Review and Measurements of Topping DX3Pro DAC and Headphone Amp

[Krunok]

AAC is a far more advanced codec than the others. It has a psychoacoustics model so is able to compress audio to far greater level and still maintain fidelity. The rest are "dumb" in contrast so require far higher bitrates for quality.

I'm sceptical toward your claim until it is confirmed by proper blind tests.

APTX-HD and LDAC are so close to typical FLAC bitrate for RBCD material they don't beed to be so "smart" to achieve practically lossless fidelity.

Can you maybe post a link to some study where AAC, APTX-HD and LDAC have been objectively compared?

 

[Krunok]

cuz 320 kbps mp3 is better than 256 kbps AAC for fidelity, amirite?

Probably not. MP3 algorithm hasn't been revised for quite some time and its bandwidth (320 kbps) isn't that higher than AAC. But APTX-HD and LDAC also use new algoritms, so when you take into account they have at least twice as much bandwidth as AAC in my eyes you need to have some serious proof for a claim that AAC sounds better, especially as psychoacoustics is not really exact science.

In fact, if @amirm is to perform a measurement where the same RBCD file is coded and encoded with AAC vs APTH-HD you would see that APTX-HD would be superior in every parameter but noise, so claiming that AAC sounds better than is essentially the same as claiming that tube amp sounds better than some modern SS amp. Again, in my eyes, I strongly think you need to back up such claim with some serious proof.

 

[Roen]

Probably not. MP3 algorithm hasn't been revised for quite some time and its bandwidth (320 kbps) isn't that higher than AAC. But APTX-HD and LDAC also use new algoritms, so when you take into account they have at least twice as much bandwidth as AAC in my eyes you need to have some serious proof for a claim that AAC sounds better, especially as psychoacoustics is not really exact science.

In fact, if @amirm is to perform a measurement where the same RBCD file is coded and encoded with AAC vs APTH-HD you would see that APTX-HD would be superior in every parameter but noise, so claiming that AAC sounds better than is essentially the same as claiming that tube amp sounds better than some modern SS amp. Again, in my eyes, I strongly think you need to back up such claim with some serious proof.

My only point is that bandwidth, absent of context, isn't a huge driver of quality. And the previous context was AAC vs SBC.

No one ever made the argument that AAC was better than all codecs above it with higher bandwidth.

 

[Krunok]

My only point is that bandwidth, absent of context, isn't a huge driver of quality. And the previous context was AAC vs SBC.

No one ever made the argument that AAC was better than all codecs above it with higher bandwidth.

Bandwidth is a huge driver of quality, especially when it is more than twice larger.

Btw, previous context was AAC vs APTX-HD and LDAC.

 

[dkinric]

https://www.ebay.com/usr/topssale

How would I know if they're authorized and how would it affect me?

Their Ebay product page says "More than 10 available" but according to that email, they most definitely do not.

I also purchased from Topssale/eBay (on 11/21) and recently received a notice it has shipped and will arrive by 12/21.

 

[Roen]

Unfortunately, iOS devices do not support any flavor of aptX. They would fall back to SBC in the absence of AAC.

@Krunok I was responding to this point of the thread, when it was suggested that SBC would be better than AAC on iOS devices.

 

[Krunok]

@Krunok I was responding to this point of the thread, when it was suggested that SBC would be better than AAC on iOS devices.

Ok, I see. Unfortunately, although it is here for app 20 years AAC failed to take over the ground from mp3. I seriously doubt that AAC BT codec will take over from APTX, especially now when APTX-HD is starting to gain traction.

 

[mikehoopes]

@Krunok I was responding to this point of the thread, when it was suggested that SBC would be better than AAC on iOS devices.

I didn't make any qualitative statements comparing codecs. I merely pointed out the BT codec options for iOS. There is a technical advantage for AAC over SBC, if your music is encoded in AAC (Apple Music default). It "passes through".
As for debating their relative advantages, and ABX comparisons...I think another thread would be more appropriate. This is a thread about measurements of the DX3Pro and products that directly compete with it.

 

[Krunok]

I didn't make any qualitative statements comparing codecs. I merely pointed out the BT codec options for iOS. There is a technical advantage for AAC over SBC, if your music is encoded in AAC (Apple Music default). It "passes through".
As for debating their relative advantages, and ABX comparisons...I think another thread would be more appropriate. This is a thread about measurements of the DX3Pro and products that directly compete with it.

APTX-HD is an important feature of DX3 Pro and as such is worth debating against other BT codecs. And last time I checked you were not moderator of this forum. Has that changed?

 

[mikehoopes]

APTX-HD is an important feature of DX3 Pro and as such is worth debating against other BT codecs. And last time I checked you were not moderator of this forum. Has that changed?

No, of course I'm not. That's why I said "I think".

 

[amirm]

I'm sceptical toward your claim until it is confirmed by proper blind tests.

APTX-HD and LDAC are so close to typical FLAC bitrate for RBCD material they don't beed to be so "smart" to achieve practically lossless fidelity.

Can you maybe post a link to some study where AAC, APTX-HD and LDAC have been objectively compared?

I made no claims: I stated the fact that AAC has a psychoacoustics model whereby it can eliminate bits that most likely are not audible. As such, it can achieve far lower bitrates than other codecs that rely on differential coding.

The correction I made was that you cannot use the bitrate of AAC to judge its fidelity. I didn't tell you that it sounded the same as the others at whatever bit rate. Indeed I said the others sound good but need a lot of bits to get there.

AAC at 256 is exceptionally good. I suggest you encode some of your own CDs and see if you can tell the difference blind.

And if you doubt my expertise in any of this, click on the link in my signature on my relevant experience.

 

[Thomas savage]

Don’t get grumpy arguing about codecs in a dac thread init.. I’m sure we must have a thread for codecs , if you want to debate them go find it.

 

[Krunok]

I made no claims: I stated the fact that AAC has a psychoacoustics model whereby it can eliminate bits that most likely are not audible.

You stated this: "AAC is a far more advanced codec than the others (where others meant SBC, APTH, APTX-HD and LDAC). It has a psychoacoustics model so is able to compress audio to far greater level and still maintain fidelity. The rest are "dumb" in contrast so require far higher bitrates for quality. "

If that is not a claim that AAC sounds better than APTX-HD and LDAC then I will have to check dictionary if "claim" still means what it used to.

And if you doubt my expertise in any of this, click on the link in my signature on my relevant experience.

I was not expecting this kind of "argument" from you. You know well, or at least you should, that expertise cannot replace proof. If you can't quote the relevant source where such claim is confirmed in a proper blind test then don't make it. Asking me to accept your claim given your "expertise" instead of proof simply won't do it. And no, it's not about you, it's about principle, to which you, as a founder of this scientifically oriented forum, should be holding to as well.

 

[Krunok]

Don’t get grumpy arguing about codecs in a dac thread init.. I’m sure we must have a thread for codecs , if you want to debate them go find it.

By all means wil do, Sir Thomas.

 

[Thomas savage]

By all means wil do, Sir Thomas.

It’s a interesting topic , amirs idea of encoding your own source and maybe blind testing the various systems at home I think would be great and make for a intresting thread.

Or we can just be in awe of amirs CV and just go with what he thinks ha ha..

 

[SemperUnum]

Or we can just be in awe of amirs CV and just go with what he thinks ha ha..

Let's not do that. Nothing beats correcting the professor.

You stated this: "AAC is a far more advanced codec than the others

"More advanced" does not by default imply "better sounding". There are many parameters that would qualify something as "more advanced".

Amir clearly stated the reason why it is more advanced without making a claim that it sounds superior.

 

[Krunok]

It’s a interesting topic , amirs idea of encoding your own source and maybe blind testing the various systems at home I think would be great and make for a intresting thread.

I tried that. With some material (primarily jazz) I can distinguish mp3 from CD. I wasn't really able to do that with AAC and APTX-HD. But then, that was nor a blind test nor a proper one.
Not to mention that I don't have any proper expertise..

Or we can just be in awe of amirs CV and just go with what he thinks ha ha..

I don't mind a little show with CV and expertise - one must admit he's worked hard to earn it. But offering it instead of a proof is still a big no-no.

 

[Krunok]

"More advanced" does not by default imply "better sounding". There are many parameters that would qualify something as "more advanced".

Amir clearly stated the reason why it is more advanced without making a claim that it sounds superior.

True to that. But this part of his statement is claiming something else:
" It has a psychoacoustics model so is able to compress audio to far greater level and still maintain fidelity.
The rest are "dumb" in contrast so require far higher bitrates for quality. "

In my eyes this statement favorises AAC although no proof was given that AAC superior coding can compensate for more than 2 times lower bitrate.

But ok, I promised Sir Thomas I won't stirr this pot anymore, so be it like that..

 

[Wolven]

Is there a way to change the behavior of DX3pro?

1. Basically, I have turned off the sound for my browser in Win7-64bit.
However, when I go to a page with a video, DX3pro clicks as it detects sound, although no sound is coming out since I turned it off.
So, there is a lot of clicking when going from webpage to webpage.
I'm thinking this constant clicking is not good for the DAC.

2. Similarly, if you play music and pause, there is a little click. I'm curious what is switching?
During normal playback the click is there only if you switch between 16bit and 24bit which is fine.

3. When turning the computer on, DX3pro detects this and turns on and stays on. Is there a way for DX3 not to turn on at computer boot up?
And is there a way to make DX3pro go to standby mode automatically (display just the dot) if there is no sound?

I'm not able to experiment with some functions as the remote came defective, and I'm waiting for a new one from the dealer, so it will take a while.

 

[Krunok]

Is there a way to change the behavior of DX3pro?

1. Basically, I have turned off the sound for my browser in Win7-64bit.
However, when I go to a page with a video, DX3pro clicks as it detects sound, although no sound is coming out since I turned it off.
So, there is a lot of clicking when going from webpage to webpage.
I'm thinking this constant clicking is not good for the DAC.

2. Similarly, if you play music and pause, there is a little click. I'm curious what is switching?
During normal playback the click is there only if you switch between 16bit and 24bit which is fine.

3. When turning the computer on, DX3pro detects this and turns on and stays on. Is there a way for DX3 not to turn on at computer boot up?
And is there a way to make DX3pro go to standby mode automatically (display just the dot) if there is no sound?

I'm not able to experiment with some functions as the remote came defective, and I'm waiting for a new one from the dealer, so it will take a while.

Set your built in audio device as Windows default. That way DX3 Pro will be used only by your player when playing music via ASIO or WASAPI.