Sound Mode: Off, Valve or Transistor

[Richx200]

Just bought a Topping D70 Pro Sabre, one of the sound mode settings; "Valve or Transistor" is available.

Would someone be kind enough to explain what these setting do?

Thank you

 

[NTK]

Just with some added harmonic distortions. Doubtful if there will be significant differences. With the "valve mode", the 2nd harmonic (H2) is at -50 dB, H3 is -100 dB. At worst just barely audible with test tones. "Transistor mode" H2 is -70 dB and H3 is -90 dB, should be below audibility.

 

[Richx200]

Just with some added harmonic distortions. Doubtful if there will be significant differences. With the "valve mode", the 2nd harmonic (H2) is at -50 dB, H3 is -100 dB. At worst just barely audible with test tones. "Transistor mode" H2 is -70 dB and H3 is -90 dB, should be below audibility.

What's the point of having valve or transistor mode if you can't hear them?

 

[NTK]

What's the point of having valve or transistor mode if you can't hear them?

I can only speculate -- for marketing reason -- trying to differentiate a basically commodity product from the dozens other DAC's by Topping and its competitors?

 

[Apesbrain]

Why would you choose to add distortion?

 

[somebodyelse]

Why would you choose to add distortion?

Some people claim to prefer it. In that respect it's little different to changing EQ based on preference rather than measured correction.

It's also used in phones and small speakers to give the feeling of more bass using the missing fundamental effect when they can't reproduce the fundamental directly.

 

[mhardy6647]

What's the point of having valve or transistor mode if you can't hear them?

Something about trees falling in the forest -- or perhaps accuracy of reproduction of the waveform of the sound of one hand clapping?

 

[Richx200]

I can only speculate -- for marketing reason -- trying to differentiate a basically commodity product from the dozens other DAC's by Topping and its competitors,

I think I posted this in the wrong section, I should've searched and posted it in the review where there seems to be a lot of posts and opinions like the link attached, and one response copied below. There are two pages of posts and replies with all kinds opinions now I'm totally lost. I'll just have to, listen to a few hours of each mode and see what happens, even if I don't understand what is happening; why distort the harmonics to get a different sounding Timbre. How does distortion make the Timbre sound better or different/better? Also, does filtering have any effect on the outcome or the music?

It looks like Topping uses this sound mode in several of their products, and what it does is all over the place.

Topping D90LE - "Valve" and "Transistor" effects measurements

As long as you don't need MQA, why not ? The D90LE is identical to the D90SE, but without MQA, if I understood correctly. was talking about the Distort app.

www.audiosciencereview.com

Gorgonzola​

The the debate on some subjectivist audiophile sites is whether 2nd & 3rd order distortion at levels seen here in 'Valve' and 'Transistor' modes is (a) somehow audible per se, or (b) these levels affect sound only by '"masking" nasty, higher order harmonics. Those of the former opinion cite findings, (I don't say fact), that 2nd order distortion is inaudible below 2-3%.

In case of the D90LE, distortion & noise are very low apart, and that includes higher order harmonics, from the 2nd & 3rd order purposely introduced. Thus using the D90LE's facilities a (subjectivist) audiophile might go some ways towards resolving this question, at least to his/her own satisfaction. Although, of course, up and downstream components had better be low distortion as well.

My money, (at short odds), would be on experienced, critical audiophiles hearing some effect from 2nd and/or 3rd order at the levels produced by the D90LE. This might or might not be provable with blind ABX testing.

 

[mhardy6647]

I'm going to hold out until they add a "MOSFET" voice option, too!

 

[NTK]

I think I posted this in the wrong section, I should've searched and posted it in the review where there seems to be a lot of posts and opinions like the link attached, and one response copied below. There are two pages of posts and replies with all kinds opinions now I'm totally lost. I'll just have to, listen to a few hours of each mode and see what happens, even if I don't understand what is happening; why distort the harmonics to get a different sounding Timbre. How does distortion make the Timbre sound better or different/better? Also, does filtering have any effect on the outcome or the music?

It looks like Topping uses this sound mode in several of their products, and what it does is all over the place.

Topping D90LE - "Valve" and "Transistor" effects measurements

As long as you don't need MQA, why not ? The D90LE is identical to the D90SE, but without MQA, if I understood correctly. was talking about the Distort app.

www.audiosciencereview.com

Gorgonzola​

The the debate on some subjectivist audiophile sites is whether 2nd & 3rd order distortion at levels seen here in 'Valve' and 'Transistor' modes is (a) somehow audible per se, or (b) these levels affect sound only by '"masking" nasty, higher order harmonics. Those of the former opinion cite findings, (I don't say fact), that 2nd order distortion is inaudible below 2-3%.

In case of the D90LE, distortion & noise are very low apart, and that includes higher order harmonics, from the 2nd & 3rd order purposely introduced. Thus using the D90LE's facilities a (subjectivist) audiophile might go some ways towards resolving this question, at least to his/her own satisfaction. Although, of course, up and downstream components had better be low distortion as well.

My money, (at short odds), would be on experienced, critical audiophiles hearing some effect from 2nd and/or 3rd order at the levels produced by the D90LE. This might or might not be provable with blind ABX testing.

This, unfortunately, is the tactic used by audio companies to trigger your FOMO (fear of missing out). In this case Topping is offering this special "feature" that they make you think it may "enhance" your listening enjoyment, without providing any proof or logical/scientific reasons as to why. They want you to try it out, knowing full well that during casual comparisons, with all kinds of perceptual biases in action, anything (and often those that are advantageous to Topping) can happen. By getting their gear into your house, they've won 3/4 of the battle, as you already have invested time and effort.

Other more unscrupulous manufacturers will try to lead you to believe, with conventional gear (i.e. those that are "only" based on technologies that are found in all standard textbooks, taught in universities, and are used everywhere else outside of "high end audio"), there is always something left behind in the source material, waiting to be freed. And their secret sauce they put into their gear can do exactly that. It is interesting, after decades of lifting veils, they can still keep finding more layers to be lifted, timed to match their product release schedule.

The truth of the matter is that, with two channel recordings [also see note below], it is far from being able to fully or accurately reproduce the spatial quality of the original sound. If you want to have "better" sounding reproduction of 2-channel recordings, just forget the audiophile myth of "ruining" or "contaminating" the purity of the source -- enhance the hell out of 2 channel stuff with digital signal processing.

There are two effective means of enhancement. First is up-mix to multi-channel. The other is cross-talk cancellation. Neither will work perfectly, and some recordings work better than others.

Up-mixing will require a multi-channel (home theatre) setup. The advantage is that it naturally can also reproduce native multi-channel recordings and movies, and it works when there are more than one listeners.

Cross-talk cancellation requires only two speakers, and can be more practical, but it is for one listener only in the sweet spot. The current SOTA implementation is BACCH (you can check out the TAS review).

Both solutions can be quite costly (the minimalist implementation of u-BACCH is USD $1k, and BACCH4Mac Audiophile starts at USD $5k), and multi-channel can also be impractical and cumbersome when you need to put many more speakers in the room and in the right places.


Note:
The often counter arguments is that humans have 2 ears and therefore 2 channels are sufficient. That may be true for binaural audio. But listening to 2 speakers in front of you in a room is far from binaural audio. The sound field generated by 2 sources (speakers) in front of you in a room is totally different from the one by multiple instruments and singer(s) spread out in front of you in a venue.

The basis of binaural audio is that, if you can reproduce the soundwaves hitting your eardrums accurately (when compared to those from the original event), you'll have an accurate reproduction. That is true, but the logistics required are far from trivial. First, you'll have to record the sound waves hitting the eardrums during the original event. Since human anatomies vary greatly from individual to individual, being able to produce recordings matching those at the eardrums of a large number of people is not possible. Any adaptations (e.g. EQ) will require careful personalized measurements of each individual. Same problems with the reproduction of the soundwaves to match those that hit the eardrums. Soundwaves reproduced by speakers are modified by the room and our HRTF (head related transfer function), and for headphones, HpTF (headphone transfer function). Both of which are highly individualized, and therefore the reproduction will also need to be adapted to the individual.

The above also left out the problem of head movements. We move our heads while we listen, whether we are conscious of it or not. The above method does not include any accommodations for head movements.

 

[mhardy6647]

It is interesting, after decades of lifting veils, they can still keep finding more layers to be lifted, timed to match their product release schedule.

It's like peeling an onion -- or an ogre, in the case of Shrek.

 

[Richx200]

This, unfortunately, is the tactic used by audio companies to trigger your FOMO (fear of missing out). In this case Topping is offering this special "feature" that they make you think it may "enhance" your listening enjoyment, without providing any proof or logical/scientific reasons as to why. They want you to try it out, knowing full well that during casual comparisons, with all kinds of perceptual biases in action, anything (and often those that are advantageous to Topping) can happen. By getting their gear into your house, they've won 3/4 of the battle, as you already have invested time and effort.

Other more unscrupulous manufacturers will try to lead you to believe, with conventional gear (i.e. those that are "only" based on technologies that are found in all standard textbooks, taught in universities, and are used everywhere else outside of "high end audio"), there is always something left behind in the source material, waiting to be freed. And their secret sauce they put into their gear can do exactly that. It is interesting, after decades of lifting veils, they can still keep finding more layers to be lifted, timed to match their product release schedule.

The truth of the matter is that, with two channel recordings [also see note below], it is far from being able to fully or accurately reproduce the spatial quality of the original sound. If you want to have "better" sounding reproduction of 2-channel recordings, just forget the audiophile myth of "ruining" or "contaminating" the purity of the source -- enhance the hell out of 2 channel stuff with digital signal processing.

There are two effective means of enhancement. First is up-mix to multi-channel. The other is cross-talk cancellation. Neither will work perfectly, and some recordings work better than others.

Up-mixing will require a multi-channel (home theatre) setup. The advantage is that it naturally can also reproduce native multi-channel recordings and movies, and it works when there are more than one listeners.

Cross-talk cancellation requires only two speakers, and can be more practical, but it is for one listener only in the sweet spot. The current SOTA implementation is BACCH (you can check out the TAS review).

Both solutions can be quite costly (the minimalist implementation of u-BACCH is USD $1k, and BACCH4Mac Audiophile starts at USD $5k), and multi-channel can also be impractical and cumbersome when you need to put many more speakers in the room and in the right places.


Note:
The often counter arguments is that humans have 2 ears and therefore 2 channels are sufficient. That may be true for binaural audio. But listening to 2 speakers in front of you in a room is far from binaural audio. The sound field generated by 2 sources (speakers) in front of you in a room is totally different from the one by multiple instruments and singer(s) spread out in front of you in a venue.

The basis of binaural audio is that, if you can reproduce the soundwaves hitting your eardrums accurately (when compared to those from the original event), you'll have an accurate reproduction. That is true, but the logistics required are far from trivial. First, you'll have to record the sound waves hitting the eardrums during the original event. Since human anatomies vary greatly from individual to individual, being able to produce recordings matching those at the eardrums of a large number of people is not possible. Any adaptations (e.g. EQ) will require careful personalized measurements of each individual. Same problems with the reproduction of the soundwaves to match those that hit the eardrums. Soundwaves reproduced by speakers are modified by the room and our HRTF (head related transfer function), and for headphones, HpTF (headphone transfer function). Both of which are highly individualized, and therefore the reproduction will also need to be adapted to the individual.

The above also left out the problem of head movements. We move our heads while we listen, whether we are conscious of it or not. The above method does not include any accommodations for head movements.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

But, I didn't get the Topping D70 Sabre for its gimmicks or ability to change the music in any way, I just ran across the Sound Mode setting and was curious. I got it because of the reviews I read here and elsewhere about the unit's ability to present the music accurately; timbre, detail, stage etc. So far the D70 is getting the job done, The D70 replaced my Matrix Element I that sounded good but not as good as the D70. All I want from my system is to present the music or movie the way I remember it from the 50s to today, without the smoke and mirrors.

I'm still working on the 2" speaker transistor radio. Just kidding