[UntilThen]

Impressive indeed. All the more I'm waiting for my Forza balance cable for my HD800 to arrive.

Effortless power indeed. At the moment, I prefer headphone listening with this setup. I need to try a earbud just for the fun of it. Perhaps use my V-Monk Plus

 

[johnjen]

What I have heard from my setup is that by only using a single driver, instead of needing a crossover (speakers), there is a cohesiveness top to bottom and when the extreme bottom is delivered and coupled with this degree of cohesiveness, all instruments seem to be more whole or complete, more 'real'.

JJ

 

[UntilThen]

I got really interested in Ragnarok now because it is a marvellous sounding headphone amp as well as a speaker amp. I wanted to find out more about it. It's concept ideas, development and so forth.

Fortunately I don't have to look far. Jason documented it here in an easy to read format. I was really surprised that Ragnarok was conceived at the beginning of Schiit. Jason had this idea right from the beginning, even before Schiit was formed.

I'm going to read through and see what he says.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/sch...obable-start-up.701900/page-148#post-10812955

 

[J-Pak]

I have a bit of a niche question, I'm planning to use my Yggy in a multichannel DSP speaker setup. Does the AES digital input on it reclock the signal? Thanks.

 

[StefanJK]

The below are the claims of the Digital Filter/Interpolator/Sample Rate Converter in the Yggy:
3. The math involved in developing the filter and calculating has a closed form solution. It is not an approximation, as all other filters I have studied (most, if not all of them). Therefore, all of the original samples are output. This could be referred to fairly as bit perfect; what comes in goes out.

I've been puzzled by this claim. Why would it be important to have a closed form solution? Isn't the filtering problem to recreate the best or at least a good estimate of the original waveform before encoding/sampling? Spitting back out the original samples is something different than that. Being really bad spitting back out the original samples is obviously not good for recreating the original waveform, but once you have a close approximation to the sample, don't other factors become as important? Spitting back the original sample seems essential if you're going to iterate many time on the filter (like photocopying a photo many times), but that's not DACs are used for. I assume there's something I'm not getting here at this level of abstraction.

Thinking about this a bit more, if hitting the original sample is a L^1 issue and the 'other factors involved in approximating the original waveforem' are L^2 issues, then this going for hitting the original samples makes sense. But I have no idea why one would have this L^1 vs L^2 breakdown in part of the filtering objective function. Or it creates nice math that's more fun ore easier to work with...which is a good to use it as well.

 

[johnjen]

Calculating the 'position' by using an iterative loop series of approximations is ultimately going to yield a different solution than a 'fixed' or closed mathematical equation, sorta by definition.
And granted this ∆ is going to be very small.
But then what we are hearing is the addition of these small details, these refinements to the analog signal, which is where all the really good stuff resides.
Like the moisture in the breath, or the rattle of the cymbal vs the light brush stroke, fingernails or picks on that guitar, etc…

These subtle, yet oh so intriguing details, when added to the analog signal ARE what I seek.
And performing the math while using only exact numbers (not approximations) and doing so while solving for both primary parameters (time and amount) simultaneously is a trick and a half, in and of itself, (kinda think along the lines of Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle as an example).
This trick was hinted at by Baldr when he mentioned dividing by zero.

So solving that conundrum (/0 = null) AND performing a solution using a fixed equation, yields additional resolution, and when timed properly, even more of the original signal is 'restored/recovered/recreated'.

This is a way of describing what I hear from the Jggy.

JJ

 

[SeaWo|f]

New yggy with gen5 usb in black to match my rag. Thank you to my wife and the good people over at Schiit for working to get me the matching set, the combination of the two is fantastic!

 

[UntilThen]

Congrats. Black is very nice. I love my Yggy and Rggy. Real top end stuff. I've heard quite a few high end amps and Rag is amongst the top definitely. I even audition Rag vs Violectric v281 three times before I am satisfied that Rag is better. YMMV.

Here's my combo.


Right now I am using my newly purchased Rega RP8 with Apheta MC cartridge and Avid Pellar phono stage with Ragnarok and listening with HD800 and LCD-2f. Really loving vinyl too.

 

[Rossliew]

Sell off your Yggy, UT

 

[UntilThen]

Yes make me an offer I cannot refuse. Btw you can follow my Rega rig adventures here.
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/topic/232030-rega-rp8-apheta-and-avid-pellar-phono/

 

[Rossliew]

Hahahaha...i'm in no position to make you an offer...thanks for the link

 

[Rossliew]

You need to check out the VPI Prime next...hahahaha

 

[Rossliew]

Here's my humble analog setup - an audio technica DJ deck with Clearaudio Concept MC cart paired with the Schiit Mani phonostage.

 

[UntilThen]

Here's my humble analog setup - an audio technica DJ deck with Clearaudio Concept MC cart paired with the Schiit Mani phonostage.

Wow.... I love the sight of turntables now. Over at the Aussie forums, those guys are really friendly and hardcore TT lovers.

 

[UntilThen]

You need to check out the VPI Prime next...hahahaha

I'm a working class man so I will stick with Rega.

Someone wants to buy my Apheta cartridge for $1500 now.