[waynes world]

Let me get this straight. The stock X3 plays slow but handles 24/96 files. 

 
Fwiw, apparently the pitch issue only applies to any 44.1k and 88.2k files.

 

[Level]

In your experience, provided you work with the same master, would there be hearable difference between 16 bit file and 24 bit file?
I know, that this bit depth is not the only factor... R2R DAC would be much less affected by the bit depth of the source.. while most delta sigma DAC would perform better with higher bit and higher sampling rate.... but in your experience, is it really hearable?

I personally ever test this: I have a 16 bit/44KHz. I upsample it to 16bit/48KHz, 24bit/48Khz and 24 bit/96KHz..
Played on the same X3.. they sounded a little bit difference, not better or worse, just bit different... And they sounded different with default X3 firmware or with Rockbox. So definitely the bit depth and sampling frequency affect the software processing or the hardware in this case.

That is a challenging question to answer because at every single stage of recording, mastering, duplicating, alteration and/or playback a host of factors enters the equation, each pitted against the other, which is why mastering standards are so controlled and precise in order to eliminate the many possible variables. But yes, listening to those two different files in the identical studio setting you would absolutely be able to hear the difference. The experience is challenging to describe but absolutely, your ears will know the difference. The word I most commonly hear to describe it is 'presence.'
 
Working with sound is complex. In comparison, with digital photographs and pictures you are essentailly viewing a 2D image, regardless of resolution. Sound is at least a 4D experience: depth, breadth, height, density, environment, speed and volume, all over time.
Consider a basic game of chess compared to a 3D game simultaneously played on three levels. That gives you some idea of the scope of sound.
 
Fortunately for most of us this level of realism is beyond our reach, either because we cannot obtain true master originals, or the equipment we listen with is unable to reproduce the true depth and fidelity, or both. Most of the discussion at this level is purely subjective because the equipment we have is not very high quality in comparison. The terminology and component specs are bandied about as though we are all 'in the game,' when in reality we aren't anywhere's near it.
 
True audiophile gear is financially off the charts for many, and good reason for it. For me the challenge is to acquire quality hi res music files and portable equipment which is:
1. able to faithfully play back unmodified hi res files,
2. does a reasonable job of presenting appealing sound across the board (to my ears, subjective of course),
3. able to power the listening devices of my choosing (and using portable amps etc.)
 
Bottom line, the happiest people in this hobby are the ones who find their own level of music appreciation.....and don't allow the marketing robots to pop their balloon.

 

[SalfordBoys]

   
Fwiw, apparently the pitch issue only applies to any 44.1k and 88.2k files.

 
 
Isnt 44.1 the vast majority?

 

[waynes world]

 
Isnt 44.1 the vast majority?

 
I presume "yes" for most people.

 

[waynes world]

 
True audiophile gear is financially off the charts for many, and good reason for it. For me the challenge is to acquire quality hi res music files and portable equipment which is:
1. able to faithfully play back unmodified hi res files,
2. does a reasonable job of presenting appealing sound across the board (to my ears, subjective of course),
3. can power the listening devices of my choosing (and using portable amps etc.)

 
Let us know what you come up with.

 

[lotech]

...

I personally ever test this: I have a 16 bit/44KHz. I upsample it to 16bit/48KHz, 24bit/48Khz and 24 bit/96KHz..
Played on the same X3.. they sounded a little bit difference, not better or worse, just bit different... And they sounded different with default X3 firmware or with Rockbox. So definitely the bit depth and sampling frequency affect the software processing or the hardware in this case.

 
excuse my ignorance but wouldn't the fact you're starting with 16bit/44KHz and upsampling negate the test, yes you have different bit depth etc. but you're starting with
the same source. I think a more valid test would be listening to the same track recorded/mastered 16bit/44KHz vs one recorded/mastered 24bit/96KHz.

 

[Level]

   
excuse my ignorance but wouldn't the fact you're starting with 16bit/44KHz and upsampling negate the test, yes you have different bit depth etc. but you're starting with
the same source. I think a more valid test would be listening to the same track recorded/mastered 16bit/44KHz vs one recorded/mastered 24bit/96KHz.

Not necessarily. Mastering is one thing, duplication is another beast altogether. I can make a 24/96 recording of a static ridden AM radio station and it's still a hi res file, but obviously the quality isn't there.....so many steps in the delivery process.

 

[Level]

   
Let us know what you come up with.

Next up for testing is the Lotoo PAW 5000.

 

[jaxz]

   

 
I'm connecting the line out to an amp. Tried a couple of different cables but the issue persist. With the volume set to -3db its ok but from there to 0db the player pauses itself. I think the line-out is broken because besides the pause issue the sound coming from there is distorted, its like listening to a bad recording at 128mbps mp3, full of artifacts.
 
PD: Definitely is a issue with rockbox. Booted with stock firmware and the line-out working flawless. 

Sorry to insist, but anyone has similar issues with the line out?

 

[ameliavega27]

  Sorry to insist, but anyone has similar issues with the line out?

Mine fixed by reinstalling rockbox

 

[jaxz]

  Mine fixed by reinstalling rockbox

mmmm ok. I will try....

 

[ashkoy]

OK, last question. So bit depth etc pertains to how the music was recorded?

I thought I should add a bit of info to the discussion that has been featured in many forums over the years...

http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-what-is-a-studio-master.aspx

http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/Red-Book

...and the controversy that goes back to the times when Eve has set her eyes on that apple ( not an iFruit advert):
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

At the end of the day we all hear the noises around us differently to start with... and then there comes the natural ageing process with the added unfortunate bonus of continuous loud noise exposure (this includes listening music on high playback volume) so we all should make our on minds being informed but not influenced by other people's experience (throwing one's toys out of the pram because Rockbox is downsampling or because the X3 makers have not addressed the playback speed issue of files sampled at 44.1 KHz, information freely available for a good while)

 

[dw1narso]

 
That is a challenging question to answer because at every single stage of recording, mastering, duplicating, alteration and/or playback a host of factors enters the equation, each pitted against the other, which is why mastering standards are so controlled and precise in order to eliminate the many possible variables. But yes, listening to those two different files in the identical studio setting you would absolutely be able to hear the difference. The experience is challenging to describe but absolutely, your ears will know the difference. The word I most commonly hear to describe it is 'presence.'
 
Working with sound is complex. In comparison, with digital photographs and pictures you are essentailly viewing a 2D image, regardless of resolution. Sound is at least a 4D experience: depth, breadth, height, density, environment, speed and volume, all over time.
Consider a basic game of chess compared to a 3D game simultaneously played on three levels. That gives you some idea of the scope of sound.
 
Fortunately for most of us this level of realism is beyond our reach, either because we cannot obtain true master originals, or the equipment we listen with is unable to reproduce the true depth and fidelity, or both. Most of the discussion at this level is purely subjective because the equipment we have is not very high quality in comparison. The terminology and component specs are bandied about as though we are all 'in the game,' when in reality we aren't anywhere's near it.
 
True audiophile gear is financially off the charts for many, and good reason for it. For me the challenge is to acquire quality hi res music files and portable equipment which is:
1. able to faithfully play back unmodified hi res files,
2. does a reasonable job of presenting appealing sound across the board (to my ears, subjective of course),
3. able to power the listening devices of my choosing (and using portable amps etc.)
 
Bottom line, the happiest people in this hobby are the ones who find their own level of music appreciation.....and don't allow the marketing robots to pop their balloon.

 
thanks for the insight on studio mastering..
 
it's true that there always budget limiting aspect... I personally would not and cannot afford spend too much on audio without feeling guilty to my family... I still need to save a lot for my kids education; much more important I think...
 
I wish you have a good luck to find portable equipment that match to your preference... this will be a difficult task... IMO, the portability itself is the most limiting factor for designing a proper audio system... but don't give up... what have been achieved along the years is amazing... Just like this X3 case.. I would never imagine this kind of sound quality in this package at this price 10 years ago... (the time when I spend $700 just for CD player; i.e. not even a new unit...)

 

[dw1narso]

   
excuse my ignorance but wouldn't the fact you're starting with 16bit/44KHz and upsampling negate the test, yes you have different bit depth etc. but you're starting with
the same source. I think a more valid test would be listening to the same track recorded/mastered 16bit/44KHz vs one recorded/mastered 24bit/96KHz.

 
that's the intention... to have the same source that I'm really familar... change it into different bit depth and sampling... just to check the software and the hardware of the player...

 

[EmPathWalker]

Upsampling is a bit of a crock, although there may be good reasons for trying it with certain reproduction equipment, related to how the hardware handles the data.
 
I think of upsampling as being like a high definition ( plate camera ) photograph of a 3x5 instamatic print. Technically it's a very high quality image, but of a low quality picture.