OP
- Thread Starter
- #61
Watch Julian's review. Latency was measured and discussed from around 14:00.
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Solid State Logic SSL 2 MKII vs. Topping Pro E2x2 OTG (Audio Interfaces) Comparison Review and Measurements
- Thread starter jkim
- Start date
Thanks for pointing out the high frequency distortions of the SSL units. This was not clear on @Julian Krause reviews.
Shows the problem with just single tone measurements
Shows the problem with just single tone measurements
I bought the SSL2 MKII after watching Julian Krause's review too, and it's exactly a month now since I received the item. I'm really shocked by how it sounds—I absolutely love it. But I have a story to share…
I noticed some issues during startup within the first week or so. Sometimes, there’s a white/pink noise, and I have to disconnect and reconnect the USB cable to get it back to normal. I contacted SSL customer service, and after a long series of tests, including a firmware reset, Millie from SSL support finally confirmed it was faulty and suggested I contact the local reseller for a replacement unit.
That’s when things started going downhill. The reseller denied me a replacement because I was past their 3-day purchase window and only offered a repair. (I know they don’t have specialists to repair it themselves, and they’d have to send it to an SSL distributor in Singapore.) I denied the repair and updated Millie about it, but unfortunately, she couldn’t do anything. Not even trying to redirect me to their distributor for a replacement.
So yeah, I turned down the repair. I bought it for the same price as everyone else, but we were denied our right as users. I’ll keep the unit for now, even though it’s getting worse. Today, it took me 3 tries of disconnecting and reconnecting before it finally worked.
This is just my bad luck with SSL—big name, but small integrity.
Surely SSL will step in? Have you asked them to step in?
This is not a good experience.
Unfortunately SSL 2+ Mk2 does not measure well. Too much high frequency noise and distortion
Yes, I hope this case will be resolved nicely. A few hours after I posted here, the reseller actually contacted me and agreed to the decision from SSL to replace my unit. I also apologized to them for leaving a bad review. Anyway, I still haven’t received the final decision from either the reseller or SSL, but I’m convinced by SSL that everything will be sorted out, and I’ll receive my replacement unit.
Thanks for your reply, and have a nice day!
Have you been able to do the gearspace null test?
Would be interesting if Topping goes to top of the list of pro audio interfaces
ICIETDIYEUR
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Hello jkim
First of all, I want to say that you have done an excellent job and I thank you for that
If you were to get the idea of equipping yourself with an Audient iD14 MKII, it would surely allow you to be quite surprised by the current performance of these 'pro' audio interfaces which are really becoming very close to those of Hi-Fi
AUDIENT ID14 MKII
MOTU M2
SOLID STATE LOGIC SSL 2 MKII
PRESONUS QUANTUM ES2
Have a nice day.
First of all, I want to say that you have done an excellent job and I thank you for that
If you were to get the idea of equipping yourself with an Audient iD14 MKII, it would surely allow you to be quite surprised by the current performance of these 'pro' audio interfaces which are really becoming very close to those of Hi-Fi
AUDIENT ID14 MKII
MOTU M2
SOLID STATE LOGIC SSL 2 MKII
PRESONUS QUANTUM ES2
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #68
You're welcomeHello jkim
First of all, I want to say that you have done an excellent job and I thank you for that
Of course, I seriously considered buying and testing the iD14 MKII instead of the SSL 2 MKII because it was also tested favorably by Julian Kraus. Ended up choosing the SSL as it was measured overall slightly better than the Audient by him.If you were to get the idea of equipping yourself with an Audient iD14 MKII, it would surely allow you to be quite surprised by the current performance of these 'pro' audio interfaces which are really becoming very close to those of Hi-Fi
Upon testing these interfaces and having discussion with experienced members here, I discovered that the DAC and ADC solutions that are used in audio interfaces in this price range are very limited to particular chipsets in industry. I wouldn't be surprised if the performance of the iD14 MKII were very similar to that of SSL 2 MKII on my testing bench.
