Jump to content
  • The Computer Audiophile
    The Computer Audiophile

    Schiit Audio Yggdrasil Multibit DAC Review

    Late last night I was about to conduct a final listening session with the Schiit Audio Yggdrasil DAC. I planned to finish writing this review after listening to one, maybe two albums. After all, I really didn't need to listen to the DAC for another minute, let alone another couple of hours. I already spent quite a bit of time with the Yggdrasil, but I just had to give it one more listen. I turned out the lights and turned up the volume on a Constellation Audio preamplifier. A track or two into the first album and I knew my plan for the evening was moot. I was not going to be able to stop listening and start writing. The sound was so good and the experience so enveloping, that I couldn't stop listening until the cause of my head bobbing switched from incredible music to incredible sleepiness. Hours after the listening session began, I had to call it a night and get some rest. I was eager to write, but I was in no condition to concentrate and collect coherent thoughts. This is the kind of component the Yggdrasil is, one that can suck the listener in and alter one's plans for the evening. I've enjoyed the Yggdrasil so much since I took delivery of the unit that I can say it's unequivocally one of the best DACs at reproducing acoustic music I've ever heard. Of course this DAC is fabulous at amplified / electric music as well, but there is something about its ability to convey realism when reproducing acoustic instruments that is remarkably alluring. In my experience, sound quality of this caliber comes at a price that most of us simply can't afford. We read the reviews of ultra high-end products as aspirational buyers who may one day get lucky enough to find a gem on the used market for well below the original price. Many audio enthusiasts know what I'm about to say, but those who are unfamiliar with the Yggdrasil, and Schiit Audio in general, should stop skimming this review and pay close attention. The aforementioned sound quality of the Yggdrasil, Schiit Audio's top-of-the-line digital to analog converter, can be had for $2,299 USD. That's a new-in-box component with a fifteen day return policy and a five year warranty, for less than the cost of sales tax on many items in this wonderful yet sometimes crazy world of high end audio. Come along as I share my extraordinary experience with the Schiit Audio Yggdrasil digital to analog converter.

     

     

     

    Schiit Audio and DAC Topology

     

     

    Two audio industry veterans walk into a bar… No, two audio industry veterans get together to start a new company in June 2010. Just what every business analyst recommended, start an audio company focusing on sound quality and do it during the worst economic crisis since the great depression. What could go wrong? That's obviously a rhetorical question, but the facts are the facts. Schiit Audio was founded by Jason Stoddard and Mike Moffat in 2010. These guys created some terrific and groundbreaking products in their previous lives, and wanted to shake things up a bit in the HiFi industry. There's really no such thing as an overnight success, but it sure seemed like Schiit Audio hit the ground running with accolades from everywhere and a huge fanbase immediately, especially with the Head-Fi crowd. Propelling this success was the founders' willingness to speak their minds and do so in a lighthearted manner, yet still get the point across that their products were as serious as a heart attack. Good rapport between a manufacturer and potential customers only goes so far, the physical products are where the rubber meets the road. Release high quality and high value products, and enthusiastic customers will be the best marketing team for which a company could ever hope. That's exactly what Schiit Audio did, and people sang its praises in audio forums the world over.

     

    I was late to the Schiit Audio party compared to most audio enthusiasts. I heard about the company and saw its products, but for some reason I simply moved on to other things. That is, until the Yggdrasil DAC was announced, then the ball started rolling. I researched the Yggdrasil DAC and immediately emailed Jason at Schiit to obtain a review sample. Like most good companies, Jason told me to wait until the customers who'd pre-ordered the DAC received their units. I had no problem with that, other than my short patience. In August 2015 the opportunity arose for me to attend the inaugural Schiit Show in southern California. This was my first real opportunity to spend time listening to Schiit's products and equally as important to spend time talking with Schiit's digital wizard Mike Moffat. I spent a large amount of time, the evening before the show started, talking to Mike. The conversation started with a technical discussion of many concepts from USB audio to DAC topology. By the end of the night we were talking about everything with the exception of audio. Prior to the end of the Schiit Show I gently reminded the Schiit team that I was still waiting for a Yggdrasil review unit. To my surprise the company had delivered DACs to all its customers who pre-ordered and there was a unit available for review. The Yggdrasil arrived a week later and was immediately placed into my audio system.

     

    Before getting into the details of how the Yggdrasil converts digital into analog audio, I want to make sure readers understand that this review is neither a referendum on DAC topology, nor a treatise on multibit versus Sigma-Delta designs. Thus, I am purposely leaving out some of the minute details that only serve to move the review comment section further into the weeds. Trying to find the best sounding component by debating multibit versus Sigma-Delta topologies based on specifications only is preposterous. Let me be a bit more blunt, it's stupid. The final product of a DAC, the analog audio output quality, depends much more on the intellect of its designer than the physical hardware and the test measurements. When both great internal components and a great engineer are combined, the outcome can be fabulous no matter which road one takes to Rome (or sonic heaven).

     

    The "Yggdrasil is the world’s only closed-form multibit DAC, delivering 21 bits of resolution with no guessing anywhere in the digital or analog path." According to Schiit Audio. Let's dive into that statement a bit. Many audio enthusiasts will immediately see the 21 bit number assume this DAC is inferior to other DACs that claim 24 or even 32 bits of resolution. Several manufacturers today advertise the fact that their DACs feature multiple 32 bit DAC chips per channel. Making a judgement on a DAC's superiority or inferiority based on the number of bits advertised is foolish. For example, a 24 bit DAC has a theoretical maximum SNR of 144 dB, but the best current DACs can only obtain an SNR of 124 dB or 21 bits due to the noise floor of the components. In addition, human hearing has a dynamic range of about 120-130 dB. What's more, DACs have what's called Equivalent Number of Bits (ENOB) to signify the actual resolution of the DAC. A closer look at many 32 bit DACs reveals they actually have an ENOB of 19.5. Can you see why making judgements about DACs based on specifications is ridiculous?

     

    Readers may be asking themselves, what happens when I play a 24 bit recording on the Yggdrasil if it only supports 21 bits? The reality is that 24 bit recordings don't have 24 bits of resolution / information. It's possible to select 24 or even 32 bits as the output resolution for the Yggdrasil in Audio Midi. The truth is that it doesn't matter on any DAC. Note 1: Vinyl playback has about 12 bits of resolution, CD has 16 bits. Note 2: The Yggdrasil doesn't support DSD.

     

    Two more items I want to touch on are the filtering and hardware components inside the Yggdrasil. Again, these items individually don't mean a thing (if the designer ain't got that swing). Schiit Audio uses its own closed-form filter that's hallmark is using the original samples, not throwing the original samples away while upsampling like most DACs. Good, bad, or indifferent, this is Schiit's way of filtering. Schiit says it doesn't do guess work because it keeps the original samples. On the CA forum, Mike Moffat elaborated further by saying,

     

    "It is a digital filter/sample rate converter designed to convert all audio to 352.8 or 384KHz sample rates so that it may drive our DACs. You get it uniquely from us; it is our filter. It took five people many years to design and perfect at the dawn of digital playback, way back in the early eighties. It keeps all original samples; those samples contain frequency and phase information which can be optimized not only in the time domain but in the frequency domain. We do precisely this; the mechanic is we add 7 new optimized samples between the original ones. All digital filters multiply the original audio signal by a series of coefficients which are calculated by a digital filter generator. Over the years, before Theta Digital was born (my original company), we developed this filter design/generator. The common digital filter method is a Parks-McClellan algorithm, which has been used in all of the older oversampling chipsets, and persists to this day as the input filter in most Delta-Sigma DACs. Why? I assume it is because it is royalty-free, and the algorithm is widely available as are digital filter software design packages to aid in a cookbook approach to the design. Now Parks McClellan an open form math solution, which means that the coefficient calculation is a series of approximations which always get halfway there. This of course, means it never completely solves. The worse news is that all original sample are lost, replaced by 8 new approximated ones. Further, the Parks McClellan optimization is based on the frequency domain only – flat frequency response, with the time (read spatial) domain ignored. Our filter is based upon closed form math – the coefficients are not approximations, the equations solve; the matrices invert and the math is done. The filter also optimizes the time domain."

     

    In addition to Schiit's unique filter, the company uses unique hardware (at least in the audio world) in the Yggdrasil. Schiit uses four of the Analog Devices AD5791BRUZ DACs that are typically used in MRI imaging and military weapons. These DACs aren't trivial to implement in a digital to analog converter. I've heard many engineers in the industry suggest that the newest Sigma-Delta chips can be implemented much easier than a multibit design and that it doesn't take much to get a Sigma-Delta DAC up and running. It certainly takes quite a bit to get a Sigma-Delta to sound as good as possible, but nonetheless Schiit's selection of the AD5791 DAC has made its job significantly more difficult. In other words, not every engineer is capable of implementing the AD5791 in a great sounding audio component.

     

     

    yggy-pcb-900.jpg

     

     

    Listening Impressions

     

     

