SMSL D1 - ROHM DAC for everyone

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Of course not, Alexjc: merely stating that the Earth is flat is fake, but saying so was considered heresy by some at the time...

 

[RandomEar]

Hi.

In my opinion, it would be truly welcome to have a Texas Instruments engineer weigh in on the subject of op-amps when I read such nonsense: stop spreading false information and think about the proper measurements to take, rather than endlessly repeating misconceptions.

In science—which has seen prodigious progress in barely half a century—what was true or impossible yesterday is no longer so today, thanks to technological advances but, above all, thanks to those who take the time to experiment, analyze, and ultimately provide objective answers or solutions.
They do not simply dismiss what is not understood or what is being challenged with trivial remarks; they conduct research—they do not bury their heads in the sand...

Respectfully.

I linked relevant measurements on DACs and other devices. Unless you have evidence of your own contradicting the presented data, accusing others of "spreading misinformation" seems quite bold to me. But we have played this game half a dozen times now, haven't we?

 

[VientoB]

Can hear the audible differences between DACs and amplifiers. I must be an anomaly.
Write music occasionally, so I presume acute hearing.
D/A implementation, output stage component choice, quality and tolerance, cable/connector choice (built numerous interconnects) = audible differences.

There's a tiny DAC for under £20 out there that sounds incredible. Full and rich. Bought on eBay, UNBRANDED!

Ok, ok. No fun here.

You only think you can.

 

[RandomEar]

perhaps this is true. Why then are they releasing new amps? Is everything fake?

I don't know what "everything fake" would include. I don't think it applies here.

Manufacturers need to sell stuff to keep the company going. They will identify market segments and develop products for them. If there are people who believe swapping op amps or caps or cables makes an audible difference, manufacturers would be stupid not to cater to that market segment. Doesn't mean those beliefs are true

EDIT: New products can of course also be improved in other ways, they don't necessarily need to sound better (or any different at all). They can include new features, a different design and many other things.

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

@ RandomEar:

Personally, I don't view this as a game, but rather as a matter of paying close, meaningful attention to the technologies around us.

That said, rest assured that even if you *do* consider it a game, neither of us will be the "winner"—the real winners will be all those who appreciate high-quality music reproduction from their equipment.

When the time comes, you will have to admit you were wrong—even if you never actually write it down, whether here or elsewhere.

Please understand that it isn't what you write that bothers me, but rather your line of reasoning; it doesn't really reflect the mindset of someone with a scientific approach.

You cannot flatly deny or refute something you don't know or understand when so many other people observe it to be true.

If we look at the proportions: how many of us notice a difference compared to the rest?

In short, it is very rare for one person to be right against the majority, even if they are convinced of it; one must be willing to question oneself—an attitude that is entirely rational and consistent with the scientific method.

 

[RandomEar]

@ICIETDIYEUR It ends up being a game of endless replies in practice. Because I deliver at least some objective evidence, while you just continue to argue against it without delivering evidence, resort to derogatory formulations, arguments to authority and personally attacking/putting down others who oppose your views.

Just to pick up the last point about majorities and minorities: This applies to the vast majority of views popularized by ASR. They are based on objective data and verifiable performance. Nearly all of them are opposed by the majority of people in the huge audiophile and HiFi sphere. Yet, they continue to fail attempts to disprove them again and again. In contrast, valid and well controlled tests continue to support the objective ideas promoted by @amirm on this forum. So this "one against many" argument is meaningless when it comes to topics like HiFi, where that big majority simply has no clue and refuses to even consider how and why they might be wrong.

 

[Roland68]

perhaps this is true. Why then are they releasing new amps? Is everything fake?

Just take a look at reality.
We have tests here of amplifiers that are 40 years old and show measurements equal to or better than many current devices. In level-matched blind tests, too, they sound just as good or even better.
The same applies to DACs—or the DACs inside CD players—that are 20 to 30 years old.
What does that tell you?

 

[alexjc]

The same applies to DACs—or the DACs inside CD players—that are 20 to 30 years old.
What does that tell you?

there were multibit DACs there

 

[NTK]

there were multibit DACs there

Not necessarily. This CD player review was from 35 year ago.

Sony CDP-X77ES CD player | Stereophile.com

With Sony's latest flagship single-box player ($1700), we find yet another variant on 1-bit D/A technology—High Density Linear Converter, or HDLC. At the heart of this Pulse Length Modulation (footnote 1) D/A technique is Sony's CXD-2552 Pulse D/A converter (two per channel in complementary mode...

www.stereophile.com

 

[Roland68]

there were multibit DACs there

Commercial 1-bit, Bitstream, or MASH converters have been used in CD players and DACs since 1989—that is, for only 37 years.

 

[antcollinet]

perhaps this is true. Why then are they releasing new amps? Is everything fake?

Different applications need different specifications. You might not be able to use an opamp suitable for audio in a video circuit, for example.

For audio though there have been numerous devices available for decades with performance way beyond the limits of human hearing.

As far as "audiophile" op amps - sparkos etc. It is all just snake oil. They are releasing them to extract money from the gullible.

 

[antcollinet]

Can hear the audible differences between DACs and amplifiers. I must be an anomaly.
Write music occasionally, so I presume acute hearing.
D/A implementation, output stage component choice, quality and tolerance, cable/connector choice (built numerous interconnects) = audible differences.

There's a tiny DAC for under £20 out there that sounds incredible. Full and rich. Bought on eBay, UNBRANDED!

Ok, ok. No fun here.

You need to try hearing those differences in a controlled level matched and blind ABX test. You won't be able to unless one or both of the devices you are comparing is badly performing, or being operated outside of its limits (eg an amp driven to clipping)

 

[aagstn]

there were multibit DACs there

I have several 20+ and 30+ year old players that do not have multibit DACs.

 

[alexjc]

then there should be no difference between the DACs. because $20 and $200 DAC performance way beyond the limits of human hearing

 

[mocenigo]

perhaps this is true. Why then are they releasing new amps? Is everything fake?

There are always people buying new amps, or willing to try something different and trying to persuade themselves there may be great differences, amplifiers break and need to be replaced, so why not buy the most recent model, and new customers. Releasing new ones is also fundamental in marketing.

But, more seriously, we can still improve on features or on energy efficiency. Even the best Class D amps are not spectacularly efficient at the low end of their output, and reach the advertised efficiency only close to the maximal rated power output.

And then, some companies like Purifi and Hypex are in a race to get the best and most absurdly low values of noise and distortion, which, even if we are clearly beyond what is audible, at least is something that can be measured and an owner has something real to brag about.

 

[Roland68]

then there should be no difference between the DACs. because $20 and $200 DAC performance way beyond the limits of human hearing

You shouldn't confuse the price of the DAC—or the DAC chip itself—with the value of the implementation.
With the right implementation, a modern DAC chip costing a manufacturer €5 or less can achieve performance levels that far exceed the limits of human hearing. Dongle DACs in the €25–35 range have already demonstrated this here on ASR.

During level-matched blind tests, we’ve frequently encountered guests who adamantly claimed they could easily distinguish between DAC chip manufacturers (such as AKM, ESS, BB, or Rohm) or DAC technologies (like R2R or 1-bit converters) because the differences were supposedly so vast.
Some also claimed they could easily tell any Chinese DAC (SMSL, Topping, etc.) apart from their own expensive units—some costing well into five figures.
All of them failed; in many cases, they even identified the "wrong" device as the superior one.
Of course, this applies only to flawless implementations and well-engineered DACs, regardless of price point.
The D1 discussed here falls into that category as well.

 

[alexjc]

You shouldn't confuse the price of the DAC—or the DAC chip itself—with the value of the implementation.
With the right implementation, a modern DAC chip costing a manufacturer €5 or less can achieve performance levels that far exceed the limits of human hearing. Dongle DACs in the €25–35 range have already demonstrated this here on ASR.

Of course, I mean a finished DAC device, and not a single chip. I thought a dispute would start that the DACs are different, but the opamp is not. But it turns out there is no point in an expensive DAC either) I’m glad that our D1 is also good.

 

[GPJ]

I have both, but I prefer listening with the D1. It's even outperformed my DO400 in the long run.

I'd be very interested in learning how you arrived at this conclusion. The DO400 is audibly transparent.

 

[Roland68]

I'd be very interested in learning how you arrived at this conclusion. The DO400 is audibly transparent.

For the past 26 years, we have been conducting blind, level-matched comparative tests as part of a project.
In one such simple test, we compared the DO400 against the D1 and other budget DACs.
The D1 achieved a repeatable score of 7–8 out of 10 across six listeners; this indicates only a minimal difference in transparency.

However, the comparison was unfair for three reasons.
We used the LCD-5 headphones, which, in our experience, are among the most transparent headphones available; the difference might well be smaller—or even inaudible—with other, less expensive headphones.
We paired the D1 with a Topping A70 Pro headphone amplifier; in terms of measurements, this amp outperforms the one built into the DO400, albeit only slightly.
Perhaps the most critical factor for the DO400 was that we used its internal digital volume control, whereas we used the analog volume control for the D1/A70 Pro setup. As you can see from @NTTY’s measurements comparing the analog volume control of the D200 with the digital one of the D50 III, this can make a significant difference.
Taken together, these three factors could easily account for the results we observed.

 

[GPJ]

Do you have publically available info on your testing methods and results? Love to see those thanks!

I did not realize transparent DAC's could be distinguished, especially here at ASR. Not so black and white overall, is that the message? I'm confused.