[Rotijon]

Hey,

Anyone here have an ECP L2, Ragnarok and HD800?

Im looking for a quick comparison, im currently looking for an amp to drive the HD800 exclusively. An L2, came up and im likely to purchase that. However im also curious about the ragnarok for driving the HD800, but its impossible for me to demo that.. 

Jon
 

 

[atubbs]

  Just use optical. If the other source you want to use doesn't have optical, get a coax to optical converter. 

 
It seems like folks concerned about whether to use RCA or BNC would be concerned about using an RCA connection to a box that converts medium to optical. But that's just me thinking out loud. 

 

[Solude]

  I wonder, can I use this as a second coax input, using a RCA- BNC adapter?

 
Yes.  Or vice versa a BNC cable with an adapter which a lot of the BNC cables come with to begin with.

 

[audiobill]

   
It seems like folks concerned about whether to use RCA or BNC would be concerned about using an RCA connection to a box that converts medium to optical. But that's just me thinking out loud. 

Unless the Yggdrasil is different than the majority of DACs in this regard, digital signal transmission within the DAC is done electrically and not optically. When you use an optical input it has to be converted to an electrical signal for propagation through the DAC's circuitry. Using an electrical input for the digital signal avoids an extra conversion step from optical to electrical. If the Yggy handles transmission of digital data optically, I humbly stand to be corrected.

 

[Ableza]

S/PDIF is S/PDIF and there is really no difference between Toslink (Toshiba's trade name for optical cable) and coax as both signals are processed by the same receiver IC to be demodulated.  No matter how the data gets to the receiver, it comes out the same.

 

[dglow]

   
It seems like folks concerned about whether to use RCA or BNC would be concerned about using an RCA connection to a box that converts medium to optical. But that's just me thinking out loud. 

 

  Unless the Yggdrasil is different than the majority of DACs in this regard, digital signal transmission within the DAC is done electrically and not optically. When you use an optical input it has to be converted to an electrical signal for propagation through the DAC's circuitry. Using an electrical input for the digital signal avoids an extra conversion step from optical to electrical. If the Yggy handles transmission of digital data optically, I humbly stand to be corrected.

 
1. When converting optical to electrical it seems best for that conversion occur once and, ideally, within the confines of the DAC itself. (assuming a quality DAC, of course)
 
2. atubbs was responding to a scenario where electrical would be converted to optical with an external box... which would ultimately result in two conversions – or three, depending on how you count... yuck. So lose-lose all around.
 
3. Rule of thumb: never convert, go native from source format to DAC. I think that goes for these external USB -> anyotherformat boxes, too. Some folks will have special requirements, of course, but I'd bet a dollar that USB -> Yggy  wins over  USB -> AES -> Yggy every time.
 
 
USB is great now. After many growing pains its problems have been solved and it can live up to its original promise. Even with cables that lay on the floor...

 

[dglow]

  S/PDIF is S/PDIF and there is really no difference between Toslink (Toshiba's trade name for optical cable) and coax as both signals are processed by the same receiver IC to be demodulated.  No matter how the data gets to the receiver, it comes out the same.

There are a lot of folks who think the SPDIF protocol is poorly matched to optical transport, especially with respect to jitter.
 
 
   http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/Toslink_Coax.htm
 
   http://www.crazy-audio.com/2013/12/optical-spdif-transmission-and-jitter/

 

[DACLadder]

  S/PDIF is S/PDIF and there is really no difference between Toslink (Toshiba's trade name for optical cable) and coax as both signals are processed by the same receiver IC to be demodulated.  No matter how the data gets to the receiver, it comes out the same.

You are correct.  Bit perfect data in each case.  It is the clocks recovered by way of PLL for S/PDIF coax, Toslink, and AES/EBU that can make a big difference on a lot of DACs like the AGD Master 7 for example.  The Master 7 has two different S/PDIF receiver chips.  The better sounding DIR9001 receiver has fairly low jitter compared to the other.  And directly clocking the Master 7 with the Off Ramp 5 HDMI I2S takes it to another level of clarity.
 
So I have high hope for the Yggdrasil and its "Adapticlock" technology (would like to know more about it).  Maybe it will better address jittery data and clocks from the source.   Someday there will be DACs that will take any bit perfect jittery input and then re-sync the data to the DAC that is clocked with precision.  We can then toss all these fancy source converter boxes and not worry about it.  

 

 

[dglow]

http://www.esstech.com/PDF/sabrewp.pdfQuote:

 
So I have high hope for the Yggdrasil and its "Adapticlock" technology (would like to know more about it).  Maybe it will better address jittery data and clocks from the source.   Someday there will be DACs that will take any bit perfect jittery input and then re-sync the data to the DAC that is clocked with precision.  We can then toss all these fancy source converter boxes and not worry about it.  

 

 
We have this today: it's called modern, asynchronous USB. The only trick is getting audio out of the computer in truly bit-perfect format.
 
As for SPDIF, one of the Sabre's headline features is an elaborate buffering and reclocking stage to combat/eliminate jitter.
    http://www.esstech.com/PDF/sabrewp.pdf
 
What you're asking for is already being done!  

 

[freddy1201]

This. You wrote a nice review and than this. I'll never understand why ppl feel the need to come up with such stuff. Never met a single person who can reliably a/b between good 320k and CD.
Anyway, dont wanna derail the thread or anything .. just wishing for down to earth impressions not audiophile stories.

A while ago, i did the Tidal A/B comparison, it wasn't clear. With Yggy, the difference is clear. Tonight i will have some time to listen, i'll double-check on more than 2 songs just to be sure it's not the ''new toy syndrome''

 

[freddy1201]

  Hey,

Anyone here have an ECP L2, Ragnarok and HD800?

Im looking for a quick comparison, im currently looking for an amp to drive the HD800 exclusively. An L2, came up and im likely to purchase that. However im also curious about the ragnarok for driving the HD800, but its impossible for me to demo that.. 

Jon
 

Zerodeefex possess ragy, yggy, and a hd800

 

[Chikolad]

Personal sign of excellence for me is that Billie Jean is actually listenable now. Even at loud levels. 

 
Which master are you using?
I agree Thriller 25 is not listenable. Thriller "Special Edition" is better but still not quite listenable. The original CD or the HDTracks version with the DR kept intact - very listenable
Over the years the DR just got lower and lower...

 

[freddy1201]

This. You wrote a nice review and than this. I'll never understand why ppl feel the need to come up with such stuff. Never met a single person who can reliably a/b between good 320k and CD.
Anyway, dont wanna derail the thread or anything .. just wishing for down to earth impressions not audiophile stories.

Ok i did some comparison, if the recording is good, the difference between mp3 and cd, or cd and 24/96 is definitely noticeable. Mp3 is more than listenable, but the higher the file the more ''meat'' you get. I could be happy to live with Yggy with only cd quality.

 

[hodgjy]

 
Ok i did some comparison, if the recording is good, the difference between mp3 and cd, or cd and 24/96 is definitely noticeable. Mp3 is more than listenable, but the higher the file the more ''meat'' you get. I could be happy to live with Yggy with only cd quality.

Are the songs different bitrates of the same recording, or completely different source files? Mastering is more important than bitrate.
 
In other words, is what you're hearing artifacts of different bitrates or different mastering?

 

[freddy1201]

  Are the songs different bitrates of the same recording, or completely different source files? Mastering is more important than bitrate.
 
In other words, is what you're hearing artifacts of different bitrates or different mastering?

The mp3/cd comparison mastering was the same, i'm not sure for the cd/24/88 comparison.