[ClieOS]

Quote:

i hv a little question here for feiao or anybody who know the reason....why big company like Sony , Samsung n cowon never reveal what type of DAC chip they use and the Opamp ??
im a sony user and im fascinated by the sony sound..and if im nt wrong feiao said that company like sony and cowon can make the best player, what makes feiao to say so???

Answer to 1st Q: Because they sell their stuff to the general consumer and not just audiophile or tech-head. Average consumer care nothing about DAC or opamp, they just care about words like 'world first' or 'best in class'.
 
Answer to 2nd Q: Because Sony, Samsung, Apple, big brands, etc have a lot more fund and engineering power at their disposal to make the best player if they wish to. They are however not in the business of making audiophile happy but in the business of making money. You can make a lot more money with a product that compromises between cost and quality and so that's what they do.

 

[vizzle]

Go Fiio with X3 I need to spend my money on something

 

[Nihility]

Im really getting sick of my ipod.. release this thing already!

 

[zenki14]

I got bored waiting until August, so I built a DIYmod 5G to atleast have a good source in the meantime.
 
Still I have interest in how this player will turn out.

 

[jammerlee711]

Quote:

Answer to 1st Q: Because they sell their stuff to the general consumer and not just audiophile or tech-head. Average consumer care nothing about DAC or opamp, they just care about words like 'world first' or 'best in class'.
 
Answer to 2nd Q: Because Sony, Samsung, Apple, big brands, etc have a lot more fund and engineering power at their disposal to make the best player if they wish to. They are however not in the business of making audiophile happy but in the business of making money. You can make a lot more money with a product that compromises between cost and quality and so that's what they do.

but...the sony sounds really good~i think it has the sound of the asking price let's say a450...it hv a really nice sound tat live up to its asking price i think

 

[Sylverant]

Found out something really interesting. This mod proves that current or older SDXC cards are really just over-sized/over-glorified SDHC cards. My friends Sansa Fuze reads my modded card just fine. Newer cards will have extra pins, but the older only had new formatting & partition schemes that can be relatively easily gotten around.
 
Here: http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/showpost.php?p=542017&postcount=47
 
Micro sdxc cards will probably have the extra pins so this doesn't apply to the X3; but it is a great thing for Sansa Fuze/Cowon D2/D2+ owners.

 

[TheAwesomesauceShow]

Quote:

Found out something really interesting. This mod proves that SDXC cards are really just over-sized/over-glorified SDHC cards. My friends Sansa Fuze reads my modded card just fine. There really is no difference between SDHC and SDXC, it isn't hardware after all but rather a formatting & partition issue that can be relatively easily gotten around.
 
Here: http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/showpost.php?p=542017&postcount=47
 
Looks like the X3 is still in 

 
Edit: grammer
 
For Micro SDXC owners anyway 

I thought SDHC is capable of 2tb storage.  Stopping progression on SDHC and making another 'format' to upgrade to is seems like Apple-ish in my opinion. In the past and still apparent today, if you want storage increase in your ipod, you have to buy a new one each year.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Found out something really interesting. This mod proves that SDXC cards are really just over-sized/over-glorified SDHC cards. My friends Sansa Fuze reads my modded card just fine. There really is no difference between SDHC and SDXC, it isn't hardware after all but rather a formatting & partition issue that can be relatively easily gotten around.
 
Here: http://anythingbutipod.com/forum/showpost.php?p=542017&postcount=47
 
Looks like the X3 is still in 

 
Edit: grammer
 
For Micro SDXC owners anyway 

Two issues to consider for starters.
 
1-You omitted 'current' from the bolded statement in its original form.
2-Good luck w/ your theory since the most current SDXC spec 4.0 requires an extra pin on the connector.  If people think vendors will make 2TB SDXC cards supporting the older specs they will be disappointed. 
 
"The Secure Digital Extended Capacity (SDXC) format was unveiled at CES 2009 (January 7–10, 2009). The maximum capacity defined for SDXC cards is 2 TB (2048 GB). The older SDHC cards also have a maximum capacity of 2 TB based on the card data structures, but this is artificially limited to 32 GB by the SD 2.0 specification. The first SDXCs being released are governed by an SD 3.0 specification (which also still specifies FAT32 and thus lower capacities), whereas higher capacity and faster SDXCs are expected to follow an SD 4.0 specification, which was due to be released in spring of 2010.^[45]
The maximum transfer rate of SDXCs which follow the SD 3.0 specification was announced as 832 Mbit/s (these are called UHS104 speeds^[45]), with plans that the SD 4.0 specification shall increase this to 2.4 Gbit/s.

The SDcard association selected Microsoft's proprietary exFAT file system in the official SDXC specification;^[46][47][48] however, as with SD and SDHC, it is still a plain block device and thus arbitrary partitioning and other file systems can be used, such as ext4, HFS Plus, NTFS, UFS, etc."

 

"In the 3.0 specification, the electronic interface of SDHC and SDXC cards is the same. This means that SDHC hosts which have drivers which recognize the newly used capability bits, and have operating system software which understands the exFAT filesystem, are compatible with SDXC cards. The decision to label cards with a capacity greater than 32GB as SDXC and to use a different filesystem is due solely to the limitations in creating larger filesystems in certain versions of Microsoft Windows. Other operating system kernels, such as Linux, make no distinction between SDHC and SDXC cards, as long as the card contains a compatible filesystem.

SDHC and SDXC cards and hosts have these compatibility issues:

1. Existing SDHC hosts will only support the SDXC cards at up to UHS104 speeds;^[45]
2. SDXC hosts are backward compatible with SD and SDHC memory cards.^[61]
3. The operating systems that currently support SDXC are: Linux (with a proprietary driver for the exFAT filesystem^[62]), Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista SP1+,^[61] Windows XP SP2 or SP3 with KB955704,^[63] Windows Server 2008 SP1+, Windows Server 2003 SP2 or SP3 with KB955704, Windows CE 6+, and Mac OS X Snow Leopard (Intel-based)^[64]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital

 

 

[Sylverant]

Quote:

Two issues to consider for starters.
 
1-You omitted 'current' from the bolded statement in its original form.
2-Good luck w/ your theory since the most current SDXC spec 4.0 requires an extra pin on the connector.  If people think vendors will make 2TB SDXC cards supporting the older specs they will be disappointed. 
 
"The Secure Digital Extended Capacity (SDXC) format was unveiled at CES 2009 (January 7–10, 2009). The maximum capacity defined for SDXC cards is 2 TB (2048 GB). The older SDHC cards also have a maximum capacity of 2 TB based on the card data structures, but this is artificially limited to 32 GB by the SD 2.0 specification. The first SDXCs being released are governed by an SD 3.0 specification (which also still specifies FAT32 and thus lower capacities), whereas higher capacity and faster SDXCs are expected to follow an SD 4.0 specification, which was due to be released in spring of 2010.^[45]
The maximum transfer rate of SDXCs which follow the SD 3.0 specification was announced as 832 Mbit/s (these are called UHS104 speeds^[45]), with plans that the SD 4.0 specification shall increase this to 2.4 Gbit/s.

The SDcard association selected Microsoft's proprietary exFAT file system in the official SDXC specification;^[46][47][48] however, as with SD and SDHC, it is still a plain block device and thus arbitrary partitioning and other file systems can be used, such as ext4, HFS Plus, NTFS, UFS, etc."

 

"In the 3.0 specification, the electronic interface of SDHC and SDXC cards is the same. This means that SDHC hosts which have drivers which recognize the newly used capability bits, and have operating system software which understands the exFAT filesystem, are compatible with SDXC cards. The decision to label cards with a capacity greater than 32GB as SDXC and to use a different filesystem is due solely to the limitations in creating larger filesystems in certain versions of Microsoft Windows. Other operating system kernels, such as Linux, make no distinction between SDHC and SDXC cards, as long as the card contains a compatible filesystem.

SDHC and SDXC cards and hosts have these compatibility issues:

1. Existing SDHC hosts will only support the SDXC cards at up to UHS104 speeds;^[45]
2. SDXC hosts are backward compatible with SD and SDHC memory cards.^[61]
3. The operating systems that currently support SDXC are: Linux (with a proprietary driver for the exFAT filesystem^[62]), Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista SP1+,^[61] Windows XP SP2 or SP3 with KB955704,^[63] Windows Server 2008 SP1+, Windows Server 2003 SP2 or SP3 with KB955704, Windows CE 6+, and Mac OS X Snow Leopard (Intel-based)^[64]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital

 

Very true; I didn't know about the planned extra pin. I was just happy that my full size class 4 64gb Sandisk Ultra worked so well being read by the Sansa Fuze. It was a release date card so that makes sense though.
 
This mod means nothing anymore since newer 64gb cards and larger probably either already have the extra pin, and when micro SDXC cards come out they will most likely have them as well. 
 
Thanks anaxilus; I edited my post but do you think it doesn't belong here at all? Since it doesn't apply to the X3 anymore maybe I should remove it, but i'm not really sure.
 
Edit: I used an adapter but yes, it worked well with the Fuze.

 

[Anaxilus]

You're fine.  

 
Edit - If I recall the extra pin is to increase transfer speeds.  The problem is that once you reach into Terabytes of storage the current speeds will be woefully inadequate wrt practical use when accessing that much data.

 

[Sylverant]

Quote:

You're fine.  

 
Edit - If I recall the extra pin is to increase transfer speeds.  The problem is that once you reach into Terabytes of storage the current speeds will be woefully inadequate wrt practical use when accessing that much data.

I can understand that, I ended up purchasing and returning a 32gb card for the PSP-3000 because real life access times were pretty bad. Rather use 2 16gb cards and switch em out.
 

 

[qusp]

i know its late and probably aint gonna happen if its not already in the plan, but i will mainly use this as a transport for an external dac/amp (i do hope you think about a transport only version) but one of the things i LOVE about the iriver ihp1xx series is the remote, this means i can have the rig in a big jacket pocket, or in my manbag and the only thing i need to have accessible is the small (tethered) remote. so please if you can, i hope there is an interface that could allow a tethered or even wifi remote to connect to the i2c bus and control the dap, without having to remove the somewhat bulky mass of connected devices, only the remote and the headphones need to be accessible for most functionality (in the case of the iriver, every function, as it is a duplication of the controls)

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

i know its late and probably aint gonna happen if its not already in the plan, but i will mainly use this as a transport for an external dac/amp (i do hope you think about a transport only version) but one of the things i LOVE about the iriver ihp1xx series is the remote, this means i can have the rig in a big jacket pocket, or in my manbag and the only thing i need to have accessible is the small (tethered) remote. so please if you can, i hope there is an interface that could allow a tethered or even wifi remote to connect to the i2c bus and control the dap, without having to remove the somewhat bulky mass of connected devices, only the remote and the headphones need to be accessible for most functionality (in the case of the iriver, every function, as it is a duplication of the controls)

What if you could detach the hard touch controls from the unit body and have a remote in hand?  

 

 

[qusp]

Sure, that would be excellent, but would certainly present some design challenges $$, if a dock connector on the bottom was used it need not effect anyone that doesnt need the function and they wouldnt have to buy it, it could be an optional accessory.

 

[TheAwesomesauceShow]

Or they could add full size usb ports(2) and bigger battery compartment to the device so we can just use portable hdd instead of paying $200-400 for a 128gb micro-sdxc(I think they haven't made that yet, that is why it's going to be expensive

)