[FrivolsListener]

  You already have a Ygg, just add a Liquid Crimson and let the auditory fun and games being. That said, there is something very special about the Bifrost MB. I have all three Schiit MB DACs and the BiMB keeps percolating to the most listened position.
 
So I only allow myself a small amount of 25 yr Macallan and reach for the 18 yr Dalmore ... the family has cleaned me out! Ooooh, those dirty guys!

 
Can you elaborate on that?  I'm steeling myself for springing for a Gumby in the next couple weeks, and I wonder why the Bimby keeps popping to the top of your collection.

 

[Fighterboy89]

   
It's the only fully discrete, no overall feedback, pure class A amplifier in the Schiit's lineup. If it doesn't mean anything to you, then I guess you could save some dough and just get yourself a Magni. 

 
 
EDIT: oh, and it stacks nicely with Bifrost Multibit...

Magni 2 Uber is also fully discrete. But anyway can you explain some of that terminology? I know that Class A amps are always ON and have the best linearity and that might explain why it sounds better (theoretically and whether that's audible or not is another discussion). But what does fully discrete and no overall feedback mean?
And how do these 2 things affect the sound? And how do they make the sound better?
 
I'm really hungry for knowledge so thank you in advance!
 

 

[Torq]

 
Magni 2 Uber is also fully discrete. But anyway can you explain some of that terminology? I know that Class A amps are always ON and have the best linearity and that might explain why it sounds better (theoretically and whether that's audible or not is another discussion). But what does fully discrete and no overall feedback mean?
And how do these 2 things affect the sound? And how do they make the sound better?
 
I'm really hungry for knowledge so thank you in advance!
 

“Fully discrete” means that the circuit, typically an amplifier, is implemented using individual, discrete, components (transistors, resistors and maybe capacitors) rather than using a monolithic IC … in other words an Op-Amp.
 
Not that it is terribly relevant to audio use-cases, but something like the classic 741 Op-Amp can be implemented discretely.  One, rather pretty, example is here:
 
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/2014/the-xl741/
 
When you do this using discrete components, you have complete control over component values and tolerance and can, of course, implement whatever topology or model you care to; you’re not limited to the canned designs of the monolithic offerings.
 
In other words, the designer can have their way with all aspects of their chosen topology and its implementation.
 
The arguments in favor of Op-Amps are generally consistency, ultra-short signal paths (the entire circuit length is likely to be less than the spacing between two transistors in a discrete implementation), simplicity, and cost.
 
There are also hybrid implementations; Linn’s “Chakra” technology uses monolithics for their linearity at lower output levels and then seamlessly transitions to discrete, power, components at high output levels.
 
 

 

[tonykaz]

Hello AtomicBob,
 
Only MM&W I got is "Let's Go Everywhere", a children's Album which I'm tuning into right now.
 
I hear you about that Cavalli & Multi.   Bob Katz just reported on his building and explorations of the M3 which seems the same type of super-Amp. 
 
I soar closer to the ground but I make up for it by discovering superb recordings.  
 
On another matter entirely: I'm tonight discovering why Germany had to launch Barbarossa in 1942.   I've been hunting 35 years for a explination, it always seemed an obvious suicide to me.  I'll begin a wide-field test to this theory over the next weeks.  Very exciting. 
 
Risking putting people on pedestals where they kick people in the teeth, I have you, Bob Katz, and Stoddard & Moffatt as the leading intellectuals in our little world of Headphone electronics.  I suppose I have Sennheiser on another pedestal nearby. 
 
I'll now Toast you with a nice Glass of Lake Huron water, neat!
 
Tony in Michigan

 

[Fighterboy89]

 
“Fully discrete” means that the circuit, typically an amplifier, is implemented using individual, discrete, components (transistors, resistors and maybe capacitors) rather than using a monolithic IC … in other words an Op-Amp.
 
Not that it is terribly relevant to audio use-cases, but something like the classic 741 Op-Amp can be implemented discretely.  One, rather pretty, example is here:
 
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/2014/the-xl741/
 
When you do this using discrete components, you have complete control over component values and tolerance and can, of course, implement whatever topology or model you care to; you’re not limited to the canned designs of the monolithic offerings.
 
In other words, the designer can have their way with all aspects of their chosen topology and its implementation.
 
The arguments in favor of Op-Amps are generally consistency, ultra-short signal paths (the entire circuit length is likely to be less than the spacing between two transistors in a discrete implementation), simplicity, and cost.
 
There are also hybrid implementations; Linn’s “Chakra” technology uses monolithics for their linearity at lower output levels and then seamlessly transitions to discrete, power, components at high output levels.
 
 

OK so if I understood correctly all these little things add up to provide a superior subjective listening experience and I assume better measured sonic performance even though the listed specs for M2U and A2 are almost exactly the same within reasonable margin of error?
Like if you were to put a number on how much better A2 is compared to M2U would it be 10% better? 20%? 50%?
Does it sound $100 better ($149 vs. $249)?

