[Tuneslover]

Ok guys, I tried another experiment tonight that I think you will all find fascinating. My conclusion of this experiment will go against the grain here, but all I can say is, this is what I did and what I heard. First a little about myself and why I bought these DACs in the first place.

I am a vinyl collector. I do most of my listening on turntables, and my hunt for a DAC stems from a desire to get my digital set up to sound as good as my vinyl. Due to the crappy way digital music is mastered these days I believe that if you really want the best sound you have to forget all this DAC stuff and get yourself a turntable; the best mastering jobs are found on vinyl. However, there are some great sounding CDs out there, mostly from the early days of CDs and from audiophile mastering companies like Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. Plus all of the wonderful sounding vinyl rips that can be found on the net. I want these files on my computer to sound as enthralling as listening to a record and when I bought my Bifrost 4490 I felt like I had achieved that. But I also read about Schiit's R2R tech and was really curious about it, so I bought the Modi Multibit to see how it compares.

Since my goal here is to reproduce my well-mastered digital files in the same quality as my turntable, I tried something: I hooked my computer up to my turntable and ripped one of my records. Then I put the needle back to the start of the record, hooked up the turntable and 4490 Bifrost to my SYS and synched my vinyl rip with the actual record. What I heard was what sounded to me like the same thing. The 4490 Bifrost reproduces what was playing on my turntable accurately.

Then I removed the 4490 bifrost from the SYS and plugged the Mimby in. Again, synched the vinyl rip with the turntable. What I heard was not the same. Compared to the vinyl spinning on the turntable, the Mimby sounded sharper, more impactful, basically what I described before.

So, my conclusion is that the 4490 Bifrost is providing me an accurate representation of the recording, while the Mimby is coloring the sound, albeit in an exciting way. I think both of these DACs sound incredible and am happy to own them both!

Very interesting experiment and findings. I too am a vinyl enthusiast and I couldn't agree more that the 4490 has that more analog sound.

 

[svetlyo]

  Thanks for your advice , might need some cheap fan to cool it down but recently windows just automatically update schiit mimby driver . not sure is this the correct version or not.
 

Don't do that - to sounds best Mimby need temperature stability - not that it needs to be hot, its temperature should not fluctuate. If you put a fan you'll have it at permanent unstable state - the working electronics will heat it up, the fan will try to cool it down, the temperature constantly changing - the worst possible mode for its R-2R DAC chips to operate.

 

[yage]

So, my conclusion is that the 4490 Bifrost is providing me an accurate representation of the recording, while the Mimby is coloring the sound, albeit in an exciting way.

 
Interesting results. One word of caution - the output level of my Mimby is a little hot - about 1.5 dB higher than spec'd. I'm not sure if this goes for all Mimby's. You might have to adjust the volume in order to make a comparison against your Bifrost more fair. In my case, it didn't change any of my conclusions, but YMMV, etc.
 
The Mimby is a good DAC for the money, but I can definitely see how it can be bested - even by something based off of a sigma-delta converter.

 

[prosunza]

Oh thanks for information , btw in the middle of the day mimby run real hot i mean seriously hot I barely touch it . Ambient around34-36 C. im a bit worry about durability when i use for long time. Will it degrade performance if i continue using under uncomfortable temperature ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColtMrFire]

Ok guys, I tried another experiment tonight that I think you will all find fascinating. My conclusion of this experiment will go against the grain here, but all I can say is, this is what I did and what I heard. First a little about myself and why I bought these DACs in the first place.

I am a vinyl collector. I do most of my listening on turntables, and my hunt for a DAC stems from a desire to get my digital set up to sound as good as my vinyl. Due to the crappy way digital music is mastered these days I believe that if you really want the best sound you have to forget all this DAC stuff and get yourself a turntable; the best mastering jobs are found on vinyl. However, there are some great sounding CDs out there, mostly from the early days of CDs and from audiophile mastering companies like Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. Plus all of the wonderful sounding vinyl rips that can be found on the net. I want these files on my computer to sound as enthralling as listening to a record and when I bought my Bifrost 4490 I felt like I had achieved that. But I also read about Schiit's R2R tech and was really curious about it, so I bought the Modi Multibit to see how it compares.

Since my goal here is to reproduce my well-mastered digital files in the same quality as my turntable, I tried something: I hooked my computer up to my turntable and ripped one of my records. Then I put the needle back to the start of the record, hooked up the turntable and 4490 Bifrost to my SYS and synched my vinyl rip with the actual record. What I heard was what sounded to me like the same thing. The 4490 Bifrost reproduces what was playing on my turntable accurately.

Then I removed the 4490 bifrost from the SYS and plugged the Mimby in. Again, synched the vinyl rip with the turntable. What I heard was not the same. Compared to the vinyl spinning on the turntable, the Mimby sounded sharper, more impactful, basically what I described before.

