Find out which is the BEST-VALUE entry-level desktop DAC/amp with objective analysis.

[Sha1rholder]

Just over 200 usd is the most competitive price range for entry-level desktop DAC/amps, and also the starting point for unlocking high power output + independent power supply. A few weeks ago, I splurged on the hottest DAC/amp combos on the market, and now let's take a look at their build quality, design, and objective sound performance.

Overall Review​

The Topping DX3 Pro+ has a plain and simple design, prioritizing practicality. The shell features anodized aluminum with a coarse sandblasted finish.


The interface configuration is complete—USB Type B, 15V DC.


The sole interactive module serves as both a volume knob and a button. No issues here—the encoder avoids channel imbalance at low volumes, and the build and feel are decent.


From the specs and teardown, we can see the DX3 Pro+'s circuit is actually balanced in the DAC section before converting to single-ended output. I'm puzzled why they didn't add a 4.4mm port—it would've cost about 1 usd. While it wouldn't increase power, it might've improved crosstalk performance. The DX3 Pro+'s biggest investments are its volume knob and Bluetooth chip. Seeing a QCC5125 in a 200 usd DAC/amp is downright generous.

The Fosi K7 stands out with a design more akin to a desktop audio interface than a traditional DAC/amp. It features a vertical layout with noticeably more interactive components. Despite its compact size, it's surprisingly heavy. The shell is anodized and sandblasted.


Interfaces are similar to others—USB Type C, 12V DC.


The volume knob has slight stepped damping but wobbles a bit. With multiple functions, it has two knobs, each doubling as a button.


The Fosi K7 has many strengths. First, it uses the AK4493SEQ DAC, beloved by audiophiles. Since the DAC's internal attenuation for volume control is mediocre, Fosi added an NJU72315 to improve low-volume performance. Its balanced output is massive—2.1W, enough to drive any headphone on Earth (including the Susvara) to extreme SPLs without clipping. Of course, whether it sounds good is subjective.

The DAART Canary 2 sports a flat pentagon design with a nice look but rudimentary interaction. The shell is anodized aluminum with a fine sandblasted finish.


Interfaces are standard—Type B, 12V DC. The rear panel's stamping precision is poetic . Fresh out of the box, the coaxial port is already broken. Will you cover it when it desolders over time?


Garbage build quality .


The volume knob is a potentiometer with severe channel imbalance at low volumes. No gain adjustment either—using it with high-sensitivity IEMs might result in imbalance. Close inspection reveals minor CNC flaws on the knob. Hmm.

The potentiometer only balances past 7:30. The ID is okay. Stamping precision is trash—one coaxial port is broken, and the user guide is just a disclaimer to dodge returns.

While others are blocky, the Fiio K7 is shaped like a bar. The shell is sandblasted, partially CNC'd, but the edges are thinly coated. Mine's already scratched from use.


Interfaces are standard—USB Type B, 12V DC. Build precision is impeccable—smooth. Notably, the two headphone jacks are perfectly aligned—a treat for OCD folks.


The volume knob is an encoder—no channel imbalance, linear damping, rock-solid, with RGB. Gain and output are adjusted via a conventional toggle.


Nothing really remarkable, but all-good.

The Aune X1s GT shares a similar design language with the Canary 2. The shell has a coarse sandblasted finish, aka fingerprint armor, lens destroyer, and cellphone-aging device.

I drew a smiley face on it with my fingernail
It has a clock interface—WOW, you can connect an external clock!


The volume knob is as bad as the Canary 2's—a potentiometer with severe low-volume imbalance. No gain adjustment either—will high-sensitivity IEMs suffer?


A top-down view reveals severe misalignment in the front panel—both sides are off.


The headphone jack layout is falsely advertised—cost-cutting saved about 2 usd.

The potentiometer only balances past 9 o'clock—below 8, one channel is silent. The sandblasting choice was a high-cost, low-result blunder. The Bluetooth module is sold at cost—that's decent. The clock interface is baffling. The headphone jacks are misaligned, even at the bottom. Front panel precision is a disaster—crooked.

The ifi Zen DAC 3 and Zen CAN 3, as a set, fall outside this price range. The ID is just a mix of cheap metal plates with different finishes.


Interfaces are unremarkable—the DAC can be powered via USB or 5V DC. The power port is loose.


The front's small holes are actually plastic, not leather. The volume knobs are potentiometers with some imbalance.


Up close, the knobs and metal buttons have a faux CD-pattern texture. It looks nice in photos but is clearly fake—machined to cut costs.

The ifi Zen DAC 3 balances past 8 o'clock—the potentiometer is not very good. The rear panel's build is subpar.

Specs & Features​

Model	DAC	Amp	Nominal Power	Decoder	Volume Control	Bluetooth	Features	Power Supply
Topping DX3 Pro+	ES9038Q2M	Class AB SE	0;1800	XU208	DAC Attenuation	QCC5125	MQA	15V DC
Fosi K7	AK4493SEQ	Class AB Bal	2100;600	XU208	NJU72315	QCC3031	NJW1119A EQ, Mic Input	12V DC
DAART Canary II	ES9038Q2M	Class A SE (?)	0;1000	XU208	Potentiometer		Class A questionable	12V DC
Fiio K7	2×AK4493SEQ	Class AB Bal	2000;1220	XU208	2×NJU72315	QCC5124 (+usd)		12V DC
Aune X1s GT	ES9038Q2M	Class AB Bal	1200;320	?	Potentiometer	? (+usd)	External Clock	9V DC
ifi Zen DAC 3	BB DSD1793	Class AB Bal	300;210	XU216?	Potentiometer		Bass Boost, MQA	USB-C or 5V DC
ifi Zen CAN 3		Class AB Bal	1200;1600		Potentiometer		Bass Boost, Crosstalk	5V DC

Topping DX3 Pro+ is simple, though some features like gain adjustment require a remote—annoying. Kudos for including a high-quality Bluetooth chip at this price. Single-ended power is decent. Using an ESS DAC, it employs theoretically superior DAC-based volume control, avoiding the imbalance issues of potentiometers in this price range.

The Fosi K7 is the most feature-packed. The AK4493SEQ's internal attenuation is mediocre, so Fosi added an NJU72315 for volume control. For basic EQ, they included an NJW1119A. One flaw: the mic input only works in UAC1.0. To clarify vocal frequencies, the mic input has a digital bandpass filter.

The DAART Canary II is the most simple one. It uses a potentiometer with no gain adjustment—its only bragging right is Class A (questionable).

The FiiO K7 has two hardware gain stages—otherwise unremarkable. But why is the Bluetooth so expensive?! At least its DAC setup is the best in this review—dual AK4493SEQ with dual NJU72315, a true balanced design at great cost.

The Aune X1s GT and Canary II are two peas in a pod. While Aune loves clocks, I don't see the point of an external clock on a 200+ usd combo. No built-in Bluetooth, but the 10+ usd add-on is cheap. The potentiometer and lack of gain adjustment are fatal flaws.

The ifi Zen DAC 3's sole merit as a combo is its slightly better XMOS decoder—likely an XU216 or XU316. Its bass boost and reverb probably rely on XMOS algorithms. Pairing the Zen DAC 3 with the Zen CAN 3 creates a… 500+ usd garbage 200+ usd combo. At this profit margin, the Zen CAN 3 even removed the previous gen's Class A feature—I suggest they might be the worst products in this review.

Objective Performance Measurements​

These test metrics better reflect performance under actual listening conditions compared to other test results, as we used its built-in volume knob to attenuate the volume.

This shows the over-all crosstalk performance. Better crosstalk allows you to more clearly distinguish the direction of sounds in competitive games. GOAT: Fosi K7. Should explain why Fosi calls it a Gaming Soundcard. FiiO K7 and Aune X1s GT's performance are also nice.

All good. less than ±0.5 dB at 20-20kHz. They did not manipulate the frequency response to appear "unique."

This metric reflects their distortion performance in actual music listening. GOAT: Fosi K7 again. FiiO K7 and Topping dx3pro+ are close behind.

This metric reflects whether the noise floor and distortion are significant. Similar to the previous. GOAT: FiiO K7. Fosi K7 and Topping dx3pro+ close behind.

This metric reflects whether the amplifier's noise floor and distortion will significantly improve when driving high-impedance headphones (as there's less current). Aune X1s GT appears to have a great THD+N when driving high impedance headphones like HD600, while Fosi and FiiO's K7 are also decent.

This indicator reflects the severity of the channel unbalance. DAART Canary II's potentiometer doesn't seem to preform good.

This metric reflects the overall noise floor performance of this DAC/amp. Aune X1s GT is the best while Fosi and FiiO's K7 falls a little behind.

index	Topping dx3pro+	Fosi K7	DAART Canary 2	FiiO K7	Aune X1s GT	ifi zen dac 3	dac 3 + can 3
Power SE	1886	551	1620	845	361	180	1361
Output Impedance SE	0.38	0.45	3.22	1.06	5.67	1.09	1.32
Power Bal		2257		1950	1201	151	1852
Output Impedance Bal		0.34		0.52	9.48	0.35	0.55

Next is the single-ended/balanced output power and output impedance section that enthusiasts care about most. The Fosi K7 is the only amplifier with a maximum undistorted power exceeding 2W, and its performance in output impedance is also the TOTL.

Aune and DAART have a very high output impedance, which may cause some frequency response distortion for certain dynamic driver headphones and multi-driver IEMs.

Conclusions​

Now we will provide a quantitative summary of the objective measurement metrics for these DAC/amps.

Index	Topping dx3pro+	Fosi K7	DAART Canary 2	FiiO K7	Aune X1s GT	ifi zen dac 3	dac 3 + can 3
Build Quality	3	4	2	3	3	4	4
Output Impedance	5	5	3	5	1	5	5
Frequency Response	4	3	5	3	5	5	5
Distortion	5	5	3	5	4	2	4
Noise	5	5	4	5	4	5	5
Channel Unbalance	5	5	3	5	4	4	4
Power	4	5	4	4	3	1	4
Crosstalk	4	5	3	4	5	4	4
Score	4.20	4.40	3.04	4.00	3.16	3.72	4.32

Score = 0.2*Build Quality + 0.12*Power + 0.2*min(Output Impedance, Frequency Response) + 0.12*Distortion + 0.12*Noise + 0.08*Crosstalk + 0.16*Channel Unbalance
Of course, you can also adjust the weight that generates the Score according to your listening preferences and get a different Score of each product.

