[Marlene]

  I prefer the 320kbps mp3 bitrate because I've noticed that there is a specific type of sound that reveals the poor compression of a mp3 file: try to listen to crowd clapping hands in live concerts in various bitrates. If the file is not well encoded or poorly compressed (anything under 320 is poor for me) you will notice some grainy, as it was artificial, analogous to low res vídeos in full screen or even actual audio in low bitrate, like those extracted from low res videos.

 
If there´s one disadvantage of mp3 it´s that its short block window size is too big, leading to smeared transients on occasion. This will happen with low as well as high bitrates. http://www.mp3-tech.org/content/?mp3%20limitations
 
AAC or WMA completely avoid this in comparison. But I´ve yet to manage to encode to working AAC (the X3 somehow ignores my encodes) so I´ve opted for WMA Professional for the time being. Secondly, the FiiO doesn´t decode mp3 or aac with 32 bit floating point, despite the fact that this would be easily possible.

 

[Marlene]

dont forget to raise the volume on the track so that any volume over 10% on your amp is guarenteed to make your ears bleed. Dynamic range? who needs that?

 
The sound quality we today have is comparable to the early wax cylinders. And I´m not even cynical here.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Originally Posted by AmberOzL /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Quote:

Skype international direct helpline launched!

Just add my Skype: joe0bloggs (that's a zero in the middle, not an O)
and in your friend request note that you're here for support and note down the FiiO devices you own, and I'll add you to the relevant Skype group(s) for the products where you'll get the fastest feedback to any problems you have!

(Please read the product manual and the FAQs posted on the FiiO dedicated forum
http://www.head-fi.org/f/180/fiio
and see if you can solve the problem first.)

Help me spread the word!

 
That is actually quite useful. Would you mind putting it in the FiiO X5 thread too?

 
Do they have support issues for the X5 already? D:

 

[goodvibes]

   
If there´s one disadvantage of mp3 it´s that its short block window size is too big, leading to smeared transients on occasion. This will happen with low as well as high bitrates. http://www.mp3-tech.org/content/?mp3%20limitations
 
AAC or WMA completely avoid this in comparison. But I´ve yet to manage to encode to working AAC (the X3 somehow ignores my encodes) so I´ve opted for WMA Professional for the time being. Secondly, the FiiO doesn´t decode mp3 or aac with 32 bit floating point, despite the fact that this would be easily possible.

May be why I've never like MP3 as much as the others. People get so caught up in frequency when Music is more about time. Something our ears are remarkably sensitive to.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

  Hi
 
Should teh X3 read 32GB SD cards without formating. If it does, how do I do this.
 
Thanks

 
Hmm, if you don't want to format the card, try stuffing it in the X3, hit "Update Lib" in system settings to update the media database and see if X3 finds your music?
 
... if it doesn't, copy the music off the SD card, format the card using the X3 (function available on new 2.05 firmware) and copy the music back into the card and try again?

 

[bodewalla]

  Yes, all of my other files on all of my other cards that I use in my X3 are FLAC. By the way I have found the size difference to be about 65% not half. My 44.1 files are ripped securely in EAC and converted within EAC to FLAC and all of my hi-rez files from HD-Tracks and from my ripped DVD-Audio discs via DVD-Audio extractor are also FLAC, converted from WAV within JRiver Media center 18.
 
As far as the argument or contention that there is no loss of sound quality converting to Flac from WAV that may be true, but I feel that I can sometimes hear a difference between the two with identical files. These differences are admittedly subtle and I would agree that I would most likely not be able to discern the difference in a blind listening test. The problem is I don't listen blind. Also I have read where there can actually be conversion artifacts affecting Flac files that have been converted from base WAV files. Yes the Flac file just unzips but the conversion process is susceptible to artifacts that could possibly create audible differences between the two file types.
 
For this reason I wanted, initially at least, to have these very high quality DSD files converted to the most transparent 24/192 format possible thus I loaded them onto my storage media without converting them to Flac. When I tried to convert these DSD files to Flac directly, I was unable to, using Media Center or Foobar. Neither program would even allow it. It came up as Error unable to convert, I'm not sure why.
 
