Just got a Yggdrasil!

[crenca]

10 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

I am pretty sure that the AD5791 is considered a high resolution DAC chip.

 

In what way (I assume you don't mean mathematically - perhaps you do) is this a debate about "resolution"?  Do you mean the resolution of the analogue output (in that "sounds like" Hi-Fi review sort of way)?

[crenca]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Some of you guys may not know, but recently Schiit got into an internet battle with John Atkinson (senior editor at Stereophile) who tweeted that the Yggdrasil was obsolete. Jason Stoddard blew a gasket and demanded that Atkinson amend the tweet, who stood by his statement. So Stoddard called up their Stereophile ad manager to make a last minute change to a certain ad placement:

 

 

Interesting.  On the one hand, I am glad to see JA stand for his editorial independence.  On the other hand, I wonder about his ability to evaluate things digital.  Certainly his (and all the rest of his editors) perspective on MQA (i.e. "birth of a new world", unwillingness to evauate it from a consumer and industry viewpoint, etc.) is skewed to say the least.  

 

I wonder what his stance is on all the tube based equipment that his publication rates as "class A" is...

 

[crenca]

"Gungnir Multibit: Above and Beyond
Choose Gungnir Multibit, and you get the same proprietary closed-form DSP-based digital filter as Yggdrasil, coupled to four precision Analog Devices AD5781BRUZ digital to analog converters for true hardware balancing and 19 effective bits of resolution. The analog section is completed with discrete JFET buffers and summers, the same as Yggdrasil."

 

This from the Schiit page.  Anyone have any comments on the "precision" of the 5781 vs. the 5791 used in the Yggy?

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

Comments? It's an 18 bit DAC chip.

 

So you believe in both cases (yggy and gungnir) Schiit is overstating the theoretical resolution by 1?

 

[crenca]

9 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Schiit are straight up heretics to the Pharisees over at Stereophile.  They've killed a LOT of other companies DAC products with their demonstratively disruptive DAC line.  Look how long it's taking for iFi to roll out the new iDSD Pro.  They're more than a year behind their original release date.  Is the Yggy the "end all" DAC?  Certainly not.  Is it one of the best sounding DACs available at its price?  I think so, and they're certainly sold a lot of them and even more Gumbys and Mimbys.  Might someone thinking about spending $5,000 on a DAC settle for a Yggy?  Quite possibly.  And THAT is what the "old guard" audiophile companies really hate about Schiit.

 

One dig I have about Schiit DACs:  the USB interfaces are electrically fragile.  I've had the USB board replaced in my Yggy and I've encountered a surprising number of others reporting the same thing about Yggys and Gumbys.  Since I got an iFi iLink, I just stopped using the USB port and stopped worrying about it.  And I think S/PDIF or AES/EBU sounds better on the Yggy anyway.

 

 

 

The only Schiit DAC I have tried is the Modi Uber, which IMO had a bad case of "digititus" -  more than any other budget DAC I have tried (not that I have tried even a small % of what is out there of course).  I have enjoyed their HP amps and am currently using their Saga pre-amp however.  The best "budget" DAC I have owned (and currently use) is IFi's Micro line.  Heck, even their $199 Nano is too good for it's price point.  IMO (very ear dependent of course), iFi makes the best "budget" DAC's, surpassing most (if not all - not that I have tried most of them) sub $1k dacs (perhaps the Chord Mojo being the exception).  

 

However, I have as of late been considering ordering a Gungir multibit just for the heck

 

Your point about iFi and Schiit being direct competitors (and "heretics" to obscenely over-priced Hi-Fi as championed by Stereophile) is well taken.

[crenca]

7 hours ago, earnmyturns said:

Delta-sigma DACs are DSD natives, they have to do mess with PCM before they can convert it.

R2R DACs are PCM natives, they need to go through hoops to handle DSD.

Most DACs people use to are delta-sigma, so no surprise that other things being equal they do better with DSD. It does not follow that DSD is also better for R2R DACs, in fact I'd be kind of surprised it were given the (lossy) contortions needed. I own a Yggy (R2R) and I have a Holo Spring level 3 on order (also R2R, but very different design from the Yggy). The Holo Spring process DSD, but reviewers have uniformly preferred its NOS PCM mode.

 

 

Be sure to write a review/comparison when you have a chance to!

 

Anyone else compare these two side by side?

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Auralic seem to have made better ones

 

Mani.

 

Perhaps "seem" is the key word.  I would not be surprised if the basic AKM chip in the $99 Schiit Modi (or the DAC in my cell phone, or the one in my budget AVR) had measurements that were much closer to the Auralic Altair than the Yggy.  Indeed, is not that one of the central accomplishments and strengths of relatively low priced chip based delta sigma dacs?

 

Yet, we don't usually claim that these trump everything else.

 

Look at me ma!  I am arguing from the subjectivist side of things!!

 

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

It's a......... DAC.  I would have looked at you like that too.  I know a few DACs have them (Sonica comes immediately to mind), but most don't. 

 

While I agree, the market appears to be moving towards a DAC/volume-preamp/remote/and even streaming (network enabled) convergence at the, say sub $5k level.

 

Think of those iFi products you and I love that do most of these things...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Oddly, the iDAC2 (the only one in the class without a battery, making it the obvious desktop choice) only provides volume control for the headphone out, not line out.

 

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

DACs with volume control makes a lot of sense to me. I usually have a single digital source and single analog output. 

 

In an increasingly digital source world, the DAC/preamp/network convergence makes a lot of sense.  It appears you can do it at a very very high level, perhaps only the last 1% or so smidgen of sound quality being reserved for separate box, and very expensive solutions...

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

Then what does your Pre-Amp do?   Or is it part of your DAC...hence the Volume control?

 

Well, in my computer speaker setup, I have a pre-amp solely so I can roll tubes.  It's almost a toy - a DAC/pre-amp(i.e.volume, inputs, etc.)/network box would actually make more sense...probably is one out there that is tubified...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I actually believe the last 1% can only be achieved with built-in volume control (analog or digital). A preamp adds another set of cables and a lot of circuitry to traverse just to control volume. 

 

I believe you are right, but the top crust audiophile gear philosophy believes in separating power supplies/function/etc. as much as possible (thus separate boxes), and they seem to believe that very expensive cables add to the sound quality so....

[crenca]

11 hours ago, earnmyturns said:

1. Pass-fail is relative. For the purposes of adversarial testing, it's enough that your target look worse than some appropriately chosen benchmark. I'm pretty familiar with adversarial testing in other areas of technology and I can smell its signs. But I can't read anyone's mind for their intent.

2. This is also relative. Not all potential advertisers are worth the same to a publisher, and an editorial attack on competitor A might make more valuable competitors B and C more kindly inclined to the publisher. Strategic thinking breaching the old-fashioned "wall" between editorial and advertising has become pretty common, as anyone who follows the news about the downward spiral of traditional publishing will have read. In any particular instance, again who's to read minds?

 

Concerning #1, are not the published measurements of DAC's, amps, etc. By Stereophile and others widely regarded as "non-controversial"?  In other words for #1 to be true then would we have read the arguments from an EE perspective (perhaps there out there and someone can point me to them)?

 

I do understand that JA's measurements of speakers are controversial.  For example I have read Andrew Jones (of Elac and TAD fame) criticize them a bit (can't locate that right now) as have others...

[crenca]

1 minute ago, manisandher said:

 

 

It's a standard test that JA subjects every DAC to. The Yggy struggled in a way that very few other DACs have.

 

 

 

Is this particular test controversial from an EE perspective?  Up until now, I thought that the general consensus was that JA's testing methodology for DAC's and amp's was fairly non-controversial, and his testing methodology for speakers somewhat controversial (like I said upstream I have read multiple complaints/nitpicks from the like of Andrew Jones and others).

