Just got a Yggdrasil!

[firedog]

This thread is mostly useless - it jumped the shark long ago and should be closed. Seems to be about 90% personal invective.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, semente said:

 

Maybe I should clarify that I find listening to be the ultimate arbiter; but experience has led me to believe that technical performance matters and most of the time the better performers also sound better to me.

 

There was a time when I "shortlisted" based in professional reviews; later I started searching and quizzing web-forums for opinions.

I no longer do that because the large majority of reviews tells you little about performance but instead describes how the reviewers responds to an equipment's sound according to his personal taste.

And since I can't get inside his head, such type of review is worthless to anyone but the reviewer.

The fact that many people like a certain product doesn't mean that it's performance (the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal) is good.

We all have our different requirements and expectations for our system and our favourite musical genres also play a part in defining the sound of our system.

This is why I prefer to "shortlist" based on measurements.

Measurements also sometimes help me identify possible causes for shortcomings, and it is this recognizing of shortcomings that will lead to real, effective upgrades.

 

R

I demand ultimate transparency. To me that means noise and distortion below the threshold of audibility. The Schiit Yggdrasil meets that criteria both in measurement and certainly in listening. If one cannot hear any of the anomalies that can be measured, (essentially all of which are well below what humans can hear), then they simply don't matter. However I would like to see another set of measurements OTHER than those of Mr. Atkinson. After all, he is not an electronic engineer. His background is as a musician and a journalist.  While I don't doubt his integrity, I do, from time to time, doubt his technical expertise when it comes to the interpretation of the measurements he gets. And remember too that Atkinson found the analog performance to be excellent. What signal do you think he used to ascertain the analog excellence of the Yggy? Since there are no analog inputs on the Yggy, he pretty much had to use the output of the DAC section of the processor. In order for the analog to be to be superlative, the input to that analog stage must also be equally low in coloration. IOW garbage in, garbage out.

[mourip]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

Maybe I should clarify that I find listening to be the ultimate arbiter; but experience has led me to believe that technical performance matters and most of the time the better performers also sound better to me.

 

There was a time when I "shortlisted" based in professional reviews; later I started searching and quizzing web-forums for opinions.

I no longer do that because the large majority of reviews tells you little about performance but instead describes how the reviewers responds to an equipment's sound according to his personal taste.

And since I can't get inside his head, such type of review is worthless to anyone but the reviewer.

The fact that many people like a certain product doesn't mean that it's performance (the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal) is good.

We all have our different requirements and expectations for our system and our favourite musical genres also play a part in defining the sound of our system.

This is why I prefer to "shortlist" based on measurements.

Measurements also sometimes help me identify possible causes for shortcomings, and it is this recognizing of shortcomings that will lead to real, effective upgrades.

 

R

 

Good reply. I appreciate it.

[The Computer Audiophile]

@Speed Racer You've been banned for 30 days due to sophomoric use of the reputation system. When someone dislikes your post, it's childish to retaliate by disliking several of their posts. 

 

Act like an adult and you'll be welcomed back after a little break. 

[crenca]

6 hours ago, semente said:

 

Maybe I should clarify that I find listening to be the ultimate arbiter; but experience has led me to believe that technical performance matters and most of the time the better performers also sound better to me.

 

There was a time when I "shortlisted" based in professional reviews; later I started searching and quizzing web-forums for opinions.

I no longer do that because the large majority of reviews tells you little about performance but instead describes how the reviewers responds to an equipment's sound according to his personal taste.

And since I can't get inside his head, such type of review is worthless to anyone but the reviewer.

The fact that many people like a certain product doesn't mean that it's performance (the accurate reproduction of the recorded signal) is good.

We all have our different requirements and expectations for our system and our favourite musical genres also play a part in defining the sound of our system.

This is why I prefer to "shortlist" based on measurements.

Measurements also sometimes help me identify possible causes for shortcomings, and it is this recognizing of shortcomings that will lead to real, effective upgrades.

 

R

 

semente,

 

I am intrigued by you "shortlisting based on measurements".   Do you do the same with tube gear (if you use any tube gear), cables, software (such as DSP products or even players), etc. and if so how?

[semente]

6 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

semente,

 

I am intrigued by you "shortlisting based on measurements".   Do you do the same with tube gear (if you use any tube gear), cables, software (such as DSP products or even players), etc. and if so how?

 

You have a point there.

But no I don't use any tube gear, and I don't worry about audio cables (mine, analogue, are home made).

I did try most music players, though.

My only experience with DSP was the KRK Ergo DAC, but I found that it sounded much worse than my CD player and this far outweighed the benefits of RoomPerfect... 

 

R

[manisandher]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

However I would like to see another set of measurements OTHER than those of Mr. Atkinson.

 

Here's a comparison of the Stereophile 1kHz @ -90dBFS measurement vs. that performed by an Yggy owner and fan, Atomicbob:

 

 

A bit messy due to the different formats requiring alignment, but with a bit of focus it's clear that these measurements are identical. I.e. glitching energy around 45µV p-p, and 24 bit truncation/rounding peaks just below 120dB. Seeing as these are identical, I think it's safe to assume JA's other measurements are good too. He certainly seems to have had no problem in measuring countless other DACs. And I strongly suspect Schiit would have been all over him had they disagreed with any of the measurements he published.

 

Mani.

[Jud]

22 minutes ago, manisandher said:

Schiit would have been all over him

 

Certainly sounds unpleasant.

[audiventory]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

 

Middle and right oscillogramm looks like positive and negative voltage management transistors (don't know English term) issue.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, audiventory said:

Middle and right oscillogramm looks like positive and negative voltage management transistors (don't know English term) issue.

 

Switching noise?

[Silly goose]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

Here's a comparison of the Stereophile 1kHz @ -90dBFS measurement vs. that performed by an Yggy owner and fan, Atomicbob:

 

 

A bit messy due to the different formats requiring alignment, but with a bit of focus it's clear that these measurements are identical. I.e. glitching energy around 45µV p-p, and 24 bit truncation/rounding peaks just below 120dB. Seeing as these are identical, I think it's safe to assume JA's other measurements are good too. He certainly seems to have had no problem in measuring countless other DACs. And I strongly suspect Schiit would have been all over him had they disagreed with any of the measurements he published.

 

Mani.

The Iphone lightning DAC doesn't have any of those flaws. Why do audiophiles pay so much more for flaws in such a bulky package?

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-quality.htm

 

My money's on the Apple engineers. 

[semente]

8 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I demand ultimate transparency. To me that means noise and distortion below the threshold of audibility. The Schiit Yggdrasil meets that criteria both in measurement and certainly in listening. If one cannot hear any of the anomalies that can be measured, (essentially all of which are well below what humans can hear), then they simply don't matter. However I would like to see another set of measurements OTHER than those of Mr. Atkinson. After all, he is not an electronic engineer. His background is as a musician and a journalist.  While I don't doubt his integrity, I do, from time to time, doubt his technical expertise when it comes to the interpretation of the measurements he gets. And remember too that Atkinson found the analog performance to be excellent. What signal do you think he used to ascertain the analog excellence of the Yggy? Since there are no analog inputs on the Yggy, he pretty much had to use the output of the DAC section of the processor. In order for the analog to be to be superlative, the input to that analog stage must also be equally low in coloration. IOW garbage in, garbage out.

 

It is hard to say with certainty that the "rough" treble referred by Mani is indeed the result of the "glitch", of the "rounding", both, or something entirely different...

As for the comparison with the Phasure, Mani's DAC is not just a DAC but a system that includes a dedicated computer transporter and player that was optimised to play with the DAC.

It even also possible that the DAC was not designed to a price point, that the commercial drive behind it is not similar to that of your "normal" hi-fi manufacturer.

