Just got a Yggdrasil!

[esldude]

54 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

The recording of the Yggy was taken at 24/48 with a Tascam DA-3000, straight into its XLR input. To my ears, the Tascam isn't totally transparent, so you're right to raise this as a potential issue. And the playback chain was far from perfectly optimized too.

 

But it was the same playback and recording chain that I used for capturing my regular DAC, and people heard the difference between the two DACs quite easily.

 

Hell, here are the files again. One is the Yggy, the other my regular DAC (not necessarily in that order below):

 

DAC A: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfeGhoa3RCUTk4djQ

DAC B: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfQVpQaUxLNGZRUDA

 

[There is a 1dB difference in level between these two that really needs to be accounted for to make a fair comparison.]

 

The Yggy's sonic signature ("bold incisiveness" and "artificial detail") should be audible immediately - it is on my Ponoplayer using cheap Sony headphones. Some people may actually prefer it, but I'll just say that my regular DAC sounds much closer to the original file than does the Yggy.

 

Mani.

Okay, they sound different yes. The incisiveness is audible. 

 

Now there is about a 14 or 15 db difference in noise level of the two DACs. Probably not audible or at least not in a big way. 

 

On the other hand one of the DACs, I won't yet reveal which in deference to Mani, is down 3db by 10 or 11 khz and then is down 13 db by 20 khz.  That is your sound difference right there.  Could be one is using some different filter or whatever.  But the frequency response difference is what you are hearing.  Nothing more exotic than that.  What is the old cliche'.............. frequency response is 85% of hifi. 

 

 

[PeterSt]

Mani, yes (btw, no idea where you got that from and I just saw that this was all from beginning of 2013 for me. Anyway, while I myself just dug out the picture you see below and thought "so where are these down going spikes then ?" it is all way more complicated and which is why it took me some longer to find out the real "merits".

 

 

So here too I see the spikes going one way only, but ... this is Single Ended, while the design was Differential (balanced) and that other signal behaves the other way around (in sort of layman's terms). Thus this was tearing apart the DAC board (eliminate half of the differential part) in order to see what was going on and find the cause.

Here's a screenshot which may even show better how nasty the chip behaves (SE signal again) :

 

 

Here you can also see how the lot is subject to some changing DC offset (this is also visible in JA's plots) which make change the peaks in level just the same. Disclaimer : I can not guarantee that the levels you see are all at their maximum because of the same "bandwidth problem" I talked about. Thus, this is digital sampling and with the narrow spikes we may miss a part of it (on the tops).

 

If I tell you that these both are 96dBFS attenuated you can also now better understand the impact - or at least the theoretical impact. Thus, the DAC now plays as if it were a 16bit DAC and the glitching energy is still twice higher than the signal. Thus, increase the signal with 6dB and the level will become even bit still never as intended (at one-third of the half-cycle another tops emerges).

All it now needs is some creativity to see when the spikes completely disappear in the signal and this is how I came to 12-13 bits.

 

Lastly notice that I can show the exact same small spikes as the plot of that other guy shows, if I only set the (very same) analyzer to some smoothing (this makes the signal look better like a sign (less noisy) and/but also smooths out the spikes.

 

 

[PeterSt]

28 minutes ago, esldude said:

On the other hand one of the DACs, I won't yet reveal which in deference to Mani, is down 3db by 10 or 11 khz and then is down 13 db by 20 khz.  That is your sound difference right there.

 

[xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] (scratched text)

Otherwise I'd say it is not about a sound difference but how all can be set/tuned so the best realism in music is achieved (the filters exist for a reason of course).

On another note, don't underestimate how this glitch is still visible at full scale and how it thus ADDS to the output level (envision the signal being modulated by the glitch). I am sure I have a screenshot of that too somewhere and it requires some sneaky analyzer settings (and a vary high bandwidth one, which I had at the time).

Not sure I can fully justify this, but I will try ...

[manisandher]

20 minutes ago, esldude said:

But the frequency response difference is what you are hearing.  Nothing more exotic than that.  What is the old cliche'.............. frequency response is 85% of hifi.

 

One sounds like the original file, the other doesn't. I'll put the original file up at some later point - you may be surprised Dennis!

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

12 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

If I tell you that these both are 96dBFS attenuated you can also now better understand the impact - or at least the theoretical impact. Thus, the DAC now plays as if it were a 16bit DAC and the glitching energy is still twice higher than the signal. Thus, increase the signal with 6dB and the level will become even bit still never as intended (at one-third of the half-cycle another tops emerges).

 

Found this one to justify my text in the quote above :

 

 

This one is 6dB less attenuated than the one I talked about in the quote. So indeed the signal now is a bit higher than the glitch, but still massively visible.

And might we think this is not important, then go out looking for 15 bits or even less DAC's. So see, something doesn't add up.

[esldude]

Just now, manisandher said:

 

One sounds like the original file, the other doesn't. I'll put the original file up at some later point - you may be surprised Dennis!

 

Mani.

Yes please do.  I can then tell which has FR like the original.

 

Now I get what you are saying about a preference for how one sounds.  There is simply no way to impugn the worth of one DAC vs another when you have that kind of FR difference.  It is too large.  It will be the overriding difference in sound quality.  One might adjust the FR of the non-oversampled version to match and much or all the difference might go away. 

 

@Peterst  I recognized the tell tale signs of that oversampling I just didn't want to give to much away to anyone yet to listen. 

[firedog]

11 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Nothing against you Mani, but again this thread has now come down to each side defending personal taste; Yggy likers who hear it as accurate and clean, and Yggy detractors who hear it as you do, as "tizzy". etc. 

 

I'm not doubting what you hear or what you've measured. But none of us know if the glitch is audible or not. Certainly George doesn't hear it, and no one can reasonably claim he isn't an experienced listener and doesn't know what musical instruments are supposed to sound like. 

 

What's the point? 

 

Let's start arguing about whether Benchmark DACs sound "accurate" or "etched"; or if Lampis sound "natural" or "euphonic"... it will be just as useful. 

[manisandher]

28 minutes ago, esldude said:

Okay, they sound different yes. The incisiveness is audible.

 

And yet, this "bold incisiveness" is not in the original file!

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

@Peterst  I recognized the tell tale signs of that oversampling I just didn't want to give to much away to anyone yet to listen. 

 

Apologies. I scratched out the text. Nothing lost with you all sleeping except for you. :-)

[manisandher]

Just now, firedog said:

Yggy likers who hear it as accurate and clean, and Yggy detractors who hear it as you do, as "tizzy". etc.

 

Hold on there... Many of the comments about sounding "tizzy" etc. were made by Yggy owners themselves - they were listening blind.

 

I've posted two files (blind) again. Whether you're an 'Yggy liker' or 'Yggy detractor', I suspect you're going to hear exactly the same difference between these. Give them a go, and let me know what you think as someone totally impartial.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, firedog said:

Nothing against you Mani, but again this thread has now come down to each side defending personal taste; Yggy likers who hear it as accurate and clean, and Yggy detractors who hear it as you do, as "tizzy". etc. 

 

What's the point?

 

I agree ...

 

Mani, on behalf of your own, I too think that you can be more neutral in this ...

 

Firedog, in the defense of Mani now, I am afraid he / we / me can hardly behave differently. This is because of the all so many pitfalls ALL of us fell into after someone coming up with the best tweak ever. 95% of them get debunked just because a flavor is added and which is never a good thing. Say that 50% of that only reveals after months of time. Really.

 

Now Mani, let's behave ... (a little ;-)

 

[manisandher]

43 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Mani, on behalf of your own, I too think that you can be more neutral in this ...

 

OK, I must be missing something. Two people I respect are telling me I'm behaving in a biased way here. Hmm...

 

Ideally, I'd like to post the just the Yggy recording and the original file. People could then make their own minds up as to whether they can hear the Yggy's "bold incisiveness" being added to the original file.

 

But as has been pointed out, the playback/recording chain was not perfect. So how do I show that the added "bold incisiveness" is not down to other elements in the playback/recording chain, e.g the ADC? I need a control. And all I have is the output of my regular DAC going through the exact same playback/recording chain.

 

Tell me what I could change about this to be more objective and un-biased, and I'll do it.

 

Edit: file downloads disabled until I'm happy that I'm not being biased.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

23 minutes ago, manisandher said:

file downloads disabled until I'm happy that I'm not being biased.

 

Mani, you are taking this more hard than anyone intends it to be. As how I personally read it, it is just in the wrong context of what people like to see. And mind you please, my now responding could - in my own vision ! - only be done because a. people asked for other's measurements, which is far away me though with a different design, b. it is in the context of b1. someone how reviews the Ygg and b2. who openly and explicitly declares that such a small glitch will not be audible (and my clear vision that he is wrong at that).

 

Again in my personal opinion this is not to be emphasized by subjective support by ears. On the other hand, when a few dozen people start to respond that "of course" this is not audible, then what to do. So ... I fully understand where you are coming from, plus I could be the only one in this topic who understands YOUR context, which is the same as mine (btw, I'd be happy to add Judd to this small list).

 

Let me try to rephrase :

The way you respond is nothing less than I (and we all at Phasure) would require or else we're just shouting around without real justification. But this is not Phasure.

Please compare with HydrogenAudio; if we'd all start to respond in fashions like it happens over there, then no CA would exist for long.

This is *not* any teaching (I wouldn't dare), this is *not* any ruling, and this is *not* against you at all. It is a bit protective though because I see from my helicopter that when your stance is continued, only less and less will agree. And as this is all about subjectivity anyway, why attempt it (and don't you dare to leave it out over at Phasure's ! - haha).

See ?

 

I too value Firedog's comments as they are very neutral, as far as I can see always. What he is telling, is that it could be a good thing to come up with measurements for those who can digest them but that it may not be a good thing to value that yourself when it is about subjective means (ears and even (in)coherent systems as some pose it).

 

And now for everyone BUT Mani :

What is Mani supposed to do else when he has no means other than listening, which he BTW is IME very good at. On that matter we could try to compare with me, and where I am a kind of capable of explaining what could be happening to the signal and how that would be (should be) quite audible and if not, all else is wrong. This is not for everybody and maybe it is not even for me really. But I can try, where Mani can't (but watch for tomorrow).

 

Mani, I think what people don't understand is the why of it all. Even I don't understand although I have an idea (starts with B.). And if people at forums don't understand, then in no time we have Twitter behavior. Not good.

Now I feel like teaching after all. Also not good.

Have great day ! (and re-engage those files ).

 

 

[manisandher]

24 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Mani, I think what people don't understand is the why of it all.

 

Chris articulated it best:

 

On 4/3/2017 at 4:34 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Not everything that matters can be measured and not everything that can be measured matters.

 

For as long as I can remember, I've been fascinated with the correlation between subjective listening impressions and objective measurements. And the mechanisms responsible for these correlations. And this hobby is full of weird and wonderful things going on.

 

I listened to the Yggy and heard something that grated on me over time. More recently, I hooked my new SET amps into my high-efficiency horns and was simply blown away by the sheer clarity of the sound (and more specifically, the forward/backward depth of the stage). In both cases, I'd love to know what is responsible for what I'm hearing - perhaps measurements can give us a clue, perhaps they can't.

 

But it's not like me to just accept Chris's statement without exploring a few things first.

 

Mani.

[JoeWhip]

We are back to this nonsense again. I am done with CA. Mani should have his own thread. 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

...  I think what people don't understand is the why of it all. Even I don't understand although I have an idea (starts with B.). And if people at forums don't understand, then in no time we have Twitter behavior. Not good..

 

 

 

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

For as long as I can remember, I've been fascinated with the correlation between subjective listening impressions and objective measurements. And the mechanisms responsible for these correlations. And this hobby is full of weird and wonderful things going on.

... I'd love to know what is responsible for what I'm hearing - perhaps measurements can give us a clue, perhaps they can't.

 

But it's not like me to just accept Chris's statement without exploring a few things first.

 

Well first, Einstein never said that. There is a difference between "unmeasurable" and "not yet measured" which was lost in translation.

 

I am convinced that many of the popular measurements that are bandied about do not tell the story, the problem is that those measurements, with a sound card and PC, are easy to make but the measurement tools need to be more accurate than the equipment being measured or else ... and more.

 

So... I've started to discuss these issues over on this thread:

 

I think an important concept to consider is the: linewidth which is commonly used to measure the integrity of a laser, and is used to measure performance in ham radions but is not a measurement that is commonly understood in the audio community. So I think there are measurements that could be more accurate...

 

Yet this is audio, and a hobby and people get pleasure from different factors. Some people like a brand, others have cost constraints, other have inverse cost constraints, and the subjective listening pleasure is ultimately up to the individual. In the present day people do not primarily get their impressions from measurements.

 

[manisandher]

6 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

We are back to this nonsense again. I am done with CA. Mani should have his own thread. 

 

What specifically are you upset about? Is it my posting in this thread? Or is it that I've uploaded files that others can listen to?

 

Mani.

[audiventory]

9 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

...the Yggy uses a pair of AD5791 chips per channel.

...

Schiit have obviously done some work to reduce these glitch errors down to around 45µV in the Yggy, but they're still obviously there. JA referred to these as "significant errors at the signal's zero-crossing points".

 

10 hours ago, esldude said:

I may not have this right, but it is the picture I have.  Imagine your varying sine wave.  The top is approaching the 0 voltage point.  It has been encoded with 24 bits.  It is just barely positive at near 20 bits.  There should still be 4 bits between there and reaching zero to encode with.  However, it has been truncated and the next sample drops straight to zero. The following sample then jumps straight to the negative 20 bit level without the 4 bits to encode it either.  It would be as if a short term glitch of higher frequency was injected for those two samples. You'll get mostly odd harmonic distortion.  As you see in the 24 bit distortion plot you get higher odd distortion with lower even distortion spikes in the 24 bit result.  Which is why JA thought truncation instead of rounding.

 

It would have been nice to see the glitch in the waveform at both 100 hz and 10,000 hz in this particular case.

 

I seen to data sheet of AD5791. It is 20 bit DAC. So it is may be really truncation issue, not transistors.

Or the spikes is result of switching between DACs (if 1 DAC for positive and 1 DAC for negative).

[crenca]

Can anyone speak (or perhaps have a link) about what how low level but "dirac" like spikes in the signal from the DAC effect the output signal/wave of typical amps?  It occurs to me that this sort of distortion could have outsized effects on an amplifier...which would lead to the inaudible being audible

 

[LarryMagoo]

The thing is Mani has nothing positive to contribute PERIOD. 

[Jud]

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

but the measurement tools need to be more accurate than the equipment being measured or else

 

Word.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, LarryMagoo said:

The thing is Mani has nothing positive to contribute PERIOD. 

 

Odd, besides MQA I don't recall a subject attracting as much meaningless noise (such as the post above) as the Yggy.  Perhaps it is something about Schiit as well?  Obviously Mani is a big boy and will continue to make his excellent contributions to the subject.

 

In any case it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that those who would listen to a Yggy are homeless crackheads who find them in the gutter and don't know what else to do with them...

[The Computer Audiophile]

17 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

The thing is Mani has nothing positive to contribute PERIOD. 

 

I believe Mani adding measurements is a positive for people who want to see that information. Those who want his opinion as well, will also see it as a positive. 

 

Your comments going after Mani offer nothing positive to the discussion. We are all adults and can make up our own minds as to whether someone or something is positive for a discussion. We don't need you to tell us who has been a good or bad contributor. 

[semente]

50 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

The thing is Mani has nothing positive to contribute PERIOD. 

 

Positive contributions don't have to be nice comments.

[semente]

19 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

I'm not sure I understand this. The DAC is supposed to have an LPF which should effectively eliminate the high frequency noise.

 

I can ask. It may be a problem with the HifiBerry DAC.

 

 

19 hours ago, jabbr said: