SMSL D1 - ROHM DAC for everyone

[JanL]

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


JSmith

I never said I know exactly what it is and how to measure it. I merely stated that often there is a consistent trend in subjective evaluation of audio gear by independent listeners that points to something that is not being evaluated by the current methods, or the complete interpretation of the measurements not being quite there.

Also, if you are going to engage in a conversation, stop selectively taking half sentences out of context. That's just building a straw man fallacy. The rest of the sentence or paragraph that you chose to not quote has the answer, if you just choose to act in good faith and read it.
Otherwise you will just be ignored.

 

[conuss]

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.

It's just that you persist in not giving a clear answer! No specific devices, just your spells, which you suggest to trust!

 

[conuss]

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?

Something else will be strange here. That you are not using a device on a $10 codec, which is indistinguishable, all other things being equal, in a blind test with a device on a chip for orders of magnitude more expensive. You need to point not with your finger, but with yourself, and people will reach out to you.

 

[Roland68]

It's just that you persist in not giving a clear answer! No specific devices, just your spells, which you suggest to trust!

If you think so.
I won't name any companies here, if that's what you mean. You're free to believe what you want.
I've had plenty of trouble repairing devices where the components were obscured.

 

[JSmith]

I never said I know exactly what it is and how to measure it.

Ah so unsubstantiated opinion only, I see.

I merely stated that often there is a consistent trend in subjective evaluation of audio gear by independent listeners that points to something that is not being evaluated by the current methods, or the complete interpretation of the measurements not being quite there.

It points to no such thing... all it points to is expectation bias.


JSmith

 

[conuss]

If you think so.
I won't name any companies here, if that's what you mean. You're free to believe what you want.
I've had plenty of trouble repairing devices where the components were obscured.

I was just hoping that you would find confirmation of your words, however..., disappointment ((.

 

[JanL]

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?

Maybe, maybe not. The subject is being tricked, their existing impression is already influencing or polluting the latter result. They will tend to confirm their bias. That is a well known psychological phenomenon.

I don't know much about wine or optical systems, but I think that like in all aspects of life there is a spectrum of sensitivity and expertise in those worlds. Some people are more experienced and discerning than others. Age plays a role too. I know my hearing is not nearly as good as it was 30 years ago. Same must apply to eyesight and taste buds.

 

[JanL]

all it points to is expectation bias.

wrong. I had no expectations or bias when I first turned it on. I heard a certain quality to the sound that happened to track with what others reported, unknowingly to me. I think that would justify a closer investigation by the scientific types looking to progress the state of the art in audio and sensory perception research.

 

[JSmith]

wrong

It's clear you do not wish to learn the facts and want to continue living in DAC fairy land. ASR contains all the information you need... if you ever feel like it you could avail yourself.

JSmith

 

[Roland68]

I was just hoping that you would find confirmation of your words, however..., disappointment ((.

You know, if someone denies facts that have been known in every industry for decades, I don't care at all.
I'll post two links: one from a test and one from a forum request, so you can see for yourself how ridiculous your accusation is.
Review on Lowbeats with photo
Request from a manufacturer in a large electronics forum

 

[Roland68]

Maybe, maybe not. The subject is being tricked, their existing impression is already influencing or polluting the latter result. They will tend to confirm their bias. That is a well known psychological phenomenon.

I don't know much about wine or optical systems, but I think that like in all aspects of life there is a spectrum of sensitivity and expertise in those worlds. Some people are more experienced and discerning than others. Age plays a role too. I know my hearing is not nearly as good as it was 30 years ago. Same must apply to eyesight and taste buds.

But it's still surprising, or perhaps not, that the blinded tests are completely consistent and understandable across all participants, regardless of their experience or limitations, and also agree with measurements.
But the moment subconscious influence occurs, the results usually change completely and become inconsistent.
It's a good thing this error isn't obvious.

 

[JanL]

ASR contains all the information you need

LOL. The old, "who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes". Well, ears in this case.

There are precedents for this phenomenon. For example when digital audio was new and some listeners complained about hardness of the sound, they were dismissed by the engineers who would point to bit perfect transmission from the source to the destination.
Some time later the effects of jitter in digital audio were studied and methods to suppress it developed. The hardness of the sound was no longer reported and now jitter is a standard part of a comprehensive test suite.
All I say, is be open minded. Just because the current tests show perfection, it doesn't mean there will not be new meaningful tests in the future that might confirm why listeners report some DACs to have different quality than others.
Maybe it's not just the DAC. Maybe there is an interaction between the DAC and the given amplifier that would not show up on Audio Precision rig which is testing just the DAC alone? Just a hypothesis. Maybe that was already taken in account, but there is something else at play. That is for the new researchers to determine to earn their accolades.

 

[JSmith]

LOL. The old, "who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes". Well, ears in this case.

Did you join the wrong forum by mistake? This is ASR, so if you want to provide some evidence of your claims, please do so. Otherwise, do not spread misinformation here.


JSmith

 

[Roland68]

Did you join the wrong forum by mistake? This is ASR, so if you want to provide some evidence of your claims, please do so. Otherwise, do not spread misinformation here.


JSmith

I completely agree with @JanL. You should trust your ears.
But only if you're sure your eyes aren't involved.

 

[JanL]

I'll just leave this here for the gatekeepers.

Why the Best Scientists Are Open Minded

Primatologists and praying farmers show us why it takes a flexible brain, and many perspectives, to unlock truly groundbreaking science.

bigthink.com

 

[conuss]

You know, if someone denies facts that have been known in every industry for decades, I don't care at all.
I'll post two links: one from a test and one from a forum request, so you can see for yourself how ridiculous your accusation is.
Review on Lowbeats with photo
Request from a manufacturer in a large electronics forum

I realized that you are a superficially knowledgeable theorist who relies on this kind of information, rather than a technically advanced audio listener who necessarily depends on cutting-edge industry developments.
The links don't open, and even if they did, the question of masking the OPU model in a DAC for 40 euros would remain without an obvious answer – pure fraud, a disreputable act, a blatant scheme aimed solely at personal profit.
And I repeat, why is your DAC not $10 based on a codec, indistinguishable in a blind test, but somewhat more expensive? What causes such an absurd practical oxymoron? ))

 

[Roland68]

I realized that you are a superficially knowledgeable theorist who relies on this kind of information, rather than a technically advanced audio listener who necessarily depends on cutting-edge industry developments.
The links don't open

Are all you're getting now is slander, defamation, false statements, and false allegations?
Is that your level?
Do you think the other users in the forum don't see your behavior and what you're trying to do?

The links work fine for other users, by the way.
15 years of speaker development with DIY speaker shops and chassis manufacturers, my own speaker developments whose designs were used by manufacturers without permission, 10 years of tuning and developing audio equipment with tuners and manufacturers.
Added to that is a project in which we've been comparing, reengineering, and measuring devices with engineers, developers, measurement technicians, application developers (measurement technology), audiophiles, and manufacturers for 25 years to get to the bottom of certain phenomena. The more than 10 years I spent working with recording studios in a similar field are no longer significant.
The other area of my experience comes from our company, where we develop, manufacture, and ship high-energy products worldwide. These products are used, among other things, in stress and aging tests of all kinds of electronics and components, e.g., in capacitor production. This brings us full circle to the audio sector. Much earlier, we also built and pumped vacuum tubes for TVs, radios, and hi-fi equipment.

If someone with that kind of experience is just a superficially knowledgeable theorist to you, then you definitely need to find much more experienced people with whom you can discuss things and who can answer your questions.

That pretty much says it all from my point of view.
Are you surprised that more and more experienced users are posting less and less? There are reasons for that.
At least I won't respond to your posts in the future, since you've made it onto my ignore list.

and even if they did, the question of masking the OPU model in a DAC for 40 euros would remain without an obvious answer – pure fraud, a disreputable act, a blatant scheme aimed solely at personal profit.
And I repeat, why is your DAC not $10 based on a codec, indistinguishable in a blind test, but somewhat more expensive? What causes such an absurd practical oxymoron? ))

By the way, one last comment on your question.
I don't understand what you're trying to say with this question, or what exactly the question is. Four developers and measurement technicians in our company didn't understand it either, but that's probably our fault.

 

[truth_soldier]

oh joy, another product related thread devolves into an arg about subjective opinions. Some people never get tired of wasting time typing this rot.

 

[Sono]

Using the SU-1 for quite some time now, my only objection is that my unit tends to give up cooperation with Windows 11 from time to time. I have to unplug/replug the USB-C cable every time then to solve the problem (for some days or so).

But I guess it would be naive to believe that replacing the SU-1 with a D1 will end that issue. Or would it?

 

[oldpainless]

Using the SU-1 for quite some time now, my only objection is that my unit tends to give up cooperation with Windows 11 from time to time. I have to unplug/replug the USB-C cable every time then to solve the problem (for some days or so).

But I guess it would be naive to believe that replacing the SU-1 with a D1 will end that issue. Or would it?

On that, there are only several possibilties:

1- Windows 11 OS/some background process
2 - USB-C cable faulty
3 - laptop/hardware
4- unlikely changing from a SU-1 to D1 would fix the issue
5 - see 1, 2 and 3