The FiiO X1 Discussion and Help and Support Thread |192K/24B|100mW | LO | inline remote
Feb 18, 2015 at 5:21 AM Post #5,059 of 7,791

Joe Bloggs

Member of the Trade: HiBy / EFO technologies Co
His Porta Corda walked the Green Mile
Joined
Oct 21, 2001
Posts
11,535
Likes
3,439
Location
Hong Kong and Melbourne
I have a theory about the equalizers in the X3 and X1. When the equalizer is on in the X3, the volume reduces. When the equalizer is on in the X1, the volume doesn't reduce. I also notice that the sound of the X1 is similar to the X3, when the X3's equalizer is on, with the custom setting being "flat". Is it possible that the X1's "EQ off" setting actually secretly has the EQ on, with a flat setting?

Unfortunately, there's something about the Equalizer in the X3 and the overall sound of the X1 that tires me during long term listening. I can listen for hours to the X3 with the Equalizer set to "off". I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.


I've noticed when I use the equalizer on the X1 that the volume level does not go beyond 88 out of 100. I am still on FW 1.1, do the later versions fix it?


1. The equalizer is off when it is off on the X1.

2. When enabling the equalizer in the X1, instead of just dropping the digital gain to make digital headroom like in the X3, it also raises the analog volume to compensate. Thus volume 88 with EQ on corresponds to full analog volume with EQ off. This behaviour also proves that the EQ is really off when it is off.
 
Feb 18, 2015 at 6:33 AM Post #5,060 of 7,791

x RELIC x

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Posts
12,058
Likes
7,733
Location
The West Coast, Canada
1. The equalizer is off when it is off on the X1.

2. When enabling the equalizer in the X1, instead of just dropping the digital gain to make digital headroom like in the X3, it also raises the analog volume to compensate. Thus volume 88 with EQ on corresponds to full analog volume with EQ off. This behaviour also proves that the EQ is really off when it is off.


I really like the implementation you did here for the X1. Any chance of doing the same for the X5?
 
Feb 18, 2015 at 8:04 AM Post #5,061 of 7,791

SallymaeHogsby

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Posts
118
Likes
15
1. The equalizer is off when it is off on the X1.

2. When enabling the equalizer in the X1, instead of just dropping the digital gain to make digital headroom like in the X3, it also raises the analog volume to compensate. Thus volume 88 with EQ on corresponds to full analog volume with EQ off. This behaviour also proves that the EQ is really off when it is off.

 
Thanks!  :)
 
It helps for me to know how the equipment actually works, rather than me just guessing.
 
Feb 18, 2015 at 10:23 AM Post #5,063 of 7,791

ProtegeManiac

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Posts
16,659
Likes
3,233
Location
Manila
  Is the frequency response of the Fiio X1's headphone out is up to 20kHz?
 
Does it mean that playing music above 44.1kHz sampling frequency won't offer any benefit to audio quality?

 
Frequency response and sampling frequency are different thing, but basically yes - higher oversampling frequency benefits are debatable and there's also the possibility that the perceived differences might actually be detrimental.
 
Feb 18, 2015 at 11:34 AM Post #5,065 of 7,791

MelloWatic

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Posts
155
Likes
23
 
Frequency response and sampling frequency are different thing, but basically yes - higher oversampling frequency benefits are debatable and there's also the possibility that the perceived differences might actually be detrimental.

 
Yup, that I know
wink.gif

 
What I'm curious is whether the X1 headphone out can actually output more than 20kHz.
 
Feb 18, 2015 at 2:12 PM Post #5,066 of 7,791
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Posts
13,315
Likes
24,310
   
Yup, that I know
wink.gif

 
What I'm curious is whether the X1 headphone out can actually output more than 20kHz.

It doesn't matter - you can't hear above 20kHz so its a moot point.
 
Feb 18, 2015 at 10:47 PM Post #5,068 of 7,791
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Posts
13,315
Likes
24,310
My understanding is that the filtering process is more gradual with high sampling rates. So that is the source of much of the sonic benefit on hi Rez files. And the 24bits provides more headroom and lower noise floor

 
Agree with both - for recording and mastering - but useless for playback.
 
Feb 18, 2015 at 11:09 PM Post #5,069 of 7,791

originalsnuffy

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Posts
2,988
Likes
1,390
Location
Upper Tundra, USA
I would disagree.  All that goodness that was attributed to the hi rez processing would be eliminated in down rezzing the file back to redbook (or heaven forbid to a lossy format).  So the file must remain in hi rez format to provide those benefits.
 
For those who would say this is all voodoo, I can only offer up my favorite hi rez source.  Put on the 24 bit 192 khz version in stereo of Kind of Blue from HD tracks on a hi rez DAP or a computer that has a 24 bit 192khz sound card and software that can take advantage of all that goodness like Foobar.  If that sounds the same as the CD to you, then hi res is not your bag.
 
No doubt hi rez isn't for everybody.  Nowadays FLAC red book is not mainstream.  And please do not get me going on loudness wars and compression.
 
Feb 18, 2015 at 11:18 PM Post #5,070 of 7,791
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Posts
13,315
Likes
24,310
You're talking about different masterings. Anyway I'm not getting into a debate on it - that just leads to thread locks. Anytime you want to actually test yourself, PM me. I'll give you links and instructions on how to do it properly. And I guarantee you won't be able to tell the difference if taken from the same master copy.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top