strange SMSL M500 high 3rd harmonic

[Toliandar]

REW is free, get the 5.20 beta for measurement purposes. Great software.
And any halfway decent USB interface will do to show that -75dB distortion spike, maybe even an onboard soundcard.

Cheers

 

[Jimbob54]

You don't think that's utterly criminal ?

That would lose my custom to SMSL real quick, I haven't read this long ass post has this been investigated or resolved?

If they pulled that shit with me and I found out I'd piss through there letterbox - as a start.

This kind of foul stinking skulduggery has got to be called out by the community as a team, not made light of. TOO much of this goes on in all facets of marketing today and I for one have no more tolerance left.

Op amps? Nah, as long as performance didn't change, couldn't care less. That's not what has people irate.

 

[johnmato]

Their latest website shows that they are using lme49720, not opa1612. I think they made a cost down without noticing anyone. It’s a common fcking trick in Chinese company.

also, in product flyer it states it's using opa1612:

View attachment 125630

tear down reveals they are three lme49720:


View attachment 125634

Currently, OPA1612 costs $4.35 while LME49720 costs $1.43. so this is just 1/3 of the price.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I did that same thing a couple of weeks ago. Returned my SU-9 to Amazon for a refund. I got tired of mucking around with all of these "popular" DACs that end up having one issue or another, and bought a RME ADI-2 DAC FS. Yes, it's expensive, but the VALUE of what I got for the price far outweighs the additional cost IMO. It is infinitely adjustable, has a wonderful, informative display, has a *fantastic* built-in headphone amplifier and parametric EQ, is rock-solid, and it sounds great. Best audio purchase I've made in a LONG time.

Goodbye, S.M.S.L. Goodbye, Topping. And good luck.

I'm glad that you settled on what you like. For many people, actually, it really shouldn't be about the newest shiny "toys". For some time we have hope that a new product would fix all previously found issues. But reality is new issues would come. Original ADI2 DAC was released long time ago. Perhaps continuing polish a product till it's bullet proof is more ideal. And certainly, you get what you pay for.

 

[somebodyelse]

Their latest website shows that they are using lme49720, not opa1612. I think they made a cost down without noticing anyone. It’s a common fcking trick in Chinese company.

It's a common 'trick' wherever the company is from, either for cost or component availability. Much of the time it's benign as the performance remains unchanged, as it probably does in this case since the opamps are still good. If they weren't making a point of using specific components in their sales literature it's likely nobody would be bothered. The confusion around the ADC and DAC in the MOTU Ultralite Mk4 probably falls into this category too. Other times performance takes a significant hit but they get away with it because nobody's spotted it, or because it's still within the published specification. We've seen examples of this with the capacitor substitution that prompted the retest of the Denon X6700H, and the discrepancy between tests of the Behringer UCA202 and UCA222 that seems to be due to them swapping the TI codec in the early production for a generic that doesn't perform so well in the later ones. It's not limited to audio either - in PC hardware linux users often find changes of chipset from one that works with linux to one that doesn't, while the model name/number remains unchanged. Oddly this happens more with known brands - the generics seem to be more upfront about their changes.

 

[Hotwetrat]

Op amps? Nah, as long as performance didn't change, couldn't care less. That's not what has people irate.

I don't know enough to know what an op amp even is I just can't abide blatant intentional marketing deception, and I think it should be regulated with consequences

 

[Jimbob54]

I don't know enough to know what an op amp even is I just can't abide blatant intentional marketing deception, and I think it should be regulated with consequences

They were crap at changing the marketing materials to match the change in component. Had they never mentioned the op amp type in the first place its quite possible nobody would have known or cared. Their far bigger problem is not acknowledging (or solving properly) the distortion issue this thread is mainly about.

 

[JSmith]

Retailer says they contacted Smsl and that they are unaware of this problem.

Retailer needs to contact Shenzengaudio… they distribute the SU-9 under license. They have already responded to some members emails acknowledging the problem and suggested they would send out update tools, however now they say they won't do this and to return the product direct to them for "repair" at buyers expense. That was referred to in this post; https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...balanced-dac-review.16150/page-41#post-810940



JSmith

 

[KSTR]

They sure have a disclaimer in their docs like "Technical data subject to change without notice". Obviously this also applies in-house, so the marketing dept. may not even know that there was a change.

