Topping D50 III Balanced DAC with EQ Review

[AdamG]

Multiple posts deleted. We may have missed a few. So consider this a good time to go back and double check that your post is relevant to this review.

This is an Official Product Review and we must stay focused on this product and the bench test results. Take your side conversations to separate threads. For now we only deleted posts. Further off topic posting will be a deletion and posting privileges restriction. We really don’t want to do that, so please don’t force our hand.

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

 

[Sonic-Wall]

I just answered the question above ;-)
BTW: If you need balanced outputs with a higher SINAD than the RME just add another DAC like the Topping D50 III to the WiiM Ultra.
If you need a proper phono pre with MC support, just add a second phono pre to the separate analog input.
With 2k cost savings and the connectivity options of the WiiM Ultra, you can do a lot…

 

[Rottmannash]

@Rja4000 Can I connect my network streamer (e.g. Eversolo DMP-A6) via USB and connect power using the other USB-C port?

The DMP-A6 already has PEQ onboard and the DAC is almost as good as this one.

 

[DrCWO]

My Amp is a Purifi 1ET400A (from Buckeye). With respect to adjustment of gain settings, would I just set the toggle to the low gain setting to fully accomplish what you are indicating? Towards the bottom of this post I have provided information appearing on the product page for this amp.

It's easy:

• Set the gain of the Amp to low.
• Check whether you can still tolerate the volume at the 0dB setting of the DAC.
• If not, insert an XLR attenuator adapter into the connection cable like this one for example.
• If it's not loud enough at 0dB increase the gain setting.

Best DrCWO

 

[GaryH]

I see asked equalization but I (nor you) can't see its real impact on frequency response (if, and how it works!) Even if I'm going to believe that topping implemented is working as expected, let's not fool ourselves - there will be products that will mess it up, and therefore it would be good to measure the real impact that equalization has on frequency response. That's my point.

Looks like it does indeed mess it up (RME blue, Topping black):

5 Hz off at 100 Hz (plus other errors at higher frequencies), and that's only with 3 filters. With 10 filters engaged the cumulative error could well be even larger depending on the filters, but we'll never know unless it's tested. The 4 year-old Qudelix 5K manages to get this right, and with independent LR channel / 20-band PEQ to boot, plus crossfeed, all for half the price of the Topping.

 

[Bleib]

Sheesh, so EQ is broken from the start? Can they fix it with firmware and software updates?

 

[DLS79]

perhaps you should post the commentary associated with the plot in question, instead of performing a hack job and removing all context!

(Unofficial) Topping D50 III DAC review and measurements

Here is a review and measurements of the recent Topping D50 III DAC The D50 III is a small DAC. From above, it looks like a square of approx 13x13cm . I purchased it new from Audiophonics for around 230€ (pre-release discount included). This is one of the cheapest DACs with balanced and...

www.audiosciencereview.com

As you may see, it matches pretty well.
This is here a 3 band PEQ test, with maximum gain (+12dB) and attenuation (-12dB) and different Q for each frequency.
The main mismatch is that the 100Hz peak seems to be at 105Hz on the Topping instead.

 

[Sokel]

perhaps you should post the commentary associated with the plot in question, instead of performing a hack job and removing all context!

(Unofficial) Topping D50 III DAC review and measurements

Here is a review and measurements of the recent Topping D50 III DAC The D50 III is a small DAC. From above, it looks like a square of approx 13x13cm . I purchased it new from Audiophonics for around 230€ (pre-release discount included). This is one of the cheapest DACs with balanced and...

www.audiosciencereview.com

That's debatable.
Good thing about charts is that they don't need commentary.When someone equalizes 100Hz it must be 100Hz not 101Hz.
If it is then one must ask "what else is wrong if the very frequency is wrong". It's trivial.

 

[Rednaxela]

perhaps you should post the commentary associated with the plot in question, instead of performing a hack job and removing all context!

I followed his link and read the context. It took me one click and a little bit of scrolling.

 

[DrCWO]

Good thing about charts is that they don't need commentary.When someone equalizes 100Hz it must be 100Hz not 101Hz.
If it is then one must ask "what else is wrong if the very frequency is wrong". It's trivial.

As EQ can only be done with USB I guess they calculate EQ in the XMOS processor that normally got used for USB audio connectivity.
Doing so the algorithm may use integer math and this may cause this strange effect

 

[Rednaxela]

So, if you have a room mode at 100Hz, at what frequency should you cut it?

