Just got a Yggdrasil!

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, semente said:

 

I find the digitised output of the Yggy too bad. I should have listened to the Control file to see if there was a consistency in badness but to be honest I don't believe that the Yggy can be that bad.

 

It's not. The fact is that If the Yggy that I have sounded like the one on Mani's 2nd sample, I wouldn't be praising it and this thread wouldn't exist. Honestly, While I hear what Mani is complaining about, it's STILL not awful. It's just just not a "Class A" component. Obviously, in TAS' next recommended components list, the Yggy that Robert Harley reviewed WILL be rated as a Class A component!

[manisandher]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

If I am clear on which files we are talking about.  The Yggy file recorded by the ADC and the original wav file right?

 

We actually have 3 files:

 

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

 

 

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

 

3. Control DAC capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfaVFmTG13bEhMU2s

 

And it's the 3rd 'Control DAC' file that I was referring to. To my ears, the Yggy file and the Control DAC file sound substantially different to each other, suggesting to me that what I'm hearing in the Yggy file is not down to the replay/recording chain (or else it would be in the Control DAC file too). I just wondered whether the Contol DAC file looks as close to the original file as the Yggy file does in your analysis.

 

Mani.

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

We actually have 3 files:

 

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

 

 

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

 

3. Control DAC capture: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0PU5LO5jVjfaVFmTG13bEhMU2s

 

And it's the 3rd 'Control DAC' file that I was referring to. To my ears, the Yggy file and the Control DAC file sound substantially different to each other, suggesting to me that what I'm hearing in the Yggy file is not down to the replay/recording chain (or else it would be in the Control DAC file too). I just wondered whether the Contol DAC file looks as close to the original file as the Yggy file does in your analysis.

 

Mani.

I will look it over when I get a chance.  So somehow I missed the specifics.

 

How as the control DAC file obtained.  Is this your other DAC with a filter that gives flat response that you mentioned? The NOS1 with flat oversampling filtering?

[manisandher]

 

6 hours ago, esldude said:

So I had one final idea.  I was impressed that the drift between ADC and DAC were just about 1 ppm.  You were very lucky to get that close a match unless you had locked clocks. So I upsampled both files to 96/24.  This is after matching volume.  I took the left channel from each and made a stereo track.  There is close to a perfect match at one point.  So you can listen to several seconds in synch.  Over speakers everything images dead center except some cymbal splash was one sided.  I reversed channels and it stays to that side so a reflection issue in my setup. I then listened over headphones and everything images dead center and you hear no oddities from quality differences in the files.  So I don't know what you folks are hearing.

 

It seems I won't need to bin the Tascam after all .

 

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Here is a 5 second snippet of the Yggy in one channel and the original file in the other.

 

Yggy composite snippet.wav.zip

 

It will unzip into a 96/24 wav.  Should be just the ticket for Jud to listen to.  No echoic memory involved. Put it on loop play and listen over and over.

 

Thanks for this. I'll definitely take a listen in a short while. I'll take another close listen to the Yggy capture, the control DAC capture and the original file.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

I will look it over when I get a chance.  So somehow I missed the specifics.

 

How as the control DAC file obtained.  Is this your other DAC with a filter that gives flat response that you mentioned? The NOS1 with flat oversampling filtering?

 

No, not NOS1 at all. Just another DAC I had lying around (that I don't really like the sound of). I really don't want to get into a Yggy vs. another DAC discussion, so let's just stick to 'control DAC'. What's important is that it is perfectly level-matched to the Yggy's output, and has a flat FR too. We just need this file to truly understand how the replay/recording chain might be affecting the sound of all the captured files.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

But in general the measurement equipment needs to me more "accurate" than the device under test. Not saying this is easy ...

 

Thanks jabbr. Yes, I think everyone would agree with this. But Dennis's analysis is showing that in at least a few measures, the replay/recording chain was actually quite good. I'm encouraged by this because it means that perhaps something useful might come out of this all. And it could be that the Yggy isn't as bad as I was making out, and that I was just hearing things... Let's see...

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

 

7 hours ago, SuperRu said:

We all hear you. Is there a better DAC in that price range we should consider instead?

 

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Mani,  Could you list DACs that like better for redbook than the Schiit?

 

I haven't owned or heard any other DACs in the Yggy's price range, so couldn't really comment. I had a Chord 2Qute here for a while, and with a Paul Hynes PSU, and thought it sounded pretty good. It didn't seem to have any annoying characteristics, at least.

 

But for a long time, I've been a proponent of doing as much of the necessary DSP in the audio PC and then feeding to the DAC at the highest possible rates, and having the DAC do absolutely nothing, other than the D to A conversion. For example, I can use the poly-sinc-xtr-mp filter and noise-shaping in HQPlayer and then feed the 705.6k768k signal to the NOS1. No in-DAC FGPA [edit: meant FPGA] is going to be able to compete with this. And it's probably a good thing to keep a noisy CPU as far away from the DAC chips and output stage as possible. So I'd personally go for a DAC that allows me to do these sorts of things over something like the Yggy. Just my preference though.

 

Mani.

[Ralf11]

Thx - are FPGAs used because of small production runs?

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Thx - are FPGAs used because of small production runs?

 

I think it's because they're small, don't get too hot, and can fit inside a DAC chassis. I've read that they're not that easy to program, and hence why only a few manufacturers use them. Chord being one. I guess Schiit must be another.

 

Mani.

[crenca]

17 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Please totally ignore the NOS1a file I just posted - that's for Peter to do with what he pleases. No one else needs this file because it's FR is very far removed from the original file. So that eliminates the NOS1a from the discussion.

 

 

Good enough to tell whether what I'm hearing in the Yggy capture is really down to the Yggy. Let me share my findings:

 

1. Yggy capture vs. original file:

- less dynamic

- opening cymbals sound really grating to me, like nails on a blackboard

- overall weird holographic sound

- bass has a metallic ring

- piano sounds hollow

- general HF junk filling background

 

2. Control DAC capture vs. original file:

- less dynamic

- grey sound

- just generally boring

- none of the other qualities I'm hearing in 1

 

So, I can conclude that the grating opening cymbals, the overall weird holographic sound, the metallic bass, the hollow piano and the HF junk in background in the Yggy capture must have come from the Yggy itself and nothing else

 

Is this a valid conclusion? Happy to be shown otherwise.

 

Mani.

 

 

Well just now gave a serious listen to both files (-6db on original) focusing on the first 20 seconds of each file.  I am only willing to say that I hear a very very slight "distance" in the Yggy file - like the DAC is just a bit (tiny bit) flatter giving me a bit less warmth, fullness-of-tonality (tiny bit) and naturalness.  My first guess would be that it is not anything beyond the extra conversion through the ADC that the original file has not suffered.  If you played these two files for me and asked me what the difference was, I might conclude that the Yggy file is the 16/44 and the original is the hi res (of the identical well recorded performance).

 

In other words, I simply can not hear any "nails on blackboard", etc.  I would also suggest that the significant differences you are hearing are based in your memory of your original experience, or something (no offense intended), but count me in with those who can not hear significant differences...

[esldude]

1 hour ago, manisandher said:

 

No, not NOS1 at all. Just another DAC I had lying around (that I don't really like the sound of). I really don't want to get into a Yggy vs. another DAC discussion, so let's just stick to 'control DAC'. What's important is that it is perfectly level-matched to the Yggy's output, and has a flat FR too. We just need this file to truly understand how the replay/recording chain might be affecting the sound of all the captured files.

 

Mani.

Okay this time I did the analysis first and haven't listened.  Vs the original yes the same basic response.  Less than .1 db difference until just over 10 khz and then down by the same roughly.25 db at 20 khz.  Maybe that is the response of the Tascam. 

 

This one has maybe a bit more speed difference though I haven't worked out how much yet. 

 

Also not sure what the power is where you are.  I suspect 50 hz as this Control DAC has some 50 hz hum or what appears to be that at 50, 100 and 150 hz.  It is very low in level like -97 db or something.

 

Alright stopped and listened a bit thru headphones and a bit more thru speakers.  A bit tired here as it has been a long day, but sounds the same so far.  Again I don't know what could be sounding like a big noticeable difference.  I don't hear any difference.

