Just got a Yggdrasil!

[LarryMagoo]

20 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

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. 

The thing is...forums are built to let people of similar interests share ideas, learn and build levels of community for being interested in the same topic.   We learn, we contribute.... lather, rinse, repeat.

 

But ALL Mani does is the SAME crap over and over on a thread where most enjoy the Yggy...hence the name "Just got a Yggydrasil".   He's told us in MULTIPLICITIES of his dislike (ClassB) of the Yggy....now he should go somewhere else instead of repeating his drivel over and over.   I got an idea....he can go to the DAC thread of his dreams and leave this thread entirely like I will do now!

[Jud]

Whereas you, Larry, have contributed so very much knowledge to the thread, talking to us about your conversations with Mike Moffat about a chip that might have been considered for the Yggy - oh wait, that was Mani.  Or when you provided us actual samples of Yggy's analog product to listen to - oh wait, that was Mani.  Gosh, I'm sensing a theme here....

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

The thing is...forums are built to let people of similar interests share ideas, learn and build levels of community for being interested in the same topic.   We learn, we contribute.... lather, rinse, repeat.

 

But ALL Mani does is the SAME crap over and over on a thread where most enjoy the Yggy...hence the name "Just got a Yggydrasil".   He's told us in MULTIPLICITIES of his dislike (ClassB) of the Yggy....now he should go somewhere else instead of repeating his drivel over and over.   I got an idea....he can go to the DAC thread of his dreams and leave this thread entirely like I will do now!

 

 

Please use the Ignore User feature of the site and you'll be all set, we won't have to read about your disdain for @manisandher, and cats & dogs will be living together once again. 

[manisandher]

On 4/3/2017 at 9:20 PM, gmgraves said:

I have no relationship with the company, but I have known Mike Moffat (casually from running in to him at CES, AND HI-Fi shows) for many years, and I have met Jason Stoddard. I'm a reviewer and the Yiggy I have is a review sample and is not mine. I'm just extremely impressed with the unit's sonic performance.

 

[Highlight mine.]

 

This gives me all the licence I need to contribute to this thread (if indeed any were required).

 

Mani.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

If anyone wonders what all this glitching is about and what are some techniques for helping to make it go away, here are a couple of blog posts from TI's web site:

 

https://e2e.ti.com/blogs_/b/analogwire/archive/2013/06/14/what-s-with-all-this-glitch-ing

 

https://e2e.ti.com/blogs_/b/analogwire/archive/2013/07/01/dac-essentials-glitch-be-gone

 

 

 

Thanks for the link.  The question in my mind currently in relation to the glitching measured in the Yggy, is rather it is significant.  The above links seem to discuss this transistor behavior (which all transistors exhibit) in nanovolts, but the Yggy's glitching is measured at 45 microvolts.  Is this enough to affect the perceived sound quality during a typical passage of music?  How often during one second of typical music does this zero crossing occur, and what are the accumulative effects - in particular what does it do to a typical audio amp which has to try to track this signal?

 

As we all know not all distortion is the same - but I am wondering with mani what this particular type of distortion "sounds like".  I appreciate PeterSt that it is essentially "harmless", but then he goes on to say that he/we really don't know if I am reading him correctly.

[Jud]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

The above links seem to discuss this transistor behavior (which all transistors exhibit)

 

Since no transistor is perfect, all exhibit some overshoot.  In DACs this glitching/overshoot can be associated with a value transitioning from less significant bits to more significant bits, as Yuri (audiventory) mentioned above.

[clipper]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

If you have the inclination, download the following files and take a listen. In particular, listen out for anything resembling "bold incisiveness" or "artificial detail" in the Yggy file, that doesn't exist in the original file.

Mani, you keep saying that the Yggy's "sonic signature" is "bold incisiveness" and "artificial detail."

 

You also say that the playback chain included your "home-built audio PC."

 

How did you connect your PC to the Yggy?  USB?

[manisandher]

12 minutes ago, clipper said:

How did you connect your PC to the Yggy?  USB?

 

Already answered:

 

On 4/18/2017 at 7:55 AM, manisandher said:

Respective USB inputs.

[crenca]

30 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Since no transistor is perfect, all exhibit some overshoot.  In DACs this glitching/overshoot can be associated with a value transitioning from less significant bits to more significant bits, as Yuri (audiventory) mentioned above.

 

True, and some are arguing that while this behavior in the Yggy which is stronger than in most other's DACs (for all the reasons discussed) is still well below the threshold of audibility.  However, behind this is a couple of assumptions it seems to me: 1) that the low level of the glitch in isolation does not have aggregate effects.  It is just a butterfly flapping its wings and you can't feel it - but how many butterfly flaps occur during a typical passage of music (say in one second - just a few?  several thousands?  more?)  and what is the accumulative effect if any?  2)  That such dirac like spikes (infinite like and at a right angle to the sine wave) effect an amp the same as any other distortion.  I am wondering if this particular type of distortion has an outsized effect on the amplified signal.

 

Just thoughts...

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, semente said:

 

Which would mean that the differences Mani could hear and recorded have a different cause? 

 

R

Just so.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

[Highlight mine.]

 

This gives me all the licence I need to contribute to this thread (if indeed any were required).

 

Mani.

 

What would make you think that you needed any special license to contribute to this thread? One could argue that those who have not heard a properly "run-in" Yiggy should not comment on the sound, but even that isn't true. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it's an ignorant one!

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

How often during one second of typical music does this zero crossing occur

 

16000 times when a frequency of 16KHz plays and the level of the bass wave it is modulated on is very low and the 16KHz relatively high.

Otherwise I'd say that generally 1/4th of the time 16000 times when 16KHz plays and bass of any level plays. And if no 16KHz plays but 8KHz only, then in 1/4th of the the time 8000 times but more compared to 16KHz because the peaks of 8KHz usually will be higher than those of 16KHz (the higher the frequency the lower the energy, generally.

 

Anyway it is completely all over.

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

True, and some are arguing that while this behavior in the Yggy which is stronger than in most other's DACs (for all the reasons discussed) is still well below the threshold of audibility.  However, behind this is a couple of assumptions it seems to me: 1) that the low level of the glitch in isolation does not have aggregate effects.  It is just a butterfly flapping its wings and you can't feel it - but how many butterfly flaps occur during a typical passage of music (say in one second - just a few?  several thousands?  more?)  and what is the accumulative effect if any?  2)  That such dirac like spikes (infinite like and at a right angle to the sine wave) effect an amp the same as any other distortion.  I am wondering if this particular type of distortion has an outsized effect on the amplified signal.

 

Just thoughts...

 

A thought that I had was that since so many people (including me) hear nothing from a Yggy that sounds even remotely like what Mani describes, perhaps there are unit to unit variations that would account for his very negative opinion of a device that most reviewers find effectively flawlessly? I'm so enamored with the thing I'll probably purchase my review sample.

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

Maybe @PeterSt will trade me an NOS1a for my stash :rotfl:

 

Not the best idea with still 1000s of the 1704 around somewhere here. 

[PeterSt]

Some people seem to think that distortions sound like distortions as such, but it doesn't work like that (at all). A thing like this glitching (at least at these low levels) just flavor the sound. One thing : If Mani describes it as sibilant or something of that kind then I would immediately believe it is caused by the glitching because the square (remember, dirac) impulses continuously activate all frequencies in the world at any zero crossing (say 8000 times per second). It may be at very low level, but it influences everything and all. I say it again, might you mot believe that, get yourself a 12 bit DAC and be sure that you don't need the other 8 (or 12 as is more common).

As said earlier on, something does not add up.

[manisandher]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

If Mani describes it as sibilant or something of that kind then I would immediately believe it is caused by the glitching because the square (remember, dirac) impulses continuously activate all frequencies in the world at any zero crossing (say 8000 times per second).

 

In my first post about the Yggy when I had it here, I described it as follows:

 

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.

 

Mani

 

[manisandher]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

... perhaps there are unit to unit variations that would account for his very negative opinion of a device that most reviewers find effectively flawlessly?

 

Stereophile rated it class B. Not sure if that was down solely to its poor measured performance, or if JA managed to take a listen and perhaps heard what I heard.

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Let's look at this another way. Take two 100 Watt amplifiers. Amp A has 0.0001%  THD. Amp B has 0.00011%THD both at 100 Watts. That means that amp B has .00001% more distortion than does amp A. Mani would say that this extra 1/100,000th of a percent disqualifies amp B from consideration because it measures as being higher in THD than amp A. In the real world, however, that tiny amount of of added distortion is completely inaudible to anybody 

 

Says you ? You may be quite alone as a reviewer.

 

If we all try hard we can find 6 Americans who received a call back notice for their NOS1 once upon a time. This meant that we spent 6x 336 euros for shipping back and forth alone, to solve an issue with the 1704 chips, we discovered after a very first (and still only) occasion of someone returning his NOS1 after endless trying (together with me) to get it right. It appeared that at full scale all was on par (this is what we normally measure), but at digitally attenuated levels the chips were off although still within TI grade K specs.

The NOS1 we received back sounded like sh*t and all what we could measure was something like 0.0030% THD+N which normally is to be 0.0020% THD+N. This is 3dB difference of harmonics somewhere at -110dB anyway. Btw, for 16 bit material.

So we received a bad batch of 1704U-K's.

 

The problems with these comparisons were it with other products, is that we (with NOS1's) work with zero ringing hence zero time smear. When now something is off you hear it right away, while what about all of you are used to is this smear to begin with (unless some fell in the MQA pitfall and think they are better off with it). This makes all comparisons moot.

So yes, such a thing can be easily heard but have the reference of no ringing first (and next how d*mn accurate sounds can come across - I say sounds because that counts for sounds as such; I do not say music because we usually can't tell about the accuracy of music).

