TOPPING D90 III、TOPPING D50 III

[Sokel]

If all of the PEQ crunching is done in the PC and not in the DAC itself, can the drivers for older Topping DACs be updated to include this?

Ultimately, the PC does the work, and whatever EQ it applies, it’s still just a stream on 0s and 1s it sends over USB to the DAC.

I mean, isn’t this just Topping’s version of Equaliser APO?

PC is for configuration,it then stores it in the device and can use it standalone.

 

[DLS79]

They were originally doing things like D50-D50S, D70-D70S, DX7-DX7S. Just like Apple was doing with iPhone. Then at some point in time they stopped.
Also they started doing random DAC's on the letter E and amps on the letter L. Which is different from their original lightweight plays like D10, D30, A30, etc.
They now even have DX1 which means they went there too...

I think this is a good way of looking at it.

TOPPING D90 III Sabre DAC Review

Give us D90 and A90 in one case for 1400$ or STFU. Already given: https://www.tpdz.net/productinfo/1090577.html

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

PC is for configuration,it then stores it in the device and can use it standalone.

But surely, that could be stored on the PC just as easily.

 

[froyo]

I have the original D90 and was actually a little tempted by the D90 III but my main concern is the remote. I stream primarily from an Apple TV 4K that passes audio via S/PDIF from my LG G3 TV. I trained the Apple TV remote to control volume on the D90 so have a single remote to rule it all... With the new bluetooth remote, I don't think I can train the Apple remote to control it. Does the III also have an IR receiver or bluetooth only?

I am also interested in this, as I have a similar setup. Maybe somebody could test with either D50/D90 III using an IR remote (the Topping RC-15A), if having one at hand?

 

[DLS79]

But surely, that could be stored on the PC just as easily.

It could but then you wouldn't have it available for other devises that support USB audio out. For example phones, tablets, some streamers etc.

 

[Jimster480]

I think this is a good way of looking at it.

TOPPING D90 III Sabre DAC Review

Give us D90 and A90 in one case for 1400$ or STFU. Already given: https://www.tpdz.net/productinfo/1090577.html

www.audiosciencereview.com

I agree on this breakdown, but it's interesting that there is a distinction now when there was not one like six years ago.

It could but then you wouldn't have it available for other devises that support USB audio out. For example phones, tablets, some streamers etc.

This is definitely a use case as I have friends who use their desktop DAC with a phone or tablet.

 

[DLS79]

I agree on this breakdown, but it's interesting that there is a distinction now when there was not one like six years ago.

I'd assume some combination of company growth and market demand!

 

[Jimster480]

I'd assume some combination of company growth and market demand!

Probably, who knows when they will change the scheme again.

 

[IanRoberts]

I know some of you here would have loved to see your $100 equipment to be as performant as $1000+ equipment just because Amir's testing has proven that the manufacturers of such equipment have designed their products in accordance with the components in these said products, but that's never the case in our capitalistic world. In our world, things tend to be priced in accordance to their worth. But, no disrespect, we can always dream that my $22K USD Klipschhorns sound the same as your no name brand $100 speakers just because Amir measured its SINAD to be among the best here.

This doesn't really hold up under examination. If you are looking at a market like PC components, sure, price and performance have a very strong correlation because the market is mostly driven by objective testing data. Speed is everything.

The market of people who buy audio equipment based on objective measurements is a rather small subsect of the greater audio gear buying public, even in the audiophile market. Performance and price don't have much of a correlation in this context. I mean, we can all agree that a pair of $400 apple or beats headphones won't sound as good a $200 pair of Sennheisers or Hifiman headphones. When you buy a pair of Beats you're paying for a lot more than the headphones, particularly the advertising apparatus that made you want to buy them in the first place. That gives a company like Topping a big advantage in terms of pricing because they aren't sinking a ton of money into expensive media campaigns. They basically sell their products based on measurements, more or less directly to consumers.

Additionally, the tendency under capitalist competition is to try to produce a product that is better and less expensive than your competitors. Smart producers will always undercut the competition on price if their superior product costs less to produce.

Remember when Sony and Pioneer started exporting receivers in the 60s they weren't taken seriously at first but they eventually began producing stereos that were objectively better than American ones and within a couple years American companies were mimicking Japanese design.

And I bet my $2200 Revels sound as good as your $22k Klipschhorns.

 

[christaras]

When connected to a dac does it make any difference for the headphone power if it is connected trough rca or xlr?

 

[Jimster480]

When connected to a dac does it make any difference for the headphone power if it is connected trough rca or xlr?

Not really, it helps eliminate ground loops.
I hope you aren't connecting headphones to the DAC directly though.

 

[christaras]

Lol no i am planning to connect the c200 with trs to speakers and the rca to the amp.

 

[Rja4000]

PC is for configuration,it then stores it in the device and can use it standalone.

Is that confirmed ?
That would mean they gave a DSP inside, which is a major change, I suppose.
And if it is, dies it then work for any input (as it should) ?

 

[Sokel]

Is that confirmed ?
That would mean they gave a DSP inside, which is a major change, I suppose.
And if it is, dies it then work for any input (as it should) ?

As much as they say,yes,confirmed.
Though only on USB for D50,not any input,the higher model has it on all inputs except I²S.

 

[Rja4000]

As much as they say,yes,confirmed.
Though only on USB for D50,not any input,the higher model has it on all inputs except I²S.

Then it's killing all interest.

On USB, one can use any free parametric EQ, so that just has 0 interest to bother to store EQ in the device. Just adding more complexity with no benefit.

On SPDIF, that would be usefull, for sure.

Too bad.

 

[JamesYeomans]

Then it's killing all interest.

On USB, one can use any free parametric EQ, so that just has 0 interest to bother to store EQ in the device. Just adding more complexity with no benefit.

On SPDIF, that would be usefull, for sure.

Too bad.

It’s useful to those who use the USB with iOS or iPadOS devices

 

[Rja4000]

It’s useful to those who use the USB with iOS or iPadOS devices

But does that work in that case ?
If the processing is done in the PC (ie the device doesn't have a DSP or CPU to process the sound), you'd need the software to run on the host.

If they do have a DSP inside, then why to limit to USB ?

 

[Sokel]

But does that work in that case ?
If the processing is done in the PC (ie the device doesn't have a DSP or CPU to process the sound), you'd need the software to run on the host.

If they do have a DSP inside, then why to limit to USB ?

They do have the DSP in,the thing is that is probably using the XMOS abilities (XMOS can do it) to do it,it seems that's it's not in a separate device other than that.
Just speculating though,in the other thread (can't find it) there's more info about it.

Or they just want to differentiate the higher model,who knows.

 

[Atanasi]

They do have the DSP in,the thing is that is probably using the XMOS abilities (XMOS can do it) to do it,it seems that's it's not in a separate device other than that.
Just speculating though,in the other thread (can't find it) there's more info about it.

Or they just want to differentiate the higher model,who knows.

Maybe the device has the USB controller within the XMOS, and other interfaces are implemented through other chips. It would take additional effort to route these through the XMOS.

 

[Rja4000]

Maybe the device has the USB controller within the XMOS, and other interfaces are implemented through other chips. It would take additional effort to route these through the XMOS.

Looks like that, indeed
Read here: https://www.xmos.com/dsp