[Alex Kitic]

Just realised I hadn't replied.

Set-up : X7 original to Q5 via coax. Files have been a mixture of redbook, 24/96, and some aac256. So far 7 hours in - and no signs of it quitting yet. If you are only getting 5 hours - I'd get your battery checked. IMO - something is wrong.

Thank you Brooko.
You didn’t mention the headphones you used for the test, and the volume level you have set.
It should probably last longer without headphones, as line output only...

 

[Alex Kitic]

Hey guys, I posted a detailed synopsis of the Q5 for anyone interested:

https://www.thesynops.com/fiio-q5-portable-dac-synopsis/


Great DAC

I disagree on the USB connection: USB C would make it more difficult for users who insist on serious USB cables for their connections to the pc/mac.
With the standard USB micro a regular OTG adapter (hardwired) can be used to convert to standard USB B and to connect a standard serious audio USB cable from that point on.

BTW, nice write, but the need to review equipment (and go to great lengths about it, posting photos etc) eludes me, as there seems to be loads of reviews, mostly repeating the same baseline, but with little real audiophile content (cables used, HiRes music listened to, serious systems attached, etc). The reviews are more or less the same, enticements to buy a gadget. Had I just read those reviews I would probably not have bought the device, because the reviewers seem to be easily contented with the sound of the devices reviewed. It all has a mass-consumption appeal.

 

[Brooko]

Thank you Brooko.
You didn’t mention the headphones you used for the test, and the volume level you have set.
It should probably last longer without headphones, as line output only...

Sorry - should have included that info. HD800S via the balanced port. My usual listening level is around 70 dB, so only about 25-30% of the pot. I only ended up with about 8 hours. Will do another test SE with IEMs.

 

[Currawong]

Playing back high res is possibly draining the battery faster.

 

[Sonic Defender]

Playing back high res is possibly draining the battery faster.

Yes, that is very likely a factor, or so I would think.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I disagree on the USB connection: USB C would make it more difficult for users who insist on serious USB cables for their connections to the pc/mac.
With the standard USB micro a regular OTG adapter (hardwired) can be used to convert to standard USB B and to connect a standard serious audio USB cable from that point on.

BTW, nice write, but the need to review equipment (and go to great lengths about it, posting photos etc) eludes me, as there seems to be loads of reviews, mostly repeating the same baseline, but with little real audiophile content (cables used, HiRes music listened to, serious systems attached, etc). The reviews are more or less the same, enticements to buy a gadget. Had I just read those reviews I would probably not have bought the device, because the reviewers seem to be easily contented with the sound of the devices reviewed. It all has a mass-consumption appeal.

The consistency of reviews is likely good in the sense that people are equally enjoying the Q5. I'm not sure how many ways there are to describe sound? I sometimes read reviews where the reviewers are obviously trying to make their review sound different and they end up using such vague descriptors that it is essentially meaningless. What does the deepest notes are fully resolved in ....... mean? How do I know that that reviewer has the ability to detect the deepest notes being resolved? For all I know they have crappy hearing compared to me. I'm just trying to imagine what the content of a review should be to not appeal to the masses? And to be fair, FiiO is making this device for the masses, at least I'm quite sure they would be happy with the masses buying the Q5. I think the Q5 is cracking good and when my review goes up I'm going to come across as easily contented simply because the Q5 really does sound excellent, so I'm content. I'm not going to conversely try to find things to say bad about it simply to have something negative to say. To this point I haven't had a single issue with the sound so I'll warn people in advance, my review is likely to be contentedly favourable.

 

[KopaneDePooj]

(...) (a typical user of such a device listens mostly to HiRes PCM and DSD, and uses headphones that are not particularly easy to drive like the HD650 -- as opposed to a user who listens to mp3 and other compressed 16 bit files over earbugs of the easy to drive "phone-ready" kind).

(...)
BTW, nice write, but the need to review equipment (and go to great lengths about it, posting photos etc) eludes me, as there seems to be loads of reviews, mostly repeating the same baseline, but with little real audiophile content (cables used, HiRes music listened to, serious systems attached, etc). The reviews are more or less the same, enticements to buy a gadget. Had I just read those reviews I would probably not have bought the device, because the reviewers seem to be easily contented with the sound of the devices reviewed. It all has a mass-consumption appeal.

That's because there are two types or "audiophiles". Technical inclined ones who value cold numbers, graphs, supposedly minute differences about how cables "sound"...
And then there are others who generally don't call themselves audiophiles and value musical emotion above technical data and rely only on what they hear and enjoy or not. I value their opinions too because ultimately music is art not mathematics.
There's nothing wrong with either category but don't assume that "a typical user of such a device listens mostly to HiRes PCM and DSD".
I don't want to start a classic debate but there are many as me who don't hear a difference between 16bit 44.1 FLAC encoded from the same Hi-res or DSD file.
I didn't read any review here that sounds like an "enticement to buy a gadget" either. Just users opinions, more or less technical.

 

[Alex Kitic]

Yes, that is very likely a factor, or so I would think.

In a previous post I have already made a simple calculation showing that based on DAC datasheet data higher sampling rates do increase power draw of the DAC chip, therefore have an effect on the battery life.
Nevertheless, my simple calculation has shown this to be 12% more current draw on the DAC chip -- but it is not the only "energy consumer" in the device.
The output amplifier actually draws higher current, and it does not care whether it is amplifying mp3 derived PCM or the higher quality DSD -- what matters is volume and headphones type (necessary power to amplify the signal to needed level).

I am just trying to point out that HiRes is not likely to cause shorter battery life in the case of a DAC/Amp -- and specifically in the case of the Q5.

 

[Alex Kitic]

The consistency of reviews is likely good in the sense that people are equally enjoying the Q5. I'm not sure how many ways there are to describe sound? I sometimes read reviews where the reviewers are obviously trying to make their review sound different and they end up using such vague descriptors that it is essentially meaningless. What does the deepest notes are fully resolved in ....... mean? ...

I understand your concern and general bias towards "audiophiles" and "audiophile reviewers". Like in any other field, there are extremes on either side.
While there have been attempts to "standardize" definitions of sound quality, soundstaging, etc -- just try to remember the early Absolute Sound days, and Stereophile of yesteryear, or the HFN&RR reviewers -- this has given rise to a type of reviewer who uses mystical and not easily understandable words to convey how one piece of equipment is better or not so much better than another which is considered as a reference... it's a mess, but not everyone is knowledgeable and it's understandable that copy-cats are to follow on ground-breaking examples.

Vague descriptors and disputable methodology should thereby remain with those ill-prepared Hi-End reviewers. What I am trying to explain is related to some specifics that are, particularly nowadays, a rarified category.
One needs to have "trained" or "experienced" ears in order to discern the last few percents of quality. Those who cannot hear the difference, both do not understand the difference, and do not care about it - because the difference is immaterial to them. "Problems" arise when those who cannot hear imply that the difference does not exist... and those who can hear feel offended by such simplicistic attitude.

Mentioning associated equipment and cables, let me assume that you have connected the Q5 to a PC/mac and are using it as a DAC over USB. Now, if you're using the supplied USB cable, or some other "generic" USB cable -- instead of a dedicated audio USB cable, you cannot possibly say how good/bad does the Q5 perform, because you are not getting the fully picture. It is possible that you do not hear the difference between 2 USB cables, both because you have not trained your ears to do it (not enough listening experience, or musical experience in general) - or because you do not have the remaining "equpiment" necessary in order to hear the difference (for instance, good enough headphones, or a good hi-fi or should I say hi-end system). Besides the fact that differences between headphones are very easy to understand once you try several, there is no guarantee that the headphones used are good enough (not masking, not introducing colorations...) to allow the listener to hear the difference. The difference in sound between USB cables exist, and is totally comparable to the difference in sound between coaxial digital cables -- after all, the USB cable has 2 sets of cables, one set carrying power and power ground, while the other is carrying the signal, in this case a digital stream not so dissimilar to the one being carried by coaxial digital cables. I guess some people do not hear the difference between two coaxial digital cables, or 2 interconnect cables, or 2 speaker cables -- and I do not blame them: that's actually normal, since it takes both good hearing and some "training" to hear the minute differences. Just think of musicians and the years they have devoted to mastering their abilities: it's not that dissimilar when it comes to music listeners.

