[Brooko]

 
I dispute this. My volume matching was kind of chaotic (that's the way I do my comparisons), but the results were always the same.

 
Funny thing is Jazz - it's the first thing I thought as well.  Volume matching by ear - isn't volume matching. And my comparison of the X5 to X3ii - volume matched with a calibrated meter and test tones to within 0.1 dB - don't exactly match yours.  Could be different headphones (I use the HM5 for a lot of my direct comparisons because it is essentially flat).
 
I agree that the X3ii sounds slightly warmer and more dynamic (edgier if you like). On overall refinement though, I'd say the X5 is smoother, has a blacker background with slightly more space in its imaging.  We're not talking big margins here.
 
I really would suggest getting a calibrated meter though.  You can get them really cheap (I paid $110 NZD for mine), and they are very much worth it - especially if you do a lot of gear comparisons.

 

[JaZZ]

Not saying the frequency levels and overall character changes, just that the differences are much smaller when volume matched. Using a 1kHz tone I matched as close as I could and found that what was bothering me on one player turned out to be a slightly different character when volume matched. Of course different ears and different preferences and all that.

 
You can't volume match using a 1 kHz tone. The 1 kHz level on a sound transducer relative to the rest of the spectrum is rather arbitrary. You need to know that common frequency-response graphs are smoothed, they hide the effective inaccuracies. The only serious way of volume matching would be by means of pink noise.
 
Anyway: If it were impossible to judge electronics components without exact volume matching, we wouldn't find the ones that suit us best sonically. Volume matching is way overrated. It is essential in A/B tests, though.
 
BTW, I already considered the X3 closer to my sonic ideal when I first tried it on a jogging tour, although the last audition of the X5 through its headphone out was weeks ago – at the same activity. Believe it or not.

 

[JaZZ]

   
Funny thing is Jazz - it's the first thing I thought as well.  Volume matching by ear - isn't volume matching. And my comparison of the X5 to X3ii - volume matched with a calibrated meter and test tones to within 0.1 dB - don't exactly match yours.  Could be different headphones (I use the HM5 for a lot of my direct comparisons because it is essentially flat).
 
I agree that the X3ii sounds slightly warmer and more dynamic (edgier if you like). On overall refinement though, I'd say the X5 is smoother, has a blacker background with slightly more space in its imaging.  We're not talking big margins here.
 
I really would suggest getting a calibrated meter though.  You can get them really cheap (I paid $110 NZD for mine), and they are very much worth it - especially if you do a lot of gear comparisons.

 
Thanks, Brooko, but I'm not too much into gear comparison. I evaluate my components without exact volume matching on a regular basis anyway – and regulate the volume in between to remain in the comfort zone. As mentioned, I consider volume matching essential in blind A/B tests with fast switching, though.

 

[Brooko]

 
You can't volume match using a 1 kHz tone. The 1 kHz level on a sound transducer relative to the rest of the spectrum is rather arbitrary. You need to know that common frequency-response graphs are smoothed, they hide the effective inaccuracies. The only serious way of volume matching would be by means of pink noise.

 
Actually - no.
 
The reason you use a solid tone is so that the calibrated meter has a single reference. Pink noise doesn't give you this.  Most people use 1 kHz because it is at the point in the frequency response where our ears are most sensitive to volume.
 
So I take chosen headphones, play them at comfortable listening level - then set up my meter and switch to a 1kHz tone.  Record level.  Then match level on other DAP - either exactly or to within 0.1 dB.  They are now essentially volume matched.  Usiong the same headphones and just switching the DAPs - as long as volume is not touched - I can now do proper A/B comparisons (or even better - blind if my wife is prepared to humour me).

 

[Brooko]

I have no problems with what you're doing if its working for you Jazz.  You have a far better feel for EQ than I do - even though we both use it.  I would encourage you to get a meter though.  It's worth it in the long run.

 

[JaZZ]

  Actually - no.
 
The reason you use a solid tone is so that the calibrated meter has a single reference. Pink noise doesn't give you this.  Most people use 1 kHz because it is at the point in the frequency response where our ears are most sensitive to volume.
 
So I take chosen headphones, play them at comfortable listening level - then set up my meter and switch to a 1kHz tone.  Record level.  Then match level on other DAP - either exactly or to within 0.1 dB.  They are now essentially volume matched.  Usiong the same headphones and just switching the DAPs - as long as volume is not touched - I can now do proper A/B comparisons (or even better - blind if my wife is prepared to humour me).

 
Yes, you're right when it comes to electronics components of decent linearity. I was thinking of headphones. But pink noise would be just as good IMO – it's a single reference as well with a fixed amplitude level. Never tried either, though.

 

[Brooko]

What frequency is the pink noise though?  That's why you use a tone.

 

[JaZZ]

  What frequency is the pink noise though?  That's why you use a tone.

 
It's all audible frequencies at even amplitudes. Shouldn't pose a problem for a good volume meter. Or does it?

 

[JaZZ]

Please let's not discuss my method of comparing the players any further. It's how I do my comparisons, others do theirs in their personal manner, and I suppose just a minority does it with metrological volume matching. So I don't want to be portrayed as an unreliable source of information.
 
What certainly counts, though, is that I just used one pair of IEMs. Therefore the comparison is just valid for the SE846 (and my ears anyway) – which may have benefitted from a synergetic coloration from the X3 II. It doesn't have to, but it's possible.

 

[hongant]

You have cut the tube or the top tip ? Pict please ?

My W4r came with triple flange to! I have cut the first top flange!

