Schiit Gungnir DAC - Page 55

I don''t know if this was covered.

USB let's you clock up to 192kHz

S/PDIF optical is 96kHz max.

 

Does it matter?

 

IMO no.

I ...me.. I can't tell the difference between 96 flac source and 192 flac source.  Plus 96 flac content costs less.

Can you play 192 kHz flac over optical Toslink?  Yes.  The DAC will down sample  192 to 96.

I came here to research Gungnir vs Bifrost.

 

I have a Lyr / Bifrost w/o USB.  

 

I need another setup.

I ordered the Lyr / Bifrost w/ USB

They're backordered.

 

Thinking.... do I cxl the Bifrost and get the Gungnir ?

LCD2 rev 2 cans.

Interesting dilemma. I found the Gungnir to be a considerable step up from Bifrost.

However this was running out of a fully balanced setup. I too would be interested

in hearing how the Gungnir and Lyr pair together.

Like other audio component and accessories (that shall not be mentioned in this thread)  discussions, I have a difficult time

believing one digital processor can sound better than another.  Bits is bits.  If you have enough horsepower to drive data over an interface, you are good to go.

 

That said DAC has the word analog in it, so I guess that would be where the rubber meets the road.

 

Obviously I can't run balanced and I have no intention of giving up my tube addiction even if something else sounds better.

If I were to have a balanced amp, that would make sense.  So it's clock lock and perhaps better analog outputs than the Bifrost has.

Those right-angle adapters work surprisingly well, they're pretty simple just a mirror inside.

I haven't had a chance to listen to the Bifrost, but the Gungnir is a significant step up from the Modi as an source for the Lyr and the LCD2s. Overall, the Gungnir>Lyr> LCD2.2 is a great system, emphasizing the dark and warm character of the LCD2.2, whole providing very good detail and air. The Mjolnir takes things to another level with the LCD2.2, so if it might be in your future, the Gungnir would be a good step. If you don't want to breed any discontent, it may be best to stick with the Bifrost/Lyr, since you already like it.

 

Pretty sure it applies to all inputs but USB.

It's all inputs--including USB.  I occasionally get it when first hooking up to my ipad via USB, but reconnecting always allows the VCXOs to lock.

 

It's digital, so it either works or doesn't.  In the computer network business that I'm in, these data rates are low and the distances short.  We monitor the BER (bit error rate) on links and if we see ANY errors "it's broken."  It would be nice if the S/PDIF input processing had an error counter/light.  Replace cable if it blinks.

 

Lot's of interesting stuff to learn here:  http://www.hardwarebook.info/S/PDIF

 

One thing that jumped out is that toslink uses cheesy plastic fiber and visible red light and is limited to 10meters.

All a nice glass fiber should do is give you distance - less attenuation.  Jitter is solely a function of the electronics, not the cable.

 

So, a question:  Does anyone know which MACs support S/PDIF(toslink) > 96 Khz?

 

There was a comment earlier about not caring about > 96Khz, but if the original source is > 96k, then the biggest sound quality hit will be the down sampling from the higher rate to the lower.

 

Cheers - Frank

 

Ah neat, didn't know that.

Great stuff guys.  Thanks for the replies.

Rather than make a bunch of quoted replies, I'll aggregate my thoughts / opinions / queries into one post.

 

1) I've got, pretty much, the newest MacBook Pro.  15" Retina, 2.6 GHz, Core i7. The optical S/PDIF will not clock above 96kHz.

 

2) Yup.  Toslink optical uses crap plastic fiber and a low power laser. 

 Why?  Probably cost, engineering, and, maybe, not wanting a consumer product with a more powerful laser.

Standardized Commercial F.O. interfaces (eg. Cisco) use ST, SC, and other derivations to terminate 50 micron multimode F.O. glass.  The lasers are quite powerful and the distances are much greater.  Single mode fiber distances are far greater and much faster. Using 50 micron mm fiber would be cost prohibitive to consumer electronics.  I do not know if any devices, with optical S/PDIF interfaces, Macs, PC's, DAC's, or pre-amps, can clock faster than 96kHz.  Is it a standards limitation?  That would be good to know…. I haven't gone to Wiki. 

 

3)Downsampling.  Agreed, no doubt. Any added process to the delivery adds complexity and potentially degrades the music quality.  My comment / opinion is that A) It does work. B) I personally can't distinguish between 96kHz and 192kHz sources and C) 96kHz sources, at least on HD Tracks, are less expensive.  So if you use USB, cool, it'll redline at 192kHz.  If you use optical S/PDIF you're maxed at 96kHz but can at least listen to 192kHz content.  

 

4)Right angle connectors.  Yup, I haven't had a problem.  It's good to know someone else uses them without a problem.

 

5)Barry, That's the thing…. I'm happy with my Bifrost.  However my fear of loss is greater than my desire to gain.  Will my life be awful without a Gungnir ?

 

 

It's a limitation of the current Mac implementation (meaning, Macs in general can go above 24/96, but that's what the combo jack implementation is limited to). S/PDIF is not limited to 24/96.

 

I'd ask my therapist if I had one, but I decided head-fi is a less expensive alternative! 

I thought the newer Mini would do > 96Khz?  The question is which models.  I'm surprised that the newest MacBook will not.  My 15" dual-core i5 model6,2 will not, and I've not tried on my 17" quad-i7 model 8,3.

 

S/PDIF-toslink spec is to 768kHz

Hold on....  I'm testing right now with my Mac Mini 2011 to a DAC Magic Pro and my MB Pro to my Bifrost.

I'm using Amarra to tell the MAC's how to handle the clocks.  Core Audio or theDAC's

 

I figured I better know for certain before I open my big yap.