Topping DX7 Pro DAC and Headphone Amp Reviewed

[Gradius]

As always, very good video from Oluv. Are you able to guess what is playing? The only reservation I'd point is level-matching by ears.

C is the best. D is very good. The rest is CRAP.

 

[VintageFlanker]

C is the best. D is very good. The rest is CRAP.

I take a note until he reveals the results!

Got this today. Its sounds significantly better than the DX7s feeding a THX789 to HD800s More than freq accuracy, I think its timing accuracy. The initial piano key strikes are more in focused and things sound more natural from the already excellent previously mentioned setup. My frame of reference is playing myself so this sort of revelatory for me. In non acoustic stuff not sure its a game changer.

Level-matching, unsighted listening blablablabla...

 

[John B]

I take a note until he reveals the results!


Level-matching, unsighted listening blablablabla...

Its not a difference that is small enough to need to ABX through IMHO

 

[JohnYang1997]

Its not a difference that is small enough to need to ABX through IMHO

Ehh. Seriously? If you can hear small difference then I may agree. But you imply the difference is large?

 

[JohnYang1997]

Its not a difference that is small enough to need to ABX through IMHO

I have a challenge for you. There are four files converted from the same four files shuffled. Tell me which is which. The result is in the 7z compressed file. I'll show the password later.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EQAbrp-HoCuFHdKgbKqNOe-H714WCBQG

 

[VintageFlanker]

Its not a difference that is small enough to need to ABX through IMHO

Uh uh.

 

[ernestcarl]

Got this today. Its sounds significantly better than the DX7s feeding a THX789 to HD800s More than freq accuracy, I think its timing accuracy. The initial piano key strikes are more in focused and things sound more natural from the already excellent previously mentioned setup. My frame of reference is playing myself so this sort of revelatory for me. In non acoustic stuff not sure its a game changer.

John B, I think you found yourself in the wrong forum. So in acoustic stuff, would you then consider this as a "game changer"? Such overused glib remarks don't count for much here.

 

[Tks]

I take a note until he reveals the results!


Level-matching, unsighted listening blablablabla...

C and D sound the same to me, while A sounds pretty bad, and B not as bad, but not as good as C or D.

 

[John B]

John B, I think you found yourself in the wrong forum. So in acoustic stuff, would you then consider this as a "game changer"? Such overused glib remarks don't count for much here.

Thanks for your supportive comment. For me, on my stack, the measured quality gain between S and Pro delivered a practical and audible improvement - for those curious about relating the data to the intended application. YEMV of course : )

 

[ernestcarl]

Thanks for your supportive comment. For me, on my stack, the measured quality gain between S and Pro delivered a practical and audible improvement - for those curious about relating the data to the intended application. YEMV of course : )

Don't get me wrong, I am happy that you're happy with your purchase. Really, at the end of the day, that is all that matters. But, still, you need to know that some of you're wilder assertions "don't count for much here." That's just a fact, based on the name of the forum you're posting at.

How are we supposed to know what "significantly better" in "practical and audible" terms mean (at AudioScienceReview) when you haven't even provided (proper ABX or blind testing results) or pointed at the specific metrics or portions thereof (already provided in the review) by which we can ALL relate to? Are we supposed to take your subjective word/testimonial, just like that?

In sharp contrast, Amir's subjective impressions are quite brief and measured -- never have I read him make far out claims of significant sonic improvements between already well-measuring DACs/DAC-Amps. I don't think you've read enough of his reviews here to have realized that. Think about it.

 

[pozz]

I can see what some have said about the kind of fetishism around numbers that's brewing. I don't read every thread and didn't take it too seriously before, apart from the attacks coming from the "measurements mean nothing" camp. We will definitely have to clear that up somehow.

 

[ernestcarl]

I can see what some have said about the kind of fetishism around numbers that's brewing. I don't read every thread and didn't take it too seriously before, apart from the attacks coming from the "measurements mean nothing" camp. We will definitely have to clear that up somehow.

It really only crops up mostly with new members, or older members who aren't particularly active or have read many of the available resources/library of links here (even though they've already been signed-up for a while). I sometimes feel that "Psychoacoustics" should be one of the first links emphasized and highlighted on the Home Page instead of "DACs ... and Headphones, et al."

 

[pozz]

It really only crops up mostly with new members, or older members who aren't particularly active or have read many of the available resources/library of links here (even though they've already been signed-up for a while). I sometimes feel that "Psychoacoustics" should be one of the first links emphasized and highlighted on the Home Page instead of "DACs ... and Headphones, et al."

It seems like the issue is that we don't spend much time digging into the roots. With gear testing you can get into the procedures and cite standards papers, etc. We're much more organized on that front than with psychoacoustics, whose topics and discussions are much more dispersed around the forum in various threads. We need an addendum or update to @flipflop's thread on audibility, with deeper explanations, more examples and more sources.

 

[flipflop]

We need an addendum or update to @flipflop's thread on audibility, with deeper explanations, more examples and more sources.

I consciously tried to be as concise as possible with that thread: "Here are some numbers, here are the citations, here they've been applied to some graphs."
I'm not against the idea of updating it when necessary, as I've done several times before, but I can't help you if you want something more elaborate.

 

[pozz]

I consciously tried to be as concise as possible with that thread: "Here are some numbers, here are the citations, here they've been applied to some graphs."
I'm not against the idea of updating it when necessary, as I've done several times before, but I can't help you if you want something more elaborate.

That wasn't criticism by the way. I meant it more to revive the topic and the work you've already done.

 

[flipflop]

That wasn't criticism by the way.

Didn't see it as such, although criticism is welcome.

I meant it more to revive the topic and the work you've already done.

My suggestion would be to make a new thread, in the same vein as your 'Lecture Compilation', with the reading material provided in this thread. It would tick the box for "more sources" and present the material in a more organized manner.
In any case, this is not the right thread for this discussion I'll message you in private if there's more I want to reply to.

 

[Gradius]

I take a note until he reveals the results!

I'm "Fernando Martinez" on Youtube, and posted the graphics, why A & B are crap.

 

[TheGhostOfEugeneDebs]

I have a challenge for you. There are four files converted from the same four files shuffled. Tell me which is which. The result is in the 7z compressed file. I'll show the password later.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EQAbrp-HoCuFHdKgbKqNOe-H714WCBQG

Here are my guesses:

1 is B orA and is the iphone or bluetooth receiver
2 is C and is the SMSL stack
3 is B or A and is the iphone or bluetooth receiver
4 is D and is the Topping

So, I think I got the numbers and letters paired up right, though 1 and 3 sound identical, so realistically, it's a crapshoot, I could just make a straight guess, but why bother. The levels on 2 and 4 are different than the other two, so, it made it a bit easier to match them. I found that I heard 4 get louder and softer than the other 3. 4 also seemed to reproduce a better timbre when it came to the cymbals, which was the detail I was most closely paying attention to. 1 and 3's cymbals sounded like impacts, 2 and 4 carried the sound through a bit more, to my ear. (There's a particular cymbal crash 39 seconds in that decays for about a quarter second longer on #4 than any of the others) My subjective opinion is that 4 was superior, and to that end, I'm giving the one that I believe had a perceivably better sound to the DAC/amp that measured better, objectively. Number 2 was louder than the others, so it was harder to tell if I enjoyed it more than 1 and 3 because it was louder or if it was actually better, but I ultimately thought 4 was better anyway. 1 and 3 are, as far as I can tell, identical.

I'm extremely interested in knowing if I actually like, for instance, the iphone's DAC, better than my own Topping! That would certainly be eye opening! It's possible that the Topping and SMSL offerings are 1 and 3, since, deductively, they are both ESS DACs while the other two have Cirrus and AK DAC chips and it's possible I simply prefer the sound of one of the others.

Either way, thanks for the distraction!

I listened to everything using VLC player through USB to a Topping DX7Pro into a ZMF Auteur via balanced 4 pin out and also through the Topping, into an Emotiva A100 to an ifi iesl to a pair of Stax 007mk2. I only heard differences in the files with the Stax setup.

 

[ernestcarl]

I consciously tried to be as concise as possible with that thread: "Here are some numbers, here are the citations, here they've been applied to some graphs."
I'm not against the idea of updating it when necessary, as I've done several times before, but I can't help you if you want something more elaborate.

Unfortunately, some of the best resources if one really wants to understand the research are found in fairly thick/dense books -- e.g. F. Toole's book, is just one example -- but who wants to go to the trouble of reading reference books nowadays?

 

[Damian]

Does anyone use the Bluetooth connectivity? What for? Used as a desktop amp I just don't see the benefit. There are no bluetooth headphones that triumph the wired ones as far as I know.

If could be used as a receiver would be different but seems it is not.