This is one of those philosophy things... so different people will feel differently about it.
I agree that Yggdrasil is a very different critter than the XMC-1.
It is also true that, in general, some equipment seems to do better at stereo music or at surround sound.
However, I do
NOT believe that this is
inherently true or
necessarily true.
Here's what I mean.
Everything has some sort of budget constraint. (Wanna buy a $986,000 DAC? I didn't think so.)
And, within budget constraints, products often do one thing better than another.
Most
STEREO DACs favor good sound quality - but obviously don't have all sorts of streaming clients, and bass management, and of course only do two channel.
Most surround sound pre/pros have all sorts of features, but the quality of the DACs they use isn't as good.
However, as far as I'm concerned, there is no absolute dissonance there.
As far as I'm concerned, the goal of all audio equipment should be absolute accuracy.
And, if you accept this, then a
perfect stereo DAC should sound exactly the same as the DAC in a
perfect surround sound pre/pro when playing in stereo - because both should be
perfectly accurate and
perfectly neutral.
The only reason this would not be the case would be if one or both of them has significant compromises, and if they have
different significant compromises.
The usual compromise would be that the surround sound device, which requires many channels of DACs, and a whole bunch of other circuitry, is either going to cost an awful lot more, or it's going to compromise on the individual parts.
And part of that usual compromise is that putting analog circuitry in the same box with a lot of digital processors tends to make it very difficult to avoid certain issues.
Note here that I am
NOT what some folks would call a subjectivist - in terms of results.
That term is used in two very different ways.
One usage is to suggest that you or I may
PREFER the way a certain piece of equipment sounds to another; and that cannot be disputed; we are each entitled to prefer whatever we like.
The other usage, which I consider to simply be logically invalid, is that there is no absolutely correct reference result.
If we were to compare the original performance, or even the original master tape, to what our equipment sounds like when playing it....
THERE IS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO A=B.
If two pieces of equipment sound different from each other, then either one of them is the same as the original, and the other is not, or neither of them is the same.
Logically.... two pieces of equipment
CANNOT sound different from each other, but both sound the same as a single third thing.
However, what can happen is that both have small flaws and errors, and they have
different flaws or errors, and you or I may consider the errors in one or the other to be more or less important.
(Some people are very sensitive to perfect pitch; others to small amounts of distortion; and ringing on transients seems to annoy some people a lot, while others barely notice it, if at all.)
My point of this long-winded logic demonstration is this:
I do
NOT agree that a pre/pro which sounds excellent in surround sound cannot
ALSO be an ideal two-channel DAC.
While it's true that delivering good two channel performance is more difficult in a device that is also required to perform all sorts of surround sound functions, it is
NOT impossible.
Therefore, I do
NOT agree that a single device like the XMC-1 cannot be
BOTH "an end game surround sound processor and an end game two channel DAC".
When operated in analog mode, the XMC-1 really does sound as good or better than many $1000 to $2000 analog preamps.
And, when operated in two channel mode, it really does sound as good or better than many $500 to $1000 DACs.
And, to be totally honest, I'm not sure that spending more for either actually gets you better sound quality much of the time... and I can absolutely state that, at least sometimes, it does not.
(Of course, the more closely something approaches "just plain doing what it's supposed to" the less likely it is that anything else, at any price, can do it "better".)
In this particular instance, I have
NOT had the opportunity to compare Yggdrasil to the DC-1 or the XMC-1 directly....
But, without doing so, I would not
ASSUME that either one is better than the other (when doing something they both do).
And I
ABSOLUTELY would not assume that to be the case based on claims of superior technology... or higher price.
I would withhold judgment until you hear it for yourself.
Now, if you have both the budget and the space, there can also be both advantages and disadvantages to having separate equipment for stereo and surround sound other than sound quality.
I'm going to buy a RMC-1 once it's available. I was also thinking on getting the Yggdrasil dac. Should I hold of on the dac and first hear how good the RMC-1's dac is or would the Yggdrasil be a step above regardless? Thanks
Those are two entirely different devices. RMC-1 is going to be an end-game home theater processor. It will have multi-channel DAC capability for digital inputs of course, but that is not its primary function. A stand-alone DAC is a way to improve the sound normally available from the built-in DACs on players or processors or receivers. Yggdrasil is a completely different type of DAC than what the RMC-1 or any other processor will include. Whether it sounds better or not is in the ear of the beholder, and it is a single input stereo only device. My recommendation is if you want end-game performance for both 2-channel and for multi-channel and HT, you'll likely want both.
