Part III: Topping DX9 "15th Anniversary" Limited Edition DAC & Headphone Amplifier - DSD, S/PDIF inputs, headphone out, pre-out, and AMPT. And the desire beyond Perceptibly Perfect.

With Raspberry Pi 'Touch' streamer showing album art running RoPieee, and the Topping DX9 VU meters playing, this looks quite nice in the audio rack!

Let's finish up with the last installment of the review/measurements for the Topping DX9 "15th Anniversary" DAC (see Part I, and Part II previously). As we have seen up to this point, it's quite a unique looking DAC and the initial PCM measurements over USB2.0 look great as a modern hi-resolution converter. In Part II I noted that there was an issue with the 176.4/192kHz frequency response that Topping was able to correct quickly with a firmware update. I'll be using the latest firmware 1.23 for the measurements here.

Let's continue then to dive in and explore the objective performance with some of the other main features for this DAC.

Camera upgrade time! Sony (Alpha) α6700 mirrorless camera with 18-135mm f/3.5-6.5 OSS kit lens. 🙂

Hey guys and gals, just thought I'd throw in a little something this week not related to audio as I finish some further measurements on the Topping DX9 DAC I've been talking about over the last couple weeks. As I noted last time, I found an unexpected 192kHz frequency response anomaly with the DAC and I know Topping are looking into it. So I figure I'd give it a bit more time to see if they can get an updated fix out before I publish Part III. Always good I think to publish the "freshest" data.

So, this week, let's do a little show-and-tell for my new travel camera - the Sony α6700 APS-C mirrorless camera with its 18-135mm/f3.5-5.6 kit lens (~US$1400 body only, US$1800 with lens).

Part II: Topping DX9 "15th Anniversary" Limited Edition DAC & Headphone Amplifier - PCM Filters, Frequency Response & DAC Resolution. (And Trump's ongoing oblivious narcissistic tariff buffoonery.) [Firmware 1.23 Update]

Continuing with the discussion in Part I, let's proceed with Part II of our look at the Topping DX9 "15th Anniversary" DAC as we wade into some of the technical capabilities and performance of this device.

As I discussed the other week, my belief is that for relatively "simple" devices like DACs where what we want is as-accurate-as-possible conversion of the audio data into the analog voltages, measurements are really all we need to characterize the accuracy, the transparency of the device using modern tests and instruments that are capable of capturing details beyond the ability of human hearing. The capability for any device to achieve transparency of course does not guarantee that we'll be able to enjoy the sound or the music which are determined by individual subjective psychological factors.

With that, let's jump into some PCM measurements of this Topping flagship product.

Part I: Topping DX9 "15th Anniversary" Limited Edition DAC & Headphone Amplifier - build, features, listening impressions & subjective luxury.

As many audiophiles will remember, the well-known DAC chip maker Asahi Kasei Microdevices (AKM) suffered a massive fire at their factory back on October 20, 2020 in Miyazaki Prefecture, Japan. This resulted in a shortage of their chips for awhile until they rebuilt the plant and started offering devices again by the end of 2021.

In June 2021, AKM issued a "last time buy" notification for final stock of a number of their products. This included their top-of-the-line DAC chip, the AKM AK4499EQ which was initially released in January 2019 and had made its way into a number of devices over the ensuing couple of years. By later 2021, some devices like the HiFi Rose RS150 had to transition to ESS. With 4 channels, a published THD+N of -124dB (mono mode), 137dB SNR in stereo (140dB mono), DSD "direct" (volume bypass), this chip remains a formidable converter even in 2025 with newer generations of AKM and ESS chip DACs. While audiophiles and manufacturers like to talk about discreet DACs like R2R stuff or custom "Ring" DACs, or DSD-processing DACs (like Meitner products or Playback Designs), while I'm sure they sound great, there is no evidence that these are capable of achieving better objective resolution than state-of-the-art converter chips from semiconductor companies with significant R&D resources.

For comparison, based on company specs, the current premium DAC chips are ESS's ES9039PRO rated at -122dB THD+N mono, and 140dB SNR mono. And AKM's current flagship, the 2-channel AK4499EX DAC released in 2021 listed as THD+N -124dB and SNR 135dB stereo (138dB mono). The AK4499EQ as a 4-channel DAC is a much more complicated chip than 2 AK4499EX's because it also incorporates the sigma-delta modulator internally while the AK4499EX needs to be fed 7-bit modulator data at 5.64/11.29MHz from a separate source like the AK4191EQ ΔΣ Modulator!

So, basically, as a single chip, the discontinued AK4499EQ after only about 1.5 years in production, remains the highest performing device among its peers after all these years; on paper at least.

And that's why I bought one of these for my system - the Topping DX9 "15th Anniversary" Limited Edition DAC & headphone amplifier (US$1299, CAD$1900, depending on tariffs you might do better ordering from China through AliExpress):

This is Topping's flagship DAC, released in late 2023. It's said to be limited edition due to the restricted number of DAC chips; I connected with Topping and was told in total they made about 1800 units.

I bought this unit from the usual retail channels and have no affiliation with the company.

Multichannel/Atmos 3D Audio Walkthrough. The idea that DACs sound about the same. Countercultural & honest audiophiles?

Hey audiophiles, I've been wanting to do this for awhile now. Back in 2021 when I wrote about "Spatial Audio" music streaming on Apple Music, in the back of my mind I was thinking it would be pretty cool to not just listen to the music and consider whether this kind of content is worthy of audiophile exploration, but to actually fire up a DAW (digital audio workstation) and play around with Dolby Atmos myself to create a little something that I can also use as a demo or to help with set-up in my own room.

Nothing too fancy of course since the intent is to demo spatial capability rather than wow the listener with overly complex sounds or movements. It's also a fun way for me to learn how to use the software and to go a bit deeper into 3D audio - beyond just expressing opinions on the consumption side.

So, over the Spring Break with a little more time available, I bought a copy of DaVinci Resolve Studio 19 (currently US$300) and got to work on figuring out how to author some 3D audio content. The price is very reasonable for such a powerful piece of software which I plan to use in other audio/video projects. Other packages that allow Atmos audio mastering include Avid's ProTools, Steinberg's Nuendo and Cubase, Ableton Live, Apple's Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro.

Once I figured out how the Fairlight "audio console" module in DaVinci Resolve worked and got the immersive pieces authored, a friend who works in audio professionally helped with the Dolby Media Encoder (US$400/year subscription) side to bring the track over to Dolby Digital Plus / EAC3-JOC, TrueHD-Atmos, and AC-4 IMS.

MUSINGS: Trust, empirical testing, and evidence in the Audiophile hobby. And the Double Blind Test (DBT) strawman argument.

For this post, let's spend a little bit of time thinking about "levels of evidence" in audiophilia. This is important because it helps determine how we gauge the veracity of the articles we read and how we build confidence as we create our own internal models of the topics covered in this hobby.

Inevitably, if we stick around this hobby of audio gear and products long enough, we'll come across the abbreviation 'DBT' - that dreaded Double Blind Test; that seemingly ultimate methodological scientific "gold standard" in human research to tell us whether an intervention or change in our systems actually resulted in a worthwhile difference.

But do audiophiles actually throw around the comment "You need to do a DBT!" very often? Or insist that "I don't believe that unless a DBT proves it!". The answer is 'NO!'- of course not!

Let's start by zooming out a bit and thinking about the very big picture...

High Frame Rate (HFR) movies: time to overcome resistance? Also, on anachronistic nostalgia. And why I rarely go to movie theaters these days.

This week, indulge me in staying a little longer with discussions on the video theme; since I view audio and video technologies as members of the same family, there will be references and detours made about audio in this post.

Although I think 4K is plenty of spatial resolution already for home use (discussed years ago at the advent of UHD BluRays), there is one obvious way to increase the perceived resolution of video playback - improve the "time domain" performance.

While basically everything about motion picture technology has evolved - aspect ratio changes from 4:3 (silent film) to widescreen, frame sizes (35mm various forms, 65/70mm, various digital sensor sizes), B&W to color, higher effective resolution, transition from analog film to digital - isn't it amazing that the cinematic framerate has remained at a mere 24fps, and commonly 180° shutter rule for motion blurring (more geeky testing here)? Since the dawn of the "sound film" in 1926 - almost exactly a century ago! 

High Frame Rate (HFR) movies - movies that were filmed and projected at more than the "cinematic" 24fps - typically 48fps or 60fps - have been simply uncommon for feature presentations to this point. Perhaps reminiscent of multichannel music which had its starts and misses over the decades (eg. 4.0-channel quad back in the '70s), HFR also had a time in the '70s and early '80s when the company Showscan was trying to achieve higher image quality with 65-70mm film at 60fps. But like quadraphonic audio, the technology of the day wasn't really good enough for practical, economical, trouble-free high-fidelity visual reproduction.

Imagine what kind of physical demands would have been necessary for this. Showscan ran the film at 4.68ft/s or 281ft/minute! Clearly a costly endeavor (estimated $2-3M just for the negatives and processing to make a movie back in the '80s) plus imagine the pounds of film to send out to all the theaters, maintenance needs, plus potential damage to the film after a number of runs. How many showings would have been needed for a decent return on investment?!

No surprise then that full-length films were never released in this format. (Here's an interesting brochure from 1990 of their High Impact Cinema prototype, and their 1987 company prospectus.)

HDMI Musings: high speed cables, data rates, YCbCr color subsampling, Dolby Vision MEL/FEL, optical cables and +5V injection.

Hey folks, for this post, I thought it would be good to dive a little more into the world of AV technologies after discussing the nVidia Shield TV Pro last week. While "classic" audiophile technology (ie. standard hi-fi analog and digital 2-channel stereo without special DSP advancements) has matured nicely already, this isn't quite the case with modern digital video tech. While many (probably most) features have settled, we can see ongoing evolution of the High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) standard to be mindful of - for example the recent announcement of HDMI 2.2 at CES2025 expanding capabilities well beyond the needs of today.

As usual, it'll take time (years) for this standard to be incorporated into TVs and source devices like GPUs (latest nVidia RTX 5080/5090 are HDMI 2.1b) or something like VR devices being at the forefront of potential generational gains. For more than 20 years, with each significant revision of the HDMI standard, we're seeing doubling of data speed with HDMI 2.2 now aiming at just shy of 100 gigabits-per-second (96Gbps), twice of the 48Gbps bit rate in current HDMI 2.1 products.

This recent update makes HDMI the fastest of all currently-announced consumer Audio-Video connection standards, the one wire that basically does it all - hi-res video (with high dynamic and frame rate), hi-res audio (up to 32 PCM channels at 24/192, with DSD to 8-channel of DSD256), HDCP copy protection, audio return channel, even ethernet (100Mbps).

This level of sophistication (and licensing costs) could make it difficult for small companies with limited R&D capabilities to get in the game with custom designs. This is probably in part why the cottage industry audiophile companies rarely use HDMI other than selling overprices cables (like AudioQuest). Plus frankly, basic 2-channel audio doesn't need the higher technical capabilities anyway (which is basically what Paul McGowan says).

Let's run through a few thoughts about HDMI that might be good to know as general knowledge as tech enthusiasts. I'll provide a few links of interest, touch on tech stuff like color spaces and subsampling, and things you might want to try if you're running longer high-speed HDMI connections and potentially noticing issues.

nVidia Shield TV Pro (2019 version), still relevant in 2025! A listen to Auro-3D & Auro-Matic Upsampler.

Hey guys, I thought it would be fun to talk about something that's been around quite awhile already but which I still bought in 2025. As per the image above, it's the nVidia Shield TV Pro (US$200, CAD$260). For years, I've been using the Apple TV 4K (2nd Gen, 2021) which is a fine unit with all the bells and UI whistles of the Apple ecosystem. But it is missing something that "serious" movie audio lovers - and even audiophile music lovers - might want; lossless audio bit-streaming for Dolby TrueHD/Atmos and DTS/HDMA/X.

That's right, sadly, after all these years, Apple doesn't care to update the AppleTV to support basic bit-streamed audio. 😢

Note that I don't necessarily blame them as a company, they make no money off local libraries of UHD/BluRay-ripped content. So if I were running the business, I'd also think twice about getting developers to support a feature that at this time in history they will make no streaming subscription revenue from. Streaming services - Apple TV, Apple Music, Netflix, Prime Video - all do not send lossless multichannel audio content, opting typically for lossy Dolby EAC3 with or without Atmos. Not supporting much beyond the basic feature set is nothing new with Apple as part of their KISS closed ecosystem mentality. (The only lossless multichannel I've come across are the few albums on Qobuz.)

Since 2021, without lossless bit-streaming to the receiver, I've been using Infuse PRO on the Apple TV which will decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio to multichannel PCM. Doing this removes the embedded Atmos or DTS:X height effects (can turn on Dolby Surround Upmixer or DTS Neural X to extract some content back). At least lossy EAC3-Atmos is sent directly to the receiver.

Therefore in 2025, the only other mainstream choice is still the Shield TV, a device that seems to be catered more to the home-theater enthusiast with lossless audio - thanks nVidia.

Frustration of the Euphonophile Salesman. Audiophile evaluation methods & intentions.

Through February 2025, and with today's third post of the month, I've been exploring the current audiophile culture with videos from contemporary YouTube channels. While never exactly the same among participants, we can see "archetypal" characteristics shared among personalities in this hobby.

We've talked about the technical channel that presented facts but also blurs boundaries into unusual beliefs to make sales and justify products, the subjective-only hobbyist channel willing to do listening tests (great!), and today let's talk about the audiophile who appears to insist on purely subjective-based evaluation, rejects objective measurements, and is a salesman in the Industry.

I'm talking about OCD Hi-Fi Guy who's quite an entertaining fellow. He calls it like he sees it - "no BS" - I can respect that to a point. His name is Mike "Mikey" Powell and he runs a company called 11 Stereo. His followers are known as the "HiFi Tribe" and in the videos, we see promotions of the companies and products that he represents including Playback Designs DACs and Fischer & Fischer speakers, prominently mentioned among others. 

Every once awhile you'll see on my blog a reference to something on his channel that I found entertaining - like this post addressing the interview with Machina Dynamica guy. His use of diction suggests an intelligent fellow but I suspect he comes across a bit "spicy" in his language for many audiophile gentlemen and gentleladies. At other times, some of his viewpoints around politics and towards other cultures might be unpalatable.

If you watch his videos, I think it becomes quite clear that his moniker is inaccurate because he is neither "OCD" (his answers are far from perfectionistic), nor is his philosophy towards audio particularly "Hi-Fi" (high fidelity). Let's have a deeper look at this with a recent video that's entertaining, yet highlights the frustration that I think some salesmen might experience online these days as they try to assert unsubstantiated beliefs.

Do CD and lossless streaming sound the same? A response to ana[dia]log video. And on excessive complications in the audiophile culture.

Today's blog post was inspired by Mister MB in a comment he made on the post last week (about GR-Research, and the hype around passive crossover components):

Hey Arch,

Slightly unrelated, but I thought you'd be interested in this recent video about CDs vs Streaming by Guido of Anadialog:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY8PeMpT2DE

What do you think? ...

Thanks for the link MB. I've come across the ANA[DIA]LOG YouTube channel but admittedly haven't spent much time watching the contents. I certainly appreciate the host, Guido's, passion and energy! I see the content caters more to physical music media, especially tapes and LPs. As you probably know, for me, subjective preferences aside, analog media represent lower-resolution sound; no offence to vinyl/tape lovers, it's just a statement of fact (especially with LP/vinyl) given the much higher resolution capabilities of modern digital ADC and DACs, achieved with less hassle.

Good to hear about the interest around CDs these days. I guess what's old eventually becomes new (maybe even trendy) again at some point after a couple of generations! Although I have a feeling Edison's wax cylinders might have a tougher time staging a comeback. 🙂

Loudspeaker crossover parts and sound quality. (Regarding Danny Richie / GR-Research's claims, of course.)

At the heart of most subjective vs. objective heated audiophile debates is the concern about the ease by which a person can dramatically exaggerate claims about sound quality without controlled listening tests, measurements, or any other higher level of evidence beyond personal testimony.

Without any meaningful repercussions, we can say almost anything, claim we experience almost anything, regardless of whether it's true, misperceived, or intentionally exaggerated for financial gain, status among peers, or other benefits. It is necessary therefore that audiophiles who read, watch, or listen to such comments develop the skills for critical thinking to assess such "testimonies"; acceptance without critical thought is simply blind faith, potentially leading us in directions we regret or might even be unhealthy. (See also the article on the types of "subjectivisms" in audiophilia.)

For this post, let's talk about a topic which has been around awhile but perhaps more notable over the last few years about passive speaker crossovers. In particular, the idea that at times quite expensive parts upgrades make desirable, even "huge" differences toward better sound quality.

Grab a seat, open up a beverage, sit by the fireplace if it's cold outside, and let's think about this stuff for a moment, dear audiophiles...

DIY: Tweeter Ferrofluid Change - with pre- and post- frequency & distortion changes. And on-line amiability among hobbyists.

For this post, I thought I'd discuss a little DIY procedure you might want to think about if you've had your speakers for awhile - like say a decade or more - and know that the tweeter uses "ferrofluid". Not uncommon for tweeters since the 1970's.

Ferrofluid is a substance with ferromagnetic nanoparticles typically suspended inside an organic solvent. These particles are small enough that they're suspended by Brownian motion so over time, the particles do not settle. In tweeters, the ferrofluid surrounds the voice coil which is embedded in the gap between permanent magnets (do electromagnetic speakers use ferrofluid?).

There are benefits to doing this including improving heat transfer away from the wire coil to handle higher power, dampen vibrations (unwanted resonances), and I've heard it said that the ferrofluid can also help suspend the coil within the gap in a way that's better centered (lower distortion).

Now, depending on the type and quality of the ferrofluid, there is the potential that over time this stuff degrades. Some have said that it can dry out, or the consistency becoming more viscous over the years. Here's an interesting video showing degradation of very poor-quality ferrofluid.

As We Hear It: Audiophile hype vs. reality? GPU chatter (nVidia Blackwell RTX 50XX-series), thoughts on AI frame-generation ("fake frames"), gaming, and art as imagination.

I hope you're all doing well as we enter the year. It's rather amazing that the first quarter of the 21st Century has passed so quickly! Time flew. I do hope that as time passes, audiophiles worldwide are gradually becoming more knowledgeable about the science behind this stuff and in general much more critical thinkers, more resilient to the snake oil and scams of yesteryear. I simply think that this is part of the evolution that must happen for any hobby in order to not stagnate. If something is contentious or seems "too good to be true" based on conventional knowledge as we all become versed in how audio reproduction works, the product very well could be something to avoid; instead, better to save money and look for something more meaningful to purchase.

As per my usual routine, every once awhile I'll publish an E-mail or two from readers of the blog and take time to discuss matters brought up that might not have been fully covered previously, often hitting other short discussion items that don't need a full-length post.

Let's have a look at this E-mail from Michael in Sweden:

Dirac Live 3 with Bass Control (DLBC): A look and listen with the Integra DRX-8.4.

I talked about the use of Dirac Live 3 in late 2024 after upgrading my receiver to the Integra DRX-8.4 which integrates the full-bandwidth DSP room correction as part of its feature set. Many modern multichannel receivers these days have Dirac as a feature included like the Onkyo TX-RZ70 or Pioneer Elite VSX-LX805 (both offering 11-channels amplification like the Integra). I have to say that I love this Integra unit with all its multichannel bells and whistles - not to mention great sound as well, of course.

I mentioned in the previous article that Dirac Live Bass Control (DLBC) is available as an upgrade for US$299 which activates the license on your account when you run the Dirac Live Room Correction Suite, unlocking the "Bass Control" module.

So, let's activate that and get into this with a look and listen to what DLBC brings to my set-up and of course some results in my room. (For reference, here is the official DLBC manual, and Dirac's Frans Rosencrantz's 2020 article "Bass Control, Where Did My Bass Go?".)