 

[bigro]

^^ It could be useful for speaker users who run DACs directly to power amps and want a remote control option as well. Not really useful for headphone users who, like you said, use headphone amps that also function as a pre-amp. There are plenty of DACs that that have volume control built-in like the Auralic Vega, Benchmark DAC2 and Bricasti M1. Anyway, it looks like Schiit made the choice of having the pre-amp/volume control on the amp side, rather than the DAC.

I am primarily a Speaker user. Myself an others I know usually have multiple sources so a something like a passive pre amp with a Main Volume Control/Remote Volume control that will switch inputs and possibly outputs seems to make even more sense in that realm. It will also be very compatible with just about everything in the Schiit lineup. Most Preamps on the market are not passive and of the few good ones that are passive seem to be priced ridiculously high with the exception of finding one of those Niles preamps mentioned on ebay, which in my searches a while back seemed to be the only one that made sense quality and price wise. It seems that's there is a Gap in the Market that could be filled. There are also a few power amps with Volume controls as well so why not use those? 
I guess we are going down the Switch in Back VS Switch In front rabbit hole here. At the end of the day that's a personal preference and all in ones or multiple volume controls through out the chain is kind of a bit much. Simplicity keeps cost down and for me getting the best SQ for my money is the main objective. Convenience is just that, a convenience (To be honest I probably should get off the couch a bit more anyway).  I will leave the re engineering of products to the Schiit Team.
 
 Getting back on what would be nice in 2016 and something that Schiit has not done in The Analog Realm.
 
An Asgard on Steroids - putting out in the range of 50 W @ 8 ohm / 75W RMS @ 4 Ohms. Why? Class A goodness for My speakers. Diving off the Deep End into cool schiit speculation land here. Asgard Mono Blocks.Yes, Class A Mono Block Amplifier and call it Thor. And Yes I have lost my mind.
 
Circlotron Amps- A Balanced Pure tube amp that may sit along side the Ragnarok Like you have the Valhalla and Asgard for the SE side of the world. In my crazy mind it would make sense in the Line up. I don't do Balanced now but that sure would make me reconsider.
 
I'm done dreaming for now. The rest of this year is going to be long. 

 

[GearMe]

An Asgard on Steroids - putting out in the range of 50 W @ 8 ohm / 75W RMS @ 4 Ohms. Why? Class A goodness for My speakers. Diving off the Deep End into cool schiit speculation land here. Asgard Mono Blocks.Yes, Class A Mono Block Amplifier and call it Thor. And Yes I have lost my mind.

Have no idea if you can do this with the Schiit amplifier circuit design but how about a switch to make your amps bridgeable? A bridgeable, 50 watt 'Asgard on Steroids' would be an easy purchase to make.

When I was in school I bought the ARC D-100 because it was capable of this. My system 'limped' along until I could afford my second one. It was a great way to be able to upgrade without trading up and getting hammered by the dealer.

Weirdly...it seemed that the sound improved, even when listening at lower volume levels. Might have been an expectation bias. Regardless, that pair of amps could really drive a set of speakers!

 

[KLJTech]

 
Magni 2 Uber is also fully discrete. But anyway can you explain some of that terminology? I know that Class A amps are always ON and have the best linearity and that might explain why it sounds better (theoretically and whether that's audible or not is another discussion). But what does fully discrete and no overall feedback mean?
And how do these 2 things affect the sound? And how do they make the sound better?
 
I'm really hungry for knowledge so thank you in advance!
 

 
Let's not forget that the Asgard 2 is not only a true "Class A" design (always stays in "Class A"), but it also has a larger aluminum case with an internal power supply and a very nice, full-size 

Alps Blue Velvet volume pot/control. Larger volume pots "generally" track better...mine is perfectly balanced all the way down to null. To me, these differences are well worth the extra $100, but maybe you have slightly less space available and the smaller form factor of the Magni 2 Uber would work better for you. Frankly, I seriously doubt you'd be disappointed in either amp, as both sound far better than you'd imagine at their respective price points. A buddy and I compared the Asgard 2 to his $750-800 headphone amp from another well-known manufacturer, and we both preferred the Asgard 2. Go with your gut feeling as I'm sure you'll be more than pleased with either. Good luck with your decision! 

 

[bigro]

Have no idea if you can do this with the Schiit amplifier circuit design but how about a switch to make your amps bridgeable? A bridgeable, 50 watt 'Asgard on Steroids' would be an easy purchase to make.

When I was in school I bought the ARC D-100 because it was capable of this. My system 'limped' along until I could afford my second one. It was a great way to be able to upgrade without trading up and getting hammered by the dealer.

Weirdly...it seemed that the sound improved, even when listening at lower volume levels. Might have been an expectation bias. Regardless, that pair of amps could really drive a set of speakers!

So Asgard on steroids that you can run as 2 Channel amp or bridge for use as a mono amp. Yeah I like this. And it give the flexibility to drive lower powered near field speakers with one amp or larger bookshelves and even some efficient towers with two. You just threw fuel on the fire.

 

[GearMe]

So Asgard on steroids that you can run as 2 Channel amp or bridge for use as a mono amp. Yeah I like this. And it give the flexibility to drive lower powered near field speakers with one amp or larger bookshelves and even some efficient towers with two. You just threw fuel on the fire.

Exactly...would buy in a heartbeat!

 

[atomicbob]

   
Can you elaborate on that?  I'm steeling myself for springing for a Gumby in the next couple weeks, and I wonder why the Bimby keeps popping to the top of your collection.

What follows is deep in personal preference territory, so purist objectivists be forewarned (not aimed at you  @FrivolsListener .)
 
I use the yggdrasil and an Auralic Vega for day job audio research and production work as neutral, exemplary representatives of multibit and delta-sigma DACs. When it comes time for recreational listening I like to turn off the analytical section of my brain and just enjoy music. GuMB and BiMB both are better for this purpose, for me, with their slight loss of resolution and slight leaning towards euphonic presentation. If listening to well recorded and transferred hi-res format music, then the GuMB has more to offer than the BiMB. GuMB also has balanced outputs which have technical advantages. However, I have a lot of CDs in my collection that date back to the beginning of digital time and were played originally on a CDP101 (yeah, I'm a fossil.) Many of these benefit from the multibit magic combined with just a touch less resolution. Last night I listened (on the system pictured here) to four CDs I hadn't heard in 20 years:
 
Couldn't Stand the Weather - Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble
Brothers in Arms - Dire Straits
I Robot - Alan Parson's Project
Exsultate Jubilate - Mozart - Emma Kirkby - Christopher Hogwood - Acadamy of Ancient Music
 
I was shocked at fidelity I perceived. I don't remember those recordings sounding this good way back when. If the CDP101 had the BiMB DAC section it would still be in my rack of equipment. Aside, now I wish I had that transport to test the digital output through the BiMB. Alas, it is long gone. When using single ended, unbalanced input amps, I haven't heard a significant difference between the BiMB and GuMB so I don't bother to disconnect the GuMB from the rack and use it as I evaluate a given amp in a recreational setting. Another, probably expectation bias oriented reason, is the BiMB represents a true engineering achievement in carefully balancing so many design constraints to deliver the fidelity, the multibit magic that shocked me at a $600 price point. This is prompting me to pull more CDs from the stacks and re-explore my library, much to the distraction from other activities (such as measurements, for those of you wondering when I might post any more of those.)

 

[jfoxvol]

   
Let's not forget that the Asgard 2 is not only a true "Class A" design (always stays in "Class A"), but it also has a larger aluminum case with an internal power supply and a very nice, full-size 

Alps Blue Velvet volume pot/control. Larger volume pots "generally" track better...mine is perfectly balanced all the way down to null. To me, these differences are well worth the extra $100, but maybe you have slightly less space available and the smaller form factor of the Magni 2 Uber would work better for you. Frankly, I seriously doubt you'd be disappointed in either amp as both sound far better than you'd imagine at their respective price points. A buddy and I compared the Asgard 2 to his $750-800 headphone amp from another well-known manufacturer and we both preferred the Asgard 2. Go with your gut feeling as I'm sure you'll me more than pleased with either. Good luck with your decision! 

Well said

 

[Fighterboy89]

THANK YOU! That's exactly the answer I was looking for! Clear and convincing. Now I know why it costs more! Hurray!
And you should work for Schiit LOL I just bought an Asgard 2 on headphonebar.com (If it wasn't for Canada customs ******** and ridiculous exchange rate I would've chosen Schiit.com)
Anyhow. Cheers mate! And may the audiophorce be with you!

 

[audiot]

My Yggy is the single most expensive audio component I have ever purchased unless you count a pair of speakers at $2k apiece as a single component. I don't have money to burn but I do need a balanced passive preamp with remote, and a balanced power amp for the speaks. So after those two purchases I can happily fade away in retirement until I get so senile I forget what an Yggy is. What a way to go!
 
My Schiit wishlist:
I've been looking for a balanced, passive preamp but not finding anything to my liking, like one that says Schiit on the front panel. For a power amp, maybe Emotiva, or maybe a new Schiit? Please make it so!

 

[bigro]

Atomic Bob
  First off I must say I a very envious that you have all three MultiBit Schiit Dacs and also the fact that you are paid to have some awesome equipment at your disposal. Your Honest Opinions of each DAC and not making claims of which one is endgame, end all be all...etc is probably one of the Most Insightful,Concise and Unbiased comparisons I have read. You managed to not only answer some of the questions I had about The differences between the SE Outputs of the Gumby vs. the Bimby but also present a good case for each Dac to help those who are considering a multibit figure out which way they should go. The FAQ question about Schiit Multi Bit Dacs should just be redirected to your last post.