Review and Measurements of Schiit Yggdrasil V2 DAC

[Krunok]

Certainly to an extent, but if a listener can discern between e.g. 0.1% of a particular kind of electronically added distortion and 0.001% of electronically added distortion in a properly controlled test, then we have to conclude that whetever distortion the speakers/headphones introduced was not sufficient to fully mask the electronically added 0.01% distortion.

I would be willing to bet they would be able to hear only 0.1% and not 001%.

If I understood correctly only a single sine tone was played to the listeners in that test with the electronically added distortion, so I was wondering how would they hear that tone if it was mixed with other tones like when music is played. In that context the test with a single tone is detached to the reality. IMO they should have made a test comparing undistorted and distorted music file.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I would be willing to bet they would be able to hear only 0.1% and not 001%.

If I understood correctly only a single sine tone was played to the listeners in that test with the electronically added distortion, so I was wondering how would they hear that tone if it was mixed with other tones like when music is played. In that context the test with a single tone is detached to the reality. IMO they should have made a test comparing undistorted and distorted music file.

I would be willing to bet exactly the same

The study I linked earlier (Robert-Eric Gaskell, "Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Distortion in Analogue Electronics: Capacitors and Operational Amplifiers") involved applying distortion to actual music signals. It's an interesting read and I think there's a lot there that is worth understanding but that unfortunately doesn't allow us to come to very clear conclusions, plus what I see as an inadequate explanation of the particular test conditions, which is frustrating.

 

[zalive]

In this case, yes, because I think the Schiit product's measurements suggest that it is about on the cusp of audibility thresholds, whereas the Topping D50 (for example) is all but guaranteed to be transparent. In other words there is some chance the test could go either way in this case, which makes it interesting.

But I don't see how this leaves an objectivist with anything to lose?

In reality no one can lose, everyone can only gain. Of course. And yes, that's the reason why it's interesting. Though part of reason are claims that Yggdrasil sounds better. Such claims should be proven (or disproven) by a blind listening test as well.

 

[Krunok]

I would be willing to bet exactly the same

The study I linked earlier (Robert-Eric Gaskell, "Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Distortion in Analogue Electronics: Capacitors and Operational Amplifiers") involved applying distortion to actual music signals. It's an interesting read and I think there's a lot there that is worth understanding but that unfortunately doesn't allow us to come to very clear conclusions, plus what I see as an inadequate explanation of the particular test conditions, which is frustrating.

I've read it, but I ended up frustrated as no clear conclusions were made.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think the main thing we can conclude from it is that just because a device measures <0.01% THD on a sine wave of a particular frequency at a particular level does not necessarily guarantee that it will be transparent, i.e. there are at least some cases where a device might produce particular kinds of nonlinear distortion that mean it passes this test but is nevertheless not transparent.

I do think though that Amir's three-pronged approach of measuring:

• harmonics of a high level 1KHz sine wave
• THD vs frequency
• IMD vs level

gives us enough info to make a well-educated guess as to a device's transparency in respect of nonlinear distortion.

 

[Krunok]

I do think though that Amir's three-pronged approach of measuring:

• harmonics of a high level 1KHz sine wave
• THD vs frequency
• IMD vs level

gives us enough info to make a well-educated guess as to a device's transparency in respect of nonlinear distortion.

It indeed does, and he is doing a great job for all of us to get great insight in those devices. But I also think that sometimes he's putting an unnecessary accent on some small anomalities that cannot possibly have influence on devices ability to sound transparent. I guess he would simply like it to be "techically" perfect, but such design involves additional costs from manufacturers which I consider to be unjustified.

 

[andreasmaaan]

In reality no one can lose, everyone can only gain. Of course. And yes, that's the reason why it's interesting. Though part of reason are claims that Yggdrasil sounds better. Such claims should be proven (or disproven) by a blind listening test as well.

I think the thing that riles many objectivists (although I can only speak for myself) is that many manufacturers claim that their device sounds better because it is more transparent due to some claimed technical "reason" that has no basis in reality. Then the measurements show that the device is in fact technically mediocre or inferior compared to other similar devices.

This does not mean people won't "like" the device, and I have no objection to people preferring audible distortion over transparency. But I do object to manufacturers' claims that their devices are technically better on spurious grounds when they are not, and that their (false) technical superiority is why people prefer them.

In reality in these cases, devices might be preferred for either psychological reasons or in fact because they are technically inferior (or a combination of both). To claim otherwise is disingenuous (although I'm sure in some cases the manufacturers believe their own claims).

Btw, I'm not directing any of this at Schiit specifically, these are just general observations.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Certainly to an extent, but if a listener can discern between e.g. 0.1% of a particular kind of electronically added distortion and 0.001% of electronically added distortion in a properly controlled test, then we have to conclude that whetever distortion the speakers/headphones introduced was not sufficient to fully mask the electronically added 0.1% distortion.

In my estimation, the most likely reason this might be the case is that the electronically added distortion is similar to crossover distortion, i.e. it affects low level components of the material more than high level components, meaning it does the opposite to what the speakers are doing, or that the electronically added distortion contains significant high-order components (speakers tend to produce predominantly low order harmonic distortion).

There is this which already occurred to me about hearing very low (less than .1% distortion). Some kinds could add to the speaker or headphones distortion. Just take 3rd harmonic or even some IMD. The speaker might have some borderline audible or even simply audible. In isolation adding amounts by themselves inaudible could add to and increase the amount that is audible allowing a difference to be heard at levels which alone would not be perceived. So you could be talking about two different things. A threshold for distortion perception in one case. Once above that threshold a minimum difference in distortion perception in another case. Similar to us having a minimum threshold for hearing something at all (roughly 0 db SPL) and a minimum difference of loudness being detected at something just above .1 db SPL. I've wondered about this before and don't know of good info for the minimum perceivable difference in various distortion levels once they are well above threshold levels.

We can hear most distortions of 5% vs a clean reference, but can we hear a difference in 5% and 5.1%? Presumably if a clean reference is not available our 5% distortion signal is a reference and hearing 5.1% would be the same as clean vs .1% distortion.

 

[andreasmaaan]

There is this which already occurred to me about hearing very low (less than .1% distortion). Some kinds could add to the speaker or headphones distortion. Just take 3rd harmonic or even some IMD. The speaker might have some borderline audible or even simply audible. In isolation adding amounts by themselves inaudible could add to and increase the amount that is audible allowing a difference to be heard at levels which alone would not be perceived. So you could be talking about two different things. A threshold for distortion perception in one case. Once above that threshold a minimum difference in distortion perception in another case. Similar to us having a minimum threshold for hearing something at all (roughly 0 db SPL) and a minimum difference of loudness being detected at something just above .1 db SPL. I've wondered about this before and don't know of good info for the minimum perceivable difference in various distortion levels once they are well above threshold levels.

We can hear most distortions of 5% vs a clean reference, but can we hear a difference in 5% and 5.1%? Presumably if a clean reference is not available our 5% distortion signal is a reference and hearing 5.1% would be the same as clean vs .1% distortion.

You make an excellent point.

And this could be tested to some extent by creating stimuli with (a) a sample of music with a level of distortion that is known to be audible and (b) the same sample with incrementally more distortion. The minimum audible difference could then be determined from a variety of different starting points. Of course it would be hard to generalise from the findings but it would at least add a small amount of clarity to this issue.

Putting that unanswered question to one side, do you think it's fair to presume that in some cases the basis for electronic distortion being audible in these studies is to do with it being different in character from the distortion created by the transducer(s), while in other cases it is to do with the distortion adding to transducer enough that it tips the balance along the lines you suggest?

I'd nominate crossover-type distortion and higher-order harmonic distortion as likely falling into the former category, since these forms of distortion are so different in character from anything produced by the transducer. I do agree though that a lot of distortion probably falls into the latter category.

