It costs 270 euros. As a complete package, it seems okay. It drew my attention once I read the review and the nice comments. Also, @Markw4 asked specifically for DSD DAC, and mentioned HQPlayer Pro. I think the two will provide good results with x256 DSD for that price.
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...dac-review-with-measurements/#comment-1246884
https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...dac-review-with-measurements/#comment-1246884
Last edited:
does native PCM as well but heard not as good as ESS/AKM pcm. Additional costs with PC/HQplayer or hardware DSD upsampler ++
One rarely reads such positive reviews with to the point information and still criticism.
Last edited:
Well, it may not be "inexpensive"... but are "inexpensive" units that are so bad that they are throw away "inexpensive" then?
One of the reasons I like the Schiit is that they are mostly upgradeable. So, even if you pay more up front, you can upgrade the DAC itself later as newer ones come on line... so....
Sure, you pay more upfront, but in the long run, it becomes cheaper....
I think the entire point of this discussion is like trying to squeeze a balloon.... you just can't do it.
What is "inexpensive"?
Cheap that you throw away every year when you upgrade.
Not so cheap but you still throw away whenever you upgrade every other year?
A bit more that you can upgrade periodically without throwing the whole thing away -and thus save money on the upgrade.
IMHO. I've found 800 bucks to be the threshold where I get high quality sound and upgradeability. Sure I could spend more to get balanced and an upgradable analog section... and DSD... but, I'm just looking for what turns out to be "inexpensive"...
I also found that 400 bucks is a good price for something like a used Topping D90LE....
So, then, are we allowing used stuff? I mean, DACs have a short lifetime, so finding a DAC that has legs in the used market is sort of exceptional.
Unless, of course, you're into the High End Snake Oil and think a 15 year old DAC is worth $3000... Phoey!
One of the reasons I like the Schiit is that they are mostly upgradeable. So, even if you pay more up front, you can upgrade the DAC itself later as newer ones come on line... so....
Sure, you pay more upfront, but in the long run, it becomes cheaper....
I think the entire point of this discussion is like trying to squeeze a balloon.... you just can't do it.
What is "inexpensive"?
Cheap that you throw away every year when you upgrade.
Not so cheap but you still throw away whenever you upgrade every other year?
A bit more that you can upgrade periodically without throwing the whole thing away -and thus save money on the upgrade.
IMHO. I've found 800 bucks to be the threshold where I get high quality sound and upgradeability. Sure I could spend more to get balanced and an upgradable analog section... and DSD... but, I'm just looking for what turns out to be "inexpensive"...
I also found that 400 bucks is a good price for something like a used Topping D90LE....
So, then, are we allowing used stuff? I mean, DACs have a short lifetime, so finding a DAC that has legs in the used market is sort of exceptional.
Unless, of course, you're into the High End Snake Oil and think a 15 year old DAC is worth $3000... Phoey!
Last edited:
SMLS DO100 pro about 200euro on amazon. It is like Topping D50 III with balanced output.
Let me tell you something about "quality of dac". Once you're past 16bit SNR range (96dB) and have a (relative) flat phase and FR response it does not matter anymore. Your ears have at best that resolution (and mostly way less). I don't know those old chips mentioned here, but a lof of them did pass that thest. Modern IC dacs are better, but only technically as it won't matter to your ears. 125dB Sinad and 96dB sinad sound exact the same, they are transparent like a dac should be. So no you don't need the latest highest sinad dac from china to have good sound. And your speaker is the limiting factor today, not your dac.
Most (not all) R2R dacs don't get that transparent, you may like it or not, but that's the way it is.
But if you add tubes, you won't get there also, as most tube amp circuits are noisy and have high harmonic distortion. But you could like the sound they make, they are just not transparent dacs as unit. The dac convertor itself may be transparent), but the tube circuit behind it is not. I don't like that in a dac, but my tube and class a amps do pass that neighter, and i love them.
Sinad and other things ASR measures is a value of technical performance, not personal preference or taste (what differs). It's a handy tool to judge stuff without hearing it (but hearing is still the last test). It (the measurements and site) learned me a lot, and altough my taste is not superclean neighter. I like my colourations in the amp and speaker, not in the dac and i know how the recognise the right sound on graphs and numbers which is very a very handy tool to have. So yeah, i'm on ASR too.
