D
Deleted member 43441
Guest
Is this a result of trying to squeeze too much out of this? Just going for specs?
-
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 D90SE Review (Balanced DAC)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Is this a result of trying to squeeze too much out of this? Just going for specs?
AK4490 and AK4493 are back in production. AK4499 also has this functionality. In addition Cirrus Logic and TI DACs offer this. In fact TI/BB DAC chips don't even offer "DSP path" for DSD, it is always direct feed to the D/A stage. There are of course many AKM based DACs on the market, not just RME. I have also for example TEAC NT-503.
And then you of course have number of DACs with a discrete DSD stage on the market. (T+A, Holo, Denafrips, TEAC, Esoteric, Marantz...)
What do you mean? On their web page Topping has this:
I was just kind of expect it to work? Even at half of that.
But I suspect it is either XMOS running out of steam which is not unusual when it is loaded with MQA.
Some ESS misconfiguration (it has a lot of settings).
Or alternatively (or additionally) related to the topic discussed here, which I consider likely:
Measurements: "ESS Hump" revisited (Khadas Tone Board V1.3)
Part 1 : Introduction By now, we all know what the infamous "ESS Hump" looks like in the typical IMD vs. Level plot, as shown for example in Amir's original review of the WesionTEK Khadas Tone Board DAC (KTB). But it does also show up in simple THD+N vs. Level plots. The DAC chip used is a...
www.audiosciencereview.com
The above topic goes to category of chasing for lowest SINAD figures makes analog side misbehave same way as same chasing caused TIM distortion in the 70's on amplifiers. At that time, in 70's people were asking "how can amplifier measuring so low THD+N still sound so bad? it should be perfect!". And then TIM distortion was found and measurements for it formalized. IOW, it could be that the D90SE analog stages misbehave under certain conditions.
Last edited:
They don't bother to support 48k based DSD officially, but I owned E30 and now I am using E50, both are able to play 48k based DSD64 to DSD256. They both don't play 48k based DSD512 because firmware considers that not playable and blocks it. Clearly firmware developers did not count with 48k based DSD but despite of that ignorance up to DSD256 both DAC models are able to play 48k based DSD correctly. I don't own D90SE so I couldn't try it, but I would be surprised if just the highest model would not be able to do so. E50 switches without issues and E30 needs to switch to a 48k based PCM rate before attempting a 48k based DSD rate.
The displayed DSD rate is incorrect in 48k DSD case on both E30 and E50. It shows the next 44.1k based rate instead of actual 48k based
rate. For example it shows 11.2 for 48k based DSD128, which is 6.1 MHz.
One can check the actual PCM/DSD rate in driver Control Panel (as well as in HQPlayer) so I am absolutely sure about correctness of my findings.
Good! It may work, but John Yang has expressly said on this forum, that he won’t put any effort supporting it, since it is not part of the original DSD spec.
John Yang is (at least was) working for Topping, but he wrote somewhere he is not a direct employee. He is not developer of Topping DACs. He is known to develop Topping L30. His role is overestimated on this forum. Since lot of troubles appeared with more Topping DACs, he is no more responding here.
But you are right Topping does not care about 48k based DSD and what works is only a coincidence.
Well, neither is DSD128 or anything else than 44.1k x64...
But I find it strange to not support it, because not supporting it requires extra effort on firmware. From USB interface point of view, for native DSD256 (44.1k x256) it is running in 352.8k PCM mode. And for native 48k x256 it would be running in 384k PCM mode. And same clocks would be used as for those 48k-base PCM modes... Only difference is one number in the USB messages. Still someone manages to mess up switching clocks when DSD is input instead of PCM. Although everything is the same.
Apologies about "strange"..........I was a bit slow on the edit button.
I guess I misconstrued your post and went off a bit half cocked.
You don't need to justify your choices.
Here is my story regarding Topping and D90SE.
A friend of mine bought this DAC. He bragged about how well it measured.
I told him that measurements are just measurements and might not matter at all.
At the time I had the Musical Fidelity MX-DAC. It is around the same price and got some rave reviews.
We got together and compared the DACs. I even borrowed the Topping DAC for a few days.
It was easy, not matter how much I wanted the Musical Fidelity DAC to be better. The Topping DAC was at another level.
I could not live without it and bought it right away. Been happy every since. To me it is probably my last DAC.
I have discovered this site and could read the measurements on both the DACs I'm talking about here.
This site and what Amir is doing is a wake up call to the industry.
A friend of mine bought this DAC. He bragged about how well it measured.
I told him that measurements are just measurements and might not matter at all.
At the time I had the Musical Fidelity MX-DAC. It is around the same price and got some rave reviews.
We got together and compared the DACs. I even borrowed the Topping DAC for a few days.
It was easy, not matter how much I wanted the Musical Fidelity DAC to be better. The Topping DAC was at another level.
I could not live without it and bought it right away. Been happy every since. To me it is probably my last DAC.
I have discovered this site and could read the measurements on both the DACs I'm talking about here.
This site and what Amir is doing is a wake up call to the industry.
G.R.Waters
Member
Having both as well (the D90se supposedly bought to replace the ADI-2) I subscribe enterely.
For sound clarity I believe there are maybe subtle differences coming from the applied filtering. Other than what mentioned above I may add in favor of RME: built quality (see my previous post on Topping loosing the RCA connector and on feet material), crossfade function, useful for certain old jazz recordings and not just with headphones, and probably missing many of other features I didn't bother to tweak in among the dozens of other settings and function available ... and consider that I used the excellent HP amp for a couple of hours in 2 years, not because it is no good, but just because I listen HP only in another room.
I cannot argue with your personal preferences or with the benefits the RME offers in comparison with the Topping.
But I still don’t think the comparison is valid. The Topping D90se is a pure DAC, and every penny spent on it is going towards what it claims to do—performing exceptionally as a DAC. The RME is a DAC, a pre amp, a signal processor, and a headphone amplifier. It costs $400 more than the Topping if one is seeking a DAC and ONLY a DAC.
And as I’ve said previously, I think the implementation of DACs are changing, with many more pure DACs being produced instead of DAC/amp combos, so folks can buy separate components and customize their setups much more. Of course there are arguments for buying all-in-ones like the RME, if one prefers this concept and budgetary matters are a priority.
But I like the idea of investing my money in an assortment of gear that are each designed to excel at the role they’re advertised to fulfill. And given the technological advances that have led to a wave of “perfect” performing DACs Amir has shown us on here over the past year or so, I followed the mantra of investing my money in the following, in increasing order of priority: Signal source (streamer)—>DAC—>amp—>headphones.
So I spent $399 on the iFi Zen Stream, because in terms of offering a full assortment of music sources with the highest quality signal and noise isolation, I haven’t found anything more required than what comes with this Volumio-based unit. I use Roon as my music aggregator so I have no need to spend extra on a fancy hardware GUI.
Then I spent $899 on the Topping, which I felt was the best DAC available (not just for its price point, but in terms of a pure DAC, period). There may be some folks who insist that “measurements are just measurements”, but in regards to the pure functions that is required of a DAC (and only a DAC!), measurements are the most objective and evidence-based benchmarks for the quality of the analog signal being sent to an amp. Anything else is anecdotal hand-waving or placebo effect—period.
Then I chose a $2,399 fully-balanced headphone amp (the iFi Pro iCAN Signature) that lined up perfectly on my desk with the Topping, offered 15 watts of balanced power to ensure that I could drive any headphones I might choose, had a choice of discrete Class A J-FET solid state and tube-based amplifier stages, and offered some pure analog signal processing via its xBass and crossfade functions. I spent way more than that extra $400 to get the added functions of the RME, but every piece in my setup is wholly designed to serve its unique purpose and nothing more.
Finally, I bought both Focal Utopias and Sony Z1Rs—and I maintain that the shaping, soundstage, tonality and musicality one can achieve with carefully chosen headphones far exceeds what one can achieve with the admittedly fine software-based features the RME offers. And what my hardware components cannot do to push my music closer to that Harman Curve, Roon’s DSP functions can.
These are just my personal choices. I recognize that the RME and Denafrips options can do magical things for considerably less cost, but when making comparisons among audiophile products that include a DAC, I think it’s important to keep in mind what else each piece is doing under the hood.
I would say that D90SE is also outstanding as pre.
Digital volume control of this quality is all you need unless you use analogue sources.
I connect the DAC balanced to my Theta amp. I have plenty of gain.
I understand people complain about the remote, but works fine to me.
I have the DAC 3 meter away and right in front of me so no problem.
Sure, if Topping make a nice remote I would buy it.
Digital volume control of this quality is all you need unless you use analogue sources.
I connect the DAC balanced to my Theta amp. I have plenty of gain.
I understand people complain about the remote, but works fine to me.
I have the DAC 3 meter away and right in front of me so no problem.
Sure, if Topping make a nice remote I would buy it.
Well, to be exact, it is not a pure DAC. It has bunch of DSP processing and is not able to do bit-perfect D/A conversion where the actual input data ends up untouched in the D/A conversion stage.
It has at least following DSP:
- MQA decoder and digital filters
- Digital oversampling filters
- Digital volume control
- Asynchronous sample rate converter
- Delta-Sigma modulator
Who needs DSD?
Digital filters? There are already in the DAC chip design.
I tried the RMA DAC and prefer the SQ of D90SE. I like the simpler operation and design of D90SE.
Maybe I did not dial inn the RMA DAC correct. I tried a lot but it was a very complex.
Digital filters? There are already in the DAC chip design.
I tried the RMA DAC and prefer the SQ of D90SE. I like the simpler operation and design of D90SE.
Maybe I did not dial inn the RMA DAC correct. I tried a lot but it was a very complex.
I do, and if you listen something obtained for example from nativedsd.com
Exactly, the DAC chip has a lot of DSP and no bypass for all that very resource constrained DSP stuff.
If you listen to something in DSD and convert it to PCM or 16bit/44.1 you will hear a difference?
Bypass?
You always need a high frequency filter or is it different for DSD?
If it was not possible to select, the designer would use the one they like.
Here it is possible to select, not that I hear any difference.
I call this a feature that cost almost nothing to implement.
Yes.
You always need analog reconstruction filter. You don't need a digital filter for DSD.
I have my own better filters (and delta-sigma modulators) I can run on PC. I don't need any digital filters on DAC. I just need a pure D/A converter that can convert data bit-perfect to analog. With good conversion stage and analog filters. But no digital processing.
Point here is that it is not a pure DAC. It always has DSP processing. RME can operate as a pure DAC. With PCM inputs you can bypass the digital filters and just keep the modulator. Or with DSD Direct mode you can bypass the digital filter and modulators and just have pure D/A conversion.
I too saw that the 4493 is back in production, and I’m glad to hear AKM is slowly rebuilding what they had—I suppose we need a little friction with ESS to encourage competition for producing some new DAC chips that exceed the specs of the ES9038pro and the AK4499. But I can’t say I’m excited about ongoing access to the 4490 or 4493, or the DACs that utilize them.
I’d much prefer AKM to get the AK4499 up and running again, or a worthwhile equivalent (the last I read AKM had no plans to reboot the 4499). The reason they’ve prioritized their inferior 4490 and 4493 chips instead is pure economics—there are far more mid-tier, affordable devices on the market with these two chips than the 4499-based flagships, so demand for them is far greater. Either way, Topping replaced the 4499 with the 9038pro in the D90se and it’s outperforming its predecessor.
Going back to the original topic, my question is what there is to be gained on a practical level by these 48-base or direct bypass DSD units. A lot of the devotees of these technologies seem to be more focused on the engineering involved than on the sound coming out of the speakers. The DACs you mention all perform with considerable inferiority compared to the modern delta-sigma DACs, and many of them aren’t just DACs anyway—they’re combination pre-amp, amplifier or signal processor devices. Any arguments for them seem to be based in a bygone era technologically
The measurement differences among the current top performing DACs are unlikely to be audible among anyone over the age of 10 years old. And Amir has consistently debunked the myth of the R2R DACs since we passed into the modern delta-sigma era over the last couple of years.
Well, pretty much all delta sigma DACs have those filters (that’s the foundational basis of how they work), so I wouldn’t necessarily say they make the D90se anything other than a DAC—it’s a pure delta sigma DAC. I think that this kind of thinking is yet another example of focusing more on what’s under the hood than what quality of sound is coming out of those analog outputs.
I have a ton of DSD/DSF files I’ve purchased from sites like nativedsd and others, along with a few hundred I’ve used JRiver to convert from SACD iso into quad DSF files. And the Topping decodes these files as DSD 256 with extraordinary results. I have a hard time believing that at this sampling rate, with quantization noise being pushed up above what moths can hear, that “DSD direct bypass” would sound superior in any appreciable way.
