[AndrewH13]

See

I have a lot of high res music including some sacd ripped to flac  .Has anyone tried 88khz and 176khz flac  these on their x5?
fiio supports 192khz and 96khz  I,m not sure about 88khz or 176khz though.will the device re sample and play these files or should I rip my sacd files to 96khz  instead?:confused_face(1):

See my review a few posts back concerning 176

 

[Jobbing]

   
Regarding accepting slower song browsing, I think that's a very reasonable compromise.  A broad demographic of listeners in this thread have expressed a preference for comprehensive search by ID tag, whereas I suspect that number of listeners that would use the X5 to play one song at a time by searching file folders if very small.  That smaller group would still be accommodated with a somewhat slower search, whereas the rest of us, who make up the vast majority (..) of X5 customers would get a feature that we consider important.
 
If, as you seem to suggest, the primary downside of moving the index to the SD card is slower song browsing on a song-by-song basis, I think it would be in the interest of the vast majority (..)of X5 purchasers to accept that compromise in exchange for the considerably enhanced functionality of comprehensive and complete tag search and shuffle play.

 
Yep..... thinking , suspect and assuming. What I have been reading in this thread a lot of people are (still) browsing by folder. If the Chinese people do the same I'm shure I am not the only one. No, I don't think slower search would be a compromise at all !!!

 

[vkalia]

  1、The maximum number of songs that can be added to the library database is in the range of 5800 (with songs being all in individual files) to 6200 (with songs being grouped together with a .cue file).
With 8000 songs in the database there is higher likelihood of running out of internal memory, so the upper limit was lowered.
(Limit is not dependent on such things as length of song title or artist name)

 
Thanks for this update, James - appreciate your quick response here.    
 
Unfortunately, this rules out the X5 for me, but I'm hoping that your next product (the X6 or X7?) will have enough internal memory to cover this, b/c now that gapless has been fixed, the player is almost ideal for my requirements.   And please do look into more robust databasing based on the ID3 tags for subsequent releases.   

 

[ptravel]

   
Yep..... thinking , suspect and assuming. What I have been reading in this thread a lot of people are (still) browsing by folder. If the Chinese people do the same I'm shure I am not the only one. No, I don't think slower search would be a compromise at all !!!

I've given my opinion and you're free to do the same.  Browsing by folder is not impacted by the compromise -- I browse by folder because, at the moment, the X5 doesn't provide any other option for searching through a collection larger than 5800 songs.
 
I also don't think you understand the meaning of the word "compromise."  Your opinion as to how the X5 should search precludes any other comprehensive search.  That is not a compromise, that is merely insisting on your way.  A compromise attempts to satisfy competing interests. 
 
Fiio sells to a world market and, with the clear success of the X5, which is an absolutely unique device at its price point, it should aim to satisfy a broader market than just China.  I know China extremely well, spending lots of time there both for business and pleasure; there are many, many Chinese brands that are marketed only in China because their appeal is too narrow.  Relatively few are like Fiio and acquire a sufficient international reputation to market sucessfully to the rest of the world.
 
I'm sure (or "shure," or bose, or skull candy) that you're not the only one who doesn't care about indexed searches.  However, I'm equally sure that you are in the minority.

 

[mhammond]

Slow category browsing would not be a "compromise" I'd be interested in and I'm not sure I buy that the "majority" of users would choose to slower browsing in this case, but I don't know for sure. However, I enjoy the discussion and that FiiO is open to hearing these points of view.

 

[krayziehustler]

Slow category browsing would not be a "compromise" I'd be interested in and I'm not sure I buy that the "majority" of users would choose to slower browsing in this case, but I don't know for sure. However, I enjoy the discussion and that FiiO is open to hearing these points of view.

 
 
I think the best implementation would be that if you have less than 5800 files you will be using the same RAM based feature we have now and if you exceed that amount then it would get written to the SD card. So that way ppl like yourself who may not have 5800 are unaffected.

 

[ptravel]

Slow category browsing would not be a "compromise" I'd be interested in and I'm not sure I buy that the "majority" of users would choose to slower browsing in this case, but I don't know for sure. However, I enjoy the discussion and that FiiO is open to hearing these points of view.

Just so I understand, you would really prefer not being able to browse by category to slow browsing by category?  I don't get it.

 

[ptravel]

   
 
I think the best implementation would be that if you have less than 5800 files you will be using the same RAM based feature we have now and if you exceed that amount then it would get written to the SD card. So that way ppl like yourself who may not have 5800 are unaffected.

Now THAT is a compromise.  I'd certainly be happy with that.

 

[mhammond]

I think the best implementation would be that if you have less than 5800 files you will be using the same RAM based feature we have now and if you exceed that amount then it would get written to the SD card. So that way ppl like yourself who may not have 5800 are unaffected.

If that is possible, that would seem most like a true compromise for all. Alas, things often sound perfect on paper. Be interesting to see if that is a plausible future solution from Joe/James' perspective.

 

[Jobbing]

I've given my opinion and you're free to do the same.  Browsing by folder is not impacted by the compromise -- I browse by folder because, at the moment, the X5 doesn't provide any other option for searching through a collection larger than 5800 songs.

I also don't think you understand the meaning of the word "compromise."  Your opinion as to how the X5 should search precludes any other comprehensive search.  That is not a compromise, that is merely insisting on your way.  A compromise attempts to satisfy competing interests. 

Fiio sells to a world market and, with the clear success of the X5, which is an absolutely unique device at its price point, it should aim to satisfy a broader market than just China.  I know China extremely well, spending lots of time there both for business and pleasure; there are many, many Chinese brands that are marketed only in China because their appeal is too narrow.  Relatively few are like Fiio and acquire a sufficient international reputation to market sucessfully to the rest of the world.

I'm sure (or "shure," or bose, or skull candy) that you're not the only one who doesn't care about indexed searches.  However, I'm equally sure that you are in the minority.

As long as this "compromise" does not have a negative influence on the current way of searching by folders that would be fine I guess. Slowing down the search for those (not personel) who may be too lazy to put other albums on the TF cards or can not decide which albums to put on their TF card(s!) - >5800 songs would equal appr. 400 albums - doesn't seem fair to those who intend to use the X5 for mostly HiRes files as this device wasn't developed with 10.000's of MP3 in mind. It is portable device, please let it be. I'm very happy with my unit even though I can not store over 7.000 of my HiRes/Flac albums on it. Adding a few 100 extra songs to the X5 should not make the UI /search worse. Nevertheless I do hope we can all be pleased with whatever FiiO will come up with.

 

[sherifcalder]

I confirm that X5 do not read correctly 24/88,2 files. I don't know if James or Joe have any info about this issue.

 

[mhammond]

Just so I understand, you would really prefer not being able to browse by category to slow browsing by category?  I don't get it.

No, that's not what I said at all. I'm not sure where you got that from? I am merely saying that slowing down category browsing so as to benefit folks with >5800 files would be unfortunate to me, and doesn't seem to be a compromise from my point of view. But I do understand the other side of the aisle, just wanted my $.02 that perhaps not the "vast majority" of X5 users would take that trade. But maybe they would - don't know unless we speak up

 

[vkalia]

No, that's not what I said at all. I'm not sure where you got that from? I am merely saying that slowing down category browsing so as to benefit folks with >5800 files would be unfortunate to me, and doesn't seem to be a compromise from my point of view. But I do understand the other side of the aisle, just wanted my $.02 that perhaps not the "vast majority" of X5 users would take that trade. But maybe they would - don't know unless we speak up

 
That becomes a bit of a tough choice.  My AK100 player, which i otherwise really like, is infernally slow when scrolling - and that is with 2x64GB of music on it.   I shudder to think of what my browsing experience would be like with twice as many albums and that slow, lagging scroll.    OTOH, I spend a lot of time on the road and want a high-capacity, solid-state-memory player which lets me take the bulk of my music with me, so that 2x128 capacity of the X5 was (and still is) really appealing.   I guess being able to read all my music takes precedence over slower category browsing, although it would be nice to have both at a sub-$500 price point.       

 

[mhammond]

That becomes a bit of a tough choice.  My AK100 player, which i otherwise really like, is infernally slow when scrolling - and that is with 2x64GB of music on it.   I shudder to think of what my browsing experience would be like with twice as many albums and that slow, lagging scroll.    OTOH, I spend a lot of time on the road and want a high-capacity, solid-state-memory player which lets me take the bulk of my music with me, so that 2x128 capacity of the X5 was (and still is) really appealing.   I guess being able to read all my music takes precedence over slower category browsing, although it would be nice to have both at a sub-$500 price point.       

Oh I hear ya, if I had 7 or 8,000 files it'd be a tough choice. Hopefully there can be an implementation solution like the one a few posts back that works for all of us.

 

[alwass89]

  I confirm that X5 do not read correctly 24/88,2 files. I don't know if James or Joe have any info about this issue.

really? I have a bunch of 24/88.2 ALAC files and those have been playing fine for me.