Just got a Yggdrasil!

[Jud]

16 hours ago, GUTB said:

It's widely reported that the Yggdrasil requires 7 days of burn-in, and then it should be left on at all times to avoid it having to re-gain optimal thermal equilibrium.

 

The Yggdrasil's AD5791BRUZ is low resolution but very accurate DAC chip. In conjunction with Schiit's closed-form filters and advanced clocking I could definitely see how it could be compelling.

 

 

 

Advanced clocking depends; they don't do anything different with USB, and I haven't seen measurements for SPDIF.

[Jud]

33 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

What DACs have higher resolution than 21 bits? All the math is done at 32 bits and rounded down to 21 bits just before it is sent to the DAC chip.

 

It's rounded to 24 bits if at all.  21 bits has to do with dynamic range above the noise floor, not internal math.  21 bits is starting to get down into the thermal noise of the equipment.

[Jud]

Just now, GUTB said:

 

The MSB V Diamond can do 26-bit for example.

 

They must have a hurricane at their backs, have a very abnormally high top output, or liquid nitrogen cooling.  Otherwise normal thermal noise would tend to swamp the lower bits of that claimed dynamic range.

[Jud]

35 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Mike said, over on Head-Fi, said "DSP processor in all Schiit multibit gear is 32 bit, waaaaaay overkill". He went on to say that, for the 16-bit DACs,  "the data is rounded to 16 bits" before being sent to the DAC chip. Based on comments over on SBAF made by by Jason Stoddard, they round to 21 bits in Yggdrasil. This was in response to a discussion regarding comments made by John Atkinson of Stereo Review in regards to Yggdrasil an truncating to 21 bits. Jason said they rounded, not truncated.

 

I read Jason's comments at Head-Fi, where he has his own area.

 

It is true the Yggdrasil (and any other DAC reducing bits on the way from processing to output) uses rounding rather than truncation, mathematically speaking.  I'm guessing (just a guess) that the discussion of 21 bits has to do with dynamic range rather than internal math, but I'm certainly ready to learn otherwise if you can give me a handy link.

[Jud]

6 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

I wrote to Nick at Schiit Audio and asked him about this. He told me that Mike said that they round down to 20 bits before they pass the data to the DAC chip.

 

Thanks, 21 just sounded odd to me.

 

(OK, really bad pun there....)

[Jud]

12 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

Mike came back and told me this:

 

"Two phase halves summed yield an extra 6 db (1 Bit) of resolution."

 

So there is the 21st bit for Yggy and the 19th bit for Gumby!

 

http://m.electronicdesign.com/analog/when-1-1-3-db-averaging-adc-channels-improve-nsd

[Jud]

6 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

I have to laugh. You realize that is an SNR of 158.28.....if you believe that number, I have a bridge I well sell you, cheap!

 

Yes, but please realize that is exactly the same theoretical max calculation (individual chip bits plus extra for summing multiple balanced channels) from which the Yggdrasil 21 bit figure is derived.  So whatever the actual Yggy noise floor/dynamic range figure is in real world measurements, the simple 21-bit calculation doesn't give you that answer.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

SPDIF and AES/EBU sound better than USB, anyway.

 

As always, this depends on individual implementations.  USB can obtain lower jitter numbers, SPDIF doesn't have to deal with data packets, power conductor in the cable, etc.  Specific implementations deal with these disadvantages more or less successfully.

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Auralic seem to have made better ones

 

Mani.

 

In terms of certain measurements and the listening preferences of some people, yes.  De gustibus non disputandem and all that.

 

Said in defense of both your preference for other DACs and information marshalled in support of same, and others' preference for Yggy and information marshalled in support of it.

[Jud]

33 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I now have the Yggy and have played master files of tracks I was there during the recording and mixing process and couldn't disagree any more strongly with Mani. This DAC is superb. Let's not relitigate this topic again. Pointless.

 

People gonna talk.  As long as folks understand we're discussing preferences, we should be OK.

[Jud]

Have noticed a tendency for users to rate down each other's posts if they're arguing, as "tit for tat."  Reminded me of this:

 

 

[Jud]

47 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I've given your post a 'like' .

 

Mani.

 

Was hoping SR would too, but maybe he doesn't like the Simpsons.

[Jud]

47 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

That person even gave this post a negative:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/29662-discussion-of-ac-mains-isolation-transformers-started-wposts-moved-from-quotlps-1-troubleshootingquot-thread/?do=findComment&comment=645988

 

Too funny but not surprising.....

 

Was that before or after you "disliked" a bunch (or is it all?) his posts in this thread?

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

+1

 

Besides, we need USB for DSD.

 

There is actually SDIF (not SPDIF) for DSD, but it's not common.

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

More than that, I believe it's proprietary (?)

 

Whenever the search function for the forum is up to it, you can see posts from people who had SDIF-3 inputs built for them in order to play DSD files.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Here are some search results:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/search/?&q=sdif3&sortby=relevancy

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/search/?&q=sdif-3

 

Thank you (and apologies for not checking out the search function more thoroughly myself before posting).

[Jud]

13 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

Are Mani and JA the same dude?   Has anybody seen these two?

 

They should be easy to spot....their ears will appear to made of Sn.

 

 

You wish you had his audio system.

 

And I have heard and liked Yggy (and owned various Mike Moffat DACs for about 25 years).

[Jud]

5 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

Yes, I saw that - I need at least 3 inputs and ability to switch between them by remote.

 

Not sure if the Teacs have that, but you might explore them.

[Jud]

18 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I have lots of 1st world problems...

 

The odd thing is that remote operation couldn't cost them more than few bucks per unit.  Maybe they thought it was too much Schiit.

 

Jason Stoddard actually posted their reasoning for not doing so at Head-Fi, but I don't remember what he said.

[Jud]

18 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Looking at a selection of 15 DACs in my room right now, only five don't have volume control. Yggy, Bifrost, Emm Labs DA2 and D2X, and Audio Research DAC 9. 

 

The first DAC Mike built for Theta came with or without volume control, customer choice.

[Jud]

15 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

The Benchmark DAC has a Volume control - in fact it is a "hybrid" Volume control for both digital and analog sources - maybe it is 2 ganged together(??)

 

AFAIK, the idea is that a digital volume control reduces volume by tossing out bits - a big no-no... no?

 

Depends how many bits you start with.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

You should really listen to gear before condemning it based on measurements that you don't seem to understand.

 

He did.

 

This is not intended to comment on audibility of what's shown on the graphs, just to point out that mani indeed did listen to the Yggy for some time, as he's mentioned in this thread and others.  He wound up not liking it; again, I'm not intending to comment on whether anything shown in the graphs could have been the reason.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

We know that they round off to 20 bits. They do not truncate. We also know they get an effective 21 bits of resolution because they use 2 DAC chips (4 when using balanced mode).

 

Right, but as I mentioned before, this is a mathematical measure and not necessarily the actual dynamic range available from the DAC.  For that you'd need to measure the actual noise floor and determine to what extent if at all listeners can hear into that noise floor.

 

 I am not sure the dynamic range of the DAC is even that meaningful, but it's one of those topics that seems to come up a lot with Yggy (since people tend to talk about specs and anything unusual).

[Jud]

4 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

To me, that quote is analogous to: "It's OK to believe in Santa Claus if you want.  No one has proven he doesn't exist".  It gives quarter to believers in audiophile magic.

 

Actually that quote was recited by the Audio Precision representative at an RMAF seminar I attended.  He wasn't wearing a beard and red outfit, either!   

 

https://www.ap.com/

[Jud]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

To turn it another way, you must think all measurements matter?

 

If one component has noise at -150 dB and another at -140 dB, does it actually matter?

 

2 hours ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

Not to a normal person. However, there are probably a few people here who would lose sleep over this sort of thing.

 

Noise only 140dB down?  Those bastards!