Review and Measurements of Schiit Jotunheim and iFi iDSD Black Label DACs and Headphone Amps

[Thomas savage]

Are you suggesting that home audio enthusiasts are less serious about their hobby than NASA engineers are about their work?



He's got a most excellent username / profile pic combo though

Yes I’m jealous of his chosen avatar, maybe I will copy it and make out I had it first lol

 

[Gruss Gott]

Where’s the lack of perspective?

Great post; the lack of perspective was simple that, as one poster said, measurements "cut the crap" - they definitely do not, as least when it comes to predicting audio quality / experience for any given individual. (but to Amir's point, manufacturers should be doing this and aren't)

Keeping to topic ...

I did extensive ear-testing of a Tidal hi-fi > Eitr > Mimby > Jot chain against topping, ifi idsd BL, chord mojo and some others looking for great desktop quality, but also a portable / transportable solution. My headphones are the HD600, THX00, ZMF Atticus & Eikon, and I'm not optimizing for value, rather SQ at <$1k USD

(1.) Ifi BL - sounds great, excellent package, doesn't sound as good as the Schiit chain though. dollar for dollar though, you'd have to add an iTube or iDAC which I didn't.

(2.) Mojo - super portable, good sound (and unique), but some REALLY annoying build quirks (crappy ports, high-pitched squeal during charging, EMI buzz, battery failure problems, etc). I love the style but I really don't understand why it's so popular - it doesn't sound as good as the Ifi BL

(3.) Topping D30/A30 - might not be fair compared to the Schiit stack, but definitely not my cup of tea sound-wise and the worst of the bunch to my ears

CONCLUSION
The Schiit stack was best for me (heretic! burn the witch!) and, after ~2 years, no regrets. So yay for measurements, but they don't predict audio quality nor your experience.

SIDE NOTES
(a.) My Jot had many of the issues @amirm laid out (buzz, ground, etc) and he did a real service with his testing that actually changed how Schiit builds that product, which is pretty cool. That said, I easily resolved my Jot issues with a good power cord (pangea) and interconnects.

(b.) For a transportable solution I'm still considering getting another iDSD BL, but kinda waiting for their v2, but I will likely go with the Woo WA8. I'll give it another 6 months.

(c.) I'll likely replace my desktop DAC/amp with a gumby/OTL solution, maybe the Glenn OTL, the Decware CSP w/ 25th anniversary mods, or the ZMF Pendant. I've considered DACs from soekris, metrum, ps audio but the gumby is upgradeable and the right mix of thump/$.

 

[Thomas savage]

Great post; the lack of perspective was simple that, as one poster said, measurements "cut the crap" - they definitely do not, as least when it comes to predicting audio quality / experience for any given individual. (but to Amir's point, manufacturers should be doing this and aren't)

Keeping to topic ...

I did extensive ear-testing of a Tidal hi-fi > Eitr > Mimby > Jot chain against topping, ifi idsd BL, chord mojo and some others looking for great desktop quality, but also a portable / transportable solution. My headphones are the HD600, THX00, ZMF Atticus & Eikon, and I'm not optimizing for value, rather SQ at <$1k USD

(1.) Ifi BL - sounds great, excellent package, doesn't sound as good as the Schiit chain though. dollar for dollar though, you'd have to add an iTube or iDAC which I didn't.

(2.) Mojo - super portable, good sound (and unique), but some REALLY annoying build quirks (crappy ports, high-pitched squeal during charging, EMI buzz, battery failure problems, etc). I love the style but I really don't understand why it's so popular - it doesn't sound as good as the Ifi BL

(3.) Topping D30/A30 - might not be fair compared to the Schiit stack, but definitely not my cup of tea sound-wise and the worst of the bunch to my ears

CONCLUSION
The Schiit stack was best for me (heretic! burn the witch!) and, after ~2 years, no regrets. So yay for measurements, but they don't predict audio quality nor your experience.

SIDE NOTES
(a.) My Jot had many of the issues @amirm laid out (buzz, ground, etc) and he did a real service with his testing that actually changed how Schiit builds that product, which is pretty cool. That said, I easily resolved my Jot issues with a good power cord (pangea) and interconnects.

(b.) For a transportable solution I'm still considering getting another iDSD BL, but kinda waiting for their v2, but I will likely go with the Woo WA8. I'll give it another 6 months.

(c.) I'll likely replace my desktop DAC/amp with a gumby/OTL solution, maybe the Glenn OTL, the Decware CSP w/ 25th anniversary mods, or the ZMF Pendant. I've considered DACs from soekris, metrum, ps audio but the gumby is upgradeable and the right mix of thump/$.

Scientific ‘ear testing’ , and you think this is of value beyond informing yourself or even restricting it to yourself? I’m pleased you have established your preference but it’s not a reliable method of assessing fidelity imo and totally meaningless in a wider context .

I’d go with the AP and wish the manufacturers did more in this regard so I could take up a proper hobby or just drink more beer and @amirm could fully commit to living out of the back of a van in 7/11 parking lots.

Anyway I think we all have done this one to death, again individuals have their own take and I’m fine with that but it’s a tired merry go round in terms of forum discussion (hence why some get a bit grumpy) .

 

[andreasmaaan]

As usual, I think "good sound" and high fidelity don't intersect the same in everyone's ears, especially when the psychology of uncontrolled listening comes into play.

 

[Dana reed]

Great post; the lack of perspective was simple that, as one poster said, measurements "cut the crap" - they definitely do not, as least when it comes to predicting audio quality / experience for any given individual. (but to Amir's point, manufacturers should be doing this and aren't)

Keeping to topic ...

I did extensive ear-testing of a Tidal hi-fi > Eitr > Mimby > Jot chain against topping, ifi idsd BL, chord mojo and some others looking for great desktop quality, but also a portable / transportable solution. My headphones are the HD600, THX00, ZMF Atticus & Eikon, and I'm not optimizing for value, rather SQ at <$1k USD

(1.) Ifi BL - sounds great, excellent package, doesn't sound as good as the Schiit chain though. dollar for dollar though, you'd have to add an iTube or iDAC which I didn't.

(2.) Mojo - super portable, good sound (and unique), but some REALLY annoying build quirks (crappy ports, high-pitched squeal during charging, EMI buzz, battery failure problems, etc). I love the style but I really don't understand why it's so popular - it doesn't sound as good as the Ifi BL

(3.) Topping D30/A30 - might not be fair compared to the Schiit stack, but definitely not my cup of tea sound-wise and the worst of the bunch to my ears

CONCLUSION
The Schiit stack was best for me (heretic! burn the witch!) and, after ~2 years, no regrets. So yay for measurements, but they don't predict audio quality nor your experience.

SIDE NOTES
(a.) My Jot had many of the issues @amirm laid out (buzz, ground, etc) and he did a real service with his testing that actually changed how Schiit builds that product, which is pretty cool. That said, I easily resolved my Jot issues with a good power cord (pangea) and interconnects.

(b.) For a transportable solution I'm still considering getting another iDSD BL, but kinda waiting for their v2, but I will likely go with the Woo WA8. I'll give it another 6 months.

(c.) I'll likely replace my desktop DAC/amp with a gumby/OTL solution, maybe the Glenn OTL, the Decware CSP w/ 25th anniversary mods, or the ZMF Pendant. I've considered DACs from soekris, metrum, ps audio but the gumby is upgradeable and the right mix of thump/$.

I also appreciate the testing done by Amir on the Jot, as it helped me to fix the intermittent issues I had. I haven't compared the Mojo with the iFi, since I haven't bought one, but compared to other portables I've had (like the Sony PHA-1A, and Oppo HA-2) it was the best. I'm considering getting the Poly just to make it a full portable streaming system, and not have to use a different player with a bad UI, or strapping my phone directly to it, and having to deal with the RF issues I get when I can't leave my phone in airplane mode all the time.

 

[pkane]

Great post; the lack of perspective was simple that, as one poster said, measurements "cut the crap" - they definitely do not, as least when it comes to predicting audio quality / experience for any given individual.

Measurements 'cut the crap' simply because they are a repeatable, objective way of evaluating equipment. They cut the crap because the other way of evaluating equipment practiced by many audiophiles is subjective, biased, unpredictable, un-repeatable, and not at all transferrable across systems or listeners, i.e. -- it's crap.

 

[Dana reed]

Measurements 'cut the crap' simply because they are a repeatable, objective way of evaluating equipment. They cut the crap because the other way of evaluating equipment practiced by many audiophiles is subjective, biased, unpredictable, un-repeatable, and not at all transferrable across systems or listeners, i.e. -- it's crap.

But then how would McIntosh sell anything?
But seriously, ABX tests are the way to do it, but those are hard to do with hardware. What would be interesting is to start a DB of people’s hardware and then send out test files to anyone wanting to compare two pieces of HW, along with an ABX protocol.
This has been done quite a bit with lossy/lossless files and shown most people can’t distinguish high bitrate lossy from lossless. Would be interesting to do with lofi vs midfi vs hifi.

