Topping D50 vs Schiit Modi Multibit vs Topping D30 vs SMSL M8A DAC

Have someone heard and compared these DACs?

1-Topping D50
2-Schiit Modi Multibit
3-Topping D30
4-SMSL M8A DAC

Which of them DACs stand above and does outperform the others in terms of audio quality?

Thanks

 

You can find measurements of some of those models at audiosciencereview

 

You can find biased/flawed measurements of some of those models at that twisted site. Beware of the fabled Amirbits.

I picked up the D50 just to hear it for myself. It's not in the same world as the Schiit Yggy. Don't have the others to compare otherwise.

CJ

 

I am familiar with ASR and have seen nothing to support this opinion.

 

I have owned both of those Dacs the topping D50 is a clear winner. Built very well has many different connections Optical, coaxial, USB the topping D50 gets my vote for $250 you can't beat it as a DAC.

 

I would put those dacs at about the same level. The only way you'll know which you prefer is to hear them. The Multi bit uses the AKM chip which many find to be more analog sounding than the Sabre chips used in the D50 and I think the SMSL. The d30 uses a Cirrus Logic chip. others prefer the sharper detail of the Sabre chips. A lot will depend on your system, esp. the speakers or Hphones, and what sound you prefer.

 

I own the Topping D30 and the Schiit Modi 2 Uber (not the Multibit). The Topping is more resolving at less then half the price. It's also of much better build quiality, and you don't cycle inputs with a cheap off center button.

 

Can't offer any comparisons, but I own the Topping D50 and I think it sounds very good. Especially given its price. I'd say it sounds very detailed and neutral, neither harsh in the highs nor boomy in the bass. As usual, it will depend on your preferences and the rest of your system.

 

The Yggy costs $2,400 or so. What does the D50 cost?

 

About one-tenth of that.

 

I really love the sound of my Modi Multibit. Haven't heard the others because I'm not that guy, and if I was that guy a guy like me would say be very skeptical of whatever that multiple-DAC trying weirdo says.

 

It depends. This hobby is pretty subjective.

Kinda like cars. Maybe Car A pulls better lateral g's and goes faster 0-60 than Car B, but for some reason, Car B is more fun to drive.

DAC A may measure better, but some may like DAC B's sound better. Who knows?

Why are you asking? Are you looking to purchase one of these? What kind of gear do you have? Are you primarily listening with speakers or headphones?

Lots of knowledgeable folks are here (I'm not one of them), but they're gonna need more info and context from you before they can offer well-conceived replies.

 

Let's see the topping D50 with the sabre 9038chips is crisp very very detailed beautiful meds beautiful highs good bass to me it's a clear winner over the s*** audio and the other one.

Of course that's just my opinion but I've owned both of them and I clearly prefer the topping. Build quality is excellent on the topping also it's not just something sitting in a little silver plain-looking box like s*** audio does.

 

One more thing I wanted to add is the topping D50 DAC is built superior to the s*** audio DAC. The topping has an LED screen where the schiit audio just has a blank aluminum face.

In my humble opinion the topping is built Superior and sounds better I have nothing against schiit audio I love their stuff but I just think the topping D50 is a superior dac.

 

Crisp is not a desired audio quality. Any audio described as crisp is a clue to plug your ears and run away.

The DACs and other gear I like will never be described as crisp.

 

My online dictionary translates "crisp" when atributed to sound as "klar", which means "clear". Doesn't sound like a bad thing.

 

In audio terms the word "crisp" is used to describe a style of sharp or hard brightness. I do not consider that style of brightness to be desirable. And I choose my audio gear to eliminate that.

Here's how Stereophile defines "crisp":

crisp In reproduced sound: sharply focused and detailed, sometimes excessively so because of a peak in the mid-treble region.​

For me, any audio that gets crisp enough to be described as crisp is excessively crisp. Crisp to me is a code word to run away. I hate crisp and avoid it at all costs. If you listened to my headphone system you would never even think of the word crisp. Yet my system also has all of the detail and inner detail and imaging and desirable smoothness that I will ever desire. Just because a system isn't "crisp" doesn't mean it is lacking any detail or inner imaging. I actually consider crisp to be a sign of faux detail (fake detail masquerading as real detail that isn't actually in the recording).

 

The issue with writing about audio gear is that all sorts of adjectives and terms are thrown out which are at best vague, and at worst, are oversimplified. "Clear" should be Audio 101. Who wants to listen to something that has the opposite attribute of clear, which would be murky, distorted, etc...?

So we consider the broader meaning of "crisp." To me, that would translate as hard, cold, or lacking tone density (see, tone density has no real meaning, it's just the best way I can describe the type of sound I prefer). Highly resolving DACs seem to be a dime a dozen these days. The chips are there, they can be implemented fairly cheaply to produce amazing measurements, measurements that are meaningless because they're painting a picture that the human ear can't even perceive (can you hear the difference between .01 and .001 THD?). So at that point, it has to go beyond measurements and one has to hear various products to determine what they prefer.

"Crisp" to me means fatigue over a long listening session. It may mean something different to others. It may be a reference for one, and a detriment to another.

 

It seems that you both have negative associations with the word "crisp" when used to describing audio. Maybe I would call what you describe "harsh". I only meant to suggest that Mike might have used it to describe a positive quality, like clarity.

Whatever, as I said, I think the D50 has a detailed (or clear) sound, but not a harsh one.

In the end I don't have a horse in this race, since I haven't heard the other models mentioned by the thread starter (who himself seems to have lost interest in the matter anyway, since he hasn't returned after posting his question).

 

That's exactly it. For me personally it's not a quality I would want, but if I describe something as "warm" others may go "gross, I don't want that." Is what it is. I'm happy with what I have, and am glad others find happiness in what they have. It's not a competition. Same team, and all that.

 

It's warm it's transparent it's clean it's just got a great sound I don't know what else to say I don't know all the terminology.

Loads of details you can hear every little fly flying around in the room I don't know what else to say buy it if you don't like it send it back.

It's not too bright it's not too dark it's not harsh it's just a nice DAC that's all I got to say.

 

Amir is a hack, do not believe his BS measurements. he manipulates data and have been debunked by head fi and sbaf

 

Well... I don't know about all of the terminology and such as I'm relatively new to this as well, but I have used all four of the DACs listed and the winner for me is the D50. Using it now. Streaming tidal from MBP to D5o via Curious Cable USB. From the D50 I have a Kimber Interconnect to my Primaluna Prologue One tube amp. Sounds wonderful.

 

Harsh is worse than crisp.

Rather than thinking in terms of clarity or crisp or other terms like that, I think in terms of transparency. I want gear that lets me hear through the gear and into the source recording. I consider my DAC and my gear to present a very desirable style of transparency to me that lets me hear through the gear and into the recording and the space and imaging that is in the recording. I've heard systems that cost more that sound very clear but not have the style and level of transparency that I hear with my system. In the battle between clarity and transparency I'll choose transparency. And my system and personal preferences reflect that.

One way to understand what crisp or harsh is is to listen to a very good system that is neither. A good system that has no crispness or harshness can be turned up louder and louder without the end result sounding louder than it is. When a system has crispness or harshness that crisp or harsh sound will push you away as you turn up the volume. A system that is smooth and without any crisp or harsh elements can be turned up louder and louder without you even realizing it has gotten too loud to listen to safely. There is obviously more required of the system to be able to do that. Things like necessary headroom and the ability of the drivers to deliver at those levels are also necessary. But assuming you've got the headroom and other aspects met then crispness or harshness from the source is going to limit how loud you can turn things up before you notice that it is getting too loud and that things are sounding worse as you turn up the volume.

 

The cheapest, with the rest of the money spent on a big fat doobie...