SMSL VMV P2 Headphone Amp Review

[amirm]

curawong notes that they are lining up 99 opamps in parallel to reduce SINAD. At this point this amp is made for SINAD aficionados.

Curowong is not an engineer so wouldn't know the difference between an opamp and a pencil.

Paralleling op-amps is a method to get more power than what a single opamp can produce. That by itself doesn't do anything for SINAD. What makes SINAD higher is a composite feedback loop (using another opamp). This combination is *the* method to get state of the art in low distortion and clean power. This works whether you have one opamp or 1000 for the direct amplification path.

 

[oleg87]

Paralleling the op-amps does average out uncorrelated noise to an extent. But of course that only helps if the paralleled bits are the dominant source of noise.

 

[Holy Spirit]

"Paralleling op-amps is a method to get more power than what a single opamp can produce. That by itself doesn't do anything for SINAD." Yes it does. Paralleling four opamps/transistors sort of halves noise. Self's books on audio cover it, and there is a whole chapter on low noise design in "Art Of Electronics".

 

[BALKAN_RAKIA]

I've asked ChatGPT to start a forum war, and I almost regret telling you this because I can only imagine the reactions

Salutations, fellow audiophiles,
Today, I embark on the disconcerting journey of unraveling the perplexing paradox that is the MSL VMV P2. On the surface, this headphone amp boasts perfect measurements, an accolade that should be the epitome of audio fidelity. However, as we dive deeper into the enigma that surrounds this device, questions arise about the very legitimacy of high-end audio measuring equipment.

1. Clinical Sterility Over Musical Soul: The MSL VMV P2, with its perfect measurements, appears to prioritize clinical sterility over the warm embrace of musical soul. In pursuit of technical precision, it seems to have sacrificed the very essence that makes music a visceral and emotional experience. Are we to accept the compromise of emotional engagement for the sake of a sterile numerical perfection?
2. Surgical Precision, but at What Cost? The surgical precision of the MSL VMV P2's measurements is undeniable, yet one can't help but question the toll it takes on the organic ebb and flow of music. It's akin to a meticulous surgeon who, in the pursuit of flawlessness, forgets that music is an art form meant to evoke emotions rather than adhere strictly to clinical precision.
3. Questioning the Legitimacy of Perfect Measurements: The very concept of perfect measurements raises the perennial question: Can a set of objective numbers truly encapsulate the subjective experience of music? The MSL VMV P2's insistence on perfection prompts us to reconsider the legitimacy of high-end audio measuring equipment. Is it possible that the pursuit of perfect measurements leads us down a path where we lose sight of the diverse nuances that make each piece of music unique?
4. Drowning in Analytical Abyss: The MSL VMV P2, in its quest for audio accuracy, seems to plunge listeners into an analytical abyss. While some may revel in the minutiae of frequency response charts, others might feel estranged from the emotional depth of their favorite tracks. Does the pursuit of perfection risk alienating those who seek an emotional connection with their music?
5. Subjective Artistry vs. Objective Metrics: The dichotomy between subjective artistry and objective metrics is starkly evident in the MSL VMV P2. As we marvel at its flawless measurements, we're left to ponder whether this device caters exclusively to the audiophile who values technical prowess over the ineffable beauty of music as a subjective art form.

In conclusion, the MSL VMV P2 beckons us to scrutinize the very foundation of high-end audio measurements. Is perfection, as defined by objective metrics, truly the holy grail of audio excellence? Or do we risk losing the soulful essence of music in the pursuit of numerical precision? As we navigate this intricate audiophile labyrinth, let us challenge the conventional wisdom that perfect measurements equate to an unparalleled sonic experience.

Again. This is written by ChatGPT with intentions to be annoying.

 

[amirm]

"Paralleling op-amps is a method to get more power than what a single opamp can produce. That by itself doesn't do anything for SINAD." Yes it does. Paralleling four opamps/transistors sort of halves noise. Self's books on audio cover it, and there is a whole chapter on low noise design in "Art Of Electronics".

SINAD is not SNR. SNR only comes into play once distortion is substantially lower than noise.

