanks so much for your replies smily_headphones1.gif hopefully this doesn't overly hijack the thread woops. But to answer you, yes the bulk of my songs are lossless cd rips, and a lot of my test tracks are in very well recorded and mastered tracks. So yes while it may be my first DAP, I would like to point out that I actually took care to ensure that every step of the way is decent. While I personally feel that 320kbps mp3s are very fantastic already, for the purpose if an objective evaluation, i used high res and 16 bit files.

My setup is as follows.

Fiio x5>pico slim/rsa shadow>dita the answer.

With this setup, yes I find that my music is astounding.

However, straight out of the x5 to my ditas, the difference when compared to the iphone 5 is much more slight. And I don't believe for a moment that the ditas are not revealing enough for the x5. Yes there is a difference, but i feel that the addition if a good external amp would give a larger improvement than simply changing to the x5 smily_headphones1.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by x RELIC x View Post

Not spreading misinformation and the comparison is not garbage. WAV, ALAC, FLAC, AIFF 16/44.1 CD quality lossless are the same as locking the adjustments and still provide a level of file size compression (except WAV) similar to zip or rar file compression. Conversion to mp3/AAC 320 lossy dumps information to accommodate even smaller file sizes at the expense of lost information. High resolution 24bit/48kHz and up, and DSD, are Master Studio Quality with extra information for headroom.

Here are the relative comparisons to clarify:

I edited my previous post to reflect a little closer to what I mean to say, which is well mastered music vs poorly mastered as well as lossless and lossy. In that regard the video comparison is spot on. A poorly shot video (ISO, Aperture, etc.) looks like crap on highly resolving displays. Even poorly shot film content looks bad. However, I've seen a lot of highly compressed HD footage in my career and the fact is when you lose information you see artifacts and it's not as realistic. On a less resolving display you don't notice it, just like with audio but much harder to articulate.

Same with JPEG and RAW. Again, for a living, I deal with a lot of photography and have shot both (ever use a Spheron camera for the film industry?) and I can pick out the differences quite readily. The differences aren't huge and are mostly how the camera's processor interprets the RAW data when creating the JPEG which may lead to more chroma noise or slightly blown out highlights or fringing or extra sharpening in the JPEG. Computer software handles this translation from RAW much better than most cameras. Lossy audio is like low/medium quality JPEG vs high quality JPEG (huge difference). Raw vs high quality JPEG is like the difference between studio masters and lossless CD quality audio (small, difficult to tell difference).

When I convert to lossy for storage concerns the music loses some of its realism and life, plain and simple. Information is being lost (lossy). Im not saying all lossy music sounds like crap, just that the differences from less resolving players to the X5 are smaller with lossy files because you can't hear nuances that aren't there.

The large bit depth (word length) and sample rate are what is in studio masters for headroom. There is a lot more information in 24bit/192kHz and DSD than in 16bit/44.1 lossless (CD redbook standard) and that's where the headroom is. I find 16/44.1 lossless perfectly acceptable but going to lossy there is a clear and distinct difference. Just like a photograph or video (pixels/color depth vs bits/sample rate), when info is lost it's not going to come back.

The comments that the X5 shows little improvement (or sounds worse) leads me to believe that the music being fed to it isn't well mastered or lossy or both and the X5 is just revealing this or the headphones can't resolve the details (headphone sound signature not part of this equation). The whole point was that the X5 can't fix the entire chain from source to headphones and the expectations that it will be the only upgrade needed for the best quality sound is somewhat a little too hopeful (if the rest of the audio chain isn't up to snuff). That's the cold reality of Head fi and newcomers should know this. I wish I did because it would have saved me a lot of time and money.
post #9440 of 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by x RELIC x View Post
 
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Not spreading misinformation and the comparison is not garbage. WAV, ALAC, FLAC, AIFF 16/44.1 CD quality lossless are the same as locking the adjustments and still provide a level of file size compression (except WAV) similar to zip or rar file compression. Conversion to mp3/AAC 320 lossy dumps information to accommodate even smaller file sizes at the expense of lost information. High resolution 24bit/48kHz and up, and DSD, are Master Studio Quality with extra information for headroom.

Here are the relative comparisons to clarify:

I edited my previous post to reflect a little closer to what I mean to say, which is well mastered music vs poorly mastered as well as lossless and lossy. In that regard the video comparison is spot on. A poorly shot video (ISO, Aperture, etc.) looks like crap on highly resolving displays. Even poorly shot film content looks bad. However, I've seen a lot of highly compressed HD footage in my career and the fact is when you lose information you see artifacts and it's not as realistic. On a less resolving display you don't notice it, just like with audio but much harder to articulate.

Same with JPEG and RAW. Again, for a living, I deal with a lot of photography and have shot both (ever use a Spheron camera for the film industry?) and I can pick out the differences quite readily. The differences aren't huge and are mostly how the camera's processor interprets the RAW data when creating the JPEG which may lead to more chroma noise or slightly blown out highlights or fringing or extra sharpening in the JPEG. Computer software handles this translation from RAW much better than most cameras. Lossy audio is like low/medium quality JPEG vs high quality JPEG (huge difference). Raw vs high quality JPEG is like the difference between studio masters and lossless CD quality audio (small, difficult to tell difference).

When I convert to lossy for storage concerns the music loses some of its realism and life, plain and simple. Information is being lost (lossy). Im not saying all lossy music sounds like crap, just that the differences from less resolving players to the X5 are smaller with lossy files because you can't hear nuances that aren't there.

The large bit depth (word length) and sample rate are what is in studio masters for headroom. There is a lot more information in 24bit/192kHz and DSD than in 16bit/44.1 lossless (CD redbook standard) and that's where the headroom is. I find 16/44.1 lossless perfectly acceptable but going to lossy there is a clear and distinct difference. Just like a photograph or video (pixels/color depth vs bits/sample rate), when info is lost it's not going to come back.

The comments that the X5 shows little improvement (or sounds worse) leads me to believe that the music being fed to it isn't well mastered or lossy or both and the X5 is just revealing this or the headphones can't resolve the details (headphone sound signature not part of this equation). The whole point was that the X5 can't fix the entire chain from source to headphones and the expectations that it will be the only upgrade needed for the best quality sound is somewhat a little too hopeful (if the rest of the audio chain isn't up to snuff). That's the cold reality of Head fi and newcomers should know this. I wish I did because it would have saved me a lot of time and money.

 

 

x Relic x - I'm definitely not wanting to take this off-topic, nor wanting to be a prat - but have you actually tested this via blind ABX, volume matched, with a proper sample?

 

It's not about gear.  It's not about the mastering - it's about the audible difference in the container.

 

IE take a 24/96 master (make it 24/192 if you want).  Transcode to aac256 lossy using a good transcoder.  You now have the original + a lossy copy of that original.  Now ABX - volume match first using replay gain.  Aim for 15 iterations.  Record the results.  Here is a how-to:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/655879/setting-up-an-abx-test-simple-guide-to-ripping-tagging-transcoding

 

I've yet to find anyone who can tell the difference if everything is transcoded properly.

 

I agree though - if the lossy copies are from different source to the high res (ie iTunes vs Blue Coast Records), then the difference is usually the mastering.  So you're not comparing the same source.  And unfortunately for us - a lot of the lower res recordings are crippled compared to the higher res offerings on some sites (this is not always the case though).

 

For me personally - I'm very happy to take the best master copy I have, and for my portable transcode to HQ lossy.  I can't tell the difference.  Most people can't.  Have yet to see anyone agree to an independent test to prove they can (sadly).

 

I think this is what Eke was getting at.

post #9441 of 19524
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

it's about the audible difference in the container.

That's the biggest point of contention really around these parts of the net, it seems... There is no doubt there is loss in "information" when you go from lossless to lossy. The question is whether this loss is audible to human beings. I've done 192Khz vs 96Khz vs 44.1KHz(all combinations) lossless abx tests. I've done 16bit vs 24bit lossless test... I couldn't consistently differentiate between them in any of those tests. The only tests I've done in which I was able to successfully differentiate between the samples was 128kbps/192kbps mp3s and 16bit 44.1KHz flacs.

post #9442 of 19524

Yep - try it again with aac256 - and you'll see why iTunes use it for their library ;).

 

I just wish it was easy to find the best mastering - that's where the real searching becomes time consuming.

post #9443 of 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

Yep - try it again with aac256 - and you'll see why iTunes use it for their library ;).

 

I just wish it was easy to find the best mastering - that's where the real searching becomes time consuming.

 

It can be a fun an rewarding experience though. Definitely opened my eyes some time ago.

post #9444 of 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post
 

Yep - try it again with aac256 - and you'll see why iTunes use it for their library ;).

 

I just wish it was easy to find the best mastering - that's where the real searching becomes time consuming.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post
 

 

It can be a fun an rewarding experience though. Definitely opened my eyes some time ago.

I am currently in the process of transitioning to well mastered music. I've been finding new and exciting music thanks to that search, but I've also been noticing more and more how horribly recorded and mastered some of my favourite music is.

post #9445 of 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by pe3ucTop View Post
 

 

 

I am currently in the process of transitioning to well mastered music. I've been finding new and exciting music thanks to that search, but I've also been noticing more and more how horribly recorded and mastered some of my favourite music is.

