Schiit Yggdrasil DAC and MQA

[opus112]

I was not stating it a as fact, but something that IMHO Al M. (or me, or any cable believer BTW) must accept. When we change cables the differences in signal are most fo the time very low - some people state around -130 dB - and we claim we listen to them. These differences are much lower than the lsb.

I accept this too but right now I'm not seeing how this might relate to digital audio theory. Are you of the view that digital audio is incapable of conveying signals smaller than the LSB?

 

[ack]

I Coming from analog, I kind of like the idea of spinning CDs on a transport and not owning a DAC or file server that requires constant downloadable upgrades to fix issues and remain "current". For ultimate sound quality, at this point, I have not yet heard digital that is superior to the best analog, but that may very well change. As I say, I will listen, compare to my references, and remain open minded.

A little off topic, but PC-audio folks tend to forget that a transport is a custom computer - and a great transport is a fanatically-tuned custom computer

 

[microstrip]

I accept this too but right now I'm not seeing how this might relate to digital audio theory. Are you of the view that digital audio is incapable of conveying signals smaller than the LSB?

Just telling if I change the analog signal cables, accepted to sound different, in an DAC /ADC 44.1 kHz 16 bit loop we get exactly the same bits in the output. Recording ADCs manage to convey very small signals using much more sophisticated techniques - not just sampling at 16 bit every 22.7 microsecond.

 

[opus112]

Just telling if I change the analog signal cables, accepted to sound different, in an DAC /ADC 44.1 kHz 16 bit loop we get exactly the same bits in the output.

If the design's done professionally then TPDF dither will be employed at the ADC. This means even without any change to the cables whatsoever the bits will never be the same two runs in succession.

 

[microstrip]

If the design's done professionally then TPDF dither will be employed at the ADC. This means even without any change to the cables whatsoever the bits will never be the same two runs in succession.

Yes, it is a very good point. But dither is not part of the sampling theorem. I am assuming simple noiseless sampling, it was what I was addressing in my answer to Al M.

 

[opus112]

I am assuming simple noiseless sampling, it was what I was addressing in my answer to Al M.

I am curious - why assume noiseless when no real-world samplers are noiseless?

 

[awsmone]

If the design's done professionally then TPDF dither will be employed at the ADC. This means even without any change to the cables whatsoever the bits will never be the same two runs in succession.

Dither can increase the resolution of the LSB, so yes it does push the resolution further

It would seem at first glance this is a paradox, random noise, making something clearer

This is most easily perceived in dither in black and white image from grayscale images, where dither actually and quite obviously enhances the resolution of the image

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Michelangelo's_David_-_Floyd-Steinberg.png

 

[awsmone]

Al,

According to theory and theorems we would be using perfect measuring electronics in our systems ...

ADCs and DACs are not perfect, most probably higher sample rates manage to disguise better their faults. Remember that audio ADC and DAC data sheets do not specify single sample linearity or monotonicity, contrary to our laboratory converters.

Except for jitter, digital audio did not create standard new measurements that could correlate with subjective audio - they are still using the old measurements developed decades ago for analog electronics. So we must use our imperfect ears ...

I am sure that MSB or DCS could teach us a lot on this subject, but I am sure they are not interested at all in doing it.

I am not sure that's really true

High performance adc are used in the military for radar and antiballistic countermeasures

There are many ways to measure ADC and DAC performance

What seems to be the case is that some of the issues known to be a problem in digital audio are related to design and performance parameters and discounted as not relevant as they were below subjective hearing limits, are relevant such as preringing, extended bandwidth etc

An interesting article I saw only today showed that noise shaping which was constant but apparently below human hearing could be perceived compared with an adaptive noise shaping format ....interesting

 

[awsmone]

+1000

Peter, that's a great attitude and one that I feel will allow you to explore and ultimately benefit when and if you actually decide to invest more in digital. I have the same opinion. Personally, I still feel that digital is second to analog, if one is looking for ultimate reproduction.

awsmone, before any more "supposition" and "skepticism" along with "name calling", why not get off your duff and go and listen to a good DAC that can let you hear the fully unfolded MQA and then have an opinion.No??

Never knew being called a Saint was name calling ....lol

 

[DaveyF]

Glad it impressed you, and you enjoyed it

I must admit though your enthusiasm is ....a bit over zealous....it's like you had a "road to Damascus moment"

I can see that for inferior old digital recordings, removing preringing could make an obvious improvement

And for downloading hires streaming it is a nice packaging system in theory

Also deblurring may well be successful for older digital recordings where the techniques used are well understood

But, it's a digital "patch" and lossy packaging system, not an end point, and could well have its place for things like Tidal, and grand old digital recordings needing a retouch

Your ears tell you it's great, and that's fabulous for you

However, your enthusiasm doesn't mean we should not have a health dose of skepticism give what we know about technically so far, and digital long history of promised solutions

I dub you :- St Paul... of MQA

Called a saint??

As you well know...depends on the context!

Meanwhile, I'm certain that you have NOT heard MQA full unfolded and are just postulating.
Like others on this thread who have not heard it either. Too bad that just one listen would change the attitude. Question is how quiet the poster would then become....I suspect we wouldn't hear another peep, LOL

 

[KeithR]

OK, let me put forth my understanding of what MQA is and what it wants to be. This is just my interpretation of it, based on some reading and conversations with people involved, not with MQA directly.

First, it has absolutey nothing to do with DSD. Comparisons to that format are misguided at best.

Audiophiles are the last thing on MQA's mind. They're aiming for something much, much bigger, and a lot more pervasive than high-end stereo systems. Think your car. Your TV. Or your phone. MQA is selling themselves as a way of putting hi-res into bandwidth constricted devices, while also offering a solution to the old provenance issue that plagues hi-res downloads.

That's why you don't see MQA downloads. They just don't care for the minuscule market such endeavour would end up being. Streaming is where it'll be.

So, I hope that also answers the question "where's the money in MQA". It's with big corporations who'll pay to have MQA implemented in their devices.

Also, don't expect to see MQA do the same mistakes the DSD folks did, aiming for audiophile-approved content almost exclusively. And if you ask me, that's the way to go. A good mix of modern, contemporary music, along with classic recordings across most popular genres, is the way to go, and seems to be exactly where they're at right now.

I welcome people to pick some MQA stuff on Tidal, and I can do a quick A x B versus the 16/44 on Tidal as well, and if it's an album I own, I can even compare to other formats.


cheers,
alex

+1. Thanks Alex, you summed it up perfectly. This is all about streaming to the masses anywhere, anytime to any device. Very much unlike anything in the past.

 

[Al M.]

Called a saint??

As you well know...depends on the context!

Meanwhile, I'm certain that you have NOT heard MQA full unfolded and are just postulating.
Like others on this thread who have not heard it either. Too bad that just one listen would change the attitude. Question is how quiet the poster would then become....I suspect we wouldn't hear another peep, LOL

Once MQA has more than 200,000 titles I'll be interested. Around that mark will be the point that it transitions for me from the usual uninteresting audiophile curiosity format to a music lover's format, like vinyl, CD and CD-quality streaming (compressed formats aside). But that's a hypothetical. In reality, it ain't gonna happen. If it does, count me as being interested.

 

[Al M.]

+1. Thanks Alex, you summed it up perfectly. This is all about streaming to the masses anywhere, anytime to any device. Very much unlike anything in the past.

We'll see who turns out to be realistic about this. Let's talk in five years, shall we?

 

[Al M.]

I was not stating it a as fact, but something that IMHO Al M. (or me, or any cable believer BTW) must accept. When we change cables the differences in signal are most fo the time very low - some people state around -130 dB - and we claim we listen to them. These differences are much lower than the lsb.

That strikes me as a somewhat odd assertion. When the switch from my old to my new interconnects caused me to turn my corner tube traps from the diffusive to the absorptive side, in order to balance the increase in high-frequency energy, and then three of us preferred the new configuration/cables over the old configuration/cables, with my two guests not having been in the know about the tube trap change (I asked them to leave the room while performing it), we are hardly talking about a -130 dB difference in signal (my guests hadn't liked the perceived high-frequency 'spike' upon cable switch without the tube trap change). Also, when I can hear a clear difference in the quality of orchestral massed strings playing fortissimo, as reproduced through the two kinds of interconnect, this can hardly be about a -130 dB difference in signal either.

 

[DaveyF]

Once MQA has more than 200,000 titles I'll be interested. Around that mark will be the point that it transitions for me from the usual uninteresting audiophile curiosity format to a music lover's format, like vinyl, CD and CD-quality streaming (compressed formats aside). But that's a hypothetical. In reality, it ain't gonna happen. If it does, count me as being interested.

Al, surely one doesn't need 200K titles to find something of interest to listen to?? Personally, if there are just 10 titles that are a little interesting to me, I would be very interested in hearing the title with better SQ than the standard file. To me, almost all music is good...and if it sounds better, I'm all in. So, as an upgrade path, that's what would spike my interest and my $$'s...vs. something that does not have the technology and therefore in some ways is already a 'boat anchor'. Yes, i know in digital, changes are rapid and frequent, but at least if its already there and in the budget...why not?

 

[microstrip]

That strikes me as a somewhat odd assertion. When the switch from my old to my new interconnects caused me to turn my corner tube traps from the absorptive to the diffusive side, in order to balance the increase in high-frequency energy, and then three of us preferred the new configuration/cables over the old configuration/cables, with my two guests not having been in the know about the tube trap change (I asked them to leave the room while performing it), we are hardly talking about a -130 dB difference in signal. Also, when I can hear a clear difference in the quality of orchestral massed strings playing fortissimo, as reproduced through the two kinds of interconnect, this can hardly about a -130 dB difference in signal either.

Although I do not have the details of your system and cables, differences between signal cables can be in this order of magnitude. It is why many respected people say all "decent" cables sound the same and we can not prove to them they sound different. You need special techniques to measure differences in cables in the audio band, and the measured differences fall bellow the established levels of audibility. It is why magazines never have a measurement section on cable reviews ...

 

[DaveyF]

Although I do not have the details of your system and cables, differences between signal cables can be in this order of magnitude. It is why many respected people say all "decent" cables sound the same and we can not prove to them they sound different. You need special techniques to measure differences in cables in the audio band, and the measured differences fall bellow the established levels of audibility. It is why magazines never have a measurement section on cable reviews ...

Interesting....and all IYHO.

 

[microstrip]

I am curious - why assume noiseless when no real-world samplers are noiseless?

Because Al M. interest was just the theoretical performance of redbook. We are now navigating away of the main subject.

 

[microstrip]

Interesting....and all IYHO.

Surely. But supported by my measurements, that are limited by the EMU tracker I use in my spectrometer, other measurements presented in WBF in the past by other members and Mr. Van Den Hul words that I have quoted before in WBF. Also by most of the "scientific audio community" in some other audio forums.

Do you expect to measure a significant difference in the audio band between two similar cables, one with a silver wire and another with a copper wire? Or between OCC and OFC copper, all else being similar?

 

[Al M.]

Al, surely one doesn't need 200K titles to find something of interest to listen to?? Personally, if there are just 10 titles that are a little interesting to me, I would be very interested in hearing the title with better SQ than the standard file. To me, almost all music is good...and if it sounds better, I'm all in. So, as an upgrade path, that's what would spike my interest and my $$'s...vs. something that does not have the technology and therefore in some ways is already a 'boat anchor'. Yes, i know in digital, changes are rapid and frequent, but at least if its already there and in the budget...why not?

Davey, I am not contemplating buying a new source for digital data, in this case a competent streamer ($$$ for real quality), and changing my DAC *) just for a few titles that interest me. For the same (or less) money I'd rather perform system upgrades that substantially affect the sound quality with which my entire music collection is reproduced -- an upgrade to the Reference 3A Reflector speakers comes to mind as next step. For the same practical reason I have never invested in SACD, and I am very, very glad I didn't get distracted by the format (I know others think differently about that, and if you're into multi-channel it's a different matter anyway). I have much bigger fish to fry than investing in 'unicorn formats'.

Again, if MQA ever becomes really mainstream, the conditions for my considerations will change dramatically. And then Mike Moffat will also have changed his mind and made the Yggy MQA compatible. There is no reason for him to do that while MQA is still a fringe format.

As for your 'boat anchor' comment, I'll best leave it unanswered.

***

This afternoon I started my music session with John McLaughlin's "Boston Concert" (2013). The first few seconds of the first track that I played, 'Call & Answer', already put a big fat smile on my face, the music and how it sounded. While I also played other things, I ended with the wonderful, complex and hypnotic sounds of 'African Beat' (1962) by Art Blakey & The Messengers. Of course all plain Redbook CD.

Once those albums are available in MQA, tell me.

________________________________________________

*) or in this case, supplementing it with another one since there is no way I am getting rid of the Yggy anytime soon