Solid State Logic SSL 2 MKII vs. Topping Pro E2x2 OTG (Audio Interfaces) Comparison Review and Measurements

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Hello jkim

I read your remarks carefully and you mentioned that slightly lowering the level of the digital signal (you said 0.5dBfs) made it possible to 'correct' the mutitone curve to a large extent

How do you proceed in your case ?

 

[jkim]

I read your remarks carefully and you mentioned that slightly lowering the level of the digital signal (you said 0.5dBfs) made it possible to 'correct' the mutitone curve to a large extent

How do you proceed in your case ?

It only solves the full-scale multitone problem. But if a device is affected by the "Cirrus hump" distortion, there's no way to resolve it.

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Hi jkim

I understood that well, but it doesn't tell me how you went about lowering the digital level in your case ?

Regarding the problem with the 'CIRRUS hump', it could perhaps be solved with a new firmware, just as it was the case with certain ESS chips in the past (example the TOPPING DX5).

It seems that there is a list of devices affected (or not) by this 'CIRRUS hump': has anyone tried to determine why (hardware or software) ?

For example, the TOPPING D70 pro octo has 8 CIRRUS LOGIC CS43198 chips and is not affected by the 'CIRRUS HUMP': does TOPPING have the solution ?

 

[ssashton]

Hello ssashton

Where do you see this type of capacitor on the PCB ?...

You can't know by how it looks (although usually, class 1 dielectric has a more white case than class 2 which is more brown, but that is not a guarantee).

It sounds like JKIM knows more about this device than me, who was only making a guess.

 

[jkim]

Hi jkim

I understood that well, but it doesn't tell me how you went about lowering the digital level in your case ?

I believe you don't get what I meant there. The full-scale multitone anomaly can be easily avoided in real audio content by setting digital volume in any device to less than 100%. But any good recording of music should not touch 0 dBFS unless it is extremely compressed. So, it shouldn't be a concern in most cases.

Regarding the problem with the 'CIRRUS hump', it could perhaps be solved with a new firmware, just as it was the case with certain ESS chips in the past (example the TOPPING DX5).

It seems that there is a list of devices affected (or not) by this 'CIRRUS hump': has anyone tried to determine why (hardware or software) ?

For example, the TOPPING D70 pro octo has 8 CIRRUS LOGIC CS43198 chips and is not affected by the 'CIRRUS HUMP': does TOPPING have the solution ?

No solution yet for any of the devices.

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Hi jkim

However, TOPPING seems to have one 'solution' since there is no 'CIRRUS HUMP' in Amirm's review of the D70 PRO octo DAC as you can see

 

[jkim]

However, TOPPING seems to have one 'solution' since there is no 'CIRRUS HUMP' in Amirm's review of the D70 PRO octo DAC as you can see

Amir's reviews do NOT include tests of multitone response at lower levels. AND he has not reviewed the Topping D70 Pro Octo yet. Where did you find the review?

EDIT. you mean this review of Topping D70 Pro Sabre? That's a different model with ESS DAC chips. Anyway, even if he had measured the D70 Pro Octo, he would not have tested for a "Cirrus hump" since his standard measurement package does not include that test.

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

 

[jkim]

You mean the measurements at the Topping website? Whenever you post measurements, please indicate their source.

That multitone test was done at the maximum unclipped level. It cannot show the "Cirrus hump" distortion properly.

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

You're probably right: these measures seem so 'scary' when viewed like that, LOL

I sincerely believe that these days we should be content with what our ears are capable of hearing rather than trying to visualize measurements that have long since become inaudible...

 

[alseick]

I have following:
Apogee Boom
Topping 2x2 OTG
Topping DX5 II
SMSL RAW MDA 1
Babyface RME FS PRO
Audient ID14
Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen4
Behringer UMC202HD
Motu M2
and had SSL2

In practice, Topping 2x2 OTG has definitely its own color, it sounds like you put a compressor over it. Not very dynamic, though it is tight/fast, bass or low mid frequencies seem to be boosted, thicker, cello-like sound. Many of other devices seem to be more neutral to me, whatever neutral is, they sound less distinct.
Actually Topping DX5 II sounds closer to SMSL RAW MDA 1 or Babyface RME FS PRO, very small differences, as if all of them were made by same company, and it is not similar to Topping 2x2 OTG. SSL2 was on bright side.

