2021, Chapter 12
Get Schifty
The heliocentric model, that’s one of them.
As in, an idea that was a super hard sell, because most everyone
knew it was wrong. I mean, you could watch the moon and stars and sun circle ‘round the earth, yourself. Like, duh.
Or plate tectonics.
Another super hard pill to swallow, that maybe the top bits of the earth slide around like the skin of an overroasted onion. How could that
ever be a thing?
Or the CT scanner.
No, seriously. Look it up. When you’re not an MD and quit school at 16, even a revolutionary medical technology was a hard pill to swallow for the medical powers-that-be.
“So what the heck are you on about, Stoddard?” you ask. “And, more importantly, what does this have to do with the three Yggdrasil models I now see on your website? Are you nuts? Why isn’t there a single clear path? Why do they cost less? Why can’t you be like everyone else and promise me I’ll hear unicorns and see god without drugs for only a 50% increase in price?”
Exactly.
“What do you mean, ‘exactly?’” you ask.
My grin just gets wider.
Now you’re irritated. “Why you standing there, all smug-looking?”
Again,
exactly.
New ideas are hard to embrace. For years—decades, actually—we’ve been told there is One True Path in audio, from the old model to the new. But now we’re saying, “ah, nah, maybe not…maybe once you get to this level of performance, you’re really talking about system synergies, or, to be blunt,
flavors.”
Maybe there isn’t
one true path. Maybe there are
many.
Eeeek! New idea. Scary scary.
Worse, maybe some of these new paths don’t have to cost as much. Now, that’s totally bonkers, because the new thing, being better, should always cost more, right?
So yeah, I understand these new Yggdrasil flavors—and even the
descriptor, ‘flavors,’ are challenging and weird and unsettling because they don’t hew to the audiophile dogma. I get it when you protest this is wayyy lessss easssssyyy than pulling out the card for the single One True Best thing.
But this is what we truly believe, based on developing, measuring, and listening to 10 variations on the Yggdrasil analog cards. In all of that development, and all of that testing, we found a universal truth:
different people like different things. Or
different DACs work better in different systems.
And, when you think about it, isn’t that much more likely to be true than the dogma of the One New and Perfect thing?
I mean, seriously. Either:
- Every audio manufacturer since the beginning of time has managed to come up with something unambiguously better—every time, for everyone, or
- It’s only been portrayed that way.
Considering the periodic rediscovery of “audio greats of the past,” that include 30-year-old multibit DACs, epic Class A amplifiers, tube gear from the Sinatra age, and more turntables than you can shake a stick at…
…hmmm…
Considering the likelihood of pleasing
everyone,
every time, with
one thing…
…hmmm times two…
Considering the plausibility of these earth-shattering new models being much more expensive, even if the parts look about the same…
…hmmm times a billion…
So. Yeah. Maybe it is time to admit that it’s really about flavors. After all, not everyone likes chocolate.
Or vanilla.
Or coriander-infused peach sour stevia-sweetened goat’s butt…ah hell, you know what I’m saying.
What Flavors?
Maybe I should have led with this. But I like being contrary.
Yggdrasil is now not a single product. It’s three:
- Yggdrasil Less is More. The lowest cost new-production Yggdrasil ever. The most affordable Yggdrasil uses four TI DAC8812 16-bit D/A converters to deliver even better measured performance than the original. Many think this is the best sounding flavor, hence less bits, more better…less is more. $2199
- Yggdrasil More is Less. The best-measuring integrated multibit DAC, ever. This Yggy uses four TI DAC11001 20-bit D/A converters. If you’re one who thinks multibit DACs can’t measure well, this one’s for you—approaching -120dB THD+N. It takes all the records of golden-age parts like the PCM63 and nukes them from orbit. $2349
- Yggdrasil OG: The Yggdrasil you’ve loved for years, same as it ever was. The original Yggdrasil with four AD5791 20-bit D/A converters remains in the line, because it provides an exceptionally engaging performance. $2599
“Ah, wait a sec, what’s this More is Less thing?” someone is asking. “The best-measuring integrated multibit DAC, ever? Isn’t that worth shouting about? Isn’t that the clear upgrade?”
Yes. It is. And if we were nothing more than a marketing company, it would be dead-easy to take this model, compare it against Yggdrasil OG on the APx555, and declare a new era in multibit performance. Because it is.
But a funny thing happened on the way to this perfect world.
Namely, some people preferred the Less is More version—with 16-bit DACs! And some stubbornly hung on to the Yggdrasil OG. And that’s why we ended up with, ah,
flavors.
The Long, Long Road to Yggdrasil Flavors
Anyone who knows us, knows that we usually start working on a next-generation product immediately upon finishing the current one. They also know that these next-generation products don’t always pan out; in fact, many of them don’t see the light of day.
So, after Yggdrasil Analog 2 was introduced, we immediately started asking, “What more can we do with this?”
Dave liked integrated amplification and summing, rather than the Yggdrasil Analog 2’s discrete buffers and summers.
Mike wanted to try some really offbeat stuff, like going to lower-bit D/A converters, when that really didn’t make sense from the perspective of Yggy = more bits.
I had crazy ideas about pasting DACs together and other stuff that really didn’t work.
And, in the end, we tried all of those, and more. We literally have 10 different Yggdrasil variants on the prototype shelf. OG is “2.01,” Less is More is “3.02,” and More is Less is “7.03,” in case anyone is keeping count. No, you don’t want 4, 5, 6, 8, or 9. Jury’s out on 10. Maybe in a couple of years. We’re not going to keep throwing flavors at you just for the heck of it.
Above: lots and lots of Yggy prototypes were harmed in this testing—note the 10.1 on the board!
In every case, we made both new analog cards and new firmware for the DSP board to run them. Once worked out, we did multiple card sets and shared them amongst ourselves and early listeners.
And, again, as I said before…different people liked different things.
This started a lot of conversations. Conversations like:
“Well, of course Bob liked the Less is More, because he’s using a fairly sharp-sounding solid state amp, and he likes something that’s a bit more harmonically rich, even a little rolled-off sounding—even though the frequency response is totally flat.”
Or
“He keeps coming back to the OG, because that’s what he’s built his system around—preamp, amp, speakers, and all, and it’s not surprising he doesn’t really want to change.”
Or
“I’d expect he likes that, because if you run something totally neutral like More is Less through tubes, you might get exactly what you need from those speakers.”
And other conversations, when it was clear we wouldn’t get a consensus, mainly centered around what it might take to unambiguously make Yggdrasil better. All of these resulted in the same conclusion: that it would take throwing a pile of money at it…and that pile of money might not actually result in significant differences!
The reality is, Yggdrasil is the DAC Mike wanted to make from Day 1 at Schiit. So he threw pretty much everything at it, from a crazy choke-input power supply to super-powerful DSP to massively overdesigned analog output cards, in a fully modular architecture to ensure it would be upgradable for a long, long time. He threw everything he knew at it…and so it’s really hard to make it better.
What might make it better? Only stuff that would cost a mint, and result in upgrades that might break the whole system. Stuff that would result in it being, well,
not an Yggdrasil. And Mike has said, time and time again, Yggdrasil is on the knee of the price-performance equation for the ultra high end. He’d have to throw a whole lot more money at it, to create something that might only be incrementally better. Or maybe even
not better, depending on your point of view.
Because point of view of is really important.
Which gets us to the results of the double-blind Yggdrasil flavor test…
Going In Blind
I think this may be a first—the first double-blind, level-matched listening done by an audio company that includes three reviewers, the company principals, and some interested observers.
But, when we decided to do Yggdrasil flavors, I quickly realized two things:
- We don’t talk about what our products sound like on the website. Yes, seriously. If you’ve been told otherwise, have a read. We don’t describe our stuff in flowery prose, nor do we promise increasing levels of audio nirvana for increasing price. Heck, we don’t even say you need a Magni—we tell you to get your transducer first.
- Without a guide to how the Yggdrasil flavors sound, we’d be eviscerated. And this is really hard to do without (a) breaking our internal rule about not talking about what stuff sounds like, and (b) taking into account what other people might think the flavors sound like.
So, in our usual insane fashion, we decided to do a double-blind, level-matched listening session. We invited several reviewers, found three crazy enough to participate, and did everything we could to ensure the test would really be double-blind.
What did we do?
- The Yggdrasils under test had no external identification of what they were, other than a 4-digit binary code on their PROTOTYPE serial numbers. The binary code was assigned at random, then handed off to Denise, who didn’t participate in the test.
- All Yggdrasils reported as the same device via USB to Roon (Yggdrasil Unison USB)
- All Yggdrasils were level-matched to 0.02dB before the test by a person who didn’t participate in the test with the reviewers (David Aldrich of Snake Oil cables)
- All Yggdrasils were playing the same content, provided by Roon zones.
- Reviewers were told they could select whatever content they wanted and listen as long as they wanted
- One reviewer brought their own content, which was included via our Roon server
- All Yggdrasil outputs were routed to a three-output switch through an occluded bundle of XLR cables with no indication of what inputs and outputs were what (also produced by David of Snake Oil.)
- Cables were bundled together in L and R pairs, but no indication was given to which pair was entering or leaving the bundle.
- The bundle was long (over 5 feet) and secured with tamper-evident closures (zip ties, etc) to prevent disassembly and figuring out which was which—not that it would have mattered, they would have only been able to figure out that “X” on the switch was “Yggdrasil 1010,” for example
- The three-position XLR switch allowed fast switching between the three Yggdrasils, labeled “X, Y, Z.”
- However, fast switching was not required; reviewers were told they could take as long as they wanted
- We only asked, “Which one do you like?”
- The output of the switch was run through a Ragnarok 2, which was used to power Salk Song3As or Magnepan LRS speakers.
- One reviewer requested the Raal SR1a ribbon headphones and a Jotunheim R, which we provided, but they ended up not being used, since he was confident in his top choice after listening on the Magnepans
- The reviewers went in, singly or in a group (we did not specify a protocol, we wanted to make this a friendly, low-stress listening session—see the chapter on Lighted by the Blind), without David, Denise, Mike, or Dave being present, and told to take as long as they wanted. Their session ended up being about 2 hours, with a break to change the speakers from Salk to Magnepan around the midpoint.
- After that, Mike and Dave went in for about 5 minutes, then came out and confidently proclaimed they knew which was which.
- After that, David and I went in for about 15 minutes, and we both picked a favorite, but we didn’t concur, and I didn’t guess which was which.
So, is this “research-paper-ready” or “lab grade?” Of course not. But we really tried. I didn’t know which was which. David didn’t know which was which. Denise didn’t know which was which. Mike and Dave only showed up at the beginning of the listening, so they had absolutely no clue what was going on.
And, as far as the “listen to whatever you like, take as long as you want, and just let us know which one you like (or if there is no difference),” that’s how we think blind listening should be done. Again, see the past chapter on that. We know not everyone will agree, but we feel the only way to discern small differences is in a comfortable, no-stress environment, not subject to artificial constraints such as pre-selected music or fast switching.
“So how the heck did it go?” someone cries. “Stop torturing us!”
Heh heh heh.
I was a bit afraid that everyone would come out and say, “There’s really no difference, what the heck U talkin about?” But the reviewers all had pretty strong opinions from the get-go. We heard comments like “there’s one I don’t want to hear again,” and “none of them are really bad, but,” and “I suspect that one is OG, because I’m familiar with it.”
And Mike and Dave didn’t take any time at all to come out and proclaim they knew exactly which was which.
And I was also afraid that I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference myself, but when David and I went in, I was surprised at the magnitude of the differences. The tonal qualities of each DAC were fairly different, even on unfamiliar music. Which was very comforting after my experience with Magni 3+, Heresy, and Vali 2 in “Lighted by the Blind.”
Aside: we’re still talking very small differences in the grand scheme of things, but the fact there were clear differences on fast switching made me feel a bit better.
David and I went back and forth between some familiar music. I cued up “Back in Flesh” by Wall of Voodoo and David looked at me like I was crazy. But that’s where everything gelled for me, and I picked my favorite: “X” on the dial.
Now, “Y” was good as well, especially on more close-miked stuff like Dido, but “X” seemed the best. “Z” I didn’t want to hear again.
Again, no clue which was which.
Above: The Yggy reveal.
When the time came for the big reveal, first David had to figure out which binary code corresponded to what position on the dial, then he had to take the cheat sheet from Denise to decode which Yggy was which.
The result?
- X was More is Less
- Y was Less is More
- Z was OG
This caused some excitement and consternation amongst the reviewers, because they liked Y and Z the best—and especially Y.
“I chose the cheap one?” one asked, laughing.
There was even more surprise when I reminded them they were listening to three DACs that differed in measured performance by 35dB, from the lowest to the highest—surprise they sounded as much alike as they did, and surprise the preference didn’t track the measurements.
But nobody was really miffed. And Mike and Dave were grinning, because they’d already publically called it while David and I were in the room listening.
Aside: again, it took them like 5 minutes to do this.
There was some horror, however, when I revealed that my favorite was More is Less, AKA “the measurement DAC,” AKA the one Mike and Dave did under protest, AKA the one that one of the reviewers said he never wanted to hear again.
“Funny, because OG is the one I never wanted to hear again,” I told them.
Cue the gasps, because OG was the top on at least one list.
Hey, you know, I don’t care. Either I’m the only person in the world that likes coriander and goat’s ass flavor, or there’s something here for everyone.
Aside: or, more likely, it really depends on the music you like, and might need to be integrated over longer experiences to really take. I’m writing this after listening to More is Less for an evening, and I stand by my choice. But if I did more female vocals, maybe Less is More is better. Or, in other words, flavors.
In any case, here’s what the three intrepid reviewers think of the test:
Chris Connaker
Brian Hunter
Gary Barker
Blame Me
Is it some weird quirk of fate that I chose the More is Less? It might be, because I’m the one who pressured Mike and Dave to do it.
Or, more accurately, I was approached by a very excited engineer from TI, who said they had these super-cool new 20-bit multibit DACs, and they might be really interesting for audio, and would we like to try them out?
On first glance, the TI DAC11001 seems quite a bit like the AD5791 we’d been using in Yggdrasil since the start, but the assertion that “they might be interesting for audio” was, ahem, unexpected.
And when they included a distortion plot of a 1K sine that wasn’t on the AD5791 datasheet—and looked really good, I quickly paged back to the Stereophile reviews of Theta gear using the PCM63—the grand mack daddy of all audio DACs, the one that John Atkinson said was the best-measuring DAC, ever, at that time—and saw something wayyy better than that, I got excited.
So I got samples and bugged Mike and Dave to take a look. They were less than thrilled, with Mike grumbling about sample and holds and Dave not super happy with the formatting coming into the DAC (we are familiar with stupid/non-audio-DAC formatting, but TI was a new flavor of crazy).
And the first prototypes really didn’t measure all that well. Nor did Mike and Dave seem to like the sound.
But I pressed, and they changed the firmware, and suddenly we had, well, the best-measuring DAC we’d ever made. The best-measuring multibit DAC based on an integrated IC, too. I mean, it really trounces the measurements of past greats based on the PCM63 or PCM1704, (at least as far as I know).
Above: not your typical multibit DAC, measurements-wise.
Mike and Dave still weren’t happy with the sound, so we did some listening tests with the DAC11001 prototypes at Schiit, throwing in the 3.02 (DAC8812) and 5.00 boards (the supposedly “improved” AD5791) as well as the OG. I remember at the time thinking the DAC11001 wasn’t bad, but the 3.02 was warmer and happier, the 5.00 was horrid (the universal consensus) and the OG was also good.
And, to cut a very long story short, after much wrangling with these results, that’s how the flavors came to be. I really wanted the DAC11001 for proof that we could take True Multibit forward on a measurement basis, Mike liked the DAC8812 because it was most natural, and Dave liked the OG.
And other listeners were similarly mixed, as I mentioned before.
“So let’s make all of them,” one of us finally said.
That’s crazy, I remember thinking.
Without a single path—especially a single more expensive path—how would people react?
I mean, choosing either the DAC8812 or the DAC11001 as “the new Yggy” would give us a dead-easy pitch:
“Choose the new Yggy Analog 3 based on the DAC8812, and experience an even better Yggdrasil at lower cost, with the best measurements of any Yggdrasil.”
Or
“Choose the Yggdrasil Analog 3 based on the DAC11001 and experience the best-measuring integrated multibit DAC ever.”
Hell, we could have simply binned both new versions and restarted marketing around Yggdrasil OG, reminding people that it’s the DAC that started the new charge back to multibit—and, unlike some competitors, it doesn’t cost 50-100% more than it used to.
But we’re not about doing the normal. We’re Schiit. We do weird things.
Paradigm schifty things.
So I made up a couple of silly names, and we decided to do all of them.
And that’s how you got flavors.
We really hope you enjoy them…or at least one of them!
