|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.39.16.143
See link
Follow Ups:
I don't know about the Yggdrasil, (much less the Berkeley Alpha), but I can speak to the Ygg's littlest brother, the Bifrost Multibit. The latter employs the same design concepts as the former, including the "closed form" filter, using somewhat lessor-spec'ed components.The Ygg is belong my budget so I had to settle for a Schiit Bifrost Uber to Multibit upgrade. I felt this was a tremendous success. The must succinct description I can offer is that information retrieval is hugely enhanced. And that information retrieval includes more "detail" in the best sense, including nuances of instruments including human voices and difficult instruments such as cymbals, more articulate instrument decays, more precise & stable placement of instruments in the soundstage -- and yes, a more accurate, i.e. more plausible, (though not necessarily "bigger"), sense of air & space. I believe microdynamics are also improved, contributing to the improved sound of cymbals for example.
I can safely recommend the Bifrost Multibit, not only as an upgrade to the Bifrost Uber but to anybody looking for a DAC in the range at least up to that of Schiit's own Gungnir Multibit, (US$1250).
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 11/12/15 11/12/15 11/12/15
Air and Spaciousness an artifact? Could be. I've long suspected that the air and depth attributed by many to tube equipment IS an artifact. Right or wrong, it was the conclusion I came to with my the tube preamp that I used for several years.
Presumably for the "fake" air & space is different in the case of tubes than it is would DACs but either way the result is probably not quite genuine.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
Probably the best test of this is if a component tends to make everything sound the same then it is an inherent defect causing the artifact.
If the "air and space" sounds different on different records it cannot be something within the component.
Air and space is something that can be recorded and reproduced.
Concerning digital recordings, with so many using PRO TOOLS to add effects you well could have the same "air and space" effect on many recordings which will add to the confusion.
I am very familiar with the track mentioned in the review, Jack Johnson's Middle Man, because I've been using it as a demo track in every audition for about the last 10 years. This is a minimally miked, minimally compressed, high quality recording. On a good system, the snare drum is naturally placed behind the other instruments, and you can hear how it energizes the recording space, and you can hear the decay of the drum and the reverberation. If the Yggdrasil isn't reproducing it all, I think the proper conclusion is that this DAC lacks low level resolution.
Oh no!
The snare drum is sitting on top of the singers head!!!!
And the drums and singer is BEHIND me!
But they are HUGE!!!
OK, balanced HD-600 headphones out of my Audio-gd Master 11, but still...
Note that the reviewer didn't exactly say that Yggdrasil wasn't reproducing the space, only that it didn't do so quite as expansively as the Berkeley DAC, (a very much more expensive DAC although that isn't the point).
My own observation pertains to the Bifrost Multibit which presumably isn't in quite the same league as the Yggdrasil, (much less the Berkeley or EMM Labs). Bifrost Multibit does up the separation and differentiation of instruments vs. the former Bifrost Uber, but perhaps this isn't the same thing as "space", i.e. perceived depth or breadth of soundstage.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
Tubes are not the only devices that get air and space; however, they do the 3d palpabilty making images that are far more lifelike in terms of volume, which has a definite impact on realism...when designed properly. When not, they can seem just as flat as transistors.
My theory is that with a well designed tube you have less high order harmonics (at least at moderate powers where most listening operates). Now why should this matter? Because high order harmonics affect the perception of loudness. They have the effect of make things sound louder than they really are.
Now why should this matter? Well the perception of distance for a raditating object is partially related to the relative loudness of different frequency ranges. Highs are more readily absorbed by the environment and so sounds further away have HF at a lower level than when you are close to the instrument. Now, if you muck this up by making the highs sound a bit louder then you also make them sound a bit closer. This then modifies the soundstage during playback. In the extreme, this will give you a flat soundstage with flat images. I have heard combinations that give soundstage depth but image roundness is still non-existant, suggesting that this aspect is even more subtle than the room soundstage.
If you suspect that this is an artifact I would sure like to hear your hypothesis as to WHY this should be an artifact and not simply a better decoding of recorded information.
You do agree that the original players and singers that were recorded were three dimensional resonating objects, don't you?
... as to why tubes might add a sense of more space or depth than is actually on the recording, only that my purely passive preamps didn't have the same sense as my tube preamp, (and the latter, BTW, only with certain vintage tubes). Some have cited the phenomenon of microphonics in the case of tubes.The author of the Yggdrasil review speculated that some very "airy" sounding DACs, such as the Berkeley, cause ringing due their filtering method that might add a sense of air and space that isn't on the recording. Of course this would be a totally different cause than whatever might give tubes their attribute.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 11/06/15
"more space or depth than is actually on the recording"
Again, where is your proof on that this is the case? Isn't it more plausible that when it is missing that the playback chain has in some way eliminated what was captured? Adding just the right amount of something, implies that tubes are "smart" distortion devices to know how to make it sound more realistic. I think subtractive is far more logical of a conclusion.
But I did say I suspected the depth, or maybe I should call it reverberation", that I heard from my tube preamp was an artifact because I didn't hear if from my "non-preamp", i.e. simple volume controls consisting only of good quality potentiometers. Decent quality solid state preamps sound more like the passives."
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
Do tubes add this sense of depth, or allow it through unmolested? Nothing personal to you, of course, but I find it curious that a sonic presentation that sounds more real (perception of depth) should be considered inconvenient somehow, or the effect of a mistake (microphony).
Maybe tubes are better transcriptors of sonic fields than other amplifying devices, owing to their relative simplicity. Or not. But I'm on the side of the debate that resists the notion that because it is 'old tech', for that reason it is 'bad tech'. Books are old tech, but work very well for the purpose for which they were designed!
This is distinct from the ringing effects in digital, which seems to add a kind of 'false reverberation' or smearing effect on signals.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Personally I want accuracy, and by accuracy, I mean accuracy to the recording as it exists on the media I'm playing, to some half-remembered "live" experience.
Call it a personal quirk, I don't believe it's the job of the playback chain to "improve" the sound of the recording
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
So, in your opinion then the majority of recordings are dry, airless and flat and that means "accurate" to you rather than a reproduction that is spacious and deep with rich tone and 3d players in a 3d stage??
Do you actually go to live concerts as a reality check about what real-life sound is like in a real acoustic space (not talking about rock or other amplified concerts here)? I was in Tonhalle in Zürich last Sunday listening to Piano trio, string quartet and piano quartet by late romantic Czech composers (like Dvorak). We sat mid-hall in the "small" hall of Tonhalle that is more suitable to smaller ensembles (it is still a quite large room). Was it tonally rich? Check! Was it spacious and airy? Check! Was it 3d and dynamic? Check! Was it flat and airless? Nope! Was it edgy and thin? Nope! Was it bright and agressive? Nope!
What makes you think that recording engineers cannot capture this to a large degree? I have a recording of Prokofiev Romeo and Juliette that was made with a single stereo ribbon microphone and no compression. It sounds like live (I have heard this piece in Zürich Tonhalle so I have some point of reference). However, it is a very difficult recording for systems to reproduce without sounded lifeless and mushed together. But get it right and it sounds like a (good) live event.
I also have a commercial recording of the Dave Brubeck quartet live in Mexico city 1968. It has space, air and loads of soundstage effects (3d images and different positions in depth for the players). If you don't get that on such a recording then your playback is most likely doing it wrong as I am sure it is closer to what those in Mexico city heard than through a chain that does what you are proposing.
What amuses me most is how you have reached this conclusion. Based on what? How your system has been reproducing them? What you think "accurate" should sound like? Do you go hear live, unamplified music? Do you just assume all the recording engineers of jazz and classical music are just idiots and don't know how to capture at least a decent slice of what they were hearing live?
How can you know exactly what is on the media you are playing without playback equipment and how can you possibly know that the playback equipment you have is playing it back exactly as it's on the media?
It's a circular question without an answer.
You can buy a $50,000 Trinity DAC (OK maybe 50,000? Euros) and some would say it 'reveals' exactly what's really on Redbook CD's but again, how can one know?
For all I know it's all an illusion and so what?
If it puts a smile on my face as I'm listening, I'm happy.
"How can you know exactly what is on the media you are playing...?"
One can't be certain, of course. You would have to hear with the ears of the producer listening to the proof pressing -- that isn't going to happen ever.
OTOH, it seems clear to me that the goal of very many audiophile is euphony not accuracy. To me it seems equally clear that equipment of that many use will introduce distortion.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
But I still haven't found it on the seating chart at Davies Symphony Hall so I'm not expecting it in my listening room. =:-0
Edits: 11/08/15
... except in the moment you're hearing it live.
As a goal I want to hear the recording including all the mistakes made by the engineer and producer. 90% of sound quality is the recording, 10% the play-back equipment. The 10% can never properly compensate for the 90%.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
It seems that you would be amazed at what can be captured on a recording and you would also be amazed about how many supposedly bad recordings are really not as bad as suspected but flaws were exaccerbated by poor playback equipment.
That being said, where do you get your 90:10 breakdown? Just pulled it out of thin air because you have a lot of recordings that sound bad with your system?
.
But given that we weren't part of the recording process, how are we to judge accuracy other than going by whatever sounds the most real?
It seems like you have jumped to the conclusion that your tube preamp's presentation of depth is wrong just because it uses tubes. It could very well be that it is more revealing of what's captured in the recording in some aspects and less accurate in others.
Likewise, in Chris' review of the Yggdrasil it seems like he wants to believe that one DAC is right and the other is wrong, rather than accepting that neither is a perfect reproducer and they have different strengths and weaknesses. He's also completely wrong in describing ringing as a problem with sigma-delta DACs.
nt
try it! you know you want to!
My friend lightly modded his Yggy and he got more air, space, larger soundstage as well as better everything else. Please see my website for mod details....this is a DIY thing, I did not make any money doing it. Now he wants me to put my own zero feedback buffer on his Yggy. Tweakers have to tweak!http://www.tweakaudio.com/EVS-2/Schiit_mod.html
Edits: 11/05/15
... Admittedly from more modestly priced components that the Yggdrasil or above.
The "Bimby" is a scaled down version of the Yggdrasil that, however, uses the same "closed-form" filter algorithm.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
Any input from your experience is appreciated. I enjoy my Bifrost U er, but $250 seems like a cheap date, if the SQ change is meaningful.
Thanks
To be sure, I can't directly compare the Uber with the Multibit, however after 30 hours or so of burn-in my conclusion is that the Multibit is better in general but especially in transparency and instrument differentiation. Maybe on the downside I do seem to find that brass instruments, (in particular), played loud can sound a bit more bright or forward
Bifrost Multibit might not be the DAC for everyone, though. It can't be described as warm, and some might find it a bit "dry" in sound although it certainly isn't etched or grainy.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
I bought the Gungnir Multibit and it took about 350 hours or so for it to reach the OMG level. Since I'm doing computer audio, I could keep signal running through it continuously without wearing out a transport. Mike Moffat's implementation of multibit with the AD chips and the closed form filter are, as far as I know, unique to the industry; he is a genius. It would appear that the Bimby, Gumby and Yggy that are designed to provide increasing degrees of goodness (is that an audiophile term?) in correlation to the $$ you're willing to pay. The word from folks who have auditioned and measured all three units say the Bimby is an awesome performer at it's price point and that one can easily find satisfaction at that level. The Gungnir and the Yggy offer increasing levels of resolution. I'm very very pleased with the Gumby.
When I listen to brass in person, they are bright and forward. (I am a Sousa fan.) If they don't sound that way in my system, something is wrong. You post makes me very interested in hearing the Bifrost Multibit.
Dave
... that the Bifrost Multibit is reproducing brass sound accurately. Brass certainly can be bright and the "Bimby" is not exaggerating it.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
I use digital domain EQ
So, Schitt is actually providing now a MULTIBIT option, and many, like yourself, prefer how it sounds? Seems, a LOT of choices for something that really should sound the same!
Schitt still offers a delta-sigma for its lower end models, the Bifrost and Gungnir. The "multibit", (R-2R), offerings for these models are significantly (for some of us) more expensive than the former, and included Schiit's closed-form filtering method via upstream DSP.
Clearly Schiit consider the closed-form filtering/multibit DAC approach superior; the delta-sigma DACs are there mainly to offer poor and/or cheap people a low-cost option.
I love the music of Dmitri Shostakovich
whether artifact or not being moot IMHO.
I won't buy Yggy until it's clarified just how short of reference Yggy falls in these parameters. But if Bimby has air and space, it would be odd if Yggy does not.
Am I the only one who noticed the comments about air and soundstaging?
A Rave with serious qualifiers.
Jack
sure as heck qualifies as a rave review. I think I'll take a schitt! (sorry, couldn't resist)
There is clearly a great deal of thought and experience on display in the Yggdrasil. If only Schitt would make a black finish available!
sound quality...
Audio-gd Master 7, in black. ;-)
.
Which I would prefer to use anyway, especially when dealing outside the US.
Try to use cash rather than CC for most things local these days.
Deal breaker for me.
Jack
Sure is a lot safer than giving your credit card information to someone who lives in MAINLAND CHINA!
You can purchase from King Wa by way of bank transfer if you prefer.
There are dozens of threads on Head-Fi discussing the various product as well as a number over on Computer Audiophile. So far I would guess there is little risk doing business with him.
I look at spending money on Audio a lot like lending money, never more than I can afford to lose.
I don't have a PayPal account, nor do I wish to open one.
He, and other PayPal only venders, don't have anything I can't live without. Frankly, I don't care since I can get something comparable (or better) elsewhere.
Jack
Jack G -- they are NOT through paypal. I bought a Ygg about a week ago.
You DO NOT have to have a paypal account to purchase from them.
Not sure about buying the Yggy, I like air and space-don't want the musicians to suffocate. :-)
Jack
See link
The Master 7 is a great multibit dac based on 8 parallel 1704UK chips. I have not heard the Schitt. The master 7 presents music in a very realistic way with so much resolution it makes all your music sound like you have never heard it before. $2400
Alan
Edits: 11/04/15
:)
But it has inner beauty.
Don't they let you do a limited trial of their 'Schiit'?
"5-Day Satisfaction Guarantee
Try Yggdrasil in your own house for 15 days. If you don't like it, simply send it back for a refund, minus a 5% transaction fee. Try spending 15 days in an audio store. They'll kick you out. Unless you buy them donuts. Maybe."
OK, 5% of $2,299 plus shipping both ways is not exactly 'free', but still it beats spending two weeks in an audio store!
Link below:
along with their best Headphone Amp and the new HiFiMan HE-1000 with Balanced cable, of course..
I'd be happy with that stack!
But am quite happy with the Master 11, as it has an equally good Balanced Class A headphone amp and I am sure it would sound as good or better with said HiFiMan HE-1000.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: