Life after Yggdrasil?
- Thread starter Torq
- Start date
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
At the moment I'm using a borrowed Oyaide DR-510 rca spdif cable.
I will be building up a test rig using Mogami MG3080 and Canare DA202 and a converted Audio Sensibility Statement Silver AES cable to feed the PWD.
I suspect the Statement Silver cable will be 'better' than the Mogami and Canare for a couple of reasons, since it uses silver cladded wire and has been cryo treated.
JJ
I will be building up a test rig using Mogami MG3080 and Canare DA202 and a converted Audio Sensibility Statement Silver AES cable to feed the PWD.
I suspect the Statement Silver cable will be 'better' than the Mogami and Canare for a couple of reasons, since it uses silver cladded wire and has been cryo treated.
JJ
drez
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2009
- Posts
- 2,922
- Likes
- 186
I used to have DB-510 such a good looking cable. Especially the connectors with the machined silver center pin. Many times I am tempted to get their USB cable they make even though fairly certain it will be behind my current cable in technicalities.
johnjen
Headphoneus Supremus
The last USB cable I purchased was a Schiit Pyst cable which I found to be quite nice, especially for $20.
It checked off all the stuff I look for, Silver cladded, separated +5v wires and robust.
But I only use it to feed my 2-Wyrd stack.
JJ
It checked off all the stuff I look for, Silver cladded, separated +5v wires and robust.
But I only use it to feed my 2-Wyrd stack.
JJ
Ok so some of us are, oh so patiently waiting, for a scrap, a hint, a culling of the herd so to speak.
And, might I suggest the sooner the better?
Why?
Because when that RedNet hits your system, well it will suck up a whole bunch of time, and for multiple reasons…
Like SuperGlue will have arrived, and she's a temptress.
JJ
I'm really glad the RedNet stuff is working out so well for you! And yes, it's going to suck up some time as it's a much more immediate upgrade prospect (assuming it beats the ethernet interfaces I already have) than the DAC purchase.
At this point there are definitely some DACs that aren't going any further in my evaluation and I can do the write-up for those this week. In fact I'll try and do it this evening, though pending arrival of new components for my speaker-system may put the kibosh on that.
Before I do make that post ... a couple of points I want to cover/re-iterate ...
My original intent was to post pictures of the evaluation systems (not all of them have been listened to in my own rig, unfortunately) as part of eachwrite-up. I'll get to that at some point, but it won't be part of the initial write-up for the stuff I'm going to "discard". That's mostly because I'm much more interested in processing the thousands of pictures I and my fiance took on our recent trip to Europe than messing around with boring gear pictures for the sake of "provenance".
Also, it's worth restating that I'm attempting to choose a DAC that I like better than Yggdrasil. This is not meant to be a 100% objective comparison of high-end DACs, nor is it meant to service anyone's needs, desires or preferences there but my own. So I'm not going to wade into protracted arguments about my impressions when they wind up disagreeing with someone else's choices, preferences or experiences. And I'm sure there will be disagreements as a) we all hear differently, b) we all have different preferences, c) we're all using different gear as part of the evaluation chain.
On top of which, I found a few surprises in this process so far that will, I'm sure, ruffle a few feathers. To which, I say, that's too bad for those that allow their feather's to be ruffled by something that really doesn't affect them at all.
Finally, as I'm mentioned before, for this first batch of DACs, since they're being eliminated from consideration, comments will be relatively terse, maybe a couple of paragraphs (possibly less in some cases) ... the bigger write-ups with more detail will come for those DACs that made it to the final group and that remain serious contenders.
My original intent was to post pictures of the evaluation systems (not all of them have been listened to in my own rig, unfortunately) as part of eachwrite-up. I'll get to that at some point, but it won't be part of the initial write-up for the stuff I'm going to "discard". That's mostly because I'm much more interested in processing the thousands of pictures I and my fiance took on our recent trip to Europe than messing around with boring gear pictures for the sake of "provenance".
Also, it's worth restating that I'm attempting to choose a DAC that I like better than Yggdrasil. This is not meant to be a 100% objective comparison of high-end DACs, nor is it meant to service anyone's needs, desires or preferences there but my own. So I'm not going to wade into protracted arguments about my impressions when they wind up disagreeing with someone else's choices, preferences or experiences. And I'm sure there will be disagreements as a) we all hear differently, b) we all have different preferences, c) we're all using different gear as part of the evaluation chain.
