[Light - Man]

  It is precisely my open mind that allows to me to question or comment on the claims or statements made by you. Instead of replying intelligently with evidenced based proof to substantiate your claims you reply with a thinly veiled insult.
 
You have posted those claims in two different threads none of which are in the sound science section. Yes you could discuss it in that section but according to you anybody that questions those claims has a closed mind and there is no point in discussing it further. Who has the closed mind??
 
And I do listen to the music pal. I'm certainly not wondering whether my interconnects are back to front or how many hours burn in my copper cable has whilst doing so.

 
If you want to insult me further please do it via PM.

Oldmate, Thank you for your reply.
 
My reply is a general one to all, my intention is not to insult you or anyone else and I am prepared to debate the subject but as you will know we are told by some self-appointed Head-fi Police not to be going off the subject of the thread and that is the only reason why I said we should debate it elsewhere.
 
I have been into hi-fi for many years starting with the original Sony walkman pro, CD walkman, car/home hi-fi and in recent years DAP's etc.
 
It is a belief by enthusiasts all around the world that equipment and cable burn-in-time does make a difference to the sound and to me for anyone to state factually that it is all nonsense has no right to do so.
 
It is my belief that it is for the non believers to prove us wrong and to prove to us beyond a reasonable doubt that those who believe are wrong (not the other way around)
 
I for example could provide plenty of scientific theory to support my claims but on the other hand - from those who repute our claim - all we get is very little substance other than it's all in your head mate and its is all nonsense.
 
Some people don't seem to realise that it is not the copper conductor etc. that requires burn/run in time but instead it is the insulating dieletric covering to the cable that can cause issues to the signal when the cable is new.
 
An ideal conductor is one that is purly surrounded by air but practically a good cable will have the lowest dielectric constant as possible (but will never be as good as air).
 
Put simply the burn in process saturates the dieletric material with an electrical charge but it is the orientation of the  electrical charge along the cable in relation to the direction of the signal flow that causes the directional effect on the cable (similar to magnetic polarity).
 
If you turn the cable around after burn in you will lose any benefits of burn in.
 
When you buy a good cable what you get is high quality materials and state of the art production processes and they do not have to be expensive.
 
Good fiio cables for example have teflon coated "OCC" Copper (and not PVC like cheaper cables) and are about £10 or $15.
 
BTW I dont like software or hardware based EQ as I believe they degrade the sound and I prefer to choose neutral equipment and hence do not require them.
 
I hope this post will be some help to those who believe in burn-in and equally to those sitting on the fence but eitherway we all have our own opinions and I have no intension in trying to change any one's mind other than to encourage open-mindedness! 

 

[oldmate]

  Oldmate, Thank you for your reply.
 
My reply is a general one to all, my intention is not to insult you or anyone else and I am prepared to debate the subject but as you will know we a told by some self-appointed Head-fi Police not to be going off the subject of the thread and that is the only reason why I said we should debate it elsewhere.

Here ya go mate. Now you can debate it elsewhere. I look forward to your comments.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/771267/cable-burn-in-with-regard-to-audio-directionality

 

[Light - Man]

  Here ya go mate. Now you can debate it elsewhere. I look forward to your comments.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/771267/cable-burn-in-with-regard-to-audio-directionality

Good one! LOL
 
Will post something over the weekend but I fear it could be a very lonely thread.
 
Hopefully not or perhaps hopefully yes - I am not quite sure!

 

[NCSUZoSo]

  3. I'm also getting a "Output Error - Please reconnect earphones" message when I disconnect the headphones. This goes away only with a restart (Using FW 1.11Beta).

 
It is just supposed to pause the music when you disconnect and then start playing again when you reconnect.  The only way to resume play is to restart?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I've been playing with the X3 for a few hours now and I am impressed.
It a robust player, very well built and the hardware feels great when engaged.
The software is surprisingly good, everything looks neat and works tidy.
I'm still discovering the sound to be honest, so I can't comment much on that. But it's a very clean sound, I like.

