Topping D30Pro Review (Balanced DAC)

[Labjr]

It looks like it might use 1/4" trs to xlr in the picture. I have not seen anything like this before. If it's a good why option why don't we see other companies using this type of output?

I'd rather have XLR than have to use an adapter. But at least it's not some proprietary part like the new Khadas DAC.

 

[Rottmannash]

As a sneak peak, you could get some of the Monoprice RCA --> XLR cables which should cost you about 34 dB less... I don't generally trust the combination of 3-pin IEC power jack and RCA inputs (as seen on the SP200) very much. Do you hear any ground loop noises when turning up the volume?

I don't think most people need a DAC in this class - just for listening, you could probably spend 6 dB less for a Schiit Modius or similar or ~10 dB less for a trusty Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 Gen3 and be just as happy, just as long as it's got balanced out and performs at least decently with some half-decent output level, so maybe not a Behringer UMC202HD. (Topping's upcoming little DAC would be more than fine, too.) I mean, you've got a volume control in the signal path, so even your worst-case dynamic range required may only be on the order of 110 dB, and probably 100 tops at normal volumes. DR requirements for a pure line-level DAC just aren't all that severe, otherwise people wouldn't have been happy with CD players.

If you buy a DAC that performs like the D30 Pro, you'll do it because it's darn good and you have the money. You can still do better on features and flexibility (various nifty RME ADI-2 DAC FS functions come to mind, if at like +8 dB on the price tag), but certainly not on converter performance per se.


Wouldn't be the first time. If you want to get super low noise out of it, your output stage has to work pretty hard, which is detrimental to distortion performance, and maxing out both may require some extreme measures. The folks who design the analog stages in these chips have my utmost respect.

Might not be the worst idea, I'm most of the way there anyway. I was already considering the AK4490. Give it some time, this took up a substantial part of my day as-is.

I'd like to ask a question of those of you who are far more eloquent and knowledgeable: I have had a couple not-so-pleasant disagreements on 2 forums (not this one) regarding the debate between measurements and sound quality with DACs. In one case the reviewer stated the Topping E30 just didn't sound that good and he wouldn't recommend it. I pointed out it measured very well and that it sounded fine in my system. He responded stating, and I am paraphrasing-it's not just the DAC chips and implementation, it's the analog output stage-that has the most to do with final sound quality. Of course I disagreed but couldn't say anything as I don't understand the electronics or implementation in output stages. Can anyone enlighten me? Is the analog output stage responsible for amplifying the DAC signal to the RCA and XLR outs?

 

[Atanasi]

It looks like it might use 1/4" trs to xlr in the picture. I have not seen anything like this before.

1/4" TRS as a balanced connector is quite common: MOTU M4, Komplete Audio 6, UMC204HD, among others, use it.

 

[Robin L]

I'd like to ask a question of those of you who are far more eloquent and knowledgeable: I have had a couple not-so-pleasant disagreements on 2 forums (not this one) regarding the debate between measurements and sound quality with DACs. In one case the reviewer stated the Topping E30 just didn't sound that good and he wouldn't recommend it. I pointed out it measured very well and that it sounded fine in my system. He responded stating, and I am paraphrasing-it's not just the DAC chips and implementation, it's the analog output stage-that has the most to do with final sound quality. Of course I disagreed but couldn't say anything as I don't understand the electronics or implementation in output stages. Can anyone enlighten me? Is the analog output stage responsible for amplifying the DAC signal to the RCA and XLR outs?

The measurements of the output of a DAC folds in the effect of the analog output into the total when measured. I think the function of the analog stage of a DAC is more like a buffer stage, intended to make it easy to connect to the gear that follows, the amp or headphone amp. So, if the total of distortion is theoretically below the threshold of hearing, that's that. People want to believe that all that extra money spent on a piece of gear will result in better sound. There's a literal investment in that belief. As of 2021, the standard of performance of most DACs exceeds that of any speaker, most power amps and the ability of our ears to detect distortion. A Topping E30 measures well enough that the application of more money to a DAC isn't about to improve sound. The performance of the DAC reviewed here is a scant and inaudible 2db shy of the best Arim has measured. The E30 doesn't perform as well as the D30, but the difference in performance isn't enough to be detected by any, certainly after the distortions of the speakers or headphones that follow are taken into consideration.

If there's one thing that ASR points out over and over, it's that most listener preferences of DACS go away when subjected to a DBT. DACs are a solved problem, sighted bias is not.

 

[Quomz]

I'd like to ask a question of those of you who are far more eloquent and knowledgeable: I have had a couple not-so-pleasant disagreements on 2 forums (not this one) regarding the debate between measurements and sound quality with DACs. In one case the reviewer stated the Topping E30 just didn't sound that good and he wouldn't recommend it. I pointed out it measured very well and that it sounded fine in my system. He responded stating, and I am paraphrasing-it's not just the DAC chips and implementation, it's the analog output stage-that has the most to do with final sound quality. Of course I disagreed but couldn't say anything as I don't understand the electronics or implementation in output stages. Can anyone enlighten me? Is the analog output stage responsible for amplifying the DAC signal to the RCA and XLR outs?

But in any case measurements done in a similar way as here would include all that, wouldn’t they? What‘s measured is the analogue output of the DAC on the outputs, there is no stage after that altering the signal.

 

[Rottmannash]

But in any case measurements done in a similar way as here would include all that, wouldn’t they? What‘s measured is the analogue output of the DAC on the outputs, there is no stage after that altering the signal.

I guess that was what I was asking-is the analog output stage involved when measuring? It certainly has to be when we hook it up to a HP amp or power amp so I can logically conclude it has an effect on sound but how much? Enough for a reviewer to state it sounds "cold" and "clinical" compared to some other DAC that he felt sounded "warmer". I like this guys' reviews generally but when he starts throwing those types of descriptors around my hair begins standing up on the back of my neck. I also read a comment in another forum bad-mouthing the Drop THX 789, stating it was "cold and clinical"-those words seem to be a negative in the audio world. I wanted to comment after to get him some tubes if he wanted "warm" but didn't. Didn't want to get into another debate. I was rather rudely chastised on that forum for pointing out that ASR had favorably reviewed some device (can't even remember which one it was but probably a DAC or HP amp) and one guy jumped all over me and began bashing Amir like crazy. This went on for 3 or 4 heated posts, mostly from the other guy and a couple days later another, more sensible member responded to the thread explaining why the flame war erupted-seems Amir has made some enemies on other forums years ago and he's been branded a pariah and someone who should not even be mentioned. It was very strange the reaction to his name and ASR. I have read part of that super long thread on SBAF basing ASR so I know that's one site where he's loathed. What are the others? What has he done to be so hated?

 

[PeteL]

I'd like to ask a question of those of you who are far more eloquent and knowledgeable: I have had a couple not-so-pleasant disagreements on 2 forums (not this one) regarding the debate between measurements and sound quality with DACs. In one case the reviewer stated the Topping E30 just didn't sound that good and he wouldn't recommend it. I pointed out it measured very well and that it sounded fine in my system. He responded stating, and I am paraphrasing-it's not just the DAC chips and implementation, it's the analog output stage-that has the most to do with final sound quality. Of course I disagreed but couldn't say anything as I don't understand the electronics or implementation in output stages. Can anyone enlighten me? Is the analog output stage responsible for amplifying the DAC signal to the RCA and XLR outs?

I won't answer this because I consider myself more eloquent and knowledgable, but the subject is interesting to me. First of course the analog stage matters, but it's part of the implementation, and part of the measurment sequence, and it measures objectively good.

Now this question also opens a can of worm. The bigger question is does the suite of measurments we have here is fully sufficient to dismiss any audible differences between dacs, past a certain transparency treshold, Especially in sub optimal usage (gain structure, gear matching, etc). Most people here will tell you a strong yes. Me, I still think that on both side of the argument, the data is not fully rigourous enough to say "they all sound exactly the same" but also not rigourous enough to say otherwise. I don't know.
The second question it raises is: Is some distortion is good distortion and tend to be preferred, by many, to full transparency. On this again, I don't know.

