Schiit Yggdrasil Impressions thread
post-15203361
Post #9,571 of 9,880

johnjen

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
1,979
Location
Well Grounded, here and now
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Location
Well Grounded, here and now
Posts
2,900
Likes
1,979
AIOP is Audio Over Internet Protocol. Throwing the word "Analog" in there is going to confuse a lot of people - there isn't anything analog occurring - it's all digital.
D'oh, good catch, and your right, my bad.

JJ
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-15203752
Post #9,572 of 9,880

johnjen

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
1,979
Location
Well Grounded, here and now
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Location
Well Grounded, here and now
Posts
2,900
Likes
1,979
AOIP is nothing more than a standard data format developed by the European Broadcasting Union and the hardware manufacturers to provide a standard packet format enabling diverse endpoints to communicate over the internet. While it does offer reduction of signal degradation and added capacity compared to traditional lines, those improvements are only relevant over large distances and/or high signal traffic volume.

Claims that AOIP is audibly better than other technologies in a home setting are subjective and don’t bear out when the actual digital data is examined. Claims that it is “significantly better” are wholly unsubstantiated. Nothing wrong with using AOIP in a home environment, but it adds complexity with no established value. Home users aren’t sending multiple broadcast signals or thousands of voice calls over thousands of miles of copper. For anyone not familiar with networking, there’s a reasonably good chance you could create more problems than you solve.

Unless you need to send the signal across your network because your DAC and data/music are in separate physical locations, there are much simpler options,
I can see what you're saying coming from the digits and bits side of this, but from the subjective side there are simply too many folks who have experienced a significant improvement in SQ.
And it is not subtle nor "wholly unsubstantiated" as this very thread documents multiple cases.

These types of observational reports are an integral part of the scientific method and have been repeated by multiple listeners.
And no not in a rigorous highly scientifically controlled way, but the initial approach to using the scientific method is to start and then refine and drill down into the specifics as the methodological approach gets refined.

We (those who have implemented AOIP) on the other hand are really only interested in audible results and not 'proving' the results, so those who require such 'proof' will never be convinced. Which to my mind and to those who are on this path is irrelevant, since we have attained “significantly better” results and are quite happy to have done so.

And the notion that 'bits are bits' is only part of this entire equation and one that tends to obscure and ignore the rest of the entirety of this method of transport.
As in, part of this AOIP transport is not just what it does, but what it doesn't do, and this understanding makes a scientific approach MUCH more difficult to 'prove'.
EXCEPT when experienced directly, in which case the individual has all the 'proof' they need, for themselves and in no uncertain terms.
And listening to music is strictly a subjective endeavor, as there is no way to quantify this form of experience in it's entirety.

I can state unequivocally that my AOIP feed is superior to any other I have ever heard, no ifs, ands, or buts.
And as I have written previously, some people simply won't hear some (all?) of these refinements for a variety of reasons, ranging from they simply can't hear this level of refinement, to they don't know WHAT to listen for (I call this process getting Calibrated), to their system has insufficient resolution to be able to present this level of refinement in the first place.

And my response to your post isn't meant to demean your opinion in the least, but without direct experience your opinion, it would seem, is solely based upon a 'theoretical' basis without any substantive experience, as we use AOIP (not in a commercial setting). This is fine for those who follow this type of approach, but there are others who use the subjective approach, or use a combination of both, and have garnered superior results.
This is where we use critical listening, over time with very familiar music, as our means and method to determine what truly is 'Better', and subsequently we do enjoy the improvement in SQ regardless of what others may believe.

JJ
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-15203817
Post #9,573 of 9,880

bfreedma

The Hornet!
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
2,358
Reaction score
1,224
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Posts
2,358
Likes
1,224
I can see what you're saying coming from the digits and bits side of this, but from the subjective side there are simply too many folks who have experienced a significant improvement in SQ.
And it is not subtle nor "wholly unsubstantiated" as this very thread documents multiple cases.

These types of observational reports are an integral part of the scientific method and have been repeated by multiple listeners.
And no not in a rigorous highly scientifically controlled way, but the initial approach to using the scientific method is to start and then refine and drill down into the specifics as the methodological approach gets refined.

We (those who have implemented AOIP) on the other hand are really only interested in audible results and not 'proving' the results, so those who require such 'proof' will never be convinced. Which to my mind and to those who are on this path is irrelevant, since we have attained “significantly better” results and are quite happy to have done so.

And the notion that 'bits are bits' is only part of this entire equation and one that tends to obscure and ignore the rest of the entirety of this method of transport.
As in, part of this AOIP transport is not just what it does, but what it doesn't do, and this understanding makes a scientific approach MUCH more difficult to 'prove'.
EXCEPT when experienced directly, in which case the individual has all the 'proof' they need, for themselves and in no uncertain terms.
And listening to music is strictly a subjective endeavor, as there is no way to quantify this form of experience in it's entirety.

I can state unequivocally that my AOIP feed is superior to any other I have ever heard, no ifs, ands, or buts.
And as I have written previously, some people simply won't hear some (all?) of these refinements for a variety of reasons, ranging from they simply can't hear this level of refinement, to they don't know WHAT to listen for (I call this process getting Calibrated), to their system has insufficient resolution to be able to present this level of refinement in the first place.

And my response to your post isn't meant to demean your opinion in the least, but without direct experience your opinion, it would seem, is solely based upon a 'theoretical' basis without any substantive experience, as we use AOIP (not in a commercial setting). This is fine for those who follow this type of approach, but there are others who use the subjective approach, or use a combination of both, and have garnered superior results.
This is where we use critical listening, over time with very familiar music, as our means and method to determine what truly is 'Better', and subsequently we do enjoy the improvement in SQ regardless of what others may believe.

JJ
This will be my last post on the topic so we don’t derail the thread.

Sorry, but no. AOIP is simply a protocol based on standards. It does nothing to alter the data and therefore the “sound”. The AOIP standard is formally established and there is zero possibility that a proper implementation of this or any other IP based standard is altering data, let alone consistently doing something that could “improve sound”. To suggest otherwise is suggesting that digital data transmission standards are variable, Were that the case, the entire concept of digital data transmission would fail - the internet wouldn’t work as devices couldn’t consistently communicate using standard protocols. The entire purpose of utilizing IP data standards is to eliminate variability, not to introduce it.

And to be clear, I have used AOIP in both commercial and home settings and understand the protocol and the underlying network transport layers in substantial detail.

So we’re left with three options:

Dante software is utilizing DSP to alter the content. While people might find something like that “better”, why would someone knowingly alter the sound. I have my doubts that studios who utilize Dante would find this acceptable.

Whatever connection Dante/AOIP is replacing is flawed. While this is possible, it’s unlikely to present itself in the manner you’re describing. And if it is an issue, there are likely far less costly and complex solutions. For example, computer noise being carried via USB (highly overstated as an issue) can be eliminated simply by introducing a powered USB hub between the computer and the DAC.

Placebo effect that would disappear in controlled testing.

If people are enjoying AOIP, great. But suggesting that it’s somehow creating better SQ flies in the face of the very concept of internationally accepted IP protocols and the basic concepts of digital data transmission. There is no wiggle room for subjectivity in IP protocols.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-15204633
Post #9,574 of 9,880

G0rt

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
189
Reaction score
330
Location
USA
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Location
USA
Posts
189
Likes
330
This will be my last post on the topic so we don’t derail the thread.

Sorry, but no. AOIP is simply a protocol based on standards. It does nothing to alter the data and therefore the “sound”. The AOIP standard is formally established and there is zero possibility that a proper implementation of this or any other IP based standard is altering data, let alone consistently doing something that could “improve sound”. To suggest otherwise is suggesting that digital data transmission standards are variable, Were that the case, the entire concept of digital data transmission would fail - the internet wouldn’t work as devices couldn’t consistently communicate using standard protocols. The entire purpose of utilizing IP data standards is to eliminate variability, not to introduce it.

And to be clear, I have used AOIP in both commercial and home settings and understand the protocol and the underlying network transport layers in substantial detail.

So we’re left with three options:

Dante software is utilizing DSP to alter the content. While people might find something like that “better”, why would someone knowingly alter the sound. I have my doubts that studios who utilize Dante would find this acceptable.

Whatever connection Dante/AOIP is replacing is flawed. While this is possible, it’s unlikely to present itself in the manner you’re describing. And if it is an issue, there are likely far less costly and complex solutions. For example, computer noise being carried via USB (highly overstated as an issue) can be eliminated simply by introducing a powered USB hub between the computer and the DAC.

Placebo effect that would disappear in controlled testing.

If people are enjoying AOIP, great. But suggesting that it’s somehow creating better SQ flies in the face of the very concept of internationally accepted IP protocols and the basic concepts of digital data transmission. There is no wiggle room for subjectivity in IP protocols.
Perfectly true as far as it goes, but it's also worthwhile taking into account the degree to which a given technology attempts to provide realtime or low-latency transport of audio data.

Time critical transport is vulnerable to all manner of variance, moreso as you add layers of protocol, management and implementation dependencies.

If you don't care, life is easy, and you just buffer your tracks locally and dream on.

If you do care, for frame sync with video for example, life gets interesting quickly, and you have to be very, very careful.

As a developer, firmware or software, you can screw up more egregiously as the underlying hardware gets faster, but the problems remain, and driver deficiencies revealed by circumstances completely beyond your control, such as spikes in network or processor load, can and should be expected to make audiophiles whine.
 
post-15219521
Post #9,575 of 9,880

ahossam

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
222
Reaction score
51
Location
East Java
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Location
East Java
Posts
222
Likes
51
Hello everyone.

Does anyone ever try to add streamer such as Roon Nucleus to their Yggdrasil vis usb input? so you can control the music player wirelessly with your smartphone.
 
     Share This Post       
post-15219889
Post #9,576 of 9,880

crazychile

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
345
Joined
Feb 13, 2003
Posts
1,095
Likes
345
Hello everyone.

Does anyone ever try to add streamer such as Roon Nucleus to their Yggdrasil vis usb input? so you can control the music player wirelessly with your smartphone.
This isn't really a DAC question since you're really asking about the functionality of a streamer. You'll probably get better responses if you post here:

https://www.head-fi.org/forums/computer-audio.46/
 
     Share This Post       
post-15219917
Post #9,577 of 9,880

bfreedma

The Hornet!
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
2,358
Reaction score
1,224
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Posts
2,358
Likes
1,224
Hello everyone.

Does anyone ever try to add streamer such as Roon Nucleus to their Yggdrasil vis usb input? so you can control the music player wirelessly with your smartphone.
I run a NUC running Roon connected to a Yggdrasil via USB - works well.
 
     Share This Post       
post-15219973
Post #9,578 of 9,880

bearFNF

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
3,272
Reaction score
770
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Posts
3,272
Likes
770
Hello everyone.

Does anyone ever try to add streamer such as Roon Nucleus to their Yggdrasil vis usb input? so you can control the music player wirelessly with your smartphone.
I use a Nuc Rock for Roon to a networked RPi and then coax and optical to my yggy. I have not tried usb from the nuc though.
 
     Share This Post       
post-15220093
Post #9,579 of 9,880

Ableza

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 18, 2014
Messages
3,638
Reaction score
10,444
Location
Valley of the Sun
Joined
Jan 18, 2014
Location
Valley of the Sun
Posts
3,638
Likes
10,444
Hello everyone.

Does anyone ever try to add streamer such as Roon Nucleus to their Yggdrasil vis usb input? so you can control the music player wirelessly with your smartphone.
I use a Roon server and feed a Yggdrasil with a Sonore Ultrarendu.
 
     Share This Post       
post-15221871
Post #9,581 of 9,880

bearFNF

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
3,272
Reaction score
770
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Posts
3,272
Likes
770
If I use NUC ROCK as roon core can I use streaming services like Qobus and Tidal?
Yes, I use Tidal with Roon and there is a Qobuz service in Roon now too. I have not tried Qobuz yet though. You would use the Roon remote to access these services and as the interface not the services apps.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-15222055
Post #9,582 of 9,880

Ableza

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 18, 2014
Messages
3,638
Reaction score
10,444
Location
Valley of the Sun
Joined
Jan 18, 2014
Location
Valley of the Sun
Posts
3,638
Likes
10,444
If I use NUC ROCK as roon core can I use streaming services like Qobus and Tidal?
Yes. Both are tightly integrated into the software and use the same interface as your local library.
 
     Share This Post       
post-15222497
Post #9,583 of 9,880

ahossam

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
222
Reaction score
51
Location
East Java
Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Location
East Java
Posts
222
Likes
51
Thank you all for the responses, much appreciated. I think I will get NUC and install roon ROCK on it, instead of getting more convenient ready out of the box but more expensive Nucleus.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: bearFNF
post-15232080
Post #9,584 of 9,880

NDonchev

Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
66
Reaction score
26
Location
Sofia, Bulgaria
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Location
Sofia, Bulgaria
Posts
66
Likes
26
Hi guys!

I've been using the Yggy A2 for a while now and I really like it. However I have a slight problem - the output of the Yggy is too loud. Now that I have a new transport (the Pi2Design PI2AES) it outputs even louder signal to my amp. The chain is as follows:
PI2AES Volumi => Grimm TPR XLR AES/EBU => Yggdrasil A2 => 2 x Grimm TPR XLR => Violectric V281 => XLR => HD800S

I have switched both the external and the internal pre-gain settings of the amp to -18db and still normal listening level is when the volume knob of the amp is at about 9 o'clock. When feeding the Yggy with the optical output of a PlayStation 4 the sound is significantly quieter and is at normal listening levels when the knob is at 12 - 13 o'clock. It's very strange to me that the digital input signal to the Yggy impacts it's output in such a way.

Do you have any suggestions on what I can do to make the signal from the Yggy quieter? I have tried very cheap RCA interconnects and it helps with signal loudness, but the sound quality also suffers.

EDIT: The Yggy's manual says:
Output: One pair XLR balanced and two pairs RCA single-ended
Output Impedance: 75 ohms
Maximum Output: 4.0V RMS (balanced), 2.0V RMS (single-ended)

My interconnect XLR cables are 110 ohms, does this matter?


EDIT2: I found that there are devices called XLR attenuators. Do you have experience with them? It seems they can solve the issue. So I guess now the main question is if the chain will sound better with the v281's volume pot at at least 12 o'clock and will the XLR attenuators degrade sound quality.

Example of such devices are:
JTS MA-123
Shure A15AS
Audio-Technica AT8202
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
post-15232241
Post #9,585 of 9,880

exdmd

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 27, 2017
Messages
516
Reaction score
432
Location
USA
Joined
Sep 27, 2017
Location
USA
Posts
516
Likes
432
Hi guys!

I've been using the Yggy A2 for a while now and I really like it. However I have a slight problem - the output of the Yggy is too loud. Now that I have a new transport (the Pi2Design PI2AES) it outputs even louder signal to my amp. The chain is as follows:
PI2AES Volumi => Grimm TPR XLR AES/EBU => Yggdrasil A2 => 2 x Grimm TPR XLR => Violectric V281 => XLR => HD800S

I have switched both the external and the internal pre-gain settings of the amp to -18db and still normal listening level is when the volume knob of the amp is at about 9 o'clock. When feeding the Yggy with the optical output of a PlayStation 4 the sound is significantly quieter and is at normal listening levels when the knob is at 12 - 13 o'clock. It's very strange to me that the digital input signal to the Yggy impacts it's output in such a way.

Do you have any suggestions on what I can do to make the signal from the Yggy quieter? I have tried very cheap RCA interconnects and it helps with signal loudness, but the sound quality also suffers.

EDIT: The Yggy's manual says:
Output: One pair XLR balanced and two pairs RCA single-ended
Output Impedance: 75 ohms
Maximum Output: 4.0V RMS (balanced), 2.0V RMS (single-ended)

My interconnect XLR cables are 110 ohms, does this matter?


EDIT2: I found that there are devices called XLR attenuators. Do you have experience with them? It seems they can solve the issue. So I guess now the main question is if the chain will sound better with the v281's volume pot at at least 12 o'clock and will the XLR attenuators degrade sound quality.

Example of such devices are:
JTS MA-123
Shure A15AS
Audio-Technica AT8202
I tried Harrison RCA attenuators once and they did degrade the sound quality. Sounds like you need to invest in a balanced pre-amp for your system like the Schiit Freya. I hear that Rothwell may be better so if you want to try attenuators first get the Rothwell balanced -15 db. However I suspect you may end up with a pre-amp.
 
Last edited:
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: NDonchev

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 7)

  • Top