Is the DAC you used with the G5 from the S9pro?
Topping G5
- Thread starter TRHH
- Start date
Tomm11
500+ Head-Fier
I'm so happy that I'm not experienced enough to perceive the compressed soundstage depth and blob-ish imaging that you describe. I certainly wouldn't be able to live with such horrid technical performance if I were attune to it.
Perhaps it would make more sense for you to get rid of the G5 and pick up the Topping NX7.
Last edited:
It's a bit strange because the pairing that made me notice the mentioned problems is with my IER-M9, which are some of the best IEMs out there in terms of imaging. The previous pairing, with my Contour XO (now sold), was fine, or at least the problem wasn't exacerbated like when the G5 is paired with the M9.
JeanPaul Petrosyan
Head-Fier
I've also been thinking about getting the NX7 instead, but I don't know what DAC I could opt for in such case. Throwing in a dongle on top of the already somewhat unhandy brick will make the setup just too awkward for me, even for stationary usage. And it's going to leech off the battery of the transport which is also suboptimal. I'd go for a small ultra-budget DAP like Hidizs AP80, but I need my PEQ...
Tomm11
500+ Head-Fier
Don't really have much advice. Personally I'm very pleased with the G5 and it's size isn't an issue for my use case. I think it sounds fantastic as a DAC + Amp. I'm feeding it via usb with a Hidizs AP80pro as the transport. I personally am not at all impressed with what comes out of the AP80 Pros PO ports. I suspect that the LO may be about the same but I've never tried it. Used as a transport for the G5 I think it works really well.
i use my g5 with every headphone i have i was literally in the front row to review it on youtube and actually this dac is insanely technical and clean i see no reason to change it just enjoy it
ExTubeGamer
1000+ Head-Fier
It sounds soo good what I am reading in this thread. Has anyone tried to use a tube amp with the G5 as input for the tubes? I wonder how i could integrate this device into my desktop setup.
JeanPaul Petrosyan
Head-Fier
I can see where you're coming from. I suspect that in the case of AP80 Pro the main detractor or rather limiting factor to the sound quality is amplification rather than the DAC itself. G5 has a better one on paper with all those insane specs (the only thing that leaves a bit to be desired is channel separation, but it's still quite good), but it lacks in digital reconstruction filters. And in this context of all other parameters being good enough already even in the case of AP80 Pro's ESS 9218, digital filters and their specific implementations have a considerable significance. I've always been able to easily tell the difference between different filters and always preferred Apodizing to other types with every piece of gear that had those options. After all those distortion values measured at fixed 1 kHz don't tell the whole story at all. Aliasing, ringing and it's distribution have their impact on sound and it's far from being imperceptible.
For example, the thing that makes Chord products special, if I'm not being mistaken, is their specific in-house digital reconstruction filter implementation, while the raw noise, distortion, channel separation and other such metrics are not at all impressive (at least in the case of Mojo product line).
In the case of G5 with it's ES9068AS we're limited to only two options, both of which have their compromises and are ultimately suboptimal. If memory serves me right it's linear phase slow roll-off and linear phase fast roll-off, the former producing a rather early roll-off which was quite noticeable to me and the latter failing to achieve sufficient attenuation at the Nyquist frequency with 44,1 kHz sample rate encoded signal without additional oversampling. Exacerbating the issue is the fact that we have no easy way to switch between those two options available. I'm not even sure if it's possible to go "downgrade" to the initial firmware version which has the slow roll-off filter enabled instead of the fast roll-off one.
And then there's The ESS Hump as well, but I'm not going to get into that now. I don't remember whether ES9068AS typically displays this phenomenon and I lack relevant experience to recognize it by ear.
In the case of G5 with it's ES9068AS we're limited to only two options, both of which have their compromises and are ultimately suboptimal. If memory serves me right it's linear phase slow roll-off and linear phase fast roll-off, the former producing a rather early roll-off which was quite noticeable to me and the latter failing to achieve sufficient attenuation at the Nyquist frequency with 44,1 kHz sample rate encoded signal without additional oversampling. Exacerbating the issue is the fact that we have no easy way to switch between those two options available. I'm not even sure if it's possible to go "downgrade" to the initial firmware version which has the slow roll-off filter enabled instead of the fast roll-off one.
And then there's The ESS Hump as well, but I'm not going to get into that now. I don't remember whether ES9068AS typically displays this phenomenon and I lack relevant experience to recognize it by ear.
Please forgive me this rant. I still think that G5 is a great product, though there's plenty of room for improvement.
Last edited:
arbiter76
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Posts
- 278
- Likes
- 191
the price, size and no non sense features for $300 make any downside forgivable. $300 for sound this good and it's wireless to boot? BAM.
Tomm11
500+ Head-Fier
I suspect that your ears are just too good for the G5 then. Why do I say that? ... As just one example ... There are plenty of folks who claim they can hear differences in the filters. Subtle is how I hear it described. I have no reason to doubt them. But you claim to be able to "easily" tell the difference. You don't need to try and convince me of all the audible flaws that you hear from the G5. I simple don't hear them and don't care one bit about the lack of ability to select filters. I'm not letting go of mine. Absolutely fantastic portable/transportable DAC + Amp at the price (and beyond) as far as I'm concerned. Your ears are just too good for it and that's fine. All kidding aside ... sounds like it's past time for you to move on to something else. You clearly aren't happy with the G5 and that's perfectly fine.
o0genesis0o
Headphoneus Supremus
I like the amp in G5. It gives a boost in dynamic and space perception to anything, except my DX300 and K7, without any coloring. I do wish it has a real balanced design, but it’s fine for the reasonable price. I treat the onboard DAC and bluetooth as back up but if I have a chance, line-in is the way to go for me with G5. Perhaps that kinda-flat in in-the-face sound is how a linear DAC is supposed to sound.
Edit: on DX300, there is the ability to quickly switch filter types. There is one filter that pulls the soundstage a step away from the head. I haven’t checked what that it, but I left it there. I guess sometimes reconstruction filters can make a difference.
The EMI is a much bigger problem with G5 compared to the DAC, IMHO.
Edit: don’t use lineout feature of the hidizs AP80 Pro X. Hidizs set the level to high that I hear clipping at moderate listening volume, listening to classical recordings. Just set volume manually to 50% or so and outsource the amping responsibilities to G5. The combo sounds quite high-end to me.
Edit: on DX300, there is the ability to quickly switch filter types. There is one filter that pulls the soundstage a step away from the head. I haven’t checked what that it, but I left it there. I guess sometimes reconstruction filters can make a difference.
The EMI is a much bigger problem with G5 compared to the DAC, IMHO.
Edit: don’t use lineout feature of the hidizs AP80 Pro X. Hidizs set the level to high that I hear clipping at moderate listening volume, listening to classical recordings. Just set volume manually to 50% or so and outsource the amping responsibilities to G5. The combo sounds quite high-end to me.
Last edited:
Hmm, it seems that the issue I'm encountering with the imaging of the G5 might be attributed to its poor crosstalk measurement
.
JeanPaul Petrosyan
Head-Fier
Can't disagree with that. Though a battery indicator at the very least would have been much appreciated. Sample rate indicator on top of that for those not 100% confident their source part of the chain is configured and functioning properly would have been even better.
Oh, my ears are not at all too good, far from it. It's mostly that I'm autistic and have OCD, hence hyper attentive/perceptive. Oftentimes to my own detriment.
Well, most of the time, in fact. 
I'm not trying to paint this product bad, nor am I interested in convincing anyone to dislike it. I haven't even mentioned it's (audible) flaws myself, apart from the EMI issue, but only pointed out some measurable flaws which may or may not result in audible ones depending on the circumstances, use cases and individual sensitivity. At most I'm hoping that Topping reps will take notice of user's observations and complaints in this thread to improve upon in the future.
Valuable insights, thank you. I had a pleasure of getting to use the DX240 with AMP8 and it sounded both more dynamic and "engaging", but also more refined (especially in the higher frequencies) and natural. Wouldn't call it dead neutral, though, and it was somewhat less technical even in some regards. There are definitely some tradeoffs between it and the G5. Overall I liked it better, but sadly had to let go of it. That setup costs at least 3 times more, so... Yeah.
Would have been interesting to know which filter it is that you've mentioned with the DX300.
It's a shame that the proper implementation of a line out seems to be problematic for DAP manufacturers. At least in the budget segment that is. That's definitely not the first time I've heard of something like that.
Ok, I better stop littering up this thread for a while.
Last edited:
JeanPaul Petrosyan
Head-Fier
Hmm, it seems that the issue I'm encountering with the imaging of the G5 might be attributed to its poor crosstalk measurement
I, for one, don't think that's what is behind the issue you've mentioned. Aside from the fact that G5's crosstalk is actually very respectable still, competing with some balanced implementations, if I got you right, your issue lies with the way sounds are distributed/placed within the soundstage. To my understanding and my personal experience channel crosstalk influences the general size of the soundstage (width, depth) and instrument separation, but not the positioning within it.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