 

[Julf]

In practice, Topping 2x2 OTG has definitely its own color, it sounds like you put a compressor over it. Not very dynamic, though it is tight/fast, bass or low mid frequencies seem to be boosted, thicker, cello-like sound. Many of other devices seem to be more neutral to me, whatever neutral is, they sound less distinct.
Actually Topping DX5 II sounds closer to SMSL RAW MDA 1 or Babyface RME FS PRO, very small differences, as if all of them were made by same company, and it is not similar to Topping 2x2 OTG. SSL2 was on bright side.

Thank you for your subjective perceptions that might or might not correspond to physical reality. I see you are a new member, so let me suggest they would probably be more favorably received in some of the typical perception- and belief-based audiophile forums rather than here where we favour science.

 

[alseick]

Thank you for your subjective perceptions that might or might not correspond to physical reality. I see you are a new member, so let me suggest they would probably be more favorably received in some of the typical perception- and belief-based audiophile forums rather than here where we favour science.

I don't really care about being favourably received, no worries. Science is a quite broad term which also covers user personal experiences - that is how good vocoders and codecs were designed (for example: ITU-R BS.1534), hopefully they still teach this at universities.
I suspect you wanted to say you prefer to focus on measurements, which may or may not reflect actual, real experience, right? I am engineer myself so I understand the desire for measurements and being as objective as possible but I also understand that sometimes it is not easy to capture everything on data. Actual audio can be represented in many dimensions, using many statistics (which are not that easy to interpret, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datasaurus_dozen) and it is unfortunately always kind of play between output and speaker/headphone due to impedance.

 

[Julf]

I don't really care about being favourably received, no worries.

That is pretty much "I don't care what the rest of the forum users think".

Science is a quite broad term which also covers user personal experiences - that is how good vocoders and codecs were designed (for example: ITU-R BS.1534), hopefully they still teach this at universities.
I suspect you wanted to say you prefer to focus on measurements, which may or may not reflect actual, real experience, right? CHeers

Indeed. I am definitely a supporter of BS.1534, and proper, level-matched double blind listening tests are the gold standard. Measurements are just tools (albeit very useful ones - that is why even master woodworkers and builders use measuring tapes and spirit levels instead of just relying on their eyes).

Subjective perceptions, especially if they are used to determine if a difference is audible or not, are very welcome here, but be prepared to explain your test setup, how you matched levels, how you ensured it was double blind etc.

Did you follow BS.1534 to arrive at your observations you posted here?

 

[xanalog]

I had high hopes for SSL 2 MKII because it adopts the ES9821 ADC chipset which is ESS's relatively new ADC solution.

I think the ES9823Pro / ES0843PRO ADC family is the latest/greatest on the ESS current road map, w/some serious creds.
The ES9823 ADC may even be drop-in replacement for the older ES9821.

My searches have not unearthed any reasonably priced (<$400) ADC hardware using the ES9823/43PRO yet... if they exist.

 

[MastahG]

Thank you for your subjective perceptions that might or might not correspond to physical reality. I see you are a new member, so let me suggest they would probably be more favorably received in some of the typical perception- and belief-based audiophile forums rather than here where we favour science.

I´m also Team "Trust my ears"
But i am super thankful that we have the People here, who do real measurements to trust.

Can this phenomen be analyzed from a paper? So we already see the frequency response of the e2x2 is very flat and it shouldn´t change or color the sound.
That audio sounds "Compressed" or "distorted" like i wrote in a another thread for another card, can this be analyzed by measurements?

 

[Julf]

I´m also Team "Trust my ears"

"Trust but verify"

Can this phenomen be analyzed from a paper? So we already see the frequency response of the e2x2 is very flat and it shouldn´t change or color the sound.
That audio sounds "Compressed" or "distorted" like i wrote in a another thread for another card, can this be analyzed by measurements?

If there is a real difference, it can definitely be measured - but the first step is verifying the difference really is there, by proper double-blind listening tests.