YO Amir, equalize your levels,Was quite a surprise until I plug the headphone back into the RME, cranked up the volume to similar level and it too produced the same sound. Teaches me not to do sighted tests like this.![]()
YO Amir, equalize your levels,Was quite a surprise until I plug the headphone back into the RME, cranked up the volume to similar level and it too produced the same sound. Teaches me not to do sighted tests like this.![]()
I did not have time to publish above, but this is the Topping Centaurus vs "The R2R star" of the past, the BurrBrown PCM58 in its selected "K" version (most linear), in a Denon DCD-3560 using two of them per channel. This is again a 999.91Hz (undithered) sine tone at -6dBFS:
View attachment 416426
The green trace is the Denon and the red one the Centaurus. Respective THD (without noise) are -99dB and -101dB.
He tested it a few years ago. It did reasonably well considering.Perhaps Amir could loan one of his Levinson DACs to the measurement party? I think he has a No. 360S?
Do you realize that you have invented a new class of audio tweakery?Hi everyone,
I played again with my big Denon as it offers trimming pots for the MSB adjustment of their BB PCM58 DACs. BurrBrown offered up to 4 pots to adjust 4 bits, but the Denon has only two. The feature is undocumented in the Denon's service manual and there's no detailed schema provided either. So I didn't know what these two trimming pots would adjust but I assumed THD at full scale. It was epic to get there as the main board is below the servo board and this adjustment must be done live, with signal.
Anyways, I managed to improve the distorsion of the Denon by a massive 8dB! And so it beats the Centaurus in THD
Here below is the results with an undithered 999.91Hz sine tone @-6dBFS:
View attachment 416780
The red trace is the one of the Denon (PCM58) and the green one behind is that of the Centaurus. You can see the harmonic distortion which is indeed a little higher.
Of course, all of that is at 16bits/44.1kHz, and the Centaurus can process 24bits which the old BB PCM58 can't.
Cheers
Who says "we" aren't? I do. And I'm not the only one here.I'm not sure why we aren't advocating that Topping cease all further development
From what I can glean it's 4 resistor arrays each for PCM and DSD. I am not sure how that results in a 16 bit ladder for PCM.This is the supposed performance of the Schiit using the newest TI R2R chip, again I would love to see it tested here as well! It uses 2 chips per channel, which with meticulous implementation could achieve 21bits of pure R2R... To me the Centaurus looks like it uses 16bit ladders from pictures of the board, but I am no expert in spotting this... Does anyone know if the additional bit depth up to 32bit is achieved by noise shaping and oversampling in the topping or simply truncating the additional bits?View attachment 416918
OK, so all further development of DACs should cease industry wide then. Which designs should stay in production and Which companies should shut their doors or remain open? How many companies should remain in business and how many companies should turn to different industries? Has Topping been alerted they've served their useful purpose and can go away now?Who says "we" aren't? I do. And I'm not the only one here.
No, it's because Topping are incompetent and demonstrate bad engineering. Chasing high performance in measurements, they neglect the basics that constitute the concept of good engineering: safety and reliability, pushing flawed and often unsafe products to market in hopes they will be lucky and the design will turn out to be robust enough to outlast the statutory warranty period, or get away with some damage management measures post-factum, at most. Being located in a jurisdiction with loose enforcement practices, it's been working for them so far.OK, so all further development of DACs should cease industry wide then. Which designs should stay in production and Which companies should shut their doors or remain open? How many companies should remain in business and how many companies should turn to different industries?
Understood about Topping.No, it's because Topping are incompetent and demonstrate bad engineering. Chasing high performance in measurements, they neglect the basics that constitute the concept of good engineering: safety and reliability, pushing flawed and often unsafe products to market in hopes they will be lucky and the design will turn out to be robust enough to outlast the statutory warranty period, or get away with some damage management measures post-factum, at most. Being located in a jurisdiction with loose enforcement practices, it's been working for them so far.
Where? I haven’t trawled 24 pages of this thread but most people just seem bemused about Topping indulging the DAC implementation detail crowd with a product that underperforms their other stuff.A lot of this group sounds absolutely enraged and personally incensed that this product even exists and that there is a market for it.
Someone even suggested putting time and resources towards a better engineered option (ie, delta sigma) even though all modern Topping DACs are already transparent and solved problems. Like Wat
I'm not sure why we aren't advocating that Topping cease all further development and research since there can be nothing gained at this point in the technology of sound reproduction from DACs.
A lot of this group sounds absolutely enraged and personally incensed that this product even exists and that there is a market for it.
Someone even suggested putting time and resources towards a better engineered option (ie, delta sigma) even though all modern Topping DACs are already transparent and solved problems. Like Wat
I'm not sure why we aren't advocating that Topping cease all further development and research since there can be nothing gained at this point in the technology of sound reproduction from DACs.
And I really sad to see flawed and dangerous products being praised and blindly put on a pedestal just for topping measurements. Also look up the definition of defamation and retract your claim, otherwise I will ask the staff to implement respective measures for slandering a fellow member.Really sad to see such sweeping defamatory post about Topping being allowed to stand on ASR.
Because Amir's reviews do not focus on such issues. Amir does not run an electrical safety testing and certification laboratory. This is up to the manufacturer to ensure their products are safe to use and to obtain corresponding certifications, in the absence of which a product is presumed to be unsafe. That's how it works in the civilized parts of the world.I didn’t see a single Topping ASR review done by Amir flagging out equipment safety issues, nor bad engineering.
Each resistor pair represents one bitFrom what I can glean it's 4 resistor arrays each for PCM and DSD. I am not sure how that results in a 16 bit ladder for PCM.