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

 

Thanks for the link.  The question in my mind currently in relation to the glitching measured in the Yggy, is rather it is significant.  The above links seem to discuss this transistor behavior (which all transistors exhibit) in nanovolts, but the Yggy's glitching is measured at 45 microvolts.  Is this enough to affect the perceived sound quality during a typical passage of music?  How often during one second of typical music does this zero crossing occur, and what are the accumulative effects - in particular what does it do to a typical audio amp which has to try to track this signal?

 

As we all know not all distortion is the same - but I am wondering with mani what this particular type of distortion "sounds like".  I appreciate PeterSt that it is essentially "harmless", but then he goes on to say that he/we really don't know if I am reading him correctly.

 

Feed your amplifier a 45 microvolts signal from a signal generator, and tell me what it sounds like. I'll save you the trouble. It sounds like nothing, because assuming that most amps, through their line level inputs will give full output for an input level of around 2 volts, 45 microvolts is well below the noise floor of almost any amplifier. That means that the amp's self noise, is many times louder than a 45 microvolt signal. And even the amp's self-noise won't be audible at any normal listening level. On most amps, you'd have to turn the amp all the way up (with no signal, of course) to even hear it's self-noise, and then it would be just a soft rushing noise. I know this because I've tried it. The level control on my HP 400d audio generator is not precision enough to attain 45 microvolts, but after much fiddling, I was able to get down to around 80 microvolts as measured on my O'scope. I couldn't hear that either. Forget the glitch, it's so far down in the mud of normal electronic noise, that it's irrelevant as far as real-world performance is concerned.

[Jud]

35 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it's an ignorant one!

 

 

Didn't you at one point believe your review sample had new and different parts without the glitching problem?

[manisandher]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Forget the glitch, it's so far down in the mud of normal electronic noise, that it's irrelevant as far as real-world performance is concerned.

 

Bob Katz would disagree:

 

"... 

truncation of the LSBs in 24-bit data reintroduces quantization noise/distortion. Research by people like Bob Katz has shown that this will be audible even with real-world DACs." -  JA, Stereophile.

 

[Highlight mine.]

 

In any event, something certainly is audible in the Yggy file I posted vs. the original file. As I've maintained from the outset, I reckon it's the Yggy's glitching affecting the overall sound, giving it its "bold incisiveness" character, as Robert Harley referred to it. I prefer to simply call it "artificial detail". If you listen to the two files I posted, the Yggy file really does sound more 'detailed'... than the original file!

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

It sounds like nothing, because assuming that most amps, through their line level inputs will give full output for an input level of around 2 volts, 45 microvolts is well below the noise floor of almost any amplifier. That means that the amp's self noise, is many times louder than a 45 microvolt signal

 

Hmm ... again you are not correct. Must I show you perhaps how my DAC resolves to 23 bits THROUGH the amplifier, or do you believe me right away. You do the math on how many uV that 23rd bit is and in what circumstance. And oh, you possibly do not know that Mani used the same amplification as I myself during his time with the Ygg.

Anyway you said "most amps" so I can't blame you for real errors, but ... 

 

Btw, 0.00059% THD+N at 18V and into 2.8 Ohms.

Maybe we live on another planet ?

 

To be clear : I do not pretend I can hear a tone playing at 45uV but i is about what it incurs for (we talked about that already).

Also careful about the 45uV because I think it is much more. And do notice that my design measured the exact same for THD+N compared to what the other guy measured through the same measurement gear and what's officially known about the Ygg. So I say it is 120uV in one direction. 240uVp-p but this is not 100% true because the up and down peaks do not occur at the same time (on esitimate there's 4 or so us in between them - but see the plots).

[gmgraves]

12 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

In my first post about the Yggy when I had it here, I described it as follows:

 

 

Mani

 

 

And I have been listening to the one I have for many hours a day since I received it because it's the only DAC in it's price range (or cheaper) that does not cause me listening fatigue!

 

There's no sense continuing to go round and round here. We're merely repeating ourselves. Most of the contributors to this thread think the Yiggy performs at, or near the same level as the megabuck DACs from the likes of MSB and dCS, but there are exceptions, like you for instance. Nobody is going to convince the "other side" that they are wrong, because fans of the Yiggy don't hear the DAC the same way as the detractor side of the argument do and, of course, vice-versa. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. 

[Tone Deaf]

18 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Stereophile rated it class B. Not sure if that was down solely to its poor measured performance, or if JA managed to take a listen and perhaps heard what I heard.

 

Mani.

Two Stereophile reviewers would need to listen to it before they rated it.  You are probably correct that it was JA.

[manisandher]

2 minutes ago, Tone Deaf said:

Two Stereophile reviewers would need to listen to it before they rated it.  You are probably correct that it was JA.

 

Thanks. I didn't know that.

 

Mani.