 

[JJB70]

I think measurement is being confused with analysis. Measurement in itself merely quantifies certain parameters or characteristics. Measurements themselves say nothing about anything beyond quantifying something. Using measurements to analyse the performance of a device is something different. Measurements don't predict anything, they give you a value for something at a given point, however there is a particular value in measuring the performance of some audio equipment since the output should be an accurate reflection of the input signal and that can be evaluated using measurement. That allows us to base our analysis on objective criteria. Obviously there are limitations to measurement but there are metrology standards and people who work in the discipline of measurement are much more aware of these limitations than anybody.

If people prefer audio equipment that introduces distortion or which is coloured then their subjective preference is entirely their business and I do think it is perfectly legitimate for somebody to prefer such colouring or distortion despite a loss in transparency. However, from an audio engineering perspective, for items such as DACs and amplifiers manufacturers should strive for transparency.

 

[andreasmaaan]

However, from an audio engineering perspective, for items such as DACs and amplifiers manufacturers should strive for transparency.

Or at least, if they don't strive for transparency (which I believe is legitimate), they should be upfront or at a minimum refrain from bullshitting.

 

[Dana reed]

I think measurement is being confused with analysis. Measurement in itself merely quantifies certain parameters or characteristics. Measurements themselves say nothing about anything beyond quantifying something. Using measurements to analyse the performance of a device is something different. Measurements don't predict anything, they give you a value for something at a given point, however there is a particular value in measuring the performance of some audio equipment since the output should be an accurate reflection of the input signal and that can be evaluated using measurement. That allows us to base our analysis on objective criteria. Obviously there are limitations to measurement but there are metrology standards and people who work in the discipline of measurement are much more aware of these limitations than anybody.

If people prefer audio equipment that introduces distortion or which is coloured then their subjective preference is entirely their business and I do think it is perfectly legitimate for somebody to prefer such colouring or distortion despite a loss in transparency. However, from an audio engineering perspective, for items such as DACs and amplifiers manufacturers should strive for transparency.

I guess what I meant was, at what point does transparency not matter, with some 95% confidence interval, to human listeners. I'm sure Benchmark put a bunch of money into improving the DAC3 specs over the DAC2 in terms of THD, IMD, SINAD, etc. But do those reductions in already really low distortion really matter for what people hear. What metric of each type of distortion matters for, 50%, 75%, 95%, etc of human hearing.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I guess what I meant was, at what point does transparency not matter, with some 95% confidence interval, to human listeners. I'm sure Benchmark put a bunch of money into improving the DAC3 specs over the DAC2 in terms of THD, IMD, SINAD, etc. But do those reductions in already really low distortion really matter for what people hear. What metric of each type of distortion matters for, 50%, 75%, 95%, etc of human hearing.

In terms of distortion, this study found that the DS metric and the R(nonlin) metric correlate well with participants' subjective evaluations under controlled double blind conditions.

These two metric are a lot more complex to calculate than percentage THD or IMD, but it can can be done mathematically from a given set of distortion measurements.

The study found very little correlation between subjective evaluations and THD/IMD.

IIRC, a few here have pointed out some questionable aspects of the study design/report. I think it may be a case of not communicating the details well, but it is possible that the study was flawed in some respects.

Anyway, there is no doubt that THD and IMD correlate poorly with subjective experience. These two newer and more complex metrics seem to correlate a lot better.

 

[March Audio]

I already did that, but happy to repeat it for you:

(1.) We have no set of measurements that predict experienced audio quality for all similar devices for all listeners 100% of the time, thus the measurements we have are information only, not scientifically definitive nor predictive.

(2.) Even if we did have scientifically predictive measurements, those measurements would have to be performed scientifically to be valid:

• Equipment and environment calibrated and validated,
• One person/team does the set up,
• Another validates the set up,
• Multiple people/teams take the measurements,
• Multiple devices of the same manufacturer from separate batches are tested at the same time
• Multiple teams analyze the data for conclusions
• etc etc etc

(3.) And let's say we have and do all of that and let's be positive: it's the greatest device ever! BUY BUY BUY! Well, due to manufacturer quality control, variance in human hearing, and our lack of understanding of exactly how human hearing works (e.g, why do we instantly know live music vs reproductions?) there's still no guarantee an individual buyer would experience great audio, just a higher probability. maybe.

Thus measurements, especially when done unscientifically, are interesting but certainly not definitive nor predictive of any listener's experience.

and therefore measurements haven't "cut the crap".