None of this was however, the point. The point was that I had many DSD files converted to 24/192 WAV from Blue Coast Records and Opus 3 and many others, that play flawlessly on my X3 but these six files I have of the rock band Wheatus cause my X3 to lock up or crash or whatever term you wish to use. Considering the rapidly decreasing cost of larger and larger capacity storage media i may go back to using all WAV files as like I just said storage is now quite inexpensive. I paid less than $50CDN funds each for both of my 64GB Sandisk Ultra class 10 micro SD cards. I also purchased a 32 GB one for less than $25. Even in this economy I can afford basically all the storage I need to not have to worry about space and therefore whether or not to use Flac or uncompressed WAV. Using uncompressed WAV, whether or not it actually sounds any better than Flac, just gives me peace of mind and is a personal choice, nothing more.

Hi!
 
Besides the idea that HiRes audio files are nonsense for end users, according to Xiph.org, what you feel about wav vs flac could not be entirely placebo. And maybe it has nothing to do with bigger resolution increasing your hearing perception.
 
I saw a TV article long time ago, here in Brazil, about differences between printed photographs of different resolution taken from not professional grade digital cameras, just the common ones, but of good models from leading companies. Now a brief pause to human perception and practical use of photos. I know head-fi is a music website, so give some trust.
 
The common sense (at least for those who holds some mature knolege about photography) is that,  above 4 mega pixels, no one can tell any differences on identical printed photos ranging from 10X15 cm up to 24X30 cm (which are common photo printing sizes) and anything above 8 megapixels is only designated to studios professionals, who will manipulate tiny details on the images, or for billboard printing, where pixels are really going to pop up, but which is not the case of 99,98% of end users of digital cameras.
 
Back to the article, besides it wasn't performed on scientific basis, nor it used a so big volunteer universe, it was lead avoiding placebo issues, and it was IMO a serious and a conclusive small survey. People was asked to tell which photograph looked better from the other identical but in different resolution. They didn’t know which one. The photos was taken in 8Mpx and in 12Mpx and printed in very big sizes (I believe they were 24X30 cm). Surprisingly, the majority of the volunteers did found the 8Mpx ones better than the 12Mpx ones. What the heck!
 
The explanation given by specialists was that in higher (actually the biggest for the models) resolution the CCDs ran super heating, creating noise on the captured images due to complex imaging processing load on the processor and thus demanding extra power, thus creating extra heating. Though it is a safe operational condition to the equipment, it is not totaly inoffensive to the final result.
 
Back again to the thread, the complex process involved in decompressing a big flac file into a decompressed PCM playback (which is a wav file) maybe creates some unwanted and undetected and unavoidable noise to the output that goes to the amp. It’s not rocket science, just my interpretation of something totally related.

 

[goodvibes]

 
Hi!
 
Besides the idea that HiRes audio files are nonsense for end users, according to Xiph.org, what you feel about wav vs flac could not be entirely placebo. And maybe it has nothing to do with bigger resolution increasing your hearing perception.
 
I saw a TV article long time ago, here in Brazil, about differences between printed photographs of different resolution taken from not professional grade digital cameras, just the common ones, but of good models from leading companies. Now a brief pause to human perception and practical use of photos. I know head-fi is a music website, so give some trust.
 
The common sense (at least for those who holds some mature knolege about photography) is that,  above 4 mega pixels, no one can tell any differences on identical printed photos ranging from 10X15 cm up to 24X30 cm (which are common photo printing sizes) and anything above 8 megapixels is only designated to studios professionals, who will manipulate tiny details on the images, or for billboard printing, where pixels are really going to pop up, but which is not the case of 99,98% of end users of digital cameras.
 
Back to the article, besides it wasn't performed on scientific basis, nor it used a so big volunteer universe, it was lead avoiding placebo issues, and it was IMO a serious and a conclusive small survey. People was asked to tell which photograph looked better from the other identical but in different resolution. They didn’t know which one. The photos was taken in 8Mpx and in 12Mpx and printed in very big sizes (I believe they were 24X30 cm). Surprisingly, the majority of the volunteers did found the 8Mpx ones better than the 12Mpx ones. What the heck!
 
The explanation given by specialists was that in higher (actually the biggest for the models) resolution the CCDs ran super heating, creating noise on the captured images due to complex imaging processing load on the processor and thus demanding extra power, thus creating extra heating. Though it is a safe operational condition to the equipment, it is not totaly inoffensive to the final result.
 
