Topping D90 vs Denafrips Ares II?

[Lord Victor]

I don't think you checked that carefully, though I guess it could be confusing. If you check the site of their only distributor (Vinshine Audio), you will find the price of the Ares II just over 1,000--in Singapore dollars. If you look more carefully, there is a separate available option to buy products in US dollars. The Ares II goes for $768 USD. I'm planning to buy a new DAC in mid-June and have seriously considered the Ares, but am probably going to go with the D90 MQA for various reasons that do not include price since they are so close as to make no difference.

What made you pick the D90, out of curiosity? I'm also currently hunting for a new dac, and trying to navigate the waters
MQA support does seem rather rare, and given I've got Tidal, would be very nice to have - but I'm intrigued by Denafrips approach.

 

[Voo]

I own several dacs. topping d10, geshelli labs enog2, denafraps ares2, and a few more. in my setup, the denafraps ares2 has a bit more depth and imaging. now compared to other dacs I have used, its better but not worth upgrading over unless you need that. I use focal and magnepan speakers.

 

[jacobacci]

My exact point is that the measurement used here, clearly aren't comprehensive, and that measurement of audio in general is not developed to the point of being satisfactory in describing what we hear.

Disclaimer: I am not an native English speaker, so go ahead and pick my words apart if you wish

First let me say that I value this forum extremely highly, as it is a unique source of measurements that represent a "smell test" or a minimum hurdle for audio equipment. Whether this means that a Topping D90 will in reality sound the same as a dCS Rossini (which costs >20 times as much) is quite a different question.

I find most of the contributions in this forum very competent and well informed. However it strikes me that in some of the back and forths, the basis of science is simply thrown out of the window.

In order to conclude that sufficiently identical measurements result in identical sound quality, a number of conditions would need to apply. The most important is that the set of measurements captures ALL the relevant parameters that determine the sound quality. I do not doubt that the measurements presented here go a long way and represent some important ones, but I think we are far from a proof that the mesaurement suite is exhaustive. One very simple reason they don't is that the test environment is not the same as the listening environment. The measurements take place between a DAC and an analyzer. The listening sessions take place in the context of a complete Hifi chain in a room and a listener as the "measuring device". I think no scientist would conclude that the measurement will correctly and fully predict the behaviour of the listening room sletup and the psycho-physical listening entity. Yet many posts seem to simply postulate it does, without giving any scientific proof.

I have raised this question in this thread. There I described in detail how our (blind) listening tests were conducted that led us to the conclusion that four different DACs did indeed sound different.

As science is (amongst other things) always a question of scope of the experiment, I do wonder why scientific rigour is not applied to the question, how suitable the set of measurements used is to predict sound quality in a listening environment. I have never seen the question adressed (and it IS a scientific one). If the question is raised, I have often seen answers that did not adress the question, but discredited the person asking the question, which I really find a pity in a scientific forum.

I would very much welcome a place in this forum, where this issue could be discussed as a scientific and not as a dogmatic question.

 

[BDWoody]

My exact point is that the measurement used here, clearly aren't comprehensive, and that measurement of audio in general is not developed to the point of being satisfactory in describing what we hear.

What do you base that on? That some people who do uncontrolled listening comparisons hear differences, so the measurements must be faulty or incomplete?

That people who make money by selling deception will tell you what they 'hear', and why would they lie?

Why the reluctance to actually demonstrate these claimed differences? "The differences are obvious...i don't need no proper level matched Double Blind test to know what my ears are telling me"" kinds of claims are everywhere...that doesn't make them valid.

I could find a lot of people who got Peter Popoff's magic water and got a check in the mail the next day, so obviously the magic water works...right?

 

[Cat Music]

Let's hope to return to the thread, after so many opinions on the subject, there is still nobody who has had the Ares II and the D90 in hand, for my part, I plan to buy the Ares II, but I see that most of them are using the Ares II to listen to it with speakers, my idea is to use it with headphones, and that seems strange to me

 

[JoeyGS]

I own several dacs. topping d10, geshelli labs enog2, denafraps ares2, and a few more. in my setup, the denafraps ares2 has a bit more depth and imaging. now compared to other dacs I have used, its better but not worth upgrading over unless you need that. I use focal and magnepan speakers.

Hi Voo.
What does the ares2 lack or do not have that the other dacs have that would make you not upgrade to the ares2?
Thanks

 

[MarkMcCoskey]

Just realized that since the start of this thread, I actually bought the Topping D90 DAC. Is it better than an Area 2? No clue. I am quite happy with it. It's actually my first standalone DAC. Thomas & Stereo (YouTube - Looking for clarity?) recently reviewed it along with several other DAC's.

Topping D90 and Klipsch Forte III's. Now to replace my Onkyo AV receiver with an Integrated Tube Amp.

