Starblood
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2014
- Posts
- 7
- Likes
- 15
I'm starting to see a lot of conflicting opinions on the performance of the MB upgrade - specifically for the Bifrost.
Just scrolling up a few pages - harsh treble, 'shouty' mids, then a few more that say jawdropping, fantastic, amazing!
So, let's just smooth out the input criteria - both psycho-acoustically and electrically. How can anything be compared if all things are not equal? The first thing worth mentioning is jitter. Not all source devices piped into the Bifrost will sound the same; some devices will have a rock solid clock - others will be ok, or much worse than ok. Jitter kills digital, like nothing else. I would love to see, as part of any review, a jitter value for whatever source is being fed into the Bifrost. Even then . . . what metric of jitter? period jitter, cycle to cycle jitter, phase jitter?
As I understand it, the Gungir & Yggdrasil both have Adapticlock - which looks a lot like a re-clocker on the input. Biforst does not have this technology - so, where as almost all sources will sound identical (all other things being equal) on the Gungir and Yggdrasil - the Bifrost will always suffer from jitter.
I use a wyred4sound remedy reclocker, my source goes optical into the reclocker and then coax into the Bifrost. The difference between using a reclocker or not is a) massively dependent on the clock in the source b) a NIGHT & DAY difference.
My CD player (nothing to do with my Bifrost chain) is 16 years old and has never been beaten - to my ears anyway? Why? Because it has had a lot of work done on the clock by Trichord and also has dedicated external PSUs to power the clock. Sure the DAC is ancient. But I've not heard anything that can even begin to touch it - until we start getting into more zeros in the price than I can ever afford. My point is this - DACs are not the whole picture. With a poor clock you will never get the best results. I am a firm believer in stable clocks first then pretty much any capable DAC will sound great.
The next point to be made . . . I've been listening to, spending all my money on and fractionally obsessive about audio for my whole lifetime. I only ever remember music, my first ever experience was my Dad's Linn LP12 - so, maybe I was spoilt from day 1
Anyway. I don't think I have ever read, or heard anyone's subjective description of sound to bare any resemblance whatsoever to what I hear? We all have very different ears and incredibly different brains. But, more so - what are we comparing things to? $100k Linn digital amps? or an iphone with ear buds? I know, I know, I know people document their hardware in reviews - but, there is often very little data about a person's hearing response or expectations. Headphones? great, we can narrow the field a little - speakers? forget it. Room dynamics are so variable - there is ZERO point in anyone describing a speaker system to me.
That aside, there are way too many cliches used in describing sound . . . bright highs (compared to what), shouty mids, deep extended bass! Let's be honest $500 buys you clarity - that is no longer the game. SQ needs to be considered in terms of PRAT (pace, rhythm & timing) - this describes the life in the music and how natural it is perceived. Then again, I immediately switch off when anyone describes or reviews a unit . . . no words I have ever read, in about 30 years of buying HiFi, have ever described anything even vaguely related to my experience.
I have had the pleasure of recording bands before. I still maintain that is the only conceivable way of judging audio gear. If you have never heard the source, live in a room - how do you know if what you hear when you press play is accurate? I mean how?
Just my 2c worth - feel free to shoot me down!
Just scrolling up a few pages - harsh treble, 'shouty' mids, then a few more that say jawdropping, fantastic, amazing!
So, let's just smooth out the input criteria - both psycho-acoustically and electrically. How can anything be compared if all things are not equal? The first thing worth mentioning is jitter. Not all source devices piped into the Bifrost will sound the same; some devices will have a rock solid clock - others will be ok, or much worse than ok. Jitter kills digital, like nothing else. I would love to see, as part of any review, a jitter value for whatever source is being fed into the Bifrost. Even then . . . what metric of jitter? period jitter, cycle to cycle jitter, phase jitter?
As I understand it, the Gungir & Yggdrasil both have Adapticlock - which looks a lot like a re-clocker on the input. Biforst does not have this technology - so, where as almost all sources will sound identical (all other things being equal) on the Gungir and Yggdrasil - the Bifrost will always suffer from jitter.
I use a wyred4sound remedy reclocker, my source goes optical into the reclocker and then coax into the Bifrost. The difference between using a reclocker or not is a) massively dependent on the clock in the source b) a NIGHT & DAY difference.
My CD player (nothing to do with my Bifrost chain) is 16 years old and has never been beaten - to my ears anyway? Why? Because it has had a lot of work done on the clock by Trichord and also has dedicated external PSUs to power the clock. Sure the DAC is ancient. But I've not heard anything that can even begin to touch it - until we start getting into more zeros in the price than I can ever afford. My point is this - DACs are not the whole picture. With a poor clock you will never get the best results. I am a firm believer in stable clocks first then pretty much any capable DAC will sound great.
The next point to be made . . . I've been listening to, spending all my money on and fractionally obsessive about audio for my whole lifetime. I only ever remember music, my first ever experience was my Dad's Linn LP12 - so, maybe I was spoilt from day 1
Anyway. I don't think I have ever read, or heard anyone's subjective description of sound to bare any resemblance whatsoever to what I hear? We all have very different ears and incredibly different brains. But, more so - what are we comparing things to? $100k Linn digital amps? or an iphone with ear buds? I know, I know, I know people document their hardware in reviews - but, there is often very little data about a person's hearing response or expectations. Headphones? great, we can narrow the field a little - speakers? forget it. Room dynamics are so variable - there is ZERO point in anyone describing a speaker system to me.
That aside, there are way too many cliches used in describing sound . . . bright highs (compared to what), shouty mids, deep extended bass! Let's be honest $500 buys you clarity - that is no longer the game. SQ needs to be considered in terms of PRAT (pace, rhythm & timing) - this describes the life in the music and how natural it is perceived. Then again, I immediately switch off when anyone describes or reviews a unit . . . no words I have ever read, in about 30 years of buying HiFi, have ever described anything even vaguely related to my experience.
I have had the pleasure of recording bands before. I still maintain that is the only conceivable way of judging audio gear. If you have never heard the source, live in a room - how do you know if what you hear when you press play is accurate? I mean how?
Just my 2c worth - feel free to shoot me down!
