VMV D2R Stereo DAC Review

[renaudrenaud]

But at least you can spend a huge amount of money into these speakers: https://www.hoerzone.de/shop/lautsprecher/genelec/genelec-8381aw-white.html
...... and no one in this forum would criticize you!

No, I cant. I move too much from country to country. I have a little pair of light monitors I can move with me.

 

[totti1965]

This is NOT R2R! This RohmDac is a regular and old deltasigma, extremely similar to the PCM1794 from TI. This is a very old DAC, good 10 years ago, but outdated today, in order to get good sound out of it, you need to try very hard with I/V and operational amplifiers. Today, the best DAC in terms of sound and parameters is the Sabre ES9039; a better DAC has not yet been invented.

This is why I said: "tiny tiny bit of voodoo.....". Seems so that you are an objektivist. Let the subjectivists alife, bro! It is 116.5 dB! 5 times more expensive than the 120 dB stuff (SMSL D-6s), and the technology is a little bit vintage, but still: 116.5 db!!!!!

 

[nonnyno]

Why would one buy this over the su10 or the d400 or the topping d70 pro if one wanted totl flagship performance. They also looks good and have sota performance.

 

[voodooless]

but still: 116.5 db!!!!!

But only full band with filter #2, and only if your measurement bandwidth is 20 kHz. As you can see here:

It's more like 90 due to noise shaping. And if you were to redo this with filter #1, this would look even worse. It would have rising distortion from about a few kHz, like we saw in the Marantz SA-10 review:

This quickly gets into audible territory, especially given the frequency response.

The D2R is a fine detail natural sounding DAC.

Most certainly not with the default filter #1. You'll actually lose a lot of the high-frequency detail due to invalid reconstruction. I don't know about natural... A DAC should not sound.

I hate to repeat myself, but: a DAC is not an EQ device!

 

[prerich]

This is not an engineer approach. My wife is always saying "When you want to know, you measure". And here, the measurements are not at the top.

However, other than looks - can I tell the difference between a DAC with a SINAD of 120 and one of 117 using a double blind test? Once it's past the level of hearing, it's users preference...which may come down to features, ergonomics, or I dare say it...a pretty face.

 

[Yevhen]

I'm not sure, as I can't find any information on which metal provides "a more delicate instrumental tone".

Can someone explain how a 0.2mm bondwire between the die and chip package can provide "a more delicate instrumental tone" in a system with tens of meters of wires?

 

[voodooless]

Can someone explain how a 0.2mm bondwire between the die and chip package can provide "a more delicate instrumental tone" in a system with tens of meters of wires?

No!

 

[JayGilb]

Can someone explain how a 0.2mm bondwire between the die and chip package can provide "a more delicate instrumental tone" in a system with tens of meters of wires?

No one can explain it. This is a marketing driven "spec sheet" and an embarrassment to all of the engineers that worked on this DAC chip.

 

[Rotel]

"I don't know about natural..."
I've four DACs. The human voice is the most realistic with this DAC (in my system).

 

[pseudoid]

Let the subjectivists alife, bro! It is 116.5 dB! 5 times more expensive than the 120 dB stuff (SMSL D-6s), and the technology is a little bit vintage, but still: 116.5 db!!!!!

Are 'we' to the point where we can achieve an objectivist 'rule-of-thumb' ratio of $$/dB or dB/$$?
I just hope it does not become like the proverbial "It's 8R speaker: Sounds great!" mentality.

 

[totti1965]

It's more like 90 due to noise shaping. And if you were to redo this with filter #1, this would look even worse. It would have rising distortion from about a few kHz, like we saw in the Marantz SA-10 review:

This quickly gets into audible territory, especially given the frequency response.

Most certainly not with the default filter #1. You'll actually lose a lot of the high-frequency detail due to invalid reconstruction. I don't know about natural... A DAC should not sound.

I hate to repeat myself, but: a DAC is not an EQ device!

Then there's something to it again. Thanks for the example with the Marantz amplifier. I would never have thought that the differences in the higher frequency ranges are sooooooo blatant just because of the flatter filters! Man: 1% distortion even at 7 kHz. Above that, the distortion even blows up the graph.

 

[totti1965]

Are 'we' to the point where we can achieve an objectivist 'rule-of-thumb' ratio of $$/dB or dB/$$?
I just hope it does not become like the proverbial "It's 8R speaker: Sounds great!" mentality.

Yeah! Suggestion: dB ² / US $ (for DACs / Headphone amps / Speaker amps - if a device fits two or three boxes, then you have to divide the ratio by two rsp. three! That means: if a device has headphone amp + DAC + Speaker amp build in then the "fantastic / excellent" range starts at 33.3333, the very good range at 16.6667 etc. etc.)

a) > 100 fantastic / excellent /superb
b) 50 - 100 very good
c) 25 - 50 good
d) 12.5 - 25 o. k.
e) 6.25 - 12.5 mediocre
f) sub 6.25 failure

So lets do the math:

SMSL D-6s: 72 - very good!

Topping PA-5 II: 50.1 - very good

Fosi V 3 (48 Volt): 70.1 - very good
Fosi V 3 (32 Volt): 85.65 - very good

Linn Accurate DSM: 1.19 - failure

Topping PA-5 II: 50.1 - very good

SMSL SU-1: 168.2 - fantastic / excellent

VMV D2R Stereo DAC: 13.6 - o. k.​

Topping LA- 90 discrete: 18 - o.k

Audiophonics HPA-S400ET: 6.73 - mediocre




Life can be so easy!

thw

 

[MacClintock]

I've four different DAC (E-Mu 1212m, Topping D50, SMSL VMV D1SE, SMSL VMV D2R). Each has a different sound in MY SYSTEM.

This has probably to do with the different cables your are using to connect them. Maybe you are also using different power conditioners?

 

[MacClintock]

I don't understand someone who doesn't hear any difference between two completely different DACs but hears the difference between different filters in the same DAC - I can scroll between different filters and I do not notice any difference whatsoever. (how many times can one use the words different/difference in one sentence? )

Well, the attenuation above 8kHz of the slow filter (about 2.5 dB difference at 20 kHz) is at least in principle audible, jitter at -130dB not so much.

 

[pseudoid]

dB ²

It makes sense but how do you square a dB?

 

[AuricGoldfinger]

they probably realized there are only so many ASR members who care about measurements. the money is "out there" with the crowds of audiphools
shame on them for doing that.

Well, I don’t know if we make a blip on their radar. That was an ugly white paper, as many in the audio field are. As a lifetime objectivist, my view is that we form a small segment of the demographic.

The problem with their paper was not only the message, but also the delivery method. I won’t go further and open that can of worms, other than to state that if a company wants to make claims of sonic benefits, they should support them with controlled tests as evidence. I work in a lab and anyone authoring something like that would have been reprimanded.

What’s most distasteful is that it came from an established technology company in Japan, no less. It’s physics and chemistry on silicon, and they were among the best for low-noise, long life semiconductors.

 

[KSTR]

It seems that for Japanese engineers and managers in the audio business objectivism and subjectivism are not mutually exclusive and often they have Golden Ears in their staff who give their thumbs up (or down) to early pre-production samples. And of course their marketing depts. try to exploit that bipolarity scenario.

 

[Martin]

The frequency response graph looks very similar to the one from the Marantz AV10. Is SMSL trying to emulate that warm Marantz sound with that default slow filter?

Martin

 

[voodooless]

The frequency response graph looks very similar to the one from the Marantz AV10. Is SMSL trying to emulate that warm Marantz sound with that default slow filter?

They are both silly attempts at making the DAC actually sound a bit different from any properly implemented DAC, and therefore stand out.

But @voodooless, didn’t you guys say that any properly designed DAC would be indistinguishable from another? Yes, but in filter mode #1, it’s certainly not properly designed.

I also think @amirm should always show the measurements with the default settings, not (only) the most optimal ones. 95% of people will probably not ever change this setting, so it would be only good to show what it does. Now we only have half of the story.

 

[totti1965]

It makes sense but how do you square a dB?

Yes, I thought the square would be nice Compensation for the "deminishing Returns", because it is not easy to increase SINAD without greater and greater financial Effort.
But you are right:
Lets try something exponential for compensation for the fact that dB is dimensionless and logarithmic.

So .... here is a new rule of thumb:

Then a device with 120 dB can be 1000 times more expensive than a device with 60 db for getting the same rank!

Lets start with 40 dB:

One dollar for 40 dB SINAD would be nice, and excellent value (the real worth of Tube amps with 1 % distorsion) - 100 Points
1,78 Dollars for 45 dB SINAD for excellent value and 100 Points
3,16 Dollars for 50 dB SINAD for excellent value and 100 Points
5,62 Dollars for 55 dB SINAD for excellent value and 100 Points
10 Dollars for 60 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Points
17,78 Dollars for 65 dB SINAD for excellence value 100 Points
31,6 Dollars for 70 dB Sinad for excellent value 100 Points
56,20 Dollars for 75 dB Sinad for excellence value 100 Points
100 Dollars for 80 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Points
177,80 Dollars for 85 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Points
316 Dollars for 90 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Points
562 Dollars for 95 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Pits
1000 Dollars for 100 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Points
1778 Dolars for 105 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Points
3160 Dallars for 110 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Points
5620 Dollars for 115 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Points
10.000 Dollars for 120 dB SINAD for excellent value 100 Points


Examples:

Examples: SMSL SU-1 - 115 dB and more SINAD 5620 / 80 Dollars x 100 7.025 Points = coolest item so far
Linn Accurate DSM - 110 dB and more SINAD 3160 / 10250 Dollars x 100 30.83 Points = good (not so cool Bang for the buck)
VMV D2R Stereo DAC - 115 dB and more SINAD 5620 / 1.000 Dollars x 100 562 Points = fantastic / excellent
Fosi V3 (32 Volt) - 85 dB and more SINAD 177.8 / 90 Dollars x 100 197.6 Points = fantastic / excellent
Fosi V3 (48 Volts) - 85 dB an more SINAD 177.8 / 110 Dolllars x 100 161.6 Points = fantastic / excellent
Carver Raven 350 - 40 dB and more SINAD 1 / 4.750 Dollars x 100 0.021 Points = failure


Points:
a) > 100 fantastic / excellent /superb
b) 50 - 100 very good
c) 25 - 50 good
d) 12.5 - 25 o. k.
e) 6.25 - 12.5 mediocre
f) sub 6.25 failure

I assume, that I´m not one of the "tube guys"!