[bretemm]

On thank you. Yea I'll need to get a adapter then or just use my computer with it.

I have no idea what an Apple USB cord is but the Wyrd input is USB-B.

 

[JEspina456]

  I hate to be a formatting hound, but yeah, I hear the posts and PMs about improperly formatted content that is hard to read. If you are a native English speaker, you really should try to apply commonly accepted formatting (such as capitalization and punctuation--I'm not talking about 100% compliance with the Chicago Manual). If you aren't a native English speaker, you have 100% leeway, because, hey, you don't want me trying to write Schiit Happened in Spanish or Japanese. The fact that you're communicating is laudable.
 
And seriously, I have to post this? This is not a 7th grade class in a promote-your-self-esteem-at-all-costs school where the teacher has embraced the idea that "expressing yourself is everything, formatting is a terrible restriction on creativity." Yes, and try telling that to the editor who just rejected your oh-so-creative manuscript after reading the first sentence. 
 
Bottom line: if you want to be taken seriously in written communication, your writing skills need to be up to snuff. 

Thank you Jason.  As a grammar police officer myself, I agree with you about both aspects.  If you speak English and grew up reading and writing English, some effort should be made to be somewhat clear and concise with your written communication.  Also, as you stated, a non-English speaker gets a much wider margin of error as well as praise for effort.  

 

[Ableza]

I'm certain that Apple Lightning to USB-B cables exist if that's what you need.

 

[valiant66]

It took a while for my brain to connect the dots, but…

 

  Here is a list of CDs on which Mike's Gain System ADC -> MAY <- have been utilized.  ( As to why this is significant, those CDs have the same filter as the Schiit Multibit DACs, and so should sound yet better than other CDs when played back on a Schiit Multibit DAC. Jason stated: "Should we be looking at an analog-to-digital converter using the same megaburrito filter as Yggdrasil? Mike did it once, for insane prices (see Mobile Fidelity’s GAIN system (not GAIN 2). Yes, there are actually a bunch of GAIN CDs out there that were mastered with a complementary algorithm to Yggdrasil. They’re, um, pretty insane." in
http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/6285#post_11619279)
 
The list is at:
 
http://www.goodwinshighend.com/music/mfsl_gold_cd.htm#MFSL%20Gold%20CD%20Listing%20by%20Catalog%20Number
 
or alphabetically by artist name:
 
http://www.goodwinshighend.com/music/mfsl_gold_cd.htm
 

 
That's some pretty damn good music that MSFL used Mike Moffat's tech to master: Joni Mitchell, Aretha Franklin, Otis Redding, Muddy Waters, Eric Clapton, Rick Wakeman, The Moody Blues and many, many more, both A-listers and not.

 
I had overlooked the paragraph in the original post (it's at the end of "2015 Chapter 9"), but what hit me was the implication is that the best sound will be had by using the same method to encode as to decode the music. Or to use a terribly inaccurate simile, Dolby in, Dolby out (I was a dbx guy...) for the best sound.
 
That makes sense to me. I'm no EE, but if you use the exact same algorithm to write the bits as you do to read them, then perhaps that's the most likely way to approach the original sound.
 
It seems to me pretty important to complete that loop. The original GAIN system is no longer in use, in fact MSFL is no longer with us, so music encoded that way is only available second hand now. There's an excellent used record/CD store in my neighbourhood, I'm pretty sure I could walk in and grab 80% of those titles without trying very hard, but as time goes on there will be less and less of them.
 
More importantly, no one is making new recordings using that system, so whatever synergy may exist in using the same megaburrito filter for encoding and decoding cannot be experienced with new music.
 
Jason is right that there's not much home recording market for an expensive, Yggdrasil-grade ADC. I'm certain there's a pro market for it but I understand Schiit's reluctance to sell into a market they know little of. However… I'm sure there IS a market for a Bifrost MB-grade ADC (perhaps call it the Tsorfib? and that would be a relatively low-risk way to test the waters. If it sells well enough, then there's room for the Ringnug and eventually perhaps the Lisardggy. Trickle-UP theory, in this case, and the pros will pressure Mike soon enough if they want the pro-level product.
 
In the interim, I bet there's enough people with large record collections or home recordings that would like to encode their music using multibit to justify an ADC in the $500-600 range.
 
And of course if Schiit is working on a Modi MB then a matching ADC in that form factor / price range would be a home run. The Idom - not the iDom of course - a multibit encoder at $150-$200 would be, to quote Jason, "um, pretty insane."
 
Or am I drinking the koolaid again?

 

[US Blues]

   

That's some pretty damn good music that MSFL used Mike Moffat's tech to master: Joni Mitchell, Aretha Franklin, Otis Redding, Muddy Waters, Eric Clapton, Rick Wakeman, The Moody Blues and many, many more, both A-listers and not.

 
 

 
I am fortunate to have a copy of Pink Floyd's Atom Heart Mother from the UDCD, which was mastered with the Gain system. Played back through Yggy it is sublime. 
 
Note to Jason: Commercial grade A/D convertors are a market you could OWN, if you want it. Especially if you hit some price points for musicians with home studios.

 

[kstuart]

I have to +1 on the idea of a Mike Moffat Burrito-filtered ADC in the Bifrost price range for semi-pro recording.   Maybe this time, you might want to "trickle up" the technology to a pro level, if the cheaper one sells...
 
By the way, I have been listening to some of the MFSL "Gain System" CDs, and I have to second Steve Hoffman's comment (that I quoted earlier in the thread) about "the ADC is great, but the other engineering techniques on the releases can be questionable" (paraphrased).  I do often hear the " U shaped EQ " that many people describe in MFSL releases.
 
