State-of-the-Art Digital

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

 

[microstrip]

But that's been my point all along: if the problem of digititis persists, one may want to look at the next best cause, i.e. the one that sounds most like "digititis", and that is comb filtering.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

I have found that it is a hard thing to do - suppress the comb filtering effects responsible for "hardness" without suppressing the reflections needed to create the envelopment and spaciousness needed for enjoyment.

 

[acousticsguru]

I have found that it is one hard thing to do - suppress the comb filtering effects responsible for "hardness" without suppressing the reflections needed to create the envelopment and spaciousness needed for enjoyment.

BTW, the major purpose of the Wilson placing method is minimizing comb filter - I quote the XLF manual :

"Subjectively, comb filter effect evidences itself as follows:
• Added roughness to the sound
• Reduction of harmonic richness
• Smearing of lateral soundstage image focus and placement
Comb filter effects are often caused by side wall reflections. They are best controlled by very careful speaker placement and by the judicious placement of Illbruck Sonex® or air duct panels applied to that part of the wall where the reflection occurs."

My best ever listening session with the Vivaldi stack was with the WAMM speakers at our local distributor - the sound was so coherent, free of artifacts and "liquid" that surpassed anything in this particular aspect that I have listened until today, particularly in soprano and other voices.

But it took two full days to the Wilson team to assemble, position and set up the speakers - immediately after assembly the sound was rough and poor.

That's a great illustrative story, and in their defense, two days isn't bad. The first time I heard a dCS DAC was about twenty years ago at a trade show in a room where Alfred Rudolph of Acapella was setting up a system for the then importer Audioforum. We showed up early, and he wasn't done, so we had to wait while he was making minuscule adjustments. At some point he decided to play back a few tracks from a CD we all knew, and for this purpose swapped to the dCS Purcell and Delius combo. I don't remember anything about the sound but that my inner migraine tension, which makes me weary of such triggers as fluorescent light, suddenly dropped. I literally sunk into the chair in a state of relaxation that I had never encountered with digital playback. We promised Rudolph to come back and listen to his horn speakers again once he'd be satisfied with the setup, eventually took him out for dinner. In-between, we checked out all the rooms at the expo, and what happened was I walked into one and heard similarly tension-free playback from a system I didn't otherwise like, and because there was a turntable spinning, was surprised by the complete absence of groove noise. We were then informed we were listening to digital playback from a Purcell and Elgar combo. That's how I became an early dCS customer.

In the meantime, dCS isn't the only company building DACs that I perceive as free from digititis (or "artifacts" as you call them) anymore. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised there are still DACs being made 20 years later that audibly suffer from digititis. But there's clearly choice now.

Apart from which I've had a love and hate relationship with their products over the years for a few reasons, such as that even my second-generation (2001?) units couldn't be updated after the whole lineup had to be redesigned to comply with RoHS standards. I didn't like the sound of those models that did comply with the then RoHS standard, nor did the guys at Audioforum, who soon after quit importing the brand. Not only did the new models sound worse, they cost more, too. Next, I wasn't at all convinced with the DSD playback up to and including the first-generation Vivaldi and Rossini. Of course they finally got it right with Version 2.0 for their modern-day models. Also, none of this has anything to do with "digititis", just saying, I know the different models and their history so well that, to put it mildly, I'd call my perspective "nuanced". To this day they're unable to design their top of line models such that a non-tech savvy user is going to get the best out of each and every digital format. With all due respect for their military and studio expertise and accolades, has anyone ever told them that a product isn't perfect before its operation is intuitive. Of all people, a bunch of nerds should know it's against the professional honor even (and especially) of engineers to consult a manual…

Last but not least, I've heard so many systems with dCS source components over the years, and frankly didn't like most of them. Of course I know this has nothing to do with their products. Or maybe it does, to an extent. To give one example, after I heard disappointing DSD64 playback from a Vivaldi 2.0 based system earlier this year, I didn't take me long to figure the owner was using the worst possible settings. There's surely a lot to be said in favor of all those upsampling and filter choices, but in the wrong hands…

What I'm seeing most often is their products showcased and marketed, indeed sold and installed, with other "techie" brands whose philosophy and sound I wouldn't want to be associated with regardless of the positive impact it may have on their sales.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[PeterA]

Rather than a complicated and time consuming room overhaul, a simple DAC swap (you can borrow one from a friend even) would also tell you if the problem lay in the room or your DAC. Hope that clarifies...

