Article: Schiit Audio Yggdrasil Multibit DAC Review

[ajay556]

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?

[audio.bill]

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

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.

[Sal1950]

Out of those choices if use BNC.

What about jitter? Is the BNC stream reclocked?

[ajay556]

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.

[master]

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.

[james45974]

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?

[Jud]

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.

[james45974]

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!

[One and a half]

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.

[Sal1950]

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.

[ChrisG]

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.

[ajay556]

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.

[Sal1950]

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

[firedog]

 

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.

[Jud]

"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.

[Paul R]

 

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

[labjr]

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

[Sal1950]

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.

[Sal1950]

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.

[Jud]

[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.

[firedog]

[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.

[Sal1950]

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.

[Paul R]

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

[labjr]

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.