[garbulky]

Having seen several of his measurements. I doubt his tests are having some sort of major error. Or at least if they are, the majority of other DACs are measuring better on the same tests. Including units that cost a $120. He mentioned that he measured a previous dac just before (Berkley Alpha?) and all that took was a switch of the cable. So, even if there is some error or distorting factor on the tests, the other DACs seem to be doing quite a bit better on it than both Schiit DACs and these dacs are a whole lot cheaper. Albeit they are delta sigma.
Now I'm not saying they sound better. If the measurements aren't great but the sound is fantastic I couldn't care. But, those cheaper units seem to doing measurements better when compared by the same tester.

Now it looks like Bob feels that the bifrost was not broken. But maybe I just inferred it that's what he was saying. But that's confusing to me now as to if it's broken or not. Also though the posts by him weren't the most diplomatic, and I'm not entirely sure his standards of intepretation are correct, but it's clear to me that there is heavy censorship in place which is dissapointing.

The Yggy is still on my list as the upgrade, hopefully awaiting a remote and an audition. But the thoughts of the ad line of mission critical 21 bit precise no fudging DAC and the behavior of the owners strikes me poorly.

 

[garbulky]

I read your dialogue. I thought you were extremely diplomatic and was impressed by your intent to actually be helpful. I also think your summation of where you ended up and your estimation of the views you encountered is a fair assessment.

I'd agree with your suspicions of test equipment user competence. I can't see anything in the views of people reporting test data coming from that forum to inspire confidence.

RTG started off with "I'd throw your measurements in the trash".... not "extremely diplomatic." However his point is important. Where is the detailed test setup data? Amir has a test setup section he's linked to that describes his machines and a picture of his test room. But that's not really the same as detailed test setup data since he seems qualified to do so. It would be good if RTG mentioned what test setup data he's looking for. Is it a baseline measurement for the device? Is it a picture of how the power cables are routed?

 

[theveterans]

^ I wouldn't really consider his measurements as reference since even switching a generic USB cable to a different length resulted to different jitter results on one of his tests which I consider a sign of their measurement setup not being reliable since they cannot eliminate the other variables that makes the measurements worse than it should. If anything, I trust atomicbob's measurements since IMO he controlled the other variables that can bias the results while Amir didn't.

 

[Rtg97229]

RTG started off with "I'd throw your measurements in the trash".... not "extremely diplomatic." However his point is important. Where is the detailed test setup data? Amir has a test setup section he's linked to that describes his machines and a picture of his test room. But that's not really the same as detailed test setup data since he seems qualified to do so. It would be good if RTG mentioned what test setup data he's looking for. Is it a baseline measurement for the device? Is it a picture of how the power cables are routed?

That was me talking about what I would do if I got the equivalent documentation for a calibration of my work equipment. Sorry if that was unclear. I had already had a lot of back and forth with Amir about documentation that started here on head-fi and extended to his forum. In my line of work documentation is very important because you need to have repeatability. I actually expected, initially at least, that Amir would be excited to improve his documentation. For the application I think atomicbob did well in listing the equipment used in taking the measurements in an easy to identify format. As for what I am looking for in his test setup, sorry to sound stubborn but I am looking for the minimum documentation necessary (by engineering standards) for someone to be able to repeat his test setup. If a retest offers different results and you do not have sufficient documentation for one of the reports, sorry to say but I think people know what to do with the report lacking documentation.

 

[garbulky]

^ I wouldn't really consider his measurements as reference since even switching a generic USB cable to a different length resulted to different jitter results on one of his tests which I consider a sign of their measurement setup not being reliable since they cannot eliminate the other variables that makes the measurements worse than it should. If anything, I trust atomicbob's measurements since IMO he controlled the other variables that can bias the results while Amir didn't.

How do we know? We didn't see his test setup either. Also Amir mentioned that other DACs were not sensitive to it in testing. Which imo makes this DAC sensitive to it vs the other dacs. Not a good sign for a USB input.

That was me talking about what I would do if I got the equivalent documentation for a calibration of my work equipment. Sorry if that was unclear. I had already had a lot of back and forth with Amir about documentation that started here on head-fi and extended to his forum. In my line of work documentation is very important because you need to have repeatability. I actually expected, initially at least, that Amir would be excited to improve his documentation. For the application I think atomicbob did well in listing the equipment used in taking the measurements in an easy to identify format. As for what I am looking for in his test setup, sorry to sound stubborn but I am looking for the minimum documentation necessary (by engineering standards) for someone to be able to repeat his test setup. If a retest offers different results and you do not have sufficient documentation for one of the reports, sorry to say but I think people know what to do with the report lacking documentation.

I understand. I suggest you list the minimum documentation is necessary. Because afaik in that test setup thread he has as far as he's concerned he did list the setup information that he thought was relevant. So if you get specific as he asked, he may actualyl follow through. I asked about measuring after significant warm up time and so he did post (just one) result after re-running the test after warm up for 24 hours even though he didn't think it was necessary.

I don't object to you saying toss it in the trash. But just saying that would probably annoy somebody if you were trying to be diplomatic. Same way it would annoy a seasoned designer like Mike if some measurements only poster like Amir comes up to his thread calling his dac poorly performing and not performing up to specs calling in to question his competence.

 

[winders]

But the thoughts of the ad line of mission critical 21 bit precise no fudging DAC and the behavior of the owners strikes me poorly.

Seriously? You still don't get that that linearity charts has very little to do with makes the DAC 21 bits? And you don't like like how Jason and Mike treated Amir? I think they were better than they could have been or maybe even should have been.

 

[garbulky]

Seriously? You still don't get that that linearity charts has very little to do with makes the DAC 21 bits?

You're right I don't. Please tell me what does if you know. And please tell me why linearity charts have little to do with it.

 

[Rtg97229]

I understand. I suggest you list the minimum documentation is necessary. Because afaik in that test setup thread he has as far as he's concerned he did list the setup information that he thought was relevant. So if you get specific as he asked, he may actualyl follow through. I asked about measuring after significant warm up time and so he did post (just one) result after re-running the test after warm up for 24 hours even though he didn't think it was necessary.

I don't object to you saying toss it in the trash. But just saying that would probably annoy somebody if you were trying to be diplomatic. Same way it would annoy a seasoned designer like Mike if some measurements only poster like Amir comes up to his thread calling his dac poorly performing and not performing up to specs calling in to question his competence.

I tried multiple times to give Amir clear suggestions on how to improve his documentation. He posted a thread that was better than nothing but not the level of documentation that atomicbob offered and that was not overwhelming people with documentation, just enough to explain what he had done and possibly repeat his test. In general if something of interest is found while measuring a device engineers start documenting more.

 

[garbulky]

I tried multiple times to give Amir clear suggestions on how to improve his documentation. He posted a thread that was better than nothing but not the level of documentation that atomicbob offered and that was not overwhelming people with documentation, just enough to explain what he had done and possibly repeat his test. In general if something of interest is found while measuring a device engineers start documenting more.

I must have missed it. So what were the details you wanted? You can PM me them if you like. I agree that even though I don't know what test details to look for what he posted seemed just to be a list of equipment.

 

[garbulky]

I tried multiple times to give Amir clear suggestions on how to improve his documentation. He posted a thread that was better than nothing but not the level of documentation that atomicbob offered and that was not overwhelming people with documentation, just enough to explain what he had done and possibly repeat his test. In general if something of interest is found while measuring a device engineers start documenting more.

Oh so those are the details. He is out of the correct calibration date. He suggests people compare his measuremnets only to the other dacs he measured due to this. He believes out of calibration may result in errors of 1 db. He has posted a picture of his test setup. But I don't see a noise floor test. However I see several of his test display a noise floor from DACs lower than what some of the Schiit DACs had.

 

[Ableza]

I've been trying to stay out of the argument/discussion about someone's measurements on some other forum I know nothing about, and what they might or might not mean. But I will say one thing concerning bit depth and the discussion above. The practical effect of bit depth is it determines the dynamic range of the signal and the S/N of the device. In theory, a 24-bit digital audio signal has a maximum dynamic range of a little over 144db, and 16-bit is approx. 96db. The S/N of a digital device demonstrates it's practical bit depth capability. According to the Schiit website Yggdrasil is rated (I have not measured it) at >119db S/N, which calculates to approximately 21 bits. Linearity is not a determinant of bit depth.

 

[433521]

Having seen several of his measurements. I doubt his tests are having some sort of major error. Or at least if they are, the majority of other DACs are measuring better on the same tests. Including units that cost a $120. He mentioned that he measured a previous dac just before (Berkley Alpha?) and all that took was a switch of the cable.

I don't know what significanc sine wave tests have, but I assume at least some. But listening tests should be done too, blind, not a/b long term. why are these not done?

 

[winders]

You're right I don't. Please tell me what does if you know. And please tell me why linearity charts have little to do with it.

He said it better than I could:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...n-robert-hunter.784471/page-473#post-14054065

Then look at the SNR measurements here:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/yggdrasil-technical-measurements.764787/

 

[garbulky]

I've been trying to stay out of the argument/;discussion about someone's measurements on some other forum I know nothing about, and what they might or might not mean. But I will say one thing concerning bit depth and the discussion above. The practical effect of bit depth is it determines the dynamic range of the signal and the S/N of the device. In theory, a 24-bit digital audio signal has a maximum dynamic range of a little over 144db, and 16-bit is approx. 96db. The S/N of a digital device demonstrates it's practical bit depth capability. According to the Schiit website Yggdrasil is rated (I have not measured it) at >119db S/N, which calculates to approximately 21 bits. Linearity is not a determinant of bit depth.

Information I did not know! Either I'm misintepreting the part where they talk about bit depth bit on the graphs with linearity on that website or there's something that I'm not getting or there is a serious misrepresentation of data. I'm a member over there. I plan to check with them.

Now my current dac has a s/n ratio of 115 db @ 24 bit sample rates. How would I calculate the bit depth of that? Also would this mean the current new generation like up of mainstraem dacs appear to have SN ratios around 120 db a weighted like the Oppo Sonica. Does that mean they have a larger bit depth than the Yggy?

Also an aside, I see that Schiit has changed its feature description.
On the wayback machine from last year for Yggy, they state "21 Bits, No Guessing: Mission-Critical D/A Technology"/
Now the same headline on the features says "Mission-Critical D/A Tech, Discrete Class A Analog 2 Output". Maybe it was to insert the ad for analog 2 output. However 24 bits, no guessing is missing. Was it due to linearity problems in those graphs?
However they do mention the DAC has 21 bits of resolution on the top heading in both.

 

[Ableza]

Now my current dac has a s/n ratio of 115 db @ 24 bit sample rates. How would I calculate the bit depth of that? Also would this mean the current new generation like up of mainstraem dacs appear to have SN ratios around 120 db a weighted like the Oppo Sonica. Does that mean they have a larger bit depth than the Yggy?

This means they are not telling the whole story. The DAC CHIP they use might be capable of 24 bits, but if the DEVICE has a S/N of 115db, then it has an effective bit depth of about 18.9 bits. The difference between 119db S/N and 120db S/N is less than 1 bit. The basic formula is SNR = (6.02N) +1.76dB where N is the number of effective bits.