[Oldandcurious]

guys Im a newbie so please bear with my stupid question.
Is the sound quality of fioo x1 much better than average android phone?
Because 100 dollar means pretty a lot to me.
thankss

Using 192-mp3 files - w/ my Grado or my on-ear Sennheiser, at low to medium volume level, I cannot say my X1 sounds better. But once I start playing my ripped-to-flac classical collection, the X1 sounds a lot better. Not exactly a night-and-day difference, but a very nice difference indeed.

With decent music files and decent headphones and IEM, the X1 is a very good "investment." Though the usability has room to grow, the ease in using an Android phone wins by a decent margin.

 

[Zojokkeli]

  guys Im a newbie so please bear with my stupid question.
Is the sound quality of fioo x1 much better than average android phone?
Because 100 dollar means pretty a lot to me.
thankss

 
Definitely better, but the difference might not be as clear unless you have decent IEM's. In other words, if you have 20$ earphones, it might not make as much sense to buy a 100$ DAP as it would if you have, say, Hifiman RE-400's.

 

[Silverprout]

   
Definitely better, but the difference might not be as clear unless you have decent IEM's. In other words, if you have 20$ earphones, it might not make as much sense to buy a 100$ DAP as it would if you have, say, Hifiman RE-400's.

 
He's right !
But even, my (10 years old) 12$ Koss the plug IEMs sound much better with a FIIO DAP than my android phone or sansa Clip V2.

 

[SuperFuya]

   
Definitely better, but the difference might not be as clear unless you have decent IEM's. In other words, if you have 20$ earphones, it might not make as much sense to buy a 100$ DAP as it would if you have, say, Hifiman RE-400's.

Using 192-mp3 files - w/ my Grado or my on-ear Sennheiser, at low to medium volume level, I cannot say my X1 sounds better. But once I start playing my ripped-to-flac classical collection, the X1 sounds a lot better. Not exactly a night-and-day difference, but a very nice difference indeed.

With decent music files and decent headphones and IEM, the X1 is a very good "investment." Though the usability has room to grow, the ease in using an Android phone wins by a decent margin.

 
thanks for replying my post. Im planning to buy VSD3S (or ATH IM 50) to accompany X1. 
 
 

So the quality of the music files really matter? I listen to classical music 90% of the time but sadly almost all my music files are from youtube ( I convert it to mp3 through www.video2mp3.net which usually results in 192kbps music files). Do you think the difference in sound quality will be worth the price and the impracticability?
 
Thanks!

 

[castleofargh]

 

   
Definitely better, but the difference might not be as clear unless you have decent IEM's. In other words, if you have 20$ earphones, it might not make as much sense to buy a 100$ DAP as it would if you have, say, Hifiman RE-400's.

Using 192-mp3 files - w/ my Grado or my on-ear Sennheiser, at low to medium volume level, I cannot say my X1 sounds better. But once I start playing my ripped-to-flac classical collection, the X1 sounds a lot better. Not exactly a night-and-day difference, but a very nice difference indeed.

With decent music files and decent headphones and IEM, the X1 is a very good "investment." Though the usability has room to grow, the ease in using an Android phone wins by a decent margin.

 
thanks for replying my post. Im planning to buy VSD3S (or ATH IM 50) to accompany X1. 
 
 

So the quality of the music files really matter? I listen to classical music 90% of the time but sadly almost all my music files are from youtube ( I convert it to mp3 through www.video2mp3.net which usually results in 192kbps music files). Do you think the difference in sound quality will be worth the price and the impracticability?
 
Thanks!

only you can really answer that. my way of doing things is simple, if I don't have much complains about my actual gear, then I don't need another one. better is a very very relative view in audio, and it usually works like the touka kokan of full metal alchemist(yes I'm an adult so what? ^_^). to get more of one thing, you have to give up an equivalent somewhere else, be it in $, in size, in battery life, ease of use...
and of course something too big for one guy will not be a problem for another. same with the UI. with android you can always find something ok for you. with a non android DAP, you're stuck with what's on it. if you like it, great! if you don't...
so again if you want something else for a reason, go for it. if it's just some "maybe it will be better" with no idea what better is, then keep your actual stuff.
 
signed: the dream killer

 

[iancraig10]

Re: Quality of music files ......

The X1 reads extremely large cards, so given that memory is so cheap, it makes sense really to get your music in as high resolution that you can. Differences are subtle as you go up and some people have a hard time distinguishing 320kbs from cd, but there are slight differences.

If you don't know what the differences are, then it's likely that you really wouldn't hear much change. With experience (and time) you may well find yourself hearing subtleties and you won't be able to claim any of the missing detail that you become aware of back again.

To give you a comparison. Early on in my listening, the Grado headphones started to be sold. I could hear no differences between the SR60 and SR225. I was perfectly happy with the SR60. Now, the differences are glaring, but then again, I'm 30 years ahead in my listening!!

I used to use a Sennheiser hd414 as a work tool!!!! Ok, it was a well regarded headphone, but if I were doing the same thing now, I certainly wouldn't be using them. Experience can really enable much more differentiation and you begin to hear subtleties that you never heard at the start.

The same can happen with digital files. The X1 is glorious with hi res files.

 

[olddude]

The better the paint, the better the color and longevity.  Would you paint your house with cheap paint?  Your choice.
The better quality the food is, the more healthy it is for you.  Do you want to put cheap food in your body?  Your choice.
The better the sound files, the better the music will sound.  Do you want to listen to low-res music?  Your choice.  
 
Better sound files "should" equal better sounding music, all things considered.  My rule of thumb is to have the best sound files possible in order to have the best sounding music come into my ears via the best iems I can get and the best player I can get.  
 
Some people here swear by mp3 files.  Some people hear swear at mp3 files.  You might want to experiment and see what you think/like.  

 

[x RELIC x]

So the quality of the music files really matter? I listen to classical music 90% of the time but sadly almost all my music files are from youtube ( I convert it to mp3 through www.video2mp3.net which usually results in 192kbps music files). Do you think the difference in sound quality will be worth the price and the impracticability?

Thanks!

On dedicated players from FiiO you should notice a difference between 192kbps and 320kbps. After 320kbps it's debateable and depends on the entire audio chain from file to DAC to amp to headphone to ears. The difference becomes less after 320kbps, but I'd definitely not use 192kbps. At the same time you should never ever up sample. The best way is to rip music at the largest data rate possible and then down sample for space consideration if necessary. Given that the FiiO players can use large storage mSD cards I'd say use a minimum of 320kbps, especially for classical where you want to hear as much nuance and dynamic range as possible in the music.

But of course that's if you want to go through the hassle. If you're happy with the sound quality that's great, but I bet once you hear better quality you can't un-hear it and can't go back.

 

[olddude]

"After 320kbps it's debateable and depends on the entire audio chain from file to DAC to amp to headphone to ears."
 
Sure is, but I come down on the "more is better" side of that debate.  Nothing less then FLAC 16/44 all the way up to DSD.  And, in my audio chain, it sure sounds good.  

 

[castleofargh]

  "After 320kbps it's debateable and depends on the entire audio chain from file to DAC to amp to headphone to ears."
 
Sure is, but I come down on the "more is better" side of that debate.  Nothing less then FLAC 16/44 all the way up to DSD.  And, in my audio chain, it sure sounds good.  

one thing is sure, people shouldn't listen to others to decide upon what resolution or compression they should use.
it's pretty easy to encode one file to different formats and resolutions and get an abx program, or simply put them all in a DAP in 1 folder, then try playing the folder in shuffle mode. most likely people won't be able to tell the difference, and when they can they will be able to tell first hand if they think it's worth the extra space.

 

[olddude]

 
one thing is sure, people shouldn't listen to others to decide upon what resolution or compression they should use.
it's pretty easy to encode one file to different formats and resolutions and get an abx program, or simply put them all in a DAP in 1 folder, then try playing the folder in shuffle mode. most likely people won't be able to tell the difference, and when they can they will be able to tell first hand if they think it's worth the extra space.

Yep.   

 

[x RELIC x]

"After 320kbps it's debateable and depends on the entire audio chain from file to DAC to amp to headphone to ears."

Sure is, but I come down on the "more is better" side of that debate.  Nothing less then FLAC 16/44 all the way up to DSD.  And, in my audio chain, it sure sounds good.  

I personally prefer ALAC 16/44.1 and up to DSD, but others may not care or hear a difference and opt for lower rates. I say to each their own, but it's hard to make a choice if one does not know the options.

Edit: And yes, high resolution can be destructive to audio as well as low bit rate. I'm in the 'it's in the master' camp.

 

[olddude]

Yes.  The Beatle's Remasters that came out a few years ago are superb in 16/44.  I had some David Bowie 24 bit that sounded like crap, where some in 16/44 sounded quite good.  However, I purchased the first Quicksilver Messenger Service album in 24 bit HD and it sounds much better than the album rip I did, and I've been listening to it in various formats since it first came out in the late 60s.  I've got a DSD of Donald Fagen's Nightfly that sounds really good, much better than my album rip.  Aretha Frankln's Let Me In Your Life in 16/44 sounds better than a lot of 24 bit stuff.  Van Morrison's stuff ALL sounds great in 16/44.  Dire Straits in DSD is sublime.  It really depends on the original master, on the transfer, on so many things.  

 

[Oldandcurious]

  So the quality of the music files really matter? I listen to classical music 90% of the time but sadly almost all my music files are from youtube ( I convert it to mp3 through www.video2mp3.net which usually results in 192kbps music files). Do you think the difference in sound quality will be worth the price and the impracticability?
 
Thanks!

 
It matters more when you start "collecting" better gear. Others with golden ears and golden wallet can chase to their hearts' delight that "best" <insert here>. I was and still am very much happy with my HD239 and X3. I decided to get the X1 out of curiousity the same reason why I bought the HD600 a few months after I got the HD239.

It so happens that the X1 it is indeed a very good player for its price. Can I still enjoy my old Clip+? Sure. Especially on the go wherein I don't have to worry so much about damaging or losing it.

As the wiser people here have been suggesting, enjoy the music. Trust your ears and find a peaceful middle ground between your years, your desire and of course, your budget

 

[kiranjoshi7]

Hi friends,
I am from India. I have ordered FiiO x1 with v sonic GR 07 from USA. How's this combo?