 

Yep that is one of the biggest issues I had/have. That is why I went back and rooted out most of the garbage music that I had from the early 90s to before then. There is good quality to be had in the originals. It is the remasters that are usually sh#t. I've only found a handful of remasters that were actually good, and had good dynamic range. That's a rarity to find today. But most of the music mastered in the late 90s til now, fat chance. You get what you get. Garbage in, garbage out. Not to say that I hate all new music. But the quality isn't there for the most part. Adel is a very good example of that, the mastering is atrocious and ruins an otherwise very good singers music.


Edited by lee730 - 5/18/14 at 10:05pm
post #9446 of 19524
I appreciate what you guys are saying. Sorry if I stirred the pot. Not trying to and it seems my main point was lost in the age old compression debate. I know I'm right on the technicalities, but whether the differences are actually heard with lossy I feel is a personal matter.

My personal blind testing: (Click to show)
I dunno if it counts, but earlier in my head fi journey I converted a selection of songs from lossless cd rips to lossy (using iTunes to 320kbps AAC) and I, personally, could hear a difference. The lossy sounded less realistic, slightly veiled. It was blind in the sense that I was just skipping through the songs on the same player and listening for the differences, without looking, over and over again until I didn't know which version I was skipping to. Most of the time I could pick it out. Not sure if this qualifies as a test for the general community but it seemed clear to me. I've stuck with 16/44.1 lossless since then. I respect your work Brooko on the double blind test and I may get around to it. Thanks for the link. IMO a good master really is the biggest factor in SQ, as I've said many times before. Believe me, I have some terribly mastered lossless files that sound horrendous.

I agree that above 16/44.1 lossless the differences I hear are of no concern, if I do hear anything at all (specific to the file type and not the master quality).

I'll also wager that some people new to audiophile DAPs may still be using highly compressed 128-192kbps files, or poorly mastered music, so they need to know that will be a weak link. The X5 will reveal this easily. I've spent considerable time finding well mastered music and it has made the biggest difference.

And again, my main point specific to newcomers is not the sample rate and compression but the whole chain from file, to player, to DAC, to amp, to headphones that makes music REALLY sing. My bad for including lossy vs lossless.

Re: Photography (Click to show)
I've had an interest in Foveon sensors since around 2003 (interesting approach. Definitely more like film). Never had the need to shoot medium format but the Spheron is very useful for capturing environments and integration with live plates for CGI work. It's basically shooting with 26 f-stops embedded in one image. Tons of information that's is actually very useful for its specialized purpose.

Check it out it's really cool if you're interested:

https://www.spheron.com/products/cgi-computer-generated-imagery.html

Sorry for the de-rail. Back to X5.
post #9447 of 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH23 View Post

If anyone's still looking for a sandisk 64GB micro SD card for not much money, check ibood.com (europe only i think)

I buy stuff from them occasionally, and i know they're reputable.

 

This is the Mobile Ultra version of the Sandisk. Amazon shows it as a slower class 6 card, but iBood advert shows class 10. Class 6 may well be fast enough anyway, just pointing out it is not the regular card.

post #9448 of 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewH13 View Post

This is the Mobile Ultra version of the Sandisk. Amazon shows it as a slower class 6 card, but iBood advert shows class 10. Class 6 may well be fast enough anyway, just pointing out it is not the regular card.

I think amazon is wrong, newegg shows it to be class 10, as do other websites?
post #9449 of 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH23 View Post


I think amazon is wrong, newegg shows it to be class 10, as do other websites?

The picture at ibood shows the old version which doesn't have UHS-I, but the text describes the new version which does. My guess is that they've re-used the old graphic not noticing the difference.

post #9450 of 19524
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH23 View Post


I think amazon is wrong, newegg shows it to be class 10, as do other websites?

Think you are correct but there is a bit of confusion. Just found this on Sandisk forum as I was wondering why release a similar card?

 

Re: Difference between Mobile Ultra and Ultra?

 

‎08-29-2012 04:12 PM

Believe the Ultra is a Class 10 and the Mobile Ultra is Class 6

 
‎10-03-2012 09:05 AM
http://www.amazon.com/Sandisk-Mobile-Microsdxc-Memory-Adapter/dp/B007JTKM30/ref=sr_1_5?s=electronics... this amazon seller is selling mobile ultra class 10. and if you search on amazon, you get various versions all looking different with different packaging. it makes it not very assuring as i'm sure there are fakes out there, especially if you sell class 6 as class 10.
 
 
No difference between both from class or speed the only thing is mobile ultra is with sandisk memory zone and the other not, you can download the app from playstore that's it i think.
 
 
 
 
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