SMSL or Topping Stack for Soundstage and Imaging?

[tjdms]

I'm planning on purchasing the Hifiman Sundara. After looking at subjective reviews from multiple sources and objective measurements from reviews on this forum, I've narrowed down my Amp + DAC setup to two options:

Topping L50 + E50

SMSL SH-8s + SU-8s

From what I've read, these stacks perform well regarding distortion, noise floor, etc. They also have a neutral sound. So I'm more concerned about soundstage and imaging. Does anyone have any opinions or helpful information regarding these stacks? Again I'm looking for the best performance in imaging and soundstage since these stacks are mostly neutral sounding, and I will be using an EQ.

Some might say to get the one with the feature set I prefer, but I'm not concerned about features. The only feature I require is a balanced connection, and I know I can't go wrong with either. I'm also not concerned about the price since these two stacks are priced similarly on Amazon right now. I simply want the best soundstage and imaging. Any suggestions or insight would be very helpful.

 

[BDWoody]

Welcome to the forum.

Soundstage and imaging would be a combination of the original source and your speakers/room (Edit: or headphones/head). Either of those DACs will do the job just fine.

 

[RHO]

DAC and amp do not influence imaging and soundstage.
So pick the one you like to look at most, if features not important to you.

 

[b7676]

AKM > ESS.
So legacy D70s, D90(x) is the upgrade from new sabre chip implementations.
The E50 should have been a dual AKM midrange.

 

[jcarys]

I own both the E50 and E30. They simply do their job and have no detectable sound. Obviously, other DACs can perform theoretically better, but in terms of real world human ears, there's nothing more to be done. Imaging seems correct to me.

 

[LarryRS]

I'm going to be completely heretical. I have a Topping D50S DAC and a A90 headphone amp and usually listen through HiFiman Sundara's. Recently picked up a IFI Zen Can HFM amp that has a button for an equalization curve for the Sundara and another for a function they call XSpace. Paired the IFI with the D50S and pressed both buttons. Wow! Space, air, whatever you want to call it, listening to this is just plain fun!

 

[tifune]

AKM > ESS.

In what regard?

 

[b7676]

In what regard?

At being pleasing in the job a chip was designed (or adapted) to do.
Different DAC chip architectures sound different.
AKM > TI BB > ESS > Realtek, in the order of sounding least like discrete onboard solutions.

 

[BDWoody]

At being pleasing in the job a chip was designed (or adapted) to do.

Its job isn't to be pleasing.

Different DAC chip architectures sound different.

There is no evidence this is true. It has never been demonstrated, despite the claims in audio-land.

 

[b7676]

Its job isn't to be pleasing.



There is no evidence this is true. It has never been demonstrated, despite the claims in audio-land.

Is the better test for this using dual mono implements or budget chips? My thesis is that it would take hundreds of hours for new ears to identify between the two higher tier, but budget chip implementations could be discerned as a mealy grannysmith to gala comparison in tens of hours.

My impression was Japanese engineers passionately do not believe they are designing things for use by ghosts.

 

[BDWoody]

Is the better test for this using dual mono implements or budget chips? My thesis is that it would take hundreds of hours for new ears to identify between the two, but budget chip implementations could be discerned as a mealy grannysmith to gala comparison in tens of hours.

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but so far there is no evidence that in any evaluation over however many hours there is an inherent audible difference between them, or any other chips with surrounding circuitry leading to 'transparent' measured results. That's not where differences are going to be.

 

[b7676]

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but so far there is no evidence that in any evaluation over however many hours there is an inherent audible difference between them, or any other chips with surrounding circuitry leading to 'transparent' measured results. That's not where differences are going to be.

No need to project the idea that the phenomena are inherently audible.
Were such artifacts audible just years ago before 'transparent' measuring circuits, but then just stopped being problems existing since the legacy gear like that hump?
Why design or care that dual mono implementations are able to beat reference?

 

[samsa]

Is the better test for this using dual mono implements or budget chips? My thesis is that it would take hundreds of hours for new ears to identify between the two higher tier, but budget chip implementations could be discerned as a mealy grannysmith to gala comparison in tens of hours.

I'm not sure what "budget chips" you are referring to, but are you asserting that if

• the bottom-of-the-line DAC chip from Manufacturer A has audible artifact X
• and the bottom-of-the-line DAC chip from Manufacturer B has audible artifact Y

then all DAC chips from Manufacturer A will have artifact X and all DAC chips from Manufacturer B will have artifact Y?

