[Currawong]

   
now on a personal level, I don't understand why a delta sigma couldn't be just as transparent as anything else, so I would like to see more objective data. and less super wild feedbacks where I feel like I should contact the pope and tell him about the last miracle witnessed on headfi.

 
This answer wont satisfy you, because I can't provide one with enough detail, but the gist of it is that where the focus has been on correctly reconstructing the analog waveforms with the timing information correct, which regular Sigma Delta DACs don't do by default, people feel that the music sounds better. It's not the regular "I can hear more detail" kind of reproduction, but is something underlying that our brain perceives.  You could use a non-SD filter with a regular SD chip (bypassing the built-in filtering) and you might get the same result. Some manufacturers do just that. You can also use HQPlayer to bypass the filters of a DAC (assuming a high-enough resolution USB input of at least 384k, but preferably double that, but enough that you can simulate 8x oversampling) and try a variety of filters for yourself. It includes a closed-form filter.

 

[bigro]

   
This answer wont satisfy you, because I can't provide one with enough detail, but the gist of it is that where the focus has been on correctly reconstructing the analog waveforms with the timing information correct, which regular Sigma Delta DACs don't do by default, people feel that the music sounds better. It's not the regular "I can hear more detail" kind of reproduction, but is something underlying that our brain perceives.

Agreed.There is a lot that factors at play for how one perceives music. Transducers, Source, Dac etc but that brain thing is huge and you Cannot measure that. Some people Experience Sheer terror In a fast moving car taking corners on winding back roads others feel total exhilaration enjoying all the nuances of driving. The cars connection to the road, they pay attention to the brakes, steering etc.in the same car on the same roads. I feel the Same applies here. Some feel the need to call the Pope Others say its just another marketing ploy.

 

[rtaylor76]

Where's the fun in an off the shelf 1-bit chip with docs that have all the work done for you for something that destroys all the original bits?

If you think 1-bit is so awesome, I think you haven't heard true analog or have forgotten how it sounds. Lots of amazing 1-bit DACs out there, and AKM chips are some of the best IMO, but Multibit just sounds more "right". It is the most analog experience with digital. I could sing the praises of Multibit all day.

 

[DarknightDK]

Given the compactness of Magni and Modi multibit, why not build an integrated portable amp/dac, which can rival Chord's Hugo?

 

 

[Clemmaster]

  Given the compactness of Magni and Modi multibit, why not build an integrated portable amp/dac, which can rival Chord's Hugo?

 

Chord did just that with the Mojo 

 
Arguably, the GeekOut 2 does it, too.

 

[landroni]

  Relying solely on anecdotal evidence is silly as well, otherwise we'd be content with the geocentric model of the world to this day. As they say - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Nah, it's silly to claim that any kind of "scientific" evidence is necessary before choosing one DAC over another (or amp, or what have you). And comparing this to the geocentric model is way off: science has zero interest in things like "is there an objectively perceivable and scientifically significant difference between ODAC and Yggdrasil"; if you think otherwise, it's possible you're confused what science really is about. This question is of interest only within the context of the wild "objectivist/subjectivist" debates, not otherwise.
And relying "solely on anecdotal evidence" is what we do every day for survival, e.g. when crossing a street (have you ever DBT'ed yourself that you can reliably tell red from green lights, in different cities/countries?) or when having a stroke (do you dismiss strange, wild symptoms as placebo and imaginary because they're subjective and anecdotal, or do you reach for your phone to dial 911?). Again, anecdotal evidence is integral to the evolutionary process and thus for something as critical as survival, so I can't see any reason why anecdotal evidence wouldn't be sufficient for something as non-critical as choosing audio gear and listening to it.

 

And yeah, there is a lot of science involved into competitive gaming and gardening. If you're serious about it.

 
Of course not. When comparing DACs we're really talking about subjective perceptions and enjoyment of one specific gear over another, when looking for a pastime.
So, in gardening, how often have you DBT'ed two different plants, to see if there is a reliably perceptible and scientific difference between the two when you tend over them or when you watch over your garden? Or in stamp collecting, is there really any evidence out there, and I mean published peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that two different stamps will generate different perceptions in a philatelist? Or is it all philatephoolery? And in gaming, have you ever DBT'ed Halo vs Sims, to see if you can perceive ANY difference between the two? Or in programming languages --- surely there are differences between Python and C, but have there ever been formal DBT that show that programmers can perceive any differences between them? Or when eating ice-cream, do you doubt your perceptions of a difference between two flavors until you're presented with formal proof from a carefully set up DBT that controls for all factors, including the level-matched temperature of the said ice-creams, on an infinite sample size, published in Nature; and will you just assume that all ice-creams taste the same until scientific evidence emerges from carefully controlled DBT'ed studies? But there are many hobbies out there involving gear, so have you ever gone about DBT'ing ski gear, tennis rackets, foot balls, golf balls, diving gear, TV sets, digital cameras, cars, planes, parachutes, keyboards, game consoles?

