SMSL DL200 the best ever value DAC/AMP?

[FreakyKiwi]

Switching between USB 1.1 and 2.0 ALSO worked.

What mode is your DL300 set to? Both DACs use the XMOS XU-316 so I would have expected the same behaviour.

 

[staticV3]

What mode is your DL300 set to? Both DACs use the XMOS XU-316 so I would have expected the same behaviour.

The C->C incompatibility is caused by missing pull-up/down resistors on the USB jack AFAIK, so nothing to do with the USB chipset or firmware.

 

[Lambo1985]

What mode is your DL300 set to? Both DACs use the XMOS XU-316 so I would have expected the same behaviour.

It doesn’t look like the DL300 has a USB mode menu option (Using the dial on the unit to explore the menu. Not the remote)

 

[FreakyKiwi]

The C->C incompatibility is caused by missing pull-up/down resistors on the USB jack AFAIK, so nothing to do with the USB chipset or firmware.

My DL200 works fine from my Android phone (Poco F2 pro) with a cheap C-C cable in USB2 (or 1) mode.
I blame Apple, but to be fair, in my experience, the U in USB stands for Unreliable.

 

[Lambo1985]

No, there's more to it I think. My DL200 works fine from my Android phone (Poco F2 pro) with a cheap C-C cable in USB2 (or 1) mode. I blame Apple.

To be fair, the DL300 connects on the first try with my android. With the DL200, most of the time I have repeat the process to get a connection (plugging in/out of the device). So I think this problem is specific to the DL200 (or maybe just my unit). On the Apple, it works on either 1.1 or 2.0, but I have to switch between the modes to get a connection.

 

[FreakyKiwi]

To be fair, the DL300 connects on the first try with my android. With the DL200, most of the time I have repeat the process to get a connection (plugging in/out of the device). So I think this problem is specific to the DL200 (or maybe just my unit). On the Apple, it works on either 1.1 or 2.0, but I have to switch between the modes to get a connection.

Damn, I was looking for another reason to hate Apple.
Anyway, I have no issues with the USB connection to my DL200 so we should probably blame SMSL quality control here.

 

[Lambo1985]

Damn, I was looking for another reason to hate Apple.
Anyway, I have no issues with the USB connection to my DL200 so we should probably blame SMSL quality control here.

I must also note, that this connection behavior (with my Android) on the DL200 occurs ONLY after a disconnect and attempted reconnect. Not on 1st connection after the DL200 is turned on. The 1st connection always works.

 

[FreakyKiwi]

It doesn’t look like the DL300 has a USB mode menu option (Using the dial on the unit to explore the menu. Not the remote)

That's weird, I assumed they would both have the same USB features.
According to the manual Windows needs a driver, so surely USB2, but Mac/Linux is driverless. Both Android and IOS are linux/unix based though.

https://www.smsl-audio.com/upload/portal/download/DL300Manual.pdf

USB compatibility.................................................................................Windows 7 / 8 / 8.1 / 10 / 11(Needs Driver) Mac OSX10.6 or Later、Linux(Driverless)

 

[olivia.rodrigo]

For those (like myself) who have inadvertently installed that firmware available on this thread and found their DL200 to have become less stable, I have just obtained a firmware numbered V1.2 from SMSL itself (upon requesting the original firmware).

Now, according to the text below (translated by Copilot from interface gibberish), Device Model, Firmware Version, and Timestamp listed in V1.2 are rigorously the same as those of the firmware above, which in turn are the same as those shown in a C200 update manual also previously linked to in this thread. Device model, however, seems to refer to an STC MCU, and not to the DL200 itself. I am then not sure if all the info refers just to the controller itself for the firmware update rather than to what is actually being updated. If so, might there also be something else happening in the background that is not being shown in the log below? No clue! If you do not hear from me again, though, assume my DL200 has become stable!

Device Model: STC8G2K64S4

• Firmware Version: 7.3.12U
• Current Configuration:
  • ISP Clock Frequency: 24.089 MHz
  • Internal RC Oscillator Frequency: 12.001 MHz
  • Timer1 Frequency: 35.850 KHz
  • EEPROM Size: 10 K
  • Port P3.2 and P3.3 are not used for UART communication.
  • High-level input during reset.
  • I/O Port Configuration: General-purpose I/O
  • Low-level input detection.
  • Low-level output detection voltage: 3.00 V
  • UART communication with automatic baud rate detection.
  • UART communication with automatic parity check.
  • UART communication without hardware flow control.
  • Analog input voltage range: 1189 mV (specified range: 1100~1300 mV)
  • Firmware timestamp: July 31, 2021
• Post-Update Configuration:
  • ISP Clock Frequency: 24.089 MHz
  • Internal RC Oscillator Frequency: 11.998 MHz
  • Timer1 Frequency: 35.850 KHz
  • EEPROM Size: 10 K
  • Port P3.2 and P3.3 are not used for UART communication.
  • High-level input during reset.
  • I/O Port Configuration: General-purpose I/O
  • Low-level input detection.
  • Low-level output detection voltage: 3.00 V
  • UART communication with automatic baud rate detection.
  • UART communication with automatic parity check.
  • UART communication without hardware flow control.
  • Analog input voltage range: 1189 mV (specified range: 1100~1300 mV)
  • Firmware timestamp: July 31, 2021
  • Device ID: F764C5240B0397
• Additional Information:
  • User-defined oscillator frequency: 12.000 MHz
  • Post-update oscillator frequency: 11.998 MHz (deviation = -0.020%)

 

[JIW]

Quoted from the D-6s review thread.

Volume Control on the D-6s measured at 1kHz and Full-Scale sinewave on XLR outputs
SN: 33212330199

View attachment 351948

View attachment 351949

Edit: I have double-checked several times, the "missing step" is real and it fortunately applies to both channels - nothing to worry about though.

I did some similar testing on my DL200 when I first got it (See quote below). I did some more testing today. My results are in line with yours. In particular, the 88 to 89 step does not increase the level.

Curiously, in my original raw measurements, the level difference between 80 and 90 is exactly 4.5 dB instead of the expected 5.0 dB for 10 0.5 dB steps. From 80 to 70, from 70 to 60, from 60 to 50, from 50 to 40 and from 40 to 30 are all exactly 5.0 dB as expected. However, I did not think too much about it and thought it due to measurement uncertainty.

I got mine today and rudimentarily measured the steps in the volume control using headphones, a 1 kHz tone and an SPL meter app on my phone.

The ESS chip can go from 0 dB to -127.5 dB in 0.5 dB steps for each channel (ES9039Q2M datasheet, page 15). The DL200's volume control has only 100 steps from 0 to 99, however. Thus, it may well differ in some way.

Volume 00 is mute. From 99 down to 25 is in 0.5 dB steps, i.e. 25 is -37.0 dB, 50 is -24.5 dB and 75 is -12.0 dB. 20 is 5 dB lower than 25, i.e. 20 is -42.0 dB. Below 20 is unclear but 01 is about 28 dB below 20, i.e. 01 is about -70 dB.

The line output is closest to 2 V RMS RCA and 4 V RMS TRS at volume 95, i.e. -2.0 dB, giving 1.9858 V RMS and 3.9716 V RMS, respectively.

Maybe @SMSL-Mandy can give the exact values.

 

[Fantomax]

Hi everyone, I tried to search the previous 41 pages, but I couldn't find a reference to my problem: static noise using BT.
Basically I use the DL200 exclusively as a Bluetooth receiver (bedside), paired with my smartphone at approximately 1 meter range. And when I listen to music or play games with my P1 Max IEM connected 4.4mm, I can hear during pause or no sound, an electrostatic base of background noise. It's not loud and is obviously covered as soon as the sound starts again... but it's present. I also tried with the smartphone in airplane mode, leaving only BT active, but it didn't change much...
Is there anyone else having the same problem or is this a defect in my unit? Should I do some testing? In fact, I haven't yet tried to see if I can leave the phone at a distance greater than 1 meter or try other headphones.
Many thanks for any suggestion.

 

[FreakyKiwi]

static noise using BT.
I can hear during pause or no sound, an electrostatic base of background noise.

I don't use BT on mine but just did a quick test using my very sensitive AKG K361 headphones and couldn't hear any noise.
My phone was connected using LDAC if that makes any difference to the problem.

I have heard other noises from the DL200, especially when using high gain, so i can well believe you.

Your iems are quite sensitive and not demanding on power, are you running at low gain?

I do think a USB-C dongle would be a better solution for you, I'm not a fan of BT though.

 

[JIW]

I don't use BT on mine but just did a quick test using my very sensitive AKG K361 headphones and couldn't hear any noise.
My phone was connected using LDAC if that makes any difference to the problem.

I have heard other noises from the DL200, especially when using high gain, so i can well believe you.

Your iems are quite sensitive and not demanding on power, are you running at low gain?

I do think a USB-C dongle would be a better solution for you, I'm not a fan of BT though.

The P1 Max has a sensitivity of 98 +-3 dB at 0.126 V which is the same as 116+-3 dB at 1 V (source: https://www.linsoul.com/products/tinhifi-p1-max). The K361 have a sensitivity of 114 dB at 1V. So the P1 max is only -1 to +5 dB more sensitive. Unless the noise is barely audible on the P1 max, there should be no difference between the two in the noise being audible.

 

[Fantomax]

Thank you for the replies, I actually prefer it to a dongle because it is powered by electricity and doesn't drain my smartphone, so for me it's much more convenient that way.
Actually, given the DL200 static background noise, which is basically due to BT data transmission (having tried airplane mode, no Wi-Fi, but only BT on), in my case it would have been better if I had opted for a Qudelix 5K always connected via USB to the current (preserving its battery). Much smaller, with superlative EQ features and it would have cost me a lot less too.

 

[nick_l44.1]

Hi everyone, I tried to search the previous 41 pages, but I couldn't find a reference to my problem: static noise using BT.
Basically I use the DL200 exclusively as a Bluetooth receiver (bedside), paired with my smartphone at approximately 1 meter range. And when I listen to music or play games with my P1 Max IEM connected 4.4mm, I can hear during pause or no sound, an electrostatic base of background noise. It's not loud and is obviously covered as soon as the sound starts again... but it's present. I also tried with the smartphone in airplane mode, leaving only BT active, but it didn't change much...
Is there anyone else having the same problem or is this a defect in my unit? Should I do some testing? In fact, I haven't yet tried to see if I can leave the phone at a distance greater than 1 meter or try other headphones.
Many thanks for any suggestion.

The es9039q2m outputs significant UHF content, but its frequencies are too high to be heard. In addition, some chaotic pulses are visible at the output of the DL200. I think under the right conditions they can be heard, maybe like the sound of a needle rustling on vinyl. I won't say for sure.
BTW, using bluetooth at full volume on the smartphone there is hard digital clipping. The measurement shows a digital gain of the bluetooth signal of 8 dB. Below the -8dB level thd+n showed very decent values.

 

[nick_l44.1]

SMSL are joking. They didn't guess any of the digital filters. On my DAC I got the following list (ESS filter number in brackets):
FL1 (08) Minimum phase slow roll-off low dispertion
FL2 (01) Minimum Phase
FL3 (02) Linear phase apodizing fast roll-off
FL4 (03) Linear phase fast roll-off
FL5 (04) Linear phase fast roll-off low-ripple
FL6 (05) Linear phase slow roll-off
FL7 (06) Minimum phase fast roll-off

 

[Grael]

SMSL are joking. They didn't guess any of the digital filters. On my DAC I got the following list (ESS filter number in brackets):
FL1 (08) Minimum phase slow roll-off low dispertion
FL2 (01) Minimum Phase
FL3 (02) Linear phase apodizing fast roll-off
FL4 (03) Linear phase fast roll-off
FL5 (04) Linear phase fast roll-off low-ripple
FL6 (05) Linear phase slow roll-off
FL7 (06) Minimum phase fast roll-off

So, they are the same as SMSL D-6s, tested by Amir here ?

SMSL D-6s Balanced DAC Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the SMSL D-6s balanced stereo DAC with Bluetooth support. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $199. I was pleasantly surprised with the new industrial design which while minimalistic, manages to impress with its modern style. Love the matt...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[nick_l44.1]

So, they are the same as SMSL D-6s, tested by Amir here ?

SMSL D-6s Balanced DAC Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the SMSL D-6s balanced stereo DAC with Bluetooth support. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $199. I was pleasantly surprised with the new industrial design which while minimalistic, manages to impress with its modern style. Love the matt...

www.audiosciencereview.com

View attachment 354024

I can't tell FL2 from FL7, but everything seems to be the same.

 

[catch22]

My impressions after a couple of weeks of use. These are just subjective "feels" because the measurements for all SMSL are already out there. We don't have measurements for DL200 but probably don't expect it any worse than any other.

Like:
- Sound - excellent, more clarity comparing to my old Emotiva XDA-2 (DAC AD1955)

Don't like: (these are rather rants than real complaints)
- "Generic" display, reused probably across million of other electronic items, cannot be compared with nice displays of normal brands like Yamaha (or my old Emotiva for that matter) - clear, crisp, and tailored, with nice dimmer levels. SMSL only has 3 brightness levels: 1) Super-very-bright 2) Super-bright and 3) Just Bright, all others 4-8 repeat "Just bright" and no any nice dim level
- Bluetooth sometimes don't get connected from 1st attempt - this however may be an issue with bluetooth in android phone?

This is a very enjoyable and versatile product.
I would probably keep it, but I decided I needed a multi-channel DSP, I will get that from minidsp, so DL200 is very good, just is not a perfect fit for me.

P.S. Here goes some generic rant about SMSL lacking the design continuity like we have in "normal" brands. It feels like the SMSL products are born as random mutations to the mercy of natural selection.

 

[Sparkles]

My impressions after a couple of weeks of use...
I would probably keep it, but I decided I needed a multi-channel DSP, I will get that from minidsp, so DL200 is very good, just is not a perfect fit for me.

I'm into 2.1 channel + speakers and have been using MiniDSP Flex for 3 months happily.

Got the DL200 for PC desk headphone use but was curious about what it might do with my speaker setup via analog imput to the Flex with Dirac on and off.

It didn't do anything I could be certain of, and there was a little extra delay on TV YT.

Then I went DL200 straight to amplifier, keeping Flex on the sub. Less delay. Resolution was audibly better but the overall sound was not as good as DSP.

The DL200 is back onto the desk.