    The Yggdrasil DAC is built on a very solid technical foundation that translates terrifically into pure sonic enjoyment. This is what it all comes down to, enjoying the sound that comes out of one's audio system. My system for this review consisted of the Aurender N10 music server -> Yggdrasil DAC -> Constellation Audio PreAmp 1.0 -> Constellation Audio Mono 1.0 amplifiers -> TAD CR1 loudspeakers, all cabled with Wire World Series 7 Platinum. As I said in the opening paragraph, the Yggdrasil is unequivocally one of the best DACs at reproducing acoustic music I've ever heard. The overall sound signature of this DAC is a bit thicker in the midrange than I am used to hearing in some of the other DACs I've had through my listening room. One other quality that is very noticeable through the Yggdrasil is the amount air around the instruments. This DAC doesn't have the most air I've ever heard, in fact it seems to reproduce less air around instruments than most DACs. However, the more I listened the more I thought it's entirely plausible that the Yggdrasil could be on the right side of history, if you know what I mean. The multibit topology in the Yggdrasil eliminates the Sigma-Delta problem is pre and post ringing. I may be incorrect here, but I believe the post ringing in Sigma-Delta DACs may be responsible for memorializing transient events and creating more air around instruments than is actually present in the recording. Thus, the Yggdrasil may be reproducing just the transient event, nothing before or after, more accurately. Another impression I received when comparing the Yggdrasil to the sound of other DACs, is that the other DACs reminded me of an old boombox I had in the 1980s that had a setting called ST-WIDE. The Toshiba boombox had a setting for Mono, Stereo, and ST-WIDE (Link). When using the ST-WIDE setting the sound grew much larger in an inauthentic manner that was pleasing for a little while and would have been really neat had I never heard what the normal Stereo setting sounded like. I'm not suggesting the other DACs in my comparison sounded anything like the old Toshiba boombox, rather these DACs may have an unnaturally large soundstage or be memorializing transients to sound bigger than the recording.

     

    Let's go a bit deeper into the Yggdrasil reproducing unamplified acoustic instruments, specifically Gary Karr's double bass. His instrument is commonly known as the 1611 Amati double bass, given to him by the widow of Serge Koussevitzky. However, further research into this bass reveals that it has a history all its own. In 2005 the Tree Ring Society released a paper detailing its investigation into the instrument. The Society found that the bass was not made by the Amati brothers, Antonio and Girolamo, in Italy in 1611. According to the Tree Ring Society, "We used four reference tree-ring chronologies developed from treeline species in the European Alpine region to anchor the dates for the tree rings from the double bass absolutely in time. The bass yielded a 317-year long sequence, the longest sequence yet developed from a single musical instrument. Statistical and graphical comparisons revealed that the bass has tree rings that date from 1445 to 1761. Based on the strength of these correlations, the spruce tree harvested to eventually construct the double bass likely came from the treeline Alpine area of western Austria, not too far from Obergurgl at the Italian border. Our results demonstrate that the double bass was not made by the Amati Brothers, but likely by French luthiers in the late 18th Century." What does this dendromusicology have to do with the Yggdrasil? It's where my mind went when listening to Gary Karr's album Bass Virtuoso. The sound was so natural and so good I wanted to know more about the actual double bass used in the recording. The first track on the album, Henry Eccles: Sonata, has such a realistic and organic sound one can get the illusion of smelling the rosin on the black hair of Gary Karr's bow. Rumor has it that black haired bows produce a rougher sound as opposed to smooth sounding white haired bows. The coarseness and the beautiful vibrations off the Spruce wood of the bass were almost palpable. Track seventeen o the same album, Alec Wilder: Sonata for String Bass & Piano Part I, starts with Gary plucking the double bass strings (pizzicato) followed by returning to the bow and accompanied by a piano in the right channel. The whole track had a beautiful, lush, and sweet sound through the Yggdrasil that can't be denied. I felt like I had a front row seat to this concert right in my listening room. The only thing that could have made this experience more realistic is if the Yggdrasil had a scratch-n-sniff option. Emanating the scent of freshly cut Spruce would have sent me over the edge.

     

    Readers actually interested in the Tree Ring Society's research can find it here -> PDF Link

     

    I briefly want to touch on a Classical piece of music that totally sucked me into listening to the entire one hour performance. Usually when I write about Classical, my lack of knowledge shines brighter than anything else I write, and I expect this to be no different. I put on Passacaglia, the sixth track on the Reference Recording album of Michael Stern and the Kansas City Symphony playing Britten's Orchestra. I usually don't get that enthusiastic about this track until it gets loud (crescendo) near the finish. However, the time I was thrown for a loop twenty seconds into the track. The sound of the cello as the cellist gently pushes and pulls the bow across the strings is incredible. Not only could I hear spacial queues and the surrounding environment, but I could figuratively see and feel the wood of the instrument and the texture of the strings. The sound just resonated from the body of the cello and into the entire concert space. My usual favorite parts of Passacaglia, the eerie sounds of the string section at 4:25 and the huge booms of the drums at 5:10 followed by a massive collection of deep horns (tuba?) at 5:46, all sounded spectacular. After listening to Passacaglia, I started the album from track one and listened to the entire thing start to finish. That's very unusual for me when listening to a Classical piece of music.