Back again to the thread, the complex process involved in decompressing a big flac file into a decompressed PCM playback (which is a wav file) maybe creates some unwanted and undetected and unavoidable noise to the output that goes to the amp. It’s not rocket science, just my interpretation of something totally related.

You could call anything no longer tangible placebo. Fact or fiction. Doesn't make it so.
 
Listening to music is not photography and includes time constants with dimension contrasts as well. That's like comparing smell to touch. Your ear also works over many more 'octaves' than your vision with much less retention or need of interpolation. I agree with your vision assessment and still have a 768p Plasma that looks great from 12 feet but it would be easy for me to show you the benefit of HiDef audio in a proper system. Whether redbook vs HiDef the weakest link in an on the go DAP is another issue and probably not for here so maybe we should get back on topic to the X3.

 

[goodvibes]

   
Hmm, if you don't want to format the card, try stuffing it in the X3, hit "Update Lib" in system settings to update the media database and see if X3 finds your music?
 
... if it doesn't, copy the music off the SD card, format the card using the X3 (function available on new 2.05 firmware) and copy the music back into the card and try again?

32gb cards should already be fat32. Maybe he should run a disk check on his PC to make sure it's genuine.

 

[bodewalla]

  You could call anything no longer tangible placebo. Fact or fiction. Doesn't make it so.
 
Listening to music is not photography and includes time constants with dimension contrasts as well. That's like comparing smell to touch. Your ear also works over many more 'octaves' than your vision with much less retention or need of interpolation. I agree with your vision assessment and still have a 768p Plasma that looks great from 12 feet but it would be easy for me to show you the benefit of HiDef audio in a proper system. Whether redbook vs HiDef the weakest link in an on the go DAP is another issue and probably not for here so maybe we should get back on topic to the X3.

That was a highly polite way to end a not even started argument. But, no.
I seems that you are a least mislead, not to say wrong, with the "less need of interpolation", just because the signal was aready interpolated by the digital to analog coverter. And if you mean by "proper system" some $100k equipment playing a clicking LP, I'd only say you're a nostalgic guy who loves big cumbersome discs. And, as you've already said, if this thread is about portable DAPs, so your expensive gear will not fit the point for 90% of people in this post, nor you can carry it around. Furthermore, even being a very high fidelity equipment, and I'm not saying the opposite, when it comes to human hearing, it will not help you with hires audio files against 16/44, unless you´re able to beat Montgomery's article on Xiph.org. Or maybe I should consider you're not human...
Oh, if it's not probably for here, just link us to some more "apropriate place". And, don't worry about complex words: as I'm electronics technician, I'm able to understand your explanation.

 

[shrimants]

BTW guys, latest transfer to my X3 seems to be working pretty well. No corrupted files this time.

For anyone else witnessing the issues I was: Format the X3 using internal. Plug into windows and let it scan+fix, THEN do your file transfer. I got a 3.5mb transfer rate this time.

Also, i'll be investing in a card reader as soon as this paycheck rolls through. Fiio, I think for the X5 it would be a good idea to make it transfer very fast, like 12MB/s is a fairly acceptable/normal rate. And maybe consider something like NTFS support.

 

[goodvibes]

 
That was a highly polite way to end a not even started argument. But, no.
I seems that you are a least mislead, not to say wrong, with the "less need of interpolation", just because the signal was aready interpolated by the digital to analog coverter. And if you mean by "proper system" some $100k equipment playing a clicking LP, I'd only say you're a nostalgic guy who loves big cumbersome discs. And, as you've already said, if this thread is about portable DAPs, so your expensive gear will not fit the point for 90% of people in this post, nor you can carry it around. Furthermore, even being a very high fidelity equipment, and I'm not saying the opposite, when it comes to human hearing, it will not help you with hires audio files against 16/44, unless you´re able to beat Montgomery's article on Xiph.org. Or maybe I should consider you're not human...
Oh, if it's not probably for here, just link us to some more "apropriate place". And, don't worry about complex words: as I'm electronics technician, I'm able to understant your explanation. 
 
