SMSL D400EX DAC Review

[TNT]

... and "people" still claim they sound different. If Amir believes that they do in fact sound different despite superb measuring performance, I think Amir should start to investigate what (new?) measurements is needed to correlate with the subjective sound impression. Or how to interpret the currently available.

He pushed for better designed and built products - big thank and appreciation for that. Now it's time for the next disruptive activity - to know the measurement vs. SQ correlation - @Amir, are you up for it?

//

 

[Jimbob54]

... and "people" still claim they sound different. If Amir believes that they do in fact sound different despite superb measuring performance, I think Amir should start to investigate what (new?) measurements is needed to correlate with the subjective sound impression. Or how to interpret the currently available.

He pushed for better designed and built products - big thank and appreciation for that. Now it's time for the next disruptive activity - to know the measurement vs. SQ correlation - @Amir, are you up for it?

//

Tag the right @ and he might reply- but I can guess the answer

@amirm

 

[Robbo99999]

... and "people" still claim they sound different. If Amir believes that they do in fact sound different despite superb measuring performance, I think Amir should start to investigate what (new?) measurements is needed to correlate with the subjective sound impression. Or how to interpret the currently available.

He pushed for better designed and built products - big thank and appreciation for that. Now it's time for the next disruptive activity - to know the measurement vs. SQ correlation - @Amir, are you up for it?

//

This is a very big task to do as a one man band - it's research. You'd be asking to rely solely on Amir's ears unless he put together a study using different volunteers. But anyway, I don't believe Amir thinks DACS "have a sound", he believes/knows that all his good measuring DACS are transparent, and therefore not even part of the "how does it sound" equation, beyond the fact the DACS are representing the digitally recorded music as faithfully as possible onwards to the speakers or amps that they're connected to. DACS are already a solved problem according to our knowledge here on ASR. ie. if you want better sound you don't achieve that by chasing exotic DACS!

 

[Trell]

... and "people" still claim they sound different. If Amir believes that they do in fact sound different despite superb measuring performance, I think Amir should start to investigate what (new?) measurements is needed to correlate with the subjective sound impression. Or how to interpret the currently available.

He pushed for better designed and built products - big thank and appreciation for that. Now it's time for the next disruptive activity - to know the measurement vs. SQ correlation - @Amir, are you up for it?

//

With different filters there is indeed audible differences between them, though it may be very subtle. An obvious one is that some filters have a drooping frequency response in the 20Hz-20kHz band.

If look at the graphs in the review you will see the following measurements of filters where two filters have obvious droop in high fr response. How audible it is depends on your hearing and the content material. For the other three filters I would love it if my middle age ears could even hear them not being flat to 20 kHz.

 

[xeizo]

Different impulse response of different filters sounds different not only in high frequencies, but as already said the differences are subtle but are there. But two different DAC:s with the exact same type of filter and FR may be impossible to separate by ear. Like 100% impossible. That means, which choice of filtering is much more interesting than who makes the DAC. To repeat myself, still very subtle.

As almost everyone uses the same few DAC chips which all has built in filters, chances are they all sound the same. On early CD-players the filter was very often a separate chip and with a more wildly varying quality.

 

[Deleted member 4708]

D400EX looks cheap.
1000$ is RME territory - and you get support with it, rock solid drivers, a high quality product with features galore... (RME ADI-2 DAC FS is 1299$)
For 800$ one can buy Motu 8A - it has support and a lot of features

 

[xeizo]

D400EX looks cheap.
1000$ is RME territory - and you get support with it, rock solid drivers, a high quality product with features galore... (RME ADI-2 DAC FS is 1299$)
For 800$ one can buy Motu 8A - again, it has support and a lot of features

Yes, for build quality 400$ would be reasonable, not 1000$. Maybe the 4499-chipset is very expensive, but the Topping is half the price.

 

[dtaylo1066]

Small differences in PCB or parts quality along with potentially a more elaborate and expensive chassis can drive costs up quickly. Throw in a minimum of a 10% inflation factor and a made in China, sold direct-to-consumer DAC can get to 1K pretty quickly.

Then there are also the factors of margin and profitability in regard to the target consumer. The target here is clearly an audio enthusiast who is willing to spend 1K on a Chinese DAC because he thinks it will outperform other brand name DACs that sell for $1.5-3K.

I also would think part of the SMSL and Topping logic in offering and selling more expensive DACs is to broaden their consumer base and with their higher end products greatly improve their margin and overall profit vs. selling copious amounts of $149 DACs at a very small profit per unit. They also want to create a way or a path for consumers to upgrade and remain brand loyal. If they can get an audio consumer into their brand with and entry level $100 product and in three years have them upgrade to a $500 DAC, and later to a $1,000 model they achieve a huge goal. If one buys a $100 entry level Topping DAC and then spends $500 on a new Cambridge Audio model, Topping has lost a customer.

You can buy a Honda Civic SI which is a quite excellent car in all respects. Or you can pay more and get an Acura Integra which is similar in performance and is very much the same car, has a few more features, but is a higher "prestige" model. Badge value means a lot to consumers and they are willing to pay for it.

 

[Deleted member 4708]

Small differences in PCB or parts quality along with potentially a more elaborate and expensive chassis can drive costs up quickly. Throw in a minimum of a 10% inflation factor and a made in China, sold direct-to-consumer DAC can get to 1K pretty quickly.

Then there are also the factors of margin and profitability in regard to the target consumer. The target here is clearly an audio enthusiast who is willing to spend 1K on a Chinese DAC because he thinks it will outperform other brand name DACs that sell for $1.5-3K.

