ZeDestructor
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 119
- Likes
- 68
Provably false: the Benchmark HPA4 uses THX tech but also acts as a pre-amplifier.
-
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!
Review and Measurements of New Topping D50s DAC
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Provably false: the Benchmark HPA4 uses THX tech but also acts as a pre-amplifier.
The Topping D50s is up on Drop, with a decent discount down to USD $200. Estimated ship date of Nov 15, 2019.
https://drop.com/buy/topping-d50s-dac
https://drop.com/buy/topping-d50s-dac
Well, those XLRs are designed for heavy handed pro users (stage 'hands'?
)From the 'professorial' professionals, I much preferred LEMO connectors - even converted all my scope leads to those years and years ago (with tiny <1/4" LEMOs 'liberated' from a huge research project I worked on after it ended).
Far more ergonomic, too.
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetai...myxbP4FpAj2Nc2c9GrWKq2z%2B0gons/RhgmycUPh1Q==
Does anybody know of another DAC with comparable/better specs and wireless capability?
Just have Apos price match it. Get better customer service, faster shipping, and longer warranty. That's what I did.
Out of curiosity: what is the difference in warranty between buying on Drop vs. Apos?
Apos: 2 year warranty
Drop: (No Warranty Listed)
"Some products purchased on Drop include a manufacturer's warranty. These products will have the warranty listed on their pages. Products that don’t come with a manufacturer's warranty will be subject to a 30-day return policy as long as there is something damaged or non-functional with the product."
Drop: (No Warranty Listed)
"Some products purchased on Drop include a manufacturer's warranty. These products will have the warranty listed on their pages. Products that don’t come with a manufacturer's warranty will be subject to a 30-day return policy as long as there is something damaged or non-functional with the product."
saturnaal
Member
Well, those XLRs are designed for heavy handed pro users (stage 'hands'?
From the 'professorial' professionals, I much preferred LEMO connectors - even converted all my scope leads to those years and years ago (with tiny <1/4" LEMOs 'liberated' from a huge research project I worked on after it ended).
Far more ergonomic, too.
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/LEMO/PGZ0S303CLLD42Z?qs=sGAEpiMZZMvf6myxbP4FpAj2Nc2c9GrWKq2z%2B0gons/RhgmycUPh1Q==
Don't get me wrong, there's definitely a place for more robust connectors! I'm just not convinced it's on the backs of consumer desktop products.
OK, I promised the Apos rep I would spread the word:
So, I had ordered the D50s on drop.com but had to wait until 11/19 to ship. On the recommendation of @josiah I checked with apos.store. A. They have it in stock. B. Chat guy (he's a star) immediately agreed to price match. C. No tax! So It's a done deal, should arrive by Friday. I'll compare to my Musical Fidelity V90 and report back.
Thanks, @josiah !!
Oh, apos.store guy also said the SMSL SP200 will be in stock shortly at $289 and he'll email me after a conf call with SMSL that's coming up.
So, I had ordered the D50s on drop.com but had to wait until 11/19 to ship. On the recommendation of @josiah I checked with apos.store. A. They have it in stock. B. Chat guy (he's a star) immediately agreed to price match. C. No tax! So It's a done deal, should arrive by Friday. I'll compare to my Musical Fidelity V90 and report back.
Thanks, @josiah !!
Oh, apos.store guy also said the SMSL SP200 will be in stock shortly at $289 and he'll email me after a conf call with SMSL that's coming up.
Last edited:
If I may be so bold as to post the first reply, I think the phrase would be "accurate". Flat FR, inaudible distortion, inaudible noise. That's it.
Can someone more knowledgable correct me/expand on that?
Kudos to you, CJ, for helping me tonight to order the D50s. Nice job! Now, can you get an A50 to @amirm for testing, please!?
As an aside, I was listening to a Krell amp in comparison to another amp, both through excellent speakers I was very familiar with. The Krell, in comparison, at first seemed "analytical" but eventually the highs started sounding harsh to me. The word I used at the time was brittle. So, it wasn't accurate, it was just harsh. The D50s should just be "accurate".