 

[capslock]

RME ADI-2 Pro FS?

BTW, a first draft for my DAC history blog post is up now. Now I'll have to dig up the post(s) where I was discussing ADC evolution previously...

I see you have now included ADCs. The AK5394A is obviously the king of stopband attenuation, but there are plenty of others that claim -110 dB THD+N. One would never have guessed from its data sheet that it is also the king of low HD. In fact, the AK557x all claim -112 dB THD+N and superior S/N but all have lousy stopband attenuation which is probably why they are not used for measurements. I wonder how good they could become with a good analog anti-aliasing filter or digital post-filtering. My thinking is that some of the THD might be aliasing.

 

[PeteL]

If there's one thing that ASR points out over and over, it's that most listener preferences of DACS go away when subjected to a DBT. DACs are a solved problem, sighted bias is not.

My answer to this in my previous post is maybe, but you say "points over and over" Can you point me to those blind test results?

 

[Robin L]

I guess that was what I was asking-is the analog output stage involved when measuring? It certainly has to be when we hook it up to a HP amp or power amp so I can logically conclude it has an effect on sound but how much? Enough for a reviewer to state it sounds "cold" and "clinical" compared to some other DAC that he felt sounded "warmer". I like this guys' reviews generally but when he starts throwing those types of descriptors around my hair begins standing up on the back of my neck. I also read a comment in another forum bad-mouthing the Drop THX 789, stating it was "cold and clinical"-those words seem to be a negative in the audio world. I wanted to comment after to get him some tubes if he wanted "warm" but didn't. Didn't want to get into another debate. I was rather rudely chastised on that forum for pointing out that ASR had favorably reviewed some device (can't even remember which one it was but probably a DAC or HP amp) and one guy jumped all over me and began bashing Amir like crazy. This went on for 3 or 4 heated posts, mostly from the other guy and a couple days later another, more sensible member responded to the thread explaining why the flame war erupted-seems Amir has made some enemies on other forums years ago and he's been branded a pariah and someone who should not even be mentioned. It was very strange the reaction to his name and ASR. I have read part of that super long thread on SBAF basing ASR so I know that's one site where he's loathed. What are the others? What has he done to be so hated?

People spend an awful lot of money on audio gear. In some ways, the notion of "Audiophile" has moved from "Lover of good sound" [lover of sound, all by itself, covers the definition of 'audiophile'] into a lover of expensive gear. People who spent $10,000.00 on a DAC do not want to hear that a $300.00 DAC performs as well, will do as well in a DBT as a $10,000.00. Advertisers in audio publications do not want to hear such things, so audio publications tend to avoid such talk. In any case, spending a lot of money tends to make people hold tight to their biases. And that's all there really is to it.

 

[Robin L]

My answer to this in my previous post is maybe, but you say "points over and over" Can you point me to those blind test results?

Amir already has, elsewhere. It appears that we cannot detect distortion at -115db or less. Amir has done extensive research on the limits of audibility of distortion.

 

[PeteL]

Amir already has, elsewhere. It appears that we cannot detect distortion at -115db or less. Amir has done extensive research on the limits of audibility of distortion.

I fully agree with this, but this was not the question I raised, Yes -115 dB distortion is rigourously inaudible, but it's a best case scenario, on a sine wave, and yes we also have more on our plate, like IMD graph, but I am talking of test results of a blind test where no one can distinguish dacs in a system.

 

[Robin L]

I fully agree with this, but this was not the question I raised, Yes -115 dB distortion is rigourously inaudible, but it's a best case scenario, on a sine wave, and yes we also have more on our plate, like IMD graph, but I am talking of test results of a blind test where no one can distinguish dacs in a system.

