Topping E50 Review (Balanced DAC)

[DIYguy]

FWIW-
It has been a while since I posted about a very aggravating firmware problem with my E50 DAC.
It was bad enough and frequent enough that I had seriously considered selling the stupid thing, or even trashing it.
Also, I have since discovered that when it "randomly" resets itself away from my desired settings, it is basically resetting itself to the factory defaults.
This has nothing to do with the logical problem that in a DAC mode it should always be "on", but I digress...

I have long had a suspicion that it might have something to do with the IR remote sensor or perhaps the overly sensitive touch sensor on the front panel.

As a test I made an opaque flap from some cardboard and black electrical tape.
After setting the unit to what I wanted it to be (DAC mode, optical input, single ended output) I lowered the flap to shield the sensor from ambient light sources.
Those include multiple room and desk lights, and two nearby computer monitors, all of which are LED-based, and at least one of which is dimmable (via PWM).

Sure enough, the self-resetting nonsense has COMPLETELY stopped..!
It has been more than three weeks now without even one instance of odd behavior.
Prior to that I never knew what mode it might power up in.
DAC roulette.
And I have actually witnessed it changing right in the middle of being used on several occasions.

Apparently, combinations of pulsing light sources confused the sensor (an odd combination of circumstance, I admit).
The firmware just goes "tilt" and resets itself to the factory defaults.

Your situation light-wise will certainly be completely different from mine.
However if you may be having problems like that, you might try taping over the remote control sensor on the front of the E50 enclosure.
Costs nearly nothing to do, is totally reversible, and it might resolve the problem.

If you are using it in preamp mode where you need the optical sensor and remote control to be active, you might try placing a short tube or shade in front of the sensor instead.
Something that would limit the angle of viewing sensitivity for the sensor and shade it from most light sources.
This too might solve any instability issues.

Again this is just FWIW, your experience may vary...
I do hope it helps someone else.

Update- Two weeks later, still not even one reset or malfunction..!
Therefore I think this was the root problem all along, if it may help anyone.
This DAC is used for several hours daily with multiple power up and down cycles.
I refuse to leave it powered up all the time as some had suggested a while back, and it wouldn't have helped anyway.

 

[DIYguy]

Final Update-
I promise, no more..!

Almost seven weeks have now passed with easily 200+ power-up and down cycles on my E50 (used daily with multiple computer and DAC power cycles per day).

No malfunctions, not even one!

So this very strongly appears to be the root cause of the random issues I was experiencing with mine.
Their optical-based remote control setup is flawed as far as I am concerned.
They should have done it via Bluetooth, or at least made it far more robust optically.

Bluetooth (or similar RF-based) remote controls are very commonplace these days.
Many if not most Roku and Dish Network remotes are RF-based for example, as are those for other streaming boxes and sticks.
It isn't as though you cannot buy them, though I realize that they entail a greater level of regulatory testing and scrutiny than IR-based controls.

Would I purchase another Topping E50, or even another Topping product (I do also own and use a D10s)?
Probably not, to be perfectly honest.
However the one I already have is behaving itself well now and so I am happy enough with it.
And it sounds great, as always.

FWIW...

 

[Blew]

Their optical-based remote control setup is flawed as far as I am concerned.
They should have done it via Bluetooth, or at least made it far more robust optically.

Bluetooth (or similar RF-based) remote controls are very commonplace these days.
Many if not most Roku and Dish Network remotes are RF-based for example, as are those for other streaming boxes and sticks.
It isn't as though you cannot buy them, though I realize that they entail a greater level of regulatory testing and scrutiny than IR-based controls.

BT is more complex and would require a radio antenna, which may affect the engineering decisions of the DAC and increase cost. If a BT antenna was added then I'd assume it's not a great leap to provide BT audio connectivity too.

Would I purchase another Topping E50, or even another Topping product (I do also own and use a D10s)?
Probably not, to be perfectly honest.
However the one I already have is behaving itself well now and so I am happy enough with it.
And it sounds great, as always.

The price/performance ratio extremely good, but there are now numerous other Chi-fi manufacturers heavily competing in the same space. However, in my opinion, the ability to update firmware via USB along with Topping's ongoing support of the products via firmware updates is a large differentiator. That's been important to me after I bought the SMSL M500 a while ago which had a firmware bug that required sending back to the manufacturer to update! It seems like a no-brainer that you would be able to update firmware on a USB connected device via USB, but apparently not. Caveat emptor.

 

[DIYguy]

BT is more complex and would require a radio antenna, which may affect the engineering decisions of the DAC and increase cost. If a BT antenna was added then I'd assume it's not a great leap to provide BT audio connectivity too.

The price/performance ratio extremely good, but there are now numerous other Chi-fi manufacturers heavily competing in the same space. However, in my opinion, the ability to update firmware via USB along with Topping's ongoing support of the products via firmware updates is a large differentiator. That's been important to me after I bought the SMSL M500 a while ago which had a firmware bug that required sending back to the manufacturer to update! It seems like a no-brainer that you would be able to update firmware on a USB connected device via USB, but apparently not. Caveat emptor.

Oh, I totally agree with everything you said.
BT would indeed require an antenna, though for a short range (2-20 feet) it might get by with only the serpentine one built into a typical COTS generic BT or WiFi module board.
At those frequencies you don't need much of an antenna length to get by.
There is one of these types of boards embedded in the vast majority of wireless mice and keyboards on the market for example.
They are very, very small and inexpensive and are produced in the hundreds of millions.
They do however require a non-conductive window or aperture in the product's case to be able to transmit or receive the signals.
And yes they can create artifacts in adjacent circuitry if not applied carefully.
So indeed it most definitely affects the design.

Such a capability might only add $1.50-$2.00 (USD) to a build in production quantities (I am a semi-retired electronic product designer, BTW).
All that being said, it is the testing and certification of such a product for entry into multiple global markets that will typically cost the most time and money, by far.
So IR it is...
But they still did a somewhat crappy job, IMHO.

I do not even use the USB connection on mine, I use the optical link.
That eliminates any chance of ground loop problems or electrical coupling to/from the source.
As long as I have that capability I would not BT or WiFi for the primary data connection even if it had one, but that's only me.

As for the firmware update capability, again I totally agree.
Too bad that Topping has not addressed basic operational and logical issues in those updates in my experience with them, only show-stoppers
I have gone round and round with them over one or two glaring issues.
So that capability is a bit of a red herring.
Still, it is better than having to send it back to the manufacturer.

 

[Blew]

I do not even use the USB connection on mine, I use the optical link.
That eliminates any chance of ground loop problems or electrical coupling to/from the source.
As long as I have that capability I would not BT or WiFi for the primary data connection even if it had one, but that's only me.

Does that mean you're using single ended RCA to your amplifier upstream? The E50 has balanced TRS output to deal with ground loops etc, so why not use that? Otherwise, if you don't need balanced cabling, the E30 is a more cost-effective option. I went for the E30 for another system that isn't connected to a PC/laptop (although is connected to a Raspberry Pi), has short interconnect cables, and all devices are on the same power board.

As for the firmware update capability, again I totally agree.
Too bad that Topping has not addressed basic operational and logical issues in those updates in my experience with them, only show-stoppers
I have gone round and round with them over one or two glaring issues.
So that capability is a bit of a red herring.
Still, it is better than having to send it back to the manufacturer.

Which operational and logical issues? Are you just referring to your IR issue or is there more? I assume they would need to change the IR codes on the remote to prevent the E50 from responding to other light pulses on the infrared spectrum. Or perhaps the IR sensor would need a hardware change to resolve it. I'm not expert on IR though.

I used to experience an issue where the E50 would stop waking up on a USB connection. It hasn't done that for a long time now and I'm not sure if it was due to a loose USB cable (which I've replaced), USB power settings on my laptop, or one of the latest firmware updates. The only other shortcoming that I can think of is that there are only three reconstruction filters. I'd gladly sacrifice MQA support for more filters.

 

[DIYguy]

Does that mean you're using single ended RCA to your amplifier upstream? The E50 has balanced TRS output to deal with ground loops etc, so why not use that? Otherwise, if you don't need balanced cabling, the E30 is a more cost-effective option. I went for the E30 for another system that isn't connected to a PC/laptop (although is connected to a Raspberry Pi), has short interconnect cables, and all devices are on the same power board.


Which operational and logical issues? Are you just referring to your IR issue or is there more? I assume they would need to change the IR codes on the remote to prevent the E50 from responding to other light pulses on the infrared spectrum. Or perhaps the IR sensor would need a hardware change to resolve it. I'm not expert on IR though.

I used to experience an issue where the E50 would stop waking up on a USB connection. It hasn't done that for a long time now and I'm not sure if it was due to a loose USB cable (which I've replaced), USB power settings on my laptop, or one of the latest firmware updates. The only other shortcoming that I can think of is that there are only three reconstruction filters. I'd gladly sacrifice MQA support for more filters.

Yes, I am using single ended outputs via RCA to my upstream audio chain.
There is no audible benefit to balanced outputs unless used in a high electrical noise or long cable run environment.
Some may disagree completely, but it is what it is.
In my application the cable run is about 2 feet and uses low capacitance, very well-shielded cable with decent connectors on the ends.
And the next device in the chain does not have balanced inputs to begin with, so it is a moot point.

