My monitor/subwoofer system

[Al M.]

Now you are following the rules!

Hehe .

Yes, it is strange - a designer becomes brilliant when we own something he designed, as far as I know Ron does not have digital ...

Or when we don't own something . I have said since ages that the design of Spectral is brilliant, and I think the designers of dCS are brilliant too...

 

[ack]

From what I extrapolate after recently hearing the Rockport Lyra speakers with the full Vivaldi stack, including the clock, that digital playback goes one step further than the Yggdrasil DAC.

One step further for an extra $100K??!? OK... I wish I had heard the Lyra...

 

[ack]

Congratulations, Ack.
I’m curious if you tried any of your HDCD titles with the Yggy. I know you’re a big fan of those discs.

My only complaint with the Yggy is a slight roll off in the low bass. Not a deal breaker in any way and perhaps the Alpha wasn’t any better.

I haven't played HDCD yet. Regarding the bass, I have a couple of XLR-to-RCA adapters on order, will see if that makes a difference. My system doesn't do 20Hz, so perhaps this is what are referring to??? I can tell you though that from 25Hz and up, it sounds beautiful.

 

[Al M.]

One step further for an extra $100K??!? OK... I wish I had heard the Lyra...

Well, maybe two steps

Yes, on orchestral the Lyra setup was particularly excellent.

 

[PeterA]

From what I extrapolate after recently hearing the Rockport Lyra speakers with the full Vivaldi stack, including the clock, that digital playback goes one step further than the Yggdrasil DAC. In particular, I have never heard such a superb rendition of orchestral strings before (I don't think the explanation lies just within the system, it must be a superior digital source too).

I would be curious to hear how the rhythm of the full Vivaldi stack compares to the Yggdrasil 2.

I think the system you heard at Goodwin's large room with the Rockport Lyra is considerably different from what you and Tasos have, so I'd think it would be tough to draw any conclusions about the individual performances of the two DACs in question. By "superior digital source", are you referring to the CD/HiRez or stream, or the actual player?

The guy who sold his Vivaldi did an actual direct comparison in his system, and I agree with you that a direct comparison in one of your systems would also be interesting, including one with an MSB.

 

[Al M.]

I think the system you heard at Goodwin's large room with the Rockport Lyra is considerably different from what you and Tasos have, so I'd think it would be tough to draw any conclusions about the individual performances of the two DACs in question. By "superior digital source", are you referring to the CD/HiRez or stream, or the actual player?

The guy who sold his Vivaldi did an actual direct comparison in his system, and I agree with you that a direct comparison in one of your systems would also be interesting, including one with an MSB.

Peter,

my formulation wasn't clear, instead of "I don't think the explanation lies just within the system", I meant to say "...system differences". Of course, the conclusion is tentative.

"Superior digital source" was the Vivaldi stack, on Redbook CD played in the transport of the playback system.

 

[ack]

The designer of the DAC chip was very surprised that Moffat had succeeded, see second post on this page:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/who-is-thinking-of-buying-the-schiit-yggdrasil.752962/page-15

Worth quoting that designer in here:

I work for ADI and designed the AD5791 & AD5781 DAC IC's in the Yggdrasil and Ragnarok. But that was about 2009. I'm delighted a new market has been found for these products. As the Yggy blurb explains, I never considered audio when I designed these DACs. In fact the main motivation at the time was medical imaging - the nice folks who make MRI scanners are awfully fussy about performance, and for good reasons!

To be honest, I'm genuinely surprised this makes a good audio DAC. It's terribly expensive [ack: about $100 apiece] and I always assumed the code-change-dependent glitch energy would make THD unacceptable to audio buffs. (There are some ingenious board-level tricks around this but they are difficult and expensive to achieve - I'd love to know if the Yggy designer is using them ... feel free to get in touch!) On the other hand, the AD5791 architecture is unbeatable for noise. I really don't know what you audio perfectionists are hearing when you listen - is it THD ... or noise? Some combination of both, I imagine ...