You'd have to ask Amir, he's done the research. The general point is, DACs are low enough in distortion as to be a solved issue. And people who spent a lot of money on DACs don't want to hear that. Similarly, the high levels of distortion of LP playback is a given. It is easily measured. And yet, there are still people saying the performance of LP based systems is superior to that of digital playback systems, even when the source material is digital. People say a lot of stupid things. The internet doesn't filter out BS.

 

[PeteL]

You'd have to ask Amir, he's done the research. The general point is, DACs are low enough in distortion as to be a solved issue. And people who spent a lot of money on DACs don't want to hear that. Similarly, the high levels of distortion of LP playback is a given. It is easily measured. And yet, there are still people saying the performance of LP based systems is superior to that of digital playback systems, even when the source material is digital. People say a lot of stupid things. The internet doesn't filter out BS.

I also agree with expectation bias, it's proven, we just have to remember that most measurments we see here is done in optimal conditions optimal loading, 0 DBFS, etc, conditions that are really seldom meet in real use. I also question, question, not dismiss, if sine waves is all we need to measure performance, I'd personally from time to time would like to see impulse response, square waves, phase response graphs, even for DACs, but I could be talked into understanding that it don't matter. Lastly, and it matters, for most delta sigma dacs under the "transparency treshold" we have a choice of filters, sometime we don't. To me proving that all DACs sound the same, would mean that swapping these filters would not make an audible difference, because a DAC can score below -115 dB SINAD with any of them, this alone bring doubts to the statement that all good dacs sounds the same because they don't necessarily use the same filter.

 

[BDWoody]

I guess that was what I was asking-is the analog output stage involved when measuring?

It is. There is no separate connection made for the measurements, it's the analog output that is being measured.

People that make that kind of argument are just revealing that they don't really know what they are talking about. It seems to be a go-to recently...

 

[Rockfella]

Great!!! Video is good too.

 

[blueninjasix]

Are the TRS outputs on the A30Pro designed to be pre outs? Would you have to use a cable with TRS connectors on one end and XLR connectors on the other? There doesn't seem to be a switch on the front to choose preamp mode.

 

[Veri]

Are the TRS outputs on the A30Pro designed to be pre outs? Would you have to use a cable with TRS connectors on one end and XLR connectors on the other? There doesn't seem to be a switch on the front to choose preamp mode.

I think it's fixed DAC like the original. And yes, TRS to XLR cables. There's plenty in existance.

 

[AnalogSteph]

In fact, the AK557x all claim -112 dB THD+N and superior S/N but all have lousy stopband attenuation which is probably why they are not used for measurements. I wonder how good they could become with a good analog anti-aliasing filter or digital post-filtering. My thinking is that some of the THD might be aliasing.

I think the idea with these is to operate them at 384k or even 768k (or at least 192k with the low-latency filter option), follow up with some high-quality downsampling if required and be done with it. The higher the sampling frequency, the less is likely to be going on in the problematic areas and the more the analog input filtering is likely to have already taken care of. We used to run consumer-level ADCs à la WM8775 with their measly -70 dB filter ultimate (as was very common at the time) at 96 kHz to get good vinyl rips out of them, same idea. More upscale equipment of the same time period would only need 48 kHz for results at the same quality level.

Mind you, I don't much like the demise of high-performance anti-alias filters in the name of low latency either. Would be nice to at least have a choice of an all-"traditional" filter when that best suits the job, you know?

 

[JohnYang1997]

I think the idea with these is to operate them at 384k or even 768k (or at least 192k with the low-latency filter option), follow up with some high-quality downsampling if required and be done with it. The higher the sampling frequency, the less is likely to be going on in the problematic areas and the more the analog input filtering is likely to have already taken care of. We used to run consumer-level ADCs à la WM8775 with their measly -70 dB filter ultimate (as was very common at the time) at 96 kHz to get good vinyl rips out of them, same idea. More upscale equipment of the same time period would only need 48 kHz for results at the same quality level.

Mind you, I don't much like the demise of high-performance anti-alias filters in the name of low latency either. Would be nice to at least have a choice of an all-"traditional" filter when that best suits the job, you know?

557x are great. But they gone man, they gone...