I’ve heard egregious effects from cables and power cords on DACs. Member Ack Is reporting startling sonic gains on his YGGY2 DAC by simply trying a different power cord. I don’t know whether or not it would be considered SOTA.

 

[ack]

But that's the weird part. A good amount of what I originally perceived to be artificial digital distortions in my system, especially 'digititis' in the highs, turned out to be room distortions (soundwave distortions by the room or by objects in the room, including gear). The digital is just fine (as also confirmed in a friend's room who has in principle the same digital setup).

Think about it. Why do concert venues usually sound so good? An important part of the equation is that because of their size and design they exhibit few of those nasty uncontrolled short-distance reflections. It's important to mitigate those in your music room as well, if you want anything somewhat resembling a concert experience.

FWIW, I have no reason to believe that you remove digititis with room treatments - as I do believe digititis is an attribute of digital artifactls including the power supply - but I do wholeheartedly agree that the room is paramount to the great-sound equation, and as has been said numerous times, the better concert halls do sound better because of how the room is architected and constructed

 

[DoctorWhy]

Can you please elaborate so we can understand the comparative sonic impressions you have of the Yiggy versus the PS Audio versus the Luxman? What were the associated components in the system in which you heard each of these three DACs?

In what ways was the Yiggy "mediocre."

How was the PS Audio "much better"?

How was the Yiggy a distant third versus the Luxman?

Thank you.

Hi Ron. The Yiggy was a temporary replacement for the Luxman when in the shop. It had much less timbral richness. It sounded thin. It does not do DSD. When the Luxman returned, so did much more richness of the music. Also the luxman renders DSD with a more musical presentation than PCM. Appreciably better Micro and Macro dynamics. More texture and life than with PCM which was already better than the Yiggy. All I can say is that I would buy the Luxman over the Yiggy. The PS Audio Direct Stream Dac gives a little more of each of these. AS for sources, I was using a MacBook Pro with the Yiggy and with the Luxman initially. I got rid of the Yiggy before I switched to the Sonore Signature Rendu SE which was a DRAMATIC improvement with the Luxman DA-06. The Direct stream was a small improvement, much like the Luxman over the DCS Debussy. Associated Equipment Wilson Maxx 3 for these comparisons, Now Wilson XLF. Aesthetix Callisto Eclipse with 1 power supply, Hand Built custom Push - Pull tube amps with KT 88's. (There are about 18 of these in existence. Need to go to VTL Sigfried's or Boulder 2050 to beat them. I did compare them head to head with the Maxx 3's at a local Audio Store.). Stage III concepts cables. Hope this helps, although I know it is hard to assess my amps. (For reference I just got a pair of Nagra HD Amps which are MUCH better for electronic music, but worse for female vocal.)

 

[DoctorWhy]

The Ps Audio Direct Stream was much better than the Yiggy, slightly better than the Luxman.

 

[morricab]

FWIW, I have no reason to believe that you remove digititis with room treatments - as I do believe digititis is an attribute of digital artifactls including the power supply - but I do wholeheartedly agree that the room is paramount to the great-sound equation, and as has been said numerous times, the better concert halls do sound better because of how the room is architected and constructed

It seems to be more a case of mistaken identity...

 

[Al M.]

Hi Ron. The Yiggy was a temporary replacement for the Luxman when in the shop. It had much less timbral richness. It sounded thin. It does not do DSD. When the Luxman returned, so did much more richness of the music. Also the luxman renders DSD with a more musical presentation than PCM. Appreciably better Micro and Macro dynamics. More texture and life than with PCM which was already better than the Yiggy. All I can say is that I would buy the Luxman over the Yiggy. The PS Audio Direct Stream Dac gives a little more of each of these. AS for sources, I was using a MacBook Pro with the Yiggy and with the Luxman initially. I got rid of the Yiggy before I switched to the Sonore Signature Rendu SE which was a DRAMATIC improvement with the Luxman DA-06. The Direct stream was a small improvement, much like the Luxman over the DCS Debussy. Associated Equipment Wilson Maxx 3 for these comparisons, Now Wilson XLF. Aesthetix Callisto Eclipse with 1 power supply, Hand Built custom Push - Pull tube amps with KT 88's. (There are about 18 of these in existence. Need to go to VTL Sigfried's or Boulder 2050 to beat them. I did compare them head to head with the Maxx 3's at a local Audio Store.). Stage III concepts cables. Hope this helps, although I know it is hard to assess my amps. (For reference I just got a pair of Nagra HD Amps which are MUCH better for electronic music, but worse for female vocal.)