All in all, even played back with a Schiit Multibit DAC, those Ultradisc CDs may not always be the best version of the album, despite Mike's ADC.
 
Of course, they all sound good relative to 99% of CDs... but I don't think that the ADC is any bigger a factor than many other recording and mastering factors.

 

[Jones Bob]

Any chance the Yggy will be upgraded with a Whole Enchilada WunderFilter in the future to differentiate it more from the Mega Burrito Gumby?
 
BTW, I am partial to Carnita Chimichangas

 

[jfoxvol]

I'd buy that for a dollar. Honestly tho I don't think we will see updates to these for a while. If new DAC chips come out, we might see new digital boards but not anytime soon.

 

[valiant66]

By the way, I have been listening to some of the MFSL "Gain System" CDs, and I have to second Steve Hoffman's comment (that I quoted earlier in the thread) about "the ADC is great, but the other engineering techniques on the releases can be questionable" (paraphrased).  I do often hear the " U shaped EQ " that many people describe in MFSL releases.

Production engineering, the way a recording is made, is always going to trump everything. The best gear in the world will not make a crappy recording sound good. Modern production techniques compress everything to the point where there's almost no dynamic range, and a lot of modern remastering of old material does the same, to the detriment of the source material. It's today's trend, just as the "U" shape was yesterday's. Sometimes (often?) the original version sounds livelier, even if the technology used back then was not up to today's standards. it doesn't matter if something is remastered in 16/44, 36/384, PCM or DSD: if the engineer makes crappy choices it will sound worse, not better.

 

[kstuart]

 

By the way, I have been listening to some of the MFSL "Gain System" CDs, and I have to second Steve Hoffman's comment (that I quoted earlier in the thread) about "the ADC is great, but the other engineering techniques on the releases can be questionable" (paraphrased).  I do often hear the " U shaped EQ " that many people describe in MFSL releases.

Production engineering, the way a recording is made, is always going to trump everything. The best gear in the world will not make a crappy recording sound good. Modern production techniques compress everything to the point where there's almost no dynamic range, and a lot of modern remastering of old material does the same, to the detriment of the source material. It's today's trend, just as the "U" shape was yesterday's. Sometimes (often?) the original version sounds livelier, even if the technology used back then was not up to today's standards. it doesn't matter if something is remastered in 16/44, 36/384, PCM or DSD: if the engineer makes crappy choices it will sound worse, not better.

Yes, I have a number of CDs from the 1980s laying around, the ones that were all "remastered", and in almost every case, when I listen to them with my current system, they sound better than the "remasters".  My opinion is that this is often simply due to the fact that the "original master tape" aged and lost magnetism (and in some cases, became worn out from doing too many "remasters").

 

[jfoxvol]

Production engineering, the way a recording is made, is always going to trump everything. The best gear in the world will not make a crappy recording sound good. Modern production techniques compress everything to the point where there's almost no dynamic range, and a lot of modern remastering of old material does the same, to the detriment of the source material. It's today's trend, just as the "U" shape was yesterday's. Sometimes (often?) the original version sounds livelier, even if the technology used back then was not up to today's standards. it doesn't matter if something is remastered in 16/44, 36/384, PCM or DSD: if the engineer makes crappy choices it will sound worse, not better.

Well said

 

[atomicbob]

  Yes, I have a number of CDs from the 1980s laying around, the ones that were all "remastered", and in almost every case, when I listen to them with my current system, they sound better than the "remasters".  My opinion is that this is often simply due to the fact that the "original master tape" aged and lost magnetism (and in some cases, became worn out from doing too many "remasters").

I shudder when I see the term "remastered" on digital content. Sometimes the re-mastering engineer did a great job. Often times, thanks to the loudness wars, it was just a crappy application of a Waves L2 limiter to raise average RMS levels at the expense of musical content crest factor; dynamic range. The music no longer breathes. It heads in the direction of lacking musical soul.

 

[jfoxvol]

Also suckers us in to repurchasing. I bought the whole Rush catalog in 96/24 Flac. Two years later they're being completely remastered again. Oh yeah sure. Same with Van Halen catalog. I'm not dropping any more coin for something that very well may sound worse.

 

[kstuart]

Also suckers us in to repurchasing. I bought the whole Rush catalog in 96/24 Flac. Two years later they're being completely remastered again. Oh yeah sure. Same with Van Halen catalog. I'm not dropping any more coin for something that very well may sound worse.

Also, these days, there can be several independent remasterings.   For example, the new MFSL buys rights to titles that have already received perfectly good remasterings (eg Bob Dylan catalog), simply because those are the titles that their customer base is willing to buy over and over.  Similarly, while Analogue Productions generally do very good masterings, their marketing department licenses the same titles that have been done several times before.  For example, probably the best high resolution remasterings ever, were the Alan Yoshida 24/192 versions of the top Blue Note jazz titles.  There is no reason for anyone to ever do those albums again.  But that didn't stop AP from doing them anyway - rather than doing more obscure titles that have never had a high resolution transfer.

 

[rtaylor76]

Also suckers us in to repurchasing. I bought the whole Rush catalog in 96/24 Flac. Two years later they're being completely remastered again. Oh yeah sure. Same with Van Halen catalog. I'm not dropping any more coin for something that very well may sound worse.

This is why I buy the original masters at the used record store for $3-$5 that were mastered by the masters such as Ludwig, Grundman, Clearmoutain, and others. It's not perfect and not very practical, but pretty amazing hi-fi but almost as expensive when you consider Turntable -> Cartridge -> Phono Preamp combo. Bimby sounds so much easier.