[StefanJK]

great review by stereophile but the measurement part was a bit of concern after reading .

Not really a concern (yet), but I wasn't able to follow the reasoning about how overcurrent fault protection was starving the output stage of bias current when you feed Rag a sine wave (but not music).  
 

 

[jcx]

hopefully this works better - someone posted a link to https://therationalaudiophile.wordpress.com/2016/04/ in the yggy impressions thread, maybe it fits better here since the commentary isn't strictly listening impressions as some seem want to enforce there
 
The Rational Audiophile blog post shows a -90 dB sinewave plot of presumably the Yggy's output and points to a zero crossing error, I provided the following critique of the blog post which I expect would interest people interested in the Yggy :
 
 
the rationalaudiophile is likely wrong on the cause, "the glitch" of the AD5791 DAC is the wrong time scale, magnitude to give the zero crossing blip they show, and the DAC's glitches aren't limited to zero crossing - they should be filtered out by the analog reconstruction/anti-alias filter
 
the switching glitches do show indirectly in the dynamic spec, the irregular pattern of the glitches with DAC code transition limited the data sheet THD spec to -100 dB
 
part of Schiit's magic is the combination of 2 AD5791 to remove/cancel the glitch error and achieve respectable audio performance more in line with the 20 bit static accuracy of the DAC chips
 
the shown -90 dB plot could have problems with the digital sine source, it should have stated 16/24 bit and whether/what type of dither was used
 
the rationalaudiophile plot is also awesomely noise free - likely used deep averaging, thousands of cycles in synchronous sampling mode - it would be reasonable for Schiit to dismiss the zero crossing error, even if verified, as being deep in the electrical noise when viewed in a bandwidth more representative of our hearing
 
however it could be evidence that that Mike doesn't dither internally, I pointed out previously dither is expected today in digital audio practice, even when its likely inaudible
 
 
and yes, I don't own a Yggy, I'm not telling anyone how it sounds - but I have been selecting, wiring, DAC, ADC chips to computers since the 80's, 3 decades of professional level mixed signal EE practice does mean I can help interpret technical aspects that are relevant to the tech we know is being used
 
nor am I trying to preempt or get in the way of Mike or Jason, clearly they are the experts on the internals of their products - but many consumer discussions do welcome the interplay of outside/independent experts with commercial company's official positions

 

[johnjen]

great review by stereophile but the measurement part was a bit of concern after reading .

I loved Jason's response,
"Let me explain, now that you think we are the least competent amplifier designers on the planet."
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/schiit-audio-ragnarok-integrated-amplifier-measurements#UtZQeWleWEPRjOZc.99
 
That was a significant response in that it pointed out that when established methodologies are applied to new and novel designs sometimes new and novel methodologies need to be developed (which is what happened).
 
IOW the 'standard' static testing used by Stereophile and others, may not work all that well, and in this case specifically it was 'deficient'.
Which is mirrored by a great may others in that our 'standard' methodological approach to describing the behavior of our audio gear doesn't match what we actually hear when we play music.
 
So JA devised an alternative testing methodology, which faired better, but which still doesn't describe the sonic character of the amp.
Which is what Jason has stated numerous times.
 
Namely, specs don't tell you how it will sound playing music, which is its intended purpose.
 
And some designs ARE based upon delivering REALLY good numbers for those very same 'standard' tests, and often at the expense of optimally playing music.
 
JJ

 

[iBrian]

So I will be a new owner of the Ragnarok and Yggdrasil. What headphones should I try out with this combo. I'm excited to try out the hd800S and LCD-4's so far

 

[lukeap69]

So I will be a new owner of the Ragnarok and Yggdrasil. What headphones should I try out with this combo. I'm excited to try out the hd800S and LCD-4's so far

Both will sound good I reckon.

 

[Jason Stoddard]

  I loved Jason's response,
"Let me explain, now that you think we are the least competent amplifier designers on the planet."
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/schiit-audio-ragnarok-integrated-amplifier-measurements#UtZQeWleWEPRjOZc.99
 
That was a significant response in that it pointed out that when established methodologies are applied to new and novel designs sometimes new and novel methodologies need to be developed (which is what happened).
 
IOW the 'standard' static testing used by Stereophile and others, may not work all that well, and in this case specifically it was 'deficient'.
Which is mirrored by a great may others in that our 'standard' methodological approach to describing the behavior of our audio gear doesn't match what we actually hear when we play music.
 
So JA devised an alternative testing methodology, which faired better, but which still doesn't describe the sonic character of the amp.
Which is what Jason has stated numerous times.
 
Namely, specs don't tell you how it will sound playing music, which is its intended purpose.
 
And some designs ARE based upon delivering REALLY good numbers for those very same 'standard' tests, and often at the expense of optimally playing music.
 
JJ

 
 
Hey all,
 
With respect to Ragnarok’s unexpected behavior in Stereophile’s measurements, here’s a longer discussion of the whys, wherefores, and mysteries:
 
Why did we make the Ragnarok an “intelligently managed” amplifier, that continuously monitors and sets bias (as well as monitoring for faults and correcting for DC offset?) The short answer is to provide a more stable operational point (which should eliminate much of the “warm up” variability, at least IMO) and to eliminate the need for coupling caps, DC servo, or active current limiting (which, to me, are imperfect solutions, but we can have loooooonnng discussions about that.) The long answer is in Schiit Happened, Chapter 27 (http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/2205#post_10812955) where I discuss all the decisions that went into the development of Ragnarok, over the course of several years. 
 
So for what reason did it measure so oddly in Stereophile’s testing? First, de-biasing on continuous sine waves is a consequence of Ragnarok’s operational algorithm. On extremely high volume pure sine waves, such as the 20 watt (1/3 power) one used in testing, it will eventually step the bias down to zero. A 1W pure sine wave won’t do a thing—it is below Ragnarok’s Class A bias. We ran hundreds of hours of music through Ragnarok in developing this algorithm to ensure it was not triggered by music, while watching the output of the bias ADCs on a screen. And, as Stereophile noted, Ragnarok does not de-bias with musical input. Again, we can have loooooonnnng discussions about whether this is “right.” (It does preclude the typical 1/3 power preconditioning test, for example.)
 
And the mystery? The mystery is why Stereophile could not reach our numbers for power output and THD. This is something that's difficult to guess about, since I wasn’t in the Stereophile lab to see how they were testing the product. As I have noted in Schiit Happened, 2015, Chapter 12 (http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/6990#post_11763661), getting good, repeatable measurements is by no means a certainty. Was the test system set up for single-ended output? (Therefore shorting the negative outputs together, which is no bueno for circlotrons.) Was there a single-ended instrument in the mix? (Clipping a scope probe ground to the negative output of an inherently balanced amp also can cause big problems.) But all that is speculation. That said, I will be the first to note that Ragnarok won’t deliver the numbers that, say, a high-feedback, multiple-gain-stage amp will, so if you’re looking for PPM levels of THD (0.000X%), it’s not the amp for you. 
 
Aaaand…if you’re new to all of this, please note the two links above. In terms of product development, business operation, measurements, and many other subjects, I do the best to chronicle what we do—and why we do it—in the most transparent manner, in the ongoing book, Schiit Happened. (Some would say, “in excruciating detail.”) We want you to know who we are, what kind of decisions we have to make, and why we do things. It’s up to you to decide if what we say resonates with you, and if our products meet your needs. I hope you do…but I also understand there will never, ever, ever be 100% consensus. 
 
All the best,
 
Jason Stoddard
 
Co-Founder
Schiit Audio

 

[johnjen]

I found this quote of JA's to be most intriguing, not only for what it does say, but perhaps even more for what it doesn't.
 
"I needed, therefore, to use a test signal that more closely resembles a musical waveform yet is still diagnostic."
Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/schiit-audio-ragnarok-integrated-amplifier-measurements#WwZKT0CfrPXjAmvM.99
 
But then this is the vexing situation that has faced the measurement side of audio, like forever.
How do we devise tests that actually DO reveal how a device will sound playing music?
 
Or is that even possible?
 
JJ

 

[Currawong]

So I will be a new owner of the Ragnarok and Yggdrasil. What headphones should I try out with this combo. I'm excited to try out the hd800S and LCD-4's so far

 
MrSpeakers Ether or Ether C. That was my favourite combo at meets.

 

[45longcolt]

One of my benchmarks for amps is to see the power double as impedance is halved. Ragnarok doesn't. Yet I find the listening experience addictive. Which is more important?
 
I'd like to know which specification warns that violins will sound like fingernails on a chalkboard. Which measurement assures that when she sings, I fall in love. What test routine reveals that you have to get out of the chair and dance.
 
Yeah, science has a place. The basics have to be right, else the product will fail. However, even though one could conduct a spectrographic analysis of the paints Vermeer used, would that really be the point? 

 

[Rossliew]

 
One of my benchmarks for amps is to see the power double as impedance is halved. Ragnarok doesn't. Yet I find the listening experience addictive. Which is more important?
 
I'd like to know which specification warns that violins will sound like fingernails on a chalkboard. Which measurement assures that when she sings, I fall in love. What test routine reveals that you have to get out of the chair and dance.
 
Yeah, science has a place. The basics have to be right, else the product will fail. However, even though one could conduct a spectrographic analysis of the paints Vermeer used, would that really be the point? 

Two thumbs up!

 

[Ableza]

I'd like to know which specification warns that violins will sound like fingernails on a chalkboard. Which measurement assures that when she sings, I fall in love. What test routine reveals that you have to get out of the chair and dance.
 
Yeah, science has a place. The basics have to be right, else the product will fail. However, even though one could conduct a spectrographic analysis of the paints Vermeer used, would that really be the point? 

You are talking about perception and interpretation, which happens in your brain.  Electronic testing can determine everything about how electronic gear functions and what it does to a signal, but it reveals nothing about what happens to that signal once it is received by a listener's perceptual systems.  And thus the root of the "objectivist VS subjectivist" debate: that both things happen at the same time and they may have absolutely nothing to do with one another.  And also thus why I say the "debate" is moot and a waste of time.  If you like something then you like it and no scientific basis is required for that. 

 

[reddog]

You are talking about perception and interpretation, which happens in your brain.  Electronic testing can determine everything about how electronic gear functions and what it does to a signal, but it reveals nothing about what happens to that signal once it is received by a listener's perceptual systems.  And thus the root of the "objectivist VS subjectivist" debate: that both things happen at the same time and they may have absolutely nothing to do with one another.  And also thus why I say the "debate" is moot and a waste of time.  If you like something then you like it and no scientific basis is required for that. 

Well said sir once the audio signal hits the "listeners perceptual systems" the roll of properly engineered gear ends. A engineer can not control how one person will perceive reality. I love Frank Zappa, yet my college roomate hated any form of Zappa lol,

 

[45longcolt]

  You are talking about perception and interpretation, which happens in your brain.

Well, yeah. Really, everything happens in your brain; but especially emotional experiences like music. So I am bemused when audio folks focus on measurements, which are real and artificial at the same time. Suppose it's like baseball, where some fans almost seem to be more in love with the stats than the crack of the bat. People are odd...

 

[jcx]

yes, people consuming  technology with a century deep history across many Scientific and Technology disciplines  that want to ignore all of the engineering and controlled listening tests that make up Psychoacoustics, recording tech from mic to physical acoustics of rooms, performance spaces, to commercial music recording, mixing/mastering, EE of their equipment would be fine as long as they are clear they are just relating their feelings
 
but some seem to want to deny many pieces of that knowledge base, accepted practice, known limits to gasbag about how what they hear contradicts that Science based on uncontrolled perceptions, obvious "priming" by audiophile press, fake connoisseurism, claim comic book super hero abilities of infallibility, accuracy of their personal perception, memory
 
demonizing those critical of some anecdotes when comparing claims, logic with accepted Psychoacoustics really doesn't help raise the level of discourse here - what happened to the sentiment of Jason's chapter 5 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/10335#post_12447731
 
Psychoacoustics, EE, Physical Science do say actionable things about recording, reproducing audio, some "perceptions" simply shouldn't be extended into "fact claims" when they do contradict that knowledge, whatever neural patterns were drawn in a particular listener's brain at a specific time and place, history

 

[Currawong]

jcx: Instead of ranting on about people why don't you post some constructive examples of science that can help us relate to our enjoyment when listening? When people come to these forums, they come interested in how they can improve their enjoyment of listening to music. They don't come to be told rude things about themselves. So I'd suggest that if you want things to be better in some way here, you lead by constructive example, because at the moment, you're making science look bad with comments such as you just posted.