JK67
New Head-Fier
Just watch other reviews, the outcomes are the same.
iFi Diablo - DAC and headphone amplifier -=review=-
- Thread starter whitedragem
- Start date
Another observation Arya + Diablo.
The Eco mode seems to have more depth. I have the volume on 3 oclock(high for me)
I have only tried it on two modes. eco and normal, and it seems the normal is abit aggressiv.
The Eco mode seems to have more depth. I have the volume on 3 oclock(high for me)
I have only tried it on two modes. eco and normal, and it seems the normal is abit aggressiv.
whitedragem
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Posts
- 619
- Likes
- 631
perhaps the ‘Tool’ reference did it for you 
My child used Tool to qualify the purchase of some Meze99s (“its like they were built to play Tool”!)
whist we had seven test tracks (male vocals, female vocals, soundstage, etc etc) as soon as Tool played, ‘thumbs up were given’…. those headphones are the goto even more so than some Sony mdrz7 and ‘many others’. Doing Tool RIGHT is a thing; dude writes fractals into his music. Not a lot out there that is as complex (emotionally/spiritually/physically)..
@ST33L thankyou
My child used Tool to qualify the purchase of some Meze99s (“its like they were built to play Tool”!)
whist we had seven test tracks (male vocals, female vocals, soundstage, etc etc) as soon as Tool played, ‘thumbs up were given’…. those headphones are the goto even more so than some Sony mdrz7 and ‘many others’. Doing Tool RIGHT is a thing; dude writes fractals into his music. Not a lot out there that is as complex (emotionally/spiritually/physically)..
@ST33L thankyou
whitedragem
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Posts
- 619
- Likes
- 631
Doing an actual review now (my first three attempts to post a true review, were wiped from existence, two were cut n paste foibles, the other was a web page glitch- I took these signs as ‘the universe’ sayying “not yet”..)
Will get the framework in place (multimedia coming from three different sources), and then make sure she sits right.. so 18th July ‘22, starting a new review,.. should be done within 48 hours, or else; “life”!
kit compared
iFi Diablo
vs
Topping D90
Playback sample
Config
Calibration:
Kit used ‘making this’
some notes typed on a living room tablet that need be brought in to this article (but mostly just for reflection purposes to put together a few qualifying review paragraphs..
this isn’t for public appreciation, but I am a lazy technologist, and am using this space as a cut n paste ‘dropbox’
ignore these notes:
Ben Harper - Live From Mars (Disc Two) - Power of the Gospel; the guitar slides sound too loud through the D90,.. like the ‘extra guitar string past the adjustment screws’ is echoing out some of the hand movement power, via the Diablo, sounds lifelike and ‘right’, through the D90 - sure there is ‘a lot of detail’ but the ‘extra detail’/edge is ‘too much’ - it shouldn’t be resolving like this!
The dynamics from the Diablo make volume matching difficult.. do I set for the average volume level, or the dynamic highs? (the middle ground obviously, which makes some fast switching moments leave the Diablo at a ‘non parity’ volume level, and other times, ‘slightly louder’.
Aside from obvious ‘over the top’ detail retrieval, from the D90, the Diablo is clearly the better playback. A sense of air and space- the audience fills an actual room/cavity and is not just a wall of sound effects (more testing of this please!!)
The drugs don’t work- the positioning of Ben on the stage- the D90 has him playing ‘in the speaker’, the Diablo places him central and ‘a little to the left’ orientated on the stage. (it is obvious which one of these two DACs is getting this right- and it is ‘not the technically excellent”white sheet warfare” Topping DAC’.
In the Lords’ arms- The opposite of the aforementioned positioning is now happening.. The D90 places the main singer (Mr Harper) dead central, and the Diablo places Mr Harper slightly off to the left (by a foot or two)- the Diablo feels the more correct playack here.. the same micro cues that give a sense of stage depth and ‘room size’ that are ‘collapsed’ (or “once again over exagerated”) on the D90.
Not Fire, Not Ice- The placement of guitar and vocal (technically should be vertical to each other), via the Topping, are placed seperate, the guitar more central and the vocal now ‘slightly to the left’ (as the Diablo has located it constantly across the tracks). (as a fence sitter - I could interject that the Topping is creating an incredible sense of air space and that the engineers were doing a ‘poor job’, except the engineers are going to be consistant across tracks and the Topping certainly is NOT)
The width of Ben Voice, via the Diablo, has an extension that plays through some frequencies, as they couple with the room/airspace. The Diablo seems to be recreating a powerfully loud voice (even though Live From Mars disc 2 is a ‘sombre’ album)- the playback gives the album the sense of intimacy AND power that the disc deserves (I have played this album ‘a lot’ through setups a lot better than my present testing rig).
The D90 does seperate the vocal from the rest of ‘everything’ and could be seen as a detail retrieval device, but from a tonality and accuracy perspective, the D90 presentation, whilst technically excellent (no doubt), is not an engaging or ‘good listen’; eg
#3- an (pure) acoustic track, the extra dynamic headroom/’resolve’ and the detail (both bright and dark) that the Diablo presents is an intimate an well resolved piece of music, whereas the D90 is a flat and unemotional playback (from the same disc and transport). The differences are subtle, but when fast A-B switching, or when playing once fully and then alternating to the other unit, the D90 is a yawnfest and unengaging vs the Diablo interacting with the heart and mind, as music should.
Disc Two Jamiroquai- Travelling Without Moving
Virtual Insanity- Without touching the volume, both DACs play back ‘softer’ than the previous disc (a really good sign), The double hit on the drums clear and impactful via the Diablo, the D90 kinda blurring them. Th bass information from the Diablo is a little too fullfilling, which has always been how this album has sounded when played back through excellent playback chains. The D90 gives the playback the more generic ‘mass market’ playback.. Detail retrieval from both units is incredible, the D90s ability to seperate the vocals but as is becoming the ‘standard affair’ sounds are thinner and practically nasal vs the ephemeral playback that the Diablo renders. Keys on the Diablo have better placement and tonality and extension (airspace and recreation).
The Diablo feels like it makes top use of the multiple microphones and studio mastering, the D90 seems to homogenise the sound somewhat- it is ‘all there’ and the imaging is incredible, but vs the Diablo, the life returns to the performance. Essentially the D90 sounds ‘mainstream’ vs the Diablo as sounding like it is a tier(or more?) above…
Cosmic Girl- The extension of the sounds into the room, “surround” is vastly better via the Diablo- it recreates a ‘true’ sense of 3D depth, that extends WELL both beyond the speakers, and more importantly, ‘in FRONT of them’. The extra few feet of soundwidth that this ‘bringing cues forward’ allows makes the music more gripping and dynamic, even though the volumes are ‘the same’. (ie this would NEVER be picked up via digital measuring equipment)
Didjerama- The Didgereydoo (instrument) was more lifelike from the Diablo (‘nuff said)
Infectious Grooves - Groove family Cyco-
Violent and Funky- The Diablo, straight out the gate, with better bass AND dynamics ‘owns this track’. The tonality of the singers, once again, ‘nasal’ by comparison (from the Topping), with the Diablo being the faster and more nuanced playback. The Diablo has better soundstage and soundfield, and a better sense of musically ‘being there’,.. vs the Topping that sounded like an audio system recreating a recording. The subtle differences, if ‘trying to spot them’ are ‘too subtle for words’; but trying not to do ‘word salad’, the Diablo gives a slight treble edge in the presentation (and a little deeper on the bass bite/detail), both traits that I gave to the D90 when first placed in the system- the subjective take after weeks of having the parts in place (with an easy remote button to switch between the two sources ‘on the fly’), is that the D90 never once took a win vs the Diablo DAC. (when comparing the Diablo with the Chord Hugo, the part it was trying to outclass; a ‘few wins’ at least went to the Hugo DAC (mostly some poorly recorded albums from nearly a centurty ago, and some complex Tool tracks that the Hugo ‘glossed’ together in a more pleasing method (but wasn’t accurate to the source track)).
The Topping D90 is NOT a competitor to the iFi Diablo as a DAC.
Simply Red- Greatest Hits-
?holding on?-The echo and decay detail from the Topping would be the obvious standout, that ‘if one were looking for the Topping DAC to be the superior playback, would lean on.. the extra decay ‘time’ and ‘raised level of the subtleties’ (echo and decay) make it seem ‘more detailed’ (if that is what we are looking for). The Diablo makes the focus on the music up front. It clearly brings the music forward and now, the echo and decay simply resolve to give the recording a ‘sense of space’. The Diablo renders a track that I believe someone in a studio would attempt to master, whereas the D90 sounds like an inferior ‘made at home on unresolving headphones’ version.. (depending on your system, the D90 might be a superior listen, ie if your setup is ‘very dark’ and you like ‘technology being technically amazing’.
Money (too tight to mention)..- the vocals on the Topping seem further back, perhaps due to the soundstage width feeling slightly ‘brought in’/compressed.. if the D90 were then volume raised to give a performance ‘like’ the Diablo, it might then seem more visceral (most prefer a louder source as ‘exciting’ etc).
The Diablo simply presents a ‘blacker background’ and ‘more air’; both traits of ‘better equipment’.
Track 9(I give it all up for you?)-D90 sounds ‘good’, but unsatisfactory (to me) music is a wall of sound,.. somehow ‘lacking life’, switch to the Diablo, nothing ostensibly changes, but now the music is coherant. If I had a musical background I could no doubt describe aspects to do with the integrity of the instruments, they ‘came together’ via the Diablo rendition, all the same notes and tone, just ‘cohesive’ via the Diablo
TRACK 10 ?- intro wider presentation via the D90 (again, microdetail and ‘echo information’), is this lost due to a blackness from the Diablo?
Garbage- beautiful garbage
This album returned the playing field to parity.
I’d give ‘some wins’ to the D90 and some wins to the Diablo; a lot of this album is ‘wall of sound’ type music, filled with grungy guitars and dynamic for the radio levels of playback (catchy riffs and very high quality engineering that would be capable of ‘climbing the charts’)..
The more intimate songs might favour either unit, and aspects of the rock out songs might favour either unit. Panelist two was giving a win here to the D90 but this was mostly due to the complexity of the ‘wall of sound’ in their chosen tracks and being able to get a ‘sense of what was going on’ where the extreme clarity/’detail’ of the Topping gave a few cues clearer. (admittedly this was whilst I had put ‘quite a few dB reduction on the Diablo’ to ‘favour the Topping’ (significantly). At this point the Diablos incredible dynamics were ‘removed from the equation’, and the detail/imaging/instrument edges were what was being compared. In this scenario (volume significantly in favour to the D90), the D90 was given a few wins.. if we had made the measurements/metric about tone of voice, or ‘blackness’ etc, the Diablo would have gotten the accolades. The crazy thing is this album has so much ‘extra edge info’ from the D90, that the fast switching between the two units made the Topping sound ‘fuller’ (again, Diablo dynamics crippled by a ‘a dB or two’), the D90 could pull a few switches in its’ favour (across a range of tracks from this album), but I would reflect that the extra info is ‘fatiguing sound’ territory, and not really something to aim for when selecting a DAC for musical capability. If I was intent on owning a hifi setup that was ‘measurement’ focused, the D90 would get a win on this disc, as it sometimes pulled ‘more wall(of sound)’ when switching quickly.. once the Diablo had the volume returned to correct (“close to” correct -0.3dB behind the D90 volume output), the switching could go ‘either way’, with myself generally preferring the cohesive sound of the Diablo and the richer tone in the vocals etc.
Enya-Watermark
Storms in Africa- Finally the D90 gets a win.. more coherant, brings the drums imaging forward. Electronic music and soundscape genres might benefit from this type of playback (note that my Enya comments are placed in front of many others listed below, that were auditioned before this disc).
If I couldn’t switch between DACs (quickly), the D90 sound on this track is brilliant, and I would say I am ‘very happy with this sound’.
Of course I AM comparing products, so , here goes- when switching to the Diablo a sense of greater depth to the soundstage kicked in, drums resonated powerfully (at the same volume as the D90, but feeling ‘further back’) makes them feel more engaging, if interpreting this track as playing back loudly..
The Diablo is clearly less ‘in your face’, but the tightness of sound, with noticably more ‘sense of air’, does come across as the superior playback. (for this track, I could enjoy either, just as easily!!)
Orinoco Flow- Wow the Diablo can really bring audio cues forward when it wants to- this gives the actual sense of soundstage width an advantage to the Diablo, which already has the soundstage depth metric nailed down. Due to more bass note power and integrity on the Diablo, I could actually award ‘sense of air’ in the soundfield to the D90 on this track. (both presentations are exceptional, but on this track one could favour either quite easily, as they are both different, and neither is ‘wrong’)
Chris Isaak - Forever Blue
Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing- cymbals are more alive (by a touch) via the D90, the vocal tone is pretty great on both, the grittyness and control possibly in the Diablos’ favour, some of the more ambiant sounds were not owned by one DAC or another.. This is a great track to NOT reveal strong differences between the Digital to Analgoue converters…
Somebody’s Crying- a touch more ‘pop’ out from the D90 on this track, seemingly a lot of air.. The Diablo does seem a touch more coherant, although this would be one of the first tracks that didn’t give it a ‘blacker sense’ of sounds errupting from, nor a sense of ‘more air’.
Moving on from this disc as it just doesn’t seem to offer anything to pull apart these two devices.
Track 2 had substantial differences between the devices, sure.. (placement/soundstage & space), but both presentations were so close, that on many rigs I would probably write a DAC comparison off as ‘samey’ if using this album to compare.
Live- The Distance to Here
(11) They Stood up for Love- Eds voice is slightly more nasal on the D90, the instruments given a more metal sound (metalic ‘tin’ sound on edges), definately loses blackness, and the extra treble info whilst making the song ‘more powerful’, makes the song unlistenable (“eternally bright!!” to quote a featured lyric). The imaging and ‘depth’ shown to this track, via the Diablo, give it the edge in my preference.. the tonality seems correct, still all the treble energy, but it feels better controlled, a more black background to fall into, and a deeper sound field to play into..
-I would argue that these ‘rock’ genres benefit from extra ‘energy’, and depending on factors the consumer prefers (in their DAC sound), the D90 might be given the advantage on the tally sheet.
For me, I appreciated a clearer more consise imaging experience with a notably more holographic sound- better 3D stage depth and huge airspace factored to sound sources, able to be independent to each other. Many switches the difference was ‘close to nil’, then at other times a specific cue or note just rang out better from the Diablo.. on further inspection, I believe it was phase shifting effects from the guitars that were massively in favour to the Diablo, and this single aspect is enough to make or break a genre like this in playback. On the Diablo there was an obvious sense of space in front of the (artificial) stage, that the phase shifts could roll across, that via the D90, were another sound source to hear, but were lost as ‘apart of the instrument source’ and not an effect that couples with the air space of a venue and literally kick(/’flip’) through a listeners skull. The D90 in this regard, was a flatter ‘lamer’ experience. (apologies to anyone presently suffering ‘erectile dysfunction’, with regards to my choice of language herein used)
9 Feel the Quiet River Rage- The effects processor being applied to Eds voice stood out more on the D90, and the dying decaying echos, on this track, rang out beautifully into the airspace of my listening room. It is moments like this I get to smile and take in the fact that these are both accomplished DACs and that DACs have certainly come a long way on their engineering hikes ‘through the decades’..
At the 2m50s mark in the track where things get little sweeter with the vocal, the sweetness is better captured via the Diablo, due to haivng a greater noise floor to return to (felt like a nice dynamic scale), whereas a few seconds later when the voice is grungy again, the better detailed edge that the D90 brings to note edges, made the artifice/echo of the processor have more oomph.
If my system DID NOT RESOLVE OTHER DIFFERENCES between DACs, the constant ‘more edge info’ that the D90 seems to extract (albeit at the cost of no ‘nice’ black background and detriment to notion of ‘air’ around instruments), I could easily favour the D90 or call them ‘so close’ in comparison to ‘be the same’ and nuances so subtle, “who cares?”- this riding closely to the notion that “all DACs sound the same”.. of course this is not true, and depending on the recording, the genre, and what a user is ‘listening for’ the differences become far from subtle.
When comparing the Topping D90 vs the Sabre DAC in the Burson Conductor V2+, (a part that weights maybe 20x the weight), the Topping ‘edge brightness’ was the factor that might have led to it being given a win. Knowing that this feature was what I most disliked about ESS “Sabre” sound, I naturally decided to bring the Diablo into the comparison.
The efforts of this article is simply to compare the D90 vs the Diablo sound quality (the D90 stole all the cables that the Burson would normally have used- and whilst I could switch happily between using the Diablo vs the Conductor V2+, the sound of the Topping needed to qualify itself in order to be a ‘keeper’ in the HiFi rig. Having zero need for bluetooth etc, the D90 simply needed be ‘a great DAC’, that could outperform other options at similar pricepoints, for which I believe that the Diablo is the contender to beat at ‘anywhere near this pricepoint’ (and quite noticeably above)..
Album one (Ben Harper) chosen for simple acoustical and ‘live theatre’ soundspace checks
Album two (Jamiroquai) chosen as reference studio mastering album that will easily sound ‘boring’ on an average system.
Generalised comments
By the time I was up to track 3 on the second disc, the Topping was starting to get a consistent ‘cuts like a laser’ sense of detail pickup.. yet sadly this didn’t help with the music playback (no doubt it could seem more exciting to many people),.. the slightly darker Diablo capability, combined with better dynamics/extension makes for the VASTLY better playback experience.
In context, chosing either of these parts for a music system isn’t hard- they both offer aspects of technical excellence, and are no doubt representations of ‘good parts’ as DACs go,.. if I wasn’t familiar with the music I am listening too, and hadn’t heard it on systems worth, easily, ten times my present system cost, then I’d no doubt be ‘on the fence’ a lot more often when picking ‘the superior’ part.. The Topping grips and impresses, true.. and then every time I swap to the Diablo, the deeper tone grab, that marries the sounds into cohesive notes, combined with the better soundfield recreation with better dynamics (throughout) and ‘sense of space’ and natural recreation.. The Diablos’ hands down authority as a DAC isn’t so subtle, it is clearly leagues better kit, or ‘from a higher tier’ of playback chain. If these tho components were priced near each other, the Diablo becomes the ‘no brainer’ purchase. (For me, it replaced a Chord Hugo, and this was a landmark piece to ‘outclass’)
If lower Topping lineup products achieve ‘close to the D90’ sound, and if all DACs sound the same (or ‘close enough’) for you, then ‘save a lot of coin, and enjoy a more budget box’. It is true that the perceived differences between DACs (certainly very system dependant (need a system that can outresolve their total capabilies)) is generally subtle and vs the coin investment in other aspects (headphones making the largest perceivable sound quality difference in terms of coin outlay), a DAC ‘upgrade’ is just paying ‘lip service’ to the notion of “hifi” building. It is delusional to try to upgrade ones sound, via a DAC, if the rest of the system is mainstream aka ‘mass market junk’.
In a budget system made up of vintage two channel amps and ‘built for music’ speakers, a DAC upgrade will make a sonic upgrade, irrelevant of ‘if the listeners have the ear training’, the playback from good kit generally gets the toes tapping and ‘engaged’.
The Diablo, in this last regard of ‘toe tapping goodness’, outpunches its price matched brethren, and is the superior listening experience. This has nothing to do with ‘white sheet’/”spec sheet” warfare, but simple part tuning towards musicality. From the selection of the DAC chips to the notion of having a battery isolated circuit etc.. the Diablo design, whilst may not be as ‘technically impressive’ as parts that target the ‘measurements’/ metrics soley, but its ability to perform well for the function it is designed to do, is just as ‘on point’, and for being musically focused, it outclasses its’ direct competition. (maybe not if comparing spec sheets)
Having both DACs in place, leaving the sound on the one that sound ‘best’, the Diablo, over the course of several weeks, was always ‘the winner’.
Regarding the ‘nasal’ sound that the D90 would impart- it is strange to me, using the english language and terms I understand the meaning of, to try to impart description to ‘what we hear’ and how that plays into our subjective experience (phenomenologically speaking)..