So, my conclusion is that the 4490 Bifrost is providing me an accurate representation of the recording, while the Mimby is coloring the sound, albeit in an exciting way. I think both of these DACs sound incredible and am happy to own them both!

Multibit R2R DACs reproduce music more accurately than delta sigma DACs. It's why they're more expensive and delta sigma is cheaper. It is easier and cheaper to mass produce delta sigma DACs, and hence make more money.

Most people are used to the colorization of delta sigma DACs, and most people are not used to hearing multibit R2R DACs, which in my experience sound fat closer to how real instruments and voices sound. I've owned the Bifrost 4490. It sounds bloomy and colored compared to the Mimby, which sounds far more natural and accurate to how music actually sounds in real life. I have never had more realistic sounding music than after I got the Mimby.

Delta sigma DACs reinterpret the bits coming from the digital signal, so you are not actually hearing 100% of what is on the recording, you're hearing an approximation. Schiit multibit R2R DACs keep all the original samples, so you are hearing exactly what is on the recording. The basic math cannot be disputed. It is why serious audiophiles tend to seek out R2R DACs over delta sigma DACs.

That said, your findings are interesting. But I feel like they are inconclusive. What turntable did you use? What record? What source were you using for the DACs, were they the same? Did you blind A/B test (extremely important to counteract any bias toward one DAC, because placebo and confirmation bias is going to be a factor, especially since you are already a fan of 4490 and very used to its sound signature and are not used to Schiit R2R). And I wonder if both DACs have the same output specifications...the Mimby does not sound "colored" to me at all, in fact it sounds almost completely transparent. The 4490frost sounded bloomy, velvety, and very colored compared to Mimby (which has a smoothness and naturalness the 4490frost lacks), and I've seen many similar findings from other people who have done comparisons.

 

[SAllison87]

I admit I hate arguing on the internet because the one thing I am sure of, is that we are not going to convince each other of our opinions. But ColtMrFire, I'm going to have to disagree with you. R2R is not perfect technology and has problems that DS solved, such as linearity of the resistors. But DS introduces its own set of problems. So neither one is strictly better than the other, they have their own strengths and weaknesses. And I don't believe that R2R is more expensive because it is better. An R2R DAC is more expensive because the technology is more expensive to properly implement.

All else I can say is, I did my experiment and believe what I heard. It certainly wasn't a scientific approach (heck I did in in my bedroom in a bathrobe, not in a labcoat  ) so if this invalidates my finding to you then I understand. Personally, I believe the 4490 Bifrost is giving me a more accurate reproduction of the signal when compared to the Mimby, however I do find the sound of the Mimby very pleasing and love both DACs to pieces. They each play a role in my home and I feel privileged to own great examples of both decoding technologies.

 

[yage]

Most people are used to the colorization of delta sigma DACs...

 
I think it's a little unfair to lump all sigma-delta DACs under one banner. I wouldn't say, "Well, it's a dynamic driver headphone so it should sound this way..." Let's also think about this for a second. Virtually all music recorded, engineered, and mastered in the digital domain utilizes multiple sigma-delta ADCs during the process. So if the recording professional is mixing and mastering under a supposed 'sigma-delta' coloration, then wouldn't it make sense that to get closest to what the artist intended, you should use a sigma-delta DAC?
 

Delta sigma DACs reinterpret the bits coming from the digital signal, so you are not actually hearing 100% of what is on the recording, you're hearing an approximation. Schiit multibit R2R DACs keep all the original samples, so you are hearing exactly what is on the recording. The basic math cannot be disputed. It is why serious audiophiles tend to seek out R2R DACs over delta sigma DACs.

 
I hope you understand that 'preserving' the original samples is an illusion. In practical terms, if you downloaded a high-res 192 kHz / 24 bit file from HDTracks or passed along the full-res de-embedded audio track from a Blu-ray movie, the Mimby and Bimby are 'throwing away' eight bits out of every sample you paid for. For the Gumby it's six, and the Yggy it's four. That's the basic math based on the DAC chips that are being used. But what about the digital filter? All digital filters are approximations of an ideal - the sinc function. Why? Because the sinc extends out to infinity and computers tend to run out of memory when that happens. Also, computers represent floating point numbers (used in the calculations when applying the coefficients of said filter) inexactly, as opposed to integers. So please, 'original samples'? C'mon now.
 
In my view, dividing DACs along R-2R / sigma-delta lines is not only counterproductive, but also tends to minimize the contribution of the people who designed the circuitry surrounding the DAC chip.
 

  R2R is not perfect technology and has problems that DS solved, such as linearity of the resistors. But DS introduces its own set of problems. So neither one is strictly better than the other, they have their own strengths and weaknesses. And R2R is certainly not more expensive because it is better. An R2R DAC is more expensive because the technology is more complicated and expensive to properly implement.

