Topping E50 II DAC is up on the Topping Store

[ziggurcat]

TOPPING E50 II Hi-Res Audio DAC

1.(E50 II now is in stock; shipping time is 24-48 hours..) 2.(Orders placed in the United States can be shipped from our US warehouse..) 3.(Orders from countries outside the United States will be shipped from China. All costs are included in the price. Shipping time is 7-15 days.) 【Smartphone...

www.topping.store

Also on the Shenzhen site:

TOPPING E50 II AK4497S Digital to Analog Convertor (DAC)

shenzhenaudio.com: professional headphone, earphone, amplifier, dac, decoder, hifi player, cable supermarket. you will find good price here.

shenzhenaudio.com

 

[ziggurcat]

It is not up on the Topping site as well:

E50 II - Power, Refined in Compact Form - Topping audio

TOPPING, born in 2008, has evolved into a beloved global HIFI brand favored by users worldwide. We firmly believe that higher-quality music playback devices are essential for truly showcasing the allure of music. By investing extensively in professional technology and exceptional industrial...

topping.audio

 

[Power Pop 23]

Topping posted a firmware update (V 1.44) yesterday for the E50 II DAC/Preamp.

E50 II version V1.44 firmware update - Topping audio

Fix some known issues is the description of the update.

Topping seems to have added a lot of new features to their 2nd generation of the E50. The $199 list price of the E50 II is similar to the recent price history for the E50 at Keepa dot com.

 

[Pausi]

I’ve got one. The firmware update fixed some bad pop sound when changing bitrate. I’m very impressive with the AK4497S DAC-chip. Handles my sibilant and treble boosted CDs with better reproduction and smoothness than the FiiO R2R and different ESS variants. High output voltage over 11 Vrms. That’s on a professional level. Will try to feed it directly to my Purifi power amplifier without the op amp buffer stage from Audiophonics. Will be interesting.

 

[alexk0il]

Great update for the already excellent old E50. I wonder if there is an audible difference between similarly priced d50 iii (or more expensive dx5 ii) and e50 ii with RCA outputs. In theory, E50 had the "Velvet" akm signature sound. In reality, it was never proven by any measurements here.

So, would there be an audible difference?

 

[Pausi]

Hearing real differences between DACs might be more about psychoacoustics than real measurable differences. All modern DAC-chips deliver excellent transparent results if implemented properly. If you level match them I think none will be able to hear any differences. For me the E50 II is about high output voltage with minimal distortion (real and measurable) and perceived ideas about transients, sibilants and pre- and postringing (mostly ESS-chips).

 

[777]

Excellent sound, ak4497s chip is very good.

 

[Saponetto]

Previous iteration of the E50 had more than 120 dB SINAD, therefore I'm done.

 

[BeeKay]

Previous iteration of the E50 had more than 120 dB SINAD, therefore I'm done.

I agree. And I own the E50, too. Other than SINAD, the PEQ option is tempting. Means one could get rid of miniDSP or Roon.

 

[Pausi]

Agree. No need to upgrade if you don’t need the extra voltage.

 

[hu.go]

Hi,
A technical question about the E50II. This new DAC has PEQ (in digital domain) which can be setup using Topping Tune software.
That means that this new device has an internal DSP chip (dedicated processor or micro-controller) for doing the calculations and the signal processing? So, for doing the real time PEQ the files are limited to 44.1kHz-192kHz/(16 - 24 or 32bit in function of the port input used)

Do we know if the DSP processor is the same of the DX5 II?
Do we know details of this DSP?

Many thanks!

 

[hu.go]

Found:
The E50II uses the same micro-controller of the DX5II.

The micro-controller is the XMOS XU316 (16-core micro-controller).
So if just looking for a DAC with digital PEQ the E50II allows to save money having the same feature.
I think this is an interesting option (I have the old E50)

 

[Bleib]

Agree. No need to upgrade if you don’t need the extra voltage.

Or PEQ

 

[Krillin]

I picked up a Topping E50 II and it sounds excellent with PEQ disabled. I’m not thrilled about using the iPhone control app since it isn’t on the App Store, but Topping Tune works with the E50 II, so I’ve been using that instead.

Here’s the issue: when I enable the E50 II’s built-in PEQ and load HD800 (Optimum-HiFi) Oratory1990 settings, there’s an obvious sonic penalty—mainly a reduction in dynamics. To make sure this wasn’t just a preference for the stock tuning, I installed Equalizer APO (v1.4.2) on my PC and ran the same PEQ settings there. With Equalizer APO, I don’t hear the same loss of dynamics.

On the E50 II, I also adjusted the PEQ preamp from -3.5 dB down to -6 dB to rule out clipping, but the “compressed” / less dynamic presentation remains.

Current versions:

• Topping Tune v1.14
• E50 II firmware v1.44

Has anyone else noticed this with the E50 II’s PEQ (or measured it)?

EDIT: Just noticed within the past 12 hours they just uploaded E50 II firmware v1.46, I'll check to see if this fixes it.
EDIT #2: I updated to E50 II firmware v1.46, the same muffled sound and loss of dynamics. It's not a volume issue, it's simply a loss of fidelity. Not an issue in Equalizer APO.

 

[Maciekw]

The Topping e50 II, ordered on Amazon, arrived today. I immediately updated the firmware to the latest available version. I connected it to the Android app and fired it up. The sound is super smooth, and controlling it via the app is very easy. For the money I paid, it's a fantastic device. I have no complaints. As for the use of the parametric equalizer, I only checked if it works. I didn't have time for comparative tests with PEQ, which I have permanently running on my WiiM Pro transport.

 

[hu.go]

As for the use of the parametric equalizer, I only checked if it works. I didn't have time for comparative tests with PEQ, which I have permanently running on my WiiM Pro transport.

I have the old E50 and I'm interested on the E50II only for the digital PEQ feature which up to now was not available in entry level Dacs (see various stand alone miniDSP and mid/high premium Dacs)

Could be possible to have feedback about PEQ comparison with your other WiiM Pro hardware?
There is a transparent or noticeable difference (in sound) and/or performance compared to the WiiM?

 

[hu.go]

Here’s the issue: when I enable the E50 II’s built-in PEQ and load HD800 (Optimum-HiFi) Oratory1990 settings, there’s an obvious sonic penalty—mainly a reduction in dynamics. To make sure this wasn’t just a preference for the stock tuning, I installed Equalizer APO (v1.4.2) on my PC and ran the same PEQ settings there. With Equalizer APO, I don’t hear the same loss of dynamics.

Do you have any chance to further investigate about this sonic penalty?

From the specifications the DSP responsible of the PEQ management in the E50II is the same of the Topping DX5II (XMOS XU316).
I was searching in the DX5II topic if this issue was already identified but I did not found more information.

 

[Krillin]

I can try a few more tests after work. Current setup: PCM 48 kHz over optical (Toslink) into the DAC, single-ended output.

For context, I’m using Oratory1990’s HD800 PEQ. I fully expect that to make the HD800 less “intense” (it’s not close to neutral stock). The issue is that what I’m hearing sounds like more than just tonal correction: the EQ clearly changes the frequency balance as intended, but once PEQ is enabled the presentation starts to resemble a cheaper DAC—clarity and dynamics seem somewhat compromised.

From what I’ve been able to dig up, a few possibilities in general:

• Low-precision / fixed-point DSP could raise distortion or add quantization/rounding artifacts, especially with steep or high-Q filters.
• Bit-depth truncation without proper dithering could add subtle “grunge,” particularly at low levels.
• Sample-rate conversion (SRC) is usually transparent if done well, but a poor SRC implementation can add aliasing, ripple, or extra noise/distortion.
• Enabling PEQ might change the processing path (digital filter, latency mode, internal clocking, etc.) in ways that are audible.

Other failure/edge cases that came up:

• Incorrect biquad coefficients at certain sample rates
• Instability with very high Q / high boost
• L/R mismatch, overflow, or limiter behavior
• A hidden protection limiter that prevents clipping but “squashes” dynamics

This is outside my expertise, so I’m not claiming any of the above is what’s happening—just trying to frame what I’m hearing. Next step is more listening after work, and I’ll also try a cleaner A/B by having Equalizer APO do the PEQ and feed the DAC directly for comparison (my PC and main rig are in different rooms, which makes quick switching harder—I intentionally keep the DAC out of the computer room).

 

[Krillin]

I just ran another comparison using Equalizer APO feeding the Topping E50 II at 48 kHz and 96 kHz. I also changed my workflow so I can A/B much faster—rather than disabling one band at a time (which was slow and inconsistent), I’m now toggling the whole filter set and matching level on the fly to keep things fair.

With that cleaner A/B, the Topping’s onboard PEQ might come across a touch less dynamic, but it’s subtle. I’d still be very interested to see Amirm measure the E50 II with some higher-Q / steeper PEQ filters engaged to rule out any processing edge cases.

That said, the bigger takeaway from this round is that Oratory1990’s HD800 settings may simply not be a good match for my preferences/system. I say that because my HD6XX/HD600 (which is generally closer to neutral) already sounds closer to what I want from the HD800, and applying the HD800 PEQ seems to push things in a direction I don’t enjoy.

It makes me wonder if something about the HD800’s design (e.g., the resonator behavior) is interacting with the correction in a way that I’m more sensitive to.

So at this point I’m less confident the issue is “Topping PEQ is broken,” and more open to the possibility that it’s the specific target/correction that isn’t working for me.

 

[hu.go]

So at this point I’m less confident the issue is “Topping PEQ is broken,” and more open to the possibility that it’s the specific target/correction that isn’t working for me.

It could be possible that the "others devices" when PEQ have a slight volume gain (during processing) which gave you the idea of slightly higher dynamics and/or other sound improved differences?

Probably it could be useful for your analysis and comparisons if you could measure with a Mic the overall signal (and/or a full frequency sweep with for example using REW).

[OFF TOPIC]
On my side I have an analog input PEQ (ADC/DSP/DAC converter... The Dayton DSP-408) which I used for learning and understand how PEQ works in room correction reducing peaks at low frequency using REW measurements. In the comparisons I found that my device applied an +3.5dB overall signal gain so for proper compares I applied an inverse negative gain measuring same output level with/without PEQ.
It was useful for my learning and understanding with simple experiments in which frequencies a peak reduction improved my listening experience. Now I'm interested to do the same implementation in digital domain with this E50II