Schiit Yggdrasil DAC and Ragnarok Amplifier Review

I

IEMPatel

Audioholics Inner Ear Monitor
I absolutely agree! I try to avoid USB connections at any place that I can, especially if it's audio.

The only benefits of USB--

It's ubiquitous
It's easy for noobs
It carries power and data (could be an advantage and/or a disadvantage)

From what I can see, I agree that Schiit seems to build good products with thoughtful engineering (likely over-engineering), but they are pricey.
Price is a relative thing. I still feel the company promotes value-for-money equipment, the Yggdrasil compared favourably to some relatively more expensive gear. The company are also striving to break normal company conventions and offer equipment that have a high performance to price ratio; an example of this is the recently released the Modi Multibit DAC for $249.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Implementation is key but I believe multibit architecture certainly does have audio advantages over the delta-sigma counterpart. For one, I believe it is superior in the reproduction of acoustic music. That is, tracks sound more layered and natural (more akin to vinyl) compared to the slightly linear and compressed quality of delta-sigma DACs.
Believe or know? How did you compare the dac? Did you try their $249 dac in a comparison? What were the differences in the layering? Hopefully it doesn't have the noise and limitations of vinyl...
 
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
I've considered building my own DAC from an instrumentation grade DAC IC. Just because.

But, I didn't know that there is a commercial product already available that does this.

I highly doubt that there is much if any audible difference, but I am certainly intrigued by this product.

On paper, this DAC IC is definitely in a different league than the commodity audio DAC ICs.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Let's cut to the chase here.

I've seen the "military grade" and "medical grade" arguments too many times before. More often than not, military grade or medical grade are used as justifications for high prices. That may be alright if a product is used under extreme conditions in the field, or a patient's life could be risked by failure of a medical treatment or diagnostic tool. But these grades are also invoked only to wheedle more money out of some government agency.

The real question is what does military or medical grade have to do with home audio grade? I've read several claims of a product that "compared favorably" or other words implying audible benefits – all without any supporting evidence. If you claim audible benefits, you are obliged to provide evidence based upon listening tests. And if you claim extraordinary audible benefits, you are obliged to provide extraordinary evidence.
 
I

IEMPatel

Audioholics Inner Ear Monitor
Believe or know? How did you compare the dac? Did you try their $249 dac in a comparison? What were the differences in the layering? Hopefully it doesn't have the noise and limitations of vinyl...
Believe, as in the absence of sound measurements, sound is subjective. The multibit architecture when volume-matched and A/B compared with various delta-sigma DACs had a more natural reproduction of acoustics with holographic imagery. Schiit claim THD < 0.006% and IMD < 0.007%, which when tested were in fact lower with left measuring 0.00233% and right 0.00239% for THD and 0.00067% and 0.00162% for IMD respectively.

Here's what Mike, the co-founder and leader of Schiit's digital team, had to say about their sample-rate convertor.

The below are the claims of the Digital Filter/Interpolator/Sample Rate Converter in the Yggy:

1. The filter is absolutely proprietary.

2. The development tools and coefficient calculator to derive the above filters are also proprietary.

3. The math involved in developing the filter and calculating has a closed form solution. It is not an approximation, as all other filters I have studied (most, if not all of them). Therefore, all of the original samples are output. This could be referred to fairly as bit perfect; what comes in goes out.

