Schiit Yggdrasil Stereophile Review + Measurements

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/schiit-audio-yggdrasil-dac/?page=2

 

Exactly. Another factor to consider is that Schiit sells their products directly. The majority of buyers that have $20k systems rely upon retailers to spec systems for them. Informed consumers who research products like the Yggdrasil on enthusiast forums represent a very small percentage of the audio market. And the percentage of readers smart enough to interpret the graphs and question John Atkinson's bias is even smaller-- and thats why this tread has been one the best on SBAF thanks to members like Marvey, ultrabike, and Mike Moffat himself who chimed in.

 

I learned an expensive lesson when upgrading from the Bricasti M1 to the Yggdrasil. Cost doesn't always get you better gear, despite all the raves reviews of the Bricasti unit.

I was chasing a DAC sound that I liked, and throwing more cash at delta-sigma equipment (from Vega to HD30 to Bricasti). Still not happy. Then the Yggdrasil got me 90% there - just not enough warmth / musicality / body for my tastes and setup. Then the Pavane - now I know that R2R NOS DACs are my thing. Hell of a learning curve and my wallet now looks like the inside of an abattoir, but I got there in the end.

 

I wonder where all these guys buying $200k+ systems come from. Most of the people I know with that kind of dough are real tightwads.

 

And RH is a blasphemer among them, religious folks or purveyors of religion don't tend to like people who blaspheme.

Having said that, i've heard the Dave, Pavane and Vivaldi in my system. The difference is understandably small. But the Dave and Vivaldi is definitely better. Maybe 10%, but that 10% once you heard it, its hard to go back.

But id suggest you just go vinyl if you dumping vivaldi level money.

 

Id say it really depends on what era of music you listen to. if you listen primarly to 50'S to earl 80's music, vinyl compared to DAC is at another level. Even a modest TT setup wih sl-1200 and denon dl103r is quite a few step better then Yggdrasil or Mosaic t imo
if you listen mainly to modern music, vinyl imo makes no sense at all. my friend just bought a couple of modern vinyl of modern music and I prefer the DAC + FLAC files.

 

This is a dilemma I find myself in all the time. Is it the DAC that is the problem with digital, or is it the digital source, not the hardware but the source. Case in point. The Beatles 50th anniversary remix of Sergeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. The remix itself is very good. But the mastering added even more limiting ( supposedly light limiting ) than the 2009 re-issues. The result I will leave up to the listener. For me it's a bit too loud. DR-8. The word on the street is the vinyl was taken directly off the remix. No limiting added. Reading various impressions seems to indicate that the vinyl is superior in SQ to the digital. Technically this shouldn't be the case. Shouldn't the Blu-ray if done properly done be at least as good or better than the vinyl? Especially since all of the re-mix was done from digital transfers of the 4-track sessions tapes? Am I missing something here? Or are we still in the loudness wars, even with the Beatles? These are the things that keep me up at night, and my prostate.

 

Spoiler: I go off the topic of the Yggdrasil

From a profile post I made a few days ago: Looks like vinyl (or a needle drop) might be the only way to go.


The mastering engineer Miles Showell describes: Vinyl as "no peak limiting", CD as "LOUD". (Starts at 3:00)

From my viewpoint, the Blue-ray should be high fidelity including the dynamics. I have found that the people in change of such decisions don't agree.

CD Stereo Tracks - DR8
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/128903

Blue Ray Stereo Tracks- DR8
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/129030

The CDs with bonus tracks and the Blue Ray 5.1 calculate out to DR10. The bonus tracks don't have the extent of peak limiting as the regular album tracks, which up's the average DR. (That is a good thing for the bonus tracks, but why the different attitude between the two categories? )

Interesting question, Ringingears. I suspect that it is complicated. I just mentioned dynamics/peak limiting in my comments above. If it is too bad, that is an aspect to the sound quality that I cannot listen around. Some people feel differently.

There are the ADCs used on older CD releases. Some say they sound bad. Most of my best sounding CDs are also my older (pre-1994 mostly) CDs. Same sort of thing going on with a lot of the older CDs where it is said that the record companies just pulled the first tape with the correct title off of a shelf, regardless of quality. Yet many of the older CDs sound better than what came later. Barry Diament got "whatever" for the original Led Zeppelin CDs. Some of those have not been surpassed in CD/Digital format, IMO. I could go on (and on) but I'm off topic.

I found @Marvey's post very interesting.

I have wondered how close something like a Yggdrasil playing well done CD/Digital files can get to well done LPs on a nice phono front end. I also wonder if that gap can ever be closed.

 

It's always about mastering and Vinyl is normally best unless a CD is the source of it's master. I have a few of these records and they sound awful.

Also, even though I'm not a fan of DSD at all, I own a few dozen SACDs just because they ended up having the best master of a particular recording.

 

I have a question about this.
recordings that go through all digital chains. dont they have to go back thruw a DAC in order to be pressed to vinyl?

 

Yes. I believe DXD is used in the master process, then it's down sampled as needed. Moving from DXD to DSD isn't that much, which is why some people think DSD is better.

 

ok
I fail to see the difference between marvey example 1 and 3.

if we take all modern music pressed to vinyl. These were all recorded and transferred to digital and went threw a AD and in order to press them unto Vinyl, we have to make it go threw a DAC. so what is the advantage of buying modern vinyl went they already went thrue marvey number 1 example?

 

ok
so if I understand correctly, if you were to buy a modern vinyl which the recording tracks was automatically transferred to digital, in order to being pressed to vinyl it has to go from digital to analog so it can be pressed unto the vinyl. so when you buy the modern vinyl, you add a additional chain which would be the TT and cartridge + phonostage?
why wouldnt it be better in that case to buy the digital recording and only use your own dac, therefore bypassing the TT, cart, and phonostage?

 

What does vinyl do that digital doesn't? I mean for specific frequencies? Stronger bass quantity/wider soundstaging/more precise vocal & instrumental placement?

Or is it just a warmer more lusher sound than what most digital DACs have to offer?

 

comparing for example a digital album of Kind of blue vs a Columbia 2 eye first reissue from the 60's is a eye opener.
the first thing I notice is how snappy and fast and raw cymbals sounds. attack and decay is better portrayed on vinyl, you really hear very small transients sounds, every little background sounds seem to pop out with the right dynamism. comparing with digital, its really more flat, closed in, more uniform and you really lose that aspect of dynamism, you lose the bloom and the raw nature of space. im bad at explaining btw as im french. with vinyl, sometime ill even be surprised by a sound, as if its more real and it can make me almost surprised if played loud. hard to explain but the dynamism range is much more impressive so everything sounds more realist. clapping or someone caughing have the right amount of attack. then the tone of instruments is right on, same for tonality of cymbals, hi hats. a good analog system is very organic yet not warm per say. its really hard to go back to digital
imo, its just another world and if you listen to jazz or rock before the 80's, you need a analog setup!