[Mython]

Quote:

 there are some models which price is $1000 or $1300 , and still have less power output vs our X3. 
 
 

 
Yes, I know you cannot name these, but I saved you the trouble, by already mentioning one such model. Those DAPs have been criticised partly for this, so, respectfully, that is not a valid reason for also limiting the current delivery on the X5.
 
Quote:

 
I am not try to compare with others, what I means power is nothing.

 
I understand, but I respectfully disagree.
 
 
 
Quote:

 
Anyway, it is easy to us to increase the output power but we need to listening more people, we are not magician so we have to balance the power vs battery life and the heat.

 
But if you can do a decent job with the power of the E12, then why do you decide not to do the same in the X5? Because you want to leave the door open to make a more expensive X7?  Or because you want people to also buy the E12 with the X5?  Or because you want the X5 to be unnecessarily slim?
 
Battery duration is almost always something manufacturers seem to want to shortchange people on, in a vain effort to make their device as slim as possible (Apple are one of the worst offenders for this, because they want their devices to be 'trendy' / glamourous) Same thing for many Android handset makers. I would MUCH rather have a DAP that is 5 - 8 mm thicker if it allowed improved battery capacity. It would still leave the X5 dimensions relatively compact.
 
Or, as you and I discussed, a few months ago, allow for a quick-swap battery, but I know you are determined to keep the X5 chassis as sleek and sealed as possible.
 
Perhaps you could offer an alternative case and battery for more demanding users?

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

 

 
I don't understand why you're talking about this, other than to air your frustrations. The design is done. Leave it be.

 

[Mython]

Quote:

 
I don't understand why you're talking about this, other than to air your frustrations. The design is done. Leave it be.

 
Oh, it's extremely simple. Please let me explain:
 
I feel the goalposts have been moved...because they have been moved.
 
I don't think I am being unreasonable to challenge this, even if you don't care about it.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

 
Oh, it's extremely simple. Please let me explain:
 
I feel the goalposts have been moved...because they have been moved.
 
I don't think I am being unreasonable to challenge this, even if you don't care about it.

 
 
If it's as powerful as the X3, I really don't see a reason to be upset. The X3 pushes 600mw into 16 ohms. That should be enough for most people. furthermore, I agree with James in that they are not magicians. The X5 will cater to the majority of people looking for single box, slimmer options. Look at the AK120. People are willing to pay $1,200 for that thing. If the X5 surpasses it at a fraction of the price, while retaining a svelte factor, what is there to complain about? If the device ends up not matching your needs, move on.
 
Further complaining about it really serves no logical purpose.

 

[hoichi]

Quote:

I am not try to compare with others, what I means power is noting. even we increase the power output to 300mw@32ohms in X5, audiophile still like to buy an amp to drive some big cans, or just to change the sound from warm to transparence.   

My point exactly! You add power, and some hardcore audiophiles still won't use it because they just want line out to some exotic 3W per channel balanced amp with rollable tubes. And some not-so-hardcore people won't use it because its battery life is short and it's bulky etc. There's no way you can please everyone so you have to choose your place on the bell curve.

 

[zenki14]

 

 

[Mython]

Quote:

There's no way you can please everyone so you have to choose your place on the bell curve.

 
 
I don't actually disagree with that statement; it is a perfectly rational one.
 
However, the X3 already offers a certain amplification performance (yes, I know there are a plethora of different factors combining to make a good DAP; it's not just about amplification power, I do understand that). But:
 
* Clearly Fiio originally recognised that greater current delivery might be useful, or James would never have told us that the X5 was planned to (possibly) have 1.5x the power output of the X3.
 
* It's not just about driving power-hungry cans - there are some CIEMs which, owing to their intimidatingly-variable, and intimidatingly-low, impedance curve, can have a tendency to only perform at their best when driven by an amp stage with plenty of current delivery in reserve. I don't buy this argument that it's only esoteric cans or whatever that require ample current reserves.
 
* This sudden movement of the original goalposts very much changes the perceived performance difference between the X3 and the X5. Imaging, transparency, etc, etc, etc, may all be improved in the X5, over the X3, but why should I buy an X5 if I may need to buy an E17 (or other amp), down the line? I'm not a total geek. I just want a single-box DAP that doesn't potentially pull its punches with demanding impedance loads.
 
