[diamondears]

Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products? He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?

It wouldn't sell as much because there's no unique-ness necessary for marketing success like the R2R and military-scientific-grade AD chip.

It is the sad economics working, just like corn syrup. if one thing is significantly cheaper than the other, and does 98% of the job, the cheaper component wins mostly. Clayton Christensen's book at work. 

Anyways, some people care for the taste difference between kinds of DACs, most of them notice but don't care. Go with what you like in your setup. 

I agree that happens on products for the masses (including food, sadly, especially China-food). But not for higher-end or more top-tier models/products.

 

[ginetto61]

   
I have not heard the Bezerkly Audio Reference. I have heard Bricasti M1 with one of my amps (currently on loan with a friend), my music, and my headphones. The Bricasti M1 is a fantastic DAC. It is my favorite D-S DAC out-of-the-box. However, compared to the Yggy or even the Gen V the Bricasti sucks.
See my comments on the M1: http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-sucks/1275#post_10855968
It's all relative.

 
Hi and thanks a lot for the very helpful reply.
From what i understand the Berkely Audio Ref and the Bricasti M1 are two of the very best delta-sigma dacs in the world.  So they can be considered to be able to extract all the juice available from delta-sigmas.
Berkeley Audio in particular has built what is maybe the best usb to spdif/AES-EBU interface around.  So they know what they do.
I sincerely hope for a return of multibit dac chips, because in the end this seems to be the main advantage of Yggy and Theta dacs.
I am about to buy a multibit dac ... maybe a Monarchy ?
If i understand well they are superior on dynamcis ... that means emotion.  If an equipment, with the right music,  cannot transfer emotion is dead for me.
Now that i think i little better i have an old Cambridge Audio Dac 3 ... i think it is multibit.
Thanks a lot again,  gino

 

[Argo Duck]

@diamondears you are engaged in a mindtrip to persuade yourself Yggy cannot be a serious, alternative technology to D-S. The premises you have adopted lead you to ludicrous speculations such as "[it's all about] marketing success". This path cannot lead to fruitful discovery.

Just do the experiment already! Get a Yggy and find out whether it sounds as you expect. Or not. Then you will have a valuable data-point to bring to the discussion.

 

[nicolo]

  Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products? He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?

 
Maybe Mike Moffat actually thought that he could get much better sound by doing his own thing, rather than follow the herd. Shocking i know! How dare he use his experience, knowledge, intelligence and intuition gained and honed over decades to actually do something different? The sheer, absolute, disgustingly brazen arrogance of it all!
 
He should have contacted you or other know-it-all armchair critics before even thinking of doing something like the Yggdrasil. I mean you all know so much more, right?
Anyway why stop at 4 x AKM, 4 x Sabre DACs? Why not 8, 16, 32,1000 etc. You know so much better right?
 
The only thing you're doing here is denigrating a man's effort to do something in a different way to get better results. If you don't like what he's done with the Yggdrasil, don't buy it. Don't follow this or other threads related to the Yggdrasil. Simple.

 

[diamondears]

Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products? He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?

It wouldn't sell as much because there's no unique-ness necessary for marketing success like the R2R and military-scientific-grade AD chip.

It is the sad economics working, just like corn syrup. if one thing is significantly cheaper than the other, and does 98% of the job, the cheaper component wins mostly. Clayton Christensen's book at work. 

Anyways, some people care for the taste difference between kinds of DACs, most of them notice but don't care. Go with what you like in your setup. 

I agree that happens on products for the masses (including food, sadly). But not for higher-end or more top-tier models/products. I like my setup, but I'm open to improvements, and I've heard lots of DAC much much more expensive but sounded worse or the same. But why bash D-S DACs when the fault is in the stock Standard digital filter?

 

[juanitox]

and why not a good dac would be :
20% for power supply ,
20% for clock management / digital filter/ da converter/  
20% of analog stage
and 20% for the chance or the research and development to make a good mix  

 

[diamondears]

Maybe Mike Moffat actually thought that he could get much better sound by doing his own thing, rather than follow the herd. Shocking i know! How dare he use his experience, knowledge, intelligence and intuition gained and honed over decades to actually do something different? The sheer, absolute, disgustingly brazen arrogance of it all!

He should have contacted you or other know-it-all armchair critics before even thinking of doing something like the Yggdrasil. I mean you all know so much more, right?
Anyway why stop at 4 x AKM, 4 x Sabre DACs? Why not 8, 16, 32,1000 etc. You know so much better right?

The only thing you're doing here is denigrating a man's effort to do something in a different way to get better results. If you don't like what he's done with the Yggdrasil, don't buy it. Don't follow this or other threads related to the Yggdrasil. Simple.

Who's denigrating someone or anything? Remember who titled this thread "Sabre/D-S sucks"? Don't you think you're being a hypocrite saying that?

 

[ginetto61]

It wouldn't sell as much because there's no unique-ness necessary for marketing success like the R2R and military-scientific-grade AD chip.
I agree that happens on products for the masses (including food, sadly). But not for higher-end or more top-tier models/products. I like my setup, but I'm open to improvements, and I've heard lots of DAC much much more expensive but sounded worse or the same.

But why bash D-S DACs when the fault is in the stock Standard digital filter?

 
Hi ... i think that is triggers the key question from what i have learned around.
How much of the sound of a dac is made by the actual filter implemented ?
Many people say ... a lot indeed.
So the best dac chip, with the best PS and the best output stage but the wrong filter could sound bad.
A Schiit they put the focus more than anything else on the dac chip used and the debate multibit vs. delta-sigma.
Could this misleading in the end ?
 
Is indeed the filter the real main actor of the play ?
 
Thanks a lot for the very interesting thread.
Have a nice sunday, gino

 

[frenchbat]

@diamondears, I suggest you do a bit of reading on dac linearity and accuracy, as hinted by Purrin. It should give an idea on why MM decided to go R2R/String, instead of slapping a Sabre implementation together.
 
Here you go :
https://www.google.fr/search?q=dac+linearity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=jwhPVYe8J4G1UNG6gOgF
 
By the way, most of the useful info on the Sabre is under NDA, including the accuracy numbers. Strange isn't it ?

 

[nicolo]

Who's denigrating someone or anything? Remember who titled this thread "Sabre/D-S sucks"? Don't you think you're being a hypocrite saying that?

 
Did you read the statement i was responding to? The thread was started by purrin, not Mike Moffat. evillamer's statement as below:
 
"Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products? He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?"
 
My point is that someone took a different approach and is now being insulted for it. I stand by my statement. You may not like Mike's viewpoint or the stuff he's put in his statement DAC. But to call him nuts is patronising and is thus denigrating. Another thing. I didn't start this thread and therefore didn't make the thread title. You are barking up the wrong tree here.
 
However i do agree with purrin that almost all DS DACs suck and have very harsh treble. I have heard Berkley's Alpha, Bricasti M1, Ressonence Labs Sabre based DACs and found each one of those harsh. They just sounded grainy to me. I have heard Burr Brown DS DACs and found them all too smooth, laid back with rolled-of treble with an artificial warmth overall. I have heard some of Schitt's stuff based on AKM DACs and found them lacking too in terms of dynamics and micro-detail. However that hasn't stopped me from getting an LH Labs Pulse Infinity (DS DAC) as i quite liked their Geek Out 1000 based on the Sabre 9018K2M. It sounded analog, smooth, detailed, resolving but never harsh.
 
If you feel so strongly, why not start a new thread talking up DS DACs as counterpoint? That way the discussion stays constructive without anyone going nuts.

 

[diamondears]

I won't disagree with you. The remaining R2R chips that exist today, namely the PCM1704, don't resolve as well as the current D-S chips. The PCM1704 also has other issues, syrupy bass, overly forgiving, etc. If you had bothered reading some of the posts instead of jumping in with a closed mind, you would have better understood where I came from.



You have to get it through your head that no one here has said R2R chips in general resolve better. Some R2R chips resolve better than some D-S chips and vice versa. Practically all of today's D-S chips resolve better than the PCM1704 or whatever industrial DAC chip they use in the Metrum.

The only twist is that the AD5791 that the Yggy uses seems to be huge step up from any of the other R2R or D-S chips. But then again, no one has been crazy enough to use a milspec DAC chip with 1ppm accuracy at 20 bits for an audio application.

Don't bother with Yggy. The Yggy has the kind of digital filters you won't like with pre and post ringing. Using your preconceptions, it's going to sound very nasty and digital.





Because obviously Mike Moffat, the father of the standalone DAC, who has been doing this for 35-40 years is stupid, and knows far less than armchair DAC designer consumers who seem to who know it all.

Ok. All you said are noted. I have preconceptions but I'm not horse-eyed.

Re ringings, I think the main point is stick it standard digital filter have SUBSTANTIALLY more pre and post ringings than others, and this stock standard filter is a main factor/culprit on the digital glare accusation. I'm not an EE, but I've heard a lot of DACs and the common denominator on all the DACs that my ears find glary or digitally is the digital filter, the stock standard digital filter.

Now let me ask you, dies the Yggy have a stick standard digital filter? No. So what is its digital filter? Does its pre and post ringings reasonably equal in amount to the stick standard digital filters on Sabre and D-S DACs? My answer is no, but what's your answer?

 

[shabta]

Who's denigrating someone or anything? Remember who titled this thread "Sabre/D-S sucks"? Don't you think you're being a hypocrite saying that?

As has been pointed out several times. The title of the thread only changed to DS sucks after a long time and lots of experience. It is based on the thread starters personal experience. You however have stated that the thread is a "big commercial" which is pretty insulting and is pointed at the motivation of the thread starter. The difference between saying  DS sucks and what you are doing is that the thread starter is giving his opinion based on a lot of data points that he explains, whereas what you are doing is simply being insulting.

 

[DreamKing]

@nicolo I'm pretty sure that evillama's post was a sarcastic mirroring of opinions attacking Moffat's integrity for his design choices.

 

[Techlology]

Color me still very skeptical of this Schiit hype train.
 
Partly because their previous offerings were my first foray into headfi and they left me bitterly disappointed. The Bifrost was harsh, lifeless, and with more grain than your typical supermarket trail mix. The Lyr was a smeary, blurred up mess when driving my then HD600s. Their sound quality was equally matched by their build quality (I somehow managed to cut myself on the side of the Lyr in the unboxing process). This was a couple of years ago now and maybe my memory is exaggerated but to me they were sloppy and half-assed.
 
Partly also because of their marketing approach, and of how their community approaches their products. Putting down your competitors' efforts as irrelevant when the bulk of your current product line is based on the same tech, and veiling insults behind edgy humor may speak to a lot of people, but to me it's simply repulsive. Schiit, to me, is a case of approaching a potentially extraordinary product in spite of the people behind it, and to date, I've heard more about how every DAC not Yggy sucks more than I've heard about how good the Yggy actually is. I'm still curious about the complete radio silence from the typical headfi publications.
 
And lastly because the Vega/Taurus combo driving my LCD-X is everything the list put the Yggy up to be. I don't get any harshness or grain in the treble. I hear full, meaty mids, and a flat and extended bass. The sound stage, separation, and detail are all exemplary. Perhaps not as decadently musical as my living room set up (Thorens 125 -> Pure Audio phono -> Hiachi MOSFET -> B&W bookshelves) but I don't think anything digital can approach that sort of listening experience to my ears, no matter how hard they try to approximate.

 

[diamondears]

Did you read the statement i was responding to? The thread was started by purrin, not Mike Moffat. evillamer's statement as below:

"Why would Mike Moffat go all the way to taking a painfully(vs cheap d-s chips) expensive and hard to implement miltary spec chip and try to carve out a dac out of it? [COLOR=FF0000]Is he nuts or it is because he truly cares getting the best sound of his products?[/COLOR] He could have slapped on 4 x AKM AK4495SEQ/4 x ES9018AQ2M/2 x ESS9018S and produce a gungnir gen 2 at the current price of ygg(thus taking more profits due to lower production costs) and his customers would still have flock to buy it right?"

My point is that someone took a different approach and is now being insulted for it. I stand by my statement. You may not like Mike's viewpoint or the stuff he's put in his statement DAC. But to call him nuts is patronising and is thus denigrating. Another thing. I didn't start this thread and therefore didn't make the thread title. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

However i do agree with purrin that almost all DS DACs suck and have very harsh treble. I have heard Berkley's Alpha, Bricasti M1, Ressonence Labs Sabre based DACs and found each one of those harsh. They just sounded grainy to me. I have heard Burr Brown DS DACs and found them all too smooth, laid back with rolled-of treble with an artificial warmth overall. I have heard some of Schitt's stuff based on AKM DACs and found them lacking too in terms of dynamics and micro-detail. However that hasn't stopped me from getting an LH Labs Pulse Infinity (DS DAC) as i quite liked their Geek Out 1000 based on the Sabre 9018K2M. It sounded analog, smooth, detailed, resolving but never harsh.

If you feel so strongly, why not start a new thread talking up DS DACs as counterpoint? That way the discussion stays constructive without anyone going nuts.

He's not being "insulted" (which I'm not, just pointing out things) or criticized for his approach, but for his insulting approach. He's being criticized for bashing others to promoted himself or his products. And he hasn't proven that the glare comes from the D-S chip, my suspect is the stock standard digital filter that comes with the chip.

If it's really not the filter and it's the D-S chip, why not use that same or similar standard digital filter with lots of pre and post ringing together with the AD chip? Why make a custom filter for it? Because the filter plays a big role in the digital-ness or glary-ness of the D-S DAC chips being touted as sucking big time.