SMSL PS200 Budget DAC Review

[VientoB]

Ah...

May I ask how old you are VientoB ?

Regards.

I am 48

 

[PenguinMusic]

I am 48

Hi,

48 years old ?
I would have said that you're a lot younger.

Because as far as I remember, there is no way devices I got MANY DECADES AGO (meaning at least 30 years ago) would sound anywhere the same as the devices I own now.
Mind you, even the Linn KARIK III CD player that was considered about a jewel in it's time just sounds really bad compared to a device of today !

And I think (I cannot tell for sure) that the difference will probably be measurable because if it is not, then there is a problem. YOu can double blind test me any time and I'll for sure tell the difference between a device from that ime a "good enough" device from taday...

But maybe our experiences differ ?

 

[Mojo Warrior]

Is your statement proven or just "heard through the grapevine"? ;-)

Back when MQA was a new thing, I had a Tidal subscription and I listened very carefully with headphones. I was able to hear differences between MQA and CD quality playback and, indeed there were differences. However, They were not beneficial to the music and sounded more like unnecessary manipulation of the sound source rather than any improvement in fidelity or detail. I subsequently cancelled my Tidal account and switched to Qobuz because MQA sounded like a scam/gimmick.

So, my decision was based upon my own subjective experiences not corporate marketing mumbo jumbo. YMMV

 

[PenguinMusic]

Is your statement proven or just "heard through the grapevine"? ;-)

Hi,

Can't provide the links, because I read those a LONG TIME AGO, but I think I can remember some sites haven downloaded the files in "MQA" fdormat and analysed them and all came to the same conclusion : it is just "artifically added signal" to make it sound better.

Anyways, I never owned adevice that could play that stuff, so I can only trust those who measured and analysed the files.

Regards.

 

[antcollinet]

even the Linn KARIK III CD player that was considered about a jewel in it's time just sounds really bad compared to a device of today !

And yet @NTTY has measured a number of CD players from that era which show basically audibly perfect results.

So yes - even basic CD players were capable of performance audibly as good as devices we can get today. Perhaps your Linn player was just a bad example of the time. Or perhaps you are just not comparing controlled and blind.

Just by way of an example, the 35 year old Denon DCD-3560

Denon DCD-3560 Review (CD Player)

Hello Everyone, This is a review and detailed measurements of the Denon DCD-3560 stereo CD player. I already mentioned multiple times that I’m into older CD players (like the Marantz CD-73), this is one more proof. Denon DCD-3560 - Presentation This CD player is a member of the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Or the JVC XL Z335

JVC XL-Z335 Review (1990 CD Player)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the JVC XL-Z335. JVC XL-Z335 - Presentation Released in 1990, this is quite an old CD Player. It was medium class player at reasonable price. At this time, JVC (Japan Victor Company) was still owned by Panasonic. I’m not sure it shows on the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

There are quite a few others.

 

[VientoB]

Hi,

48 years old ?
I would have said that you're a lot younger.

Because as far as I remember, there is no way devices I got MANY DECADES AGO (meaning at least 30 years ago) would sound anywhere the same as the devices I own now.
Mind you, even the Linn KARIK III CD player that was considered about a jewel in it's time just sounds really bad compared to a device of today !

And I think (I cannot tell for sure) that the difference will probably be measurable because if it is not, then there is a problem. YOu can double blind test me any time and I'll for sure tell the difference between a device from that ime a "good enough" device from taday...

But maybe our experiences differ ?

I listened to my Rotel RCD 970BX CD player recently from 1996 so I know.

 

[jharkness]

Just wondering how this would compare to my Topping D10s

 

[staticV3]

Just wondering how this would compare to my Topping D10s

Identical sound.

 

[jharkness]

Identical sound.

Much obliged

 

[Labjr]

I had a high end Denon CD player back then. From what I can remember the $50 Fosi DS2 blows it away. Maybe the rest of the system wasn't as good. Maybe source material, CD masterings etc. weren't as good either.

 

[NTTY]

Many reasons could explain, but you can’t compare from memory indeed. The only way is blind comparison with matched levels. Digital sources (with good engineering) have been good enough to remain undetected to our ears for decades.

