OBJECTIVELY, is there any sound improvement ??

[mfsoa]

8 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

i have read about soundstage before and it is more dependent on the original recording, speakers, and room corrections than "good enough" measurements of modern day dacs...

But clearly different gear has different soundstaging characteristics. Or, switch among the different digital filtering options in a dac - soundstage is clearly one parameter that is affected.

 

What are the measurable differences in these filters that cause the shift in soundstage presentation?

 

 

[gmgraves]

On 4/26/2020 at 6:39 PM, beerandmusic said:

And for further clarification, I understand the subjective side, and fully appreciate the subjective side...e.g. although a SCHIIT dac may not measure well, it does sound VERY GOOD (yes, i have owned a couple), and I could hear a difference.  For the purpose of this thread, I am not looking for any subjective input, just objective input.  I just know my budget and i want ethernet (without having to daisy chain usb toys).   I will decide on an ethernet dac at some point after using my own subjective ears.....at this point I AM only looking for OBJECTIVE input.

Objectively, there are many things one can measure that will alter the sound. DACs that don’t “ring”, for instance, should sound better than those that do. DACs that have excessive jitter should sound poorer than those that have little jitter. Delta-sigma DACs should sound better than R2R DACs (Ladder DACs) because once you get past 16 bits, it becomes harder and harder to maintain resistor linearity. But many of the most expensive (and arguably considered the best) DACs are R2R or some variation there of. It seems to me that execution of a design is more important than the methodology used. This seems to be true in so many things. 
BTW, the latest Yggdrasil from Schiit measures extremely well, and sounds unbelievably good easily besting other contenders such as the Chord Hugo TT + the Chord M Scaler, or the Benchmark 3. 

[pkane2001]

54 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

BTW, the latest Yggdrasil from Schiit measures extremely well, and sounds unbelievably good easily besting other contenders such as the Chord Hugo TT + the Chord M Scaler, or the Benchmark 3. 

 

In which measurements does the latest Yggy best these other DACs? Can you post or link to them? Just curious. I do like that Schiit started posting complete measurements for their products directly on their website. That's way better than most of the competition, kudos to them!

[gmgraves]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

In which measurements does the latest Yggy best these other DACs? Can you post or link to them? Just curious. I do like that Schiit started posting complete measurements for their products directly on their website. That's way better than most of the competition, kudos to them!

Then you’ve already seem them. Check Headfi.com as well.

[One and a half]

On 4/27/2020 at 3:20 PM, beerandmusic said:

 

Aren't most modern day DACS capable of isolating PC noise (to an audible extent), especially in the case where I am suggesting a network dac?

Of the 6 DACs with various price points I own, the connected cables make an audible difference, despite one manufacturer stating it won't make a difference. So the noise still gets through.

 

Notable signs are

- loss of stageheight 

- more of a mono presentation

- forget instrument positioning 

- high hats and cymbals are a tizz or splash 

- bass becomes masked and less pronounced.

 

It's also no surprise that Ethernet systems are also affected, thankfully simpler clean up methods are available,  e.g. Baaske, EtherRegen, JCat net Femto cards and others.

[sandyk]

21 minutes ago, One and a half said:

the connected cables make an audible difference, despite one manufacturer stating it won't make a difference. So the noise still gets through.

 

  Many believe that you can "shut the gate after the horse has bolted",  but like you, I don't accept that is normally the case .

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Objectively, there are many things one can measure that will alter the sound. DACs that don’t “ring”, for instance, should sound better than those that do. DACs that have excessive jitter should sound poorer than those that have little jitter. Delta-sigma DACs should sound better than R2R DACs (Ladder DACs) because once you get past 16 bits, it becomes harder and harder to maintain resistor linearity. But many of the most expensive (and arguably considered the best) DACs are R2R or some variation there of. It seems to me that execution of a design is more important than the methodology used. This seems to be true in so many things. 
BTW, the latest Yggdrasil from Schiit measures extremely well, and sounds unbelievably good easily besting other contenders such as the Chord Hugo TT + the Chord M Scaler, or the Benchmark 3. 

 

what is new in the yggi? and did they make the same mod(s) on the gungnir?

[gmgraves]

26 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

what is new in the yggi? and did they make the same mod(s) on the gungnir?

Well, among other things, the “new” Yiggy has a totally redesigned analog section, a totally new design for the USB input, and some changes in the R2R DAC including a revised filter. 
I don’t know about the Gungnir.

[AudioDoctor]

11 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, among other things, the “new” Yiggy has a totally redesigned analog section, a totally new design for the USB input, and some changes in the R2R DAC including a revised filter. 
I don’t know about the Gungnir.

 

The Yggy has an R2R DAC?  I thought this (Analog Devices AD5791BRUZ x 4 (2 per channel, hardware balanced configuration)  meant it has 4 DAC chips...

 

these, to be exact:

https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Analog-Devices/AD5791BRUZ?qs=sGAEpiMZZMswix2y39yldfRSUiTQKynFD3UY2S5SRBo%3D

[beerandmusic]

14 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, among other things, the “new” Yiggy has a totally redesigned analog section, a totally new design for the USB input, and some changes in the R2R DAC including a revised filter. 
I don’t know about the Gungnir.