On top of which, I found a few surprises in this process so far that will, I'm sure, ruffle a few feathers. To which, I say, that's too bad for those that allow their feather's to be ruffled by something that really doesn't affect them at all.
Finally, as I'm mentioned before, for this first batch of DACs, since they're being eliminated from consideration, comments will be relatively terse, maybe a couple of paragraphs (possibly less in some cases) ... the bigger write-ups with more detail will come for those DACs that made it to the final group and that remain serious contenders.
I have been thinking about the BMC UltraDac or perhaps the LH Labs Vi Dac Infinity. Both have balanced Class A headphone outputs too so was kind of thinking of using them as an all-in-one for my LCD-4. Anyone have any experience with these or can compare them to the Yggdrasil?
I'm about to start posting some "results".
As I get time, over the next few days, and in no particular order, I'll add the details of my audition playlist, some general notes, and then various blocks of "impressions" (they're not really going to be detailed enough to truly classify as that; I said they'd likely be quite terse). I'll update the initial post with links to each of those as I post them, since the order will be varied and they'll otherwise get lost in the thread.
I'll also update the initial post with indicators that show which DACs have been eliminated, for summary purposes, at the same time I post the salient notes for those DACs, so expect to see those gradually filled out. That a DAC doesn't get an indicator today or tomorrow simply means that I've not posted anything specific about that DAC yet.
As I get time, over the next few days, and in no particular order, I'll add the details of my audition playlist, some general notes, and then various blocks of "impressions" (they're not really going to be detailed enough to truly classify as that; I said they'd likely be quite terse). I'll update the initial post with links to each of those as I post them, since the order will be varied and they'll otherwise get lost in the thread.
I'll also update the initial post with indicators that show which DACs have been eliminated, for summary purposes, at the same time I post the salient notes for those DACs, so expect to see those gradually filled out. That a DAC doesn't get an indicator today or tomorrow simply means that I've not posted anything specific about that DAC yet.
General Audition Notes
(Expect this section to expand as my notes bring more things to mind).
When an AES/EBU XLR connection was available, I used that. If not, I used TOSLINK with a Lifatec glass optical cable. Finally, I’d fall back to COAX/BNC S/PDIF connections. USB was only used if it was the only available input and/or if I was testing DSD at rates of more than 1x (i.e. for DSD128 and DSD256 accordingly)*.
Exceptions are noted individually, e.g. for Ethernet based streamers/DACs.
I tend to stay from USB as an audio interface as much as is possible. I have explored various USB conditioners/re-clockers/filters/isolators individually and in combination and, at best, still haven't found them to match the performance of a simple optical connection using a good source and glass fiber. At best I have to view such devices as band-aids for a problematic transport mechanism and rather than spend the money there, trying to fix the problem, and deal with the additional boxes, cables and expense, its easier just to not use USB at all.
And, as such, while I've used the Wyrd, Recovery, Regen, Intona and various other USB "fix" products, I've not kept any of them as they don't approach the results I get without them using a different interface. So any USB-evaluations can be assumed to be direct from source with no such devices in the chain.
As a result of this exploration, I’ve given up on DSD.
Even with DACs that do all their actual conversion from DSD internally (and that convert any incoming PCM data to DSD before running it through their A-to-D stage) I found no consistent benefit to it at all.
Using the same master, I generally cannot discern any difference.
Given the very large file sizes and tiny available catalog I don’t see any reason to bother with it going forward. Not to say that it doesn’t sound excellent in its own right, it just doesn’t improve upon PCM for me, so I gain nothing by messing with it.
Converting PCM to DSD in software, either in batch or on-the-fly modes (e.q. with HQ Player), also did not yield any audible benefit, though I did not try every possible option.
(Expect this section to expand as my notes bring more things to mind).
Connections:
When an AES/EBU XLR connection was available, I used that. If not, I used TOSLINK with a Lifatec glass optical cable. Finally, I’d fall back to COAX/BNC S/PDIF connections. USB was only used if it was the only available input and/or if I was testing DSD at rates of more than 1x (i.e. for DSD128 and DSD256 accordingly)*.
Exceptions are noted individually, e.g. for Ethernet based streamers/DACs.
On USB:
I tend to stay from USB as an audio interface as much as is possible. I have explored various USB conditioners/re-clockers/filters/isolators individually and in combination and, at best, still haven't found them to match the performance of a simple optical connection using a good source and glass fiber. At best I have to view such devices as band-aids for a problematic transport mechanism and rather than spend the money there, trying to fix the problem, and deal with the additional boxes, cables and expense, its easier just to not use USB at all.
And, as such, while I've used the Wyrd, Recovery, Regen, Intona and various other USB "fix" products, I've not kept any of them as they don't approach the results I get without them using a different interface. So any USB-evaluations can be assumed to be direct from source with no such devices in the chain.
DSD vs. PCM:
As a result of this exploration, I’ve given up on DSD.
Even with DACs that do all their actual conversion from DSD internally (and that convert any incoming PCM data to DSD before running it through their A-to-D stage) I found no consistent benefit to it at all.
Using the same master, I generally cannot discern any difference.
Given the very large file sizes and tiny available catalog I don’t see any reason to bother with it going forward. Not to say that it doesn’t sound excellent in its own right, it just doesn’t improve upon PCM for me, so I gain nothing by messing with it.
Converting PCM to DSD in software, either in batch or on-the-fly modes (e.q. with HQ Player), also did not yield any audible benefit, though I did not try every possible option.
Audition Playlist
(Reserved until I can muster the will power to extract and build this in a usefully linked/referencable form; may post just the artist/album/track list ahead of that).Chord
I’m going to tackle the Chord DACs as a family, partly because they are and partly because that’s how I got to audition them.Note that I got to listen to some of the Chord products driving both headphone and speaker systems, so comments about 3D soundstages are coming from evaluations on the speaker side of things.
And I’ll start here by saying that I already own the Mojo, and that it is not a contender as an alternative purchase to a second Yggdrasil for a variety of practical reasons and I’m just referencing it here as it’ll be familiar to many people.
I’m also going to draw a few comparisons to Mojo here, not just Yggdrasil.
Mojo (!)
Not a comparison to Yggdrasil, just an unreserved recommendation for what, so far, is an absolutely fabulous little DAC. That it is tiny, portable, and works beautifully without an amp is just icing on the cake.
At anything close to its price point, and in several cases well beyond that, I think this is the best DAC available. I would take this over several of the more expensive units in my evaluation so far; you’ll have to read the specific notes to see which – I’ll include the (!) indicator where this is the case (though it will be used for other things too).
Hugo (-)(!)
The Hugo has a somewhat brighter signature than the Mojo. Or, perhaps, it might be more correct to say that the Mojo has a slightly fleshier presentation, than the Hugo, as I wouldn’t, generally, describe Hugo as being “bright”.
Not sure if that’s a result of some apparent high-treble roll-off on the Mojo or not, but that’s how it sounds when I listen to them directly.
Driving sensitive IEMs directly I get more hiss from the Hugo than from the Mojo (I didn’t do this test for all DACs, but since it’s a portable device I tried it with my SE846 for good measure), though hiss-levels are so low on the Mojo that I have to listen for it.
Hugo might be interesting for portable use but the fact that it’s so much larger than the Mojo, and cannot be charged from USB, pretty much renders it impractical for me.
Compared to Yggdrasil, Hugo falls a bit flat for me. While it is not far off in terms of detail, I felt the Hugo lacked a little weight to its presentation. With some sharper female vocals, the Hugo felt a bit less comfortable than Yggdrasil, bordering on sibilant at times. I also preferred Yggdrasil’s rendering of piano and brass. Hugo was quite impressive, but it didn’t really engage or involve me in a musical sense.
Yggdrasil, for me, betters the Hugo in terms of tone, detail, attack, overall balance and musicality though I’d say they are extremely close from an imaging/soundstage perspective.
I prefer the signature of Mojo to Hugo.
2Qute (-)(!)
I could discern no difference between this and Hugo.
I prefer the signature of Mojo over 2Qute.
Hugo TT (-)
A little more air to the presentation than it siblings, and a bottom end that seems more like Mojo than Hugo, while actually resolving more detail than Mojo, particularly in the upper registers, but not apparent on every recording by any means.
I think Yggdrasil beats this in most categories, though the Hugo TT yielded a slightly more palpable 3D soundstage and in some cases had a tad more air to the rendering.
If they were the same price, I’d still take Yggdrasil over Hugo TT, but since Hugo TT is more than double the price of Yggdrasil it makes the decision even easier for me.
Bear in mind that Hugo TT doesn’t sit that well in the middle of a rack (it’ll work, but it makes it fiddlier to see what’s going on and to operate directly).
