Just got a Yggdrasil!

[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. 

[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".

[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.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

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

 

Clipping, I suspect/

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

 

Uhm, Mani, I think George says the same. He too thinks the difference is outrageous (and seeks for an explanation, which I possibly just gave ?).

 

Don't misquote me. I said that I hear what he's talking about. I did not say that the difference was "outrageous". I also said that The great difference in volume made it impossible for me tell either the cause of the distortion, or it's magnitude.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

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 

 

I can but I haven't. 

[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!

[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!

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, esldude said:

 

16,777,215 I would say. 

 

Is that how many posts there are about The ADC mani used to make his test recordings to show that his eggy isn't very good? I knew it was a lot, but...

 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, esldude said:

Do you know how many recordings are made with the kind of miking and limited track mixing so there is even a possibility of realistic 3-dimensions (which actually you really are only talking about 2 dimensions)?  The number is a tiny percentage not even a majority of 1 % of all recordings.  If the large majority of your music library is made of such it is very, very unusual.  Not impossible, I don't know what you have, but unusual to the point of being unlikely.

 

For instance of the two you asked us about, only one has the chance, and that is the Chesky.  The other was recorded in a way it could never have that highly dimensional soundstage as part of it other than as an effect.  The effect could be pretty convincing, but actually not what was recorded.  A case of judging recordings thinking you are doing so by fidelity when actually it is simply by preference.

 

Three dimensional recordings, of the kind you are talking about, are very rare. Esldude hit the nail squarely on the head, there. To achieve true three-dimensionality requires a true stereo miking technique (for that's what three-dimensional recordings really are, they are stereo recordings). One cannot sprinkle a forest of microphones about an ensemble and get stereo. No. What you get under those conditions is multi-channel mono. There is a reason for doing it this way; actually there are more than one reason for doing it that way. First of all one has to realize that recordings aren't made for audiophiles. In order to reach as large an audience as possible, recordings are generally made to the lowest common denominator and it has always been that way. IOW, most listeners may be music lovers but they don't really care about "high-fidelity" in the way that we audiophiles understand it, and their listening equipment reflects that and always has. So-called Boom-boxes, and all-in-one systems, CD and media players, the size of an old clock radio, in-car stereos, people's desktop computer systems; these are the order of the day, and most classical recordings are specifically aimed and engineered to be listened to on these devices. The second reason is that, counterintuitive as this may sound, it's cheaper to throw up a mess of microphones and close-mike the individual instruments or instrumental ensembles. That way, they can bring in the uber expensive talent, get the performance down on multi-track media and get the talent out of there (and off the clock) as soon as possible. Then the producers and engineers can sit at the recording console and fiddle with the balances and added "ambience effects", vacillating between different mixes 'till their hearts' content. 

 

With pop and jazz, there is another reason. Unless the ensemble is playing purely acoustic instruments, the performance often does not even exist in what we would call real-time. Electric Guitars and electronic keyboard instruments are generally not recorded out of their accompanying amp/speakers. but are usually plugged directly into the mixing board. The musicians usually hear what they are playing through headphones with the only miked instruments being the drum kit. Even real acoustic instruments such as saxophones and or trumpets are usually "Frapped" (connected to the recording console via contact microphones which are mechanically connected directly to the body of the instrument. The only stereo one can get from this arrangement is for the recording engineer to electronically place the instrument somewhere between all the way left stage to all the way right stage. That gives a sound field that stretches in a single line across an artificial soundstage. There is no depth in this arrangement at all . And finally, we have jazz. For some reason, ever since the dawn of stereo recording, jazz has been recorded in three channel mono, with the "featured player" in the center, and backup spread left, right, and center. No 3D sound stage there!

[gmgraves]

19 hours ago, semente said:

Room reverberance and loudness can affect the sense of depth.

If we place the mics in the first 3rd of a largish room and two sound sources, one close and one far from the mic, we will get a sense of depth.

But recordings are rarely done this way, even less so if they are made in a studio where close- multi-mic'ing is the norm.

 

R

 

Most "reverb" or ambience is artificial these days and added digitally by equipment from Lexicon and others. 

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, GUTB said:

Yes, it does look like the Bifrost. It said Yggdrasil and Ragnarok in the equipment list, but no Ragnarok was in sight.

 

Very impressive clarity for such an inexpensive system. Ironically, the $2.9k Salk3 towers in the Schiit room sounded much better than the Exoticas in the Salk room. For those of you guys who don't believe in / care about soundstage depth would be very impressed by it. I fear it would end up being fatiguing though, but that's just an unfounded opinion, no way to know that for sure unless you listen to it for a length of time. I don't even to qualify that with "for the price". Criticism is that the system may lack some body / heft.

 

 

 

 

 

No Yggy either!

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, GUTB said:

In my researched opinion, it seems that depth comes down to linearity of the amp and speaker load and room interaction. Basically, a highly linear amp (like a SET) running speakers that don't brutalize the signal / time signals through their crossover network is the key. Unless the room is treated to block destructive modes you won't hear it either. So, my Zu Omen Mk.IIs with it's high end caps and silver wiring struggle to display ANY depth of stage -- almost none. But my Fritz Carbon VII SEs with a direct cap less crossover has much more depth rendering capability. Those same Carbon VIIs on the class D amp (D-Sonic, Pascal-based) had their soundstage almost completely crushed.

 

While that is true, there is no depth (or height) to a reproduced image unless it is present in the recording. THEN if your playback equipment is up to snuff, you will hear a stereo image where you can aurally pick out the location of any instrument in the ensemble, both left to right and front to back and in a well recorded stereo recording, you can even tell (in an orchestral recording) whether the brass, at the back of the orchestra, is on risers or not, and the triangle will float above the percussion section, just as it does in a live performance. Such is to be said of phase coherent microphone technique (and that cannot be faked in the recording studio). 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, bigbob said:

 

 Take for example, as a devoted fan of the Grateful Dead, we basically knew where the different players stood during a performance.

 

With a good Charlie Miller 24/96 mastered soundboard recording, I can see Jerry, Bobby and Phil right where they belong on the "soundstage". My head becomes surrounded by the sound as if I were standing in the middle of the arena/concert hall.

 

During the 1974 tour with the famous "Wall of Sound" the placement of the performers is so accurate, you feel like you know when Bobby steps forward, or Jerry steps back...It is uncanny how Owsley Stanley could get such wonderful music. They were Audiophile musicians, surrounded by an Audiophile crew and followed by Audiophile fans.

Only Frank Zappa comes close to their perfection in live performances

 

With rock recordings, the position of the players is ALWAYS pan-potted to their stage locations by the recording engineer. That is not stereo, it's multi-channel monaural sound. 

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, bigbob said:

 

 

Obviously not a true Dead head...

 

Audience recordings were always made with a pair of stereo microphones, atop a tall stand, usually recorded on a Sony D-5 cassette recorder.

As for the soundboards, they were a mix down from the master reels, from the sound board--where the Bear controlled the levels.

 

Every show in circulation has nomenclature like this in the info.txt file:

"Recording Info:(FOB) Sennheiser 441 + (1) Neumann U87 -> Cassette Master (Nakamichi 550) -> Dat (48k)"  --or--

"Recording Info: SBD -> Master Reel -> Dat"

 

Here is one from the 1974--Wall of Sound:

 

"Aud MC > WAV > CD > EAC > SHN
 Recorded by Jerry Moore near the rear of the floor, close to center axis with Sony ECM-99 Stereo mic (on metal pole) > Sony  
152 deck. Maxell UD-120 cassettes, with Dolby B ON.
 Analog > Digital by David Minches January, 2003
Master Cassettes played back on Nak Dragon > ART DI/O > HD >  
Cool Edit 2000 > Feurio (CD)"

 

 

 

Well, You are right, I'm NOT a deadhead nor am I a fan of any rock performer or group. To me rock (with very few exceptions), is simply not music. And I assumed that when I spoke of rock recordings, the context should have alerted the reader to the fact that I was talking about COMMERCIAL, studio, multitrack recordings not some compact cassette recording from a consumer stereo mike (I used to own a ECM-99) at a live concert. Yes, if an overall stereo mike was used (even a little consumer electret stereo mike from Sony, you will get true stereo (but with the "99", not much bass).  

[gmgraves]

22 hours ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

I love this! Curious as to who the exceptions are. What do you think of rap and hip hop?

 

I don't mind some of what the Beach Boys did, I also enjoyed some Jefferson Airplane (especially their "Surrealistic Pillow" album).  And there were a couple of tunes by Crosby, Stills and Nash. OTOH, I have heard none of these in more than 40 years, and certainly don't own any of these songs. Rap and hip-hop? Popular music degenerated to it's most primitive form. Doggerel poetry to an elementary rock beat. To me it's a clear sign of musical entropy in a society that's in serious retrograde! You asked. Don't get mad at me if you don't like the answer.

 

 

[gmgraves]

17 hours ago, mansr said:

Not caring for rock and pop is one thing. Calling it "not music" is more than a little elitist regardless of background.

 

I said it wasn't music TO ME! I.E, it's my OPINION. has the world become so P.C. now that all opinions contrary to those of the Hoi Polloi are now considered elitist? Fie on that!

[gmgraves]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

We'll I assume you know what they said about Schoenberg in the day

Hip hope eschews tone for rhythm i.e. african rather than european in origin ... and then there are the words. I'd say most definately *not* to an elementary rock beat, but you need to understand syncopation (at the most basic level) to even to begin to understand this from a technical POV.

You aren't alone. I've tried to get some of my hardcore classical friends to understand, and their neural networks just don't work that way.

 

I guess my neural network doesn't work that way either. When I hear somebody else's RAP or hip-hop (usually very loudly [with bass so loud it makes one nauseated] when their car pulls up next to mine at a stop light) all I want to do is get away from them and IT. And I can at least listen to Schoenberg without making a dive for the mute control to make it stop!

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The part about the doggerel poetry I suppose could be a matter of opinion, but the "elementary rock beat" is factually wrong.  It shows that you haven't actually listened before writing, figuring (I would guess) that attempting to be provocative is sufficient cover for intellectual laziness.

 

C'mon Jud, Why should I care about something that I don't like? Rock beat, some other beat, what's the difference? Would you be correcting me if I had just left the word "rock" out and said that it was an "elementary beat"? No, I don't listen to either genres, but that doesn't mean I haven't heard them. That popular music has devolved to this, does make me sad. Instead of the higher aspirations of man raising the level of pop culture, the lower aspirations has dragged pop culture down, in my opinion. and that depresses me. 

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

George, ignore that and try listening to the pbs series on recording technologies, which has some rap and hip-hop at the end.

 

I'd venture that any rap on pbs would be ... um... elevated (if not boosted, or lifted).

 

I'm not fond of rap either, but I acknowledge the honesty & innovation in that genre

 

I watched that series. Was profoundly disappointed by it. All they talked about is pop music and those who make it. Even though I watched the whole series, I found nothing in it for me. Just ennui.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Haha ... peace out ... @bigbob, you and @gmgraves are just going to have to agree to disagree... you're heads are just in different planes, literally... 

 

Let me say that "Bigbob" is entitled to his opinions and his taste. I wouldn't presume for a moment to change it or them. I was unaware that (hopefully lawful) stereo recordings of the "Dead" were made at concerts and stand corrected on that point. But since I wasn't talking about recordings at concerts, but was, instead, talking about about studio-bound pop recordings, my point still stands. Each instrument is separately recorded to it's own track, and that is NOT stereo (by definition as opposed to marketing), it is multi-channel mono. 

[gmgraves]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, George, I would still correct you, because one of the "signatures" of rap and hip-hop is complex polyrhythms.  They impressed Miles Davis, who knew something about polyrhythms.  So yep, you haven't actually listened. Does it matter?  Only to the extent you care if you have credibility.

 

I only need credibility in so far as making a decision that I do or don't like something, just like anybody else. IOW, that's my opinion. Not an absolute, universal condemnation of the genres, just my absolute condemnation of them. Another example: I despise brussels sprouts but love cabbage. Do I need to know why? Do I need to study why? I don't think so. I've tried brussels sprouts, in, I believe, every way that it is possible to prepare them (even raw) and I can't stomach them. End of analysis.

 

I have heard rap and hip-hop to the extent that I know that there is nothing in either genre for me. Do I need to study them, dissect them, technically or culturally, or justify my personal taste to you or anyone else? Again, no. This has nothing to do with credibility it has to do with taste. There are lots of our audiophile kindered spirits on CA who openly dislike classical music. I suspect that they know as little about classical music as I know about rock, rap and hip-hop. Do I challenge their credibility about the genre because they know little to nothing about it? Do I tell them that they haven't listened to any classical music so their opinion about it is unfounded? Do you do that? All one needs to do is watch or listen or taste something once to know that they don't like it. Becoming an expert on something that one doesn't like probably won't change someones opinion of it. While that's possible that can happen, it's unlikely. 

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

Speaking of that seminal album, which always sounded like it was recorded in the men's room of a New York City subway station, it took almost fifty years, but someone finally mastered it properly. On MFSL hybrid SACD and 45rpm/2-disc vinyl:

 

 

 

 

I haven't heard it for so many years, that I didn't remember anything about its SQ. After posting this PM, I did go to Spotify, and stream White Rabbit  on my office desktop system. You are right, it didn't sound all that good...

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, bigbob said:

I have publicly and privately apologized for my rant to @gmgraves over "Deadhead as the line in the sand for Audiophiles". I don't think it needs to be spoken of again.

 

And I responded to him that I did not take offence at his remarks, but I do appreciate his courtesy and good "netiquette".

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, TubeLover said:

I simply cannot let you off that easily with the analogy you've chosen. There are only seventeen people in the Western Hemisphere that actually like Brussel sprouts! 

 

JC

 

Well, I, of course, cannot disagree with you, here. To me they're like eating a plateful of pure sulfur! How something that is so cabbage-like in aroma when cooking can taste so astringent is beyond me. I must know some of that 17 because friends keep trying to pawn brussels sprouts off on me when I go to their houses for dinner!