 

[Merifon]

Back when MQA was a new thing, I had a Tidal subscription and I listened very carefully with headphones. I was able to hear differences between MQA and CD quality playback and, indeed there were differences. However, They were not beneficial to the music and sounded more like unnecessary manipulation of the sound source rather than any improvement in fidelity or detail. I subsequently cancelled my Tidal account and switched to Qobuz because MQA sounded like a scam/gimmick.

So, my decision was based upon my own subjective experiences not corporate marketing mumbo jumbo. YMMV

This was quite the same point of view, they (MQA) should have presented it as a method to reduce bandwidth needs of hi-res materials without affecting the overall result, by the use of a partially lossy (just ultrasonic part) encoding and not insist on a miracle and mystic thing.
In the meantime Tidal stopped formal support and replaced all hi-res material (they say) with the original hi-res flac supplied by editors. OK, that was a good thing anyway never tested a fully MQA exploitation.
Then I got a new gear that coincidentally has MQA capability and this was not certainly the reason why.
This capability made me discover that a lot of old tidal's 44.1KHz 16bit material it's still recognized as MQA.
I saw that not so many magazine articles gone in deep on how MQA, mainly due to their reticence works but according to some, in case of 44.1KHz 16bit original masters encoding, the main pcm information shouldn't be affected in significant way.
I started some comparisons on same editions of those files from tidal and some others lossless services and I have to say it's hardly to catch any difference when MQA decoder is off, whilst when activated, a very thiny one can be sometimes heard and generally something better.
This made me think that MQA, at least for redbook quality it's not as bad as depicted and even some doubt about how files taken in rare test lab were produced, or even file supplied by services were made.
Anyway I'm still not happy by lack of informations by Tidal but since the overall results im still with it.
Besides all such speaking, I'm thinking it's not bad that a cheap gear could offer even that decoding.

 

[CedarX]

by the use of a partially lossy (just ultrasonic part) encoding

it's hardly to catch any difference when MQA decoder is off, whilst when activated, a very thiny one can be sometimes heard and generally something better.

How did you test that? Or was it based on hearing a (subjective) difference?
“Something better”. Please expand: how adding ultrasonic content made MQA better?

 

[Merifon]

How did you test that? Or was it based on hearing a (subjective) difference?
“Something better”. Please expand: how adding ultrasonic content made MQA better?

Unfortunately, just subjective and as far is related to MQA 44.1KHz 16bit, produced from redbook masters, there shouldn't be ultrasonic content added, they are just upsampled and antialias filtered in decoding process. Even on some standard dac's it's possible to choice if upsample in the process. Anyway in this specific Tidal case they sound quite the same, even without MQA genuine decoding. It's a sort of "much ado about nothing".
I would remark that I'm not particularly fan of MQA and if they would make possible to test the system in standard ways, all this chattering about could be definitely clarified...

 

[Labjr]

Many reasons could explain, but you can’t compare from memory indeed. The only way is blind comparison with matched levels. Digital sources (with good engineering) have been good enough to remain undetected to our hears for decades.

I compare from memory because of the stark contrast. I've never heard anything as good as some recent products. I enjoy digital music more than ever. Back in the day, I didn't believe digital was better than vinyl but I do now.

 

[Sebby]

I don’t think many people even know what MQA is.

Even in ASR there are few who know it, like those who "hate" it

 

[trevor_bartram]

For anyone looking for additional features (display, remote, preamp, volume, mute, filter options) & similar performance, I highly recommend the Topping E30 II Lite. It was $84 on Black Friday.

 

[Tell]

For anyone looking for additional features (display, remote, preamp, volume, mute, filter options) & similar performance, I highly recommend the Topping E30 II Lite. It was $84 on Black Friday.

Yeah no reason to pick this SMSL DAC over that Topping, more better of everything!

 

[Mario_jr]

Just ordered mine. Are there any cheap streamers to pair with PS200?

 

[antcollinet]

Just ordered mine. Are there any cheap streamers to pair with PS200?

Wiim mini or pro, and don't look back.