 

Also for what it is worth, compared to the original file, at the FFT bin closest to 20,000 hz one DAC is down .2787 db and the other is down .2691 db.  Or within .0096 db of each other.  At 12,339 hz one is down .1001 and the other is down .1011 db.  Within .001 db  of each other. 

 

Would be nice if about 50 people listened and let us know if they hear differences and how much for some sort of data to go by.  You could leave them unlabeled, match levels and put all three up.  See what people thought of them that way.  See how many think they are the same and what common differences if any are heard.  Of course thinking you will get 50 responses is wildly unrealistic expectations going by past experience.

[PeterSt]

Guys, help me with some analysis please. What can this mean :

 

DAC                MaxLevel        Avg SPL       Track Length

Original            32399              1012             1:03.54

Ygg                  31814              773               1:00.40

NOS1a             31814              951               1:05.89

Control             31814              778               1:00.40

 

DAC : The DAC used to take the recording from.

MaxLevel : The maximum audio word value, recalculated to 16 bits (the recordings are in 24 bits).

Avg SPL : The average SPL which calculates from the level of each sample in the file, which is averaged (envision that this is used for volume normalization).

Track Length : Obtained because it influences the math when leading/trailing space is present.

 

I don't trust the MaxLevel to be the same for each of the recordings. It would mean that all DACs involved had the exact same output voltage, or that Mani was capable of setting the volume that equal (to the 1/32767th). Also notice that the different filter of each DAC will imply different audio word values to begin with, including the maximum levels (better : especially the maximum levels).

Possibly something in the recording process is soft-clipping.

 

The fact that the SPL of the original is higher is logical. This is because the MaxLevel of the original is close to the maximum allowed (32767 (plus and minus) for 16 bits) and Mani will have set the input level of the ADC so that nothing is "over".

 

It was sorted out (thank you Dennis) that Mani used a rolled off filter for his NOS1a during this recording, with the interesting fact that the SPL is something like 25% higher than the others (this is less than 3dB). However, this can be contributed to the fact that the filter used also aliases beyond 22050Hz at a level of ~ -66dB (up to 24KHz of the recording). The level of this is incorporated in the SPL math.

 

It is also logical that the SPL of the original is inherently higher (although we can not prove that by the given data) because the filter used rolls off slower than both the Ygg and Control DAC. Thus here too more "SPL" is calculated.

 

It was also sorted out that the Ygg's recording is 5.9dB lower in level than the original. This is not what the above table is telling us (with the Ygg as the base, the SPL of the original is close to 3dB more). Do notice that the "math" involved calculates per sample, and does not calculate the dB per sample or something of that kind (which would imply high rounding error).

I mention this only because we may wonder how this math is done and how the data is to be interpreted for real. "Interpreted" means : the level matching. So for example, when my software takes into account the aliasing and other software does not, the level matching is apples and oranges if such software is the base for it. It is more complicated because my software does not take into account aliasing at all BUT in this case it has to because of how the recording implies it. This is quite crucial. Look :

 

 

This is the original (filtered by some production means before it went to CD).

 

 

This is the filtering how the Ygg does it. This is on top of the original, of course.

 

 

How the Control DAC does it (looks to be the same DAC as the Ygg, but alas).

 

 

And how the NOS1a does it per Mani's filter settings of that time.

 

So as you can see, the SPL (or average dB level) is influenced massively by the filtering.

My key point is that in this special case the the math may be regarded as invalid because we play 44.1 but record in 48, which implies that the actually to be discarded part between 22050 and 24000 is now incorporated and this influences the SPL even more. You're not only seeing this when the NOS1a is compared with the others, but also when the Original is compared with Ygg and Control. Never mind that the Original ends at 22050 because it's about what is in the file and what plays. For the original plays more (level) at the end of the spectrum while for e.g. Ygg this is only very low level, which for the NOS1a is a tad more than very low level.

 

So for this particular case it will be very tough to use software means to determine the average level, hence level match properly.

 

With the above all said, what remains is that perceived clipping.

