Just got a Yggdrasil!

[semente]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Wow, this has turned into a complete schiit on Schiit thread.

 

I haven't listened to a lot of DACs, but I like my Schiit Yggdrasil more than one friend's Auralic Vega or another friend's Chord Hugo.

 

The fact that you like the way a DAC sounds doesn't make it any better or worse, it's a matter of personal preference.

On the other hand, measurements will let you know how accurately it handles the signal (or if there are any problems) — better measurements = better performance and, consequently, less "own" sound (colorations).

And unfortunately most of us struggle when we have to determine accuracy through listening...

 

R

[manisandher]

 

On 4/6/2017 at 6:08 PM, Speed Racer said:

Yes, this thread has been rendered useless. I am out too........

 

On 4/7/2017 at 2:55 AM, Speed Racer said:

Like I said, I am done with this crap.....

 

On 4/7/2017 at 2:18 AM, Speed Racer said:

I am done with this bullcrap......

 

You're still here! Obviously a man of your word... and worth listening to.

 

Mani.

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

It's an intriguing philosophy, but one that doesn't pan out in reality. Sigma-delta was invented because direct conversion wasn't good enough.

Not exactly.  Sigma-Delta was chosen as the most popular Integrated circuit based DAC  because they are easier (and much cheaper) to make in a single chip than are R2R DACs, which need their resistor networks to be ultra precision to avoid gross quantization errors. Single-bit DACs don't have that requirement.

Believe me, when executed properly, an R2R DAC can be much more accurate. Ask the folks at MSB.

 

[manisandher]

20 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Ask the folks at MSB.

 

Yeah, but don't bother asking the folks at Schiit - they have a few problems making anywhere near an 'accurate' DAC. 

 

Mani.

[Jud]

17 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Believe me, when executed properly, an R2R DAC can be much more accurate. Ask the folks at MSB.

 

The nice thing is that accuracy isn't a matter of belief but of measurement.  There mansr is quite correct AFAIK that sigma-delta DACs measure better.  The expense of the MSB DACs is at least partially due to the expense of the necessary resistor matching and the use of FPGAs rather than chips to house the filtering algorithms (though Chord seems to do it quite inexpensively).

[Jud]

3 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Wow, this has turned into a complete schiit on Schiit thread.

 

I haven't listened to a lot of DACs, but I like my Schiit Yggdrasil more than one friend's Auralic Vega or another friend's Chord Hugo.

 

Preference is a wonderful thing - people are happy with a great variety of products.  In the usual measurements, other DACs do better than Yggy.  Is there some typical "sound" of a delta-sigma DAC not reflected in the usual measurements that Yggy avoids?  Does the filtering he uses have a combination of time and frequency domain optimizations that is particularly appealing?  As I've said before, Mike Moffat is a smart guy, so perhaps.  But neither he nor anyone else has put out specifics to show this, so we're left with personal preference.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Perhaps I should have posted this also - JA's commentry in the review itself:

 

 

 

[Highlight mine.]

 

Mani.

 

The "will" was his assumption.  I think esldude has it right - Schiit correctly says rounding is used, which still produces the measurements JA found.

[jabbr]

42 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Not exactly.  Sigma-Delta was chosen as the most popular Integrated circuit based DAC  because they are easier (and much cheaper) to make in a single chip than are R2R DACs, which need their resistor networks to be ultra precision to avoid gross quantization errors. Single-bit DACs don't have that requirement.

Believe me, when executed properly, an R2R DAC can be much more accurate. Ask the folks at MSB.

 

Can it really?

 

Thats a marketing claim.

 

The PCM1704 was the pinnacle of R2R accuracy that have actual published measurements. Exceeding that gets very difficult and runs into that old pesky "noise" issue -- yes without noise you can have all sorts of accuracy... 

 

lets see: DSD512:  1bit @ 24 MHz = 24 bits @ 1mhz or 48 bits at 500 kHz or 96 bits at 250 kHz ... does MSB *measure* better than that? 

 

If if it does measure better than that I could go to DSD1024 or even DSD2048 if we want to compare math ... now if we are comparing actual measurements there is that pesky noise issue.

[jabbr]

31 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The nice thing is that accuracy isn't a matter of belief but of measurement.  There mansr is quite correct AFAIK that sigma-delta DACs measure better.  The expense of the MSB DACs is at least partially due to the expense of the necessary resistor matching and the use of FPGAs rather than chips to house the filtering algorithms (though Chord seems to do it quite inexpensively).

Right about "accuracy" being defined by measurement, and my own belief is that differences in "sound" are more likely due to that analog electronics in the box.

