If its only flaw if being average for IEMs and excellent for everything else, in my opinion it is still a great device, especially for the price.
as is explained above this device reaches 90db SNR for 50mv in single ended. just don't use the balanced output for IEMs. you won't need that much power for IEMs anyway.If its only flaw if being average for IEMs and excellent for everything else, in my opinion it is still a great device, especially for the price.
You are totally talking about a different kind of mechanism, though....I was expecting a noise reduction by 1/root 2. and not a addition for balanced ???
Yea I was thinking a little deeper and deleted the post.You are totally talking about a different kind of mechanism, though....
in this case, noise is inverted in the negative phase. so at any time, the noise amplitude is doubled by two.
Agreed, it look like something from the early 2000s at best.I wish they hired a professional industrial product designer. It performs like 2023 and looks like 1983. And not in a good way.
amir's result is misleading (again). all the tests are performed on the balanced output only, which is a true balanced design (with +/- phase instead of +/GND), so the noise is doubled compared to single ended. If you use the single ended output, you'll have 6db less noise (by half), which will reach the 90db mark.
topping a30 pro is not even balanced. it just has a balanced jack but has no reversed phase.Topping A30 Pro is 94dB at 50 mV from balanced. So 100dB unbalanced?
That is what is required to be 'state of the art'.
so what's your point? DAC cannot reach hp amp's SNR. you connect a DAC to the amp, and your output's SNR is determined by the DAC, not the amp, if no voltage division is involved.A30 Pro is clearly state of the art at the moment
Using an amp for IEMs is kind of pointless.If its only flaw if being average for IEMs and excellent for everything else, in my opinion it is still a great device, especially for the price.
Sure, one can always complain about anything. Getting a SOTA DAC and an extremely powerfull headphone amp for under $400 is amazing. If only good headphones were that cheap....Agreed, it look like something from the early 2000s at best.
Ok, but I still prefer if to a typical boutique hifi piece of gear, which has amazing design and oozes sophistication, costs several thousand dollars and measures poorly. Hiring good engineers is more important.I wish they hired a professional industrial product designer. It performs like 2023 and looks like 1983. And not in a good way.
Regardless of personal preference, my point was, with these specs, it would be commercially more successful if it did not look like it was taken from a Soviet nuclear bunker.Ok, but I still prefer if to a typical boutique hifi piece of gear, which has amazing design and oozes sophistication, costs several thousand dollars and measures poorly. Hiring good engineers is more important.
Or NAD from ‘90Regardless of personal preference, my point was, with these specs, it would be commercially more successful if it did not look like it was taken from a Soviet nuclear bunker.
From these statements you understand that aesthetics is an extremely subjective parameter. For me it's finally the only dac that doesn't have the shape of a black box but of a hifi device. I find it the most beautiful of the various topping/smslRegardless of personal preference, my point was, with these specs, it would be commercially more successful if it did not look like it was taken from a Soviet nuclear bunker.
Correct. I will always run that test if it is otherwise.Channel balance? Completely digital from DAC and no mismatch I'd assume?