or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New Schiit! Ragnarok and Yggdrasil
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Schiit! Ragnarok and Yggdrasil - Page 112

post #1666 of 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pidgeon View Post
 

 

I'm going off-topic, but which differences did you find between B22 and Mjolnir?

 

I owned a 4 channel B22 and had the Mjolnir in house side by side at one point in time.   IMO the B22 beat the Mjolnir out with the HD800s for my preference of music.  To my ears the Mjolnir / HD800 pair was to bright.  The B22 / HD800 paring was a tad bit rounded. Bass was better on the B22.  It's all about how you like to enjoy your music.  

 

A 4 channel B22 is the better all around amp paring with a wider verity of headphones.  The Mjolnir is the better amp cost per performance wise.  You can't beat it for it's price if money "was" an object.  If money "was not" an object I'll take the 4 channel dual sigma B22.

post #1667 of 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

 

I owned a 4 channel B22 and had the Mjolnir in house side by side at one point in time.   IMO the B22 beat the Mjolnir out with the HD800s for my preference of music.  To my ears the Mjolnir / HD800 pair was to bright.  The B22 / HD800 paring was a tad bit rounded. Bass was better on the B22.  It's all about how you like to enjoy your music.  

 

A 4 channel B22 is the better all around amp paring with a wider verity of headphones.  The Mjolnir is the better amp cost per performance wise.  You can't beat it for it's price if money "was" an object.  If money "was not" an object I'll take the 4 channel dual sigma B22.

 

Thanks for your impressions, you're confirming my thoughts. As you stated, it depends on your musical preferences! Let's hope that with Ragnarok things will be different (great sound no matter of which headphone is used).

post #1668 of 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

 

I owned a 4 channel B22 and had the Mjolnir in house side by side at one point in time.   IMO the B22 beat the Mjolnir out with the HD800s for my preference of music.  To my ears the Mjolnir / HD800 pair was to bright.  The B22 / HD800 paring was a tad bit rounded. Bass was better on the B22.  It's all about how you like to enjoy your music.  

 

A 4 channel B22 is the better all around amp paring with a wider verity of headphones.  The Mjolnir is the better amp cost per performance wise.  You can't beat it for it's price if money "was" an object.  If money "was not" an object I'll take the 4 channel dual sigma B22.

 

I have heard neither amp but drawing upon the magical powers of forum consensus I would say that that sounds about right.

 

I've heard several that has said that the Mjolnir is fantastic with the LCD-2 since it adds a bit of sparkle and drive to a headphone that otherwise is quite dark and laidback. And I have also heard several that has said that the mjolnir isn't the best match for the HD800 since it has a bit too much treble energy for that headphone.

 

It's all about synergy, music and personal preference.

 

I'm very excited to hear more about the ragnarok, but in my opinion the real test and review will be when it goes up against something like the taurus, questyle, violectric v281 or gs-x mk2. Or why not a pitch it against a eddie current super seven or DNA Sonett 2? They're about the same price.

 

Of course - for those that love schiit and want the ability to power speakers perhaps the competition already is over? :rolleyes:


Edited by TwoEars - 5/6/14 at 6:58am
post #1669 of 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

 

I owned a 4 channel B22 and had the Mjolnir in house side by side at one point in time.   IMO the B22 beat the Mjolnir out with the HD800s for my preference of music.  To my ears the Mjolnir / HD800 pair was to bright.  The B22 / HD800 paring was a tad bit rounded. Bass was better on the B22.  It's all about how you like to enjoy your music.  

 

A 4 channel B22 is the better all around amp paring with a wider verity of headphones.  The Mjolnir is the better amp cost per performance wise.  You can't beat it for it's price if money "was" an object.  If money "was not" an object I'll take the 4 channel dual sigma B22.

I have never heard the B22 but own the Mojo. I find that when I listen to the TH 900 (specifically), bass quality and quantity are great with a punch. That punch is absent (to my ears) with the LCD-3 and the XC. Oh, my music genre is only rock. Since you have owned most or all these HPs at any point in time, do you think the B22 would have paired better with them? Thanks.

post #1670 of 9301

To my ears the LCD-2.2 and the Mojo was one of the best pairings I've heard along with the BHA-1.  The B22 and the LCD-2.2 are ok but I like the B22 with the LCD-3s better.  

 

The B22 with the T1s are a damn good pairing as well.  

 

The B22 and the Audio Technica ATH-AD2000 are magic, the AD2000 sounds a little to lean and the musical mids are gone with the Mojo.

 

The TH900 has bass regardless - I like it on the B22 better because the treble gets a little hot on the Mojo.  

 

The HE-6 does nothing for me on both and I have not heard the LCD-X or XC as of yet.  


Edited by preproman - 5/6/14 at 7:10am
post #1671 of 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxvla View Post


I suppose your time to build it is free, and the tools you bought to make the amp are free, and the time you spent learning how to build it was free also? This $400 build would be $800+ if you had someone build it for you. Most balanced B22 builds I've seen commissioned end up around $1500-2000. There are countless amps now that eclipse it in performance, but as this is a Schiit thread, I'll name one from them that bests the B22 in all aspects, including driving speakers, the Mjolnir, and it's balanced for a mere $750, and is about 1/3 the size of most balanced B22 builds I've seen, and comes with a 5 yr warranty, and a trial period. The B22 era is over.

I think short discussions of alternatives is fine for a Schiit thread, especially since we are talking TOTL both past and present.  The time I spend on a hobby is free in my calculations since it is weighed against other leisure, non-income generating time.  The tools are an irrelevant cost since I have used them for years and have more than recovered their costs.  So, in my cases, yeah, the only costs I am looking at are $$ out of my pocket to build it.  Hence my curiosity.  I would like a very good amplifier for the money so, when I look at commercial offerings, I like to know if there is a DIY alternative that I could attempt that would be of equal or better value, which was once the case.  I hadn't realized that the Mjolnir had sounded the deathknoll of the B22.  Just a year or two ago, the B22 was still considered a reference quality amp.  

 

I have 6 partially stuffed B22 boards that need some troubleshooting to make fully functional which is why I asked.  If the Circlotron tech in the Schiit amps are that much better than what a B22 build can be, then I will try to sell the parts below cost and buy a Schiit amp be done with it.  

post #1672 of 9301


Hey Jason -

 

Perhaps you'd care to comment on whether the Rag can be considered a "high-current" amp for use with speakers.

 

Being automotively inclined, I've always equated RMS watts with horsepower and current with torque. As most of us know, power gets you to high speed (or volume,) but it's torque that boots you out of the corners. For driving speakers, it's my understanding that more current gives better control of any driver (like the woofer) and better copes with less efficient/more demanding loads. So I've always looked for amps which double their RMS watts with the halving of impedence, taking that as a signifier of big current. Of course there are many wonderful amps that don't double.

 

I expect Rag will work well with my 91 db efficient speakers. But I wouldn't expect clean rock concert-level volumes from an 85 db-rated speaker, especially in a large room. That might be asking too much of 60 watts.

post #1673 of 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by 45longcolt View Post
 

As most of us know, power gets you to high speed (or volume,) but it's torque that boots you out of the corners.

 

I understand what you're getting at but from a science perspective it's not entirely true... but let's not go wildly off topic. :rolleyes:

post #1674 of 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoEars View Post
 

... but let's not go wildly off topic. :rolleyes:

 

Aw, you're no fun...:D

post #1675 of 9301

Fine, fine. Since Jude has blessed us with his absence and neither ragnarok review nor release seems imminent why not. :rolleyes:

 

The purpose of the engine is to deliver HORSEPOWER.

 

The purpose of the gearbox and drivetrain is to convert HORSEPOWER into TORQUE.

 

The purpose of the wheels, and their contact with the road, is to convert TORQUE into FORWARD MOTION.

 

This is true ALWAYS.

 

The trick to remember is that 200bhp is ALWAYS 200 bhp, no matter what revs it's produced at.

 

What is described in layman's terms as a "torque-ier" engine is simply one that has more horsepower at a lower rpm.

 

Provided a perfect gearbox 250 bhp will ALWAYS beat 200 bhp. The torque does not matter.

 

If you want a practical example from the real world just look at Formula 1 cars. They aim for MAX HORSEPOWER, A PERFECT GEARBOX and LOW WEIGHT and that combo will out-accelerate any V8 muscle car, or NASCAR, any day of the week.

 

An F1 car does 0-200 mph in under 10 seconds, the physics work. ;)

 

 

Back to the end of the world..... (ragnarok).

post #1676 of 9301

Maybe Yggdrasil is really ancient Norse for "F1 steering wheel."

post #1677 of 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoEars View Post
 

 

... but let's not go wildly off topic. :rolleyes:

 

As opposed to the last 3 pages of this thread ......

 

Seriously, I thought his question re the current rating on the Rag was completely on topic - my Marantz PM6005 and its siblings are classic examples of amplifiers which are marketed as 'high current' and if you read any set of measurements of these amps they are inevitably underrated in terms of their ability to drive most conventional speakers. I accept that the car analogy isnt always entirely accurate, but if it helps folk grasp why current output might help drive their speakers, I'm all for it. If I have a concern with the Ragnarok its simply that it has to be all things to all people - just not sure how realistic that will prove to be when you look at some of the bookshelf speakers out there. 

post #1678 of 9301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoEars View Post
 

Fine, fine. Since Jude has blessed us with his absence and neither ragnarok review nor release seems imminent why not. :rolleyes:

 

The purpose of the engine is to deliver HORSEPOWER.

 

The purpose of the gearbox and drivetrain is to convert HORSEPOWER into TORQUE.

 

The purpose of the wheels, and their contact with the road, is to convert TORQUE into FORWARD MOTION.

 

This is true ALWAYS.

 

The trick to remember is that 200bhp is ALWAYS 200 bhp, no matter what revs it's produced at.

 

What is described in layman's terms as a "torque-ier" engine is simply one that has more horsepower at a lower rpm.

 

Provided a perfect gearbox 250 bhp will ALWAYS beat 200 bhp. The torque does not matter.

 

If you want a practical example from the real world just look at Formula 1 cars. They aim for MAX HORSEPOWER, A PERFECT GEARBOX and LOW WEIGHT and that combo will out-accelerate any V8 muscle car, or NASCAR, any day of the week.

 

An F1 car does 0-200 mph in under 10 seconds, the physics work. ;)

 

 

Back to the end of the world..... (ragnarok).

 

I think there's a little more to it than that. :)  You have to also take into account the HP or torque curve.  An example, a small engine with a large turbo can get 400 horsepower, but only very peaky for 1000 rpm or so, the rest of the hp is very low.  You can pair that against a 350 horsepower engine with a flat torque curve where they are at 90+% of their peak torque throughout 5k RPM.  Other things equal, the 350 horsepower engine car will win in most races.   You will find a lot of tuners for racecars will try to tune for a flatter torque curve rather than high horsepower (Drag racers exempt)

 

You can have high horsepower low torque engines and low horsepower, high torque engines.  Horsepower is just a function of torque.  In fact, the formula for Horsepower = (Torque * RPM) / 5252.  

 

You are right, formula 1 cars are high horsepower, but they are also extremely high rpm (10,000 rpm+ redline) where they can hold their gears and their torque curves longer.  It's shifting that slows you down most of the time.

 

Now let's convert that to music and keep ourselves vaguely on topic :)  Maybe we can tie the horsepower/torque curve to the frequency response curve.  Usually you don't like big peaks or dips in either most generally as an analogy.  

post #1679 of 9301
All Jude has to do is post a tiny first impression to stop all this nonsense.
post #1680 of 9301
Er, that will just start new nonsense as his tiny first impression is dissected word-by-word, speculated about and fought over eek.gifwink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New Schiit! Ragnarok and Yggdrasil