 

I don't get it..i thought it was supposed to be transparent before...

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

The Yggy has an R2R DAC?  I thought this (Analog Devices AD5791BRUZ x 4 (2 per channel, hardware balanced configuration)  meant it has 4 DAC chips...

 

these, to be exact:

https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Analog-Devices/AD5791BRUZ?qs=sGAEpiMZZMswix2y39yldfRSUiTQKynFD3UY2S5SRBo%3D

Go to page 19 of the data sheet. It shows the resistor ladder network. You do realize that R2R is another way of saying a ladder DAC, do you not?

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I don't get it..i thought it was supposed to be transparent before...

Yeah well, now it’s more transparent.

[AudioDoctor]

7 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Go to page 19 of the data sheet. It shows the resistor ladder network. You do realize that R2R is another way of saying a ladder DAC, do you not?

 

Yes, but I thought those were made up of a bunch of resistors and looked like this. I guess I am wrong.

[gmgraves]

6 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Yes, but I thought those were made up of a bunch of resistors and looked like this. I guess I am wrong.

The resistor ladder is just part of the DAC. An R2R DAC also needs a voltage reference and a precision comparator. 

[opus101]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

The resistor ladder is just part of the DAC. An R2R DAC also needs a voltage reference and a precision comparator. 

 

Where does it need the comparator? Are you sure you're not thinking of a SAR ADC?

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, opus101 said:

 

Where does it need the comparator? Are you sure you're not thinking of a SAR ADC?

What do you think is responsible for the successive approximation calculations?

[opus101]

Successive approximation only applies to ADCs, not DACs. Which is why I asked and will ask again - are you confusing an R2R DAC with a SAR ADC?

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, opus101 said:

Successive approximation only applies to ADCs, not DACs. Which is why I asked and will ask again - are you confusing an R2R DAC with a SAR ADC?

I guess I am. 

[Allan F]

On 4/28/2020 at 2:50 PM, gmgraves said:

...seems to me that execution of a design is more important than the methodology used.

 

Very true. This applies to the implementation of off-the-shelf delta-sigma DAC chips is well as to R2R DACS.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Very true. This applies to the implementation of off-the-shelf delta-sigma DAC chips is well as to R2R DACS.

Yes, of course it does.

[PYP]

Is the measurement of IMD a typical one for DACs and, if so, what is considered good performance?  Regarding IMD, is there any advantage to delta-sigma vs. R2R vs. FPGA-based (if that is the right terminology).  

 

I've read a bit about IMD, but don't fully get it.  Thanks.   

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, PYP said:

Is the measurement of IMD a typical one for DACs and, if so, what is considered good performance?  Regarding IMD, is there any advantage to delta-sigma vs. R2R vs. FPGA-based (if that is the right terminology).  

 

I've read a bit about IMD, but don't fully get it.  Thanks.   

 

Harmonic Distortion and Intermodulation Distortion are very closely related. Both are caused by the non-linearity of the device. All analog devices have some non-linearity, so amps, DACs, preamps, headphones, and speakers all generate some level of HD and IMD. Digital devices can introduce non-linearities through computation, also.

 

Harmonic distortion is easy to see when testing with a single tone, measuring integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. IMD is easier to see and measure when two or more frequencies are present, since they interact to form additional frequencies by addition and subtraction, which in turn, interact, and produce more distortion frequencies.

 

Your DAC (Mola Mola Tambaqui) has very low HD/IMD levels, and so is very close to a perfectly linear device.

 

As far as I know, it's possible to produce a near-linear device using any of these methods, but the simplest one is S-D. R2R can also be made linear but with a lot more work (read: more money). 

[PYP]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

As far as I know, it's possible to produce a near-linear device using any of these methods, but the simplest one is S-D. R2R can also be made linear but with a lot more work (read: more money). 

 

On your website, I didn't see that your Distort audibility tester provides IMD data.  Perhaps I missed that or it is the "more to come" part.  Just curious...  

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, PYP said:

 

On your website, I didn't see that your Distort audibility tester provides IMD data.  Perhaps I missed that or it is the "more to come" part.  Just curious...  

 

DISTORT creates IMD by virtue of simulating a non-linear transfer function. With a single tone, this results in harmonic distortion. With two or more frequencies it would produce IMD. You can see this when you select a two-tone test signal.

 

I didn't put in a measurement for IMD, but certainly something that could be added.

[pkane2001]

58 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

DISTORT creates IMD by virtue of simulating a non-linear transfer function. With a single tone, this results in harmonic distortion. With two or more frequencies it would produce IMD. You can see this when you select a two-tone test signal.

 

I didn't put in a measurement for IMD, but certainly something that could be added.

 

Here's an example. The same exact non-linearity tested with one and two tones:

 

One tone (1kHz) - harmonic distortion:

 

 

Two tones (18.5k/19.5k) - IMD: