SMSL D1 - ROHM DAC for everyone

[conuss]

Those types of comments just perpetuate myths about audio, nothing personal.


JSmith

So, if a device simply has a codec and works perfectly, then for YOU it is equivalent to the sound quality of the best measured DAC?..

 

[Svend P]

So, if a device simply has a codec and works perfectly, then for YOU it is equivalent to the sound quality of the best measured DAC?..

Pssst!

How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

I know there are people out there that think cables affect sound, which is much worse, but there really is no response to something like that, but just to smile and nod. But what about people who talk about DACS as if they were headphone drivers or speakers, and talk about the SOUNDSTAGE...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[JanL]

DACs have a sound that varies from model to model. Ask anyone who has been involved in music production over the last 30 years or so. Even the old first generation 20 18 bit ADAT and Digidesign converters measured better than the theoretical 16 bit converters, but they were pretty bad sounding. Over the years companies like Apogee, Avid, Yamaha, Lynx, dCS, Tascam, Alesis, Radar, and bunch of others have constantly worked on better sounding products, used newer and better DAC chips by companies like AKM, Burr Brown, Analog Devices, Philips, Sony, Cirrus Logic and things did audibly improve. All those improvements would probably be classified by the gatekeepers on this board as below the threshold of human perception, but they did make a difference to the people who used them for living.

Personally I started out on the first gen Akai hard disk recorders in the early 90's, then had a 24 track ADAT studio that went from the original black face models to the second gen models. Then I went to work for one of the biggest sound reinforcement and AV integrations companies and had my hands and ears on a ton of digital gear including DSP processors, digital consoles and other digital AV gear. It's not hard to tell the original Yamaha M7 mixer from a more modern Yamaha digital mixer or a DiGiCo mixer from a Studer or SSL product. Same for the older DSP processors and the newer ones. The quality of AD and DA converters is not hard to discern with no processing applied.

 

[conuss]

JSmith
You should acquire the appropriate meaning and approach the phenomenon of sound as an assessment of auditory sensations, the organization of which is built with varying degrees of emotional involvement, including levels of technical and aesthetic sound-path equipment.

 

[kazuviking]

can anyone confirm which opamps are used in D1?

Your bog standard OPA1612 and OPA1611 i think. I highly doubt its NE5532/34 as it requires some crazy feedback and layout to achieve this kind of distortion.

 

[Roland68]

Your bog standard OPA1612 and OPA1611 i think. I highly doubt its NE5532/34 as it requires some crazy feedback and layout to achieve this kind of distortion.

I would assume they're NE5532s or something cheaper, since it's ROHM's standard layout based on the NE5532, and the measured values are in the same range as the evaluation board.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have ground down the op amps.
It could even be an op amp that's not from the usual audio range.

 

[conuss]

I would assume they're NE5532s or something cheaper, since it's ROHM's standard layout based on the NE5532, and the measured values are in the same range as the evaluation board.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have ground down the op amps.
It could even be an op amp that's not from the usual audio range.

And in what cases do they erase the markings on operational amplifiers? Does this happen anywhere else, except among Chinese high-tech swindlers?..

 

[Roland68]

And in what cases do they erase the markings on operational amplifiers? Does this happen anywhere else, except among Chinese high-tech swindlers?..

Why do you speak of high-tech fraudsters? That would also apply to many American and European manufacturers, not just those in the audio industry.
In most cases, it's simply a matter of no one knowing which components are being used, partly to secure competitive advantages and knowledge. This was already done over 40 years ago, for example, with logic ICs or memory chips. Nothing new and nothing wrong.

 

[kazuviking]

Otherwise, they wouldn't have ground down the op amps.

SMSL usually grinds down most of their opamps so it can be anything really. In the D1 its more like a tape and not grinded down. NVM its grinded down.

Got the idea of cutting off and desoldering the coax rca and adding a 4.4mm pentaconn for balanced out. Looked in the datasheet and its super easy to wire it in since SMSL followed the example circuit.

 

[conuss]

Why do you speak of high-tech fraudsters? That would also apply to many American and European manufacturers, not just those in the audio industry.
In most cases, it's simply a matter of no one knowing which components are being used, partly to secure competitive advantages and knowledge. This was already done over 40 years ago, for example, with logic ICs or memory chips. Nothing new and nothing wrong.

"'High-tech' here turned out to be merely a translation difficulty. Of course, this refers to cases in the everyday Chinese audio industry, rather than in rocket and space technology.
And yet, does something similar occur in comparable branded products from American and European manufacturers?

 

[Svend P]

DACs have a sound that varies from model to model.

This is what reviewers tells you a DAC does:

This is how they all meassure

 

[sabih]

Ne5532 is actually an excellent opamp.
I could be more than happy if smsl uses original ne5532 and not some cheap jrc ones that are very common in Japanese mass market equipment.

 

[conuss]

Ne5532 is actually an excellent opamp.
I could be more than happy if smsl uses original ne5532 and not some cheap jrc ones that are very common in Japanese mass market equipment.

Meanwhile, THIS Chinese manufacturer is experiencing true happiness, allowing itself to openly and defiantly lead the hopeful user by the nose.

 

[Roland68]

DACs have a sound that varies from model to model. Ask anyone who has been involved in music production over the last 30 years or so. Even the old first generation 20 18 bit ADAT and Digidesign converters measured better than the theoretical 16 bit converters, but they were pretty bad sounding. Over the years companies like Apogee, Avid, Yamaha, Lynx, dCS, Tascam, Alesis, Radar, and bunch of others have constantly worked on better sounding products, used newer and better DAC chips by companies like AKM, Burr Brown, Analog Devices, Philips, Sony, Cirrus Logic and things did audibly improve. All those improvements would probably be classified by the gatekeepers on this board as below the threshold of human perception, but they did make a difference to the people who used them for living.

Personally I started out on the first gen Akai hard disk recorders in the early 90's, then had a 24 track ADAT studio that went from the original black face models to the second gen models. Then I went to work for one of the biggest sound reinforcement and AV integrations companies and had my hands and ears on a ton of digital gear including DSP processors, digital consoles and other digital AV gear. It's not hard to tell the original Yamaha M7 mixer from a more modern Yamaha digital mixer or a DiGiCo mixer from a Studer or SSL product. Same for the older DSP processors and the newer ones. The quality of AD and DA converters is not hard to discern with no processing applied.

But all DACs that have a "sound" must be technically considered defective.
Most people aren't even aware of the purpose of a DAC, and it has nothing to do with audio. Most DACs are used in industry, measurement technology, automotive, avionics, science, etc.
DACs and ADCs only have the task of converting existing data from digital to analog, or vice versa. This is absolute and precise data; there's no room for interpretation.
If two different DACs produce different results from the same data, then either one or both DACs are defective.

The diagram posted by @Svend P illustrates this quite well.
If a DAC audibly deviates from the original music signal, then it has altered it and failed in its intended purpose.

By the way, hundreds of our blind tests have always yielded the same result. When the testers could no longer see the devices, the audible differences disappeared in most cases. However, the actual audible differences were clearly measurable.
Strange, isn't it?

 

[Roland68]

"'High-tech' here turned out to be merely a translation difficulty. Of course, this refers to cases in the everyday Chinese audio industry, rather than in rocket and space technology.
And yet, does something similar occur in comparable branded products from American and European manufacturers?

I already wrote that.
You can find obscured/illegible electronic components from almost all manufacturers, not just in the audio sector. This is a very effective tool against product piracy, technology theft, and counterfeiting. And as I said, it's been going on for decades and isn't illegal.

And as long as the manufacturer doesn't advertise using a specific component, it can't be fraud.

 

[conuss]

I already wrote that.
You can find obscured/illegible electronic components from almost all manufacturers, not just in the audio sector. This is a very effective tool against product piracy, technology theft, and counterfeiting. And as I said, it's been going on for decades and isn't illegal.

And as long as the manufacturer doesn't advertise using a specific component, it can't be fraud.

I also replied to you that I am not interested in ALL manufacturers, but exclusively in well-known American and European ones in the branded Hi-Fi and Hi-End sector. But you either missed this or ignored it ((. So why make such a statement if you cannot specifically confirm it?

 

[JanL]

But all DACs that have a "sound" must be technically considered defective.
Most people aren't even aware of the purpose of a DAC, and it has nothing to do with audio. Most DACs are used in industry, measurement technology, automotive, avionics, science, etc.
DACs and ADCs only have the task of converting existing data from digital to analog, or vice versa. This is absolute and precise data; there's no room for interpretation.
If two different DACs produce different results from the same data, then either one or both DACs are defective.

The diagram posted by @Svend P illustrates this quite well.
If a DAC audibly deviates from the original music signal, then it has altered it and failed in its intended purpose.

By the way, hundreds of our blind tests have always yielded the same result. When the testers could no longer see the devices, the audible differences disappeared in most cases. However, the actual audible differences were clearly measurable.
Strange, isn't it?

Whatever the difference is between the different converters, it must be measurable because typically different people acting independently all have similar comments about specific devices. It's a question of measuring the right aspects of the converters. For example I have not seen anyone in this thread commenting about the D1 being the opposite of bass strong. It's either that or "I can't hear any difference". Makes one think, there should be something about the way it reproduces the low frequencies in relation to the treble that makes is sound a certain way to some listeners. I heard smooth treble as compared to the other two CS43131 based DACs I had on hand right away. And went on record that the low mids and bass in the D1 have a quality to them that is not present in the other two. I only read through the rest of the thread later and noticed that some posters have a similar impression.

Blind tests have their own problems. I participated in a few and have my own suspicions as to why they become so difficult for the participants. I don't know if there was a scientific study that looked at audio perception under different conditions, but there should be.

