[goodyfresh]

I know the X3II is set to have a flat frequency curve but does anyone else think the mids can sound a bit distant at times?

I've come to the realization that some of my hp's don't work as well with the X3II as others. My HD600 sounds great with them but my Sony Z7 has mids that sound to far back imo. On my Hifiman HM-601LE the Z7 sound amazing with the mids coming through much more and to me they sound very balanced. I know hp's sound different with different sources but I can't remember it being as drastic as it is with the X3II and HM-601LE when it comes to my Z7. I still like the X3II, its become the player I use my HD600 with.

That's strange.  How much more powerful is the amp in the Hifiman player than the one in the X3ii?

 

[Headphone4Life]

The Hifiman 601LE is really a 602 with 4gb less of internal memory. I'm not sure how much power the amp puts out but the player is know for its warm smooth sound that give the music a nice analog feel. I would guess they would be close as far as how much power the amp's put out. The X3II is a great player it just doesn't pair well with my Z7 which is fine because I like the way my HD600 sounds through it.

 

[Otakupath]

Hmm... Is there differences among the Fiio amp products like e12, e17k and e18?
Looking for an amp for my Fiio 3ii. Yet to test all the amp, would like to see your opinion about it.

 

[goodyfresh]

Hmm... Is there differences among the Fiio amp products like e12, e17k and e18?
Looking for an amp for my Fiio 3ii. Yet to test all the amp, would like to see your opinion about it.

Well, the e17k and e18 are both not just amps, but also DAC's.  Since the X3ii already has a damn good DAC onboard, using it with one of those could be seen, by many, as a waste of money. . .although some folks I'm sure might possibly prefer the sound-signature of the DAC chipsets in the e17k or the e18 more than the one in the X3ii.  Although I've heard that the e17k often has issues with background-hiss/noise, so keep that in mind too.

The e11k and e12a, on the other hand, are just amps, with no DAC, and by all accounts pair very well with the DAC chip inside the X3ii.  I'm guessing you would get much better sound quality from the e12a paired with the X3ii than from the e17k or e18, as the e12a costs as much as the e17k or e18 for just an amp, with no DAC like those two have, which obviously indicates a far greater quality of amplifier circuitry and chipset inside compared to those other two.  It has greater output power, so it will give better attack.  Etc.

 

[martoediefroets]

Hmm... Is there differences among the Fiio amp products like e12, e17k and e18?
Looking for an amp for my Fiio 3ii. Yet to test all the amp, would like to see your opinion about it.

I have been using my fiio x3ii with the topping nx1 amp for a few days now.
Very cheap and great sound to my ears.

 

[x RELIC x]

The Hifiman 601LE is really a 602 with 4gb less of internal memory. I'm not sure how much power the amp puts out but the player is know for its warm smooth sound that give the music a nice analog feel. I would guess they would be close as far as how much power the amp's put out. The X3II is a great player it just doesn't pair well with my Z7 which is fine because I like the way my HD600 sounds through it.

The HM601LE uses the Philips TDA1543 NOS DAC chip, which is a fairly easy to implement multibit (R-2R) implementation. It would sound smoother and more realistic, generally speaking, than the Delta-Sigma implementation of the X3ii, especially in the mids and treble. This is probably what you are hearing in comparison.

 

[TAMAL]

The HM601LE uses the Philips TDA1543 NOS DAC chip, which is a fairly easy to implement multibit (R-2R) implementation. It would sound smoother and more realistic, generally speaking, than the Delta-Sigma implementation of the X3ii, especially in the mids and treble. This is probably what you are hearing in comparison.

It is also more costly + limited edition

 

[indieke]

The HM601LE uses the Philips TDA1543 NOS DAC chip, which is a fairly easy to implement multibit (R-2R) implementation. It would sound smoother and more realistic, generally speaking, than the Delta-Sigma implementation of the X3ii, especially in the mids and treble. This is probably what you are hearing in comparison.

 
Well I can follow that. I tried the X3ii, with different headphones. And I think it not sound well with real flat sounding Phones. They say the x 3 sound "flat". but really not hear that. On every headphone, the upper mid is imo too much present and on some even irritating. I also find it is less musical then the original X3.
 
I got the message here, it so neutral, ideal to use the equaliser with. Well neutral also means a player can transmit the musicality so well, you NOT NEED to equalise. Weird is that in my tests, the X3ii, sounded best with very colored headphones.
 
Anyway there is always some coloration, and not always meaning more in bass or warm sounding.  Sure the original has some in other areas, but why I like it better is, that the X3ii, not sound so musical, but yes I understand also the one's liking it, because it is faster. But I think it sounds more like any other good player, and not stands out. I could say that having a Cowon, Clip, Sony , or this one, not matter so much, they are all ok.  But I would never change my original x3, for any of these.

