Topping D50
- Thread starter E.Auer
- Start date
airbus
Active Member
Mentioning Audio Science Review appears to be the audiophile equivalent of saying "Hitler" in a mainstream internet forum: all actual discussion stops and people shout at each other. It's fascinating, various realms of the net have their version of this. In volleyball, if you use the name "Rick Butler" a 40 page thread breaks out and very little of the discussion has to do with whatever you meant to talk about. If you say "scientology" in some other places, a similar thing happens. At the rate things are going, the word "Trump" may soon replace "Hitler" as the internet's word bomb, though some people use the two names interchangeably anyway.
In the pre-Internet days, the audiophile word bomb was "Harry Pearson", editor of the Absolute Sound and I think in the beginning of net-based audiophilia, it was "Corey Greenberg" who wrote for Stereophile. Many years ago, Audio Magazine had a thing with Bob Carver that seemed sort of parallel to the Audio Science Review's tie to Topping. Of course, the amazing thing is that DACS didn't really exist in those days.
The odd thing is that I've lived through 3 different audio eras, LPs I had something like 700, CDs I had about 300, and now these digital files that live on my hard drive or stream through the internet for my $10/month Spotify subscription. Fascinatingly, the software's very different, but the speakers haven't really changed much.
In the pre-Internet days, the audiophile word bomb was "Harry Pearson", editor of the Absolute Sound and I think in the beginning of net-based audiophilia, it was "Corey Greenberg" who wrote for Stereophile. Many years ago, Audio Magazine had a thing with Bob Carver that seemed sort of parallel to the Audio Science Review's tie to Topping. Of course, the amazing thing is that DACS didn't really exist in those days.
The odd thing is that I've lived through 3 different audio eras, LPs I had something like 700, CDs I had about 300, and now these digital files that live on my hard drive or stream through the internet for my $10/month Spotify subscription. Fascinatingly, the software's very different, but the speakers haven't really changed much.
nedseg
Well-Known Member
Amirm at ASR reminds us that his intent is NOT to present subjective data, but rather to investigate measureable performance and to assess the quality of the engineering/thought that goes into each product tested.
Frankly, I find this to be a godsend, especially given the 'density' of his measurements, and opens the doors to deeper discussions (like above)...even if I can follow only 1/3rd of them!
Those tests allow me to eliminate the subjective opinions of others (not that they don't have value, but I have no way of knowing whether I'd agree), and the inherent 'circle of confusion', from my deliberations.
This thread also has value, as it's opened up some new options to consider down the road.
Certainly I miss the 'olden day's when I could just drop in on Specialized Sound and listen to new gear, and hear their (more educated) opinions...which also included assessments of the technical 'competence' of the designs.
And yes, I was one of those who jumped on the D50, as it clearly broke the price point barrier for DSD/256 DACs, which I wanted to play with...all at a time when I just happened to be shopping for improvements over my PC soundcard, and could (barely) afford.
The improvement was startling, though I have yet to try it out with the Big system, but am also watching for the new D70 for that use - perhaps.
So...D50 - no regrets, and am very happy with it....but wouldn't spend a dime more, either
Frankly, I find this to be a godsend, especially given the 'density' of his measurements, and opens the doors to deeper discussions (like above)...even if I can follow only 1/3rd of them!
Those tests allow me to eliminate the subjective opinions of others (not that they don't have value, but I have no way of knowing whether I'd agree), and the inherent 'circle of confusion', from my deliberations.
This thread also has value, as it's opened up some new options to consider down the road.
Certainly I miss the 'olden day's when I could just drop in on Specialized Sound and listen to new gear, and hear their (more educated) opinions...which also included assessments of the technical 'competence' of the designs.
And yes, I was one of those who jumped on the D50, as it clearly broke the price point barrier for DSD/256 DACs, which I wanted to play with...all at a time when I just happened to be shopping for improvements over my PC soundcard, and could (barely) afford.
The improvement was startling, though I have yet to try it out with the Big system, but am also watching for the new D70 for that use - perhaps.
So...D50 - no regrets, and am very happy with it....but wouldn't spend a dime more, either
One thing about measurements that is lost on most people is the values involved are so small that sometimes its a "whats the point" kind of thing. Having spent 30+ years doing these kind of measurements I understand them. To the layman what looks like a huge difference may not really even matter.
Probably bad analogy but we could display down to .001hz on something 3000 miles away, if you where standing next to it you can barley hear it running, I have in fact put my hand on them to see if they are running.
Probably bad analogy but we could display down to .001hz on something 3000 miles away, if you where standing next to it you can barley hear it running, I have in fact put my hand on them to see if they are running.