     

    The 2011 remaster of Jack Johnson's Brushfire Fairytales contains great music that sounds great, and also provides great material for evaluating audio components. Specifically, the second track titled Middle Man. At 0:11 into the track the percussionist Adam Topol hits a snare that sounds different through every DAC I've heard in my system. Some DACs produce an incredible amount of air around this snare while others make the snare sound completely dead. The Yggdrasil is the first DAC that has made me reconsider what this snare "should" sound like and question the large amount of air I previously thought was correct. Without being present at the recording, I admit that I have no reference for what is the correct sound of this snare. I can only use my judgement and my taste. Listening through my current reference DAC the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS, there is a tremendous amount of air and space surrounding the snare in Middle Man. The drum head is hit and the sound seems to rise into the air and hang, reverberating around the recording space, before decaying. This is a wonderful sound that can really place the listener in the recording studio. Listening to this through the Schiit Audio Yggdrasil gave me a different perspective. The sound of the snare doesn't rise as high or hang in the air as long or give one the sense of a recording space quite as large. Perhaps the Yggdrasil isn't memorializing the transient event because it doesn't "feature" pre/post ringing. I'm not sure the cause, but I am sure of my listening impression. There is a difference in reproduced sound that may not even be correct in either DAC, but both are definitely capable of sound quality superior to that of much of the competition at all prices.

     

    One of my go-to albums for listening enjoyment and feeling a bit on the dark side, is Leonard Cohen's Old Ideas. The second track Amen is full of juxtaposition that's a delight for the ears. Of course Leonard's vocal performance is that of a dusty, coarse, baritone with a microphone seemingly placed behind his front teeth. The vocal is supported by a deep electric bass throughout the track. Through the Yggdrasil each bass note is clearly delineated as if the listener can visualize Roscoe Beck plucking the strings for each note. Many listeners may like this track for the bass and gravely vocal performance, but what really makes it special for me is the backing vocal and the violin performance from Bela Santelli and Robert "OBM" Koda. The saying that opposites attract is right on within this track. About one minute into the track the violin starts weeping in the background followed by a subtle backing vocal abut ten seconds later. Throughout the rest of the track the violin can be heard coming in and out as well as the soothing background vocalists taking a more prominent role. The Yggdrasil's ability to reproduce each instrument as a distinctly different entity, to separate each bass note, to let the violin weep and hang in the air, and to recreate a smooth backing vocal in the face of a coarse lead vocal, is absolutely wonderful.

     

    I could go on all day writing about the wonderfully organic and natural sound of Peter, Paul and Mary's In The Wind album, how great the harmonizing vocals of the trio sounded, the palpability of the acoustic guitar on the title track to Van Morrison's Astral Weeks, and how seductive Van's vocal on Into the Mystic through the Yggdrasil, but it's time to shake things up a bit. On August 25, 1993 Calvin Broadus was in a Jeep with his bodyguard McKinley Lee, when the men were threatened with a gun by Philip Woldemariam. McKinley Lee pulled out his own gun and shot Woldemariam, killing him. Lee and Broadus spent the next week on the lam, turning themselves in only after the MTV Music Video Awards. The two men were later acquitted of several crimes including murder. After the shooting Calvin Broadus created a song called Murder Was The Case and released it on his debut solo album called Doggystyle. The album was the first debut CD to enter the Billboard Pop charts at number 1. Astute Computer Audiophile readers may recognize the name Calvin Broadus as the rapper who goes by the name Snoop Dogg, or Snoop Lion, or Snoopadelic. Listening to Murder Was The Case through an audio system worth nearly $100,000, and specifically through the Schiit Audio Yggdrasil was a blast (no pun intended). The version of this track available on the soundtrack of the same name is actually better than the version on Doggystyle, thus that's the one to which I listen. The opening sound of the blades of a helicopter rotating followed by a booming drum echo should be experienced at higher volumes than normal listening. The high pitched synthesizer heard throughout much of the track is an essential yet annoying piece of the track. Nonetheless, Snoop gets my head bobbing with the infectious beat and his lyrical genius repeating "Murder, murder was the case that they gave me" with a bevy of backing vocalists. As Snoop raps, "My little homey Baby Boo took a pencil in his neck, And he probably won't make it to see twenty-two, I put that on my Momma; I'ma ride for you Baby Boo" the listener can't help but empathize with life in the LBC back in the mid-nineties. The Yggdrasil really bring out the emotion in the line, "No more indo, gin and juice, I'm on my way to Chino, rolling on the grey goose." Overall the sophisticated sound of the Yggdrasil's multibit architecture and its proprietary closed-forum filter really help Snoop's ode to a real life killing come through in a way many DACs simply can't manage. Note 1: The previous few sentences are to be read with an eye toward the humorous, keeping in mind that taking oneself too seriously can be detrimental to one's health. Note 2: Snoop's Doggystyle album was released three days after my eighteenth birthday in 1993. To say this album kept a few parties jumping in the ensuing years of my life would be an understatement.

     

     

     

     

    Conclusion

     

     

     

    cash@2x.pngWhen a pair of industry veterans get together to create excellent products for incredibly reasonable prices, consumers win. Schiit Audio's products range in price from $79 for the Fulla USB DAC / headphone amp to its flagship $2,299 Yggdrasil DAC. Based on my experience with countless DACs and after spending a couple months with the Yggdrasil, I can say without a doubt that this DAC is very special. It's one of my favorite DACs available today. In fact, I will happily mention the Yggdrasil in the same sentence as some of my other favorites, the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC RS ($16,000) and the EMM Labs DAC2X ($15,500), when talking to fellow audio enthusiasts. The Yggdrasil is one of those products that subtly grabs hold of the listener, yet the listener is the one who can't let go. I couldn't stop listening through the Yggdrasil enough to write this review on time. The Yggdrasil is a musically addictive drug without the expense and potential repercussions. When something is this enjoyable and the consequences of continuing its use aren't dire, the result is a foregone conclusion. More listening. The Yggdrasil has a rare ability to reproduce acoustic music on a level with some of the best DACs I've heard. Resonating Spruce wood from a double bass sounding so realistic as to breathe new life into old music, is a characteristic of the Yggdrasil. The juxtaposition of a coarse bowed bass with a silky smooth violin playing out in front of the listener as the sound simply hangs in mid-air until it appropriately decays, is part of an experience readily available through this DAC. The Yggdrasil has a really solid yet simplistic build quality on the outside and very selective component use on the inside. However, I believe the Yggdrasil's performance has much more to do with intellectual property than any other factor. Any manufacturer can use identical hardware in a competing product, but only Schiit Audio has its closed-form filter. In addition, the amount of engineering expertise required to implement the Analog Devices AD5791BRUZ DACs in an audio product is more than many companies have or costs more time and money than they can afford. To say the Yggdrasil is a unique product that's equal to much more than the sum of its parts is an understatement. Great technology and engineering coming together to reproduce fantastic sound quality at prices unheard-of in this industry is characteristically Schiit Audio. The Yggdrasil is a disruptive product that I can't recommend enough to both new and experienced music aficionados. Add to cart and enjoy.

     

     

     

     

     

    Product Information:

     

    • Product - Schist Audio Yggdrasil DAC
    • Price - $2,299
    • Product Page - Link
    • User Manual - PDF Link
    • USB Drivers - Link

     

     

     

    Where To Buy: Schiit Audio

     

     

     

    Associated Music:

     

     

     

     

    Associated Equipment:

     

     

     




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    I recall that Schiit previously said the AES/EBU input offers the best performance.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The company is 30 minutes away and i picked one up. The construction and looks are top notch. Its burning right now and will hear in few hours. Keep you posted. I am not sure which connection is best - USB or TOSKLINK or BNC?

    Out of those choices if use BNC.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Out of those choices if use BNC.

    What about jitter? Is the BNC stream reclocked?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have only TOSLink cable for now. My first impressions are very detailed, you can hear each musician clearly and type of instrument being playedt . But my big issue right now is its a little brittle and thin sounding. Does it have a break in period? Best $2500 dac i have tried though.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    But what if their ears are much better than yours? Better physical hearing, better training, younger, etc. Are you listening for accuracy, the best representation of the original event. Or do you have a bias and are listening for a euphonic sound that pleases you.

    Questions you have to ask your self in the evaluation.

     

    Doesn't matter, end of the day I have to live with it and I have to listen to it. The rest of the world coming in and listening will be less than 0.2% (over the lifetime of the product).

     

    Do what gives you happiness, satisfies you.

     

    Or you could be the guy who lets others decide for you and still be happy with the purchase.

     

    Whatever works for you and whatever floats your boat.

     

    PS: They may have better hearing, better training, and even better testing methodologies. However, they are not going to be in my home and listening to the music.

     

    My point is if a $200 DAC makes you happy then by all means be happy with it instead of a $2500 DAC. By the same token don't tell someone spending $100,000 on a DAC that he is being ripped off and a $2500 DAC does the same thing. Only I can hear what I'm hearing and the same goes for everyone. I cannot hear all the things some of my audiophile friends can hear. My wife cannot hear most of the stuff I can hear with my mid-level gear. Thankfully, she doesn't stop me from spending on it simply because she doesn't hear a thing.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Since this is an NOS DAC, as well as the Bimby and Gumby, I was wondering if anyone has experimented with offline upsampling to various sample rates and compared how they sound?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Since this is an NOS DAC, as well as the Bimby and Gumby, I was wondering if anyone has experimented with offline upsampling to various sample rates and compared how they sound?

     

    The Yggy? Neither it nor the Gumby are NOS, and they can't be used as such. The Bifrost can be used as NOS if you feed it 176.4/192KHz.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The Yggy? Neither it nor the Gumby are NOS, and they can't be used as such. The Bifrost can be used as NOS if you feed it 176.4/192KHz.

     

    My mistake, I should have said multibit! Maybe I need a Computer Audio 101 refresher course!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have only TOSLink cable for now. My first impressions are very detailed, you can hear each musician clearly and type of instrument being playedt . But my big issue right now is its a little brittle and thin sounding. Does it have a break in period? Best $2500 dac i have tried though.