 

[goodyfresh]

   
Well I can follow that. I tried the X3ii, with different headphones. And I think it not sound well with real flat sounding Phones. They say the x 3 sound "flat". but really not hear that. On every headphone, the upper mid is imo too much present and on some even irritating. I also find it is less musical then the original X3.
 
I got the message here, it so neutral, ideal to use the equaliser with. Well neutral also means a player can transmit the musicality so well, you NOT NEED to equalise. Weird is that in my tests, the X3ii, sounded best with very colored headphones.
 
Anyway there is always some coloration, and not always meaning more in bass or warm sounding.  Sure the original has some in other areas, but why I like it better is, that the X3ii, not sound so musical, but yes I understand also the one's liking it, because it is faster. But I think it sounds more like any other good player, and not stands out. I could say that having a Cowon, Clip, Sony , or this one, not matter so much, they are all ok.  But I would never change my original x3, for any of these.

It SOUNDS colored BECAUSE it is flat.  This is due to the science of how the human ear and brain perceive sound.  If given the same level of input at any frequency, the X3ii will output sound to the headphones at precisely the same decibel-level at any frequency.  However, the thing is, that sounds at the same volume but different frequencies sound like different volume-levels to the human ear.  The human ear is most sensitive to upper-mids frequencies around 2 to 5kHz, specifically.  Look up the concept of an "equal loudness contour." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

What does this mean, for us?  That if we want things to sound "neutral" to the human ear, we actually have to make them colored to a significant extent.  However, if you look at the equal loudness contour, you'll notice the shape changes drastically as the decibel-level of the sound changes.  That means that for a SOURCE, like a DAP such as the X3ii, it is for the best to make the output be perfectly flat from a sound-pressure standpoint, rather than from the perspective of compensating for an equal-loudness contour.  This means that with perfectly neutral equipment, a DAP such as the X3ii, and many others with a flat loudness-level (not PERCEIVED loudness-level) response, will end up sounding bright, with very elevated-sounding upper-mids.  By using colored headphones with more of a v-shaped signature to them, one compensates for that to some extent or another.

Just thought that folks who don't know about equal-loudness contours as they relate to something like the Fiio X3ii might find all that fairly enlightening!

 

[indieke]

 
It SOUNDS colored BECAUSE it is flat.  This is due to the science of how the human ear and brain perceive sound.  If given the same level of input at any frequency, the X3ii will output sound to the headphones at precisely the same decibel-level at any frequency.  However, the thing is, that sounds at the same volume but different frequencies sound like different volume-levels to the human ear.  The human ear is most sensitive to upper-mids frequencies around 2 to 5kHz, specifically.  Look up the concept of an "equal loudness contour." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

What does this mean, for us?  That if we want things to sound "neutral" to the human ear, we actually have to make them colored to a significant extent.  However, if you look at the equal loudness contour, you'll notice the shape changes drastically as the decibel-level of the sound changes.  That means that for a SOURCE, like a DAP such as the X3ii, it is for the best to make the output be perfectly flat from a sound-pressure standpoint, rather than from the perspective of compensating for an equal-loudness contour.  This means that with perfectly neutral equipment, a DAP such as the X3ii, and many others with a flat loudness-level (not PERCEIVED loudness-level) response, will end up sounding bright, with very elevated-sounding upper-mids.  By using colored headphones with more of a v-shaped signature to them, one compensates for that to some extent or another.

Just thought that folks who don't know about equal-loudness contours as they relate to something like the Fiio X3ii might find all that fairly enlightening!

 
 
I understand you. But in the end, what is the most important is the musicality, the way you are carried away.  So understanding you a flat player like this one, and a flat, accurate headphone is not possible. On the other hand , what use to use a colored headphone. I really tried this with different one's. If you listen to live, amplified music, it is transparent,  (not same as flat), musical and has a warmth in it.  I get the same impression with the FIIO X 3, first generation, on a rather neutral headphone. I cannot achieve this with the FIIo X 3 II, sorry.  I am in no way a "bass nerd"; I have B&W 800 D in my home coupled to the very musical mark Levinson 335 amp. If I put a non musical amp on that it will sound the same way.
 
i wanted to like the FIIO X 3 ii, believe me. I agree the first generation exaggerates, in the other direction, is a bit to thick. But with that neutral headphone, it will sound so musical!
 
I bought a second  X3, first  generation on Ebay.......

 

[goodyfresh]

   
 
I understand you. But in the end, what is the most important is the musicality, the way you are carried away.  So understanding you a flat player like this one, and a flat, accurate headphone is not possible. On the other hand , what use to use a colored headphone. I really tried this with different one's. If you listen to live, amplified music, it is transparent,  (not same as flat), musical and has a warmth in it.  I get the same impression with the FIIO X 3, first generation, on a rather neutral headphone. I cannot achieve this with the FIIo X 3 II, sorry.  I am in no way a "bass nerd"; I have B&W 800 D in my home coupled to the very musical mark Levinson 335 amp. If I put a non musical amp on that it will sound the same way.
 
i wanted to like the FIIO X 3 ii, believe me. I agree the first generation exaggerates, in the other direction, is a bit to thick. But with that neutral headphone, it will sound so musical!
 
