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
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.
Op amps? Nah, as long as performance didn't change, couldn't care less. That's not what has people irate.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Op amps? Nah, as long as performance didn't change, couldn't care less. That's not what has people irate.
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.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
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-810940Retailer says they contacted Smsl and that they are unaware of this problem.
Pretty much what was predicted would be the result given update tools aren't a real option for the M500Retailer 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
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
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.
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.they are asking me for proof
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.
This kind of foul stinking skulduggery has got to be called out
I think its a common and legal trick only in China