 

Thise FPGAs aren't so expensive eg $20 but what you are paying for is the substantial IP needed to program the FPGA.

[manisandher]

32 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The PCM1704 was the pinnacle of R2R accuracy that have actual published measurements.

 

My regular DAC, a Phasure NOS1a, uses four PCM1704U-K chips per channel. Here's its 1kHz @ -90dBFS measurement:

 

 

That's probably as good as you're going to get from a PCM1704 DAC. Mind you, it's pretty damn good.

 

Mani.

[mansr]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Not exactly.  Sigma-Delta was chosen as the most popular Integrated circuit based DAC  because they are easier (and much cheaper) to make in a single chip than are R2R DACs, which need their resistor networks to be ultra precision to avoid gross quantization errors. Single-bit DACs don't have that requirement.

Believe me, when executed properly, an R2R DAC can be much more accurate. Ask the folks at MSB.

Even if your resistor ladder is perfectly tuned, it only takes a small temperature gradient to ruin it.

[mansr]

7 hours ago, manisandher said:

To me, that "suggest" implies (suggests?) that the data is actually conclusive, but that he's being a little 'polite'. Anyway, here's the measurement he's talking about:

 

 

To me, those spikes show the result of truncation, hence increased quantization distortion, but I'm out of my depth here. Can anyone here conclude definitively that this measurement shows truncation vs. rounding?

Truncation and rounding are almost the same thing. Both introduce exactly the same kind of correlated error. With rounding it is smaller in magnitude, that's all. It's difficult to tell from a single measurement which method is used. If you measured the DAC with full precision input and also with digitally truncated and rounded signals, you'd be able to see which ones give the same output.

[jabbr]

52 minutes ago, mansr said:

Even if your resistor ladder is perfectly tuned, it only takes a small temperature gradient to ruin it.

 

Right. The PCM1704 having the resistors on chip has the advantage of minimizing temp gradients and also can laser trim etc the ladder. 

 

Thats aside from the issue of whether one can actually actually hear that 25th or 26th bit

[ChrisG]

On 4/1/2017 at 7:40 AM, John H said:

 

 

Could this be the reason the Yggy has been out of stock for the past 30 plus days and not available until April 21st?

I think it is due to the attention Yggy has gotten with the Stereophile bruhaha because, per Mike Moffat, there have been no changes to Yggy since it was introduced.

Someone brought up these "undisclosed" enhancements/improvements that were made on this CA thread on HF and Mike said: 

"If I didn't announce it - it ain't real. I did, however, see Elvis in the men's room at the Pantages Theatre the other night."
 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/784471/what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been-robert-hunter/2595#post_13389877 

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

My regular DAC, a Phasure NOS1a, uses four PCM1704U-K chips per channel. Here's its 1kHz @ -90dBFS measurement:

 

 

That's probably as good as you're going to get from a PCM1704 DAC. Mind you, it's pretty damn good.

 

Mani.

 

 

Is this even relevant to the thread?

 

I quote from here:

 

Quote

But what I will say is that I am affiliated to Phasure in absolutely no way, shape or form. I have always paid the full retail price for every product I've ever bought from Phasure.

 

So, including VAT, that DAC had to cost around the U.S. equivalent of over $4,000.  The Yggy costs $2,300.

 

I understand that affluence demands privilege, and that most are all too eager to genuflect, but it's difficult not to conclude that you're attempting to further an agenda here by comparing your "top shelf" gear to more pedestrian gear marketed at a more working class demographic.

[Jud]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

My regular DAC, a Phasure NOS1a, uses four PCM1704U-K chips per channel. Here's its 1kHz @ -90dBFS measurement:

 

 

That's probably as good as you're going to get from a PCM1704 DAC. Mind you, it's pretty damn good.

 

Mani.

 

The 4 per channel gets you an extra two bits of dynamic range, just like the Yggy's two per side gets it an extra one.  But then implementation determines how many of those ideal bits of range you actually achieve, if, as jabbr said, we would be aware of anything down that far in the first place.  Those bits do give you headroom for stuff like dither, which is why Yggy's measurements look like they do.

[firedog]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

 

Is this even relevant to the thread?

 

I quote from here:

 

 

So, including VAT, that DAC had to cost around the U.S. equivalent of over $4,000.  The Yggy costs $2,300.

 

I understand that affluence demands privilege, and that most are all to eager to genuflect, but it's difficult not to conclude that you're attempting to further an agenda here by comparing your "top shelf" gear to more pedestrian gear marketed at a more working class demographic.

Since Schitt themselves directly claim (see the Yggy FAQ page) that the Yggy can and should be compared to any Dac in the world - regardless of price -  and will hold its own - your statement makes no sense. Schitt directly state the lower price of the Yggy is unrelated to SQ, but only due to the fact that the Yggy doesn't have expensive casework  or any superfluous aspects that increase cost without improving SQ.

Again, you keep trying to project all sorts of motives to Mani, without a basis other than your own misunderstandings and prejudices.

[John H]

1 hour ago, ChrisG said:

I think it is due to the attention Yggy has gotten with the Stereophile bruhaha because, per Mike Moffat, there have been no changes to Yggy since it was introduced.

 

Funny I read the review when it first dropped, and it, along with Chris' review here on CA resulted in my decision to buy. Never read JA's measurements portion of the review and the resulting brouhaha.

 

Could be that their recent focus is the opening of their bricks and mortar shop in Newhall California. 

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

 

Is this even relevant to the thread?

 

I quote from here:

 

 

So, including VAT, that DAC had to cost around the U.S. equivalent of over $4,000.  The Yggy costs $2,300.

 

I understand that affluence demands privilege, and that most are all too eager to genuflect, but it's difficult not to conclude that you're attempting to further an agenda here by comparing your "top shelf" gear to more pedestrian gear marketed at a more working class demographic.

 

Holy moly man, stop with the conspiratorial agendas and working class resentments, and realize he was providing measurements directly relevant to George's claim about better accuracy from R2R DACs.  If you have the same type of graph from an MSB DAC, throw that in the discussion here too.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

Since Schitt themselves directly claim (see the Yggy FAQ page) that the Yggy can and should be compared to any Dac in the world - regardless of price -  and will hold its own - your statement makes no sense. Schitt directly state the lower price of the Yggy is unrelated to SQ, but only due to the fact that the Yggy doesn't have expensive casework  or any superfluous aspects that increase cost without improving SQ.

Again, you keep trying to project all sorts of motives to Mani, without a basis other than your own misunderstandings and prejudices.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.  Like I said in my last post, all things being equal, most will defer to affluence.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Holy moly man, stop with the conspiratorial agendas and working class resentments

 

His affluence is his bias.  I know that's taboo to some, but it's abundantly transparent to me.  Sorry if that upsets you.  He doesn't make DACs.  He just buys them.

[firedog]

8 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

His affluence is his bias.  I know that's taboo to some, but it's abundantly transparent to me.  Sorry if that upsets you.  He doesn't make DACs.  He just buys them.

Transparent? To you. Not to everyone else.

Methinks thou dost protest too much, as it were. If the posts here reflect bias, it may be some sort of bias of yours against people who can afford to buy several relatively pricey DACs.

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, firedog said:

Transparent? To you. Not to everyone else.

Methinks thou dost protest too much, as it were. If the posts here reflect bias, it may be some sort of bias of yours against people who can afford to buy several relatively pricey DACs.

 

Plus, relatively is the key word. Mani isn't even talking about the really expensive stuff.  

 

Even if he was, it wouldn't matter to me. He who earns the money can spend the money however he so chooses. 

[jabbr]

37 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Holy moly man, stop with the conspiratorial agendas and working class resentments, and realize he was providing measurements directly relevant to George's claim about better accuracy from R2R DACs.  If you have the same type of graph from an MSB DAC, throw that in the discussion here too.

+1000

I've never had the privilege of hearing either the Yggy nor Phasure though would like to. Both sound like they are great DACs. In terms of the computer upsampling to NOS DAC both @PeterSt and @Miska have been at the forefront of this discussion. I'd seriously consider buying an NOS1a Phasure from reviews from people I respect as well as @PeterSt s participation in CA as well as my understanding of the engineering but I have nothing at all agains Yggy and would also consider that as well.

@manisandher is upfront about his preferences which is totally cool in my book.

 

The main reason I haven't purchased one of these DACs is that I'm slowly building my own (very heavily modified) version of the Signalyst DSC1 and in the meantime very happy with the iFI iDSD  as well as my prototypes

 

In any case there is no class warfare that enters my opinions -- and I try to avoid my own listening impressions -- part of this extended project includes SOA measurement techniques. 

[ChrisG]

32 minutes ago, John H said:

 

Funny I read the review when it first dropped, and it, along with Chris' review here on CA resulted in my decision to buy. Never read JA's measurements portion of the review and the resulting brouhaha.

 

Could be that their recent focus is the opening of their bricks and mortar shop in Newhall California. 

Yggy is very popular and is often back ordered, so no surprise there. And I'm sure that the recent review (despite JA's snarky comments) has increased people's interest in the dac. Hopefully they aren't distracted by the Schiitr because that is not where the money is!