So, if a reviewer lists the Q5 used as DAC, and lists some universally acclaimed headphones, like HD600-650-800 or the various Beyerdynamics etc -- it's a pity that we are missing the information what was used as source, both in terms of cable (DAC connected to some device, like a CD player, or a PC/mac), not to mention that it is not unimportant whether the files listened to were AAC or DSD. To one who does not hear-know the difference, this might be irrelevant, but the moment the review goes into "sounded very well with my AAC files" I sort of loose interest because I can hear-know the difference between an AAC file and a lossless file, and PCM and DSD files. If the reviewer does not hear-know this difference, that's fine, but not for me because I cannot rely on his impression. Likewise, the review of a reviewer who has listened to the Q5 with HD650 (just like I might do) connected to his computer via a (some, generic) USB cable becomes irrelevant to me because I know the difference between a generic USB and for instance an Audioquest Cinnamon and a Wireworld Silver Starlight. The difference in the level of details audible with the latter two is so large that I would not dare give an educated judgement of the sonic performance of a DAC which I had to listen connected with some generic cables (and there is an audible difference between two generic USB cables, too, although it might not be so pronounced and easy to define as between a good audiophile USB cable and a generic cable).

I am aware that many if not most do not hear the differences. The reasons are either lack of equipment/source or lack of experience/training/capability. I respect that and I do not judge people for not being audiophile oriented. But I can hear the differences, and those matter to me -- thus most if not all reviews are to me (and other people similar to me) just vague direction descriptors. And this is what I fail to understand - vagueness "en masse", or lots of reviews that actually don't tell you anything you were not able to understand on your own.

 

[Alex Kitic]

That's because there are two types or "audiophiles". Technical inclined ones who value cold numbers, graphs, supposedly minute differences about how cables "sound"...
And then there are others who generally don't call themselves audiophiles and value musical emotion above technical data and rely only on what they hear and enjoy or not. I value their opinions too because ultimately music is art not mathematics.
There's nothing wrong with either category but don't assume that "a typical user of such a device listens mostly to HiRes PCM and DSD".
I don't want to start a classic debate but there are many as me who don't hear a difference between 16bit 44.1 FLAC encoded from the same Hi-res or DSD file.
I didn't read any review here that sounds like an "enticement to buy a gadget" either. Just users opinions, more or less technical.

I have just written a long post about a similar topic, and would not have replied to this one specifically had it not been for the opposite nature between the two - both leading in the same direction.

Basically, this is about the "technical audiophile" against "music lover" - where actually in modern language "audiophile" seems to be opposed to "technical". Audiophiles are more likely to be defined as "audiophools" who read about nuance differences in "who-knows-what" - than as technically minded people who are interested in the number of bits or distortion figures.

I am actually a music lover, and value the musical emotion above technical data -- but I can also hear the music and all those emotions do not come from listening to music on an informative plastic loudspeaker connected to the sound card of my computer, but to a system most would define as Hi-End. And, I am aware that not every piece of equipment is going to be able to convey all the tiny details that make music into an emotional experience as opposed to receiving information about the general notation, or the text of the song, or the music genre. There is going to be some technical stuff behind that piece of equipment, and one can be technically illiterate but able to hear that one DAC has higher sound quality compared to another. Whoever values music as an experience will value the sound heard: this will lead to the quality of the music source (file, recording) and the equipment used to reproduce it. We are not talking about a deaf composer who does not need to hear to compose because the music is in his mind... we are talking about a music lover who needs to hear the music and will not be elated if it does not "sound right".

As for the debate, no need for that: I am fully aware that most people do not hear the difference, either because they do not know what is it that they have to hear (not trained/experienced) or because they just cannot hear the difference. I respect the abilities of others, but I also like when others respect my abilities. Just make a step out of the box and let a music lover who has no interest in technical details listen to a good system for a week, and then let him listen to an average or poor system - and see for yourself if he/she likes it, and if he/she hears the difference (i.e. what is missing).

As for the reviews and "enticement to buy" I was not referring (necessarily or primarily) to reviews on Head-Fi -- but in general. The "net" is full of reviews for the same piece of equipment i.e. gadget of some kind, and most of these are so repetitive and lack real information that I can imagine people writing those based on what they read in the official information provided by the manufacturer. Without real information and (relevant) personal experience, such a review, particularly if favorable (and the absolute majority of reviews for the majority of devices are favorable) seems just as another ad or marketing piece -- and that's called enticement to buy, if I have a good enough command of the English language.

For instance, a reviewer (most, actually) just states that battery life on the Q5 is 10 hours with bluetooth connection (or without stating the connection...) without any additional details about the use-case that lead to the 10 hours figure. The 10 hours is a figure taken from the manufacturers site, and copy/pasted in so many reviews. Now I am having serious doubts about the battery life data myself, and am not particularly likely to blame it on the battery of my Q5, among other reasons because my X3 gen2 has also never approached the battery life stated by the manufacturer. While my use-case is probably different than most, there is no technical evidence that the difference in use case (type of files listened to) has such a major impact on battery life. While my experience is borderline unacceptable, it seems that most other users (as read on forums, and some reviews) who have really listened to the device(s) were also not able to reach the advertised battery life figures. Now, what I am questioning is if a reviewer plainly writes "10 hours battery life", has has/she really used the device? If it weren't for the elaborate photos in most reviews, one would be lead to believe that those are just texts by writers who might have not even seen the device in real life (i.e just pictures of it).

 

[Sonic Defender]

In a previous post I have already made a simple calculation showing that based on DAC datasheet data higher sampling rates do increase power draw of the DAC chip, therefore have an effect on the battery life.
Nevertheless, my simple calculation has shown this to be 12% more current draw on the DAC chip -- but it is not the only "energy consumer" in the device.
The output amplifier actually draws higher current, and it does not care whether it is amplifying mp3 derived PCM or the higher quality DSD -- what matters is volume and headphones type (necessary power to amplify the signal to needed level).

I am just trying to point out that HiRes is not likely to cause shorter battery life in the case of a DAC/Amp -- and specifically in the case of the Q5.

Interesting. I used to believe, possibly erroneously, that playback volume mattered, however I have read a few accounts from people who used quasi-experiments to test this assumption and found no appreciable relationship between playback volume, and battery draw. I haven't done this myself, so I am parroting here, my apology. Maybe a few others have some direct experience with this to share.

 

[Sonic Defender]

And briefly speaking to the point made about multiple reviews, in my mind they have value, on two levels. The first level is almost an entertainment level, I like reading about the experiences of other people as they enjoy audio reproduction and music. I love reading the language they use, and seeing their photography skills. It is just nice to see people enjoying their gear. Secondly, I do like to read many reviews as this gives me as many data points as possible, and that is typically a good thing. Bigger sample size = more power and that is a desirable end. Sure, some people may just repeat what they have read, that's fine, you get noise in any data, but the overall effect of multiple reviews is a positive thing. Additionally, when you have been in the hobby for a long enough time, you develop somewhat of a sense that can help you spot fluff from substance and you get to know some reviewers and have had a chance to correlate their review language with your experience of the gear being reviewed. This correlation gives you some degree of confidence that you may experience the piece of gear in question in a fairly similar manner.

Ultimately for me I like to read reviews, they are enjoyable and I really appreciate the efforts of others and I definitely do learn from them. Some reviewers are really quite knowledgeable and they help me fill in the gaps in my knowledge (of which I freely admit there are many). Yes, there are times the reviewers could perhaps provide more context, absolutely, but I can take that into account when reading and often I will come across a review that will cover what others have left (hence why as many reviews as possible on a piece of gear is important, in my view).

 

[OceanEleven]

Need some advice. If pair the Q5 with Fiio X7 (first gen) on AM5, would it be an overkill?

 

[FiiO]

The drivers install, according to the installer, but don't show up in the Device Manager. The main problem is when I connect to the side USB port while the device is in Bluetooth mode, no computer recognises that there is a USB device connected at all, even after I put it in upgrade mode by pushing both forward and back buttons.

Dear friend,

Try to turn on the Q5 and hold the Bluetooth pairing/switch button for 5s to force a pairing(Blue and red led alternately flashing). Then hold the "Previous track" and "Next track buttons" at the same time to let the Q5 enter Bluetooth upgrade mode (with the status indicator pulsating or staying constantly on in Blue).
After this, connect the Q5 to the computer via the side USB port. Also install the DPInst.exe driver, can the CSR Bluetooth in DFU mode show up now in the device manager?

Best regards

 

[KopaneDePooj]

Hey @FiiO
The Q5 connects in 44.1 kHz mode by default in SBC and AAC mode in Android. But for aptX it defaults to 48 kHz and it must be switched manually to 44.1 on every connection, in Developer settings.
Is this an option that can be controlled on Q5 side to default also to 44.1 for aptX? At 48 kHz it has problems that I mentioned in earlier posts.
(HTC 10 / Android 8.0)