SMSL PS 200 internal view

[TonyJZX]

i find it funny how these companies cant seem to make a viable cheap working product around the 9039

the cheapest is still the DL200???

surely for about $150 they can slap on in a box with a screen, remote and all the usual niceties?

 

[staticV3]

i find it funny how these companies cant seem to make a viable cheap working product around the 9039

the cheapest is still the DL200???

surely for about $150 they can slap on in a box with a screen, remote and all the usual niceties?

PS200 - $85
Fosi ZD3 - $180
DL200 - $190
D-6S - $200

 

[johny_2000]

PS200 - $85
Fosi ZD3 - $180
DL200 - $190
D-6S - $200

D50 III - $229
Or are we talking about DAC + HP amp combo devices?

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

People hi.
I know that I may 'shock' more than one because I am going to put forward a purely subjective argument although it can be seen when listening (if you are sincere).
The DL200 with its OPAMPS OPA1612 for the audio output circuit does not have the same 'sound' as the PS200 with its OPA1656 OPAMPS.
I have not taken any measurements concerning its two DAC models but I invite those who are interested to do so
Have a good day everyone.
PS: if it had been 'equipped' with OPAMPS OPA2828 then the question of 'SQ' would not even make sense anymore...

 

[nanook]

People hi.
I know that I may 'shock' more than one because I am going to put forward a purely subjective argument although it can be seen when listening (if you are sincere).
The DL200 with its OPAMPS OPA1612 for the audio output circuit does not have the same 'sound' as the PS200 with its OPA1656 OPAMPS.
I have not taken any measurements concerning its two DAC models but I invite those who are interested to do so
Have a good day everyone.
PS: if it had been 'equipped' with OPAMPS OPA2828 then the question of 'SQ' would not even make sense anymore...

All of the mentioned OpAmps are excellent - I doubt there will be a measurable difference. And a multitone stimulus is reasonably complex to cover music - although I would love to see multitone spectra for e.g. - 30dBFS and - 50dBFS, not only for 0dBFS. But this would rather address the DAC chip, I do not expect a contribution of the OpAmps - they have their challenge at high levels.

And in case the OpAmps do indeed contribute measurable distortion, the h2 and h3 will likely be minimised for each design using the distortion compensation in the ESS chips.

In other words - are you sure you are hearing a difference between the mentioned DACs?
Blind AB or expectation biased?

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Hello nanook.

You say that you don't expect a contribution from the operational amplifiers: really ?

Stop me if I'm wrong but what we hear 'in the end' from a DAC is well reproduced by the analog signal that passes through the AUDIO circuit (so the OPAMPS) at its outputs, right?

How will your DAC chip correct harmonic distortions since it is upstream of the OPAMPS? Something must have escaped me...

I would add that if the current OPAMPS were 'so good' that there would be no difference between them then contact TEXAS INSTRUMENTS quickly to explain to them that they do anything and waste their time...

I am not arrogant, I am just making a 'logical statement' of what is said by most people who only support 'objective' arguments in relation to our CURRENT understanding of the various 'acoustic phenomena' and therefore possible measures with our current knowledge and tools.

Indeed, if I had to 'pose' myself as a scientist to claim such objective assertions then I would have to end up questioning myself why so many people (and there are VERY many and from all 'horizons') on their side claim that they hear a difference. Just saying that it comes from cognitive or other biases would only make my claim much less objective (if not at all), don't you think ?

 

[nanook]

You say that you don't expect a contribution from the operational amplifiers: really ?

That's what I mean - they are so good that the linearity and other imperfections (spurs due to the SD conversion, etc.) of the DAC chip will dominate the final result.

I would add that if the current OPAMPS were 'so good' that there would be no difference between them then contact TEXAS INSTRUMENTS quickly to explain to them that they do anything and waste their time...

I've been designing integrated OpAmps and I've been working on low noise measurement amplifiers using OpAmps professionally. I would never have said that there's no difference between them, but that would get a very technical discussion.
In short: The OPA1612 is extremely good at distortion and noise when operated with a relatively low impedance feedback network due to its bipolar input stage. The other two you mentioned have a JFET input stage that is advantagues in an environment with higher source impedances, but they will not fully compete with the OPA1612 regarding noise in this application.

Last-not-least you can do many things good or bad in the circuit design and there are very simple and very clever circuit topologies around. A wide area...

... why so many people (and there are VERY many and from all 'horizons') on their side claim that they hear a difference.

I've been fooling myself so many times that I arrived at the point that "if I'm not able to identify a difference in blind listening with a reasonable statistics then there's no difference that I can hear". Surely there are people who are able to distinguish subtle differences that I can't. Doesn't remove the need for blind testing though.

Net: If you hear differences then you do hear differences.

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Thank you for your answer so complete and honest nanook
Regarding the OPA1612, apart from its use with a relatively low impedance feedback network (and what follows from it) you forget to talk about the need to have impedances equal to its inputs under penalty of a large OFFSET unless you add link capacitors, which is not an "acceptable solution" in itself.
An OPAMP of the FET or JFET type will not have this problem of OFFSET and their noise level (eN) has become so efficient nowadays that we are almost wondering why bipolar OPAMPS are still produced...

 

[nanook]

you forget to talk about the need to have impedances equal to its inputs under penalty of a large OFFSET unless you add link capacitors, which is not an "acceptable solution" in itself.
An OPAMP of the FET or JFET type will not have this problem of OFFSET and their noise level (eN) has become so efficient nowadays that we are almost wondering why bipolar OPAMPS are still produced...

Apart from a factor of ca. 3x regarding input noise voltage density en above 1kHz, the bipolar input stage has the advantage of a usually far lower 1/f corner of en. For the OPA1612 it's typ. ca. 20Hz and for the OPA1656 it's typ. ca. 1kHz.
The corner frequency strongly depends on how "clean" the technology process is when the batch is processed.
In order to get into the 1nV/sqrt(Hz) region, you still have to employ large discrete JFETs - it's design effort and they aren't cheap.

Offset voltage of a bipolar input stage still typically is somewhat smaller although JFET stages have made huge progress in the past.

Bias current (I*R drop at source resistance): The OPA1612 is "bias current compensated" (you can see this in the datasheet, the bias current is specified +/- and it is about the same size as the offset current specification).
Even assuming the max. specification of 250nA together with ca. 250 Ohm source resistance (390 Ohm of ES9039q2m || ca. 750 Ohm feedback resistance in the I/V stage), this ends up at ca. 63uV. Not much compared to the typical 100uV for the offset voltage of the OPA1612.
And even if there would be significant bias current (not compensated, so same sign for both branches of the I/V stage, this bias-current-induced-offset-voltage would show up in the non-inverting and the inverting branch with similar magnitude. It's common-mode and gets subtracted by the subsequent stage (either in the amplifier connected or in the stage that feeds the RCA output).

SMSL uses a topology where they divide the AVCC that supplies the analog stage of the ES9039q2m and trim this divider (potentiometer) to obtain <1mV offset at the individual pins of the differential outputs.
There is a really clever topology in the ES9039pro datasheet that has a servo (no need to trim manually) and that removes most of the common-mode "dirt" present on the DAC chip outputs.
I would really love to see this topology implemented. I suspect the D50iii might have this topology, but that is mostly speculation until someone reverse-engineers it.

 

[nanook]

Regarding the OPA1612, apart from its use with a relatively low impedance feedback network (and what follows from it) you forget to talk about the need to have impedances equal to its inputs under penalty of a large OFFSET unless you add link capacitors, which is not an "acceptable solution" in itself.

I'm tempted to comment on this one too ;-)

There is this - very reasonable - argument, that the DC source resistance for both OpAmp inputs need to be matched in order to avoid large bias-current-induced-offset. This is perfectly true and it's no issue for input stages using JFETs (bias current in the order of tens of pA). And of course adding a resistor only for matching reasons is nasty because every resistor will add its own voltage noise (and in*R).
BUT some thing that is frequently overlooked: This does not make sense when you are dealing with a "bias current compensated input stage".
The principle is simple: Using a replica of one transistor of the input stage and bringing it into the same operation point as the input stage transistors, you do generate a current that matches the bias current of the input stage transistor - just with opposite polarity (using e.g. a current mirror). - and add this to the input. This way you can reduce the (external) bias current to zero - theoretically. In the real world you will achieve a 10x to 100x reduction of the bias current, which is still nice.
The cost is the current noise that is associated with this compensating current. This one being fully uncorrelated to the one of the input stage transistor, you have to deal with ca. 1.4x input current noise as a result. Nothing's for free in the real world

Long story short: matching source resistance on both OpAmp inputs does not make sense for bias-current-compensated OpAmps. The sign of the bias current depends on the matching of the replica and thus the inputs of the OpAmp may have a bias current with a different sign. Adding a "matching resistor" would make things worse.

Sorry for the lengthy comment.

 

[Guddu]

with HDMI ARC, this PS200 might have become go to DAC !!!

 

[Bwaslo]

Anyone who has one of these -- does it work in recent Windows without loading custom drivers? Smsl site says drivers needed, but I've seen such statements not always true. SU-1 does fine without drivers. (I hate having gear go obsolete from manufacturers not releasing drivers down the road for newer OSes)

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Hello Bwaslo.
For the PS200, the XMOS XU316 chip needs a driver to run at its full capabilities under WINDOWS. To do this, do not search with GOOGLE for example for the following file ->
XMOS_USBAudio_v5.68.0_2024-02-13_setup.exe
I know it's an "exe" file but it will come from an "https" site otherwise don't download it. Don't download the trial version of THESYCON either because the one I'm talking about is the latest driver to my knowledge (February 2024).

 

[Guddu]

Hello Bwaslo.
For the PS200, the XMOS XU316 chip needs a driver to run at its full capabilities under WINDOWS. To do this, do not search with GOOGLE for example for the following file ->
XMOS_USBAudio_v5.68.0_2024-02-13_setup.exe
I know it's an "exe" file but it will come from an "https" site otherwise don't download it. Don't download the trial version of THESYCON either because the one I'm talking about is the latest driver to my knowledge (February 2024).

If installing this .exe is doubtful then You might be able to extract .exe with 7zip (or similar software) to get the contents, and then try installing/updating drivers through Device Manager.

 

[Zek]

... the XMOS XU316 chip needs a driver ... do not search with GOOGLE ... Don't download the trial version of THESYCON either because the one I'm talking about is the latest driver to my knowledge (February 2024).

Then where to download the latest original driver?

 

[Bwaslo]

So, it won't work at all in Win10 without drivers (noncompliant)? I need only mme rendering, couldnt care less about MQA (does anyone anymore?) or SACD

 

[staticV3]

So, it won't work at all in Win10 without drivers (noncompliant)? I need only mme rendering, couldnt care less about MQA (does anyone anymore?) or SACD

The PS200 is class-compliant and should work plug-and-play.

Manual driver install only required for firmware updates, native ASIO, and >384kHz sample rates.

 

[tccalvin]

I am eyeing this DAC as well. Has anyone who owns a PS200 experienced any issues (such as compatibility, disconnects, clicks, pops, etc.)?

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Hello.
I've never had any problems with it and to my knowledge no one has complained about anything

 

[Bleib]

I am eyeing this DAC as well. Has anyone who owns a PS200 experienced any issues (such as compatibility, disconnects, clicks, pops, etc.)?

No, fault free. The LED lights are not as overly bright as SU-1 either so that part is better
Only used USB so far though, it'll be connected to a DVD later on through optical