[JaZZ]

Just don't expect any EQing. I have no idea why Fiio can't make an EQ that actually does anything but lower the volume. 

 I love you Fiio but please make sure the EQ on the F7 is actually functional.  

 
What are you talking about? I use the (btw. excellent!) equalizer with great success in X3 II, X5 and X5 II. It just doesn't work with sampling rates above 48 kHz if you haven't noticed.

 

[KC33]

 

Just don't expect any EQing. I have no idea why Fiio can't make an EQ that actually does anything but lower the volume. 

 I love you Fiio but please make sure the EQ on the F7 is actually functional.  

 
What are you talking about? I use the (btw. excellent!) equalizer with great success in X3 II, X5 and X5 II. It just doesn't work with sampling rates above 48 kHz if you haven't noticed.

Like I said, it don't work. 

 

[x RELIC x]

Like I said, it don't work. 

You said it lowered the volume so it must be working. FiiO implemented the EQ to give you volume headroom when adjusting the sliders all the way up to ensure no clipping occurs. This is a good thing. Just adjust your EQ and then adjust your volume to the desired level.

 

[goodyfresh]

Major note and edit:  I have deleted the majority of this post as I realize now that it basically amounted to thread-baiting and an invitation to start a flame-war, and that I need to stop doing such things if it is my intention to be a productive member of this community.  I apologize.

HOWEVER, I am still leaving the following part of the post intact for everyone's amusement

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Now THIS GUY right here, HE can hear the difference between 48Khz and 96Khz sample-rates, and he's way cuter than anyone in these forums to-boot:

 

[Brooko]

  Just don't expect any EQing. I have no idea why Fiio can't make an EQ that actually does anything but lower the volume. 

 I love you Fiio but please make sure the EQ on the F7 is actually functional.  

 
Nothing wrong with the 10 band on the X3ii and X5ii as far as I'm concerned.  I use both quite a lot.  And I think you mean X7 right 

 

[KC33]

 

Like I said, it don't work. 

You said it lowered the volume so it must be working. FiiO implemented the EQ to give you volume headroom when adjusting the sliders all the way up to ensure no clipping occurs. This is a good thing. Just adjust your EQ and then adjust your volume to the desired level.

 
That's something that I didn't realize. I'll have to give it a shot next time I'm not amping. Thx Relic

 

  Just don't expect any EQing. I have no idea why Fiio can't make an EQ that actually does anything but lower the volume. 

 I love you Fiio but please make sure the EQ on the F7 is actually functional.  

 
Nothing wrong with the 10 band on the X3ii and X5ii as far as I'm concerned.  I use both quite a lot.  And I think you mean X7 right 

I wish I was, I can't wait for it to come out. 

 

[Zweistein]

who gives a crap if the EQ works with sample-rates higher than 48Khz?

I don't. One of the reasons for getting the X3ii was to figure out this debate, at least on reasonably priced hardware. On my big optical spinner, I can discern the SACD layer from the CD layer on some tracks (but I don't know whether this is due to resolution or to the way the CD data was cooked). On the X3ii (with the same amplifier and headphones), comparing carefully chosen short samples, I cannot hear any difference between 192kHz 24-bit and the 48kHz 16-bit versions I downsampled from them. By the way, I learned that lowering the sample rate can be done in many ways, and some of these lead to changes that I think I can hear, so I first focused on the simplest approach, called downsampling in sox: keep every Nth sample as is, completely ignore the N-1 samples in between, and obviously play them at a slower pace (according to the documentation, this could lead to "aliasing", but as said, I can't hear any difference). Even at 32 kHz, throwing out 5/6 of the samples, it's quite a subtle difference to hunt down. At 24kHz, it's obvious when comparing, but I would probably never realize otherwise. At 16kHz it's glaringly obvious, like a mono radio switched from FM to AM.

 

[x RELIC x]

I don't. One of the reasons for getting the X3ii was to figure out this debate, at least on reasonably priced hardware. On my big optical spinner, I can discern the SACD layer from the CD layer on some tracks (but I don't know whether this is due to resolution or to the way the CD data was cooked). On the X3ii (with the same amplifier and headphones), comparing carefully chosen short samples, I cannot hear any difference between 192kHz 24-bit and the 48kHz 16-bit versions I downsampled from them. By the way, I learned that lowering the sample rate can be done in many ways, and some of these lead to changes that I think I can hear, so I first focused on the simplest approach, called downsampling in sox: keep every Nth sample as is, completely ignore the N-1 samples in between, and obviously play them at a slower pace (according to the documentation, this could lead to "aliasing", but as said, I can't hear any difference). Even at 32 kHz, throwing out 5/6 of the samples, it's quite a subtle difference to hunt down. At 24kHz, it's obvious when comparing, but I would probably never realize otherwise. At 16kHz it's glaringly obvious, like a mono radio switched from FM to AM.

Not sure what you're referring to here.

If you're talking sampling at different rates then 16kHz, 24kHz, and 32kHz makes no sense.

If you're saying you can hear 24kHz and 32kHz frequencies then you're a bat.

