SMSL M500 DAC and HP Amp Review

[amirm]

Such a weak-ling you are. Arent you little duck-ling.

So what if I leave. The kool-aid party continues, drinking the host blood and everyone circle jerks each other to infinity. Never knew such weaklings are found at a science base forum.

Better than circling somewhere around a voodoo doll which you seem to have come from. Banned for a week. Come back with more common sense than anger and frustrations.

 

[amirm]

The “scam” is indicating to the consumer that there is anything different or better in the higher rate - whether that’s in a wasteful PCM encode at 192khz, or MQA saying that it is delivering a 192khz file.

Before you can launch a new commercial format, you need to satisfy the labels. For whatever reason, they have encoded their files at 192 kHz. And such, the requirement is to deliver the same. Maybe they encoded it at 192 kHz because they think the user will value it more. Or they did it due to audio folklore. It doesn't matter. If the technical guy at Warner doesn't give you the green light, you don't get the support of that label.

Likewise, an operator like Tidal wants to light up the highest sample rate they can. They don't want to be lower sample rates than a competitor can.

MQA enables this and that is why it has gotten the design wins. You have to meet the needs of the stakeholders.

This is why I keep saying the discussions around a new format like MQA must include points other than technical.

Let's remember that the motivation here is to charge consumers more for high-res. And high sample rate support is a requirement.

Long time ago I said if someone can modify flac to downsample, compress and then upsample back to higher sample rate, they would have a nice competitor to MQA. Has anyone lifted a finger to do that? No. They don't understand the needs of the supply chain, or the end consumer.

 

[Ron Texas]

The only thing I can guaranty about 192khz over 96khz is increased storage space and bandwidth use.

 

[amirm]

German Fraunhofer Institute (FHG) was the core developer of MP3 codec. Years ago they made a presentation at AES about a lossy compressor that supported higher sample rates. After the presentation was over, a guy raised his hand and asked: "if you can't hear what is above 20 kHz, how do you know your perceptual model is correct for that region?" The presenter had no answer. Because technically there isn't one. But there is one based on business which is if disc formats supported higher sample rates, lossy compression could too.

Likewise, we had extended our WMA codec to support up to 96 kHz with WMA Pro. I asked my team the above question and their answer was what I said MQA is doing: encoding less and less of what is above 20 kHz (quantizing them higher and higher).

No one called our effort or FHG's a "scam." It is the right technical solution to the problem at hand.

 

[nscrivener]

Before you can launch a new commercial format, you need to satisfy the labels. For whatever reason, they have encoded their files at 192 kHz. And such, the requirement is to deliver the same. Maybe they encoded it at 192 kHz because they think the user will value it more. Or they did it due to audio folklore. It doesn't matter. If the technical guy at Warner doesn't give you the green light, you don't get the support of that label.

Likewise, an operator like Tidal wants to light up the highest sample rate they can. They don't want to be lower sample rates than a competitor can.

MQA enables this and that is why it has gotten the design wins. You have to meet the needs of the stakeholders.

This is why I keep saying the discussions around a new format like MQA must include points other than technical.

Let's remember that the motivation here is to charge consumers more for high-res. And high sample rate support is a requirement.

Long time ago I said if someone can modify flac to downsample, compress and then upsample back to higher sample rate, they would have a nice competitor to MQA. Has anyone lifted a finger to do that? No. They don't understand the needs of the supply chain, or the end consumer.

All of that may very well be true. And at the same time, completely irrelevant to an audience that is primarily concerned with the technical requirements for optimal audio reproduction.
Now, if the “gimmicks” were a part and parcel of a bigger picture that included more care taken to provide pristine, high dynamic range masters through that format, I’d be happy enough. Unfortunately with over six months of listening to various MQA and non MQA tracks on Tidal through Roon I see just as many overly hot masters being released on MQA as in standard FLAC. I’m regularly seeing volume levelling in Roon at -6 to -8db reductions. So the madness continues.

 

[dmac6419]

Sorry i offended your cult leader.

Your leader needs to be checked. And I will be questioning him.

You just watch over in the corner cheerleader.

https://drop.com/talk/18010/cult-of-audio-science-review-amirs-faithful

You stuck with that r2r,you should be mad with drop,if you like it you should be mad with no one.

 

[BDWoody]

Didn't realize that this is the type of idiocy you deal with Amir. Bunch of raving fools. You are a much better person than I am. I'd be banning left and right. Someone like that demonstratively does not offer anything of value to this or any site.

They generally make such fools of themselves, they don't hold up long. The level of Butthurt gets out of hand, and then they lash out like children. I think many of them are actually...

Banning people too early prevents their true colors to show. Eventually, most just can't help themselves...

Pathetic, but predictable...

 

[AndrovichIV]

German Fraunhofer Institute (FHG) was the core developer of MP3 codec. Years ago they made a presentation at AES about a lossy compressor that supported higher sample rates. After the presentation was over, a guy raised his hand and asked: "if you can't hear what is above 20 kHz, how do you know your perceptual model is correct for that region?" The presenter had no answer. Because technically there isn't one. But there is one based on business which is if disc formats supported higher sample rates, lossy compression could too.

Likewise, we had extended our WMA codec to support up to 96 kHz with WMA Pro. I asked my team the above question and their answer was what I said MQA is doing: encoding less and less of what is above 20 kHz (quantizing them higher and higher).

