[wichogt]

Quote:

I talked to James about the storage option a bit. The current hardware can support HD and solid state memory. However, implementing HD will be tricky (mainly on power and interface) and expensive (1.8inch HD isn't cheap when you only buy in small quantity), so the idea is off the table. This leaves to only a sold state solution, which can either be internal or external, and FiiO decided TF makes more sense than an internal memory because it is user removable and upgradeable. Unfortunately there is no way to implement both as there is only one I/O interface for it.

So, would it come with a memory card(say 4 or 8 Gb) ?
or it would come without a memory card so the user can decided from start what size to use(recycle or not) and to reduce the cost of the player.?
 
I may prefer the second option.
 
Also as said before the limit would be 32Gb right? 

 

[Riku540]

I would also like clarification on this. So the X3 will be external memory only with no internal memory? I don't mind if it is; I'd just like to be prepared so I can make sure I get something to use with it.

 

[JamesFiiO]

Yes, you need to buy the TF card by yourself! and X3 does not support internal memory!

 

[shigzeo]

I'm sure Fiio can push this out well and good. While I enjoy players like the Hifiman and Gumstick for their hifi appeal, it's the little things: interface, programmability, buttons, non-dusty screens, gapless, ID3Tag support, etc., that make a player really worthwhile. If the maker can wrangle low levels of background hiss and Rockbox into the package, they have made a perfect item. I can buy storage myself and I've loads of headphones, so that isn't a problem at all. The final bit is for the maker not to point their nose in the sky pretending they are the only choice for 'audiophiles' for instance. We'll all have our sound preferences, so one-upping another company in 'SQ' is pretty shifty. I'd rather have a solid device that sounds good than an all-out 'audiophile' device that either barely works (Gumstick), or sounds pretty shi*ty (AMP3 Pro). 
 
The suggestion to allow the player to target IEMS of 12-24Ω is novel and a pretty good idea, but if a SoC is properly used, it won't be a problem anyway. Every modern SoC player I've used: iPod touch 4G, Sansa Clip, iPod shuffle 4G, etc., can really really drive low Ω iems with no problem at all, even full triple driver customs.
 
Fiio, I am sure you can do it. Good luck.

 

[shigzeo]

But why, or how would you 'disable' gapless unless, it isn't gapless to begin with but cross fading? Gapless doesn't add or subtract anything from any sound; it is as is for songs and albums that need it. This comment has me a bit confused as there is nothing to 'disable' regarding gapless. It doesn't affect shuffling, volume, or anything. It just IS.
 
Quote:

With gapless in place and a switch to disable it, I guess everyone will be happy

 

[Riku540]

Quote:

But why, or how would you 'disable' gapless unless, it isn't gapless to begin with but cross fading? Gapless doesn't add or subtract anything from any sound; it is as is for songs and albums that need it. This comment has me a bit confused as there is nothing to 'disable' regarding gapless. It doesn't affect shuffling, volume, or anything. It just IS.

Just a guess, but it was mentioned if the next track is a different file format than the previous (like in the situation of a playlist) there would be a popping sound when the track switches over with gapless.

 

[shigzeo]

^^ Yes, I saw that later. If that is the case, Rockbox would fix that issue. My RB players, iPods, Sony's - not a single one pops when switching from format to format in shuffle, in loop, or anything. Again, a switch isn't necessary if the language is done well.

 

[friacaif]

What would the benefit be if it got rockbox if fiio were to listen to the feedback and make their system as good, rockbox seems to be a goto when a dap has something missing in their software. In my books if fiio can do what rockbox software does then they would trump all others.

 

[Riku540]

I think the whole to-Rockbox-or-not-to-Rockbox thing has already been put to bed; so people can stop suggesting it.
 
Rockbox has never been natively supported anyway so I don't see why anyone thought it would be this time. Either way Rockbox'ers are going to get it developed 3rd party one way or another; so I don't see why it will be an issue either way.

 

[shigzeo]

Indeed. The problem is that not many DAP makers care to look or use Rockbox. It is such a game-changing firmware that it is a shame that DAP makers insist on doing things the way they do them and hunker down over closed hardware and 'secrets'. Where Fiio seem to be different, however, is where they seem to trend around the user, rather than a high sense of audio morality. I like that and I hope that after their many successes, they can continue on the same track. That track, of course, requires a LOT of research and good programming - something we don't see often if at all.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

But why, or how would you 'disable' gapless unless, it isn't gapless to begin with but cross fading? Gapless doesn't add or subtract anything from any sound; it is as is for songs and albums that need it. This comment has me a bit confused as there is nothing to 'disable' regarding gapless. It doesn't affect shuffling, volume, or anything. It just IS.
 
Quote:

With gapless in place and a switch to disable it, I guess everyone will be happy

 

It goes beyond just poping sound. First of all, I don't mind gap even in gapless record, so gap or gapless really do me no wrong (yes, I do have classical album without gap). Gapless to be is a bonus, not a necessity (at least for me). The issue with gapless goes back the same way as why gapless is needed, because some recording is intended to be listen without gap. But in the opposite way, some song are meant to be listen with gap. Say a song with quick ending suddenly jump into the heavy intro of another song (ans worst of, different genre), how discomforting is that? Normally it is not a problem, but once you combine shuffle with gapless, that could very well be the situation (also, I have a few hip-hop albums I rather listen to with gap). If we can take away gap for the gapless recording, why won't we give the ability to choose whether we want gap for our non-gapless-recorded music? A manually selectable gapless is a win/win for me.

 

[shigzeo]

We'll see, I guess. Again, gapless in these players is determined (it seems) at the firmware level, not at the file level, so there should be no problem moving from one file to another of any format with instant triggers into the next song. 
 
The major point was stated: gaps that were not present in the recording are artefacts. I am glad to have this discussion openly here with the manufacturer, but as stated: gaps never existed in Casettes, DAT's, CD's, MD's - after all the advances digital players have brought, we still have to hammer it out with issues that never were issues till now.

 

[friacaif]

Quote:

Quote:

But why, or how would you 'disable' gapless unless, it isn't gapless to begin with but cross fading? Gapless doesn't add or subtract anything from any sound; it is as is for songs and albums that need it. This comment has me a bit confused as there is nothing to 'disable' regarding gapless. It doesn't affect shuffling, volume, or anything. It just IS.
 
Quote:

With gapless in place and a switch to disable it, I guess everyone will be happy

 

It goes beyond just poping sound. First of all, I don't mind gap even in gapless record, so gap or gapless really do me no wrong (yes, I do have classical album without gap). Gapless to be is a bonus, not a necessity (at least for me). The issue with gapless goes back the same way as why gapless is needed, because some recording is intended to be listen without gap. But in the opposite way, some song are meant to be listen with gap. Say a song with quick ending suddenly jump into the heavy intro of another song (ans worst of, different genre), how discomforting is that? Normally it is not a problem, but once you combine shuffle with gapless, that could very well be the situation (also, I have a few hip-hop albums I rather listen to with gap). If we can take away gap for the gapless recording, why won't we give the ability to choose whether we want gap for our non-gapless-recorded music? A manually selectable gapless is a win/win for me.

Like how certain daps have the option for fade in and out at the start of tracks, you have the same option for there being a gap and there being not. Having the option would be better than to arbitrarily choose one method over the other. I agree with clieos as i would prefer this as an option.

 

[shigzeo]

The thing is that gapless playback isn't arbitrary in the least - albums that aren't gapless stay that way: nothing is removed or added. If you've used an iPod, you'll know what I mean. There simply isn't run-on when albums don't call for it. And for shuffle, a quick fix (shouldn't be necessary, though) is simply to set a shuffle interlude time. 
 
I think that the main group of people who worry about gapless is the group who's never used it. Gapless doesn't remove anything. It doesn't add anything. It just preserves the sound of the original album; a song by itself isn't an album and isn't in itself 'gapless', it's just a song.

 

[EddieE]

I'm not sure everyone here fully understands what gapless means.
 
A CD is gapless, a record is gapless, a tape casette is gapless - gapless playback is simply normal playback.
 
When you hear a segment of silence between two tracks on an album - that is recorded on the album - that is not a gap a player is inserting.
 
That silence will be played like any other part of the track on the gapless player and the player which cannot manage gapless.
 
The only difference is the player which cannot manage gapless inserts an extra gap between the tracks - anything from a little stutter to an audible silence depending on how bad the player is.
 
Gapless playback is NOT A BONUS or a SPECIAL FEATURE - it is just NORMAL PLAYBACK of our albums. Inserting gaps between tracks that do not belong there is a defect we would not accept for a second from a cd player, or a turn table or a tape deck - we would rightly say it was broken. Why does anyone accept it for a second from a DAP????
 
Gapless playback means if songs on an album are supposed to be separated by silence - they still will be.
 
Gapless playback means if songs are supposed to move seamlessly into each other - they still will.
 
Regarding shuffle - it is still a non issue.
 
The only reason songs would run into each other that weren't supposed to on shuffle would be if both the tracks were from a live album or another album with no studio recorded silence between the tracks.
 
I would guess given the make up of the average collection that would be pretty rare. The overwhelming majority of tracks do have a small amount of silence before and after, so shuffling from a song with no silence at the end to one with silence at the beginning - there will still be a gap.