If you're getting your sampling rates mixed up with bit depth(resolution) then I doubt there's much difference that is audible from 16 to 24 (certainly not to the extent you are describing) and 32 makes no sense as that's way beyond any ability to hear the noise floor to be discernible.

 

[Zweistein]

I wish Fiio had made the working of the equalizer clear by showing the bars in the off-profile to be close to the top. Because that's what happens when you turn off the equalizer: you get a 5dB boost. With the 1.1 firmware, an equalizer profile with all bars 6 notches from the top is identical to the "off" profile for me. Except that the battery icon sometimes drops a level while the equalizer is on, and regains power when you turn it off again...
If you adjust the profile from there, there's still some leeway to up some bands, and then it's easy to compare the original sound to the equalized one. But as other have hinted at, it probably leads to distortion, at least if the source signal has no headroom (i.e. is younger than 20 years and not audiophile).

 

[Zweistein]

Not sure what you're referring to here.

I think maybe you're not considering the possibility that I agree with you.
 
Sure it makes sense to try a sample rate of 32kHz or lower. To find out what might be missing at 48kHz, it pays to look how far down you need to go to find evil, and how evil sounds. I'm saying that at a sample rate of 32kHz or even 24, the loss (1) is negligible, and nothing of that sort can be heard at 48. So 48 or 44.1 is as good as it gets. Higher sample rates on the X3ii are just wasting memory space, draining battery power and thwarting features like the equalizer. But it's great that we have the opportunity to judge for ourselves.
 
I didn't mention the "narrowing" of 24 to 16 bit, because I tested it separately from downsampling, and as you said, there is no audible difference on straight playback. This narrowing too can be done in multiple ways, truncating and dithering, but I don't hear a difference either way. I didn't try to check how much headroom there is here (how many more bits can we shed before they're missed?).
 
(1) Categorizing the difference after downsampling as a loss is an assumption: it could be that hi-res files have adverse effects somewhere down the amplification line, and downsampling removes these effects, so the difference would actually be an improvement. But I don't think that's the case, so I call any difference a loss.

 

[x RELIC x]

You threw me for a loop as sampling rates are standardized at multiples of 44.1kHz and 48kHz. Not understanding why you would even try 32kHz..... As far as I know there is no hardware that will sample at 32kHz.

 

[originalsnuffy]

I realize that this comment is not where you were going with the 32khz sampling...but....
 
I use that rate sometimes for voice recordings.  Like taping webinars, etc.

 

[x RELIC x]

Ah, I just never thought it would be used as a comparison when actually talking about audio quality. Re-reading the conversation I realize it is an academic pursuit that Zweistein is investigating. Understood.

 

[JaZZ]

Originally Posted by Zweistein /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I wish Fiio had made the working of the equalizer clear by showing the bars in the off-profile to be close to the top. Because that's what happens when you turn off the equalizer: you get a 5dB boost. With the 1.1 firmware, an equalizer profile with all bars 6 notches from the top is identical to the "off" profile for me. Except that the battery icon sometimes drops a level while the equalizer is on, and regains power when you turn it off again...
If you adjust the profile from there, there's still some leeway to up some bands, and then it's easy to compare the original sound to the equalized one. But as other have hinted at, it probably leads to distortion, at least if the source signal has no headroom (i.e. is younger than 20 years and not audiophile).

 

 
If you knew how an equalizer works, you would know that you won't get a flat frequency response with all sliders set to the top or any other position than neutral. It's only by chance that the bands of this «octave equalizer» have a bandwidth of roughly one octave – but certainly not exactly.

 

[goodyfresh]

  I don't. One of the reasons for getting the X3ii was to figure out this debate, at least on reasonably priced hardware. On my big optical spinner, I can discern the SACD layer from the CD layer on some tracks (but I don't know whether this is due to resolution or to the way the CD data was cooked). On the X3ii (with the same amplifier and headphones), comparing carefully chosen short samples, I cannot hear any difference between 192kHz 24-bit and the 48kHz 16-bit versions I downsampled from them. By the way, I learned that lowering the sample rate can be done in many ways, and some of these lead to changes that I think I can hear, so I first focused on the simplest approach, called downsampling in sox: keep every Nth sample as is, completely ignore the N-1 samples in between, and obviously play them at a slower pace (according to the documentation, this could lead to "aliasing", but as said, I can't hear any difference). Even at 32 kHz, throwing out 5/6 of the samples, it's quite a subtle difference to hunt down. At 24kHz, it's obvious when comparing, but I would probably never realize otherwise. At 16kHz it's glaringly obvious, like a mono radio switched from FM to AM.

Yuuuuuuup, I'm glad somebody agrees

The fact is that if you look at what different sample-rates actually DO, it should become immediately obvious that any sample-rate above 48KHz simply CAN'T make an audible difference, not for the ears of Homo Sapiens anyways   Funny thing though:  My friend back in West Virginia has some of his music in 24/192, and when he plays certain of those tracks on studio monitors or even on open headphones, his dog (it's a bulldog) starts flipping its ****, running all over the place barking and going crazy.  We're pretty sure it's due to ultrasonic (super high-frequency) harmonics in the music that we as humans can't hear but which dogs can   Sample rates of 48Khz wouldn't make dogs flip-out because they can only produce frequencies up to 24Khz.