• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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 D90 Balanced USB DAC Review

iFi audio

Member
Audio Company
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
39
Likes
53
Location
Southport, UK
@Doodski @MC_RME - have you worked with ifi on these problems where you suspect the iFi iDefender+ caused the damage to the DAC?

How is it possible that interrupting the USB Power-line connections would induce Ground Loop damage in a connected DAC?

AFAIK the 2 - data lines and 2 - 5V USB power lines aren't meant to interact or cross-pass voltage between them in any manner, and if both 5V USB power wires are interrupted how would that induce or pass a Ground Loop?

@iFi audio - Can you please work with @MC_RME and/or @Doodski to diagnose the suspected RME DAC damage he is seeing when an iDefender+ is used?

I'm pretty sure that other than someone connecting the wrong voltage to the external USB power port on the iDefender+, that the iDefrnder+ itself wouldn't pass Ground Loop voltage through to the DAC, since that is the whole reason to use the iDefender+ - to interrupt ground loops.

Thank you all for particpating on ASR to help us with our product questions :)

Update: Here is a technical explainer PDF with more detailed information on what the iDefender+ does, I hope it clears up some confusion as to what the iDefender+ isn't doing as well:
I am happy to learn more about the issue, so please let me know!
 

hmscott

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
604
Likes
493
I am happy to learn more about the issue, so please let me know!
I was wondering if you/iFi have run across any problems induced by the iDefender+, or predecessors - there have been version upgrades over the years, perhaps some changes were made to improve the product, but maybe some were made to reduce customer problems as well? Were there any instances of non-customer induced problems that the devices either caused or contributed to? Are there any configuration or situational problems we should look out for when using the iDefender+.

The iDefender+ add's resistance in some situations - or all situations? - but does it provide a dead disconnect of V+/V- of the 5V "rails" of the USB cable connections? There is a theory that "lifting the ground" as a solution can introduce occasional problems caused by that solution - the worst being "taping over the USB power pins" or cutting out the power ground completely.

Although I don't have specifics, I'm thinking there is a good story behind why the iDefender+ has gone through it's iterations over the years to arrive at what you are offering today. Can you give us pointers to the revision history, what was changed and why - like were there any customer problems that were solved by those changes between revisions of the iDefender+?

Thanks again for all of your help over the years supporting your users of the iDefender+ and other devices to help audiophiles with ground loop and hum problems, iFi has been one of the few companies that care enough to make an effort to solve these problems with affordable consumer devices.

I also think iFi has been a good example to Topping for solving their noise related issues, and perhaps with others entering the field you all will provide the awareness of the noise problem solutions so fewer people will need to suffer with noise problems. :)
 

spiritofjerry

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
146
Likes
107
I was wondering if you/iFi have run across any problems induced by the iDefender+, or predecessors - there have been version upgrades over the years, perhaps some changes were made to improve the product, but maybe some were made to reduce customer problems as well? Were there any instances of non-customer induced problems that the devices either caused or contributed to? Are there any configuration or situational problems we should look out for when using the iDefender+.

The iDefender+ add's resistance in some situations - or all situations? - but does it provide a dead disconnect of V+/V- of the 5V "rails" of the USB cable connections? There is a theory that "lifting the ground" as a solution can introduce occasional problems caused by that solution - the worst being "taping over the USB power pins" or cutting out the power ground completely.

Although I don't have specifics, I'm thinking there is a good story behind why the iDefender+ has gone through it's iterations over the years to arrive at what you are offering today. Can you give us pointers to the revision history, what was changed and why - like were there any customer problems that were solved by those changes between revisions of the iDefender+?

Thanks again for all of your help over the years supporting your users of the iDefender+ and other devices to help audiophiles with ground loop and hum problems, iFi has been one of the few companies that care enough to make an effort to solve these problems with affordable consumer devices.

I also think iFi has been a good example to Topping for solving their noise related issues, and perhaps with others entering the field you all will provide the awareness of the noise problem solutions so fewer people will need to suffer with noise problems. :)
I am happy to learn more about the issue, so please let me know!
While you're at it, @iFi audio, I'd be curious on your take why the iDefender simply just doesn't work to completely eliminate ground noise in a significant number of cases? Just a casual glance of the Amazon reviews for the product shows quite a few number of reviews that the noise is either reduced some, reduced a lot, or isn't reduced much at all. True ground noise can be eliminated entirely by using a data-only USB cable, so why isn't your device capable of this? We've had members in this very forum who used the iDefender to successfully reduce noise, but not eliminate it entirely (notice the member still had a high pitch whine, which was completely removed using optical SPDIF).

In my personal experience, a galvanic isolator (which you also offer as product) is truly the BEST solution to this problem, wouldn't you agree?
 

iFi audio

Member
Audio Company
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
39
Likes
53
Location
Southport, UK
@hmscott and @spiritofjerry thanks for these interesting questions.

The revisions to the iDefender over the years have been mainly to do with different production component footprints and the offering of different USB versions. The essential circuit is the same in all with different circuitry requirements depending on the protocol.
It’s best used in situations where both computer and dac are earthed, causing a ground loop. It inserts resistance between the two earthed connections. If the voltage between the two earths is greater than 0.2v low resistance connection is restored between them.
If one or the other, or both, devices aren’t earthed, the iDefender won’t do anything or much to reduce grounding noise.
The main function of the iDefender is to have the facility to connect a cleaner, external source of power to the connected dac. Products such as the Zen Dac series already have the facility for external power, so this feature may not be needed.
For a complete grounding isolation the iGalvanic would be a better solution. An optical cable will do this as well, and also a transformer -coupled S/PDIF connection, but these are both limited to sampling rates ≤ 192k.
 
Last edited:

spiritofjerry

Active Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
146
Likes
107
Thanks, @iFi audio, for that description. That makes a lot of sense as to why the iDefender just can't work in some cases, or works imperfectly. It's basically a gamble without knowing voltages across ground. But hey, it may work!
For a complete grounding isolation the iGalvanic would be a better solution. An optical cable will do this as well, and also a transformer -coupled S/PDIF connection, but these are both limited to sampling rates ≤ 192k.
This has always been my recommendation, is to use a galvanic isolator if you MUST use USB. Otherwise, optical SPDIF seems to be a great option.

Thanks, again, for confirming my suspicions and also giving more insight into your products!
 

iFi audio

Member
Audio Company
Joined
Feb 3, 2021
Messages
39
Likes
53
Location
Southport, UK
I am happy to help. Hit me up if you have more questions. When it comes to the grounding isolation/purification one should take into account the following elements:
a) if products are earthed,
b) voltages between earths,
c) sampling rates you are aiming for,
d) input/output connections.
 

hmscott

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
604
Likes
493
@hmscott and @spiritofjerry thanks for these interesting questions.

The revisions to the iDefender over the years have been mainly to do with different production component footprints and the offering of different USB versions. The essential circuit is the same in all with different circuitry requirements depending on the protocol.
It’s best used in situations where both computer and dac are earthed, causing a ground loop. It inserts resistance between the two earthed connections. If the voltage between the two earths is greater than 0.2v low resistance connection is restored between them.
If one or the other, or both, devices aren’t earthed, the iDefender won’t do anything or much to reduce grounding noise.
The main function of the iDefender is to have the facility to connect a cleaner, external source of power to the connected dac. Products such as the Zen Dac series already have the facility for external power, so this feature may not be needed.
For a complete grounding isolation the iGalvanic would be a better solution. An optical cable will do this as well, and also a transformer -coupled S/PDIF connection, but these are both limited to sampling rates ≤ 192k.
I am happy to help. Hit me up if you have more questions. When it comes to the grounding isolation/purification one should take into account the following elements:
a) if products are earthed,
b) voltages between earths,
c) sampling rates you are aiming for,
d) input/output connections.
@iFi audio - please help us understand where the other ifi noise/hum reduction tools would be useful if the iDefeneder+ isn't enough?

