wyup
Active Member
Hello Again,
I'd like to report that my SU-8 unit is working good with good sound. I went again to the recording studio and retested the unit with a different usb cable and used a USB 2.0 port on the Pc instead of a USB3.0. It may aswell have been a glitch with the XLR cabling connection to the Equalizer and Power Stage which has to be switched from the default setup. The engineer did high resulution pure tone frequency tests and the response was good without distortion.
Now to my subjective sound impressions, if I may give them here. I can't do an ABX blind test because of setup configuration and difficulty to redo the connections but I am positive that I can tell the difference when I switched from-back to the default studio dac.
The SU-8 is indeed transparent and detailed, has good dynamic response and good stereo image. It is even more resolved than the M-Audio ProFire 2626, specially midrange. However the mids still seem to be a little forward or pushed up, for example in classical music, cellos and violas sound a little bright or brilliant and it grates me a bit to enjoy the track, I don't perceive them as 'natural'. With some bright vocals recording too, but not all. Music samples to judge were above 200 kbps. I know it is not optimal to judge compressed music but the difference is there with the gear.
Right after switching back to the M-audio the sound is more 'agreable'. It is more rounded,natural if maybe mids a touch pushed-back and also less resolved, like 'forgiven'. Don't get me wrong, I expect a flat response and I like mids as they are, not V shaped of any kind, but I wasn't wholly satisfied with the sound as it was from the SU-8. Of course it may have been the room equalisation, as the studio is fitted for the M-audio, but both converters should give a flat response so the equalization is more geared for the monitors and room acoustics. The M-audio sounds more edged in midrage (uncomfortable) with the EQ turned off). I didn't test the SMSL SU-8 with the EQ off to compare.
I also took another listening test at home with my two setups and varied hardware and the SU-8 definitely improves the sound (mids more detailed), although here the differences are harder to tell because of hardware limits/resolution.
Apologies for the confusion above, I am now satisfied with the product and hope it may be useful to someone. Bear with my subjective impressions even if this is a scientific thread.
P.S.: We did test the digital filters. They change the stereo witdh and phase, as well as bass and treble balance. Here I couldn't tell them apart well, but the engineer could blind tell off some filters in a couple tests. He pointed up at the phase difference without seeing the preset filter. He agreed with the filter frequency graph from the manual, and he was also familiar with the brickwall filter. To his judgement the first filter (Fast linear) is the one that sounds better of the first 5.
I'd like to report that my SU-8 unit is working good with good sound. I went again to the recording studio and retested the unit with a different usb cable and used a USB 2.0 port on the Pc instead of a USB3.0. It may aswell have been a glitch with the XLR cabling connection to the Equalizer and Power Stage which has to be switched from the default setup. The engineer did high resulution pure tone frequency tests and the response was good without distortion.
Now to my subjective sound impressions, if I may give them here. I can't do an ABX blind test because of setup configuration and difficulty to redo the connections but I am positive that I can tell the difference when I switched from-back to the default studio dac.
The SU-8 is indeed transparent and detailed, has good dynamic response and good stereo image. It is even more resolved than the M-Audio ProFire 2626, specially midrange. However the mids still seem to be a little forward or pushed up, for example in classical music, cellos and violas sound a little bright or brilliant and it grates me a bit to enjoy the track, I don't perceive them as 'natural'. With some bright vocals recording too, but not all. Music samples to judge were above 200 kbps. I know it is not optimal to judge compressed music but the difference is there with the gear.
Right after switching back to the M-audio the sound is more 'agreable'. It is more rounded,natural if maybe mids a touch pushed-back and also less resolved, like 'forgiven'. Don't get me wrong, I expect a flat response and I like mids as they are, not V shaped of any kind, but I wasn't wholly satisfied with the sound as it was from the SU-8. Of course it may have been the room equalisation, as the studio is fitted for the M-audio, but both converters should give a flat response so the equalization is more geared for the monitors and room acoustics. The M-audio sounds more edged in midrage (uncomfortable) with the EQ turned off). I didn't test the SMSL SU-8 with the EQ off to compare.
I also took another listening test at home with my two setups and varied hardware and the SU-8 definitely improves the sound (mids more detailed), although here the differences are harder to tell because of hardware limits/resolution.
Apologies for the confusion above, I am now satisfied with the product and hope it may be useful to someone. Bear with my subjective impressions even if this is a scientific thread.
P.S.: We did test the digital filters. They change the stereo witdh and phase, as well as bass and treble balance. Here I couldn't tell them apart well, but the engineer could blind tell off some filters in a couple tests. He pointed up at the phase difference without seeing the preset filter. He agreed with the filter frequency graph from the manual, and he was also familiar with the brickwall filter. To his judgement the first filter (Fast linear) is the one that sounds better of the first 5.
Last edited: