[Alcophone]

Well as somebody who judges things subjectively by listening to the darn thing, I agree with you. But I can't help but see the logic problem. If there is something that is causing it to sound better, well what is it? I don't believe that there is something in the signal we can't measure.

So for instance, I have heard the thing that timing can do on the Gungnir MB. Also I've heard something similar using an old Denon PCM 61 DAC CD player. But what is it? It has to be measurable, even if it may be difficult to interpret.
Also if some dac measurements are inaudible, then why don't all dacs sound the same?

Apparently the filter plays a huge role, too - just read the Yggdrasil FAQ.

Excerpt:

Oversimplified, however essentially correct: The filter is also time domain optimized which means the phase info in the original samples are averaged in the time domain with the filter generated interpolated samples to for corrected minimum phase shift as a function of frequency from DC to the percentage of nyquist - in our case .968. Time domain is well defined at DC - the playback device behaves as a window fan at DC - it either blows (in phase) or sucks (out). It is our time domain optimization that gives the uncanny sonic hologram. (It also allows the filter to disappear. Has to be heard to understand.) Since lower frequency wavelengths are measured in tens of feet, placement in image gets increasingly wrong as a function of decreasing frequency in non time domain optimized recordings - these keep the listener's ability to hear the venue - not to mention the sum of all of the phase errors in the microphones, mixing boards, eq, etc on the record side. An absolute phase switch is of little to no value in a non time domain optimized, stochastic time domain replay system. It makes a huge difference with an Yggy.

It seems that Schiit's filter is only available on the multibit models, so maybe some of the supposed multibit magic is more filter magic.

Rob watts also keeps pointing out the importance of his WTA filter, timing of transients, etc. Here are some musings by Rob Watts about using an M-Scaler with non-Chord DACs.

Standard measurements with one or two sine waves simply don't capture that. One of the biggest differences I hear between the Yggy and the DX7s is the deeper sound stage of the Yggy, the other is the more natural sound of actual instruments.

 

[garbulky]

Apparently the filter plays a huge role, too - just read the Yggdrasil FAQ.

Excerpt:


It seems that Schiit's filter is only available on the multibit models, so maybe some of the supposed multibit magic is more filter magic.

Rob watts also keeps pointing out the importance of his WTA filter, timing of transients, etc. Here are some musings by Rob Watts about using an M-Scaler with non-Chord DACs.

Standard measurements with one or two sine waves simply don't capture that. One of the biggest differences I hear between the Yggy and the DX7s is the deeper sound stage of the Yggy, the other is the more natural sound of actual instruments.

Well I saw the Oppo 205's measurements. Interestingly they measured quite a bit better than the Yggy in nearly all aspects ranking close to perfect scores. I've heard the Oppo 205 several times. I thought it was one of the poorer dacs I've heard. It had a distinct thinn-ness and glare to the sound. But they didn't show at all in the measurements. Somebody mentioned to me that maybe I don't like the sound of perfection. (Which I got a chuckle out of. That was not perfection. )

As for filters if they do so differently, what measurements can show this? I too think we don't listen to single tones. But music is made up of multiple tones. So if these filters are superior, why can't the measurements show it? And why aren't the manufacturers publish these measurements as evidence?

 

[adydula]

This is a: Schiit Yggdrasil V2 upgrade Technical Measurements
Started by atomicbob...

The measurements from atomicbob have been posted ad naseum by several sources good or bad....the discussion about why or what or I want stuff to do things I desire is great.
All this follow on cursory stuff IMO is better suited to the SOUND SCIENCE FORUM....

Carrying on this discussion is important but to continue it here tends to do good and bad things towards one particular vendor.

I think its fair to ask questions about what atomicbobs measurements mean and how they relate to this particular dac. But to ask for something that is
irrelevant to these measurements is not IMO.

SOUND SCIENCE is a great place to beat this dead horse even more on an equal playing field.

Alex

 

[Currawong]

Also if some dac measurements are inaudible, then why don't all dacs sound the same?

I think that there are two levels of "audible". The first is overtly audible sounds, eg: I can make out how well different DACs can reproduce the harmonics when close-mic'ed guitar notes decay with the Utopias, or how well I can make out the guy shifting in his seat at the back of the studio during a quiet moment of a binaural recording. This is what is conventionally talked about when it comes to "audible" or "inaudible" levels.

The second is timing information, which isn't distinctly overt sounds, but whether the width and depth information is correctly reconstructed. This is beyond the regular arguments about audibility.

So if these filters are superior, why can't the measurements show it?

There are measurements other than the common ones. What they show I haven't seen discussed.

 

[atomicbob]

The word measurements is often bandied about as if everyone is using the same definition. Typical thoughts brought to mind of many readers are numbers. I dislike the usual use of measurement numbers. They are oversimplifications consolidating much information from spectral results. Then the typical misuse is to compare one number with another, without much thought to the measurement conditions for obtaining the results. Biggest, lowest, greatest etc. wins. A sports model of winners and losers is not a good one to use when comparing measurement data between two devices.

Consider that not only are there a variety of measurement data but listeners also have preferences. Matching data to preferences is a better use model of measurement data, and I mean the more complex spectrum results I have been worked hard to provide (when time permits), in a consistent suite of such data. Comparing two THD+N numbers is a very good example of how misguided it is to play the numbers game.

Please read the following, including the prerequisite reading in the link provided at the beginning:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/tutorial-a-tale-of-6-amps-thd-n-and-thd-specifications.885878/

 

[Alcophone]

Well I saw the Oppo 205's measurements. Interestingly they measured quite a bit better than the Yggy in nearly all aspects ranking close to perfect scores. I've heard the Oppo 205 several times. I thought it was one of the poorer dacs I've heard. It had a distinct thinn-ness and glare to the sound.

Yeah, thin is certainly the opposite of what I would describe the Yggdrasil as. I can see how that meaty impression might be due to harmonic distortion, but that's just a wild guess.

As for filters if they do so differently, what measurements can show this?

I have seen measurements showing how different filters reveal themselves based on the response to a single pulse, and I think also to square waves. You might see pre-ringing, post-ringing and things like that, or differences in frequency response. How that translates to perceived sound quality is a different question (to which there may be existing answers, I am not an expert), and it probably doesn't tell the whole story either. But the usual measurements that I see don't even go there.

 

[garbulky]

Yeah, thin is certainly the opposite of what I would describe the Yggdrasil as. I can see how that meaty impression might be due to harmonic distortion, but that's just a wild guess.

Well I have a hard time believing a glarey sound that is thin is the "correct" representation which is what I tend to hear with the Oppos. And I know this because I know what real instruments sound like in real life. And they don't sound that way. So either the entire recording chain has some serious flaw or what I heard from the Oppo was deficient. I'm leaning towards the latter. But the Oppo is surprising because it measures very well. Incredibly to the point that I believe all those measurements are way below the point of audibility. If so, then what is causing the audibility? Either I'm imagining it (which is always a possibility) or there's something that's distorted which must be able to be measured. But it's not showing up. I'm leaning to the latter. How come is my question? My ears are definitely not THAT sensitive. To me some glare or something should manifest easier in like a treble bump or something. So something is going on. And I think something is going on with multibit - like my experience with the Gungnir MB. And I believe these are measurable.

I have seen measurements showing how different filters reveal themselves based on the response to a single pulse, and I think also to square waves. You might see pre-ringing, post-ringing and things like that, or differences in frequency response. How that translates to perceived sound quality is a different question (to which there may be existing answers, I am not an expert), and it probably doesn't tell the whole story either. But the usual measurements that I see don't even go there.

FWIW, I have looked at the measurements of the pre and post ringing and the Schiit doesn't do anything special regarding ringing compared to DS DACs.

 

[garbulky]

The second is timing information, which isn't distinctly overt sounds, but whether the width and depth information is correctly reconstructed. This is beyond the regular arguments about audibility.

I doubt they have a whole lot of information about what can cause the width and depth to be different. But right there is what is important - relating perception to measurements. They probably have a good amount of research on it that I am not aware of. I know barely anything about this stuff.

There are measurements other than the common ones. What they show I haven't seen discussed.

What are those?

 

[RCBinTN]

Perhaps not all pleasing attributes can yet be measured. Give Mike a couple more years...
Luckily, I am able to overcome the "logic problem" with a couple Guinness' and some Redbook FLAC music. Works every time.

 

[RCBinTN]

The second is timing information, which isn't distinctly overt sounds, but whether the width and depth information is correctly reconstructed. This is beyond the regular arguments about audibility.

After reading all this, I suspect that "timing" may play a key role in the Schiit MB sound quality.
Perhaps Mike's proprietary closed-form comboburrito filter program is the driver.
The resulting SQ attributes may not be able to be quantified, as Atomic Bob wrote so well above.
That's where we need new measurements...
In any case, I like the sound quality.

 

[theveterans]

After reading all this, I suspect that "timing" may play a key role in the Schiit MB sound quality.
Perhaps Mike's proprietary closed-form comboburrito filter program is the driver.
The resulting SQ attributes may not be able to be quantified, as Atomic Bob wrote so well above.
That's where we need new measurements...
In any case, I like the sound quality.

Agree. Aside from timing, power supply cleanliness and USB power isolation matters too. However, I suspect the latter two are those that can eclipse the SQ from "good" to "wow I've never heard this DAC sounded like this before" (coherency, timing, timbre, tonality, etc. all of sudden turn to a whole new level). However, those perceived subjective observations can never actually be measured objectively IMO.

 

[bobsherman]

At least he did offer to do so if needed:




Yeah, after this response to my protest, I wasn't sure whether he was about to perform a "routine drop test" next:


Amazing how confident he is about the temperatures after saying "Due to reflectivity index of the case, it is under-reporting the temperature. It was quite a bit hotter but still, you get the idea."

I like how Jude put it:




Yeah, that was a bit of a roller coaster ride. But I kind of expected that. I'm glad it's over...

Glad you made it out of that cesspool, just take a few hot showers and you will be ok. There is a serious dishonsety that is pervasive there being cloaked by their so called objectiveness. If you read between the lines some of the major contributors/bullies are subjective when it applies to themselves, but are quick to attack "the non believers". The amir's "Renfield" Mr Savage behind the scenes bullies anyone who posts contrary to the party line while trying to keep a public image of fairness. The main agenda is for amir to make a name for himself by denegrating honest hard working people in the business. He is quick to trash people's designs, but please ask him what he has actually designed, manufactured
and sold? Just allot of hot air, and not all of it comming from his heat gun!

 

[BananaOoyoo]

I don’t have anything for or against Amir (I haven’t owned or heard any Schiit or Topping products), but how does anyone think it’s okay to take a heat gun to someone else’s gear?

The very least you should do if someone loans you something is to treat it better than the owner would...

 

[Armament]

Can someone clarify something to a noob like myself? If Multibit DACs don't measure as well as a Delta-Sigma what's the point? I thought the whole purpose of pricey DACs was to measure as well as possible. I own a Gumby myself but was I better off getting the much cheaper D/S version? Thanks.

 

[bobsherman]

I don’t have anything for or against Amir (I haven’t owned or heard any Schiit or Topping products), but how does anyone think it’s okay to take a heat gun to someone else’s gear?

The very least you should do if someone loans you something is to treat it better than the owner would...

I believe the heat gun is also amir's cooking utensil of choice.