QED.

(although I feel obliged to say again, that doesn't mean not useful and I personally love the work @amirm does - just encouraging some perspective here)

I'm afraid 1. Is incorrect. You are looking at it backwards. Individual perception is no indicator of the performance of the device for fairly obvious reasons. It's of little relevance.

2. Whilst there is some validity to your points, they ignore context and the real world implication and impact. I have spent 30 years in instrument calibration and test and measurement. Whilst I obviously agree with the concept of calibration and validation of equipment, in this context the reality is that modern test equipment is very very unlikely to have significant accuracy or stability issues. Amir's AP is new and will have had a factory test and be within stated tolerance. A "calibration" may be valid as a confidence check in a further period of time, but this will probably be in terms of years.

As long as a valid procedure is followed there is no requirement for multiple teams to set up or validate or take measurements. I worked in aero engine design and measurements (vibration, stress, pressure, temperature, dimensional etc) taken would be used to validate or feedback into the design process. In other words it could be safety critical. Get a measurement wrong, and worst case scenario an engine could fail and people could die. It was never shown to be necessary to work in the way you suggest. In other words the overall measurement procedure and process was robust enough for the most important and demanding requirement; safety.

Whilst there is a possibility of device to device variation, a manufacturers quality control should weed out the bad actors. If not, and Amir tests a duff unit, then you should ask questions about the manufacturers quality control. Also Amir is always willing to test additional units sent to him by the manufacturer if they think the results are suspect.

Multiple teams again........... Well many of us look at the data Amir collects and presents. We have industry experts among the members. Manufacturers have the opportunity to, and do respond. I have rarely seen anything I disagree with, and Amir is always willing to discuss results and conclusions drawn.

Measurements here have most certainly cut the crap. It has been demonstrated quite clearly that many low cost devices perform superbly, whilst some expensive devices have been quite poor.

If you would prefer to rely on bias ridden personal subjective opinion instead, then that's fine, but you have presented no reasons what so ever to invalidate the information presented in this forum.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I did extensive ear-testing of a Tidal hi-fi > Eitr > Mimby > Jot chain against topping, ifi idsd BL, chord mojo and some others looking for great desktop quality, but also a portable / transportable solution. My headphones are the HD600, THX00, ZMF Atticus & Eikon, and I'm not optimizing for value, rather SQ at <$1k USD

IME it is pretty well impossible to find any way to match level between items on evaluation to within 0.1dB if using headphones.
If one does not achieve this the loudest item, even if only by a little, sounds best.
This always assumes blind. If you know which you are listening to whilst testing then it is well known that there is pretty well zero chance of a valid comparison anyway.

 

[Gruss Gott]

I'm afraid 1. Is incorrect. You are looking at it backwards. Individual perception is no indicator of the performance of the device for fairly obvious reasons. It's of little relevance.

And I'm afraid you're wrong about #1 - there is no single outcomes-predictive set of measurements for audio equipment sound quality. There just isn't.

If you believe there is, say, for amplifiers then simply name them and their values. It would simplify the industry. We'll even call them the "BE718 Measurements"! You'll be famous. Every amp manufacturer will try hit the "BMs" as they'd be guaranteed with 100% accuracy their amp sounds the best.

And if you think individual perception is no indication of performance ... well, there are a lot accounts and business owners much wealthier than you ready to laugh.

Instead of audio, think of a race car: there are zillions of performance measurements than can be (and are) taken of any given car but, at the end of the day, they don't (and can't) predict performance on any given day with a reliable level of accuracy ... and one of, but not the only, reason for that is the driver and the environment on that day. In fact, there's so much inaccuracy in the predictive value of measurements, there's a healthy wagering economy.

That's the problem with humans: it's so easy for us to be arrogant, believing with our measurements we've got it all got it all figured out.

Nitsche, during the Age of Enlightenment, said, "God is Dead", believing science had all the answers. He was obviously wrong too, so you're in good company with your misjudgement.

Measurements are additional information to be added to personal experience to make a choice. Measurements don't replace personal experience, nor does personal experience replace measurements. They are to be used together, with neither as a dominant.

 

[March Audio]

I

And I'm afraid you're wrong about #1 - there is no single outcomes-predictive set of measurements for audio equipment sound quality. There just isn't.

If you believe there is, say, for amplifiers then simply name them and their values. It would simplify the industry. We'll even call them the "BE718 Measurements"! You'll be famous. Every amp manufacturer will try hit the "BMs" as they'd be guaranteed with 100% accuracy their amp sounds the best.

And if you think individual perception is no indication of performance ... well, there are a lot accounts and business owners much wealthier than you ready to laugh.

Instead of audio, think of a race car: there are zillions of performance measurements than can be (and are) taken of any given car but, at the end of the day, they don't (and can't) predict performance on any given day with a reliable level of accuracy ... and one of, but not the only, reason for that is the driver and the environment on that day. In fact, there's so much inaccuracy in the predictive value of measurements, there's a healthy wagering economy.

That's the problem with humans: it's so easy for us to be arrogant, believing with our measurements we've got it all got it all figured out.

Nitsche, during the Age of Enlightenment, said, "God is Dead", believing science had all the answers. He was obviously wrong too, so you're in good company with your misjudgement.

Measurements are additional information to be added to personal experience to make a choice. Measurements don't replace personal experience, nor does personal experience replace measurements. They are to be used together, with neither as a dominant.

You are missing the point. Its entirely because of the vagaries of individuals uncontrolled and biased interpretation that you need to rely on objective technical assessment and / or controlled subjective assessment. If you care to look a Floyde Tools work you will see just how controlled subjective assessment does indeed obtain consistent and predictive results, and just how measured data correlates with it.

No, the sort of uncontrolled sighted individual perceptions, the ones that typical audiophiles indulge in, are absolutely no indication of equipment performance. Biased personal experience is worthless.

Oh I have corrected it for you:

That's the problem with humans: it's so easy for us to be arrogant, believing with our uncontrolled biased individual perceptions we've got it all got it all figured out.

 

[Frank Dernie]

[QUOTE="Gruss Gott, post: 101368, member: 1714]
And if you think individual perception is no indication of performance ... well, there are a lot accounts and business owners much wealthier than you ready to laugh.
[/QUOTE]
All the way to the bank.
Never give a sucker an even break.

 

[Krunok]

And I'm afraid you're wrong about #1 - there is no single outcomes-predictive set of measurements for audio equipment sound quality. There just isn't.

If you believe there is, say, for amplifiers then simply name them and their values. It would simplify the industry. We'll even call them the "BE718 Measurements"! You'll be famous. Every amp manufacturer will try hit the "BMs" as they'd be guaranteed with 100% accuracy their amp sounds the best.

And if you think individual perception is no indication of performance ... well, there are a lot accounts and business owners much wealthier than you ready to laugh.

Instead of audio, think of a race car: there are zillions of performance measurements than can be (and are) taken of any given car but, at the end of the day, they don't (and can't) predict performance on any given day with a reliable level of accuracy ... and one of, but not the only, reason for that is the driver and the environment on that day. In fact, there's so much inaccuracy in the predictive value of measurements, there's a healthy wagering economy.

That's the problem with humans: it's so easy for us to be arrogant, believing with our measurements we've got it all got it all figured out.

Nitsche, during the Age of Enlightenment, said, "God is Dead", believing science had all the answers. He was obviously wrong too, so you're in good company with your misjudgement.

Measurements are additional information to be added to personal experience to make a choice. Measurements don't replace personal experience, nor does personal experience replace measurements. They are to be used together, with neither as a dominant.

Why are you here, on this forum? Here you won't find any subjective evaluations, only measurements, in which you don't believe, as you clearly stated several times. If you post your subjective impressions on some equipment it won't be accepted as people here believe in measurements.

So, why are you here?

 

[March Audio]

SIDE NOTES
(a.) My Jot had many of the issues @amirm laid out (buzz, ground, etc) and he did a real service with his testing that actually changed how Schiit builds that product, which is pretty cool. That said, I easily resolved my Jot issues with a good power cord (pangea) and interconnects.

.

These power cords you mentioned, what problems did they solve?

 

[March Audio]

And if you think individual perception is no indication of performance ... well, there are a lot accounts and business owners much wealthier than you ready to laugh.

.

Erm...yes, many people can indeed be convinced to part with cash for worthless products due to their inaccurate and flawed perception - see above.

 

[March Audio]

Instead of audio, think of a race car: there are zillions of performance measurements than can be (and are) taken of any given car but, at the end of the day, they don't (and can't) predict performance on any given day with a reliable level of accuracy ... and one of, but not the only, reason for that is the driver and the environment on that day. In fact, there's so much inaccuracy in the predictive value of measurements, there's a healthy wagering economy.

.

Thats a completely eroneous analogy and actually quite wrong. I suggest you take a look at F1 and how they use data and measurements to maximise performance. The driver variable is as irrelevant in that as it is in an audio DAC.