Last edited:
ICIETDIYEUR
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Hello jkim
Beyond the purely technical considerations of objective measurements, for my part, entirely subjectively, I find that the AUDIENT is much better built in terms of materials and components used: its PCB moreover seems not to be as 'tampered with' as the SSL one
It also weighs almost twice the weight of its competitors, which is advantageous for the connectors that could drive it but also for its good hold in place on the work area.
One last point, for a novice such as less is that its PC interface seems to me much more comprehensive, well thought out and very simple to use at first glance.
It is for these many reasons that I think it is a product really well suited to beginners who will be able to benefit from a good price for an entry-level equipment before taking the step towards more 'technical' and high-performance equipment
PS: I think the SINAD of the AUDIENT ID14 MKII should be between 122 and 123
Beyond the purely technical considerations of objective measurements, for my part, entirely subjectively, I find that the AUDIENT is much better built in terms of materials and components used: its PCB moreover seems not to be as 'tampered with' as the SSL one
It also weighs almost twice the weight of its competitors, which is advantageous for the connectors that could drive it but also for its good hold in place on the work area.
One last point, for a novice such as less is that its PC interface seems to me much more comprehensive, well thought out and very simple to use at first glance.
It is for these many reasons that I think it is a product really well suited to beginners who will be able to benefit from a good price for an entry-level equipment before taking the step towards more 'technical' and high-performance equipment
PS: I think the SINAD of the AUDIENT ID14 MKII should be between 122 and 123
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #70
Good to know this from an actual user's experience.Hello jkim
Beyond the purely technical considerations of objective measurements, for my part, entirely subjectively, I find that the AUDIENT is much better built in terms of materials and components used: its PCB moreover seems not to be as 'tampered with' as the SSL one
It also weighs almost twice the weight of its competitors, which is advantageous for the connectors that could drive it but also for its good hold in place on the work area.
One last point, for a novice such as less is that its PC interface seems to me much more comprehensive, well thought out and very simple to use at first glance.
It is for these many reasons that I think it is a product really well suited to beginners who will be able to benefit from a good price for an entry-level equipment before taking the step towards more 'technical' and high-performance equipment
You mean the DAC side. Right? Yes, according to Julian's test, the iD14 MKII has outstanding line-out performance, better than the SSL 2 MKII or the Topping Pro E2x2.PS: I think the SINAD of the AUDIENT ID14 MKII should be between 122 and 123
But my primary selection criteria were their ADC performance.
ICIETDIYEUR
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Listening, so the DAC (main out) part will be my main use.
The build and user interfaces are also important to me as I said.
I find it very unfortunate that SSL used 'outdated' components for the DAC (ES9016K2M
) and OPAMPS (NJM/JRC2068 
): these undoubtedly explain the worse performance for output measurements compared to the AUDIENT which uses 'modern' and high-performance components.
A shell and buttons other than plastic would also have contributed to a better 'interest' of users, I am firmly convinced of that, rather than inserting an uninteresting '4K' device that distorts the sound and brings distortion: there are effects for this if you need them
The build and user interfaces are also important to me as I said.
I find it very unfortunate that SSL used 'outdated' components for the DAC (ES9016K2M
) and OPAMPS (NJM/JRC2068 ): these undoubtedly explain the worse performance for output measurements compared to the AUDIENT which uses 'modern' and high-performance components.A shell and buttons other than plastic would also have contributed to a better 'interest' of users, I am firmly convinced of that, rather than inserting an uninteresting '4K' device that distorts the sound and brings distortion: there are effects for this if you need them
Last edited:
ICIETDIYEUR
Addicted to Fun and Learning
People hi 
If anyone has the AUDIENT ID 14 MKII, would it be possible for them to provide the schematics of the three circuits I circled in orange ?
Have a nice day
If anyone has the AUDIENT ID 14 MKII, would it be possible for them to provide the schematics of the three circuits I circled in orange ?
Have a nice day
Ummm definitely not.PS: I think the SINAD of the AUDIENT ID14 MKII should be between 122 and 123
I have measured it and the SSL 2+ Mk2 and the latter measures better and performs better in loopback null test with music.
Where did you find this? Are you referring specifically to SSL 2/2+ Mk2 ? I don't think your information is correct
OP
- Thread Starter
- #74
See my review. I opened it and found the DAC chip is indeed the ES9016K2M. Not a bad chip, just not the current state of the art.
Last edited:
ICIETDIYEUR
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Hi.
@Music1969, you said that you have "measured it and the SSL 2+ Mk2 and the latter measures better and performs better in loopback null test with music".
Are we talking about the same thing ?
I was referring to the SINAD, which concerns the AUDIENT ID14 MKII's DAC.
That said:
- Where are your measurements ?
- Under what conditions were they taken and with what equipment ?
Such statements must be supported (as jkim did very well), otherwise they're useless...
... a bit like Amirm wrote in a device review: "I took the measurements and they're good or bad, better or worse."
What do you think ?
Have a nice day.
PS: I think AUDIENT could have achieved better results by using other OPAMP references than the ones used:
- OPA1678 (CMOS) with low noise: 4.5 nV/√Hz at 1 kHz and low distortion: 0.0001% at 1 kHz (114dB AOL).
Indeed, TI produces other OPAMPs that are not necessarily much more expensive in CMOS technology:
- OPA1652 (CMOS) SOUNDPLUS with low noise: 4.5 nV/√Hz at 1 kHz and low distortion: 0.00005% at 1 kHz (114dB AOL).
- OPA1656 (CMOS) BURR-BROWN with low noise: 4.3 nV/√Hz at 1 kHz and low distortion: 0.000029% at 1 kHz (but 150dB AOL).
And if they hadn't absolutely chosen a 'FET' for their 'sound', they could have used a well-known 'BIPOLAR' OPAMP:
- OPA1612 (BIPOLAR) SOUNDPLUS with low noise: 1.1 nV/√Hz at 1 kHz and low distortion: 0.000015% at 1 kHz (but 130dB AOL) and a rail-to-rail output swing to within 600 mV with a 2kΩ load, which increases headroom and maximizes dynamic range.
(The data shown here comes from TI datasheets).
These different OPAMPS references would necessarily have an impact on the SINAD but would also improve the signal fidelity (as TI specifies), It is not for nothing that we find this OPAMP reference (OPA1612A or non-A) in the audio output circuits of the best DACs in the SINAD ranking
I'm simply making this observation because I come from the 'DIY world', this is a personal 'distortion', so please forgive me.
This is why I asked if anyone had the schematics in my previous post
My final comment concerns the choice of DAC chip:
Why did AUDIENT bother routing a circuit with three CS43198 chips (see datasheets) and not use one ES9039Q2M chip (see datasheets) ?
The features are better and it would have cost less too ->
I think it would have been more 'prudent' to do this before TOPPING comes up with a new audio interface model that will do so to 'replace' its E2x2 model because the Chinese are very attentive to users, know how to learn from their 'mistakes' and are above all very responsive !
@Music1969, you said that you have "measured it and the SSL 2+ Mk2 and the latter measures better and performs better in loopback null test with music".
Are we talking about the same thing ?
I was referring to the SINAD, which concerns the AUDIENT ID14 MKII's DAC.
That said:
- Where are your measurements ?
- Under what conditions were they taken and with what equipment ?
Such statements must be supported (as jkim did very well), otherwise they're useless...
... a bit like Amirm wrote in a device review: "I took the measurements and they're good or bad, better or worse."
What do you think ?
Have a nice day.
PS: I think AUDIENT could have achieved better results by using other OPAMP references than the ones used:
- OPA1678 (CMOS) with low noise: 4.5 nV/√Hz at 1 kHz and low distortion: 0.0001% at 1 kHz (114dB AOL).
Indeed, TI produces other OPAMPs that are not necessarily much more expensive in CMOS technology:
- OPA1652 (CMOS) SOUNDPLUS with low noise: 4.5 nV/√Hz at 1 kHz and low distortion: 0.00005% at 1 kHz (114dB AOL).
- OPA1656 (CMOS) BURR-BROWN with low noise: 4.3 nV/√Hz at 1 kHz and low distortion: 0.000029% at 1 kHz (but 150dB AOL).
And if they hadn't absolutely chosen a 'FET' for their 'sound', they could have used a well-known 'BIPOLAR' OPAMP:
- OPA1612 (BIPOLAR) SOUNDPLUS with low noise: 1.1 nV/√Hz at 1 kHz and low distortion: 0.000015% at 1 kHz (but 130dB AOL) and a rail-to-rail output swing to within 600 mV with a 2kΩ load, which increases headroom and maximizes dynamic range.
(The data shown here comes from TI datasheets).
These different OPAMPS references would necessarily have an impact on the SINAD but would also improve the signal fidelity (as TI specifies), It is not for nothing that we find this OPAMP reference (OPA1612A or non-A) in the audio output circuits of the best DACs in the SINAD ranking
I'm simply making this observation because I come from the 'DIY world', this is a personal 'distortion', so please forgive me.
This is why I asked if anyone had the schematics in my previous post
My final comment concerns the choice of DAC chip:
Why did AUDIENT bother routing a circuit with three CS43198 chips (see datasheets) and not use one ES9039Q2M chip (see datasheets) ?
The features are better and it would have cost less too ->
I think it would have been more 'prudent' to do this before TOPPING comes up with a new audio interface model that will do so to 'replace' its E2x2 model because the Chinese are very attentive to users, know how to learn from their 'mistakes' and are above all very responsive !
Last edited:
ICIETDIYEUR
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Hello all, hello jkim
L7 audio LAB has taken measurements of the AUDIENT iD14 MKII -> here
Here is the DAC section:
There are some things that concern me about his measurements and I wanted to get your point of view if you don't mind
It's a shame Amirm didn't review this device to get his opinions and expertise
For my part, subjectively, listening to this device is very pleasant and has nothing to envy from other current DACs.
I chose this device because I was looking for something well-built, robust, and durable, but above all, with a different look from the usual Hi-Fi DAC formats, which all look the same: I'm satisfied on every level
L7 audio LAB has taken measurements of the AUDIENT iD14 MKII -> here
Here is the DAC section:
There are some things that concern me about his measurements and I wanted to get your point of view if you don't mind
It's a shame Amirm didn't review this device to get his opinions and expertise
For my part, subjectively, listening to this device is very pleasant and has nothing to envy from other current DACs.
I chose this device because I was looking for something well-built, robust, and durable, but above all, with a different look from the usual Hi-Fi DAC formats, which all look the same: I'm satisfied on every level
There is something bad with that multi-tone plot. It reminds me of Behringer gear where noise and THD are not terrible but IMD and multi-tone are poor. Largely to do with not using exclusively class 1 dielectric capacitors in the signal path.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #78
Hello all, hello jkim
There are some things that concern me about his measurements and I wanted to get your point of view if you don't mind
Its multitone test results were also reported at ASR here. In fact, Wolf at L7Audiolab found the same problem with several CS431xx-based devices (see here). CS engineers investigated it and concluded it's due to the chip design itself and cannot be resolved:
More importantly, all CS431xx-based devices should be suspected to produce the "Cirrus hump" distortion. See my report. It is a big mistake that Audient employed this Cirrus Logic DAC chip in this audio interface.
I chose this device because I was looking for something well-built, robust, and durable, but above all, with a different look from the usual Hi-Fi DAC formats, which all look the same: I'm satisfied on every level
I have no doubt you are satisfied with this device. The distortion may not have adverse effects on overall subjective sound quality. You may still want to test it using the track at the RAA webpage:
Still, I wouldn't consider buying any device with CS431xx unless it's been tested free of this Cirrus hump distortion.
Looking at budget audio interfaces offered these days and my measurements in this review again, I think the SSL 2 MKII is a great choice, as I added to my review:
Last edited:
ICIETDIYEUR
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Hello ssashton
Where do you see this type of capacitor on the PCB ?...
Where do you see this type of capacitor on the PCB ?...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #80
In the case of CS431xx-based DACs, the multitone response anomaly observed at the L7 Audio Lab seems to arise from the DAC chip itself, not due to surrounding analog circuits. Cirrus Logic's factory engineer tried to but could not find a solution.
But a bigger problem in my view is that most CS431xx-based devices exhibit significantly elevated distortion & noise even in response to a very simple multitone signal---even dual tones---played in a wide range of lower signal levels, as described in my review.
Last edited: