[bobsherman]

Even if the impressions aren't so positive?

Are you speaking of fictitious impressions made up by people who have never listened to the DAC, and have agendas? They can be useful also, as it can help one steer clear of the recommendations made by these individuals.

 

[KoshNaranek]

I think Jude is correct. What other purpose does this person have other than to drive traffic to his site? I say ban the troll.

I agree, take him out.

 

[ScubaMan2017]

No. It’s the best DAC I’ve ever owned including several more so-called high end models costing 10x. I say buy one for every 2 channel or headphone system you own.

Hmmmm.... I’ll consider it later in my life cycle. Dang. My little silver boxes (brushed aluminum) are more than enough for me! Mind you, they ARE big and shiny. I like shiny.


Uh oh.

 

[riffrafff]

Hmmmm.... I’ll consider it later in my life cycle. Dang. My little silver boxes (brushed aluminum) are more than enough for me! Mind you, they ARE big and shiny. I like shiny.


Uh oh.

 

[ScubaMan2017]

A Firefly reference!

 

[the finisher]

No mas trolls

 

[wink]

Back to impressions. My A2-upgraded Yggy has 9 days of always on. It's getting to a point that I'm starting to wonder whether I might replace my Holo Spring KTE 3 with another Yggy A2. Here's my plan to decide: 1) switch Yggy A2 to headphone system and Holo Spring to speaker system. 2) Listen to this arrangement for the next week or so. 3) Try to reach a conclusion, or rather, ask my wife how she likes the systems, she's got much better musical discernment than I.

Get the second YGGY A2.........

 

[atomicbob]

​

The A1 did sound great. world-class in my opinion. The A2 has a lower noise floor and perhaps a different impedance signal path leading to higher output level in certain frequency bands. It is also world class.

The point about measurements, and I say this as an experienced design engineer who back in the 70's and 80's worked for a few well-known audio companies and who made my living for a while doing nothing but certifying commercial gear in a lab, measurements tell you a couple of things. They can tell you if the gear performs to design or to a set of specifications, and they can tell you if there are emergent behaviors or problems from the design, component selection or manufacturing process. In order to do that the test conditions and testing equipment must conform to certain criteria and the results must be interpreted correctly. And I can also tell you that some engineers I have worked with at these same well-known companies do not know how to properly analyze their results no matter how thorough is their data set.

But the one thing measurements cannot tell you is how a piece of gear sounds nor if users will like it. Analyzing a signal path is only generally related to analyzing the resultant acoustics and auditory perception. This is the fatal flaw most hard-core objective measurement types make. They know enough to be dangerous: they only understand part of the process of audio reproduction, and they often leave out the most critical part: human perception.

-edit to add: I refer you to one of my former employers, Sony, whose audio gear performed exceptionally well on the 'scope and who was an industry leader in the 1980's. Sony gear was routinely described by critics and users as cold, lifeless, clinical, analytical, and dull. But the performance to measurements was great, perfect in fact, so how can this be? It was because none of the main designers in Japan had a clue about designing for use. They were tweakers and electronics purists and their designs led to a saying we had: "Friends don't let friends buy Sony audio."

This ought to be a sticky note, repeated frequently and mandatory reading.
I certainly do my share of measurements. However these thoughts are always kept mind.

 

[earnmyturns]

Get the second YGGY A2.........

Weather was way too nice, we went for a hike instead, and now listening to the latest Brad Mehldau album on the Yggy A2-based speaker system after dinner, the music is a lot more fun than messing around with gear. Jeff Ballard’s drums, cymbals especially, are so “visible” that it’s almost scary if I shut my eyes. I’ve listened to him live several times from a few feet away, I can “see” his strokes in my living room.

 

[Harry Manback]

That assertion is incorrect. I have applied that same standard to every DAC I have tested before and after testing Schiit products. It is a criteria I have picked as an engineer/manager who strives for excellence (no wisecracks about Microsoft ). You are welcome to pick more relaxed standards if you like. But I set my standards and I don't ask another reviewer to approve it.

More importantly though, I provide the full set of measurements for linearity to readers. They are then welcome to use whatever criteria they want. Take this measurement of linearity comparing Berkeley Alpha DAC on the left and the Exasound E32 on the right:

You see where I put my markers @0.1 dB. You don't like that? Just move to the left. I am not there to police you. Doing so will still show that the Berkeley is less performant with its linearity going more random than the predictable curve for Exasound E32.

This is what I said in the review:



Now consider this: I am personal friends with folks at Berkeley!!! Yes, you read that right. When I was at Microsoft, I led the acquisition of Pacific Microsonics, makers of HDCD, which was run by the same people.

Was it easy to say their DAC is less linear there and their competitor wins? No. But the data speaks and I have no choice but to tell the reader like it is.

Back to your point, I hope you see that graphs themselve provide full set of comparative data points. Indeed my commentaries are very, very short compared to say, reviews you write. The graphs and data are just about all of it. My feelings will not be hurt one bit if my text is ignored.

So I can blame you for the death of HDCD? Why did Microsoft kill off this tech?

 

[the finisher]

He will not answer.

Edit: Or it may take a while.

 

[riffrafff]

,,,death of HDCD? Why did Microsoft kill off this tech?

If'n I was to guess...

a) not enough money in it
b) not enough control over the user-base
c) both of the above

 

[Alcophone]

He will not answer.

Kinda hard when you try to post and get "This message is awaiting moderator approval, and is invisible to normal visitors." as a response

 

[amirm]

So I can blame you for the death of HDCD? Why did Microsoft kill off this tech?

No, it was dead before we got there. DVD-A and SACD were launched and overnight put an end in the interest in > 16 bit audio in CD format that HDCD was doing.

So Keith and others went off to create a speaker correction technology for PC to transform the company. We took interest in that and acquired the company for that technology as to better the audio performance of the system.

The hardware business became ours too but it was a nightmare. The motorola decoder that was being sold to CD player OEMs was going to be discontinued. I had to write a check for something like $250,000 for large buy so that our OEMs could continue to build CD players.

The Model 2 encoder was another major headache. It was a hand-built unit and required hours and hours of listening and hand tuning. With company founders leaving, we simply could not keep the production going. Instead of shutting down the business, we looked and found a company to take on the effort. We gave them all the design, all the inventory and cash for them to continue to build them. I did not track it after that but they built some number of units and eventually shut down.

If we had not acquired the company, they would have shut down way before the eventual production stop per above.

Here is an HDCD decoder that I keep on my desk:

So no, you can blame me for a lot of things but HDCD demise is not one of them. Technologies have a lifetime and for HDCD, that time ran out....

 

[Xcalibur255]

Hmm. Yep, I figured right now would be a bad time to be posting questions. Better to wait until the hubbub dies down.