 

[DrCWO]

So, if you have a room mode at 100Hz, at what frequency should you cut it?

The exact room mode can only be seen by measurement.
So adjust the EQ and remeasure if you hit it.
If not change F, Q and amplitude till it fits

 

[GaryH]

Or buy a device that actually works properly.

 

[Robbo99999]

Looks like it does indeed mess it up (RME blue, Topping black):

5 Hz off at 100 Hz (plus other errors at higher frequencies), and that's only with 3 filters. With 10 filters engaged the cumulative error could well be even larger depending on the filters, but we'll never know unless it's tested. The 4 year-old Qudelix 5K manages to get this right, and with independent LR channel / 20-band PEQ to boot, plus crossfeed, all for half the price of the Topping.

That's in comparison to RME implementation. That assumes that RME implementation is rock solid, is it safe to make that assumption? Also is the measurement procedure bonafide & not open to any errors? It's true though that we see differences in the graph, not massive but there.

EDIT: assuming it's an error in Topping, do we know what is causing the error, as in with more filters combined & more complex filters combined are we likely to see increased error or is that not a safe assumption? I wonder what Topping have to say about this.

 

[DLS79]

Or buy a device that actually works properly.

Can some of you take your topping fanboyism…

It's a topping review thread............

 

[DLS79]

That's in comparison to RME implementation. That assumes that RME implementation is rock solid, is it safe to make that assumption? Also is the measurement procedure bonafide & not open to any errors? It's true though that we see differences in the graph, not massive but there.

EDIT: assuming it's an error in Topping, do we know what is causing the error, as in with more filters combined & more complex filters combined are we likely to see increased error or is that not a safe assumption? I wonder what Topping have to say about this.

Perhaps @amirm could be convinced to run a few more tests if he still has the unit he tested. He did two tests in the review. Since we know Topping is supposed to have 2 more models coming in the not to distant future, and I'm sure other manufactures will follow suit, perhaps the community can come up with some eq specific tests to help separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[PeterWest]

Is anyone having issues after updating to firmware 1.21? Now remote won't pair and firmware requires reinstalls and modes no longer accessible via D50 III right button control. Two emails to Topping unanswered.

 

[Sokel]

Perhaps @amirm could be convinced to run a few more tests if he still has the unit he tested. He did two tests in the review. Since we know Topping is supposed to have 2 more models coming in the not to distant future, and I'm sure other manufactures will follow suit, perhaps the community can come up with some eq specific tests to help separate the wheat from the chaff.

Here is a really good thread about the impact EQ can have.
(a partial fix was the result of this thread)

DSP Measurements and Rising Noise Floor

In several threads related to DSP platforms I've seen requests for measurements with filters engaged. I thought it unlikely that implementing filters in a DSP would have measurable effect on noise / distortion other than the obvious change in the fundamental, however @Sokel recently mentioned...

www.audiosciencereview.com

(note that these are pure digital measurements so no analog penalties involve )

 

[yys310]

It's a topping review thread............

So let's face the problem instead of playing with words.

Anyone check the channel balance?
Mine is about 0.07dB off for L and R channel. My motu M4 is now under repair so I cannot measure the output from M4 now but IIRC the deviation from M4 is much smaller than this.
I measured this by MOTU 896MK3 from my friend.
As a comparison I measured the 1,3,5,7 output from MOTU 896MK3 and the loudest and quietest is 0.015dB off.
The D90III is 0.06dB off for L and R channel.

I also measured the Manhattan II and it's 0.001dB off but that's just too expensive so no need to compare with that.

 

[Sokel]

So let's face the problem instead of playing with words.

Anyone check the channel balance?
Mine is about 0.07dB off for L and R channel. My motu M4 is now under repair so I cannot measure the output from M4 now but IIRC the deviation from M4 is much smaller than this.
I measured this by MOTU 896MK3 from my friend.
As a comparison I measured the 1,3,5,7 output from MOTU 896MK3 and the loudest and quietest is 0.015dB off.
The D90III is 0.06dB off for L and R channel.

I also measured the Manhattan II and it's 0.001dB off but that's just too expensive so no need to compare with that.
View attachment 366456View attachment 366457

(I'm glad that I'm not the only crazy one to measure channel balance right after measuring for DC and malfunctions right out of the box in any device I get)