TOPPING D90 III、TOPPING D50 III

[Rhamnetin]

To my ears dual chip devices sound better; fuller sound, bass is stighter and fuller, and extended sound stage. I think a lot depends on the other equipment in the chain. I have just finished testing that theory using the following scenarios:
Scenario 1: SMSL-su10 -> Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp->Classe CA100 amp-> KlipschHorn full range speakers
Scenario 2: SMSL-su10 -> Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp->Classe CA100 amp-> Klipsch Cornwall full range speakers
Scenario 3: SMSL-su10 -> Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp->Classe CA100 amp-> Klipsch Heresy bookshelf speakers

With the speakers being the only difference.
Scenario 1 and 2 substantially sound better than scenario 3 (culprit the smaller bookshelf speakers can not reproduce the full range of the sound). Scenario 1 and 2 sound almost the same, with scenario 1 having a slight edge.

Repeated the above by simply changing the DAC with a Topping D90. It is right away clear to my ears that the topping provides a thinner sound, smaller sound stage, more prominent highs with the equipment of scenario 1-2, but scenario 3 sounds the same to my ears regardless of the DAC.

Repeated the above again by replacing the DAC with a FIIO M17 (the M17 uses the same dual ES9038 pro chips as the su-10). Again, right away I can hear a fuller sound reproduction, and bigger sound stage, however the M17 sounds slightly clearer that the su-10, but both are substantially better that the single chip Topping D90 when listening via the full range speakers, again no discernable difference when using the bookshel speakers.

My conclusion, as proven above, of course you won't hear any difference if the other equipment in the chain have limitations.

Have you done any level matched blind testing between just the different DACs, using the most similar filter setting on them? Also to be fair, that tube preamp and Klipschorn speakers have pretty significant technical performance limitations, but on any system no one would expect the SU-10 to be distinguishable from the D90 in level matched blind testing using comparable filters and none of the coloration presets these DACs may have. Since the two DACs on their most transparent settings spit out nearly identical performance.

 

[Bleib]

To my ears dual chip devices sound better; fuller sound, bass is stighter and fuller, and extended sound stage. I think a lot depends on the other equipment in the chain. I have just finished testing that theory using the following scenarios:
Scenario 1: SMSL-su10 -> Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp->Classe CA100 amp-> KlipschHorn full range speakers
Scenario 2: SMSL-su10 -> Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp->Classe CA100 amp-> Klipsch Cornwall full range speakers
Scenario 3: SMSL-su10 -> Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp->Classe CA100 amp-> Klipsch Heresy bookshelf speakers

With the speakers being the only difference.
Scenario 1 and 2 substantially sound better than scenario 3 (culprit the smaller bookshelf speakers can not reproduce the full range of the sound). Scenario 1 and 2 sound almost the same, with scenario 1 having a slight edge.

Repeated the above by simply changing the DAC with a Topping D90. It is right away clear to my ears that the topping provides a thinner sound, smaller sound stage, more prominent highs with the equipment of scenario 1-2, but scenario 3 sounds the same to my ears regardless of the DAC.

Repeated the above again by replacing the DAC with a FIIO M17 (the M17 uses the same dual ES9038 pro chips as the su-10). Again, right away I can hear a fuller sound reproduction, and bigger sound stage, however the M17 sounds slightly clearer that the su-10, but both are substantially better that the single chip Topping D90 when listening via the full range speakers, again no discernable difference when using the bookshel speakers.

My conclusion, as proven above, of course you won't hear any difference if the other equipment in the chain have limitations.

Well, there's not a loudspeaker in the world that comes close to the SINAD numbers of the top DACs with a single or dual DAC. So I find that very hard to believe, this is likely just psychological.

I tried DX5 Lite vs E70 last weekend and concluded that I liked E70 better. I found the reason as I read Amir's reviews, E70 has a slightly higher output voltage.
If I could match the decibel levels properly I doubt there would be any difference at all, they both measure perfectly, way above human hearing capabilities.

In your case the pre-amp probably destroys a bit of the transparency of the DACs already.

 

[BrokenOath]

Have you done any level matched blind testing between just the different DACs, using the most similar filter setting on them? Also to be fair, that tube preamp and Klipschorn speakers have pretty significant technical performance limitations, but on any system no one would expect the SU-10 to be distinguishable from the D90 in level matched blind testing using comparable filters and none of the coloration presets these DACs may have. Since the two DACs on their most transparent settings spit out nearly identical performance.

Yes, I did. I make sure the level is the same in all three cases. All DACs are configured the same. I will do some blind tests on the weekend. But, there is absolutely no doubt that I can 100% differentiate between the su-10 and the D90. Between the su-10 and the M17, I may have some misses, but again, to my ears the su-10 sounded the fullest of the three.

 

[DLS79]

maybe this is why they are using more than one chip?

https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/1082/ES9039MPRO_ES9039PRO_v0_2_1-3079309.pdf

 

[BrokenOath]

Well, there's not a loudspeaker in the world that comes close to the SINAD numbers of the top DACs with a single or dual DAC. So I find that very hard to believe, this is likely just psychological.

I tried DX5 Lite vs E70 last weekend and concluded that I liked E70 better. I found the reason as I read Amir's reviews, E70 has a slightly higher output voltage.
If I could match the decibel levels properly I doubt there would be any difference at all, they both measure perfectly, way above human hearing capabilities.

In your case the pre-amp probably destroys a bit of the transparency of the DACs already.

Well, there's not a loudspeaker in the world that comes close to the SINAD numbers of the top DACs with a single or dual DAC. So I find that very hard to believe, this is likely just psychological.

I tried DX5 Lite vs E70 last weekend and concluded that I liked E70 better. I found the reason as I read Amir's reviews, E70 has a slightly higher output voltage.
If I could match the decibel levels properly I doubt there would be any difference at all, they both measure perfectly, way above human hearing capabilities.

In your case the pre-amp probably destroys a bit of the transparency of the DACs already.

Well, there's not a loudspeaker in the world that comes close to the SINAD numbers of the top DACs with a single or dual DAC. So I find that very hard to believe, this is likely just psychological.

I tried DX5 Lite vs E70 last weekend and concluded that I liked E70 better. I found the reason as I read Amir's reviews, E70 has a slightly higher output voltage.
If I could match the decibel levels properly I doubt there would be any difference at all, they both measure perfectly, way above human hearing capabilities.

In your case the pre-amp probably destroys a bit of the transparency of the DACs already.

You are comparing Apples and oranges. The DX5 is based on the ES9068AS which is not in the same league with DACs like the AKM4499 or the ES9038/9028 pro DAC chips. The pro ES chips are 8 channels, while the ES9068 chips are 2 channels. Just to say that I am not surprised that you prefer the E70 better since it is based on a better/superior DAC chip.
My comment pertains to the flagship DACs from ESS or AKM.

 

[unpluggged]

I am not surprised that you prefer the E70 better since it is based on a better/superior DAC chip

I am amazed how casually do you ignore the part where @Bleib honestly points out that their comparison was not level-matched, hence their bias, and make this into a strawman argument that makes it look like it proves your point of little factual merit that the more complex and expensive is a DAC chip, the better is the audible sound quality of the device it is installed into.

 

[Bleib]

You are comparing Apples and oranges. The DX5 is based on the ES9068AS which is not in the same league with DACs like the AKM4499 or the ES9038/9028 pro DAC chips. The pro ES chips are 8 channels, while the ES9068 chips are 2 channels. Just to say that I am not surprised that you prefer the E70 better since it is based on a better/superior DAC chip.
My comment pertains to the flagship DACs from ESS or AKM.

Boy, that sounds like marketing BS.

Suppose we switch the voltage levels on the DACs, I bet most would prefer DX5, as people tend to think louder is better.
Both measure so well objectively that it's way beyond human hearing.
Your loudspeakers, your ears, your room, your recordings are all objective much worse even when they are at their peak. They will never ever get close to the performance of something like DX5.

And as pointed out it's not scientifically conducted. I switch between the units, I have my biases.. I have no way of making sure they both output exactly say 4v, nor can I be sure that I sit at the exact same spot when switching between the DACs.

Also, I have for instance been reading for years that other electronics might interfere with the main functions, DX5 has a headphone amp, so it could potentially ruin a lot of the design but yet again objectively there is nothing to support this claim. It's ultra clean, ultra transparent, perfect product in fact. They both are. I suppose ultra purists would go on their way to get rid of the BT module inside these DACs in case it makes matters worse.

Same nonsense I heard for years when I built a PC focused for audio. You can't have a soundcard inside of a PC without it degrading the sound. Says who. A Soundblaster AE-5 measured here on ASR is yet again a lot better than human hearing... any loudspeaker and headphone will struggle to replicate its perfect frequency response and will most certainly not play anything as cleanly.

 

[dogmamann]

To my ears dual chip devices sound better; fuller sound, bass is stighter and fuller, and extended sound stage. I think a lot depends on the other equipment in the chain. I have just finished testing that theory using the following scenarios:
Scenario 1: SMSL-su10 -> Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp->Classe CA100 amp-> KlipschHorn full range speakers
Scenario 2: SMSL-su10 -> Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp->Classe CA100 amp-> Klipsch Cornwall full range speakers
Scenario 3: SMSL-su10 -> Musical Paradise MP-701 MK2 tube preamp->Classe CA100 amp-> Klipsch Heresy bookshelf speakers

With the speakers being the only difference.
Scenario 1 and 2 substantially sound better than scenario 3 (culprit the smaller bookshelf speakers can not reproduce the full range of the sound). Scenario 1 and 2 sound almost the same, with scenario 1 having a slight edge.

Repeated the above by simply changing the DAC with a Topping D90. It is right away clear to my ears that the topping provides a thinner sound, smaller sound stage, more prominent highs with the equipment of scenario 1-2, but scenario 3 sounds the same to my ears regardless of the DAC.

Repeated the above again by replacing the DAC with a FIIO M17 (the M17 uses the same dual ES9038 pro chips as the su-10). Again, right away I can hear a fuller sound reproduction, and bigger sound stage, however the M17 sounds slightly clearer that the su-10, but both are substantially better that the single chip Topping D90 when listening via the full range speakers, again no discernable difference when using the bookshel speakers.

My conclusion, as proven above, of course you won't hear any difference if the other equipment in the chain have limitations.

 

[cochinada]

After much pondering and hesitation, I finally decided to upgrade my Topping D10B and have just pulled the trigger. I was considering the D90 III but choose a different model for several reasons, but these were the main ones:

1. It costs a bit less than 600€ as I took advantage of a promotion without VAT on a trusty online store that I've used a couple of times before.
2. It has balanced outputs and is possible to select XLR 5V.
3. Based on ES9039SPRO.
4. Has a display that can show spectrum of what is playing and even a VU meter.
5. I like the aesthetics.
6. It ranks among the top 5 best measurement DACs.

By now, I'm sure most of you already know which model I'm talking about: Topping D70 PRO SABRE.
I don't know if I'm going to be able to hear any difference but at least the display won't go unnoticed for sure.

Among the other formidable candidates were, besides the D90 III and even D90 SE, the SMSL SU-10, Topping Dx7 Pro+ and DX5, RME ADI-2 FS DAC V2 and Okto dac8 stereo DAC. Some were too expensive comparing to the D70 PRO SABRE and mostly didn't measure better or lack some of the aspects I listed above.

 

[192kbps]

After much pondering and hesitation, I finally decided to upgrade my Topping D10B and have just pulled the trigger. I was considering the D90 III but choose a different model for several reasons, but these were the main ones:

1. It costs a bit less than 600€ as I took advantage of a promotion without VAT on a trusty online store that I've used a couple of times before.
2. It has balanced outputs and is possible to select XLR 5V.
3. Based on ES9039SPRO.
4. Has a display that can show spectrum of what is playing and even a VU meter.
5. I like the aesthetics.
6. It ranks among the top 5 best measurement DACs.

By now, I'm sure most of you already know which model I'm talking about: Topping D70 PRO SABRE.
I don't know if I'm going to be able to hear any difference but at least the display won't go unnoticed for sure.

Among the other formidable candidates were, besides the D90 III and even D90 SE, the SMSL SU-10, Topping Dx7 Pro+ and DX5, RME ADI-2 FS DAC V2 and Okto dac8 stereo DAC. Some were too expensive comparing to the D70 PRO SABRE and mostly didn't measure better or lack some of the aspects I listed above.

I strongly recommend that you wait for D50 III.

 

[cochinada]

I strongly recommend that you wait for D50 III.

Thanks but as I wrote, I have already pulled the trigger but I'm curious to know why is that? I think you haven't consider all the reasons why I decided to go for the D70 PRO SABRE, namely 1, 4 and 5. Anyway, I wasn't asking for advice (too late for that). I was just explaining my rationale for going a different route.

 

[192kbps]

Thanks but as I wrote, I have already pulled the trigger but I'm curious to know why is that? I think you haven't consider all the reasons why I decided to go for the D70 PRO SABRE, namely 1, 4 and 5. Anyway, I wasn't asking for advice (too late for that). I was just explaining my rationale for going a different route.

D50 III satisfies 1 and 2, while 3, 4, and 5 are unclear. It must satisfy 6 and also satisfy 7. It has a PEQ.

 

[BrokenOath]

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.

 

[Rhamnetin]

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.

What does this have to do with the thread? Sounds like you're just posturing. Things are priced at what people are willing to pay.

Also, Klipschorns are... not good. There are indeed speakers with a 3 figure price point that measure better in every single way and will thus sound better to the vast majority of people.

Klipsch Klipschorn AK6 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements Because of the Klipschorn AK6's bulkeach weighs 220 lbI drove my test gear the 177 miles to Art's place and measured the speaker sitting on a furniture dolly in his driveway. I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Klipschorn's...

www.stereophile.com

 

[cochinada]

Most people with more money than common sense would like to eradicate their insecurities as no one likes to admit they were taken as a fool. Most of the money asked for some products is just taking advantage of this niche of people who lack the discernment and also the knowledge to make educated choices, not based on pure marketing and see this as a symbol of status and believes or tell to themselves that just because it costs a lot it must be better than everything else. Sorry to rain on your parade but that is rarely the case.

 

[amirm]

Folks, please stay with the topic of the thread and not generic complaints about cost, etc.

 

[DLS79]

Has anyone seen any new info about the D50 III?

 

[192kbps]

ES9039Q2M
D50III
It will be launched on February 27, which is confirmed news.

 

[Jarrett]

ES9039Q2M
D50III
It will be launched on February 27, which is confirmed news.

Where is the news??

 

[DLS79]

ES9039Q2M
D50III
It will be launched on February 27, which is confirmed news.

All the built in filters look to be low pass filters. Thus I assume they are going to use the bypass feature, and rely on a secondary IC for PEQ functionality.

https://www.esstech.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ES9039Q2M_Datasheet_v0.1.3.pdf