Topping Centaurus R2R

[Deleted member 81041]

I gave it a blind buy cause I am insane and/or curious, I locked it in at that initial price from what I heard from Apos told me, "Topping realized they made a mistake with the cost of the Centaurus and has since raised the price." From talking to them to see if they are going to change my price.

I am in the same mindset... insanely curious.

 

[Coverpage]

It’ll be great if the thread can converge back into the conversation around this DAC. Rather than a generic argument about whether DACs sounding the same.

 

[BDWoody]

It’ll be great if the thread can converge back into the conversation around this DAC. Rather than a generic argument about whether DACs sounding the same.

Just moved a few posts. Back on topic please.

 

[prerich]

I hate PCs for a hifi system personally because I don’t want a loud fan going on at the same time while listening in the background much less saving a bit of energy. I know I’m probably the minority though.

Can't hear my radiator fans from my listening position (water cooled). I also run three Noctua 200mmx30mm fans to keep my Prepro and amps cool

 

[caocaolatre199x]

One thing I don't understand is that Topping, SMSL etc. seem to stick with the QCC5125 BT SoC for years...

This chip is still very good and has the most fashionable codecs today are LDAC and aptX Adaptive. For aptX Adaptive, they need to register it with Qualcomm for a license to use. It seems that due to costs of costs, aptX Adaptive has not been added. But LDAC is more than enough. What good should not replace or repair.

 

[binaryblaze]

This chip is still very good and has the most fashionable codecs today are LDAC and aptX Adaptive. For aptX Adaptive, they need to register it with Qualcomm for a license to use. It seems that due to costs of costs, aptX Adaptive has not been added. But LDAC is more than enough. What good should not replace or repair.

I guess for a sink QCC5125 is enough, since you have LDAC anyways, but having the latest SoC with aptX lossless would be nice. Gen 2 has 16/44.1 lossless and I think Gen 3 has 24/48 now

 

[boXem]

But LDAC is more than enough.

LDAC sink requires a licence too.

 

[unpluggged]

LDAC sink requires a licence too.

Moreover, the QCC receiver does not decode it natively. Qudelix developed the LDAC decoder implementation for the Kalimba DSP.

 

[caocaolatre199x]

LDAC sink requires a licence too.

LDAC is an open source, it is added to all Android devices since Android 8. That is, it can completely use it for free. Even with extremely cheap devices with only $50 without brand name sold on Aliexpress also supports LDAC. These devices do not have any license from Sony, it only needs a compatible hardware. LDAC is free, but if they want, manufactures can apply for a wireless Hires license to increase the reliability of the device. However, this is not required. This may increase unnecessary production costs. As for aptX Adaptive, even if you have a fully compatible hardware, but if you do not apply for a license from Qualcomm, you will not be able to use them. QCC5125 supports aptX Adaptive, but on most DACs currently equipped with this chip cannot use aptX Adaptive because it is simply not certified from Qualcomm.

 

[boXem]

LDAC is an open source, it is added to all Android devices since Android 8. That is, it can completely use it for free. Even with extremely cheap devices with only $50 without brand name sold on Aliexpress also supports LDAC. These devices do not have any license from Sony, it only needs a compatible hardware. LDAC is free, but if they want, manufactures can apply for a wireless Hires license to increase the reliability of the device. However, this is not required. This may increase unnecessary production costs. As for aptX Adaptive, even if you have a fully compatible hardware, but if you do not apply for a license from Qualcomm, you will not be able to use them. QCC5125 supports aptX Adaptive, but on most DACs currently equipped with this chip cannot use aptX Adaptive because it is simply not certified from Qualcomm.

Keyword was 'sink'.

 

[unpluggged]

LDAC is an open source

Only the encoder.

 

[caocaolatre199x]

Keyword was 'sink'.

?

Only the encoder.

Any manufacturer only needs to buy a QCC5125 module sold a lot online. And they had LDAC. But they cannot do that with aptX Adaptive.

 

[unpluggged]

Any manufacturer only needs to buy a QCC5125 module sold a lot online.

And to pay for LDAC license to get the decoder.

And they had LDAC

Who are "they"? The modules or the manufacturers? The module does not have a hardware LDAC decoder (that largely explains why LDAC is such a hit on battery life for these BT receivers). So I guess they just pirate the software decoder library that Qudelix has developed for the Kalimba DSP core without paying for a license. Not too surprising for that area of the globe, TBH.

 

[boXem]

Any manufacturer only needs to buy a QCC5125 module sold a lot online.

Per the famous saying "if it's online, it's legal".

 

[caocaolatre199x]

And to pay for LDAC license to get the decoder.


Who are "they"? The modules or the manufacturers? The module does not have a hardware LDAC decoder (that largely explains why LDAC is such a hit on battery life for these BT receivers). So I guess they just pirate the software decoder library that Qudelix has developed for the Kalimba DSP core without paying for a license. Not too surprising for that area of the globe, TBH.

They have no names. I don't know who they are. They may be anyone on Aliexpress, or maybe just a personal love DIY. The Kalimba you mentioned belongs to CSR, is an old technology and has been acquired by Qualcomm. Currently CSR's technologies are still being applied in QCC51XX chips. I don't know what the hardware decoding you are, but I think Qualcomm is probably the best option until now. Almost all manufacturers choose Qualcomm QCC. Even the most expensive True Wireless headphones use Qualcomm's chipset with Snapdragon Sound and APTX Adaptive. And the Qudelix you mentioned, their 5K even uses QCC5124, is a lower version of 5125. Are you confused?

And to pay for LDAC license to get the decoder.


Who are "they"? The modules or the manufacturers? The module does not have a hardware LDAC decoder (that largely explains why LDAC is such a hit on battery life for these BT receivers). So I guess they just pirate the software decoder library that Qudelix has developed for the Kalimba DSP core without paying for a license. Not too surprising for that area of the globe, TBH.

You may not need to contact Sony but you can still have LDAC in your product. As for APTX Adaptive, you cannot have it if you don't contact Qualcomm. Of course, for companies like Topping, they must apply for a full license to sell it legally.

 

[unpluggged]

They have no names. I don't know who they are.

I asked whom were you referring to.

They may be anyone on Aliexpress, or maybe just a personal love DIY

OK, so pirates, clear.

The Kalimba you mentioned belongs to CSR

So?

is an old technology

So "old" that it's still the software architecture being used in the Qualcomm BT SoC DSPs?

I don't know what the hardware decoding you are, but I think Qualcomm is probably the best option until now. Almost all manufacturers choose Qualcomm QCC. Even the most expensive True Wireless headphones use Qualcomm's chipset with Snapdragon Sound and APTX Adaptive.

What is this all about?

And the Qudelix you mentioned, their 5K even uses QCC5124, is a lower version of 5125. Are you confused?

If anyone here seems to be confused, it is you. The QCC5124 is not "a lower" version, it's the other way around: the QCC5125 is a cutdown version of the QCC5124.

And yes, of course the 5K uses the QCC5124, that's why Qudelix had to develop their LDAC decoder in-house in the first place and submit it to Sony: https://www.qudelix.com/blogs/5k-dac-amp/sony-ldac

You may not need to contact Sony but you can still have LDAC in your product.

You may not need to perform Windows activation but still get Windows ISO from torrents and have Windows installed on your PC (and it will even work). This has nothing to do with proper licensed use, though.

And no, you need to contact Sony (from here):

As for APTX Adaptive, you cannot have it if you don't contact Qualcomm. Of course, for companies like Topping, they must apply for a full license to sell it legally.

So why wouldn't they apply for it? Why the aforementioned Qudelix 5K has no issues with supporting aptX Adaptive?

 

[caocaolatre199x]

I asked whom were you referring to.


OK, so pirates, clear.


So?


So "old" that it's still the software architecture being used in the Qualcomm BT SoC DSPs?


What is this all about?


If anyone here seems to be confused, it is you. The QCC5124 is not "a lower" version, it's the other way around: the QCC5125 is a cutdown version of the QCC5124.

And yes, of course the 5K uses the QCC5124, that's why Qudelix had to develop their LDAC decoder in-house in the first place and submit it to Sony: https://www.qudelix.com/blogs/5k-dac-amp/sony-ldac


You may not need to perform Windows activation but still get Windows ISO from torrents and have Windows installed on your PC (and it will even work). This has nothing to do with proper licensed use, though.

And no, you need to contact Sony (from here):

View attachment 413934

So why wouldn't they apply for it? Why the aforementioned Qudelix 5K has no issues with supporting aptX Adaptive?

