[rsbrsvp]

All the music I download is available in MPEG format only from the website I get it from.  I listen to religious music and need to get it from a certain website.  I assume MPEG is compressed format.  In order to get non-compressed I need to buy the CD.


 


I have downloaded these MPEG files in the past and found them to be very comparable with the original CD quality.  The company I download from says this is so because the MPEG files are remastered.


 


So- I was just commenting on my own experience....

 

[Xcalibur255]

One of the MOST important features of the Yggy for which I have seen very little mention of is it's ability to play MP3 files so well.
Not only is SACD dead and DSD has very very little doing, but 16/44 is even on the way out and it is being replaced by MP3 downloads. MP3- is whether we like it or not - the future of music for the time being- not DSD. The Yggy plays MP3 fantastic. To my ears- well recorder MP3 sounds as good as 16/44 and I have heard no machine that can pull that one off until now. The significance of this feat is very meaningful in light of where recorded music is really going.

We need to stop thinking about if our dac's palys DSD which is useless to most of us because of the lack of availability and start thinking about how well they play MP3 which is the new reality.

 
I think of it as a double-edged sword.  I found it easier than ever to tell what was missing in the few mp3 files I have in my library.  There is an artificial deadness to the sound after the perceptual encoding has the deleted the sense of air and note decay.  Technically speaking it still sounds good, Yggy is giving you all the detail that's in the recording, but I can really tell what the encoder takes out now.

 

[funch]

Are we officially off topic yet? 

 

[DougD]

 
I have an extensive lossless flac library, and extensive listening with Tidal / Google Music / Spotify and regular old MP3s.
 
I also have a an end game rig, Stax009/KGSSHV/Yggy, and I never listen to lossless.

 
I'm having trouble making sense of this. Seems inconsistent. 
 
 

Originally Posted by comzee /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
If you want to dissect every song you listen to, and zero in on crazy small changes, yes, lossless, cables, off-boards will make a difference. If you want to spend thousands of dollars for the worst price vs performance upgrades you'll ever spend, sure swim into the hype pool.

 
Part of my point is that, in 2016, there is almost no cost difference between MP3 and lossless formats (e.g., FLAC). You may believe, based on your personal listening experiences, that any differences in Sound Quality between MP3 and lossless formats are "hype." But believing otherwise ... or just wanting to hedge one's bets when building a music collection to last until 2025 or 2050 ... doesn't cost "thousands of dollars" more if the music collector goes with lossless formats. At this point in time, it's essentially a cost-free choice, with no appreciable negatives. 
 
Not sure why you worked off-boards and cables into the conversation.

 

[noshortcuts]

In my experience, and therefore opinion, a very good music system will show a discerning listener that:

1. Some music at 320kbps (or less) sounds pretty bad (in one or many ways). Much of the same music will sound pretty bad lossless as well.
2. Some music at 320kbps (and sometimes even less) sounds really awesome (in one or many ways). That same music will sound awesome lossless (but it may be hard to hear any difference between the versions).
3. Some music defies the experiences above because it sounds so much better (in one or many ways) lossless than at 320kbps (or lower bit rates).

To make sure we're on topic. I find these to be true on several systems, including using the Yggy to speakers and headphones.

 

[landroni]

  In my experience, and therefore opinion, a very good music system will show a discerning listener that:

1. Some music at 320kbps (or less) sounds pretty bad (in one or many ways). Much of the same music will sound pretty bad lossless as well.
2. Some music at 320kbps (and sometimes even less) sounds really awesome (in one or many ways). That same music will sound awesome lossless (but it may be hard to hear any difference between the versions).
3. Some music defies the experiences above because it sounds so much better (in one or many ways) lossless than at 320kbps (or lower bit rates).

To make sure we're on topic. I find these to be true on several systems, including using the Yggy to speakers and headphones.

I'm very interested in testing these things myself. Could you give examples of 320kbps MP3 vs FLAC titles for each of the category above, as experienced through Yggy?

 

[mtoc]

The Master 11 is basically the Master 7 and a amp in the same box. I had both the Master 7 and the Yggy in house for about 2 weeks. Unless you are in love with the Master 7's sound signature the Yggy beats it in some categories by a little and in others by a mile.

 
Someone in the M11 thread (actually is the OP himself) said compared with the M11, the M7 is obviously U-shaped, the M11 is un-U-shaped so they have totally different sound sig....

 

[noshortcuts]

 
I'm very interested in testing these things myself. Could you give examples of 320kbps MP3 vs FLAC titles for each of the category above, as experienced through Yggy?

That's difficult to answer because I have over 14,000 songs on my computer and haven't kept logs on my findings. My process further limits my ability to answer the question because when I have a low res song that sounds especially great or that sounds bad (but I like the song), I'll try and secure a flac file and compare. Usually the flac (or other hi-res format) will sound as good or better but either way I then delete the low res file. If both the low res and the flac sounds bad, I'll often delete both. With so much music in the world I try and delete liberally. However, I do still have some great sounding (and likely some bad sounding) low res files so if I can secure flacs to compare, I might find some clear examples.
 
One of my questions is how much does the source material, the player, and the transcoding software matter. In other words, if I found a great sounding 192kpbs file and compared it to someone else's 192kbps file but from a different stream of sources, couldn't they likely have different quality playback?

 

[Tbone289]

  In my experience, and therefore opinion, a very good music system will show a discerning listener that:

1. Some music at 320kbps (or less) sounds pretty bad (in one or many ways). Much of the same music will sound pretty bad lossless as well.

 
For this comparison, are you saying that it sounds bad compared to the source that it was ripped from?  I can't say that I've ever heard a difference between the source and a lossless rip when both are played through the same audio chain.
 
The source material and transcoding software should make no difference if the resulting rip is truely "lossless".  The transport and audio chain, of course, will make a difference.

 

[noshortcuts]

 
For this comparison, are you saying that it sounds bad compared to the source that it was ripped from?  I can't say that I've ever heard a difference between the source and a lossless rip when both are played through the same audio chain.

 


No, as I said in a later post about my typical process, when I compare music files I've usually started from a low res file that makes me curious if a flac copy will sound better (either because it's already great sounding or because it sounds bad but I like the song enough to want it to sound better).

 

[fperra]

A few days ago I cancelled my order for a Yaggdrasil and ordered a Gustard DAC-X20U instead. I hope I didn't make a mistake by doing this. However, I always have my Gungnir MB to fall back on. Has anyone made a comparison between the Yaggdrasil and the Gustard X20?

 

[crazychile]

  A few days ago I cancelled my order for a Yaggdrasil and ordered a Gustard DAC-X20U instead. I hope I didn't make a mistake by doing this. However, I always have my Gungnir MB to fall back on. Has anyone made a comparison between the Yaggdrasil and the Gustard X20?

 
Judging from your post count, I suspect a troll....This can't possibly happen.

 

[fperra]

No, I'm not a troll, and yes it did happen.

 

[comzee]

  No, I'm not a troll, and yes it did happen.

If you already have a Gungnir, the Gustard DAC-X20U would appear to be a side grade. They are both the same price.
 
Curious, why did you decide to go with the X20U?
 
Apart from that, yes you made a mistake, if you wanted the best sounding DAC.
Now price vs performance, I have not researched, or frankly even heard of, the X20U.
It's $900 vs the Ygg $2300. If somewhere you were reading how the X20U price-v-performance stacked up, and made your decision based on that, then it might seem a plausible decision.

 

[fperra]

Actually I read on this forum under the Gustard X20 DAC thread that an owner who had heard them both thought the X20 bettered the Yag. That, and the price difference is why I made the switch. If it turns out the X20 can't beat my Gungnir MB, then I'll sell it and reorder the Yag.