DAVE (+)
Without wanting to beat about the bush, DAVE is the best reproduction of digital music that I have ever heard. In other words, it’s the best sounding DAC I’ve experienced to date.
On every individual measure it pulls ahead of Yggdrasil. In some areas more than others, but I didn’t find any point of my evaluation where the check-mark went in the Schiit DAC’s column. To be sure, some of the differences were about my own subjective preferences and others might prefer Yggdrasil’s performance in that area. And certainly some of the differences were, even then, very small. But they were something I found consistent.
DAVE plays beautiful, detailed, nuanced, textured, flowing, sonorous, engaging, emotive music.
I did not want to stop listening, and wound up listening to quite a bit more than my normal audition play list (I really need to get that posted). Exploring everything from acapella vocals, and being enchanted not just by the tone but the incredible sense of air and space in the presentation, to complex, layered, orchestral work and being able to pick seemingly any individual instrument (not just section, or row) and follow it. Yggdrasil actually gets pretty close on this last point as well, so do the Linn units oddly enough, but it’s a little harder to focus on the individual.
Timbre was, as far as I can tell, as close to perfect as I could ever evaluate. This is the only DAC I’ve heard that renders piano (a focus for me) as well as Yggdrasil. I wouldn’t say it does the tone better, but it isn’t giving anything up there either.
Sound-stage/imaging was out of this world, both with headphones and, especially, with speakers.
With Yggdrasil, and the right recording, I’ve gotten quite accustomed to being able to hear the change in location of a note played on the piano based on where it emanates from in the soundstage. In other words, you can very easily perceive the left-to-right transition as an ascending passage is played across the keyboard.
DAVE actually managed this even more vividly, which surprised me. This certainly wasn’t as apparent with any of the other Chord units, and it was something I didn’t really get from any other DAC.
Transparency and detail are extremely impressive, without seeming bright at all. There was no sense of exaggeration or artificiality to the detail, just oodles of information presented in a natural and un-emphasized fashion. I had the sense that more detail was being rendered than with Yggdrasil. Not much more. And not in everything. But, for example, the bounce and taughtness of a drum-skin, and the decaying oscillation of a Timpani, were more subtle and nuanced than anything else I’ve heard – and it was possible to easily detect the sticks hitting different areas of that skin.
This is particularly evident when listening directly through the headphone output. It sounds fantastic. This would be my preferred way to listen to DAVE with most headphones. I’d make exceptions for the LCD-4 and the Abyss … I preferred those via an external amplifier – even though that path results in a minor, but noticeable, loss in transparency.
Transients, attack, decay … are all magnificent. Yggdrasil does those things incredibly well and this is one area in which DAVE is really only just creeping ahead. And that might be a different thing I’m hearing, perhaps the transparency is affecting my perception, but either way it’s exceptional.
I could go on, item, by item, drawing comparisons, but I don’t feel the need to. DAVE was ahead, by more, or less, in every area and, most importantly, it grabbed me, engaged me and involved me, in the music in a way that I found addictive, emotive, and nourishing. And that’s about as much as I can ask of any component.
Yggdrasil does this too … to be sure, and better than almost everything else … and it’s less that DAVE plays music, as such, meaningfully better than it just exhibits slight improvements on a technical/evaluative level while STILL having that musical and emotive capacity. So, really, the best of both worlds …
It’s an amazing piece.
Rob is, I hope, as justifiably proud of his accomplishments here as, I would also hope, Mike is of his. In fact I think Mike should be prouder … as his creation is much cheaper and only just slightly behind, overall, what I find with DAVE!
So … on sound/music reproduction … for me … this is the high-point so far.
But … as I mentioned, there are things about this DAC that rub me entirely the wrong way. Actually, truth be told, they’re applicable pretty much across the Chord line, and particularly, something I ran into with the Hugo TT …
I consider the appearance, or aesthetics, of DAVE to be something of a “Marmite” thing. And, in my case, I don’t care for the look of the unit at all. It seems to aim for “futuristic” but, for me, winds up falling somewhere between fussy and really rather ugly.
DAVE doesn’t sit well in the rack, either. If it’s not the top-most unit then the controls and display are not exactly easy to get at/read. I could space the shelves further apart, but that causes me other issues. And you could buy the stand, which tilts things forward some and makes it easier to interact with, but that’s almost as expensive as the DAC I’m comparing this too and is very off-putting on that basis.
