The Qudelix-5K thread

[omarelmeaday]

It all depends on your sound preference - some may prefer Q5K, some may prefer some dongle.
If you like clean, very technical sound - you will be happy with Q5K.
If you prefer a more natural approach with fuller notes - FIIO BTR3K would be better.

Thanks.

 

[omarelmeaday]

And also about the analog natural sound without digital-ish feel to it ... Is there no diffrence ? ... Even when it used wirelessly?

 

[syazwaned]

Thanks.
What about technicalities, staging, detail retrieval and so ?

Yes better technical than dongle you mentioned. With m12 having a slight better timbre than 5k, Other than that, all is on par in my opinion.

 

[omarelmeaday]

Yes better technical than dongle you mentioned. With m12 having a slight better timbre than 5k, Other than that, all is on par in my opinion.

Thanks.

 

[BenF]

And also about the analog natural sound without digital-ish feel to it ... Is there no diffrence ? ... Even when it used wirelessly?

Yes, BTR3K sounds very natural over both USB and Bluetooth.

 

[jsmiller58]

It all depends on your sound preference - some may prefer Q5K, some may prefer some dongle.
If you like clean, very technical sound - you will be happy with Q5K.
If you prefer a more natural approach with fuller notes - FIIO BTR3K would be better.

This is probably a good opportunity for me to ask… what do people mean when they say “natural sound” and what do they mean when they say “technical sound”?

From the context of many posts where I have read these terms I infer that “natural” typically implies more weight to (boosted) mids, slightly recessed treble, and slightly elevated bass. I infer that “technical” typically refers to elevated treble, slightly recessed (or at least not boosted) mids, and more likely flat (not elevated / boosted) bass. As I indicated I infer these from context, but I don’t think I have seen these clearly defined when used.

Thank you in advance!

 

[BenF]

This is probably a good opportunity for me to ask… what do people mean when they say “natural sound” and what do they mean when they say “technical sound”?

From the context of many posts where I have read these terms I infer that “natural” typically implies more weight to (boosted) mids, slightly recessed treble, and slightly elevated bass. I infer that “technical” typically refers to elevated treble, slightly recessed (or at least not boosted) mids, and more likely flat (not elevated / boosted) bass. As I indicated I infer these from context, but I don’t think I have seen these clearly defined when used.

Thank you in advance!

My personal definitions are:
Technical sound - makes you feel like you are listening to a reproduction of music, e.g. listening to really good speakers. This is perfect for monitoring/critical listening.
Natural sound - makes you feel present at the time of performance, total immersion. This is perfect for enjoying music.

It's not about Frequency Response or detail retrival, it's about how you feel.

 

[jsmiller58]

My personal definitions are:
Technical sound - makes you feel like you are listening to a reproduction of music, e.g. listening to really good speakers. This is perfect for monitoring/critical listening.
Natural sound - makes you feel present at the time of performance, total immersion. This is perfect for enjoying music.

It's not about Frequency Response or detail retrival, it's about how you feel.

Thank you, I appreciate your perspective!

 

[mugbot]

Thank you, I appreciate your perspective

Neither of these things have been demonstrated to exist in controlled testing, I'd be very surprised if anyone could tell the difference between the two in blind testing. People are really inconsistent too, often describing the device they don't like, or seems more advanced as 'technical' or cold. Here that's being pointed at the Q5K in comparison to the BTR3K however I'm sure if you look through the BTR3K thread people will use those same terms to describe its sound in comparison to other devices.

For the record I've listed to both side by side and they sounded the same to me. Both measure with a flat frequency response so there's no volume difference at different frequencies.

 

[schoolpizza]

I ordered a 5k on a whim the other night, having the crazy idea to latch it on to my new LCD2's to make them wireless for walks along the trails around my house

Now after researching more I'm wondering if I will need a balanced cable to pull this off. The LCD2's are the newer variety with 101 dB/mW sensitivity and 70ohm resistance, so not the hardest to drive, but a lot more than the IEMs I'm seeing are mainly used here. I've read everything from LCD2's needing just 25mW to sound flawless to needing at least 1W to perform at their best. So far I've only used them direct into my phone, which sounds good, but who knows what I'm missing from proper amplification!?

The balanced mini-XLR to 2.5mm cable I will need to mod is $80, so before I take the plunge on that I thought I'd seek input here on whether the 5k's balanced out makes a huge difference and/or is going to be essential for me.

Thanks!

 

[logiatype]

Has anyone noticed dropouts on bluetooth calls? I use this for zoom calls and have moments where audio cuts out.

 

[mugbot]

I ordered a 5k on a whim the other night, having the crazy idea to latch it on to my new LCD2's to make them wireless for walks along the trails around my house

Now after researching more I'm wondering if I will need a balanced cable to pull this off. The LCD2's are the newer variety with 101 dB/mW sensitivity and 70ohm resistance, so not the hardest to drive, but a lot more than the IEMs I'm seeing are mainly used here. I've read everything from LCD2's needing just 25mW to sound flawless to needing at least 1W to perform at their best. So far I've only used them direct into my phone, which sounds good, but who knows what I'm missing from proper amplification!?

The balanced mini-XLR to 2.5mm cable I will need to mod is $80, so before I take the plunge on that I thought I'd seek input here on whether the 5k's balanced out makes a huge difference and/or is going to be essential for me.

Thanks!

I use this for calculating the headphone power requirements:
https://www.headphonesty.com/headphone-power-calculator/

Noting here that I usually kick up the listening volume to 120dB to take care of any spikes etc.

Based on that your LCD2 needs 159mW which the Q5K can deliver but only over balanced.

 

[schoolpizza]

I use this for calculating the headphone power requirements:
https://www.headphonesty.com/headphone-power-calculator/

Noting here that I usually kick up the listening volume to 120dB to take care of any spikes etc.

Based on that your LCD2 needs 159mW which the Q5K can deliver but only over balanced.

Thank you for the precise answer, that is extremely helpful. I'm not looking forward to hacking up $80 cables but it must be done!

That leads me to a much harder question. I've noticed there are two types of people on these forums. One type say ok, I am outputting 159mW, I have succeeded in amping my phones. The other type will not stop there and claim that extra power headroom, tubes, or other design qualities can make vast improvements to the sound you hear. Without spending a ton of money, I am trying to determine which group I fall into... or, gasp, what the TRUTH of the matter is!

 

[BenF]

Neither of these things have been demonstrated to exist in controlled testing, I'd be very surprised if anyone could tell the difference between the two in blind testing. People are really inconsistent too, often describing the device they don't like, or seems more advanced as 'technical' or cold. Here that's being pointed at the Q5K in comparison to the BTR3K however I'm sure if you look through the BTR3K thread people will use those same terms to describe its sound in comparison to other devices.

For the record I've listed to both side by side and they sounded the same to me. Both measure with a flat frequency response so there's no volume difference at different frequencies.

All DACs and amps will measure practically flat through the audible range - within 0.1-0.2dB, not anything we can hear.
That's true for 100$ devices, and for 2000$ devices.
Frequency response is not what differentiates them, you simply can't measure note weight (at least not by looking at FR).

ES100 and Q5K aren't more advanced than BTR3K, they just sound different.
BTR3K is much more advanced than BTR3 - but I definitely could confuse them in a blind test, even when using balanced output from BTR3K.

Of course, if your headphones are coloring the sound, that may diminish the differences between devices.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

What is "note weight"?