Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
I suspect that Topping products are so inexpensive because I guess they are payed by Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Yamaha and NAD for not making normal integrated amp in normal form factor as they are used to be for last 50 years.
I suspect that Topping products are so inexpensive because I guess they are payed by Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, Yamaha and NAD for not making normal integrated amp in normal form factor as they are used to be for last 50 years.
This is something to watch/plan for the future with most products sourced/manufactured/purchased from China Inc.
There is much upcoming political, economic and financial circumstances that may show a steep increase in such products' prices.
I notice aliexpress is now touting free shipping with 'select' items (including this one) and this free s/h maybe a warning of things to come.
Topping has great engineering but terrible industrial design and choices.
Your choices are desktop DACs that resembles a kids' toy or an ugly rack mount for home use. I mean, some might argue that this DAC is for some commercial or public use, but their complimenting amp definitely can't be, with just 50wpc into 8 ohms (before the knee).
I asked John Yang on this forum about catering to local market tastes and preference outside of their home country, I didn't really get a good answer.
I have the D90SE, great performance, but doesn't match the other components in my rack.
Topping has great engineering but terrible industrial design and choices.
Your choices are desktop DACs that resembles a kids' toy or an ugly rack mount for home use. I mean, some might argue that this DAC is for some commercial or public use, but their complimenting amp definitely can't be, with just 50wpc into 8 ohms (before the knee).
I asked John Yang on this forum about catering to local market tastes and preference outside of their home country, I didn't really get a good answer.
I have the D90SE, great performance, but doesn't match the other components in my rack.
I’m right there with you. All my equipment is in a rack (cut the ears off..) and I love this idea. I too have a D90SE and I built a rack mount solution for my DAC, Volumio Rivo and my one snake oil purchase…a linear power supply.
My only hope is they stick to the EIA rack standard screw spacing. I’ve been trying to work with a Chinese supplier to provide a rack panel for a pair of Purifi amps I want to build, they build a standard case, just not a rack faceplate. They can provide a price, but not a drawing that syncs with the EIA bolt spacing standard. I just don’t get it.
I may have a look at the Topping amp too for fun, 50 wpc works for me, I’m using a Crown D-75 now with only 35 wpc!
There is nothing remotely ugly about this. You are not going to get that gorgeous and highly responsive display on other such gear. As we discussed in the RA4 thread, rack mount used to indicate high-end audio. It is not meant to look like a pro product.
There is nothing remotely ugly about this. You are not going to get that gorgeous and highly responsive display on other such gear. As we discussed in the RA4 thread, rack mount used to indicate high-end audio. It is not meant to look like a pro product.
So imagine you live in a house, you have fairly modern and good looking furnitures, then you have this industrial rack with components screwed in, and it's right next to your modern TV.
Ehh. . .I think it's better in a networking closet.
Rack mount was never an indicator of high-end home HiFi. It was an attempt to bring the studio aesthetic into home HiFi in the 1970s. All the brands did it on mass market, cheap systems right through the early 1980s. Some pro audio companies produced home HiFi amplifiers with 19" rack mounts and prettier panels than their road cased professional versions.
This may be a good product for sure, but it doesn't know what it is. It's not professional (according to Topping), but it's just as ugly as real pro gear. It is cheap, and that's good, as it performs better than cheap pro gear, but 'high end' it is most definitely not.
So imagine you live in a house, you have fairly modern and good looking furnitures, then you have this industrial rack with components screwed in, and it's right next to your modern TV.
Do you mean it as 'not' being built like... a 'brick outhouse' in terms of potential reliability?
Even if you expect it to die after a few years: At its price-point - would it not make sense to either buy a spare or a replacement if/when?
What else - exactly - would it need to make it 'high-end' although very niche?
Do you mean it as 'not' being built like... a 'brick outhouse' in terms of potential reliability?
Even if you expect it to die after a few years: At its price-point - would it not make sense to either buy a spare or a replacement if/when?
What else - exactly - would it need to make it 'high-end' although very niche?
Since this is a forum that deals with objective measurements and tries to avoid using flowery terminology when describing the subjective auditory experience, shouldn’t the same apply when it comes to visual and tactile experience of a product?
What I mean is when you say that a display is gorgeous and highly responsive, should that statement at least not be qualified by an objective comparison to a number of other competing products? Or perhaps a measurement-based approach where response time of a unit could be measured in terms of input lag and the quality of display could be messurec in terms of peak brightness, contrast ratio and resolution?
I’m obviously playing the devil’s advocate here because I do not think you have the time to perform this kind of scientific testing. My point is that if the guiding principle of this forum is not to make subjective statements about a performance of a device when it comes to its audio performance, the same logic and restraint should apply when discussing other aspects of the reviewed device.
Do you mean it as 'not' being built like... a 'brick outhouse' in terms of potential reliability?
Even if you expect it to die after a few years: At its price-point - would it not make sense to either buy a spare or a replacement if/when?
What else - exactly - would it need to make it 'high-end' although very niche?
Since this is a forum that deals with objective measurements and tries to avoid using flowery terminology when describing the subjective auditory experience, shouldn’t the same apply when it comes to visual and tactile experience of a product?
So imagine you live in a house, you have fairly modern and good looking furnitures, then you have this industrial rack with components screwed in, and it's right next to your modern TV.
Oh, of course regular audio reviewers are allowed to state their subjective opinions on anything. We have had over 60 or more years of that purely subjective approach. This forum though was built upon the foundation that is the exact opposite of that approach, at least when it comes to audio performance of a product.
I am just pointing out the fact that it appears hypocritical to insist on absolute objectivity when reviewing the audio aspect of a product’s performance while reviewing all other aspects of its performance purely subjectively.
More metal , bigger packing and a lot of wasted space. With all the millions of tons of ewaste and packaging manufacturers should not sell empty cases for the feel good look. Yes, it provides the same functionality as a rack tray and a desktop DAC. At least that tray will can be used for decades.
It would be awesome that manufacturers would offer upgraded boards to replace what is inside the units. Even my small d50s has some extra space inside the case..
And congrats to topping on another high performance prodicy
The case is not "e-waste".
I am thinking that you did not consider the possibility that they are spreading things out to maintain their cool & longevity? (A problem that some of their gear has had).
Also, it is designed to fit the form factor (a particular set of external measurements [you cannot have it both ways, it specifies that it is a rack mount, it appears to be a rack mount when you look at it {if you have never owned a rack, the components being stacked together & many times not put in a place with generous airflow, generates a lot of heat, so it is designed appropriately for that purpose, which is why it has a lot of what you call "wasted space"]}) of a rack mount item.
I, on the other hand, say "It's wonderful that they designed something that is appropriate for being mounted in a rack and is designed to mitigate the problems of being mounted in a rack". Many have complained that the gear does not fit their racks.
If this one does not meet the the requirements you have for what you call "wasted space" or for any other reason. you may always decide to purchase a different unit that meets your criteria. That is why their are many choices.
Different strokes for different folks & needs. This stuff is not "one size fits all".