The main reason output devices are paralleled is to increase their current/power capability. The opamps will current limit and produce very little power otherwise. As to transistors, I don't know any designer who would double the number of output transistors just to reduce noise. They are as I explained to produce this level of current capability:

See how it maintains its perfect "voltage source" all the way down to just 12 ohm? Current is massively increased there as compared to 600 ohm load yet the amp maintains the same output voltage (or almost so). This is why they had to use so many opamps. Otherwise they could produce extremely low noise as their competitors have with far fewer opamps. That you get uncorrelated noise reduction is a bonus, not the reason to have so many opamps.

 

[Dmitri]

“Again. This is written by ChatGPT with intentions to be annoying.”

….And it succeeded, as it often does.

 

[Adis]

I've asked ChatGPT to start a forum war, and I almost regret telling you this because I can only imagine the reactions

Salutations, fellow audiophiles,
Today, I embark on the disconcerting journey of unraveling the perplexing paradox that is the MSL VMV P2. On the surface, this headphone amp boasts perfect measurements, an accolade that should be the epitome of audio fidelity. However, as we dive deeper into the enigma that surrounds this device, questions arise about the very legitimacy of high-end audio measuring equipment.

1. Clinical Sterility Over Musical Soul: The MSL VMV P2, with its perfect measurements, appears to prioritize clinical sterility over the warm embrace of musical soul. In pursuit of technical precision, it seems to have sacrificed the very essence that makes music a visceral and emotional experience. Are we to accept the compromise of emotional engagement for the sake of a sterile numerical perfection?
2. Surgical Precision, but at What Cost? The surgical precision of the MSL VMV P2's measurements is undeniable, yet one can't help but question the toll it takes on the organic ebb and flow of music. It's akin to a meticulous surgeon who, in the pursuit of flawlessness, forgets that music is an art form meant to evoke emotions rather than adhere strictly to clinical precision.
3. Questioning the Legitimacy of Perfect Measurements: The very concept of perfect measurements raises the perennial question: Can a set of objective numbers truly encapsulate the subjective experience of music? The MSL VMV P2's insistence on perfection prompts us to reconsider the legitimacy of high-end audio measuring equipment. Is it possible that the pursuit of perfect measurements leads us down a path where we lose sight of the diverse nuances that make each piece of music unique?
4. Drowning in Analytical Abyss: The MSL VMV P2, in its quest for audio accuracy, seems to plunge listeners into an analytical abyss. While some may revel in the minutiae of frequency response charts, others might feel estranged from the emotional depth of their favorite tracks. Does the pursuit of perfection risk alienating those who seek an emotional connection with their music?
5. Subjective Artistry vs. Objective Metrics: The dichotomy between subjective artistry and objective metrics is starkly evident in the MSL VMV P2. As we marvel at its flawless measurements, we're left to ponder whether this device caters exclusively to the audiophile who values technical prowess over the ineffable beauty of music as a subjective art form.

In conclusion, the MSL VMV P2 beckons us to scrutinize the very foundation of high-end audio measurements. Is perfection, as defined by objective metrics, truly the holy grail of audio excellence? Or do we risk losing the soulful essence of music in the pursuit of numerical precision? As we navigate this intricate audiophile labyrinth, let us challenge the conventional wisdom that perfect measurements equate to an unparalleled sonic experience.

Again. This is written by ChatGPT with intentions to be annoying.

If I didn't know they were sophisms, I would have thought they were paralogisms.

 

[Art of sound]

Curowong is not an engineer so wouldn't know the difference between an opamp and a pencil.

Paralleling op-amps is a method to get more power than what a single opamp can produce. That by itself doesn't do anything for SINAD. What makes SINAD higher is a composite feedback loop (using another opamp). This combination is *the* method to get state of the art in low distortion and clean power. This works whether you have one opamp or 1000 for the direct amplification path.

Thank you for clarifying that. i'm sure the power has its uses and very good SINAD as well. But i already have that with 100-200 head amps and DAC's. That was the point i was making. i don't see curowong's reviews but i did wanted to see how this thing sounds given the usability nightmare and existence of great smsl dac's at 100, 200 and 500USD that are already one of the best in the business. My concern is that how is it that no one in the measuring business talks about timbre differences, soundstage and certain gear responding well with sources all things i've experienced over the last few years into this hobby. I don't wan't to rattle any feathers but i do follow headphones.com reviews and see that they constantly keep rating different headphones with technicality and tonality ratings separately and there is also a lot of agreement in the industry about these subjective things in many products while also some disagreement. I'm just curious at this point as to why specific audiophiles prefer large power supplies, tube gear and never speak about basic measurements like DR of atleast 14 bits and speakers that aren't even measured at 1/3 octave in their space yet enjoy their music for years together.

