Somebody has to make a dac for suckers sorry audiophools
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
1 bit DAC launched by TOPPING
- Thread starter 192kbps
- Start date
They really do! My Topping Dx9 looks beautiful in real life.
Looks sell.
But the data is not.
.yes you are right! I
don't know what price the Topping might have, I hadn't considered the Holo because it has a higher price!!
I was thinking of the various entry level R2R DACs.
312elements
Active Member
Would be pretty awesome if there was delay on the PEQ for using multiple DAC’s (3 way crossover or even multichannel).
- Thread Starter
- #47
With IEMs, of course, there are also headphones. With audio interfaces, of course there will be microphones, and there will also be better audio interfaces. After all this, let us look forward to Topping speakers.
boxerfan88
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 407
- Likes
- 452
The new 1-bit DAC looks very nice. The conversion module has a lot of components for a 1-bit DAC.
Could it be multiple concurrent 1-bit DAC followed by summing all the outputs?
I am looking forward to seeing the measurements…
Could it be multiple concurrent 1-bit DAC followed by summing all the outputs?
I am looking forward to seeing the measurements…
Rhamnetin
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2023
- Messages
- 219
- Likes
- 452
I expect ES9039 based DACs to still measure best.
SMSL has been making more audiophool oriented products with their current VMV flagships, now it's Topping's turn I suppose.
SMSL has been making more audiophool oriented products with their current VMV flagships, now it's Topping's turn I suppose.
I'm totally looking forward to the blackest <120dB SINAD into my speakers with a -40dB THD at best.
Stack 16 of them in a box to compete with normal current DACs. This is dumb. Why go backwards? No advantage to DSD and no advantage to this.
I guess it might sell to the people who like PS Audio and believe subjective reviews.
August
Active Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2019
- Messages
- 179
- Likes
- 265
Sokel
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 6,223
- Likes
- 6,346
You never know until you measure.
It's not the format,it's how a device handles it,at what conditions,level,etc.
It's easy to measure and decide for yourselves:
PCM vs DSD
Did a little comparison and I was wondering if any friend with better gear here has tested this. Results you're about to see is probably narrowed to the specific DAC but it's interesting to see how it handles things differently. I will not try to decipher the results other that DSD seems much...
www.audiosciencereview.com
See D50III FCC certification documents here: https://device.report/topping-technology/tp20c
No mention of PEQ in the submitted user manual.
No mention of PEQ in the submitted user manual.
Last edited:
You never know until you measure.
It's not the format,it's how a device handles it,at what conditions,level,etc.
It's easy to measure and decide for yourselves:
PCM vs DSD
Did a little comparison and I was wondering if any friend with better gear here has tested this. Results you're about to see is probably narrowed to the specific DAC but it's interesting to see how it handles things differently. I will not try to decipher the results other that DSD seems much...
Data is data. Bits are bits. As a recently retired software developer I can state that it is more of a pain to recombine an incoming stream of bits and deal with a lot of bit twiddling than to deal with bytes and words of data.
The only time dealing with 1 bit at a time makes sense is when you need to monitor something that is on or off or setting some condition. If we need 16 bits to represent a sample of the audio, then give us 16 bits. Or 24 if we are recording the audio and need to modify it.
There is no benefit to complicating a job like this by requiring extra steps. Just because something can be done this way doesn't make it a good idea or beneficial in any way.
Sampling millions of times per second like DSD is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of. Very inefficient and just a ton of wasted data. Does everyone understand that DSD has to be converted to PCM to actually do anything useful with it? Working with it in PCM format and then saving it back to DSD never accomplished anything and can't improve the sound.
CD quality sampling at 16/44.1 means you are getting a 16 bit sample 44.1 thousand times per second. There is no useful data between those samples since we only need to capture frequencies that humans can actually hear and discard the rest. That is a solved problem.
Does the 1 bit processing somehow improve filtering? No. We can already filter out all the unwanted noise to a point way below audibility. 1 bit is a fraction of a useful sample and has to be combined with a series of other bits to represent a moment of time. 1 bit only allows you to say move the sample up or down by 1. Yes, you can do that millions of times per second but you gain nothing by doing it that way.
This looks like a gimmick designed to appeal to audiophools. Snake oil. People like PS Audio are probably already fast at work on their own version of this since Paul believes DSD is somehow better than PCM.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
MASH is 4 bit DS.
TDA1305 (bitstream) = 5 bits
SAA7322/3 (256x OS) and SAA7350 (384x OS) were true 1-bit DACs
Sony had 1 bit pulse length modulation converters (like CXD2564 = 768x OS for instance but Sony had several chips like that).
Last edited:
Cable connectors and iem itself looks very similar to truthear zero
Similar threads
- Poll
