Topping Owners & Discussion Thread

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 hour ago, was_a said:

Sure, the noise and distortion measurements will be wonderful, but like I've said often on this thread, that means little in terms of sound quality. 

I think we probably agree there but for very different reasons indeed  

[Guest rmpfyf]

1 hour ago, was_a said:

Sure, the noise and distortion measurements will be wonderful, but like I've said often on this thread, that means little in terms of sound quality. 

 

But isn't that what makes it intriguing? We'll have a @Gieseler Audio DAC out in future off the same chip (I may have that wrong) with a completely different implementation and a different price point - how will they sound different? Is there any way they could sound similar? 

 

We live in a wonderful age of information transparency; we lack more for context than we do volumes of data. So we'll know we can get the same chip in either DAC (or others). The debate alone makes for far more informed customers. 20 years ago this just wasn't possible. Maybe even 10 years ago. Only in the last few years can we really speak of DAC ICs with accessible performance in the same range as reference instrumentation. It's an awesome time to be involved in this. 

 

As they likely will sound different, as one will likely have more PRAT, toe-tapping, smiling etc... as you'll just like to listen more to one than the other if someone were happy to sit down with an analyser and pull apart what may inform that from a scientific perspective, that'd be awesome. But it'd be a longer study, one that may raise more questions than what's on ASR alone. 

 

Which isn't to diminish the value of a standard set of tests, just to give them the appropriate context.

[was_a]

I agree that new products (like the D90) are intriguing! I've had many well-regarded DACs in my home, including Topping's D50 and D70 models, for curiosity's sake. At some point I know I'll have a listen to the D90 too. And yes, the information age and technological advances make for a far more transparent world for audiophiles. 

 

But I take issue with your argument that current DAC ICs give [budget and mid-price] products equal performance to reference-grade devices of yesteryear. Because there remains the age-old requirement for a good analogue output stage. And that's responsible for a large percentage of sound quality. 

 

Cirrus Logic, AKM and Sabre have made huge advances in the delta-sigma realm and given manufacturers like Topping the opportunity to design sleek, appealing products. But in a reasonably good system this will only take you so far. 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by was_a

[Ittaku]

7 minutes ago, was_a said:

But I take issue with your argument that current DAC ICs give [budget and mid-price] products equal performance to reference-grade devices of yesteryear.

I took it to mean measures as well as laboratory reference grade measuring / studio equipment, not sound as good as reference audio equipment of yesteryear.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Ittaku

[sir sanders zingmore]

45 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

As they likely will sound different, as one will likely have more PRAT, toe-tapping, smiling etc... as you'll just like to listen more to one than the other if someone were happy to sit down with an analyser and pull apart what may inform that from a scientific perspective, that'd be awesome. But it'd be a longer study, one that may raise more questions than what's on ASR alone. 

What if the "other" DAC measures better than the Topping?

[Ittaku]

2 minutes ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

What if the "other" DAC measures better than the Topping?

What if it doesn't?

[was_a]

4 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

I took it to mean measures as well as laboratory reference grade measuring / studio equipment, not sound as good as reference audio equipment of yesteryear.

You may be right (much as it pains me to agree with you)..... !!

[Ittaku]

1 minute ago, was_a said:

You may be right (much as it pains me to agree with you)..... !!

Wow, you hate me that much? I'm touched. Though we've mostly agreed on this thread.

[was_a]

Oh, have we? Well I've always thought of you as an intelligent contributor. A pioneer really...You probably have Mehta's Mahler 5 with the New York Phil in your collection too.

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by was_a

[rantan]

Just now, was_a said:

A pioneer really...

...but not a Pass Labs then ?

[THOMO]

When it comes to digital there have always been some cheap CD players that sounded better than far more expensive models.Often from the same maker.Most of the expensive Sony ES players for example did not sound as good as their relatively cheap players like the CDP 715.Same goes for many of the Marantz players.So the same thing is likely to apply to DACs and so the claim that  modern cheap DACs like the Toppings sound better than most of the older expensive DACs is just telling you that a lot of those expensive DACs were not very good and concluding that therefore modern DAC design must have improved is not really valid.That is just a coincidence . My conclusion for some time has been that the vast majority DAC/CD player designers/builders really have very little insight into  what makes a good sounding digital source and if they do make something good it is probably just a fluke .One company that does appear to have cracked it is Accuphase but that  probably has a lot more to do with their expertise in power supplies and output stages than digital processing.

[Mendes]

42 minutes ago, THOMO said:

Accuphase but that  probably has a lot more to do with their expertise in power supplies and output stages than digital processing.

100%.....

[sir sanders zingmore]

2 hours ago, Ittaku said:

What if it doesn't?

Then it’s sure to sound better

[Guest rmpfyf]

4 hours ago, was_a said:

But I take issue with your argument that current DAC ICs give [budget and mid-price] products equal performance to reference-grade devices of yesteryear. Because there remains the age-old requirement for a good analogue output stage. And that's responsible for a large percentage of sound quality. 

 

No no, you've misunderstood that. I'm simply suggesting that current IC's have a performance potential that matches research instrumentation. 

 

Part of this is that sure, there's a propensity for more modern DAC designs to be more amenable to better sound. Didn't suggest for a second that the stuff around an IC doesn't matter - quite the opposite if anything.

 

My main DAC is a 1541A. Not going anywhere in a rush.

 

3 hours ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

What if the "other" DAC measures better than the Topping?

 

Then we learn something, same as if it doesn't. 

[Guest Muon N']

2 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

My main DAC is a 1541A. Not going anywhere in a rush.

You just leveled up, 5 point increase in reputation.

[Guest rmpfyf]

7 hours ago, Muon N' said:

You just leveled up, 5 point increase in reputation.

 Ha ha ha

[wolster]

After 15 pages of opinions and theories, has anybody bought one of these yet?

I see they are readily available and that a MQA version is next cab off the rank.

Would be interested in impressions of owners.

[Addicted to music]

3 hours ago, wolster said:

After 15 pages of opinions and theories, has anybody bought one of these yet?

I see they are readily available and that a MQA version is next cab off the rank.

Would be interested in impressions of owners.

It will be more, but it gives you that support and capability

[Suopermanni]

I am thinking of buying one so I can bring it to compare to Clayton's new AKM 4499 DAC. I'm not expecting a giant killer here but I would be interested to see how different analog stages and power stages would affect the final product!

 

EDIT: Should note that I'm not trying to insult Gieseler Audio. They've been rather good to me, with support of their products with I have bought. This is just for my own experience and knowledge building exercise.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Suopermanni

[Guest Muon N']

7 hours ago, Suopermanni said:

I am thinking of buying one so I can bring it to compare to Clayton's new AKM 4499 DAC. I'm not expecting a giant killer here but I would be interested to see how different analog stages and power stages would affect the final product!

 

EDIT: Should note that I'm not trying to insult Gieseler Audio. They've been rather good to me, with support of their products with I have bought. This is just for my own experience and knowledge building exercise.

I think I hear the Topping sobbing in anticipation, don't stop on any bridges when driving over with it

[PositivelyMusicallyGeared]

Now 10% off:

 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/topping-d90-balanced-usb-dac-review.10519/page-16

[soundfan]

On 28/12/2019 at 12:32 PM, sir sanders zingmore said:

I do like the idea of BT.

My family hates using Tidal, if they could just stream spotify via BT to the dac, that would make everyone happier

Why the hatred of Tidal? Curious is all, have used Tidal with Audirvarna 

via my Denafrips Dac for a few years now.

Works very well for me.

[sir sanders zingmore]

1 hour ago, soundfan said:

Why the hatred of Tidal? Curious is all, have used Tidal with Audirvarna 

via my Denafrips Dac for a few years now.

Works very well for me.

All their playlists are on Spotify and it seems to have more of the music they like and the interface is better. 

[Ruffter]

12 hours ago, sir sanders zingmore said:

All their playlists are on Spotify and it seems to have more of the music they like and the interface is better. 

This is my exact problem with tidal too. If Spotify went lossless, the problems of the world would be solved...

[o2so]

On 02/01/2020 at 12:28 PM, Ittaku said:

DAC distortions are ludicrously small compared to the rest of the system, and the most expensive DACs measured at ASR have some of the "worst" measurements. No one can definitively say important those distortions are in the final listening experience.

I personally think this is an academic debate, really. That is, it is just a matter of opinions.

Some (me included) think low distortion and excellent measured performance are desirable features in a system, because they make it transparent to the source. If your listening experience is not satisfying, then you can only blame the source.

Others think that added distortion, when done in a certain way, is nice and makes the listening experience better. This is one of the arguments supporting tube-based amplification, for instance, because tubes add distortion (preferably in low order harmonics). The other reason tube amplifiers often sound different is the higher output impedance, which results in non flat frequency response where the speaker load is not flat across the frequency range (hint, it almost never is). Specifically, bumps in speaker impedance roughly correspond to bumps in frequency response, if the amplifier output impedance is relatively high.

 

In my experience, though it is fun to experiment with tubes, in the end one always achieves results that may sound pleasant only for a limited number of music genres, or tracks. I like for instance the "tube glare" on strings, because it makes guitars sound more full, almost like a 12 strings, but I find this overwhelming in any other instrument or music genres. 

 

My understanding of the philosophy underlying ASR is that, because they consider good only components that are transparent to the source, a complete set of measurements will be all they need to establish how good a component is. This makes complete sense, if one agrees with the postulate "transparency = good". While they do some minor listening test, they openly consider these of minor importance as the ear+brain is demonstrably less sensitive than professional measuring gear. On the other hand, components that are designed to have high distortion (to add a sound signature to the source) are of no interest to ASR, because the listening experience of these components will be highly subjective, in that it will depend on a mix of personal taste and things like  impedance matching within everyone's system. So there is no value, according to ASR, in saying "this sounds good", or " it has a black background", or it has a " large sound-stage" because these subjective features may not be there in someone else's system, or may not be perceived in the same way by a different person, in a different room, with different speakers and different ears+brain.