 

[214bobd]

Hi Voo.
What does the ares2 lack or do not have that the other dacs have that would make you not upgrade to the ares2?
Thanks

You have to LISTEN to them with good audio gear and good source music. Step away from the Oscilloscope. The Ares II has been described by more than one reviewer as more airy and holographic, while the D90 has much better bass, more expressive highs and much better response/attack on very fast musical passages. Thee folks are not engineers, but they actually listen to the products they review . There are people on this site with strong opinions who have never heard either one. DAC's other that the D90 that use the same AK 4499 chip have similar performance. Keep in mind that Denafrips has DAC's of at least 3 price levels and the ARes II is at the bottom. Their more expensive DAC's score much better, because their resistors are of higher precision, so the execution of R2R can make a big difference. To get the best performance from the D90, it should be set up in DAC-only mode.

 

[JohnYang1997]

You have to LISTEN to them with good audio gear and good source music. Step away from the Oscilloscope. The Ares II has been described by more than one reviewer as more airy and holographic, while the D90 has much better bass, more detailed highs and much better response/attack on very fast musical passages. Thee folks are not engineers, but they actually listen to the products they review . There are a lot of people on this site with strong opinions who have never heard either one. DAC's other that the D90 that use the same AK 4499 chip have similar performance. Keep in mind that Denafrips has DAC's of at least 3 price levels and the ARes II is at the bottom. Their more expensive DAC's score much better, because their resistors are of higher precision. So the execution of R2R makes a big difference. To get the best performance from the D90, it should be set up in DAC-only mode.

I guess you missed the whole point. And no, DAC-only mode makes zero difference if you set volume to 0dB.

 

[214bobd]

Please remind me, what was the whole point that I missed?

 

[Veri]

Step away from the Oscilloscope. The Ares II has been described by more than one reviewer as more airy and holographic

guess it must be true, then. You are missing the entire point of ASR.

 

[214bobd]

Let's hope to return to the thread, after so many opinions on the subject, there is still nobody who has had the Ares II and the D90 in hand, for my part, I plan to buy the Ares II, but I see that most of them are using the Ares II to listen to it with speakers, my idea is to use it with headphones, and that seems strange to me

For headphone users, I understand that the D90/A90 combination is terrific, and I would believe that. I do own the D90 MQA and it made my music sound like I had gotten a new set of speakers.

 

[214bobd]

guess it must be true, then. You are missing the entire point of ASR.

OK. Now I see where you are coming from. I have wandered into the wrong site. This site is for MEASUREMENTS only - the audible experience is irrelevant. Only measurable differences are meaningful. Since most newer DAC's today measure very well, then how did this thread even get started?

 

[Killingbeans]

There are people on this site with strong opinions who have never heard either one.

True. But I've never been to a Penn & Teller show either, and I'm still pretty confident that Mr. Teller doesn't really get cut in half by a chain saw.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Please remind me, what was the whole point that I missed?

Subjective reviews that are not controlled are entirely unreliable and often lead to false claims. We are in the realm that many DACs are simply transparent, even the cheap ones if implementation is good.
It's not a matter of subjective or measurements or not. If you want to conduct listening tests that lead to something, you need controlled listening test, aka blind tests. If you ever try for yourself with blind listening test with controlled level, you would know.
This is Audio Science forum not some random subjective BS based site. I won't tell you D90 is obviously better. Better measurements will not indicate better sound quality. It's only about competition. Other than that well engineered DACs will sound the same when level matched.

 

[214bobd]

I guess you missed the whole point. And no, DAC-only mode makes zero difference if you set volume to 0dB.

But I want to disable the volume control. Otherwise I might accidentally turn it up on the app for my music streamer..

 

[JohnYang1997]

But I want to disable the volume control. Otherwise I might accidentally turn it up on the app for my music streamer..

Yes that its purpose. But it will not sound better.

 

[Killingbeans]

Since most newer DAC's today measure very well, then how did this thread even get started?

OP had a question, and BDWoody gave the answer in post number four

 

[214bobd]

Subjective reviews that are not controlled are entirely unreliable and often lead to false claims. We are in the realm that many DACs are simply transparent, even the cheap ones if implementation is good.
It's not a matter of subjective or measurements or not. If you want to conduct listening tests that lead to something, you need controlled listening test, aka blind tests. If you ever try for yourself with blind listening test with controlled level, you would know.
This is Audio Science forum not some random subjective BS based site. I won't tell you D90 is obviously better. Better measurements will not indicate better sound quality. It's only about competition. Other than that well engineered DACs will sound the same when level matched.

Ah, but the history of science is replete with theories based on measurements being completely overturned when new information became available. As a scientist I am sure you would agree with that.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Ah, but the history of science is replete with theories based on measurements being completely overturned when new information became available. As a scientist I am sure you would agree with that.

Scientists stand with conclusion derived from evidence. Before such information, this is the current best science. And we as people will not be open-minded unless new science is discovered. Worst science is still far more reliable than no science.