 
I'm sorry some of you object to me calling Fiio out for moving the goalposts, but, if you read back a couple of pages, it will be apparent that I am not the only one who objects.
 
I'm not going to argue any further, out of respect for the board. I've said my piece and now I'll hold my peace.

 

[bcarr112281]

Perhaps Fiio realized that they needed to compromise if they were to offer the X5 at the originally intended price point of $400.

 

[eke2k6]

   
 
 
1. Clearly Fiio originally recognised that greater current delivery might be useful, or James would never have told us that the X5 was planned to (possibly) have 1.5x the power output of the X3.
 
2. It's not just about driving power-hungry cans - there are some CIEMs which, owing to their intimidatingly-variable, and intimidatingly-low, impedance curve, can have a tendency to only perform at their best when driven by an amp stage with plenty of current delivery in reserve. I don't buy this argument that it's only esoteric cans or whatever that require ample current reserves.
 
3. This sudden movement of the original goalposts very much changes the perceived performance difference between the X3 and the X5. Imaging, transparency, etc, etc, etc, may all be improved in the X5, over the X3, but why should I buy an X5 if I may need to buy an E17 (or other amp), down the line? I'm not a total geek. I just want a single-box DAP that doesn't potentially pull its punches with demanding impedance loads.
 
 

 
1. This was probably to please the MOAR POWER crowd. They may have planned it, but saw that it was unfeasible when taking their total goals into account. 
 
2. And 600mw into 16 ohms isn't enough? Imagine how much would be going into 8 ohms or lower. Unless you have access to Vsonic's mythical orthodynamic iems, there's nothing on the market that will push the X5 to the limit.
 
3. You forget that the product hasn't even been officially announced yet. From the outside looking in, one would think you've already paid for a preorder, and Fiio pulled a bait and switch on you.
 
Just relax, mon

 

[kkcc]

Well to be fair to Mython he had been a vocal supporter for Fiio and James and he makes a lot of sense in his requests.  He had stated his reasons for supporting the X5 and the changes we learned lately has to be a big disappointment for him.
 
Personal I do share Mython's view and the importance of a capable amp section cannot be underestimated.  I ditched my AK100 and have my AK120 collecting dust for this and only this reason: an amp section that's not satisfying.  However, it seemed that power/battery/voltage swing design is THE biggest issue for DAP makers when trying to balance the size/form/battery life/power equation.  
 
For reference, Hifiman's Fang had gone on the record saying the battery section gave them more challenge than implementing the dual ess9018 - and the 9018, even in single chip mode had been a difficult one to implement.  That gave us some idea what James and team, or any maker, has to overcome with regards to battery/voltage swing.  Hifiman's approach to this design dilemma is to offer user replaceable amp sections so we can pick the right compromise ourselves - I uses the standard amp board when I need longer playtime, or the balanced amp board when I need the power/sound.  I also have a discrete amp board that emphasis mids a bit for vocal.  The downside is the unit is big and they need to skim on casing material and use plastics instead of aluminium or other nicer materials. 
 
I don't know how other feels but 300mW @32ohm is far from insufficient.  For comparison I think the HM901 balanced amp board has only about 500mW (though it might be higher in Balanced mode).  And the 901 is good enough driving my LCD3 to sound right in balanced mode.
 
Still very intrigued and looking forward to the X5!

 

[jacal01]

My new X7 wish list:
 
1.  USBAudio capability
2.  Optical and coax S/PDIF digital outputs
3.  ES9018 DAC
4.  Current feedback amp (e.g. LME49713, AD844)
 
 
Quote:

 
sorry only coaxial out , cause portable DAP and DAC is not easy to be bundled by a short optical cable. but for coaxial cable, you can very easy find a very soft cable.

 
Custom fiber optic cables made to length are now available via [size=medium]Sys.Concept[/size].

 

[Mimouille]

My X7 wishlist: make only one, just for me.

 

[AmberOzL]

Quote:

My X7 wishlist: make only one, just for me.

LOL. Your posts always make me smile or laugh. I like your sense of humor Mim

 

[Mimouille]

LOL. Your posts always make me smile or laugh. I like your sense of humor Mim :happy_face1:

I was totally serious. Mine.

 

[AmberOzL]

Quote:

I was totally serious. Mine.

My precious!