Jump to content
IGNORED

Delightful DAC Week :~)


Recommended Posts

Post #131 was posted in another forum - it inspired the following comment (name changed)

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by DS

"I don't believe it. As far as the two pulses, sometimes one perceives clicks as a result of envelopes and not the underlying tones. Human Echoic Memory limitations are an established scientific fact. We can't accurately compare audio, in detail, beyond a few seconds difference. One can characterize but not differentiate accurately."

 

 

 

I post this neither to be contentious nor to start a pissing contest. Also, I am grateful for DS's support for many of our products and low cost, efficient philosophy. I do not believe in a zero sum universe where if someone is right, then someone else has to be wrong. I also must point out, that despite our differences, I learned much from John Koval (referred in the above post #131) and we became lifelong friends as we concentrated on what we had in common rather than what were our differences. Audio can be a great hobby.

 

 

That said, I do not believe but know from experience that I can tell the difference in long term blind listening between dozens of gain-matched pairs of equivalent products. I also know that I have seen several other audiophiles do the same. In all fairness, I have also seen some who could not. In my theatre directing avocation, I have seen auditionees who had wonderful voices but could not hear tones to stay on key. Those who cannot sing, seldom have singing as a hobby, even though they may attend and enjoy live theatre.

 

I am not a tent revivalist. I do not build products that I place my faith in, but what I know to be better. If I subscribed to the above quote, I would either have to be a hypocrite, or would have sincerely wasted a life and career in seeking and building better sounding audio electronics. I love doing what I do and making it available to others. That notion propounded by DS also invalidates a significant percentage of posts, perhaps the majority, on this forum.

 

 

I love theatre. I love music. I love audio, which is the reproduction on music. All of them are based on soft science. Neither is, for example, medicine. If you give infected individuals an antibiotic, such and such a percentage will get better. If you play Mahler for an audience, such and such a percentage will like the music. If you play our flagship DAC, such and such a percentage will like it. On and on.

 

If you listen to reproduced music, abilities vary widely. All preamps I used to build were RIAA accurate to 0.1db (as is the Mani today - unusual then, unusual now). Some can hear that degree of accuracy, others cannot. Some are tone deaf-others are not. Some can hear time domain (spatial) cues in our Multibit models, others cannot. All I can do is do my best to make my products measure and sound as good as I can.

 

Science today is prone to revision as sophistication and experiments proliferate. Until then, I pledge not to tell anyone in general and DS in particular what they can or can not hear.

Link to comment
Post #131 was posted in another forum - it inspired the following comment (name changed)

 

Quote:

 

Originally Posted by DS

"I don't believe it. As far as the two pulses, sometimes one perceives clicks as a result of envelopes and not the underlying tones. Human Echoic Memory limitations are an established scientific fact. We can't accurately compare audio, in detail, beyond a few seconds difference. One can characterize but not differentiate accurately."

 

 

 

I post this neither to be contentious nor to start a pissing contest. Also, I am grateful for DS's support for many of our products and low cost, efficient philosophy. I do not believe in a zero sum universe where if someone is right, then someone else has to be wrong. I also must point out, that despite our differences, I learned much from John Koval (referred in the above post #131) and we became lifelong friends as we concentrated on what we had in common rather than what were our differences. Audio can be a great hobby.

 

 

That said, I do not believe but know from experience that I can tell the difference in long term blind listening between dozens of gain-matched pairs of equivalent products. I also know that I have seen several other audiophiles do the same. In all fairness, I have also seen some who could not. In my theatre directing avocation, I have seen auditionees who had wonderful voices but could not hear tones to stay on key. Those who cannot sing, seldom have singing as a hobby, even though they may attend and enjoy live theatre.

 

I am not a tent revivalist. I do not build products that I place my faith in, but what I know to be better. If I subscribed to the above quote, I would either have to be a hypocrite, or would have sincerely wasted a life and career in seeking and building better sounding audio electronics. I love doing what I do and making it available to others. That notion propounded by DS also invalidates a significant percentage of posts, perhaps the majority, on this forum.

