[MicroEuphoneum]

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 .

As for YOU!
Point 1 was answered in my last post. It's all about math in a world of numbers.
Point 2, pretty close. The question has been knocked around quite a bit. Something might as well be done to fix anomalies. The process is very costly considering what Mastering Engineers charge, and the Studio Time rates. Remember, you are one of the ones asking these questions and requesting a way to compare. Which brings us to the next step.
After the Re-Mastering operations, the audio data can then be decimated to a common format. Here it is 16bit 44.1kHz sampling rate. Nothing further whatever was done to the audio. Now you can compare two sonically identical tracks at the different formats.
 
http://download1652.mediafire.com/a1x236r7a2rg/8c44k1sna9m7f7f/03+For+No+One.flac
 
Is there an audible difference? What are the subjective differences in the sound?

 

[MicroEuphoneum]

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

I AM the Sound Science Asylum outpatient. After a lifetime in the Music Industry and a culture of hedonistic excess a person get's as crazy as a loon.
So how much hell do I owe you? There's plenty available, it's Monsoon just now. WHEW!

 

[189906]

  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.

I've had the same thing happen to me with a 32gb sd on my Clip+. You should use the warranty included with the sd. Good luck.

 

[TrollDragon]

  I AM the Sound Science Asylum outpatient. After a lifetime in the Music Industry and a culture of hedonistic excess a person get's as crazy as a loon.
So how much hell do I owe you? There's plenty available, it's Monsoon just now. WHEW!

Then you can officially be our certified X3 thread resident loon!

Just don't attract the other loons, where ever they congregate admins somehow always get involved and threads get shut down. 

 
So share us a little of your history in the Biz! So are you Steve Hoffman in disguise? 

 

 

[MicroEuphoneum]

Sound Science History from the Studio
 
Why should X3 use 24 bits?
Oh, this is a well worn subject. Debate from all angles of  'journalistic acumen'. ( It's not politically correct to define that so don't ask.) But the fact is, much to the dismay of some, it has nothing to do with human hearing and there is simply no need for debate.
What's done is done.
This was decided upon a long time ago. It was all worked out in 1985, and made industry standard in 1992. The standard, set by AES/EBU, was designated AES3. S/PDIF both coaxial and TOSLINK complies with this standard.
It's all about connecting equipment. An interconnect standard, NOT an audio quality standard. The initial specification set 20 bits for audio data, with 4 auxiliary  bits that are now used to extend the audio data. So how did they come up with the need for 20/24 bits if has nothing to do with hearing?
The answer is, the capability of equipment. It wouldn't be nice to set a standard that excluded anything, or set a limit that doesn't accommodate existing devices. The idea was to be able to keep hardware standards rather than command everyone to throw everything out and buy new stuff. So the standard kept the use of XLR type connectors and balanced line cables to hook everything up with. And that included a whole lot of microphones. The microphone family, even way back in 1985, included some pretty impressive instruments. Large diaphragm condenser microphones of the time were capable of as much as 124dB dynamic range. You might not be able to preserve it on tape, but there it was, and technological evolution was a given, even by the 1960's.
So what does it take?  20 bits can encode signals of 120dB dynamic range. ( 2^20 = 1,048,576 ; log(1,048,576) = 6.02; 20 x 6.02 = 120.4 ) That was just shy of the requirement of the best microphones and so the inclusion of an extra 4 bits.
Today the best large diaphragm condenser microphones, such as Neumann D-01 have a maximum dynamic range of 138dB. That range is not fully useful because of the noise floor so the practical value is reduce some.
Good thing the standards committee decided to give us 24bits. Otherwise recording technology could have been unnecessarily constrained.
Now with the digital interface providing 24bits why not design a DAP that makes use of it? No technological limits on that today. No reason the geeks can't have their fun.  Just imagine if the standards committee had made it 32bits. Wouldn't that rankle the conservative curmudgeons!
 

 

[MicroEuphoneum]

  So share us a little of your history in the Biz! So are you Steve Hoffman in disguise? 

Yeah? Really? Well, it all started with the Ampex 300 series. My parents were Jazz musicians in the SF Bay Area and they had a friend 'Jim' who was an engineer at Ampex. He was working on the new portable reel to reel design project. The 300 series. Jim came to rehearsals to field test his prototypes ( and to be 'cool' ) and I went to the rehearsals because it was 'a gas' LOL.
I got fascinated with that taping Jim was doing and since I was required not to 'bug' the musicians, I bugged Jim. Good guy that Jim, he taught me everything he could about that tape recorder and what he was doing and I just got into electronics deep. Thus set the path of my career.

 

[Unfie]

 
I've had the same thing happen to me with a 32gb sd on my Clip+. You should use the warranty included with the sd. Good luck.

 
I will use the warranty, but the problem is that I'm leaving for a foreign exchange program on July 31st. I am moving out completely so I would need to have the card sent to one of my relatives so they could send it to me. Oh well, might as well make use of this warranty somehow.

 

[briancvrrbs]

I just encountered a really weird bug or maybe I just dont really know all the functions of the X3 yet 

 
While in the playback screen, where it shows the album artwork, it doesnt want to exit. I keep pressing back to return to the song list but it seems like its just stuck there. Hold is not switched on. Had to turn it off and then it let me out.

 

[Pituky]

I do not hear both the same, to my ears, on the remasterd version the bass details were lost on a big amount and some of the highs, but the mids were increased in relative volume and seems more clear.

 

[MicroEuphoneum]

  I do not hear both the same, to my ears, on the remasterd version the bass details were lost on a big amount and some of the highs, but the mids were increased in relative volume and seems more clear.

Thanks for the input. I guess that I'm assuming you are responding to my demonstration. So now that we have this track that is sonically unique, in high def, the next test is to compare it with a down sampled file of the very same audio. Here is a link to the 16bit 44.1k version:
http://download1652.mediafire.com/a1x236r7a2rg/8c44k1sna9m7f7f/03+For+No+One.flac
This is the real test. Does anything get lost in the lower res file? Is there any audible difference?
Nothing at all has been done to the audio, only format conversion.
Edit: Just to be clear, we should now be comparing tracks 1 & 3

 

[Za Warudo]

I've had enough with the brittle/harsh uppermidrange-treble of the X3. I suspect it's mainly due to the amp section. I tried 2 E12's but both of those has too much hiss. Does anyone have any recommendation on a portable amp to pair with the X3, or should to the phone->dac/amp route (problem is I use a Galaxy S4, not an iphone)?

 

[Opus131]

Never heard anything about an hiss before. Now you are making me weary about the e12. 
 
I suppose the C&C BH would be a good alternative? It is a lot cheaper than the e12 too, though i'm not sure i trust those type of sellers: 
 
http://www.ebay.it/itm/C-C-BH-Portable-Headphone-AMP-battery-AMP-CC-BH-NEW-/110671069268?pt=US_Pro_Audio_Amplifiers&hash=item19c4828054&_uhb=1

 

[TrollDragon]

A lot of the C&C BH owners here have bought from polychen.

http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&id=261172737290&alt=web

 

[howdy]

There is a FiiO e11k coming soon as well and probably about 60.00 to if you can wait for a few months or less.

 

[howdy]

I've had enough with the brittle/harsh uppermidrange-treble of the X3. I suspect it's mainly due to the amp section. I tried 2 E12's but both of those has too much hiss. Does anyone have any recommendation on a portable amp to pair with the X3, or should to the phone->dac/amp route (problem is I use a Galaxy S4, not an iphone)?

What headphones are you using, I have zero hiss with my E12, they must be sensetive like the shure se535! There is a little noise floor between tracks but not audible when the music is playing.