 

Off the top of my head, it does seem strange to test a DAC into a 600 ohm load does it not?  

[crenca]

12 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

No, I don't think it is at all. Putting a component under a stress test can be quite insightful.

 

Mani.

 

Ok, I can see how in general pushing something beyond its design limit reveals...its limitations??  But what does this particular test (a DAC "driving" a 600 ohm line out load) reveal?  In the real world, a DAC will never do this sort of thing as far as I am aware - sort of like hooking up a compact car to a 10,000 lb trailer and say "see, it can barely get moving and it overheats real quick and...".  Well yea, of course.  This is not really much of an insight.

 

Is this test just designed to show that some DAC designs have not overbuilt it's analogue output section to an n'th degree (in this case a 600 ohm n'th degree) and this reveals what sort of insights - that some DAC's have an overbuilt output section?

 

By the way I have no dog in this fight - I have not heard the Yggy and have no need to defend it but I am wondering what this sort of "stress" test is supposed to reveal and why a consumer would care.

[crenca]

1 minute ago, manisandher said:

 

I see it more of a 'Nürburgring time' sort of test. It's not particularly relevant to the way most owners would use the car on a day-to-day basis, but does sort the men from the boys.

 

Mani.

 

 

But..but...but...  why?  Why does this particular test "sort the men from the boys"??  In what conceivable world would a DAC drive a 600ohm load?  When the preamp/integraded/active speakers it is supply a signal to is malfunctioning?? Are DAC's directly driving headphones or something out there?

 

Anyone want to take a stab at this question - I don't mean to pick on Mani here but as far as I can tell this test of JA's is asking for something irrelevant from the consumers point of view...

[crenca]

8 minutes ago, Tone Deaf said:

 

It is a fair test.  It isn't that common, but some preamps do have very low input impedances, and performance into that load would be very useful to know in that case.

 

http://www.stereophile.com/content/dartzeel-nhb-18ns-preamplifier-measurements#qyA0jjObyeAs1I0Z.97

 

"The input impedance was an extremely low 640 ohms, while the output impedance was a high 2500 ohms at low and midrange frequencies, rising to 3080 ohms at 20kHz. The input impedance is too low for many source components to give their best performance, the output impedance a little high for some power amplifiers."
 

 

 

Thanks Tone Deaf - I was not aware anyone produced pre-amps with such a rating - is this (as Samuel T notes) really something that should be allowed for in a design?  Is the standard really 10,000 k ohms and if so, is this example of yours simply the exception that proves the rule?

 

Seems like to me that we (or rather JA's test - perhaps it is not "his" however and is an industry standard expectation??) are asking for too much - we are asking for the compact car to be designed to pull a 10k trailer even though no one does this except a handful of yahoo's...

 

In other words, I am still not seeing why a consumer (well, all but a tiny handful) would care about this test - it seems to be a "gotcha" of some sort.  Is there a valid EE reason why a consumer would want their DAC to drive a 600 ohm load as easily as a standard 10K one?

[crenca]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Yes

 

 

That is what I thought - is there a class of "vintage" audiophile gear that does not meet this standard and thus the old audiophile guys for whom is JA's target audience expect DAC's to be able to go beyond the spec?

 

What is the reason for this test?

[crenca]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

That JA wanted to show that the Yggy belonged with the "boys", and not the "men"?

 

But he does this test on every DAC he measures, right?  This test is not about the Yggy - it must be something else...

[crenca]

7 minutes ago, Tone Deaf said:

 

I doubt one would ever see such performance in solid state designs, but such performance pops up occasionally in tube designs, more so in the less expensive and additionally some of the esoteric designs such as the one I referenced.  

 

You are likely correct that most consumers wouldn't care about this test.  However most consumers also don't read Stereophile.  If I were a tube sort of listener, I would want to know the results of this test.  I'm with Mani regarding the validity of it.

 

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

If anyone would test exotic, high ticket, boutique gear, it would be JA.  I say again that for the Yggy, the test is meaningless because the boutique space is not where Schiit plays.  Think more Head-Fi and less The Absolute Sound.

 

 

Thanks - I almost mentioned tube gear.  Anyone know of any current tube gear (or any other kind) that sells more than a 100 units annually with line in's under say, 2k ohm that someone would conceivably plug a DAC into?

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

 

It's interesting, he does indeed perform the 600 ohm test on all DACs, which most simply coast through. For the Yggy, he made a concession (due no doubt to its poor performance into 600 ohms), and did the test into 100k too:

 

 

Not surprisingly, the Yggy is worse into 100k than the Altair is into 600 ohms.

 

Mani.

 

Now that is interesting - so this reveals (if I understand it correctly) that the performance revealed by the test is not about the ohm rating but something else entirely - it is not even correlated to the ohm rating...

[crenca]

14 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I'm not sure what you're saying. The test is about the harmonic distortion of the DAC - you can see that all the distortion peaks are multiples of the 50Hz fundamental. Most DACs have reasonably low distortion even into punishing 600 ohm loads. But the Yggy showed terrible performance into 600 ohms, so he seems to have given it another go into a benign 100k.

 

Mani.

 

Yes, but the Yggy showed "terrible" performance into 100K ohms as well - worse than the Altair into 600 ohms.  This seems to indicate (if I am not mistaken) that it is not about the ohm rating at all (the Yggy is "terrible" no matter the ohm load and the Altair is good/acceptable/normal/expected no matter the ohm rating).  

 

If it is not about the ohm rating than the test revealed this performance difference "by accident" as it were.  What am I missing?  A whole lot know doubt

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

No, I don't think the Yggy's performance into 100k is "terrible". Below average for sure.

 

Mani.

 

 

Just using the word you used  

 

Is this harmonic distortion worse/similar than those tubeified DAC's (e.g. Lampizator) I wonder?

[crenca]

Just now, manisandher said:

 

But I was referring to the Yggy's 600 ohm performance, and not its 100k ohm performance. I never mentioned anything like "terrible 100k performance", because I don't think it is.

 

Mani.

 

 

 

Ah, I see.  Still, it is certainly more than typical for modern SD chip designs.  I wonder if it is comparable to these tubeified DAC's...

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

In all the Schiit bashing, I wonder if it's occurred to any bashers that perhaps Schiit's designs anticipated tests like the ones run by JA (the Ragnarok certainly comes to mind) and were intentionally designed to fail the tests.

 

Maybe the joke's on JA?

 

Perhaps the disdain by the old school audiophile elite is a badge of honor for Jason and Mike?

 

That Ragnarok measurement is a head scratcher for sure.  The truth is that Jason and Mike are definitively stepping out of the normal design box.  I for one appreciate it because how else do you innovate?  The fact that neither the Ragnarok nor the Yggy measure "normally" or "well" given their designs can mean more than one thing, but the measurements used I think are not trivial - they do correlate well historically with better/good sound and are in the main non-controversial.  The fact that both are well regarded and are generally reviewed as sounding at the top of the class as far as their price points go also is important obviously.

 

 

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

"hate" is hyperbole.  I question his motives for posting in this thread, no doubt.

 

You have to understand the context:  Schiit products are specifically designed and sold to a market segment that is disillusioned with the stodgy "old school" of audiophilia.  I think a very strong case can be made that the "old school" embraces overpriced gear and there is a certain snob factor....

 

 

I wonder what Schiit could accomplish with their out-of-the-box designs for a bit more money (just for arguments sake, say double the price)?  I was reading about their new HP amp Jotunheim which also has an unusual circuit from an EE perspective {this also speaks against the idea that Schiit do these unusual designs out of a personal motive against the "audiophile" world and JA in particularity - has JA ever measured a HP anything?}.  Given Schiit's market, they need to do things on a certain budget/cost level, and as we all know if you can afford to through more engineering and parts quality resources at a problem you can (but not always) come up with better results.  If they could price their gear at a higher price point would it measure better?