For the EEs out there, can you please explain why the D50s does not need balanced line outputs? I refer to this write-up by Benchmark: https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces
"Need" is really a relative concept. Balanced is certainly technically superior, but noise at -120dB or lower is unlikely to be audible with consumer-oriented gear. The article you linked to compares the noise introduced by an unbalanced connection to "the thermal noise produced by a 600-Ohm resistor". That's the level of concern we're looking at for short cable runs without ground loops -- equivalent to the noise introduced by a single resistor.
The D50s is still a consumer piece of gear. Balanced would increase the cost and chassis size, and ideally you want balanced outputs to be hotter (as the linked article points out), which typically means you need higher voltage power rails, so the power supply has to be changed, again increasing the cost.
saturnaal
Member
I'm going to go against my better judgement a bit here, but maybe I can contribute in a way that will help someone.
If we give maximum assumed benefit to XLR and say that using an unbalanced RCA connection carries a 6dB SNR penalty, the noise floor of most of the best measuring DACs on this site will still be well below audible levels with the unbalanced connection.
"But what about this!?", you say!
Well, in this case they are referencing the potential rejection of ground-loop interference, which later on in the article they state more specifically.
Elimination of ground loops is a true and widely recognized advantage of XLR connections. If you're having issues with ground loops and your equipment already has XLR connections, you might as well try them. If your equipment doesn't have XLR connectors already though, there are other solutions to ground loops that will prove satisfactory.
I think it's important to determine context and requirements.
If the question is "Does a +24dBu 12 Vrms signal level XLR balanced connection have a scientifically demonstrable noise advantage over +8.2dBu 2.0 Vrms unbalanced connection?", then the answer is unequivocally yes. This is true and I'd never argue that it isn't.
If the question is "Would commonly seen 4.0 Vrms XLR connections offer a meaningful improvement in noise level over 2.0 Vrms unbalanced connections on a DAC with a ~-130dB noise floor?", well, you can debate endlessly on what constitutes a meaningful improvement, but my take on that is there is really no benefit.
Given the performance that $100 devices have proven capable of in the current market, if I were looking to purchase a "premium" grade DAC in the $400+ range, then I think it's entirely reasonable to expect balanced XLR connections on the device. The added cost and bulk of the device are already a given, and they really will help you to minmax your signal path. That said, on a $100-$250 device like the D50s, I think there is really no need or place for balanced connections. I'll be using mine with Koss ESP-95X, which doesn't have XLR inputs anyway. I think many others are pairing this with the Atom or similar, same applies.
If balanced XLR connectors are a requirement for you in a DAC, say if you already have an extremely performant amp with balanced inputs, there are lots of great options, such as the Topping D70.
The other place these connectors have a clear advantage is in professional audio settings, where you're most likely to find them. These types of noise effects are cumulative, so when you have a large number of devices in your signal path (think 4, 8, maybe more!) in an electrically noisy environment, the advantages start to become more applicable.
Of course, when the third sentence of the cited article is "In all cases, the balanced interfaces will provide better performance."
, it's easy to stop reading and form the conclusion that XLR connectors should be mandatory! Especially if you came into the article with a pre-existing preference for balanced connections and you were really looking for validation more than information
Lets take a look at some of the information presented here.
The so described "consumer grade balanced interfaces", at 4.0 Vrms, form the vast majority of the XLR balanced connections seen on the types of audio devices tested on this site (as opposed to the +24 dBu 12.28 Vrms "professional" balanced interface level). These numbers are based on laboratory best-case testing scenarios, and the SNRs of the equipment used as examples in the writing of the article are in the -127dB to -135dB range.
If we give maximum assumed benefit to XLR and say that using an unbalanced RCA connection carries a 6dB SNR penalty, the noise floor of most of the best measuring DACs on this site will still be well below audible levels with the unbalanced connection.
"But what about this!?", you say!
Well, in this case they are referencing the potential rejection of ground-loop interference, which later on in the article they state more specifically.
Elimination of ground loops is a true and widely recognized advantage of XLR connections. If you're having issues with ground loops and your equipment already has XLR connections, you might as well try them. If your equipment doesn't have XLR connectors already though, there are other solutions to ground loops that will prove satisfactory.
I think it's important to determine context and requirements.
If the question is "Does a +24dBu 12 Vrms signal level XLR balanced connection have a scientifically demonstrable noise advantage over +8.2dBu 2.0 Vrms unbalanced connection?", then the answer is unequivocally yes. This is true and I'd never argue that it isn't.
If the question is "Would commonly seen 4.0 Vrms XLR connections offer a meaningful improvement in noise level over 2.0 Vrms unbalanced connections on a DAC with a ~-130dB noise floor?", well, you can debate endlessly on what constitutes a meaningful improvement, but my take on that is there is really no benefit.
Given the performance that $100 devices have proven capable of in the current market, if I were looking to purchase a "premium" grade DAC in the $400+ range, then I think it's entirely reasonable to expect balanced XLR connections on the device. The added cost and bulk of the device are already a given, and they really will help you to minmax your signal path. That said, on a $100-$250 device like the D50s, I think there is really no need or place for balanced connections. I'll be using mine with Koss ESP-95X, which doesn't have XLR inputs anyway. I think many others are pairing this with the Atom or similar, same applies.
If balanced XLR connectors are a requirement for you in a DAC, say if you already have an extremely performant amp with balanced inputs, there are lots of great options, such as the Topping D70.
The other place these connectors have a clear advantage is in professional audio settings, where you're most likely to find them. These types of noise effects are cumulative, so when you have a large number of devices in your signal path (think 4, 8, maybe more!) in an electrically noisy environment, the advantages start to become more applicable.
Of course, when the third sentence of the cited article is "In all cases, the balanced interfaces will provide better performance."
, it's easy to stop reading and form the conclusion that XLR connectors should be mandatory! Especially if you came into the article with a pre-existing preference for balanced connections and you were really looking for validation more than information
So, comparing the D50s and the D70, now with BT, is there any conceivable difference in SQ? Please consider the difference in balanced line out to a fully balanced amp v RCA out at 2V. The D70 seems to have better IMD by a few points, plus a few more dB for XLR out (higher voltage). I understand the cost is $545 v. $200, but really trying to see if there is any potential audible SQ difference. Thanks! @amirm @saturnaal @Blumlein 88 @JohnYang1997
Edit: I now found out I should also consider the DX7 Pro, which has the upgraded ESS9038Pro chip, BT, and the headphone amp section of the upcoming A50. Plus Balanced output and AC power. Oh no, I'm really confused!
Edit: I now found out I should also consider the DX7 Pro, which has the upgraded ESS9038Pro chip, BT, and the headphone amp section of the upcoming A50. Plus Balanced output and AC power. Oh no, I'm really confused!
Last edited:
maxxevv
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2018
- Messages
- 1,872
- Likes
- 1,964
The phrase/term "cold" is completely relative.
If one is used to listening to a system that has plenty of noise that manifests in the lower mid-range and bass regions, chances are, a system that does not have these distortions and noise will sound "cold", as that "warm and fuzziness" is missing.
If one is used to listening to a system that has distortion in the high mid-range and treble frequencies, then comparing a system that has none of that can sound "warm". And if compared to the previous case, that can sound "bloated" and "lacking in resolution".
I have not heard the D50/D50s directly, but I have had relative comparisons of the 2 case examples above to a Khadas Tone Board.
So, it really depends on where you coming from and what you are comparing too.
saturnaal
Member
The D70 has some measurable improvements over the D50s, but audible? Almost certainly not, in a double blind level matched listening test you'd never tell the two apart. Buy the D70 if you care about the measured performance or the additional features, but not for the improvement in sound quality.
Similar threads
- Poll