 

[Jimbob54]

Retailer needs to contact Shenzengaudio… they distribute the SU-9 under license. They have already responded to some members emails acknowledging the problem and suggested they would send out update tools, however now they say they won't do this and to return the product direct to them for "repair" at buyers expense. That was referred to in this post; https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...balanced-dac-review.16150/page-41#post-810940



JSmith

Pretty much what was predicted would be the result given update tools aren't a real option for the M500

 

[bloodshoteyed]

you can't seriously expect that more than a few % of customers would actually know/understand what to do with a flash tool (which itself isn't free)...except if you'd be willing to down the cost for it and not aknowledge warranty for user induced damages if the flashing went wrong

either way, time to rethink buying cheap(er) stuff abroad, i'd say

 

[Jimbob54]

you can't seriously expect that more than a few % of customers would actually know/understand what to do with a flash tool (which itself isn't free)...except if you'd be willing to down the cost for it and not aknowledge warranty for user induced damages if the flashing went wrong

either way, time to rethink buying cheap(er) stuff abroad, i'd say

Exactly the conclusion I have reached. I was one of the ones who had a headphone termination event with the Topping L30 amp. (Side note, Topping acted pretty well around that whole issue I think. SMSL should take note) and I own the M500.

Thats around £450 of kit that has serious "issues". After the L30 I bit the bullet and bought an RME ADI DAC 2- yes it is more expensive than the combined pair, but it is rock solid and frankly great. Peace of mind is priceless.

My takeaway is this:

If you're going to buy cheaper stuff, dont buy the kit that costs £00s, buy the things that costs £0s. The dongles and the like. I will swallow a £40 dongle that dies after a year of good service. I cant swallow a £300 DAC/amp that performs less well than the £40 dongle when sold as class leading performance. Measurements are really only part of the story, and frankly not the most important part.

 

[USER]

Has the issue been confirmed publicly at all by SMSL?

I contacted Apos Audio, an otherwise great retailer, about the issue with respect to my M500. I wanted to know about what they know, their plans, and the extended warranty they offered for it. After several days and emails apologizing for the delay, they are asking me for proof that SMSL has even recognized the issue. As far as I know, they have only confirmed the issue privately to people like Wolf, which is a super shrewd move if you think about it--if this is the case.

If you purchased the unit from one of the better retailers, they should still be under warranty, which is usually 2 years as with Apos. But as long as the issue is not recognized I don't see the retailers doing anything about it. In some ways I feel bad for a retailer like Apos that put faith in such companies with terrible quality control, enough to offer an extended warranty. But I am thinking this lack of public acknowledgement is deliberate for this reason. If anyone can point out to such an acknowledgement, I'd appreciate it.

 

[nhatlam96]

I returned my M500 without problems, even after the 30 day period. With the money then I bought Topping Dx3 Pro and Addidas Ultra boost 20

 

[johnmato]

please check their website. The spec shows they are using LMEs but the brief key features shows using OPA1612.

I think its a common and legal trick only in China

It's a common 'trick' wherever the company is from, either for cost or component availability. Much of the time it's benign as the performance remains unchanged, as it probably does in this case since the opamps are still good. If they weren't making a point of using specific components in their sales literature it's likely nobody would be bothered. The confusion around the ADC and DAC in the MOTU Ultralite Mk4 probably falls into this category too. Other times performance takes a significant hit but they get away with it because nobody's spotted it, or because it's still within the published specification. We've seen examples of this with the capacitor substitution that prompted the retest of the Denon X6700H, and the discrepancy between tests of the Behringer UCA202 and UCA222 that seems to be due to them swapping the TI codec in the early production for a generic that doesn't perform so well in the later ones. It's not limited to audio either - in PC hardware linux users often find changes of chipset from one that works with linux to one that doesn't, while the model name/number remains unchanged. Oddly this happens more with known brands - the generics seem to be more upfront about their changes.

 

[kiyu]

Now I wondering if the new SMSL SU-8s has the same issue...
another Dac (9068as ) same as Gustard x16, but who knows...

 

[JSmith]

they are asking me for proof

SMSL don't need to recognise the issue, send Apos the measurements graphs here, tell them you've also tested yours and it doesn't meet advertised spec. Amazon are taking returns, they seem to acknowledge the issue.



JSmith

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

So i asked my retailer for a return (SU-9) and refund or for the fix to be arranged for.
Retailer says they contacted Smsl and that they are unaware of this problem.

So yes, not having an official response and recognition of the problem is an issue.

not sure where you are located or your local laws but in Australia the retailer is 100% responsible for returns. Under consumer law they can not pass the buck to the manufacturer.

 

[chefffe]

If the "end-result" is now that SMSL will not actively do anything and not send out the fixing tool(s) to customers then the test result from Amir must be changed accordingly. All buyers who bought/buy these two devices because of Amirs result are else cheated ...

I am very happy now about my decision to send it back ... it is for sure not worth the 400€ as it is with the bug.

 

[Moderate Dionysianism]

This kind of foul stinking skulduggery has got to be called out

I think its a common and legal trick only in China

Take a deep breath, because I'm pretty sure most product documentation has something like this:

Or this:

Are you tearing down every appliance you buy and go through the parts to check for tricks and skulduggery?
I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see such clauses banned and manufacturers required to announce any product revision. That would be hard to enforce in the age of subcontracting though, and I expect such regulations would irk the free market fandom, so here we are.