Most (not all) R2R dacs don't get that transparent, you may like it or not, but that's the way it is.
But if you add tubes, you won't get there also, as most tube amp circuits are noisy and have high harmonic distortion. But you could like the sound they make, they are just not transparent dacs as unit. The dac convertor itself may be transparent), but the tube circuit behind it is not. I don't like that in a dac, but my tube and class a amps do pass that neighter, and i love them.
Sinad and other things ASR measures is a value of technical performance, not personal preference or taste (what differs). It's a handy tool to judge stuff without hearing it (but hearing is still the last test). It (the measurements and site) learned me a lot, and altough my taste is not superclean neighter. I like my colourations in the amp and speaker, not in the dac and i know how the recognise the right sound on graphs and numbers which is very a very handy tool to have. So yeah, i'm on ASR too.
For the do100, I dont understand the pcm filter...
Why is is so sharp at 22khz? Is it n.o.s? 0.5v slew rate
Because my current dac have no digital noise and can play up to 33khz without attenuation...
I wonder how good it can play a square wave..
Why is is so sharp at 22khz? Is it n.o.s? 0.5v slew rate
Because my current dac have no digital noise and can play up to 33khz without attenuation...
I wonder how good it can play a square wave..
I dont know why tube are bashed again, with feedback they are not sending harmonics, each transistor too sends distortion, so we use a lot of gain in losed loop to get low distortion, just using tube amplification in dacs without feedback is unacceptable I agree
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/semiconductors/chpt-8/operational-amplifier-models/
Last edited:
I suppose it would be a good comparison with 2D and 3D world. Technical performance in audio measurements belong to 2D sheet, but this sheet is only one part of sound. Sound density, imaging, soundstage depth and width belong to 3D world. DAC as device could measure excellent in those 2D tests with not so good power supply and poor quality clocks.
Let it be subjective. Someone will hear more or less, but this dimension exists and it is not measured in tests. I heard a decent difference on all my devices where I replaced clocks. Need to listen to only one speaker from another room no to hear it.
Subjective characteristics cannot be measured. But if the difference is so clear that even your wife in the kitchen can hear it then it is quite likely also measurable.
I mean that you won't be able to hear the difference in clocks if you listen to a mono speaker, especially from afar. Of course you should be in stereo field to hear the clocks difference. And I don't speak about expensive clocks, this is clear noticeble with NDK and any other cheap oscillators. Even 1.3USD Kyocera K-series sounds better than stock clocks in many inexpencive chineese devices.
Last edited:
Isn't it the objective that it should sound 'subjectively' good in a clear and concise way?
Why follow a path of numbers which leads nowhere and which no one can tell the difference?
THD/noise/jitter/dynamic range is a closed book which will never read. We listen to music only, if A is not clearly at first second of audio playing better than B then it is waste of time.
Why follow a path of numbers which leads nowhere and which no one can tell the difference?
THD/noise/jitter/dynamic range is a closed book which will never read. We listen to music only, if A is not clearly at first second of audio playing better than B then it is waste of time.
Your claims are undermined by couple of important issues. Modifications to clocks or PSU make proper blind AB comparisons with near instantaneous switching practically impossible. These are basic requirements in ITU recommendations for subjective assessments (https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf). Without near instantaneous switching you are relying on long- and medium-term aural memory which is unreliable.
Also if you claim that your modifications do not show up in measurements you should then show us the measurements before and after making the modifications.
It is well known that some things which exist in dac analog outputs are not measured at ASR. Bohrok2610 could list them for you if he wanted to. I know because he and I have discussed them over and over again.
Here is a quote from bohrok2610:
No, SINAD as a number does not tell much and ASR (or AP) is not all there is to measurements. HD profile, noise (including out-of-band noise), close-in PM/AM noise can show differences between high SINAD devices. This fixation with ASR SINAD numbers seems to plague every discussion of measurements here. To state "Anything that is audible to humans can be measured" does not mean that ASR measurements, especially SINAD, are such measurements.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-board-for-diy-usb-cables.423028/post-7924380
Furthermore, it is well known that some of the things that come out of dac analog outputs are nontrivial to measure, or even that there is no existing way to measure them accurately and or quantitatively. For one example, there is no existing way to quantitatively measure the combined phase noise of a dac and clock system. A clock alone, or a dac alone can be measured without the complication of amplitude noise but it takes certain testing no one here or at ASR does. Ideally, it takes some pretty expensive and specialized test gear.
Also, while soundstage is a subjective perception, the cues which the ear/brain system uses to construct a soundstage perception are in principle measurable in a stereo sound field, or at an amplifier or at dac outputs. Its just that nobody knows to to extract that information from FFT measurements taken of both channels at once (or if they do know how then they never share it here).
What appears to be common about the guys who claim SINAD can be used to determine "audible transparency" is that they can't hear differences between dacs. So they don't think anyone else can either. There is a name for the psychology of that and its called "naive realism." https://shorturl.at/Ma8bQ
OTOH, to address arguments from both sides, it is also important to understand that people do sometimes imagine they hear differences which are not real and or which are exaggerated. The only way to remove those factors is by blind testing of some kind. That said, many or most amateur efforts at blind testing are unreliable to say the least. Some are badly biased towards false negative results.
Of course, some of us have passed blind tests before, and many of us have been accidently blind tested when we noticed something about a system changed when it shouldn't have, and then troubleshooting found the problem.
Here is a quote from bohrok2610:
No, SINAD as a number does not tell much and ASR (or AP) is not all there is to measurements. HD profile, noise (including out-of-band noise), close-in PM/AM noise can show differences between high SINAD devices. This fixation with ASR SINAD numbers seems to plague every discussion of measurements here. To state "Anything that is audible to humans can be measured" does not mean that ASR measurements, especially SINAD, are such measurements.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-board-for-diy-usb-cables.423028/post-7924380
Furthermore, it is well known that some of the things that come out of dac analog outputs are nontrivial to measure, or even that there is no existing way to measure them accurately and or quantitatively. For one example, there is no existing way to quantitatively measure the combined phase noise of a dac and clock system. A clock alone, or a dac alone can be measured without the complication of amplitude noise but it takes certain testing no one here or at ASR does. Ideally, it takes some pretty expensive and specialized test gear.
Also, while soundstage is a subjective perception, the cues which the ear/brain system uses to construct a soundstage perception are in principle measurable in a stereo sound field, or at an amplifier or at dac outputs. Its just that nobody knows to to extract that information from FFT measurements taken of both channels at once (or if they do know how then they never share it here).
What appears to be common about the guys who claim SINAD can be used to determine "audible transparency" is that they can't hear differences between dacs. So they don't think anyone else can either. There is a name for the psychology of that and its called "naive realism." https://shorturl.at/Ma8bQ
OTOH, to address arguments from both sides, it is also important to understand that people do sometimes imagine they hear differences which are not real and or which are exaggerated. The only way to remove those factors is by blind testing of some kind. That said, many or most amateur efforts at blind testing are unreliable to say the least. Some are badly biased towards false negative results.
Of course, some of us have passed blind tests before, and many of us have been accidently blind tested when we noticed something about a system changed when it shouldn't have, and then troubleshooting found the problem.
Last edited:
We should show examples of how our systems can resolve complex pieces of music...
My system will do 50% good on the most complex music, but for Carmina Burana Ave Formosissima it falls apart...
In that specific passage the full orchestra plays FFF , 2xpiano, triangles, a reduced orchestra, a huge choir almost singing the same note FFss in latin,
(a very nice interpretation!)
in this video it is a smaller ensemble which makes it a lot easier, however other recordings have a way bigger sound and how can the audio be reproduced with maybe even 10% accuracy ?
My system will do 50% good on the most complex music, but for Carmina Burana Ave Formosissima it falls apart...
In that specific passage the full orchestra plays FFF , 2xpiano, triangles, a reduced orchestra, a huge choir almost singing the same note FFss in latin,
in this video it is a smaller ensemble which makes it a lot easier, however other recordings have a way bigger sound and how can the audio be reproduced with maybe even 10% accuracy ?
We seem to be revolving around two brands. About 10 choices between them. Probably just a few actual chips, in different implementations. I know the ESS chips can all be put in one big pile, and swept out the door. Perhaps entry levels, entry level. I bet someone can finish my post better than I can..