 

 
Interpolation was in reference to how your brain responds to particular stimuli. Nothing to do with codecs. I could easily and blind differentiate custom dithers at 24/192 and different bit rates with the same dither on an AK120 (JH13s) with somebody else controlling the device so for me, proper system only means a good one and not necessarily expensive but expensive is always relative. Easily perceived in a proper home setup at $3k or so. I'm happy for your technical prowess and that you can read but I think Montgomery's wrong about his premise, his math and measures are correct. I'll rely on my own observations. I have some 40 plus years of experience of tech and recording as well. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that. The site actually has rules about this and wants all these discussions in the sound science forum so as to not diminish product threads by zealots on either side of this argument. That is the "appropriate place" and you can be just as abrasive there if you care to. Mods frown on this in equipment forums and your tone in general. Please use this info wisely and welcome to a friendly community.

 

[Marlene]

To JamesFiiO & Joe Bloggs:
 
I want to ask again for 32 bit floating point decoding of mp3 & aac.
 
Activating it will be as easy as flipping a switch since this option is already included in both formats.
 
Remember: both formats store with 32 bit floating point internally.
 
FiiO wouldn´t be alone should they activate it... here´s a link to a post in the jRiver forum:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=63691.0
 
and here´s a link where Grammy winning mastering engineer Bob Katz says that it´s vital for perfect sound:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=76912.msg521299#msg521299
 
and here´s the link to Apples 'Mastered for iTunes' initiative:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf
 
As you can read for yourself, Apple recommends sending them high definition material; they know very well that aac is perfectly able to encode material with high bit-depth. Right now however, the FiiO X3 is unable to play back those 'Mastered for iTunes' releases in high quality.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Originally Posted by bodewalla /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
...
 
I saw a TV article long time ago, here in Brazil, about differences between printed photographs of different resolution taken from not professional grade digital cameras, just the common ones, but of good models from leading companies. Now a brief pause to human perception and practical use of photos. I know head-fi is a music website, so give some trust.
 
...
 
  Back to the article, besides it wasn't performed on scientific basis, nor it used a so big volunteer universe, it was lead avoiding placebo issues, and it was IMO a serious and a conclusive small survey. People was asked to tell which photograph looked better from the other identical but in different resolution. They didn’t know which one. The photos was taken in 8Mpx and in 12Mpx and printed in very big sizes (I believe they were 24X30 cm). Surprisingly, the majority of the volunteers did found the 8Mpx ones better than the 12Mpx ones. What the heck!
 
The explanation given by specialists was that in higher (actually the biggest for the models) resolution the CCDs ran super heating, creating noise on the captured images due to complex imaging processing load on the processor and thus demanding extra power, thus creating extra heating. Though it is a safe operational condition to the equipment, it is not totaly inoffensive to the final result.

 
*Waves 8-year old dpreview membership card*

http://www.dpreview.com/members/6426072084/overview
 
There are many many factors leading to differences in quality between different camera sensors.
There have been countless arguments over the years that less is better when it comes to megapixels, yet pixel count on cameras have continued to increase and quality has continued to increase as well.  Some sources of sensor noise actually decrease as you increase the pixel density while fill factor (the % of sensor area that is actually sensitive to light) tends to decrease as you increase pixel density, UNLESS technology has advanced to improve fill factor.  In the end it's all a tradeoff, but the optimal pixel density for cameras has increased as technology advanced.
 
Back to audio, one could argue that decoding compressed lossless places additional strain on the CPU which might cause electrical interference with the DAC section, but one could equally argue that playing back uncompressed lossless places additional strain on the disk I/O section which might also cause electrical interference with the DAC section.  But in reality, the X3 DAC circuits are too well shielded for this sort of thing

 

[Joe Bloggs]

  32gb cards should already be fat32. Maybe he should run a disk check on his PC to make sure it's genuine.

You mean if it came new out of the packaging?  I was assuming that he had an existing card full of music that he wanted to use without reformatting.  That could be formatted in any number of ways.

 

[goodvibes]

  You mean if it came new out of the packaging?  I was assuming that he had an existing card full of music that he wanted to use without reformatting.  That could be formatted in any number of ways.

Yes I did. Nothing he did to the card should have changed that other than actively doing so. If the card never worked, I would think he's either got unsupported music formats or a defective/counterfeit card. The reason I said check the disk was to verify that it actually could hold 28gb or so.
 
Simple formatting and giving it another go 1st wouldn't hurt.