I also would think part of the SMSL and Topping logic in offering and selling more expensive DACs is to broaden their consumer base and with their higher end products greatly improve their margin and overall profit vs. selling copious amounts of $149 DACs at a very small profit per unit. They also want to create a way or a path for consumers to upgrade and remain brand loyal. If they can get an audio consumer into their brand with and entry level $100 product and in three years have them upgrade to a $500 DAC, and later to a $1,000 model they achieve a huge goal. If one buys a $100 entry level Topping DAC and then spends $500 on a new Cambridge Audio model, Topping has lost a customer.

You can buy a Honda Civic SI which is a quite excellent car in all respects. Or you can pay more and get an Acura Integra which is similar in performance and is very much the same car, has a few more features, but is a higher "prestige" model. Badge value means a lot to consumers and they are willing to pay for it.

They probably "borrow" the engineering. They also have close to 0 cost for the customer support ('cause they offer none) and the employee wages are way lower than RME / Benchmark / Okto / UAD / MOTU / etc. You'd pay Porsche money on a Yugo when buying an 1k$ SMSL.

 

[Billy Budapest]

For some filters the differences can be audible a they have a frequency roll off.

I am well aware of the post directly above mine. Good luck actually being able to hear that. To top it off, there is very little musical content in most recordings above 16kHz anyway.

 

[Billy Budapest]

With different filters there is indeed audible differences between them, though it may be very subtle. An obvious one is that some filters have a drooping frequency response in the 20Hz-20kHz band.

If look at the graphs in the review you will see the following measurements of filters where two filters have obvious droop in high fr response. How audible it is depends on your hearing and the content material. For the other three filters I would love it if my middle age ears could even hear them not being flat to 20 kHz.

I think you are confusing *measurable* difference with *audible* difference.

All things that can be heard are able to be measured, but not all things that are able to be measured can be heard.

Several years ago during a product develop cycle I was involved with, testers and engineers compared the audible differences between an ESS DAC chip’s built in filters. No one could hear any differences. As a consequence, the ability to select the digital filter was removed from the shipping product’s firmware.

 

[raif71]

Yes, for build quality 400$ would be reasonable, not 1000$. Maybe the 4499-chipset is very expensive, but the Topping is half the price.

Perhaps I've missed the Topping comparison , so I'll ask what's the Topping equivalent to the d400ex? Thanks

 

[Trell]

I think you are confusing *measurable* difference with *audible* difference.

All things that can be heard are able to be measured, but not all things that are able to be measured can be heard.

Several years ago during a product develop cycle I was involved with, testers and engineers compared the audible differences between an ESS DAC chip’s built in filters. No one could hear any differences. As a consequence, the ability to select the digital filter was removed from the shipping product’s firmware.

I’m not confused at all about that. One of the filters is 1 dB down by 13 kHz and that is audible.

 

[Deleted member 4708]

I am well aware of the post directly above mine. Good luck actually being able to hear that. To top it off, there is very little musical content in most recordings above 16kHz anyway.

Harmonics will be there and some of those filters affect the "brilliance" range. In the most sensitive range (some) humans can detect 0.3db difference. Not sure about the "brilliance" region.Filter 4 seems quite radical. Now I am curios if that one makes an audible difference.

 

[Rottmannash]

Perhaps I've missed the Topping comparison , so I'll ask what's the Topping equivalent to the d400ex? Thanks

The E70 Velvet.

Buy the TOPPING E70 VELVET on Apos Audio

TOPPING has released a new version of the E70 DAC featuring the AKM AK4499EX DAC chip. The AK4499EX is AKM’s new flagship DAC chip, so it’s no surprise that the E70’s specs absolutely shine. It decodes 32-bit/768kHz PCM with <0.00006% THD and 131dB of dynamic range.

apos.audio

 

[Billy Budapest]

I’m not confused at all about that. One of the filters is 1 dB down by 13 kHz and that is audible.

Doubtful.

 

[PeteL]

Doubtful.

You really doubt 1 dB down at 13k is audible? Quite easy to asses with an EQ. It is audible.

 

[Billy Budapest]

You really doubt 1 dB down at 13k is audible? Quite easy to asses with an EQ. It is audible.

13kHz is quite hard to hear for any person—it’s almost like a background whine or screech very high up—not to mention there is little musical content up that high—and differences of 1dB are very hard to perceive. So yes.

Anyway, see my comments above. I am not just making this stuff up. It’s from experience. During product development, engineers, designers, and testers could not hear any difference between the built-in filter choices of the then-current ESS DAC chips. So, the ability to switch filter settings was removed from the firmware of the shipping product.

 

[JSmith]

Ok... let's just say it's "potentially" audible and leave it at that. I mean, these are user selectable filters anyway and the more accurate filters are available to use (unlike some other DAC's). Basically, don't use the filters that appear to affect FR negatively if it's of concern to you, set and forget. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pick any difference between these filters on a good day anyway... so a bit of a non-issue.


JSmith

 

[PeteL]

13kHz is quite hard to hear for any person—it’s almost like a background whine or screech very high up—not to mention there is little musical content up that high—and differences of 1dB are very hard to perceive. So yes.

Anyway, see my comments above. I am not just making this stuff up. It’s from experience. During product development, engineers, designers, and testers could not hear any difference between the built-in filter choices of the then-current ESS DAC chips. So, the ability to switch filter settings was removed from the firmware of the shipping product.

I don’t think you’re making stuff up, but I am talking about filter 4, not general statement about reconstruction filters being audible. I’ve used low pass filter that high up before ( and did product developpment too) a high order -3 dB at 16 k on a full mixed piece is audible. I am not just making this up. Harmonics are part of « musical content » unless you just count the root notes as music.