I am thinking of these items in particular, unless there is also another product?

iFi Groundhog+

GND Defender

iFi DC Blocker

And, the iFi nano Galvanic Isolator + micro iUSB3.0 - a bit expensive, so the other 3+iDefender+ Solutions are cheaper to implement when they solve the noise problems, either individually or together:

nano iGalvanic3.0

micro iUSB3.0

IFi offers a lot of noise solutions, cables and connectors, and accessories to go with them. What, and in what order, would each of those products apply, given particular noise conditions?

And, which DAC/AIO/etc iFi products already have the noise blocking features, and what are they?

When I see someone with an iFi product that doesn't completely solve their noise problem(s), they often stop there, unaware of how to use the other available iFi components to continue to reduce their noise problems.

Thank you!! :)
 
Last edited:

srkbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,445
Location
Dallas, TX
Thanks to everyone for this very informative thread. Coming in late in the game, but I have a D90SE at the moment with the clock ticking on the return policy, and I just ran across an original D90 AK4499eq version I can get pre-owned and burned in that is in pristine shape, and I’m wondering if anyone has significant listening experience with the sound signature variances between these two iterations of this DAC?

I’m not too worried about SINAD or or similar measurements because both of these seem to perform well above audible levels. Focusing more on tonality, bass quantity and authority, fatigue, warmth, musicality, etc. I’m running this with an iFi Zen Stream as a Roon endpoint with an iFi Pro iCAN Signature amp, Focal Utopias with a GUCraftsman Single Crystal Silver 4.4mm balanced cable, Audioquest Coffee 0.7m active USB cable and Audioquest Mackensie XLR patch cables running analog from DAC to amp.

I’ve also got my trigger finger on a Gustard x26 Pro which I recognize is in a different league, but I’d prefer some thoughts about the two generations of the D90 for now. Many thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:

hmscott

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
604
Likes
493
Thanks to everyone for this very informative thread. Coming in late in the game, but I have a D90SE at the moment with the clock ticking on the return policy, and I just ran across an original D90 AK4499eq version I can get pre-owned and burned in that is in pristine shape, and I’m wondering if anyone has significant listening experience with the sound signature variances between these two iterations of this DAC?

I’m not too worried about SINAD or or similar measurements because both of these seem to perform well above audible levels. Focusing more on tonality, bass quantity and authority, fatigue, warmth, musicality, etc.

I’ve also got my trigger finger on a Gustard x26 Pro which I recognize is in a different league, but I’d prefer some thoughts about the two generations of the D90 for now. Many thanks in advance!
I've been watching reviews and everyone says they are very close together in audible characteristics, this written/video review does it's best to find differences, which might be going a bit too far - tough to hear and replicate - so for all intents and purposes - they are the same - a successful effort by Topping to recreate their AKM4499 D90/D90 MQA using ESS DAC parts:

Topping D90SE DAC Review - A New Benchmark

Arrow Zen 8 days ago
"Which is better - X26 Pro or this?"

Soundnews 8 days ago
"X26 Pro is more to my liking"

Antonio Marsicola 1 month ago
"Great review but price wise the comparison for loudspeaker setup should be ElementX vs D90SE + Pre90. Who would win then?"

wokTHEtalk 1 month ago
"This was a very disappointing review Sandu. I learnt nothing more then how the manufacture uses DAC’s 8 channel architecture and the switch mode power supply. Both things and more I could have read at the manufacture’s website!!

It would have been so much better if you compared this Topping flagship with SMSL VMV D1SE and Gustard’s X36 Pro….. a sort of flagship duel."

Soundnews 1 month ago
"D1se wasn't released at that time (I'm filming its review today) it came much later on, X36 PRO doesn't exist yet. What was so disappointing about this review? Wasn't sound performance / transient response / detail retrieval / soundstage / noise floor / usability in a loudspeaker setup / bass / midrange / treble and a few comparisons with its predecessor and with a TOTL ESS-Sabre DAC enough? Plus there's a 14-page written review linked below. If that isn't enough, then I don't know what's enough. Please enlighten me"

Of course, if anyone else has heard both D90/D90SE side by side, please let us know what you heard. :)
 
Last edited:

srkbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,445
Location
Dallas, TX
I've been watching reviews and everyone says they are very close together in audible characteristics, this written/video review does it's best to find differences, which might be going a bit too far - tough to hear and replicate - so for all intents and purposes - they are the same - a nice effort by Topping to recreate their D90/D90 MQA using ESS DAC parts:

Topping D90SE DAC Review - A New Benchmark

Arrow Zen 8 days ago
"Which is better - X26 Pro or this?"

Soundnews 8 days ago
"X26 Pro is more to my liking"

Of course, if anyone else has or has heard both D90/D90SE side by side, please let us know what you heard. :)
Thanks for this! I did see that video yesterday but hasn’t seen the other. I tried to glean the answer from previous posts on here but at 166 pages I wasn’t able to find one from someone who had owned the original D90 and “upgraded” to the D90se, and had offered comments on their experience. Thanks for doing some of the groundwork for me!

I’m very bullish on the Gustard but it’s such an ordeal to get my hands on one in time for me to return the D90se, and I’m one of those guys who can’t get through more than half a day without my setup!

I could have gotten more bass mileage from the Focal Stellias instead of the Utopias, but after an intense A-B listening challenge there was no way I could pass up the accuracy and detail of the open-backed Utopias (and they seem to respond well to EQ).

The Pro iCAN Signature has more than enough clean power—at 14,000 mW I’m pretty sure I could power some bookshelf speakers with this thing. And to my surprise switching my cans from XLR to the pentaconn jack with built-in ieMatch let me kick up the gain from 0DB to 18, which REALLY had a marked impact on kicking up the xBass to its max setting without adding a hint of bloom or clipping in the low end (and the amp remained dead silent as well).

I’m really wary of DSP bass enhancements, which is why I went with the Pro iCAN Signature and it’s ASP bass boost—and bass is my primary motivation to ask whether the AK4499eq and other components in the old school D90 offer any advantages in the low end vs the ES9038pro D90se. Sorry for the TL/DR!
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
I’m not too worried about SINAD or or similar measurements because both of these seem to perform well above audible levels. Focusing more on tonality, bass quantity and authority, fatigue, warmth, musicality, etc

If they are both competent, with measurements that show they are effectively transparent windows to your source, where would tonality, bass, warmth, etc come from?

If one has baked in 'voicing,' it wouldn't likely measure very well, because voicing can only be through adding something that wasn't there to the point it is audible, which would stand out against a 'clean' DAC.
 

hmscott

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
604
Likes
493
Thanks for this! I did see that video yesterday but hasn’t seen the other. I tried to glean the answer from previous posts on here but at 166 pages I wasn’t able to find one from someone who had owned the original D90 and “upgraded” to the D90se, and had offered comments on their experience. Thanks for doing some of the groundwork for me!

I’m very bullish on the Gustard but it’s such an ordeal to get my hands on one in time for me to return the D90se, and I’m one of those guys who can’t get through more than half a day without my setup!

I could have gotten more bass mileage from the Focal Stellias instead of the Utopias, but after an intense A-B listening challenge there was no way I could pass up the accuracy and detail of the open-backed Utopias (and they seem to respond well to EQ).

The Pro iCAN Signature has more than enough clean power—at 14,000 mW I’m pretty sure I could power some bookshelf speakers with this thing. And to my surprise switching my cans from XLR to the pentaconn jack with built-in ieMatch let me kick up the gain from 0DB to 18, which REALLY had a marked impact on kicking up the xBass to its max setting without adding a hint of bloom or clipping in the low end (and the amp remained dead silent as well).

