Topping D50 III Balanced DAC with EQ Review

[Musictech77]

Why is it that my replies should be ignored? Are they factually incorrect or even misleading? No, they are not, and in fact, the opposite is true. Also, this is a forum. As long as I do not abuse it and maintain a civilized conversation, I am entitled and even encouraged to voice my position, even if it challenges someone's point of view. Moreover, we as a community of like-minded individuals must warn each other and pay each other's attention to substandard practices. Why should I (or anyone else) sing praise to such products, as many here regretfully do?

Or is it just something personal on your part against me? Then excuse me, but it's not my problem.


Yeah, "some strange reason" is that some manufacturers are getting too lax a treatment here that allows them to get away with selling unreliable and even harmful products with no regulatory supervision and no liability on their part.


That's right. When a product receives many software/firmware updates shortly after its release, it's not great support. It's beta testing at the expense of the consumer. Good support is when a product receives updates ten years after its release, or even for some years after EoM, and not just hotfixes, but meaningful and useful new features and improvements.

... Your tone and reply wasn't helpful. I made a specific question that d be easily answered. I do not wait specific answers though, iam open to listen whatever...

 

[Musictech77]

You're wasting your time trying to have a conversation with him/her/whatever it seems. Just ignore that user (unpluggged). For some strange reason one sees that kind of responses quite often here.

But anyway, regarding to your questions I'd say Topping is generally a trustworthy with the performance of their dacs but what comes to FW updates etc, one cannot really be sure nor (IMO) draw any conclusions from the prompt updates made to the new dac/amp Dx5 II firmware (of course they will fix obvious issues as it is a brand new product). However the D50 III still has some software issues that have not been fixed and if I read right, the last FW update was made about a year ago (please correct me if I'm mistaken), so it seems they're not going to fix them and I'm afraid that tells more than the fact that they fixed some issues in the new Dx5 II.

Thanks... I think that I ll wait a bit before ordering it.
If we ignore the current software bugs, do you think that this is a good sounding dac?

 

[TurtlePaul]

As a D50 III owner, I will chime in (against my better judgement to not feed the trolls):

- I am well aware to Toppings failures in other products. I don’t tend to judge brands, I judge products. This product seems to be reliable. If this was another PA5, we would know by now. Why would I avoid this because of failed power amps?

- I also have a miniDSP 2x4 HD. The nature of PC based DSPs is getting firmware updates all the time. I just needed a USB DSP/DAC to target one primary room mode in my second system with 8030c speakers and the functionality of the D50 III does that.

- Relative price was a deciding factor for me. MiniDSP wants $550 for a balanced Flex, which is the competitor with the features I wanted (PEQ, 120 dB SINAD, balanced output, volume control). $220 for the Topping is 60% less - although the MiniDSP is clearly more flexible.

- Absolute price made this a no brainer. I found an open box unit for $180. At that price I don’t care if there is no aftermarket support. I wouldn’t think twice to pay that much for dinner, so I don’t really care.

- I was prepared for the software to be a lot worse than it was. I just want Topping to let me hide the system tray icon on the Windows driver.

Am I not supposed to be happy with the D50 III? Should I have spent $330 more to punish Topping for some other product I knew was flawed? I don’t view it as ‘kids gloves’ because I went in with eyes wide open.

 

[JOCoin]

... Your tone and reply wasn't helpful. I made a specific question that d be easily answered. I do not wait specific answers though, iam open to listen whatever...

You'll come to find some on here seem to equate arrogance with intelligence. The ignore button is a very useful feature if you'll be spending time on here. Lots of wonderful extremely helpful and knowledgeable people on here as well.

 

[somebodyelse]

While I would agree with you that there probably should be some kind of check to make sure the FW version is correct for the device, downloading and installing the wrong firmware is user error -- especially when the FW is pretty clearly labeled in the Support > Downloads > Firmware page, and it also takes you directly to the FW from Download tab on the specific product page.

It's entirely predictable user error though, especially given the similarity of some of the product names: E30, E30 II, E30 II lite being one example that has caused problems. Checks for the firmware update being correct for the device are done precisely because it's known that some proportion of end users will make mistakes.

One can also restore the device to its factory settings, which should also revert the FW back to the OG, and then the person can install the correct version.

For some models maybe. For others people have been asked to ship them back to Topping.

Topping aren't the only company that have had this problem, and it looks like they are moving beyond it with their newest releases. It remains to be seen whether this will make its way over the whole range, or be reserved for the more expensive models.

 

[ziggurcat]

It's entirely predictable user error though, especially given the similarity of some of the product names: E30, E30 II, E30 II lite being one example that has caused problems. Checks for the firmware update being correct for the device are done precisely because it's known that some proportion of end users will make mistakes.

Once again, I absolutely agree with you regarding putting the necessary checks in place, but I think when the site lists each of those FW versions separately from each other (they are not lumped together in the downloads page) -- and the device version is in the name of the FW file -- there's more onus on the end user to carefully read things before they start downloading/installing FW all willy nilly. And if one doesn't know the SKU of the device they are using, that's not Topping's fault.

We also don't know if a factory reset would work in the case of the E30 II because that user refused to answer the question. I'm pretty sure my E50 reverts back to its original state if I perform a factory reset, so it stands to reason that the E30 II would as well. Also, I find it a bit suspect when that person starts talking about being charged tax/duty/import/export fees on an item that is only being sent in for repair. I'm not going to claim to know how India does things, but I'm not aware of any country that does that sort of thing.

 

[somebodyelse]

Also, I find it a bit suspect when that person starts talking about being charged tax/duty/import/export fees on an item that is only being sent in for repair. I'm not going to claim to know how India does things, but I'm not aware of any country that does that sort of thing.

I'd file that under predictable operator error again. Most countries have exceptions for goods being transferred over borders temporarily for repair and other purposes, but using the exception usually requires a greater or lesser level of paperwork to access it. Get any of that wrong and you can end up paying, or things get stuck at the border (which sometimes happens even if the paperwork was right.) It's one of those things that's easy if you know about it, but easy to get wrong if you don't - and most people don't. I saw it at arms length >20yrs ago to get some test gear out to Hong Kong for a job, then back again when it ended, and it was a PITA even with a customs agent to make sure you got it right. It's the main reason I suggest people pay a little more to buy from a local dealer - if it has to go back then they get to deal with these issues instead.

 

[Yersinia Bestmate]

Thanks... I think that I ll wait a bit before ordering it.
If we ignore the current software bugs, do you think that this is a good sounding dac?

You mean the Dx5 II or the D50 III?

I've never heard any sound signature differences between well designed DACs. So far all the Topping dacs/dac-amps I've owned (E30 II, DX1, E30 Lite, D50 III) have been absolutely neutral with crystal clear output, so in that regard I'd say the D50 III is a good sounding dac - it delivers the music as it was recorded, mixed and mastered. I'm using the D50 III in my nr. one set as a dac, outputting signal to a Topping A70 Pro which I'm using as a preamp atm. I do not use Topping's PEQ but instead EQapo on my PC which I use as the signal source.

PS. I've encountered no bugs whatsoever when using D50 III. I have not upgraded the firmware as I'm only using it as a dac and to my understanding there have been no issues with the device in that regard.

 

[Musictech77]

You mean the Dx5 II or the D50 III?

I've never heard any sound signature differences between well designed DACs. So far all the Topping dacs/dac-amps I've owned (E30 II, DX1, E30 Lite, D50 III) have been absolutely neutral with crystal clear output, so in that regard I'd say the D50 III is a good sounding dac - it delivers the music as it was recorded, mixed and mastered. I'm using the D50 III in my nr. one set as a dac, outputting signal to a Topping A70 Pro which I'm using as a preamp atm. I do not use Topping's PEQ but instead EQapo on my PC which I use as the signal source.

PS. I've encountered no bugs whatsoever when using D50 III. I have not upgraded the firmware as I'm only using it as a dac and to my understanding there have been no issues with the device in that regard.

I want to buy the dx5ii but thanks anyway for your Infos, iam more confident know about topping dacs

 

[Palladium]

You mean the Dx5 II or the D50 III?

I've never heard any sound signature differences between well designed DACs. So far all the Topping dacs/dac-amps I've owned (E30 II, DX1, E30 Lite, D50 III) have been absolutely neutral with crystal clear output, so in that regard I'd say the D50 III is a good sounding dac - it delivers the music as it was recorded, mixed and mastered. I'm using the D50 III in my nr. one set as a dac, outputting signal to a Topping A70 Pro which I'm using as a preamp atm. I do not use Topping's PEQ but instead EQapo on my PC which I use as the signal source.

PS. I've encountered no bugs whatsoever when using D50 III. I have not upgraded the firmware as I'm only using it as a dac and to my understanding there have been no issues with the device in that regard.

The USB-only PEQ on the D50 II is pretty much useless regardless of the bugs, but that doesn't discount this DAC was and still is the cheapest balanced DAC for perfect objective performance, a perfect BT implementation and incredible build quality.

 

[VientoB]

The USB-only PEQ on the D50 II is pretty much useless regardless of the bugs, but that doesn't discount this DAC was and still is the cheapest balanced DAC for perfect objective performance, a perfect BT implementation and incredible build quality.

But the screen is too small and isn't orange.

 

[Yersinia Bestmate]

The USB-only PEQ on the D50 II is pretty much useless regardless of the bugs, but that doesn't discount this DAC was and still is the cheapest balanced DAC for perfect objective performance, a perfect BT implementation and incredible build quality.

That's true.

 

[TurtlePaul]

The USB-only PEQ on the D50 II is pretty much useless regardless of the bugs

That totally depends. If you are using it only connected via USB, then it does its job well enough and for much less than any other competitive hardware PEQ.

 

[Barncore]

You mean the Dx5 II or the D50 III?

I've never heard any sound signature differences between well designed DACs. So far all the Topping dacs/dac-amps I've owned (E30 II, DX1, E30 Lite, D50 III) have been absolutely neutral with crystal clear output, so in that regard I'd say the D50 III is a good sounding dac

I was using the E30 II Lite for about a year and replaced it with the D50 III, and compared them side-by-side for a while, and anecdotally i noticed a sound quality difference between them. The D50 III was more "clear", and the E30 II Lite had slightly "murkier" sound in comparison.
It wasn't a scientific test, i would just use the same amp (L30 II) and the same headphones (Hifiman Ananda Nano), and would unplug and plug in the DAC interchangably every 30-60 seconds. It was easily noticeable to me the sound difference. I'm a mixing/mastering engineer so my ears are tuned to hear details of texture.
Perhaps it's a difference in transient quality/clarity that gives the impression of clear vs murky. That's my theory. Maybe the lesser quality DAC doesn't process transients with as much fidelity or something, and the result is a murkier overall sound impression. Don't know the reason exactly, but D50 III definitely upgraded the sound of my chain.

People say DACs shouldn't sound different because their job is to be transparent, but i think they must be only focusing on frequency/tone when they listen to a comparison. The differences between DACs are in the transients. A cleaner transient gives the impression of overall quality at large, but i think the impression must be only a subconscious one for some people, so they assume it's placebo or they just don't even notice it at all.

 

[VientoB]

I was using the E30 II Lite for about a year and replaced it with the D50 III, and compared them side-by-side for a while, and anecdotally i noticed a sound quality difference between them. The D50 III was more "clear", and the E30 II Lite had slightly "murkier" sound in comparison.
It wasn't a scientific test, i would just use the same amp (L30 II) and the same headphones (Hifiman Ananda Nano), and would unplug and plug in the DAC interchangably every 30-60 seconds. It was easily noticeable to me the sound difference. I'm a mixing/mastering engineer so my ears are tuned to hear details of texture.
Perhaps it's a difference in transient quality/clarity that gives the impression of clear vs murky. That's my theory. Maybe the lesser quality DAC doesn't process transients with as much fidelity or something, and the result is a murkier overall sound impression. Don't know the reason exactly, but D50 III definitely upgraded the sound of my chain.

People say DACs shouldn't sound different because their job is to be transparent, but i think they must be only focusing on frequency/tone when they listen to a comparison. The differences between DACs are in the transients. A cleaner transient gives the impression of overall quality at large, but i think the impression must be only a subconscious one for some people, so they assume it's placebo or they just don't even notice it at all.

It sounds like you didn't control for placebo. Are the output voltages the same?

 

[unpluggged]

The differences between DACs are in the transients.

Transient response is defined by FR and reconstruction filter. Instead of guessing, you'd better perform measurements and a proper controlled listening test.

People say DACs shouldn't sound different because their job is to be transparent

Yes, they shouldn't; it's their purpose by definition and an objective technical goal, not something people just randomly say.

 

[Barncore]

Like i said guys, it wasn't a scientific test. I'm not a gear testing guy, i work on people's music. I'm not making any claim beyond just stating my anecdotal experience (which i clearly stated in the original post). I volume matched and compared by ear. Clear difference to me. Not huge, but noticeable. If you don't believe it, that's fine. Dismiss it if you have to, i don't mind. I'm just throwing my $0.02 into the ocean of the internet in case it helps someone reading in the future: If you own a E30 II Lite and you're wondering if replacing it with a a D50 III will upgrade the clarity of the sound, yes it will.
At least in my experience it did.

I'd been using my headphones chain (with E30) for a year mastering people's music, i was very familiar with them. I also have a playlist of my go-to reference songs that i always use to test new speakers or headphones; songs that i've been listening to for years, some of them over a decade. I know them back-to-front. Everything in the chain was the same except for the DAC. Same RCA cables (i plugged them in and out one at a time every time i switched), same headphones, same amp, same HP cable, same EQ profile (none), same music, same volume. The only thing that was different was the USB cables, which is inevitable because the D50 III uses USB-C and the E30 II Lite uses regular USB.
So there's the parameters of the test. Take it or leave it. S s

 

[VientoB]

Just checked and the E30 is 1.98V and the D50 III is 2.13V so this could well explain why the D50 sounded "better". Louder means transients will hit harder.

 

[Barncore]

Just checked and the E30 is 1.98V and the D50 III is 2.13V so this could well explain why the D50 sounded "better". Louder means transients will hit harder.

Could be the reason, yeah. It has dual DACs whereas the E30 has one, and maybe the power distribution means the DAC has to strain less than in the D50 III, i don't know.

For the record, it wasn't "loudness = transients hit harder" in this case. I tested at the same volume for both, loudness wasn't tricking my brain here, the difference was that the E30 was "murkier" slightly, almost like it had a subtle "veil" over the top of the sound. In comparison, the D50 III didn't have that, it was just clear. The best analogy i can think of is, it's like the "negative space" was more black. Or like a 4k OLED TV that has a slightly higher black contrast ratio. So when the blacks are blacker then it allows the colours to pop out more, by way of relativity. It's not that the colours are actually more colourful, it's that the blacker black makes them appear more colourful because of the contrast.
Same thing here, imo.

The thing i said about transients is just my theory as to what's happening under the hood to make it sound clearer (like maybe the cleaner transients trick the brain into thinking it's clearer), i'm not saying that the transients is THE thing that stood out to me. The thing that stood out was the murky/clear difference. Really i don't know what makes the D50 sounds clearer exactly, it just does. Maybe it's a simple matter of E30 not getting as much power, i don't know. I'm not the person to speculate on the nuts and bolts, all i know is what i heard. And i heard a difference in clearness.

The difference is obvious but it is subtle, i don't wanna overstate it. But it depends on what your threshold for subtlety is. We're talking about the kind of difference that you'd hear when comparing a 24bit WAV to a 320kps mp3 here. If that kind of difference is obvious to you, then the difference between these 2 dac units would be obvious to you too. If WAV and MP3 sounds the same to you, then D50 III wouldn't feel like an upgrade over E30 II Lite then, you wouldn't even notice it.

If you're using planar headphones like the Hifiman Ananda Nano, which are overwhelmingly detailed (lol) then noticing differences like this is easy

 

[VientoB]

Could be the reason, yeah. It has dual DACs whereas the E30 has one, and maybe the power distribution means the DAC has to strain less than in the D50 III, i don't know.

For the record, it wasn't "loudness = transients hit harder" in this case. I tested at the same volume for both, loudness wasn't tricking my brain here, the difference was that the E30 was "murkier" slightly, almost like it had a subtle "veil" over the top of the sound. In comparison, the D50 III didn't have that, it was just clear. The best analogy i can think of is, it's like the "negative space" was more black. Or like a 4k OLED TV that has a slightly higher black contrast ratio. So when the blacks are blacker then it allows the colours to pop out more, by way of relativity. It's not that the colours are actually more colourful, it's that the blacker black makes them appear more colourful because of the contrast.
Same thing here, imo.

The thing i said about transients is just my theory as to what's happening under the hood to make it sound clearer (like maybe the cleaner transients trick the brain into thinking it's clearer), i'm not saying that the transients is THE thing that stood out to me. The thing that stood out was the murky/clear difference. Really i don't know what makes the D50 sounds clearer exactly, it just does. Maybe it's a simple matter of E30 not getting as much power, i don't know. I'm not the person to speculate on the nuts and bolts, all i know is what i heard. And i heard a difference in clearness.

The difference is obvious but it is subtle, i don't wanna overstate it. But it depends on what your threshold for subtlety is. We're talking about the kind of difference that you'd hear when comparing a 24bit WAV to a 320kps mp3 here. If that kind of difference is obvious to you, then the difference between these 2 dac units would be obvious to you too. If WAV and MP3 sounds the same to you, then D50 III wouldn't feel like an upgrade over E30 II Lite then, you wouldn't even notice it.

If you're using planar headphones like the Hifiman Ananda Nano, which are overwhelmingly detailed (lol) then noticing differences like this is easy

You can only match volume properly by voltage matching at the outputs. You don't know if your brain was being tricked. It's very hard to know that.