It is just guessing of course, but if soft clipping is in order indeed, all will be moot although it will depend on how often it happens. But when "often" it will influence (SQ) massively.

 

That's all.

 

 

 

 

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

Well just now gave a serious listen to both files (-6db on original) focusing on the first 20 seconds of each file.

 

That's great. Thanks.

 

2 hours ago, crenca said:

I am only willing to say that I hear a very very slight "distance" in the Yggy file - like the DAC is just a bit (tiny bit) flatter giving me a bit less warmth, fullness-of-tonality (tiny bit) and naturalness.  My first guess would be that it is not anything beyond the extra conversion through the ADC that the original file has not suffered.

 

[Highlight mine.] And it's because of this that I've included the control DAC file. If there's "a bit less warmth, bit less fullness-of-tone, and a bit less naturalness" in that file too, then we can definitely attribute these things to the replay/recording chain. I know it isn't always fun to do, but if you could get a chance to listen to the control file at some point, that would be great.

 

Mani.

[semente]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Okay this time I did the analysis first and haven't listened.  Vs the original yes the same basic response.  Less than .1 db difference until just over 10 khz and then down by the same roughly.25 db at 20 khz.  Maybe that is the response of the Tascam. 

 

This one has maybe a bit more speed difference though I haven't worked out how much yet. 

 

Also not sure what the power is where you are.  I suspect 50 hz as this Control DAC has some 50 hz hum or what appears to be that at 50, 100 and 150 hz.  It is very low in level like -97 db or something.

 

Alright stopped and listened a bit thru headphones and a bit more thru speakers.  A bit tired here as it has been a long day, but sounds the same so far.  Again I don't know what could be sounding like a big noticeable difference.  I don't hear any difference.

 

Also for what it is worth, compared to the original file, at the FFT bin closest to 20,000 hz one DAC is down .2787 db and the other is down .2691 db.  Or within .0096 db of each other.  At 12,339 hz one is down .1001 and the other is down .1011 db.  Within .001 db  of each other. 

 

Would be nice if about 50 people listened and let us know if they hear differences and how much for some sort of data to go by.  You could leave them unlabeled, match levels and put all three up.  See what people thought of them that way.  See how many think they are the same and what common differences if any are heard.  Of course thinking you will get 50 responses is wildly unrealistic expectations going by past experience.

 

You do mean that the Control DAC capture sounds the same as the Yggdrasil capture, right?

Because to me the Yggdrasil capture sounds bad when compared to the Original CD file...

 

I'll try to compare Control DAC and Yggdrasil captures today but I find the digitised version quite bad when compared to the Original.

 

R

[PeterSt]

22 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

That's all.

 

Not really;

 

Yesterday I started out with the NOS1a file, and immediately thought it sounded as poor as the Ygg file I listened to the day before. After that came the Ygg file and I heard no difference. I then played the Control file and again heard no difference.

I did deliberately not listen to the original this time.

 

I think I took care of the level matching quite precisely, but this is also why I wanted to know today how things really are in the files.

 

At this moment I don't think it is the level matching; I merely think it is my mood or pressure or stress or so, because yesterday I wanted to do it but did not really have time and the (being at) rest for it.

 

 

 

[manisandher]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

Okay this time I did the analysis [on Control DAC file] first and haven't listened.  Vs the original yes the same basic response.

 

Thanks Dennis, that's great. Yeah, we use 50Hz mains here, so well spotted. Other than the -97 dB hum, it seems the control file should be good to figure out what the replay/recording chain is adding/subtracting.

 

What I hear as common to both captured files (the Yggy file and the control DAC file) is a general flattening of dynamics, leading to less 3D instruments. And that's about it, but I'll go away and do some more listening.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

31 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Guys, help me with some analysis please. What can this mean :

 

Thanks Peter, that's phenomenal. I feel really dumb not being to help you out in any way. Sorry.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

I'll try to compare Control DAC and Yggdrasil captures today but I find the digitised version quite bad when compared to the Original.

 

Thanks R.

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Yesterday I started out with the NOS1a file, and immediately thought it sounded as poor as the Ygg file I listened to the day before. After that came the Ygg file and I heard no difference. I then played the Control file and again heard no difference.

 

Hey Peter, are you saying all three 24/48 captures sound equally bad to you, and in exactly the same way? If this is the case, and the original file still sounds OK to you, this surely points at the replay/recording chain messing things up. But others aren't hearing this (to the extent you seem to be).

 

I'm going to do some more listening myself in a short while...

 

Mani.

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, manisandher said:

Hey Peter, are you saying all three 24/48 captures sound equally bad to you, and in exactly the same way?

 

Exactly the same way ... I think so. I must honestly admit that when I don't hear the reference (which is the original for me) I already can't tell whether the cymbals are really bad or not. But the piano kept popping out as a too far hollow upside down thing. The bass seem to render fine in all cases, although it seemed to me that the control file added some nice touch to it with the twist of a hand I did not hear before. But this can be imagination as the longer you listen to things which are the same, the more you will be hearing (I listened to each only once, but the Control file was the last one).

 

So the piano is (has to be) the killing feature.

 

I am now thinking how to approach a next listening session. So yesterday I avoided the Original just not to be influenced by that (and be annoyed by all of the others). Maybe today I must listen and concentrate on the three others (so NOS1a too), be highly annoyed and at the very end try the original. But I already know how that will go : I will like the original because I recall I liked it.

 

Haha, I organized an audio show here for upcoming Saturday (tomorrow). I might play the files in front of all (blind). It is really such a kind of show anyway where people told about what they want to hear in advance (which I all prepared) me setting better versions against them (like they come up with great remasters which appear to be not so great ).

[manisandher]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Haha, I organized an audio show here for upcoming Saturday (tomorrow).

 

My invitation must have got stuck in the post. This seems to happen to so often for me...

 

Mani.

[manisandher]

I've just taken a good long listen to the four files multiple times on my main system. And I'm pretty much sticking with the way I've described the differences all along. Namely:

 

1. Original 16/44.1 file:

- nice full-bodied instruments

- rounded instruments, with sort of 'wooden' tone

- leading attacks of instruments (hits, plucks, strikes, etc) do not dominate

- nice depth of field

- really nothing annoying at all

 

2. Yggy capture vs. original file:

- slightly flattened and less dynamic

- sharper opening cymbals (especially final strike - still gets my ears)

- instruments have nowhere near the same body

- general 'sheen' to the sound

- more 'metallic' tone to instruments

 

3. Control DAC capture vs. original file:

- slightly flattened and less dynamic

- pretty close in tonality, though more 'washed out'

- nothing annoying, but nothing to write home about either

 

4. NOS1 capture vs. original file:

- depth of field closer than other captures, but still not there

- pretty close in tonality

 

That's how I'm hearing things here. I would happily bet my house that I could distinguish between any of the 3 captures and the original file. But that might be down to something as simple as my playback DAC handling 44.1k and 48k rates slightly differently. Would I be confident in distinguishing between the 3 captures? In the way I've just listened to them (i.e. sighted), the differences really do seem real and consistent. But in a blind test, I'm just not sure.

 

Mani.

 

 

[semente]

2 hours ago, manisandher said:

 

Hey Peter, are you saying all three 24/48 captures sound equally bad to you, and in exactly the same way? If this is the case, and the original file still sounds OK to you, this surely points at the replay/recording chain messing things up. But others aren't hearing this (to the extent you seem to be).

 

I'm going to do some more listening myself in a short while...

 

Mani.

 

I had mentioned this:

 

14 hours ago, semente said:

 

I find the digitised output of the Yggy too bad. I should have listened to the Control file to see if there was a consistency in badness but to be honest I don't believe that the Yggy can be that bad.

[gmgraves]

Hey, guys; how many angels can you fella's fit on the head of that pin, anyway?Looks infinite from where I'm sitting!

[semente]

I've compared the Control DAC and Yggdrasil captures through the speakers.

For me it's a close call, perhaps the Control is a bit "lighter" in tone whilst the Yggdrasil's highs sound "fuzzier" and a bit "harsher".

Both sound awful compared to the Original CD extraction.