Topping D90 Balanced USB DAC Review

[Alderaan_Null]

I listened several hours to the D90 via BT and the sound quality is quite good. I use USB audioplayer pro on both my Andoid tablet and Android phone and connected to the D90 via BT. In the developer options of my Android Samsung tablet and Huawei phone it is possible to switch on the Aptx or Aptx HD codec which gives very good results in my situation. Playing via BT from phone or tablet is very convenient/satisfying!
Besides I also connected the D90 via USB to my old Vaio laptop (recently upgraded with 1TB Samsung qvo SSD) with Linux Mint Xfce and Audacious/ALSA as my audio player. I only have lossless FLAC SD and HD files.

That is good to hear about BT. Might have to then pickup the D90 and sell my D70 and possibly an amp.

Bummed I am missed out on the 10% discount last month, hopefully another one comes around soon so I can take advantage of it.

 

[Puska]

Hahahaha

 

[Marutks]

Does anyone know another 10% discount code? I want to buy D90 too.

 

[pacman]

I only have lossless FLAC SD and HD files.

What would be "FLAC SD and HD"?

 

[sejarzo]

What would be "FLAC SD and HD"?

I would assume SD = 44.1/16 and HD = anything with higher sample rate and/or bit depth?

 

[pacman]

I would assume SD = 44.1/16 and HD = anything with higher sample rate and/or bit depth?

I know that, it's a rethoric question.

These are standards used by TV/cinema, where you have more pixels on screen comparing 1080p and 4K releases with 480p ones, and is perfectly noticeable by anyone.

In audio territory, does it makes sense use this terminology when everybody knows that higher sample rates and bit depths above Red Book standard doesn't improve nothing at all?

 

[sejarzo]

In audio territory, does it makes sense use this terminology when everybody knows that higher sample rates and bit depths above Red Book standard doesn't improve nothing at all?

Well...given that this site has been in business for quite a few years, perhaps that horse has left the barn?

 

[barrows]

In audio territory, does it makes sense use this terminology when everybody knows that higher sample rates and bit depths above Red Book standard doesn't improve nothing at all?

The above is an incorrect assumption, perhaps you should do a little research into your assumption, before making such an error.

 

[pacman]

Well...given that this site has been in business for quite a few years, perhaps that horse has left the barn?

View attachment 54028

It's the old trick of music industry for selling the same records over and over again. Marketing in a nutshell.

The above is an incorrect assumption, perhaps you should do a little research into your assumption, before making such an error.

I don't wanna derail the thread, but my personal opinion is that DSD, "HD" files and MQA crap are such a pile of bull. It's all about the mastering process, not sample rates or bit depths or whatever.

 

[barrows]

It's the old trick of music industry for selling the same records over and over again. Marketing in a nutshell.


I don't wanna derail the thread, but my personal opinion is that DSD, "HD" files and MQA crap are such a pile of bull. It's all about the mastering process, not sample rates or bit depths or whatever.

Unlike your own opinion, the audibility of high resolution recordings has recently been verified scientifically.

There is no relationship between either the recording process, the mixing process, or the mastering process and the audibility of high resolution audio. Of course a well done recording will always sound better than a poorly done one, the point being here is that a well done recording at 24/88.2 will sound better than the same recording downsampled to 16/44.1 when played back on a capable system. The 16 bit 44.1 kHz RedBook CD standard is too low to a really good job, as the 16 bit rate is just enough (and allows for no headroom for mixing/mastering) to achieve realistic dynamic levels, and the sample rate is too low to allow for the use of digital filters which do not create artifacts. By no means am I suggesting that there are not excellent recordings in the CD format, only that those same excellent recordings could be even better if they were recorded, mixed, and mastered at 24 bits and 2x rates.

 

[BDWoody]

Unlike your own opinion, the audibility of high resolution recordings has recently been verified scientifically.

Can you clarify that a bit? I'm not sure exactly what that means...
What studies are you pointing to?

 

[barrows]

Can you clarify that a bit? I'm not sure exactly what that means...
What studies are you pointing to?

Google is your friend, but you could start here:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=20455

 

[Veri]

Unlike your own opinion, the audibility of high resolution recordings has recently been verified scientifically.

There is no relationship between either the recording process, the mixing process, or the mastering process and the audibility of high resolution audio. Of course a well done recording will always sound better than a poorly done one, the point being here is that a well done recording at 24/88.2 will sound better than the same recording downsampled to 16/44.1 when played back on a capable system. The 16 bit 44.1 kHz RedBook CD standard is too low to a really good job, as the 16 bit rate is just enough (and allows for no headroom for mixing/mastering) to achieve realistic dynamic levels, and the sample rate is too low to allow for the use of digital filters which do not create artifacts. By no means am I suggesting that there are not excellent recordings in the CD format, only that those same excellent recordings could be even better if they were recorded, mixed, and mastered at 24 bits and 2x rates.

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[Nicolaas]

I would assume SD = 44.1/16 and HD = anything with higher sample rate and/or bit depth?

Exactly that's what I wanted to say!

 

[sejarzo]

Then there is this...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160627214255.htm

This paragraph in particular seems to be neglected by many people who claim that study "proved" high res to be unequivocally superior:

"However, this new study found that listeners can tell the difference between low and high resolution audio formats, and the effect is dramatically increased with training: trained test subjects could distinguish between the formats around sixty per cent of the time."

Point A: If the effect is "dramatically increased with training", that means untrained listeners probably could not identify the difference more than 50% of the time, which is merely guessing and utterly insignificant. "Around sixty percent" is also not very precise.

Point B: If a difference is truly significant, then trained listeners should be able to distinguish the difference at least 90%, if not 95%, of the time.

Point C: This was not a "new study" but was a metastudy, per the author of the paper: "We gathered 80 publications, and analysed all available data, even asking authors of earlier studies for their original reports from old filing cabinets."

 

[Nicolaas]

Unlike your own opinion, the audibility of high resolution recordings has recently been verified scientifically.

There is no relationship between either the recording process, the mixing process, or the mastering process and the audibility of high resolution audio. Of course a well done recording will always sound better than a poorly done one, the point being here is that a well done recording at 24/88.2 will sound better than the same recording downsampled to 16/44.1 when played back on a capable system. The 16 bit 44.1 kHz RedBook CD standard is too low to a really good job, as the 16 bit rate is just enough (and allows for no headroom for mixing/mastering) to achieve realistic dynamic levels, and the sample rate is too low to allow for the use of digital filters which do not create artifacts. By no means am I suggesting that there are not excellent recordings in the CD format, only that those same excellent recordings could be even better if they were recorded, mixed, and mastered at 24 bits and 2x rates.

I have been listening high res since 2001 when I bought a Sony SACD player. And SACDs were a bit of a disappointment to me. I expected a day and night difference with CD but those early SACDs sounded a bit overproduced, super clean and therefore a bit dead-ish to me. Maybe because I was used to the lower quality of CD....The major part of my music now are FLACs in SD so 16b 44.1k. I do have 88.2k, 96k 24 b FLAC recordings but after nearly 20 years of HD and SD listening I am still not convinced whether HD is worth the extra storage and streaming bandwidth. I would say lossless SD FLAC files in 16b 44.1k are the perfect compromise between lossy 320 kbps MP3 and HD 24b 88.2, 96k FLAC files. And with storage and bandwidth prices getting lower all the time there is no reason at all for streaming services to stick to the lossy MP3 format of the 20th century!

 

[Nicolaas]

Off topic but the cheapest way to improve sound quality is to equalize your eardrums (like scuba divers do) on a regular basis. But only do this very carefully (when you do not have a cold) cause you do not want to blow out your eardrums!!

 

[sojer2005]

Hi,
I have a question regarding volume control of Topping D90.
I use the Roon app and I adjust the volume using the volume slider within this application. After connecting a Roon endpoint to the USB input of this DAC, will I still be able to control the volume level from the Roon application as if I was using a dedicated remote control for this DAC? Thanks.

 

[Alderaan_Null]

Well D90 is arriving Monday and will pair that with either my THX 887 or 788 and sell the other. Never did open the the D70 I have in the box so won't be able to compare against that since going to sell the D70.

If I am running balanced XLR cables from the D90 to my Amp, should I put the D90 in pure DAC mode? what is the advantage of Pure DAC mode?

 

[barrows]

Well D90 is arriving Monday and will pair that with either my THX 887 or 788 and sell the other. Never did open the the D70 I have in the box so won't be able to compare against that since going to sell the D70.

If I am running balanced XLR cables from the D90 to my Amp, should I put the D90 in pure DAC mode? what is the advantage of Pure DAC mode?

DAC mode disables the volume control, and allows a direct path for DSD conversion. If you have no other way of controlling the volume other than the DAC volume control then you would not want to use DAC mode.