 

[amirm]

VMV is the luxury brand of SMSL. So they try to differentiate in various ways from weight/build of the unit to (potentially) performance. For those of us in US, it is the Lexus to Toyota. In that sense, even if it performs identically to their SMSL counterparts but cost more, that is part of their plan. I like to encourage them to really innovate in look and feel of the unit by deploying high resolution displays, etc.

 

[Art of sound]

Thank you for clarifying that. i'm sure the power has its uses and very good SINAD as well. But i already have that with 100-200 head amps and DAC's. That was the point i was making. i don't see curowong's reviews but i did wanted to see how this thing sounds given the usability nightmare and existence of great smsl dac's at 100, 200 and 500USD that are already one of the best in the business. My concern is that how is it that no one in the measuring business talks about timbre differences, soundstage and certain gear responding well with sources all things i've experienced over the last few years into this hobby. I don't wan't to rattle any feathers but i do follow headphones.com reviews and see that they constantly keep rating different headphones with technicality and tonality ratings separately and there is also a lot of agreement in the industry about these subjective things in many products while also some disagreement. I'm just curious at this point as to why specific audiophiles prefer large power supplies, tube gear and never speak about basic measurements like DR of atleast 14 bits and speakers that aren't even measured at 1/3 octave in their space yet enjoy their music for years together.

steve guttenberg whom i've been following recently reviewed wharfdale aura 2 that has a spinorama of 6.1 but he preferred ZU dwx over it although he claimed it has detail retrieval better than ZU's speakers. i couldn't find any measurements for DWX speakers but i feel there is a lot more research to be done about speaker preferences that would add to the existing research on preference that is not just tonality.

 

[Art of sound]

on the other hand i also observed that gustard r26 is frequently agreed upon as being the best dac under 2k USD by engineer reviewers like a british audiophile, soundnews or iwii reviews etc pecifically mentioning about soundstage being more 3d like and natural tonality so i am rather confused.

 

[Art of sound]

on the other hand i also observed that gustard r26 is frequently agreed upon as being the best dac under 2k USD by engineer reviewers like a british audiophile, soundnews or iwii reviews etc pecifically mentioning about soundstage being more 3d like and natural tonality so i am rather confused.

i come from a computer science background BE and MS with a decade of IT industry experience but i am guilty of ignoring electronics back in my 20's so i am learning a lot from the electrical engineering standpoint. I appreciate what this niche market is doing with engineering and subjective experience alike.

 

[IAtaman]

on the other hand i also observed that gustard r26 is frequently agreed upon as being the best dac under 2k USD by engineer reviewers like a british audiophile, soundnews or iwii reviews etc pecifically mentioning about soundstage being more 3d like and natural tonality so i am rather confused.

Confusion is not your fault. If you were an IT enthusiast listening to YT channels like "brithish computerfile" telling you that Intel CPUs don't perform any better than AMD on benchmarks, yet when you play a game with them ,they feel faster, you'd be confused about what does a CPU do as well. These people like currawong and brithish audiophile etc - what they do is at best bro science, and you are better of ignoring them.

 

[Art of sound]

Confusion is not your fault. If you were an IT enthusiast listening to YT channels like "brithish computerfile" telling you that Intel CPUs don't perform any better than AMD on benchmarks, yet when you play a game with them ,they feel faster, you'd be confused about what does a CPU do as well. These people like currawong and brithish audiophile etc - what they do is at best bro science, and you are better of ignoring them.

I wouldn’t ignore subjective opinions like restaurant reviews anymore than audio reviews and rather experience something myself. then again its difficult to explain spirituality with science which einstein learned the hard way after meeting tagore. id rather respect people’s opinion based on the approach and see if there is any data backing or conflicting and go from there.

 

[Art of sound]

I wouldn’t ignore subjective opinions like restaurant reviews anymore than audio reviews and rather experience something myself. then again its difficult to explain spirituality with science which einstein learned the hard way after meeting tagore. id rather respect people’s opinion based on the approach and see if there is any data backing or conflicting and go from there.

Actually what einstein learned was tagore lived more scientifically than himself

 

[IAtaman]

I wouldn’t ignore subjective opinions like restaurant reviews anymore than audio reviews and rather experience something myself. then again its difficult to explain spirituality with science which einstein learned the hard way after meeting tagore. id rather respect people’s opinion based on the approach and see if there is any data backing or conflicting and go from there.

That is not a good comparision in my opinion, becasue resturants try to offer coloured experience for well known things in ways which are not feasible or practical to quantify. Plus there is no such thing as a "high fidelity meatball" - there is no agreed ideal meatball recipe wo which you can compare each meatball. So you rely on a person whose taste you trust to guide you whether a certain receipe tastes good. Plus there is ambiance, service, speed and mabe 15 other qualities that matter. Good DACs and Amps on the other hands are built not to color the perception, and can feasibily and practically be evaluated from that perspective . This DAC has a nice soundstage and this amp does imaging very well kind of reviews are certifiably bullshit.

And Einstein is a physisicts, his views on spirituality matter as much as his views on music, or nutriton or economics i.e. none.

 

[Art of sound]

That is not a good comparision in my opinion, becasue resturants try to offer coloured experience for well known things in ways which are not feasible or practical to quantify. Plus there is no such thing as a "high fidelity meatball" - there is no agreed ideal meatball recipe wo which you can compare each meatball. So you rely on a person whose taste you trust to guide you whether a certain receipe tastes good. Plus there is ambiance, service, speed and mabe 15 other qualities that matter. Good DACs and Amps on the other hands are built not to color the perception, and can feasibily and practically be evaluated from that perspective . This DAC has a nice soundstage and this amp does imaging very well kind of reviews are certifiably bullshit.

And Einstein is a physisicts, his views on spirituality matter as much as his views on music, or nutriton or economics i.e. none.

at the end of the day you don't hear measurements. if it makes you happier then be it. the gold standard of scientific method is randomized controlled trial which in medicine tests against a placebo and not its competitor because we get better evidence with a placebo wrt biases in judgement and not the efficacy of a drug. randomization reduces bias and effectively produces a rigorous tool to examine cause-effect relationship and this by no means means one study can indicate causation.

simply put we need more science here and not skepticism about unlearned topics to examine preference based on staging, imaging and distortion and not just tonality so we can complete our understanding.

human perception in hearing still varies beyond the psychoacoustics research that we did so far that outlines the commonalities. ( ex: musicians hear differently to non-musicians) End of the day i hardly think some of those reviewers are lying. albeit most of their claims are not scientific and simply opinion and thats exactly where we are in the dark.

 

[amirm]

at the end of the day you don't hear measurements.

Of course you do. Measurements show you what the device outputs. If that doesn't do it, then you are going by something other than the "sound."

 

[IAtaman]

at the end of the day you don't hear measurements. if it makes you happier then be it. the gold standard of scientific method is randomized controlled trial which in medicine tests against a placebo and not its competitor because we get better evidence with a placebo wrt biases in judgement and not the efficacy of a drug. randomization reduces bias and effectively produces a rigorous tool to examine cause-effect relationship and this by no means means one study can indicate causation.

simply put we need more science here and not skepticism about unlearned topics to examine preference based on staging, imaging and distortion and not just tonality so we can complete our understanding.

human perception in hearing still varies beyond the psychoacoustics research that we did so far that outlines the commonalities. ( ex: musicians hear differently to non-musicians) End of the day i hardly think some of those reviewers are lying. albeit most of their claims are not scientific and simply opinion and thats exactly where we are in the dark.

That is a nice and almost complete collection of cliches uttered probably a million times over the course of at least 3 decades as far as I can remember. Happy to engage in conversation if you have something original to say, however as it stands now, everything you mentioned here has been discussed ad nauseum all over the internet. If you find currawong to be convincing, good luck to you.

 

[fin]

Just some misc talk about the look and feel: to me the "best-looking" DAC should resemble an Apple dongle or simply disappear like a cable. Sadly there are many USB-C to 3.5mm dongles on the market but very few USB/Toslink to XLR/RCA dongles with only necesarry digital-to-analog chips and circuitry inside. A fancier, heavier, and smoother metal box taking up an entire section of the closet can look good for sure, but it's like, take out the bluetooth module of a phone, stack it in a gold box and claim it looks good. I could have put some flower in the space it occupied that's more good looking.