 

[ack]

and some "independent" measurements from https://www.head-fi.org/threads/yggdrasil-technical-measurements.764787/ - dynamic range is exemplary

Schiit claims THD <0.006% THD+N (more stringent) measured Left 0.00233% Right 0.00239%
Schiit claims IMD <0.007% IMD measured Left 0.00067% Right 0.00162%
Schiit claims SNR >117dB Dynamic Range measured Left 121.7 dB Right 122.0 dB

Schiit has specifications for these measurements published on their website and in their operating instructions. In my measurements, my yggdrasil performed better than Schiit's conservative specifications in every single measurement. Every single one. Well done Schiit!

 

[spiritofmusic]

I believe the Yggy is soon to have a fully engineered and impvd USB-out facility? Maybe an even better proposition w servers?

 

[ack]

I’m curious if you tried any of your HDCD titles with the Yggy. I know you’re a big fan of those discs.

Been playing HDCD tonight, there are clear distortions all around

 

[BruceD]

I’m teasing, I know you did, I just didn’t make the connection.

Mike Moffat: Mod Squad Deluxe Line Drive, TipToes, Theta, etc.

I know Mike pretty well-- also credited with the Gain System ADC as used in the MFSL Muddy Waters Folk Singer CD--it was the first
numbered Cd pressed --I think 398(?) there used to be a chart showing what releases and their #'s were done using Mikes GS ADC.

Ron-Mod squad/ Tiptoes I think is Steve McCormack .

BruceD

 

[Mdp632]

Day 4 with the Yggy2

I continue to hear improvements on the 4th day, so much so that I pushed the Buy button. The case for it is quite simple: for this DAC to pair so well with the Spectral 500AR amps and the rest of the system, and be able to render such a realistic sound with the right recordings, tells me that these amps were voiced with just as good if not better digital and analog components not yet released, so while I await the Spectral DAC to see what it can do, the Yggy is going to be swapped in, along with the Alpha for HDCD and hi-res (something I've been working on).

Ian, the bass from the Yggy is now more powerful, tight and rounder than the Alpha. I attribute that the greater dynamic headroom it has developed over the last 24 hours, which is also evident in the midrange.

This DAC is so outrageously good that I had a really hard time accepting Harley's comments [on the original Yggy1 version], early on and every time I read them. But here they are, because this time I feel he is spot on with respect to the superlatives he used:



So far, it's also the only DAC in here that will render the full tape hiss of great analog transfers to redbook, testament to its extremely low noise (they claim <-119dB whatever that means and wherever it applies - I posted their PDF with their full measurements a couple of days ago).

So on Day 4, it has climbed another notch. It is a very unusual design, really off the beaten path, with that Analog Devices AD5791BRUZ which DOES NOT process audio data per se, but its data sheet says is for "Medical instrumentation; Test and measurement; Industrial control; High end scientific and aerospace instrumentation" plus 1ppm INL accuracy - so my guess is they transform the data in their own digital filter implemented on the SHARC processor. I also like the modular implementation with the motherboard/daughter boards, which makes upgrading so easy. Their use of the Nichicon Audio Grade electrolytics is also good, though these can probably be improved upon.

Overall, it makes a compelling case in here, no Schiit...

EDIT: Worth noting also, that as I posted under my system thread a while ago, the Spectral SDR-4000SV player does NOT offer a high enough slew rate to match the preamp and amplifiers, which I think contributes to its slightly softer, a touch rounder and less resolving, sound. I really hope they change this in the upcoming DAC

Sounds like good Schiit

Re the Spectral DAC, I didn't know that as I would have assumed SV have included the same slew rate as the other SV gear.

Oh well, perhaps when that day comes; using Spectral Link from the transport to the DAC a user will be able to take advantage of DACs superior output stage and processing for Redbook.

On a side note, have you ever tried the Rossini Player +Clock in your system? I know Vivialdi DAC was mentioned using your transport. But, would have loved to read your thoughts on the one box player playing physical Cds in your system.

Enjoy.

 

[ack]

I have not brought in the Rossini at all in here. My friends liked it at the dealer's, but the dCS is not literal enough for me.

 

[ack]

So I plugged in the XLR-to-RCA converters (Cardas Clear) into thte Yggy2 today, and indeed, it proves that the RCA outputs are ever so slightly veiled if you know what to listen for, with those summation buffers. The XLR is the output I will use with my unit, and it looks like the Yggy2 is a balanced design from end to end, AES/EBU to analog.

The sound is very vivid with the right recordings, and the best way to describe it is probably "Blunt Assault" - you'll either like it or hate it, no sugar coating a recording here. Having built my system around speed, the Yggy2 fits in here really well. But I kinda also suspect it may not work well in systems that can't keep up with its speed, but I can't tell for sure; I suspect it may sound edgy in those systems. Certainly try before you buy.

 

[Al M.]

So I plugged in the XLR-to-RCA converters (Cardas Clear) into thte Yggy2 today, and indeed, it proves that the RCA outputs are ever so slightly veiled if you know what to listen for, with those summation buffers. The XLR is the output I will use with my unit, and it looks like the Yggy2 is a balanced design from end to end, AES/EBU to analog.

I have an XLR > RCA configuration from Yggy to preamp. DaveC custom made an excellent ZenWave D4 XLR > RCA interconnect for me. He made the ground with the same impedance as the input impedance of my preamp (50 kilo Ohms). I forgot the technical reason, but he could tell you.

The sound is very vivid with the right recordings, and the best way to describe it is probably "Blunt Assault" - you'll either like it or hate it, no sugar coating a recording here. Having built my system around speed, the Yggy2 fits in here really well. But I kinda also suspect it may not work well in systems that can't keep up with its speed, but I can't tell for sure; I suspect it may sound edgy in those systems. Certainly try before you buy.

While transients can be hard or sharp, yet never show a digital edge, they can also be round, soft or mellow. The DAC simply follows the music, it does not impart an audible transient signature of its own. You may be right, it may not be good match for systems lacking speed; for those a throughout more mellow DAC may be a more appropriate source.

 

[Al M.]

Changes in speaker set-up

Relatively recently I moved my speakers yet again closer together, after an earlier move to do so had delivered positive results:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/thre...a-reflector-monitors.26056/page-3#post-605214

The move closer together now was first 2.5 inches each (5 inches total), and in a second move another 1 inch each (2 inches total). In that move, I also moved the speakers 2 inches further back.

As earlier, perceived distortion again decreased, and the music became more effortless, apparently due to yet another reduction of sidewall reflections. This was an important improvement, adding to musical enjoyment. The speakers once more showed that they can play far more competently, at a loud level, than what I had initially given them credit for.

Bass became even better, as I describe here:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/subwoofer-help-needed-asap.30747/#post-652248

Soundstage width on small scale music diminished, which was welcome for a more natural perspective (the width of string quartets was sometimes borderline stretching credibility, literally). On orchestral music the result was mixed. On some recordings the soundstage became a bit smaller, on others it remained more or less the same in size. Overall though, the ratio of small scale to large scale music is larger, leading to a more believable result.

The only major disappointment in terms of soundstage was the portrayal of works by Maxwell Davies for a capella choir, which used to be wide and relatively distant, in a large acoustic. The reproduction in my system had not just impressed me, but also greatly impressed audiophile friends who came over and felt completely transported into that large acoustic. Now the portrayal of the choir was considerably smaller, losing its special magic. Interestingly, another choral album, "Cantate Domino" was less affected, even though still somewhat.

The image above shows just how much the speaker positioning has changed over the years, as can be seen from the tapes on the floor, marking the concrete block upon which the speaker stand rests, to the current position (markings incomplete, some removed over the years). Now the speaker cabinet is about 2 feet from the sidewall.

More updates to follow...

 

[PeterA]

Al, I noticed a nice improvement as you brought the speakers away from the side walls and reduced the extreme toe-in. Interestingly, you are breaking from the manufacturer's recommendations regarding speaker set up. I have done the same with improved results.

I don't think I noticed all of the specific things you mentioned, but I don't hear your system as much as you do, certainly. I simply noticed a more open, energetic sound.

 

[Al M.]

Al, I noticed a nice improvement as you brought the speakers away from the side walls and reduced the extreme toe-in. Interestingly, you are breaking from the manufacturer's recommendations regarding speaker set up. I have done the same with improved results.

I don't think I noticed all of the specific things you mentioned, but I don't hear your system as much as you do, certainly. I simply noticed a more open, energetic sound.

Nice that you heard the improvement too, Peter. As for toe in and other aspects of speaker setup, I agree, there is no reason to treat manufacturers' recommendations as gospel. They formulate their recommendations based not only on measurements, but also on their personal experiences and preferences in their particular listening settings. Yet they cannot anticipate all circumstances in all listeners' homes, and the wildly varying preferences of their listeners.

Let me make a comparison that is admittedly imperfect and perhaps only slighty relevant, but here it is:

As a biotech company we make molecular tools that help researchers in their scientific endeavors. When we make the products we have no idea what the researchers will find with them: that precisely is the whole point of scientific research! Similarly, audio products are tools for the listener to reproduce music, but given each listener's particular circumstances and preferences, each home system becomes its own research lab, as it were, when it comes to finding the best sound. There is no way a manufacturer can anticipate all the ways in which his products are used and used optimally, nor should he.

***

As for more even more openness of sound, see my next installments.

 

[Al M.]

Removal of large absorbing panel in middle

Removal of large absorbing panel in middle, in front of, and supported by, 16 inch TubeTraps. For more details on the placement of the panel with pictures, see this post (from my old system):

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/my-minimonitor-subwoofer-system.17334/page-5#post-422447

Originally, about 4 years ago, I had put the panel there because it pushed images more forward, being the final building block for the solution of a long-standing problem, which were too recessed images in my system. Other measures had been a highly absorbing large cotton rug for the space behind the speakers and ASC window plugs, while ASC TubeTraps had already been in place. Before I solved the problem, everything had "depth", but it was an artificial portrayal of depth due to too many reflections of sound in the space between speakers and front wall (the space behind the speakers; front wall = wall listener is looking at). The recessed imaging with all this extra "depth" apparently was impressive and welcome to audiophiles who visited, but I personally hated it. I found it unnatural, it put the music at too large a distance, and it robbed the presentation of the music of energy. The presentation was uninvolving to me. With all the measures described in place, including the large absorbing middle panel, there was still tons of depth in the portrayal of recordings that warranted it, but everything was more balanced, and the presentations varied greatly from upfront and in your face to very distant (e.g., choir in a large acoustic or organ in the back of a church), and anything in between.

Peter A. had commented since some time that I should try to remove the large absorbing panel, because my system had changed so much and it is always worth revisiting things when the context has changed. Very good point, and he was right in giving it a try.

To my surprise, this time removal (and exposing a column of two 16 inch TubeTraps turned to their absorptive side) had no obvious deleterious effects on imaging. In particular, vocals on several rock tracks that I cared about (e.g., on Green Day's "American Idiot"), and that I had used as a gauge of imaging, still were upfront. They had been uncomfortably recessed prior to insertion of the large absorbing panel about 4 years ago. In addition, all the depth portrayal of music was more or less in place, with only minor changes.

So why did removal this time make no real difference in imaging? The speakers had changed, and with it the dispersion patterns of sound, the much better amplification (Octave) that I have now may provide more stable imaging, and other acoustic measures that I had put in place since 4 years ago, like another carpet in the space around the listening seat and ceiling diffusers, may also contribute.

However, while there were no negatives, there were some clear positives:
1. All the music appeared to be breathing a bit more freely.
2. The presentation of the a capella choir in the large acoustic, singing music by Peter Maxwell Davies, once again became wider at the distant perspective. Above, under speaker set-up changes, I had lamented the greater smallness on this recording after moving the speakers closer together, but now width was more or less entirely restored, and the presentation as impressive as ever. The magic is back.

So all this was a clear positive, without any real drawbacks that I would have noticed. Thanks, Peter, for the suggestion!

 

[PeterA]

Nice progress Al. The widening of the back of the soundstage and a more natural presentation with more "energy" are all good things. You do a good job of describing what you are hearing. I look forward to revisiting.

Is that huge panel out of room completely, or is it somewhere in the back behind the listener? I can help you move if needed.

Now, aren't you just a little curious what might happen if you slowly start removing the TubeTraps from the front/center of the room and/or the panels at the first reflection points? I am only half joking.

Can you post a large scale photo from a few feet behind the listening chair looking at the front of the room with a wide angle?