When switching between the two DACs, there were plenty of times that the Diablo was ‘thin sounding too’ (vs the D90) but the difference was somehow it just sounded great during such moments- I believe it comes to the total sound and the subjective audio cues that gives the placement in better space. My brain would just register the Diablo playback, when ‘thinner’ as ‘further into the room’.. likely because the note edges are less present (suggesting ‘further away’), yet the actual detail in the vocal would be ‘strong’..
I suppose an electrically minded person would just relegate such findings as the differences between OpAmp output sound (the Topping) vs Class A sound output (the iFi)..
Different music genres will give cause to pull this apart in different ways- and given any system having favoured frequencies, a very big disclaimer of ‘your mileage may vary’ should be stamped in red ink diagonally over every paragraph of typeface here given.
As someone who used to upgrade clock chips and run ‘hyper expensive’ transports into nice ladder DACs, and use equipment with upgraded/upspecced capacitors, the effort a user could put into their playback chain to ‘get more air’ or ‘more blackness’- these are traits that I favour when comparing equipment, knowing how ‘costly’ they can be to ‘get right’ and actually implement.
I suppose to me, the Topping is ‘the cheaper’ performing part, or belongs on any champion ladder below the Diablo.. That same ladder had, to my ears/by my rankings, placing the Diablo above the Chord Hugo when aiming for technical perfection (vs pleasant ‘homogenised’ sound), and so I am happy to consider the Diablo the ‘benchmark part to beat’ for clinical accuracy and reproductive quality.. It is musical, and clean in ways that the price point it occupies has never really shown. (It is my ‘class leader’ for entry level DACs- having no interest to listen to budget DACs; apologies- they hurt my brain/ears and serve me little function, but only because I have better units to switch too)
Testing methodology & Setup
:could change- feed the D90 ALSO via the Grace m903, and then use the Grace as a switchbox… :would equalise the playing field, presently massively in favour to the D90, which is ‘direct’ to preamp/amp, vs the Diablo which uses the ‘included in the box’ cable to feed into the Grace m903, which is being used as an intermediary to volume match the Diablo (And give me an ability to feed using a ‘line output’ rather than using a headphone jack with ‘variable volume’ output).
Interconnects
The interconnects are all top tier selections from a reputable cable maker (worth more than the DACs being tested) with the exception of the Diablo that has an extra ‘jump’ to make (via the Grace m903) and is using the generic 4.4mm to 2x XLR (included) to do so..(for the first leg of the Diablos’ output journey).
So, interconnect cable advantage to the Topping D90
Digital Cables
The Diablo gets the ‘PayTV installation set’ fibre optic cable (not my best, and certainly ‘not my worst’, but please note that for <$50 I got the entire PayTV Installation set, which included all sorts of adaptors and ‘bits and pieces’ that were not this digital cable. In truth I bought the package for this Fibre Optic cable which may have advertised itself as glass, but certainly had a build quality vastly better than any other ‘budget’ Fibre Optic cable I have ever seen. (This cable is more than a decade old, and has been moved and reused many times (and travelled >10000kms in the process)..
VS the many ‘hundreds of dollars’ COAX cable that the D90 gets, that has had a sedate life and is in ‘great shape’; and COAX generally outperforms TOSLINK when the cables are near equal value.. (with vastly better ‘bang for buck’ always in favour of COAX cables)
Digital Cable advantage to the Topping D90
Power Cables
The Topping uses a power cable closer in value to the total DAC price.. than any fair evaluation should even consider to use. The cable is one of three devices plugged into a PSAudio power reconditioner. (CD player and Sunfire Subwoofer as well)..
The Diablo was left plugged into wall power (using the included in box iPower power supply), the Grace m903 ‘volume matching box’ is running off a generic ‘3 pin din’ cable, from a Monster power board (plugged in next to the iPower).
Power Cable advantage to the Topping D90
Input on the Musical Fidelity NuVista amplifier; Topping gets the CD input, iFi get the ‘Tape monitor’ selection.
The Topping D90 had the config to output via unbalanced output, unvariable volume only. (noted by many to ‘improve the quality of the sound output’. Apologies- the XLR outputs are technically the better output for many systems, but my preamp works very well using the standard RCAs and I am not in a heavy RF environment being next to national park/not many neighbours, and much consideration goes to keeping my cables from crossing over each other etc). Bluetooth was disabled and the Topping was, to the best of my research, setup optimally for two channel high fidelity sound output. (eg most features disabled/turned off)
The Diablo is setup haphazardly, with a cable jangle that runs parralel to mains etc, and ‘no consideration shown’ to setup. This was not done intentionally, just for a ‘temporary’ “quick A-B” setup.. -that became permanent when the unit seriously flogged ‘a dedicated home DAC’, well reviewed, and at price parity.(unexpected!)
Everything about the setup and testing favours the D90, from the fact that it got the COAX (rather than the TOSLINK) output from the CD player, to the value of the cables and the power source.
The contest was not fair, and not in favour to the iFi Diablo, yet the Diablo so thoroughly trounced the ‘equivalent’ priced ‘home DAC’,.. even with a volume deficit of “minus a ‘few decibels’..” The truth was the Diablo was so much more dynamic that it was almost hard to ‘match’ the two pieces of equipment, and so I set the volume point for most of the comparison to favour the D90. (when the Diablos’ dynamic peaks raise ‘high’ they equate to the D90 peaks)
Volume matching, previously had been done ‘by ear’ (I have been doing this for awhile, and am ‘pretty good’ at this stuff), which was out by a quarter dB (in the Diablos’ favour), which for intensive A-B switching was corrected to be slightly in favour of the D90. (video included)
Panelist #2
Veruca Salt (?)
Two/three alternations of the input:“that one” (Diablo),“the vocals are better and the drums are more engaging”.
My notes are that this is ‘one of those albums’ that makes the Diablo seem more dynamic than equally matched equipment.
Upon panelist #2 sitting and comparing the two units at random moments, they chose the Diablo sound within twenty seconds ‘every time’. (they were blind as to which equipment was which, as was I for most of the testing, having forgotten which equipment was on each input and wanting to have the least bias possible towards “one or the other” sound being output.
Garbage - Beautiful Garbage
Cherry Lips; prefered to Topping D90- more instrument clarity (vocal and bass guitar) but gave the drums to the Diablo.. this was with the Diablo reduced further in volume matching vs the D90, and was certainly at a lower volume level (in total)- this led to the vocals coming across as ‘further forward’ via the D90, and giving the ‘extra edge information’ that the D90 ‘sweetens’ (or ‘focuses on’) as giving ‘more detail’, and potentially more isolation of instruments in a ‘wall of sound’ track.
To my listening some bells and cymbals sounds were in favour to the D90 here. (
WINS
The D90 might score some ‘ties’ or ‘reviewer leaning’ on some tracks by Garbage and Enya, if we change our review criteria to higher weighting for speciifc aspects of sound (ie ignoring tone of voice/vocal quality, and preferring more powerful ‘up front’ sound). There were some moments in Orinco Flow (Enya) where the air advantage was with the D90, (truth being BOTH DACs resolved this track wonderfully)
tl: dr- correct, ‘not ready yet’ (iPadz are not professional productivity toolz- yes professionals do pro work via them, but, that is not to say they are easy/fun to work with!)
some editing and review due shortly (asap!)
Will get the framework in place (multimedia coming from three different sources), and then make sure she sits right.. so 18th July ‘22, starting a new review,.. should be done within 48 hours, or else; “life”!
kit compared
iFi Diablo
vs
Topping D90
Playback sample
Config
Calibration:
Kit used ‘making this’
some notes typed on a living room tablet that need be brought in to this article (but mostly just for reflection purposes to put together a few qualifying review paragraphs..
this isn’t for public appreciation, but I am a lazy technologist, and am using this space as a cut n paste ‘dropbox’
ignore these notes:
Ben Harper - Live From Mars (Disc Two) - Power of the Gospel; the guitar slides sound too loud through the D90,.. like the ‘extra guitar string past the adjustment screws’ is echoing out some of the hand movement power, via the Diablo, sounds lifelike and ‘right’, through the D90 - sure there is ‘a lot of detail’ but the ‘extra detail’/edge is ‘too much’ - it shouldn’t be resolving like this!
The dynamics from the Diablo make volume matching difficult.. do I set for the average volume level, or the dynamic highs? (the middle ground obviously, which makes some fast switching moments leave the Diablo at a ‘non parity’ volume level, and other times, ‘slightly louder’.
Aside from obvious ‘over the top’ detail retrieval, from the D90, the Diablo is clearly the better playback. A sense of air and space- the audience fills an actual room/cavity and is not just a wall of sound effects (more testing of this please!!)
The drugs don’t work- the positioning of Ben on the stage- the D90 has him playing ‘in the speaker’, the Diablo places him central and ‘a little to the left’ orientated on the stage. (it is obvious which one of these two DACs is getting this right- and it is ‘not the technically excellent”white sheet warfare” Topping DAC’.
In the Lords’ arms- The opposite of the aforementioned positioning is now happening.. The D90 places the main singer (Mr Harper) dead central, and the Diablo places Mr Harper slightly off to the left (by a foot or two)- the Diablo feels the more correct playack here.. the same micro cues that give a sense of stage depth and ‘room size’ that are ‘collapsed’ (or “once again over exagerated”) on the D90.
Not Fire, Not Ice- The placement of guitar and vocal (technically should be vertical to each other), via the Topping, are placed seperate, the guitar more central and the vocal now ‘slightly to the left’ (as the Diablo has located it constantly across the tracks). (as a fence sitter - I could interject that the Topping is creating an incredible sense of air space and that the engineers were doing a ‘poor job’, except the engineers are going to be consistant across tracks and the Topping certainly is NOT)
The width of Ben Voice, via the Diablo, has an extension that plays through some frequencies, as they couple with the room/airspace. The Diablo seems to be recreating a powerfully loud voice (even though Live From Mars disc 2 is a ‘sombre’ album)- the playback gives the album the sense of intimacy AND power that the disc deserves (I have played this album ‘a lot’ through setups a lot better than my present testing rig).
The D90 does seperate the vocal from the rest of ‘everything’ and could be seen as a detail retrieval device, but from a tonality and accuracy perspective, the D90 presentation, whilst technically excellent (no doubt), is not an engaging or ‘good listen’; eg
#3- an (pure) acoustic track, the extra dynamic headroom/’resolve’ and the detail (both bright and dark) that the Diablo presents is an intimate an well resolved piece of music, whereas the D90 is a flat and unemotional playback (from the same disc and transport). The differences are subtle, but when fast A-B switching, or when playing once fully and then alternating to the other unit, the D90 is a yawnfest and unengaging vs the Diablo interacting with the heart and mind, as music should.
Disc Two Jamiroquai- Travelling Without Moving
Virtual Insanity- Without touching the volume, both DACs play back ‘softer’ than the previous disc (a really good sign), The double hit on the drums clear and impactful via the Diablo, the D90 kinda blurring them. Th bass information from the Diablo is a little too fullfilling, which has always been how this album has sounded when played back through excellent playback chains. The D90 gives the playback the more generic ‘mass market’ playback.. Detail retrieval from both units is incredible, the D90s ability to seperate the vocals but as is becoming the ‘standard affair’ sounds are thinner and practically nasal vs the ephemeral playback that the Diablo renders. Keys on the Diablo have better placement and tonality and extension (airspace and recreation).
The Diablo feels like it makes top use of the multiple microphones and studio mastering, the D90 seems to homogenise the sound somewhat- it is ‘all there’ and the imaging is incredible, but vs the Diablo, the life returns to the performance. Essentially the D90 sounds ‘mainstream’ vs the Diablo as sounding like it is a tier(or more?) above…
Cosmic Girl- The extension of the sounds into the room, “surround” is vastly better via the Diablo- it recreates a ‘true’ sense of 3D depth, that extends WELL both beyond the speakers, and more importantly, ‘in FRONT of them’. The extra few feet of soundwidth that this ‘bringing cues forward’ allows makes the music more gripping and dynamic, even though the volumes are ‘the same’. (ie this would NEVER be picked up via digital measuring equipment)
Didjerama- The Didgereydoo (instrument) was more lifelike from the Diablo (‘nuff said)
Infectious Grooves - Groove family Cyco-
Violent and Funky- The Diablo, straight out the gate, with better bass AND dynamics ‘owns this track’. The tonality of the singers, once again, ‘nasal’ by comparison (from the Topping), with the Diablo being the faster and more nuanced playback. The Diablo has better soundstage and soundfield, and a better sense of musically ‘being there’,.. vs the Topping that sounded like an audio system recreating a recording. The subtle differences, if ‘trying to spot them’ are ‘too subtle for words’; but trying not to do ‘word salad’, the Diablo gives a slight treble edge in the presentation (and a little deeper on the bass bite/detail), both traits that I gave to the D90 when first placed in the system- the subjective take after weeks of having the parts in place (with an easy remote button to switch between the two sources ‘on the fly’), is that the D90 never once took a win vs the Diablo DAC. (when comparing the Diablo with the Chord Hugo, the part it was trying to outclass; a ‘few wins’ at least went to the Hugo DAC (mostly some poorly recorded albums from nearly a centurty ago, and some complex Tool tracks that the Hugo ‘glossed’ together in a more pleasing method (but wasn’t accurate to the source track)).
The Topping D90 is NOT a competitor to the iFi Diablo as a DAC.
Simply Red- Greatest Hits-
?holding on?-The echo and decay detail from the Topping would be the obvious standout, that ‘if one were looking for the Topping DAC to be the superior playback, would lean on.. the extra decay ‘time’ and ‘raised level of the subtleties’ (echo and decay) make it seem ‘more detailed’ (if that is what we are looking for). The Diablo makes the focus on the music up front. It clearly brings the music forward and now, the echo and decay simply resolve to give the recording a ‘sense of space’. The Diablo renders a track that I believe someone in a studio would attempt to master, whereas the D90 sounds like an inferior ‘made at home on unresolving headphones’ version.. (depending on your system, the D90 might be a superior listen, ie if your setup is ‘very dark’ and you like ‘technology being technically amazing’.
Money (too tight to mention)..- the vocals on the Topping seem further back, perhaps due to the soundstage width feeling slightly ‘brought in’/compressed.. if the D90 were then volume raised to give a performance ‘like’ the Diablo, it might then seem more visceral (most prefer a louder source as ‘exciting’ etc).
The Diablo simply presents a ‘blacker background’ and ‘more air’; both traits of ‘better equipment’.
Track 9(I give it all up for you?)-D90 sounds ‘good’, but unsatisfactory (to me) music is a wall of sound,.. somehow ‘lacking life’, switch to the Diablo, nothing ostensibly changes, but now the music is coherant. If I had a musical background I could no doubt describe aspects to do with the integrity of the instruments, they ‘came together’ via the Diablo rendition, all the same notes and tone, just ‘cohesive’ via the Diablo
TRACK 10 ?- intro wider presentation via the D90 (again, microdetail and ‘echo information’), is this lost due to a blackness from the Diablo?
Garbage- beautiful garbage
This album returned the playing field to parity.
I’d give ‘some wins’ to the D90 and some wins to the Diablo; a lot of this album is ‘wall of sound’ type music, filled with grungy guitars and dynamic for the radio levels of playback (catchy riffs and very high quality engineering that would be capable of ‘climbing the charts’)..
The more intimate songs might favour either unit, and aspects of the rock out songs might favour either unit. Panelist two was giving a win here to the D90 but this was mostly due to the complexity of the ‘wall of sound’ in their chosen tracks and being able to get a ‘sense of what was going on’ where the extreme clarity/’detail’ of the Topping gave a few cues clearer. (admittedly this was whilst I had put ‘quite a few dB reduction on the Diablo’ to ‘favour the Topping’ (significantly). At this point the Diablos incredible dynamics were ‘removed from the equation’, and the detail/imaging/instrument edges were what was being compared. In this scenario (volume significantly in favour to the D90), the D90 was given a few wins.. if we had made the measurements/metric about tone of voice, or ‘blackness’ etc, the Diablo would have gotten the accolades. The crazy thing is this album has so much ‘extra edge info’ from the D90, that the fast switching between the two units made the Topping sound ‘fuller’ (again, Diablo dynamics crippled by a ‘a dB or two’), the D90 could pull a few switches in its’ favour (across a range of tracks from this album), but I would reflect that the extra info is ‘fatiguing sound’ territory, and not really something to aim for when selecting a DAC for musical capability. If I was intent on owning a hifi setup that was ‘measurement’ focused, the D90 would get a win on this disc, as it sometimes pulled ‘more wall(of sound)’ when switching quickly.. once the Diablo had the volume returned to correct (“close to” correct -0.3dB behind the D90 volume output), the switching could go ‘either way’, with myself generally preferring the cohesive sound of the Diablo and the richer tone in the vocals etc.
Enya-Watermark
Storms in Africa- Finally the D90 gets a win.. more coherant, brings the drums imaging forward. Electronic music and soundscape genres might benefit from this type of playback (note that my Enya comments are placed in front of many others listed below, that were auditioned before this disc).
If I couldn’t switch between DACs (quickly), the D90 sound on this track is brilliant, and I would say I am ‘very happy with this sound’.
Of course I AM comparing products, so , here goes- when switching to the Diablo a sense of greater depth to the soundstage kicked in, drums resonated powerfully (at the same volume as the D90, but feeling ‘further back’) makes them feel more engaging, if interpreting this track as playing back loudly..
The Diablo is clearly less ‘in your face’, but the tightness of sound, with noticably more ‘sense of air’, does come across as the superior playback. (for this track, I could enjoy either, just as easily!!)
Orinoco Flow- Wow the Diablo can really bring audio cues forward when it wants to- this gives the actual sense of soundstage width an advantage to the Diablo, which already has the soundstage depth metric nailed down. Due to more bass note power and integrity on the Diablo, I could actually award ‘sense of air’ in the soundfield to the D90 on this track. (both presentations are exceptional, but on this track one could favour either quite easily, as they are both different, and neither is ‘wrong’)
Chris Isaak - Forever Blue
Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing- cymbals are more alive (by a touch) via the D90, the vocal tone is pretty great on both, the grittyness and control possibly in the Diablos’ favour, some of the more ambiant sounds were not owned by one DAC or another.. This is a great track to NOT reveal strong differences between the Digital to Analgoue converters…
Somebody’s Crying- a touch more ‘pop’ out from the D90 on this track, seemingly a lot of air.. The Diablo does seem a touch more coherant, although this would be one of the first tracks that didn’t give it a ‘blacker sense’ of sounds errupting from, nor a sense of ‘more air’.
Moving on from this disc as it just doesn’t seem to offer anything to pull apart these two devices.
Track 2 had substantial differences between the devices, sure.. (placement/soundstage & space), but both presentations were so close, that on many rigs I would probably write a DAC comparison off as ‘samey’ if using this album to compare.
Live- The Distance to Here
(11) They Stood up for Love- Eds voice is slightly more nasal on the D90, the instruments given a more metal sound (metalic ‘tin’ sound on edges), definately loses blackness, and the extra treble info whilst making the song ‘more powerful’, makes the song unlistenable (“eternally bright!!” to quote a featured lyric). The imaging and ‘depth’ shown to this track, via the Diablo, give it the edge in my preference.. the tonality seems correct, still all the treble energy, but it feels better controlled, a more black background to fall into, and a deeper sound field to play into..
-I would argue that these ‘rock’ genres benefit from extra ‘energy’, and depending on factors the consumer prefers (in their DAC sound), the D90 might be given the advantage on the tally sheet.
For me, I appreciated a clearer more consise imaging experience with a notably more holographic sound- better 3D stage depth and huge airspace factored to sound sources, able to be independent to each other. Many switches the difference was ‘close to nil’, then at other times a specific cue or note just rang out better from the Diablo.. on further inspection, I believe it was phase shifting effects from the guitars that were massively in favour to the Diablo, and this single aspect is enough to make or break a genre like this in playback. On the Diablo there was an obvious sense of space in front of the (artificial) stage, that the phase shifts could roll across, that via the D90, were another sound source to hear, but were lost as ‘apart of the instrument source’ and not an effect that couples with the air space of a venue and literally kick(/’flip’) through a listeners skull. The D90 in this regard, was a flatter ‘lamer’ experience. (apologies to anyone presently suffering ‘erectile dysfunction’, with regards to my choice of language herein used)
9 Feel the Quiet River Rage- The effects processor being applied to Eds voice stood out more on the D90, and the dying decaying echos, on this track, rang out beautifully into the airspace of my listening room. It is moments like this I get to smile and take in the fact that these are both accomplished DACs and that DACs have certainly come a long way on their engineering hikes ‘through the decades’..
At the 2m50s mark in the track where things get little sweeter with the vocal, the sweetness is better captured via the Diablo, due to haivng a greater noise floor to return to (felt like a nice dynamic scale), whereas a few seconds later when the voice is grungy again, the better detailed edge that the D90 brings to note edges, made the artifice/echo of the processor have more oomph.
If my system DID NOT RESOLVE OTHER DIFFERENCES between DACs, the constant ‘more edge info’ that the D90 seems to extract (albeit at the cost of no ‘nice’ black background and detriment to notion of ‘air’ around instruments), I could easily favour the D90 or call them ‘so close’ in comparison to ‘be the same’ and nuances so subtle, “who cares?”- this riding closely to the notion that “all DACs sound the same”.. of course this is not true, and depending on the recording, the genre, and what a user is ‘listening for’ the differences become far from subtle.
When comparing the Topping D90 vs the Sabre DAC in the Burson Conductor V2+, (a part that weights maybe 20x the weight), the Topping ‘edge brightness’ was the factor that might have led to it being given a win. Knowing that this feature was what I most disliked about ESS “Sabre” sound, I naturally decided to bring the Diablo into the comparison.
The efforts of this article is simply to compare the D90 vs the Diablo sound quality (the D90 stole all the cables that the Burson would normally have used- and whilst I could switch happily between using the Diablo vs the Conductor V2+, the sound of the Topping needed to qualify itself in order to be a ‘keeper’ in the HiFi rig. Having zero need for bluetooth etc, the D90 simply needed be ‘a great DAC’, that could outperform other options at similar pricepoints, for which I believe that the Diablo is the contender to beat at ‘anywhere near this pricepoint’ (and quite noticeably above)..
Album one (Ben Harper) chosen for simple acoustical and ‘live theatre’ soundspace checks
Album two (Jamiroquai) chosen as reference studio mastering album that will easily sound ‘boring’ on an average system.
Generalised comments
By the time I was up to track 3 on the second disc, the Topping was starting to get a consistent ‘cuts like a laser’ sense of detail pickup.. yet sadly this didn’t help with the music playback (no doubt it could seem more exciting to many people),.. the slightly darker Diablo capability, combined with better dynamics/extension makes for the VASTLY better playback experience.
In context, chosing either of these parts for a music system isn’t hard- they both offer aspects of technical excellence, and are no doubt representations of ‘good parts’ as DACs go,.. if I wasn’t familiar with the music I am listening too, and hadn’t heard it on systems worth, easily, ten times my present system cost, then I’d no doubt be ‘on the fence’ a lot more often when picking ‘the superior’ part.. The Topping grips and impresses, true.. and then every time I swap to the Diablo, the deeper tone grab, that marries the sounds into cohesive notes, combined with the better soundfield recreation with better dynamics (throughout) and ‘sense of space’ and natural recreation.. The Diablos’ hands down authority as a DAC isn’t so subtle, it is clearly leagues better kit, or ‘from a higher tier’ of playback chain. If these tho components were priced near each other, the Diablo becomes the ‘no brainer’ purchase. (For me, it replaced a Chord Hugo, and this was a landmark piece to ‘outclass’)
If lower Topping lineup products achieve ‘close to the D90’ sound, and if all DACs sound the same (or ‘close enough’) for you, then ‘save a lot of coin, and enjoy a more budget box’. It is true that the perceived differences between DACs (certainly very system dependant (need a system that can outresolve their total capabilies)) is generally subtle and vs the coin investment in other aspects (headphones making the largest perceivable sound quality difference in terms of coin outlay), a DAC ‘upgrade’ is just paying ‘lip service’ to the notion of “hifi” building. It is delusional to try to upgrade ones sound, via a DAC, if the rest of the system is mainstream aka ‘mass market junk’.
In a budget system made up of vintage two channel amps and ‘built for music’ speakers, a DAC upgrade will make a sonic upgrade, irrelevant of ‘if the listeners have the ear training’, the playback from good kit generally gets the toes tapping and ‘engaged’.
The Diablo, in this last regard of ‘toe tapping goodness’, outpunches its price matched brethren, and is the superior listening experience. This has nothing to do with ‘white sheet’/”spec sheet” warfare, but simple part tuning towards musicality. From the selection of the DAC chips to the notion of having a battery isolated circuit etc.. the Diablo design, whilst may not be as ‘technically impressive’ as parts that target the ‘measurements’/ metrics soley, but its ability to perform well for the function it is designed to do, is just as ‘on point’, and for being musically focused, it outclasses its’ direct competition. (maybe not if comparing spec sheets)
Having both DACs in place, leaving the sound on the one that sound ‘best’, the Diablo, over the course of several weeks, was always ‘the winner’.
Regarding the ‘nasal’ sound that the D90 would impart- it is strange to me, using the english language and terms I understand the meaning of, to try to impart description to ‘what we hear’ and how that plays into our subjective experience (phenomenologically speaking)..
When switching between the two DACs, there were plenty of times that the Diablo was ‘thin sounding too’ (vs the D90) but the difference was somehow it just sounded great during such moments- I believe it comes to the total sound and the subjective audio cues that gives the placement in better space. My brain would just register the Diablo playback, when ‘thinner’ as ‘further into the room’.. likely because the note edges are less present (suggesting ‘further away’), yet the actual detail in the vocal would be ‘strong’..
I suppose an electrically minded person would just relegate such findings as the differences between OpAmp output sound (the Topping) vs Class A sound output (the iFi)..
Different music genres will give cause to pull this apart in different ways- and given any system having favoured frequencies, a very big disclaimer of ‘your mileage may vary’ should be stamped in red ink diagonally over every paragraph of typeface here given.
As someone who used to upgrade clock chips and run ‘hyper expensive’ transports into nice ladder DACs, and use equipment with upgraded/upspecced capacitors, the effort a user could put into their playback chain to ‘get more air’ or ‘more blackness’- these are traits that I favour when comparing equipment, knowing how ‘costly’ they can be to ‘get right’ and actually implement.
I suppose to me, the Topping is ‘the cheaper’ performing part, or belongs on any champion ladder below the Diablo.. That same ladder had, to my ears/by my rankings, placing the Diablo above the Chord Hugo when aiming for technical perfection (vs pleasant ‘homogenised’ sound), and so I am happy to consider the Diablo the ‘benchmark part to beat’ for clinical accuracy and reproductive quality.. It is musical, and clean in ways that the price point it occupies has never really shown. (It is my ‘class leader’ for entry level DACs- having no interest to listen to budget DACs; apologies- they hurt my brain/ears and serve me little function, but only because I have better units to switch too)
Testing methodology & Setup
:could change- feed the D90 ALSO via the Grace m903, and then use the Grace as a switchbox… :would equalise the playing field, presently massively in favour to the D90, which is ‘direct’ to preamp/amp, vs the Diablo which uses the ‘included in the box’ cable to feed into the Grace m903, which is being used as an intermediary to volume match the Diablo (And give me an ability to feed using a ‘line output’ rather than using a headphone jack with ‘variable volume’ output).
Interconnects
The interconnects are all top tier selections from a reputable cable maker (worth more than the DACs being tested) with the exception of the Diablo that has an extra ‘jump’ to make (via the Grace m903) and is using the generic 4.4mm to 2x XLR (included) to do so..(for the first leg of the Diablos’ output journey).
So, interconnect cable advantage to the Topping D90
Digital Cables
The Diablo gets the ‘PayTV installation set’ fibre optic cable (not my best, and certainly ‘not my worst’, but please note that for <$50 I got the entire PayTV Installation set, which included all sorts of adaptors and ‘bits and pieces’ that were not this digital cable. In truth I bought the package for this Fibre Optic cable which may have advertised itself as glass, but certainly had a build quality vastly better than any other ‘budget’ Fibre Optic cable I have ever seen. (This cable is more than a decade old, and has been moved and reused many times (and travelled >10000kms in the process)..
VS the many ‘hundreds of dollars’ COAX cable that the D90 gets, that has had a sedate life and is in ‘great shape’; and COAX generally outperforms TOSLINK when the cables are near equal value.. (with vastly better ‘bang for buck’ always in favour of COAX cables)
Digital Cable advantage to the Topping D90
Power Cables
The Topping uses a power cable closer in value to the total DAC price.. than any fair evaluation should even consider to use. The cable is one of three devices plugged into a PSAudio power reconditioner. (CD player and Sunfire Subwoofer as well)..
The Diablo was left plugged into wall power (using the included in box iPower power supply), the Grace m903 ‘volume matching box’ is running off a generic ‘3 pin din’ cable, from a Monster power board (plugged in next to the iPower).
Power Cable advantage to the Topping D90
Input on the Musical Fidelity NuVista amplifier; Topping gets the CD input, iFi get the ‘Tape monitor’ selection.
The Topping D90 had the config to output via unbalanced output, unvariable volume only. (noted by many to ‘improve the quality of the sound output’. Apologies- the XLR outputs are technically the better output for many systems, but my preamp works very well using the standard RCAs and I am not in a heavy RF environment being next to national park/not many neighbours, and much consideration goes to keeping my cables from crossing over each other etc). Bluetooth was disabled and the Topping was, to the best of my research, setup optimally for two channel high fidelity sound output. (eg most features disabled/turned off)
The Diablo is setup haphazardly, with a cable jangle that runs parralel to mains etc, and ‘no consideration shown’ to setup. This was not done intentionally, just for a ‘temporary’ “quick A-B” setup.. -that became permanent when the unit seriously flogged ‘a dedicated home DAC’, well reviewed, and at price parity.(unexpected!)
Everything about the setup and testing favours the D90, from the fact that it got the COAX (rather than the TOSLINK) output from the CD player, to the value of the cables and the power source.
The contest was not fair, and not in favour to the iFi Diablo, yet the Diablo so thoroughly trounced the ‘equivalent’ priced ‘home DAC’,.. even with a volume deficit of “minus a ‘few decibels’..” The truth was the Diablo was so much more dynamic that it was almost hard to ‘match’ the two pieces of equipment, and so I set the volume point for most of the comparison to favour the D90. (when the Diablos’ dynamic peaks raise ‘high’ they equate to the D90 peaks)
Volume matching, previously had been done ‘by ear’ (I have been doing this for awhile, and am ‘pretty good’ at this stuff), which was out by a quarter dB (in the Diablos’ favour), which for intensive A-B switching was corrected to be slightly in favour of the D90. (video included)
Panelist #2
Veruca Salt (?)
Two/three alternations of the input:“that one” (Diablo),“the vocals are better and the drums are more engaging”.
My notes are that this is ‘one of those albums’ that makes the Diablo seem more dynamic than equally matched equipment.
Upon panelist #2 sitting and comparing the two units at random moments, they chose the Diablo sound within twenty seconds ‘every time’. (they were blind as to which equipment was which, as was I for most of the testing, having forgotten which equipment was on each input and wanting to have the least bias possible towards “one or the other” sound being output.
Garbage - Beautiful Garbage
Cherry Lips; prefered to Topping D90- more instrument clarity (vocal and bass guitar) but gave the drums to the Diablo.. this was with the Diablo reduced further in volume matching vs the D90, and was certainly at a lower volume level (in total)- this led to the vocals coming across as ‘further forward’ via the D90, and giving the ‘extra edge information’ that the D90 ‘sweetens’ (or ‘focuses on’) as giving ‘more detail’, and potentially more isolation of instruments in a ‘wall of sound’ track.
To my listening some bells and cymbals sounds were in favour to the D90 here. (
WINS
The D90 might score some ‘ties’ or ‘reviewer leaning’ on some tracks by Garbage and Enya, if we change our review criteria to higher weighting for speciifc aspects of sound (ie ignoring tone of voice/vocal quality, and preferring more powerful ‘up front’ sound). There were some moments in Orinco Flow (Enya) where the air advantage was with the D90, (truth being BOTH DACs resolved this track wonderfully)
tl: dr- correct, ‘not ready yet’ (iPadz are not professional productivity toolz- yes professionals do pro work via them, but, that is not to say they are easy/fun to work with!)
some editing and review due shortly (asap!)
Last edited:
fanteskiller
MOT: reseller, aka oemerson
Doing an actual review now (my first three attempts to post a true review, were wiped from existence, two were cut n paste foibles, the other was a web page glitch- I took these signs as ‘the universe’ sayying “not yet”..)
Will get the framework in place (multimedia coming from three different sources), and then make sure she sits right.. so 18th July ‘22, starting a new review,.. should be done within 48 hours, or else; “life”!
kit compared
iFi Diablo
vs
Topping D90
Playback sample
Config
Calibration:
Kit used ‘making this’
some notes typed on a living room tablet that need be brought in to this article (but mostly just for reflection purposes to put together a few qualifying review paragraphs..
this isn’t for public appreciation, but I am a lazy technologist, and am using this space as a cut n paste ‘dropbox’
ignore these notes:
Ben Harper - Live From Mars (Disc Two) - Power of the Gospel; the guitar slides sound too loud through the D90,.. like the ‘extra guitar string past the adjustment screws’ is echoing out some of the hand movement power, via the Diablo, sounds lifelike and ‘right’, through the D90 - sure there is ‘a lot of detail’ but the ‘extra detail’/edge is ‘too much’ - it shouldn’t be resolving like this!
The dynamics from the Diablo make volume matching difficult.. do I set for the average volume level, or the dynamic highs? (the middle ground obviously, which makes some fast switching moments leave the Diablo at a ‘non parity’ volume level, and other times, ‘slightly louder’.
Aside from obvious ‘over the top’ detail retrieval, from the D90, the Diablo is clearly the better playback. A sense of air and space- the audience fills an actual room/cavity and is not just a wall of sound effects (more testing of this please!!)
The drugs don’t work- the positioning of Ben on the stage- the D90 has him playing ‘in the speaker’, the Diablo places him central and ‘a little to the left’ orientated on the stage. (it is obvious which one of these two DACs is getting this right- and it is ‘not the technically excellent”white sheet warfare” Topping DAC’.
In the Lords’ arms- The opposite of the aforementioned positioning is now happening.. The D90 places the main singer (Mr Harper) dead central, and the Diablo places Mr Harper slightly off to the left (by a foot or two)- the Diablo feels the more correct playack here.. the same micro cues that give a sense of stage depth and ‘room size’ that are ‘collapsed’ (or “once again over exagerated”) on the D90.
Not Fire, Not Ice- The placement of guitar and vocal (technically should be vertical to each other), via the Topping, are placed seperate, the guitar more central and the vocal now ‘slightly to the left’ (as the Diablo has located it constantly across the tracks). (as a fence sitter - I could interject that the Topping is creating an incredible sense of air space and that the engineers were doing a ‘poor job’, except the engineers are going to be consistant across tracks and the Topping certainly is NOT)
The width of Ben Voice, via the Diablo, has an extension that plays through some frequencies, as they couple with the room/airspace. The Diablo seems to be recreating a powerfully loud voice (even though Live From Mars disc 2 is a ‘sombre’ album)- the playback gives the album the sense of intimacy AND power that the disc deserves (I have played this album ‘a lot’ through setups a lot better than my present testing rig).
The D90 does seperate the vocal from the rest of ‘everything’ and could be seen as a detail retrieval device, but from a tonality and accuracy perspective, the D90 presentation, whilst technically excellent (no doubt), is not an engaging or ‘good listen’; eg
#3- an (pure) acoustic track, the extra dynamic headroom/’resolve’ and the detail (both bright and dark) that the Diablo presents is an intimate an well resolved piece of music, whereas the D90 is a flat and unemotional playback (from the same disc and transport). The differences are subtle, but when fast A-B switching, or when playing once fully and then alternating to the other unit, the D90 is a yawnfest and unengaging vs the Diablo interacting with the heart and mind, as music should.
Disc Two Jamiroquai- Travelling Without Moving
Virtual Insanity- Without touching the volume, both DACs play back ‘softer’ than the previous disc (a really good sign), The double hit on the drums clear and impactful via the Diablo, the D90 kinda blurring them. Th bass information from the Diablo is a little too fullfilling, which has always been how this album has sounded when played back through excellent playback chains. The D90 gives the playback the more generic ‘mass market’ playback.. Detail retrieval from both units is incredible, the D90s ability to seperate the vocals but as is becoming the ‘standard affair’ sounds are thinner and practically nasal vs the ephemeral playback that the Diablo renders. Keys on the Diablo have better placement and tonality and extension (airspace and recreation).
The Diablo feels like it makes top use of the multiple microphones and studio mastering, the D90 seems to homogenise the sound somewhat- it is ‘all there’ and the imaging is incredible, but vs the Diablo, the life returns to the performance. Essentially the D90 sounds ‘mainstream’ vs the Diablo as sounding like it is a tier(or more?) above…
Cosmic Girl- The extension of the sounds into the room, “surround” is vastly better via the Diablo- it recreates a ‘true’ sense of 3D depth, that extends WELL both beyond the speakers, and more importantly, ‘in FRONT of them’. The extra few feet of soundwidth that this ‘bringing cues forward’ allows makes the music more gripping and dynamic, even though the volumes are ‘the same’. (ie this would NEVER be picked up via digital measuring equipment)
Didjerama- The Didgereydoo (instrument) was more lifelike from the Diablo (‘nuff said)
Infectious Grooves - Groove family Cyco-
Violent and Funky- The Diablo, straight out the gate, with better bass AND dynamics ‘owns this track’. The tonality of the singers, once again, ‘nasal’ by comparison (from the Topping), with the Diablo being the faster and more nuanced playback. The Diablo has better soundstage and soundfield, and a better sense of musically ‘being there’,.. vs the Topping that sounded like an audio system recreating a recording. The subtle differences, if ‘trying to spot them’ are ‘too subtle for words’; but trying not to do ‘word salad’, the Diablo gives a slight treble edge in the presentation (and a little deeper on the bass bite/detail), both traits that I gave to the D90 when first placed in the system- the subjective take after weeks of having the parts in place (with an easy remote button to switch between the two sources ‘on the fly’), is that the D90 never once took a win vs the Diablo DAC. (when comparing the Diablo with the Chord Hugo, the part it was trying to outclass; a ‘few wins’ at least went to the Hugo DAC (mostly some poorly recorded albums from nearly a centurty ago, and some complex Tool tracks that the Hugo ‘glossed’ together in a more pleasing method (but wasn’t accurate to the source track)).
The Topping D90 is NOT a competitor to the iFi Diablo as a DAC.
Simply Red- Greatest Hits-
?holding on?-The echo and decay detail from the Topping would be the obvious standout, that ‘if one were looking for the Topping DAC to be the superior playback, would lean on.. the extra decay ‘time’ and ‘raised level of the subtleties’ (echo and decay) make it seem ‘more detailed’ (if that is what we are looking for). The Diablo makes the focus on the music up front. It clearly brings the music forward and now, the echo and decay simply resolve to give the recording a ‘sense of space’. The Diablo renders a track that I believe someone in a studio would attempt to master, whereas the D90 sounds like an inferior ‘made at home on unresolving headphones’ version.. (depending on your system, the D90 might be a superior listen, ie if your setup is ‘very dark’ and you like ‘technology being technically amazing’.
Money (too tight to mention)..- the vocals on the Topping seem further back, perhaps due to the soundstage width feeling slightly ‘brought in’/compressed.. if the D90 were then volume raised to give a performance ‘like’ the Diablo, it might then seem more visceral (most prefer a louder source as ‘exciting’ etc).
The Diablo simply presents a ‘blacker background’ and ‘more air’; both traits of ‘better equipment’.
Track 9(I give it all up for you?)-D90 sounds ‘good’, but unsatisfactory (to me) music is a wall of sound,.. somehow ‘lacking life’, switch to the Diablo, nothing ostensibly changes, but now the music is coherant. If I had a musical background I could no doubt describe aspects to do with the integrity of the instruments, they ‘came together’ via the Diablo rendition, all the same notes and tone, just ‘cohesive’ via the Diablo
TRACK 10 ?- intro wider presentation via the D90 (again, microdetail and ‘echo information’), is this lost due to a blackness from the Diablo?
Garbage- beautiful garbage
This album returned the playing field to parity.
I’d give ‘some wins’ to the D90 and some wins to the Diablo; a lot of this album is ‘wall of sound’ type music, filled with grungy guitars and dynamic for the radio levels of playback (catchy riffs and very high quality engineering that would be capable of ‘climbing the charts’)..
The more intimate songs might favour either unit, and aspects of the rock out songs might favour either unit. Panelist two was giving a win here to the D90 but this was mostly due to the complexity of the ‘wall of sound’ in their chosen tracks and being able to get a ‘sense of what was going on’ where the extreme clarity/’detail’ of the Topping gave a few cues clearer. (admittedly this was whilst I had put ‘quite a few dB reduction on the Diablo’ to ‘favour the Topping’ (significantly). At this point the Diablos incredible dynamics were ‘removed from the equation’, and the detail/imaging/instrument edges were what was being compared. In this scenario (volume significantly in favour to the D90), the D90 was given a few wins.. if we had made the measurements/metric about tone of voice, or ‘blackness’ etc, the Diablo would have gotten the accolades. The crazy thing is this album has so much ‘extra edge info’ from the D90, that the fast switching between the two units made the Topping sound ‘fuller’ (again, Diablo dynamics crippled by a ‘a dB or two’), the D90 could pull a few switches in its’ favour (across a range of tracks from this album), but I would reflect that the extra info is ‘fatiguing sound’ territory, and not really something to aim for when selecting a DAC for musical capability. If I was intent on owning a hifi setup that was ‘measurement’ focused, the D90 would get a win on this disc, as it sometimes pulled ‘more wall(of sound)’ when switching quickly.. once the Diablo had the volume returned to correct (“close to” correct -0.3dB behind the D90 volume output), the switching could go ‘either way’, with myself generally preferring the cohesive sound of the Diablo and the richer tone in the vocals etc.
Enya-Watermark
Storms in Africa- Finally the D90 gets a win.. more coherant, brings the drums imaging forward. Electronic music and soundscape genres might benefit from this type of playback (note that my Enya comments are placed in front of many others listed below, that were auditioned before this disc).
If I couldn’t switch between DACs (quickly), the D90 sound on this track is brilliant, and I would say I am ‘very happy with this sound’.
Of course I AM comparing products, so , here goes- when switching to the Diablo a sense of greater depth to the soundstage kicked in, drums resonated powerfully (at the same volume as the D90, but feeling ‘further back’) makes them feel more engaging, if interpreting this track as playing back loudly..
The Diablo is clearly less ‘in your face’, but the tightness of sound, with noticably more ‘sense of air’, does come across as the superior playback. (for this track, I could enjoy either, just as easily!!)
Orinoco Flow- Wow the Diablo can really bring audio cues forward when it wants to- this gives the actual sense of soundstage width an advantage to the Diablo, which already has the soundstage depth metric nailed down. Due to more bass note power and integrity on the Diablo, I could actually award ‘sense of air’ in the soundfield to the D90 on this track. (both presentations are exceptional, but on this track one could favour either quite easily, as they are both different, and neither is ‘wrong’)
Chris Isaak - Forever Blue
Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing- cymbals are more alive (by a touch) via the D90, the vocal tone is pretty great on both, the grittyness and control possibly in the Diablos’ favour, some of the more ambiant sounds were not owned by one DAC or another.. This is a great track to NOT reveal strong differences between the Digital to Analgoue converters…
Somebody’s Crying- a touch more ‘pop’ out from the D90 on this track, seemingly a lot of air.. The Diablo does seem a touch more coherant, although this would be one of the first tracks that didn’t give it a ‘blacker sense’ of sounds errupting from, nor a sense of ‘more air’.
Moving on from this disc as it just doesn’t seem to offer anything to pull apart these two devices.
Track 2 had substantial differences between the devices, sure.. (placement/soundstage & space), but both presentations were so close, that on many rigs I would probably write a DAC comparison off as ‘samey’ if using this album to compare.
Live- The Distance to Here
(11) They Stood up for Love- Eds voice is slightly more nasal on the D90, the instruments given a more metal sound (metalic ‘tin’ sound on edges), definately loses blackness, and the extra treble info whilst making the song ‘more powerful’, makes the song unlistenable (“eternally bright!!” to quote a featured lyric). The imaging and ‘depth’ shown to this track, via the Diablo, give it the edge in my preference.. the tonality seems correct, still all the treble energy, but it feels better controlled, a more black background to fall into, and a deeper sound field to play into..
-I would argue that these ‘rock’ genres benefit from extra ‘energy’, and depending on factors the consumer prefers (in their DAC sound), the D90 might be given the advantage on the tally sheet.
For me, I appreciated a clearer more consise imaging experience with a notably more holographic sound- better 3D stage depth and huge airspace factored to sound sources, able to be independent to each other. Many switches the difference was ‘close to nil’, then at other times a specific cue or note just rang out better from the Diablo.. on further inspection, I believe it was phase shifting effects from the guitars that were massively in favour to the Diablo, and this single aspect is enough to make or break a genre like this in playback. On the Diablo there was an obvious sense of space in front of the (artificial) stage, that the phase shifts could roll across, that via the D90, were another sound source to hear, but were lost as ‘apart of the instrument source’ and not an effect that couples with the air space of a venue and literally kick(/’flip’) through a listeners skull. The D90 in this regard, was a flatter ‘lamer’ experience. (apologies to anyone presently suffering ‘erectile dysfunction’, with regards to my choice of language herein used)
9 Feel the Quiet River Rage- The effects processor being applied to Eds voice stood out more on the D90, and the dying decaying echos, on this track, rang out beautifully into the airspace of my listening room. It is moments like this I get to smile and take in the fact that these are both accomplished DACs and that DACs have certainly come a long way on their engineering hikes ‘through the decades’..
At the 2m50s mark in the track where things get little sweeter with the vocal, the sweetness is better captured via the Diablo, due to haivng a greater noise floor to return to (felt like a nice dynamic scale), whereas a few seconds later when the voice is grungy again, the better detailed edge that the D90 brings to note edges, made the artifice/echo of the processor have more oomph.
If my system DID NOT RESOLVE OTHER DIFFERENCES between DACs, the constant ‘more edge info’ that the D90 seems to extract (albeit at the cost of no ‘nice’ black background and detriment to notion of ‘air’ around instruments), I could easily favour the D90 or call them ‘so close’ in comparison to ‘be the same’ and nuances so subtle, “who cares?”- this riding closely to the notion that “all DACs sound the same”.. of course this is not true, and depending on the recording, the genre, and what a user is ‘listening for’ the differences become far from subtle.
When comparing the Topping D90 vs the Sabre DAC in the Burson Conductor V2+, (a part that weights maybe 20x the weight), the Topping ‘edge brightness’ was the factor that might have led to it being given a win. Knowing that this feature was what I most disliked about ESS “Sabre” sound, I naturally decided to bring the Diablo into the comparison.
The efforts of this article is simply to compare the D90 vs the Diablo sound quality (the D90 stole all the cables that the Burson would normally have used- and whilst I could switch happily between using the Diablo vs the Conductor V2+, the sound of the Topping needed to qualify itself in order to be a ‘keeper’ in the HiFi rig. Having zero need for bluetooth etc, the D90 simply needed be ‘a great DAC’, that could outperform other options at similar pricepoints, for which I believe that the Diablo is the contender to beat at ‘anywhere near this pricepoint’ (and quite noticeably above)..
Album one (Ben Harper) chosen for simple acoustical and ‘live theatre’ soundspace checks
Album two (Jamiroquai) chosen as reference studio mastering album that will easily sound ‘boring’ on an average system.
Generalised comments
By the time I was up to track 3 on the second disc, the Topping was starting to get a consistent ‘cuts like a laser’ sense of detail pickup.. yet sadly this didn’t help with the music playback (no doubt it could seem more exciting to many people),.. the slightly darker Diablo capability, combined with better dynamics/extension makes for the VASTLY better playback experience.
In context, chosing either of these parts for a music system isn’t hard- they both offer aspects of technical excellence, and are no doubt representations of ‘good parts’ as DACs go,.. if I wasn’t familiar with the music I am listening too, and hadn’t heard it on systems worth, easily, ten times my present system cost, then I’d no doubt be ‘on the fence’ a lot more often when picking ‘the superior’ part.. The Topping grips and impresses, true.. and then every time I swap to the Diablo, the deeper tone grab, that marries the sounds into cohesive notes, combined with the better soundfield recreation with better dynamics (throughout) and ‘sense of space’ and natural recreation.. The Diablos’ hands down authority as a DAC isn’t so subtle, it is clearly leagues better kit, or ‘from a higher tier’ of playback chain. If these tho components were priced near each other, the Diablo becomes the ‘no brainer’ purchase. (For me, it replaced a Chord Hugo, and this was a landmark piece to ‘outclass’)
If lower Topping lineup products achieve ‘close to the D90’ sound, and if all DACs sound the same (or ‘close enough’) for you, then ‘save a lot of coin, and enjoy a more budget box’. It is true that the perceived differences between DACs (certainly very system dependant (need a system that can outresolve their total capabilies)) is generally subtle and vs the coin investment in other aspects (headphones making the largest perceivable sound quality difference in terms of coin outlay), a DAC ‘upgrade’ is just paying ‘lip service’ to the notion of “hifi” building. It is delusional to try to upgrade ones sound, via a DAC, if the rest of the system is mainstream aka ‘mass market junk’.
In a budget system made up of vintage two channel amps and ‘built for music’ speakers, a DAC upgrade will make a sonic upgrade, irrelevant of ‘if the listeners have the ear training’, the playback from good kit generally gets the toes tapping and ‘engaged’.
The Diablo, in this last regard of ‘toe tapping goodness’, outpunches its price matched brethren, and is the superior listening experience. This has nothing to do with ‘white sheet’/”spec sheet” warfare, but simple part tuning towards musicality. From the selection of the DAC chips to the notion of having a battery isolated circuit etc.. the Diablo design, whilst may not be as ‘technically impressive’ as parts that target the ‘measurements’/ metrics soley, but its ability to perform well for the function it is designed to do, is just as ‘on point’, and for being musically focused, it outclasses its’ direct competition. (maybe not if comparing spec sheets)
Having both DACs in place, leaving the sound on the one that sound ‘best’, the Diablo, over the course of several weeks, was always ‘the winner’.
Regarding the ‘nasal’ sound that the D90 would impart- it is strange to me, using the english language and terms I understand the meaning of, to try to impart description to ‘what we hear’ and how that plays into our subjective experience (phenomenologically speaking)..
When switching between the two DACs, there were plenty of times that the Diablo was ‘thin sounding too’ (vs the D90) but the difference was somehow it just sounded great during such moments- I believe it comes to the total sound and the subjective audio cues that gives the placement in better space. My brain would just register the Diablo playback, when ‘thinner’ as ‘further into the room’.. likely because the note edges are less present (suggesting ‘further away’), yet the actual detail in the vocal would be ‘strong’..
I suppose an electrically minded person would just relegate such findings as the differences between OpAmp output sound (the Topping) vs Class A sound output (the iFi)..
Different music genres will give cause to pull this apart in different ways- and given any system having favoured frequencies, a very big disclaimer of ‘your mileage may vary’ should be stamped in red ink diagonally over every paragraph of typeface here given.
As someone who used to upgrade clock chips and run ‘hyper expensive’ transports into nice ladder DACs, and use equipment with upgraded/upspecced capacitors, the effort a user could put into their playback chain to ‘get more air’ or ‘more blackness’- these are traits that I favour when comparing equipment, knowing how ‘costly’ they can be to ‘get right’ and actually implement.
I suppose to me, the Topping is ‘the cheaper’ performing part, or belongs on any champion ladder below the Diablo.. That same ladder had, to my ears/by my rankings, placing the Diablo above the Chord Hugo when aiming for technical perfection (vs pleasant ‘homogenised’ sound), and so I am happy to consider the Diablo the ‘benchmark part to beat’ for clinical accuracy and reproductive quality.. It is musical, and clean in ways that the price point it occupies has never really shown. (It is my ‘class leader’ for entry level DACs- having no interest to listen to budget DACs; apologies- they hurt my brain/ears and serve me little function, but only because I have better units to switch too)
Testing methodology & Setup
:could change- feed the D90 ALSO via the Grace m903, and then use the Grace as a switchbox… :would equalise the playing field, presently massively in favour to the D90, which is ‘direct’ to preamp/amp, vs the Diablo which uses the ‘included in the box’ cable to feed into the Grace m903, which is being used as an intermediary to volume match the Diablo (And give me an ability to feed using a ‘line output’ rather than using a headphone jack with ‘variable volume’ output).
Interconnects
The interconnects are all top tier selections from a reputable cable maker (worth more than the DACs being tested) with the exception of the Diablo that has an extra ‘jump’ to make (via the Grace m903) and is using the generic 4.4mm to 2x XLR (included) to do so..(for the first leg of the Diablos’ output journey).
So, interconnect cable advantage to the Topping D90
Digital Cables
The Diablo gets the ‘PayTV installation set’ fibre optic cable (not my best, and certainly ‘not my worst’, but please note that for <$50 I got the entire PayTV Installation set, which included all sorts of adaptors and ‘bits and pieces’ that were not this digital cable. In truth I bought the package for this Fibre Optic cable which may have advertised itself as glass, but certainly had a build quality vastly better than any other ‘budget’ Fibre Optic cable I have ever seen. (This cable is more than a decade old, and has been moved and reused many times (and travelled >10000kms in the process)..
VS the many ‘hundreds of dollars’ COAX cable that the D90 gets, that has had a sedate life and is in ‘great shape’; and COAX generally outperforms TOSLINK when the cables are near equal value.. (with vastly better ‘bang for buck’ always in favour of COAX cables)
Digital Cable advantage to the Topping D90
Power Cables
The Topping uses a power cable closer in value to the total DAC price.. than any fair evaluation should even consider to use. The cable is one of three devices plugged into a PSAudio power reconditioner. (CD player and Sunfire Subwoofer as well)..
The Diablo was left plugged into wall power (using the included in box iPower power supply), the Grace m903 ‘volume matching box’ is running off a generic ‘3 pin din’ cable, from a Monster power board (plugged in next to the iPower).
Power Cable advantage to the Topping D90
Input on the Musical Fidelity NuVista amplifier; Topping gets the CD input, iFi get the ‘Tape monitor’ selection.
The Topping D90 had the config to output via unbalanced output, unvariable volume only. (noted by many to ‘improve the quality of the sound output’. Apologies- the XLR outputs are technically the better output for many systems, but my preamp works very well using the standard RCAs and I am not in a heavy RF environment being next to national park/not many neighbours, and much consideration goes to keeping my cables from crossing over each other etc). Bluetooth was disabled and the Topping was, to the best of my research, setup optimally for two channel high fidelity sound output. (eg most features disabled/turned off)
The Diablo is setup haphazardly, with a cable jangle that runs parralel to mains etc, and ‘no consideration shown’ to setup. This was not done intentionally, just for a ‘temporary’ “quick A-B” setup.. -that became permanent when the unit seriously flogged ‘a dedicated home DAC’, well reviewed, and at price parity.(unexpected!)
Everything about the setup and testing favours the D90, from the fact that it got the COAX (rather than the TOSLINK) output from the CD player, to the value of the cables and the power source.
The contest was not fair, and not in favour to the iFi Diablo, yet the Diablo so thoroughly trounced the ‘equivalent’ priced ‘home DAC’,.. even with a volume deficit of “minus a ‘few decibels’..” The truth was the Diablo was so much more dynamic that it was almost hard to ‘match’ the two pieces of equipment, and so I set the volume point for most of the comparison to favour the D90. (when the Diablos’ dynamic peaks raise ‘high’ they equate to the D90 peaks)
Volume matching, previously had been done ‘by ear’ (I have been doing this for awhile, and am ‘pretty good’ at this stuff), which was out by a quarter dB (in the Diablos’ favour), which for intensive A-B switching was corrected to be slightly in favour of the D90. (video included)
Panelist #2
Veruca Salt (?)
Two/three alternations of the input:“that one” (Diablo),“the vocals are better and the drums are more engaging”.
My notes are that this is ‘one of those albums’ that makes the Diablo seem more dynamic than equally matched equipment.
Upon panelist #2 sitting and comparing the two units at random moments, they chose the Diablo sound within twenty seconds ‘every time’. (they were blind as to which equipment was which, as was I for most of the testing, having forgotten which equipment was on each input and wanting to have the least bias possible towards “one or the other” sound being output.
Garbage - Beautiful Garbage
Cherry Lips; prefered to Topping D90- more instrument clarity (vocal and bass guitar) but gave the drums to the Diablo.. this was with the Diablo reduced further in volume matching vs the D90, and was certainly at a lower volume level (in total)- this led to the vocals coming across as ‘further forward’ via the D90, and giving the ‘extra edge information’ that the D90 ‘sweetens’ (or ‘focuses on’) as giving ‘more detail’, and potentially more isolation of instruments in a ‘wall of sound’ track.
To my listening some bells and cymbals sounds were in favour to the D90 here. (
WINS
The D90 might score some ‘ties’ or ‘reviewer leaning’ on some tracks by Garbage and Enya, if we change our review criteria to higher weighting for speciifc aspects of sound (ie ignoring tone of voice/vocal quality, and preferring more powerful ‘up front’ sound). There were some moments in Orinco Flow (Enya) where the air advantage was with the D90, (truth being BOTH DACs resolved this track wonderfully)
tl: dr- correct, ‘not ready yet’ (iPadz are not professional productivity toolz- yes professionals do pro work via them, but, that is not to say they are easy/fun to work with!)
some editing and review due shortly (asap!)
Thanks for your share
great review Thank you
whitedragem
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Posts
- 619
- Likes
- 631
"aw shucks"; serously; thank you
As my fourth attempt to put a Diablo review up, I took it as a 'sign from the universe' to not waste time on it when, on the morning I came to sit down in front of the hifi and to neaten my notes.. the Diablo wouldn't start.
It is a regular glitch that randomly happens (might be three days, might be three weeks)(once happened after 'three hours') and requires plugging something into the USB to get the audio working again.
Sometimes it goes so long between needing to do this, that I forget it is a thing..
On the day in question I was starting to get agitated.. having replugged everything and checked everything.. and then I remembered.. "have to plug a USB device in for a second for it to allow me to use the SP/Dif input".
After the frustration,. I thought any honest review would need to mention that.
given I had had so many poor and even 'bad' experiences with the product (and a replacement unit), I simply took this as 'guidance' to not praise a part that I do not fully trust.
I don't do negativity, and so just move on and focus on something better.
The Diablo is a nice little tool, and the GTO firmwares that iFi allow users to install is 'something special'.
I appreciate you taking the time to share kind words.
Well wishes with'
Rene
JK67
New Head-Fier
I shared here quite some disappointment about the ifi diablo previously and I'd like to take it all back. It took me some time to come back and correct myself, apologies for that. It's an outstanding product and I don't think you can do significantly better with a desktop setup within the same price range. It required some significant burn-in time....40 hours maybe. I have never heard that much of a difference before and after burn-in on a product before. But I'll never do AB testing again on a brand new product. I recommend it wholeheartedly as a transportable solution for power-hungry headphones.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