We can keep debating these granular differences in processing among DACs, but the bottom line is that all the arcane methods to decode digital files you’re referring to, along with any didacticism about the “purity” of R2R ladders, have been rendered obsolete in the last year or two—in what Amir calls the “modern era” of DACs. The eight channel ES9038pro implementations that have been arguably perfected over the past year have consistently demonstrated superiority over R2R DACs and the “boutique” examples you’ve mentioned, by every accepted criterion.
So, say what you want, but when evaluating the pure functions a DAC performs, including the fairly universal filters inherent to the delta sigma DACs that sit at the top of Amir’s SINAD charts, measurements are the only objective methods we have to determine the sound quality of the digital to analog conversion process—and when performed with rigor, proper controls and standardization, they are ALL that matter. With the exception of the RME, R2R DACs don’t even approach the performance of the prevailing delta sigma DACs like the D90se.
And if you read Amir’s review of the RME, he gave it a strong recommendation based on its combined strengths as an amplifier, signal processor and DAC in one—not on its measurements as a DAC alone per se. It’s a great unit for what it is—but it’s in no way a better DAC than the D90se. And if all you’re looking for is a DAC, the Topping is a way better deal from a cost perspective.
For example TI's PCM1795 is a nice chip when running at DSD256.
I have one AK4499 device, SMSL M400. But it is not performing any better than than my AK4490 or AK4493 devices - the way I'm using them.
I'm not interested in R2R so much. I'm more interested in the DSD section of for example Holo Spring. I practically never use it's R2R side for listening music. And yes, with suitable processing outside of the box, you can notably improve it's technical performance.
My point is that the DSP on those chips, including those filters are so poor and resource constrained that I'd rather replace those with something better. Thus I'm more interested in delta-sigma DACs that are only D/A converters, because I can do all the necessary DSP much better outside of the box. Precisely for quality of analog outputs.
Yes, with extraordinary noise and distortion. So far worst I've seen from any of the DACs I have (I have some tens of DACs).
I have never been asking for R2R DACs, but instead delta-sigma DACs without the DSP parts. (DSD is pure delta-sigma data)
RME is not R2R DAC.
And if you read my measurements of it, you can see how you can further improve it's technical performance by doing all the digital filters and delta-sigma modulators outside of the box.
And yes, it is notably better performing device than the D90SE.
My error about the RME, I was cross-wired with the Denafrips, which I’m oft apt to do—because folks seem to bring them up in equal measure when they claim they’re superior to all the DACs in Amir’s top 10 on here.
I won’t start up another debate about the “noise and distortion” you’re assuming I would tolerate with my DSD 256 files—you know as well as I do that at sampling rates this high that quantization noise is spun into the inaudible range and filtered out. And unless you can explain otherwise, I fail to see how DSD direct processing would obviate the noise issue, which is inherent in the single bit format DSD utilizes to begin with. Since when can DSD be played back without filtering?
And I have to say that you’re being a bit officious in underestimating what demands I ask of my gear, as if I would invest this much thought and expense to listen to distortion all day.
But I’ll assume that this is a congenial debate, so…
How can you possibly gauge the RME vs the Topping when the RME adds so many other confounding features? How are you controlling for the preamp, amp and all of its own internal filters/DSPs? Tell me how you could strip it down to its pure DAC functions and compare it head-to-head with the D90se? You just can’t—they aren’t even in the same category in terms of purpose.
And more importantly, how do you account for its measurements not surpassing, or even equaling the Topping when you claim it’s a better DAC?
I’ve heard the RME; I auditioned it along with the Topping when I was going through the paces of selecting my final setup. It’s a terrific unit—and I enjoyed fiddling with all the settings quite a bit. I would guess that with most tracks I probably couldn’t much tell them apart—but I sure could tell a difference when I paired the Topping with a dedicated valve amplifier and some power hungry headphones, and with the ifi’s xBass I’d never heard such bass slam in my life.
That’s the personal choice I made. Among other choices, I enjoy listening to Qobuz AND Tidal, and the RME cannot accommodate the latter. Plus I trust Amir (which means I trust the evidence)—it’s why I’m here as a participant and donor. So I trusted his best-measuring DAC on the list, a rank which it has held for nearly a year, and sent the RME back in favor of a bit better numbers and more clean power with my separate amp. By all means share with me what I compromised with my decision…
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll