or may be better idea to make a pair of M500 with SP200? Why don't SMSL make a one device M600 with amplifier from SP200 and sell for 700$ ?
-
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!
SMSL M500 DAC and HP Amp Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
renaudrenaud
Major Contributor
Maybe to pair them?
Or use them as a support for a larger electronic component?
Or to talk about MQA² this time?
Or use them as a support for a larger electronic component?
Or to talk about MQA² this time?
Veri
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 9,601
- Likes
- 12,042
M500 exists less than 2 month, and SP200 has just released lol..
Tatteredmidnight
Active Member
I mean to pair M500 and SP200, is it really good set-up? Total price is about 700$Most likely: yes...
Why do you need a pair of M500 exactly?
ClosDeLaRoche
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2019
- Messages
- 136
- Likes
- 131
I have a pair of MrSpeakers Aeon Flow Closed headphones, with an impedance of 13 ohms and sensitivity of 92 db. What kind of power could the headphone amp provide with these?
Also, are there gain setting on the headphone amp section? If not, do we know the stock gain?
Also, are there gain setting on the headphone amp section? If not, do we know the stock gain?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #228
If you have no filtering, this is what you get:
If you have 100% brickwall filtering, then nothing shows up after the Nyquist frequency. If the filter is not that sharp, then some of the images remain including some around 2X sample rate that is visible in the spectrum I showed.
You must be joking, right? SMSL plans to use an obsolete part that hasn't been in production for several years now in a DAC? If you sourced a new-old-stock stash of these chips then I suspect the D2 will be very expensive so they don't sell out very fast.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #230
The input is digital so there no concept of analog gain.
IEC cords are more common. I have at least 15 in the closet.
Kind of endgame set-up, I'd say.
i also like this idea )) but from another side I think to by one device - DAC with good balanced amplifier, for example Audio-GD NFB28 used for 400$...
An end-game set up must stack up better.
Is that some kind of joke? Audio-GD are unable to make either good DACs or Headamps...
500mW under 33ohms should be more than enough for your Aeon Closed.
Really? I'd read a lot of good reviews about their NFB amps system and R2R DACs...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #237
There is massive difference between the two. Here is the comparison:- On one hand, during the fantastic TotalDAC discussion on ASR this summer ( the whole thing was so incredible that I read the 100 pages twice!, and that really motivated me to join ASR), such ultrasonic components were found out, a few subjectivists said that it didn't matter as they cannot be heard, yet what I perceived as the "dominant", "enlightened" view an ASR was that it was really bad
because it could quite negatively affect the electronics of further devices (e.g. an amp for speakers) downstream or the behavior of transducers ( tweeter, headphones).
- On the other hand, when it is created by MQA it is OK because it cannot be heard
The TotalDAC has no filtering so aliasing is exceptionally high rising to just -11 dB below our signal. With MQA with M500, it is down to -60 dB. That is nearly 50 dB difference between the two with respect to aliasing components. And, we are free of the other distortions, noise and non-linearities in TotalDAC.
There is a huge difference between a weak filter (MQA) and no filter (TotalDAC).
I can't with a straight face make a case for that single spike at -60 dB damaging tweeters, causing amps to oscillate, etc. If you can, good for you.
Of course it will! We living in 2019 now. Anything that is AKM/ESS will score highly. Unless the company truly screws up on a already perfected easy to implement measure rated chip.
This is not the devil aka R2R dacs that consistently measure horribly.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #239
No. I explained the reasons. If you are going to build a perceptual DAC that encodes high resolution audio most efficiently, you would start by including the audible band, and then exponentially preserve less and less of the ultrasonics. By the time you get to 48 kHz, you have covered anything good that might be there. There is no reason to perceptually encode stuff above that, especially if that may come at the expense of fidelity in the audible band.Second, re. apparently fraudulent marketing claims:
- When this is the case with a device such as Schiit, TotalDAC, PS Audio, it is really bad
- With MQA it would be OK because part of the necessary marketing discourse for establishing a new standard
This is covered by the Stuart et. al. paper on potential need for higher sample rate (AES paper, the audibility of typical digital audio filters in
a high-fidelity playback system):
Notice that at around 50 Khz or so, we are at the minima of the music spectrum and from there on, it is just noise that is rising up. So no need to encode that.
PCM is highly wasteful format. The goal here is not to preserve it all for the sake of it.
So no, there is no scam here with respect to upsampling to 192 kHz. It is the right thing to do to preserve music information but no more.
R2R dacs are the devils in this forum. They can never reach good measurements to satisfy the cult of this forum. 90% of people here are distortion-ist free types. Not the pleasurable types. They will never admit it but they want that boring lame sound.
The old saying of Dac is a Dac has become nonsense now. Its distortion vs no-distortion. Like anyone can hear any differences as the founders of the statement claims.
Similar threads
