State-of-the-Art Digital

Concerning technical details you are just quoting full sentences from other sources that are not relevant to what I stated - nothing new. You state "apparently" and add the usual references to medical and military. I can show direct measurements, data and graphs that show these DACs are technically very different.

As I said above:
Both the dCS designers and the Yggy designer (Mike Moffat) wanted to make DACs that sounded very good, but importantly also measured well. They might certainly disagree as to what constitutes good measurements.

And sorry, making judgments on DACs based on measurements is only ridiculous for those who are not knowledgeable enough to interpret them. Measurements do not tell the whole story, but tell a lot.

The statement about specifications that I quoted was made only with respect to the number of bits, and it was explained why this mattered less than many people think.

BTW we have all kind of perspectives in WBF - for example some people valuate mostly the speakers and consider that decent electronics sound all similar, or even that differences between competent DACs are minimal - I am ready to understand their point of view when I see their preferences and systems. It is part of the hobby.

I certainly do think that there are clear differences between electronics, and so do all my audiophile friends. Or are you insinuating something here?
 
Now, now boys ! Does it really matter if the Yggi or the Vivaldi is a smidgen more correct and analog sounding, when you just play your vinyl rig and forget the whole debacle ? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: abeidrov
As I said above:
Both the dCS designers and the Yggy designer (Mike Moffat) wanted to make DACs that sounded very good, but importantly also measured well. They might certainly disagree as to what constitutes good measurements.
Never seen a designer that did not want to make a DAC does not sound very good. The disagreement just shows that the objectives are different ...
The statement about specifications that I quoted was made only with respect to the number of bits, and it was explained why this mattered less than many people think.
There is a lot more than just bits in DAC design, and besides the explanation is very poor.
But is proves the design objectives are different ... :)

I certainly do think that there are clear differences between electronics, and so do all my audiophile friends. Or are you insinuating something here?
Nothing at all, I have a couple of friends who are sure "electronics objectivists" and own excellent sounding systems.
 
Now, now boys ! Does it really matter if the Yggi or the Vivaldi is a smidgen more correct and analog sounding, when you just play your vinyl rig and forget the whole debacle ? ;)

Good point Lagonda, but I am a looser in this point. Considering the measurements I think that the Yggy is more analogue sounding! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lagonda
Good point Lagonda, but I am a looser in this point. Considering the measurements I think that the Yggy is more analogue sounding! ;)
One day Francisco you are going to strap that big AS 2000 Pabst motor to the big flywheel of the Forsell and forget this silly discussion ;)
 
Last edited:
Sound is sound. Analog or digital is also sound. People usually say vinyl systems is a true high-fidelity audio system but they forget that vinyl never have right parameter in the measurements. People love analog systems because of their ears and eyes and actually these systems greeted their ears with sweet mediant. About sound, no analog systems can compare with the digital systems in the hi-end level, except mediant.

I respect people owns the analog systems. It is their passion. I have no ideas about that. I love the digital systems because the quality sound which it brings.
 
Sound is sound. Analog or digital is also sound. People usually say vinyl systems is a true high-fidelity audio system but they forget that vinyl never have right parameter in the measurements. People love analog systems because of their ears and eyes and actually these systems greeted their ears with sweet mediant. About sound, no analog systems can compare with the digital systems in the hi-end level, except mediant.

I respect people owns the analog systems. It is their passion. I have no ideas about that. I love the digital systems because the quality sound which it brings.
The funny thing is that almost all that own truly high-end in both categories, give the nod to analog :rolleyes: Only focusing on digital does not really qualify !
 
in my large purpose built room, 100% of the surfaces are hardwood, including the ceiling and floor, excepting carpet on the rear 2/3rds of the floor, and -4- 18" wide floor to ceiling fabric covered bass traps along the rear wall. with all these very reflective surfaces, many of which are diffusive, i have a natural huge excess of music energy in my room, plus twin tower speakers with plenty of driver surface.

since there is so much music energy present, i have been able to use thin cloth wall covering strategically placed, to eliminate harmful reflective energy while still maintaining plenty of musical energy. the cloth only knocks down reflections, it does not alter tonality.

it was not trivial to place this cloth surface treatment appropriately; it took 6 months of constant trial and error work to get it done.

with this work done, this idea of digititis is effectively neutered. but i can tell you prior to doing this work it was very much evident. i've even been able to move my listening position to a nearfield spot only 100" from twin 7' tall towers. and everything is natural and easy on the ears. that was never an option previously. and digital listening from that spot is heavenly.

i could see how real world rooms might struggle to find the right balance listening to signal paths with excellent digital. it's solvable but not easy to do. and the trick is not blunting your system for the analog sources you have. there is little room for error if you desire SOTA of both. great digital asks more of the room than analog for a great result.

digital is a better room tuning tool than analog since it's ideal window of naturalness is so much narrower.

my 2 cents, YMMV. just how it looks to me considering my experiences.
A great post full of real world trial and error problem solving facts. Mine have tried headphones as a tool to compare room sounds. I use this as a tool as well
 
The funny thing is that almost all that own truly high-end in both categories, give the nod to analog :rolleyes: Only focusing on digital does not really qualify !
The funny thing is that almost all that own truly high-end in both categories, say analog systems are better but they spent 80-90% time to listen on the digital system :)
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is that almost all that own truly high-end in both categories, say analog systems are better but they spent 80-90% time to listen on the digital system :)
Lazy people ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve Vu
SInce i have the levinson dac i listen about 50-50 .
I like both these days , but spinning some hiqh quality tapes is the best .
But only 20-30 % of the available tapes give that feeling , most are just crappy recordings you might as well spin a CD
 
Tough one to answer. I've often thought there's no more to it than practice, perhaps coupled to the ability to remember aroma and taste? As to "digititis", I don't think of it as a blessing to be overly sensitive, that would be ironic given it's a migraine trigger to me, but it's true, millions of people work in open space offices etc. lighted with fluorescent tubes, apparently without noticing they're constantly flickering, so maybe distortion isn't the same to everyone in a similar vein, comparable to their attention and/or appreciation of aroma and flavor? I don't know. What I do know is the latter may be interpreted as a gift, but the former? When I'm e.g. in a classroom or an office lighted by neon tubes, I can't get over the fact that people work there all day, every day. How could they? Listening to a DAC producing digital artifacts feels exactly the same to me.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
They are all connected...it is the brain that links them...
 
Never seen a designer that did not want to make a DAC does not sound very good. The disagreement just shows that the objectives are different ...

You may have gotten your measurement data from Stereophile and Amir at Audio Science Review.

Here are dissenters to Amir, with their own measurements that tell a quite different story:

Yggdrasil A2 Measurements - Deconstructing ASR / Amir's Hack Job

Schiit Yggdrasil Impressions thread, p. 558


Here are other measurements:

Schiit Yggdrasil V2 upgrade Technical Measurements


By the way, as others do, I use the recommended balanced output from the Yggy, which also measures better (see above links).
 
You may have gotten your measurement data from Stereophile and Amir at Audio Science Review.

Here are dissenters to Amir, with their own measurements that tell a quite different story:

Yggdrasil A2 Measurements - Deconstructing ASR / Amir's Hack Job

Schiit Yggdrasil Impressions thread, p. 558


Here are other measurements:

Schiit Yggdrasil V2 upgrade Technical Measurements


By the way, as others do, I use the recommended balanced output from the Yggy, which also measures better (see above links).

None of these numbers are clear indicators of sound quality, one way or the other. What can probably be said is that they influence the perceived sound in SOME way. Same for DCS and all other digital products. Despite what Microstrip claims, digital artifacts impacting sound quality in a significant way is not a thing of the distant past. It should be clear from the still existing significant difference between different products that this is still an issue. Also, all DACs need an analog output stage to get the converted signal to the amplifier in a way that most amps/preamps will be able to deal with it adequately. That analog output stage is just as critical as a good preamp and will also impact a lot of the distortion measurements (not the jitter though I assume) that additionally impact sound quality.
 
You may have gotten your measurement data from Stereophile and Amir at Audio Science Review.

Here are dissenters to Amir, with their own measurements that tell a quite different story:

Yggdrasil A2 Measurements - Deconstructing ASR / Amir's Hack Job

Schiit Yggdrasil Impressions thread, p. 558


Here are other measurements:

Schiit Yggdrasil V2 upgrade Technical Measurements


By the way, as others do, I use the recommended balanced output from the Yggy, which also measures better (see above links).
The Yggdrasil needs a Long warm up time.. Amir used a hairdryer to heat up the unit for his test.. Whatever he could do to make it look bad, he extended himself. He seems to work for his sponsors by putting down others. Not a very reputable source of information..
I too use the balanced outs on the Yggy. The summing of the SE outputs doesn’t sound as good..
 
There is a lot more than just bits in DAC design, and besides the explanation is very poor.

Really? How so? And don't you think "Equivalent Number of Bits (ENOB) to signify the actual resolution of the DAC", as he referenced, are the measurement that is really relevant?
 
None of these numbers are clear indicators of sound quality, one way or the other.

As Jude in the second link that I provided says:

"Schiit Audio has been very forthcoming about the fact that their multi-bit DACs will in general not measure as well as delta-sigma DACs (theirs or others). They've been very upfront about this, and have repeatedly stated that they simply feel their multi-bit DACs sound better, and a lot of their customers agree. I have purchased most of their multibit models, understanding they won't measure as well as their delta-sigma counterparts, just as I also know a simple CMOY portable amp probably will measure better than all of my favorite tube amps."

The measurements need to be seen in the context of the genre of multi-bit DACs, and in that context they appear to be very good (at least when they are correctly taken and represented, see the rebuttals of Amir in the referenced links).
 
None of these numbers are clear indicators of sound quality, one way or the other.
That's fact. One of the few measurements that is an indicator of sound quality is the reconstruction of an isolated waveform (which still, isn't music), such as:

Bildschirmfoto 2020-12-14 um 12.04.54.png

Needless to say, two DACs may share virtually identical waveform reconstruction and still sound different.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: microstrip
None of these numbers are clear indicators of sound quality, one way or the other. What can probably be said is that they influence the perceived sound in SOME way. Same for DCS and all other digital products.

Exactly my point - but the existing measurements show significant differences between the two DACs being addressed that result in differences in sound.
Despite what Microstrip claims, digital artifacts impacting sound quality in a significant way is not a thing of the distant past. It should be clear from the still existing significant difference between different products that this is still an issue. Also, all DACs need an analog output stage to get the converted signal to the amplifier in a way that most amps/preamps will be able to deal with it adequately. That analog output stage is just as critical as a good preamp and will also impact a lot of the distortion measurements (not the jitter though I assume) that additionally impact sound quality.
Again, please tell us what are the exact technical artifacts you are addressing. And if possible, please nominate the recent DACs you feel suffer from these problems. I fully agree on the contribution of the analog output stage - I have amateurish modified several DACs in 90's, including suppressing the output stage and replacing with a single 10 ohm resistor to perform the IV conversion followed by a inductor and capacitor filter . Listening to alternative values of the load resistor was an interesting exercise - unfortunately I did not have access to a distortion spectrometer at that time.
 
You may have gotten your measurement data from Stereophile and Amir at Audio Science Review.

Here are dissenters to Amir, with their own measurements that tell a quite different story:

Yggdrasil A2 Measurements - Deconstructing ASR / Amir's Hack Job

Schiit Yggdrasil Impressions thread, p. 558


Here are other measurements:

Schiit Yggdrasil V2 upgrade Technical Measurements


By the way, as others do, I use the recommended balanced output from the Yggy, which also measures better (see above links).
No, I am not addressing the ASR measurements, why are you bringing them here? But even your sources insist on a common key - the Yggy measurements are good when compared with a typical multibit DAC , not with the best measuring DACs we are addressing.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu