Review and Measurements of Topping D50 DAC

[Jimster480]

I also think that despite the Pioneer LX500 being and excellent audio and video player that sounds and looks outstanding, the superiority of the D50 resides on having it's own (better or worse) power supply, not shared with any other device like a disc drive or an video board, and also not sharing the case with any of these devices that may cause interference between them. In a nutshell, the Topping D50 has its own power supply and inside its solid aluminium case there's a good D/A converter (very well engineered with the D/A IC's well implemented with the associated circuitry) and only a D/A converter. For some of us on audio less is more.

I suppose this might be the reason. It could also be that the d50 just has better DACs or better implented DACs over all.

 

[thefsb]

right. XMOS does the PCM volume control. However, Topping firmware ...

Thanks yue, I was able to adapt your instructions to the D50s.

audio_output {
type "alsa"
name "D50s"
device "hw:CARD=D50s"
mixer_device "hw:CARD=D50s"
mixer_type "hardware"
mixer_control "D50s "
auto_resample "no"
auto_format "no"
enabled "yes"
}

I need to get some DSD files on my server before I can test that.

 

[Kiko1974]

I wonder how the Topping D50 does volume control while playing DSD as DSD can't be processed or edited in any way unless it's converted to PCM first, that's why DXD was developed that's actually 352.8 Khz/32 bit PCM.

 

[MWC]

I don't think digital volume control really edits nor processes the files, be they PCM or DSD. Anyway my D50 seems to deal with both formats peerlessly. Although DXD does solve some editing issues for DSD in the unique and peculiar way of actually recording in PCM (DXD) before making DSD from the DXD, there are other ways of editing DSD natively, without recourse to PCM at all. One requires either Pyramix or a Sonoma work station.

 

[Kiko1974]

I don't think digital volume control really edits nor processes the files, be they PCM or DSD. Anyway my D50 seems to deal with both formats peerlessly. Although DXD does solve some editing issues for DSD in the unique and peculiar way of actually recording in PCM (DXD) before making DSD from the DXD, there are other ways of editing DSD natively, without recourse to PCM at all. One requires either Pyramix or a Sonoma work station.

And both workstations as you well say, only edit. The Film Music Of Jerry Goldsmith (available from Telarc on SACD) was recorded with the aide of a Sony Sonoma workstation, but there's no way to equalize, add reverb or echo or somethin NEEDED ON ALL RECORDINGS: Dinamic Range Compression. This can't be done natively on DSD, it's either converting DSD to DXD which is a high sampling 24 bit form of PCM (Weiss Saracon, a professional sample/bit depth converter used by Sony's Super Audio Center in Boulder, Colorado) or use old school analogue processing.
On the case of The Film Music Of Jerry Goldsmith (recorded at Abbey Road) it was recorded using both an analogue mixing board using old school analogue processing (the aforementioned equalization and dinamic range compression) and a Sony Sonoma, but beware, Sony Sonoma or Philips Augan workstation are nothing like ProTools. If DSD could be processed natively there would be DSD versions of ProTools or Cubase, and there aren't.
Here's a link about Sony Sonoma from the Super Audio Center website. Read carefully and you will notice that there are words that don't appear like equalization, dinamic range compression, any kind of plug-ins and very important, MIXING.
https://www.superaudiocenter.com/Products.htm

 

[MWC]

@Kiko you have a point One can't do DAW work in DSD like one can in PCM. One has to find other ways of achieving things or not try to mess with the music too much anyway.

 

[Kiko1974]

I'll tell you a recent experience I had with a new CD set I got and the different digital filters on the Topping D50.
La La Land Records that is a label exclusively dedicated to release movie soundtracks released around a month ago the full Stargate soundtrack as a 2 CD set. I've always liked how this soundtrack sounds despite being a full digital recording from 1994. There were two previously releases, the original 1994 album and an expanded released by Varese Sarabande from 2006. Both sound great with a very analogue-like sound, that is, to harsh highs or thin bass typical from 44.1/16 equipment from the era, Sony Pro recording equipment most of all (DASH Sony PCM 3324/PCM 3348 multitrack recorders and PCM 1630 stereo recorders for the final mix down).
For movie soundtracks two versions are often done, one for the soundtrack and a second one for the movie audio track. These can be different recordings or just different mixes from the same recording session tapes.
This new 2 CD set of the Stargate soundtrack sounds like nothing like the two previous releases, its sounds 100% harsh and agressive 44.1/16 PCM digital but it features the full soundtrack (plus some alternate versions and outakes) as heard on the final, sequencing is exactely as it is on the movie.
I have my D50 always set to filter 5 as this is the one that sounds the best with the rest of my equipment that sounds rather soft and warm.
Looking at the different roll off pictures of the filters on Topping website and also at the leaked specs of the Sabre ES9038Q2M chip I thought that filter 2 with its slow filter (aka it starts rolling frequencies off before 20 Khz) may get this 2 CD set more listenable and less agressive. And I was damn right, it doesn't do any magic but it get this soundtrack to sound less agressive and harsh. I tried all of the 7 filters with this soundtrack and it also sounded fine with filter 4 but I found filter 2 the more pleasing of the two.
So the different filters on the Topping D50 DO WORK, they not also let you make your D50 fit better with the rest of your equipment, they can also be used to tame bright recordings.
Here's the link for this Stargate soundtrack release for those of you that may be interested on it: https://lalalandrecords.com/stargate-25th-anniversary-expanded-limited-edition-2-cd-set/

 

[MWC]

Nice to read of your experience of how these filters worked for you in your system. Shame your preferred CD of this seems to be a bad mastering job to the extent that you have to 'tame' it in this way. If it was me I'd be searching for a better mastering, hoping it might be on SACD or BluRay Audio.
I tend to use the filters in a different way to you. I like to use the linear phase slow roll off (4) filter, in an attempt to get all the higher frequencies played back nicely, through monitors that have a frequency response up to 50kHz.. Then if it sounds too bad I ditch that recording and look for one that represents reality (i.e. reproduction of the sound of live music) better. I prefer to hear all there is to hear in a recording, warts & all, rather than muffle it with a filter that rolls frequencies off before 20 Khz.
I certainly would not want to start using different filters for different recordings to tame them into sounding adequate. That would be far too tedious and complicated. Better IMHO to set the filter to generally suit everything one plays, then if a recording sounds bad, then either accept the reality that it was made that way or replace the recording.

 

[Veri]

I tend to use the filters in a different way to you. I like to use the linear phase slow roll off (4) filter, in an attempt to get all the higher frequencies played back nicely, through monitors that have a frequency response up to 50kHz.. Then if it sounds too bad I ditch that recording and look for one that represents reality (i.e. reproduction of the sound of live music) better. I prefer to hear all there is to hear in a recording, warts & all, rather than muffle it with a filter that rolls frequencies off before 20 Khz.
I certainly would not want to start using different filters for different recordings to tame them into sounding adequate. That would be far too tedious and complicated. Better IMHO to set the filter to generally suit everything one plays, then if a recording sounds bad, then either accept the reality that it was made that way or replace the recording.

You.. realise the filters ending with 'Slow' roll off the treble just a bit, while the 'Fast' ones in fact do not, right? Linear keeps phase in tact though, of course, at the cost of some latency.

The response to white noise is something different to a FR response. It's so silly for a manufacturer to show these graphs since they are quite confusing to consumers.

 

[MWC]

DAC filters: Confusing subject isn't it? and possibly any change of filter may be inaudible for most people anyway. I remember (rightly/wrongly) graphs of the available Topping/Sabre filters being posted on here somewhere. I made my choice based on those graphs where the slow roll off point appears delayed past the 'nyquist' point, so theoretically 'looking' (in graphs) like a tad more of the high frequency range has more energy for a little longer than with the fast roll off which seemed to start before the 'nyquist' point.
Otherwise I would probably go for the Linear Phase fast roll off (5) filter. It seems to be a choice between affecting aliasing or (pre&post) ringing.

 

[Kiko1974]

DAC filters: Confusing subject isn't it? and possibly any change of filter may be inaudible for most people anyway. I remember (rightly/wrongly) graphs of the available Topping/Sabre filters being posted on here somewhere. I made my choice based on those graphs where the slow roll off point appears delayed past the 'nyquist' point, so theoretically 'looking' (in graphs) like a tad more of the high frequency range has more energy for a little longer than with the fast roll off which seemed to start before the 'nyquist' point.
Otherwise I would probably go for the Linear Phase fast roll off (5) filter. It seems to be a choice between affecting aliasing or (pre&post) ringing.

That's the one I use, Filter 5 for all my music, it's the one that suits both my taste and the rest of my equipment best, but if a harsh/bright recording can be tamed, make it sound more listenable with just by pressing a few buttons to change the filter, I'll use it,more power to me.
I think these different filters are there for something, like making the D50 fit better with the rest of your equipment or why not, make a bright recording sound more pleasing. Flexibility= more choices.

 

[zenki]

Anyone got link to the firmwares?
Probably need to sticky them on front page

 

[Vosya]

Anyone got link to the firmwares?

What firmware versions are you talking about? Do you have information that there is newer than D50_fw1.03 (18l)?

 

[zenki]

Not that I know of. But just wondering if there're links to those files

 

[Vosya]

But just wondering if there're links to those files

Topping's technical support staff will gladly provide these links upon request. However, I do not understand what these links are for. New versions are not available from the manufacturer.

 

[IowAudio]

Can the D50 actually do 24bit 144db of dynmic range or does it max out at the 20bit and 120db. I've heard many of these 24bit and 32bit budget dacs are only good for a about 20 bits in the output stage. The big numbers are just marketing fluff.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Can the D50 actually do 24bit 144db of dynmic range or does it max out at the 20bit and 120db. I've heard many of these 24bit and 32bit budget dacs are only good for a about 20 bits in the output stage. The big numbers are just marketing fluff.

This and the d50s are the better ones. That's why here Amir did all these measurements.
There's no (so far) true 24bit dac yet in the consumer market. Most aren't even 20bit. 20bit requires SINAD of 120dB. You can have a look at the chart and get an idea of how most DACs performed. Enjoy.

 

[Veri]

Hearing 20 bit or above of dynamic range, would require some impossibly quiet room though so that's a moot point...

~20-bit is already near perfection level.

 

[IowAudio]

Exactly what I thought. If your wondering why I ask, watch this video. I think this guy is way off base on the matter.

 

[digitalfrost]

Much wow. Many khz.