[potterma]

I've heard several people talking about running straight out of the output of dac and thought they were crazy and still do even though I haven't tried it myself. I'm sure it is ok for most headphones as a lot of preamps have headphone outs on them. I guess it just has to do with the analog output section of the dac. I guess you could also control volume with the computer if that is your source. I just don't think the output section of the dac was meant to work that way I could and have been wrong before though.

Yeah, not a good idea, in general.  A DAC output is meant to drive a high impedance input.  Depending on the design of the output stage, connecting to a low impedance (virtually ANY headphone) may result in letting out the magic smoke.  Very hard to put back in, once released...

 

[buke9]

Yeah, not a good idea, in general.  A DAC output is meant to drive a high impedance input.  Depending on the design of the output stage, connecting to a low impedance (virtually ANY headphone) may result in letting out the magic smoke.  Very hard to put back in, once released...

I guess I should have said some rather than most. Still think it is crazy.

 

[matbhuvi]

  I am looking at the Schiit Freya + Yggdrasil combo and I am thinking this would essentially allow for the same in passive mode.  I realize one could spend less and get a Jotunheim but I am trying to eliminate a gain stage, though using the pre-outs on the the Jot would also be an option.
 
Anyway, has anyone considered or tried this with a Gumby/Yggy?

 
I also have the same requirement. Dropped a mail to Schiit and they recommended using Freya. Jotunheim or Mjolnir 2 will also serve the purpose.

 

[bigfatpaulie]

Interesting.  Thank you.

 

[Don Quichotte]

   
I also have the same requirement. Dropped a mail to Schiit and they recommended using Freya. Jotunheim or Mjolnir 2 will also serve the purpose.

...using Freya in what configuration? Passive, solid state buffer or active (tube) preamp? Or any one of them, maybe?

 

[Jozurr]

 
...using Freya in what configuration? Passive, solid state buffer or active (tube) preamp? Or any one of them, maybe?

 
+1
 
I'd like to know this too.

 

[watchnerd]

   
+1
 
I'd like to know this too.

 
I have the Freya (not a Yggy). The passive and JFET sound similar, the tube is very different and louder.
 
From a purist point of view, I'd try the passive first. Yggy puts out a strong signal.

 

[Baldr]

 
I am looking at the Schiit Freya + Yggdrasil combo and I am thinking this would essentially allow for the same in passive mode.  I realize one could spend less and get a Jotunheim but I am trying to eliminate a gain stage, though using the pre-outs on the the Jot would also be an option.
 
Anyway, has anyone considered or tried this with a Gumby/Yggy?

 
I never realized it while nagging, browbeating, and in general abusing Jason until he went for the proper large bottled 6SN7s in Saga and Freya.  Nope, did not think of it at all until I read your comments.  The addition of a Saga (which I have) or a Freya (which is still too new for me to have - shipping to clients only until initial demand is fulfilled) in passive  6SN7 buffered mode adds euphones which I can well be seduced by.  The 6SN7 as a buffer is warm, comforting, and relaxing.  This particularly so when listening to recordings on the brighter side, such as DG classical releases.  The inaudible low levels of noise added almost functions as a form of analog dither.  Minimalists can then use the unbuffered passive functions of the Saga or Freya for highest resolution, no matter how *** good the tube buffer sounds.  Yup, I use it as a configurable analog output stage for my Yggy.  Thanks, everyone for pointing this out!  Can't wait to get another for my Gumby!

 

[listen4joy]

i hope that yggy will suppurt in the future in MQA, i know that schiit  is against it and have no intention to do it, but if the industry will go with MQA and DSD in the future maybe we will see the upgrade.tidal is already started to stream little MQA content(200-300) tracks.

 

[FLTWS]

   
...  This particularly so when listening to recordings on the brighter side, such as DG classical releases. ...

 
Indeed, I always wondered what headphones or speakers the DG's engineers used to monitor their recordings. 70's and 80's vinyl in particular are astringent in the extreme compared to any other label I'm familiar with and it carries over to their A to D transfers for CD as well. I think things have improved since sometime post 2000.

 

[watchnerd]

  i hope that yggy will suppurt in the future in MQA, i know that schiit  is against it and have no intention to do it, but if the industry will go with MQA and DSD in the future maybe we will see the upgrade.tidal is already started to stream little MQA content(200-300) tracks.

 
I'm not an MQA fan. But...
 
Now that MQA is decodable in software, it may not be necessary to do it in hardware any more.

 

[7ryder]

  i hope that yggy will suppurt in the future in MQA, i know that schiit  is against it and have no intention to do it, but if the industry will go with MQA and DSD in the future maybe we will see the upgrade.tidal is already started to stream little MQA content(200-300) tracks.

you must have missed this on the previous page...ain't gonna happen anytime soon and that's ok.  http://www.head-fi.org/t/766347/schiit-yggdrasil-impressions-thread/3720#post_13152144 

 

[ZAXX40]

   
if one can somehow show proof that both are mastered exactly the same with the only difference being in 16-bit container against MQA
 
I don't think this will happen since it'll probably sound the same as the 16 bit 44.1 KHz

I am not a computer file expert and only can speak as to my own unscientific experiment. I believe the sound quality lies in the mastering process. I listen to ripped Flac files from one of my CDs. I also purchased from HD-tracks the 24 bit files of the same album. IMO I heard a distinct difference in the sound of the 24 bit files.I listened to both sets of files streaming directly from my PC to my DAC using a Toslink connection.  The 24 bit files were more dynamic in comparison to the ripped flac files. Knowing I could not stream the 24 bit files to my Sonos connect and them onto my DAC, I converted the 24 bits files to 16 bit 44.1 KHz. 
 
Listening to these files again this time through my Sonos connect to my Dac the results were the same as before. The 24 bit hires files converted to 16 bit 44.1 KHz sounded more dynamic that the original flac files. 
 
In my opinion it in all in the mastering. The container made no difference in sound dynamics when using the same mastered files.
 
Give us well mastered 16 bit 44.1 KHz and IMO and the rest is all smoke and mirrors. 

 

[hifimckinney]

  I am not a computer file expert and only can speak as to my own unscientific experiment. I believe the sound quality lies in the mastering process. I listen to ripped Flac files from one of my CDs. I also purchased from HD-tracks the 24 bit files of the same album. IMO I heard a distinct difference in the sound of the 24 bit files.I listened to both sets of files streaming directly from my PC to my DAC using a Toslink connection.  The 24 bit files were more dynamic in comparison to the ripped flac files. Knowing I could not stream the 24 bit files to my Sonos connect and them onto my DAC, I converted the 24 bits files to 16 bit 44.1 KHz. 
 
Listening to these files again this time through my Sonos connect to my Dac the results were the same as before. The 24 bit hires files converted to 16 bit 44.1 KHz sounded more dynamic that the original flac files. 
 
In my opinion it in all in the mastering. The container made no difference in sound dynamics when using the same mastered files.
 
Give us well mastered 16 bit 44.1 KHz and IMO and the rest is all smoke and mirrors. 

 
No offence to anyone (just sharing the thought I have) but if I take a step back, I see that all the crowd here can be divided in two groups one being set of folks who ENJOY  (G1) music and second being the ones who EXPERIMENT (G2) with it. And I requested for 'NO OFFENCE' because people keep jumping from G1 to G2 and vice versa. I am one of those too . The way my system is setup today, I love listening to Pandora without any regrets.
 
I also feel that we are yet to explore full potential of Red Book and there is no point in spending time, money and energy at this time on DSD, MQA etc.
 
I tried my best not to hurt anyone's sentiment but if I did, I am sorry about that.

 

[comzee]

   
No offence to anyone (just sharing the thought I have) but if I take a step back, I see that all the crowd here can be divided in two groups one being set of folks who ENJOY  (G1) music and second being the ones who EXPERIMENT (G2) with it.

Couldn't say it better myself. The more G2 you get, usually the stronger opinions you hold too.
 
I'm over 30k into audio equipment, and I still use Spotify / Gmusic. 
I get told all the time how flac/vinyl etc... is miles ahead, whelp, guess what, I like listening to music.... right?
 
I work from home, listen to 30-40hr of music a week total.
I'll go thru 50 artists, 100 tacks a day. Not possible with CD, not possible with local flac unless you pirate or are ultra rich, not possible with vinyl. 
 
For those that love listening to music, I solute you. For those that like experimenting, god speed. 
 
DSD is hyper dead, MQA is trying to be the new DSD (I know people will say they differ by a ton, but I really couldn't care about the technicals).
If you boil it down, it's the same thing. If I use have to special software or hardware to playback, forget it. 
I hope MQA dies, it's not for people that love music, it's for the others.