 

Since going down the custom designed electronics road I have learnt that such artifacts, inaudible as they may be, may affect the overall performance of the system downstream; you've probably heard that some wide-band amplifiers and even speakers can be affected by aggressive noise shaping (e.g. the designer of my amplifier has advised me not to use HQ Player's NS9).

 

R

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Silly goose said:

The Iphone lightning DAC doesn't have any of those flaws. Why do audiophiles pay so much more for flaws in such a bulky package?

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-quality.htm

 

My money's on the Apple engineers. 

 

My money isn't on the Apple engineers. What you're saying is that your money is on the General Motors engineers rather than Ferrari. Sure the Ferrari may not ride like the GM cars, but I'd take it over any of the GM cars any day.

[Silly goose]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

My money isn't on the Apple engineers. What you're saying is that your money is on the General Motors engineers rather than Ferrari. Sure the Ferrari may not ride like the GM cars, but I'd take it over any of the GM cars any day.

What about price/performance wise? Have you ever compared the 2 DAC's? I haven't heard the new unit, but my Iphone 6 plus sounds pretty good. 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Here's a comparison of the Stereophile 1kHz @ -90dBFS measurement vs. that performed by an Yggy owner and fan, Atomicbob:

 

 

A bit messy due to the different formats requiring alignment, but with a bit of focus it's clear that these measurements are identical. I.e. glitching energy around 45µV p-p, and 24 bit truncation/rounding peaks just below 120dB. Seeing as these are identical, I think it's safe to assume JA's other measurements are good too. He certainly seems to have had no problem in measuring countless other DACs. And I strongly suspect Schiit would have been all over him had they disagreed with any of the measurements he published.

 

Mani.

 

Aren't you aware of what you just said? 45 microvolts p-p?, <-120 dB rounding peaks? Both of those are below the threshold of human hearing. Anything lower than that is just guiding the Lilly and is totally irrelevant because you can't hear it! If specsmanship floats your boat, fine, if you don't like the sound of accuracy as opposed to euphonic sound, that's great too. But I'm pretty sure your dislike of the Yiggy has nothing to do with these specs you keep quoting. And I'd still like to see someone else's test results.....

 

[crenca]

29 minutes ago, semente said:

you've probably heard that some wide-band amplifiers and even speakers can be affected by aggressive noise shaping (e.g. the designer of my amplifier has advised me not to use HQ Player's NS9).

 

R

 

This is because the quantization noise is being pushed way up higher than the audible band (i.e. noise shaped), but a the wide band amp is working hard to amplify that signal right?  Which reminds me to ask what is the point of a wide band amplifier?  Anyone know the theory that argues for their advantage(s) or point me to a link?

[manisandher]

34 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

And I'd still like to see someone else's test results.....

 

The middle plot is someone else's test result!

 

Mani.

[semente]

10 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

This is because the quantization noise is being pushed way up higher than the audible band (i.e. noise shaped), but a the wide band amp is working hard to amplify that signal right?  Which reminds me to ask what is the point of a wide band amplifier?  Anyone know the theory that argues for their advantage(s) or point me to a link?

 

Maybe this: http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/Amplifiers/amplifiers14.php

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Aren't you aware of what you just said? 45 microvolts p-p?, <-120 dB rounding peaks?

 

Yep, very aware of what I wrote thanks. (Many years ago, did research on the electron-phonon interaction, going down quite a few orders of magnitude below a microvolt... and well below 1 Kelvin in temp, in superfluidity country).

 

My first thoughts on the sound of the Yggy were these:

 

On 4/5/2016 at 11:07 AM, manisandher said:

On first listening, there’s a freshness, a liveness, a vibrancy to the sound that really draws you in. But after extended listening I started finding it fatiguing - too sibilant and too lean and not enough body and weight to instruments for my liking.

 

I took a few captures of the Yggy's analogue output and got others to share their thoughts blind. This is how they described the Yggy:

 

On 4/5/2017 at 9:04 PM, manisandher said:

Yggy:

- Too tizzy (HF noise?)

- Sharper leading transients

- More sizzle (increase around 5kHz?)

- More (artificial?) detail?

- more sharply etched

- "crisper"

- not as "full"

- "detailed, dry, analytical" [type of systems]

- better clarity & focus

 

Harley talks about a "bold incisiveness" to the Yggy's sound. Hell, even Jason Stoddard hears something going on with the Yggy:

 

On 4/5/2016 at 2:09 PM, manisandher said:

"My “main stack” is Mjolnir 2/Gungnir Multibit, not Ragnarok/Yggdrasil. Mjolnir 2 is a warmer, wetter, “happier” amp than Ragnarok, and Gungnir Multibit is also a bit more euphonic than Yggy. The combo may not be the absolute ultimate word in resolution and transparency, but I like the way it sounds better than our top stack."

- Jason Stoddard

 

So yeah, perhaps the poor measured performance of the Yggy in certain areas is indeed audible in some way, shape or form. Now the fact that you don't hear anything untoward doesn't mean others can't and don't.

 

Mani.

[Ralf11]

43 minutes ago, crenca said:

what is the point of a wide band amplifier?   

 

similar to the argument for electrostatic speakers -- in both cases you can use them as bug zappers

 

(tho the wide band amp is used to power a microwave beam, and is thus not the pure electrical solution the electrostatic speaker is)

[JoeWhip]

I had the Gumby for 2 years. The Yggy is much better. I have a system very similar to Jud. No sizzle or sibilants at all with the Yggy. I will be back in the studio with a piano, vocal and sax piece on Friday. Will see if I can hear the glitch when I get back in the evening with the studio file.

[manisandher]

5 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I have a system very similar to Jud. No sizzle or sibilants at all with the Yggy.

 

You may not hear anything untoward either, but other people certainly do:

 

Yggy:

- Too tizzy (HF noise?)

- Sharper leading transients

- More sizzle (increase around 5kHz?)

- More (artificial?) detail?

- more sharply etched

- "crisper"

- not as "full"

- "detailed, dry, analytical" [type of systems]

- better clarity & focus

 

And I think this is the real issue: Harley, Stoddard and others on this thread are mistaking the Yggy's distortion for "bold incisiveness" and "better clarity & focus".

 

Mani.

[JoeWhip]

Mani, as an old law professor of mine used to say, only if you say so! I will leave it at that.

[semente]

On 5 April 2017 at 9:04 PM, manisandher said:

 

It seems that some people have an issue with relating the measured performance of the Yggy to how it might sound. In another post a while back, I linked a capture of the Yggy's output and that of my regular DAC. These are the (blind) comments other people made:

 

Yggy:

- Too tizzy (HF noise?)

- Sharper leading transients

- More sizzle (increase around 5kHz?)

- More (artificial?) detail?

- more sharply etched

- "crisper"

- not as "full"

- "detailed, dry, analytical" [type of systems]

- better clarity & focus

 

Mani.

 

 

 

Mani,

 

What music player did you use with the Yggdrasil?

I think that a lot of what you describe could be linked to "problems" in the upper mids and treble.

Is this due to the "glitch", to the "rounding" or something else, and not just frequency response induced effects?

 

R

[esldude]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

My money isn't on the Apple engineers. What you're saying is that your money is on the General Motors engineers rather than Ferrari. Sure the Ferrari may not ride like the GM cars, but I'd take it over any of the GM cars any day.

Well maybe Ferrari's ride like they do thanks to GM.  They pay licensing fees to use the magnetic damper management system GM developed for the Corvette.  But yes I get your point.

 

Zora Arkus-Duntov's whole reason for working at GM on the Corvette was that an outfit like GM, at least in those days, could use a tiny sliver of its resources and its genuine engineering expertise to make a far better car than Ferrari.  And that it could do so at much less cost if only its goals were different for the one car.  He was at times somewhat successful at that and mostly not.  Working for a huge conglomerate is just different.  In fact GM probably got closer to what he had in mind in recent years than when he worked there.