[lime51]

I apologize if by chance the information has already been given and I have not seen it but... with the Apple Camera Kit it's possible to connect the x3 and use it as a DAC for the ipad ?

 

[frankrondaniel]

im still waiting on someone to let me know what the factory default settings for the tusbaudio driver for windows are.....let me know, guys

I just installed - it's working great.  I haven't touched any of the settings.  Hopefully this is what you're looking for:
 
Buffer Settings: USB Streaming Mode - Extra Safe, ASIO Buffer Size - 2048
 
Device 0: Streaming Mode - Power Saving
Stream Formats - 2-channels, 24 bits.
 
Not sure if that's what you need.

 

[Dixter]

I apologize if by chance the information has already been given and I have not seen it but... with the Apple Camera Kit it's possible to connect the x3 and use it as a DAC for the ipad ?

I tried it on an Ipad 2 and I could not get it to work...  when you first plug the X3 into the Ipad the DAC icon would show up on the X3 and then a second later the battery charge icon would go on...
 
I tried it with both Ipad and X3 fully charged and it still would not work...  

 

[ramaka]

   
I am happy to report that the Senn HD650s sound excellent, no make that AWESOME, with the X3. With high gain I only need to set the volume in the 22-25 range to get a full impact-full sound with super imaging. I really can't image the HD650s doing a better job with a different amp or dac, but I haven't heard them from a Bottlehead Crack amp or similar tube amp yet. 
 
 

 
I have the same set up and love it! Currently building Crack (after a week or so upgrade with Speedball) and should have it up and running by weekend !

 

[castleofargh]

+1 on the hd650+X3 I find it to be a nice combo in fact it is the only one I use on the X3 without EQ. it's a nice "house adventurer combo" ^_^

 

[pennylane]

They acknowledge the difference is there. However, you kind of have to read between the lines to see what they are saying. 16/44.1 makes sense for listening and audibility purposes because as far as the physical limitations of human physiology goes, the most you can make use of is 22khz, and the most dynamic range you NEED is 16 bits, though 24 bits (while undoubtedly useful for added dynamic range) is entirely useless given the actual dynamic range of music. What they say is that 44.1 is without a doubt all you need because without a doubt, people cant hear over 22khz, and in some cases you might end up damaging the transducer trying to play higher frequencies on your transducers, assuming you dont have a 70khz capable BW 800 series diamond sitting in your living room.

For 24 bit, it WOULD be useful, but no one uses a full 24 bits of dynamic range. that is to say, the difference between the softest and loudest note is never so great that you really even need the full 24 bits to hold it.

HOWEVER! the increased sample rate and larger bit rate is extraordinarily useful for mixing and mastering because of how much "stuff" you have to do to the music before its all at the right volume levels, going through the right channels, and put through the correct DSP's for the correct stereo/multichannel imaging. Plus all the added digital effects.

And to add to the 16 bit argument, dont forget about dithering.

 
What do you mean by the last part?  That by downscaling from 24-bit (or whatever) master to the 16-bit commercial audio track, the introduced dithering could be a source of audio quality loss?  And that one benefit to 24-bit files would be less (or no) dithering between the master and the commercial audio track?
 
EDIT: Based on Marlene's post, I'm guessing I misunderstood what you meant, but I'l leave up the previous paragraph for those keeping score at home.
 
I wonder then if this is one of the only benefits to "high-res" music.  What you said makes sense (and is more or less what I've thought), so I never really got the purpose of 24-bit/96kHz audio.  I recall reading somewhere that while recording engineers agreed that a "perfect" waveform was achievable via 16-bit/44.1 kHz, they found it easier to achieve that "perfect" waveform with 24-bit/96kHz.  It's all hearsay though.
 
I've jumped on the X3 wagon, and I may try comparing formats with it.  It would be more convenient than with my home set-up.

 

[AgentXXL]

I apologize if by chance the information has already been given and I have not seen it but... with the Apple Camera Kit it's possible to connect the x3 and use it as a DAC for the ipad ?

Sorry, it's not possible to use the X3 as an external DAC for iOS devices. Both the original 30 pin and the new Lightning CCK only work with external DACs that offer support for USB audio Class 1. The X3 is designed and implemented as a USB audio class 2 device. To use the X3 with iOS will require an app written that includes a built-in USB audio class 2 driver.

Dale

 

[Marlene]

They acknowledge the difference is there. However, you kind of have to read between the lines to see what they are saying. 16/44.1 makes sense for listening and audibility purposes because as far as the physical limitations of human physiology goes, the most you can make use of is 22khz, and the most dynamic range you NEED is 16 bits, though 24 bits (while undoubtedly useful for added dynamic range) is entirely useless given the actual dynamic range of music. What they say is that 44.1 is without a doubt all you need because without a doubt, people cant hear over 22khz, and in some cases you might end up damaging the transducer trying to play higher frequencies on your transducers, assuming you dont have a 70khz capable BW 800 series diamond sitting in your living room.