But let's not stray from audio and let's do reductio ad absurdum right here. Is there really ANY 'audible' difference between an Elac UB5, an iPhone ear bud and a Stax 009? I mean, objective, scientific proof from carefully set-up double-blind tested studies with matched levels, not subject to the much maligned "expectation bias"? And I insist, for any evidence to have any validity both the researchers and the test subjects must NOT know, at any point during the testing, which piece of equipment they're listening to. (Good luck with that, of course, but it's a fun thought experiment.) Of course, you can point to all the measurements you'd like, but "is it audible?!" Until any such peer-reviewed, scientific evidence emerges, I say we can safely assume that there is no difference between these three pieces of audio gear and all those who claim to hear a difference are hapless audiophools gullible to their expectation biases and being abused by mean and greedy audio corporations.
 


 

The thing is, this obsession with "scientific proof" in some circles is quite unique to high-end audio, and the real question of interest here is why? I suspect part of the answer is that in audio there are things that we can DBT, whereas in many other hobbies DBT'ing would be a futile endeavour at best. 
 

 

[nicolo]

 
but of course. I rarely cry because people have more choices ^_^. it's usually a good thing for everybody to have more choice(except DSD, I'm a real hater for that one). my comment wasn't a critic about the tech, or about Baldr for that matter. merely what I felt was a fitting idea to go with his usual way of doing things. I didn't suspect that him having his very own personality was a trade secret

.
 
now on a personal level, I don't understand why a delta sigma couldn't be just as transparent as anything else, so I would like to see more objective data. and less super wild feedbacks where I feel like I should contact the pope and tell him about the last miracle witnessed on headfi. but that has little to do with Shiit as they do make some efforts to avoid weird claims about their devices. sadly the same can't be said for some of the fans

.

 
A DS DAC takes the original audio signal and outputs an approximation of it. The way DS DACs process the original audio samples also have a negative effect on timing and spatial cues introducing distortions in the output signal. Essentially the signal from a DS DAC is a simulation of the original signal, while the Schit Multibit DACs keep the original signal intact.
 
Put another way, it's the difference between upscaling a 1080p picture of an object to 4K vis-a-vis a true 4K picture of the same object. In some cases you may not be able to tell the difference, other times you definitely can even you can't articulate exactly why.

 

[ejong7]

Hi guys. I just finished up a post in regards to a factory tour that I was on at Schiit Audio a couple of weeks ago. There are no impressions, but if you are interested in seeing the inner working of Schiit, you can go there.

 

[ScottFree]

Hi guys. I just finished up a post in regards to a factory tour that I was on at Schiit Audio a couple of weeks ago. There are no impressions, but if you are interested in seeing the inner working of Schiit, you can go there.

Great post ejong. Always interested to hear more Schiit about Schiit. Though reading about Jason's highly trained ninjas makes me wonder. Does he hire them or does he have his own personal henchman training camp like any good Bond villain.

https://youtu.be/mFmLAqdPdsY

 

[yage]

  The thing is, this obsession with "scientific proof" in some circles is quite unique to high-end audio, and the real question of interest here is why? I suspect part of the answer is that in audio there are things that we can DBT, whereas in many other hobbies DBT'ing would be a futile endeavour at best.

 
Science certainly can and does serve a useful purpose in designing and evaluating audio equipment. For example, you can't design a new amp without a solid grounding in circuit theory. Similarly, you also can't judge the resultant sound quality based on measurements alone, so listening tests are also important. A good example of using DBT in audio is to improve loudspeaker design, as found on the PSB Speakers website:
 

 Paul Barton continues, "Perfecting a listening experience, we find, cannot be done by simply listening, but by measuring the loudspeaker and by controlled listening tests – double blind screen tests."

 
What's clouding the issue at hand is equating audibility with preference. Science can probably establish the former fairly well, but it gets complicated when it's used to tackle the latter. Even though Paul Barton uses DBT to improve his designs, I still may not like the way they sound because his preferences (i.e. the way he perceives sound) may be different from mine. In fact, I chose Vandersteen over PSB when I bought my last pair of speakers.
 
I'm sure a lot of audio companies and hobbyists use a combination of anecdotal and scientific evidence in their pursuit of better sound, and rightly so.

 

[Billheiser]

For example, from the Vandersteen website:
 
"Vandersteen Audio was the first loudspeaker manufacturer to use the Gen-Rad 2512 FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) Computer Analyzer, originally developed for the aerospace industry, for in-house research and development and remains a leader in interfacing complex computerized analysis of loudspeaker parameters and performance with practical design and engineering.
The Model 2Ce Signature II’s designed is informed from years of experience designing and building loudspeakers of unparalleled value and performance. It couples proven technology with advanced materials, construction and design for a speaker system that is always true to both science and music."

 

[castleofargh]

 

   
now on a personal level, I don't understand why a delta sigma couldn't be just as transparent as anything else, so I would like to see more objective data. and less super wild feedbacks where I feel like I should contact the pope and tell him about the last miracle witnessed on headfi.

 
This answer wont satisfy you, because I can't provide one with enough detail, but the gist of it is that where the focus has been on correctly reconstructing the analog waveforms with the timing information correct, which regular Sigma Delta DACs don't do by default, people feel that the music sounds better. It's not the regular "I can hear more detail" kind of reproduction, but is something underlying that our brain perceives.  You could use a non-SD filter with a regular SD chip (bypassing the built-in filtering) and you might get the same result. Some manufacturers do just that. You can also use HQPlayer to bypass the filters of a DAC (assuming a high-enough resolution USB input of at least 384k, but preferably double that, but enough that you can simulate 8x oversampling) and try a variety of filters for yourself. It includes a closed-form filter.

I guess we agree that stuff like oversampling and filters(digital or analog) have just as much if not more importance than the method used to go to analog?
 
 

  A DS DAC takes the original audio signal and outputs an approximation of it. The way DS DACs process the original audio samples also have a negative effect on timing and spatial cues introducing distortions in the output signal. Essentially the signal from a DS DAC is a simulation of the original signal, while the Schit Multibit DACs keep the original signal intact.
 
Put another way, it's the difference between upscaling a 1080p picture of an object to 4K vis-a-vis a true 4K picture of the same object. In some cases you may not be able to tell the difference, other times you definitely can even you can't articulate exactly why.

that's a very false idea of what's happening.  to make still a caricature, but I hope closer to reality, DS creates a shiitload of points by oversampling, and then uses a very basic system of "up" or "down" orders at each new sample. it doesn't care how high it needs to go, the order is just up, and up it goes until the next order comes in. the result is the signal being too high, then too low, then too high again... (compared to the desired original). so it's crap at this point, but all the noisy spikes go up and down so fast that the only noise they create is ultrasonic noise. so simply by filtering the ultrasounds, we effectively remove those spikes and end up with something that is pretty close to the original. because the system is using very few bits, there is an added need for noise shaping to further push some noise into the ultrasounds. in the end most of the crap is in the ultrasound and filtering it out properly does the trick.
 
with the more old school discrete DAC, the signal goes from one discrete amplitude to another one, every time a new sample comes in, and stay there until the next sample. so the result is the infamous staircase signal misused in so many commercials about highres

. the more bits or the more samples and the less scary it looks. very straightforward system. but having plenty of usable bit isn't that easy and we tend to fail to make use of 24bit. and having more samples, well that's higher resolution, or oversampling. still the signal is wrong at pretty much any point in time except when a new sample kicks in. really nothing to brag about when it comes to fidelity at this point in the system.
the staircase signal can be related to square waves, and can be interpreted as an infinite quantity of sine waves at various frequencies put together in one signal. so by filtering the higher frequencies, we remove a really huge quantity of that infinite number of sine waves, and end up with the signal that is pretty close to the original.
 
so none of the systems is perfect, and certainly none is keeping the signal intact. they have different problems that require different methods to reduce those problems.
 
 
 when I see highres music, I believe I can or can't hear it, it doesn't matter to anyone but me. but I know for a fact that if done well from A to Z, then there will be more music information on the highres file compared to CD. I know the facts and have obvious ways to verify them. with DS vs discrete techs, where do I find evidence that one can do better at the output of the DAC? with measurements of random gears I can't really tell much. there seem to be a tendency of  DS having more noise and discrete DACs having a little more distortions(I figure in part from the difficulties to get X times the exact same resistor?). ok great, which is more important? IDK.

and anyway, on any reasonably well done gear, both are usually at values I shouldn't even care about. so of course all this is confusing me a great deal. am I missing something obvious, or are we making a big thing of something that really isn't, in the pure audio elite kind of way?

 

[pdferguson]

  Given the compactness of Magni and Modi multibit, why not build an integrated portable amp/dac, which can rival Chord's Hugo?

 

This...
 
One thing that keeps me from pulling the trigger on Schiit products is that I don't want all those boxes, cables, power warts, cords, etc. for a desktop sound system. I understand the reasons why separate DACs and headphone amps make sense, but integrated products have a place, too--one power cord, one TosLink or USB cable, and your favorite headphones. Clean, simple, and easily portable or transportable.

 

[artur9]

 
This...
 
One thing that keeps me from pulling the trigger on Schiit products is that I don't want all those boxes, cables, power warts, cords, etc. for a desktop sound system. I understand the reasons why separate DACs and headphone amps make sense, but integrated products have a place, too--one power cord, one TosLink or USB cable, and your favorite headphones. Clean, simple, and easily portable or transportable.

How about a Schiit power supply?  One cord to the wall and jacks to several devices.  Nice and compact.  Battery (super capacitor?)-capable for extra credit.

 

[520RanchBro]

  Given the compactness of Magni and Modi multibit, why not build an integrated portable amp/dac, which can rival Chord's Hugo?

 

Well it'd be the largest portable on the market by a long shot and require a giant battery, the Magni puts out some serious power, with a power draw of more than 5x the Fulla, going off the respective spec sheets.
 
Judging by the Modi M's board, portable multibit is a ways off, by my guess. Maybe there's a way to implement it but it's clear the design would need to be compromised.