SMSL SU-9n ES9038PRO DAC is up NOW
Oct 14, 2021 at 4:39 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 51
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Posts
147
Likes
324
Location
Shenzhen,China
1.png


SMSL provides another alternate for end-users, the SMSL SU-9n, which doesn't support MQA. The SU-9n takes up the excellent base of the sister SU-9 while promising further improved performance and useful versatile functions. SU-9n is also equipped with ES9038Pro chip but combined with high-performance power supply chip ES9311, which could climb the better performance for the D/A chip.
2.png


SU-9n has a total harmonic distortion (THD+N) down to 0.00006%, its signal-to-noise and distortion ratio (SINAD) is at an even 130 dB for XLR. It adopts a CK-02 clock processing circuit to achieve ultra-low clock jitter, and with the DPLL setting, it could avoid the sound interruption when the clock stability of the input signal is not good. The SMSL SU-9n is carried in our store now and priced at USD$399.99.
667.jpg


SU-9n is capable of decoding numerous lossless formats that include PCM streams up to 32bit, 768Khz, and native DSD decoding up to DSD512, and all inputs support DSD streaming, including coaxial and optical (DoP64). With the support of Bluetooth 5.0 transmission, supporting LDAC 24bit/96kHz, APTX/HD, SBC, AAC, it is convenient to broadcast your music remotely, directly from a smartphone.
未标题-3(3).jpg


It comes with built-in shielded, low noise power supply processing while improving power efficiency, lower power consumption, also specially designed discrete component linear regulated power supply and multiple low noise regulated power supplies to provide low noise power for analog circuits.

Having brightness and dimmer settings, you could adjust the light from the 1.9-inch display, so the screen will not be always on when you are not in the mood for the light. Go along and check more details about SU-9n on the product page.

Here comes both SU-9 and SU-9n few indexes comparison.

su-9n详情页1_03.jpg


As usual, any questions, comments, or suggestions are welcome. Thanks for your time.
 
ShenzhenAudio https://twitter.com/shenzhenaudio Stay updated on ShenzhenAudio at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
 
https://www.facebook.com/shenzhenaudio/ https://twitter.com/shenzhenaudio https://shenzhenaudio.com/
Oct 14, 2021 at 1:27 PM Post #10 of 51

GoldenOne

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Posts
361
Likes
1,226
Location
United Kingdom
shame they dropped MQA.... those that have Tidal will not be able to listen to MQA files now.... what a shame...
You can still listen to them. And tidal will still do the first 'unfold'

Though most mqa content on tidal is actually worse than lossless as its just mqa-processed from a 44.1khz master. Causing added noise.
There is only a small fraction that actually came from a higher sample rate master
 
Oct 14, 2021 at 1:28 PM Post #11 of 51

OldRoadToad

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Posts
1,104
Likes
1,925
shame they dropped MQA.... those that have Tidal will not be able to listen to MQA files now.... what a shame...
They could just put an eternally lit up blue lite with the initials “MQA” above or below to make them feel it is on…:L3000: Yeah…I can be a cruel toad at times but having “listened” to MQA a few years back in a DBTT (Double Blind Toad Test) I can honestly state that it makes no discernible difference. None at all. Zip. ZeeerO. Not a single Bit.

For me, I refuse to strain at a bit to hear a lie.

ORT
 
Oct 14, 2021 at 1:38 PM Post #13 of 51

Dixter

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 21, 2011
Posts
1,233
Likes
383
You can still listen to them. And tidal will still do the first 'unfold'

Though most mqa content on tidal is actually worse than lossless as its just mqa-processed from a 44.1khz master. Causing added noise.
There is only a small fraction that actually came from a higher sample rate master
Just curious... when I see this written I do have to ask... how did that person come to this conclusion... did they take a MQA version of a song and a non-mqa version and actually measure the noise... would be interesting to see all of the measured noise from all of those songs... you don't even need to have Tidal to listen to MQA... they play back just fine as FLAC files too...
 
Oct 14, 2021 at 1:48 PM Post #14 of 51

boxster233

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Posts
615
Likes
456
Location
Texas
As usual, MQA
Just curious... when I see this written I do have to ask... how did that person come to this conclusion... did they take a MQA version of a song and a non-mqa version and actually measure the noise... would be interesting to see all of the measured noise from all of those songs... you don't even need to have Tidal to listen to MQA... they play back just fine as FLAC files too...
Can we not make this thread another referendum on MQA? GoldenOne has done extensive research and testing related to this.
 
Oct 14, 2021 at 1:52 PM Post #15 of 51

GoldenOne

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Posts
361
Likes
1,226
Location
United Kingdom
Just curious... when I see this written I do have to ask... how did that person come to this conclusion... did they take a MQA version of a song and a non-mqa version and actually measure the noise... would be interesting to see all of the measured noise from all of those songs... you don't even need to have Tidal to listen to MQA... they play back just fine as FLAC files too...
I did quite extensive testing on it, including looking at mainstream readily available tracks, speaking to an artist friend of mine (whose music was in MQA on Tidal even though he'd never heard of it and his tracks were produced in 44.1khz), and uploading my own tracks:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top