I can see that this is about to devolve into a flame war, so before the mods step in and shut it down, I'll throw in my 2¢.
Mike Moffat said he is pursuing accurate reproduction of sound that sounds good with what you listen to, but since he doesn't know what you're listening to he's using live acoustic music as a metric:
So that is what I have been doing ever since – doing everything I can to take care of the music reproduction end of audio. Take anything that vibrated the air and was captured and replay it. To that end, along the years, I maintained opera season seats for over 20 years (If any microphones were used – tomatoes would have been flying out of the audiences), I played in a bluegrass band for quite a while through college until I broke my hand – I know what live acoustic instruments sound like. I have been to too many Rock and Americana concerts to remember.
In electrified concerts, one has vocals, playing of guitars, synthesizers, etc which emote artistry. This allows the re-creator to follow his goal. Rap has vocals, and so on.
But techno? Computer generated music? (Just press start) I dunno What to do with that. It never vibrated in free 14.7 psi air – it never made any acoustical anything. How do I reproduce something that never existed? I give up. I dunno. This leads to the question, who does? Whoever does must live in his own subjective universe and build his “good sounding” stuff for himself, praying that enough other people might agree. Too much of this thinking exists in the audio biz. This is why there are so many providers of and compulsive changers of gear. Peter Walker was right!
My best advice is to get something that sounds good on a lot of different music. Stuff that vibrated the air. Not techno pop stuff designed with DSP to correct the pitch of singers who can't sing. Real screw*n music that once lived in the physical universe. That is exactly where I aimed with Yggy.
And Kstuart agrees with him:
Originally Posted by kstuart /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you ask any number of recording engineers, and for that matter - Jason and Mike - I'm sure most, if not all, would say that comparing the sound of live instruments with the sound of recorded live instruments is the only reference point that should be used for designing music playback equipment. In fact, I am pretty sure that Mike said that in this thread earlier.
That is the meaning of "fidelity", as in a "high fidelity" sound system.
But Ableza says to hell with using real music as the goal in music reproduction, just get what you like:
The truth is there is no absolute "right and wrong" in audio, there is only what appeals to each individual's taste. So you do what sounds good to you and I'll do what sounds good to me and for the third time in this discussion, to each his own.
While n-a doesn't really like how accurate the Yggy is and opines he wants to add tube distortion:
So about the warmth...
I believe you have made the Yggdrasil to produce the signal as truthfully as can be, and i like that. That is the way it should be in my opinion. However i read some article where the famous mr. Nelson Pass say something like"...
The ear is not a microphone, the brain is not a tape recorder, and measurements are limited in describing subjective quality". So i guess what i am trying to say is that sometime the truth hurts
So why don´t you guys at the Schiit factory make... Schiit Tube Buffer! You know, a good one
Just an idea...
At the exact same time as Ableza tells us he used to like tube distortion, but now prefers the accuracy of the Yggy:
I've used a tube-buffered DAC for many years with excellent results. Well that is I USED one until I replaced it with a Yggdrasil.
And finally, GearMe says it all doesn't matter anyway since it's subjective all down the line:
Originally Posted by GearMe /img/forum/go_quote.gif
UGH!
100 Recording Engineers in a room listening/mixing/etc. a live performance will hear 100 different versions of the same piece of music being played and lay down 100 different versions on their final master to be released for public consumption. Which one do I want my version to sound like?
It's clear to me that:
1. People disagree on what they want out of music reproduction
2. People change their minds about what they want out of music reproduction
3. In a hobby that in the end is entirely subjective (just think of how much happier Tonykaz is now that he's had his hearing tested and developed equalization to compensate - a lesson we should all pay more attention to) we will always have the objectivists delivering their subjective opinions
And we all know from hanging out in forums, that There Is Only One True Way, And Yours Is Wrong.
This forum seems to have avoided the excesses of the One True Way, and it's part of why I've put up with advice on how to keep the wife happy, even though I'm not married, opinions on which is the best supercar, even though I don't own one, and myriad other wandering sidebars that pop up while we're waiting for another chapter from Jason.
In the meantime, I want to enjoy music as closely to the originators' intent* as I can, while knowing that sitting in a room with speakers** or at a desk with headphones*** will always be a compromise**** and as long as I can enjoy what I've got***** I don't need to obsess about perfection******.
As always, YMMV.
Cheers!
* Whatever that may be, acoustic, amplified, or electronic
** No matter how expensive they are
*** No matter how they score on Head-fi
**** As is everything in life
***** Which ain't much, but it's more than enough
****** OCD tendencies notwithstanding