I bought a second  X3, first  generation on Ebay.......

No, it's not "not possible," it all depends on what a particular person prefers.  A flat source rather than a colored source is the ideal way for engineers to go, as not only does the equal-loudness contour vary at different loudness levels, but it also varies between different people!  So what sounds flat to one person won't sound quite flat to another.

Here's the other issue.  Different audiophiles want different things.  Some, like you, want musicality above all else.  Others far prefer something analytical, with as much accuracy in regards to reproduction of the original studio sound as possible, without any coloration whatsoever.  That way they can hear the most detail.  Me, I prefer a balance between the two.  For that reason, a flat source like the Fiio X3ii, paired with a colored headphone, is a perfect pairing for me.  The next headphone I'm getting is the Sony MDR-1A, and to me, its bass is JUST boosted enough, while its upper-mids/low-treble are JUST recessed enough, to sound perfect with the X3ii.

 

[indieke]

I agree it is all in combination.   But cannot help it, the X3ii, does not sings to me. It sounds digital against analog to me. When I wen to listen Professional reels in it time, the warmth of these recording, sounded so good.  But the original X 3, would not please me so much if it was only sounding analog, or warm.  That easy gets dull.  No, what works is that is at the same way so transparent and hear every detail. I cannot explain.  It is like you hear every musician crafting his instrument, and is really PLAYING music. I admit i play most Classic Rock and singer/songwriter music.  Well I have that  live sound , I love so, much and not a clinical digital one.  

 

[x RELIC x]

Again. It could just be the difference between Delta-Sigma and multibit / R-2R / Ladder DAC implementation. If anyone has not heard the difference they are blissfully unaware of how natural/organic R-2R can sound when implemented well. From what indieke is describing I would say this is the difference he hears. Delta-Sigma sounds more digital and R-2R sounds more real. Never knew the difference until I heard it myself and read up on the differences in the hardware. Think of it like this.... R-2R is more 1-1 to the source. It looks at the signal bits and outputs the correct voltage based on the bit depth using multiple resistors to represent multiple bit depths. Delta-Sigma, generally, approximates what it receives and recreates the voltage based on an estimation of the bits from the single resistor switching very fast, and noise shaping. This is a VERY general description. The differences are most apparent in the mids and highs where the treble sounds exaggerated and not quite right... Digital.

 

[goodyfresh]

Again. It could just be the difference between Delta-Sigma and multibit / R-2R / Ladder DAC implementation. If anyone has not heard the difference they are blissfully unaware of how natural/organic R-2R can sound when implemented well. From what @indieke is describing I would say this is the difference he hears. Delta-Sigma sounds more digital and R-2R sounds more real. Never knew the difference until I heard it myself and read up on the differences in the hardware. Think of it like this.... R-2R is more 1-1 to the source. It looks at the signal bits and outputs the correct voltage based on the bit depth using multiple resistors to represent multiple bit depths. Delta-Sigma, generally, approximates what it receives and recreates the voltage based on an estimation of the bits from the single resistor switching very fast, and noise shaping. This is a VERY general description. The differences are most apparent in the mids and highs where the treble sounds exaggerated and not quite right... Digital.

What would be an example of a DAC chip which uses R-2R rather than Delta-Sigma, and of a DAP which uses such chips?

 

[x RELIC x]

What would be an example of a DAC chip which uses R-2R rather than Delta-Sigma, and of a DAP which uses such chips?

Audio-GD DAC-19, Master 11, Master 7, Schiit Yggy and Gungnir multibit are examples. I'm not sure which vintage models are R-2R as I haven't been searching for any, but I know Theta DACs are popular. For portable the HM801, HM602, HM601LE, and there are a couple others but I forget which. The resistor ladder DAC, IMO, is the best way to reproduce the digital audio signal accurately now that I've heard it. The literature backs up what I hear. Also Mike at Schiit is adamant about R-2R as well. Delta-Sigma was a road the industry went down for smaller and cheaper hardware but not a path to better music fidelity. I'm happy enough with D-S for portable but not for my desktop anymore. Of course YMMV.

Edit: Just read your post again and the actual chip examples for R-2R are the TI PCM1704UK used in the Audio-GD DACs, Sokeris DACs, and the Phillips TDA1543 are some examples. You can look on Schiit's website to see what they are using. It's a rare tech these days because it's so much more expensive to produce and I believe TI is one of the only major manufacturers making them still for audio applications (I could be wrong here). Delta-Sigma is Sabre, Wolfson, Cirrus Logic, AKM, basically anything that does DSD. To me DSD is simply a super sampled compromised low res format (1 bit). Again, reading the tech on the way it is implemented, I'm convinced DSD is the worst thing for audio fidelity. I know a lot of people will disagree and I'm fine with that. Just going off of what I hear and what I know about the differences.