[originalsnuffy]

This post had a very nice theme that is worth looking at.  It might be a good inspiration for other themes.
 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/743704/the-fiio-x3-2nd-gen-ex-x3k-x3ii-thread-192k-24b-cs4398-native-dsd-usb-dac-with-lo-and-inline-remote/7170#post_12373251

 

[JWolf]

  This post had a very nice theme that is worth looking at.  It might be a good inspiration for other themes.
 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/743704/the-fiio-x3-2nd-gen-ex-x3k-x3ii-thread-192k-24b-cs4398-native-dsd-usb-dac-with-lo-and-inline-remote/7170#post_12373251

 
Useless because there are no screen shots to see if we actually want it or not.

 

[javre76]

  This post had a very nice theme that is worth looking at.  It might be a good inspiration for other themes.
 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/743704/the-fiio-x3-2nd-gen-ex-x3k-x3ii-thread-192k-24b-cs4398-native-dsd-usb-dac-with-lo-and-inline-remote/7170#post_12373251

Actually, that is what I decided to put together a FW of my own, I tried that custom firmware and it is not of my taste, I am not fond of pastel colors. I understand why those colors were used, but I just do not like it (again IMO). I think the FIIO UI is quite nice, for me, it just needed some refinement and that is what I did. But everything is about options! Now there are two alternative themes instead of one which is nice.

 

[originalsnuffy]

Actually, that is what I decided to put together a FW of my own, I tried that custom firmware and it is not of my taste, I am not fond of pastel colors. I understand why those colors were used, but I just do not like it (again IMO). I think the FIIO UI is quite nice, for me, it just needed some refinement and that is what I did. But everything is about options! Now there are two alternative themes instead of one which is nice.

I will definitely try out your theme. Larger fonts and improved ability to see the unit in daylight are the key features that I look for

JWolf. Sorry if giving a link is useless for you without pictures. I will send a maid service to your house to make up for it

 

[Romani]

I will definitely try out your theme. Larger fonts and improved ability to see the unit in daylight are the key features that I look for

JWolf. Sorry if giving a link is useless for you without pictures. I will send a maid service to your house to make up for it

Lol

 

[Cathcart]

I currently have an E12 and Audio-Technica ATH-R70x, usually hooked up to my laptop or Note 4. Will an X3ii be an improvement?

 

[Zweistein]

I've equipped the recent 1.6 FW with a slightly enhanced version of my higher contrast, larger font theme. I don't use DAC nor OTG so I didn't (yet) see any difference between 1.4 and 1.6.
 
Fear not, originalsnuffy, I provided an updated 1.4 FW with OTG as well. However, I must shatter your hope to feed ghosts to pacman, I didn't see any way to extend the progress bar higher up, and even fruit doesn't look tasteful when squashed down to 5 pixels high. So I opted for a world below ground level. Couldn't come up with a convincing yellow submarine though. Yes, I'm unemployed again and this time really enjoying it! Taking a picture of the screen is not an enjoyable experience though. Here's the least ugly one: the X3II's screen is way better than this suggests...
 

 
The two versions are in the 1.4 and 1.6 folders of this dropbox share.

 

[javre76]

I've equipped the recent 1.6 FW with a slightly enhanced version of my higher contrast, larger font theme. I don't use DAC nor OTG so I didn't (yet) see any difference between 1.4 and 1.6.

Fear not, originalsnuffy, I provided an updated 1.4 FW with OTG as well. However, I must shatter your hope to feed ghosts to pacman, I didn't see any way to extend the progress bar higher up, and even fruit doesn't look tasteful when squashed down to 5 pixels high. So I opted for a world below ground level. Couldn't come up with a convincing yellow submarine though. Yes, I'm unemployed again and this time really enjoying it! Taking a picture of the screen is not an enjoyable experience though. Here' the least ugly one: the X3II's screen is way better than this suggests...

I really like that battery icon, looks very familiar.

 

[geebo]

The link for the modded 1.6 firmware doesn't seem to work...

 

[JWolf]

  The link for the modded 1.6 firmware doesn't seem to work...

 
It's not that it doesn't seem to work, it doesn't work 100%,

 

[thepooh]

After a discussion with Brooko, he suggested that I do a blind test between AIFF and other formats using the same master without additional DSP to prove that there's no differences within lossless codecs.