 

[Roland68]

Ich habe Ihnen auch geantwortet, dass mich nicht ALLE Hersteller interessieren, sondern ausschließlich namhafte amerikanische und europäische im Marken-HiFi- und Hi-End-Bereich. Das haben Sie aber entweder übersehen oder ignoriert ((. Warum also eine solche Aussage, wenn Sie es nicht konkret bestätigen können?

Offenbar wollen Sie die Antwort nicht verstehen. Ja, selbst namhafte amerikanische und europäische Audiohersteller machen das. Ich habe in den letzten 35 Jahren einige Tausend solcher Geräte von innen gesehen. Selbst bei einfachen Dingen wie Netzfiltern wurden die Komponenten verdeckt, um einen Nachbau zu erschweren.

Sehr bekannte Fälle sind beispielsweise abgeschliffene Transistoren/ICs in Verstärkern wie dem TDA7293, LM3886T usw., weil die Hersteller natürlich verhindern wollten, dass jemand herausfindet, dass solche einfachen und günstigen ICs in Markenverstärkern verbaut wurden, die 5.000 € oder mehr kosten.
Doch genau das führte zum Hype um sogenannte Gain-Clone-Verstärker.
Auch bei vielen namhaften CD-Playern wurden Bauteile abgeschliffen.

Zu den weiteren Vorgehensweisen, auch bei namhaften Herstellern, zählen das Vergießen, Überlackieren, Aufkleben von Aluminium-/Kupferplatten oder Kühlkörpern, das Abdichten kleiner, geschlossener Gehäuse durch Kleben, Löten oder Schweißen usw.

Grundsätzlich finde ich das ok, allerdings wird es gerade von namhaften Audioherstellern oft so gemacht, um die billigen und einfachen Komponenten zu verschleiern, die in Geräten verbaut werden, die mehrere Tausend oder gar Zehntausend Euro kosten. Der zweite Grund ist die Schaffung von „Mythen“/„Geheimnissen“ und „legendären“ Geräten.

Aber das ist in diesem Thread etwas abseits des Themas.

 

[JSmith]

It's a question of measuring the right aspects of the converters

Please, elaborate... we want to know what you know.


JSmith

 

[Roland68]

Whatever the difference is between the different converters, it must be measurable because typically different people acting independently all have similar comments about specific devices. It's a question of measuring the right aspects of the converters. For example I have not seen anyone in this thread commenting about the D1 being the opposite of bass strong. It's either that or "I can't hear any difference". Makes one think, there should be something about the way it reproduces the low frequencies in relation to the treble that makes is sound a certain way to some listeners. I heard smooth treble as compared to the other two CS43131 based DACs I had on hand right away. And went on record that the low mids and bass in the D1 have a quality to them that is not present in the other two. I only read through the rest of the thread later and noticed that some posters have a similar impression.

Blind tests have their own problems. I participated in a few and have my own suspicions as to why they become so difficult for the participants. I don't know if there was a scientific study that looked at audio perception under different conditions, but there should be.

A blind test is only stressful for those who think they need to hear a difference.

But there are many examples, even in scientifically conducted tests, that deliver very clear results that can be repeated as often as needed.
If you swap the devices using a trick, so that the tester thinks they know which device they're listening to, then the sound impression remains the same as before the swap.
That really says everything you need to know about it, doesn't it?

In the same way, there are statements and examples where, due to an error, the device wasn't switched to another device at all, or the other device wasn't even connected.
Nevertheless, the testers repeatedly heard the differences between the devices.
These tests were also deliberately conducted with the same results.

With these online reports, you forget that the testers aren't testing these devices alone, but in a chain with other devices and their speakers. There are usually enough possibilities and reasons for perceived differences, if any exist.

By the way, I have another example from a project where we developed something for a wine tasting society. Completely blind tastings were introduced some time ago. People in the industry went berserk because they were against it.
Interestingly, the results were completely different, even among the same tasters, depending on whether the tasters knew which wine they were drinking or not.
Additional tests with swapped wine labels also showed that most tasters are extremely influenced by the label.
Since these blinded tests were introduced, the chemical analyses have also been in perfect agreement with the test results.

Strange, isn't it? Two completely different areas, yet absolutely comparable results.

By the way, we experienced the same thing in the photography industry when we had people evaluate the bokeh of lenses in images.
Completely different results, depending on whether the lens used was known or not.
The results without knowledge of the lens used were, incidentally, extremely consistent across several thousand testers.
The results with knowledge of the lens used were completely confusing and did not allow any conclusions to be drawn.
The whole thing led to a minor war of faith between specialist editors and professional photographers at the time, but it was quickly over when these people themselves conducted the blinded comparison and got exactly the same results as the masses.

That's three cases of people exhibiting the same behavior on completely different topics. And this applies to hearing, sight and taste.
Unbelievable, isn't it?