Measurement and Review of Schiit BiFrost Multibit DAC

[Dismayed]

@Dismayed , I think you are - in our modern society - on a wrong foot. @rebbiputzmaker is entitled to have his opinion and diffuse his opinion.

In fact, modern social science is built on the foundation that we’re all transactional agents, diffusing information when we transact in the market place. Transaction price is the key here. The market is one big information processor, more capable than any human. Modern social science has become information theory and science. In such a world there is no such thing as right or wrong as per expert judgment. Measurements become obsolete.

Do you see my point? @rebbiputzmaker simply exercises and reflects what’s become state of the art social science. The fact that Schiit sells lots of units at these price points is all the evidence we need in order to judge said company and products.

If you are old school - and not accustomed to modern society where experts are not needed anymore - you are out of tune, like a computer that needs firmware update to eradicate the glitch you represent in an orderly society.

PS: Though I was a bit amused when I wrote this text, it contains some food for thought. It shows what happens when a specific social theory after a while becomes normative behaviour in society.

LOL! So how did the Merck Vioxx recall happen? The VW diesel scandal? Dell computer battery fires? The Hasbro Easy Bake Oven recall? Takata Airbag recall? Impossible if markets are always right! I could go on . . .

I was educated in the hard sciences - chemistry (completed all coursework for a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, but didn't write a dissertation). And I have an MBA from U Chicago Booth School, so I'm fairly well versed in social science, too. So you're really arguing that markets are always right. The problem here is that you mis-understand Fama's efficient market hypothesis. Markets, in the strongest form of efficiency, accurately incorporate all public and private information. That would include all information, including expert opinions and measurements. Markets do not function properly in an information void.

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading.

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
~ Douglas Adams

 

[svart-hvitt]

LOL! I was educated in the hard sciences - chemistry. And I have an MBA form U Chicago Booth School, so I'm fairly well versed in social science, too. So you're really arguing that markets are always right. The problem here is that you mis-understand Fama's efficient market hypothesis. Markets, in the strongest form of efficiency, accurately incorporate all public and private information. That would include all information, including expert opinions and measurements.

Perhaps you should do a bit more reading.

I don’t need more reading on this front. What I said is neoliberal dogma. Neoloberalism is institution (in Veblen’s definition of institutions).

I tried to use sarcasm and irony in my post; I guess it’s sometimes hard to get attempts at linguistic shots across the internet

However, you make a big error in your reasoning. Because experts are, inevitably, in minority in the market place - what use is there for experts?
Long live Wikipedia; Encyclopedia Britannica sucks!

Haven’t we all the feeling that society’s view on experts is deteriorating? How come this deterioration in standing? That’s food for thought, right?

And I think @rebbiputzmaker illustrates my point. He needs no expert tell him what to think.

 

[Dismayed]

I don’t need more reading on this front. What I said is neoliberal dogma. Neoloberalism is institution (in Veblen’s definition of institutions).

I tried to use sarcasm and irony in my post; I guess it’s sometimes hard to get attempts at linguistic shots across the internet

However, you make a big error in your reasoning. Because experts are, inevitably, in minority in the market place - what use is there for experts?
Long live Wikipedia; Encyclopedia Britannica sucks!

Haven’t we all the feeling that society’s view on experts is deteriorating? How come this deterioration in standing? That’s food for thought, right?

And I think @rebbiputzmaker illustrates my point. He needs no expert tell him what to think.

You have been exposed - you do not understand the efficient market hypothesis that you are attempting to bandy about. You may claim that your post was sarcasm or irony, but you have already shown that you do not understand what you are talking about.

 

[svart-hvitt]

You have been exposed - you do not understand the efficient market hypothesis that you are attempting to bandy about. You may claim that your post was sarcasm or irony, but you have already shown that you do not understand what you are talking about.

I didn’t mention the EMH; you did. I used the words «neoliberal», «Veblen institutions» and «dogma». EMH is part of neoliberalism, deep inside, but it’s not the same.

In EMH lingo one should always use the term «informationally efficient» to draw its limits. However an «ism» doesn’t need to be as clear; it’s even better for an «ism» to appeal to people’s imagination.

This is a bit complicated, really. I just wanted to cast a light on @rebbiputzmaker ’s reasoning, which is of the modern, expert hating kind.

 

[Dismayed]

I didn’t mention the EMH; you did. I used the words «neoliberal», «Veblen institutions» and «dogma». EMH is part of neoliberalism, Deep inside, but it’s not the same.

In EMH lingo one should always use the term «informationally efficient» to draw its limits. However an «ism» doesn’t need to be as clear; it’s even better for an «ism» to appeal to people’s imagination.

This is a bit complicated, really. I just wanted to cast a light on @rebbiputzmaker ’s reasoning, which is of the modern, expert hating kind.

Your argument that markets get things right implies the EMH. What alternative hypothesis do you propose? Magic? Yes, it's complicated if you don't have the background to discuss it, and if you haven't read the academic research that I've read. So keep posturing. It's actually pretty amusing to watch you twist what was said into knots.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Your argument that markets get things right implies the EMH. What alternative hypothesis do you propose? Magic? Yes, it's complicated if you don't have the background to discuss it, and if you haven't read the academic research that I've read. So keep posturing. It's actually pretty amusing to watch you twist what was said into knots.

@Dismayed , why these aggressive words?

However, it's interesting that we're on the same page regarding schitty products, but on different planets when we try and understand why @rebbiputzmaker thinks the way he and many more schiit people do.

You wrote above that you have an MBA from Chicago. I guess it's to show that you know EMH very well because Eugene Fama is the EMH father and works at Chicago. But don't you see the inconsistency here? How is it that one can get a special insight into a theory (hypothesis) because one studies at the same school as the theory's father? What characterizes theory, is that it's general and can be taught and learned everywhere, far away from the theory's "inventor". To explain the difference between general theory from the hard sciences and soft theory from the social sciences: Iran uses the same principles of physics as the U.S. in its atomic program, but uses very different principles to form its society, right?

I guess your mentioning of Chicago and your insistence to talk about EMH is because you deep inside know that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is untestable, unverifiable. So EMH is not science in many people's view. It's more like a guiding principle when thinking about a problem, i.e. more philosophy than "hard science". And we all know that you better study close to a philophy's father because philosophy is less general, in many ways more complicated than say Ohm's law.

In 2013, Fama received the so-called Nobel prize in economics, to share with Robert Shiller (note that the economics Nobel is not a real Nobel; it's a marketing ploy initiated by Riksbanken to further a specific research program in the social sciences). While Fama has made his career around EMH, Shiller made his career on the opposite; i.e. proving that markets are prone to bubbles, that you can foresee market crashes etc. This is as if a physics Nobel were to be shared between one who based his work on Ohm's law, while the other based his work on Ohm's law being outright wrong. Or one Nobel prize winner advocating spending money on cables whereas another advocates money spent on active speakers.

In other words, an MBA is a tool to get a well-paid job. It's got nothing to do with developing the student's ability to think critically, below the surface. I used to be an economist but now I am an uneconomist; it takes much more time and effort to undo than do.

To get back on track again: My initial comment on @rebbiputzmaker was an attempt to stimulate one's understanding of many people's hating of experts in contemporary society. Being skeptical to experts is widespread in modern age. As soon as experts are regarded obsolete, who needs measurements in audio?

How did we come here? I recommend this book on the subject:

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190270056.001.0001/acprof-9780190270056

A primer on the similar - but not entirely same subject - is this one:

https://www.amazon.com/More-Heat-than-Light-Perspectives/dp/0521426898

 

[Cosmik]

Let's say, for argument sake, that a well-designed and executed DBT for 2 pieces of hardware with identical costs, failure rates, etc. is conducted and the statistical results show that a certain piece of gear is consistently favored by listeners. In addition, you participated in the DBT...and you learn post-test that you consistently favored this piece of gear as well.

However, the preferred piece of gear doesn't 'measure' as well as the other. Are you saying, that all other parameters being equal, you'd choose the gear that measured better over the one that you and the sample determined to sound better?

Yes. I strongly suspect that in certain circumstances I, and other people, might be fooled into liking a box that applied Super Stereo Chorus Fuzz Reverb (TM) to the signal. However, I don't know how long that infatuation would last, nor whether it would be applicable to all music.

As a result, if a DAC was offered with built in Super Stereo Chorus Fuzz Reverb, I wouldn't buy it because it isn't actually a DAC; it is an effects box. If I want an effects box I will buy one. On the other hand, a DAC has a clearly defined purpose and measurements confirm whether it meets it or not. I would buy something as simple as a DAC on specs alone. I could then apply Super Stereo Chorus Fuzz Reverb with a separate box or some software that I could turn on or off.

 

[Jinjuku]

It makes zero sense to argue something with the inane. No person in there right mind uses a audio computer the way some have described here and blame the dac for buffer under runs or other sonic aberrations.

You're not making any sense. We are talking about multiple people with the Schiit's having the same exact problems. Playback glitching and computer operations such as file saves coming through the speakers.

 

[Jinjuku]

That is totally different from playing a game or watching porn on a computer and when there are interrupt issues you blame the externally connected device.

Sure you do:

If the same model exhibits the problem else where and when you use a $79 Behringer it all goes away. How can you be so obtuse?

 

[Jinjuku]

If someone actually presented an grounding noise issue in a factual manor this would be a different discussion.

That would be a good start.

Archimago already did this type of data collection with several different Ethernet cables and showed no meaningful differences.

 

[Thomas savage]

@Dismayed , I think you are - in our modern society - on a wrong foot. @rebbiputzmaker is entitled to have his opinion and diffuse his opinion.

In fact, modern social science is built on the foundation that we’re all transactional agents, diffusing information when we transact in the market place. Transaction price is the key here. The market is one big information processor, more capable than any human. Modern social science has become information theory and science. In such a world there is no such thing as right or wrong as per expert judgment. Measurements become obsolete.

Do you see my point? @rebbiputzmaker simply exercises and reflects what’s become state of the art social science. The fact that Schiit sells lots of units at these price points is all the evidence we need in order to judge said company and products.

If you are old school - and not accustomed to modern society where experts are not needed anymore - you are out of tune, like a computer that needs firmware update to eradicate the glitch you represent in an orderly society.

PS: Though I was a bit amused when I wrote this text, it contains some food for thought. It shows what happens when a specific social theory after a while becomes normative behaviour in society.

Ah all the wisdom of a 117 year old...

 

[svart-hvitt]

Ah all the wisdom of a 117 year old...

I think it's imprudent, invasion of privacy to ask about age, like you do when registering on ASR.

Maybe that's because there are so few ladies here?

 

[GearMe]

Properly designed double blind tests are also a form of measurement. And some forms of distortion sound good - tube amplifiers are an obvious example. So I am completely open to the possibility that I, and others, may prefer gear that measure less well than other gear.

But that is different than the problems that I had with the Schiit Bifrost. Noise and garbled sound during file saves was unpleasant, and it meant that I could not multi-task on my computer if listening to music was one of my preferred tasks.

Thanks for the reply. My sense is that some folks on this forum are more focused on which piece of equipment measures better at the expense of all else...potentially even their own listening experience?! While that is totally their right as a consumer, my buying criteria don't align with this approach.


TBH, I'd enjoy seeing a slew of DBT comparisons for Multibit, FPGA, DS, etc. DACs. Assuming the equipment tested met some reasonable basic measurements, my bet is that Subjectivists wouldn't be able to discern their pet equipment (Multibit, FPGA, etc.) and Objectivists wouldn't be able to discern their better measuring DS gear.

IMO, the majority of decent audio gear (dacs, amps, etc.) does a good enough job reproducing the audio signal. And...as long as the gear doesn't fail, as apparently your Bifrost did, then it will serve its purpose well if 'properly' chosen for the intended use case.

Again, I've bought five pieces of low to mid-level Schiit gear (modi, magni, magni 3, bimby and valhalla 2) with no issues whatsoever. So...they have, indeed, served me well...as have the many other brands I've purchased.


For me, it's all about the Music and the transducers that reproduce it; learned this long ago when I had multiple 2 channel systems in my house. And...it still holds true to this day as I've migrated primarily to headphones.

I'm constantly amazed at the variety of enjoyable listening experiences that I'm able to have with the different headphones I've purchased...all for much less than the price of the limited number of 2 channel systems that I previously owned. Great time to be a Musicphile!

 

[drconopoima]

Thanks for the reply. My sense is that some folks on this forum are more focused on which piece of equipment measures better at the expense of all else...potentially even their own listening experience?! While that is totally their right as a consumer, my buying criteria don't align with this approach.

Cosmik's approach, which is the one I prefer as well, it's not really that alien of an approach to consider: If I really like the sound of a DAC that measures badly, I'll try to use it as an effects box to put after a real DAC that measures transparently. If I don't get the option to use it in that way, I won't consider it a DAC just because it replaces my DAC, it continues being an effects box, and one that doesn't work as a dedicated effects box but a picky/inconvenient one that needs to replace all equipment (making it more expensive than a similar effects box that does the equivalent signal manipulation in the analog domain to put in between your DAC and your headphones).

TBH, I'd enjoy seeing a slew of DBT comparisons for Multibit, FPGA, DS, etc. DACs. Assuming the equipment tested met some reasonable basic measurements, my bet is that Subjectivists wouldn't be able to discern their pet equipment (Multibit, FPGA, etc.) and Objectivists wouldn't be able to discern their better measuring DS gear.

I really would like to read this type of DBT of equipment. That said, I would bet that only 10 bits of resolution is an audible concern that both groups would discern, so the threshold in which both subjectivists and objectivists can't tell apart equipment would probably be a bit higher.

 

[Candlesticks]

Lmao they think @amirm is NwAvGuy just because he does measurements and understands graphs????? I guess I should buy an Audio Analyzer too, that will make me NwAvGuy too right? How many NwAvGuys can there be? Anyone who actually tests gear and understands performance characteristics are considered to be "listening with graphs"????
Their arguments are pretty damn poor lol

Of course he is nwavguy. He posts measurements with an expensive audio analyzer that doesn't make some products by Schiit look good! Atomicbob is entirely correct and Amirm is wrong because that is what impartial, totally not invested in a brand too much, people believe. No further investigation required.

@Dismayed , I think you are - in our modern society - on a wrong foot. @rebbiputzmaker is entitled to have his opinion and diffuse his opinion.

In fact, modern social science is built on the foundation that we’re all transactional agents, diffusing information when we transact in the market place. Transaction price is the key here. The market is one big information processor, more capable than any human. Modern social science has become information theory and science. In such a world there is no such thing as right or wrong as per expert judgment. Measurements become obsolete.

Do you see my point? @rebbiputzmaker simply exercises and reflects what’s become state of the art social science. The fact that Schiit sells lots of units at these price points is all the evidence we need in order to judge said company and products.

If you are old school - and not accustomed to modern society where experts are not needed anymore - you are out of tune, like a computer that needs firmware update to eradicate the glitch you represent in an orderly society.

PS: Though I was a bit amused when I wrote this text, it contains some food for thought. It shows what happens when a specific social theory after a while becomes normative behaviour in society.

Do you see my point? @rebbiputzmaker simply exercises and reflects what’s become state of the art social science. The fact that Schiit sells lots of units at these price points is all the evidence we need in order to judge said company and products.

Well I guess Beats By Dre Studio is the best headphone in the world then. It turns out product quality is entirely determined by popularity rather than a distinct property. This is brand apologetics and your posts can be recognized in their stupidity here. There is nothing worse to read than stupid arguments dressed up in verbose prose to camouflage how stupid they are. Please do not deceive yourself to think it is anything but.

 

[amirm]

Thanks for the reply. My sense is that some folks on this forum are more focused on which piece of equipment measures better at the expense of all else...potentially even their own listening experience?! While that is totally their right as a consumer, my buying criteria don't align with this approach.

TBH, I'd enjoy seeing a slew of DBT comparisons for Multibit, FPGA, DS, etc. DACs. Assuming the equipment tested met some reasonable basic measurements, my bet is that Subjectivists wouldn't be able to discern their pet equipment (Multibit, FPGA, etc.) and Objectivists wouldn't be able to discern their better measuring DS gear.

Thanks for your comments. What we look like in this moment is as you describe. But that doesn't describe the totality of the history of the forum and its missions.

If you look in past threads, you see plenty of listening tests presented and tons of discussions on results of such. See an example of an article I wrote on differing sounds of amplifiers in blind tests: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

In much of my reviews I comment on psychoacoustics of the distortions seen and in most cases I point out that what is seen is not audible distortion.

Measurements do have a lot of power though. They are independent of one's ears. And importantly are affirmation or rejection of the manufacturer's advertising as to performance of their products. In the specific instance Schiit BiFrost Multibit, I think most people assume they are getting a superior product not only in sound but also objective performance. They think that ladder DACs are fundamentally more accurate, have lower noise, etc. My data shows that this is not the case. That is news to many so it has gotten a ton of attention.

Secondly, blind tests are hard to organize if we don't know what we are testing. If you randomly tested 128 kbps MP3 against the source, you can easily find millions of tracks that would be transparent to many listeners. But pick tracks that are designed to show weaknesses in its design and you will find that people can in double blind tests tell the difference. In the case of DACs, no such characterization has been done due to lack of measurements. So creating bling tests would literally be line blind driving.

In the past I have done blind tests of DACs and as you say, differences are impossible to spot outside of the DACs that bleed noise from computers. So again, it is not due to lack of trying or interest. Our history as a forum reflects that balanced view, but not in the short term.

Finally, there is such an incredible vacuum of objective data out there that our measurements are filling. The demand is very high to have such information so a lot of people are paying attention to them. Few people are in a position to blind test multiple DACs prior to purchase and are hungry for any information to separate products.

 

[drconopoima]

Of course he is nwavguy. He posts measurements with an expensive audio analyzer that doesn't make some products by Schiit look good!

Well, Nwavguy never measured a Schiit product. He got a bad impression of Schiit because the original Asgard was a potential headphone-breaking risk and also because he later got censored on HeadFi without a good explanation why for engaging in the issue a lot with the person reporting it and asking manufacturers if the voltage peaks that the Asgard was producing on power cycling were safe.

To be fair, NWavguy was irrationally biased against Chinese companies, if you search and filter in Google only results from his blog, his only mentions of SMSL & Topping are as a warning that no-brand Chinese DACs will most likely be terrible, but now AmirM shows that both would have got passing marks.

 

[amirm]

To my last post, here is another set of measurements I did a few years ago on HDMI distortions: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-deep-dive-into-hdmi-audio-performance.56/

And the conclusion within:

"A Note on Audibility
I have shown you a lot of graphs but it would be unfair to leave them be as is. A lot of the distortions we see with HDMI are centered close to our main excitation frequency. When the distortions are close to a loud signal, and our source certainly is one in this case, they can’t be heard. So mostly like these are not audible distortions. As we get farther from the main tones, the spikes can reach higher than level of audibility and the chance of this occurring with HDMI is higher than with S/PDIF."

This, despite the awful performance of HDMI vs S/PDIF.

 

[Candlesticks]

Well, Nwavguy never measured a Schiit product. He got a bad impression of Schiit because the original Asgard was a potential headphone-breaking risk and also because he later got censured on HeadFi without a good explanation why for engaging in the issue a lot with the person reporting it and asking manufacturers if the voltage peaks that the Asgard was producing on power cycling were safe.

To be fair, NWavguy was irrationally biased against Chinese companies, if you search and filter in Google only results from his blog, his only mentions of SMSL & Topping are as a warning that no-brand Chinese DACs will most likely be terrible, but now AmirM shows that both would have gotten passing marks.

If you are buying random cheap products from anywhere it's probably not going to turn out well. SMSL and Topping could well have been selling terrible products 5 years ago and could well be doing that today. At the same time some of their products may also be very good. I suspect a lot of their products are designs off a shelf by an OEM which is completely fine if the design is good. No need to reinvent wheels.

 

[amirm]

Well, Nwavguy never measured a Schiit product. He got a bad impression of Schiit because the original Asgard was a potential headphone-breaking risk and also because he later got censored on HeadFi without a good explanation why for engaging in the issue a lot with the person reporting it and asking manufacturers if the voltage peaks that the Asgard was producing on power cycling were safe.

Good to know. Was this sorted out or do I need to test for it from here on?