SMSL 400 AKM 4499 DAC, new toy.
- Thread starter sq225917
- Start date
Darren
So gentle when he tries to understand.
I remain very, very pleased with my Soncoz SGD1. In fact it sounds frikkin ace...... consistently so.
misterdog
Not the canine kind
The SMSL M400 now ships with a flat output on RCA and the the only firmware update I am aware of is for the XMOS chip having a new Thesycon driver update. The latter was not an auto update, neither was it rocket science to install.
https://www.thesycon.de/eng/usb_audiodriver.shtml
themystical
pfm Member
How did you mod this? Did you change the Opamps? What’s your overall comparison and verdict on SQ?
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
I did change the opamps, or rather Tony at Coherent did for me. Its a very good dac, better than my £1100 worth of iancanada pi stack, maybe, certainly as good, certainly far easier to live with.
A18, Soncoz, smsl400, Topping D90, you cant go wrong with any of them IME.
A18, Soncoz, smsl400, Topping D90, you cant go wrong with any of them IME.
themystical
pfm Member
I always thought Gustard's choice of Opamps for this DAC might be a limiting factor. Have you gone for the AKM recommended OPA1612? Was the difference audible?
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
In totally none objective terms, the largest difference was in the soundstage, it had been quite vague and was very much between the speakers. It now has a real sense of depth behind the speakers, some elements are obviously positioned above the speakers and the sense of precision in the location left to right and up and down has increased. It has gone from being "somewhere over there", to more exact X,Y and Z coordinate in nature.
The treble is both more articulate and less grainy and I seem to have lost a touch of dark sounding euphony in the upper bass.
That all probably overstates the scale 9f the differences hugely. Overall its a little bit less digital at the top and more precise in the soundtage.
Yup, opa1612 for the 4x IV and another 2 for the LPF.
The treble is both more articulate and less grainy and I seem to have lost a touch of dark sounding euphony in the upper bass.
That all probably overstates the scale 9f the differences hugely. Overall its a little bit less digital at the top and more precise in the soundtage.
Yup, opa1612 for the 4x IV and another 2 for the LPF.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
You have two units Simon the modified and un-modified to directly compare?
Keith
Keith
themystical
pfm Member
I think the difference between good and excellent is not in the frequency response audible domain I.e. purely the sound coming to your ears - it’s more to do with the 3D effect of where the sound appears to come from (phasing?) and the vibrations that you may or may not feel on your skin/body etc. That is what differentiates the DACs for me at least. Opamps do have an influence on these aspects so I am not completely surprised by your subjective impressions!
Thanks very much for your views.
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
Keith, no, but I have the notes taken vs my iancanada stack and mrdogs smsl 400. They were all level matched tests, done with perfectly synced playbacks where there was no delay between the two dacs at all, and switching was instantaneous. There's no front display showing which source is playing on my preamp, so no way for me to know which was which until I traced the cables after the fact.
The bass euphony thing just sounded like a faulty dac initially, there's no hint of that now.
It simply wasn't as good as my iancanada stack was before the mods, it wasn't a keeper. Since the mods, now its a keeper. I'm perfectly willing to believe I'm imagining the perceived differences though, but gut feel says I'm not.
Should you be able to acquire an A18 id be happy to send you mine to compare or to anyone else who has one.
The bass euphony thing just sounded like a faulty dac initially, there's no hint of that now.
It simply wasn't as good as my iancanada stack was before the mods, it wasn't a keeper. Since the mods, now its a keeper. I'm perfectly willing to believe I'm imagining the perceived differences though, but gut feel says I'm not.
Should you be able to acquire an A18 id be happy to send you mine to compare or to anyone else who has one.
fred sonnen
pfm Member
Is there a description or a Pro / con available to interpret these graphics?
What they are for and as I said, what are the pro and cons of each option?
What they are for and as I said, what are the pro and cons of each option?
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
They are just the reconstruction filter options offered by that particular chip, won’t make the slightest difference if you are over 20.
Keith
Keith
Alan Brown
Registered LUser
Let's see... (Long intake of breath, gazes at graph thoughtfully, taps front teeth with pen....)
Nope, not a clue.
Mine is still on 'sharp' since day one, I thought rapid attenuation over 22K is what you want. I may have played with it initially but I really don't recall a difference, not do I feel motivated to investigate further. I think many modern DACs have these options for those who like to play, and those who oversample in software.
AFAIC this DAC just plays music beautifully, so I left it well alone.
Nope, not a clue.
Mine is still on 'sharp' since day one, I thought rapid attenuation over 22K is what you want. I may have played with it initially but I really don't recall a difference, not do I feel motivated to investigate further. I think many modern DACs have these options for those who like to play, and those who oversample in software.
AFAIC this DAC just plays music beautifully, so I left it well alone.
DimitryZ
pfm Member
Listen to a well known piece of musice with a few of the filter choices.Is there a description or a Pro / con available to interpret these graphics?
What they are for and as I said, what are the pro and cons of each option?
You may or may not hear subtle differences. If you do, chose accordingly and don't bother with again.
There is lots of technical information on why there are several filter options modern DACs. Basically, they try to optimize two main performance parameters - rejection of sampling artefacts and transient impulse response. Sharp filters reject very well, but ring on sharp transients, while slow filters reject worse but ring less.
AKM offers some filter descriptions at the bottom of this page:
https://velvetsound.akm.com/global/en/technology/