|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 27, 2015 16:29:18 GMT -5
For those of you who own or have heard this DAC ( DYohn ? - Others?), I understand that it's outstanding (and possibly in a category by itself) when dealing with higher frequency and high-bit-density audio streams. But I don't normally listen to "high-resolution" digital audio. Sometimes? Yes. Mostly? No. So my question: Is the Yggdrasil audibly superior on "red-book" CD-quality audio? If so, how? And if it's possible for you to explain, why? Thanks - Boomzilla |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 27, 2015 16:33:51 GMT -5
I listen to almost exclusively 16/44 material ripped from CDs. Yes, it is astounding and by far the best sounding DAC I have ever heard. It's possible because it is the first genuine bit-perfect DAC on the market regardless of the marketing hype other manufacturers may advertise. Plus the analog section is built without compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 27, 2015 16:38:49 GMT -5
It is not just a multibit DAC it has a completely new filter that took mathematiciains five years to develop. That's supposed to contribute to the sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutiarti on Nov 27, 2015 16:56:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 27, 2015 16:57:55 GMT -5
Not really. Audible superiority is a highly subjective term anyway in the first place, and, because the filter is digital so that it still processes the bits, "bit perfect" is a misnomer and a sales pitch.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 27, 2015 17:46:14 GMT -5
, and, because the filter is digital so that it still processes the bits, "bit perfect" is a misnomer and a sales pitch. Not in this case, for the first time ever. The math is closed, meaning there is no interpolation. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 27, 2015 18:27:04 GMT -5
, and, because the filter is digital so that it still processes the bits, "bit perfect" is a misnomer and a sales pitch. Not in this case, for the first time ever. The math is closed, meaning there is no interpolation. It is really nothing more than an implementation of the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 27, 2015 18:47:15 GMT -5
Not in this case, for the first time ever. The math is closed, meaning there is no interpolation. It is really nothing more than an implementation of the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filterNot according to Mike Moffatt, the designer:: "The below are the claims of the Digital Filter/Interpolator/Sample Rate Converter in the Yggy: 1. The filter is absolutely proprietary. 2. The development tools and coefficient calculator to derive the above filters are also proprietary. 3. The math involved in developing the filter and calculating has a closed form solution. It is not an approximation, as all other filters I have studied (most, if not all of them). Therefore, all of the original samples are output. This could be referred to fairly as bit perfect; what comes in goes out. 4. 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 that only Thetas and Yggys do. (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 5. This is combined with a frequency domain optimization which does not otherwise affect the phase optimization. The 0.968 of nyquist also gives us a small advantage that none of the off-the shelf FIR filters (0.907) provide: frequency response out to 21.344KHz, 42.688KHz, 85.3776KHz, and 170.5772KHz bandwidth for native 1,2,4, and 8x 44.1KHz SR multiple recordings - the 48KHz table is 23.232, 46.464, 92.868, and 185.856KHz respectively for 1,2,4, and 8x. This was the portion of the filter that had the divide by zero problem which John Lediaev worked out in 1983, to combine with #4 above AND retain the original samples. This is what the competition offers: 5. Frequency domain optimization FIR filters with Parks-McClellan optimization. The development tools for these types of filters can be downloaded for a price range of free to $300 on the internet. Parks-McClellan is the go to filter optimization for audio design. These filters are derived with no closed form math; only successive approximation. The original samples are lost. The output is approximated. An educated guess. This optimization is ubiquitous in the front end of delta sigma dacs as well as standalone digital filters. While there is no inherent phase shift within Parks-McClellan filters, there is no optimization of phase either. The listener is left with what remains from the mixing boards, transducers, brick-wall filters, etc which can and usually do destroy proper phase/position information. Finally, it is processor efficient and economical to implement. Read cheap. Any avoidance of the Parks-McClellan pablum requires a lot of original DSP work. Am I a prophet who received the tablets from God or some other high-end audio drivel. Hell, no. I was the producer and director of this project and worked with Dave Kerstetter (hardware-software), John Lediaev (Math), Tom Lippiat (DSP Code), Warren Goldman (Coefficient Generator and development tools) for a total of 15 or so man years. These folks either taught math at The University of Iowa, Computer Science at Carnegie-Mellon University, worked at think tanks like the Rand Corporation – you get the idea. We did this for no money - What we all had in common was that we loved audio. All other audio pros were interested in Parks-McClellan and pointed and laughed at us. That's the way it happened." |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 27, 2015 18:52:19 GMT -5
All this perfection , wasted on speakers typically with 5% distortion at best. Sigh.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 27, 2015 20:19:09 GMT -5
Not according to Mike Moffatt, the designer:: "The below are the claims of the Digital Filter/Interpolator/Sample Rate Converter in the Yggy: 1. The filter is absolutely proprietary. 2. The development tools and coefficient calculator to derive the above filters are also proprietary. 3. The math involved in developing the filter and calculating has a closed form solution. It is not an approximation, as all other filters I have studied (most, if not all of them). Therefore, all of the original samples are output. This could be referred to fairly as bit perfect; what comes in goes out. 4. 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 that only Thetas and Yggys do. (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 5. This is combined with a frequency domain optimization which does not otherwise affect the phase optimization. The 0.968 of nyquist also gives us a small advantage that none of the off-the shelf FIR filters (0.907) provide: frequency response out to 21.344KHz, 42.688KHz, 85.3776KHz, and 170.5772KHz bandwidth for native 1,2,4, and 8x 44.1KHz SR multiple recordings - the 48KHz table is 23.232, 46.464, 92.868, and 185.856KHz respectively for 1,2,4, and 8x. This was the portion of the filter that had the divide by zero problem which John Lediaev worked out in 1983, to combine with #4 above AND retain the original samples. This is what the competition offers: 5. Frequency domain optimization FIR filters with Parks-McClellan optimization. The development tools for these types of filters can be downloaded for a price range of free to $300 on the internet. Parks-McClellan is the go to filter optimization for audio design. These filters are derived with no closed form math; only successive approximation. The original samples are lost. The output is approximated. An educated guess. This optimization is ubiquitous in the front end of delta sigma dacs as well as standalone digital filters. While there is no inherent phase shift within Parks-McClellan filters, there is no optimization of phase either. The listener is left with what remains from the mixing boards, transducers, brick-wall filters, etc which can and usually do destroy proper phase/position information. Finally, it is processor efficient and economical to implement. Read cheap. Any avoidance of the Parks-McClellan pablum requires a lot of original DSP work. Am I a prophet who received the tablets from God or some other high-end audio drivel. Hell, no. I was the producer and director of this project and worked with Dave Kerstetter (hardware-software), John Lediaev (Math), Tom Lippiat (DSP Code), Warren Goldman (Coefficient Generator and development tools) for a total of 15 or so man years. These folks either taught math at The University of Iowa, Computer Science at Carnegie-Mellon University, worked at think tanks like the Rand Corporation – you get the idea. We did this for no money - What we all had in common was that we loved audio. All other audio pros were interested in Parks-McClellan and pointed and laughed at us. That's the way it happened." The first paragraph in the article linked below explains why the use of a closed-form solution in order to derive the filter does not in any way imply that the actual output of this filter is not just an approximation. mathworld.wolfram.com/Closed-FormSolution.htmlA real-world digital filter can never have an infinite delay because else the filter would take literally forever to compute the output, obviously, so in practice the Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula must be replaced with something different, the output of which can be only an approximation of the ideal-world output that only the actual Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula itself could, in an ideal world, produce. |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 27, 2015 20:34:20 GMT -5
All this perfection , wasted on speakers typically with 5% distortion at best. Sigh. Which type of perfection are you talking about?  |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 28, 2015 10:56:26 GMT -5
Well obviously you know more than the inventor of the idea of a stand-alone DAC, so enjoy your infinite wisdom. Me, I'll enjoy the music.
|
|
|
|
Post by dga on Nov 28, 2015 11:17:19 GMT -5
I've owned the Yggy since August, almost exclusively reading Redbook rips and streaming Tidal (won't go there). I'm sure this is too dramatic but the soundstage, dynamics and detail are off the planet. The weight and precision of each instrument makes music sound very real.
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 28, 2015 12:02:43 GMT -5
Well obviously you know more than the inventor of the idea of a stand-alone DAC, so enjoy your infinite wisdom. Me, I'll enjoy the music. Infinite wisdom, not quite. Basic knowledge of whether 2 + 2 = 4, arguably yes, and, enjoying the music ain't no bout a doubt it!  |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 28, 2015 12:29:51 GMT -5
Well obviously you know more than the inventor of the idea of a stand-alone DAC, so enjoy your infinite wisdom. Me, I'll enjoy the music. Infinite wisdom, not quite. Basic knowledge of whether 2 + 2 = 4, arguably yes, To learn how 2+2 really can equal 4 (rather than ~3.68 in a typical delta-sigma DAC) you should contact Mike Moffatt at Schiit Audio. He might be willing to clear up your incorrect assumptions about his designs. schiit.com/contact |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Nov 28, 2015 12:47:06 GMT -5
Pass the popcorn, please
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Nov 28, 2015 12:51:00 GMT -5
Affirmative.  |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 28, 2015 13:20:52 GMT -5
What a VERY interesting read! Their conclusion is that the multi-bit Gungnar is virtually indistinguishable from the Yggy! Being the cheapskate that I am... Comments? |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 28, 2015 13:30:44 GMT -5
What a VERY interesting read! Their conclusion is that the multi-bit Gungnar is virtually indistinguishable from the Yggy! Being the cheapskate that I am... Comments? I prefer to use the word,,,,,,,,,frugal,,,,,,,he,,,,,,he,,,,,,,he,,,,,,, OK,,,OK,,,,,,,Very Frugal!!  |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 28, 2015 14:03:07 GMT -5
What a VERY interesting read! Their conclusion is that the multi-bit Gungnar is virtually indistinguishable from the Yggy! Being the cheapskate that I am... Comments? No!! That is one review ...WITHOUT A DEDICATED PREAMP in their testing tested with a $200 45 watt amplfiier. Literally! The Yggy is their flagship and for good reason. You don't want to be "underwhelmed" do you? The yggy has FOUR $100 DACS in it. Four! DUAL power supplies! The gungnir is reverse engineered to work with multibit architecture. It also has a lower SNR spec two dac chip on it versus the yggy's higher spec four dac unit. The yggy is built for it from the ground up to do just that with the best components they could get. The designer said the yggy is the best DAC he can make at the price. And 99.9% the best dac he can make at any price. He never mentioned the gungir multibit in that sentence. You already believe you have more or less a world class source. You want to beat it....you want the best.... get the best. And that's the yggy not the gungnir. |
|