No one called our effort or FHG's a "scam." It is the right technical solution to the problem at hand.

What's your opinion on: https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf ?

I found the link in one of Archimago's posts: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

 

[nscrivener]

What's your opinion on: https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf ?

I found the link in one of Archimago's posts: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/mqa-a-review-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

Even with my own limited understanding of sampling thereom, I can see within the first few pages that the authors do not understand the basic tenets.

 

[SMSL-Mandy]

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.

Not a joke, we have plan it for several years and prepare the chips already.

 

[amirm]

What's your opinion on: https://www.xivero.com/downloads/MQA-Technical_Analysis-Hypotheses-Paper.pdf ?

It is a very good paper, written with the right tone. The scheme they propose as alternative to MQA is sound and is the same shortcut version I suggested earlier. They basically propose to remove noise and useless spectrum from high-res files prior to flac encoding them. In doing so FLAC efficiency is increased and lower data rates result. This bit goes to the discussion we had on why MQA does not need to encode way out there ultrasonics:

Instead of getting together and funding their scheme for peanuts, the community has decided to instead just complain about MQA.

 

[Tizziano]

Activates audio filters, meaning..?

It means that you are altering the original track, so it is a master.

 

[Tizziano]

What group?

group facebook: 1.- MQA audio developments and reviews.
2.- Audiomelómanos.
@amirm

 

[gvl]

Not a joke, we have plan it for several years and prepare the chips already.

Well, that's a bold move. Audiophiles will be buzzing. Is there a plan for pure NOS mode so that an external digital oversampling filter, eg HQ Player, can be used?

 

[SMSL-Mandy]

Well, that's a bold move. Audiophiles will be buzzing. Is there a plan for pure NOS mode so that an external digital oversampling filter, eg HQ Player, can be used?

It doesn't have a plan about this yeah. Thanks.

 

[gvl]

It doesn't have a plan about this yeah. Thanks.

That's an oversight If memory serves the 1704 can run at 16x oversampling rate, if this is something it can support over USB while bypassing the internal digital filter it would be interesting.

 

[ryohnosuke]

group facebook: 1.- MQA audio developments and reviews.
2.- Audiomelómanos.
@amirm

I know audiomelomanos very well. They're some kind of MQA fanboys. Hehe.

Actually MQA use filters, you mean SMSL M500 use wrong filters?

 

[TC!!]

The comments i made about anemic output were for USB mode only. It was comparatively and jarringly "hot" on other outputs, which means you had to be careful to turn down volume to 10 or less when switching inputs, or you'd be blasted by sound.

The update to the 1.04 -> 1.07 indicates, per @SMSL-Mandy "The new firmware. Mainly solve the problem that some users have proposed before, the Android phone sound is small when connecting with M500" ... I'd say the reason for the delay/wait for Amir's review was that SMSL wanted to ship the upgraded firmware. Which is good because that is the unit people will be purchasing, after all the complaints about issues with 1.04 firmware.

Since android uses Linux underneath, the "android phone" fix should also apply to my use-cases of Linux and Android-TV (NVIDIA Shield Pro 2015). Alas, since the firmware upgrade requires windows or mac,I cannot verify and am sending my unit back via amazon prime free returns (which was why i was willing to gamble purchasing an unreviewed unit in the first place).

But like I said, on Coaxial input fed via USB from a Topping D10, or by a Raspberry Pi with DigiPi HAT, it sounds really good, better than the Topping DX7S it was to retire.

One test I'd like to see @amirm add to all his DAC tests is a 50Hz square wave signal fed into the DAC and measured at the XLR outputs under specified XLR balanced cabling impedance (600 ohms i believe) load. So as to see what the output op amps slew rate and output capacitors do to the bass response of the unit, especially in driving a "real world" length of XLR cable say 6-10 meters (and maybe a second measurement with 10-20cm of cable, aka little inductive and capacitive load, as "control"). Because it's easy to measure a sine wave down to 20Hz, but most of the "bass" we hear is a fundamental and overtones, so if analog outs can't pass a nice 50Hz square-wave with relatively sharp edges, and without phase delay between fundamental and overtones, the bass will sound all wrong (aka lacking in "thumpiness" and "attack" characteristics).

Likewise love to see a "teardown" or circuit diagram of the XLR output circuitry of the M500 vs the Topping DX7Pro -- what kind of op-amps, coupling capacitors?, DC coupled (if only...), real balanced (using a pair of amplifiers) or "fake" balanced output (using a single amplifier 1/2 noise and distortion, but can't drive a long XLR line), etc ????

View attachment 37281

@amirm Could you please give your feedback on this query of the XLR outputs being "real balanced". Your tests show great results on the XLR output but I'm not sure if this means it is true balanced. Being honest I don't have any idea what this even means but before picking this up on 11/11 I'd at least like to try to understand ;-)

 

[Veri]

Actually MQA use filters, you mean SMSL M500 use wrong filters?

I think the MQA is 'further processed' in the ESS Sabre so it doesn't stay bitperfect. I don't think there's much harm in that though?

 

[Manbeard]

Spoiler: it won't perform well.

Oh I know but I think it would be the first time Amir tested a PCM1704 based DAC. Still interesting nonetheless.