I am not sure which generation Yggy you had. I don't think there are major tonal differences between the Yggdrasil generation 1 (Yggy 1) and the current Yggdrasil Analog 2 DAC (Yggy 2). Yet the USB interface could make a substantial difference. If you had an Yggy 1 with the USB Gen 3 interface, and you used that one, this might be a problem right there. It is generally agreed upon, I think, that the USB Gen 3 interface was a weak link and substantially inferior to the USB Gen 5 interface (on later versions Yggy 1 and on Yggy 2), which again appears to have been bettered by the current Unison USB (I don't use the USB interface on my Yggy 2; an Empirical Audio Reclocker, receiving signal from a CD transport, feeds it via BNC input).

Another, perhaps even more important issue seems obvious when you say:
"I was using a MacBook Pro with the Yiggy and with the Luxman initially. I got rid of the Yiggy before I switched to the Sonore Signature Rendu SE which was a DRAMATIC improvement with the Luxman DA-06."

What if the MacBook Pro wasn't any good feeding the Yggy as well? How do you know if the Sonore Signature Rendu SE wouldn't be a dramatic improvement also with the Yggy? Computer RF noise can wreak havoc on the sound.

This context puts for me into question the circumstances under which you judged the Yggy to have a thin sound lacking timbral richness.

You say:
"The Yiggy was a temporary replacement for the Luxman when in the shop. It had much less timbral richness. It sounded thin. It does not do DSD. When the Luxman returned, so did much more richness of the music. Also the luxman renders DSD with a more musical presentation than PCM. Appreciably better Micro and Macro dynamics. More texture and life than with PCM which was already better than the Yiggy",

I assume from the above, even though this is not quite clear, that you imply that the Yggy was inferior in micro and macro dynamics as well. As I and other owners agree, the Yggy excels in these areas. It also excels in life -- that just leaps out on my system! -- and certainly in texture. Its resolution of timbral micro-detail and separation of instruments is phenomenal, among the best I have heard.

Your comments on these areas of performance also point to problems with the conditions under which you played the Yggy in your system.

The Yggy does not sound thin, it is a neutral DAC, more like dCS DACs. If it does sound thin, this is a problem of system context (or perhaps source feed as discussed above) -- my preamp upgrade and changes to room acoustics and set-up over the years have dramatically increased depth and richness of sound from the Yggy in my own system as well, even though I never found it "thin" sounding. Yet clearly, like dCS DACs, the Yggy doesn't "warm up" the sound. For modulation of sound at the DAC source, look elsewhere.

A friend owned the dCS Vivaldi DAC plus Upsampler (yet without Vivaldi clock, which many Vivaldi owners consider essential) and we compared the Yggy to the Vivaldi many times over several months. If anything, the Yggy sounded a bit richer and had more body in the lower midrange and mid-bass (even though less deep bass). Resolution of the two DACs in my friend's high-level system was comparable. Eventually he sold his Vivaldi (upgraded to version 2.0) in favor of the Yggy.

I have heard the PS Audio Directstream DAC myself in another friend's system, and I found it an inferior performer in all the areas discussed (I mentioned my audition in comparison with an MSB Premier in post # 773 on page 39 of this thread). Yet I don't know which server was feeding the Directstream DAC.

 

[Mikem53]

I am not sure which generation Yggy you had. I don't think there are major tonal differences between the Yggdrasil generation 1 (Yggy 1) and the current Yggdrasil Analog 2 DAC (Yggy 2). Yet the USB interface could make a substantial difference. If you had an Yggy 1 with the USB Gen 3 interface, and you used that one, this might be a problem right there. It is generally agreed upon, I think, that the USB Gen 3 interface was a weak link and substantially inferior to the USB Gen 5 interface (on later versions Yggy 1 and on Yggy 2), which again appears to have been bettered by the current Unison USB (I don't use the USB interface on my Yggy 2; an Empirical Audio Reclocker, receiving signal from a CD transport, feeds it via BNC input).

Another, perhaps even more important issue seems obvious when you say:
"I was using a MacBook Pro with the Yiggy and with the Luxman initially. I got rid of the Yiggy before I switched to the Sonore Signature Rendu SE which was a DRAMATIC improvement with the Luxman DA-06."

