what is happening here? everyone that complains about there being problem with the engineering should really take a look at amir's replies.
some people here are trying to spread false information of topping trying to cheat by using this filter for better measurement, which is not the case at all, confirmed by amir with proof. so why are there still argument regarding this?
as for the filter itself, you may argue this product have this one flaw, but not due to its engineering.
in fact, they engineered it to the best possible, in the condition that this specific dac chip being utilized.
the only argument you could make is whether or not they should choose this specific dac chip, thus inevitably resulting in a product with flaw, one way or another.
if you want to argue there is engineering at fault, it's ESS's, not Topping's.
once the dac chip choice is set, the rest is a design choice!! as clarified by topping & amir.
what you don't seem to understand is, there is only 3 filters provided by ess for this dac chip, & the one chosen by topping is the only one that doesn't merely have -10dB'ish attenuation at 22.05kHz, which is not ideal, just like not being flat to 20kHz, too, not ideal.
if there is a filter that is flat to 20kHz & not just -10dB attenuation at 22.05kHz, topping would use that instead as seen in the default filter of many other topping's products not utilizing this specific dac chip, but there isn't.
the funny thing is, e50 (same exact dac chip) got this problem too with no filter getting both the flatness & attenuation right, let alone a sharp accurate one. but because it defaults the one prioritizing flatness, everybody's happy, no one got a problem with it. so maybe the thing that topping should do with G5 is, including a dedicated button & indicator just for users to switch filters, confusing the hell out of a lot of customers in the process, but then topping don't really have to choose & the choice is left to the customers, just like the e50, so everyone's happy.
as for why they chose this filter, i have no idea, maybe g5 being a portable device they find it particularly prone to ultrasonic noise, or other reasons, i must say i completely do not know.
all i know is, it's 2 situation both being not ideal & in this particular case, THERE IS NO RIGHT CHOICE. it comes down to preference. it's practically INAUDIBLE, FOR GOD'S SAKE. i for one can hear up to 20kHz, but everyone who can do that & isn't extremely young knows that, even if you can hear those frequencies in those frequency test, you're still not sensitive to it, you have to ramp it up to barely hear it, & if you can't hear it, then no matter what volume, you just can't. either way why would anybody care about 'music content' in there? not to mention they rarely exist if at all.
i personally also would prefer they use the filter that is flat to 20kHz, in a sense that i will be happier if they do so, but if you can't get the argument straight & give credit where it's due, instead you just talk without any willingness to understand what you're actually talking about, then you really should shut up, not saying you must, since you have the right to talk, to express opinion, but you SHOULD shut up, for the right is all that you have left, as in this case your opinion is so non-constructive that the world is better off without it, therefore you expressing them would be morally wrong, you just have the right to do it, nothing more.
so now, to those in question: would you please kindly shut up?
tl;dr: 1) topping didn't cheat for better measurement by applying the filter in use. 2) there is no problem whatsoever on topping's side of engineering.
for reference:
The engineering is superb. They have simply decided on one dac filter vs another.
I clearly noted the response issue in the review with additional testing. Everything is there for you to decide otherwise.
There is no such impact on SINAD. That is a tiny bit of attenuation. Here is the SINAD at 48 kHz sampling which has wider bandwidth:
View attachment 224630
And filter response:
View attachment 224631
Performance is the same. So the filter selection has no impact on SINAD.
Topping got back to me and said the filter choice is by design. They are willing to change it if we/I ask for it. Do we want to do it?
The trade off here is getting rid of out of band noise with current filter vs flatter frequency response but potentially more bleeding due to ultrasonic leakage.
The design fully achieves flat response to 22 kHz. DAC chip companies provide these choices because they don't know what is right either. Do you want to advocate more leakage vs flat response?