But, I feel some things could have been better

1. The lock button is painfully hard to get to with a case on, things would be great if we could turn the screen back on by pressing the middle button. (Or, maybe a double press like a double click.)
2. In the Now Playing screen, it would be nice if we had the option to display just the album art, hiding all other info.
3. I'm also getting a "Output Error - Please reconnect earphones" message when I disconnect the headphones. This goes away only with a restart (Using FW 1.11Beta).
EDIT:4. Another feature I forgot to suggest, adding songs to a "now playing" list (kind of like the Golist on the sansas). It is a very handy feature and I would love to see that implemented.

All in all, a great little player.
Good job Fiio!

Hello LikeABell,

Is your X3's NB code (look in System Settings->About X3) also W233b?

If so, I guess it's time to chalk this up as a "known issue" with X3 FW1.11 and advise those with this NB code not to flash this firmware.

Anyway, please reflash 1.1 from here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/03ak4ep2i75p24u/X3%202nd%20gen%20FW1.1.zip?dl=0
while we're sorting out this problem.

Best regards,
Joe

 

[LikeABell]

Hello LikeABell,

Is your X3's NB code (look in System Settings->About X3) also W233b?

If so, I guess it's time to chalk this up as a "known issue" with X3 FW1.11 and advise those with this NB code not to flash this firmware.

Anyway, please reflash 1.1 from here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/03ak4ep2i75p24u/X3%202nd%20gen%20FW1.1.zip?dl=0
while we're sorting out this problem.

Best regards,
Joe

Indeed it is.
 
And thanks for the response. 

 

[JaZZ]

  That is a good point about DSD being processed after recording, I had never thought about that before.  However do we know for sure that DSD is being post processed like that.  I like to read as much as possible on the subject and I'd like find out about DSD mastering and if there is any difference with mastering SA-CDs vs. CDs.  Really the whole premise is supposed to be as little altering as possible from mic to speaker.
 
I do agree it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between the same recording purchased on HDTracks vs. SA-CD.  However that DSD light on my AVR makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, lol.
 
If you have a minute take a listen to the end of this video.  These guys make some interesting points, but I am not sure I follow the comparison about DSD to how a speaker physically works.  If you follow the 0's and 1's analogy then all digital music works like a speaker, haha.
 
BTW we are on topic since we are discussing DSD and not my receiver

 
 
Last edit, if anyone is looking for an affordable way to play DSD to an AVR, check out the Sony BDP-S370/470/570 ($30-$90 on Ebay).  It supports .dff/.dsf files over USB and obviously SA-CD.

 
I'm familiar with the argument of an analogue-like signal shape of DSD – but the linked YouTube video gives just a very rudimentary image of the actual circumstance. It's true that a DAC for DSD signals can – in theory (!) – be very simple, in contrast to one for PCM signals. The main advantage is that there are no converter nonlinearities. The main disadvantage is an enormous amount of noise in the ultrasonic range, which needs to be filtered out to avoid tweeter damages, thus nullifying the advantage of the gigantic bandwidth. Part of the ultrasonic noise is still there, though, and may interact with playback electronics. So I couldn't listen to SACDs with my Stax SRM-Xh amp due to massive interferences. That's why in reality DSD needs a rather complex conversion process far from the theoretical symplicity. Another disadvantage is the large file size due to the 2.8 or 5.6 MHz sampling. Add to this that a signal with a pure sine wave has eight times the sonic energy compared to the PCM equivalent due to the noise content. Something that's rather underestimated is the fact that with DSD64 (2.8224 MHz) the dynamic resolution at 16 kHz is limited to the equivalent of 7.46 bit – since there are only 176 (1-bit) steps disposable (compared to 16,777,216 steps in 24 bit PCM!) –, and this just in the case of pure triangle waves (!). In reality there are rather just 50-60 steps available, or even less. Now noise shaping is said to increase the dynamic range (considered as S/N ratio) – but noise shaping can't recreate missing amplitude values, so the high-frequency resolution is really poor.
 
If it's really true that DSD decoding offers higher sound quality than PCM decoding – at least in lower-quality DACs –, it would be reasonable to store hi-res recordings as PCM and convert them to DSD in the digital domain just before D/A conversion, in the interst of file size. This under the assumption that 98% of the DSD recordings have once been PCM files anyway. The bad news is that every format conversion further increases the noise level.

 

[crafty0121]

 

[dbdynsty25]

Hello LikeABell,

Is your X3's NB code (look in System Settings->About X3) also W233b?

If so, I guess it's time to chalk this up as a "known issue" with X3 FW1.11 and advise those with this NB code not to flash this firmware.

Anyway, please reflash 1.1 from here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/03ak4ep2i75p24u/X3%202nd%20gen%20FW1.1.zip?dl=0
while we're sorting out this problem.

Best regards,
Joe

 
I've got the same issue w/ unplugging the headphones...needs a restart to continue playing.  So yeah, it's common w/ the W233B NB code.

 

[originalsnuffy]

We seem to be veering into tangents about the relative merits of hi res recordings and DSD.  Maybe another thread for FIIO second generation owners discussing these kinds of issues is needed.  I just piped in because I thought it was a bit unfair to expect to see the experience of direct DSD decoding using the scenario of hooking a FIIO to a receiver using the Coax.
 
With regard to the beta firmware, I have only used the unit in the car through the line out so no problems so far.  I suspect given what is going on that I will also have the headphone unplugging issues when I bring the unit back inside.
 
So far the OTG function has been smooth with this firmware, but it is still early in the usage process.  And I mainly use onboard memory; but this is my use case scenario.  I turn to OTG when I feel like going into the deep catalog.

 

[JaZZ]

 
I think I'm well on target, my friend! One of the main sales arguments for the X3 II is DSD decoding, combined with analogue volume control. In this context some people are concerned about the player's unability to output a DSD signal through its coax out – it's converted to PCM. I'm just trying to convince them to not be concerned about it and moreover question the merits of DSD and its file sizes. A legitimate proceeding, if you ask me. I'm sorry if it's too high for some, but it just can't be more simplified.
 
For those not interested in my posts or the subject (or irrecoverably carried away by the DSD hypetrain): just overlook them! It's easy.

 

[dogmusic]

   
98% of the DSD recordings have once been PCM files anyway.

 
I'm not sure that this is true. Much of the catalog I've seen in SACD has been transferred from analog tapes.
 
DSD was invented to archive analog tapes, and the best playback of DSD on the X3ii will always be analog out, either HO or LO.
 
(I'm not aware that the X3ii allows playback via USB out, but someone can correct me on that.)

 

[JaZZ]

  I'm not sure that this is true. Much of the catalog I've seen in SACD has been transferred from analog tapes.
 
DSD was invented to archive analog tapes, and the best playback of DSD on the X3ii will always be analog out, either HO or LO.
 
(I'm not aware that the X3ii allows playback via USB out, but someone can correct me on that.)

 
You may be right about analogue recordings – I had digital recordings in mind. On the other hand: what if the analogue recordings have been remastered to do the «DSD standard» justice? Most likely they've been processed in PCM then.
 
No, the X3 II doesn't output music signals through its USB connection.

 

[dogmusic]

   
what if the analogue recordings have been remastered to do the «DSD standard» justice? Most likely they've been processed in PCM then.
 
 

 
You may be right. But I would think most mastering engineers doing, let's say, a DSD copy of the original final mix of "Aftermath",  would want to keep it in the analog domain. What does the DSD standard justice is the best possible analog tape.
 
That is, unless you are recording in DSD.
 
It's exciting to me that a small portable unit like the X3ii can now play back these new formats and make them available anywhere you want to be.

 

[dogmusic]

   
No, the X3 II doesn't output music signals through its USB connection.

 
I knew that it couldn't output music signals through USB, but I wondered if it could output data so you could connect it to another DAC like the iFi Micro iDSD.