SMSL DL200 the best ever value DAC/AMP?

[nerdemoji]

Yupp but there are very few out so far, anyways.

I came across some posts by @IVX about 9039 and 9039Q2M here though. Putting into question it's much better than 9038 series.

The new ESS ES9039Q2M

IMO it's quite simple to find out whether the clk_gear reg just divides input clock signal to create the 128xFs MCLK, or if it changes oversampling ratio in the digital filter, using a HF analyzer (VNA) just like my test in...

www.diyaudio.com

What exactly does this mean? The higher frequencies are distorted or something?

 

[JSmith]

dpll adjustment for jitter

Well this does;

DPLL 1~9, the lower the value, the smaller the clock jitter. This DPLL setting is a unique function of ESS series products. It can adjust the bandwidth of the DPLL digital phase-locked loop circuit inside the chip, so that the chip can achieve a balance between anti-clock jitter and input tolerance. Effect: When the clock stability of the input signal is good, this value can be reduced, so that the clock performance of the system is better; When the clock stability of the input signal is not good, the sound may be interrupted. Increasing this value can avoid the occurrence of audio interruption! Especially when using TV as the signal source.

https://www.smsl-audio.com/upload/portal/download/DL200Manual.pdf

JSmith

 

[MBO]

Yupp but there are very few out so far, anyways.

I came across some posts by @IVX about 9039 and 9039Q2M here though. Putting into question it's much better than 9038 series.

The new ESS ES9039Q2M

IMO it's quite simple to find out whether the clk_gear reg just divides input clock signal to create the 128xFs MCLK, or if it changes oversampling ratio in the digital filter, using a HF analyzer (VNA) just like my test in...

www.diyaudio.com

Dear Sirs, what very strange discussions and links to diyaudio?
I had quite a few different and expensive DACs with different ESS chips, the new 9039 series from ESS far outperforms their old chips in terms of sound, even in cheap devices.
I'm also an electronics engineer in Germany, I wouldn't take all the posts on Diyaudio very seriously, especially this ^ on top...

 

[Veri]

Dear Sirs, what very strange discussions and links to diyaudio?
I had quite a few different and expensive DACs with different ESS chips, the new 9039 series from ESS far outperforms their old chips in terms of sound, even in cheap devices.
I'm also an electronics engineer in Germany, I wouldn't take all the posts on Diyaudio very seriously, especially this ^ on top...

You're an electronics engineer but you simply state 9039 series "outperforms the old chips in terms of sound", no further explanation?
. I mean I know diyaudio is not the greatest source but @IVX is the guy behind E1DA Cosmos ADC and 9038d and other devices.

 

[MBO]

You're an electronics engineer but you simply state 9039 series "outperforms the old chips in terms of sound", no further explanation?
. I mean I know diyaudio is not the greatest source but @IVX is the guy behind E1DA Cosmos ADC and 9038d and other devices.

What explanations, thousands of words about nothing...??
Buy a DAC on any ESS series and compare it to the 9039 and you'll hear it all for yourself.

 

[Veri]

What explanations, thousands of words about nothing...??
Buy a DAC on any ESS series and compare it to the 9039 and you'll hear it all for yourself.

I'm sorry dear sir but that sounds less like engineering and more like belief. RME recently built a new ADI DAC from the ground up and they use a cheaper, older ESS9028Q2M. Are you saying if they used an 38 or 39 piece it would have sounded better? Because I'm having a really hard time believing that.

 

[staticV3]

RME recently built a new ADI DAC from the ground up and they use a cheaper, older ESS9028Q2M. Are you saying if they used an 38 or 39 piece it would have sounded better? Because I'm having a really hard time believing that.

It's simple really. Sound quality goes in order of model number, don't you know?
9038 is a bigger number than 9028 and so it sounds better.
9039 is a bigger number still and so obviously, it sounds even better still!

All those pictures with the numbers and lines on them are just nonsense. Use your ears, dummy!

"Audibility thresholds"? "Level matching"? ""Expectation bias"? Never heard of 'em!

 

[Veri]

All those pictures with the numbers and lines on them are just nonsense. Use your ears, dummy!

Coincidentally those numbers go just a little higher with new releases.. not enough to be 'easily audible' mind you.....But what I think IVX wanted to discuss in his posts is that ESS might be jacking those numbers up, and/or focus on the wrong specifications.
ESS wants to have its chips have an edge over the AKM, etc. equivalents too of course. AKM whose chips coincidentally also perform marginally better (on paper) in their new chips produced after the AKM factory fire!

 

[MBO]

I have compared all AK4490 - AK4499 with ES9039Pro, 9039 clear winners. Their Hyperstream IV is really something special in terms of sound, 9038 sounds much more synthetic.

 

[staticV3]

I have compared all AK4490 - AK4499 with ES9039Pro, 9039 clear winners. Their Hyperstream IV is really something special in terms of sound, 9038 sounds much more synthetic.

What instrument did you use to match output voltages during the comparison, how did you assure blind test conditions, and what was your typical confidence score for detecting the right DAC?

 

[MBO]

I don't want to answer that, but what I say is based on firm belief

 

[staticV3]

I don't want to answer that, but what I say is based on firm belief

I see, thanks!

 

[MBO]

My statement mainly concerns this sentence from DiyAudio: "Well, I've bad news regarding ES9039Pro.." It's pretty careless to say something like that, after that you have to say something like that about all DACs, none of which are perfect... 9039 is very new, and few people have heard it, you have to form a common opinion first, and not rely on such statements from small developers. It's no secret that Hyperstream II sounds quite synthetic, there isn't a hint of that in the Hyperstream IV design, apart from other qualities.
Show me the measurements of these differences??? We know where the problem lies?

 

[Bleib]

So, it actually outputs 2.5 or 5v? Wouldn't it make it unusable with many amplifiers? At the very least you can't run the DAC at full volume

 

[staticV3]

It's no secret that Hyperstream II sounds quite synthetic, there isn't a hint of that in the Hyperstream IV design, apart from other qualities.
Show me the measurements of these differences??? We know where the problem lies?

"Show me the graphs that prove my unsubstantiated beliefs, otherwise I'll consider them useless" is an incredibly misguided mindset and that you seemingly do not realize that speaks volumes about your character.

 

[staticV3]

So, it actually outputs 2.5 or 5v?

2.5V via RCA, 5V via XLR.

Wouldn't it make it unusable with many amplifiers? At the very least you can't run the DAC at full volume

Yes, in many cases you will have to reduce the signal either before or after D->A Conversion. Conveniently, the DL200 has digital volume control built in and many Amps have preamps as well.

 

[Bleib]

2.5V via RCA, 5V via XLR.


Yes, in many cases you will have to reduce the signal either before or after D->A Conversion. Conveniently, the DL200 has digital volume control built in and many Amps have preamps as well.

Very weird to not make it like Topping E70 and make it selectable

 

[Lupin]

This whole discussion doesn't make any sense.
You don't listen to a DAC chip; you listen to the whole implementation of it. There are things happening before and after the DAC chip. Even then I don't believe for a second that a different DAC chip, or different version, is going to make an audible difference assuming that the implementation in both cases is correct/good.
As far as i know nobody did a properly conducted double blind test to show all of us are wrong... just believes, expectation bias and seeking purchase confirmation.

 

[nerdemoji]

This whole discussion doesn't make any sense.
You don't listen to a DAC chip; you listen to the whole implementation of it. There are things happening before and after the DAC chip. Even then I don't believe for a second that a different DAC chip, or different version, is going to make an audible difference assuming that the implementation in both cases is correct/good.
As far as i know nobody did a properly conducted double blind test to show all of us are wrong... just believes, expectation bias and seeking purchase confirmation.

yep I think everyone is wrong because the objectivist subjectivist debate has very little to do with the original topic lol.

 

[nerdemoji]

"Show me the graphs that prove my unsubstantiated beliefs, otherwise I'll consider them useless" is an incredibly misguided mindset and that you seemingly do not realize that speaks volumes about your character.

Coincidentally those numbers go just a little higher with new releases.. not enough to be 'easily audible' mind you.....But what I think IVX wanted to discuss in his posts is that ESS might be jacking those numbers up, and/or focus on the wrong specifications.
ESS wants to have its chips have an edge over the AKM, etc. equivalents too of course. AKM whose chips coincidentally also perform marginally better (on paper) in their new chips produced after the AKM factory fire!

First a rant of sorts:
ASR would be a better place if people saw a comment they disagreed with, responded, and afterwards just stopped arguing (don't reply). Obviously neither side will give up their opinion because they are right from their own perspective. This avoids turning dedicated topics into random arguments. Anyway just my opinion on the matter. and i do agree with you much more in this argument btw.

Second, back to the question that started off this blather:
From what I read on that forum, it appears that some guy (IVX, apparently well versed in the topic) tested the chip and found something wrong with the upper frequencies that appears to deliberately artificially increase SINAD and has some negative possibly audible effect. Is this a digital filter? What measured effect did it have and is it even audible? I suppose a better question is: does it mean that the C200 is better?