Measurements and Review of Schiit Yggdrasil DAC

[Thomas Savage]

I hope this isn't too far off topic (or have been covered already in another topic) but the recent conversation here reminds me of this incredibly interesting article published recently by Bob Katz: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/katzs-corner-episode-25-adventures-distortion

Would love to hear opinion on said article. Happy to create a new topic if that's better.

Yes create a new thread

 

[gvl]

I've always maintained the products from companies like Schiit, UpTone, mess up the signal and the dirty output may be euphoric to some listeners.

Hell I may even like it myself.

What it ISN'T is fidelity.

Paul McGowan agrees:

 

[svart-hvitt]

I hope this isn't too far off topic (or have been covered already in another topic) but the recent conversation here reminds me of this incredibly interesting article published recently by Bob Katz: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/katzs-corner-episode-25-adventures-distortion

Would love to hear opinion on said article. Happy to create a new topic if that's better.

Interesting Bob Katz article. Deserving a thread on its own?

 

[nefilim]

Thread created here: https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/desirable-distortion.3510/

 

[Jinjuku]

Paul McGowan agrees:

I want to like Paul, but ultimately I find him to be disingenuous. It's because he's an engineer that can speak to what I spoke about but won't because it could have the detrimental affect of his bottom line.

Out side of possible impedance/current/voltage/attenuation matching circuitry that a pre-amp could be designed to do (and it would have to be purpose built for a specific application) there's not really any way for a generic pre-amp, that I've ever seen, that can improve and fix the output of a problem DAC.

Whether or not Paul realizes it, it's what hes saying.

 

[nefilim]

I want to like Paul, but ultimately I find him to be disingenuous. It's because he's an engineer that can speak to what I spoke about but won't because it could have the detrimental affect of his bottom line.

this, exactly

 

[Blumlein 88]

This is reasonable. But do you feel this must always be measurable? The general consensus is that lower distortion is always better, but is it really? We respond differently to harmonics. Lower, even order are more pleasant that higher, and odd order. Disconsonance is not always pleasant to the ear, we like natural progressions. An example of this unnatural sound is the Lydian mode.

And if all the harmonics are low enough you don't hear them, then the profile of the distortion doesn't enter into it.

And mentioned elsewhere, some 3rd is liked by a good many people. Some 2nd and a barely audible 3rd seems to be sort of the spot for those looking for euphony. Though the exact level and mix varies with people. Again this isn't fidelity, but it is fine to enjoy. Going by some designs liked by people you also want that distortion to vary with signal level. Going from inaudible at the average listening level to audible on the peaks above that. I suppose as long as there aren't too many harmonics that adds a bloom, warmth and subjective complexity to the sound which is desired.

 

[amirm]

I am still searching for that euphonic distortion. If anyone has one and can capture it for us, that would advance the discussion. Otherwise, I find if distortion is audible, it is not good no matter what its construct is.

Note that I am not talking about linear changes like high output impedance changing the response of some speakers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Also, I just remembered messing with such things a few years ago. If you have a couple percent 2nd and 3rd harmonic you'll see peaks diminished. It is a mild compressor like effect. I just tried it on some tracks. That is what is sounds like too.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Again this isn't fidelity,

Well, are you sure? What is fidelity? Of course, you are saying it is an exact replication, what goes in, comes out, but if the ear is more comfortable with the natural harmonic progression as opposed to an unnatural harmonic envelope, why is "nature" not a good thing?

Hit a wood block, there are harmonics, overtones that occur naturally. Extra harmonics following the same pattern would sound more "real" than a lack of or different harmonic presentation. Same can be demonstrated with the human voice IMO.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, are you sure? What is fidelity? Of course, you are saying it is an exact replication, what goes in, comes out, but if the ear is more comfortable with the natural harmonic progression as opposed to an unnatural harmonic envelope, why is "nature" not a good thing?

Hit a wood block, there are harmonics, overtones that occur naturally. Extra harmonics following the same pattern would sound more "real" than a lack of or different harmonic presentation. Same can be demonstrated with the human voice IMO.

Definition from an online dictionary for fidelity:
the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced.

"the 1949 recording provides reasonable fidelity"

So yes I'm sure.

If the recording is good it is the natural harmonic progression. The additional harmonics might be pleasing, might be mistaken for more natural, but it isn't more natural.


Next rhetorical question...................................

 

[gvl]

I want to like Paul, but ultimately I find him to be disingenuous. It's because he's an engineer that can speak to what I spoke about but won't because it could have the detrimental affect of his bottom line.

Out side of possible impedance/current/voltage/attenuation matching circuitry that a pre-amp could be designed to do (and it would have to be purpose built for a specific application) there's not really any way for a generic pre-amp, that I've ever seen, that can improve and fix the output of a problem DAC.

Whether or not Paul realizes it, it's what hes saying.

My interpretation of this episode is that he's pretty upfront that the distortions can "enhance" listening experience and this is why they are experimenting with tube gear.

 

[Sal1950]

Well, are you sure? What is fidelity? Of course, you are saying it is an exact replication, what goes in, comes out, but if the ear is more comfortable with the natural harmonic progression as opposed to an unnatural harmonic envelope, why is "nature" not a good thing?

You should take that line of BS to one of the many forums that subscribe to that "sounds good to me" mantra.

 

[Jinjuku]

My interpretation of this episode is that he's pretty upfront that the distortions can "enhance" listening experience and this is why they are experimenting with tube gear.

My issue is that he simply excludes that the harmonics and how tubes handle them and the possible euphonics that they introduce.

He also simply says 'with the pre-amp is of a certain quality level'. That is such an incredibly subjective statement and he should know better. He's a seasoned designer that understands that quality and be quantified. Now I may not agree with his definition of quantified quality but I would need to know what that is.

Unless he's using the other definition off quality (a distinctive attribute) but that's not what I think he's referring to.

He's simply found a doo-dad that EQ's a system to his preference and I've no issue with that.

 

[Sal1950]

I want to like Paul, but ultimately I find him to be disingenuous. It's because he's an engineer that can speak to what I spoke about but won't because it could have the detrimental affect of his bottom line.

There was a time in the early years of PS Audio where Bob felt that engineering cost effective products that delivered top shelf SQ was the best path for them. His leading product was a great little phono stage that could be coupled with a nice little passive pre-amp built in separate chassis's. They were compared to the SOTA in the day and came away well received.

Now he's decided a better path is pandering to the subjective crowd with overpriced over-engineered stuff. The profits are better. I'm sure he's right on that point.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Definition from an online dictionary for fidelity:
the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced.

"the 1949 recording provides reasonable fidelity"

So yes I'm sure.

If the recording is good it is the natural harmonic progression. The additional harmonics might be pleasing, might be mistaken for more natural, but it isn't more natural.


Next question...................................

So we must live in an audio gulag, dark and devoid of color? This is what we must strive for.

Do you cook, or better yet, do you eat? Does everything you eat meet this level of true fidelity, devoid of seasoning?

Hearing is a sense, so is taste, why should they be different? Why should we sacrifice pleasure?
How is this fidelity (being faithful) to humanity? Why does this noble quest for fidelity seem more like a crusade?

 

[Blumlein 88]

So we must live in an audio gulag, dark and devoid of color? This is what we must strive for.

Do you cook, or better yet, do you eat? Does everything you eat meet this level of true fidelity, devoid of seasoning?

Hearing is a sense, so is taste, why should they be different? Why should we sacrifice pleasure?
How is this fidelity (being faithful) to humanity? Why does this noble quest for fidelity seem more like a crusade?

Try eating with your ears or tasting with your fingers. These senses share commonalities, but they differ for a good reason. They put us in touch with some important yet different aspects of reality.

You've been around this loop long enough to know better. You first reach fidelity and then are free to season to taste. So there is no gulag nor crusade nor sacrifice of pleasure. The gulag is confusing one for the other and uselessly pursuing what isn't there. Constraining yourself in ways that are unnecessary to enjoy your senses.

I await your next rhetorical response.

 

[Thomas Savage]

So we must live in an audio gulag, dark and devoid of color? This is what we must strive for.

Do you cook, or better yet, do you eat? Does everything you eat meet this level of true fidelity, devoid of seasoning?

Hearing is a sense, so is taste, why should they be different? Why should we sacrifice pleasure?
How is this fidelity (being faithful) to humanity? Why does this noble quest for fidelity seem more like a crusade?

You buy a tomato for making pasta gravy , it better be a known quantity ( taste the same as last time) the basil better taste like basil and not be some funky misfit. If I’m cooking I need ‘ fidelity ‘ in terms of my ingredients.

If I’m working in a high end restaurant I’m making the same dish all night, it better be high ‘ fidelity ‘ compared to the my last else I will be sacked.

I’d not dare tell chef “ oh but I thought I’d do it a bit diffrent this time, why sacrifice pleasure “ he would likely throw a big knife at me. ( he wants fidelity to his original recipe)

The aim of the electronics in a ( and the clues in the name) Hifi system is .... , now if you want to funk with what you have go ahead but don’t go thinking it’s somehow a truer reflection of what came from the artist .
If I make a pineapple taste like a lemon, is it then a lemon , if it’s really lemony is it a better lemon than a lemon.. no it’s a messed up pineapple lol

The only gulag here is the one your forcing us to live in with this kind of argument dynamic, the guys here hate it so don’t get upset when some of the more industrial ones cry bullshit.

This is a tired merry go round that no one here is at all intrested in, they don’t want this same discussion again and again let alone given over with zero ‘evidence ‘ or (new) constructive reasoning .There’s mystery all around, what fidelity means is not one of them nor is how to achieve it though electronics and transducers .

 

[gvl]

My issue is that he simply excludes that the harmonics and how tubes handle them and the possible euphonics that they introduce.

He also simply says 'with the pre-amp is of a certain quality level'. That is such an incredibly subjective statement and he should know better. He's a seasoned designer that understands that quality and be quantified. Now I may not agree with his definition of quantified quality but I would need to know what that is.

Unless he's using the other definition off quality (a distinctive attribute) but that's not what I think he's referring to.

He's simply found a doo-dad that EQ's a system to his preference and I've no issue with that.

It did cross my mind that "quality" was open to interpretation, but their BHK tube preamp measured pretty well, according to Stereophile/JA anyway:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/ps-audio-bhk-signature-preamplifier-measurements

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

You buy a tomato for making pasta gravy , it better be a known quantity ( taste the same as last time) the basil better taste like basil and not be some funky misfit. If I’m cooking I need ‘ fidelity ‘ in terms of my ingredients.

But what if you can only use the one ingredient, the tomato no other seasonings in order to stay true to the "fidelity" of the tomato? We would be sacrificing allot to stay true to the tomato. In the beginning, there was only the tomato, the seasoning to enhance flavor came later to elicit better overall "sound" I mean taste.