SMSL D200 DAC Review

[tokyo_blues]

Yes you can.

Confirmed.

It recalls the last position at start-up even if you power it off with the back switch button.

Yes:

View attachment 495746


No, it recalls the last position.

Note there are 3 options in the setup menu (PRE MODE) for the front knob:

• PRE AMP : variable output, front knob is active
• FIXED CHOSEN: will fix the output for the current attenuation, front knob is then inactive
• FIXED MAX: will fix the output at 2Vrms (unbalanced) or 4Vrms (unbalanced), front knob is then inactive

Note also that with variable output (PRE AMP selected), the output is 2.5Vrms at 0dBFS for unbalanced and 5Vrms for balanced.

Thank you!

 

[NTTY]

Did you have it set to -2db to reduce intersample overs?

No, it was for compatibility reason with Amir's reviews, to have the output at 4Vrms.

 

[NTTY]

By the way, here are some tests using the volume knob vs attenuating in digital domain.

When attenuating the digital input by few dBs, we inevitably reduce the resolution of the DAC (say the SINAD) by the same. When using a volume control post-DAC, this might not be the case, so let's try to compare what the D200 can achieve.

First, this a 1kHz @0dBFS (Full Scale) when the D200 is set to its max output, and that is 5Vrms (balanced outputs):

Unfortunately, at this high 5Vrms output, I can't reduce the headroom of my ADC for better precision (it is preceded by a scaler, of which next step is +6dB), meaning the D200 should achieve 19bits without that measurement limitation.

Now, if I reduce the volume by -1.5dB, I get 4.2Vrms output, and so I can increase the gain of my scaler to get the ADC in a its highest precision range:

Let's compare if I send a digital signal attenuated by -1.5dB and let the Volume at 0dB:

This exactly the same result.

Now, let's do the same at higher attenuation, for instance -6dB, which brings the output down to 2.5Vrms. The below is the comparison between doing it in digital domain (left view) versus with volume control (which acts after the DAC, as explained before):

This time we have a difference. Decreasing the digital volume slightly decreased the SINAD by nearly 3dB while it remained the same when attenuating with the Volume knob.

Let's try lower, @-12dB, therefore 1.25Vrms output:

The difference is now significative. In tems of SINAD and therefore ENOB, we loose more than 1bit of resolution when decreasing the output digitally, compared to using the volume knob. This means that the volume control of the D200 is very precise and ensures minimum loss. It is to be preferred if you need to attenuate the output of this DAC.

 

[bogi]

Thanks @NTTY .

My ways is:
1) software digital volume control in HQPlayer (few dB only) to avoid possible intersample overflows with some recordings
2) no volume control in DAC to let it do its best
3) analog volume control in my headamp (Alps pot).

My headamp gain is adequate for my headphones, no overkill, so I am using levels not so much far from max.

My D300 DAC does not have analog volume control. With D200 one could compare analog volume control in DAC vs in headamp.
Quite technically, is it possible to give a recommendation for such a case, which solution likely brings less noise/distortion? I mean good performing Alps pot vs. 1x NJU72315 per channel.

 

[NTTY]

I wouldn’t know the answer to that one as I guess it depends on the quality of the Alps, but it would be a challenge to have the same linearity and channel balance than what I measured here.

 

[Roland68]

I wouldn’t know the answer to that one as I guess it depends on the quality of the Alps, but it would be a challenge to have the same linearity and channel balance than what I measured here.

It would be a coincidence and an absolute exception if a potentiometer, even a good one, could achieve anything close to the same linearity and channel balance as these volume ICs or relay-based volume controls, especially in the initial range.

There used to be hand-selected versions of TDK's conductive plastic potentiometer, and others, which were also very expensive, but those days are long gone.

 

[NTTY]

I did some complementary tests yesterday evening and captured the below results.
For those, I used a Topping D50III, kind of a reference, with digital volume control. And I compared with the D200 at different levels of attenuation: I sent a constant 1kHz @0dBFS, and then attenuated the output using their respective volume controls. I then captured key elements of performances, the THD+N, THD and ENOB:

As you can see, if the Topping does better than the D200 in pure performances above -10dB, the D200 leads from -10dB and below.

This means that the D200 is recommended if your plan to use it as a preamp. Its volume control is not as advanced as the one of an RME ADI-2 DAC for instance, but it is nice to see that you can keep a high level of precision even with significant attenuation. It is also good to confirm that digital volume attenuation, pre-conversion, can be beaten by a well-designed volume IC.

 

[Roland68]

I did some complementary tests yesterday evening and captured the below results.
For those, I used a Topping D50III, kind of a reference, with digital volume control. And I compared with the D200 at different levels of attenuation: I sent a constant 1kHz @0dBFS, and then attenuated the output using their respective volume controls. I then captured key elements of performances, the THD+N, THD and ENOB:

View attachment 496099

As you can see, if the Topping does better than the D200 in pure performances above -10dB, the D200 leads from -10dB and below.

This means that the D200 is recommended if your plan to use it as a preamp. Its volume control is not as advanced as the one of an RME ADI-2 DAC for instance, but it is nice to see that you can keep a high level of precision even with significant attenuation. It is also good to confirm that digital volume attenuation, pre-conversion, can be beaten by a well-designed volume IC.

It's amazing what this tiny NJU72315 can do; size isn't everything .
Even more astonishing are the 16 contacts on such a small IC.

Perhaps I missed it, but did you ever run the Calculated ENOB/Percentage of Max Resolution Achieved test with the D200 and the PL200T?
Alternatively, perhaps with a DX-7355 and the D200?

 

[NTTY]

I guess you mean that test I invented with shape dither to check how deep a CD player can at -12dBFS.
Sure, here you go, with the SMSL PL200T and Onkyo DX-7355 both feeding the D200 via coax input:

I would obtain the same results with any CD players I have on the bench. So that is the max possible 16.7bits +2bits (for the -12dBFS attenuation), ie 18.7bits. This trace perfectly overlays the one from the WAV file directly:

The dashboard shows the result from the WAV file calculation.

 

[Pictus]

I did some complementary tests yesterday evening and captured the below results.(...)

Thank you for the tests.
Do you prefer the SMSL D200 or Topping D50III(ignore the PEQ) ?

 

[NTTY]

Thank you for the tests.
Do you prefer the SMSL D200 or Topping D50III(ignore the PEQ) ?

On pure performance perspective, I'd prefer the D200 and I'm happy I did these tests because I was using the Toppin D50III as a generator for my phono tests, but I'll now use the D200 which has a much higher resolution at low output levels, and I need that!

 

[Roland68]

I guess you mean that test I invented with shape dither to check how deep a CD player can at -12dBFS.
Sure, here you go, with the SMSL PL200T and Onkyo DX-7355 both feeding the D200 via coax input:

View attachment 496161

I would obtain the same results with any CD players I have on the bench. So that is the max possible 16.7bits +2bits (for the -12dBFS attenuation), ie 18.7bits. This trace perfectly overlays the one from the WAV file directly:

View attachment 496166

The dashboard shows the result from the WAV file calculation.

Thank you for this information.
This confirms my past experience that the drive has hardly any influence as long as it reads and functions properly.

On pure performance perspective, I'd prefer the D200 and I'm happy I did these tests because I was using the Toppin D50III as a generator for my phono tests, but I'll now use the D200 which has a much higher resolution at low output levels, and I need that!

Perfectly dodged and parried...

 

[NTTY]

By the way, I ran the same tests with the SMSL PL200 CD Player, since it can be used as a DAC and has a front volume knob too. It does not output 5Vrms, but 4.6Vrms at max output so I skipped the 0dB level and started 2dB lower. This is the interesting updated table:

I went down to 50mVrms (-40dB attenuation vs 5Vrms).

 

[tokyo_blues]

This is almost exactly what I need. A state of the art DAC with preamp.

Unfortunately, it seems like it doesn't have analogue ins, so it won't be able to replace my current Benchmark DAC1 pre - I need analogue ins for the phono preamp of my turntable.

As it is, I will have to keep using the Benchmark PRE 1, as a preamp, but I wonder if I can defeat its USB DAC input by feeding it RCA outs from an external USB dac.

What do the experts here recommend for a small, state of the art USB DAC with RCA outs and no separate power supply? Is this Audiophonics Sabre any good?

AUDIOPHONICS U-SABRE PRO DAC USB 32Bit/384kHz SA9227 / ES9018K2M OTG TCXO - Audiophonics

The famous Audiophonics U-SABRE DAC has been upgraded to a PRO version, with an update of its main components. The decoding is now done thanks to a SABRE ES9018K2M chip, as well as a new USB SA9227 chip.

www.audiophonics.fr

Any alternatives from SMLS or Topping etc?

