Article: SOtM sMS-200 Review

[Johnseye]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I don't doubt your conclusions. However, if my aunt was a man he would be my uncle. If, if, if :~)

 

The review in and of itself would have been just fine regardless of PSU used.  Where it became open to contention was when the two devices were compared.  This should have been, and still should be in a separate review.  Comparing apples with oranges regardless of the number of possible types of apples and oranges out there, are still apples and oranges.  Bob's your uncle.  I understand the mfg wanted you to use a specific PSU, and by all means that request should be honored, but if the mfg's wanted their products to be compared with each other's, I'm guessing they'd want the PSU playing field level and at least one would have chosen a different option.  A fair comparison would have either included the  iFi or LPS-1 for both devices.  The mR is even offered with the iFi, but the LPS-1 is the most common PSU being used to power these devices based on these forums.

 

If you haven't updated your references to the lack of DAC info in the review, that probably should be corrected before even more people read it.  It was a pretty big miss.  No one's perfect and the review is good overall.  These are just suggestions from your community. FWIW.

 

By the way, I really liked your honesty in critiquing both devices.  Because of your credibility people listen.  When people critique these devices in the forum, they tend to get flamed.

[Johnseye]

4 hours ago, rickca said:

Has anyone else found they preferred the micro rendu to the SMS-200?  I think all the CA user feedback I've seen expressed a preference for the SMS-200.  

 

 

 

I've had the mR for about 3 months and the sms-200 for about 2 months.  I haven't posted my opinion anywhere in these forums yet for a few reasons but might as well share some thoughts.  I use the LPS-1 to power them both and have listened to both extensively.  What I hear with the sms-200 is a crisp, clean but almost sterile sound.  The mR has a softer feel.  What you could either called veiled or rounded.  I can see why Chris would relate this more to analog, because analog can exhibit some of the same qualities.  I've been bothered by the latency issues with the mR, and with Chris's findings when using a Cisco switch there is even more making me question the interface.  But I like the sound from the mR.  It suits a purpose in my chain to slightly mellow the sound.  For that reason I've kept it, and have preferred it.

 

I have been talking with May at SOtM about upgrading the clocks in my sms-200 to make it an Ultra, as well as upgrading a switch.  This could change my mind based on some opinions about these new clocks.  We all know what opinions are like though, and before I sink more money into this rabbit hole I'm doing some more research.

 

I think the difference is subtle and considering the money I'm spending on these endpoints, the LPS-1 and the Paul Hynes SR7 which is coming soon, I wonder if it would have been better invested into a new DAC or preamp where the impact would be more significant.  It's very easy to start chasing dragons in search of small improvements and to forget there are other components with a potential for bigger impact.

[Johnseye]

7 hours ago, rickca said:

Thanks for your balanced assessment, @Johnseye.   

 

 

I have done everything within my budget to provide the lowest noise and distortion levels possible.  I have tuned my system to be very detail oriented and neutral.  The amp and speakers with silver cables between them make the sound very revealing.  I've essentially worked my way backwards from the speakers with this specific signature.  The downside of doing this is there is a potential for brightness or crispness that can have a hard edge, especially at loud levels.  The mR softens it very slightly.  Much more slightly than if I had chosen a different pair of speakers, or a tube amp.  This is why these devices can be so subjective to your other equipment.  If I wasn't using the AHB-2 with its low noise and distortion levels, I may have a different opinion all together.

 

I'm very tempted to give the new Benchmark DAC3 an audition.  The AHB-2 is so clean and neutral that if the DAC3 follows the same engineering there could be some magic going on there.  A little more research to do first.

 

Based on some of the experiments @romaz and @austinpop are doing, a switch and my sms-200 will be going to SOtM shortly for an upgrade.  This is all cutting edge, home audio, digital music reproduction, and some great community involvement here to help it along.

[Johnseye]

22 minutes ago, HowardK said:

Hi Chris - Can the sMs-200 access Tidal directly without requiring a computer elsewhere on the network?  If so, how would that be done?  Thanks.

 

No