SMSL DL100 DAC and Headphone Amp Review

[pseudoid]

there are no problems if you have an single SMSL AMP and single SMSL DAC
their amps ship with the RC-8A
their dacs ship with the RC-8C
I have a few of the 8C models
you cant easily remote control TWO smsl dacs because the remote will control BOTH DACs but why would you want to use two of them?

It must be my lucky day!
SMSLDO100Pro has an RC-8C
SMSL DP5SE has an RC-8B

 

[Haskil]

Respectfully that's a bit of wishful thinking. The amount of development and expertise that would be required to get feature parity with the RME is staggering. It's another degree of difficulty above something like APO or foobar2000 (filtering/computing on a modern PC). Then, you'd need a better screen and more controls. Assuming all this could be done, any price differential could then be attributed to support (RME is adding features years after the device was sold, and fixing them for a fair price if broken).

Bonjour ! The ones I'm talking about (a parametric EQ per channel, an adjustable crossfeld... I just add adjustable loudness) and which relate to the software are included in a dongle measured these days on ASR. And in the discussions that follow, guys have cited other, even cheaper models that do the same.
What remains, in my "request" are the separate right and left sub outputs. Not enough to scare a cat and especially to panic a designer. However, I get lost in thoughts about HDMI ARC on a device of this quality.
The extra price for these features? 50, 100 dollars? I don't know. But this SMSL DAC would be sold for 300 dollars with just these possibilities, it would be a best seller and not just another excellent device in a market cluttered by a multiplicity of dizzying models.

 

[Sokel]

Bonjour ! The ones I'm talking about (a parametric EQ per channel, an adjustable crossfeld... I just add adjustable loudness) and which relate to the software are included in a dongle measured these days on ASR. And in the discussions that follow, guys have cited other, even cheaper models that do the same.
What remains, in my "request" are the separate right and left sub outputs. Not enough to scare a cat and especially to panic a designer. However, I get lost in thoughts about HDMI ARC on a device of this quality.
The extra price for these features? 50, 100 dollars? I don't know. But this SMSL DAC would be sold for 300 dollars with just these possibilities, it would be a best seller and not just another excellent device in a market cluttered by a multiplicity of dizzying models.

Adding sub-outs to a digitally controlled VC DAC is not so simple as it may seem as multiple fail-safe schemes should be involved on top of the 2 extra channels,mapping,etc.
Imagine a glitch in such a device that can expose 4 x 0dB levels to the following amps!
And complexity of the device is an added danger to this.

 

[Haskil]

L'ajout de sous-sorties à un DAC VC à commande numérique n'est pas aussi simple qu'il y paraît, car plusieurs schémas de sécurité doivent être impliqués en plus des 2 canaux supplémentaires, du mappage, etc.
Imaginez un problème dans un tel appareil qui peut exposer 4 niveaux de 0 dB aux amplis suivants !
Et la complexité de l’appareil constitue un danger supplémentaire.

Merci !

Oublions donc cette sortie subwoofer qui est encore présente sur plusieurs petits appareils numériques à moins de 400 dollars-euros et qui ne semble pas poser de problèmes insurmontables pour ou ceux qui les conçoivent, mais égaliseur paramétrique et crossfeld me semblent sur un appareil de cette qualité qu'ils feraient la différence pour l'utilisateur avec la pléthore d'excellents DAC-amplis casque du marché qui n'en sont pas dotés. Et j'ajouterais volontiers un loudness réglable.
Et je sais que vous pouvez faire ces corrections dans votre ordinateur, mais le "modèle RME" me semble plus pratique.

 

[Mort]

I feel like RME owners need to justify their decision to buy an expensive device that will soon (but not yet) be overtaken by competition from Asia.

It's ok! You bought a great product. It was expensive yes. Other cheaper products will eventually make it outdated and redundant. That's the cycle of technology.

 

[Limopard]

I feel like RME owners need to justify their decision to buy an expensive device that will soon (but not yet) be overtaken by competition from Asia.

It's ok! You bought a great product. It was expensive yes. Other cheaper products will eventually make it outdated and redundant. That's the cycle of technology.

This. I bought an used UE 900s for 180 € a few years ago. Nowadays some IEM between 30 and 80 € outperform it with ease. But what use has crying over spilt milk?

 

[Esprit]

I feel like RME owners need to justify their decision to buy an expensive device that will soon (but not yet) be overtaken by competition from Asia.

RME produces for the professional market.
Its products are so good that even non-professionals have started using them.
It's not just about “measurements” but about continuous software development, 200-page manuals and customer support.
Do not confuse the Chinese commercial product of the manufacturer which has 256 DAC variants in its catalog with RME which has been selling its products to musicians and recording studios for decades.

 

[ElJaimito]

You know that something must be wrong when they start doubling the number of DAC chips.
This DL100 has 4×CS43131 chips, the DO100 Pro had 2xES9039Q2M chips, and the D-6S just 1xES9039Q2M chip.



In electronics, when you add circuitry for convenience, you add more components, and more components add more noise, and more noise reduces precision.

That's not necessarily, indeed often not even vaguely, true. As in all areas of electronics, paralleling components can given correct design reduce random noise by simple cancellation by summing, e.g. this simple treatment of the issues:

Parallel DACs

In the crucial months between July 10 and October 31, 1940, during the Battle of Britain, radar operators were glued to their screens, straining to distinguish enemy aircraft from mere noise.This was a time when radar technology was still in its infancy, plagued by challenges of interference and...

www.psaudio.com

This technique is commonly used in professional audio.

 

[ElJaimito]

I feel like RME owners need to justify their decision to buy an expensive device that will soon (but not yet) be overtaken by competition from Asia.

It's ok! You bought a great product. It was expensive yes. Other cheaper products will eventually make it outdated and redundant. That's the cycle of technology.

The huge benefit with RME is reportedly the driver support. This is not so important in hifi.

 

[Limopard]

That's not necessarily, indeed often not even vaguely, true. As in all areas of electronics, paralleling components can given correct design reduce random noise by simple cancellation by summing, e.g. this simple treatment of the issues:

In case of the SMSL it simply works as the measurements show. No traces of added noise or other unwanted signals. Close to the "wire with gain".

 

[Mort]

All good points about which I was ignorant. And it would make sense that there are a lot of happy RME owners. It's been a DAC worthy of the price for a long time.

 

[Esprit]

https://rme-audio.de/company.html

 

[renaudrenaud]

So it seems for each DAC tested by Amir we will have some comments about the better RME.

 

[ElJaimito]

If you have ever listened to commercially recorded music, as I suspect you have then there's a high probability it has been through an RME system at some point. RME are one of the fairly small set of suppliers of mastering-grade and top studio-grade equipment. (It's also likely to have been through a whole lot of audiophile-deprecated opamps, as well, as these are commonly present in the most-respected studio gear of old - and that continues to today. Of course, one can argue for higher standards in reproduction than production - if one must).

 

[Nathanael]

I've got a question about high resolution support of this product.

I'm not talking about bit depth but the novadays highly advertised ability to of dacs, headphone amps and headphones to reproduce audio even about 30 kHz.

This unit is even High Res Certified (so is my Philips Fidelio X2HR headphone).

In Amirs measurements the signal rapidly drops betwenn 20 kHz and 22 kHz.

So is this product not really high-res and won't "drive properly" headphones that are able to repdroduce signal much higher than 20 kHz?

Amir calls the measurements "nice" in the audible band.

Is it maybe a measurement thing and signal above 20 kHz is not properly measured?

Can I trust "high res" certified devices?

And last but not least:

Is it just a marketing thing and these frequencies would be not audible for my 38 years old ears and I should stop worry about this theoretical "high res" capatability?

I would be very thankful for answers!

 

[JIW]

I've got a question about high resolution support of this product.

I'm not talking about bit depth but the novadays highly advertised ability to of dacs, headphone amps and headphones to reproduce audio even about 30 kHz.

This unit is even High Res Certified (so is my Philips Fidelio X2HR headphone).

In Amirs measurements the signal rapidly drops betwenn 20 kHz and 22 kHz.

So is this product not really high-res and won't "drive properly" headphones that are able to repdroduce signal much higher than 20 kHz?

Amir calls the measurements "nice" in the audible band.

Is it maybe a measurement thing and signal above 20 kHz is not properly measured?

Can I trust "high res" certified devices?

And last but not least:

Is it just a marketing thing and these frequencies would be not audible for my 38 years old ears and I should stop worry about this theoretical "high res" capatability?

I would be very thankful for answers!

That is at 44.1 kHz requiring all content above 22 kHz to be suppressed and is a test of the reconstruction filter. At higher sample rates, higher frequencies will be played back. This is SMSL's measurement of the frequency response.

 

[mc.god]

Is it just a marketing thing and these frequencies would be not audible for my 38 years old ears and I should stop worry about this theoretical "high res" capatability?

This.
And not just for your 38 y.o. ears.

 

[Nathanael]

Thanks for the anwers!

I' got one more question: the DL100 has suprisingly only one gain stage.

Can I get problems with volume control when using my lower impedance (30 and 38 Ohm) headphones like problems with fine adjustement of the volume, very huge volume jumps already in the lower control region etc.?

That's a bit strange that they didn't add gain setttings.

 

[mc.god]

Thanks for the anwers!

I' got one more question: the DL100 has suprisingly only one gain stage.

Can I get problems with volume control when using my lower impedance (30 and 38 Ohm) headphones like problems with fine adjustement of the volume, very huge volume jumps already in the lower control region etc.?

That's a bit strange that they didn't add gain setttings.

It's more a matter of headphones sensitivity than their impedance, anyway it shouldn't be a problem here since DL100 has a digital volume control. Since we don't have 50 mV snr measurement concerns could rise about audible background hissing with very very sensitive iems, but I don't own the device so some actual owner will surely comment on this better than me.

 

[Bleib]

Thanks for the anwers!

I' got one more question: the DL100 has suprisingly only one gain stage.

Can I get problems with volume control when using my lower impedance (30 and 38 Ohm) headphones like problems with fine adjustement of the volume, very huge volume jumps already in the lower control region etc.?

That's a bit strange that they didn't add gain setttings.

If you want to be sure it works then better to get a DL200 or daw mda1 instead. Costs a bit more but at least gain function is there