Schiit Audio Bifrost 2
post-15634331
Post #976 of 1,204

barbz127

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
84
Reaction score
16
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Posts
84
Likes
16
I see the website says 6-9, is this week's? It's not showing anything more for me.

And would anyone have any issues buying a second hand bifrost 2 in lieu of available new stock?

Thankyou
 
     Share This Post       
post-15634381
Post #977 of 1,204

rkw

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Messages
2,044
Reaction score
1,949
Location
San Francisco
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Location
San Francisco
Posts
2,044
Likes
1,949
I see the website says 6-9, is this week's? It's not showing anything more for me.
I think they made a mistake while updating the website. You should email info@schiit.com and ask for a clarification.
 
     Share This Post       
post-15634968
Post #978 of 1,204

rsnblmn

Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
70
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
84
Likes
70
I see the website says 6-9, is this week's? It's not showing anything more for me.
I'm pretty sure this means that they hope to have Bifrost 2 in stock by June 9th, so about three weeks from now, I guess.

Fingers crossed that it can be a Father's Day present to myself, depending on how many backorders deep I am.
 
     Share This Post       
post-15645207
Post #979 of 1,204

Sean_MR

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
111
Reaction score
18
Location
California
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Location
California
Posts
111
Likes
18
Trying to understand the technology a little better! Since this has 18 bits of converting power, does that mean it “works best” with 16-bit songs? When you play a 24-bit song, what “happens” to the other 6 bits? Probably dumb questions but trying to learn :)
 
     Share This Post       
post-15645268
Post #980 of 1,204

XERO1

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
1,597
Location
SoCal
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Location
SoCal
Posts
1,986
Likes
1,597
Trying to understand the technology a little better! Since this has 18 bits of converting power, does that mean it “works best” with 16-bit songs? When you play a 24-bit song, what “happens” to the other 6 bits? Probably dumb questions but trying to learn :)
Bit depth is a very misunderstood part of digital encoding/decoding. The primary reason for needing more than 16-bit word-lengths was that professional recording studios often use dozens of (sometimes well over 100) individual tracks to create a mix, and as those tracks begin to be layered on top of each other, the combined quantization noise of all of the individual 16-bit tracks becomes more and more audible. With 24-bit depth, the quatization noise floor is reduced by 48 dBs, so this gives a huge improvement in the noise floor of the final mix if the track count is really high. But once the final mix has been created, it can then be truncated down to 16 bits with almost zero audible loss when compared to the original 24-bit master.

Between sample rate and bit depth, sample rate has by far the most siginicant impact on overall SQ.

Here is a great, easy to understand video that helps explain the audible significance of bit depth.


As far as what happens to the extra bits, IIRC, Make Moffat was asked this same question on Head-Fi and I believe he said that the lowest LSB’s (Least Significant Bit) of a 24-bit track were not just thrown away, but were averaged together. I'm fuzzy on the details about how this is done, so maybe someone else can comment about this.
 
Last edited:
post-15645983
Post #981 of 1,204

Sean_MR

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
111
Reaction score
18
Location
California
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Location
California
Posts
111
Likes
18
Bit depth is a very misunderstood part of digital encoding/decoding. The main reason for needing more than 16 bits was that professional recording studios often use dozens (sometimes well over 100) of individual tracks to create a mix, and as those tracks begin to be layered on top of each other, the quantization noise floor of each of the 16-bit tracks becomes more and more audible. With 24-bit depth, the quatization noise floor is reduced by 48 dBs, so this gives a huge improvement in the noise floor of the final mix if the track count is really high. But once the final mix has been created, it can be down-sampled to 16 bits with almost zero audible loss when compared to the 24-bit master mix.

Between sample rate and bit depth, sample rate has by far the most siginicant impact on overall SQ.

Here is a great, easy to understand video that helps explain the audible significance of bit depth.


As far as what happens to the extra bits, IIRC, Make Moffat was asked this same question on Head-Fi and I believe he said that the bottom LSBs (Least Significant Bit) of a 24-bit track were not just thrown away, but were averaged out. I'm fuzzy on the details about this so maybe someone else can comment about this.
Thank you for all the information! I’ve added that video to my watch list and am definitely interested in getting to it. So if I interpreted correctly, the Bifrost 2 won’t necessarily “work better” with 16-bit songs, since 24-bits is hardly audibly better anyways?
 