I bought the E50 for other reasons (flexibility mostly), and I got a really good deal on it.
So that is what I bought.
I did strongly consider the E30 though.
I have often wondered if the E30 might not have exhibited some of these issues, and thus have been a better buy.

I suspect that you are correct regarding the IR sensor itself.
And yes, if using a different remote the transmitted message packets would indeed be different.
That is why your television remote does not change the channel on your cable box (usually...).
However, you may or may not be aware of this but in IR remotes the data stream rides upon a gated HF pulse stream (typically but not always around 38-42khz).
This is to stop it from being (quite as) sensitive to static light sources such as sunlight or incandescent bulbs.
Garage door opener safety limit beams work on the same principle and for the same reason, by the way.
However, this is the golden age of LED lighting with switch mode mains converters, bright computer displays and other strong pulsed light sources.
So simply changing the message packets may or may not resolve the issue if the IR sensor itself is just being saturated and overloaded.
If the local ambient light sources are around that frequency, or add up to appear so, the detector may "see" them.
I think that is what was happening to my E50, and the blank-off flap I placed over the sensor pretty much proved the idea to my satisfaction.

One of the most glaring operation issues I found was that it would not reliably wake up upon establishing a USB connection, just as you experienced.
In DAC mode it should, in my opinion, always be on by default so the computing device can enumerate it (that is how it is recognized).
This proved to be a fatal flaw (for me anyway) in the original application I purchased for, which was a Raspberry Pi-based streamer.
Half the time it would power up "off", or at least offline, so the streaming software would default to the Pi's crappy audio outputs instead.
It would also just randomly blink out and disconnect itself far too often right in the middle of playback, despite being in DAC mode..!

I then connected it to a desktop computer (Win10) where it did the same thing when using the USB connection.
I tried various settings on the streamer and computer, assorted USB cables (including one rather expensive one), different USB ports (2.0 and 3.0), all to no avail.
Until I hit upon using it in optical link mode.
In this regard at least, it is now OK (always "on" when powered up..!).
That is a firmware logical bug IMHO, and as far as I am aware the latest firmware did not resolve it.

 

[Kajji08]

FWIW-
It has been a while since I posted about a very aggravating firmware problem with my E50 DAC.
It was bad enough and frequent enough that I had seriously considered selling the stupid thing, or even trashing it.
Also, I have since discovered that when it "randomly" resets itself away from my desired settings, it is basically resetting itself to the factory defaults.
This has nothing to do with the logical problem that in a DAC mode it should always be "on", but I digress...

I have long had a suspicion that it might have something to do with the IR remote sensor or perhaps the overly sensitive touch sensor on the front panel.

As a test I made an opaque flap from some cardboard and black electrical tape.
After setting the unit to what I wanted it to be (DAC mode, optical input, single ended output) I lowered the flap to shield the sensor from ambient light sources.
Those include multiple room and desk lights, and two nearby computer monitors, all of which are LED-based, and at least one of which is dimmable (via PWM).

Sure enough, the self-resetting nonsense has COMPLETELY stopped..!
It has been more than three weeks now without even one instance of odd behavior.
Prior to that I never knew what mode it might power up in.
DAC roulette.
And I have actually witnessed it changing right in the middle of being used on several occasions.

Apparently, combinations of pulsing light sources confused the sensor (an odd combination of circumstance, I admit).
The firmware just goes "tilt" and resets itself to the factory defaults.

Your situation light-wise will certainly be completely different from mine.
However if you may be having problems like that, you might try taping over the remote control sensor on the front of the E50 enclosure.
Costs nearly nothing to do, is totally reversible, and it might resolve the problem.

If you are using it in preamp mode where you need the optical sensor and remote control to be active, you might try placing a short tube or shade in front of the sensor instead.
Something that would limit the angle of viewing sensitivity for the sensor and shade it from most light sources.
This too might solve any instability issues.

Again this is just FWIW, your experience may vary...
I do hope it helps someone else.

Thats very strange behavior indeed, I got it running on the latest firmware and ironically, just finding this post, the only time it has reset itself to factory defaults was just now when there was some sort of short poweroutage due to a lightning storm. I've moved it from different poweroutlets on several occasions and it has always kept the settings.

 

[DIYguy]

Thats very strange behavior indeed, I got it running on the latest firmware and ironically, just finding this post, the only time it has reset itself to factory defaults was just now when there was some sort of short poweroutage due to a lightning storm. I've moved it from different poweroutlets on several occasions and it has always kept the settings.

Sorry to hear you have had that problem.
If mine had only done that it would not have been so bad because we rarely get lightning strikes around here.
Perhaps yours is not in a location where it "sees" pulsating light sources and it was only the power line glitch that caused the malfunction?

A side note or two-
I do keep my E50's firmware up to date.
And because I am using it in optical input mode, I am using the Windows default S/PDIF drivers on the computer.
If you do add a flap shield over the remote receiver and button as I did, don't make it press too tightly against the button.
Just a loose opaque flap of something to shield against ambient light.

 

[forart.it]

There is no audible benefit to balanced outputs unless used in a high electrical noise or long cable run environment.
Some may disagree completely, but it is what it is.

...oh, really ?

 

[Labjr]

...oh, really ?

I don't think that's audible? However, balanced has other advantages such as eliminating ground loop hum and connectors with better mechanical integrity. I won't buy another source component without balanced output.

 

[forart.it]

I don't think that's audible?

This depends more on the whole audio chain than the DAC only, anyway more DR - and less distortion, of course - you got at source more the whole system will react accordingly (that means "audibility" is not strictly necessary) IMHO...

Anyway, except "phisical" needs (hums, links, etc), I do use my E50 balanced outputs for mixing sessions with active speakers too.

 

[DIYguy]

Benefit?
Yes indeed, there is no argument that balanced lines can be technically "superior" (if done correctly).
I did not say there were "no" benefits (such as those Labjr mentioned).
In electrically noisy or otherwise critical environments, balanced connections may indeed be crucial to have.
And it is very true that balanced connectors are normally mechanically superior to RCA connectors.
So if balanced connections are your preference, specification, or need- go for them..!

Audible though?
Probably not for 99.999% of listeners and situations.
Assuming that there are not other problems within an equipment chain.
The vast majority of human beings cannot normally perceive artifacts that are 85-90dB or more smaller than the main sound "signal".
So if any impartially measurable benefits (no matter how real) are smaller than that, we typically cannot hear them.

In my particular setup, the RCA connections from the DAC are quite short, of high quality, and I have carefully configured the remainder of my system to eliminate ground loops.
The optical link serves other purposes as well as per my earlier postings.
Including putting the stupid firmware of the E50 into a mode where it stays on at all times while waiting for optical signal packets.
There is NO hum or hiss audible at any volume levels, even when listening with headphones.
So- I simply do not need to use the balanced outputs on the E50, they just happen to be present.
And the remainder of my equipment chain cannot support them anyway.
Therefore, for me at least, it is a moot point...

 

[Gradius]

After 120dB, is 100% transparent.

E50 is not true balanced btw.

 

[staticV3]

E50 is not true balanced btw.

Source?

 

[rcstevensonaz]

E50 is not true balanced btw.

What is “true balanced”? And why does it matter, whatever it is?

 

[Saponetto]

Oh no.
Here it comes again...

 

[Jarrett]

There does seem to be varying levels of balanced architecture

 

[Gradius]

Source?

That was almost 4 years ago:

Measurements of Topping L50 HeadphoneAmp - L7Audiolab

台式设备 前两天发布了拓品E50解码的测量，熟悉拓品产品策略的人一定猜到了，和E50一起推出的配套耳放 Topping L50 也已经在路上。没错！家人们！其实我早就拿到了Topping L50的工程样机。而且非常幸运的是，工程样机和最终零售版之间“没有区别”

www.l7audiolab.com

Measurements of Topping E50 DAC - L7Audiolab

台式设备 Topping E50 应该是拓品第一台基于9068的解码？其实不止一次觉得测量拓品家的解码/耳放产品线是无趣的事情……无论如何呢……这货就这样摆在我的面前

www.l7audiolab.com

 

[staticV3]

That was almost 4 years ago:

Measurements of Topping L50 HeadphoneAmp - L7Audiolab

台式设备 前两天发布了拓品E50解码的测量，熟悉拓品产品策略的人一定猜到了，和E50一起推出的配套耳放 Topping L50 也已经在路上。没错！家人们！其实我早就拿到了Topping L50的工程样机。而且非常幸运的是，工程样机和最终零售版之间“没有区别”

www.l7audiolab.com

Measurements of Topping E50 DAC - L7Audiolab

台式设备 Topping E50 应该是拓品第一台基于9068的解码？其实不止一次觉得测量拓品家的解码/耳放产品线是无趣的事情……无论如何呢……这货就这样摆在我的面前

www.l7audiolab.com

Ah I see

E50 L50 is not true balanced btw.

That part's no secret:


Not like it matters though

The E50 OTOH, is a proper, true balanced DAC.

 

[forart.it]

That was almost 4 years ago:

Measurements of Topping E50 DAC - L7Audiolab

台式设备 Topping E50 应该是拓品第一台基于9068的解码？其实不止一次觉得测量拓品家的解码/耳放产品线是无趣的事情……无论如何呢……这货就这样摆在我的面前

www.l7audiolab.com

...that anyway confirms (if not pushes):