I’m struggling to understand the purpose of your post, which appears to imply that:
A) the Topping DAC must be ‘better’ than the Yggdrasil just because some of it’s measurements appear to be better than those of the Yggdrasil
and
B) Magnus’s personal opinion that the Yggdrasil sounds ‘better’ (to him) than the Topping must be flawed or biased because the Yggdrasil (with its ‘inferior’ measurements) cannot possibly sound ‘better’ than the Topping.
It might be a little more illuminating if you were to let us know if you have personally listened to these two DACs, and have come to your own subjective conclusion that your ears and your systems back up your inference that measurements are what really matters above all else in evaluating hi-fi equipment and that the Topping is the better DAC.
When you want to choose a piece of equipment for your own audio systems, do you listen to it along with a number of its peers, or do you simply compare specifications of a number of devices before making your choice?
In my own case, I do look at equipment specifications before deciding on a shortlist of devices. However, I would never dream of purchasing a device purely on specification and without first listening to it alongside a number of its peers and preferably (if possible) at home and connected to my own system.
I find it very strange that anyone would approach audio component selection any differently.
I would assume that’s not the case. If he didn’t bother to check what reconstruction filter the Topping was using, I seriously doubt he bothered to level-match the two devices.
The output voltage of the two devices is considerably (5%) different. And, since louder invariably sound “better,” that’s how @Magnus decided he prefered the Yggdrasil.
4 Likes
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
971
Just trying to point out that “better” is a value judgement, and value judgements are made for all kinds of reasons, which may or may not have to do with the quality of the sound. I’m not saying it doesn’t sound “better” to Magnus, just that the reasons it does so may not be applicable to others.
It’s only a value judgement when you’re including the price differential in the equation.
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
974
I think that this is an excellent way to proceed, if you have the ability to do so. Some of the psychological reasons one system will sound better than another are deeply buried, and may not even be apparent to the listener. And, of course, there’s always that possibility of ineffable unmeasurable quantum effects.
Stop nitpicking, everyone and their mother who have listened to a cheap Topping DAC and a high-end DAC like Yggdrasil will say the same: Yggdrasil sound much better. The difference in sound quality between DACs can be huge, much bigger than some of you seem to think. Which filter is used is completely irrelevant in this case, the difference is at least 10 times bigger than difference between built in filters.
I could listen to Yggdrasil DAC with -10dB and would still hear it completely outclass the Topping DAC.
All this is in itself not strange, Yggdrasil costs almost 10 times as much and should sound much better. Its only gets interesting when you look at Amir’s measurement of the 2 DACs, which would indicate that the Topping DAC sounds better. It shows very clearly how limited and uninformative measurements are when talking sound quality.
1 Like
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
976
Ah! Impressed by the price differential. Tell you what, for 10 times the price of the Yggdrasil, I’ll sell you my custom-built DAC.
I have listened to both (Topping D90 and the Yggdrasil) and I do not say this.
That is not what Amir’s measurements indicate. They indicate that the Topping is more accurate and the Topping is higher fidelity. Whether or not that sounds better or worse to your ears is entirely up to you and there is no right or wrong answer to that evaluation.
Well, Im talking about the Topping DX3 which I own myself as a TV DAC. I haven’t heard the D90 so can’t comment on that. And trust me, there is absolutely no “higher fidelity” in the Topping DX3, its more “throw a thick cover over your speaker and listen” type of sound, which is hardly what anyone would prefer, no matter sound preferences.
I have never listened to either of these DACs, so I cannot possibly give my subjective opinion. Have you, and if so do you think that the Topping is the better DAC? Alternatively, have you simply compared the specifications of the two devices and come to the conclusion that the Topping must be ‘better’.
I suspect that some people (and to be clear I am not including you in this category, because I don’t know you) just like to be inverse price snobs. In my experience, (a higher) price most certainly does not equate with (a ‘better’) sound quality in all cases, but the inverse correlation is even less likely to hold true.
The topping is higher fidelity in the sense that the measurements show clearly it is introducing less distortion than the Yggdrasil. Whether or not you prefer the sound of the more accurate audio reproduction is entirely up to you.
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
981
You need to listen to the 2 DACs in question, but lets give some difference between them:
Topping DX3 sounds muffled, Yggdrasil has a very good clarity
Topping DX3 has a smeared and narrow soundstage, Yggdrasil has an awesome soundstage, wide and detailed.
Yggdrasil is also extremely detailed, especially compared to a DAC like Topping DX3
I could go on, but why bother. So yes, if your sound preferences is to like narrow and smeared sound stage with a muffled and flat sound, then yes you will like the Topping DX3.
I do have to qualify my post by saying that the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty early with audio equipment, as it does with many other consumables such as cars, cameras or cell phones for example.
I know from personal experience that a Linn Klimax streamer/DAC sounds to my ears significantly ‘better’ than any £500 to £1000 DAC that I have heard. However, I would never claim that it represents better ‘value’ than most good DACs in that price range. That would be an absolutely absurd assertion.
XLR (I have a RCA - XLR also), but my amp is a NC500 so I have never run into any impedance problems. The difference I have described between the two DACs is what I would expect given their cost, so nothing strange there.
It only gets strange when people try to defend Amir and his claim that measurements can fully describe sound quality (or transparency or whatever you want to call it). Which is clearly can’t, and anyone who listens to those two DACs will agree.
The fact that you didn’t even try to level-match the two DACs, before comparing them, tells us everything we need to know about the reliability of your observations.