     Share This Post       
post-15646332
Post #982 of 1,204

XERO1

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
1,597
Location
SoCal
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Location
SoCal
Posts
1,986
Likes
1,597
Thank you for all the information! I’ve added that video to my watch list and am definitely interested in getting to it. So if I interpreted correctly, the Bifrost 2 won’t necessarily “work better” with 16-bit songs, since 24-bits is hardly audibly better anyways?
Pretty much. :nerd:
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Sean_MR
post-15646577
Post #983 of 1,204

ev666il

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
267
Reaction score
424
Location
Budapest
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Location
Budapest
Posts
267
Likes
424
Bit depth is a very misunderstood part of digital encoding/decoding.

[...]

Between sample rate and bit depth, sample rate has by far the most siginicant impact on overall SQ.
I agree 100% about bit depth. When it comes to digital audio, the word "resolution" is not a synonym to—nor does it imply the concept of—"definition" in the same way it does in the video world. This is a common misconception, and one "high-resolution" music vendors are happy to perpetuate and exploit.

Here's another easy-to-understand video that explains bit depth and performs a classic null test between the 24-bit and 16-bit version of the same audio file:


I do not, however, fully agree with your sentiment on sample rate. 44.1Khz is more than enough to capture the full band of frequencies the human ear can perceive—and indeed more, depending on your age and general hearing. I, for example, can't hear beyond 16Khz (and my hearing between 15.5Khz and 16Khz is such that those frequencies are easily masked in the presence of literally any other sound.) Higher sampling rates can be useful during mixing and mastering, but they won't make an audible difference when it comes to playback. Here's a video that explores the subject:



Either way, I own 24-bit FLAC files and the Bifrost 2 handles them with ease :)
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-15646742
Post #984 of 1,204

XERO1

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
1,986
Reaction score
1,597
Location
SoCal
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Location
SoCal
Posts
1,986
Likes
1,597
The reason why I said that sample rate is far more important than bit depth was not because of it's effect on a recording's frequency response (although this is important too, but to a much lesser degree). The main benefit of a higher sample rate is that it can track an acoustic waveform's impulse response much more accurately than a lower sample rate can.

IP.png


This is the main reason why 2.82MHz DSD is considered to sound closer to the sound of analog tape than 192KHz PCM (DSD has a nearly 15x higher SR than 192K PCM), and why DSD is often considered the most 'analog sounding' of the popular digital recording formats. The human ear (and analog tape) effectively has a near infinite impluse response capacity, and the closer a digital format can come to emulating that, the more natural it will sound to us.

And the higher frequency response capability that you also get with a higher sample rate, I see as just a 'bonus feature' that you get in addition to the main benefit of having a high impulse response.

But I agree with you, that having a FR higher than 20kHz has much less audible impact than all of the marking fluff would have us believe.
 
Last edited:
post-15646932
Post #985 of 1,204

jkpenrose

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
182
Location
Yosemite Lakes Park
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Location
Yosemite Lakes Park
Posts
103
Likes
182
Thank you for all the information! I’ve added that video to my watch list and am definitely interested in getting to it. So if I interpreted correctly, the Bifrost 2 won’t necessarily “work better” with 16-bit songs, since 24-bits is hardly audibly better anyways?
I am not an audio engineer and may not understand this fully, and this is from many years ago, but my understanding is that greater bit depth translates to greater dynamic range. With digital volume control the signals dynamic range is compressed in the digital domain (effectively reducing the bit depth of the source) and brings the audible information closer to the noise floor - when you run this signal to an amplifier after the conversion the noise is also amplified and can become audible.

This is why, as I understand it, that doing digital volume control (back in the day) could degrade the sound and that you should do volume control with high quality analog gain after the signal was converted, and why you should feed your pre-amp/amp at full line level.

One way around this, is for the dac to upsamole the incoming signal to a higher bit rate before applying digital volume control and converting the signal to analog - this helps preserve the separation of the sound we want (music) from the noise we don't want - when processing in the digital domain.

But if you are not doing digital volume control - the extra bits don't matter (at least for this reason) because 16 bits provides plenty of dynamic range to cover what we can hear, while keeping the noise below audible levels.

If I've got this wrong, someone with more knowledge and understanding please clarify! :)
 
     Share This Post       
post-15646998
Post #986 of 1,204

rkw

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Messages
2,044
Reaction score
1,949
Location
San Francisco
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Location
San Francisco
Posts
2,044
Likes
1,949
my understanding is that greater bit depth translates to greater dynamic range
No, that is not correct. Greater bit depth translates to higher resolution of dynamic level, but the dynamic range is the same. As an analogy, imagine a 1 foot ruler. One ruler is marked only in inches, and another ruler has 1/16 inch markings. They both measure the same minimum to maximum (1 foot) which is like dynamic range, but the one with 1/16 markings can measure more accurately, which is like having greater bit depth.
 
post-15647166
Post #987 of 1,204

roskodan

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
1,592
Reaction score
916
Location
US/EU/IL
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Location
US/EU/IL
Posts
1,592
Likes
916
I always wondered how would a discussion about audio, between beings from different universes, look like. This must be it!
 