Thanks for watching!

 

[Sha1rholder]

Note: This article is sponsored by Fosi Audio, who provided the APx555b measurement equipment. However, all the above measurements were conducted by me, and the samples were randomly selected. I have made every effort to ensure this article is free from any bias. The original measurement data and methodology are included in the appendix. If you believe there are issues with my scoring results, you are welcome to use the measurement data provided in the attachments to derive your own conclusions and scores!

 

[Sha1rholder]

Someone on Reddit mentioned: "It looks like in your measurements there is a dc offset present which leaks into your audible band. I don’t know what the fft size is and what kind of windowing is used, but something isn’t right there."

I don't quite understand what the issue is or why does it happen actually... Could someone explain it?

 

[unpluggged]

Note: This article is sponsored by Fosi Audio, who provided the APx555b measurement equipment. However, all the above measurements were conducted by me, and the samples were randomly selected. I have made every effort to ensure this article is free from any bias. The original measurement data and methodology are included in the appendix. If you believe there are issues with my scoring results, you are welcome to use the measurement data provided in the attachments to derive your own conclusions and scores!

You should place this notice in the beginning of your original post. Also you should disclose any material incentives the manufacturers offered you in exchange of this publication.

This manufacturer had been caught in this forum in the past when it asked people to post reviews of their products without proper disclosure.

 

[Sha1rholder]

Emm... File is too large. Please PM me for measurement results. You can send me your Email and I send these to you.

 

[Sha1rholder]

You should place this notice in the beginning of your original post. Also you should disclose any material incentives the manufacturers offered you in exchange of this publication.

This manufacturer had been caught in this forum in the past when it asked people to post reviews of their products without proper disclosure.

OK. I've done it.

 

[somebodyelse]

It really doesn't help that your graphs have different scales.

 

[NTK]

Thanks for the effort!
Using non-consistent scale is just a minor inconvenience.

Someone on Reddit mentioned: "It looks like in your measurements there is a dc offset present which leaks into your audible band. I don’t know what the fft size is and what kind of windowing is used, but something isn’t right there."

I don't quite understand what the issue is or why does it happen actually... Could someone explain it?

If it is a systematic problem with using windowing in the FFT, it should affect all the measurements of all the devices similarly. Since the responses of the devices are different from each other (very slight differences — we are looking at a mere ~0.4 dB variations across 20 - 20k Hz for the 16 Ω response plots), I believe those variations are real and not a measurement method artifact.

Just for reference. Here is a plot of a DC signal, without window (which, as it is supposed to, shows a single spike at 0 Hz), and with a Kaiser window of alpha = 3 and with different total number of samples. [Edit] In the case of this Kaiser window, the spectral leakage at 20 Hz is down by ~90 dB and so its effect of an DC offset on signals (> 20 Hz) with strengths of ~0 dB is totally negligible. Oops! I had messed up my code and didn't update the FFT frequency bins for each of the curves when the number of samples changed. Here is the corrected plot. The conclusion is similar, just that with Fs = 96 kHz, you'll need >16k samples (frequency bin spacing Δf = 96k/16k = 5.86 Hz) for the effect of the DC component to drop down by ~60 dB at 20 Hz.

 

[Sha1rholder]

It really doesn't help that your graphs have different scales.

I had to do this because if the same scale were used, some of them would be completely unclear unless I uploaded every high-definition measurement result image, but that would be too much pictures. Therefore, I also provided the raw data for professionals along with a program I wrote myself to automatically generate measurement result images. I can send it to you if needed.

 

[Sha1rholder]

Thanks for the effort!
Using non-consistent scale is just a minor inconvenience.

If it is a systematic problem with using windowing in the FFT, it should affect all the measurements of all the devices similarly. Since the responses of the devices are different from each other (very slight differences — we are looking at a mere ~0.4 dB variations across 20 - 20k Hz for the 16 Ω response plots), I believe those variations are real and not a measurement method artifact.

Just for reference. Here is a plot of a DC signal, without window (which, as it is supposed to, shows a single spike at 0 Hz), and with a Kaiser window of alpha = 3 and with different total number of samples. [Edit] In the case of this Kaiser window, the spectral leakage at 20 Hz is down by ~90 dB and so its effect of an DC offset on signals (> 20 Hz) with strengths of ~0 dB is totally negligible. Oops! I had messed up my code and didn't update the FFT frequency bins for each of the curves when the number of samples changed. Here is the corrected plot. The conclusion is similar, just that with Fs = 96 kHz, you'll need >16k samples (frequency bin spacing Δf = 96k/16k = 5.86 Hz) for the effect of the DC component to drop down by ~60 dB at 20 Hz.

View attachment 444705

Thanks for your explanation! I haven't finished learning complex analysis yet, so I haven't systematically studied the signals and systems course. I hope to understand window functions clearly in a few months.