Schiit, interesting name...more interesting products!

[Al M.]

You are saying that some playback decoding "corrects" for issues at recording? Can you explain this, please - what issues?

Edit: I think I see what you are getting at - the physical CD pits & lands are not well defined on the CD & some CD mechanisms are better able to handle this i.e introduce less jitter
But this has nothing to do with the DAC unless you are saying that the jitter of this CD reading is handled better by some DACs than by others?
This I could agree with but I would want to test this by copying the CD to hard drive with 100% error free copying & see if the same differences between DAC playback was observed.

The CD transport was the same as mine with the dCS Rossini/Berkeley Ref audition (Simaudio/Moon 260 DT). I have heard the same problem on a NADAC (both PCM straight and HQPlayer --> DSD), but with the CD played from file. The violin sound was flat, synthetic and without fine detail.

I have not encountered a timbre problem with solo violin to such an extent on my Berkeley and Yggy on any more modern CD. The solo violin on Yarlung Records -- Art of the Violin, for example, sounded maybe a bit more detailed on a dCS Vivaldi in another system, but there was no world of difference to what I hear in my system. The level of detail there is still remarkable. Timbre in my system on that CD is also good.

What I'm suggesting is that there are some low level factors which auditory processing picks up on & which signals to the perception that all is correct with that sound - the factors are still to be worked out but I can assure you that they are not uncovered by the current standard measurements (I'm sure your suggested mechanism will not appear in measurements, either)

I understand that, but since my DACs perform just fine on modern solo violin recordings/CDs I don't think they have inherent problems with presenting the instrument correctly.

What your example shows, IMO, is that there are aspects of that CD recording which upset all but the most pristine playback systems - so these factors are a good tester for how playback devices deal with such marginal issues

I agree with that. This is also why I chose that example.

***

BTW, my apologies for using the inaccurate term of "correcting" for issues in the decoding. A more accurate description might be the ability to extract the right data from a sub-optimal datastream. How that might work, I don't know. Unlike you I am not a digital engineer.

 

[Al M.]

Where did you hear about the Tripp, Al? I am not familiar with it.

I was looking through some Yggy threads on the web I think. I might also have googled 'Yggdrasil power conditioning', but I am not sure. I chose to go that route since many audiophile power conditioners are also basically isolation transformers. I just think that anything 'audiophile' is inherently more pricey (I have developed a bit of a contrarian thinking lately), and the Tripp Lite stuff may be cheaper just because it is presumably in bulk production compared to audiophile ware. The company has been in business for a long, long time. And doing isolation for medical equipment is serious stuff. They also talk about RF rejection which is what it's all about, apart from spikes and such.

I chose the 1000W version because I think you always have to have severe over-dimensioning of such things, in order not to choke the dynamics of the system (again, this is just for the front end).

I look forward to hearing what you think of the ZenWave speaker cables. I would like to try them as well.

Once I get them you should hear them in my system too, Ian. Unfortunately you probably can't try the same pair since I get the 17 gauge version. For your high-power system you probably will have to go with the 14 gauge version, but I'd ask DaveC about that.

 

[DaveyF]

Al, when you say that most DAC's don't do Sax well, I find that a little strange??? On my antique EAD 7000Mk3 DAC, the sound of a Sax sounds great through my system, so much so that a local Sax player was actually impressed. The 'blat' was very much in evidence. Possibly the recording you are listening to is the culprit! Without doubt, there are few recordings that seem to truly do justice to this instrument. ( digital recordings that is). However, I would think if my old EAD can get the job done, the Yggy should have no problem at all...assuming you have the right recording.

 

[Al M.]

Al, when you say that most DAC's don't do Sax well, I find that a little strange??? On my antique EAD 7000Mk3 DAC, the sound of a Sax sounds great through my system, so much so that a local Sax player was actually impressed. The 'blat' was very much in evidence. Possibly the recording you are listening to is the culprit! Without doubt, there are few recordings that seem to truly do justice to this instrument. ( digital recordings that is). However, I would think if my old EAD can get the job done, the Yggy should have no problem at all...assuming you have the right recording.

Actually, my system has progressed to such a point where Peter A. said the following on my system thread:

Regarding the system, I enjoyed the listening very much. It has improved to a point that it now sounds better than I have ever heard it. I especially liked the “Cave Painting” song. Both voices and the saxophones sounded incredibly natural, present, and real. Perhaps the female voice was slightly large in size, but overall the imaging and tone were spot on. The weight, body, dynamics and tone of those saxes reminded me of what I heard at Goodwins High End with the Rossini, Spectral and MagicoQ1: very immediate and real sounding.

(That was with the Berkeley, but with the Yggy it sounds very similar.)

I am not sure if the body of the saxes in that recording is the same, but it may be pretty close at least. I do think though that on another track of that CD (Positive Catastrophe -- Dibrujo, Dibrujo, Dibrujo), which begins with baritone sax, that the sound is still a bit on the less fleshed-out side (but: I am comparing across different systems, which is dangerous, and my memory of the sound at Goodwin's may be hazy by now). To answer John's question: as I see it, on less than top digital sax (baritone and tenor) tends to sound harmonically emaciated, which gives an impression of a less than full sound.

But to your point, Davey, about good recordings: it is true that this is an important factor. Yesterday I was listening to a Joshua Redman CD (I suppose digitally recorded), and I was actually pleasantly surprised about the saxophone sound. So maybe it's all good.

One thing that also needs to be kept in mind: there is no single correct sax sound. A sax can sound very different depending on the mouthpiece used (for example, rubber mouth pieces tend to give a lighter sound). On that Joshua Redman CD, for example, every track has a (somewhat or very) different sax sound.

As for the 'blat', yeah I got plenty of that on the right recordings.

 

[Joe Whip]

I agree with all Al has stated with regards to the sound of the Yggy. I would add that it is incredible with piano. Most realistic piano I have heard from a DAC.

 

[The Smokester]

This signifies to me that the Yiggy & Alpha standard don't tick the correct ASA (auditory scene analysis) boxes - these are the cues we hear in the structure of sounds which we perceive as natural - if these are reproduced correctly the illusion is good even for the CD you exampled.

It's good to have examples of such CDs which separate the wheat from the chaff in playback systems

Would you be so kind as to give references to a few of these CD's? I'd like to put prospective DACs to the test.

 

[jkeny]

Would you be so kind as to give references to a few of these CD's? I'd like to put prospective DACs to the test.

I'm interested in compiling a list of music like that too - unfortunately I haven't got such a list at the moment

I know Frank (Fas42) always stated that this was the test he used for sorting out playback systems - he uses some status quo CDs & some others - I'll try to find out the exact ones & report back

 

[the sound of Tao]

For what it's worth, I compared the Aqua Formula to my dCS Vivaldi DAC. I really liked the Aqua's full body and closer presentation compared to the Vivaldi's mid-hall presentation, but the Aqua didn't resolve detail as good as the Vivaldi.

As particularly resolving as I imagine your system to be I'd also guess then most every change would equally be some shift in perception. My mate with the Aqua La Scala has moved up to the Formula now and we have a session penned in for lunch and listening coming up so look forward to hearing this shortly as well.

That distinction between a presentation of the sound stage being more immediate as opposed to a stage presented as a bit more removed and more distant is always interesting because it does often relate for me as such a very different listening outcome in terms of the more immediate involvement and in some ways a differing intensity of the experience.

As I get older this is one area where having two systems makes sense for me. Too much intensity with the music being always fully on and super present is good in bursts but sometimes I'm starting to realise it is great to also be able to choose to back away from the music and get a different more measured perspective and appreciation of the music as well as the sound. Hard to lock down and define but maybe it's not just about the sense of space presented by some gear but also the sense of time required to process all the information that is being presented.

That is also what strikes me as great about your listening group in that you have a range of systems that are so clearly in continuous development and that you all share experiences over time and express and articulate well what you share when listening to each other's systems. That's just really invaluable.

 

[jkeny]

The CD transport was the same as mine with the dCS Rossini/Berkeley Ref audition (Simaudio/Moon 260 DT). I have heard the same problem on a NADAC (both PCM straight and HQPlayer --> DSD), but with the CD played from file. The violin sound was flat, synthetic and without fine detail.

I have not encountered a timbre problem with solo violin to such an extent on my Berkeley and Yggy on any more modern CD. The solo violin on Yarlung Records -- Art of the Violin, for example, sounded maybe a bit more detailed on a dCS Vivaldi in another system, but there was no world of difference to what I hear in my system. The level of detail there is still remarkable. Timbre in my system on that CD is also good.

Yea, most DACs handle good recordings without difficulty - it's the 'bad' recordings that can show some flaws.

I understand that, but since my DACs perform just fine on modern solo violin recordings/CDs I don't think they have inherent problems with presenting the instrument correctly.

It's not a criticism, just an observation

I agree with that. This is also why I chose that example.

***

BTW, my apologies for using the inaccurate term of "correcting" for issues in the decoding. A more accurate description might be the ability to extract the right data from a sub-optimal datastream. How that might work, I don't know. Unlike you I am not a digital engineer.

Right, 'correcting the issues' sounded like you meant some different manipulation of the digital data?

 

[amirm]

Yea, most DACs handle good recordings without difficulty - it's the 'bad' recordings that can show some flaws.

Based on what data?

 

[jkeny]

Based on what data?

Trolling again, I see!
Use some common sense - girl with guitar is not as much of a challenge to reproduction as full blown orchestral music in full flight.
Let's hear what Al M can tell you about the difference he hears with that CD on Yiggy & Berkeley alpha standard Vs his other DACs that produce exemplary sound?
You may learn something but then again, I doubt it?

 

[amirm]

Trolling again, I see!
Use some common sense - girl with guitar is not as much of a challenge to reproduction as full blown orchestral music in full flight.
let's hear what Al M can tell you about the difference he hears with that CD on Yiggy & Berkeley alpha standard Vs his other DACs that produce exemplary sound fr this CD?
You may learn something but then again, I doubt it?

In other words, you answer is based on nothing. Random conjecture.

 

[jkeny]

In other words, you answer is based on nothing. Random conjecture.

And even more trolling - you never know when to stop, do you?

 

[amirm]

And even more trolling - you never know when to stop, do you?

This is your second chance. Based on what engineering principal or listening test data does crappy recording separates the DACs better?

 

[jkeny]

In other words, you answer is based on nothing. Random conjecture.

So you have no inquisitiveness & don't want to hear what Al M has to say about the differences he hears with the Yiggy Vs dCs playing back that 'bad recorded' (his words) CD & yet on well recorded CDs he hears no difference between Yiggy & dCs?

Just want to troll instead?

 

[jkeny]

This is your second chance. Based on what engineering principal or listening test data does crappy recording separates the DACs better?

Are you saying Al M's report of what he hears is imaginary - it's his perception?

 

[amirm]

So you have no inquisitiveness & don't want to hear what Al M has to say about the differences he hears with the Yiggy Vs dCs playing back that 'bad recorded' (his words) CD & yet on well recorded CDs he hears no difference between Yiggy & dCs?

Just want to troll instead?

You made an assertion, and I am asking you about it. If you know no knowledge in this area, and were just repeating what Al said, just say so and we will move on.

 

[amirm]

Are you saying Al M's report of what he hears is imaginary - it's his perception?

I don't know what he is hearing. I know however how DACs work and what separates them does not rely on having bad recording.

Take very low level resolution where DACs may be more likely to be different from each other. You cannot hear such detail among super loud segments of music. Masking will be powerful and will dwarf the information in low level bits. In that regard a highly compressed, grungy and loud piece of music would be the opposite of what you want.

On the other hand, take an audiophile recording with a note decaying into absolute silence. Listen to that tail, turn up the volume and see how long it goes on before truncating. Ideally put that in an AB loop so that it doesn't move on to another segment with loud passages. Then do an AB with another DAC. Audible differences in low level detail will become much easier to hear.

See? Here is an engineering and subjective evaluation tied into a coherent strategy that works. This is kind of answer I expect someone who understands the technology to give. What a subjectivist will say will be different and is not necessarily rationalizable using audio science/engineering.

 

[jkeny]

You made an assertion, and I am asking you about it. If you know no knowledge in this area, and were just repeating what Al said, just say so and we will move on.

So, let's deal with the specific first - Al M made a claim about a 'bad' recording sounding fine on dCs & other DACs & yet not on the Yiggy.
he also stated that the Yiggy sounded fine when playing back what he considered 'good' recordings
So now we have a dichotomy

Explain it or question Al

Thereafter we can move to the more general case!
Instead of your trolling attempts to always ignore the details - deal with the details first before you jump to your usual trolling

 

[jkeny]

I don't know what he is hearing. I know however how DACs work and what separates them does not rely on having bad recording.

So let me rephrase that - "you don't know what Al hears & you don't care as you know what he SHOULD hear ACCORDING TO YOU"

Take very low level resolution where DACs may be more likely to be different from each other. You cannot hear such detail among super loud segments of music. Masking will be powerful and will dwarf the information in low level bits. In that regard a highly compressed, grungy and loud piece of music would be the opposite of what you want.

Your masking is so much simplistic BS that it's not even worth addressing - I'm happy for you to wallow in your ignorance as there is nothing anybody can say which will open your understanding to reality - go preach to the flock on ASR - why the need to come here - attention?

On the other hand, take an audiophile recording with a note decaying into absolute silence. Listen to that tail, turn up the volume and see how long it goes on before truncating. Ideally put that in an AB loop so that it doesn't move on to another segment with loud passages. Then do an AB with another DAC. Audible differences in low level detail will become much easier to hear.

See? Here is an engineering and subjective evaluation tied into a coherent strategy that works. This is kind of answer I expect someone who understands the technology to give. What a subjectivist will say will be different and is not necessarily rationalizable using audio science/engineering.

Suggest that test to Al & see what he comes back with - I don't need your condescending, simplistic sermonizing - it's boringly predictable.