[Synergist969]

  I hate to interfere with this discussion on the topic of hearing sensation and perception/psycho-acoustics, etc., However, I would like to request input on a functional question/topic...
 
  (I had already attempted to solicit input to my inquiry in a couple of other related threads, however received rather minimal response, hence my resumission in this one...So...In order to determine if my speaker choice is appropriate for Ragnarok...?...
 
  I currently own both the Ragnarok and Yggdrasil, and a couple of months ago elected to replace my venerable Audio Research LS3 solid-state pre-amp with the "Rag", due to the LS3 continuing to generate a low level 60 Hz. buzz...so that the "Rag" is feeding an Aragon 4004 amp...
 
  Firstly, the "Rag" clearly generated more bass energy than the LS3...(I had to lower my pair of  SVS sub's output by 5 or 6 dB's to regain a good balance, (crossed over with my Lipinski Sound L-7 monitors at 60 Hz.))...
 
  Secondly, I believe that the sound-stage was not adversely affected by the "Rag" replacement of the LS3, though perhaps a touch less "air" possibly due to the more "bassy" quality of the "Rag"...Oh, and in conjunction with the "Yggy", the imaging,(depth, breadth, image specificity, air, etc.), is in a wholly new league relative to using the older Bifrost...
 
  So, I have been considering a separate set of speakers to use with the "Rag's" speaker outputs, and have considered several, including the KEF LS50's, the mini-maggie's and/or the maggie .7's, however, due to space and or power concerns, have elected to pull the trigger on a pair of the new, Version 2, Audience Clairaudient 1+1 speakers, a crossover-less, bipolar design, mini-monitor...which, based on professional reviews, generates exemplary clean and flat mid-range & highs, electrostatic-like driver speed/response time, and world-class detail,imaging and sound-stage...I hope to get the best of many worlds, including the bi-polar generated increased depth,(would have obtained the same with maggie's di-polar design, but concerned with efficiency and/or space requirements for the sub-panel), along with the pristine signal quality allowed by crossover-less, single driver design, in a small package that will ultimately mate well with a pair of high quality, "fast" subs...
 
  I am wondering if anyone has tried the "Rag" with the "1+1's", rated at 87dB., or perhaps even the "The One's"...by Audience?  How about experiences with alternative speakers?
 
Thank you for your input...   

 

[money4me247]

Spoiler: OT but hopefully informative response to @Articnoise

  You are ones again changing subject. Ones and for all I used the human voice as an example of our audio memory, and not audio quality. Is that so hard to understand? Some said that the audio memory is only 4 seconds and making it impossible to remember the sound after the 200 hours of burn in. I then explained (or at least tried to explain) the difference between memorizing to repeat a sequence of tones (short time memory) and to remember voices and sound signatures (long time memory).

 

FYI the sound signature is the distinguishing characteristic of the sound. Lock up the word signature for better understanding.

 

You can PM me the frequency response curve variations for the DACs and AMPs you said correlating to the sound signatures in post #8668. I expect you to have them already otherwise you would not have been able to say in which FR they were emphasis, would you? For the record the FR are only showing the quantity in a given frequency and says nothing about the quality, IMO.  

 
lol. signature in a broad sense can mean characteristic, but as an 'audiophile term,' it typically is defined as follows.

 

Sound Signature

 - The general sound of a headphone as a result of its frequency response (e.g. bassy, treblely, neutral, etc.)

http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary. Many of the other words you were using also have pretty specific commonly-accepted definitions that you can find there.
 
the "audiophile adjectives" that you threw out actually have specific definitions that correlate to specific FR regions. people often use the words 'incorrectly' to describe their personal feelings on how something sounds to them. When being used in that manner, they just mean that it sounds more "X" than some other personal comparative point. This way of using the words is fine, but it is more difficult for other people to relate to what you mean. Beyond differences in FR/distortion/time-errors/noise specifications, other reasons for differences 'sound' is just due to lack of volume matching or poor impedance matching or clipping or expectation bias or other psychoacoustic phenomenon. People will use audiophile terms that describe FR curve variations to illustrate the relative sonic differences they personally perceive when describing external components even when the components measure similarly. This is just a subjective 'metaphor-type' descriptor of how they view the sound. The common personal subjective usage of audiophile terms not accordingly to their actual specific definition is often the reason there is a lot of discrepancies in how different external components sound and makes it difficult for others to relate to those personal impressions.
 
sound signature used correctly as an 'audiophile term' is a synonym to FR curve, while sound quality covers the other aspects of sound that is difficult to deduce from just looking at FR curves. some people do not really make the differentiation when using the terms. however, I think it is good to separate these two factors as it allows for better reviewing of sonic performance vs personal preferences for certain types of FR curves.
 
FR response and other sonic attributes are often related. For example, sound stage is dependant on damping & earcup size & closed/open design, but there are specific regions of the FR curve such as the presence range & the upper treble that contributes to a sense of 'openness' and 'air' when further emphasized. The term 'speed' generally is used to talk about to transient response and resonance, but the perception of 'speed' can also affected by sound signature as a 'darker' sound signature (aka lower frequency emphasis in the FR curve) can give the impression of a 'slower' sound with the subbass masking the attack/decay edges of the transient response compared a pair of brighter headphones.
 
~~~recognizing sound signature differences vs note/pitch/timbre differences~~~
 
It is actually much easier to recognize the general overall pattern of notes or sequence of tones rather than the specific EQed changes in sound signature of the same song. Sound signature would basically be dB volume differences of various frequency response regions, so being able to memorize different sound signatures will mean that you are able to detect and remember the exact relative changes dB level of each note separate from the already present dB volume differences pre-recorded in the song. We can often get a general sense of 'warmth' vs 'brightness' vs 'mid-emphasis/recession' relative to another comparative point but delving any deeper than broad generalizations is typically difficult without more extensive testing. Also, our recollection may be inaccurate as these are relative descriptors, so often a direct side-by-side comparison will lead to different findings than what our 'remembered' impressions based in a different setting.
 
Recognition of voices is easier because people speak at different pitches (basically our perception of different frequencies). The way our brain perceives sound, we will hear sustained frequencies or variations in volume level at the same frequency to appear to vary the 'pitch.' Most people do not have the ability to detect absolute pitch (aka correctly identify the pitch of a note without a reference point) and only can recognize relative pitches. Hence, it is harder to correctly identify voices from a single short word/note but easy to tell who is speaking a sentence or singing a short line.
 
The other aspect that helps in voice recognition is differences in timbre, which would be basically your ability to detect a the same specific note being played from a violin vs a guitar vs a singer vs electronically generated tone. The differences in waveform produced by different instruments will have different interfering harmonics and overtones (other subtle audible frequencies will also appear along with the specific note when played by that instrument) that allows you to identify the instrument.
 
When speaking, people pronounce and articulate differently as well so speech patterns can also be used as a recognition tool for voices. There are many features that help us recall and recognize voices that is unrelated to judging sound quality/sound signature. Differences in voices would be the same as recognizing differences between instruments... not the same as recognizing differences in sound signature.
 
So if you have six different female singers with similar timbre all sing only one specific note, it is extremely difficult to say which singer is which. That is illustrated by choruses when many vocals with similar timbre hit the same pitch and is heard as one 'group voice' where we cannot recognize the individual singers. For solo singers, their specific delivery, pitch, and timbre of a sequence of notes allows for recognition. The differences between singers/voices will usually be larger and easier to notice/remember/recognize that the subtle dB level differences of the FR of playback equipment. That is how we can still recognize artists regardless of what audio setup we are using to playback their music. Recognizing/recalling the artist/voice is much easier to recognizing/recalling the such more subtle relative sonic differences due FR/noise/distortion/time-based errors of audio reproduction equipment.
 
I am not actually changing the topic at all, but you seem to have different definition/understanding of the terms being used, so it sounds like we may be talking past each other.

 

[securitybunny]

Has anyone paired the HE1000s with the Ragnarok? What gain setting are you finding to be optimal for them?

 

[Articnoise]

 

Spoiler: OT but hopefully informative response to @Articnoise

 
lol. signature in a broad sense can mean characteristic, but as an 'audiophile term,' it typically is defined as follows.
http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary. Many of the other words you were using also have pretty specific commonly-accepted definitions that you can find there.
 
the "audiophile adjectives" that you threw out actually have specific definitions that correlate to specific FR regions. people often use the words 'incorrectly' to describe their personal feelings on how something sounds to them. When being used in that manner, they just mean that it sounds more "X" than some other personal comparative point. This way of using the words is fine, but it is more difficult for other people to relate to what you mean. Beyond differences in FR/distortion/time-errors/noise specifications, other reasons for differences 'sound' is just due to lack of volume matching or poor impedance matching or clipping or expectation bias or other psychoacoustic phenomenon. People will use audiophile terms that describe FR curve variations to illustrate the relative sonic differences they personally perceive when describing external components even when the components measure similarly. This is just a subjective 'metaphor-type' descriptor of how they view the sound. The common personal subjective usage of audiophile terms not accordingly to their actual specific definition is often the reason there is a lot of discrepancies in how different external components sound and makes it difficult for others to relate to those personal impressions.
 
sound signature used correctly as an 'audiophile term' is a synonym to FR curve, while sound quality covers the other aspects of sound that is difficult to deduce from just looking at FR curves. some people do not really make the differentiation when using the terms. however, I think it is good to separate these two factors as it allows for better reviewing of sonic performance vs personal preferences for certain types of FR curves.
 
FR response and other sonic attributes are often related. For example, sound stage is dependant on damping & earcup size & closed/open design, but there are specific regions of the FR curve such as the presence range & the upper treble that contributes to a sense of 'openness' and 'air' when further emphasized. The term 'speed' generally is used to talk about to transient response and resonance, but the perception of 'speed' can also affected by sound signature as a 'darker' sound signature (aka lower frequency emphasis in the FR curve) can give the impression of a 'slower' sound with the subbass masking the attack/decay edges of the transient response compared a pair of brighter headphones.
 
~~~recognizing sound signature differences vs note/pitch/timbre differences~~~
 
It is actually much easier to recognize the general overall pattern of notes or sequence of tones rather than the specific EQed changes in sound signature of the same song. Sound signature would basically be dB volume differences of various frequency response regions, so being able to memorize different sound signatures will mean that you are able to detect and remember the exact relative changes dB level of each note separate from the already present dB volume differences pre-recorded in the song. We can often get a general sense of 'warmth' vs 'brightness' vs 'mid-emphasis/recession' relative to another comparative point but delving any deeper than broad generalizations is typically difficult without more extensive testing. Also, our recollection may be inaccurate as these are relative descriptors, so often a direct side-by-side comparison will lead to different findings than what our 'remembered' impressions based in a different setting.
 
Recognition of voices is easier because people speak at different pitches (basically our perception of different frequencies). The way our brain perceives sound, we will hear sustained frequencies or variations in volume level at the same frequency to appear to vary the 'pitch.' Most people do not have the ability to detect absolute pitch (aka correctly identify the pitch of a note without a reference point) and only can recognize relative pitches. Hence, it is harder to correctly identify voices from a single short word/note but easy to tell who is speaking a sentence or singing a short line.
 
The other aspect that helps in voice recognition is differences in timbre, which would be basically your ability to detect a the same specific note being played from a violin vs a guitar vs a singer vs electronically generated tone. The differences in waveform produced by different instruments will have different interfering harmonics and overtones (other subtle audible frequencies will also appear along with the specific note when played by that instrument) that allows you to identify the instrument.
 
When speaking, people pronounce and articulate differently as well so speech patterns can also be used as a recognition tool for voices. There are many features that help us recall and recognize voices that is unrelated to judging sound quality/sound signature. Differences in voices would be the same as recognizing differences between instruments... not the same as recognizing differences in sound signature.
 
So if you have six different female singers with similar timbre all sing only one specific note, it is extremely difficult to say which singer is which. That is illustrated by choruses when many vocals with similar timbre hit the same pitch and is heard as one 'group voice' where we cannot recognize the individual singers. For solo singers, their specific delivery, pitch, and timbre of a sequence of notes allows for recognition. The differences between singers/voices will usually be larger and easier to notice/remember/recognize that the subtle dB level differences of the FR of playback equipment. That is how we can still recognize artists regardless of what audio setup we are using to playback their music. Recognizing/recalling the artist/voice is much easier to recognizing/recalling the such more subtle relative sonic differences due FR/noise/distortion/time-based errors of audio reproduction equipment.
 
I am not actually changing the topic at all, but you seem to have different definition/understanding of the terms being used, so it sounds like we may be talking past each other.

 

This is off-topic rant about FR.

 

First of all you change the topic from audio memory to be about FR. And you clearly can’t see that both voices and audio gears has distinguish sound signatures (characters) and just like voices the difference is NOT only about frequency response.

 

Most people that has at least a basic understanding about HIFI know that almost all AMPs and DACs measures almost totally flat between 20-20 000 kHz. A few gear can have a slightly roll of in the high treble and sub bass. The difference between frequency response for transducers and electronic gear are huge. The fact that all better AMPs and DACs (ODAC and better) measuring flat is the very reason reviewers normally don’t even publish the frequency response plots, but THD, jitter and sinewaves. It was also the reason why I ask you to show me some FR plots for some AMPs and DACs. I “know” that you can’t publish a FR plot for any reasonable good audio gear that show emphasis in the midrange etc because there are not to be fund. Sure be my guest and prove me wrong!!

 

I clearly told you that I’m not interested in your view of FR variation and what differences you think that you can reliably detect between gears. (I have read it many times before.) I personally think that the quality of the audio signal is as important as the quantity and therefore the FR variation can indicate the SQ, but not tell the whole story. That is for transducers, for AMPs and DACs I have to repeat myself the FR plot will only show if it’s roll of, not if it’s: forward, grainy, smooth, laid back, tubby, rich, harsh, analytic, open, bloomy or murky etc.

 

Please instead of more “explaining” of the difference in FR show me the freaking frequency response curve variations for the DACs and AMPs you said correlating to the sound signatures in post #8668. You should already have them or else you would not have been able to say in which FR they were emphasis. The fact is Money that I will only response further on this subject if you can provide frequency response curve that shows the variations you stated. 

 

[money4me247]

lol. this is too hilarious.

sound sig = FR curve variations. that is the definition of the word.

the reason I am talkin abt FR curves is bc YOU brought up SOUND SIGNATURE and YOU keep bringing up audiophile terms that are defined by FR curves.

I never said anything abt dac/amp perfomance having significant FR curve deviations. ...that is smtg you are implying by bringing up terms that are associated w FR differences rather than other sonic characteristics.

I told you alrdy that there are factors beyond FR that determine sound quality, but you keep going on abt sound signature (which is FR curves) and recognizing different voices (which would be recognizing akin to being able to tell instruments apart based on differences in timbre and pitch > sonic aspects related to frequency response and harmonics).

Neither of those two things really have anything to do with hearing differences in dac/amp performance (maybe increased detail resolution for more subtle overtones can improve the realism of instruments, but dac differences is not really akin to differences pitches/timbre of voices).

sound sig does NOT mean detail resolution or sound stage or improved transient speed from damping or lack of clipping distortion or picking up more subtle overtones/harmonics! The audiophile words you are using and examples are all related to FR curve. That is why we are talking abt FR curves.

my posts were to gently point that out without being condescending...

from your post above, where you again use words & concepts defined by FR deviations to argue for hearing differences in external components while recognizing that most (non-tube) external components measure very similarly in FR curves... but don't seem to grasp the inherent contradiction of your statements, I think that continuing this discussion will be a bit of pointless endeavour.

 

[magiccabbage]

    Dear Exidrion:
 
    Well, if you did not burn your "Yggy" in for roughly 5 to 7 days, and instantly noticed "a huge difference right from the first song", then you will be in for a genuine treat after it burns it...
 
    My experience with "Yggy" was that for the first 5 to 7 days, if not a few more, my "Yggy" sounded overly bright, etched/harsh, and hyper-detailed...to the extent that I was beginning to feel buyer's remorse, as well as beginning to research more "reserved" interconnects and speaker wire..., (and prior to the replacement of my Bifrost with the "Yggy", my system was already a touch warm in the lower mid-range),...and then, I experienced, "The Change"...    ...and everything opened up and smoothed out...
 
    Has Schiit Audio figured out a way to reduce the initial burn-in, and/or temperature stabilization time in these latest production runs? 
 
Peace/Namaste

have you been burning your yggy in with a constant stream of music running through the Dac? I have just been leaving it on and playing music after work in the evening. 

 

[Synergist969]

  Dear maggiccabbage:
 
    I received my Yggdrasil sometime during the first production run from Schiit, May'15 if my recollection is correct.  At that time, after initially powering it up, and perceiving it to brighter than Stephen Hawking, I of course left it on continuously, and after another couple of days with it not seeming to audibly change, I elected to "exercise" the circuits by placing a CD in my player, and send that digital signal to the "Yggy"via the digital coaxial output/input...(believe it was a 24bit Reference Recording of Felix Hell playing a pipe organ...figuring that THAT disc would exercise ALL the 0's and 1's the "Yggy" would generally encounter), and left it on continuous play for anytime I was not actively listening to music.  Did it speed up the temperature stabilization of the beast...unsure, however, figured it could not hurt, and others were doing it...I must state that it definitely took at least 8 or 9 days, if not a full 10 before my unit snapped into focus, and yes, is was one of the jaw dropping moments in my "audio perfection" pursuit days...
 
  More recently, about 2 weeks ago, I came home to a stereo system that was un-powered, (the Furman power filter/protection had shut down, evidently in response to a power surge due to lightning activity), so, upon powering back up, again, my "Yggy" sounded too bright and analytical if not harsh, so I again "exercised" my "Yggy": in the same fashion as I had initially done.  Did it take as long to re-stabilize as the first time(?), not quite as long I believe, or, did the "exercising" shorten the recovery time(?), again, unclear...anyone care to weigh in on this?  
 
  In case I missed your general meaning, no, I do not generally continuously run a digital signal into/through(?) the "Yggy" unless it has been powered down for any significant period of time...adversely effecting its inherent sonic qualities...
 
Peace/Namaste...

 

[wahsmoh]

And that's why you pay the big $$$$.

JJ

I own Bifrost Uber and old 1994 Theta DS Pro Progeny A and I would compare the difference to the change from Gungnir D-S to Yggy or even Gungnir MB for a single ended DAC. This is 20 year old technology with a precision R2R hybrid 18-bit PCM67P-k and Motorola DSP with Theta proprietary filter algorithm. (Moffatt sauce) and it blew away the Uber.. the Uber fits a nice middle-ground and sounds incredible for the price but it doesn't have the immense soundstage that the DSP brings or the natural timbre and ability to crank up volume without "ear bleeding"

 

[Jones Bob]

Ripped to my Mac mini SSHD after Jena Labs Esoteric 3D-X Digital Treatment applied, I used this file -set on infinite repeat- to burn-in my Yggy (for 3+ months 24/7 before I first listened):

http://www.amazon.com/Cardas-Ayre-Acoustics-IBE-Burn-In/dp/B00OY8UXME

I swear that I can feel the sweet caress of Diana Krall's lips on mine, while Patrica Barber trusts her tongue down my throat.

But that OMG effect only lasts for only 10 minutes before I have to reburn-in the Yggy. Good while it lasts.

 

[goldendarko]

And then you put on some good music?

 

[Exidrion]

Ripped to my Mac mini SSHD after Jena Labs Esoteric 3D-X Digital Treatment applied, I used this file -set on infinite repeat- to burn-in my Yggy (for 3+ months 24/7 before I first listened):

http://www.amazon.com/Cardas-Ayre-Acoustics-IBE-Burn-In/dp/B00OY8UXME

I swear that I can feel the sweet caress of Diana Krall's lips on mine, while Patrica Barber trusts her tongue down my throat.

But that OMG effect only lasts for only 10 minutes before I have to reburn-in the Yggy. Good while it lasts.

Well, that escalated quickly.

 

[noshortcuts]

There's a joker in the crowd.

 

[Jones Bob]

And then you put on some good music?

 


Yeah pretty much. Smoke a cigarette first, and then put on The Ramones.

 

[Julyan]

Received my shipping email from the EU importer.
Cant wait for it too arrrive and see how it sounds different to met metrum octave mk1.

 

[yuhengtiger]

Guys, When I connect the gungnir multibit to my imac, the volume control in my imac seemed to be locked to maximum value. I can not turn it up or down. But I can do the volume control when the imac was connected to other dacs I use before. Anyone has the same problem or this is just the way Schiit products works? Thanks.