• 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 L30 Headphone Amplifier Review

MechEngVic

Active Member
Joined
May 15, 2019
Messages
174
Likes
155
Unfortunately, whilst perhaps enjoyable for you, that will be a complete waste of time.

There are many helpful experts on this forum who could provide objective information on the subject.
Well hopefully putting my thoughts out there on this forum will illicit a helpful expert's objective information (instead of a snide comment), making it a completely stupendous use of time.
 

w1000i

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
260
Likes
138
Location
Jubail SA
You literally have no evidence suggesting that software oversampling improves performance. In real world testing, no matter what source sampling rate is performance stays roughly the same. Or in contrast, the best performance is at 44.1k and 48khz. Science is evidence based. We need evidence, not pseudoscience.
Rob Watt explain why DSD sound smoother, I don't remember the exact explanation but DSD have issue with timing and technically it faulty- but that is why is sound smoother.
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
Rob Watt explain why DSD sound smoother, I don't remember the exact explanation but DSD have issue with timing and technically it faulty- but that is why is sound smoother.
You are quoting Rob? I have seen that video. He's a salesman. That's all I can say.
What he was talking about was the error being accumulated before correction happening. And the transients are delayed. Where this is completely false and irrelevant.
 

Raoul Duke

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
9
Likes
9
My main sources are Flac up to 384khz (most being 192 or 96) and some DSD files. I don't expect 768khz to be a lot better (or even feel a difference), but thats what Topping is selling and the drivers don't output that in my experience (tested both Asio and Wasapi).

At this level of sound sampling the sound quality issues I get concern the album itself, how it was recorded, mastered, etc. Some albums sound incredibly good, and others sound as good as an MP3 version of it (too much compression when mastered, etc).
On the sound quality overall topic, only a few of the best recordings I have sound really better (usually recent recordings of acoustic music such as classic music or jazz).

I dont understand why Jose Hidalgo got so nervous about my question. I am simply checking that the devices I have are correctly setup.
The only thing that doesn't make me happy with the Topping experience is that the L30 headphones amp gets hot like crazy and it's output is barely enough for some headphones (such as the Beyerdynamic DT 990 PRO) when listening to albums with high dynamic range and high quality (>96khz, DSD, etc), making the sound too low. I also think that it lacks a bit of bass punch (compared to the Musical Fidelity V-CAN II), but the sound is overall very natural.

Back to the DAC, as I said, I think it sounds better than the Audio Fidelity V-DAC II I had). But the difference is barely noticeable. The main reason I am changing DAC is because I am changing computer and I will no longer have a coaxial out (and old DACs are less good over USB usually)

I tried several DSD files on Foobar2000 after following the setup recommended by Topping and in my opinion the same files sound the same or even better when I read them on Aimp (outputs 384 PCM via Wasapi), because the DSD sound sounds a bit too crisp, sometimes with subtle cracks and less bass (some of these DSD files where recorded from LPs which seem to explain this). But really, I would say that I feel no difference between DSD and PCM on those tests.

I am not an audiophile fanatic. I want my music to sound good, as close as possible as being on stage with the musicians. And I want the devices I buy to work properly. That's all :)
I don't expect to increase sound quality by magic like in the Hollywood movies when they can zoom into a garbage picture and find incredible details thanks to some magic algorithm. I want realism... even when that means confirming that an album you love was really poorly recorded / mastered (both ?)

Aimp remains my main player because it is a lot easier, useful and sexier than Foobar2000. In my opinion it is just the best option (at least on PC), and I wasn't able to find any quality difference that would justify changing to F2000.
 

boXem

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Jun 19, 2019
Messages
2,014
Likes
4,852
Location
Europe
Sorry but then you are speaking about science but don't understand how delta sigma DAC works and what does it mean direct DSD. There are technical reasons why software upsampling and software delta sigma modulation can easily beat in quality the hardware oversampling and delta sigma modulation in DAC chip. Generally, with delta sigma DAC chips, for PCM source content it is possible to bypass first stages of hardware oversampling and for DSD source content it is possible to bypass complete oversampling and delta sigma modulation (direct DSD mode). For delta sigma DACs the PDM (Pulse Density Modulation) signal (not PCM signal) is their native type of signal which is finally converted into analog by low pass filter. DSD signal is one bit two level PDM signal so it is native type of signal for Delta sigma DAC, which (in contradiction with PCM signal) does not need to be complicatedly processed before it enters the D/A conversion stage itself (no oversampling, no modulation).

You and your colleagues are repeatedly attacking people who carry about sound quality. You have to educate yourself before you write a nonsense and call it "scientific". I am watching this "science" forum a week and I am seeing that it is rather a "science" kinder garden.
Want science? Here is science:
Why 1-Bit Sigma-Delta Conversion is Unsuitable for High-Quality Applications

I spotted one minor mistake in the paper, doesn't change anything to the conclusion
TL;DNR:
- since DSD is only 1 bit, it cannot be properly dithered
- since it cannot be properly dithered, quantization errors will appear
- since these errors cannot be eliminated, the PCM to DSD conversion process can be compared to digestion
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
lol to most of the above hogwash. Sorry fellows, but until I see some pretty convincing evidence that anyone can A/B/X identify a DSD or other "high res" track from any standard 16/44.1 it's all a bunch of whooey! Up-sampling from CD o DSD?? haha, give me a break.
 

w1000i

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
260
Likes
138
Location
Jubail SA
You are quoting Rob? I have seen that video. He's a salesman. That's all I can say.
What he was talking about was the error being accumulated before correction happening. And the transients are delayed. Where this is completely false and irrelevant.

I had to take his word for that, he is engineering DAC for 30 years and he do it for fun. He is the most experience DAC designer to date.
 

w1000i

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
260
Likes
138
Location
Jubail SA
lol to most of the above hogwash. Sorry fellows, but until I see some pretty convincing evidence that anyone can A/B/X identify a DSD or other "high res" track from any standard 16/44.1 it's all a bunch of whooey! Up-sampling from CD o DSD?? haha, give me a break.

Use Roon and you can do Upsampling to DSD with one-click. Let anyone to click it for you then you will hear it.
 

w1000i

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
260
Likes
138
Location
Jubail SA
Prove it (to yourself even). Blind ABX...
I did other wise I will never post about :(.

Update: I tried it with AEON C a headphone with little sound present signature. I got my Focal Clear Pro yesterday and I will test everything again with it.

SMSL M500 > L30 > Clear Pro
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
I did other wise I will never post about :(
It may well be that DSD direct mode has lower output level or has much higher distortion. It's possible that high frequency IMD is lower for some devices but for newly competently designed products PCM should perform at least as good as DSD.
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
I did other wise I will never post about :(

I doubt it. This is a conundrum. I don't want to call you a liar, Maybe you do have golden ears. All I do know is there's lots and lots of available evidence showing that very few people can actually tell the difference between even high br lossy and lossless. I haven't seen much actual evidence at all that anyone can actually hear a difference between CD and high res of any sort.
 

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,066
Likes
14,697
I doubt it. This is a conundrum. I don't want to call you a liar, Maybe you do have golden ears. All I do know is there's lots and lots of available evidence showing that very few people can actually tell the difference between even high br lossy and lossless. I haven't seen much actual evidence at all that anyone can actually hear a difference between CD and high res of any sort.

If you upsample to DSD , I think the output level might drop a few dB depending on what offset adjustment your software makes - if you are listening at higher volume and it does drop on clicking the DSP on, it might well sound smoother.
 

Sgt. Ear Ache

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
1,894
Likes
4,151
Location
Winnipeg Canada
If you upsample to DSD , I think the output level might drop a few dB depending on what offset adjustment your software makes - if you are listening at higher volume and it does drop on clicking the DSP on, it might well sound smoother.

Oh obviously yes. Volume matching and any other signal changes (such as noise or distortions that might be introduced if any) need to be accounted for.
 

Veri

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
9,596
Likes
12,036
In other interviews he has made unbelievable claims such as him being capable of hearing infinitesimal/absurdly low distortion levels. I wouldn't be too trusting of mister Watts. He is a salesman.

Screenshot at Sep 22 15-42-50.png

:oops::oops::facepalm:
 
Last edited:

Jose Hidalgo

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
961
Likes
1,032
Location
France
To @bogi I guess I'll just say this:

There are lots of people who claim that they can hear something. Most of them can't actually make a difference in a real double blind test.

In this case however, you MAY actually hear something... since the oversampled signal is being slightly degraded vs. the original.

Now you may be able to actually prefer the degraded one : it's your right ! Just like some people prefer that good old "tube sound" with lots of THD. What you can't do is pretend that it's actually better from a scientific / high-fidelity point of view. It's not and it will never be, so just drop it. That's what people in this topic are telling you, including John Yang who is arguably more knowledgeable than most of us on this matter.

Without scientific proof to back up your claims, not only nobody will believe you, but most people here will actually get bored. This is "Audio Science Review" after all, not "Audiophile Magic". And by "scientific proof" I mean either some concrete measurement we wouldn't know about, or the results of an ABX listening test that would clearly be outside of the statistical error range. Until then... ;)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom