Just got a Yggdrasil!

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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. 

 

Yep, I'm happy to leave things as they are. But I'd still encourage anyone who's interested to take a listen to the two files I posted... just to learn what "artificial detail" (perhaps caused by glitching at the 10s or 100s of µV level) sounds like. No need to get back to me with comments... unless you want to.

 

Mani.

[jabbr]

44 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

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

 

Can't blame a guy for trying ... seriously though shouldn't "glitching", assuming a sufficient enough sample rate, be filtered out by the DAC's output LPF? ... alternatively the THD measurement is *not* the one that would highlight a glitching problem, again, high resolution signal analysis. If the DUT has 120dB SNR, the the testing equipment should have 140. Same for frequency resolution. I have a problem issuing recordings that supposedly demonstrate problems in recordings, I mean if you are describing a DUT which has 368kHz resolition at the very very minimum, the recording would need be 712kHz and if we are trying to describe the bottom 4 bits of 24 then ... pet peeve of mine...

[PeterSt]

3 hours ago, manisandher said:

Original 16/44.1 file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfZFI4ZnR1SHhiSmc

 

Yggy 24/48 capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfd3FfY1c4WW9FQVk

 

 

I'm happy to leave things as they are. But I'd still encourage anyone who's interested to take a listen to the two files I posted...

 

OK, I just did. But now I really like the judgement of someone else first and he really needs to mention his DAC. I will give my judgement too, but you first. George, can that be you ?

 

[clipper]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

2 hours ago, clipper said:

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

 

Already answered:

 

On 4/18/2017 at 1:55 AM, manisandher said:

Respective USB inputs.

 

Sorry.  Missed that the first time.

[Ralf11]

6 hours ago, semente said:

 

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

 

R

 

that is a likely conclusion

[gmgraves]

3 hours 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.

While it is difficult to argue with measurements as they are, after all, objective evaluations. OTOH, I generally take JA's sonic impressions as well as his opinions with a grain of salt. I used to work for him and I can tell you from experience that, like the rest of us, he has his faults. In particular, he is opinionated, more than a bit vindictive, and he holds grudges for decades! At this time he seems to have a grudge against Schiit. Now, whether this grudge is aimed at one of the company's principles, or the company itself, we have no way to tell. It might even be that he has a grudge against either Moffat or Stoddard from one of their previous affiliations. Whatever is the case, it's pretty common knowledge that he and Schiit are currently in an adversarial relationship. What is true is that the Stereophile writer who did the subjective evaluation of the Yggy, along with TAS's Harley, and the Hi-Fi+ writer who wrote the Yiggy review for that publication, all found it sonically superb, just as I have.

[esldude]

7 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

I'm going to do things slightly differently...

 

I'd really like to give anyone interested an idea of what I heard when I had the Yggy here, and why I started exploring the Yggy's measurements, to perhaps find a correlation between these and the sonic signature (or flavour) I was hearing from the Yggy.

 

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. (At some later point, I will link to the 24/48 capture of my regular DAC playing the same original file through the same playback/recording chain, to show that it wasn't the playback/recording chain causing the difference between the Yggy file and the original file.)

 

Original 16/44.1 file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfZFI4ZnR1SHhiSmc

 

Yggy 24/48 capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfd3FfY1c4WW9FQVk

 

Note that the Yggy file is 6dB down in level to the original file. You'll have to account for this of course. (And I hope the change in format between these files doesn't prove too troubling.)

 

Mani.

Okay, so how are you getting a reference for what the original file sounds like to say the Yggy is displaying artificial detail?

 

If you are listening to whichever gear is -13 db at 20 khz then that is not a good reference vs the original file.

 

This capture of the Yggy matches in frequency response to better than .1 db until more than 12 khz (mostly it matched closer than .01 db once volume was matched).  It then is down only .25 db at 20 khz.  It would seem to be of high fidelity to the original file in terms of response.  Doesn't sound different either.

 

Also in the small silence before the music starts the original file has what appears to be a shaped dither noise floor while the capture of the Yggy did not.  It had a basic flat noise floor that was lower than the original.  How did that happen? Seems if you were playing the original file the capture of the Yggy would have had the same noise floor profile.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

snippage.................I have a problem issuing recordings that supposedly demonstrate problems in recordings, I mean if you are describing a DUT which has 368kHz resolition at the very very minimum, the recording would need be 712kHz and if we are trying to describe the bottom 4 bits of 24 then ... pet peeve of mine...

In this case Mani used 24 bit recording of a 16 bit original.  I suppose it would have been better to record at 192 or 384, but on the bit depth at least you should be okay. 

[jabbr]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

In this case Mani used 24 bit recording of a 16 bit original.  I suppose it would have been better to record at 192 or 384, but on the bit depth at least you should be okay. 

Don't take my word for it, if you have a digital oscilloscope the sampling frequency needs to be at a very minimum 2x the usable bandwidth and more ideally 4-5x.

[esldude]

Just now, jabbr said:

Don't take my word for it, if you have a digital oscilloscope the sampling frequency needs to be at a very minimum 2x the usable bandwidth and more ideally 4-5x.

I don't disagree, and have used a scope enough to know that.  It doesn't mean no analysis is useful in the case of digital captures.  You do have to keep in mind what you can't determine when facing that limitation.

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

OK, I just did. But now I really like the judgement of someone else first and he really needs to mention his DAC. I will give my judgement too, but you first. George, can that be you ?

 

 

I listen very carefully to both samples. I hear what Mani is talking about in the second one. A general splashiness and a rather hard edge to transients. I have a number of similar jazz recordings that I made myself at 24/96 or converted from DSD to 24/96 LPCM using Korg's AudioGate. In recording the output of the Yggy by re-recording the analog output of the processor through another layer of quantization, there are lots of variables, but let's assume that Mani is satisfied that his 16/44.1 recording of the Yggy's analog output is representative of what he hears through his speakers. But I have to tell you, that no matter what I pass through the Yggy in my possession, I have heard nothing that sounds even close to what Mani seems to be getting out of the one he has. I certainly can't explain it, and since I don't know the source of the SQ Mani is hearing, I can't comment on it other than to say that it is as he described it on his Yggdrasil, but certainly isn't there on the one I've got. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

 

I listen very carefully to both samples. I hear what Mani is talking about in the second one. A general splashiness and a rather hard edge to transients. I have a number of similar jazz recordings that I made myself at 24/96 or converted from DSD to 24/96 LPCM using Korg's AudioGate. In recording the output of the Yggy by re-recording the analog output of the processor through another layer of quantization, there are lots of variables, but let's assume that Mani is satisfied that his 16/44.1 recording of the Yggy's analog output is representative of what he hears through his speakers. But I have to tell you, that no matter what I pass through the Yggy in my possession, I have heard nothing that sounds even close to what Mani seems to be getting out of the one he has. I certainly can't explain it, and since I don't know the source of the SQ Mani is hearing, I can't comment on it other than to say that it is as he described it on his Yggdrasil, but certainly isn't there on the one I've got. 

How much did you adjust volume between the original and the Yggy recording?

[gmgraves]

Just now, esldude said:

How much did you adjust volume between the original and the Yggy recording?

 

 

I had to raise the volume on the Yggy sample by quite a bit to play the second sample, and I did NOT replay the samples through the Yggy. I used my DragonFly Red that's connected to my office computer and listened through a pair of HiFiMan XEdition v.2 Phones. Since this was just an ad-hoc demonstration and not a formal test of any kind, I merely listened to the two files one right after the other and trying to equalize the volume between each file as I did so. Were this a formal comparison, the difference in volume between the two files would disqualify this test completely. But since we are only listening for the SQ that Mani was experiencing, I certainly was able to hear that in this comparison. 

An added note: Even though I agree that the second sample sounds demonstrably poorer than the original sample, The delta between the SQ of the two files in no way of the order that Mani's comments led me to believe that I would hear. 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

 

 

I had to raise the volume on the Yggy sample by quite a bit to play the second sample, and I did NOT replay the samples through the Yggy. I used my DragonFly Red that's connected to my office computer and listened through a pair of HiFiMan XEdition v.2 Phones. Since this was just an ad-hoc demonstration and not a formal test of any kind, I merely listened to the two files one right after the other and trying to equalize the volume between each file as I did so. Were this a formal comparison, the difference in volume between the two files would disqualify this test completely. But since we are only listening for the SQ that Mani was experiencing, I certainly was able to hear that in this comparison. 

An added note: Even though I agree that the second sample sounds demonstrably poorer than the original sample, The delta between the SQ of the two files in no way of the order that Mani's comments led me to believe that I would hear. 

Don't know which playback software you are using.  If you'll raise the volume either 5.9 or 6 db on the Yggy it will be just about perfect. If you raise it 6 db you do get a few clipped samples.

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

Don't know which playback software you are using.  If you'll raise the volume either 5.9 or 6 db on the Yggy it will be just about perfect. If you raise it 6 db you do get a few clipped samples.

 

Basically I was using Apple Core Audio. IOW, I just double-clicked the file here on the forum in Safari and played the file that way. I did not bother to copy the files to the HDD and play them out of something like Audacity or Cubase or any other audio "workstation" application. Take the results with a grain of salt. I can't replicate Mani's results on the Yggy in my possession, and assuming that Mani is being honest here (and I suspect that he is), I'd say that the Yggy he has is somehow defective. Otherwise I can't account for the difference in results.

