DACs are DACs are DACs... NOT!

[JonMarsh]

Which DA25 tweeter is this? DA25TX or DA25BG?

The Calliope uses the DA25TX; we've used that in several designs. It's a real bargain in the performance/cost ratio; it's drawbacks are mainly the large size and flimsy front plate- I've actually dissembled these on occasion and epoxied two front plates together and re-assembled the tweeter with one of the motor/dome assemblies, and keeping the other as a repair backup. Steve is looking into making a custom baseplate for it. Given that two cost about $100, it's by far the best $100 tweeter you can buy. Having measured a LOT of tweeter in 2019 and 2020, my opinion is that it's one of the best tweeters at or below $400.

I too, believe that room factors play a large part. On baffle dimensions and shape I also believe play a large part.
Whether I can hear the difference between a well designed baffle with a deep 1”+ roundovers and carefully positioned drivers, or a boring rectangular box; I haven’t tested empirically for myself.

Well, you can measure the differences with home gear, so then it comes down to how audible they are in a given system and acoustic environment. The three part article I wrote for Speaker Design "Breaking with “modern conventions”- a highly musical two-way system using an eight-inch woofer" in about 2005 goes into that and many other topics- I used to have a download link available, but iCloud doesn't support that anymore- the 48MB size precludes emailing, but it's easy to send using Apple Messages. I've sent it out to a few folks recently.

A few decades ago I did some double blinded testing regarding high bitrate MP3 and CD and a friend and I tended to prefer to the MP3. We were shocked and somewhat embarrassed. What blasphemy! How could we enjoy and prefer data compressed music?!

Well it turns out that years later some research has shown that MP3 can be preferred. The sound of distortion is curious.

The sound of distortion and what is musically annoying and what isn't so annoying is a curious subject- even back in the 70's, we were aware that speakers had higher distortion than what was usually measured on amplifiers, yet a good speaker could be very revealing of the differences between electronics that had soft distortion characteristics and maybe what you'd call hard or irritating distortion characteristics.

On the digital side, in the 70's and part of the 80's I had by the standards then a fairly high end vinyl rig (Rabco turntable, Denon 103 MC cartridge, my own custom built step up transformer, and my own custom built two stage phono preamp with passive EQ, using modules (my own) similar to the Mark Levinson modules designed by John Curl. CD had little attraction for me, other than becoming a ubiquitous source of new music and the POTENTIAL for good sound, someday, when people sorted out consumer level playback electronics adequately. I had experience building studios with friends and working in them some, as well as live classical recording, including symphonic works, and had a setup at home in Boulder CO. that was setup in an unusual manner and imaged very well. So, lets just say, I had standards.

The first DAC I heard that cut it in most regards, including imaging and timbre, especially if you put Antelope Isochrone clock/data stabilizer in front of it, was the Berkeley Audio Alpha DAC. I passed that unit on to Steve Manning a while back. The guys that designed it were the ones behind the Pacific Microsonic encoder and decoder, which were the industry standard for professional CD work. I'd love to have the new version of that, or the Alpha RS DAC, but alas, I can't afford the price of a car for a DAC at this point!

I have a Denafrips Terminator with the upgraded DSP/control board, and in storage my TotalDAC D2. I use a Brainstorm DCD-8 to clean up the data path, with a rubidium oscillator for a low jitter clock source for the Brainstorm.

Now, I expect that sounds a bit over the top (or a lot over the top) but I was working with a colleague in upper management in Munich evaluating a lot of digital sources and paths, and his wife (pediatric doctor but music lover) was our reality check- she was a skeptic about a lot of this stuff, but if she agreed on how it sounded better, or different, then we usually figured we were on to something. In the end, R2R ladder DACs like the TotalDAC won out, along with the Brainstorm reclocking and even TotalDAC reclocking units.

Now, if you want to have a real giggle of a read, how about some review discussion of the three new models of the Yiggy DAC from Schitt Audio? Schitt likes R2R ladder DACs, too, but tries to use some of the few commercial chips available. Recently they've introduced three new versions, using different chips.




From Audiophile Style (formerly Computer Audiophile)

Last week I flew to The Schiitr to participate in a double blind listening session of the three Yggdrasil DACs. Before getting into all the specifics of the listening session, let's cut right to the first part of the chase and let Schiit Audio describe the three models.

