• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Topping Centaurus R2R DAC Review

Rate this R2R DAC:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 27 8.4%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 72 22.5%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 158 49.4%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 63 19.7%

  • Total voters
    320
If they are lighter, how then they are able to displace them? (And even if so, how a less dense gas medium can have higher speed of sound?) Relative air humidity is a measure of partial pressure of water vapor in the air; the speed of sound is a function of total air pressure, which already accounts for all the partial pressure components from all gases that compose the air, including dihydrogen monoxide.
You need to understand how gases work. Ideal gases always have the same number of molecules in a given volume at a given pressure. You learn about it in first year chemistry at university.
 
You learn about it in first year chemistry at university.
Perhaps this is the quirk here: thermodynamics is a discipline of physics, not of chemistry.
 
I run my d90se in 5.2 volt mode rather than the default 4 volt output, and I find the subjective performance to be audibly better in my current setup (although I have no measurements to support this). I wonder how this unit would have performed on the bench if @amirm had tested it in 5 volt mode? I wouldn’t expect it to have much influence on the other benchmarks but could it have an impact on SINAD?
 
R2R had a poor domestic audiophile reputation at the start. The earliest non-oversampling CD players were R2R and critics called them bright, shrill, gritty, glassy, shouty, lacking in bass etc.

Now, according to audiophiles, these bright, gritty DACs are smooth and "analogue". So, "audiophile status" is valueless.
Can't agree with you more. Many people believe the bright, shrill sound is higher resolution, more musical information, just like a low quality picture has been sharpened.
 
Can't agree with you more. Many people believe the bright, shrill sound is higher resolution, more musical information, just like a low quality picture has been sharpened.
I think the reason people found them bright and shrill was they were used to vinyl which is less bright and has pleasing distortions. There wasn't much wrong with those early CD players I would argue. You'd need to listen to them now to know for sure, rather than go by what some people said 40 years ago.
 
"The earliest non-oversampling CD players were R2R and critics called them bright, shrill, gritty, glassy, shouty,"
You mean the earliest Japanese NON-oversampling DACs? Perhaps it is a fair accusation. But the early Philips (TDA1540) and its TDA1541 successor certainly could not be accused of such traits. If anything, they sounded a bit rounded and veiled in comparison. But even those Japanese R2R DACs had come along way only half a decade later, and they sounded on the whole quite respectable. Technology has come a long way since, and as evidenced by this review, R2R implementations are arguably the best they have ever been...
Related (missing from this thread it seems).
When comparing to "old" CD players, often missing from these threads is amplification and sound source (headphones, speakers, etc.). Amplifiers, speakers and headphones have also come along way and they have just as much, if not more, chance of affecting that sound.

Maybe if you played that old CD player in similar vintage amplifier/speaker you could make a "rough" qualitative statement.

I think the statement disclaimer "everything else being equal" is appropriate but you will never get that equality when talking about some old component (that "old" CD player).

Adding a new 2025 amplifier has given an entire "new" detailed sound to my 1998 R2R CD player. So no it ain't the DAC. And no, all DACs DO NOT sound the same. Your measurements be damned.
 
Last edited:
And no, all DACs DO NOT sound the same. Your measurements be damned.
No one says they do.

You missed the important qualification - "transparent measuring DACs"
 
No one says they do.

You missed the important qualification - "transparent measuring DACs"
I see that quote (all sound the same) all over this forum.
 
Seems to me like you're on the wrong forum - take this BS somewhere else.
Its a pleasure to meet you as well. You sure there is not something else you are addicted to?
 
I see that quote (all sound the same) all over this forum.
Not from people who know what they are talking about - unless they miss the qualification as a shortcut - but then it is normally obvious from the context.

Even our "catchall" thread has the qualification - right there in the title.

 
Not from people who know what they are talking about - unless they miss the qualification as a shortcut - but then it is normally obvious from the context.

Even our "catchall" thread has the qualification - right there in the title.


yes I know.

But when citing 90s vintage component performance., I doubt those measurements are accessible if even available.

But ok, if it makes you feel better, you "schooled" me.

Its called "context" which appears you have missed on my OP
 
yes I know.

But when citing 90s vintage component performance., I doubt those measurements are accessible if even available.

But ok, if it makes you feel better, you "schooled" me.

Its called "context" which appears you have missed on my OP
Ah. - so you were missing the qualification and hoping it was obvious from the context?

It wasn't.

Plus - when you are throwing strawmen around, it is important to be precise.
 
Just read through the thread that pre-dates this one on the Holo Spring 3


Given some of the posts in that thread, that Topping did the Centaurus with the Holo R2R module makes one wonder as to why. Esp if DS is supposed to be me so much better.
 
Ah. - so you were missing the qualification and hoping it was obvious from the context?

It wasn't.

Plus - when you are throwing strawmen around, it is important to be precise.
Sure, as precise as you be in three lines (average) of a forum post.

Though I do expect some some degree of nuance and impliciation. But the assumption may be a stretch and not all can make that jump I suppose. The hazards of internet forums I suppose.
 
Back
Top Bottom