Topping E50 Review (Balanced DAC)

[Labjr]

Was hoping this would come in at a lower price. I wonder how much MQA added to the price?

 

[AudioSceptic]

You can already listen to 24 bit music for decades. You don't need true 24 bit resolution for that. You can't hear -120 dB signals in music anyway (if it could be recorded in real life situations anyway).

It's not like you could ever hear the difference between -120dB and -140dB distortion and noise anyway.
The improvements are only technical improvements by chip manufacturers and designers making improvements on the borders of what's technically possible.

Can anyone hear the extra 20 dB between 100 and 120, or even the extra 30 between 90 and 120?

I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but I remember reading somewhere that there's some "thermal noise" limit at around 21 bits, so we can't get to 24 bits in a real world DAC anyway. Have I got that all wrong?

 

[pma]

Can anyone hear the extra 20 dB between 100 and 120, or even the extra 30 between 90 and 120?

Simple answer - no.

 

[daftcombo]

Can anyone hear the extra 20 dB between 100 and 120, or even the extra 30 between 90 and 120?

I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but I remember reading somewhere that there's some "thermal noise" limit at around 21 bits, so we can't get to 24 bits in a real world DAC anyway. Have I got that all wrong?

You should read this:
https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/

 

[AudioSceptic]

Too many DACs are being released IMO, makes me want to switch to vinyl so I don't have the temptation to buy each new one.

Vinyl fans change cartridges like digital listeners change DACs, so what makes you think switching to vinyl will help? And styli wear: 1,000 hours is the most you are likely to get. ;-)

 

[Tomino]

An ignorant, even Philistine question: given the amount of noise and distortion that inevitably enters during playback, especially from speakers and room acoustics, at what point is adding another dB of SINAD from your DAC gilding the lily -- i.e., meaningless -- in terms of improving sound quality? Wouldn't you reach that point far, far below 120 dB?

 

[Billy Budapest]

You should read this:
https://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/the-24bit-delusion/

Wow—the explanation of sampling rate and bit depth in that article is completely wrong, or at least dumbed down for a lay audience to such a degree that it conveys ideas that simply aren’t true. For example

“The more bits and/or the higher the sampling rate used in quantization, the higher the theoretical resolution. So a 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD has 28,901,376 sampling points each second (44,100 x 65,536). And a 24-bit 192KHz recording has 32,212,254,000,000 sampling points each second (192,000 x 16,777,216). This means 24-bit 192KHz recordings have over 111,455 times the theoretical resolution of a 16-bit 44.1KHz recording. No small difference.”

The author fails to note that as long as the sampling rate is twice the frequency of the highest value to be captured (ie, twice of 20kHz), then the analog waveform of all values up to 20kHz can be reconstructed precisely. By increasing sample rate, there is no additional “resolution” up to 20kHz.

 

[respice finem]

@gvl & @AudioSceptic Audiophilia is a chronic addiction, belonging to the family of sadomasochistic disorders (insert clown icon here)

 

[respice finem]

An ignorant, even Philistine question: given the amount of noise and distortion that inevitably enters during playback, especially from speakers and room acoustics, at what point is adding another dB of SINAD from your DAC gilding the lily -- i.e., meaningless -- in terms of improving sound quality? Wouldn't you reach that point far, far below 120 dB?

Probably somewhere between 70 and 90... But still, the better is the enemy of the good, and the "sins" of the audio chain are additive.
So, being able to have 120 dB, at a good price, why not? That said, I won't throw out my old stuff @ my PC, to earn 20dB which I'll never hear.

 

[threni]

Was hoping this would come in at a lower price. I wonder how much MQA added to the price?

Under $10.

 

[AudioSceptic]

For the people asking why a brand would have so many good products that are hard to put apart and pick one… well, my opinion (and I may be completely wrong) is that it is about marketing. Having many products to pick from (of the same brand) puts you in the mental frame of which one to pick. You stop considering other brands since the decision is already hard enough considering only one brand (that you already trust).

I agree with that logic. Let's say that there are 20 DACs to consider. If 5 of them are by one brand, that brand has a much better chance of being your choice than if it only has one in that list.

 

[testp]

Thermal noise != cosmic background radiation

technically != would not be the latter, but i get it

EDIT: nrvmind, u said the same thing...

 

[AudioSceptic]

An ignorant, even Philistine question: given the amount of noise and distortion that inevitably enters during playback, especially from speakers and room acoustics, at what point is adding another dB of SINAD from your DAC gilding the lily -- i.e., meaningless -- in terms of improving sound quality? Wouldn't you reach that point far, far below 120 dB?

Probably below 100.

 

[JohnYang1997]

technically != would not equal the latter, but i get it

Cosmic radiation has nothing to do with noise in audio circuits. I have already designed and measured analogue circuit with less than 100nVrms noise in 20khz BW. The dynamic range is about 167dB.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Wow—the explanation of sampling rate and bit depth in that article is completely wrong, or at least dumbed down for a lay audience to such a degree that it conveys ideas that simply aren’t true. For example

“The more bits and/or the higher the sampling rate used in quantization, the higher the theoretical resolution. So a 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD has 28,901,376 sampling points each second (44,100 x 65,536). And a 24-bit 192KHz recording has 32,212,254,000,000 sampling points each second (192,000 x 16,777,216). This means 24-bit 192KHz recordings have over 111,455 times the theoretical resolution of a 16-bit 44.1KHz recording. No small difference.”

The author fails to note that as long as the sampling rate is twice the frequency of the highest value to be captured (ie, twice of 20kHz), then the analog waveform of all values up to 20kHz can be reconstructed precisely. By increasing sample rate, there is no additional “resolution” up to 20kHz.

OK, later on in the article he starts to explain more accurately:

“According to Dr. Nyquist's theorem, sampling at twice the maximum audible frequency yields a perfect reproduction of the audio waveform. Any higher resolution will only plot more points along the same curves.

So in order to correctly sample a 20KHz note, the maximum frequency human ears can hear, you would need to sample at greater than 40KHz. The 44.1KHz sampling rate of a Red Book CD was engineered to allow a 20KHz sound to be recorded accurately.”

 

[respice finem]

And, essentially, this is still SOTA on the hearing side of things. Our hearing anatomy and physiology is still ver. 1.0.
And so is physics.

 

[Labjr]

Under $10.

The remaining $110 is for balanced output?

 

[RedCometZero]

Are filters 1 or 3 an FIR linear phase filter?

 

[PhnomPenhPaul]

Sorry for going off-topic again (as I have already posted above that I don't think Topping's range of DAC's is excessive and my reasons for this opinion) but I really don't get this 'Topping is releasing far too many DAC's, too many for its own good as it confuses customers' argument to paraphrase, I hope not unfairly, some of the above comments. Do I care if having such a large range of DAC's hurts Topping's bottom line - no, not one bit, so long as it doesn't bankrupt Topping in the process (accepting, for the sake of argument, that Topping could maximize their profits with a smaller range). Do I like being able to choose a DAC which has just the feature set I am looking for (and no other features which, other things being equal, would increase the price)? Yes, I most certainly do. I would also respectfully suggest that the analogy to Apple vs Samsung is also poor - Apple can get away with far fewer models than Samsung (or any of the Chinese phone brands) as I believe Apple benefit from being perceived as a luxury/aspirational brand in many markets and benefit from 'conspicuous consumption' in said markets.

 

[Kane1972]

This is understandable, sort of. D30 Pro has a few db advantage and a knob, balanced out.

The E30 is higher on the SINAD chart than the D30 pro though right? So where are those few dB's advantage?