• 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 E30 DAC Review

Pluto

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 2, 2018
Messages
990
Likes
1,631
Location
Harrow, UK
It is about less noise
The best theoretical possible noise level in a digital stream is typically defined by the amount of necessary dither. If a file is dithered appropriately for 16 bits, simply increasing the bit depth cannot magically reduce any noise (i.e. dither) already there.

In most cases the actual noise level in a real-world recording (typically from ventilation, traffic or indeed any analogue recording) far exceeds the level of noise required to dither a 16 bit stream.
 

Pdxwayne

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
3,219
Likes
1,172
Noise, detail (as I've used it above), and dynamic range are all tied together.

Try reading this.
Sure they are related. The question at hand is if the 24 bit captured file can have dynamic range of over 96 dB or not.

When you play a 16 bit file that have total silence for 1 second via a DAC, connect to a capture device (ADC) that would save the captured analog absolute silence in 24 bit file, that 24 bit file absolute silence should be lower than 96 dB, no?
 

megapleb

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2020
Messages
11
Likes
4
Sure they are related. The question at hand is if the 24 bit captured file can have dynamic range of over 96 dB or not.

When you play a 16 bit file that have total silence for 1 second via a DAC, connect to a capture device (ADC) that would save the captured analog absolute silence in 24 bit file, that 24 bit file absolute silence should be lower than 96 dB, no?

I view the question you are asking as more related to information theory than digital audio. If the source is 16 bit, then resampling it at 24-bit, which I think is what you are describing above, cannot add new information (it may add new noise), so no, the dynamic range cannot increase beyond the original 96dB, assuming it was that high to begin with.

Edit - I think I follow your thinking. You are saying if the noise floor of 96 dB is stretched down to 144 dB, and presumably the rest of the audio with it, does that not increase the dynamic range? The answer to that would be yes, but then you are not recreating the original 16-bit signal in 24-bit, you are creating a new signal in 24-bit composed of different information, and that "stretching", couldn't be achieved simply by sampling the outputted analogue audio at 24-bit, you would need to process the audio before resampling it.
 
Last edited:

Pdxwayne

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
3,219
Likes
1,172
I view the question you are asking as more related to information theory than digital audio. If the source is 16 bit, then resampling it at 24-bit, which I think is what you are describing above, cannot add new information (it may add new noise), so no, the dynamic range cannot increase beyond the original 96dB, assuming it was that high to begin with.
No, not all in digital domain. Like I said, it was digital to analog converted first. The analog signals then being digitalized using ADC. The ADC don't care about what bit the original file is, am I correct? If there is absolute silence from the analog out, then ADC would save that absolute silence as absolute silence in 24 bit representation. That absolute silence in 24bit vs max volume in 24 bit, aren't they supposed to be 144 dB?
 

Pdxwayne

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
3,219
Likes
1,172
See my edit above, I think I understand your question.
Yup, the video demo multiple conversions. DAC first, then ADC convert whatever analog signals it received and save in 24 bit file.

So it is fully conceivable to have over 100 dB of dynamic range if the analog signals of absolute silence is captured as is. However, as the video show, it not not possible to have 144 dB dynamic range due to noise.

That is what the whole thing is about. Noise. Is the noise from the recording? Is the noise from equipments other than the recording. Can a noise reduction device reduce extra noise not in original recording?
 

Pdxwayne

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
3,219
Likes
1,172
In the real world it would be total silence plus 16 bit dither!
Unfortunately I am not sure what 16 bit dither does.

If analog signal out is supposed to be totally silence, the capture device capturing in 24 bit would have dynamic range of 144db in perfect world, am I correct?

Thanks!
 

Mike-48

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
164
Likes
224
Location
Portland, Oregon
A Charlatan can be sincere and still be a Charlatan.
Yes, certainly (we each could name plenty of them). I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Still, I think the distinction between a conscious liar and someone who believes their own concoctions is interesting. I suspect the latter will appear more convincing to the naive. In the end, as you say, the customer still gets scammed.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
7,079
Likes
23,523
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
Unfortunately I am not sure what 16 bit dither does.

If analog signal out is supposed to be totally silence, the capture device capturing in 24 bit would have dynamic range of 144db in perfect world, am I correct?

Thanks!

This is actually a much deeper topic on its own, and since we're getting a bit OT, starting a new thread with these questions might get you some good answers.
 

finitol

Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
25
Likes
5
I was only half joking... In any case, this video just oozes bullshit from all orophoses. 101.4 dB Dynamic range from a recording that can only have a maximum of 96dB of dynamic range? It was a 16 bit source, sampling it at 24 bits does not give it any more.. it's clearly nonsense.

