Schiit DACs (Bifrost and Gungnir down, one to go)? The information and anticipation thread. - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wedge 

I just hope that Mike Moffat, will perfectly align each molecule in all the components using his Absolute Zero containment suit.

 

On a more serious note though I don't mean to pick a fight but I really wouldn't want their DAC built like someone elses.  I want their DAC, not a cheaper version of Wyred4sound's DAC.  Theta has always made some killer stuff, and I would really love to see what could be done on a more obtainable budget.  I don't own any of their amps yet but I spent some good time on my friends Lyr, and I think its a wonderful amp, and even better for the money.  

I had the THETA Ds Pre Gen III since 1990 updated twice from the I to the II then to the III by Mike way back in the day when he started Theta. In fact it was one of the first of the production runs for his DACs.  I think the price then was 3K. It was to some an absolutely insane price to pay for what was then one of the first stand alone DACs but it grabbed my ears and I just couldn't let go and insisted on buying the stores floor demo at Mamaroneck Hi FI.   It was still working when I sold it just a few months ago. I purchased a Wyred4Sound DAC-2  just past it's 200th hour now.  The Ds Pre had a preamp in it which as nice, it was no match for my Classe Pre amp but could have done the job in most cases.  

Oops, I posted this on the Lyr Tube Rolling thread, in response to a question about tube DACs, but it's definitely appropriate here as well:

And nope, no plans for a tube DAC. For current-output DACs, tubes don't have a proper low-impedance input to drive (or, well, to be fair, their transconductance is low when compared to solid state, so the cathode is still relatively high impedance.) For voltage-output DACs, we still prefer to stay on the solid state side for summing, etc.

You can expect that all our DACs will have discrete analog stages--Mike was using opamps in the Theta Gen III when I came around, and I turned him around to discrete in the Gen V with a discrete stage that measured (and listened) much better than the uber-super-duper opamps he was using at the time. That's a whole 'nother story--200 parts on a 4 x 6" teflon board with no soldermask . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Stoddard 

Oops, I posted this on the Lyr Tube Rolling thread, in response to a question about tube DACs, but it's definitely appropriate here as well:

 

 

And nope, no plans for a tube DAC. For current-output DACs, tubes don't have a proper low-impedance input to drive (or, well, to be fair, their transconductance is low when compared to solid state, so the cathode is still relatively high impedance.) For voltage-output DACs, we still prefer to stay on the solid state side for summing, etc.

 

You can expect that all our DACs will have discrete analog stages--Mike was using opamps in the Theta Gen III when I came around, and I turned him around to discrete in the Gen V with a discrete stage that measured (and listened) much better than the uber-super-duper opamps he was using at the time. That's a whole 'nother story--200 parts on a 4 x 6" teflon board with no soldermask . . .

That Mike!...

Can I get SerialNo. 001?

Ok. How about 002?

Maybe 007?

Discrete analogue stages instead of opamps eh? I'm liking the "sound" of Schiit DACs already.

Discrete is the way to roll, baby!

Jason,

Patiently waiting here and appreciate your responses to us eager folks.  

I have a question around the 'two other SPDIF inputs' which may seem obvious: I wanted to confirm they'd be COAX and OPTICAL.  

Personally, it would be greatly appreciated if OPTICAL was included as it'd be an easy plug-n-play with an Apple Mac's optical audio out that's built in.  

Also, will USB have some form of galvanic isolation to eliminate any grounding hum and/or computer feedback/noise issues?  The HRT Music Streamers do this via regenerated power and it eliminates computer noise in the USB path.  (Which is another reason OPTICAL input would be so wonderful... no power in the signal so no electrical noise pickup.  )

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Stoddard 

Quote:

 

All will be revealed in June!

 

Well, at least all on our intro product. But we'll also provide a brief roadmap on the others as well.

 

As far as USB goes . . . well, yep, we'll have USB, and it'll be a good implementation, but the two other SPDIF inputs will still outperform it. As someone here mentioned, USB is a *general* data interface, great for printers and external hard drives. SPDIF is a dedicated audio interface.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Stoddard 

Quote:

 

 

As far as USB goes . . . well, yep, we'll have USB, and it'll be a good implementation, but the two other SPDIF inputs will still outperform it. As someone here mentioned, USB is a *general* data interface, great for printers and external hard drives. SPDIF is a dedicated audio interface.

 

 

If SPDIF is better than USB Jason, then what interface is best from the computer? There must be something better than the average sound cards SPDIF output. What do you recommend?
 

A couple of answers:

Yes, all DACs will have TOSLINK optical and coax SPDIF, as well as USB. The top-end models may have a different interface as well. 

And yes, SPDIF from a computer is still far better than USB. Any implementation of USB. Even ours. We've had a half-dozen implementations running, and we've come to the conclusion: it just ain't that good. That said, it's not gonna be a crap TI 270x 1.1/48K max deal either. 

The big question, though, is: would you rather have a bulletproof 24/96 no-driver USB 1.1 interface, or a USB 2.0 24/192 that'll require driver installation for Windows, assuming both sound similar on real-world content (that is, 16/44.1)?

Interesting question - and I'm sure likely to illicit a wide range of responses. As one who spends time every day tracking down 24/96 and 24/88.2 well recorded source (with the occasional 24/192 - though my current 'chain' downsamples), I'd prefer the latter (USB 2.0 24/192 with win driver). I notice and enjoy the sonic improvements in a well recorded, mixed and mastered song. Also being a developer and general tech geek - I prefer the leading edge, and will almost always assume the risk of slightly less stability for higher performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Stoddard 

The big question, though, is: would you rather have a bulletproof 24/96 no-driver USB 1.1 interface, or a USB 2.0 24/192 that'll require driver installation for Windows, assuming both sound similar on real-world content (that is, 16/44.1)?

For what's it's worth, maybe it really comes down to a cost factor?  Entry at 24/96 and mid + high grade at 24/192?  I personally bought the Lyr as the high grade amp in the line (love it BTW), and depending on the costs, am planning on purchasing the entry level DAC this June and then upgrading to the high grade DAC when it comes out later in the year.
 

EDIT: I should say if there is a 'different interface' in the high end model that rhymes with 'W'underbolt or it's name has a 3.0 in it, then you'll be generously addressing a lot of the 'tech geeks' wants/desires.  Me included.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Stoddard 

A couple of answers:

 

Yes, all DACs will have TOSLINK optical and coax SPDIF, as well as USB. The top-end models may have a different interface as well. 

 

And yes, SPDIF from a computer is still far better than USB. Any implementation of USB. Even ours. We've had a half-dozen implementations running, and we've come to the conclusion: it just ain't that good. That said, it's not gonna be a crap TI 270x 1.1/48K max deal either. 

 

The big question, though, is: would you rather have a bulletproof 24/96 no-driver USB 1.1 interface, or a USB 2.0 24/192 that'll require driver installation for Windows, assuming both sound similar on real-world content (that is, 16/44.1)?

Since I'm a Mac guy, my vote is only worth 1/2 point, but I really think ideally, both options should be available to the customer base.  The stock implementation should be no driver required, and the higher res option should be, just that, an option, if available at all.
 

I use both platforms, and vote for the most hassle free option. But I would mess with a driver if it gave me access to higher rez files in Windows. Is it possible to have a driverless default that goes up to 96k, and then have a Windows driver available to install if one wants 192k?

Mac user here. I'd utilise optical but I'd want hassle free 24/96 via usb as back up.