 
Well said.

 

[ColtMrFire]

No one said R2R was perfect, but there are clear advantages of the R2R technology over D/S.  There's a reason many serious audiophiles don't go back to D/S after hearing R2R.
 
As far as modern mastering, those kinds of albums are going to be mixed electronically anyway with lots of filters, etc, and hence already contain a kind of artificiality that D/S may be better for.  
 
R2R seems very well suited for live instrumentation recordings and vocals...anything that necessitates the playback of real instruments and voices.  But I find it works just as well for modern mastered recordings, a more pleasing, smoother sound, with way less harshness and sibilance.  Also, just because modern mixing technicians mix with D/S tech, does not mean D/S is best for that kind of playback... they also brickwall the vast majority of recordings with ridiculous dynamic range compression and sibilance galore because they are targeting the mass public with inferior playback equipment, it is the very reason to use D/S in the first place, R2R tech would be wasted on your average fan of Beats headphones and mp3/iPods... I find that R2R goes a long way toward remedying those brickwalled recordings, for my ears at least.
 
I was never suggesting anyone should change what sounds best to their ears.  If D/S sounds better to you, then by all means, go for it.

 

[SAllison87]

Hey yage, that's good to know about the Mimby's output. To me, they sounded the same and it's another one of the reasons I bought the Mimby over the Modi2Uber (2.0 v rms output same as bifrost vs 1.5 of M2U)

 

[madwolfa]

  I hope you understand that 'preserving' the original samples is an illusion. In practical terms, if you downloaded a high-res 192 kHz / 24 bit file from HDTracks or passed along the full-res de-embedded audio track from a Blu-ray movie, the Mimby and Bimby are 'throwing away' eight bits out of every sample you paid for. For the Gumby it's six, and the Yggy it's four. 

 
In practical terms, I couldn't care less about all the high-res music out there. Redbook 44/16 is more than enough (for me). Having said that, throwing away something that lies deep beneath the noise floor is not much of a problem either.

 

[yage]

  As far as modern mastering, those kinds of albums are going to be mixed electronically anyway with lots of filters, etc, and hence already contain a kind of artificiality that D/S may be better for. 

 
I think the recording engineers at the (defunct) classical / jazz label Telarc (one of the first if not the first to use an all digital recording / mastering chain) would take umbrage at that statement. Not to mention some prominent audiophile labels (Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs GAIN 2 - yep, DSD-based).
 
Honestly, the more you read about DSP and digital conversion, the more you realize that these kinds of 'debates' ring hollow. As you say, whatever sounds best to your ears.
 
Quote:

  In practical terms, I couldn't care less about all the high-res music out there... Having said that, throwing away something that lies deep beneath the noise floor is not much of a problem either.

 
Yeah, I couldn't either. But all this talk about 'preserving original samples' is also pretty silly.

 

[madwolfa]

  Yeah, I couldn't either. But all this talk about 'preserving original samples' is also pretty silly.

 
It's been always said in a context of traditional Redbook 44/16 audio where it still applies.

 

[ColtMrFire]

 
I think the recording engineers at the (defunct) classical / jazz label Telarc (one of the first if not the first to use an all digital recording / mastering chain) would take umbrage at that statement. Not to mention some prominent audiophile labels (Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs GAIN 2 - yep, DSD-based).
 
Honestly, the more you read about DSP and digital conversion, the more you realize that these kinds of 'debates' ring hollow. As you say, whatever sounds best to your ears.

 
I was talking about mostly modern pop music.

 

[Ancipital]

All else I can say is, I did my experiment and believe what I heard. It certainly wasn't a scientific approach

 
No, a sighted test with vinyl as a "reference" of authenticity doesn't seem terribly.. pragmatic, or useful; I'll give you that.

 

[StudentofLife]

Hi all,
 
New to head-fi but I've been lurking on this thread for a while. 
 
I received my modi multi and I thought I could add some impressions for any potential buyers out.
 
Coming from the DS DACs I've recently used (Audiophile 2496 - acceptably flat but congested/Audioengine D1 - harsh highs/Micca Origen+ - too warm)  this R2R dac is great.
 
Really this thing is what I've been looking for.  First off response is flat not shrill as I've seen other reviewers claim.  I actually believe the R2R has some extended effects on the perceived evenness of the signal.  A few things I've noticed - instruments are very stable positionally speaking.  They really seem nailed in place, in a good way.  By comparison the DS DACs sound a bit floaty and unreal.  Whereas with the DS DACs I would think my speakers are playing the recorded sound of a guitar, with the Mimby my speaker is now a guitar.  It is now a drum.  It is now a violin etc.
 
Whereas DS DAC starts from a place of noise and then meddles with it to produce acceptable sound this R2R start from a place of accuracy and precision and I believe that is the right way around.
 
Curious to read more opinions from all of you.  Cheers.