Fosi Audio Box X5 Phono Preamp Review

[Heinrich]

... when it comes to evaluating sound quality, measurement equipment is far, far more accurate than human ears, particularly for electronics. For speakers in your room, personal taste and listening ...

I think in this thread I asked a question, which is not yet answered. The scientific background is obvious.

MP3 is a lossy compression method, which was scientifically developed. At some compression rates even clearly audible artifacts are tolerated as a compromise. How does measurement evaluate these?

If there's no standard besides necessarily subjective listening tests, how could one say, that so called objective measurements exist? I mean, we do not know how the standard tests correlate to the human hearing. That is a matter of fact, example "Geddes, distortion, metric"

I'm not a cable-guy. And as I said, if artifacts are orders of magnitude below standard hearing thresholds, I'm the last to not skip a listening test. But to generalize some superiority of superficial distortion tests and such isn't fair. In its overall attitude it may be as inappropriate as ventilating cable myths.

Not the least we are on phono territory here. Yes, it is about a pre that is a good case of the "orders of magnitude" above. (Except for noise with MM.) But then again, to subjectively evaluate phono playback in general is perfectly in order for quality assessment. And it could perfectly substitute so called objective measurements, in case one asks for a generalization.

 

[OllyS]

I was initially very disappointed with this. It sounded terrible and thought I must have a faulty unit. However I realised for me at least running the specific MM cart on my set up the gain settings are critical and it only sounds great on the two lowest , crank it up beyond that and it just falls apart- it actually was best to my ears on 38 dbl but that's just too quiet as needed to crank the preamp to nearly Max to get anything like decent volume. Compromise is the 2nd setting of 48dbl. Clear improvement over the integrated phono stage on the turntable in terms of clarity, noise floor and depth and dimensional soundstage. For the money, it's an absolute steal. I should really run an AB test against my £800 (stage and upgraded power supply) in my main system, but I'm actually scared the fosi would be better!

 

[Heinrich]

Not the least we are on phono territory here.

To put it the other way round, simpler. The artifacts with phono playback are clearly beyond threshold of audibility. Ho would an 'objective measurement' evaluate the tolerability?

 

[phoenixsong]

Yes, it's different, I think basically for the cartridge distortions and ... the mastering.

But, in my experience, when you go up in the ladder (high quality pressings and flat response cartridges) ... vinyl sounds more close to digital.

Click and pops are stuff from your grandpa analog system ... a decent manual or machine cleaning system ... and it's almost nothing about it. Only when you get old and damaged records.

Was thinking if there are ways to measure vinyl systems/individual components

 

[StevenSGT98]

Was thinking if there are ways to measure vinyl systems/individual components

Analog has the mechanical component to it in synergy with the electronic transcribing side of it.

Wow and flutter, rumble, cogging from the drive motor, records drilled off center, warping -

All of these have solutions that, many of them, are works of art in engineering. Then there is the cutting of the master, the black art of making the stampers, pressing the records- that whole electronic to mechanical process- only to be reversed when read. What a marvelous maze of electro-mechanical complexity that is a complete throwback to the last century! And it can sound so good! How is it possible?? All of these problems digital doesn’t have.

And yet the process got tweaked in pretty good over the years. How?

Measurements and- wait for it-

Listening with our ears.

Yes there are ways to test for these and have been tested for decades.

On the electrical side, that’s what we have been discussing with the Fosi, mention of cartridge testing.

With the Fosi, it does a nice job doing its assigned role. It is one part of the chain that doesn’t need a lot of attention. The rest of the chain then can get more attention- better table that has less rumble or wow, or a better arm that has less resonances, or proper cartridge setup so vtf and overhang are set properly for proper geometry, etc.

This is actually the genesis of where all the audiofools came from. In analog, some of this stuff actually made a difference, even if it was small. But with digital, they have to perpetuate the lie so they can continue to fleece the faithful followers.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I think in this thread I asked a question, which is not yet answered. The scientific background is obvious.

MP3 is a lossy compression method, which was scientifically developed. At some compression rates even clearly audible artifacts are tolerated as a compromise. How does measurement evaluate these?

If there's no standard besides necessarily subjective listening tests, how could one say, that so called objective measurements exist? I mean, we do not know how the standard tests correlate to the human hearing. That is a matter of fact, example "Geddes, distortion, metric"

I'm not a cable-guy. And as I said, if artifacts are orders of magnitude below standard hearing thresholds, I'm the last to not skip a listening test. But to generalize some superiority of superficial distortion tests and such isn't fair. In its overall attitude it may be as inappropriate as ventilating cable myths.

Not the least we are on phono territory here. Yes, it is about a pre that is a good case of the "orders of magnitude" above. (Except for noise with MM.) But then again, to subjectively evaluate phono playback in general is perfectly in order for quality assessment. And it could perfectly substitute so called objective measurements, in case one asks for a generalization.

MP3 artifacts can be objectively analyzed using tools like spectral analysis and psychoacoustic models such as PEAQ (wiki-link), which are designed to mimic human hearing. Research confirms that these tests reliably align with human perception. How do you think Fraunhofer's MP3 compression algorithm was developed without rigorous measurement and psychoacoustic modeling?
Objective measurements provide a consistent and scientific way to assess audio quality, unlike audiophile myths, which typically lack real evidence. Personal listening preferences matter, but when it comes to measuring sound fidelity, objective testing and measuring is still the most reliable method.

 

[Heinrich]

MP3 artifacts ... psychoacoustic models ...

What is objective in psychoacoustic models, actually? What are these derived from, could it be subjective experience? And not for the faint of heart, are all possible MP3 artifacts captured (with all inputs)?
Not the least I reiterate my question from above, once artifacts are audible, as with phono/vinyl, who determines if they are bearable, is there a ranking at least? In case, is it individual?

No no, I'm not from the 'subjectivist camp'. To the contrary, really. We should only understand that 'measurement' has its limitations, because our mental model of human hearing (and overall experience starting from there) is limited to begin with. That, in my book, is the 'scientific approach'.

For instance google "geddes, distortion, metric", thank you!

(I leave it at that, but please don't accuse people of being 'subjective'.)

 

[Old_School_Brad]

What is objective in psychoacoustic models, actually? What are these derived from, could it be subjective experience? And not for the faint of heart, are all possible MP3 artifacts captured (with all inputs)?
Not the least I reiterate my question from above, once artifacts are audible, as with phono/vinyl, who determines if they are bearable, is there a ranking at least? In case, is it individual?

No no, I'm not from the 'subjectivist camp'. To the contrary, really. We should only understand that 'measurement' has its limitations, because our mental model of human hearing (and overall experience starting from there) is limited to begin with. That, in my book, is the 'scientific approach'.

For instance google "geddes, distortion, metric", thank you!

(I leave it at that, but please don't accuse people of being 'subjective'.)

In which way is our knowledge of human hearing limited?

 

[cfwotzka]

Yes, it's different, I think basically for the cartridge distortions and ... the mastering.

But, in my experience, when you go up in the ladder (high quality pressings and flat response cartridges) ... vinyl sounds more close to digital.

Click and pops are stuff from your grandpa analog system ... a decent manual or machine cleaning system ... and it's almost nothing about it. Only when you get old and damaged records.

I fully agree. got a disk washing cleaning machine and handle very careful my vinyl collection. Lucky I am to have a Garrard 301 equipped with SME3012 + Dynavector 507 with cartridges from Kiseki, Hana, Dynavector, Denon and Supex. clicks and pops I agree as well are more then rare even with 40+ years old records. the Fosi Box X5 is a really excellent sounding phono amp and recommend to everybody, even those with expensive (well known) phono stages to give it a try. I guess they will be surprised....

 

[DSJR]

You put full faith in meters, I trust my ears.

I'm so glad and maybe jealous now that you can still do this. I can't do this much now if listening via speakers and get into terrible rows (one last week which I'm still a bit stung by) with otherwise dear friends who are still almost fully subjective (because they feel that one buys a 'nice sound to them' rather than a purely 'better one technically' or words to that effect).

 

[DSJR]

This talk of vinyl's horrible shortcomings reminds me of another remarkable ability of the ear/brain mechanism:
Discrimination.
I can easily "tune out" clicks & pops and enjoy the music behind it. Seems like allot of people are unable to hear beyond the surface noise. I wonder if they can see out a dirty window, or do they focus only on the dirt?

From first-hand experience - live with digital for a number of years and ANY tick and plop from vinyl records is *deeply* annoying, especially if the speakers have issues around their crossover point where the ear is typically most sensitive - another subject for another time, but I feel valid.

 

[StevenSGT98]

From first-hand experience - live with digital for a number of years and ANY tick and plop from vinyl records is *deeply* annoying, especially if the speakers have issues around their crossover point where the ear is typically most sensitive - another subject for another time, but I feel valid.

The problem is the way much of the digital releases are mastered for loudness, compressing much of the dynamics out of the music. Vinyl doesn’t appear to be as affected by this.

I found this interesting.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/151-albums-reviewed-with-844-editions-tested-the-complete-list-….59988/

Jean.Francois has gone to painstaking lengths to comparatively analyze recordings from different releases. A few things stood out. Many vinyls had good dynamic range. Dolby Atmos also seems to do well. Some digital is ok - a lot is compressed- usually the later releases or remasters. It’s a crapshoot trying to get the better mastering, but vinyl seems to be a good way to get there.

The Fosi x5 is one part of that analog vinyl chain. Tiny tiny bit of hiss right in the verge of dead wax and it’s gone when the needle hits the groove.

 

[Northa40]

Ok my turn to add my 2 cents CND, ok 1.4 cents USD. I think this thread has gone way off course. I received my X5 a couple days ago and initial impressions are, $100 buck? Wow.
None of my past phono are high end, I have the Bellari PA550, the IFi Zen Phono(sold it) and the Zen Phono Air(still have it) and the Fosi X4 with tubes(sold it. As you can see I have a gear fetish. My thoughts are that this is better than or equal to the IFi Zen and will probably live in my system for years or at least until the next best thing comes along. I am using it with the AT120eb and the 2M Blue and what I noticed, particularly with the harmonica on the Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions can be a bit shrill and the FOSI seems to do a good job at taming it. Bass is full and there is lots of detail. My question is, for $100 is there anything better? If there is what is it? Also check this out at time stamp 40:50. Interesting.

 

[StevenSGT98]

Ok my turn to add my 2 cents CND, ok 1.4 cents USD. I think this thread has gone way off course. I received my X5 a couple days ago and initial impressions are, $100 buck? Wow.
None of my past phono are high end, I have the Bellari PA550, the IFi Zen Phono(sold it) and the Zen Phono Air(still have it) and the Fosi X4 with tubes(sold it. As you can see I have a gear fetish. My thoughts are that this is better than or equal to the IFi Zen and will probably live in my system for years or at least until the next best thing comes along. I am using it with the AT120eb and the 2M Blue and what I noticed, particularly with the harmonica on the Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions can be a bit shrill and the FOSI seems to do a good job at taming it. Bass is full and there is lots of detail. My question is, for $100 is there anything better? If there is what is it? Also check this out at time stamp 40:50. Interesting.

This preamp helped me to identify a slight issue I had with overhang. On my previous preamp, it was muddied enough to not distinguish the HF intermodulation distortion. On this one the amp was definitely fast enough to hear it to the point it was grinding to listen to. A slight readjustment and smooth sailing highs.

 

[Laika2]

Ok my turn to add my 2 cents CND, ok 1.4 cents USD. I think this thread has gone way off course. I received my X5 a couple days ago and initial impressions are, $100 buck? Wow.
None of my past phono are high end, I have the Bellari PA550, the IFi Zen Phono(sold it) and the Zen Phono Air(still have it) and the Fosi X4 with tubes(sold it. As you can see I have a gear fetish. My thoughts are that this is better than or equal to the IFi Zen and will probably live in my system for years or at least until the next best thing comes along. I am using it with the AT120eb and the 2M Blue and what I noticed, particularly with the harmonica on the Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions can be a bit shrill and the FOSI seems to do a good job at taming it. Bass is full and there is lots of detail. My question is, for $100 is there anything better? If there is what is it? Also check this out at time stamp 40:50. Interesting.

Ok my turn to add my 2 cents CND, ok 1.4 cents USD. I think this thread has gone way off course. I received my X5 a couple days ago and initial impressions are, $100 buck? Wow.
None of my past phono are high end, I have the Bellari PA550, the IFi Zen Phono(sold it) and the Zen Phono Air(still have it) and the Fosi X4 with tubes(sold it. As you can see I have a gear fetish. My thoughts are that this is better than or equal to the IFi Zen and will probably live in my system for years or at least until the next best thing comes along. I am using it with the AT120eb and the 2M Blue and what I noticed, particularly with the harmonica on the Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions can be a bit shrill and the FOSI seems to do a good job at taming it. Bass is full and there is lots of detail. My question is, for $100 is there anything better? If there is what is it? Also check this out at time stamp 40:50. Interesting.

I bought 2 Fosi X5s to see if it was better than a internal high end Denon a d Marantz internal. Receivers cost between $3500-$4000. It did beat the internals. I listen loud and the hiss on the Fosi was fine but noticeable when music has very quiet sections when cranked. Once again no big deal but this was a test, I had the same question. If the Fosi does so well can I do better. I bought a Cambridge Avia Audio Duo (something like.that,its reviewed here. Lists for $350 easily had at $250 on Ebay if one can wait a few weeks. Ebays Cambridge Audio store had factory returns refebs that looked brand new for $250.

To answer your questions the mids and bass are very FOSI5, with a bit more tight bass but the treble is where it shines, almost no hiss, much less than the fosi, with good vynyl almost CD like in lack of hiss and surface noise. Once again the FOSI his was no bid deal music plays and most of the time it's not audible (or is it)
I ask this because the Cambridge high end not only had no hiss but not as much sizzle on the top, I am talking too much, where certain songs or parts, not that many but not a few, perhaps a song on every other album but a few recordings it was constant. I am wondering if the his is present and added in so the hiss on its own can not be heard but may add this screeching.

The Cambridge got rid of almost all the screach, top end is clear and sounds like it should, also has a built in rumble filter.

Loved the FOSIs, could have stopped there and been happy but the Cambridge is next level. It's my end game, I have heard much more expensive ones but the difference is very slight or the same a few sounded worse. To me it seems like this is the point of diminishing returns, as long as you don't need endless settings. The Cambridge and other units I have heard up to $2000 were very close to equivalent, I expect many in double blind tests people would pick the Cambridge.

One thing if this model interests you, don't buy it for the headphone jack, it's useless, super low power super low volume.

 

[guy48065]

I appreciate this review.
I'm nearing retirement & moving. I've got a simple digital system set up in my new place but I haven't decided yet if I'm going to continue with LPs. I bought the very cheap X5 to eventually compare to the phono input of my Wiim Ultra.
When LP "died" I sold my 3 turntables and consumed only digital for several years. I grew to miss analog and brought it back, in steps.

So here I am again at that fork in the road.

 

[StevenSGT98]

I bought 2 Fosi X5s to see if it was better than a internal high end Denon a d Marantz internal. Receivers cost between $3500-$4000. It did beat the internals. I listen loud and the hiss on the Fosi was fine but noticeable when music has very quiet sections when cranked. Once again no big deal but this was a test, I had the same question. If the Fosi does so well can I do better. I bought a Cambridge Avia Audio Duo (something like.that,its reviewed here. Lists for $350 easily had at $250 on Ebay if one can wait a few weeks. Ebays Cambridge Audio store had factory returns refebs that looked brand new for $250.

To answer your questions the mids and bass are very FOSI5, with a bit more tight bass but the treble is where it shines, almost no hiss, much less than the fosi, with good vynyl almost CD like in lack of hiss and surface noise. Once again the FOSI his was no bid deal music plays and most of the time it's not audible (or is it)
I ask this because the Cambridge high end not only had no hiss but not as much sizzle on the top, I am talking too much, where certain songs or parts, not that many but not a few, perhaps a song on every other album but a few recordings it was constant. I am wondering if the his is present and added in so the hiss on its own can not be heard but may add this screeching.

The Cambridge got rid of almost all the screach, top end is clear and sounds like it should, also has a built in rumble filter.

Loved the FOSIs, could have stopped there and been happy but the Cambridge is next level. It's my end game, I have heard much more expensive ones but the difference is very slight or the same a few sounded worse. To me it seems like this is the point of diminishing returns, as long as you don't need endless settings. The Cambridge and other units I have heard up to $2000 were very close to equivalent, I expect many in double blind tests people would pick the Cambridge.

One thing if this model interests you, don't buy it for the headphone jack, it's useless, super low power super low volume.

What gain setting are you running at with the x5

 

[Laika2]

What gain setting are you running at with the x5

I was using the lowest gain, I lost bass with the second lowest. BUT I have that analog line jacked up 6 db in the receiver which should be a gain of about 44. (38 Fosi + 6 receiver) which is getting closer to the Fosi second lowest gain setting of 48 which I would expect is the best for most. Talking mm cartridge only.

 

[Laika2]

I appreciate this review.
I'm nearing retirement & moving. I've got a simple digital system set up in my new place but I haven't decided yet if I'm going to continue with LPs. I bought the very cheap X5 to eventually compare to the phono input of my Wiim Ultra.
When LP "died" I sold my 3 turntables and consumed only digital for several years. I grew to miss analog and brought it back, in steps.

So here I am again at that fork in the road.

Had my records stored safely for 30 years, went CD, Dug them out a year ago, bought a new Turntable thinking nostalgia more than sound quality and was blown away at how good vinyl sounded. Does not replace digital in my book but it's like having 2 different mixes, I do prefer vinyl on some content, Roxy Musics Avalon for instance, the lp has a large wall of sound that at times sounds spiritual, the CD loses that and sounds very surgical. Who knows though, heard the album 20 times before the CD which came out latter so it might be subjective as to how I think it should sound but Im good with that.

 

[phoenixsong]

Had my records stored safely for 30 years, went CD, Dug them out a year ago, bought a new Turntable thinking nostalgia more than sound quality and was blown away at how good vinyl sounded. Does not replace digital in my book but it's like having 2 different mixes, I do prefer vinyl on some content, Roxy Musics Avalon for instance, the lp has a large wall of sound that at times sounds spiritual, the CD loses that and sounds very surgical. Who knows though, heard the album 20 times before the CD which came out latter so it might be subjective as to how I think it should sound but Im good with that.

What's your audio setup like?