[bowei006]

Quote:

Ah man I just posted and refreshed and you give me an entire new post of good quality info! I'm heading home from work right now but I'll definitely look into this. Really interesting and cool stuff.
 
It's crazy man, I can't keep up with all the info right now

(but I really do appreciate all of it and will read it). 
 
It's funny because right when I was thinking "What is 96KHz and 192KHz?" you give me a whole description to read haha.
 
Thanks again for all the help.

Some that believe in snake oil may not agree with me (I am succeptable to snake oil as well) or others that swear they have had a life changing even by switching form USB to optical but really... most of it is ALL IN YOUR HEAD.....

 

[Brooko]

Bowei
 
Hate to burst your bubble - but you might want to do some reading.  As far as the cable goes - the basic design of RCA analogue and digital coax is the same - 2 wires - using RCA plugs.  The cables you showed a few posts ago can be used for either digital or analogue.  Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_connector
 
Often the difference is in the shielding used.  Try it.  get a "supposedly" analogue RCA cable and send a digital signal through it via coax.
 
Second - you might want to learn a little more about 16 vs 24bit.  At it's simplest - the advantage is only lowering the noise floor.  Anyway - here is a good thread on-it from both sides.  Worth a read:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
 
Sorry - not trying to have a crack at you or anything - but the stuff on the previous pages you posted isn't correct.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

Bowei
 
Hate to burst your bubble - but you might want to do some reading.  As far as the cable goes - the basic design of RCA analogue and digital coax is the same - 2 wires - using RCA plugs.  The cables you showed a few posts ago can be used for either digital or analogue.  Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA_connector
 
Often the difference is in the shielding used.  Try it.  get a "supposedly" analogue RCA cable and send a digital signal through it via coax.
 
Second - you might want to learn a little more about 16 vs 24bit.  At it's simplest - the advantage is only lowering the noise floor.  Anyway - here is a good thread on-it from both sides.  Worth a read:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded
 
Sorry - not trying to have a crack at you or anything - but the stuff on the previous pages you posted isn't correct.

I did say they were of same design. They use the same connector but last I remembered the component RCA cable usually found in homes can not be used for a digital coaxil one that also looks very similar due to the same RCA connector that it uses.
 
I was actually thinking if a regular component Analog Component RCA cable could send a digital signal but am just following specs. I do not have an coaxil output on my devices right now so I can't do it and try.
 
We have done different readings on dynamic range. I have actually read that article. Back when I came to head-fi really but my understanding and reading up on it stays with what I have now simplified. I didn't really go into dynamic range. I was only on the principle that to not lose bits of data due to volume control, you should max it out and use E17 to control it. I didn't get into resolution.
 
This was about it on resolution:
 
 

16bit is a number that represents the dynamic range. 16 bit X 6 =96dB noise floor. 24bit isnt "better" so much as it allows for a higher noise floor of 144 dB(24 X 6) which js great for old recordings and classical music that has many instruments that want to go past 96dB. There are higher dynamic ranges but at the moment arent popular.

And I did say that there were minor inacuracies. However I have followed Rik and done some reading leading me to believe, like you have from yours that some recordings (classical which I did mention) can benefit from 24bit.
 
What have I posted that is all in my opinion that is incorrect?

 

[ClieOS]

In very short distance, normal analog RCA cable and digital coax doesn't show a lot of difference. The key is when it gets longer - digital audio signal can go from 44kHz to 192kHz (they are the same as their sampling rate), so it is much faster than analog signal and essentially making the cable a RF antenna - not only a lot of energy is lost during the transmission but you need to deal with RF interference as well as standing wave issue (the electronic wave bouncing back and forth along the cable). That is why digital cable needs to be 75ohm rated (to reducing standing wave) and fully shielded (to cut down RF leak as well as interference) in a coax configuration. Using an RCA connector rated at 75ohm is just because it is naturally shielded in coax design and common to find. You don't actually need to use RCA connector. Any coax connector that is 75ohm rated can be used.

So analog RCA cable is not the same as digital coax, and there are good reasons why you should use digital coax for digital audio.But at a pinch, you can probably get away with using analog RCA cable for digital audio.

 

[Brooko]

• Analogue RCA and digital coax are same thing.  RCA plugs.  Two separate wires.  It's why some people even use them a speaker wire set-ups.
   
  

  Don't mistake it for an component RCA cable! They look very very very similar and the more "pro" versions almost look identical! Pro RCA cables and digital coaxil ones LOOK VERY SIMILAR. Except RCA is analog and Digital Coaxil......is unsuprisingly digital! >_< why is this? They both use the RCA connector standard......... regular component RCA cables are easy as they are colored and weak looking.....the more "pro" ones that are component look almost the same!

  
   
• And this:
   
  

  Also keep in mind that if you are not using WASAPI or ASIO, using and setting it on 24bit is a bit important sonically. 
  <snip>
  16bit is considered the bare minimum and we humans can hear it

  
  Actually the reason they use 16bit is that theoretically anything of more resolution is beyond our sonic ability to discern.  It's all about the noise floor as I understand it.  If people do want to use 24bit - then go for it.  I do - but it's because I've got some 24/96 recordings from HD-tracks and other sources - purchased because I couldn't get the 16/44.1 equivalents, or because the remastering si supposed to be better.  Yes I suppose I could downsample to 16 bit - but I have 24bit capability so it's no biggie.  Telling someone it's important sonically to use 24bit over 16bit is the bit I found strange.
  
  Often you'll find better recordings in 24bit - but that's because they've often been carefully remastered (targeted toward the discerning audio lover).  That doesn't mean that 24bit is necessarily sonically discernable (ie if you had the same remastering in both 24 and 16 bit - I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference by listening).

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

In very short distance, normal analog RCA cable and digital coax doesn't show a lot of difference. The key is when it gets longer - digital audio signal can go from 44kHz to 192kHz (they are the same as their sampling rate), so it is much faster than analog signal and essentially making the cable a RF antenna - not only a lot of energy is lost during the transmission but you need to deal with RF interference as well as standing wave issue (the electronic wave bouncing back and forth along the cable). That is why digital cable needs to be 75ohm rated (to reducing standing wave) and fully shielded (to cut down RF leak as well as interference) in a coax configuration. Using an RCA connector rated at 75ohm is just because it is natural shielded in coax design and common to find. You don't actually need to use RCA connector. Any coax connector that is 75ohm rated can be used.
So analog RCA cable is not the same as digital coax, and there are good reasons why you should use digital coax for digital audio.But at a pinch, you can probably get away with using analog RCA cable for digital audio.

Thanks for explaining! I did have my thoughts on if it was possible but I didn't know and so went with the safe route of saying no.
 
I've been re reading my post on the previous page but like I said above, other than that quoted comment, there wasn't much on dynamic range resolution and even then, me saying 24bit is suited for classicals is from what I have learned reading and is subject to opinion at this stage. The rest on cutting resolution at 16bit can also be debated but that is also on my learning from Nwavguy and other posts saying that 16bit should be the least you should go and volume control on computer can and does reduce it. Which brings Brooko's side of saying that normal recordings don't go past (was it) 16dB? I'll stick with my side as that is what I have read. We can all have our own opinions.

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

In very short distance, normal analog RCA cable and digital coax doesn't show a lot of difference. The key is when it gets longer - digital audio signal can go from 44kHz to 192kHz (they are the same as their sampling rate), so it is much faster than analog signal and essentially making the cable a RF antenna - not only a lot of energy is lost during the transmission but you need to deal with RF interference as well as standing wave issue (the electronic wave bouncing back and forth along the cable). That is why digital cable needs to be 75ohm rated (to reducing standing wave) and fully shielded (to cut down RF leak as well as interference) in a coax configuration. Using an RCA connector rated at 75ohm is just because it is natural shielded in coax design and common to find. You don't actually need to use RCA connector. Any coax connector that is 75ohm rated can be used.
So analog RCA cable is not the same as digital coax, and there are good reasons why you should use digital coax for digital audio.But at a pinch, you can probably get away with using analog RCA cable for digital audio.

 
Thanks ClieOS - I didn't know that - I use shielded cable myself on my own cable builds.  The pics Bowei showed in the other page were both well shielded RCA cables by the look of it - and I'd lay odds that both would be interchangeable.
 
@Bowei - appears I am wrong (re the 75ohm difference) - I apologise.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

• Analogue RCA and digital coax are same thing.  RCA plugs.  Two separate wires.  It's why some people even use them a speaker wire set-ups.
   
   
• And this:
   
  Actually the reason they use 16bit is that theoretically anything of more resolution is beyond our sonic ability to discern.  It's all about the noise floor as I understand it.  If people do want to use 24bit - then go for it.  I do - but it's because I've got some 24/96 recordings from HD-tracks and other sources - purchased because I couldn't get the 16/44.1 equivalents, or because the remastering si supposed to be better.  Yes I suppose I could downsample to 16 bit - but I have 24bit capability so it's no biggie.  Telling someone it's important sonically to use 24bit over 16bit is the bit I found strange.
  
  Often you'll find better recordings in 24bit - but that's because they've often been carefully remastered (targeted toward the discerning audio lover).  That doesn't mean that 24bit is necessarily sonically discernable (ie if you had the same remastering in both 24 and 16 bit - I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference by listening).

