Jump to content
IGNORED

Topping D90 great but question future


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, all300b said:

I purchased a Topping D90 to compare with my now aged Eximus DP-1.  Had to use the discrete attenuator on the Eximus to level match between the two - I tried to obtain identical SPLs at the listening chair with white noise. Not sure if this is a scientifically correct approach, but the Eximus output is 3V single ended and the Topping 2V.  

 

A small surprise was that I liked the Topping better than my previously 5X more expensive DAC - it's easier to hear small details, high frequencies are more present, and the presentation has a greater sense of spaciousness.  This is going into a tubed integrated amp.  But a bigger surprise was how nice upsampling to DSD in Roon could be for many, though not all, PCM recordings.

 

As I understand it, DSD bypasses much of the new AKM chip in the Topping, which is a key selling point of this DAC.  This throws a wrench into a search for next DAC upgrades. For example, highly regarded DACs such as Holo and Denafrips look awesome, but if DSD software upsampling ends up the winner- and I have not even TRIED HQ player yet - then would be wasting money on a beautiful set of discrete resistor networks that would never be used.

 

Any thoughts on this?  Thanks!

 

Bryan

 

 

Is it really wasting your money if you like the way they handle DSD too? There are always features in things we don't need and would prefer to not pay for. Alas...

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
18 hours ago, barrows said:

Wow!  That is really, really weird.  Typically, in every product I have ever been aware of over my 40 years of being an audiophile, I have never heard of any product which used a fast blow fuse for its main AC inlet fuse (fast blow fuses are often used internally in amplifier power supply rails to protect the output devices from burning at clipping).  The reason for this is that most components will draw the most current on the initial power up, because the power supply is entirely uncharged at this point, and the power supply capacitors act like a dead short until they are charged, hence there is a very "fast" and large inrush current, briefly; a slow blow fuse allows for brief periods of over current without blowing..  I am very surprised a 200 mA fast blow fuse could even survive as an AC input fuse in this DAC.

Sometimes "Audiophile" fuses blow more easily than their standard counterparts, probably because the Audiophile fuse makers err on the side of safety.  I have seen "Audiophile" fuses of the correct blow when they should not have, and sometimes it is necessary to raise the fuse value by one step to keep them from blowing when they should not.  Given the expense of these "Audiophile" fuses, i ma not sure I woudl put a fast blow, 200 mA, Synergistic Orange in this DAC, as I woudl be afraid it might blow at power up.  One might consider upping the value a little if they are going to use an "Audiophile" fuse.

 

Main AC input fuses basically protect the device from further damage if there has been an internal problem, they should only burn when there is an internal problem (a broken DAC which draws too much current, typically some kind of short somewhere in the circuit).  The fuse then fails to protect both the component from further damage, and from the possibility of catching fire.  I would not advise to change the fuse value recommended by Topping though...  but I know what I would do here.

The main AC fuse between the power transformer and the wall is not to protect the device, but to prevent fire and is required by UL and other organizations. By time it has blown the damage has typically been done to the unit. If they are looking to protect the device, they will put an additional one(s) inline between the power supply and the circuit and they are almost always fast blow. For that matter, most are fast blow IME, except for tube gear and big amps or oversized power supplies with lots of storage.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Mike Rubin said:

I asked this question in another thread just the other day.  The response I got is that there's no way to tell because hi-res files might be remastered or not, i.e., they might just be upsampled in software from the 16/44 or they might in essence be whole new performances. The responder said that the only way to be sure if it does is to try both the Redbook and hi-res versions.  :) 

Sorry, I meant to respond to yours. It does matter assuming I can hear it correctly. That said, the actual mastering makes more of a difference and I feel no "need" to pursue hiz rez files specifically when upsampling. I feel that I should state that I use one of those DAC chipless DACs akin to the Denefrips or Holo Audio whom have patterned theirs from Miska's DSC.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...