What if the MacBook Pro wasn't any good feeding the Yggy as well? How do you know if the Sonore Signature Rendu SE wouldn't be a dramatic improvement also with the Yggy? Computer RF noise can wreak havoc on the sound.

This context puts for me into question the circumstances under which you judged the Yggy to have a thin sound lacking timbral richness.

You say:
"The Yiggy was a temporary replacement for the Luxman when in the shop. It had much less timbral richness. It sounded thin. It does not do DSD. When the Luxman returned, so did much more richness of the music. Also the luxman renders DSD with a more musical presentation than PCM. Appreciably better Micro and Macro dynamics. More texture and life than with PCM which was already better than the Yiggy",

I assume from the above, even though this is not quite clear, that you imply that the Yggy was inferior in micro and macro dynamics as well. As I and other owners agree, the Yggy excels in these areas. It also excels in life -- that just leaps out on my system! -- and certainly in texture. Its resolution of timbral micro-detail and separation of instruments is phenomenal, among the best I have heard.

Your comments on these areas of performance also point to problems with the conditions under which you played the Yggy in your system.

The Yggy does not sound thin, it is a neutral DAC, more like dCS DACs. If it does sound thin, this is a problem of system context (or perhaps source feed as discussed above) -- my preamp upgrade and changes to room acoustics and set-up over the years have dramatically increased depth and richness of sound from the Yggy in my own system as well, even though I never found it "thin" sounding. Yet clearly, like dCS DACs, the Yggy doesn't "warm up" the sound. For modulation of sound at the DAC source, look elsewhere.

A friend owned the dCS Vivaldi DAC plus Upsampler (yet without Vivaldi clock, which many Vivaldi owners consider essential) and we compared the Yggy to the Vivaldi many times over several months. If anything, the Yggy sounded a bit richer and had more body in the lower midrange and mid-bass (even though less deep bass). Resolution of the two DACs in my friend's high-level system was comparable. Eventually he sold his Vivaldi (upgraded to version 2.0) in favor of the Yggy.

I have heard the PS Audio Directstream DAC myself in another friend's system, and I found it an inferior performer in all the areas discussed (I mentioned my audition in comparison with an MSB Premier in post # 773 on page 39 of this thread). Yet I don't know which server was feeding the Directstream DAC.

Those who try the Yggdrasil and don’t keep it powered up for days first, will not get the full potential of this DAC. You can’t just swap it in and judge it’s Sonics without having it powered up for a couple of days..
From TAS:
Designed by industry legend Mike Moffat, the Yggy DAC sounds very much like the famous Theta Digital DACs that Moffat designed in the 1980s and 1990s—but better. Like the Theta DACs of yore, the Yggy has a bold, assertive, vibrant, even vivid presentation. Because of this startling clarity, individual musical lines within complex arrangements are spatially and timbrally distinct. This has the effect of revealing each musical part with greater precision, as well as the intent of each musician—and with that comes a fuller, richer, and more complex presentation of the composition and arrangement. Transient attacks, from a hard-hit snare drum to the most delicate tap on a cymbal, are startlingly fast, defined, and vivid. If you’re looking for a DAC that does quad-rate DSD, decodes MQA, offers a volume control, and includes a headphone amp, look elsewhere. But if the very best reproduction of PCM sources is your goal, the Yggdrasil is the ticket. It’s a spectacular performer on an absolute level, and an out-of-this world bargain.

 

[acousticsguru]

It seems to be more a case of mistaken identity...

Precisely. What Al describes is the kind of scenario I had in mind, where one wrongly accuses the DAC of "digititis", only to find out later room acoustics were the culprit:

But that's the weird part. A good amount of what I originally perceived to be artificial digital distortions in my system, especially 'digititis' in the highs, turned out to be room distortions (soundwave distortions by the room or by objects in the room, including gear). The digital is just fine (as also confirmed in a friend's room who has in principle the same digital setup).

So what Brad/morricab refers to as "mistaken identity" is what I meant when I expressed my concern that people make dismissive blank statements. Whenever someone says something dismissive about a SOTA DAC or brand, I'd really prefer full disclosure in form of a photograph of the setup and room it was showcased in. That would help putting criticism into perspective.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[microstrip]

(...) This context puts for me into question the circumstances under which you judged the Yggy to have a thin sound lacking timbral richness.
(...)
(...)
A friend owned the dCS Vivaldi DAC plus Upsampler (yet without Vivaldi clock, which many Vivaldi owners consider essential) and we compared the Yggy to the Vivaldi many times over several months. If anything, the Yggy sounded a bit richer and had more body in the lower midrange and mid-bass (even though less deep bass). Resolution of the two DACs in my friend's high-level system was comparable. Eventually he sold his Vivaldi (upgraded to version 2.0) in favor of the Yggy.
(...)

Al M,

Well, nice you refer to context. You insist going on presenting this example every time you address the Yggy to enhance its performance. IMHO it is just an example of context - how a top performance unit can sound poor in the wrong context - no relation at all with the Yggy performance. And no, just the clock does not explain it. The clock improves its performance, and is a good investement for the DAC owners, but it is not miraculous. The essence of the DCS Vivaldi DAC is there, even without clock.

 

[morricab]

Precisely. What Al describes is the kind of scenario I had in mind, where one wrongly accuses the DAC of "digititis", only to find out later room acoustics were the culprit:

So what Brad/morricab refers to as "mistaken identity" is what I meant when I expressed my concern that people make dismissive blank statements. Whenever someone says something dismissive about a SOTA DAC or brand, I'd really prefer full disclosure in form of a photograph of the setup and room it was showcased in. That would help putting criticism into perspective.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Mistaken identity could also be an error in judgement...not that it is necessarily hard to distinguish one thing from another...

I am sure you have noticed you have the ability to discern character in wine above and beyond most...similar abilities exist in audio discernment.

 

[ack]

Mistaken identity could also be an error in judgement...not that it is necessarily hard to distinguish one thing from another...

"Mistaken identity" to me means attempting to treat the wrong root cause, which may seem to work but not really, and not dissimilar to medical misdiagnoses. Essentially, we agree.

 

[Al M.]

Al M,

Well, nice you refer to context. You insist going on presenting this example every time you address the Yggy to enhance its performance. IMHO it is just an example of context - how a top performance unit can sound poor in the wrong context - no relation at all with the Yggy performance. And no, just the clock does not explain it. The clock improves its performance, and is a good investement for the DAC owners, but it is not miraculous. The essence of the DCS Vivaldi DAC is there, even without clock.

I am not "enhancing" the Yggy's performance. I find your attitude, Francisco, a bit curious, to put it very mildly.

Since you just cannot believe that such a "cheap" DAC, which you have not heard, can be that good, you feel the need to denigrate the high performance system in which the comparison was made as "wrong context", a system which you have not heard either. Quite some unwarranted assumptions made, for sure.

I did not say that the dCS Vivaldi "sounded poor". On the contrary, it is an excellent DAC, but so is the Yggy. And when I heard the Vivaldi with its clock and transport it was, at least on one occasion, transmitting some of the best sounds that I have heard from a source -- regardless if digital or analog. Especially on orchestral strings, spectacular.

 

[microstrip]

I am not "enhancing" the Yggy's performance. I find your attitude, Francisco, a bit curious, to put it very mildly.

Since you just cannot believe that such a "cheap" DAC, which you have not heard, can be that good, you feel the need to denigrate the high performance system in which the comparison was made as "wrong context", a system which you have not heard either. Quite some unwarranted assumptions made, for sure.

I did not say that the dCS Vivaldi "sounded poor". On the contrary, it is an excellent DAC, but so is the Yggy. And when I heard the Vivaldi with its clock and transport it was, at least on one occasion, transmitting some of the best sounds that I have heard from a source -- regardless if digital or analog. Especially on orchestral strings, spectacular.

I am disappointed that your imagination choose to point to the messenger and write abusive comments on my intentions or my thoughts on the quality Madfloyd system - he now participates very little on this forum, I have little first hand detail on it and can't comment on it.

But since Madfloyd had posted " I guess it's probably redundant for me to express that I like the Yggy a lot as I'm one of the people Peter mentioned I think it's great value and for me it was a no-brainer when compared to my Vivaldi DAC/Upsampler (note I did NOT have the Vivaldi Clock) as other than the Vivaldi having deeper bass, it was really hard to tell the difference between the two DACs." I can assume that the system had no resolution to show the differences between the DACs, irrespective of its top sound quality.

I have read a lot about the Yggy, many people love it and write good things on it and have seen the plenty of existing measurements on it. I know what we can expect from it - the DCS designers and the Iggy designers had very different objectives. Surely my opinion, sorry if you are not comfortable with it. BTW I posted mainly inline with the comments we are exchanging in other thread about SOTA DACs.

 

[PeterA]

I am disappointed that your imagination choose to point to the messenger and write abusive comments on my intentions or my thoughts on the quality Madfloyd system - he now participates very little on this forum, I have little first hand detail on it and can't comment on it.

But since Madfloyd had posted " I guess it's probably redundant for me to express that I like the Yggy a lot as I'm one of the people Peter mentioned I think it's great value and for me it was a no-brainer when compared to my Vivaldi DAC/Upsampler (note I did NOT have the Vivaldi Clock) as other than the Vivaldi having deeper bass, it was really hard to tell the difference between the two DACs." I can assume that the system had no resolution to show the differences between the DACs, irrespective of its top sound quality.

Francisco, I listened to both of those DACs in Madfloyd’s system. My opinion might be in the minority, but I could hear differences between them and I preferred the Vivaldi. I can not speak to why Ian sold the Vivaldi and kept the Yggy.

System context is important and so are listeners’ biases. I have not always agreed with Ian and with Al about the sonics of the YGGY, but I am a vinyl only guy and I’m not the one making the purchase decisions for these DACs.

 

[Al M.]

I am disappointed that your imagination choose to point to the messenger and write abusive comments on my intentions or my thoughts on the quality Madfloyd system - he now participates very little on this forum, I have little first hand detail on it and can't comment on it.

But since Madfloyd had posted " I guess it's probably redundant for me to express that I like the Yggy a lot as I'm one of the people Peter mentioned I think it's great value and for me it was a no-brainer when compared to my Vivaldi DAC/Upsampler (note I did NOT have the Vivaldi Clock) as other than the Vivaldi having deeper bass, it was really hard to tell the difference between the two DACs." I can assume that the system had no resolution to show the differences between the DACs, irrespective of its top sound quality.

(Bold emphasis mine.) You are once more assuming too much, Francisco. And then you complain that you are disappointed about my "abusive" comments?

Of course there were differences, but you could also say, and that is probably the context of Ian's comments, that in the larger picture the differences between the DACs were relatively small. They both played on a high level in an indeed high-resolution system, and as Peter says, it came down to personal preferences which one to choose (not possible if there had not been audible differences), preferences that I will not get into.

One thing I have learned that from this episode is that I will not mention this comparison again (even without mentioning my friend's name, which I originally did not as it was not relevant here, yet you chose to do), something that will undoubtedly satisfy you. I did so in the context of the charge having been made that the Yggy sounds "thin", but it would not have been strictly necessary. I regret the stir-up, even though on the other hand I am glad to have been able to make some clarifying remarks about the high resolution of Ian's system.

I have read a lot about the Yggy, many people love it and write good things on it and have seen the plenty of existing measurements on it. I know what we can expect from it - the DCS designers and the Iggy designers had very different objectives. Surely my opinion, sorry if you are not comfortable with it.

Actually, I doubt that the designers had very different objectives. 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.

Many pro-measurement people, and perhaps you too, got hung up on the zero-crossing distortion of the first generation Yggy that was measured in Stereophile at -90 dB and which, as the designer pointed out, should be practically inaudible as it was down -110 dB overall. That distortion is very prominent in the high precision industrial DAC chip (Analog Devices AD5791) used in the Yggy (4 x; two chips per channel), and is the reason why Analog Devices did not recommend the DAC chip for audio applications. Moffat had been able to reduce it tremendously by undisclosed methods -- not the usual sample-and-hold, which he says sounds bad.

Moffat apparently employs this expensive precision DAC chip used in military and medical devices because of the quality of other measurements, including ones related to linearity, which he found very important. In the Yggy 2 the zero-crossing distortion has been suppressed even further, apparently to the point of practical elimination, even though I have not seen the measurements myself.

John Atkinson from Stereophile also got hung up on the fact that the practical resolution of the DAC is 21 bit. The review by Chris Connaker explains in that context:

"The "Yggdrasil is the world’s only closed-form multibit DAC, delivering 21 bits of resolution with no guessing anywhere in the digital or analog path." According to Schiit Audio. Let's dive into that statement a bit. Many audio enthusiasts will immediately see the 21 bit number assume this DAC is inferior to other DACs that claim 24 or even 32 bits of resolution. Several manufacturers today advertise the fact that their DACs feature multiple 32 bit DAC chips per channel. Making a judgement on a DAC's superiority or inferiority based on the number of bits advertised is foolish. For example, a 24 bit DAC has a theoretical maximum SNR of 144 dB, but the best current DACs can only obtain an SNR of 124 dB or 21 bits due to the noise floor of the components *). In addition, human hearing has a dynamic range of about 120-130 dB. What's more, DACs have what's called Equivalent Number of Bits (ENOB) to signify the actual resolution of the DAC. A closer look at many 32 bit DACs reveals they actually have an ENOB of 19.5. Can you see why making judgements about DACs based on specifications is ridiculous?"

____________________________

*) My remark: at the analog output of the DAC. This does not preclude the usefulness of manipulating the signal in the digital domain (D to D) during mixing/mastering at 24 bit resolution or higher.

 

[acousticsguru]

Mistaken identity could also be an error in judgement...not that it is necessarily hard to distinguish one thing from another...

I am sure you have noticed you have the ability to discern character in wine above and beyond most...similar abilities exist in audio discernment.

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.

 

[microstrip]

(Bold emphasis mine.) You are once more assuming too much, Francisco. And then you complain that you are disappointed about my "abusive" comments?

Of course there were differences, but you could also say, and that is probably the context of Ian's comments, that in the larger picture the differences between the DACs were relatively small. They both played on a high level in an indeed high-resolution system, and as Peter says, it came down to personal preferences which one to choose (not possible if there had not been audible differences), preferences that I will not get into.

One thing I have learned that from this episode is that I will not mention this comparison again (even without mentioning my friend's name, which I originally did not as it was not relevant here, yet you chose to do), something that will undoubtedly satisfy you. I did so in the context of the charge having been made that the Yggy sounds "thin", but it would not have been strictly necessary. I regret the stir-up, even though on the other hand I am glad to have been able to make some clarifying remarks about the high resolution of Ian's system.



Actually, I doubt that the designers had very different objectives. 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.

Many pro-measurement people, and perhaps you too, got hung up on the zero-crossing distortion of the first generation Yggy that was measured in Stereophile at -90 dB and which, as the designer pointed out, should be practically inaudible as it was down -110 dB overall. That distortion is very prominent in the high precision industrial DAC chip (Analog Devices AD5791) used in the Yggy (4 x; two chips per channel), and is the reason why Analog Devices did not recommend the DAC chip for audio applications. Moffat had been able to reduce it tremendously by undisclosed methods -- not the usual sample-and-hold, which he says sounds bad.

Moffat apparently employs this expensive precision DAC chip used in military and medical devices because of the quality of other measurements, including ones related to linearity, which he found very important. In the Yggy 2 the zero-crossing distortion has been suppressed even further, apparently to the point of practical elimination, even though I have not seen the measurements myself.

John Atkinson from Stereophile also got hung up on the fact that the practical resolution of the DAC is 21 bit. The review by Chris Connaker explains in that context:

"The "Yggdrasil is the world’s only closed-form multibit DAC, delivering 21 bits of resolution with no guessing anywhere in the digital or analog path." According to Schiit Audio. Let's dive into that statement a bit. Many audio enthusiasts will immediately see the 21 bit number assume this DAC is inferior to other DACs that claim 24 or even 32 bits of resolution. Several manufacturers today advertise the fact that their DACs feature multiple 32 bit DAC chips per channel. Making a judgement on a DAC's superiority or inferiority based on the number of bits advertised is foolish. For example, a 24 bit DAC has a theoretical maximum SNR of 144 dB, but the best current DACs can only obtain an SNR of 124 dB or 21 bits due to the noise floor of the components *). In addition, human hearing has a dynamic range of about 120-130 dB. What's more, DACs have what's called Equivalent Number of Bits (ENOB) to signify the actual resolution of the DAC. A closer look at many 32 bit DACs reveals they actually have an ENOB of 19.5. Can you see why making judgements about DACs based on specifications is ridiculous?"

____________________________

*) My remark: at the analog output of the DAC. This does not preclude the usefulness of manipulating the signal in the digital domain (D to D) during mixing/mastering at 24 bit resolution or higher.

I am happy to know this reference to the comparison is disappearing. In this hobby all comes to personal preferences, people must valuate if they consider them small or large by themselves. But if a detailed analysis of the system and proper discussion of the listening session was supplied I would be very happy to read, particularly if the owner participated and we would not feel like commenting on his back.

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. 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.

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.