Topping D90 III Vs D900

[Richx200]

Hello,

I'm looking to buy one of these units, they seem to be very similar in features and components.

If money wasn't a problem, which one would you buy, the D90 III or the D900 ?

Also, Please tell me why.

Thank you for your time.

 

[staticV3]

If money wasn't a problem, which one would you buy, the D90 III or the D900 ?

D900

Also, Please tell me why.

More inputs
Nicer design
Better screen
Better remote
Built-in analog preamp

 

[MBO]

The D900's midrange sounds a bit odd, so to speak. It's muffled to my ears, but it's not immediately noticeable; it takes time to adjust and listen to high-quality acoustic music. This artifact is masked by the strong highs and lows. The D90III Discrete has no such issues and sounds smooth and transparent throughout the entire range.

 

[Richx200]

D900


More inputs
Nicer design
Better screen
Better remote
Built-in analog preamp

Thank You For Your Response

 

[Richx200]

The D900's midrange sounds a bit odd, so to speak. It's muffled to my ears, but it's not immediately noticeable; it takes time to adjust and listen to high-quality acoustic music. This artifact is masked by the strong highs and lows. The D90III Discrete has no such issues and sounds smooth and transparent throughout the entire range.

Thank You For Your Response.

Do you think the D900 needs a FW upgrade?

 

[Matias]

D900

More inputs
Nicer design
Better screen
Better remote
Built-in analog preamp

And most important: D900 has DSP with 10 band PEQ.

 

[Richx200]

And most important: D900 has DSP with 10 band PEQ.

I think both units have the PEQ

 

[Matias]

D90 III Discrete has PEQ indeed.
But D90 III Sabre does not have.
So I assume you are talking about the D90 III Discrete now, so you are right, both have.

 

[Roland68]

Hello,

I'm looking to buy one of these units, they seem to be very similar in features and components.

If money wasn't a problem, which one would you buy, the D90 III or the D900 ?

Also, Please tell me why.

Thank you for your time.

I'd probably buy the DX9 Disctrete.
I prefer the technical design. It has separate power supplies for analog (2x) and digital (1x), and it also includes one of the best and most powerful headphone amplifiers, as well as a PEQ. It also has just as many digital inputs as the D900 and two additional RCA outputs.
The D900, for example, has only one power supply, from which the three +/- main voltages must be generated.

 

[jkim]

I would not consider any DAC device from Topping, FiiO, etc. if onboard PEQ/DSP is a desired feature, unless such a functionality is thoroughly tested by a 3rd party. Based on my testing so far, my impression is that their attention to detail in software implementation is not there yet to a satisfactory level. And my expectation is not high, either, for future improvement.

Here's an example. I guess Topping's onboard PEQ implementation on the XMOS chipset should be the same across all their devices. Apparently it is not based on double-precision computation. Even the much weaker processor on Qudelix 5K can handle double-precision PEQ up to 20 bands.

 

[Richx200]

D90 III Discrete has PEQ indeed.
But D90 III Sabre does not have.
So I assume you are talking about the D90 III Discrete now, so you are right, both have.

Yes, My error I did know there were two D90 III

 

[Richx200]

I'd probably buy the DX9 Disctrete.
I prefer the technical design. It has separate power supplies for analog (2x) and digital (1x), and it also includes one of the best and most powerful headphone amplifiers, as well as a PEQ. It also has just as many digital inputs as the D900 and two additional RCA outputs.
The D900, for example, has only one power supply, from which the three +/- main voltages must be generated.

Dual power supplies would be an advantage. The only question I would have is that if the single PS was a weakness, wouldn't that affect the overall quality of the sound?

I know a lot of other factors come it play, but would you rate the DX9 Discrete's sound quality superior to the D90 III Discrete or D900 ? I'm using Anthem MXR 1140.

 

[Roland68]

I would not consider any DAC device from Topping, FiiO, etc. if onboard PEQ/DSP is a desired feature, unless such a functionality is thoroughly tested by a 3rd party. Based on my testing so far, my impression is that their attention to detail in software implementation is not there yet to a satisfactory level. And my expectation is not high, either, for future improvement.

Here's an example. I guess Topping's onboard PEQ implementation on the XMOS chipset should be the same across all their devices. Apparently it is not based on double-precision computation. Even the much weaker processor on Qudelix 5K can handle double-precision PEQ up to 20 bands.

Yes, unfortunately, unfortunately, unfortunately, Topping made the mistake of saving money and using existing ICs, like the XMOS chip, for DSP.
The problems that this entails can currently be seen in the DX5 II thread.

Dedicated DSP ICs cost €5-15 each for end users, and significantly less for manufacturers in quantities. The computing power is at least equal to significantly superior. Working software exists from these manufacturers and can be adapted and expanded via the GUI.

Furthermore, Topping has once again missed a very big opportunity and a few small ones with its latest device series.
Many of these DSP chips have integrated DACs, and some also ADCs. Since a subwoofer output doesn't benefit from such extremely high-quality measurement values, it would have cost only a few cents more to add one or two subouts directly via the DSP chip. These sub outputs would have had at least the same quality as the small MiniDSP or t.racks DSP devices.
That would have been a real added value, for which many users would have paid a few euros more.
By the way, @TOPPING, that would not only have increased your sales and reputation for DACs with functioning DSPs, but many users would also have switched from other brands due to this additional subwoofer functionality.
It would also have increased your amplifier sales, because customers with well-functioning devices (e.g., integrated DSPs) are brand loyalists.

 

[jkim]

Yes, unfortunately, unfortunately, unfortunately, Topping made the mistake of saving money and using existing ICs, like the XMOS chip, for DSP.

The XMOS chip is perfectly capable of handling double precision PEQ. It is just a matter of software development.

 

[Richx200]

I would not consider any DAC device from Topping, FiiO, etc. if onboard PEQ/DSP is a desired feature, unless such a functionality is thoroughly tested by a 3rd party. Based on my testing so far, my impression is that their attention to detail in software implementation is not there yet to a satisfactory level. And my expectation is not high, either, for future improvement.

Here's an example. I guess Topping's onboard PEQ implementation on the XMOS chipset should be the same across all their devices. Apparently it is not based on double-precision computation. Even the much weaker processor on Qudelix 5K can handle double-precision PEQ up to 20 bands.

The PEQ would be an important feature, for sure, but it isn't everything.
I would wait for a reliable 3rd party test on the overall quality of the D900.
I posted the question here to get some experts or user's options.
So far, the reviews are positive.

 

[Roland68]

Dual power supplies would be an advantage. The only question I would have is that if the single PS was a weakness, wouldn't that affect the overall quality of the sound?

I know a lot of other factors come it play, but would you rate the DX9 Discrete's sound quality superior to the D90 III Discrete or D900 ? I'm using Anthem MXR 1140.

For me, Topping has always been a leader in power supplies (at least since the first D70/D90). With the DX5 II, they clearly demonstrated that you can generate all three or four voltages with one power supply without adversely affecting the sound or measured values.
But I'm a fan of dedicated hardware. DACs require +/- 10-15 volts for the analog power supply, with the + branch also supplying the digital section of the DAC (usually 5 volts or less). The DX9 has three separate power supplies, so the + analog branch isn't subjected to a greater load on one side.

I can say that the D90 discrete definitely doesn't sound worse than the old DX9. I haven't heard the D900 yet, nor the DX9 discrete.
But if you need a good HPA, the decision should be easy.

 

[Roland68]

The XMOS chip is perfectly capable of handling double precision PEQ. It is just a matter of software development.

That's possible, but software was and still is a major weakness for Topping (and all other manufacturers in this space).
It would have made more sense to go with something with a working and proven software.

Furthermore, the Topping brand is currently suffering greatly again. Many potential buyers are saying about the DX5 II that they won't buy it because it has bugs and doesn't work.
This impression of faulty devices is reinforced by the past and is reflected in the entire portfolio.

Topping would have been better off investing the lost revenue/lower sales in a functioning DSP system. I have the feeling that Topping keeps making the same mistakes and doesn't learn from them.
It's a real shame, but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[Richx200]

Yes, unfortunately, unfortunately, unfortunately, Topping made the mistake of saving money and using existing ICs, like the XMOS chip, for DSP.
The problems that this entails can currently be seen in the DX5 II thread.

Dedicated DSP ICs cost €5-15 each for end users, and significantly less for manufacturers in quantities. The computing power is at least equal to significantly superior. Working software exists from these manufacturers and can be adapted and expanded via the GUI.

Furthermore, Topping has once again missed a very big opportunity and a few small ones with its latest device series.
Many of these DSP chips have integrated DACs, and some also ADCs. Since a subwoofer output doesn't benefit from such extremely high-quality measurement values, it would have cost only a few cents more to add one or two subouts directly via the DSP chip. These sub outputs would have had at least the same quality as the small MiniDSP or t.racks DSP devices.
That would have been a real added value, for which many users would have paid a few euros more.
By the way, @TOPPING, that would not only have increased your sales and reputation for DACs with functioning DSPs, but many users would also have switched from other brands due to this additional subwoofer functionality.
It would also have increased your amplifier sales, because customers with well-functioning devices (e.g., integrated DSPs) are brand loyalists.

Thank you for your time and explanation.

Unfortunately, my subwoofer situation is rather complicated. Let me explain, no let me sum up. Very bad room nulls cured with REW, MOS MiniDSP Flex 2x4 (four SVS SB4000) I wouldn't be using the D90 III Discrete or D900 for the subs. I have a Topping D70 Pro Sabre which would be replaced with one of the two and give me the flexibility to replace Anthem's ARC.

P.S. You wouldn't happen to know what filters Topping uses?

 

[Roland68]

Thank you for your time and explanation.

Unfortunately, my subwoofer situation is rather complicated. Let me explain, no let me sum up. Very bad room nulls cured with REW, MOS MiniDSP Flex 2x4 (four SVS SB4000) I wouldn't be using the D90 III Discrete or D900 for the subs. I have a Topping D70 Pro Sabre which would be replaced with one of the two and give me the flexibility to replace Anthem's ARC.

P.S. You wouldn't happen to know what filters Topping uses?

I can't say much about the Topping Tune/DSP at the moment, as I won't order my own DX5 II until the DSP software is working properly. I gave up on the borrowed DX5 II after my settings were deleted for the third time in a row.
But you can download Topping Tune, and perhaps @jkim can answer your question.

For what you're describing, Acourate (or similar software) could be a much more sensible solution. It would be far superior to hardware solutions, as well as the scalability. In terms of hardware, you would only need the power amplifiers, plus a powerful (not overly powerful) computer, and a sound card with the appropriate number of channels, or a multi-channel DAC, such as the Okto Research DAC8 PRO, or a corresponding interface.

 

[Richx200]

Yes, unfortunately, unfortunately, unfortunately, Topping made the mistake of saving money and using existing ICs, like the XMOS chip, for DSP.
The problems that this entails can currently be seen in the DX5 II thread.

Dedicated DSP ICs cost €5-15 each for end users, and significantly less for manufacturers in quantities. The computing power is at least equal to significantly superior. Working software exists from these manufacturers and can be adapted and expanded via the GUI.

Furthermore, Topping has once again missed a very big opportunity and a few small ones with its latest device series.
Many of these DSP chips have integrated DACs, and some also ADCs. Since a subwoofer output doesn't benefit from such extremely high-quality measurement values, it would have cost only a few cents more to add one or two subouts directly via the DSP chip. These sub outputs would have had at least the same quality as the small MiniDSP or t.racks DSP devices.
That would have been a real added value, for which many users would have paid a few euros more.
By the way, @TOPPING, that would not only have increased your sales and reputation for DACs with functioning DSPs, but many users would also have switched from other brands due to this additional subwoofer functionality.
It would also have increased your amplifier sales, because customers with well-functioning devices (e.g., integrated DSPs) are brand loyalists.

I just read a review of the D900 and it also pointed out the problems with the PEQ,

"I did, however, try PEQ with my PC using the USB connection, and it worked perfectly fine with only a tiny caveat. Once you engage PEQ and load the PEQ config file, the sound loses some crispness, like the resolution and timing of the unit are no longer at 100% but more like at 99%. It’s a subtle effect, but you can still hear it with high-end speakers and headphones.."

Topping D900 DAC Review - Engineering Masterclass or Audiophile Hype? - Soundnews

The summer vacation for the DACMan is over, and that means lots of DAC reviews will be coming soon-ish. And what would be a better way to kick things off than with the best DAC Topping Audio has ever made? Almost two years ago, Topping unleashed their mightiest DAC, the DX9, which carried 15 years …

soundnews.net

He also has some interesting thing to say about the "Gustard R26" DAC.