[francopro]

I've read also that some consider the hd598 as an alternative to the 600, but I'm a bit skeptical.

In some reviews , HD598 is highly rated for classical music whereas HD600 is good for just about everything , somehow you'll need a good amp

 

[Peti]

Quick question. I just got my sandisk 128 gb microsd. How can I format it to Fat32?
 
My X3 won't reconize it. Just converted it with the Aomei program to Fat 32 and it still doesn't work
 
thanks

 

[MicroEuphoneum]

Here are some lessons in High Definition Audio.
 
Lesson #1 Mastering:
Mastering is a form of audio post-production,  the process of preparing and transferring recorded audio from a source containing the final mix to a data storage device. The source from which all copies will be produced via methods such as pressing, duplication or replication. If I take the audio of  a fully mixed down track and prepare it for any given audio format, I can truthfully say I have Mastered, or Re-Mastered the track.
 
Lesson #2 Preparation for Mastering:
Any audio processing, including equalization, gain adjustment, compression and limiting that modify the character of the audio to best suit the end format.
 
Lesson #3 The Process:
I have taken a track from an older CD. This album was produced before the great loudness wars, when it was common to leave a good 6dB of headroom on the final mix. Of course it is Redbook, 16bit 44.1kHz sample rate, and not recorded with the intention of mastering to 'Hi Def' format. But to demonstrate the possibilities I have 'Re-Mastered' this track to 24bit 96kHz sample rate.
 
            Step 1;
                        Load the Redbook track into the Digital Audio Workstation.
            Step 2;
                        'Normalize' the track. This is an automated process where the DAW scans the track data and finds the highest peak  and then applies enough gain to bring all the audio data up so that the highest peak reaches just below 0dB.
            Step 2;
                        'Re-Sample' the track. Again an automated process in which the DAW takes new samples of the existing data using interpolation when necessary to produce a perfect image of the original audio at the new sample rate and bit depth.
            Step 3;
                        Boost the gain of the track so that the average level is brought up by some desired amount. For this track I chose to boost the level by 3dB. Very high quality limiting is applied to move all the peaks that then exceed 0dB,
down to -0.1 dB.
 
            Step 4;
                        Apply equalization and compression to enhance the audio data to suit the sound to a greater perceived loudness that compliments that actual increase in gain. I chose to use an LF shelving increase of 4.5dB at 120Hz, and an HF shelving increase of 3dB at 8kHz. The equalized signal was then fed to a dynamically subtle wide band compressor acting over a range of 20dB from 0dB.  The compressed signal was then fed to a final limiter to prevent clipping.
 
            Step 5;
                        The processed audio was then Mastered to a 24bit, 96kHz FLAC file for network distribution.
 
About the music.
            This track, 'For No One' is from an Emmylou Harris album entitled 'Pieces of the Sky'  The title is from the lyrics of one of the tracks on the album; 'Before Believing' composed by Danny Flowers.
'For No One' is a composition by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. In my opinion one of the most beautiful cuts on the album.
I chose this cut because I felt that it might have a wide appeal and also because of the instrumentation.
I have posted the original track, converted to FLAC, and my 'Re-Mastered' version for the evaluation of owners of Fiio X3, for a limited time.
Links:
 
http://download1474.mediafire.com/nppv1l3fdxog/7of01op0pj96edw/01+For+No+One.flac                        Re-Mastered
http://download1473.mediafire.com/017902q166kg/1j7nedqm9t6417d/02+For+No+One.flac                      Original
 
What do you think? Is there an audible difference? What are the subjective differences between tracks?

 

[nmatheis]

MicroEuphoneum: What's the benefit of upsampling the final product 24/96 when the original was at 16/44?

 

[uzi2]

@MicroEuphoneum: What's the benefit of upsampling the final product 24/96 when the original was at 16/44?

I know your's is a rhetorical question, but I don't get the whole point of the previous post. What is it trying to prove?
More noise than signal...

 

[Pituky]

.

 
I know your's is a rhetorical question, but I don't get the whole point of the previous post. What is it trying to prove?
More noise than signal...

Not sure maybe more noise than signal and more disk space used.

 

[MicroEuphoneum]

 
I know your's is a rhetorical question, but I don't get the whole point of the previous post. What is it trying to prove?
More noise than signal...

Until you download the tracks and evaluate them, you will never know what the point is. And there is no attempt to prove anything. All that is involved has long ago been proven countless times over.

 

[MicroEuphoneum]

@MicroEuphoneum: What's the benefit of upsampling the final product 24/96 when the original was at 16/44?

If the 'final product' was simply 'upsampled' there would be no benefit. If you understood the entire post then you would not need to ask this question. But you may recall from our personal messages that you were interested in what I might produce as a high definition product.
See: http://www.head-fi.org/t/651769/the-fiio-x3-thread/11670#post_10729040
And I replied to you that it would be 'pure fraud'. But there have been quite a lot of questions on this subject and just for fun I have prepared a demonstration and explained it honestly and in full detail.
Check it out. It's not going to use up more than 95MB of space for the experiment.

 

[AluminumHaste]

The "remastered" one sounds louder, more in your face, which isn't surprising if it's had it's gain increased, compressed, peaks rebuilt etc etc.
The original one is quieter, I have to turn up my X3 to get the same effect of the remastered version.
 
When I listen to them both at the same spl level (well as close as my ears can get them), they sound almost the same. I like the intimacy of the original track, but I don't mind the remastered one.
 
Still not sure what this is illustrating, that there's a difference in the final product that doesn't have to sound like **** à la Metallica?

 

[nmatheis]

If the 'final product' was simply 'upsampled' there would be no benefit. If you understood the entire post then you would not need to ask this question. But you may recall from our personal messages that you were interested in what I might produce as a high definition product.
See: http://www.head-fi.org/t/651769/the-fiio-x3-thread/11670#post_10729040
And I replied to you that it would be 'pure fraud'. But there have been quite a lot of questions on this subject and just for fun I have prepared a demonstration and explained it honestly and in full detail.
Check it out. It's not going to use up more than 95MB of space for the experiment.

I didn't say the final product was only upsampled. I get that you were altering the sonic characteristics by imparting your own remastering signature. What I'm wondering is two-fold:
1. Is there any benefit whatsoever to upsampling for this exercise? Seems not, but what do I know. I'm a plant biologist, not someone in the recording industry.
2. Any point in leaving the final product in hi-res besides making the point that this is what HDTracks does for a lot of older content captured via analog recording methods? Same disclaimer .

 

[TrollDragon]

If you guys lure any of those Sound Science Asylum residents/outpatients into this thread with this discussion, there will be hell to pay...

 

[nmatheis]

Channeling mochill...

 

[Unfie]

Just when it looked like my freezes were ending, my Fiio X3 froze yesterday while I was listening to it at the gym. I dismissed it as the occasional freeze coming back again so I waited until after the gym to reset it. When I managed to get it working again, my X3 wasn't reading anything from the SD card. I plugged the X3 into the computer, and for a while, it would show up as a removal device that wouldn't let me format on the PC or the X3. I tried plugging into a different USB port, and now it just won't show up at all. If I insert the card into the X3, the screen goes black no matter what was going on prior to that. Removing the card brings the X3 back to life.
 
As much as I want to blame the X3 for causing this, it may be the case that my SD card has died out. It was a 64 GB card so I don't know if that has anything to do with. I tested out a 32 GB, and it appears to be working fine. Oh well, I guess I'll use this card as a backup for now.

 

[orl2222]

I just bought a X3 on the 4th of July sale, loving this player for its size and playback capabilities. Loaded the latest firmware, 64 gig scandisk. No problems with playback at all. Most of the time I use a USB card reader to load files, much faster, Also, I have been using Sony's media go software to load podcasts ( yes I know a waste of space lol ). Too bad the Sony Software does not let you transfer over the flac or dsf files, it will transfer them to mp3 format. I wish there was a way to write a specific driver for the Sony software for the X3, recognizing that it is a high def device. Nice thing about the Sony Software is that it plays flac, dsf, apple lossless on the desktop with gapless. I also use foobar for all my high def files on the desktop, which in windows 8.1 allows me to output to my optical DAC-and headphone amp. while still using my speakers as a source.
 
Overall I am quite pleased with the X3, great lil product, especially for outdoors around the house, ipad mini is a lil to big for that.

 

[MicroEuphoneum]

  The "remastered" one sounds louder, more in your face, which isn't surprising if it's had it's gain increased, compressed, peaks rebuilt etc etc.
The original one is quieter, I have to turn up my X3 to get the same effect of the remastered version.
 
When I listen to them both at the same spl level (well as close as my ears can get them), they sound almost the same. I like the intimacy of the original track, but I don't mind the remastered one.
 
Still not sure what this is illustrating, that there's a difference in the final product that doesn't have to sound like **** à la Metallica?

The steps taken so far are for the purpose you describe. To get old recordings to sound more like newer ones. So when they are listened to in the same set it's not like your headphones fell off.
I didn't pump it up near as much as the loudness wars maniacs do though. At the same time the audio is 'enhanced' . The order of the steps is important. Getting the level normalized before conversion, and conversion before enhancement gets the best results. Once audio is in the digital domain, math rules. It's all numbers and algorithms, so good results depend on good numbers.