     

    The folks at Head-fi have a pattern of at least 150 to 200 hours for break in. Considering the traditional thermal characteristics of clocks and stability of filters, this is not unusual. The brittleness should disappear after this time. Given that thermal stability takes often hours to settle, the advice from Schiit to leave the Yggdrasil on at all times is worth following.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    You cannot trust any site... trust only your ears.

     

    That said one needs to start somewhere, even for auditioning and online reviews at least get you started in the right general direction (which is saying a lot). But without them its going to be that much harder, especially for folks starting out.

     

    But what if their ears are much better than yours? Better physical hearing, better training, younger, etc. Are you listening for accuracy, the best representation of the original event. Or do you have a bias and are listening for a euphonic sound that pleases you.

    Questions you have to ask your self in the evaluation.

     

    Doesn't matter, end of the day I have to live with it and I have to listen to it. The rest of the world coming in and listening will be less than 0.2% (over the lifetime of the product).

     

    Do what gives you happiness, satisfies you.

     

    Or you could be the guy who lets others decide for you and still be happy with the purchase.

     

    Whatever works for you and whatever floats your boat.

     

    PS: They may have better hearing, better training, and even better testing methodologies. However, they are not going to be in my home and listening to the music.

     

    My point is if a $200 DAC makes you happy then by all means be happy with it instead of a $2500 DAC. By the same token don't tell someone spending $100,000 on a DAC that he is being ripped off and a $2500 DAC does the same thing. Only I can hear what I'm hearing and the same goes for everyone. I cannot hear all the things some of my audiophile friends can hear. My wife cannot hear most of the stuff I can hear with my mid-level gear. Thankfully, she doesn't stop me from spending on it simply because she doesn't hear a thing.

    You just have to determine what your listening for, or hoping to achieve at the end of the day.

    If it's simply a matter of finding something that you like, then just listening to it is the most important thing. With input from outside sources maybe being used to help you locate something that will work for you with your tastes and budget in mind.

    If the goal is the component that delivers the most accurate reproduction of the source, then there are other factors that take the fore. If component X measures to have a large irregularity in its frequency response, experienced listeners hear that irregularity and berate it on that point, then you need to factor that into the big picture. If it costs $100,000 and there are much more accurate units in market for $2500, then yes, that manufacturer is selling snake-oil and ripping off the uneducated customer, or the customer that believes the biggest price tag buys him the best sound.

    But even then when all true factors are known, if having that component still appeals to you for what ever reason they you should go for it.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The folks at Head-fi have a pattern of at least 150 to 200 hours for break in. Considering the traditional thermal characteristics of clocks and stability of filters, this is not unusual. The brittleness should disappear after this time. Given that thermal stability takes often hours to settle, the advice from Schiit to leave the Yggdrasil on at all times is worth following.

     

    That's right -- the first time it is powered up, it takes about a week for it to settle in and be at its best. After the initial break in, this drops to about 4 days or so. And definitely don't turn it off or you won't hear it at its best. Mike's Theta designs apparently behaved the same way.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yggy dsd vs. Yggy cd

    Tried a couple of DSD albums on Yggy (jriver - 176khz 24bit), its wonderful. e.g. dark side of the moon, dsd is way way better than CD, night and day.

    hate to say that, yggy with dsd makes cd unlistenable (i know, yggy already made CDs sounded so great).

     

    Well in this case yes...in other cases honestly CD is not that far from HiRes. It comes down to mastering. Probably the CD was mastered very poorly.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well in this case yes...in other cases honestly CD is not that far from HiRes. It comes down to mastering. Probably the CD was mastered very poorly.

     

    Bob Katz in his latest interview for Home Theater Geeks Scott Wilkinson has joined with other leaders of the recording industry and DAC manufacturers in stating that DSD is inferior to PCM. Yes it sounds different and maybe smoother but that is because it is inaccurate.

    Bob Katz on Audio - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Bob Katz in his latest interview for Home Theater Geeks Scott Wilkinson has joined with other leaders of the recording industry and DAC manufacturers in stating that DSD is inferior to PCM. Yes it sounds different and maybe smoother but that is because it is inaccurate.

    Bob Katz on Audio - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

     

    One of the useless endless audiophile arguments. No one can win this argument.

    Other experts say differently.

    Doesn't matter. Just listen to what you like and let other people express their own opinions.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "stating that DSD is inferior to PCM"

     

    If you believe that recording and mastering quality matters, how can DSD always be inferior to PCM, or vice versa? In the very, very rare case where exactly the same recording and mastering is used for both, by all means buy the one you prefer. But far more often one recording/mastering is audibly better than the other, and in that case it's nice to be able to buy and listen to the better one, no matter whether the product is put out as DSD or PCM.

     

    Whether that's best accomplished by a single DAC that can play both, or by one DAC for PCM and another for DSD, is up to you and your budget.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Bob Katz in his latest interview for Home Theater Geeks Scott Wilkinson has joined with other leaders of the recording industry and DAC manufacturers in stating that DSD is inferior to PCM. Yes it sounds different and maybe smoother but that is because it is inaccurate.

    Bob Katz on Audio - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

     

     

    I am surprised how your normal skepticism doesn't kick in with this on. Bob Katz, while a grammy winning engineer who deserves enormous respect, is financially heavily invested in PCM. That has to be a large factor in his preference.

     

    DSD is, if anything, technically a more accurate reproduction of recorded analog sound than PCM is. Of course, if you convert PCM to DSD, it is also likely to expose any flaws in the PCM content or mastering. (shrug)

     

    -Paul

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How about asking Cookie Marenco or Gus Skinas about their preferences. Don't ask Mark Waldrep though!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am surprised how your normal skepticism doesn't kick in with this on. Bob Katz, while a grammy winning engineer who deserves enormous respect, is financially heavily invested in PCM. That has to be a large factor in his preference.

     

    DSD is, if anything, technically a more accurate reproduction of recorded analog sound than PCM is. Of course, if you convert PCM to DSD, it is also likely to expose any flaws in the PCM content or mastering. (shrug)

     

    -Paul

    [h=2]MEASURED PERFORMANCE[/h]DSD is a high-resolution digital audio format, and few recordings can fully utilize the SNR and bandwidth available in the DSD format. Nevertheless, the measured performance of DSD falls between that of the CD and 96 kHz 24-bit PCM. DSD can achieve a 120 dB 20 Hz to 20 kHz SNR with a usable bandwidth of about 50 kHz. For this reason, DSD is almost exactly equivalent to a 20-bit 96 kHz PCM system. Notice that I said "20-bit" and not "24-bit". In theory, a 24-bit system is about 24 dB quieter than DSD, but it is virtually impossible to use all of the available SNR in either system.

    More at,

    Audio Myth -"DSD Provides a Direct Stream from A/D to D/A" - Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    How about asking Cookie Marenco or Gus Skinas about their preferences. Don't ask Mark Waldrep though!

     

    Yep, you don't want the opinion of a honest person.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]MEASURED PERFORMANCE[/h]DSD is a high-resolution digital audio format, and few recordings can fully utilize the SNR and bandwidth available in the DSD format. Nevertheless, the measured performance of DSD falls between that of the CD and 96 kHz 24-bit PCM. DSD can achieve a 120 dB 20 Hz to 20 kHz SNR with a usable bandwidth of about 50 kHz. For this reason, DSD is almost exactly equivalent to a 20-bit 96 kHz PCM system. Notice that I said "20-bit" and not "24-bit". In theory, a 24-bit system is about 24 dB quieter than DSD, but it is virtually impossible to use all of the available SNR in either system.

    More at,

    Audio Myth -"DSD Provides a Direct Stream from A/D to D/A" - Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.

     

    Yeah, the old Benchmark thing. If you want to see technical measurements of DSD by someone who knows how to design a really good DSD modulator, look at Miska's blog, where he gets performance that blows the Benchmark stuff out of the water.

     

    Every so often someone comes across these same articles again and gets religious on the topic of PCM vs. DSD. I expect the Lipshitz and Vanderkooy article to be cited any minute now. But here in the real world, it all comes back to recording and mastering quality.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    [h=2]MEASURED PERFORMANCE[/h]DSD is a high-resolution digital audio format, and few recordings can fully utilize the SNR and bandwidth available in the DSD format. Nevertheless, the measured performance of DSD falls between that of the CD and 96 kHz 24-bit PCM. DSD can achieve a 120 dB 20 Hz to 20 kHz SNR with a usable bandwidth of about 50 kHz. For this reason, DSD is almost exactly equivalent to a 20-bit 96 kHz PCM system. Notice that I said "20-bit" and not "24-bit". In theory, a 24-bit system is about 24 dB quieter than DSD, but it is virtually impossible to use all of the available SNR in either system.

    More at,

    Audio Myth -"DSD Provides a Direct Stream from A/D to D/A" - Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.

     

    And none of that means anything when we are discussing how it sounds. That's a matter of opinion, not of measurements.

     

    Your appeals to experts who agree with your point of view aren't impressive. There are all sorts of experts and all sorts of opinions. We can all argue the issue and each of us can bring experts who agree with us. Doesn't matter. Doesn't prove anything.

     

    Continue to like what you like. Why do you feel the need to convert everyone to your POV? Put up links all day. People who prefer the sound of DSD will continue to prefer it. Why do you care?

     

    BTW, as far as "audio myths" - there are circumstances where DSD can provide a direct stream from A/D to D/A. In spite of what the title of the Benchmark paper says. That paper exaggerates the lack of direct to DSD recordings.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    And none of that means anything when we are discussing how it sounds. That's a matter of opinion, not of measurements.

     

    Your appeals to experts who agree with your point of view aren't impressive. There are all sorts of experts and all sorts of opinions. We can all argue the issue and each of us can bring experts who agree with us. Doesn't matter. Doesn't prove anything.

     

    Continue to like what you like. Why do you feel the need to convert everyone to your POV? Put up links all day. People who prefer the sound of DSD will continue to prefer it. Why do you care?

     

    BTW, as far as "audio myths" - there are circumstances where DSD can provide a direct stream from A/D to D/A. In spite of what the title of the Benchmark paper says. That paper exaggerates the lack of direct to DSD recordings.

     

    Opinions have no place in a world where the progress of a scientific endeavor, such as High Fidelity reproduction, are dependent on measurement and proven blind testing. Opinions are strictly guesses.

     

    Jud, I'm sorry but I have no idea who Miska is? What is the name of his production DAC? Is it a Stereophile Class A+ rated component like John Siau's of Benchmark Audio? The acclaimed DAC designer and writer of paper you so casually dismiss.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    MEASURED PERFORMANCE

     

    DSD is a high-resolution digital audio format, and few recordings can fully utilize the SNR and bandwidth available in the DSD format. Nevertheless, the measured performance of DSD falls between that of the CD and 96 kHz 24-bit PCM. DSD can achieve a 120 dB 20 Hz to 20 kHz SNR with a usable bandwidth of about 50 kHz. For this reason, DSD is almost exactly equivalent to a 20-bit 96 kHz PCM system. Notice that I said "20-bit" and not "24-bit". In theory, a 24-bit system is about 24 dB quieter than DSD, but it is virtually impossible to use all of the available SNR in either system.

    More at,

    Audio Myth -"DSD Provides a Direct Stream from A/D to D/A" - Benchmark Media Systems, Inc.

     

    Ohhh brother - that again?

     

    DSD64K - maybe. There are other technical considerations. DSD128, DSD256, or DSD512? Not even close. ;)

     

    Come on - kick in some of that intellectual honesty and healthy skepticism I know you have! Remember that the blog post you reference is also 10 years old, and the current Benchmark DAC handles up to DSD X4. Very little of that old argument applies today.

     

    In 2005, one also needed to evaluate the financial investment that was behind some of that opinion as well. The Benchmark DAC at the time was a heavy design investment and did not support DSD in any way shape or form. That was partially due to the way the DAC up sampled every input, but basically, it wasn't financially inviting for the guys in Syracuse to put DSD into their DAC at that time.

     

    -Paul

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Yep, you don't want the opinion of a honest person.

     

    You're biased yourself. Benchmark isn't the last word on DACs. Bob Ludwig has said he couldn't hear the difference between Rolling Stones master tapes and DSD transfers.

     

    Some things are better with DSD. I can tell transients are faster. Mids don't sound as lean as PCM. However, there does seem to be noise in the highs. But mostly goes away with DSD 128.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Jud, I'm sorry but I have no idea who Miska is? What is the name of his production DAC? Is it a Stereophile Class A+ rated component like John Siau's of Benchmark Audio? The acclaimed DAC designer and writer of paper you so casually dismiss.

     

    Computer Audiophile - Miska - Blogs

     

    He's the developer of HQPlayer, which the Roon folks have chosen as the signal processing back end for their software.

     

    John Siau makes a widely praised DAC, and I certainly don't have anything bad to say about it. He's not alone in his dislike of DSD, and is probably not as vehement about it as Charles Hansen of Ayre. In fact, pertinent to the original topic, Mike Moffat, the designer of the Yggdrasil, the inventor of the DAC as a separate piece of equipment, and someone I greatly respect, also is on record as not liking DSD - thus the fact that the Yggy, unlike nearly all other DACs on the market, lacks a final sigma-delta modulator stage and converts straight from PCM to analog.

     

    John Siau may be unique, however, in the lengths he will go to in attempting to say DSD is a bad thing. For example, he calls the result of the sigma-delta modulator stage in most DACs, including his, "PCM" (Pulse Code Modulation), when everyone else in the world calls it Pulse Density Modulation. These terms have defined mathematical meanings; the result of 1100111001000110 in PCM and the result of 1100111001000110 in PDM are two entirely different quantities. The reason appears to be that John does not want to admit that anything which smacks of DSD (DSD is PDM rather than PCM) is present in his DAC and sounding good.

     

    I've heard the earlier version of the Benchmark, with its sigma-delta modulator, and the Yggy without one, and liked them; I'm sure Miska's DSC1 DAC (yes, he's designed one but has no desire to commercialize it; the schematics are published on the Internet and free for DIY use), which won't even accept PCM input, sounds good too. (It has excellent measured performance. Might have better measurements than the Benchmark and/or Yggy, I haven't looked.) There's more than one way to skin an audio "cat."

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now




×
×
  • Create New...