Schiit Asgard 3 Headphone Amp & DAC Review

[JohnYang1997]

To make a Heresy with Asgard power (single ended) you will need opamps with at least +/-22V rails. (these do exist but not spec'd as high)
The OPA1688 can only be used up to +/-18V rails.
The difference to Heresy is only 3.5dB though (1.5dB for low impedance)

Also to increase power in low impedance headphones you will need more opamps in parallel.

Or flying supply.

 

[solderdude]

But then it wouldn't be a Heresy no more

 

[T.M.Noble]

I know, @solderdude pointed it out already. This was before my first morning’s coffee so that’s my excuse.

In terms of the general sentiment that this is a “smooth” and “warm” sounding amp, it’s not just the subjective reviewers. This is how the Asgard 3's designer described the last step in its development: “It was a completely different amp. Warmer, fuller, more harmonically complex...the timbre was much improved. It sounded...well, like a Class A amp.”

I really don’t want to start an argument here - I know Jason is great at marketing but he is also an excellent engineer and I think he genuinely believes that the Asgard 3 is a harmonically complex amp, even though its distortion profile does not suggest that any of these harmonics are actually audible. My question to @T.M.Noble as Schiit's representative is whether there are any measurements that can demonstrate whether this amp sounds different compared to say the Heresy even though they both measure well enough that their distortion should not be audible at all.

For example, I truly believe that my HD800S sounds less sibilant through the Asgard 3 compared to when I used it with the Heresy. I just want to know whether it is all in my head because I read what Jason said about the amp before I got it, or whether there is actually any concreted scientific evidence to back up this assertion.

Why not ask me a hard question!? If I could give you a sufficient quantitative answer right now, I could dismantle the subjectivist/ objectivist distinction (a philosophical dream). Honestly, my best guess is that each amp has a different distortion profile and some humans are more sensitive or prefer different levels or types of distortion. I have been trying to do a bit of research into how we can quantify subjective hearing preferences but I am far too unqualified to give a decent response. I will let you know what the mad scientists think next time I talk to them.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Why not ask me a hard question!? If I could give you a sufficient quantitative answer right now, I could dismantle the subjectivist/ objectivist distinction (a philosophical dream). Honestly, my best guess is that each amp has a different distortion profile and some humans are more sensitive or prefer different levels or types of distortion. I have been trying to do a bit of research into how we can quantify subjective hearing preferences but I am far too unqualified to give a decent response. I will let you know what the mad scientists think next time I talk to them.

dbl blind test?

 

[T.M.Noble]

dbl blind test?

We have done this multiple times at the Schiitr, including myself. With a soon to come out product, I did seven individual tests double blind in the office with a bunch of our employees. I correctly picked the amp I like seven out of seven times. I also did this in a double blind "tube listening" at our listening room where I correctly identified 1 out of 8 6SN7 tubes five times in a row. I get lucky sometimes.

I am actually trying to move forward with making these double blind tests easier and very transparent. I do think there are individuals that can accurately identify specific audio equipment. I also believe in confirmation bias and the placebo effect. In the end, I am certainly interested in more double blind tests.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

We have done this multiple times at the Schiitr, including myself. With a soon to come out product, I did seven individual tests double blind in the office with a bunch of our employees. I correctly picked the amp I like seven out of seven times. I also did this in a double blind "tube listening" at our listening room where I correctly identified 1 out of 8 6SN7 tubes five times in a row. I get lucky sometimes.

I am actually trying to move forward with making these double blind tests easier and very transparent. I do think there are individuals that can accurately identify specific audio equipment. I also believe in confirmation bias and the placebo effect. In the end, I am certainly interested in more double blind tests.

That's great. The more double blind testing the better afaic. The question I would ask wrt the test you refer to would be did the items you were testing also measure within what would generally be considered inaudible parameters? Specifically, if we're talking about amps, and in this case the Asgard and the Heresy...2 pieces of equipment that measure neutral, and have distortion levels well within the range of in-audibility, I wouldn't pay any attention at all to descriptions of one being "warmer and less clinical" than the other unless I'd seen some trust-worthy, volume-matched A/B testing done which showed that a difference could actually be identified. Short of that, I just assume the difference lives within the listener's imagination space.

Also, while I have no doubt you are telling the truth and I appreciate that you are doing dbl blind testing, I'm sure you can understand why I might be reluctant to grant a lot of significance to anecdotal references to testing by manufacturers of their own products. Ideally, I'd actually like to be able to see the testing being done...and have some sort of neutral party oversight.

 

[Vini darko]

We have done this multiple times at the Schiitr, including myself. With a soon to come out product, I did seven individual tests double blind in the office with a bunch of our employees. I correctly picked the amp I like seven out of seven times. I also did this in a double blind "tube listening" at our listening room where I correctly identified 1 out of 8 6SN7 tubes five times in a row. I get lucky sometimes.

I am actually trying to move forward with making these double blind tests easier and very transparent. I do think there are individuals that can accurately identify specific audio equipment. I also believe in confirmation bias and the placebo effect. In the end, I am certainly interested in more double blind tests.

But we're you blindfolded, spun around while hopping on one leg and singing "She sells sea shells on the sea shore"? otherwise it's not science.

 

[T.M.Noble]

But we're you blindfolded, spun around while hopping on one leg and singing "She sells sea shells on the sea shore"? otherwise it's not science.

I prefer a few glasses of wine with my scientism.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

But we're you blindfolded, spun around while hopping on one leg and singing "She sells sea shells on the sea shore"? otherwise it's not science.

lol..yes, because "this one is warmer and less clinical than the one I heard last week or last month which measures the same" is highly scientific.

 

[T.M.Noble]

That's great. The more double blind testing the better afaic. The question I would ask wrt the test you refer to would be did the items you were testing also measure within what would generally be considered inaudible parameters? Specifically, if we're talking about amps, and in this case the Asgard and the Heresy...2 pieces of equipment that measure neutral, and have distortion levels well within the range of in-audibility, I wouldn't pay any attention at all to descriptions of one being "warmer and less clinical" than the other unless I'd seen some trust-worthy, volume-matched A/B testing done which showed that a difference could actually be identified. Short of that, I just assume the difference lives within the listener's imagination space.

Also, while I have no doubt you are telling the truth and I appreciate that you are doing dbl blind testing, I'm sure you can understand why I might be reluctant to grant a lot of significance to anecdotal references to testing by manufacturers of their own products. Ideally, I'd actually like to be able to see the testing being done...and have some sort of neutral party oversight.

Agreed. No one should simply take anecdotal evidence and proof positive of anything. It very well could be placed directly in my imagination. This is why I am trying to push for better A/B listening. More to come.

 

[T.M.Noble]

lol..yes, because "this one is warmer and more clinical than the one I heard last week or last month which measures the same" is highly scientific.

But you would agree if ones experience allows them to accurately identify A over B, that would be scientific, correct?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

But you would agree if ones experience allows them to accurately identify A over B, that would be scientific, correct?

Specifically what experience are you referring to? You mean if a person is reliably able to identify one item from another in a properly set up (a critical factor btw) double-blind test? Sure, that's far more meaningful than claims about hearing this or that distinction between two things which measure the same.

I own both the Liquid Spark and the Heresy amps. I owned the LS for some time before getting the Heresy. The LS sounds great. I have no issue with it at all...love the thing. However, the Heresy is inexpensive, and it measures in the upper echelon (better than the LS) so I bought it. Having had it for a couple months now, I think it sounds phenomenal. But by no means would I ever make any claims about it sounding better than the LS because I haven't even plugged the LS in since I got the Heresy. I should. In fact I should try and set up my own dbl blind test and see if I can identify a difference. I'm reasonably certain I wouldn't be able to though - and that's between 2 amps that actually measure a little differently. One thing I would note though is that the LS has an absolutely sublime volume knob! The Heresy doesn't come close in that regard! lol

 

[T.M.Noble]

Specifically what experience are you referring to? You mean if a person is reliably able to identify one item from another in a properly set up (a critical factor btw) double-blind test? Sure, that's far more meaningful than claims about hearing this or that distinction between two things which measure the same.

And that is what we need to examine. The claim is this amp is too bright and the other too clinical, etc. I want to know if that subjective experience is reliable enough to test frequently. I want to know how many, if any , audio sommeliers we have amongst us.

 

[majingotan]

Need some good ABX comparator for DBT test like the AVA ABX comparator along with 0.01 dB volume matched test with random unfamiliar tracks at 10-30 second interval to ensure minimal bias in evaluation

 

[T.M.Noble]

Need some good ABX comparator for DBT test like the AVA ABX comparator along with 0.01 dB volume matched test with random unfamiliar tracks at 10-30 second interval to ensure minimal bias in evaluation

Question: why would the time limit and unfamiliar tracks be necessary? That like asking a wine sommelier to tell me the region and varietal but they can only have one sip and must spit it out immediately.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

And that is what we need to examine. The claim is this amp is too bright and the other too clinical, etc. I want to know if that subjective experience is reliable enough to test frequently. I want to know how many, if any , audio sommeliers we have amongst us.

I'm not sure what the above statement means. You want to know if a subjective experience is "reliable enough" to test frequently? Here's how I look at it...

1 - any two audio components in a given category (amp, dac, whatever) that measure the same, sound the same.

2- any difference in sound can be proven through good, properly constructed dbl-blind testing.

3 - short of 2, see 1.


A subjective experience comparing 2 components that actually measure differently to a degree that looks audible I have no issue with. But when it comes to items that measure essentially the same as far as audibility is concerned I'd need to see convincing evidence that any difference could be heard.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Question: why would the time limit and unfamiliar tracks be necessary? That like asking a wine sommelier to tell me the region and varietal but they can only have one sip and must spit it out immediately.

personally, I'm totally fine with familiar tracks being used and with the listener having complete control over the switch box and as much time as he/she wants to try and identify a difference.

 

[T.M.Noble]

I'm not sure what the above statement means. You want to know if a subjective experience is "reliable enough" to test frequently? Here's how I look at it...

1 - any two audio components in a given category (amp, dac, whatever) that measure the same, sound the same.

2- any difference in sound can be proven through good, properly constructed dbl-blind testing.

3 - short of 2, see 1.


A subjective experience comparing 2 components that actually measure differently to a degree that looks audible I have no issue with. But when it comes to items that measure essentially the same as far as audibility is concerned I'd need to see convincing evidence that any difference could be heard.

We are in complete agreement. I tend to wax poetic at times.

 

[Theriverlethe]

Question: why would the time limit and unfamiliar tracks be necessary? That like asking a wine sommelier to tell me the region and varietal but they can only have one sip and must spit it out immediately.

I agree. If someone claims he can identify X device with Y song, it’s worth testing.

 

[Veri]

Agreed. No one should simply take anecdotal evidence and proof positive of anything. It very well could be placed directly in my imagination. This is why I am trying to push for better A/B listening. More to come.

Interesting I wonder what more's to come!!