In fact the blind test confirmed my first argument, there're noticeable differences between these formats. Not significant in a way to say night and day, but the tracks doesn't sound the same from a codec to another. I don't have golden ears but they perceive every single variance with the SE846 plugged into my X3II.

Using the same track " In the Flesh" by Pink Floyd (The Wall, track no1) ripped in 4 different formats through dbpoweramp from original CD of 2011 Discovery remasters

a. AIFF - sounds more open/airy, nothing is congested as every single instrument can be heard clearer, my rating would be 10/10
b. WAV - very similar to AIFF but seems warmer and less analitycal, my rating 9.5/10
c. FLAC - sounds quieter, I had to push the volume from 60/120 to 63/120 to get the same level from the first 2 formats, same clarity but with less air between instruments, my rating 8.5/10
d. ALAC - same SQ as Flac but a little on the warmer side, less airy than Flac, my rating 8/10

They are all very closed, but there are definitely some differences. My ears can hear them (maybe a placebo effect, I'm not sure), but doesn't seems to be the case for everyone so take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[Brooko]

How did you volume match? We're you using the ABX software in Foobar? And if you did the test under completely controlled circumstances - then you do have golden ears and you're also a first (like first ever). This would actually be game changing if you can repeat it with an independent observer.

Can you run through exactly what method you used?

 

[JWolf]

After a discussion with Brooko, he suggested that I do a blind test between AIFF and other formats using the same master without additional DSP to prove that there's no differences within lossless codecs.

In fact the blind test confirmed my first argument, there're noticeable differences between these formats. Not significant in a way to say night and day, but the tracks doesn't sound the same from a codec to another. I don't have golden ears but they perceive every single variance with the SE846 plugged into my X3II.

Using the same track " In the Flesh" by Pink Floyd (The Wall, track no1) ripped in 4 different formats through dbpoweramp from original CD of 2011 Discovery remasters

a. AIFF - sounds more open/airy, nothing is congested as every single instrument can be heard clearer, my rating would be 10/10
b. WAV - very similar to AIFF but seems warmer and less analitycal, my rating 9.5/10
c. FLAC - sounds quieter, I had to push the volume from 60/120 to 63/120 to get the same level from the first 2 formats, same clarity but with less air between instruments, my rating 8.5/10
d. ALAC - same SQ as Flac but a little on the warmer side, less airy than Flac, my rating 8/10

They are all very closed, but there are definitely some differences. My ears can hear them (maybe a placebo effect, I'm not sure), but doesn't seems to be the case for everyone so take it with a pinch of salt.

 
Did you rip 4 different times or did you rip once to WAV and then compress in the other three formats? If you ripped 4 times, then your testing doesn't count because they might not be identical and could maybe sound difference.

 

[thepooh]

How did you volume match? We're you using the ABX software in Foobar? And if you did the test under completely controlled circumstances - then you do have golden ears and you're also a first (like first ever). This would actually be game changing if you can repeat it with an independent observer.

Can you run through exactly what method you used?

No I didn't go through Foobar ABX. Just ripped 4 times using the same software, copied all files on my X3II and auditioned only with the Shure 846

Actually, there are two types of headfiers on headfi

a. Those relying on numbers and graphs
b. Those relying on their ears

I'm surely not in the first picture, I always trust my ears more than numbers and graphs. As a result, I always read a minimum of 5 reviews with physical audition if available before investing in a new audio stuff. Again, this is where sound can be very subjective. Everybody doesn't hear the same thing with the same pair of headphones plugged into the same dap.

For e.g my wife always found my desktop hifi system to be bassy and muffled, but I found it to be perfectly tuned for my taste. In fact, I don't know if I'm treble sensitive but seem to.

Psychology plays a very big role when it comes to sound, if you are already convinced that a pair of headphones sounds bassy before hearing it, it will definitely sounds bassy when you hear it.

Furthermore, there's a dedicated thread in sound science where hundreds of headfiers are comparing the differences between audio codecs, you'll be amazed to read how I'm not the only one thinking like I do.

 

[JWolf]

No I didn't go through Foobar ABX. Just ripped 4 times using the same software, copied all files on my X3II and auditioned only with the Shure 846

 
Your test is flawed. It's possible you could have 4 different tracks. What you have to do is rip once to WAV and then convert that to the other lossless formats. You cannot be sure that every tracks is 100% exact especially if there was even a single error in any of the rips. Delete all the tracks except the WAV. Use the WAV to convert to the other formats and o your testing again. Until you do, your results are flawed and do not matter.