Yggdrasil Less Is More. Uses four (yes, 4) TI DAC8812 stereo 16-bit DACs and integrated differential amplification afterwards. Because it’s 16 bits, and because the DACs cost less than the other options, it is less expensive than any other version. It also measures a bit better than the Yggdrasil OG (!) despite being down 4 bits. This is the wonder and magic of dither. $2199

Yggdrasil More is Less. Middle priced. Uses four TI DAC11001 20-bit DACs and integrated differential amplification afterwards. These new DACs really push the limits of measured multibit performance. Although they are true 20-bit multibit architecture DACs, their integrated sample-and-hold provides measured performance near the top of today’s DACs. $2349

Yggdrasil OG. Also known as ... Yggdrasil Analog 2. Uses four Analog Devices 20-bit DACs and discrete analog buffering and summing afterwards. The only discrete Yggdrasil model, and the one that everyone has known and loved for the past few years. $2599

Let's cut to the final chase scene before going over the nuances of listening to each DAC. By far, my favorite version is Yggdrasil Less Is More. That's right, the least expensive model, with the least number of bits (16 bit DAC chips, 17 bits total), sounded the best. It wasn't even close. The second place DAC was Yggdrasil OG, the original Yggy that I've listened to for years in my system. My least favorite DAC was Yggdrasil More is Less. You read that right, the best measuring multi bit DAC ever, sounded the worst to me. This conclusion wasn't a close call.

My preference
Yggdrasil Less Is More ($2,199)
Yggdrasil OG ($2,599)
Yggdrasil More is Less ($2,349)

My notes about each DAC range from high praise to describing one as a "jumbled mess."

Yggdrasil Less Is More ($2,199) - The sound was 100% appropriate, in that it can be sharp or mellow and everything in between. This DAC didn't editorialize. When the piano started on this track, I leaned back and said "Yes." The sound put me at ease, relaxed me, and was absolutely right. The DAC has great bass extension with articulation and solidity. The piano hammer strikes at roughly 2:20 into the track sounded fantastic. It's hard to want more from a DAC than this Yggy can give.

Yggdrasil OG ($2,599) - The original Yggdrasil was good on this track, but not at the same level as the Less is More DAC. Bass was a touch boomy, but not loose. I heard the slightest touch of a synthetic sound in the mid to low frequencies of the piano compared to my favorite version of the Yggy. None of this is audible when listening in isolation and I've never heard this on my own system. But, under direct comparison, it was there for one's ears to hear.

Yggdrasil More is Less ($2,349) - OK, I'll say it, what a disappointment for me. I hear blur in the midrange, extra crispy high frequencies, and harsh hammer strikes. Despite this DAC's measurement bonafides, I'm not a fan of its sound. It offered no redeeming qualities for me. This wasn't the case for others listening, but at this level of performance it's really about taste.

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/new-schiit-yggdrasil-blind-listening-comparison-r1045/

https://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/dac8812

Now, I might be wrong, but I think if I could put them on the bench with my APx555 I might be able to figure out why the rankings look like this- bits are not just bits, and all bits are not created equal. The schematics would be interesting, too. I was on the verge of building my own DAC until the Berkeley Alpha DAC came along.

[JonMarsh]

DACs are DACs are DACs... NOT!

This is a thread I figured I'd start focusing on the interesting sonic disparities in Digital to Analog converters- and while though a variety of technical metrics give us some good clues about the likely sound quality, they're not always definitive or the last word.


In my own search for sound close to the mic feeds, (having helped design, build and work in some small studios in Boulder, CO, and done live recordings of classical ensembles going from chamber trios to a massive orchestral performance of Saint-Saen Symphony #3, I'm very familiar with the limitations of a lot of analog gear, as well as the shortcomings of many early digital systems. Though I found that my Sony SCD777ES was pretty benchmark for it's time and day, for SACD and CD, it still was obviously not doing an optimum job of detail and ambiance retrieval or imaging.


The first converter setup I ever heard that approached these tasks with some high degree of fidelity was the original Berkely Audio Alpha DAC, and while using Antelope Audio Isochrone digital distribution and clock processor as the front end on the AES/EBU inputs.









Steve Manning has this unit now, and I believe it's still serving him fairly well...


I am a fan of reclocking and stabilizing the jitter of the AES/EBU input to DACS, and have done numerous experiments with the Brainstorm DCD8 and rubidium reference oscillators, driving TotalDAC's and Denafrips Terminator. His wife, a music lover but technical skeptic (pediatric doctor, too) was our "test control" subject; if she consistently heard a positive difference, then we could all three agree it wasn't placebo effect goading the boys on.


After moving I'll be setting up all the old gear that's been in storage, including a new DCD8, and look forward to listening to the new systems in development with the full front end.

But you know, it's interesting how subjective impressions and evaluations with very familiar program material can vary...