 

Oh, and just as a general note of disclosure here to avoid any confusion and to make sure we're comparing apples to apples here (no pun intended), I do not use the Yggy's USB input. I use the coaxial SPDIF input on the Yggy from an Auralic Aries. I do not like audio over USB and try to avoid it where and when possible. Of course my office computer and my DragonFly Red use USB, but that's because it's an office computer desktop system and not my (a little "HP" here, forgive me) "reference system".

[Ralf11]

hard edge to transients ---> ringing?  or clipping?

[esldude]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

 

Basically I was using Apple Core Audio. IOW, I just double-clicked the file here on the forum in Safari and played the file that way. I did not bother to copy the files to the HDD and play them out of something like Audacity or Cubase or any other audio "workstation" application.

Well especially since the differences were small according to you, it might be worth downloading and matching the volumes up.  Those differences might get much smaller.  Splashiness is certainly going to be worse if you get just a tiny bit more volume on one vs the other.

[esldude]

6 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

hard edge to transients ---> ringing?  or clipping?

If you digitally amp the recording by 5.9 db you get 3 sample points clipped.  At 6 db it is 15 samples.  Neither is likely terribly audible.

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well especially since the differences were small according to you, it might be worth downloading and matching the volumes up.  Those differences might get much smaller.  Splashiness is certainly going to be worse if you get just a tiny bit more volume on one vs the other.

 

Possibly, but since I don't hear sound that's anywhere near what Mani is getting, I really don't need to take this any further. As you say, the difference in level between the two samples may be a large part of what I'm hearing from these two samples, but since I hear none of that on the Yggy I have, I'm inclined to say to Mani and anybody else who's getting similar results on their Yggys, "Hard cheese old man, hard cheese!" Take it up with Schiit.

[esldude]

Okay, level matching is highly important, and I have come to see just how often a tiny mismatch clouds our opinions of sound quality or creates differences where one doesn't exist.  More surprising is how very difficult it is to get people to bother matching levels.  Best just drop it I suppose. Willy  nilly is fine and dandy.

[semente]

55 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Basically I was using Apple Core Audio. IOW, I just double-clicked the file here on the forum in Safari and played the file that way. I did not bother to copy the files to the HDD and play them out of something like Audacity or Cubase or any other audio "workstation" application. Take the results with a grain of salt. I can't replicate Mani's results on the Yggy in my possession, and assuming that Mani is being honest here (and I suspect that he is), I'd say that the Yggy he has is somehow defective. Otherwise I can't account for the difference in results.

 

Oh, and just as a general note of disclosure here to avoid any confusion and to make sure we're comparing apples to apples here (no pun intended), I do not use the Yggy's USB input. I use the coaxial SPDIF input on the Yggy from an Auralic Aries. I do not like audio over USB and try to avoid it where and when possible. Of course my office computer and my DragonFly Red use USB, but that's because it's an office computer desktop system and not my (a little "HP" here, forgive me) "reference system".

 

Are you able to compare Yggdrasil's S/PDIF and USB inputs in your reference system with well known by you music? 

 

I think that it might prove to be useful to exclude possible differences in performance.

 

R 

[manisandher]

Level-matching is going to be totally necessary for a fair comparison. Adjusting by 5.9dB is going to be difficult, so don't take the Yggy file up by 6dB (might get into clipping), just take the original file down by 6dB and that should be fine.

 

Mani.

[semente]

1 minute ago, manisandher said:

Level-matching is going to be totally necessary for a fair comparison. Adjusting by 5.9dB is going to be difficult, so don't take the Yggy file up by 6dB (might get into clipping), just take the original file down by 6dB and that should be fine.

 

Mani.

 

I'll try to do that later today, although my current DAC is not what I'd call a high performer...

 

On another note, JA's comments regarding overloading at high frequencies might explain your findings:

 

I suspect that the digital filter begins to overload with full-scale high-frequency tones. As music only very rarely contains such spectral content, perhaps the filter and DSP circuits have been optimized for low-level signals
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/schiit-audio-yggdrasil-da-processor-measurements#abugLr8Xi5HX7yc2.99

 

Was the splashy/crispy treble present in all recordings at all levels?

 

R

 

[manisandher]

 

9 hours ago, esldude said:

Doesn't sound different either.

 

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

The delta between the SQ of the two files in no way of the order that Mani's comments led me to believe that I would hear. 

 

Wow! The Yggy file really sounds terrible to my ears, compared to the original. Maybe there's something I'm more sensitive to?

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

If you are listening to whichever gear is -13 db at 20 khz then that is not a good reference vs the original file.

 

I'm listening to these files through HQPlayer's poly-sinc-xtr filter, upsampled to 768kHz and fed to the NOS1a DAC. The FR will be totally flat to 20kHz.

 

Mani.