Anyone Review Topping D90III Discrete / D90 III Sabre yet ?

[SoundWeird]

I hear you, Keith, but SINAD measurements don't always tell the full story of how a DAC handles things like transients or the depth and layering of a 3D soundstage. These are the exact nuances some transducers were designed to reveal. Since we're clearly prioritizing different things, measurements vs. the listening experience, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[HuubFranssen]

I’m well aware of cognitive bias, but usually, that bias works in favor of my wallet. I had every incentive to 'prefer' the cheaper unit and get a refund on the expensive one. The fact that I kept the pricier gear despite wanting to save the money tells me the audible difference outweighed the bias.

anyway, that's just me. I can't speak for others.

Well I completely agree.

I bought my speakers after reading Amir’s review of the Neumann KH420. Not cheap but I wanted to stop my search for the best sounding speaker; very time consuming and even more expensive. After some months my wife accepted the looks.

An advantage of these speakers is that every change in source, pre-amplifier, cable, network and neighbourhood can be heard immediately. I consider that as a gift of AudioScienceReview to me. Thanks for that.

Well, the difference between the D90 and D90 III discrete is very easy to hear. Afterwards I checked the many reviews and this observation is common.

Believing my own ears, having a revealing set up, seeing consensus among the many reviewers and the strong belief that a company doesn’t spend a lot of research money to produce the same result time after time after time leads to a verdict: come on guys, wake up.

 

[Purité Audio]

That’s just audiophile nonsense, no ‘soundstage’ information in an analogue signal simply amplitude and time OR amplitude and frequency which completely determines a signal.
Keith

 

[SoundWeird]

By that logic, a 720p YouTube clip and a 4K IMAX film are the same because they’re both just 'light and time.' We clearly live in different worlds when it comes to this hobby, Keith. I’m going to go back to enjoying the music now. Take care.

 

[RandomEar]

I hear you, Keith, but SINAD measurements don't always tell the full story of how a DAC handles things like transients or the depth and layering of a 3D soundstage. These are the exact nuances some transducers were designed to reveal. Since we're clearly prioritizing different things, measurements vs. the listening experience, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

SINAD isn't the only thing you need to measure, yes. But "transients" is just frequency response: If you can reproduce 20 or 22 kHz faithfully, you can reproduce the sharpest transient audible to humans. There's no magic to this. It's fine to not understand the math or signal theory behind it - I also don't get a lot of the advanced stuff. But in that case, just ask "Why?" instead of stating "There's more to it" when there isn't.

"Sound stage" and "layering" is just audiophile woo-woo. Stereo separation and similar characteristics are properties of the recording only. There's some added interaction by your speakers and room, but zero influence by transparent DACs and amps.

By that logic, a 720p YouTube clip and a 4K IMAX film are the same because they’re both just 'light and time.'

There's a difference between saying an analog signal is fully defined by time and amplitude and taking about the resolution of a digital signal.

 

[SoundWeird]

It's not about 'magic,' it's about the fact that no piece of gear is actually perfect in the real world. You can quote signal theory all day, but if it doesn't account for the differences in spatial resolution and micro-dynamics that high-end transducers reveal, then the theory is incomplete. I’m happy with the results I’ve got, even if the math doesn't check out for you.

 

[Svend P]

It's not about 'magic,' it's about the fact that no piece of gear is actually perfect in the real world. You can quote signal theory all day, but if it doesn't account for the differences in spatial resolution and micro-dynamics that high-end transducers reveal, then the theory is incomplete. I’m happy with the results I’ve got, even if the math doesn't check out for you.

Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

Hello friend. Hey, listen...we know how it is. Believe me, most of us have been there too. You've spent years toiling in the muck of audiophilia. You read ALL the reviews. You watched ALL the youtube videos. You visited ALL the other forums where everything always makes a difference. You...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[RandomEar]

It's not about 'magic,' it's about the fact that no piece of gear is actually perfect in the real world. You can quote signal theory all day, but if it doesn't account for the differences in spatial resolution and micro-dynamics that high-end transducers reveal, then the theory is incomplete. I’m happy with the results I’ve got, even if the math doesn't check out for you.

Transducers as in speakers? Well, there's still big differences between speakers, even the good ones. Well behaved mechanical stuff is much more challenging to design than electronics. And speaker distortion & linearity + room acoustics are the limiting factor for any modern HiFi setup.

This thread is about a DAC, though. There's no transducers in there. And measurements aren't theory. But in case of DACs, theory and practice are in alignment: Measurements show they behave exactly as predicted.

And again "spatial resolution" and "micro dynamics" is just blubber: @Purité Audio is absolutely correct when they state that analog signals are defined by time and amplitude or frequency and amplitude. There is nothing more to it, no hidden variables, no magic. This is not a question of theory vs. reality.

The people who engineer DACs and amps know that and they rely 100% on that knowledge to design and build them. It doesn't matter whether you believe in this or not.

 

[SoundWeird]

For me, it's not about 'hidden variables,' it's about the precision of the reconstruction and the quality of the analog stage. Simple measurements often don't capture how a DAC handles complex, dynamic signals in a high-resolution system. I’ve heard the difference firsthand, and no amount of signal theory lectures is going to change that reality for me. I'm done with this loop. Take care.

 

[RandomEar]

For me, it's not about 'hidden variables,' it's about the precision of the reconstruction and the quality of the analog stage. Simple measurements often don't capture how a DAC handles complex, dynamic signals in a high-resolution system.

They do, though. There also have been more complex nulling tests with real music and they support the previous results. Blind tests with actual listeners have equally supported them. There is simply zero evidence I know of that a DAC which measures transparent isn't so. Feel free to search and provide such evidence in case I missed it.

The output stages of DACs also have almost no work to do. Typical input impedances for amps are around 10 kΩ and the DAC output current is consequently close to zero.

I’ve heard the difference firsthand, and no amount of signal theory lectures is going to change that reality for me. I'm done with this loop. Take care.

You think you heard it. That's the difference. I also thought I heard it often enough. We're not different in that regard. But in controlled testing, all those perceived differences simply vanished. It was just imagination / bias.

 

[SoundWeird]

Nulling tests with static signals are one thing; psychoacoustic perception of spatial cues and transient decay in a high-resolution, multi-driver system is another. The idea that a single number like THD+N accounts for everything we perceive in terms of soundstage and layering is a massive oversimplification of the engineering involved. I’ve done the comparisons, the results were consistent, and I’m comfortable with my choice. Enjoy the hobby.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Nulling tests with static signals are one thing; psychoacoustic perception of spatial cues and transient decay in a high-resolution, multi-driver system is another.

Then do null tests with music: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...test-deltawave-null-comparison-software.6633/

The idea that a single number like THD+N accounts for everything we perceive in terms of soundstage and layering is a massive oversimplification of the engineering involved.

I don't think anyone has claimed that THD+N is the single number that accounts for everything

I’ve done the comparisons, the results were consistent, and I’m comfortable with my choice. Enjoy the hobby.

The reality is that your claims are extraordinary. You'll need to provide a proper evidence if you expect them to be taken as anything more than anecdotes

 

[SoundWeird]

I’m not looking for my personal listening experience to be 'taken as' anything by you. My 'evidence' is the consistent performance I get from my specific signal chain. If you think a DeltaWave null test with music captures every non-linear artifact, intermodulation distortion, or power-supply-induced noise floor modulation that a resolving transducer can reveal, then we’re just looking at different sets of data. I have zero interest in proving my ears to a stranger on the internet.

 

[Veri]

Well I completely agree.

I bought my speakers after reading Amir’s review of the Neumann KH420. Not cheap but I wanted to stop my search for the best sounding speaker; very time consuming and even more expensive. After some months my wife accepted the looks.

An advantage of these speakers is that every change in source, pre-amplifier, cable, network and neighbourhood can be heard immediately. I consider that as a gift of AudioScienceReview to me. Thanks for that.

Well, the difference between the D90 and D90 III discrete is very easy to hear. Afterwards I checked the many reviews and this observation is common.

Believing my own ears, having a revealing set up, seeing consensus among the many reviewers and the strong belief [...]

Sorry, maybe I'm daft. Is this satire?

 

[Geert]

Well, the difference between the D90 and D90 III discrete is very easy to hear.

I’ve done the comparisons, the results were consistent, and I’m comfortable with my choice.

I have zero interest in proving my ears to a stranger on the internet.

A science based forum is the wrong place for anecdotes. So if you guys want someone to learn from your experience, please share some info on how you performed your tests. We've seen a few of these before, and they all had major issues with the testing protocol.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I have zero interest in proving my ears to a stranger on the internet.

If your testing isn't properly blinded then you haven't even proven your ears to yourself

 

[RandomEar]

I’m not looking for my personal listening experience to be 'taken as' anything by you. My 'evidence' is the consistent performance I get from my specific signal chain. If you think a DeltaWave null test with music captures every non-linear artifact, intermodulation distortion, or power-supply-induced noise floor modulation that a resolving transducer can reveal, then we’re just looking at different sets of data.

Again: DACs don't have transducers. Speakers possess orders of magnitude higher distortion than modern amps and DACs. They are not "more revealing" - the opposite is true. A good ADC plus DeltaWave is absolutely better to identify differences than any speaker. "Non-linear" and "intermodulation" are just words you're using without meaning. Any distortion is part of the signal. If you capture all the signal, you capture all the distortion.

I have zero interest in proving my ears to a stranger on the internet.

It's more about proving them to yourself. Many people seem be fearful to realize what they actually cannot hear, because they thought for so long that they could. It's mostly about cognitive dissonance.

 

[SoundWeird]

It's not 'fear' or 'dissonance,' it's just a lack of interest in debating a textbook with someone who hasn't heard my system. I’ve already done the work to satisfy my own ears, which is the only person I need to prove anything to. I’m happy with my chain and what it resolves. We’re done here. Take care.

 

[Svend P]

It's not 'fear' or 'dissonance,' it's just a lack of interest in debating a textbook with someone who hasn't heard my system. I’ve already done the work to satisfy my own ears, which is the only person I need to prove anything to. I’m happy with my chain and what it resolves. We’re done here. Take care.

I think you get the full 12 points here. That's a new record:

1. Measurements are not everything.

2. You all never listen.

3. I trust my ears, not graphs.

4. I don't listen to graphs. I listen to music.

5. You all must not listen to music at all.

6. Why don't you all buy the best SINAD gear?

7. I have heard your best SINAD gear and they sound terrible. I don't like any of this Chinese stuff.

8. You don't trust your ears. I/we do.

9. All these reviewers/youtubers/audophiles say these amps, DACs, etc. sound different and you say they don't. They can't all be wrong.

10. Surely designers have created certain house sound for each equipment which your measurements don't show.

11. Your measurements are only at one frequency. You need to also measure X, Y and Z like impulse response, slew rate, etc., etc.

12. You guys run a cult here where you only go by measurements and no one is allowed to disagree.

Master Thread: Are Measurements Everything or Nothing?

Seems like so many review threads get challenged with: 1. Measurements are not everything. 2. You all never listen. 3. I trust my ears, not graphs. 4. I don't listen to graphs. I listen to music. 5. You all must not listen to music at all. 6. Why don't you all buy the best SINAD gear? 7...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Thighsofsteel]

It's not 'fear' or 'dissonance,' it's just a lack of interest in debating a textbook with someone who hasn't heard my system. I’ve already done the work to satisfy my own ears, which is the only person I need to prove anything to. I’m happy with my chain and what it resolves. We’re done here. Take care.

So why are you here trying to engage?