• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
I have a lizard brain and just want music good sound dopamine. Which filter should I use?
In that case, either one of the (actual)
* Linear Phase Fast Roll-Off
* Minimum Phase
or
* Minimum Phase Fast Roll-Off
filters make for a good compromise.

Slow Roll-Off filters are only good for 88.2 kHz and up.
I would not recommend the Apodizing filter at 44.1 kHz either, this one is for 48 kHz minimum.
 
For the most accurate reproduction, use a fast linear phase filter. On the DL200, FL3, FL4 or FL5. FL4 is probably the best compromise.
OK. The guy above you recommended Linear Phase Fast Roll-Off (FL4), but also Minimum Phase (FL2) and Minimum Phase Fast Roll-Off (FL7).

How did you reach such different conclusions?
 
OK. The guy above you recommended Linear Phase Fast Roll-Off (FL4), but also Minimum Phase (FL2) and Minimum Phase Fast Roll-Off (FL7).

How did you reach such different conclusions?
Minimum phase has different delay for different frequencies. Linear phase has the same delay for all frequencies.
 
It all depends on your priorities. A minimum phase filter will shave off about 0.69 ms of latency at 44.1 kHz or 0.635 ms at 48 kHz in this case, making it ideal for live monitoring. The uneven group delay in the treble will make it non-ideal for measurement applications though, even if you're not going to hear this. In all other parameters, the standard minimum phase filter is a very good performer.

I was arguing against the apodizing filter (FL3) at 44.1 kHz mainly because its bandwidth is sub-20 kHz then (-3 dB at 0.44 fs = 19.4 kHz). That's the price to pay for a filter that reaches stopband at exactly fs/2.
The "normal" fast rolloff filters extending to 22+ kHz still allow for some alias components to get through between 0.5 fs and 0.55 fs (~22.05 to 24.2 kHz), but since these are mirroring the 0.45 fs to 0.5 fs range (~19.8 to 22.05 kHz) and there generally isn't much going on up there to begin with, this generally is quite an acceptable tradeoff for audio.

FL5 should be the Linear phase fast rolloff low ripple filter, I think? I would actually prefer that to the regular fast rolloff filter (FL4) - it's got lower passband ripple and associated pre-echo, and a stopband rejection of 90+ dB still is plenty for a DAC. Historically, it wasn't uncommon to see values in the 40s in run-of-the-mill CD player DACs, or the 60s in fancier ones. You just need to keep ultrasonic levels low enough so that following stages do not give any trouble.
 
Was there any response from SMSL on this problem?
 
Some new firmwares are out, are the filters now named correctly?
 
Some new firmwares are out, are the filters now named correctly?
looks like it on the DO400:
 

Attachments

  • smsl1.png
    smsl1.png
    383.3 KB · Views: 45
Some new firmwares are out, are the filters now named correctly?

D-6S has no new firmware.
DO100 Pro manual has not been updated.

This is from the updated manual of the DL200. It is correct apart from it being unclear if filter 7 is ESS #7 or ESS #8.
Screenshot 2024-10-01 at 16.35.40.png


However, this is from the product page. Filter 1 and 6 have the right name but the wrong colour and placement.
Screenshot 2024-10-01 at 16.37.03.png


Finally, the SU-X. This is from the manual. Filter 4 is mislabeled the same as for the DO400. It is Linear phase fast roll-off low ripple (ESS #4) not Linear phase fast roll-off (ESS #3).
Screenshot 2024-10-01 at 16.46.34.png
 
I have the DO100 Pro. What's filter setting #1? It sounds the smoothest, at least compared to 4.
 
Per the above post, that's "Filter off". Since it has some pre-20k rolloff and actually doesn't filter an awful lot, you are expected to use that with software upsampling to a higher sample rate. 88.2/96k minimum, I would probably go to 192, maybe even 384. Leave appropriate extra digital headroom in the player. Are you doing so now? Keep in mind ESS DACs tend to not like overs very much.
 
Per the above post, that's "Filter off". Since it has some pre-20k rolloff and actually doesn't filter an awful lot, you are expected to use that with software upsampling to a higher sample rate
Absolutely! It will make a complete mess of CD at 44.1kHz as well as content sampled at 48kHz. 88/96 are marginal as well.
 
Does anyone know what filter is utilized in the PS200? It uses a ES9039Q2M chip too, but it doesn’t offer filter selection. I would imagine they went with the default minimum phase?
 
Edit: See correction in next post.

The D-6S has a software update (link) and the its manual has been updated and is now correct.
Screenshot 2024-10-18 at 17.10.33.png
 
Last edited:
The D-6S has a software update (link) and the its manual has been updated and is now correct.
View attachment 399757

This is still incorrect. Filter 1 (dark blue) is a slow minimum phase filter hiding behind filter 7 (black), i.e. filter 1 is ESS #7 or #8 not #1 minimum phase. Filters 2-6 are correctly labeled though.
 
Back
Top Bottom