Last edited:
I'm sure at least some of these measurements matter, but being somewhat jaded over how stats are presented to the public on a wide range of things (like confusing relative with absolute stats 
) I freely admit I don't fully understand the ASR graphs. No matter what the graphs say I still will have to ultimately rely on my hearing to find the right sounding DAC for me. Whether ASR is above board in their testing I don't have any assurance of that. I tend to prefer independent labs (with reputations of neutrality to uphold) doing these sorts of tests and not a social media forum but this all we have to go on.
Since I am eventually needing another DAC to stream from qobuz (my main critical listening dac is tied to a Rpi3B and JRiver) I think I will use the opportunity to order a D50 and try it out at some point. Like another poster suggested I can always return it if I don't like it. I don't have unlimited funds to chase the latest ASR whatever, but if it will make a noticeable improvement (no laterals here) then I'd want to go that route.
) I freely admit I don't fully understand the ASR graphs. No matter what the graphs say I still will have to ultimately rely on my hearing to find the right sounding DAC for me. Whether ASR is above board in their testing I don't have any assurance of that. I tend to prefer independent labs (with reputations of neutrality to uphold) doing these sorts of tests and not a social media forum but this all we have to go on. Since I am eventually needing another DAC to stream from qobuz (my main critical listening dac is tied to a Rpi3B and JRiver) I think I will use the opportunity to order a D50 and try it out at some point. Like another poster suggested I can always return it if I don't like it. I don't have unlimited funds to chase the latest ASR whatever, but if it will make a noticeable improvement (no laterals here) then I'd want to go that route.
Amir recommends DACs he has never listened to...
That's exactly the whole point of the approach, it throws away one's bias. In the end one's subjective impressions are of little value to others, due to personal preferences and/or different gear in use. There is a reason why we see a lot of "YMMVs" on this and other boards.
wushuliu
Super Member
Amir recommends DACs he has never listened to which is like a car magazine recommending a car they have never driven.
The one that blew my mind was the declaration that since a bunch of opamps performed similarly in a measurement test for a Topping dac, that any of the opamp choices will sound the same. As in a OPA2134 will sound the same as an LME49720/LM4562 in an output stage.
Opamp swapping is one of the most debated, longest running tweaks in this hobby. There are *over 20 years worth of online discussion* on the topic. And those two opamps are considered polar opposites, no matter what forum, what year, what side of the spectrum you're on. That's assuming you actually listen to them of course.
Tangentsoft's and CMOY's recommendations were nothing but lies, lies I tell you!
wushuliu
Super Member
Ok, fine, let's get into it. For starters, he *does* or did do subjective assessments and the results were once a dac was level-matched he couldn't tell the difference between them. I repeat, he could not tell the difference between them. Regardless of the distortion he measured, unless it was an actual defective unit.
So isn't the objective takeaway that distortion, jitter et al are not meaningful metrics except for diagnosing defective units? Instead, there's now an obsessive ranking and recommendation system - over measurements he himself acknowledges do not meet the threshhold of audibility. So then why the obsessive ranking and measurement taking?
it's just judging products for the sake of judging products. Which, btw, is subjective.
Ultimately however, my biggest concern is that across different forums multiple people with skills and equipment of their own have expressed concern over his results and they have argued very effectively to take caution. It doesn't help his case that he's also been banned from several forums.
Ideally, the whole point of a supposed 'objectivist' point of view is that your assessments should be able to withstand analysis by one's peers. ASR has been found wanting in that regard. - END -
ldatlof
We are all steak
I still read Amir's stuff... He also doesn't recommend DACs that have digital nastiness below the noise floor and clearly states it beyond the capacity of human hearing. So if you can't hear it why is it a bad DAC? Poor engineering yes (though things are made to a price point), a bad sounding DAC? Hard to tell without listening to it. IMO. YMMV.
airbus
Active Member
Part of what makes audio both fascinating and frustrating all at once has been the objectivist vs. subjectivist war that's gone on for several decades. In general, you don't see the same sorts of arguments in video. While there are different tastes in lenses and screens, enthusiasts tend to agree that they are individual preferences and that there are generally accepted reasons for whatever produces the various effects. In audio, every bit of the system turns into a battlefield to the point that people argue about wire (yes, I think there are differences, but hundreds of dollars worth of differences, maybe not), volume controls, etc.)
One of the interesting things about The Absolute Sound's early days, which I think of as the height of the subjectivist audio criticism, was how little technical background Harry Pearson had. He essentially took the position that he was a listener and that listening with one's own ears was the ultimate measurement system. He also was quite good at writing poetically about whatever he happened to be hearing, well enough to turn the LP of Casino Royale into a collector's item. Right or wrong, I do think Pearson changed the "vocabulary" of the hobby and clearly did a lot to revive popular interest in vacuum tube amplification. Although the magazine did sometimes get into technical matters, TAS mostly took the approach that the equipment was a sort of black box and the thing that mattered was how it impacted the listener and not whatever magic tricks went into the box itself.
Amirm and Audio Science Review appears to be the opposite swing of the pendulum. Instead of being about listening, the site seems to accumulate whatever it can about whatever might be measurable about a piece of equipment and report it out.
The underlying assumption seems to be that whatever provides the least measurable distortion will sound the best. He actually does talk about listening from time to time, but frequently does not. There's also little to no talk of music itself. A lot of what he does is "bust" manufacturers' claims about the ability of their products to do various things e.g. 50 watt amps that claim minimal distortion, turn out to be 9 watt amps that distort like crazy, non-linear dacs with grounding problems, etc. To me, that's something that's unquestionably really valuable. He makes no attempt get into the far weirder question of why certain listeners, many of them quite sane, like the way some of this stuff sounds anyway. Amirm doesn't wax poetic at all. If you ever read car magazines, he's the text box at the end of the road test with all the charts. I do suspect that he does believe that great audio is the result of great engineering.
I'm just a hobbyist. I mostly listen and occasionally tinker. I don't do much measurement on my own. I did go through a stretch of making and modifying and, to be honest, I was really bad at it and wasted a lot of money. I'd say I wasted time too, but it
was definitely sort of fun. My guess is that a lot of the time, my taste is driven by the audiophile placebo effect: I bought it, therefore it must be good or worth it. There's really a pretty good argument that I'm just a guy who shops on the internet for stuff to listen to for a few hundred hours until he gets bored with whatever it is. That's to say, I definitely can be fooled. In fact, one of the more interesting paradoxes (it's not necessarily a paradox) is just how sensitive human hearing can be (I say hearing and not the ear, because one is a body part and the other is a system) and just how easy it is to fool a listener (think about Kind of Blue side 1 and Robert Johnson being at the wrong playback speed for decades). Auditory memory is rather surprisingly bad, yet with certain things like human voice and music, we can do sort of remarkable things especially when there's some sort of emotional tie, for example that whole weird thing where you, as a non-musician, can hear two notes of a recording and identify the song, the musician, etc. or identify a dead relative's voice immediately in a not very high quality 30 year old recording. What I've seen in the hobby is a sort of Zeno's paradox. We get increasingly good at figuring out how to measure, what to measure, and how to make the things we want to measure, yet something about it remains ultimately mysterious and unreachable, because the listening process is so individual and music memory itself is as much emotional as it is physical, i.e. what really matters tend to be the hardest things to measure (it's not a frequency measurement, it's notes in time at varying intensities with all these overtones, etc). I would mention that the best thing I've read about this was by Edward Said who was mostly a politically active academic, but he happened to be a very accomplished pianist who wrote an essay on why early CD's were coming up short (wish I could find it online). Anyway, once in a while your system allows you to recreate the "feeling" , however fleeting or one off that might be, and it's pretty addictive.
One of the interesting things about The Absolute Sound's early days, which I think of as the height of the subjectivist audio criticism, was how little technical background Harry Pearson had. He essentially took the position that he was a listener and that listening with one's own ears was the ultimate measurement system. He also was quite good at writing poetically about whatever he happened to be hearing, well enough to turn the LP of Casino Royale into a collector's item. Right or wrong, I do think Pearson changed the "vocabulary" of the hobby and clearly did a lot to revive popular interest in vacuum tube amplification. Although the magazine did sometimes get into technical matters, TAS mostly took the approach that the equipment was a sort of black box and the thing that mattered was how it impacted the listener and not whatever magic tricks went into the box itself.
Amirm and Audio Science Review appears to be the opposite swing of the pendulum. Instead of being about listening, the site seems to accumulate whatever it can about whatever might be measurable about a piece of equipment and report it out.
The underlying assumption seems to be that whatever provides the least measurable distortion will sound the best. He actually does talk about listening from time to time, but frequently does not. There's also little to no talk of music itself. A lot of what he does is "bust" manufacturers' claims about the ability of their products to do various things e.g. 50 watt amps that claim minimal distortion, turn out to be 9 watt amps that distort like crazy, non-linear dacs with grounding problems, etc. To me, that's something that's unquestionably really valuable. He makes no attempt get into the far weirder question of why certain listeners, many of them quite sane, like the way some of this stuff sounds anyway. Amirm doesn't wax poetic at all. If you ever read car magazines, he's the text box at the end of the road test with all the charts. I do suspect that he does believe that great audio is the result of great engineering.
I'm just a hobbyist. I mostly listen and occasionally tinker. I don't do much measurement on my own. I did go through a stretch of making and modifying and, to be honest, I was really bad at it and wasted a lot of money. I'd say I wasted time too, but it
was definitely sort of fun. My guess is that a lot of the time, my taste is driven by the audiophile placebo effect: I bought it, therefore it must be good or worth it. There's really a pretty good argument that I'm just a guy who shops on the internet for stuff to listen to for a few hundred hours until he gets bored with whatever it is. That's to say, I definitely can be fooled. In fact, one of the more interesting paradoxes (it's not necessarily a paradox) is just how sensitive human hearing can be (I say hearing and not the ear, because one is a body part and the other is a system) and just how easy it is to fool a listener (think about Kind of Blue side 1 and Robert Johnson being at the wrong playback speed for decades). Auditory memory is rather surprisingly bad, yet with certain things like human voice and music, we can do sort of remarkable things especially when there's some sort of emotional tie, for example that whole weird thing where you, as a non-musician, can hear two notes of a recording and identify the song, the musician, etc. or identify a dead relative's voice immediately in a not very high quality 30 year old recording. What I've seen in the hobby is a sort of Zeno's paradox. We get increasingly good at figuring out how to measure, what to measure, and how to make the things we want to measure, yet something about it remains ultimately mysterious and unreachable, because the listening process is so individual and music memory itself is as much emotional as it is physical, i.e. what really matters tend to be the hardest things to measure (it's not a frequency measurement, it's notes in time at varying intensities with all these overtones, etc). I would mention that the best thing I've read about this was by Edward Said who was mostly a politically active academic, but he happened to be a very accomplished pianist who wrote an essay on why early CD's were coming up short (wish I could find it online). Anyway, once in a while your system allows you to recreate the "feeling" , however fleeting or one off that might be, and it's pretty addictive.
Poultrygeist
Lunatic Member
Amir recommends DACs he has never listened to which is like a car magazine recommending a car they have never driven.
Which DACs are those?
wushuliu
Super Member
Don't sell yourself short. You've been in the hobby a long time. You've accumulated experience. That counts for a lot.
wushuliu
Super Member
Lol. One of the DACs he hasn't actually listened to is... the Topping D50 (yay, back on topic!).
ldatlof
We are all steak
As if they have a spotless record...
They make some killer opioids...
wushuliu
Super Member
Not a very objective assessment is it. Personally, I would simply note the discrepancies and perhaps ask the manufacturer if they would like to comment on the results. I would not actively tell people not to buy a product and say it makes me want to throw up on it. That'd be a bit too subjective for my taste. At any rate, his antipathy for Schiit is well known and I don't have a problem with that. It's the multiple very well documented and argued comparative measurements done by both Schiit and third parties - and his responses, which I found unimpressive. It's not he said vs. they said. It's he said vs. them and them and them and them and...
This thread got me thinking about different personality types either going for engineering perfection or the laid back listening to what sounds best. Call it type A and B maybe. A pure type A would strive for perfection in everything EXCEPT his hearing which he would look apon with disdain because of the very imperfect nature of the human ear.
He would never own a tube Amp, or take a piss off the deck of his house even if he was secluded. Or owning a mediocre tested dac, no matter how well it sounded, because after all the ear/brain is imperfect , thus not to be trusted with all that messy placebo effect and whatnot.
That's type A audiophile as seen from a type B (mostly) .. Type B for another time or maybe one of the type A's would like to write it?
He would never own a tube Amp, or take a piss off the deck of his house even if he was secluded. Or owning a mediocre tested dac, no matter how well it sounded, because after all the ear/brain is imperfect , thus not to be trusted with all that messy placebo effect and whatnot.
That's type A audiophile as seen from a type B (mostly) .. Type B for another time or maybe one of the type A's would like to write it?
wushuliu
Super Member
This thread got me thinking about different personality types either going for engineering perfection or the laid back listening to what sounds best. Call it type A and B maybe. A pure type A would strive for perfection in everything EXCEPT his hearing which he would look apon with disdain because of the very imperfect nature of the human ear.
He would never own a tube Amp, or take a piss off the deck of his house even if he was secluded. Or owning a mediocre tested dac, no matter how well it sounded, because after all the ear/brain is imperfect , thus not to be trusted with all that messy placebo effect and whatnot.
That's type A audiophile as seen from a type B (mostly) .. Type B for another time or maybe one of the type A's would like to write it?
I think that's generally true on the amateur hobbyist level. What is comforting is that a lot of the top names or gurus who make audio products aren't nearly as perfectionist and rigid. Sure they may lean one way vs. the other, but the years of constant experimentation and work usually leads to a more forgiving mindset instead of absolutes. Which is why one of my favorite getaways is where Nelson Pass posts. Like attracts like and it's just a chill mix of tech and subjective feedback.
