PEQ was not an option.
Curious as, to why PEQ is not an option on any of your equipment.
Well, nobody has any of those issues with the RME ADI-2 DAC, and it also is relatively popular, despite its high price.I think DSP is a whole different area to get into. And then there will be conspiracy theories that the DAC is not bit perfect. "They must be doing something to make their DAC get better reviews." Just look at the MQA debate. IMO, unless there is a built-in headphone amp, PEQ is better done with playback software instead of the DAC.
Yes but, not even sure in real life it has the capability, XU216 does a lot of stuff but the way it likes to treat data streams it get's crowded fast. Typically, I won't pretend I know what topping is doing but asking it to handle the spdif signal, on top of being a USB receiver, on top of handling the control and being the brain of the DAC, is already pushing it and require some gymnastics. In most designs, XMOS don't even touch spdif, it's more efficient that way and other solutions for spdif performs better. In these cases it leaves DSP for USB only, which is not that useful because it's the use case where software only solutions makes the most sense.DSP by itself is technically easy. XMOS provide a DSP library for the chip development environment. But that is the easy bit. Designing and coding the user interface and working out the entire user experience is less than trivial. Most companies get it wrong, some badly so. Topping no doubt have a good idea what it will take to make this a reality. One can be sure that when Shenzhen Audio came asking about what could be realistically put into the product there was (and still is) no DSP option they could have chosen. And I doubt they were in the mood to fund development. MQA by comparison is just a matter of ticking the box and paying the fee. They made the call that it was worth doing so based on their perceived market.
My point about the xu216 is that the hardware capability is there. The will to fund development of the software is what isn't. Unless you are in the game you will have zero idea about the difficulty and pitfalls of developing the software. I hope it does happen, but don't imagine it is a trivial task.
Are you sure the t2p's headphone amp is remotely comparable?
Completely unrelated......you have a good point but for most headphones its not gonna make a real difference imo
i didnt mean to say its price isnt justified, it is for sure, its money well spent buying either of them.
the point i wanted to make is that it seems the device itself is an iteration of t2p but fancier without making any sacrifice in power since it has more than enough space
im guessing we will see more of these, perhaps fully portable one
im curious, does topping and khadas have some kind of agreement, the design was a collaboration or is it completely unrelated?
would be surprised if it was unrelated
A too common problem.From what I recall, that was a seller that was selling those two brands. I deal with both companies and there is nothing whatsoever the same in culture, product strategy or my contacts there. So I suggest you not run with conspiracy theorists that make up stories to benefit themselves than any search for the truth.
How would the Qudelix work with an Atom?For $350, these days I would expect PEQ. Qudelix 5k has it for $110.
Without it, it's out of consideration for me. IMO, the Qudelix 5k with a $100 Atom or Heresy blows it away on value.
You essentially use the Qudelix as a DAC and preamp. Get a 3.5mm stereo male to RCA phono plug short cable. Connect to Qudelix 3.5 headphone out, Atom line in. I use a Liquid Spark instead of an Atom, but it's the same. I adjust the Qudelix to max without Amp clipping then leave it alone. Then headphone volume with amp. This should give lowest noise floor and best dynamic range.How would the Qudelix work with an Atom?
so no option to use it as „dac mode” and use volume knob only for headphones?preamp
Thanks. The Atom also has a 3.5mm AUX input. Would it be better to use the stereo RCA inputs as you suggest though?You essentially use the Qudelix as a DAC and preamp. Get a 3.5mm stereo male to RCA phono plug short cable. Connect to Qudelix 3.5 headphone out, Atom line in. I use a Liquid Spark instead of an Atom, but it's the same. I adjust the Qudelix to max without Amp clipping then leave it alone. Then headphone volume with amp. This should give lowest noise floor and best dynamic range.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TTLH72H/
I use 3.5mm to 3.5mm to connect my Line Out from SoundblasterX G6 DAC to JDS Labs Atom Amp and it's fine, I don't think it makes a difference whether you use 3.5mm or RCA. RCA might be a bit more robust & reliable over time but that's just a guess.Thanks. The Atom also has a 3.5mm AUX input. Would it be better to use the stereo RCA inputs as you suggest though?
Might create a non-MQA version with 20 dollar premium.
Wolf tested a bunch of DACs, many Toppings among them, and couldn't find the issue in any
That's not very informative. E.g. I'd like to have details about the d 30 pro
That sounds like extortion to me but I am not sure who is the victim.I'd actually pay that just to stop MQA getting any of my money!