Topping D50 III Balanced DAC with EQ Review

[TurtlePaul]

Topping EX5 vs D50 III: Is it worth the upgrade?

You will not notice a difference in sound quality unless you use the parametric EQ on the newer model. Swapping DACs with 100dB+ SINAD ratios is pointless, and these DACs are all well beyond the pointless levels of audibility.

 

[filipemendes]

You will not notice a difference in sound quality unless you use the parametric EQ on the newer model. Swapping DACs with 100dB+ SINAD ratios is pointless, and these DACs are all well beyond the pointless levels of audibility.

Thanks for your response!

I completely understand, and I didn’t mean to bring up a topic that has already been widely discussed. However, when testing different setups, I do notice very subtle differences—for example, in the definition of the bass when using the balanced output of the EX5 versus that of the SP200. It could be placebo, but I’ve also noticed this with the Fosi DS2.

I even tested it with my retired Aune T1 MK2 and found differences between all of them.

I may be wrong, but SINAD wouldn’t be the only factor in evaluating a DAC’s audio quality, right? I often hear about iFi Audio DACs having a more bass-driven signature and a very open soundstage. That’s more or less the point I’m getting at—I’m not focusing so much on amplification, but rather on the "sound signature."

I often see people mentioning improvements in soundstage when switching between different DACs and amps, which is what led me to ask this question.

 

[honn]

Topping EX5 vs D50 III: Is it worth the upgrade?

I'm considering upgrading from a Topping EX5 to the D50 III and wondering if I'll notice any significant difference in sound quality. I've also come across the SMSL DO-400, which seems like an excellent option, though it's much pricier. Would it be a real upgrade compared to the EX5?

Currently, I use the EX5 as a preamp for my Edifier S2000MKIII speakers and my SMSL SP200 amp.

Power isn't my primary concern since my headphones with the highest power demand are the Hifiman Sundara, which I rarely use nowadays. Most of my other headphones, like the Fiio FH9, Fiio FT1, and ATH-M50x, are relatively easy to drive.

Any insights or advice would be greatly appreciated!

I think the general consensus in this forum is that after a certain point of provable transparency there won't be audible sonic improvement, so most likely no you won't hear an improvement in sound from EX5 internal DAC to D50 III. D50 III is the better DAC by multiple aspects, but at this point it might just be academic, and won't be audible in most and almost all typical use cases. Correct me if I'm wrong anyone. And also I just got my D50 III DAC today

 

[ziggurcat]

I’m not focusing so much on amplification, but rather on the "sound signature."

I am guessing that it would be the same sound signature since both the EX5 and D50 III use dual ESS9038Q2M DAC chips.

 

[ziggurcat]

Does anyone happen to know what the USB-C input specs are? Is it 3.0, 3.1 or 3.2?

 

[johny_2000]

I'm considering upgrading from a Topping EX5 to the D50 III and wondering if I'll notice any significant difference in sound quality.

I doubt you'll hear any differences between them. Their output characteristics vary by couple decibels beyond the threshold of audibility.

Currently, I use the EX5 as a preamp for my Edifier S2000MKIII speakers and my SMSL SP200 amp.

The main difference is the EX5's built-in headphone amp, but I'm guessing you don't use it.
If your setup is EX5 -> SP200 -> headphones, you just replace the EX5 with a D50 III and that's it.

 

[johny_2000]

Does anyone happen to know what the USB-C input specs are? Is it 3.0, 3.1 or 3.2?

USB 1.0 and USB 2.0 switchable via menu. But if your question is whether it will work with devices that have USB 3.x output, then yes it will, since USB 3 is backwards compatible with USB 2/1.

 

[ziggurcat]

USB 1.0 and USB 2.0 switchable via menu. But if your question is whether it will work with devices that have USB 3.x output, then yes it will, since USB 3 is backwards compatible with USB 2/1.

Thanks!

I'm still also trying to figure out how to get the volume control on my Mac to disable itself. I just replaced an E50 with the D50 III and when the E50 is connected, pressing the volume buttons on the keyboard showed the volume pop-up window with a circle/line through it, but with the D50 III the volume is adjustable. My preference would be for the former to happen because my cat likes to jump up on my desk, and walk all over the keyboard (often pressing the volume keys). I know I can turn on a function to make it so that the Function keys only act as Function keys, but if I didn't have to do it with the other DAC...

