First thing to note is this is a completely subjective impression of these DACs. So YMMV.
As this is just a subjective "review" I'm not going to get into specs, what each one comes with in the box, etc. You can get all that off any number of internet product pages for them. Or if you want to see data driven charts and evaluations of them, Amir has tested them and posted his findings.
Here though, nothing more than my "damaged" ears were used to test.
Full disclosure: I have a big dip at 2KHZ and I drop right off the chart much above 5-6khz. 20Khz is pretty much just dead air for me. Toss in a raging case of tinnitus in both ears for good measure. Sounds like that screaming "high pitched" tone they use in the movies after an explosion event. Ah, 30 years in the Airforce flying/working on choppers....good times.
My CD players are all in the 25 year range and older. They sound fine to me, but there's the old saying "the best you know is the best you've heard" so I thought I might see if there's been any significant advances in 25-odd years in processing that digital signal back into analog sound.
Wasn't looking to spend a lot and Amazon served up an SMSL SU-1 and SMSL C100 for reasonable money. Both recommended by members here on ASR as low cost/no frills options. They seem to review well and amazon offers a 30 day "no cost" return for prime members. Not much too loose there so I ordered one of each to try. Right around 250 CAD to my door. That's a total for both, together. Certainly quite affordable. You might be able to find them a little cheaper if you shop around, but the amazon return guarantee made a few bucks more worth it to me.
I tried two CD players. My main/in use one is a Kenwood CD425M, 200 cd magazine. Built in the year 2000.
The other is a Sony 5 CD carousel that I pull out of the storage room. Roughly late 80's/early 90's vintage.
Both were TOSLink connected (IE: digital optical) to the DACs. As an example, the Kenwood's ports:
The "SL16" ports are proprietary for other Kenwood gear and the RS 232 port is for use with an obsolete software package called "Netnamer". So the RCA's and Optical are the ports we're interested in.
Cued up RUSH: Snakes and Arrows. Mostly because I'm very familiar with it on CD. Straight RCA's to the Aux in on the Sansui 8080DB. This is how I normally listen to my CDs. No surprises here: Sounds great!
Then pull out both DACs. Nice and small footprint, would be easily hidden away if you wanted:
As you can see, the C100 is just a teeny tiny bit larger. Nothing of any real consequence unless you're really tight for space.
First up is the SU-1.
Well, It's not a night and day difference by any means.
But I can note more detail and separation. The highs seem just a little "crisper" and I can more easily notice the intricate details of Lifeson's guitar work. I pull the RCAs and listen to the same passage again straight to the 8080DB and....
Yep: definitely hearing more detail and separation in the music. I can still hear what I heard on with the SU-1, but I have to pay attention to hear it whereas the SU-1 just brought it forward and sharpened it up. It's just "clearer" and more distinct on the SU-1.
OK, so there seems to be at least something to the newer tech. At least to my ears.
I plug in the older Sony 5 CD and the difference is even more pronounced. Not surprising as there's a good 10-15 years between the Kenwood and the Sony. At that point, there's no need to "test" with the Sony anymore. External DAC has proven (to me) that it's a benefit to those players, or at least to this particular Sony player.
On to the C100.
To my understanding, the C100 is essentially the SU-1 with some additional features. Bluetooth, remote, some added audio filters, volume control, etc. Same chipset, although the circuitry implementation might be a little different due to the added features. Don't know either way, I just know what I can hear as I'm not taking these apart for a deeper look. That's just not necessary for me.
So I swap in the C100 with the Kenwood. Once again, there is more detail and the highs just seem..."crisper" than allowing the Kenwood to process the sound. But there is a subtle difference from the SU-1, certainly not a dramatic change. It seems a little smoother, perhaps a little fuller. Now, we're talking quite a small change from the SU-1 and someone else might hear it differently. But it is there to my ears. Or maybe it's just wanting/expecting to hear a difference. Either way, the impression is still there. But as with the SU-1, there is an audible change between using the C100 and not.
I cycle through the filters with the included remote. Not a huge change, but each has an audible effect. Some sound a little "warmer", some sound a little "fuller" and some sound a little "crisper". I'd be fine listening to any of them and I end up on the "default" setting as my preference,
So it seems that 25 years of tech is enough to make a difference in my digital sources. Notice I said MY digital sources. It's entirely possible yours may not see much of a change, if any at all. Probably comes down to the particular hardware in the player being used and how it is implemented. Or it might even be some caps (or other component parts) in the audio section of the Kenwood have just drifted off their values and bypassing the audio section is resulting in "better" sound reproduction. Dunno....and don't really care.
But there was enough of a change to make me want to keep one of these DACs in MY system, whatever the reasons behind it were/are.
The only question now is: which one?
The SU-1 is basically "set it and forget it". It's small(er) and needs no interaction so it can be hidden in behind your gear if you like. The C100 requires a little more interaction, but rewards you with more features, if that matters to you. It can be hidden away, but to use the remote it needs to be able to see the IR sensor. So the C100 is better used somewhere it can be seen. The stubby little bluetooth aerial doesn't help with any "stealth" appearance either. The small blue touchscreen, however, can be set to "auto off" after a few seconds, which helps make the box a little less conspicuous.
Maybe I'll just keep both. They certainly are affordable enough....
As this is just a subjective "review" I'm not going to get into specs, what each one comes with in the box, etc. You can get all that off any number of internet product pages for them. Or if you want to see data driven charts and evaluations of them, Amir has tested them and posted his findings.
Here though, nothing more than my "damaged" ears were used to test.
Full disclosure: I have a big dip at 2KHZ and I drop right off the chart much above 5-6khz. 20Khz is pretty much just dead air for me. Toss in a raging case of tinnitus in both ears for good measure. Sounds like that screaming "high pitched" tone they use in the movies after an explosion event. Ah, 30 years in the Airforce flying/working on choppers....good times.
My CD players are all in the 25 year range and older. They sound fine to me, but there's the old saying "the best you know is the best you've heard" so I thought I might see if there's been any significant advances in 25-odd years in processing that digital signal back into analog sound.
Wasn't looking to spend a lot and Amazon served up an SMSL SU-1 and SMSL C100 for reasonable money. Both recommended by members here on ASR as low cost/no frills options. They seem to review well and amazon offers a 30 day "no cost" return for prime members. Not much too loose there so I ordered one of each to try. Right around 250 CAD to my door. That's a total for both, together. Certainly quite affordable. You might be able to find them a little cheaper if you shop around, but the amazon return guarantee made a few bucks more worth it to me.
I tried two CD players. My main/in use one is a Kenwood CD425M, 200 cd magazine. Built in the year 2000.
The other is a Sony 5 CD carousel that I pull out of the storage room. Roughly late 80's/early 90's vintage.
Both were TOSLink connected (IE: digital optical) to the DACs. As an example, the Kenwood's ports:
The "SL16" ports are proprietary for other Kenwood gear and the RS 232 port is for use with an obsolete software package called "Netnamer". So the RCA's and Optical are the ports we're interested in.
Cued up RUSH: Snakes and Arrows. Mostly because I'm very familiar with it on CD. Straight RCA's to the Aux in on the Sansui 8080DB. This is how I normally listen to my CDs. No surprises here: Sounds great!
Then pull out both DACs. Nice and small footprint, would be easily hidden away if you wanted:
As you can see, the C100 is just a teeny tiny bit larger. Nothing of any real consequence unless you're really tight for space.
First up is the SU-1.
Well, It's not a night and day difference by any means.
But I can note more detail and separation. The highs seem just a little "crisper" and I can more easily notice the intricate details of Lifeson's guitar work. I pull the RCAs and listen to the same passage again straight to the 8080DB and....
Yep: definitely hearing more detail and separation in the music. I can still hear what I heard on with the SU-1, but I have to pay attention to hear it whereas the SU-1 just brought it forward and sharpened it up. It's just "clearer" and more distinct on the SU-1.
OK, so there seems to be at least something to the newer tech. At least to my ears.
I plug in the older Sony 5 CD and the difference is even more pronounced. Not surprising as there's a good 10-15 years between the Kenwood and the Sony. At that point, there's no need to "test" with the Sony anymore. External DAC has proven (to me) that it's a benefit to those players, or at least to this particular Sony player.
On to the C100.
To my understanding, the C100 is essentially the SU-1 with some additional features. Bluetooth, remote, some added audio filters, volume control, etc. Same chipset, although the circuitry implementation might be a little different due to the added features. Don't know either way, I just know what I can hear as I'm not taking these apart for a deeper look. That's just not necessary for me.
So I swap in the C100 with the Kenwood. Once again, there is more detail and the highs just seem..."crisper" than allowing the Kenwood to process the sound. But there is a subtle difference from the SU-1, certainly not a dramatic change. It seems a little smoother, perhaps a little fuller. Now, we're talking quite a small change from the SU-1 and someone else might hear it differently. But it is there to my ears. Or maybe it's just wanting/expecting to hear a difference. Either way, the impression is still there. But as with the SU-1, there is an audible change between using the C100 and not.
I cycle through the filters with the included remote. Not a huge change, but each has an audible effect. Some sound a little "warmer", some sound a little "fuller" and some sound a little "crisper". I'd be fine listening to any of them and I end up on the "default" setting as my preference,
So it seems that 25 years of tech is enough to make a difference in my digital sources. Notice I said MY digital sources. It's entirely possible yours may not see much of a change, if any at all. Probably comes down to the particular hardware in the player being used and how it is implemented. Or it might even be some caps (or other component parts) in the audio section of the Kenwood have just drifted off their values and bypassing the audio section is resulting in "better" sound reproduction. Dunno....and don't really care.
But there was enough of a change to make me want to keep one of these DACs in MY system, whatever the reasons behind it were/are.
The only question now is: which one?
The SU-1 is basically "set it and forget it". It's small(er) and needs no interaction so it can be hidden in behind your gear if you like. The C100 requires a little more interaction, but rewards you with more features, if that matters to you. It can be hidden away, but to use the remote it needs to be able to see the IR sensor. So the C100 is better used somewhere it can be seen. The stubby little bluetooth aerial doesn't help with any "stealth" appearance either. The small blue touchscreen, however, can be set to "auto off" after a few seconds, which helps make the box a little less conspicuous.
Maybe I'll just keep both. They certainly are affordable enough....
Last edited:
