Schiit Gungnir DAC
- Thread starter WarriorAnt
- Start date
RCBinTN
Headphoneus Supremus
I didn't get a response from that link ...
Ableza
Headphoneus Supremus
Hmm. OK, it is just a Head Fi search for the phrase "closed form" posted by Baldr on any subforum. You can enter those terms in the search function from any forum page.
robert766
100+ Head-Fier
I had direct contact with Schiit: "unfortunately we are extremely low in stock of the Gungnir Multibit. It is very possible a new order would be delayed by a couple weeks."
Oh well I'll just have to wait and be patient. Thought about a Bimby but apart from sound quality a Gumby also offers a bit more flexibility with the BNC in and two SE and a XLR out. Very friendly customer service though!
KeithEmo
Member of the Trade: Emotiva
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Posts
- 1,698
- Likes
- 868
The job of a DAC is to take in digital audio and convert it into analog audio - and there are several different ways of going about this.
Think of it like the differences between carburetors and fuel injection - or gasoline cars and electric cars - except that the differences aren't nearly as obvious with DACs.
As it so happens, multi-bit DACs are the older technology, while most modern designs are Delta-Sigma.
Also, as it happens, it's more difficult to design a multi-bit DAC that has good specifications (by modern standards).
(That's the main reason WHY most modern DACs are D-S DACs.)
However, some people are quite convinced that one or the other sounds distinctly better.
(In theory, if all DACs were perfect, then the result would be exactly the same - a perfect analog version of the digital source.)
However, nothing in the real world is actually perfect, and multi-bit DACs and D-S DACs have different strengths and weaknesses.
It's not actually proper to say that "a DAC has been made into a multi-bit DAC".
It would be more correct to phrase that as "they have chosen to use multi-bit DAC chips rather than Delta-Sigma DAC chips in some of their products".
In this case, they have multiple versions of certain products, each using one or the other sort of circuitry to do its job.
(As a listener, you're best not trying to figure out how each works, and trying to imagine how that would make it sound, and just listening to how it does sound.)
QUOTE="ruthieandjohn, post: 15026258, member: 389352"]I do have a background in signal processing (e.g. author of the Prentice-Hall textbook “Real Time Signal Processing.”). However, I do not understand what Schiit has done to create the Multibit version of their DACs.
In other words, I don’t know Schiit.
Maybe the answer is in “Schitt Happened.”
If I read it, then maybe I WILL know Schiit.[/QUOTE]
Think of it like the differences between carburetors and fuel injection - or gasoline cars and electric cars - except that the differences aren't nearly as obvious with DACs.
As it so happens, multi-bit DACs are the older technology, while most modern designs are Delta-Sigma.
Also, as it happens, it's more difficult to design a multi-bit DAC that has good specifications (by modern standards).
(That's the main reason WHY most modern DACs are D-S DACs.)
However, some people are quite convinced that one or the other sounds distinctly better.
(In theory, if all DACs were perfect, then the result would be exactly the same - a perfect analog version of the digital source.)
However, nothing in the real world is actually perfect, and multi-bit DACs and D-S DACs have different strengths and weaknesses.
It's not actually proper to say that "a DAC has been made into a multi-bit DAC".
It would be more correct to phrase that as "they have chosen to use multi-bit DAC chips rather than Delta-Sigma DAC chips in some of their products".
In this case, they have multiple versions of certain products, each using one or the other sort of circuitry to do its job.
(As a listener, you're best not trying to figure out how each works, and trying to imagine how that would make it sound, and just listening to how it does sound.)
QUOTE="ruthieandjohn, post: 15026258, member: 389352"]I do have a background in signal processing (e.g. author of the Prentice-Hall textbook “Real Time Signal Processing.”). However, I do not understand what Schiit has done to create the Multibit version of their DACs.
In other words, I don’t know Schiit.
Maybe the answer is in “Schitt Happened.”
If I read it, then maybe I WILL know Schiit.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
artur9
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Posts
- 3,881
- Likes
- 10,845
What I'd like to see is the 1914 patent (paper?) that @Baldr references every once in a while. I've searched for it but couldn't find it.
Ableza
Headphoneus Supremus
It's a Bell Telephone Labs paper on time-domain and frequency alignment published in 1917. I don't know if it is scanned and available on line.
artur9
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Posts
- 3,881
- Likes
- 10,845
What?! I thought all human knowledge was on the 'Net. Oh, No! you've shattered my faith in google!
I suppose next you'll be telling me that all those pictures of Bigfoot that google finds are fake, too?
Ableza
Headphoneus Supremus
That might be a step too far.What?! I thought all human knowledge was on the 'Net. Oh, No! you've shattered my faith in google!
I suppose next you'll be telling me that all those pictures of Bigfoot that google finds are fake, too?
Nessie, though, that's fake for sure.
Last edited:
KeithEmo
Member of the Trade: Emotiva
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Posts
- 1,698
- Likes
- 868
The main reason that Delta-Sigma DACs have almost entirely replaced R2R DACs is that, in almost all applications, they deliver much better measured performance, at much lower cost.
(The exception is pretty much limited to video and high-speed measurement applications where speed is more important than good linearity over a wide range.)
There is no conspiracy to sell people horribly bad DACs because they're cheap.
However, there is always a general pressure to deliver products with better performance at lower cost.
In general, at any price point, Delta-Sigma DACs deliver lower THD, lower noise, and better linearity than R2R DACs.
(And these are the performance specs that DAC designers and vendors, as well as most audiophiles, usually consider to be the most important.)
Of course, as usual, some audiophiles prefer to discount these specs, and look for other characteristics that they consider more important.
(The exception is pretty much limited to video and high-speed measurement applications where speed is more important than good linearity over a wide range.)
There is no conspiracy to sell people horribly bad DACs because they're cheap.
However, there is always a general pressure to deliver products with better performance at lower cost.
In general, at any price point, Delta-Sigma DACs deliver lower THD, lower noise, and better linearity than R2R DACs.
(And these are the performance specs that DAC designers and vendors, as well as most audiophiles, usually consider to be the most important.)
Of course, as usual, some audiophiles prefer to discount these specs, and look for other characteristics that they consider more important.
Dr.J
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Posts
- 169
- Likes
- 33
Last edited:
This question is a rabbit hole. We ARE in Delta-Sigma days. The best measuring (and sounding) DACs I know of are all DS currently.
Dr.J
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Posts
- 169
- Likes
- 33
Sorry, auto correction changed dacs to days!