It’s almost as if the thing was designed this way to promote sales of that stand. That’s how it feels to me, at least. And I don’t like that. I’d be less irritated by if the stand wasn’t so expensive (and I’m not buying that it makes any sonic difference … I’ve yet to hear, a benefit to such things with purely solid-state gear).
The remote would, ideally, fix these issues … and display-aside it largely does. But it’s a very cheap feeling affair compared to the solidity and quality of the rest of the build. This doesn’t help my aesthetic perceptions of the unit at all.
Getting support on a DSD-dropout issue proved to be fruitless. This wasn’t specifically with DAVE, though it seems to affect that unit too. But it left a very poor impression of Chord’s support (directly, or via their dealers), the issue was never resolved – and for the most part even once I was connected with someone, they just never responded to the results of the questions they asked or the information I provided.
As it happens, I’ve since decided not to bother with DSD this isn’t a technical issue and doesn’t affect my evaluation of DAVE. However, I do consider such poor support to be an issue with a purchase at this level and it taints my view of the company and its commitment to its customers.
--
So sonically, this easily hits the mark. I find it better, pretty much across the board, than Yggdrasil and, for that matter, every other DAC I’ve heard to this point. How it fares against the DACs I still have to audition is impossible to predict, but given how hard it has been just to meet, let alone beat, Yggdrasil so far – it seems like a tall order to elevate things even further.
On that, only time, and listening, will tell.
Acknowledging that this is the best DAC I’ve heard is easy. Convincing myself to actually buy one is going to be a lot harder. This thing is nearly six times the price of Yggdrasil, and between two and four times the price of the other units currently on my shortlist. That’s a big jump and the law of diminishing returns is in very full force here … the gains might be across the board but individually they’re mostly relatively small. Apparent, but small.
I also have to get past the aesthetics which are very polarizing for me. This would be in my main listening room, which is a very visually coherent space … and DAVE is distinctive enough that it’s going to stick out like a sore thumb (or wind up being less than ideal to actually use).
But, so far, this is the front-runner … and convincingly so.
More thoughts should follow in relatively short order now.
Also, now that I look at it, I'll likely expand my commentary/comparison for the Chord units once I have a few more DACs posted. Partly because I think there's a bit too much focus on comparison's with Mojo in this first post and partly because when I re-read this initial post it's not really capturing more than the essence of my notes. Still not going to be novels, but will be a bit fleshier here, and going forward.
Also, now that I look at it, I'll likely expand my commentary/comparison for the Chord units once I have a few more DACs posted. Partly because I think there's a bit too much focus on comparison's with Mojo in this first post and partly because when I re-read this initial post it's not really capturing more than the essence of my notes. Still not going to be novels, but will be a bit fleshier here, and going forward.
landroni
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Posts
- 659
- Likes
- 335
Thanks, Torq! This promises to be a very fun and thorough discussion. So far the first impressions seem consistent with what is my understanding of the consensus: Mojo is incredible performance for the price tag, and is miles ahead of anything small and portable; Hugo is cool but a bit meh compared to Yggdrasil; DAVE is a tiny step above in sonic performance over Yggdrasil.
Quote:
Do you include the Bfirost MB in this bracket? Also, I would have loved to see how the TDA1543-based SPS DAC3 fares in the low-cost battle, though I'm suspecting it didn't make your evaluation list. I keep hearing that FL TDA1543 DACs can rub the nose of pricier DACs in all the wrong ways...
Quote:
Do you include the Bfirost MB in this bracket? Also, I would have loved to see how the TDA1543-based SPS DAC3 fares in the low-cost battle, though I'm suspecting it didn't make your evaluation list. I keep hearing that FL TDA1543 DACs can rub the nose of pricier DACs in all the wrong ways...
The Bifrost MB is similar in terms of performing at a much higher level than it's price point would suggest, if that's what you're asking.
However, if you're asking if I think Mojo beats Bifrost MB, that's a tougher question. The top end is better on the Schiit unit, as are the way transients come across; imaging is better on the Mojo. And the Mojo is much more flexible. Of the two, I think the Mojo is probably the better bet overall, though sonically it's as much about signature as anything else. That's going on an old comparison though and I don't have a Bimby around right now to re-compare with.
For this evaluation I'm not really comparing DACs to anything other than Yggdrasil though (there will be some of that, but it wasn't a systematic thing by any means), and I didn't think the SPS DAC3 was viable at this level (particularly where the TDA1543 is one of a number of DACs that I'm not particularly fond of).
Users who are viewing this thread