 

 

I love theatre. I love music. I love audio, which is the reproduction on music. All of them are based on soft science. Neither is, for example, medicine. If you give infected individuals an antibiotic, such and such a percentage will get better. If you play Mahler for an audience, such and such a percentage will like the music. If you play our flagship DAC, such and such a percentage will like it. On and on.

 

If you listen to reproduced music, abilities vary widely. All preamps I used to build were RIAA accurate to 0.1db (as is the Mani today - unusual then, unusual now). Some can hear that degree of accuracy, others cannot. Some are tone deaf-others are not. Some can hear time domain (spatial) cues in our Multibit models, others cannot. All I can do is do my best to make my products measure and sound as good as I can.

 

Science today is prone to revision as sophistication and experiments proliferate. Until then, I pledge not to tell anyone in general and DS in particular what they can or can not hear.

 

Empiricism is overrated.

 

Yggy makes me WANNA DANCE.

Link to comment

  1. The Yggy is awesome . And for those who wanna know ,it is better than the Multibit Gungnir ,which IMHO

    is the best dac under 2k .

     

    And that's after only having the Yggy on for 2 hours out of the box .

     

    Soundstage is massive .

     

    Wait till you have it on for a week. You be jammin...

Link to comment
After warming up the Yggdrasil this morning I just started listening to it. Holy schiit! The only other DAC that impressed me this much so immediately was the Berkeley Alpha RS. The Yggy is so so so impressive. What a great time to be in this hobby. An astounding DAC for $2,299 that competes with DACs at any price. So cool.

 

Hi Chris,

 

Any updates? In particular I would be interested in how it compares to your Vega.

 

Best,

 

Paul


"Don't Believe Everything You Think"

System

Link to comment

Just finish last night reading Jason Stoddard's "Shiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up", some of those chapters were very entertaining. But the real reason I brought this up was of the fact of Jason's wife naming the company. Let me say, Audiophiles make the most faithful husbands(High fidelity), because Audio is our Mistress. I do spend more time tweaking, cleaning, listening and updating components than I do with my wife and she has come to except my obsession. She has even come to enjoy my stereo.

 

2 Ch stereo

Auralic Aries>Wireworld AES>Kitsune Holo Spring DAC L3>Van Den Hul-The Second balance cable>Sonic Euphoria (fully balance autoformer)>Van Den Hul-The Second balance cable>D-Sonic M3-1200S-A (Anaview AMS1000-2600)>Synergistic Tesla Accelerator cable>Ohm 3000 speakers plus Omni Harmonizer super tweeter

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...

Baldr, I saw in a review that the ringing in the Yggy is symmetric. have you considered an apodizing Closed Form filter, with all the ringing after the sample being processed (or at least having the pre-ringing to only be a sample or two long) ? A 'simple' change of coefficients would allow the number of taps before and after the sample to be adjustable, from say the midpoint (~7,500 either side) down to a value of one after the sample? I'm sure you've played with this (a simple 15k x 15k matrix inversion will solve those equations!) - any noticeable sonic changes? I only ask because this is the Internet. Thanks, N.

Link to comment
Baldr, I saw in a review that the ringing in the Yggy is symmetric. have you considered an apodizing Closed Form filter, with all the ringing after the sample being processed (or at least having the pre-ringing to only be a sample or two long) ? A 'simple' change of coefficients would allow the number of taps before and after the sample to be adjustable, from say the midpoint (~7,500 either side) down to a value of one after the sample? I'm sure you've played with this (a simple 15k x 15k matrix inversion will solve those equations!) - any noticeable sonic changes? I only ask because this is the Internet. Thanks, N.

Such a minimum phase filter, is no free lunch, with no pre -ringing it has twice as much post ringing. And does not have linear phase. Mostly in high frequencies the phase turn can be more than 180 degrees. I think minimum phase filters can sound a bit artificial spacious.

 

 

Sent from my MI 2 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Link to comment
I think minimum phase filters can sound a bit artificial spacious.

 

While I avoid generalizations, I mostly agree with your last statement. I prefer what what might term an "intermediate-phase" filter. That is: not completely linear-phase (which yields equal pre- and post-ringing), but not entirely minimum-phase. The sweet spot for my ears is somewhere in the middle.

 

--Alex C.

Link to comment

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...