Topping A50 III Headphone Amp Review

[peng]

They've already discontinued production of the inexpensive 8-channel DAC DM7 due to low sales, even though there's a market for it (see okto dac8 PRO).
The market for such a device would be significantly smaller.

I think it that is true, they should take that "failure" as lesson learn, the concept was fine, but instead of 8 channel they should start with 4 channel (use 2ch DAC IC instead of 8ch ones or use the 8 but implement differential scheme) as that way the cost would have been more acceptable to the die hard 2 channel users (me included obviously)

Top cater for those who want to use something like that to do 8 channel music or HT, it probably should have more flexible connectivity, such as HDMI input as minimum, but then again cost might sky rocket. Yes, any deviation from 2Ch would involve some risk for the company, but..

 

[Roland68]

I think it that is true, they should take that "failure" as lesson learn, the concept was fine, but instead of 8 channel they should start with 4 channel (use 2ch DAC IC instead of 8ch ones or use the 8 but implement differential scheme) as that way the cost would have been more acceptable to the die hard 2 channel users (me included obviously)

Top cater for those who want to use something like that to do 8 channel music or HT, it probably should have more flexible connectivity, such as HDMI input as minimum, but then again cost might sky rocket. Yes, any deviation from 2Ch would involve some risk for the company, but..

The application area of such a device is active loudspeakers/system with Ekio, Acourate etc., e.g. Multi-Channel, Multi-Amplifier Audio System Using Software Crossover and Multichannel-DAC

The remaining applications are so small in number that they are neither significant nor decisive.
The costs would also be only marginally lower for a 4-channel device. The DM7 had an 8-channel DAC chip, which Topping was able to draw on previous developments and those of the manufacturer. Reducing it to 4 channels would reduce the retail price by a maximum of €100 (or less), as only 4 op amps, 4 TRS jacks, and a handful of SMD components would be eliminated, i.e., components with a maximum retail price of €25-30.

The really expensive part of your desired device are the 8 DSP areas, where the components are also expensive, but above all the entire GUI, logic, and programming. This is many times more complex than the DX5 II, and we can see how significant the problems are with this relatively simple device.
The specifications alone for making such a device usable would be a mammoth task, not to mention all the other aspects.
Nothing is impossible, and Topping is doing really good work with the hardware, but given the current situation with the DX5 II, you have to be realistic about a project like this.

Perhaps Topping will manage to assign a filter to each output with the DX5 II, or a future version, and switch the output and filter together. Then you'll be able to get a lot of progress with 2-4 DX5 IIs.

Using the DSP solution with FIR filters mentioned above, you could also build your own customized solution, which is also scalable at any time, but that would, of course, involve a certain amount of effort.

 

[respice finem]

For any manufacturer, it's undesirable when more expensive devices deliver less "stellar" measurements than less expensive ones. But such is life, sometimes.

 

[JanL]

It's extremely unlikely that Topping will bring something like this to market. They've already discontinued production of the inexpensive 8-channel DAC DM7 due to low sales, even though there's a market for it (see okto dac8 PRO).
The market for such a device would be significantly smaller.

The device you describe would be very expensive.
- Low production volume
- Large housing required, significantly increasing costs, including logistics
- 8 separate connection areas
- 8 DSP areas
- 8 DAC areas
- 8 powerful amplifier areas
- 8 volume controls
- Power supply that eliminates mutual interference
- Similar measurement values as the DX5 II
- GUI that allows for operation of everything
- Individually operable areas
- Functional software and firmware

To achieve a halfway acceptable price, which would be significantly higher than €1,000, it would require production volumes similar to those of the DX5 II, which is absolutely unrealistic.
The development costs alone for such a complex device, which would have to be spread across 100, perhaps a few hundred devices, would exceed the price range without a single device being produced.

I was thinking 4 stereo pairs, not 8 pairs. 8 stereo pairs would be a cool recording studio piece to accommodate large bands.
That said, 4 stereo DSP's is just one ARM chip, 4 stereo DACs is one multichannel DAC chip , the volume controls are on the 4 stereo channel DAC and you would need one knob plus selectors, just like they have on the current stereo devices. The only one big difference would be the 4 amps and one beefier power supply. This whole thing would not need to cost 4x something like the DX5 II. There are 8x8 audio interfaces that cost a few hundred dollars.

 

[peng]

The application area of such a device is active loudspeakers/system with Ekio, Acourate etc., e.g. Multi-Channel, Multi-Amplifier Audio System Using Software Crossover and Multichannel-DAC

The remaining applications are so small in number that they are neither significant nor decisive.
The costs would also be only marginally lower for a 4-channel device. The DM7 had an 8-channel DAC chip, which Topping was able to draw on previous developments and those of the manufacturer. Reducing it to 4 channels would reduce the retail price by a maximum of €100 (or less), as only 4 op amps, 4 TRS jacks, and a handful of SMD components would be eliminated, i.e., components with a maximum retail price of €25-30.

The really expensive part of your desired device are the 8 DSP areas, where the components are also expensive, but above all the entire GUI, logic, and programming. This is many times more complex than the DX5 II, and we can see how significant the problems are with this relatively simple device.
The specifications alone for making such a device usable would be a mammoth task, not to mention all the other aspects.
Nothing is impossible, and Topping is doing really good work with the hardware, but given the current situation with the DX5 II, you have to be realistic about a project like this.

Perhaps Topping will manage to assign a filter to each output with the DX5 II, or a future version, and switch the output and filter together. Then you'll be able to get a lot of progress with 2-4 DX5 IIs.

Using the DSP solution with FIR filters mentioned above, you could also build your own customized solution, which is also scalable at any time, but that would, of course, involve a certain amount of effort.

I am aware of the applications in active speaker systems, but imo that might have been the problem, as it seemed somewhat misguided if that's what they were aiming for at the time. They must know their neighbor miniDSP, who almost specialized in that kind of products and might have cornered that sector of the market vs Topping. There are also cheaper alternatives that seems more multi-functional then a plain 8 channel DAC, such as Focusrite and Motu. I almost bought the Motu M4 but decided on the minidsp HT and HTx in the end.

The Motu measured well enough on ASR, and is currently at $260 Amazon.com price, was closer to $200 back when the DM7 would be competing with. Topping might have used a higher end 8 channel DAC IC but the one in the M4 is really good already.

 

[Roland68]

I was thinking 4 stereo pairs, not 8 pairs. 8 stereo pairs would be a cool recording studio piece to accommodate large bands.
That said, 4 stereo DSP's is just one ARM chip, 4 stereo DACs is one multichannel DAC chip , the volume controls are on the 4 stereo channel DAC and you would need one knob plus selectors, just like they have on the current stereo devices. The only one big difference would be the 4 amps and one beefier power supply. This whole thing would not need to cost 4x something like the DX5 II. There are 8x8 audio interfaces that cost a few hundred dollars.

If you believe that the functionality you originally described is so simple and can be implemented so inexpensively, then you should build something like that and offer it.
I believe, also from experience, that such a narrow-gauge concept creates many more problems and effort in development and software than if you do it right from the start. And the measured values will also suffer.

You can see with the DX5 II what cutting corners in the wrong places can do, and the programming and associated costs are probably already much higher than Topping estimated. And currently, there's no end in sight.
A few euros more for a dedicated DSP chip would certainly have been a better and safer option for everyone, even if the device would have been €60-100 more expensive to sell.
With that, Topping could have even added a properly functioning sub out (or two) quite easily and without much additional effort.
Then you would have also had the buyer groups for all 2.1/2.2 systems, as @peng mentioned, and the gamers who could connect additional subwoofers or shakers.
That would have exploded the potential number of units, because that's exactly what's missing in the market.

The DX5 II is already very complex and requires a lot of development, and the problems are undeniable. The asking price is surprisingly low and only works with a high number of units over a longer sales period. With a low number of units, the DX5 II would be twice as expensive or more expensive; just look at similar devices from other manufacturers without DSP.

I know of two similar projects that failed due to the costs and development effort, and the target price in the pro audio sector was several thousand euros.

But that's all off topic now; only time will tell how this market develops.

 

[PenguinMusic]

Why don't you just buy "colored" headphones? There are very few pure neutral headphones on the market, so we need "neutral" headphone amplifiers. In fact, all the so-called "colored" headphone amplifiers you mentioned will not have any "color" as long as they are connected to the QP240. The QP240 is my definition of a standard "cold" headphone.

Hum...
Did I mention headphone amplifiers in my post ?

Checking....

Double checking....

Triple checking...

Nope. I do not see any headphone amplifier mentioned in there

So not sure what your post means (I don't understand it anyways, but that is another story!)

 

[dark132]

Hum...
Did I mention headphone amplifiers in my post ?

Checking....

Double checking....

Triple checking...

Nope. I do not see any headphone amplifier mentioned in there

So not sure what your post means (I don't understand it anyways, but that is another story!)

“
I have owned several Topping headphones amp.
Bought them after reading these reviews from Amirm...”-------What are you checking?

 

[PenguinMusic]

“
I have owned several Topping headphones amp.
Bought them after reading these reviews from Amirm...”-------What are you checking?

It is obvious we're not speaking the same language.
As such any discussion is pointless.
I will leave it there..

Regards.

 

[donjoe0]

So other than for looks/design this will get you 99,99% of perfomance.

A little unfortunate design-wise, I don't know why they thought it was a good idea to make these A50 models this small: the volume knob is uncomfortably small and the unit (my A50s) runs warmer than I'd like despite having a separate power adapter.

Just like DAC's, headphone amps are now a "solved problem", and can be had for <$200.

Nah, there are still problems to solve in this price bracket. The A50s has some glare I can hear up in the sibilance region if I A/B my Hiby FC3 DAC vs. FC3+A50s. The Hiby I've already established has perfectly flat response by looping white noise through it 4 times and seeing no tilt anywhere. If they haven't changed any of the essentials maybe the A50 III has this too.