 

[amirm]

@amirm I'm hoping for your reply on this

I am travelling and typing on the phone... when I get back I will respond.

 

[DonH56]

While transducers won't create crossover distortion AFAIK there is hysteresis that can do essentially the same thing but it is usually too small to hear. Transducers do generate IMD as well as other potentially non-harmonic distortion due to things like cone flexure and standing waves in the cones or moving membranes. Modes in panel speaker can be a pain.

I too await the return of the king. He has much more experience than I and perhaps many of us in discerning the audibility of distortion.

 

[JJB70]

I don't think there is any question that some people prefer a certain degree of distortion, that is a subjective preference and anybody is perfectly entitled to make their own decision on what sort of sound they like. However, adjusting the sound for personal preferences is something that should be done with DSP and EQ I think. If you have a transparent auio chain you have the option to play with the sound. If you introduce euphonic distortion because it sounds nice, and then as most audiophiles do spurn EQ, tone controls, DSPetc then you'll be spending a lot of money if you change your mind or end up spending $$$$$$'s trying to match up equipment with similar distorted sound. Hence, even if people want to play with sound I think it is still much better to aim for transparent equipment.

 

[Ray2k]

This is a reply to "amirm" about his comments on Schiit Ygg vs. Benchmark DAC3. Disclaimer: I do not have any commercial interest in Schiit Audio or Benchmark; I am just a music lover (classical music only), do not even qualify as an audiophile (because machines for me are just means to the end of listening to music; have no interest in constant changes to audio equipment). Current setup: only CDs (redbook): Yggy (DAC) -> Mutec MC-3 USB reclocker + Mutec Ref 10 Master Clock -> Rogue Audio RP-7 Preamp (tube)-> Cary specially made stereo tube amp (75W/channel) -> Revel F208 speakers. Amirm: thanks for your strong views about the superiority of Benchmark DAC3 over Yggy (not upgrade to Analog 2 yet), I ordered a Benchmark DAC3 DX. I was in a hurry because I would not send my Yggy for a $550 Analog 2 upgrade (plus shipping) IF Yggy is in fact inferior to Benchmark DAC3. Merely 20 minutes of comparison, I can tell you that your measurements do not mean anything to me because I rely on my own ears. DAC3 cannot even hold a candle to Yggy even if it may have the best measurements in the world. I find it barely listenable - the sound is strained and edgy; switching to Ygg, the sound opens up enormously and becomes musical. Mind you, I treasure transparent sound and do not love the traditional tuby sound at all (the Rogue Audio RP-7 pre-amp and the Cary amp are quite transparent, not those of warm or lush tuby kind). After I remove the RP-7 preamp and let DAC3 drive the Cary amp directly, the sound gets significantly better, but still not in the same league of my Yggy/PR-7 setup - part of the reason may be that DAC3 does not have enough juice to drive a relatively low-powered Cary (the Revel F208 needs more power than 75W/channel - I am waiting for a pair of good transparent tube monoblocks). After 20 minutes of comparison, the difference was so startling obvious that I promptly shipped the Yggy for Analog 2 upgrade today. Will return DAC3. Interesting comparision: Benchmark DAC3 weighs about 4-5 pounds and about 1/6 of the size of Yggy; Yggy weighs about 20 pounds. Size does matter here. Do not know or care anything about technology involved. I am not interested in having a debate and am not partisan to any brand or company. I have much more interest in talking about classical music (I listen mostly to Bach - classical music is my religion so to speak).

 

[Purité Audio]

Perhaps if Benchmark added some weight it might improve the sound quality?
Keith

 

[Ray2k]

Sorry I got my audio equipment chain wrong: Pioneer PD-65 (20 years old CD player now used only as a CD transport, very good in fact)/Cambridge Audio CXUHD (4K DVD transport to play classical musical DVDs) - Coaxial out to Mutec MC-3 USB reclocker + Mutec Ref 10 Master Clock -> AES/EBU digital cable out to Yggy -> RCA single ended cables to Rogue Audio RP-7 preamp -> RCA single ended cables out to Cary amp -> Revel F208. Perhaps Benchmark DAC3 plus a couple of AHB3 amps may yield better result, but I do not want to try any further.

 

[andreasmaaan]

This is a reply to "amirm" about his comments on Schiit Ygg vs. Benchmark DAC3. Disclaimer: I do not have any commercial interest in Schiit Audio or Benchmark; I am just a music lover (classical music only), do not even qualify as an audiophile (because machines for me are just means to the end of listening to music; have no interest in constant changes to audio equipment). Current setup: only CDs (redbook): Yggy (DAC) -> Mutec MC-3 USB reclocker + Mutec Ref 10 Master Clock -> Rogue Audio RP-7 Preamp (tube)-> Cary specially made stereo tube amp (75W/channel) -> Revel F208 speakers. Amirm: thanks for your strong views about the superiority of Benchmark DAC3 over Yggy (not upgrade to Analog 2 yet), I ordered a Benchmark DAC3 DX. I was in a hurry because I would not send my Yggy for a $550 Analog 2 upgrade (plus shipping) IF Yggy is in fact inferior to Benchmark DAC3. Merely 20 minutes of comparison, I can tell you that your measurements do not mean anything to me because I rely on my own ears. DAC3 cannot even hold a candle to Yggy even if it may have the best measurements in the world. I find it barely listenable - the sound is strained and edgy; switching to Ygg, the sound opens up enormously and becomes musical. Mind you, I treasure transparent sound and do not love the traditional tuby sound at all (the Rogue Audio RP-7 pre-amp and the Cary amp are quite transparent, not those of warm or lush tuby kind). After I remove the RP-7 preamp and let DAC3 drive the Cary amp directly, the sound gets significantly better, but still not in the same league of my Yggy/PR-7 setup - part of the reason may be that DAC3 does not have enough juice to drive a relatively low-powered Cary (the Revel F208 needs more power than 75W/channel - I am waiting for a pair of good transparent tube monoblocks). After 20 minutes of comparison, the difference was so startling obvious that I promptly shipped the Yggy for Analog 2 upgrade today. Will return DAC3. Interesting comparision: Benchmark DAC3 weighs about 4-5 pounds and about 1/6 of the size of Yggy; Yggy weighs about 20 pounds. Size does matter here. Do not know or care anything about technology involved. I am not interested in having a debate and am not partisan to any brand or company. I have much more interest in talking about classical music (I listen mostly to Bach - classical music is my religion so to speak).

+1 on Bach!

What I think the science can tell you is two things.

Either/both:

• Psychological factors are at play (e.g. related to your perception of the weight and heft of the devices, reviews and measurements you've previously read, numerous other factors) and there is actually no audible difference between the two DACs
• The Benchmark, which is almost certainly a transparent device, is less preferable to you than the (possibly) audible distortion produced by the Schiit, i.e. you perhaps don't treasure transparent sound to quite the extent that you think you do; such a preference would actually be quite consistent with those of a large number of people, according to various scientific studies which appear to show a widespread preference for moderate levels of certain types of distortion.

No offence I hope.. I guess you knew what you were in for posting those particular thoughts on this forum

Btw, before you send the Benchmark back, will it be possible to do a level-matched blind test between the two? That's a test that I think a few people here would be really interested to know the results of.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I don't think there is any question that some people prefer a certain degree of distortion, that is a subjective preference and anybody is perfectly entitled to make their own decision on what sort of sound they like. However, adjusting the sound for personal preferences is something that should be done with DSP and EQ I think. If you have a transparent auio chain you have the option to play with the sound. If you introduce euphonic distortion because it sounds nice, and then as most audiophiles do spurn EQ, tone controls, DSPetc then you'll be spending a lot of money if you change your mind or end up spending $$$$$$'s trying to match up equipment with similar distorted sound. Hence, even if people want to play with sound I think it is still much better to aim for transparent equipment.

I'd also be keen to see commercial DSPs that allow the user to introduce nonlinear distortion, but AFAIK none are available at this point in time. So in terms of euphonic nonlinear distortion, consumers are more or less restricted to tube amps and output stages.

 

[Ray2k]

+1 on Bach!

What I think the science can tell you is two things.

Either/both:

• Psychological factors are at play (e.g. related to your perception of the weight and heft of the devices, reviews and measurements you've previously read, numerous other factors) and there is actually no audible difference between the two DACs
• The Benchmark, which is almost certainly a transparent device, is less preferable to you than the (possibly) audible distortion produced by the Schiit, i.e. you perhaps don't treasure transparent sound to quite the extent that you think you do; such a preference would actually be quite consistent with those of a large number of people, according to various scientific studies which appear to show a widespread preference for moderate levels of certain types of distortion.

No offence I hope.. I guess you knew what you were in for posting those particular thoughts on this forum

Btw, before you send the Benchmark back, will it be possible to do a level-matched blind test between the two? That's a test that I think a few people here would be really interested to know the results of.

Honestly, size/weight does not bother me. If DAC3 can yield better result, I would prefer smaller size/lighter weight. Not interested in blind test. If my ears get pained, I cannot fool myself; I can only rely on my pair of ears to listen to music. I literally resent the time wasted on tinkering with machines. I did not want to send Yggy for Analog 2 upgrade (literally wasted about 5 months); that's why I ordered DAC3 to hope that it is better. Not even close. I do love transparent sound, but do not care about measurements (which I do not understand anyway).

 

[andreasmaaan]

Honestly, size/weight does not bother me. If DAC3 can yield better result, I would prefer smaller size/lighter weight. Not interested in blind test. If my ears get pained, I cannot fool myself; I can only rely on my pair of ears to listen to music. I literally resent the time wasted on tinkering with machines. I did not want to send Yggy for Analog 2 upgrade (literally wasted about 5 months); that's why I ordered DAC3 to hope that it is better. Not even close. I do love transparent sound, but do not care about measurements (which I do not understand anyway).

Why would you ears be more pained in a blind comparison than in a sighted comparison? Aren't they doing exactly the same thing in both cases?

Anyway don't worry, I can see this is not going to be a rational discussion... Best of luck to you and I'm very happy you are enjoying your Yggy. Enjoyment is the aim of the game at the end of the day

 

[Ray2k]

Why would you ears be more pained in a blind comparison than in a sighted comparison? Aren't they doing exactly the same thing in both cases?

Anyway don't worry, I can see this is not going to be a rational discussion... Best of luck to you and I'm very happy you are enjoying your Yggy. Enjoyment is the aim of the game at the end of the day [/QUOTE
One more reply; I should get it done. I am not offended, but let me tell you that this is not about rationality (if it implies that a different opinion would be irrational). I had never posted any comment online before - I specially registered to express the result of comparing the 2 DACs - I ordered BM DAC3 after reading "amirm" 's strong views. The result is not even close - so I am not interested in any further tests, blind or not. Therefore, one can only rely on one's own ears - I am not faulting anybody else's preference for DAC3. People have different tastes and ears. How can I convince you that Bach is the greatest composer there has ever been? All I can say that his music means more to me than anybody else's (or Schubert means more to me than Beethoven). There is nothing rational or irrational about such views. Science cannot explain everything - that's it. If somebody is willing to loan me a much more expensive DAC to try, I may be interested. I am sure that Yggy cannot compare to a $20K DAC, but I do not want to spend that much for any DAC. Happen to have a used Yggy which I purchased last year. Do I really love the setup I have? Not really; but I do not want to spend more money or time tinkering with machines or cables (Audience AU SX, expensive ones for my budget, but I hear the difference). Same reason I do not want to invest in an LP turntable system - would be too expensive and limited. Have little sympathy for diehard audiophiles (who seem to spend more of their time tinkering with machines and listening to a dozen of optimally recorded discs).