Latest Thread Images

The Fiio X3 Thread.
Dec 5, 2014 at 2:51 PM Post #13,831 of 17,484
scott6113 said:
 
I use mostly FLACs from CDs. To go down from 1440kbps to 320kbps would lose information. And, I have a half-dozen 24/96 albums. I've seen a lot of debate about when data compression is audible. I don't think 320kbps loses much if anything. I'm just not willing to take the chance.
Click to expand...


I find 320kbps to be perfectly fine. I have some CDs ripped to flac but most is mp3 and I really can't hear the difference. Maybe it's my equipment or maybe it's my hearing but I have Jackson Browne's "Running On Empty" from HDTracks and I can't tell the difference between that and the CD I have ripped to 320 mp3. Maybe if I had much more expensive headphones I might detect a difference but I'm happy with the sound I get from the X3 because it was such a huge upgrade over my old ipods. It was like that first blast of daylight when you leave a movie theatre on a sun-filled day.
wink_face.gif
 
 
Dec 5, 2014 at 3:19 PM Post #13,832 of 17,484
I have heard the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps. Above that, I'm not convinced. I think it has to be complex acoustic music like  acoustic Jazz, Bluegrass, or Classical music with a lot of stuff going on, like Beethoven's 9th: Ode to Joy. I've heard live with no sound system at all so I have a benchmark.
 
One thing I'll say about the new high-rez files, the production is often better. I have Sarah Bareilles's Brave from HDtracks and have heard it on XM Radio. The version given to HDtracks is not dynamically compressed. Much more punch. It isn't the resolution, it is how they processed the music for the audiophile vs the mass market.
Another thing that has been completely disproven is that resolutions above CD are audible. See: http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
 
There's a ton of conjecture, expectations bias, pure foolishness in the audiophile world. I like good sound and some money left over for cat food. So, I try to be realistic.
 
Dec 5, 2014 at 3:26 PM Post #13,833 of 17,484
scott6113 said:
 
There's a ton of conjecture, expectations bias, pure foolishness in the audiophile world. I like good sound and some money left over for cat food. So, I try to be realistic.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with you there the cost of audio equipment seems to be unlimited. I know good sound has a lot more to do with the mastering than the resolution.
 
Dec 5, 2014 at 3:35 PM Post #13,834 of 17,484
Yes, you don't have to like it but sound engineers have to make pop music sound good on the average system.
Back in the old days, they'd have an AM radio on the sound studio bench so they would know how it would sound on a $10 3" paper cone full range.
Now I bet the standards are the hated white ear-buds, plus maybe a middle of the road car system. They aren't mixing for us. When they get a chance though, they love to make a mix to impress us. That's why HDTracks exists and gets regular contributions from yours truly.
 
Dec 5, 2014 at 6:55 PM Post #13,835 of 17,484

I am not sure if I agree if higher bit rates are not heard in some way.  I do hear some sharp edgieness in some ACC tracks. and MP3 encoding is sometimes flat.
 
I do think the better parts used to play back the  tracks may be the biggest difference.   I have a DAT tape deck and even CD recorded on it at 48khz sounds a bit better.  in my head its the DAC is better.  And I do think how they mix makes a big difference.  I compared a Pink Floyd song  between the X3 and an iPhone 6.  the X3 being a 44.1/16 flac file.   The iPhone was closer than I thought it would be.  But I could tell the ACC had been mixed differently.
 
Saying all that I have had my first day with the X3 and the sound is great.  have the newest firmware and loving it.   Its nice to be able to play Flac and DSD with a decent DAC.
 
Dec 5, 2014 at 8:34 PM Post #13,836 of 17,484
mneitzel said:
 
I am not sure if I agree if higher bit rates are not heard in some way.  I do hear some sharp edgieness in some ACC tracks. and MP3 encoding is sometimes flat.
 
I do think the better parts used to play back the  tracks may be the biggest difference.   I have a DAT tape deck and even CD recorded on it at 48khz sounds a bit better.  in my head its the DAC is better.  And I do think how they mix makes a big difference.  I compared a Pink Floyd song  between the X3 and an iPhone 6.  the X3 being a 44.1/16 flac file.   The iPhone was closer than I thought it would be.  But I could tell the ACC had been mixed differently.
 
Saying all that I have had my first day with the X3 and the sound is great.  have the newest firmware and loving it.   Its nice to be able to play Flac and DSD with a decent DAC.
Click to expand...

Yes i also heard some weird effects when i had tracks from iTunes store, mp3 is flat, yes completely agree
 
But i managed to distinguish the subtle difference in the acoustics and airiness of a 24-bit/88.2Khz vs the CD-quality flac
 


This is the album i am talking about
 
Dec 5, 2014 at 9:42 PM Post #13,838 of 17,484
scott6113 said:
I have heard the difference between 128kbps and 256kbps. Above that, I'm not convinced. I think it has to be complex acoustic music like  acoustic Jazz, Bluegrass, or Classical music with a lot of stuff going on, like Beethoven's 9th: Ode to Joy. I've heard live with no sound system at all so I have a benchmark.

One thing I'll say about the new high-rez files, the production is often better. I have Sarah Bareilles's Brave from HDtracks and have heard it on XM Radio. The version given to HDtracks is not dynamically compressed. Much more punch. It isn't the resolution, it is how they processed the music for the audiophile vs the mass market.
Another thing that has been completely disproven is that resolutions above CD are audible. See: http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

There's a ton of conjecture, expectations bias, pure foolishness in the audiophile world. I like good sound and some money left over for cat food. So, I try to be realistic.
Click to expand...


Completely disproven is relative. Were those tests done with high quality headphones? And were the test persons given the time to rewind and closely compare selected passages?
I can hear a difference but only with certain passages of certain songs when closely comparing them.
I admit that with most songs and if not being able to switch sources and listen carefully to selected passages, I couldn't hear the difference either.

I could also in objective blind tests ( I had two X3s here) tell in 8 or 9 out of 10 tries the difference between X3 Firmware 3.0 and 3.2, given the right bass-heavy songs (3.0 has slightly more bass than 3.2 in gain lo - perhaps in hi also, did not test that).
 
Dec 6, 2014 at 12:28 AM Post #13,840 of 17,484
X3 arrived today. Unfortunately I told my wife it was my only Xmas gift. So FedEx said it was supposed to arrive tomorrow, my day off. But it got here today, and she was at home and hid it from me. So now I can't open it until the 25th!
 
Dec 6, 2014 at 1:50 AM Post #13,844 of 17,484
hemipowered007 said:
X3 arrived today. Unfortunately I told my wife it was my only Xmas gift. So FedEx said it was supposed to arrive tomorrow, my day off. But it got here today, and she was at home and hid it from me. So now I can't open it until the 25th!
Click to expand...


^^This......is really worst situation waiting for another 3 weeks,21 DAYS when the box is being at our home unopened than waiting for the box to arrive @our door(transit)......:sad_face: All I can is just a lie (as usual :wink: ) saying the battery might kill the electronics inside if not charged in due time when received from factory or mfr......:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top