What technical artifacts?? Why the very ones you just before said were responsible for any given two units to sound different. Jitter, distortion, digital filters etc. etc. etc.
State-of-the-Art Digital
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
No, I don't think there is ANY correlation between this measurement and sound quality...
If so, I cannot think of any that’ll provide a positive correlation at all. All other measurements of digital equipment merely point to potential flaws. Not even a waveform reconstruction will tell you if the product sounds good, but at least it’s a measurement in the analogue domain that informs us that the DAC in question is doing something right.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Jitter and distortion are easily measurable and quantifiable. What particular types are you addressing? And digital filters are not artifacts per se!
BTW, if someone has to add etc. etc. etc. in his answer it usually means he has no proper answer to give ...
Last edited:
Should I remember that we were addressing mainly sounding different, not absolute sound quality?
Anyway if you think that the ability to reproduce very small signals with accuracy has no correlation with sound quality why are you posting on a technical debate? Just to say us it is an useless and meaningless discussion?
I do not think so.Certainly, but what is the point? I am sure the $ 99 Schiit Modi delta-sigma DAC (also designed by Mike Moffat) measures better on a number of parameters than the Schiit Yggdrasil multibit DAC. So if you just want to have a better measuring DAC, you can save yourself $ 2,350 and buy the Modi for $ 99.
Not that measurements are meaningless, and I am not denigrating their importance by any means -- on the contrary --, but I think my original point still stands:
Both the designers at dCS and the designer of the Yggy wanted to make great sounding DACs that also measure well.
Yet the quality of measurements has to be judged within the framework of DAC architecture that these designers chose to work with, dCS with the RING DAC architecture, Mike Moffat with multibit.
I am sure that just like Moffat, also the designers at dCS will refuse to subscribe to the mantra of "great measurement at any cost". Otherwise we could all revert to horrible sounding 70s transistor amplifiers with high negative feedback and THD of 0.001 % -- great measurement at any cost, regardless of actual sound quality.
Jitter seems to matter quite a bit and is one piece of the puzzle. Analog output stage is another. Digital filtering and how to clean up sigma delta requires a lot of algorithmic gymnastics...something that ladder DACs don't need at all...this is likely also to be audible.
Jitter and distortion are easily measurable and quantifiable. What particular types are you addressing? And digital filters are not artifacts per se!
BTW, if someone has to add etc. etc. etc. in his answer it usually means he has no proper answer to give ...
Measureable, sure. Understandable from a sonic perspective?? Maybe somewhat. The fact that sigma/deltas NEED algorithms to improve their performance whereas ladders work fine with nothing is also significant (like feedback/no feedback in amp design ??) and has largely poorly characterized consequences from a sonic perspective.
No, it means there is more but I don't have the time to dig deeper to give it to you and I can't think of it off the top of my head
Examples of negative correlation = what I said.
Of course DACs use filtering of some sort, even if passive in the analogue domain, with the exception of a CD player YBA showed at expos back in the nineties. Yves-Bernard André made a point, but of course could market it as it might blow amps, tweeters etc. Filters have an enormous impact on the sound, and there’s no guarantee a simple decimation is going to sound better than “the algorithmic gymnastics” you mention. Last but not least, there’s more than R2R and Delta-Sigma - not all DACs depend on off the shelf chip sets, especially when it comes to some of the SOTA DACs discussed in this thread.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Should I remember that we were addressing mainly sounding different, not absolute sound quality?
Anyway if you think that the ability to reproduce very small signals with accuracy has no correlation with sound quality why are you posting on a technical debate? Just to say us it is an useless and meaningless discussion?
Just because there are reference DACs that sound great and measure, by those standards, not so great. There are also very expensive DACs (guess that is what most people consider reference...people just call it what they want) that measure by the usual standards nearly perfect and yet sonically questionable. This means there is not a good correlation. Jitter definitely can affect the sound, intra DAC (ie. improving the jitter of a given DAC is a clear win) but it is not so clear that it is a culprit INTER DAC in terms of their absolute sound quality. Probably both DACs would benefit but not probably by an equal amount.
If you reduce some parameter in a DAC that is not so important sonically to a miniscule level and some other DAC doesn't do this as well then of course you won't hear a difference and then there is no correlation. This reproduction of a smooth waveform seems to be one of these not so important sonically tests from all the data and listening I have seen and heard.
Finding out which parameters are really important and then reducing those should result in a win sonically...the question is which parameters?
People argued for decades that amps with a lot of feedback that measured "perfect" would give the best sound to a human. This has proven to be highly questionable as the cure (feedback) was often worse than the disease (inherent non-linearity of the circuit). I think Digital suffers from the same kinds of problems and it could be very so-called "minor" things that lead to the perceptual difficulties.
Most still use chips or they use FPGAs. I don't think there is a discrete sigma/delta dac out there. My overall experience in audio is that the simplest approach is often the best sounding approach. The further away you get from nature, the smaller the defect that can be audible.
It is also why (with suitable speakers) SET (or pentode or transistor...or what Aries Cerat has now come up with) is considered by many as SOTA technology even though it is the simplest, most direct way to amplify a signal.
No, the DCS people want to have great measurements independently of implementation and great sound quality. They believe that great measurements are needed to get the very top sound quality in DACs. MSB also believe the same. It is why their tecnhical reviews get words such as "This is textbook behavior." WADAX aims were to design a product whose residual error mechanisms that is below the threshold of conventional measurement systems. All these people technical objectives are fundamentally different from Moffat ones, although they have a common target - designing something that pleases our different preferences.
People must realize that times are changing. We are in 2020. There is nothing in common between the "horrible sounding 70s transistor amplifiers with high negative feedback and THD of 0.001 %" and the modern designs of current top designers that are able to produce electronics with extremely low THD and excellent measurements with top sound quality.
Assuming a proper design, Soulution also wrote it clearly concerning their DACs - " (...) If the measurements are remarkable, the sonic results are sublime: all the richness, tonal shades and the suppleness commonly associated with analog, combined with the precision, dynamics and control of the best digital."
BTW, there is little risk that we return to the "horrible sounding 70s transistor amplifiers with high negative feedback and THD of 0.001 %" - proper measurements have shown why they sound poor.
Last edited:
Measureable, sure. Understandable from a sonic perspective?? Maybe somewhat. The fact that sigma/deltas NEED algorithms to improve their performance whereas ladders work fine with nothing is also significant (like feedback/no feedback in amp design ??) and has largely poorly characterized consequences from a sonic perspective.
No, it means there is more but I don't have the time to dig deeper to give it to you and I can't think of it off the top of my head
We are not addressing "work fine", but top performance. Algorithms and filters are forcefully being used in ADCs - do not imagine the digital recording chain is "simple". But yes, it is easier to accept what we do not see. And the top DACs I am referring are not sigma/deltas, although they have a lot of processing.
Do you have a reference for this assertion?
Great. I'll raise you another one in return:
When I returned to the Yggy I discovered a DAC that wasn’t superb. It wasn’t even good. And it certainly wasn’t “good for the money.” What I discovered, to my amazement, was a DAC that was stunningly great, period. Price aside, the Yggy turned out to be a world-class contender in the same league as cost-no-object digital-to-analog converters—and I’ve heard some good ones. How could this be?
I can’t tell you how Moffatt did it, but I can describe how the Yggy sounds, and why its one of the three best DACs I’ve heard regardless of price. (The other two are the $19,500 Berkeley Alpha Reference and the $35,000 dCS Vivaldi. I suspect that the MSB Select is outstanding, after hearing it many times at shows, but I haven’t evaluated it in my own system.)
Robert Harley, 2017 review of Schiit Yggdrasil DAC (version 1), The Absolute Sound:
Schiit Audio Yggdrasil DAC - The Absolute Sound
Schiit Audio Yggdrasil DAC -
www.theabsolutesound.com
So perhaps the above described comparison Vivaldi -- Yggdrasil that I witnessed in a high resolution system was not so off base after all, instead of being a "wrong context" and me "enhancing" the Yggy's performance as you falsely suggested.
Sure, and you can also show with proper measurements why some DAC designs have audible problems even though they measure "perfectly" in many regards. dCS point out issues with misleading measurements:
From the DCS site:
That’s not to say that technical performance isn’t key. People often talk about things in terms of, ‘which is more important – measurements or listening?’ To dCS, this is a false opposition. The company ethos is that technical correctness is essential; there’s no getting around the fact that if a product scores poorly in terms of distortion, signal-to-noise ratio, stereo separation and so on, then it simply cannot deliver the musical goods. Yet that’s just the start; dCS products are carefully – and repeatedly – auditioned during the development process. The senior design engineers know how technical measurements correlate to subjective sound quality; there’s a very complex relationship there and it requires great skill and experience to get the balance right.
Great. I'll raise you another one in return:
When I returned to the Yggy I discovered a DAC that wasn’t superb. It wasn’t even good. And it certainly wasn’t “good for the money.” What I discovered, to my amazement, was a DAC that was stunningly great, period. Price aside, the Yggy turned out to be a world-class contender in the same league as cost-no-object digital-to-analog converters—and I’ve heard some good ones. How could this be?
I can’t tell you how Moffatt did it, but I can describe how the Yggy sounds, and why its one of the three best DACs I’ve heard regardless of price. (The other two are the $19,500 Berkeley Alpha Reference and the $35,000 dCS Vivaldi. I suspect that the MSB Select is outstanding, after hearing it many times at shows, but I haven’t evaluated it in my own system.)
Robert Harley, 2017 review of Schiit Yggdrasil DAC (version 1), The Absolute Sound:
Schiit Audio Yggdrasil DAC - The Absolute Sound
Schiit Audio Yggdrasil DAC -
So perhaps the above described comparison Vivaldi -- Yggdrasil that I witnessed in a high resolution system was not so off base after all, instead of being a "wrong context" and me "enhancing" the Yggy's performance as you falsely suggested.
Well, as I have told I am not interested in discussing the subjective opinions of reviewers or people who are not directly accessible in WBF. But as allways happy to share opinions with WBF members.
Thanks for helping to present my points.
Do you have a reference for this assertion?
Great. I'll raise you another one in return:
When I returned to the Yggy I discovered a DAC that wasn’t superb. It wasn’t even good. And it certainly wasn’t “good for the money.” What I discovered, to my amazement, was a DAC that was stunningly great, period. Price aside, the Yggy turned out to be a world-class contender in the same league as cost-no-object digital-to-analog converters—and I’ve heard some good ones. How could this be?
I can’t tell you how Moffatt did it, but I can describe how the Yggy sounds, and why its one of the three best DACs I’ve heard regardless of price. (The other two are the $19,500 Berkeley Alpha Reference and the $35,000 dCS Vivaldi. I suspect that the MSB Select is outstanding, after hearing it many times at shows, but I haven’t evaluated it in my own system.)
Robert Harley, 2017 review of Schiit Yggdrasil DAC (version 1), The Absolute Sound:
Schiit Audio Yggdrasil DAC - The Absolute Sound
Schiit Audio Yggdrasil DAC -
So perhaps the above described comparison Vivaldi -- Yggdrasil that I witnessed in a high resolution system was not so off base after all, instead of being a "wrong context" and me "enhancing" the Yggy's performance as you falsely suggested.
Sure, and you can also show with proper measurements why some DAC designs have audible problems even though they measure "perfectly" in many regards. dCS point out issues with misleading measurements:
There will always be some who believe the Yggdrasil can’t be any good because its too utilitarian, not costly enough or has inferior specifications Compared to other DAC designs. The Schiit branding and their quest to bring high end sound to all doesn’t jive well with some.
For me, the Yggdrasil makes music come alive! Turned my CD collection into music. One of the few components I don’t feel the need to upgrade or replace.
While I find some of this thread amusing and full of conjecture, Maybe some actual listening time with one might clear up some of the misconceptions and prejudice.. Either way, it doesn’t alter the great value and sound the Yggdrasil offers.
I was able to put some vinyl to good use because of the Yggdrasil.
Peace.
Very funny post. But I'll add the following. I have 2 DACs. A 20K Lampi Golden Gate 2 for serious stuff, and a $100 Modi3 Schiit DAC for TV source material via Toslink (I don't want to use valuable tube time on the Lampi for TV watching). Both go through the big rig. Let me just say this plain and clear. That Schiit DAC is phenomenal. Pound for pound, it is the far better value than my Lampi. It offers genuinely excellent sound but most importantly, I never even think about it when I'm playing the TV while listening through the big system through uber electronics. I'm sold. If this tiny dirt cheap DAC is that good, I can only imagine that Mike Moffat's other product are simply outstanding... at any price. No need to ever apologize for your Yggie. Schiit makes good sh*t!
Last edited:
Thanks.
And yet, dCS are willing to implement technical compromises. From their measurement link:
Filter Performance
Digital audio is full of trade-offs. Which trade-off is best in terms of filter choice? Unfortunately, there is no “perfect” filter that will be optimum for all recordings. In essence the DAC filter you use affects amplitude response, phase response (transient performance) and image rejection.
For example, recordings made with poor filtering and lots of HF noise are likely to be improved with an asymmetrical filter, whereas those with good filtering will not cause the reconstruction filter to ring, and so the phase shift is unnecessary. At dCS we believe that it is therefore important to offer a choice of filters, so that the user can choose a solution to suit their music and tastes.
This variety of filter options means it is important to measure the flat signal bandwidth, the cut-off frequency and the image (or alias) rejection. It is also worth noting that filter characteristics become less of a factor at higher sample rates.
***
In their manuals, they recommend different filters for different kinds of music. From the dCS Vivaldi v 2 manual, p. 37:
The first 4 PCM filters give different trade-offs between the Nyquist image rejection and the phase response. Filter 1 has the best rejection of (unwanted) Nyquist images and the sharpest roll-off, resulting in the poorest transient response of the four. Filters 2, 3 and 4 have progressively more relaxed image rejection and progressively better transient response. Filter 2 is often preferred for orchestral music, while Filter 3 and Filter 4 are often used for rock music.
Mike Moffat on the other hand offers a single time- and frequency-domain optimized digital filter in the Yggdrasil. No technical compromises deemed necessary.
The subjective opinion that you posted, and to which I replied to with another subjective opinion, wasn't from a WBF member either, was it?
You're welcome!
As long you didn't mean to say there's anything "natural" about the PCM recording and conversion process itself, I agree. You originally brought this point up referring to R2R. The resultant sound may be more natural than Delta/Sigma, if that were your point, but the conversion process itself is far from "natural" either way.
In this context, it makes somewhat more sense to say DSD is more "natural" (as in representing waveforms versus quantifying them) than PCM. Or I'd agree that e.g. asymmetrical minimum phase filters produce sound that's more natural than symmetrical filters in the sense that pre-ringing is literally unnatural.
From a more philosophical perspective, I used to be a purist in that I started out designing speaker that e.g. used minimalistic crossovers. I later built ones that used many more parts to achieve phase coherence in time-aligned designs. Given my experience with either approach over the years, I'm firmly in the "whatever works" camp now.
There are limits to simplicity. One of the most interesting experiences I've had in recent years was with the Lampizator. You know I love the sound of (most of) those, as indeed do several of our audiophile friends and acquaintances. A major fascination to me was the early passively filtered DSD board. Apart from the comparative listening sessions and the conclusions I drew from the myself, I also listened attentively to the comments of others who love these DACs, e.g. Christoph, Kedar, Michael and Norman (and others), in particular how everyone (on these forums as well) kept extolling the superiority of higher-rate DSD (128fs, 256fs etc.). Then there was the interval in which the earlier PCM conversion was replaced with an R2R board. I wasn't surprised when both were soon after replaced by chip set(s) of unknown provenance, at least as far as I've been informed.
The problem was a lack of treble extension with DSD64 playback, along with some unavoidable phase issues. I loved the midrange in particular, but quickly realized people didn't stop referring to the superiority of higher-rate DSD for a reason. Now, a simplistic approach may have its virtues, but if what it does is to get aficionados to listen to the same handful of higher-rate audiophile DSD albums over and over again, then in my book, this is a serious problem. A DAC is not supposed to make people listen to a file format, but the music they love regardless of what digital format it comes in. Much less one its fan community consider SOTA.
Years ago I owned a R2R DAC that was passively filtered that suffered from the exact same problem. I loved it, and replaced it mainly because it was limited to 41kS/s and 48kS/s PCM, when I finally happened upon an alternative that was digititis-free. While I'd consider a lack of treble extension unacceptable in a SOTA DAC, that early little thingy only cost 1'200 Swiss Francs or so, and back in the nineties, finding a digititis-free DAC wasn't as easy as it is, comparatively speaking, today (I'm repeating myself, but I'm shocked there are still ones out there).
The Aries Cerat amps (I loved the four or so different models I've heard so far) are a great example for what I do NOT believe simplicity is: countless so-called simplistic designs are flawed and/or sound mediocre. If it were true that elaborate designs are flawed more often on average, my guess is this might be due to the fact that they're more elaborate. But then, logic would have it that fewer elaborate design must be built by clueless people because it takes engineering chops to build elaborate design. Having said that, it's hard to keep clueless people from doing anything whatsoever. Stavros clearly isn't clueless when it comes to amplifier design. Simplistic or not, amps don't build themselves. Nor, for that matter, do DACs.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Glad to hear that!
I don't, and never did
. I have yet to hear any other source, digital or analog, that gives me an itch to want to change my DAC. In fact, the better my system becomes, the more I feel that way.Similar threads
- Sticky
Members online
- OZ996
- Michael S.
- Holmz
- lucia1506
- Toymanmark
- hopkins
- abeidrov
- bonzo75
- Elliot G.
- Hessec
- joet
- Lynnot
- simorag
- Blake
- Zdude
- Kingsrule
- marty
- Baemer
- dminches
- Aries Cerat
- ab72
- Argonaut
- Holli82
- audiobomber
- mtemur
- Loheswaran
- tomas329
- iaxel
- John T
- J007B
- Townes
- Charlie B.
- Hear Here
- jcn3
- William WL
- Cellcbern
- wbass
- matthias
- Bonesy Jonesy
- Music Master
- dcathro
- parnass
- Gregadd
- Wjhen
- itay123
- ptman
- Vinylshadow
- Sven Bohr
- gwantommo
- audioline
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |