[Thx1326]

I’ve not noticed any difference between the bit rates / Kbps (we are not talking about up/down sampling here or bit depth) between Audirvana+ on my Mac and what the X5iii shows. Each lossless file matches exactly.

Usually lossless files vary widely given the nature of a lossless file. If there is a lot of information in the music track then there will be more Kbps. If there is less information in the track there will be less Kbps. It’s not like AAC or MP3 where compression is employed to reach a target file size like 128kbps / 256kbps /320kbps, and lossless file’s are normal to vary in data rate size.

I’m not sure where the disconnect is between the PC and the X5iii but in my experience the FiiO shows what it is fed.

The only files that are showing differences between the PC and Fiio are lossless files. Earlier posts suggested that UAPP player was better because it did not "down-sample" the files. That's the only reason I was checking. A little difference I could understand - but NOT a 50% drop in bit rate.

 

[seanwee]

I think this guy is trying to say that the SQ on the UAPP is better than the FiiO but he used the wrong justification.

FYI, 1411kbps is the bitrate for uncompressed 16 bit WAV files. If a 16 bit FLAC file has a 1411kbps bitrate then it means FLAC has failed to serve it purpose. FLAC is supposed to be lossless so it should sound exactly the same as a WAV file but have a smaller size, hence the variable bit rate.

The only files that are showing differences between the PC and Fiio are lossless files. Earlier posts suggested that UAPP player was better because it did not "down-sample" the files. That's the only reason I was checking. A little difference I could understand - but NOT a 50% drop in bit rate.

FLAC is SUPPOSED to have a bitrate in that range. That's what gives it a smaller size compared to WAV files. Ive had 1411kbps WAV files that turn into 500kbps files after lossless compression.

It's even in the name FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec

 

[x RELIC x]

The only files that are showing differences between the PC and Fiio are lossless files. Earlier posts suggested that UAPP player was better because it did not "down-sample" the files. That's the only reason I was checking. A little difference I could understand - but NOT a 50% drop in bit rate.

But you are discussing bit rate (Kbps=Kilo Bits Per Second) and not sample rate, which is confusing because down-sampling refers to sample rates. Like I mentioned, I have no clue why you are seeing a difference in bit rate between your computer and the X5iii, but I haven’t seen any difference between my computer(s) and the X5iii regarding bit rate (Kbps).

I wish you luck.

 

[alwass89]

I have a 400GB sandisk micro SD card that is Formated FAT32 and when I insert it into any DAP I have, it's only showing 197mb and none of the files I have on my card. When I plug the card into my computer, everything shows up fine. Any ideas on what the problem is?

 

[MinnieOne]

I have a 400GB sandisk micro SD card that is Formated FAT32 and when I insert it into any DAP I have, it's only showing 197mb and none of the files I have on my card. When I plug the card into my computer, everything shows up fine. Any ideas on what the problem is?

Try NTFS or exFat .

 

[lucifero13]

Has anyone tried this dap with the Advanced Model 3? Is there a hiss?

 

[Thx1326]

I have a 400GB sandisk micro SD card that is Formated FAT32 and when I insert it into any DAP I have, it's only showing 197mb and none of the files I have on my card. When I plug the card into my computer, everything shows up fine. Any ideas on what the problem is?

Reformat with NTFS.

 

[jtinto]

My experience with xdcard formats is the X5 III performs best when the card is formatted FAT32 using the X5's own format function.
I've tried externally formatting NTFS FAT32 and exfat. All exhibited some instability.
I thought that the largest stable xdcard in the X5 III was 256GB?

 

[seanwee]

My experience with xdcard formats is the X5 III performs best when the card is formatted FAT32 using the X5's own format function.
I've tried externally formatting NTFS FAT32 and exfat. All exhibited some instability.
I thought that the largest stable xdcard in the X5 III was 256GB?

Officially speaking, yes but usually there's no problem exceeding the official specs.

 

[HappyHelmet]

comment removed as previous post was solved

 

[Thx1326]

Nice Case for Fiio X5-III

In case you are interested... I just received my Tuff Luv case for my Fiio via Amazon. $29.95. Very nice fold over case with clasp that protects the screen and covers the Card Slots. All ports and buttons accessible. Very nice fit and finish. Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[mitland]

Since I started using my X5iii in October 17 I've only used cards formatted by my Win 7 desktop. I started with Exfat and then moved on to NTFS. I use this format with my X1ii too.
The important fact of note is that I format all my cards with 16K cluster size. This was recommended by another forum member many moons ago.
Since the last couple FW updates I have had zero problems with my unit. I think that in the end, the most important thing is to have the tags neat and clean. I've gone over each album with a fine tooth comb as it were. I have no trouble with all of my embedded album art displaying. The only info I've left imbedded is artist, album title, album artist(even tho I have no multiple artist compilation albums), song title, date, genre and one version of album art.
It's amazing how often multiple album art copies can be found in downloaded music! I also will never allow lyrics to be imbedded in my tags. The simpler the better. Also have no trouble scanning my cards.
It's a lot of work to go over ever single detail of my song tags but Mediamonkey has been a tremendous help getting it all done.
One last thing, I've only installed 2 apps which rarely get used.

 

[Thx1326]

But you are discussing bit rate (Kbps=Kilo Bits Per Second) and not sample rate, which is confusing because down-sampling refers to sample rates. Like I mentioned, I have no clue why you are seeing a difference in bit rate between your computer and the X5iii, but I haven’t seen any difference between my computer(s) and the X5iii regarding bit rate (Kbps).

I wish you luck.

As a follow-up to the DownSampling issue, I've two screens shots of audio properties of one of thousands of FLAC files - they all display the same. As you can see the bit rate is indicated at 1411kbps. Maybe this is the playback rate? when playing back on th Fiio - it indicates in one of the selectable screens that it is 714kbps / 44khz / 16 bit. Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong???

Anyway - Fiio still will not read the embedded art files - even after trying several different programs. Will only read them if saved as a jpg file named "Folder.jpg" and placed within each album folder.

Thanks to all that replied.

 

[seanwee]

As a follow-up to the DownSampling issue, I've two screens shots of audio properties of one of thousands of FLAC files - they all display the same. As you can see the bit rate is indicated at 1411kbps. Maybe this is the playback rate? when playing back on th Fiio - it indicates in one of the selectable screens that it is 714kbps / 44khz / 16 bit. Maybe I'm interpreting this wrong???

Anyway - Fiio still will not read the embedded art files - even after trying several different programs. Will only read them if saved as a jpg file named "Folder.jpg" and placed within each album folder.

Thanks to all that replied.

Try using foobar 2000 to see the bitrate.

 

[Thx1326]

Why would I want to download and add another player? I've read other issues with Foobar and don't want to add to the programs on the DAP. This would also eliminate being able to use the Viper features