Okay I was wrong to think that QCC5124 is a lower version of 5125. It is true that the opposite. But all the rest you are being a contradictory person. The link that you send to me does not prove anything. It is just the advertising of the manufacturer. My computer and the DAC Rod Rain Audio can provide LDAC bit speed in real time and use the highest LDAC bit speed. Because all of these are included in QCC51XX. As for the latency, you do not play games on a Topping DAC $1000 so do you need low latency? This is similar to the fact that there are many DAC chips on the market from ESS, AKM, Cirrus Logic, Texas Instrument but why does Chord have to use an FPGA chip from Xilinx to make the DAC and have to develop its own software for it? Does that prove that the available DAC chips from ESS or AKM are of low quality? No no no. Not at all. Don't mix concepts. Manufacturers do that because they simply want to. As I said, LDAC is popular, compatible with many devices and enough for most of the needs of everyone. And most manufacturers will not apply for APTX Adaptive licensing to save costs. For high quality desktop DACs, bluetooth is not their main selling point. Most manufacturers just integrate bluetooth at a level that is good enough for everyone. And LDAC does its job just fine. Why would they pay extra for aptx adaptive? You can see the list of certified equipment of Qualcomm. Qudelix has aptX Adaptive means they have applied for certification from Qualcomm. I said so from the beginning.

Products | aptX

www.aptx.com

 

[unpluggged]

But all the rest you are being a contradictory person.

Are you confused?

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from arguments ad hominem of this kind.

Because all of these are included in QCC51XX

Show me a spec sheet of a QCC51XX where it says it is included or even mentions it. You cannot, because Qualcomm does not offer native LDAC support in its BT SoCs.

As for the latency, you do not play games on a Topping DAC $1000

No, because a) I don't have a Topping DAC (all the more so for such price); b) you can't play games on a DAC.

do you need low latency?

What are you talking about? Where did we discuss latency? Or is it an abstract question?

why does Chord have to use an FPGA chip from Xilinx to make the DAC and have to develop its own software for it?

What are you talking about? Who said Chord does have or even mentioned Chord here?

Does that prove that the available DAC chips from ESS or AKM are of low quality? Not at all.

Where did I say that or mentioned any DAC in the context of this discussion?

Don't mix concepts.

Don't gaslight me.

As I said, LDAC is popular, compatible with many devices and enough for most of the needs of everyone.

??
What is the point you are trying to prove? Where did I state otherwise?

And most manufacturers will not apply for APTX Adaptive licensing to save costs

Again, what does this unfounded statement have to do with your initial argument that LDAC 1) is open-source and royalty-free; 2) is natively implemented in Qualcomm's BT SoCs?

You can see the list of certified equipment of Qualcomm

Similarly, you can see the list of licensed and certified (as per the published procedure) manufacturers for LDAC. And you would be surprised to see there the likes of Topping, Fiio, SMSL, Shanling, Cayin, and HiBy.

Qudelix has aptX Adaptive means they have applied for certification from Qualcomm.

Bingo.

I said so from the beginning.

Where?

Do you have any problems with reading comprehension?

I will just note that you had to resort to at least four personal attacks. Very well.

 

[Jimbob54]

Do you have any problems with reading comprehension?

I can't speak for anybody else but your demeanor and posting style is giving me a headache.

Slow down, be respectful and perhaps not so abrasive please.

 

[caocaolatre199x]

Show me a spec sheet of a QCC51XX where it says it is included or even mentions it. You cannot, because Qualcomm does not offer native LDAC support in its BT SoCs.

I can easily buy a motherboard like this on Aliexpress. and it has LDAC working. do you think these are branded and does Sony make a dime from this?

What are you talking about? Where did we discuss latency? Or is it an abstract question?

Didn't you even bother to read what qudelix wrote in the link you sent? haha

Again, what does this unfounded statement have to do with your initial argument that LDAC 1) is open-source and royalty-free; 2) is natively implemented in Qualcomm's BT SoCs?

If LDAC is not open source. do you think a company like Qudelix has the right to develop their own custom version of LDAC? do you see any company other than Microsoft releasing custom windows? Do you see anyone customizing iOS other than Apple? that would be awesome.

Similarly, you can see the list of licensed and certified (as per the published procedure) manufacturers for LDAC. And you would be surprised to see there the likes of Topping, Fiio, SMSL, Shanling, Cayin, and HiBy.

I can find you on Qualcomm certified list that includes Qudelix. Can you find on Sony list names like Akaliam, rod rain audio, leaf audio? Can you find a company that is not on Qualcomm certified list but their products have aptx adaptive?

What are you talking about? Who said Chord does have or even mentioned Chord here?

Where did I say that or mentioned any DAC in the context of this discussion?

You say QCC chip is not good enough. Qudelix developed their own ldac. this is like when Chord developed their own DAC based on FPGA. and Chord fans go and tell the world that all DAC chips from companies like ESS, AKM are garbage?