I’m really wary of DSP bass enhancements, which is why I went with the Pro iCAN Signature and it’s ASP bass boost—and bass is my primary motivation to ask whether the AK4499eq and other components in the old school D90 offer any advantages in the low end vs the ES9038pro D90se. Sorry for the TL/DR!
Well, in my own personal experience, the D90 MQA has plenty of Bass through my Xduoo TA-20 and my Topping A90 has a bit less Slam., but in comparison to the D90SEE, IDk, and I am not concerned about it - as I'm not thinking I need to upgrade to the D90SE even though it has better MQA support, which I might enjoy when streaming Tidal MQA content.

FiiO M15 also has more Slam with the "Over-Ear Headphone" mode than the Topping A90, which is what sent me on the search for an inexpensive Hybrid Tube/SS amp, and the TA-20 even drives my Hifiman HE6SE V2 "adequately", but I am looking for more power for that headphone and my 600 ohm headphones.

There are lots of DAC choices out there, and lots of reasons to get a more powerful headphone amp, but so far I don't feel the need to upgrade the D90/TA-20, and it sounds like the D90SE is also holding up nicely against many other DAC's, and the D90SE is a great replacement for the missing AKM4499 D90/D90 MQA series.

The Gustard X26 might also be a good choice, but it comes down to slight preferences, all things you would be best served at hearing first-hand yourself.
 
Last edited:

Rutarauko

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
6
Likes
9
Hi you all! A couple of questions:

1) So in D90 MQA, XMOS upsamples any PCM arriving from USB to 384KHz before passing it to AK4499. Does D90 (non MQA version) do the same? (I'm wondering if this sentence from JohnYang has something to do with it: "MQA would certainly sound good. But is it better? Is it worth the effort? Is it worth the modification done to the DAC signal chain?")

2) Also, I've read somewhere in this long thread that "The DAC up samples every thing to 768KHz/32 for processing anyway", is this true? For both MQA and non MQA D90's?



Thanks in advance!
 

hmscott

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
604
Likes
493
Hi you all! A couple of questions:
1) So in D90 MQA, XMOS upsamples any PCM arriving from USB to 384KHz before passing it to AK4499. Does D90 (non MQA version) do the same? (I'm wondering if this sentence from JohnYang has something to do with it: "MQA would certainly sound good. But is it better? Is it worth the effort? Is it worth the modification done to the DAC signal chain?")
2) Also, I've read somewhere in this long thread that "The DAC up samples every thing to 768KHz/32 for processing anyway", is this true? For both MQA and non MQA D90's?
Thanks in advance!
I'd add @JohnYang1997 to ask John to clarify the differences in MQA Software Decoder vs MQA Rendering in the D90SE MQA/D90 MQA vs ESS/AKM Filters handling/inclusion.

From what John has said before - that I've seen/read - the D90 MQA has a fixed MQA filter, even with non-MQA source material - but nobody noticed - or at least could specifically say what was the reason the AKM filter choices didn't make a difference.

Topping's implementation of MQA and base DAC chip filtering on the D90SE is supposed to be different than the methods used on the D90 MQA. What are those implementation details?, and what are the differences in effect on both to the native AKM/ESS filter options?

IDK if the D90SE ESS filters have effect during non-MQA playback, how are they kept from interfering with MQA processing with MQA sources?, which is why I think the AKM filters were disabled on the D90 MQA as that switching between MQA and non-MQA sources wasn't implemented.

It would be great if John could get an answer from the guys/gals that implemented both D90 MQA / D90SE MQA to let us know how it was implemented on the D90 MQA and D90SE MQA - both on MQA source material, and non-MQA source material.

I don't think we have had a comprehensive answer to either D90 MQA/non-MQA and D90SE MQA/non-MQA filtering and how they switch off/on native DAC filters between non-MQA and MQA sources - and how that affects the base DAC chip filtering.

AFAIK base DAC filtering would not be possible with MQA sources, only with non-MQA sources - the native MQA filter would be all that can be available with an MQA source, and the device's software would need to "switch" on availability of the native DAC filtering if the source was detected as non-MQA.

@JohnYang1997 @amirm- Where are the "D90 MQA" device FFT filter charts for showing non-MQA and MQA sources, and the D90 MQA filter options effects?

It would also be nice if Topping /ASR would publish a D90 MQA FFT chart for the MQA filter in use with MQA and non-MQA material, as the standard D90 FFT filter chart doesn't apply.
2514048.jpg

index.php

And, @amirm shouldn't the D90SE review have an FFT chart for the non-MQA ESS built-in filters, and a chart showing the MQA filter response on MQA source material?:
index.php

@JohnYang1997 @amirm perhaps you don't have MQA encoded test material? Maybe if you asked MQA for MQA test materials they would contribute MQA encoded test tones?
 
Last edited:

srkbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,445
Location
Dallas, TX
If they are both competent, with measurements that show they are effectively transparent windows to your source, where would tonality, bass, warmth, etc come from?

If one has baked in 'voicing,' it wouldn't likely measure very well, because voicing can only be through adding something that wasn't there to the point it is audible, which would stand out against a 'clean' DAC.
Really? You obviously have much more experience in these areas, but isn’t it fairly well-established that there is far more to a DAC’s performance characteristics than simply the chip or it’s measurements? After all, if that was all that mattered then it seems that a Loxjie D50 should be just as good as a Gustard x26 and we’d all do just as well spending no more than $500 on a DAC (and there wouldn’t be much point to this forum)!

I’ve read enough (and listened far more) to conclude that the sound signature and warmth don’t arise from the DAC processor much these days—over the last couple of years pretty much every DAC released seems to manage to achieve near perfect scores in the audible range. Measurements are fun and interesting to check out in the “can you top this” SINAD contest sorta way, but I’m pretty sure what differentiates one from another in terms of actual tonality arises from the sophistication of the post-processor analog architecture and the quality of components that send the audio to your amp, am I wrong?

By the way I may have misread your tone, and if so I apologize. But honestly there’s no need to respond to my humble request with withering rhetorical questions that I make up call out my common sense—if you haven’t had personal experience with the two DACs side by side then is there any need to answer my question? Yours kinda seemed to imply that it was a silly one in the first place. I’m just trying to learn here…
 

bogi

Active Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
238
Likes
170
Location
Slovakia
Hi you all! A couple of questions:

1) So in D90 MQA, XMOS upsamples any PCM arriving from USB to 384KHz before passing it to AK4499. Does D90 (non MQA version) do the same? (I'm wondering if this sentence from JohnYang has something to do with it: "MQA would certainly sound good. But is it better? Is it worth the effort? Is it worth the modification done to the DAC signal chain?")

2) Also, I've read somewhere in this long thread that "The DAC up samples every thing to 768KHz/32 for processing anyway", is this true? For both MQA and non MQA D90's?



Thanks in advance!
This forum aims to be "scientific" and led by scientific authority, but what I found on this forum is rather an agile group of "all DACs sound the same" police officers.
I would be very surprised if correct answers would come from those agile police officers. They usually show very low level of knowledge.
Therefore I am awaiting from the more scientific part of this forum to clear the above nonsense (maybe my expectations are too high).
 

Rutarauko

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2019
Messages
6
Likes
9
From what John has said before - that I've seen/read - the D90 MQA has a fixed MQA filter, even with non-MQA source material - but nobody noticed - or at least could specifically say what was the reason the AKM filter choices didn't make a diference
If I got it right, is not that only MQA filter applies. In non MQA material regular filters will be used, but as everything is upsampled to 384KHz the filters will have no effect in audible region because its cut frequency will be consistent with the 384KHz sampling rate.
 

srkbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,445
Location
Dallas, TX
Well, in my own personal experience, the D90 MQA has plenty of Bass through my Xduoo TA-20 and my Topping A90 has a bit less Slam., but in comparison to the D90SEE, IDk, and I am not concerned about it - as I'm not thinking I need to upgrade to the D90SE even though it has better MQA support, which I might enjoy when streaming Tidal MQA content.

FiiO M15 also has more Slam with the "Over-Ear Headphone" mode than the Topping A90, which is what sent me on the search for an inexpensive Hybrid Tube/SS amp, and the TA-20 even drives my Hifiman HE6SE V2 "adequately", but I am looking for more power for that headphone and my 600 ohm headphones.

There are lots of DAC choices out there, and lots of reasons to get a more powerful headphone amp, but so far I don't feel the need to upgrade the D90/TA-20, and it sounds like the D90SE is also holding up nicely against many other DAC's, and the D90SE is a great replacement for the missing AKM4499 D90/D90 MQA series.

The Gustard X26 might also be a good choice, but it comes down to slight preferences, all things you would be best served at hearing first-hand yourself.
I’m with ya. Although I must admit that I sold my FiiO M15 because it had no analogue bass enhancements at all—all the software EQs it had available were in the DSP realm that forced all sorts of bit float conversions and mucking with the “bit perfect” signal and the resultant sound always seemed inferior with the EQ enabled. And I thought the sound without processing was so dry, lifeless and anemic sounding for the rock genres I like (and the Android 7 GUI was SO slow) that I ended up using it as a doorstop.

I’m suffering with a bit of FOMO with the M17, but I know with FiiO’s flagship tiers that they still follow the classist dogma that serious audiophile gear is only appropriate for rarified purists, who are strict connoisseurs of prestige classical labels featuring sweaty-browed cellists reaching passionately between their knees on their fretboards. It’s us rubes who slum in the rock or hip hop worlds who get the hardware analog bass boost toggles thrown in to compete with the PowerBeats set.

With the rare exception of iFi-Audio, which is why I shelled out the $2,400 for the Pro iCAN Signature, which makes me very happy.

Also, thank you so much for being brave enough to admit that you don’t mind listening to MQA on here—I don’t use it exclusively, but I do have my own serious doubts that the folks who bellow condemnations at Tidal listeners could tell the difference blindfolded between MQA Studio files fully unfolded (but don’t you forget that they’re LOSSY!) and their FLAC counterparts with equal sampling rates and bit depths.

I just keep both services because I’ve found that many of the MQA Studio versions come from better masters with reliably more provenance. Shoot me. ☺️
 

hmscott

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
604
Likes
493
If I got it right, is not that only MQA filter applies. In non MQA material regular filters will be used, but as everything is upsampled to 384KHz the filters will have no effect in audible region because its cut frequency will be consistent with the 384KHz sampling rate.
Here is what John has said before about the D90 MQA vs other implemnations:
XMOS upsamples everything to 384khz. The filter is in the DAC so the response doesn't change with the filters.
With other inputs, xmos being bypassed, the filter has the effect.
This behavior was known from the beginning. But we figured it's not the best solution so D70s and newer have different implementation.
The reason behind upsampling is to reduce pop noise switching various sample rate MQA playback and normal PCM.
John, we have been going by the D90 FFT chart for the D90 MQA, and that FFT chart for the D90 doesn't accurately represent the D90 MQA filter FFT response.

I'd still like to see the D90 / D90SE FFT chart response to MQA test tone with MQA native filtering, and show that native DAC filters have no effect on non-MQA sources on the D90 MQA with an FFT Chart.
 

srkbear

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 16, 2021
Messages
1,029
Likes
1,445
Location
Dallas, TX
This forum aims to be "scientific" and led by scientific authority, but what I found on this forum is rather an agile group of "all DACs sound the same" police officers.
I would be very surprised if correct answers would come from those agile police officers. They usually show very low level of knowledge.
Therefore I am awaiting from the more scientific part of this forum to clear the above nonsense (maybe my expectations are too high).
LOVE this, BOOM!
 
Top Bottom