 

[staticV3]

I'm still also trying to figure out how to get the volume control on my Mac to disable itself.

Afaik, the only way is to plug in a DAC with lacks UAC2 hardware volume support.

I know that you already tried setting your D50III to UAC1 mode, which for some reason did not disable UAC2 hardware volume.

Another thing you could try is JDS Labs' UAC1 fallback cable: https://jdslabs.com/product/usb-audio-class-1-uac1-fallback-cable/

However, I do not know if this will work with non-JDS DACs.

 

[ziggurcat]

Afaik, the only way is to plug in a DAC with lacks UAC2 hardware volume support.

I know that you already tried setting your D50III to UAC1 mode, which for some reason did not disable UAC2 hardware volume.

Another thing you could try is JDS Labs' UAC1 fallback cable: https://jdslabs.com/product/usb-audio-class-1-uac1-fallback-cable/

However, I do not know if this will work with non-JDS DACs.

Yes, I did try it, but what happened was it severely reduced the DAC's capabilities (limiting the sample rate to 96kHz, and possibly the bit rate down to 16-bit, but I need to verify that when I get home from work) instead of simply disabling the volume control. You also mentioned that the E50 was UAC1.0, and that's why the volume control was disabled with that DAC connected to my Mac, but I don't see anything in the manual indicating the USB version of the E50? The only difference appears to be the connection used (USB-B vs. USB-C) as the input range in both manuals are identical (the D50 III has the added line regarding PEQ, but everything else is the same).

It seems like it's something else to me, but it's also not obvious what would cause the difference in that specific functionality. When I was using a D10s DAC, it would sort of work in the same way the E50 worked with the volume control, but sometimes not (it would change from time to time whether it wanted to disable volume control), and when I tried out the MX5, it functioned the same as the D50 III.

 

[staticV3]

You also mentioned that the E50 was UAC1.0, and that's why the volume control was disabled with that DAC connected to my Mac, but I don't see anything in the manual indicating the USB version of the E50?

No, I did not.

That a DAC lacks UAC2 hardware volume support, does not mean it is UAC1.

A DAC can be UAC2, but lack hardware volume support.

 

[JOCoin]

Yes, I did try it, but what happened was it severely reduced the DAC's capabilities (limiting the sample rate to 96kHz, and possibly the bit rate down to 16-bit, but I need to verify that when I get home from work) instead of simply disabling the volume control. You also mentioned that the E50 was UAC1.0, and that's why the volume control was disabled with that DAC connected to my Mac, but I don't see anything in the manual indicating the USB version of the E50? The only difference appears to be the connection used (USB-B vs. USB-C) as the input range in both manuals are identical (the D50 III has the added line regarding PEQ, but everything else is the same).

It seems like it's something else to me, but it's also not obvious what would cause the difference in that specific functionality. When I was using a D10s DAC, it would sort of work in the same way the E50 worked with the volume control, but sometimes not (it would change from time to time whether it wanted to disable volume control), and when I tried out the MX5, it functioned the same as the D50 III.

Did you try setting to UAC1 then resetting the d50 iii? IICR, you have to reset DAC for it to actually change from UAC2 to UAC 1 but that would still limit your max sample rate.

 

[ziggurcat]

No, I did not.

That a DAC lacks UAC2 hardware volume support, does not mean it is UAC1.

A DAC can be UAC2, but lack hardware volume support.

I obviously misinterpreted, then. Apologies, I did not mean to put words in your mouth!

 

[ziggurcat]

Did you try setting to UAC1 then resetting the d50 iii? IICR, you have to reset DAC for it to actually change from UAC2 to UAC 1 but that would still limit your max sample rate.

I assumed that since it immediately limited the sample rate that the change took effect on the spot. I'm pretty sure I did power off/on after I switched the setting as well (if that's what you mean by "reset"). Limiting the functionality isn't worth disabling the sample/bit rate, so even if it disables the volume control after a reset, I would not stick with that since I would rather maintain the full input range.

 

[JOCoin]

I assumed that since it immediately limited the sample rate that the change took effect on the spot. I'm pretty sure I did power off/on after I switched the setting as well (if that's what you mean by "reset"). Limiting the functionality isn't worth disabling the sample/bit rate, so even if it disables the volume control after a reset, I would not stick with that since I would rather maintain the full input range.

That makes sense. I was trying to remember the last time I had to adjust the setting as every once in a while I'll run a PlayStation through the dac for headphones, and that only works on UAC1 mode. Apologies as that was less helpful than I had hoped haha.

 

[ziggurcat]

That makes sense. I was trying to remember the last time I had to adjust the setting as every once in a while I'll run a PlayStation through the dac for headphones, and that only works on UAC1 mode. Apologies as that was less helpful than I had hoped haha.

Oh geez, no - nothing wrong with your response! It's never bad advice, and always helpful to have someone verify that they've done the process correctly. User error can definitely account for invalid results. I just tried it again, and can confirm that all it does is limit the sample rate to 96kHz max, and even limits the bit rate to 16-bit by switching to UAC1.0. I rebooted the DAC and Mac after making the change in the D50 III's menu. Not worth it even if it did happen to disable to volume control on my computer.

It's just something I'm going to have to live with (and make sure to check that my cat hasn't made a mess of the volume settings ).

 

[dtd]

@dtd I use the D50III/A50III stack and had the DT 1990 Pro until recently and was using EQ on the DAC. Topping Tune is a but clunky but it all works fine, however given that I mainly use the DAC with my PC I did later find that I preferred APO / Peace, because I could configure it to suit the various devices, such as headsets / conference devices for calls etc. It would be great is the D50III did EQ for other inputs but unfortunately it's only for USB, so the EQ feature on the D50III has become somewhat redundant. To use EQ when listening without my PC (or independently of the PC), I picked up a WiiM mini and connected to the DAC over optical and it ticks all the boxes.

So I would summarise by saying that the D50III is a great DAC and worth every penny I paid for it but I wouldn't buy it just for EQ and I doubt you'll hear any audible improvement over your DX3. If your primary or only use is PC/Mac, then I would focus on figuring out what's wrong with your software setup - do a reinstall / reconfigure etc.

A question I have, if I were to go the rote of D50III/A50III stack, what cabels should I use between them? If I understand correctly, either TRS or RCA cables, right? But what is best? Or does it only matter if I have a balanced headphone?

 

[JOCoin]

A question I have, if I were to go the rote of D50III/A50III stack, what cabels should I use between them? If I understand correctly, either TRS or RCA cables, right? But what is best? Or does it only matter if I have a balanced headphone?

You can use either, there's a switch on a50iii to select which input to use, balanced or single ended. And you can do balanced input to a50iii and singled ended output to your headphone or you can do single ended RCA input to a50 iii and differential (balanced) output to your headphone. I found it was easier to find very short RCA cables whereas I had a heck of a time trying to find short TRS cables. TRS cables are so difficult to bend that it was lifting the a50iii off the stack had to use zip ties to hold the bends in place to stop it. Only reason to use the balanced input and differential headphone output is if single ended isn't loud enough or if you have ground loop issues.

 

[johny_2000]

I found it was easier to find very short RCA cables whereas I had a heck of a time trying to find short TRS cables. TRS cables are so difficult to bend that it was lifting the a50iii off the stack had to use zip ties to hold the bends in place to stop it. Only reason to use the balanced input and differential headphone output is if single ended isn't loud enough or if you have ground loop issues.

Correct. That's why I decided to make my own TRS interconnects with a specific bend radius so it wouldn't lift the stack.

As an alternative, I can recommend JDS Labs stack RCA cables and JDS Labs 3.5mm Interconnect Cable for 12V trigger I/O.

 

[JOCoin]

Correct. That's why I decided to make my own TRS interconnects with a specific bend radius so it wouldn't lift the stack.

View attachment 425187View attachment 425189

As an alternative, I can recommend JDS Labs stack RCA cables and JDS Labs 3.5mm Interconnect Cable for 12V trigger I/O.

Thanks for link. It's actually been difficult to find a decent short 3.5mm as well. I'll have to see if they ship to Canada. Amazon stuff is a real crap shoot for that kind of stuff otherwise.