• 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 SU-10 DAC Review

Rate this DAC:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 12 3.4%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 14 3.9%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 56 15.8%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 273 76.9%

  • Total voters
    355

pLudio

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
95
Likes
86
Location
Sweden
Let's ignore the audiophile BS...
From the name alone filter 3 should be the minimum phase version of filter 1 and therefore cause a huge phase shift that will extend well below 20 kHz.
I think their time domain image for filter 3 is simply wrong.
Yes, it looks like a coloured version of AKM's marketing material but they got it wrong.

irdf-dac-en-jp.png
 

Walter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
1,242
This sinad race has for me an advantage, because if you use the DAC with digital volume the noise floor is better with lower output levels as well and this can be audibly.
I'd actually like it if @amirm measured noise at low levels for DACs with volume controls, as he does for headphone amps.
 

sam_adams

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 24, 2019
Messages
976
Likes
2,368
So the old 12v trigger is still not something seen as worthwhile? Stick to Benchmark who understands you might be driving an amplifier with these products with volume control.

Topping took our hint in the DX7 Pro+:

index.php


If @SMSL-Mandy is listening; might we make a suggestion?
 

pseudoid

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
5,125
Likes
3,439
Location
33.58 -117.88
If @SMSL-Mandy is listening; might we make a suggestion?
Are you proposing a merger?
I don't know how fierce of a competition they may (or may not) have within the same sector but "Does Macy's Tell Gimbels?"
 

Garrincha

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 11, 2022
Messages
659
Likes
816
This is a rather monumental statement that I think raises some important considerations for consumers. I have the Topping d90se, based on your recommendations here, and I remain happy as can be with it. Yet I keep coming back looking for achievements like this unit here—I’m surely entertained by the process of watching each new offering from Topping, SMSL and Gustard squeeze out another few decimals of SINAD, but does it really mean anything beyond academic interest? Have we really closed the book on DA conversion technology?

If our ears can’t detect differences at this point, then isn’t SMSL selling a bit of snake oil by adding an extra ES9038pro in this box and charging an extra $200 for something extraneous? If USB 2.0 connections are more than adequate to cover the bandwidth required for the highest resolutions of digital samples, then does USB 3.0 or USB C really offer any practical advantages, other than seeming more modern and sophisticated?

And if our existing limits of sampling rates already exceed our ability to discern the difference between analog masters and their digital facsimiles, then what’s the future of digital audio? What frontier haven’t we crossed?
This all sounds reasonable to me and it really looks that DACs can be considered as a "solved problem", like amps as well. So it is only about price, handling, features, design and built quality and the like. Invest the money in speakers and headphones. Only building a systems is more boring, as there are far fewer challenges.
 

Billy Budapest

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Messages
1,812
Likes
2,689
This all sounds reasonable to me and it really looks that DACs can be considered as a "solved problem", like amps as well. So it is only about price, handling, features, design and built quality and the like. Invest the money in speakers and headphones. Only building a systems is more boring, as there are far fewer challenges.
The only problems that remain to be solved are the loudspeaker and the microphone.
 

AndreaT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
613
Likes
1,182
Location
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Not suggesting SINAD. To be clear, asking for a suggestion based on your experience.
An armchair suggestion by me would be to look at noise and dynamic range to establish inaudibility. Not an end-all suggestion, but an opener to a discussion of merits to establishing a standard of sorts.
You make a good point. The background noise is an important variable and highly dependent on the location of your home and of your listening room. Open spaces with kitchen refrigerator and dishwasher (when running) in line of sight, nearby roads with traffic, coyotes howling in the evening, HVAC systems, well pumps, etc...do elevate the background noise above the ideal. To truly achieve a theoretical 120 dB dynamic range in your listening room there is so much work to be done with soundproofing and design, not to mention the complex theory of acoustic, and its cost dwarfs in comparison with the price of the best ASR DACs by at least an order or two of magnitude.
 

Xyrium

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
574
Likes
493
There is a way to measure lower noise levels using a noise amplifier. And then subtracting that from the measured results. I just don't know if it is the right thing to do beyond the point we are now.
We're going to have to get creative here. Can we measure the EMI from the front panels, or perhaps vibration in the xformer.....? People still claim to hear the difference... ;):facepalm::rolleyes:

The companies have to add features at this point, though really, that ESS hump still?
 

Trell

Major Contributor
Joined
May 13, 2021
Messages
2,752
Likes
3,285
Agreed - I've been saying this countless times before. DAC companies who are in the blue on Amir's chart should just stop any further SINAD improvements and focus their engineering attention on usability:
  • More input/output options
  • Better UI and ergonomics (buttons, switches, knobs, etc)
  • EQ features and room correction options
  • Streaming convenience, etc.
I'd rather pay an extra $300 for the above than yet another "record breaking SINAD measurement" stuffed into a perfunctory box with the bare minimum of features carried over from similar black boxes by other makers.

Exactly, this is why I bought the RME ADI-2 DAC FS last year, even though there where other better measuring devices as well as cheaper.

Also add support, service, driver support and documentation that in my view is also very important.
 

Snoopy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2021
Messages
1,630
Likes
1,206
Currently, 13/17 bit lossy MQA that doesn't even compress better than lossless codecs at equivalent bit depth is being pushed, so that manufacturers can resell you "MQA ready" components and services/labels can resell you the same songs in a mangled form. And people fall for it, happily pay the extra fee.


What will the future be? Are you asking for something that actually makes a difference like object-based audio or the next MQA scam?

I've been reading a lot at the Steve Hoffman forum recently and there is a thread called "UHQ MQA CD".

I didn't even know this is a thing before I saw the SU-10 supports MQA CDs.

So turns out they are taking classical and Jazz recordings in pcm or DSD and convert that to MQA... Because the noise gets pushed ouf of the audible range this is supposed to all sound better.

But now they even believe that this UHQ CD (that just uses better material, manufacturing process) than a normal CD would sound even better. And a bit perfect rip of those CDs would sound worse.

That just shows how much people want to believe this crap. Biggest market of SMH CDs (recently sold world wide) , bludiscs and UHQ MQA CDs seems to be Japan of all places.

20 years ago they had the SACD that today we get some MQA crap.

But at least we will listen to a recording with the dynamic range of 5 that was 12 about 30 years ago on DAC with a sinad of 130db+ and worry about 192khz files.
 

xnor

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2022
Messages
193
Likes
207
I didn't even know this is a thing before I saw the SU-10 supports MQA CDs.
Yeah, 13 bits of high fidelity, but not to worry, their lossy encoder tries to ensure ~32 dB SNR ... up to 7 kHz anyway.
Bob ensures audiophiles that this is audibly transparent. What more do you want, guys? :D


I've been reading a lot at the Steve Hoffman forum recently and there is a thread called "UHQ MQA CD".
<snip>
So turns out they are taking classical and Jazz recordings in pcm or DSD and convert that to MQA... Because the noise gets pushed ouf of the audible range this is supposed to all sound better.
What a bunch of nonsense, but hey, it makes sense: the same music can be resold once again and Meridian again takes a rake-off for being so gracious to let content providers mangle their content with Meridian's encoders.

If this isn't it already then the next stage of MQA will be shipping the lost bits through a side channel, such that MQA will finally be on par with the 20 years old FLAC, at least when it comes to fidelity limited to 17 bits. I will never beat the free, open-source and patent-free nature of FLAC though.
I'm absolutely serious here: in some cases MQA can be lossless up to 17 bits anyway, and audiophiles celebrate ... that they can finally pay for something that is worse than what has been available for free for decades.

They will say that this is new tech, allowing low bitrate streaming and also lossless decoding ... except it's everything but. We've had free codecs that can significantly reduce the bitrate (through lossy compression, for example by bit depth reduction with noise shaping similar to that part of MQA) for portable/streaming use while being able to incorporate "delta" files for lossless decoding on a PC/server (which has more disk space than those portable devices) for many years as well.
For example, see lossyFLAC. Initial release 14 years ago.

It really is reinventing the wheel, except that it deliberately takes Meridian a couple of stages to get their patented square wheels back to something that's round.

But at least we will listen to a recording with the dynamic range of 5 that was 12 about 30 years ago on DAC with a sinad of 130db+ and worry about 192khz files.
It's absolutely insane.
 
Last edited:

PeteL

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
3,303
Likes
3,838
I can understand you guys fury about the format, but wouldn't it be fair to at least not be so completely one sided when talking about it? I have no plan to purchase MQA CDs but let's be devil advocate for a second. My understanding is that you can play MQA CDs on any regular Redbook CD Player. You can't play any "other" High Res formats. Isn't it the main point?
 

The Capstan

Member
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
65
Likes
70
in a distant future our great-grandchildren will find this box in the dust and once powered-up will ask themselves "WTF these Chinese guys put such an ugly font combination in this piece of technology from 2022?" LOL
 

Snoopy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2021
Messages
1,630
Likes
1,206
I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if this has been asked: Does this mean this device can be used as a 4-channel DAC?
I think it just means you get to connect something to both outputs and it works simultaneously.

I do that with my Cambridge cxn V2. One output goes to the headphone amp and the other to a amplifier.
 

pLudio

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
95
Likes
86
Location
Sweden
I can understand you guys fury about the format, but wouldn't it be fair to at least not be so completely one sided when talking about it? I have no plan to purchase MQA CDs but let's be devil advocate for a second. My understanding is that you can play MQA CDs on any regular Redbook CD Player. You can't play any "other" High Res formats. Isn't it the main point?
No, MQA CD is a lo-res format. Period.
 
Top Bottom