Topping Pre90 Review (preamplifier)

[gvl]

When you say best audio dac in the world, are you suggesting that it has better sound than say the Topping E30? I thought the whole idea was that almost all transparent DACs sounded exactly the same.

They sound the same, yet measure differently (one measures better than the other) but their differences are immaterial for all practical purposes, however owning the "best DAC in the world" gives you bragging rights. That crown by the way was taken by the Okto Stereo DAC since.

 

[Phrangko]

You will know it when you need Pre90. Otherwise you don't.

JohnYang1997 hi. Let me put things in perspective. A reviewer, the taww, admired the RME Adi-2 DAC FS dearly and even praised it's preamp. He still however suggested owners to still use another preamp on top of. I won't mention what preamp he used but the combo awed him still. And that's how he qualified his conclusion. Would the Pre90, D90 combo awe listeners out of the fact that D90s as of this moment, are being used as preamps?

 

[gvl]

You only need pre90 if you have more than one source or maybe find yourself routinely using the D90 with volume at -30-40db or less.

 

[Veri]

When you say best audio dac in the world, are you suggesting that it has better sound than say the Topping E30? I thought the whole idea was that almost all transparent DACs sounded exactly the same.

The X-Sabre review is much older than the E30 release. At the time it was the best DAC Amir had measured, thus far.
You simply need to see the statement in perspective..

 

[misterdog]

You only need pre90 if you have more than one source or maybe find yourself routinely using the D90 with volume at -30-40db or less.

Can we have this pinned as a sticky.

 

[battopi]

The X-Sabre review is much older than the E30 release. At the time it was the best DAC Amir had measured, thus far.
You simply need to see the statement in perspective..

What I don't understand is that it is "recommended". How can it be recommended if it costs $2,000 but sounds no $1 better than a $100 DAC. From my perspective it should be absolutely panned. Why would I pay a $1,900 more for better measurements when those measurements are not audible?

 

[Veri]

Why would I pay a $1,900 more for better measurements when those measurements are not audible?

You have a point. Pretty loaded question one could posit that yes, you don't.

 

[BDWoody]

What I don't understand is that it is "recommended".

Because it is well engineered and well constructed. They aren't really graded on sound quality, as either a DAC is transparent, or it isn't (loosely speaking). If it isn't, it's either broken or maybe isn't really going for 'Hi-Fi.'

Your question is certainly valid, and most seem to expect that higher price means higher fidelity.

Build quality, connections, warranty support, whatever features... Those are valid points to compare. SQ? Not so much.

 

[battopi]

Build quality, connections, warranty support, whatever features... Those are valid points to compare. SQ? Not so much.

Perhaps, but I don't see the review as "recommending" the DAC based on anything other than measurements. The DAC is 1000% more expensive than DACs with sufficient build quality and similar features and sounds no better. If it is recommended solely on the basis on its transparency without regard to price/value, I'm not sure that the word "recommendation" is the best word to use.

 

[gvl]

What I don't understand is that it is "recommended". How can it be recommended if it costs $2,000 but sounds no $1 better than a $100 DAC. From my perspective it should be absolutely panned. Why would I pay a $1,900 more for better measurements when those measurements are not audible?

It's mainly recommended on the technical performance bssis and not necessarily from the value perspective unless the value is ridiculously low then it wouldn't be recommended. The Matrix isn't cheap but has more features and built very nicely, priced similarly to other devices at this level, so if you have $2k to spend it's a good choice.

 

[Neel]

I need some inputs/advice.

I am considering getting a Topping pre90 as the dedicated analog pre-amp for my stereo setup.

My current setup is: Auralic Aries as Roon End Point -> Minidsp SHD studio for Dirac -> Benchmark DAC3 as DAC and Preamp-> Benchmark AHB2 in mono-> Revel Salon 2s

I am unsure about two things and need the forum members’ guidance:

• I have the 0dB jumper on my DAC3 (Attenuator disabled) – Can I keep this as it is if I introduce the Topping Pre90 between DAC3 and AHB2? Or do I need to change the jumper setting to -10dB or -20dB?
• Will the SNR of my system improve by introducing the Topping Pre90 in my setup? If yes, by how much – do we have something like this table (Review and Measurements of Benchmark HPA4 Headphone Amp/Pre | Page 7 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum ) anywhere for the Topping Pre90?

 

[gvl]

Afaik Benchmark DACs use analog volume control, if still true there's 0 benefit in adding the Pre90, and the SNR will likely drop some with adding one, but not to the point it actually matters.

 

[threni]

A bit of a practical question, how powerful is the remote/volume control. The remote/volume control on the Topping E30 is beyond terrible and I'm very hesitant to buy another Topping product because of it. Great DAC though, but I don't have the patience to hold the remote close and straight and pray that the DAC "sees" the remote....

It's fine but it points up (you can confirm this by looking at the IR transmitter with a mobile phone camera), so make sure you're at a reasonable distance and aim a little bit below the E30. Or aim at the wall opposite it. There's nothing wrong with the remote - I literally use it to additionally control music playback on my pi (https://poldieblog.blogspot.com/2020/12/remote-control-of-mpd-on-raspberry-pi-i.html).

 

[Neel]

Afaik Benchmark DACs use analog volume control, if still true there's 0 benefit in adding the Pre90, and the SNR will likely drop some with adding one, but not to the point it actually matters.

In my opinion that is not the case.

The manual for DAC3 lists this " All inputs are controlled by the rotary volume control. This volume control moves in response to commands from the remote control. Analog inputs are never converted to digital, and digital inputs never pass through an analog potentiometer. Digital inputs are precisely controlled in the 32-bit DSP system. The DSP system preserves precise L/R balance, and precise stereo imaging, while avoiding any source of noise and distortion."

Based on the above, since DAC3 is receiving digital signals (from the SHD studio unit) - the volume control will be performed entirely in the digital domain and not in the analog domain. Hence, I am assuming there should be an improvement in the SNR of the audio chain by introducing a dedicated analog preamp (like Topping Pre90).

 

[gvl]

In my opinion that is not the case.

The manual for DAC3 lists this " All inputs are controlled by the rotary volume control. This volume control moves in response to commands from the remote control. Analog inputs are never converted to digital, and digital inputs never pass through an analog potentiometer. Digital inputs are precisely controlled in the 32-bit DSP system. The DSP system preserves precise L/R balance, and precise stereo imaging, while avoiding any source of noise and distortion."

Based on the above, since DAC3 is receiving digital signals (from the SHD studio unit) - the volume control will be performed entirely in the digital domain and not in the analog domain. Hence, I am assuming there should be an improvement in the SNR of the audio chain by introducing a dedicated analog preamp (like Topping Pre90).

You might be right as it appears they changed it to digital volume starting from the DAC2. Digital volume control is only an issue if you listen at very low volume level on the DAC which would indeed negatively affect its SNR. If this is your situation a better shot to improve the SNR would be to lower the DAC3's output gain (or perhaps that's what the built-in attenuators are for?) so that your typical listening volume happens with the volume control turned to 70-80% of max.

Just use common sense, do you think Benchmark guys would design the DAC3/AHB2 pairing to not deliver the best performance without adding a Topping Pre?

 

[Neel]

Just use common sense, do you think Benchmark guys would design the DAC3/AHB2 pairing to not deliver the best performance without adding a Topping Pre?

Thank you for your reply @gvl

Based on the discussion here (Review and Measurements of Benchmark HPA4 Headphone Amp/Pre | Page 7 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum ) I think @John_Siau demonstrated the point that introducing a good preamp between DAC3 and AHB2 does improve the noise floor (theoretically and maybe audibly). I am new to the forum, so I might be wrong based on some other discussion in some other thread.

This is the summary of John Siau's post:
At typical listening levels, the LA4 can reduce the system noise by 7 to 10 dB. If the speakers are efficient enough to reproduce the system noise at levels above 0 dB SPL, then the LA4 can make an audible improvement in the system noise floor. This will happen if the speakers have an efficiency greater than 100 dB at 2.828 Vrms, 1 meter. This would be a gain setting of -22 dB (which I am calculating from the nearest measured point which is -21 dB). If I run this again, I will make a measurement at 2.828 Vrms (1 W into 8 Ohms).

The differences may be more noticeable with headphones or with bridged mono installations.

I don't have the funds right now to get a LA4 / HPA4 - Else I would have, without doubt, added HPA4 in my list for consideration
So, my question still remains :-(

• Will the SNR of my system improve by introducing the Topping Pre90 in my setup? If yes, by how much (same as LA4 or less) ?

It will be really nice if @JohnYang1997 , you can also chime in and let us know your thoughts.

 

[gvl]

At typical listening levels, the LA4 can reduce the system noise by 7 to 10 dB. If the speakers are efficient enough to reproduce the system noise at levels above 0 dB SPL, then the LA4 can make an audible improvement in the system noise floor. This will happen if the speakers have an efficiency greater than 100 dB at 2.828 Vrms, 1 meter. This would be a gain setting of -22 dB (which I am calculating from the nearest measured point which is -21 dB). If I run this again, I will make a measurement at 2.828 Vrms (1 W into 8 Ohms).

The Salons are what? 86dB? I guess it is at 1W power rating. What is it at 2.828 Vrms?

 

[JohnYang1997]

Thank you for your reply @gvl

Based on the discussion here (Review and Measurements of Benchmark HPA4 Headphone Amp/Pre | Page 7 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum ) I think @John_Siau demonstrated the point that introducing a good preamp between DAC3 and AHB2 does improve the noise floor (theoretically and maybe audibly). I am new to the forum, so I might be wrong based on some other discussion in some other thread.

This is the summary of John Siau's post:
At typical listening levels, the LA4 can reduce the system noise by 7 to 10 dB. If the speakers are efficient enough to reproduce the system noise at levels above 0 dB SPL, then the LA4 can make an audible improvement in the system noise floor. This will happen if the speakers have an efficiency greater than 100 dB at 2.828 Vrms, 1 meter. This would be a gain setting of -22 dB (which I am calculating from the nearest measured point which is -21 dB). If I run this again, I will make a measurement at 2.828 Vrms (1 W into 8 Ohms).

The differences may be more noticeable with headphones or with bridged mono installations.

I don't have the funds right now to get a LA4 / HPA4 - Else I would have, without doubt, added HPA4 in my list for consideration
So, my question still remains :-(

• Will the SNR of my system improve by introducing the Topping Pre90 in my setup? If yes, by how much (same as LA4 or less) ?

It will be really nice if @JohnYang1997 , you can also chime in and let us know your thoughts.

Pre90 can improve system SNR by over 20dB in certain systems.

 

[JohnYang1997]

JohnYang1997 hi. Let me put things in perspective. A reviewer, the taww, admired the RME Adi-2 DAC FS dearly and even praised it's preamp. He still however suggested owners to still use another preamp on top of. I won't mention what preamp he used but the combo awed him still. And that's how he qualified his conclusion. Would the Pre90, D90 combo awe listeners out of the fact that D90s as of this moment, are being used as preamps?

ADI-2 DAC is obviously fine.
D90 works too. Pre90 does give some performance boost but don't really matter in real world. If you are nitpicking, the poping sound when switching sample rates will get attenuated by the pre90. If you care about that you can get one.

 

[win]

Auralic Aries as Roon End Point -> Minidsp SHD studio for Dirac ->

Curious why you would duplicate the Roon endpoint functionality of the shd studio with the auralic Aries?