Just looked at SMSL RAW DAC1 vs RAW MQD1 (and Topping dx5 ii). Looks like the only difference that would matter to me at the moment is the AK4499ex vs ES9039Q2M chiset. Are there differences/benefits/tradeoffs at this point?
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
AKM vs ESS
- Thread starter mk05
- Start date
VientoB
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Why would that difference matter to you?
kemmler3D
Master Contributor
These are well-engineered DACs and AFAIK most of the tradeoffs have been dealt with to the point that they will not be audible (even a little) in use. So if that is the only sticking point for you, I guess buy the one that's cheaper or that you think looks cooler.
JSmith
Master Contributor
The only minor thing would be many ESS based DAC's expose the DPLL setting to the user, which can assist when having signal lock on issues with optical out from TV's... AKM may be more susceptible in some cases. But really the issue there is the specific TV's output being poor, not so much the DAC's.
JSmith
JSmith
raif71
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2019
- Messages
- 2,736
- Likes
- 3,036
AKM , the M stands for mmmmmmMusical
boxerfan88
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,335
- Likes
- 1,629
A stands for audiophile 
JSmith
Master Contributor
Audiophile Knee Music...
JSmith
JSmith
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2020
- Messages
- 671
- Likes
- 545
I find that the snare (left hand beat) is a bit more crisp with sharper transients when using a Yellow Circle instead of the Green Circle.
Has to be the ultimate proof in this senseless battle
solderdude
Grand Contributor
One has a built-in headphone amp the other does not.
The chipset used is of no real importance but is used as a sales argument.
Measurements of both devices are far, far below any audible thresholds (and too close) to make any audible difference when using a 'proper' reconstruction filter at 44.1kHz.
I owned an SMSL D300 which I bought in mid 2023. That DAC uses the then top of the line Sabre IC. It Signal to noise ratio and dinamic range was superb. It has a very detailed sound, but after some time I found It analytical, a bit harsh at times and unmusical. For my taste Sabre IC's give measure great with test equipment, but how It sound is a different Matter. IS not the first Sabre based DAC I owned and they were not my cup of tea.
I then moved to the AK4191+AK4499EX SMSL DO300 EX. It sounded great despite being an inexpensive DAC with a built in headphones output.
Then, I saw SMSL's D400 PRO that also uses the AK4191+AK4499EX combo, on line, read some reviews and as I could return the D300 EX, I went for the D400 PRO. And I couldn't be happier with It.
Sound is very detailed, different from the detailed sound of a Sabre IC, with a fat bass, excellent imaging (and my speakers are KEF's Q550, the cheapest floor standing speakers on their catalogue) and with well recorded and mastered recordings, from CD to SACD, to High Rez PCM, It never sounds agressive, bright or harsh, but very musical and pleasing to the ears.
An IC D/A Converter can sound different depending on how its implemented on the DAC, the quality of the surrounding components, like power supply or the quality of the opamps used and of course, the electronic design of the DAC.
But in general I've only read good reviews from DAC's and other components that use the AKM AK4191+AK4499EX combo.
But as everything, it's a matter of taste, and I can't say that Sabre IC's are bad and AKM's are better than Sabre ones.
If you need a new DAC, my advice IS to get It from Amazon or another shop that can left you taste the DAC in your system, and if you don't like It, return It and try a different one.
Just my 0.02 $.
I then moved to the AK4191+AK4499EX SMSL DO300 EX. It sounded great despite being an inexpensive DAC with a built in headphones output.
Then, I saw SMSL's D400 PRO that also uses the AK4191+AK4499EX combo, on line, read some reviews and as I could return the D300 EX, I went for the D400 PRO. And I couldn't be happier with It.
Sound is very detailed, different from the detailed sound of a Sabre IC, with a fat bass, excellent imaging (and my speakers are KEF's Q550, the cheapest floor standing speakers on their catalogue) and with well recorded and mastered recordings, from CD to SACD, to High Rez PCM, It never sounds agressive, bright or harsh, but very musical and pleasing to the ears.
An IC D/A Converter can sound different depending on how its implemented on the DAC, the quality of the surrounding components, like power supply or the quality of the opamps used and of course, the electronic design of the DAC.
But in general I've only read good reviews from DAC's and other components that use the AKM AK4191+AK4499EX combo.
But as everything, it's a matter of taste, and I can't say that Sabre IC's are bad and AKM's are better than Sabre ones.
If you need a new DAC, my advice IS to get It from Amazon or another shop that can left you taste the DAC in your system, and if you don't like It, return It and try a different one.
Just my 0.02 $.
JSmith
Master Contributor
oleg87
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Both manufacture high-performance audio converters, and a high-quality implementation of either is transparent and will not be distinguishable in an ears-only comparison. As always, sighted listening is a completely inadequate tool for gauging non-imaginary differences between DACs, hence the mountain of myths to the contrary.
Comparing two DACs without controls is like comparing two brands of distilled water, and then pretending one tastes better than the other.
Roland68
Major Contributor
The SMSL D300 does not have an ESS Sabre IC, but Rohm's flagship DAC chip BD34301EKV.
Then It must have mistaken It for the DO300. But I recall that back in 2023 It had the then top of the line Sabre IC.
Every post of this kind on ASR usually ends up as a missed opportunity, both for the poster and the community.
It is usually a missed opportunity for the poster, because he sticks to his subjective assessment without taking the effort to search for the root cause(s) of the difference(s) he perceives, while the very process of searching and understanding one's findings is self-educating. Countless past experiences have taught us that the first thing to check is if the perceived difference is actually attributable to some properties of the device under scrutiny and not some other cause(s) independent of said device. After having ruled out a faulty set-up (bad connection, inadequate configuration, and so on) or any modification of the frequency response, be it intentional (tone control, loudness control, and so on) or not (inadequate input/output impedance) or modification of the dynamic of the signal (compressor), one has to verify if he has perceived different sound by comparing two devices or if he has actually compared more than one thing. The usual culprit is the comparison of two things at the same time : two different devices and two different playback levels. In is not possible to state firmly that two devices sound different without having check that only two devices had been compared.
Checking that one's has not been fooled by listening at two slightly different playback levels takes time, effort and money. Relevant test signals has to be procured, safe use of said signals has to be learnt, adequate metering device has to be at hand and indispensable hardware to proceed the comparison after ensuring that any difference in level has been rectified has to be purchased or built.
Rarely done are those efforts. However, this is the only way to ensure that two devices and nothing else actually produce sound that is perceived differently by a listener.
Once it's clear that there's a perceptible difference in sound, it's time to check whether the listener's perception is distorted by psychological biases. This is where a blind comparison—that is, hiding the device being listened to at a given moment—is essential.
If the perceived difference remains firmly after all that process, this is the point where the community really begins to miss an opportunity.
Indeed, there are entirely objective working hypotheses that could explain why two devices with the same function and apparently the same performance in the audio band still produce a different sound in the ears of one or more listeners.
But since these listeners generally don't make the necessary effort to confirm the existence of these differences, particularly because they are dissuaded from doing so by the denigration, derisive messages, or dogmatic responses addressed to them by many forum members, the community almost never has the opportunity to educate itself by objectively testing hardware characteristics, which consequently remain largely ignored on this forum.
Similar threads