 
That is precisely one of the things they said I don´t agree with. Ever heard an amplifier or a headphone exploding from signals beyond 20 kHz? I never did. This is a mantra people seem to have been telling for ages "Signals above 20 kHz can´t be heard, they are even dangerous." I mean... this discussion could have been led 40 years ago... have you ever seen the distortions vinyl produces above 20 kHz? They have a much higher gain compared to real-world signals like overtones of instruments. Only shaped quantization noise from DSD is louder. No transducer was ever damaged if I remember correctly. Well, I´ve never heard about it at least. Though I´ll gladly accept to be corrected.
 

For 24 bit, it WOULD be useful, but no one uses a full 24 bits of dynamic range. that is to say, the difference between the softest and loudest note is never so great that you really even need the full 24 bits to hold it.

HOWEVER! the increased sample rate and larger bit rate is extraordinarily useful for mixing and mastering because of how much "stuff" you have to do to the music before its all at the right volume levels, going through the right channels, and put through the correct DSP's for the correct stereo/multichannel imaging. Plus all the added digital effects.

And to add to the 16 bit argument, dont forget about dithering.

 
I´ve often read that the engineers of the CD wanted a higher samplerate, something like 50-60 kHz. Not for sampling quality, just for being able to construct a simpler aliasing filter. The "buffer" we got with 44.1 instead is quite short (only 2.050 Hz). Sure, ADCs and DACs have become so extraordinarily good during the last 20 twenty years that even that won´t pose a problem anymore. From what I´ve read (don´t ask me where, I would be glad if someone could point me out to an original statement by one of the CDs engineers) something like 60 kHz with 18 bit would have been really perfect. To me, 24/96 is a bit much but comes close.
 
And the point Xiph.org raised about mixing and mastering might be moot. Many softwares now oversample any 'low-resolution' (44.1) material anyway. Theoretically, HiRes isn´t needed anymore. However, I change everything I grab to my HDD to my liking and I´m always working with (upsampled) 32/192 and storing it in 24/96. Just to be sure.
 
My main point - sorry for taking so long - is that it doesn´t matter if they release something in 16/44.1 or 24/96. Nowadays we have plenty of storage space, albums in 24/96 don´t hurt anymore. 10 years ago it was different but in 2013? Hell, I´m writing a post in a thread that concerns itself with a HiRes portable.
 
If I can buy 24/96 I´ll do it. The tiny 0-7% sonic advantage (it really is that small) is enough for me.
 
P.S.: everything right now on the FiiO has a samplerate of 96 kHz. Bit depth is different though. Reason: I wanted to save on storage space. So I dithered less important albums to 16 Bits. The high samplerate is quite convenient since now every dithering plugin moves the quantization noise to ultrasonic frequencies, not one ounce of quantization noise stays in the audible passband. I´ve tested this myself with a -90 dB sine: resolution stays at 24 bits, yet the actual bit depth is 16. I love dithering!

 

[TokenGesture]

@ James FiiO
 
Just wanted to say with the new firmware, gapless playback is fine on ALAC, USB DAC mode easy to install and sounds great. Great job 

 

[ozkan]

A happy X3 owner here!
 
I have installed the latest firmware 2.05 and it is working very smooth. No problem with Flac gapless playback. It pairs quite well with Super Fi5v and especially Sony Mdr V6.

 
 
Maybe only gripe is the bass which can't reach to very low notes but it is still very good.

 

[GregC]

I know someone else mentioned something, but I am curious if the EQ was changed in FW 2.05 to be more neutral.  I love the line out sound on my car system and it seems more neutral after the FW upgrade.

 

[jj69]

  I know someone else mentioned something, but I am curious if the EQ was changed in FW 2.05 to be more neutral.  I love the line out sound on my car system and it seems more neutral after the FW upgrade.

 
I wish that were the case for me.  The X3's mid bass bump is even more pronounced through the line out.  It's unbelievable. 

 

[ClieOS]

EQ on X3 is hardware implementation and can't be changed by firmware. It is what it is.

 

[Lespectraal]

I've got a question guys, what sort of USB cable should I get for the USB DAC functionality? Any sort of specifications I should look out for? The stock cables is too stiff and I have limited desk space, so I have to curl up the cable to fit it in and that leaves my desktop messy.

No I am not looking for audiophile grade cables because I haven't got the money(and please no debate on normal vs 'audiophile' USB cables) just certified USB 2.0 ones that do their job well. Thanks guys.

 

[tjw321]

You don't need special usb cables at all. I'm using one which came free with a £2 MP3 player I bought for the kids. It just happens to be the right length. Having said that, I have got a cable which doesn't work but that it is because it's connectors have worn loose, not because it wasn't up to spec. It also happens to be the only usb cable I have which was specifically for audio purposes and has gold plated connectors etc. Just make sure that it has a "micro" connector, not a "mini".