     Share This Post       
post-15647181
Post #988 of 1,204

aGloveSupreme

New Head-Fier
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
8
Reaction score
9
Location
Vancouver
Joined
May 20, 2020
Location
Vancouver
Posts
8
Likes
9
I always wondered how would a discussion about audio, between beings from different universes, look like. This must be it!
Audio is a bit more difficult to get a handle on for folks that anything visual. We experience things through our vision first and foremost IMO.

I find it interesting that if you are to do a blind tasting or say, jolly ranchers, it would be very difficult to actually pick out what flavour is what, but if you see them first it’s very obvious. It’s the same with great food, say Michelin star restaurant food. If you see it first, then eat it, well.. you can taste the nuances. If you were to go blindfolded that wouldn’t be the case.
I
I don’t think that it’s the case or seeing is believing, I think it’s a case of the brain knowing what to focus on. Take wine or scotch tasting for example.. if the tasting notes are given to you it gives you the ability to concentrate on trying to taste those notes yourself. Without such guidance you may very well miss out.

it’s not placebo, and it’s not BS. people actually need a heads up on what to pay attention to in order to fully appreciate what it has to offer.

still waiting on my Bifrost 2. Hopefully just another couple of weeks.
 
post-15647238
Post #989 of 1,204

jkpenrose

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
103
Reaction score
182
Location
Yosemite Lakes Park
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Location
Yosemite Lakes Park
Posts
103
Likes
182
No, that is not correct. Greater bit depth translates to higher resolution of dynamic level, but the dynamic range is the same. As an analogy, imagine a 1 foot ruler. One ruler is marked only in inches, and another ruler has 1/16 inch markings. They both measure the same minimum to maximum (1 foot) which is like dynamic range, but the one with 1/16 markings can measure more accurately, which is like having greater bit depth.



No, that is not correct. Greater bit depth translates to higher resolution of dynamic level, but the dynamic range is the same. As an analogy, imagine a 1 foot ruler. One ruler is marked only in inches, and another ruler has 1/16 inch markings. They both measure the same minimum to maximum (1 foot) which is like dynamic range, but the one with 1/16 markings can measure more accurately, which is like having greater bit depth.
Thanks rkw... I didn't mean to imply that upspampling to more bits for playback adds dynamic range to the original signal.

Though as I understand it, recording at higher bit rates could capture a greater dynamic range - which at 16 bits already covers the difference between the loudest and softest passages of almost all music. The benefit of doing so would be, as you say, smaller, more precise detail of volume differences (whether we can discern those differences is a different question :) but also more discrete steps between the noise we don't want and the sound we do - which is beneficial in mixing, mastering and filtering - as I understand it - which granted, could be wrong 😂

But for playback, discerning the volume differences between 16bit and 24bit is theoretically beyond our ability to hear - certainly it is beyond mine - or at least I think so!

I think it was an old article on ESS Sabre 32 chip that described the benefits of bit rate upspampling for digital volume control (but this was many, many years ago) and while it made sense to me, maybe was just marketing propaganda.

I use to be more concerned about the technical stuff, which is still interesting, but now it is way more about enjoying the experience - even if what I hear is placebo or snake oil - if I LIKE it better - that's enough these days.

For example, last night I listened to flac files from Amazon hd vs the same files on YouTube music... And despite the blind tests I have seen that demonstrate our (or most people's) inability to distinguish between lossy and lossless formats - the flac files were a little more precise in imaging, a little clearer on vocal reproduction, a little more enjoyable and I liked them better - even though not a night and day difference on my es100 and meze 99s - nice, but certainly not top end.

All that said and to stay on topic, I'm inclined to trust Jason and torq and many others that the Bifrost 2 sounds great and is technically competent - whether I like it better than what I have, I'll only know for sure when I get one :)
 
     Share This Post       
post-15647740
Post #990 of 1,204

Sean_MR

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
111
Reaction score
18
Location
California
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Location
California
Posts
111
Likes
18
Pretty much. :nerd:
Wow this sparked a lot more than I was intending. But I did watch the video, and wow it was fascinating! It honestly blew my mind it was really interesting to me to learn that adding bits doesn’t actually increase detail or resolution. I definitely learned something new :) thanks for the link!
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: Ripper2860

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 14, Guests: 9)

Top