• 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 III Sabre DAC Review

Rate this DAC:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 12 2.9%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 32 7.9%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 105 25.8%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 258 63.4%

  • Total voters
    407
assumedly with newer version of AP shows 128dB
No, as I said earlier A-weighting has been applied;

1705621254012.png




JSmith
 
I'd assume because for that kind of money you could build a small form factor computer and put PEQ software on it and have it feed a cheap audibly transparent dac.

with the proper compontents the pc will give you more possible inputs, and outputs.

I don't think that was the insinuation but perhaps we'll find out. The limitation of what you describe is, that only gets you PEQ from that computer and not any other source, though that won't matter for everyone.
 
I don't think that was the insinuation but perhaps we'll find out. The limitation of what you describe is, that only gets you PEQ from that computer and not any other source, though that won't matter for everyone.

depends what you are trying to get into the machine.

for example this a simple external optical to sub converter.

pcie cars exist as well, RME make some even.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trl
Yay, destroying the value of the previous models by releasing a 'new' one for a dB of measurement difference. This is why I stay well clear of chinese audio products, crazy depracation because of this.

Most western made audio products depreciate at a similar rate these days, even from renowned brands like Bricasti, Pass Labs, and many others, and even when there isn't a newer model to replace them.
 
Most western made audio products depreciate at a similar rate these days, even from renowned brands like Bricasti, Pass Labs, and many others, and even when there isn't a newer model to replace them.

probabbly because one of the componets they use, is no longer being made, or has gone up in price etc.

The other possibillity is they are just feeding the rampent consumers and the keeping up with the Jones types.
 
I believe 123dB is the limit of APx555 that Amir owns, their own measurements - assumedly with newer version of AP shows 128dB
AP says there is no difference. And I know a company that has both revisions and performance is the same.
 
I know we've said that measurements have gotten out of hand many many times before this review, but. It's getting out of hand (again) :)

Well done, Topping.

Thank you, Amir :)
 
It is nice and a tiny bit boring that DACs are a solved problem. Sometimes I wish I was an audiophool and could go on and rave about a lush midrange or liquid treble. But no, I can buy one DAC for each listening and am done. For years. Where is the hobby? But anyway, thanks Amir for the measurements and for elucidating and informing the audience.
 
Last edited:
I'd assume because for that kind of money you could build a small form factor computer and put PEQ software on it and have it feed a cheap audibly transparent dac.

with the proper compontents the pc will give you more possible inputs, and outputs.
Radxa X2L: 45$, with Daphile.

You can use REW and some Umik to measure your speakers in your room, generate filters and enter the filters into Daphile.
 
It's pretty amazing that you have multiple options where >20 bit performance is achieved. That said, if you can hear the difference between this and any other DAC in the blue section... either your listening material is extremely poorly mastered, or you're a medical marvel and should go get examined by a team of scientists.

Good job Topping, the war against noise and distortion in DACs is over. Where is the next frontier?
 
I don't find the jitter values that great when compared to the manufacturer's specifications. The image is from the Gustard x16, and it looks almost identical!


B3DFFDB3-C7C1-4C1F-AED6-83B7490CAC06.png
 
At 21.7 to 22.5 bits of distortion free sound, we are beyond the "superb" level. We have now reached the "exquisite" level of quality.
 
I've been looking forward to this test for a while, and read it with some anticipation.

They've succeeded in their very focussed mission to make the cleanest and quietest DAC that it's possible to make. Succeeded where so many others have failed.

But the audience is hard to please.
because they put almost all the efforts in one race that does not really matter. and then jack up the price significantly
it's not the audience is hard to please, they are trying to please wrong audience
 
I wonder if we haven't already surpassed the human possibility of perceiving improvements. Perhaps these new models are useless for those who already own a recent DAC model
 
Topping have long provided both weighted and unweighted THD+N measurements. The company is as transparent as it's electronics.

The price is the same as before, as well, in spite of the extra cost - two DAC chips instead of one, for example.

The D90.3 is a no-holds-barred, cost-no-object attempt to make the best possible performing DAC. Some products cater for the mass market, but this is not it.

How many times do people ask what's the point of the latest 200mph supercar when the speed limit is only 70mph?

There's always someone pushing the limits. There always has been, and thank goodness, there always will be.

Without them we wouldn't be where we are now.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom