Topping E70 Stereo DAC Review

[misterdog]

it's still better for the sub to do the cross over

Use an XLR splitter cable and feed full signal to both mains and sub.

Using a sub to do Xover, then pass through, seems fraught with potential signal degradation to me.

 

[Killingbeans]

Where did these data come from?

From ESS. I think It's safe to assume that all 32bit DAC chips use an attenuation system like this. It would be cockamania if they didn't.

 

[Bleib]

Subjective review

 

[Veri]

Subjective review

Lol wow so 'bold'

 

[staticV3]

Lol wow so 'bold'

They dared to do what no one else did

 

[R.Vic]

Subjective review

Yeah, the guy makes that distinction, like he's comparing different speakers.

 

[Trell]

If you have to turn it down by 70 dB (with e70 we will listen to 10 bits at best)), all cats are gray in the dark room)).

Or as an option for this dac - a separate still analog volume control. But I don't really like the idea.

If you’ll have to turn down the volume by 70 dB then you’ve a level mismatch between the DAC and the amplifier or active monitors.

This is not uncommon and one solution is to use passive attenuators or a volume pot.

Here is a post on the RME forum discussing this along with examples of attenuators and volume pot.

Level mismatch solutions - fixed and variable attenuators (Page 1) — Tips & Tricks — RME User Forum

Level mismatch solutions - fixed and variable attenuators (Page 1) — Tips & Tricks — RME User Forum —

forum.rme-audio.de

>>>Level mismatch is a continuing topic on our forum and support line. The most often reported problem is that active monitors are far too sensitive. The low volume click and pop when turning a unit on/off turns into a quite loud one. A volume control pot then has a very limited operation area, and the master fader in TotalMix has to be lowered to below -20 dB constantly. This also raises concerns about reduced audio resolution. With such a level mismatch hum and noise can also become audible.

What needs to be done in such cases is to make the connected amplifier or speakers/active monitors as insensitive as possible. Ignore whatever the current setting print on the monitor says, choose one that makes them as low in volume as possible.

Some customers encounter situations where this is not enough. We heard of professional and very powerful active monitors using a reference level of +4 dBu, which seems to equal full output power. Setting an RME unit to -10 dBV, which equals +4 dBu at full output level, then again requires to lower TotalMix FX to far more than -20 dB to be able to work at a typical studio listening level - plus having all the above disadvantages/problems.

The solution here is to use passive level attenuation between the RME interface and the amp/active monitor's input by a simple voltage divider, built of 2 (unbalanced) or three (balanced) resistors per channel. Do a Google search for 'line level audio attenuators' or just 'audio attenuators', and you will realize that this is not a RME problem, but a long time classic found everywhere - even in home HiFi. And this is also the reason that the web is not only full of examples on how to build such parts, including the part values and circuit diagrams, but why they are also available at reasonable prices in various models from various manufacturers.
…
<<<

 

[R.Vic]

JTS MA-123​

Attenuation

-10dB ±1dB

And this is not good - you can get mismatch of channels up to 2 dB.

 

[Trell]

JTS MA-123​

Attenuation

-10dB ±1dB

And this is not good - you can get mismatch of channels up to 2 dB.

There you are, if you've a level mismatch that you can't solve by changing the reference output level on the DAC or the input sensitivity on the amp/active monitor to have a better match. A stereo analogue volume pot will have some channel imbalance as well, but a good one less than 2 dB.

So having to reduce the volume level on a DAC by 70 dB for normal listening is huge, so perhaps get devices that work better together? That does not imply that the devices are bad in any way, just not well fitted together.

 

[sonci99]

Subjective review

I notice that he still "prefers" SMSL Su9 Pro, unfortunately no measurements from Amir for that dac, not that it makes any difference in the end. They all measure the same.

 

[Bleib]

I notice that he still "prefers" SMSL Su9 Pro, unfortunately no measurements from Amir for that dac, not that it makes any difference in the end. They all measure the same.

Yeah I know. But even here some people think that DACs have certain personalities. I watch some of these mainly because I want opinions on usability.

 

[staticV3]

I notice that he still "prefers" SMSL Su9 Pro, unfortunately no measurements from Amir for that dac

Here are measurements of the SU9 Pro: https://www.l7audiolab.com/f/smsl-su9-pro/

 

[WireWoundResistor]

Yeah I know. But even here some people think that DACs have certain personalities. I watch some of these mainly because I want opinions on usability.

I think what most electrical engineers and people who like to measure things know and believe in is, that the analog output stage of a DAC can make a difference. I think all OPamps sound the same in ideal conditions and most output stage designs are very similar, but the impedance the output stage sees or how it reacts to differences in capacitance through slight differences in implementation could make a discernable difference. The low input impedance of, say, a Topping Pre90 (2k, yikes) can suck the life out of one DAC output and not the other. But reviewers like iiWi and all the other guys reviewing DACs on Youtube live in fantasy land.

 

[Bleib]

I think what most electrical engineers and people who like to measure things know and believe in is, that the analog output stage of a DAC can make a difference. I think all OPamps sound the same in ideal conditions and most output stage designs are very similar, but the impedance the output stage sees or how it reacts to differences in capacitance through slight differences in implementation could make a discernable difference. The low input impedance of, say, a Topping Pre90 (2k, yikes) can suck the life out of one DAC output and not the other. But reviewers like iiWi and all the other guys reviewing DACs on Youtube live in fantasy land.

Could be. You could test out your theory a bit. What's the output impedance of the DACs he has reviewed?

 

[WireWoundResistor]

Could be. You could test out your theory a bit. What's the output impedance of the DACs he has reviewed?

Generally (meaning as a broad generalisation) the output impedance of the Topping DACs and SMSL is around 100-200 Ohms. Those fancy "boutique" DACs vary greatly. Denafrips Ares II, which iWii just LOVES, has an alleged output impedance of 2k4, which is weirdly high. A competently designed output stage with modern OPamps can easily achieve an output impedance of well under 200Ohms and act as a nearly ideal voltage source into most inputs. You can theoretically have very low distortion with matched impedances as long as the output stage can supply the current, but from a compatibility and best practice standpoint, the goal should be to keep the output impedance as low as possible.
Impedance mismatch because of badly designed input or output stages is 99% of what audiophiles mean, when they talk about "synergy" and "component matching". That's also why a weirdly designed cable with strange materials and connectors CAN actually sound different. Ideal electronics shouldn't care about cables, and most don't but, but we've all seen measurements of not so ideal "audiophile" equipment...
My guess would be, that most of these DAC reviewers don't care about impedances and don't even know that it could be an issue. I also think that it's high time that serious audio measurement sites should include impedance ratings and start testing with low input impedance loads, because it's really important. A 400Ohm output into a 2k input can sound really, really distorted and wrong. This is important information, when deciding on a source or amp.

 

[Leva]

Hi. FYI. I asked Topping if their RC-22 metal remote control will work with E70 and they replied yes. Also confirmed that it will not work with PRE90. Just don't like those plastic remotes that comes in the box.



Dear Sir/Madam

Sorry for the late reply as we just came back from our CNY Holiday.

It can work for the E70 but not the Pre90.

Best Regards


--------------------

TOPPING SERVICE

 

[MX5]

I recently upgraded my desktop audio setup. I'm listening to a pair of 2020 Sundaras with an L70 (balanced output). I bought both an E50 and E70 (Sabre) to compare. Having reviewed the specs, I was convinced that they would sound identical and I would keep the (much cheaper) E50. Utilizing the services of my amazingly patient and helpful wife, I conducted a "blind" test. We put them both under an opaque pillowcase (light and breathable). She flipped a coin, hooked one of them into the L70 and then I listened to it for a few hours. She then switched it to the other. I listed to both Hi-Res files on my computer and Amazon music unlimited Hi-Res tracks. I was very suprised at the results.

The first DAC I listened to was amazing. The separation, texture, crash, timbre, presence and other...music things...were magical (hey, I'm not a music writer, sorry). Not sure how to describe it but to me, it was both the most realistic music I've ever heard and simultaneously an expression of what I'd consider the platonic ideal of what music should sound like. I thought to myself, "I hope that's the E50, because if it is, I just saved $150." When she switched to the other DAC, everything changed. It sounded....fine. With the same source material and songs.

Huh. Not what I expected at all. Given both the models' specs and test results here, I thought they would sound identical. I listened for an hour. Fine. I asked my wife to change it back. Magic. Okay. Hmmm.

I had her unhook everything without telling me which was which. I checked all the settings again to make sure they were the same (e.g. not using one filter setting on one and a different filter on the other or whatever). They're same as I can figure. Okay, she flipped another coin and we did it again. Same results.

She "unblinded" me. The E70 was, to my ears, amazing. The E50 fine. I have no idea why. The only thing I couldn't have be the "same" is the cables, as the E50 uses TRS out (so I used a TRS to XLR cable) and the E70 uses XLR (so XLR to XLR). I suppose that could be the difference. Or I could have gotten a dud E50. No idea. And the exact opposite of what I expected. At this point, I'm done investigating. I'm returning the E50 and delighting in my new setup. I wanted to share my experience in case it's helpful to anyone. Your mileage may vary.

Hmmmm....I wonder how this would sound with the HE-6SE.....going to try that next.

 

[Killingbeans]

I suppose that could be the difference. Or I could have gotten a dud E50. No idea.

Output amplitude. Level match the outputs and try again.

 

[MX5]

Output amplitude. Level match the outputs and try again.

Did that. Any other suggestions?

 

[Veri]

She "unblinded" me. The E70 was, to my ears, amazing. The E50 fine. I have no idea why. The only thing I couldn't have be the "same" is the cables, as the E50 uses TRS out (so I used a TRS to XLR cable) and the E70 uses XLR (so XLR to XLR). I suppose that could be the difference. Or I could have gotten a dud E50. No idea. And the exact opposite of what I expected. At this point, I'm done investigating. I'm returning the E50 and delighting in my new setup. I wanted to share my experience in case it's helpful to anyone. Your mileage may vary.

This is the normal E70 right, not the 'velvet' AKM one?

Did that. Any other suggestions?

How did you do the volume matching exactly? It's not that easy to do properly. (just wondering!)