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Hello.

I'm not an 'expert' but there is this kind of ultra-simple DAC ->

 

[NTTY]

This is almost exactly what I need. A state of the art DAC with preamp.

Unfortunately, it seems like it doesn't have analogue ins, so it won't be able to replace my current Benchmark DAC1 pre - I need analogue ins for the phono preamp of my turntable.

As it is, I will have to keep using the Benchmark PRE 1, as a preamp, but I wonder if I can defeat its USB DAC input by feeding it RCA outs from an external USB dac.

What do the experts here recommend for a small, state of the art USB DAC with RCA outs and no separate power supply? Is this Audiophonics Sabre any good?

AUDIOPHONICS U-SABRE PRO DAC USB 32Bit/384kHz SA9227 / ES9018K2M OTG TCXO - Audiophonics

The famous Audiophonics U-SABRE DAC has been upgraded to a PRO version, with an update of its main components. The decoding is now done thanks to a SABRE ES9018K2M chip, as well as a new USB SA9227 chip.

www.audiophonics.fr

Any alternatives from SMLS or Topping etc?

By no separate power supply you mean you want to power it from a computer?

If yes you could try the SMSL PS200. But I suspect the DAC of your Benchmark is still a very good performer, no?

 

[Roland68]

This is almost exactly what I need. A state of the art DAC with preamp.

Unfortunately, it seems like it doesn't have analogue ins, so it won't be able to replace my current Benchmark DAC1 pre - I need analogue ins for the phono preamp of my turntable.

As it is, I will have to keep using the Benchmark PRE 1, as a preamp, but I wonder if I can defeat its USB DAC input by feeding it RCA outs from an external USB dac.

What do the experts here recommend for a small, state of the art USB DAC with RCA outs and no separate power supply? Is this Audiophonics Sabre any good?

AUDIOPHONICS U-SABRE PRO DAC USB 32Bit/384kHz SA9227 / ES9018K2M OTG TCXO - Audiophonics

The famous Audiophonics U-SABRE DAC has been upgraded to a PRO version, with an update of its main components. The decoding is now done thanks to a SABRE ES9018K2M chip, as well as a new USB SA9227 chip.

www.audiophonics.fr

Any alternatives from SMLS or Topping etc?

Yes, SMSL really missed an opportunity there. With one or two analog inputs, they could have reached a significantly larger customer base that's been waiting for exactly this kind of device.

You could do what many people in my circle of friends and acquaintances are already doing: digitize your phono preamp with the miniDSP ADC and then connect it to the D200. We've done countless blind tests, and so far, no one has been able to hear a difference.

As a small, inexpensive USB DAC, I can recommend the D1 Rohm DAC, the little sibling of the D200.

 

[tokyo_blues]

By no separate power supply you mean you want to power it from a computer?

Hi @NTTY yes, exactly.

If yes you could try the SMSL PS200. But I suspect the DAC of your Benchmark is still a very good performer, no?

Hmm I don't remember which test it was, but I remember reading that the USB digital input in the 1st generation of Benchmark DACs/PREs was inferior to the optical and sPDIF and measured poorly. Given I'm currently using a computer to feed the DAC music, and I'm limited to USB, I thought I'd try to improve with an external DAC.

 

[Roland68]

Hi @NTTY yes, exactly.



Hmm I don't remember which test it was, but I remember reading that the USB digital input in the 1st generation of Benchmark DACs/PREs was inferior to the optical and sPDIF and measured poorly. Given I'm currently using a computer to feed the DAC music, and I'm limited to USB, I thought I'd try to improve with an external DAC.

Then simply get the Douk Audio U2 PRO XMOS XU316 Digital Interface DDC and connect it via SPDIF. This will bring your benchmark DAC up to the same technical standard as the D200 and other DACs when using USB.

A simple and inexpensive upgrade for a great device.

 

[tokyo_blues]

Then simply get the Douk Audio U2 PRO XMOS XU316 Digital Interface DDC and connect it via SPDIF. This will bring your benchmark DAC up to the same technical standard as the D200 and other DACs when using USB.

A simple and inexpensive upgrade for a great device.

A great idea, thanks Roland. I was actually wondering if there were any recommended digital interfaces to output via SPDIF from a desktop computer.