'Cuz everything else aside, that's crazy talk.

Obviously, the bottom-of-the-line chip will involve some compormises. Different manufacturers may make different choices as to what those compromises should be. But, to assert that, having made that choice, the same compromise will persist across the entire product line ....

 

[Dunring]

The Sundara has a very wide but not deep soundstage. I've had several and the most fun for gaming was the JDS Atom DAC and THX 789 One amplifier. The Audio Technica ADH1000X is better at both if your not a bass head. The Sound blaster AE-9 was impressive with it, and if it's gaming your planning even 12 percent SBX surround will help compensate for the lack of depth in the Sundara sound stage. The Ananda is the best choice, and doesn't need much to drive them.

 

[b7676]

I'm not sure what "budget chips" you are referring to, but are you asserting that if

• the bottom-of-the-line DAC chip from Manufacturer A has audible artifact X
• and the bottom-of-the-line DAC chip from Manufacturer B has audible artifact Y

then all DAC chips from Manufacturer A will have artifact X and all DAC chips from Manufacturer B will have artifact Y?

'Cuz everything else aside, that's crazy talk.

Obviously, the bottom-of-the-line chip will involve some compormises. Different manufacturers may make different choices as to what those compromises should be. But, to assert that, having made that choice, the same compromise will persist across the entire product line ....

The ESS hump seems to be exactly such a ring 0 notty problem which remains undocumented?

 

[KeithPhantom]

My thesis is that it would take hundreds of hours for new ears to identify between the two higher tier.

Your hypothesis can be disproven by easily performing a double blind test using an excellent measuring piece of equipment and another piece equipment that does not measure as well. If we were able to differentiate state-of-the-art gear from gear with 60 dB SINAD reliably, we wouldn’t be using most headphones. That’s how insensitive our ears are to nonlinear distortion.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

The ESS hump seems to be exactly such a ring 0 notty problem which remains undocumented?

The ESS hump is well documented by the measurements published here. Although not pretty there is no proof of audibility plus the well engineered SOTA DAC manufacturers have found solutions to pretty much suppress it. So absolutely no mystery here.

This will be helpful, provided you are open, about DAC/AMP audibility. (All the DACs from your initial post sound the same).

Audibility thresholds of amp and DAC measurements

Introduction A recurring theme on ASR is whether or not the various measured qualities of the devices are audible. In this post, I'll present some clear and visual thresholds for when those imperfections can be considered a potentially audible concern. I will not explain the basics of amp/DAC...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Article: Understanding Digital Audio Measurements

EDIT: Kind translation to Spanish by member @RamiroColasurdo here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/article-understanding-digital-audio-measurements.10523/page-8#post-1486638 A detailed tutorial on how one can characterize the true performance of DACs (whether...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[samsa]

The ESS hump seems to be exactly such a ring 0 notty problem

No, that's wrong.

It

1. occurred only with certain ESS chips, not across the whole line
2. was a problem of a flawed implementation, not the chips themselves. Changing the values of a couple of resistors and capacitors on the board fixed the problem.

which remains undocumented?

It's very well-documented (see this thread on this very forum), and completely a thing-of the past.

Want to try again?

 

[b7676]

Your hypothesis can be disproven by easily performing a double blind test using an excellent measuring piece of equipment and another piece equipment that does not measure as well. If we were able to differentiate state-of-the-art gear from gear with 60 dB SINAD reliably, we wouldn’t be using most headphones. That’s how insensitive our ears are to nonlinear distortion.

Do dull ears preclude the body from having any reaction at all to nonlinear distortion even in infra or ultra sonics.

Why bother with designing dual mono DACs to improve over reference? Marketing, exclusively?

 

[BDWoody]

Do dull ears preclude the body from having any reaction at all to nonlinear distortion even in infra or ultra sonics.

Can you provide or link any evidence that it does?

Back to the claims vs evidence thing.

Why bother with designing dual mono DACs to improve over reference? Marketing, exclusively

Whatever reasons there may be, it isn't going to make it sound better, or even different assuming we are talking about accuracy and not 'voicing' (adding distortion). Better measurements can be a reasonable design goal, but connecting that to audible improvements needs evidence.