Topping Centaurus R2R DAC Review

[MaxwellsEq]

Neither, and this is the very definition of groupthink, right here. Look up the definition.

If a resistor network is capable of passively decoding a 16/44 signal without any oversampling or noise shaping, and the rest of the product is competently designed, as is the case with the Topping and Denafrips Ares II reviewed here, tell me why a DS implementation for 16/44 is superior.

Quite a lot of people here seem to respect this product, I certainly do. It's impressive!

But to answer your questions
"...If a resistor network is capable of passively decoding a 16/44 signal..." "...and the rest of the product is competently designed..."
This is a very good product. Its shortcomings are almost certainly inaudible. But it does have shortcomings. The SINAD figure is artificially large since that particular measurement focuses on the max output and the lowest distortion and noise (and this DAC does well in these areas). But below max level, things aren't as good as they could be - Inter Modulation Distortion at the levels that music is recorded at is higher than has been achievable for many years and also using cheaper components. I'm sure we probably can't hear this corruption, but its presence is a fact and visible in the graphs.
The challenge is a result of requiring perfectly precise resistors. Such things don't exist. But let's say you find a set of perfect resistors. They'll only be perfect today, by tomorrow they will be slightly less perfect. In a year's time, even less perfect. If your room is cooler in the winter, they will be less perfect; if it's hotter in the summer, they will be less perfect.
This is why manufacturers moved away from resistor-based dividers - too difficult, to do well, consistently over time and temperature, economically.

"...without any oversampling or noise shaping..."
One of the really difficult things with early non-oversampling DACs was building filters that didn't mess-up the frequency response and phase in the audible domain and didn't permit Inter Modulation Distortion in the audible domain thanks to the filter not reducing artefacts above fs/2. Moving to oversampling allowed filters to be effective at cutting artefacts whilst less impactful on phase and frequency response in the audible domain. Eventually, mathematical filters became common. These are considerably better than the analogue filters associated with non-oversampled DACs.

"...tell me why a DS implementation for 16/44 is superior..."
Better linearity, less IMD across all levels, consistent from year-to-year, consistent across multiple temperatures, filters that are both effective and have minimal impact on the audible frequency response and phase.

Hope this helps.

 

[VientoB]

I'd like to say I dont think anyone here thinks this product is rubbish. It's clearly very good. What some are saying is it's kind of pointless doing it this way.

 

[raif71]

I'd like to say I dont think anyone here thinks this product is rubbish. It's clearly very good. What some are saying is it's kind of pointless doing it this way.

Also some are saying that it is good (though I think it's quite expensive) as the point of doing it this way is that it sounds "better" than DS or at least different

 

[keenerz]

I got this yesterday and I installed the latest firmware and it completely borked my I2S pin outs. On the 0.14 it was working perfectly fine, what I get for trying to keep up. Trying to contact Topping still waiting for a reply, hopefully they can fix it or give me the 0.14 firmware again.

 

[Killingbeans]

Because delta sigma DAC's by their very nature are always approximating the waveform (albeit very accurately these days) and resistor ladders (depending on their design limits) are able to fully resolve the waveform instead of just approximating it.

A failure in this "approximation" can only lead to one thing; A higher noise floor. DS DACs have always used tricks to keep the noise floor down, and these days, like you say, they have become extremely good at doing so. As a result they can beat R2R DACs at any metric worth mentioning.

There's nothing left that needs to be "resolved" any further. If you still think otherwise, then please name something specific.

Just because R2R used to be the the most effective solution to reaching certain goals, doesn't mean they are today.

Nothing does anything fully, and R2R DACs are no exception. They have always been a compromise, and in 2024 the compromise just isn't worth it anymore, at least from a technical point of view. However, it's extremely doubtful that the best R2R DACs of today are audibly distinguishable from a cheap DS DAC when compared properly.

Pride of ownership and placebo are, IMO, the only two thing they've got going for them. It just happens to be two of the things that audiophiles are most willing to throw oodles of cash at, and hence we see this puzzling resurgence.

 

[raif71]

I got this yesterday and I installed the latest firmware and it completely borked my I2S pin outs. On the 0.14 it was working perfectly fine, what I get for trying to keep up. Trying to contact Topping still waiting for a reply, hopefully they can fix it or give me the 0.14 firmware again.

Borked in what way?

 

[keenerz]

Borked in what way?

The pinouts seemed to be mixed up, I was able to flip around some of the pins on the DDC to make it work but now it only sees it as DSD when its playing PCM... so there's something really messed up with this firmware.

 

[Angenor]

Also some are saying that it is good (though I think it's quite expensive) as the point of doing it this way is that it sounds "better" than DS or at least different

It passes all tests for inaudibility exept the one for a linear frequency response up to 20 kHz. That might be audible, but why this should be in any sense desirable or sound better is beyond me.

 

[amirm]

That might be audible, but why this should be in any sense desireable or sound better is beyond me.

Some people associate digital's ability to produce flat treble response as a "harshness." The bit of roll off may help these people.

 

[Angenor]

Some people associate digital's ability to produce flat treble response as a "harshness." The bit of roll off may help these people.

Got the point, like saying it rolls of just like the good old vinyl. But it is obvious that this is not an argument made from a high fidelity standpoint.

 

[raif71]

The pinouts seemed to be mixed up, I was able to flip around some of the pins on the DDC to make it work but now it only sees it as DSD when its playing PCM... so there's something really messed up with this firmware.

Yeah, I've got problems with Topping's I2S (D70) pins arrangement trying to connect SMSL po100. Needless to say had to do a hardware mod (nothing fancy) to get it working. The link to the mod (thanks to the people on that particular thread too) https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...tal-interfaces-dac.40483/page-13#post-2054847 . Probably better u wait for Topping's reply cause you said it was working fine before the fw update.

 

[binaryblaze]

96 kHz, 2X OS, "Best" filter

12k J-test

DSD256 test tone generated with SoX-DSD

 

[Kuma]

Essentially there is nothing special about R2R.
Keith

Seems that way,

 

[Sokel]

View attachment 414524
96 kHz, 2X OS, "Best" filter

View attachment 414527
12k J-test

View attachment 414530
DSD256 test tone generated with SoX-DSD

You can try full suite DSD signals (both DoP and native) directly,with Multitone Analyzer,much more handy than using external.

 

[binaryblaze]

You can try full suite DSD signals (both DoP and native) directly,with Multitone Analyzer,much more handy than using external.

Unfortunately I'm a Mac user (Arm) and Multitone Analyzer doesn't work very well running on the Arm64 version of Windows through the x86 emulation layer.

@pkane Would you be able to build for arm64 in the future?

 

[Mnyb]

Are all R2R zealots also Moon hoax believers ?

Is there a world wide conspiracy to make all DAC’s sounding harsh and digital by the way of DS chips .

And only those possessing the esoteric knowledge how DAC really works and that Nyqkvist and Shannon et all started this already by their pesky sample theorems .
Knows the truth

This narrative does not make sense .

Next: lets make terrible transistor amps so no one can enjoy music anymore

 

[NTTY]

View attachment 414524

Thanks for sharing.
Impressive noise floor. So that's all THD driven, which is good to know and not a real surprise.
Can you show the same @-6dBFS and -16dBFS?

 

[Sokel]

Impressive noise floor.

To the point I thought he used cross-correlation averaging or a gazillion of averages,it's the first thing I checked.

 

[Scytales]

View attachment 414524
96 kHz, 2X OS, "Best" filter

View attachment 414527
12k J-test

View attachment 414530
DSD256 test tone generated with SoX-DSD

Could you please specify what is the device you have measured ?

 

[NTTY]

To the point I thought he used cross-correlation averaging or a gazillion of averages,it's the first thing I checked.

The noise calculation in REW's dashboard does not lie, and is independent from FFT capture settings. That's what I usually look at (when people share)