4. Oversimplified, however essentially correct: The filter is also time domain optimized which means the phase info in the original samples are averaged in the time domain with the filter generated interpolated samples to for corrected minimum phase shift as a function of frequency from DC to the percentage of nyquist - in our case .968. Time domain is well defined at DC - the playback device behaves as a window fan at DC - it either blows (in phase) or sucks (out). It is our time domain optimization that gives the uncanny sonic hologram that only Thetas and Yggys do. (It also allows the filter to disappear. Has to be heard to understand.) Since lower frequency wavelengths are measured in tens of feet, placement in image gets increasingly wrong as a function of decreasing frequency in non time domain optimized recordings - these keep the listener's ability to hear the venue - not to mention the sum of all of the phase errors in the microphones, mixing boards, eq, etc on the record side. An absolute phase switch is of little to no value in a non time domain optimized, stochastic time domain replay system. It makes a huge difference with an Yggy

5. This is combined with a frequency domain optimization which does not otherwise affect the phase optimization. The 0.968 of nyquist also gives us a small advantage that none of the off-the shelf FIR filters (0.907) provide: frequency response out to 21.344KHz, 42.688KHz, 85.3776KHz, and 170.5772KHz bandwidth for native 1,2,4, and 8x 44.1KHz SR multiple recordings - the 48KHz table is 23.232, 46.464, 92.868, and 185.856KHz respectively for 1,2,4, and 8x. This was the portion of the filter that had the divide by zero problem which John Lediaev worked out in 1983, to combine with #4 above AND retain the original samples.


This is what the competition offers:

5. Frequency domain optimization FIR filters with Parks-McClellan optimization. The development tools for these types of filters can be downloaded for a price range of free to $300 on the internet. Parks-McClellan is the goto filter optimization for audio design. These filters are derived with no closed form math; only successive approximation. The original samples are lost. The output is approximated. An educated guess. This optimization is ubiquitous in the front end of delta sigma dacs as well as standalone digital filters. While there is no inherent phase shift within Parks-McClellan filters, there is no optimization of phase either. The listener is left with what remains from the mixing boards, transducers, brick-wall filters, etc which can and usually do destroy proper phase/position information. Finally, it is processor efficient and economical to implement. Read cheap.

Any avoidance of the Parks-McClellan pablum requires a lot of original DSP work. Am I a prophet who received the tablets from God or some other high-end audio drivel. Hell, no. I was the producer and director of this project and worked with Dave Kerstetter (hardware-software), John Lediaev (Math), Tom Lippiat (DSP Code), Warren Goldman (Coefficient Generator and development tools) for a total of 15 or so man years. These folks either taught math at The University of Iowa, Computer Science at Carnegie-Mellon University, worked at think tanks like the Rand Corporation – you get the idea. We did this for no money - What we all had in common was that we loved audio. All other audio pros were interested in Parks-McClellan and pointed and laughed at us. That's the way it happened.

It was worth it, every hour, day, and year. So go for it if you want. For what it is, it is not a lot of money.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Believe, as in the absence of sound measurements, sound is subjective. The multibit architecture when volume-matched and A/B compared with various delta-sigma DACs had a more natural reproduction of acoustics with holographic imagery. Schiit claim THD < 0.006% and IMD < 0.007%, which when tested were in fact lower with left measuring 0.00233% and right 0.00239% for THD and 0.00067% and 0.00162% for IMD respectively.

Here's what Mike, the co-founder and leader of Schiit's digital team, had to say about their sample-rate convertor.

The below are the claims of the Digital Filter/Interpolator/Sample Rate Converter in the Yggy:

1. The filter is absolutely proprietary.

2. The development tools and coefficient calculator to derive the above filters are also proprietary.

3. The math involved in developing the filter and calculating has a closed form solution. It is not an approximation, as all other filters I have studied (most, if not all of them). Therefore, all of the original samples are output. This could be referred to fairly as bit perfect; what comes in goes out.

4. Oversimplified, however essentially correct: The filter is also time domain optimized which means the phase info in the original samples are averaged in the time domain with the filter generated interpolated samples to for corrected minimum phase shift as a function of frequency from DC to the percentage of nyquist - in our case .968. Time domain is well defined at DC - the playback device behaves as a window fan at DC - it either blows (in phase) or sucks (out). It is our time domain optimization that gives the uncanny sonic hologram that only Thetas and Yggys do. (It also allows the filter to disappear. Has to be heard to understand.) Since lower frequency wavelengths are measured in tens of feet, placement in image gets increasingly wrong as a function of decreasing frequency in non time domain optimized recordings - these keep the listener's ability to hear the venue - not to mention the sum of all of the phase errors in the microphones, mixing boards, eq, etc on the record side. An absolute phase switch is of little to no value in a non time domain optimized, stochastic time domain replay system. It makes a huge difference with an Yggy

5. This is combined with a frequency domain optimization which does not otherwise affect the phase optimization. The 0.968 of nyquist also gives us a small advantage that none of the off-the shelf FIR filters (0.907) provide: frequency response out to 21.344KHz, 42.688KHz, 85.3776KHz, and 170.5772KHz bandwidth for native 1,2,4, and 8x 44.1KHz SR multiple recordings - the 48KHz table is 23.232, 46.464, 92.868, and 185.856KHz respectively for 1,2,4, and 8x. This was the portion of the filter that had the divide by zero problem which John Lediaev worked out in 1983, to combine with #4 above AND retain the original samples.


This is what the competition offers:

5. Frequency domain optimization FIR filters with Parks-McClellan optimization. The development tools for these types of filters can be downloaded for a price range of free to $300 on the internet. Parks-McClellan is the goto filter optimization for audio design. These filters are derived with no closed form math; only successive approximation. The original samples are lost. The output is approximated. An educated guess. This optimization is ubiquitous in the front end of delta sigma dacs as well as standalone digital filters. While there is no inherent phase shift within Parks-McClellan filters, there is no optimization of phase either. The listener is left with what remains from the mixing boards, transducers, brick-wall filters, etc which can and usually do destroy proper phase/position information. Finally, it is processor efficient and economical to implement. Read cheap.

Any avoidance of the Parks-McClellan pablum requires a lot of original DSP work. Am I a prophet who received the tablets from God or some other high-end audio drivel. Hell, no. I was the producer and director of this project and worked with Dave Kerstetter (hardware-software), John Lediaev (Math), Tom Lippiat (DSP Code), Warren Goldman (Coefficient Generator and development tools) for a total of 15 or so man years. These folks either taught math at The University of Iowa, Computer Science at Carnegie-Mellon University, worked at think tanks like the Rand Corporation – you get the idea. We did this for no money - What we all had in common was that we loved audio. All other audio pros were interested in Parks-McClellan and pointed and laughed at us. That's the way it happened.

It was worth it, every hour, day, and year. So go for it if you want. For what it is, it is not a lot of money.
"The multibit architecture when volume-matched and A/B compared with various delta-sigma DACs had a more natural reproduction of acoustics with holographic imagery."

Is that your own subjective opinion? How did you compare those various DACs? Or is this another marketing release from Schiit?

Is it that you can tell the difference in such minute inaudible THD figures?

While superior specs are nice, they don't necessarily mean superior sound.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
Believe, as in the absence of sound measurements, sound is subjective. The multibit architecture when volume-matched and A/B compared with various delta-sigma DACs had a more natural reproduction of acoustics with holographic imagery. Schiit claim THD < 0.006% and IMD < 0.007%, which when tested were in fact lower with left measuring 0.00233% and right 0.00239% for THD and 0.00067% and 0.00162% for IMD respectively.

Here's what Mike, the co-founder and leader of Schiit's digital team, had to say about their sample-rate convertor.

The below are the claims of the Digital Filter/Interpolator/Sample Rate Converter in the Yggy:

1. The filter is absolutely proprietary.

2. The development tools and coefficient calculator to derive the above filters are also proprietary.

3. The math involved in developing the filter and calculating has a closed form solution. It is not an approximation, as all other filters I have studied (most, if not all of them). Therefore, all of the original samples are output. This could be referred to fairly as bit perfect; what comes in goes out.

4. Oversimplified, however essentially correct: The filter is also time domain optimized which means the phase info in the original samples are averaged in the time domain with the filter generated interpolated samples to for corrected minimum phase shift as a function of frequency from DC to the percentage of nyquist - in our case .968. Time domain is well defined at DC - the playback device behaves as a window fan at DC - it either blows (in phase) or sucks (out). It is our time domain optimization that gives the uncanny sonic hologram that only Thetas and Yggys do. (It also allows the filter to disappear. Has to be heard to understand.) Since lower frequency wavelengths are measured in tens of feet, placement in image gets increasingly wrong as a function of decreasing frequency in non time domain optimized recordings - these keep the listener's ability to hear the venue - not to mention the sum of all of the phase errors in the microphones, mixing boards, eq, etc on the record side. An absolute phase switch is of little to no value in a non time domain optimized, stochastic time domain replay system. It makes a huge difference with an Yggy

5. This is combined with a frequency domain optimization which does not otherwise affect the phase optimization. The 0.968 of nyquist also gives us a small advantage that none of the off-the shelf FIR filters (0.907) provide: frequency response out to 21.344KHz, 42.688KHz, 85.3776KHz, and 170.5772KHz bandwidth for native 1,2,4, and 8x 44.1KHz SR multiple recordings - the 48KHz table is 23.232, 46.464, 92.868, and 185.856KHz respectively for 1,2,4, and 8x. This was the portion of the filter that had the divide by zero problem which John Lediaev worked out in 1983, to combine with #4 above AND retain the original samples.


This is what the competition offers:

5. Frequency domain optimization FIR filters with Parks-McClellan optimization. The development tools for these types of filters can be downloaded for a price range of free to $300 on the internet. Parks-McClellan is the goto filter optimization for audio design. These filters are derived with no closed form math; only successive approximation. The original samples are lost. The output is approximated. An educated guess. This optimization is ubiquitous in the front end of delta sigma dacs as well as standalone digital filters. While there is no inherent phase shift within Parks-McClellan filters, there is no optimization of phase either. The listener is left with what remains from the mixing boards, transducers, brick-wall filters, etc which can and usually do destroy proper phase/position information. Finally, it is processor efficient and economical to implement. Read cheap.

Any avoidance of the Parks-McClellan pablum requires a lot of original DSP work. Am I a prophet who received the tablets from God or some other high-end audio drivel. Hell, no. I was the producer and director of this project and worked with Dave Kerstetter (hardware-software), John Lediaev (Math), Tom Lippiat (DSP Code), Warren Goldman (Coefficient Generator and development tools) for a total of 15 or so man years. These folks either taught math at The University of Iowa, Computer Science at Carnegie-Mellon University, worked at think tanks like the Rand Corporation – you get the idea. We did this for no money - What we all had in common was that we loved audio. All other audio pros were interested in Parks-McClellan and pointed and laughed at us. That's the way it happened.

It was worth it, every hour, day, and year. So go for it if you want. For what it is, it is not a lot of money.
The problem is that the whole audio chain is awash in with phase abnormalities. The recording chain and then almost all speakers play fast and loose with phase.

If we can ever tidy up the recording end and produce phase coherent speakers, I personally believe there would be tangible improvement in audio.

The problem is that the significance of phase and therefore time aberrations are unknown, and with the way things are there is no way of finding out. at this time.

I'm pretty sure that the excellence of those DACS in terms of phase coherence is of no consequence at this tiem, but could be down the road.

I would be surprised if double blind testing reached statistical improvement at this time in listening tests.

That is not to say the project was worthless as an exercise
 
I

IEMPatel

Audioholics Inner Ear Monitor
"The multibit architecture when volume-matched and A/B compared with various delta-sigma DACs had a more natural reproduction of acoustics with holographic imagery."

Is that your own subjective opinion? How did you compare those various DACs? Or is this another marketing release from Schiit?

Is it that you can tell the difference in such minute inaudible THD figures?

While superior specs are nice, they don't necessarily mean superior sound.
That is my subjective opinion when doing an A/B comparison with Schiit's multibit Yggdrasil and other Delta-sigma DACs.
 
I

IEMPatel

Audioholics Inner Ear Monitor
Sighted? Blind? What other DACs?
My descriptions of the sound comparisons can be seen in the review but the DACs include Resonessence Invicta, ALO Audio's CDM Dac & PS Audio Perfectwave II. It was a double-blind test with myself preferring the Yggdrasil over these three DACs on 4 out of 5 occasions.

Interestingly, the Yggdrasil and the more recently reviewed Schiit's Gungnir Multibit DAC had a different result with myself prefering the Yggdrasil on 3 out of 5 listening tests. My descriptions on their difference can be seen in the review.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
I understand why folks want DBT's, but if a poster found no audible difference, then DBT's are not requested.

I think it is fair to assume that a review is part data and opinion. IMO, this one was an interesting piece and a worthy effort.

- Rich
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
My descriptions of the sound comparisons can be seen in the review but the DACs include Resonessence Invicta, ALO Audio's CDM Dac & PS Audio Perfectwave II. It was a double-blind test with myself preferring the Yggdrasil over these three DACs on 4 out of 5 occasions.

Interestingly, the Yggdrasil and the more recently reviewed Schiit's Gungnir Multibit DAC had a different result with myself prefering the Yggdrasil on 3 out of 5 listening tests. My descriptions on their difference can be seen in the review.
Frankly after reading "The Schiit products come well packaged in a large cardboard box. As with all Schiit products, the white cardboard features minimal packaging which exudes class and sophistication." I had glanced through the rest as I expected the rest to be similarly useless information (and the cursory glance bore that out). Going back I see no mention of DBT, specifics of same, or who participated. I find most reviews useless as they have nothing to really go on except the reviewer's opinion, and there's no basis to trust your opinion....
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Marketing!

All DACs are guesswork, it's just a matter of "how good is the guess" and "how good does the guess need to be?"
And, is a better guessing DAC really audible, under DBT protocol. That is the question to be answered.

Audio is not a missile looking for that window to go through.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
I understand why folks want DBT's, but if a poster found no audible difference, then DBT's are not requested.
- Rich
Not sure I understand this completely. Are you asking why we don't request DBT if a poster didn't hear differences?
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
... with myself prefering the Yggdrasil on 3 out of 5 listening tests. ...
That is not statistically significant result. ;)
And. most likely not double blind to see if in fact you could prefer one over the other, but a preference like yours is just that, a preference and meaning only to yourself.

We are a tough crowd here. :)
 
G

Goliath

Full Audioholic
Implementation is key but I believe multibit architecture certainly does have audio advantages over the delta-sigma counterpart. For one, I believe it is superior in the reproduction of acoustic music. That is, tracks sound more layered and natural (more akin to vinyl) compared to the slightly linear and compressed quality of delta-sigma DACs.
That is actually very interesting! Please keep in mind there is no evidence that delta-sigma DACs are audibly inferior to any other. No perceptual studies, no controlled tests, nothing to support that claim.

The claim that delta-sigma is somehow inferior is usually based on casual, uncontrolled, sighted listening where "other factors" besides "just listening" take place.
 
G

Goliath

Full Audioholic
My descriptions of the sound comparisons can be seen in the review but the DACs include Resonessence Invicta, ALO Audio's CDM Dac & PS Audio Perfectwave II. It was a double-blind test with myself preferring the Yggdrasil over these three DACs on 4 out of 5 occasions.
Sounds like you had a lot of fun.

Did you level-match all three DAC's in your listening evaluation? Can you please walk me through the process as I would like to replicate the results in my own room.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
Not sure I understand this completely. Are you asking why we don't request DBT if a poster didn't hear differences?
Of course, bias and auditory memory make differentiating components difficult.
That means difficult to discern, even when preset.

Everyone has bias, objectivists and subjectivists alike.

- Rich
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top