You cannot actually use Audio DiffMaker to evaluate these kind of things. The auto alignment only works on whole samples, so you'll need to start the recording of both sources at the exact same time to be able to subtract the actual files. Any tiny misalignment will invalidate the result, which is exactly what happens here.

And now really back on topic, I you want to discuss more make your own topic, or buy the damn thing and send it in for testing :). I hope @finitol found some time to stroke his E30 some more;)
Tomorrow i will test both e30 only fooded by ifi power (that's my smps). Then with coaxial rca, then with interconnect and, of course, touch no metal surfaces to discard (or not) electricity issue
 

gfinlays

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2020
Messages
179
Likes
332
I am not hydra. But, I am curious. No, I have not seen fiber optic cables from my internet cable company that offered FIOS. The line that connected into my house was connected via telephone line. Do define "very, very, very, very, very cheap". $0.01 per ft?

I'll give you an example - my garden office, in which my Synology Rackstation lives is connected to my network switch in the house via an 8-core multimode fibre cable. 8 cores = 4 discrete connections, each capable of 10Gbit/s, so 40Gbit/s bandwidth in total. The cable is 40m (~130ft) long and is also steel-wire armoured so can be directly buried in the ground (mine is on a cable tray). It was supplied pre-terminated with glands and LC connectors which have to be bonded on and the ends cut and polished, and also a screw on sleeve to attach to a cable puller for installation. Total cost for that cable was about US$400. TOSlink runs at round about 2Mbit/s (let's assume it's 2 for easy sums). My cable can carry 20,000 times that data rate over 130 feet. Let's say a 3 ft TOSlink costs $10. 3ft x 2Mbit/s = 6Mbit.ft/s The $400 cable carries 40000Mbit/s over 130 ft = 5,200,000Mbit.ft/s Based on the product of bandwidth and distance, it's over 20,000 times cheaper than a 10 dollar 3 foot TOSlink.

Yeah, I know TOSlink fibre and multi-Gigabit fibre are radically different technologies, but it puts the cost of digital audio connectors into perspective.
 
Last edited:

Pdxwayne

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
3,219
Likes
1,172
I'll give you an example - my garden office, in which my Synology Rackstation lives is connected to my network switch in the house via an 8-core multimode fibre cable. 8 cores = 4 discrete connections, each capable of 10Gbit/s, so 40Gbit/s bandwidth in total. The cable is 40m (~130ft) long and is also steel-wire armoured so can be directly buried in the ground (mine is on a cable tray). It was supplied pre-terminated with glands and LC connectors which have to be bonded on and the ends cut and polished, and also a screw on sleeve to attach to a cable puller for installation. Total cost for that cable was about US$400. TOSlink runs at round about 2Mbit/s (let's assume it's 2 for easy sums). My cable can carry 20,000 times that data rate over 130 feet. Let's say a 3 ft TOSlink costs $10. 3ft x 2Mbit/s = 6Mbit.ft/s The $400 cable carries 40000Mbit/s over 130 ft = 5,200,000Mbit.ft/s Based on the product of bandwidth and distance, it's over 20,000 times cheaper than a 10 dollar 3 foot TOSlink.

Yeah, I know TOSlink fibre and multi-Gigabit fibre are radically different technologies, but it puts the cost of digital audio connectors into perspective.
So, it is $400/130ft or $3.0769 per ft. Not $0.05 per ft..... like someone else estimated....Even if you divided by 4 for 1 discrete connection, it is still $0.76 per ft.
 

gfinlays

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2020
Messages
179
Likes
332
So, it is $400/130ft or $3.0769 per ft. Not $0.05 per ft..... like someone else estimated....Even if you divided by 4 for 1 discrete connection, it is still $0.76 per ft.
Bear in mind I bought a 'short' length at retail price with expensive terminations. ISPs buy their fiber optic cables in bulk (hundreds of miles) and have the means to splice and terminate them on site. Their fiber cables are also capable of much, much higher data rates over very long distances....
 

aon500

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2020
Messages
36
Likes
24
Dang I really enjoy this forum. Whenever I find discussions of cable upgrades or recommended product links to manufacturers that also sell power purifiers or whatever, I get an allergic reaction and need to destroy all browser tabs.

Why do people use a power bank with the E30? Isn't it a bit impractical to have to recharge, and to have one more battery to replace after some while? I had an issue with not enough power for DAC mode through one of my USB chargers, but another one works similarly to a power bank I tried.

We do because we already have power bank and it's worth to try.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
16,050
Likes
36,423
Location
The Neitherlands
The funny bit is that powerbanks are secretly also an SMPS.
The only difference is that it cannot create a groundloop via the obligatory wallwart or USB port.
Groundloops, however, mostly come from the USB or SPDIF from the source combined with the amp behind the E30.
Of course one could use optical input to get rid of groundloops but at the cost of limited sample frequencies.
 
Top Bottom