I posted my impressions of the Schiit Bifrost vs a lightly modded DagMagic over in the AudioAsylum review section. I don't use headphones so YMMV but I found the DAC reviews/comments on this site helpful for choosing a replacement DAC.
I just got a Schiit Bifrost USB DAC and the comparison with my older, slightly modded Cambridge Audio DacMagic has been interesting. I could just report on how the Bifrost sounds but I think a comparison between the two DACs gives a better picture of how these things sound. The DacMagic is certainly a known quantity and has been reviewed, demoed, and/or owned by a large sample of the audiophile community.
While vinyl still reigns supreme, I frequently listen to digital music. Digital source is a Windows 7, Quad core I7 2.2 laptop with 12GB ram, running Foobar (WASAPI, no dither, 350ms output buffer, 24 bit output) while the rest of the system uses SET tube pre/amps and horn speakers.
My DacMagic has been modded so that only 2 out of the 3 output opamps are used and the output caps have been bypassed (by a piece of solid core silver wire). The modded DacMagic sound is big (probably bigger than it should be) with a presentation that stretches across the speakers and fills the soundstage from the floor to the ceiling. There is a limitation in terms of depth, the sound stage while wide and tall is somewhat two dimensional. The DacMagic does project into the room (perhaps due to the slight “reverb” like effect I describe below) but depth behind the speakers is limited. The DacMagic has a clearly elevated bass, it is substantial, fat and a bit loose. Macrodynamics are good, detail retrieval is excellent (even exaggerated) and overall transparency is good. Tonally, the DacMagic is slightly on the side of warm although it’s overall balance can be described as warmish/neutral. Probably the biggest downside of the DacMagic is a slightly phasey/electronic signature that is ever present. I always attributed this sound in part to the upsampling nature of the DacMagic, it sounds a little bit like the output of the DacMagic is running through a reverb box. This effect makes everything bigger, instrumental notes have a long, long lingering decay, vocals have a soaring aspect (and sibilance is exaggerated) and sound stage “air” is readily apparent. Almost everything sounds like it was recorded in an underdamped, lively, empty church. The somewhat bloated bass response of the DacMagic acts pleasurably like a loudness/Munson-Fletcher curve switch when listening at lower than average levels. The overall sound is big, lively and fun with the jazz and rock music that makes up the vast majority of my listening.
The Bifrost arrived neatly packed. The construction/appearance appears nicely done with a simple, well designed look that could pass for a lifestyle type device. Features include asynchronous USB 2.0 input as well as Toslink and RCA S/PDIF digital inputs (all 24/192)with a single set of outputs. The Bifrost does not formally upsample digital input (although this is debatable). The DAC has an upgradable DAC board module and an upgradable USB input module. Setup is as simple as can be, plug it in with a cable of your choice (DIY 14AWG solid core woven in my case), connect a digital input (Toslink, USB or RCS S/PDIV), select the input and it makes music. If you are going to be running USB, you have to install drivers that are available online at Schiit. Levels were not matched for this comparison, the output of the DacMagic is about .7db higher than the BiFrost. Absolute phase appear to be non-inverted in both the BiFrost and the DacMagic (although the DacMagic does have a phase inversion switch).
Fresh out of the box (and connected with USB), the Bifrost sound was very different from my DacMagic. My initial impression was that this DAC is more laid back/recessed, more focused, smaller sounding, with a smaller bottom end. A couple things really jumped out. The phasey “reverb” like quality of the DacMagic was completely absent. Vocals and instruments appeared much smaller but more finely focused/delineated. While soundstage depth and width were reduced, depth was better in the Bifrost with vocals appearing to come from far behind the speakers. Listening to the Drive By Truckers lead singer Patterson Hood on "A Blessing and a Curse" resulted in a slightly smaller, but very focused and tonally accurate Hood standing several feet behind my speakers while the DacMagic presents Hood as a giant mouth several feet across singing in line with or slightly behind my speakers. While vocals and instruments have great definition through the Bifrost, there was not a lot of cohesion. Each instrument/vocal while cleanly portrayed, suffered from a sense of dislocation from each other ie the Bifrost highlighted individual performers at the cost of losing the overall musical synergy in a performance. Listening to Duke Ellington and Johnny Hodges on "Side by Side", I was initially struck by how distant and isolated the performers sounded (and nothing could be further from the truth on this recording or in this performance). I have never been that concerned with PRAT (perhaps because my SET/horn system just naturally boogies) but it was very hard to feel the tempo and drive of the performance at this point (and this seems almost an impossibility with "Side by Side".
Tonally, the Bifrost appeared essentially neutral although vocals lost some of the “chestiness” presented by the DacMagic. Vocals initially sounded comparatively threadbare and somewhat “nasal” through the Bifrost when compared to the DacMagic. While I would not describe the Bifrost as cold or clinical, it certainly was less romantic and warm then the DacMagic. High frequencies were far more prominent in the Bifrost with excellent focus, detail and control. Somewhat surprising (in light of the excellent hi-freq reproduction) was that the sense of “air” or the reproduction of the recording space surrounding the performers/instrument was diminished in the Bifrost compared to the almost artificially enhanced sense of space and air produced by the DacMagic. While the DacMagic had more of this quality, more is not always better and I felt that the DacMagic was providing a little too much of a good thing. Combined, these vocal/hi-freq/"air" differences could clearly be heard while listening to Robert Plant and Alison Krause's album "Rising Sand" or Don Chamber's "Zebulon".
The bottom end/bass as reproduced by the Bifrost was leaner, tighter and more detailed, however this lean bass tilted the overall sound slightly towards its exceptional reproduction of high frequencies. I prefer the full bodied sound provided by the DacMagic but clearly the Bifrost was presenting textures/subtleties in the lower frequencies that simply did not exist through the DacMagic.
In terms of background blackness, the Bifrost has greater “emptiness” when things get quiet and/or between notes, which I suppose is desirable. On the other hand, the DacMagic did such a stellar job of portraying the ambiance of the recording event in space/time that even between notes you often got a sense of the where people were standing/sitting etc. There was no hum/noise issues noted with either DAC. I was unable to determine if either DAC was turned on/off with my ear about 6” away from a 100db efficient horn speaker. The outboard AC transformer of the DacMagic runs very hot (the plastic case surrounding the AC stepdown transformer is brittle due to the heat and one of the screws just fell out because the threads broke) while the Bifrost case runs fairly cool.
So, overall the Bifrost sounded very focused, a bit lean, somewhat analytical, very controlled but with a loss of PRAT and musical cohesion. A big disappointment, both my wife and I preferred my old DacMagic at this point. This was somewhat of a surprise as the Schiit DAC has many aspects that I consider desirable (Made in USA by a small company with eccentric personalities and principles but with solid R&D, engineering and production experience and features such as non-upsampling, async USB 2.0, discrete JFET output stage) in a nice looking, and apparently well designed piece of audio gear.
This initial comparison was with a USB connection to the BF and a Toslink connection to the DacMagic. I tried reversing the connections and found that the overall results remained the same. The Toslink input on both DACs appeared to provide a little more bottom end weight/bloom when compared to the USB input as well as a slightly warmer sounding presentation. I preferred the Toslink connection with both DACs although the difference was not as great as I expected. All comparisons were done with both USB and Toslink for each DAC. I finally settled on the toslink connection as the one I will use going forward with the Bifrost.
A little later on……. aka Holy mother of all burn-ins!
I believe in and have experienced the sonic nature of a new component changing after it has some hours of use under its belt. Typically, the difference is fairly small and I have always attributed at least some of that perceived difference after burn-in as neurophysiological in nature. That said, I had my old DAC running as a reference to provide a stable baseline for comparison. Throughout this comparison, the modded DacMagic sounded roughly the same (any differences could be accounted for by my mood, the quality of the main AC, the movement of true polar north etc) while the Bifrost appeared to change (and to some extent is still changing at 100+ hours) its sonic presentation as the burn-in process continued.
At 48 hours the somewhat nasal quality with vocals had disappeared and what remained was the Bifrost characteristic smooth, somewhat recessed, controlled and very neutral vocal balance. Singers started to sing more from their chest and less from their mouths. Vocals still present as smaller, more focused and with much greater depth when compared to the DacMagic. The Bifrost initially heavily favored the leading edge of notes, settled for smoothly controlling the body of that same note and minimized the trailing edge. As the break-in process continued, the portrayal of the beginning/main body/trailing edges started to bloom/fill in somewhat such that the middle/body of the note became more prominent while trailing edges lingered longer resulting in a more attractive and balanced sonic presentation. Dynamics (both micro and macro) increased during this period to a more acceptable level.
The sense that the musicians were all playing separate solos also disappeared; the overall musical gestalt gelled such that the performance now overshadows the individual performers (except during solo efforts and where appropriate to the recording). PRAT made its appearance; the timing and the momentum generated by the artists performance was much easier to hear and feel. My head was nodding, my foot started tapping and my interest in the music increased significantly. Ellington and Hodges now rocked! Much better. At this point, my wife changed her earlier preference towards my original DacMagic to the Bifrost. I played several different tracks for her (she did not know which DAC was playing) and she now stated that she preferred the Bifrost.
This improvement continued through the ~80 hour period. Bass became a little more full but continues to remain a little lighter in weight than I would prefer (and I am accustomed to). That said, the Bifrost bass that exists is very tight and tuneful with detail that simply did not exist when played through the DacMagic. The best of both worlds would be the quantity of bass of the DacMagic with the tunefulness and quality of bass supplied by the Bifrost.
At this point in time, the Bifrost strikes me as a very neutral and detailed DAC with accurate tonal qualities, better than average (at this price point) micro and macrodynamics and good soundstage qualities (especially depth, perhaps slightly less so with height and width). Detail retrieval and focus are excellent. The overall sound is somewhat biased towards the mids and up and this probably remains my main criticism (I like a big fat musical ass). In some ways, this DAC appeals more to my mind than my heart. Poor recordings sound awful through the Bifrost while conversely, great recordings sound fabulous. In general, I prefer all my recordings to sound good and the DacMagic does a better job of helping to spruce up dead, overly compressed or just plain poorly recorded music. But in this case, the heights reached by the Bifrost on good or better recordings just outweighs my reservations regarding how poorly recorded material sounds.
Is the Bifrost a better DAC than the modded DacMagic? I am keeping the Bifrost mainly because once the Bifrost highlighted the slightly phasy/electronic character that overlies the DacMagic’s portrayal of music, it simply became impossible to ignore; just like the first time you spot a small door ding on your new car, that small ding now jumps out at you EVERY time you walk up to the vehicle. The DIYer in me wonders about messing around with the output stage but in general I like and prefer the Bifrost as the DAC (and my brain) continues to break-in. The bottom line is that more I listen to the Bifrost, the more I appreciate its ability to untangle the messy bits coming out of my laptop. Is it a giant killer? Not really, at this time in point we expect excellent performance from even modestly priced DACs. A more expensive DAC would probably provide more of everything. Still, this level of performance (and in an American designed and manufactured product of such appealing appearance and apparent build quality) at this price point just rocks and provides for me a sense that perhaps American ingenuity/craftsmanship/production can be competitive with products mass produced overseas.
