Anyone Review Topping D90III Discrete / D90 III Sabre yet ?

[JSmith]

I can change the sound of my phono stage considerably by changing the value of just one resistor.

Sure, then the output will measure differently yes? This DAC doesn't measure any different to other DAC's with similar measurements.


JSmith

 

[misterdog]

This DAC doesn't measure any different to other DAC's with similar measurements.

Though it measures some 10dBrA better than my Topping E70, on the jitter test and others.

Also despite the SINAD being higher, the 3rd harmonic measures some 15dBrA higher on the discrete, though Amir measures at 4V output where Topping use the 5V output.
A pure objectivist will say that this is all below the threhold of audibility.

Ill wait and see, I've seen the measures, I'll let my ears and brain decide if it sounds more 'pleasurable'.

 

[VientoB]

Though it measures some 10dBrA better than my Topping E70, on the jitter test and others.

Also despite the SINAD being higher, the 3rd harmonic measures some 15dBrA higher on the discrete, though Amir measures at 4V output where Topping use the 5V output.
A pure objectivist will say that this all below the threhold of audibility.

Ill wait and see, I've seen the measures, I'll let my ears and brain decide if it sounds more 'pleasurable'.

Make sure to volume match by matching output voltage.

 

[misterdog]

It makes little difference as anything I say subjectively will be dismissed as expectation bias, by the 'pure' objectivists.

In the same way, that on subjective audio forums the measured data will be dismissed.

I've been honing my system for some 25 years, I ditched RCA some 15 years ago despite a barrage of subjective information that RCA 'is good enough' 'additional components required for balanced transmission'.

Objective data thanks to Amir and others shows that balanced is better than 'good enough'.

Will discrete DA conversion bring any improvement to the sound, the measures above suggest to me that it may be possible, and the D90 discrete is the first DAC I have seen that measures as good if not better than Deta Sigma Dac's.

 

[VientoB]

It makes little difference as anything I say subjectively will be dismissed as expectation bias, by the 'pure' objectivists.

In the same way, that on subjective audio forums the measured data will be dismissed.

I've been honing my system for some 25 years, I ditched RCA some 15 years ago despite a barrage of subjective information that RCA 'is good enough' 'additional components required for balanced transmission'.

Objective data thanks to Amir and others shows that balanced is better than 'good enough'.

Will discrete DA conversion bring any improvement to the sound, the measures above suggest to me that it may be possible, and the D90 discrete is the first DAC I have seen that measures as good if not better than Deta Sigma Dac's.

Yeah but you're just disregarding psychological biases. What's the point of measurements if you're disregarding something as big as psychological bias?

 

[JustJones]

Though it measures some 10dBrA better than my Topping E70, on the jitter test and others.

Also despite the SINAD being higher, the 3rd harmonic measures some 15dBrA higher on the discrete, though Amir measures at 4V output where Topping use the 5V output.
A pure objectivist will say that this all below the threhold of audibility.

Ill wait and see, I've seen the measures, I'll let my ears and brain decide if it sounds more 'pleasurable'.

Do you have a dog? If so watch for the dogs reaction since it might be able to hear a difference between -157dB and -140dB. Humans won't and since this is a jitter measurement it's highly doubtful if even a dog would.

If you're really going to let your "ears and brain" decide then the only reliable way is with a proper controlled blind test. No peaking involved so the ear and brain get a nice chance to relax and listen without all those other senses interfering.

 

[misterdog]

A pure objectivist will say that this is all below the threhold of audibility.

Do you have a dog? If so watch for the dogs reaction since it might be able to hear a difference between -157dB and -140dB. Humans won't and since this is a jitter measurement it's highly doubtful if even a dog would.

I rest my case.

 

[Bleib]

Do you have a dog? If so watch for the dogs reaction since it might be able to hear a difference between -157dB and -140dB. Humans won't and since this is a jitter measurement it's highly doubtful if even a dog would.

If you're really going to let your "ears and brain" decide then the only reliable way is with a proper controlled blind test. No peaking involved so the ear and brain get a nice chance to relax and listen without all those other senses interfering.

At this level it really does become pointless. As soon as it goes out to the speaker it'll be the one that messes the original signal up the most. Then add to it the room.
And I'd also say, initial recording quality
Nothing wrong with improvements but focus should probably be elsewhere

 

[VientoB]

I rest my case.

But still you ignore the elephant in the room - psychological effects.

 

[misterdog]

As soon as it goes out to the speaker it'll be the one that messes the original signal up the most.

I agree, to a degree, though you haven't heard or seen the improvements I have made to my Quad 989 Electrostatic loudspeakers. In the past I have built my own DAC, preamp,amplifiers.
They haven't failed to deliver improvements after improving the measured input of the source.
Part of the fun is seeing when the fun stops, the same as when Peter Walker designed these speakers back in the 1960's.
His aim was the lowest possible distortion, with the least colouration. No crossover, no box.

PC (JRiver) > Topping E70 (5V)> Topping Pre90 (C -13 dB) > Benchmark AHB2 (low gain) > Quad 989 ESL.

 

[Bleib]

I agree, to a degree, though you haven't heard or seen the improvements I have made to my Quad 989 Electrostatic loudspeakers. In the past I have built my own DAC, preamp,amplifiers.
They haven't failed to deliver improvements after improving the measured input of the source.
Part of the fun is seeing when the fun stops, the same as when Peter Walker designed these speakers back in the 1960's.
His aim was the lowest possible distortion, with the least colouration. No crossover, no box.

PC (JRiver) > Topping E70 (5V)> Topping Pre90 (C -13 dB) > Benchmark AHB2 (low gain) > Quad 989 ESL.

It could be fantastic, I have no way of knowing. But most speakers can't even do a 1khz pulse properly. Then there's dispersion, dynamic compression, not the full frequency response etc..

 

[misterdog]

It makes little difference as anything I say subjectively will be dismissed as expectation bias,

But still you ignore the elephant in the room - psychological effects.

 

[VientoB]

Yeah, quoting does nothing to remedy the phycological effects.

 

[misterdog]

It could be fantastic, I have no way of knowing. But most speakers can't even do a 1khz pulse properly. Then there's dispersion, dynamic compression, not the full frequency response etc..

Quad ESL-989 electrostatic loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements Although the different kind of interaction between a panel speaker and the room can make it sound louder than its measured sensitivity would suggest, the Quad ESL-989 is still on the low side, at an estimated 83dB(B)/2.83V/m. Given its strict 100W power handling, this...

www.stereophile.com

Mine have no dustcovers or grille cloths, they are supplemented at the bottom octave by MiniDSp powered 12" subwoofers, and at the top end with Adam air motion tweeters.

All audio reproducing systems are flawed, I judge mine by standing next to acoustically played instruments and compare the real with the reproduction.
All the measurements in the world can't tell you how a drum,piano.violin saxophone sounds.

 

[VientoB]

Quad ESL-989 electrostatic loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements Although the different kind of interaction between a panel speaker and the room can make it sound louder than its measured sensitivity would suggest, the Quad ESL-989 is still on the low side, at an estimated 83dB(B)/2.83V/m. Given its strict 100W power handling, this...

www.stereophile.com

Mine have no dustcovers or grille cloths, they are supplemented at the bottom octave by MiniDSp powered 12" subwoofers, and at the top end with Adam air motion tweeters.

All audio reproducing systems are flawed, I judge mine by standing next to acoustically played instruments and compare the real with the reproduction.
All the measurements in the world can't tell you how a drum,piano.violin saxophone sounds.

It's going to depend on the microphones and acoustics of the recording space as well. Plus these differences are so easily measured and audible. The jitter measurements etc are orders of magnitude smaller yet you don't want to do output voltage level matching...

 

[Sokel]

I rest my case.

Before resting your case about -157dB vs -140dB H3 you must probably know that people cannot tell apart a 120dB SINAD DAC from a 50dB SINAD DAC,
And the funny thing is that is the exact same DAC

Just try the "Sound color" or similar options Topping and SMSL has,yes,the SINAD (more correctly one of it's elements,the distortion) is about there:

 

[misterdog]

All audio reproducing systems are flawed, I judge mine by standing next to acoustically played instruments and compare the real with the reproduction.

It's going to depend on the microphones and acoustics of the recording space as well.

Acoustically played removes all the electronic variables, thats the only real world comparrison you can make.

ESL's also have far lower interaction with the room.

 

[misterdog]

Before resting your case about -157dB vs -140dB H3 you must probably know that people cannot tell apart a 120dB SINAD DAC from a 50dB SINAD DAC,
And the funny thing is that is the exact same DAC

Just try the "Sound color" or similar options Topping and SMSL has,yes,the SINAD (more correctly one of it's elements,the distortion) is about there:

If only I had known I could have saved wasting 25 years of my life.

 

[JustJones]

A pure objectivist will say that this is all below the threhold of audibility.

Being objective or subjective has nothing to do with it. Audibility threshold isn't decided by vote or opinion. No human can hear a difference of -140dB and -157dB especially in jitter much less anything else. When you are listening to music not test tones it's even more ridiculous.

 

[EddNog]

At the end of the day, no system is perfect and there are bound to be compromises. The key thing is making the smallest compromises here to get maximum gains there (with budget in mind). I recently gave up on maintaining bitperfect processing of DXD and DSD source material (all now being converted to PCM 192KHz/24-bit in preprocessing) because the device that is forcing me to do this (WiiM Ultra, which does not support either DSD or full DXD at full bitperfect resolution) provides me with full bass management (low- and high-pass filtering) and room correction, both of which significantly enhance the performance and perceptible sound quality of my system. The conversion of the original recordings from DXD or DSD to 192/24 PCM has a minimal (if even) perceptible difference, but the impact of proper bass management and room correction are beyond obvious, so I have zero regrets about it!

-Ed