Well, what I mean with the top is at the bottom where the orange color is...so it's opposite end  

 

[betula]

   
I understand what you're getting at. Now a hardware EQ in fact has no advantages, only disadvantages: It results in the same phase distortions* and additionally has to deal with capacitors and resistors in the signal path, which certainly have some signal-degrading potential. I have a semi-professional parametric equalizer, but never used it for said reason. While its dedicated function is very useful and flawless, the signal degradation is very audible, resulting in reduced refinement and an omnipresent roughness of the sound – not in a striking manner, but bothering nonetheless in view of the perfectionist approach it implies.
 
With respect to the «artificial sound» from the digital EQ: It's hard to manage a 10-band equalizer without knowing which frequency band to activate for which coloration component – if you were bothered at all by a specific coloration and not just trying to get a better sound without knowing what to change. Whereas mere bass and treble adjustment are easy and bear much less risk to introduce unwanted coloration.
 
* Phase distortions are an inevitable «side-effect» of filters of any kinds. That doesn't mean they have to be harmful. In fact any frequency-response nonlinearity (of a sound transducer or an electronics component) results in a specific phase nonlinearity. So if you compensate for this, both frequency response and phase response are equalized – by introducing the respective reversed distortion. A clean job.

Thanks for this detailed reply, and this 'scientific' approach. Lot of useful information. Although I am just an amateur in this hobby. Going after my ear, not after measurements.
Perfect sound can be different for each of us. What is perfect? Neutral? Realistic? Flat? You need different settings for classical music or electronic music. I listen to many genres, some type of electronic music as well. And in that some extra bass is essential. Preferably the clearest bass, which has the least effect on mids, etc... To me 'perfect' is subjective, what I like the most at the moment... I do not believe in 'objective' perfect sound. Also taste is changing. I could not listen to the sound I listened to 2-3 years ago, and back then I thought that is great. Maybe your taste is more refined, as you are in this hobby for longer time with much more gear experience, maybe our taste is just different. Only time will tell.
Regarding the software eq on X3, I experienced this unpleasant change in sound even when I switched from 'no eq' to eq on, but left all frequencies on zero... On X3ii this difference is much less. But even no eq-d hp out can not compete with lo. So I was about to get a little more bass using the lo...
 To my ears the old X3's hw eq had better effects on the sound than the sw one. It was a shame it was not possible to use it on the lo, as lo sound was much superior (with external amp of course).
 And the X3ii (lo) with the iCan is better than ever. For my purposes, with my ears, with my music... My subjective perfect sound at the moment... I never had this extra bass with leaving the mids and highs 'alone'. And keeping the clarity of the lows... I am just an amateur going after his ears and enjoying every further step in this hobby. I am not really interested in potentiometers, capacitors, whatsoever... Maybe at some point I will be. But not yet.

 

[x RELIC x]

It's all audible frequencies at even amplitudes. Shouldn't pose a problem for a good volume meter. Or does it?

If one player plays a frequency more forward than the other then pink noise would indeed skew the reading on a meter for volume matching. A single reference point for volume matching is better and then all other characteristics can be noted relative to the one point. But you're right we shouldn't choke the thread...... Feel free PM me if you'd like to discuss further as I enjoy reading your points of view.

 

[JaZZ]

  Thanks for this detailed reply, and this 'scientific' approach. Lot of useful information. Although I am just an amateur in this hobby. Going after my ear, not after measurements.
Perfect sound can be different for each of us. What is perfect? Neutral? Realistic? Flat? You need different settings for classical music or electronic music. I listen to many genres, some type of electronic music as well. And in that some extra bass is essential. Preferably the clearest bass, which has the least effect on mids, etc... To me 'perfect' is subjective, what I like the most at the moment... I do not believe in 'objective' perfect sound. Also taste is changing. I could not listen to the sound I listened to 2-3 years ago, and back then I thought that is great. Maybe your taste is more refined, as you are in this hobby for longer time with much more gear experience, maybe our taste is just different. Only time will tell.
Regarding the software eq on X3, I experienced this unpleasant change in sound even when I switched from 'no eq' to eq on, but left all frequencies on zero... On X3ii this difference is much less. But even no eq-d hp out can not compete with lo. So I was about to get a little more bass using the lo...
 To my ears the old X3's hw eq had better effects on the sound than the sw one. It was a shame it was not possible to use it on the lo, as lo sound was much superior (with external amp of course).
 And the X3ii (lo) with the iCan is better than ever. For my purposes, with my ears, with my music... My subjective perfect sound at the moment... I never had this extra bass with leaving the mids and highs 'alone'. And keeping the clarity of the lows... I am just an amateur going after his ears and enjoying every further step in this hobby. I am not really interested in potentiometers, capacitors, whatsoever... Maybe at some point I will be. But not yet.

 
The sonic ideals are very different among Head-Fier's, and that's abolutely o.k. Just one hint with respect to EQ on and off: As soon as it's activated, it will reduce the volume by ~5 dB to create headroom for frequency-band increases (otherwise the music could get into clipping). Maybe it's that what you're experiencing?
 
Some good news: Contrary to the information we got so far, the X3 II does in fact output an equalized signal through its coaxial out.

 

[Prognathous]

Any conclusions on DSD quality vs FLAC? Is there an audible difference?
 
Note that I searched the thread for "DSD", but unfortunately all post have DSD in the title, so it's impossible to find specific opinion about the benefits (if any) that it offers in the X3-II.

 

[JaZZ]

If one player plays a frequency more forward than the other then pink noise would indeed skew the reading on a meter for volume matching. A single reference point for volume matching is better and then all other characteristics can be noted relative to the one point. But you're right we shouldn't choke the thread...... Feel free PM me if you'd like to discuss further as I enjoy reading your points of view.

 
On the contrary: for a fair comparison the over-all volume of the audible frequency range is decisive, not just a fraction of it or just one frequency. At best weighted according to the Fletcher-Munson curve.