Clieos has gave a good explanation on the differece....and I did mention shielding a lot. And in the user's case(Afro) considering it's going to be near all those components and to get best results(the cable is less than $10) a digital coaxil which is different, should be used.
 
I said to use 24bit sonically is not for sound improvement sorry. Well, kinda. When I said sonically was that from my own personal learnings. 16 bit is the minimum. Truning volume down on the computer reduces those bits and thus goes below 16bit. To counteract this, Nwavguy and my readings like 24bit as it gives head way room so that you can do a bit of playing around with the volume on the computer AND unit without worrying much. But of course I also believe that some recordings like clasical CAN indeed fully use past 16bit (96dB) of dynamic range and it's noise floor and thus go into the territory of 24bit.
 
I agree. Even though I agree that classical from my readings can go into 24bit terriroty. I would personally NEVER be able to tell the difference. Well maybe, I have not done any prolonged 24bit vs 16bit classical listens but even then I can't say I will. I was mearly saying that not using 24bit on the E17 on the computer may lead to problems sonically if you go below 16 bits.
 
So we are in agreement! Our understandings of what recordings should max out at what are a bit different, but I never meant to say 24bit was superior! I read the same article as well long ago! And only set it to not FURTHER or...TO degrade the quality that in my opinion 16bit is the minimum of!

 

[lubczyk]

Just a question about charging. I have USB charging set to off. If the battery was to run out of juice, would I be unable to charge the battery through USB?
 

 

[Bleether]

Quote:

Just a question about charging. I have USB charging set to off. If the battery was to run out of juice, would I be unable to charge the battery through USB?
 

Of course u can charge it dude.

 

[MattTCG]

Question. I have the e17 configured as a dac only.
 
-purchased l7 doc
-lo bass switch is set correctly
-mini usb to pc
-3.5 out to rca to an amp
 
Just got this all setup yesterday. I have been listening to the e17 directly for several days. After I set the unit up as a dac, I hooked it up to my Schitt Asgard and Yulong A100 to see just how it would sound. Well, it's not that good. It's about the same as the e17 by itself. I might even prefer the e17 as a solo unit. I don't really understand why I'm not getting improved sound.
 
The only thing that I can come up with is that I'm using a rather cheap 3.5 to RCA cable. Could it make that much difference? Maybe I'm doing something else wrong.
 
 
thanks...

 

[lubczyk]

Quote:

Of course u can charge it dude.

Thanks for the response!!!

 

[bowei006]

@lubcz
When the fiio runs out of battery. Settings go to default and usb charge is auto enabled again.... Or as it has no power will allow you to do whatever. So yeah


@matt
Use it for a few days or weeks first. It does take some time to start hearing te differences! Do some listening on then line out to asgard setup for a day and switch back to e17 solo the next and do some comparisons!
Unless your cable is really cheap it shouldnt make a difference. Really super cheap ones can be faulty but you can usually tell as the audio has deficiencies.

 

[AFRO insomniac]

Picked up my E17 at Fedex today and so far I am really enjoying the sound.
 
I'm at work at the moment so can only do:
 
iPod Classic -> L3 -> E17 -> ATH M50, UE TF10
 
I really cannot pinpoint exactly what sounds better (I'm a newbie to this audiophile stuff), but everything just... sounds better.

 
Instrument separation sounds clearer and the bass is more deep with my M50s.
 
I can hear little nuances from songs that I never heard before and the music overall feels like it is surrounding my head.
 
It feels really good haha.
 
Can't wait to try it with some of my FLAC files at home and my D2000.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

Picked up my E17 at Fedex today and so far I am really enjoying the sound.
 
I'm at work at the moment so can only do:
 
iPod Classic -> L3 -> E17 -> ATH M50, UE TF10
 
I really cannot pinpoint exactly what sounds better (I'm a newbie to this audiophile stuff), but everything just... sounds better.

 
 
I can hear little nuances from songs that I never heard before and the music overall feels like it is surrounding my head.
 
It feels really good haha.
 
Can't wait to try it with some of my FLAC files at home and my D2000.

Spend a few more days with it and do some comparisons like I said to MAtt. Doing a full day with E17 and different connections (like with your ipod and then as a DAC with computer) and then a day back to what you used before and then a day going back and forth between the two. Or whatever you want.
 
Posts like this about it sounding good is nice, but will really be unproductive to the whole effort. It adds bias to stuff like this. Granted, going on a thread dedicated to a device is already biased as most haven't heard others in the same range, but doing comparisons and finding the nuances and differences after a few days of listening would be actuallly helpful if you would like to add them. I don't do or add them sometimes as Im a casual listener, and posts about it being a good unit and sounding good are great ! But going the extra mile would be nice..not that I always do it.