Al M.

Almost a year ago I reported my first impressions on the Yggy LIM DAC in this comment section, after hearing it in a friend’s system. This is a follow-up, now in contrast to the earlier report with a fully broken-in unit, with a report on my impressions from a comparison of Yggdrasil LIM vs. Yggdrasil OG in my system. The unit came from another friend who bought my first generation Yggy and installed the LIM board. The two DACs were tested at the same position in the rack, standing on Herbie’s footers, with both of them powered on all the time (except at the brief moments of switching). System: Simaudio Moon 260 DT CD transport Empirical Audio reclocking system Yggdrasil DAC Octave HP 700 preamp Octave RE320 power amp Reference 3A Reflector monitors JL Audio Fathom 112v2 subwoofer (2 x) ZenWave Audio D4/SMSG signal cables 6-way Furutech e-609 power distributor Two isolation transformers for all digital components ZenWave power cables for all components (the Yggy DAC is powered through a ZenWave PL-11 cable from its dedicated 1000 W isolation transformer) Impressions: Mabel Millan playing solo acoustic guitar, 1st recording (Gran Recital, on Ad Lib Music): less warm than the second recording on Naxos (The Devil’s Caprice), and as such it is more on the edge of the listener recognizing the nylon character of the guitar strings. With the LIM the nylon strings are still very much obvious, and the timbre is very convincing. With the Yggy OG the character gets a metallic tinge, and lands in the nowhere land between nylon and steel strings (on the second, warmer recording by Mabel Millan the nylon character is preserved on the OG). The difference between LIM and OG is dramatic on this recording. Yet also on recordings of solo flute (Stockhausen, works for flute, CD 28, Stockhausen-Verlag) and solo violin (Rachel Barton Pine, Bach violin partitas and sonatas) a metallic character of the respective instrument becomes very much evident when switching from LIM to OG; without that direct comparison it is not easily evident. The experience is kind of shocking, I did not think the Yggy OG sounded metallic in my tube-based system, but there you have it. Further switching back and forth between OG and LIM blunted the experience of stark difference somewhat, but a difference was always there. The difference on the guitar of Mabel Millan always remained very immediate. Stravinsky Sacre de Printemps (Rite of Spring; Boulez, CSO on DGG, 1992 recording): spatial depth on this recording is huge, and it is just as excellent on the LIM as it always had been on the OG (fortunately my system set-up allows for great portrayal of spatial depth, with speaker driver units being 7 feet from the front wall). Relative positions of instruments in the soundstage are similar as well. Yet I was shocked by how clean this recording sounded with the LIM. It didn’t sound as shouty as I had been used to, and it didn't sound grating either. While fortissimo brass attacks in the last section (muted trumpets often together with high-pitched woodwinds) sounded sharp and fierce as they should, they also sounded remarkably free of distortion, certainly compared to what my ears are used to. I play this music loudly, with peaks around 100 dB, and it is remarkable how little the mid-woofers on these Reference 3A Reflector speakers, coupled directly to the amplifier, break up even without crossover into the tweeter, once you feed them a really clean signal as from the LIM. Going back to the OG confirmed the usual more shouty, more distorted presentation, with also some exaggerated emphasis of high frequencies on those loud brass/woodwind attacks. Resolution at those loud peaks also suffered from the hardness and congestion. With the Yggy LIM on the other hand I heard, because of the clean presentation, some things in the many very dense orchestral passages in this music that I had never heard before. On Scheherazade (Reiner CSO, XRCD) the greater lack of distortion was also welcome. The textures of this old recording from 1960 are a bit harder to begin with, but a lot of the hardness was smoothed out, leading to a more refined presentation on the LIM. A very dramatic example of reduction of distortion is offered by listening to Beethoven’s Choral Fantasy with Helene Grimeaux on piano, Esa Pekka-Salonen conducting the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra, with the Swedish Radio Choir singing (on DGG). That recording has an extremely wide dynamic range, and in order for the softer passages to also have an impact for me I prefer to listen at a level where the last few minutes, in which joint choir and orchestra are performing, intermittently sound at a volume considerably greater than 100 dB, even louder than the aforementioned Stravinsky (the loudest I ever listen to music at home). I could not believe the lack of grain and distortion with the LIM even at that volume level, cosiderably exceeding the OG performance. Dynamics are just as fantastic with the LIM as with the OG, but they are more impressive. The reason is the greater cleanness of sound through all the brutal, powerful dynamic outbursts of joint choir and orchestra. The emotional impact of this music through the LIM is gripping. Hall atmosphere in this recording is marvelous, just as good as on the Yggy OG. Also on music for choir and orchestra that is recorded in churches the LIM reproduces just as strong and atmospheric acoustics as the OG does, drawing you effortlessly into a “you are there” setting. The brighter timbres of the period instruments on the Eybler Quartet playing Haydn’s op. 33 string quartets are a bit difficult to reproduce, and some passages with the Yggy OG were somewhat strident. The LIM again provided some welcome relief, mitigating what can become grating sounds. In this and another string quartet recording, as well as the Bach solo violin recording mentioned, the micro-detail of sound resulting from the friction of the bow over the strings and from wooden resonances is just as good with the LIM as it is with the OG. The solo violin sounded purer as well, especially in the treble. Caroline Shaw’s ‘Is a Rose’, composed in 2016 and a most beautiful song cycle, features acclaimed mezzo-soprano Anne Sofie von Otter. The warm sound of her voice is just gorgeous, but with the OG there was always distortion on one particular passage in part 3 where there is a dynamic surge of the voice towards fortissimo (I listen rather loudly to this music as well). It had become better with recent improvements in power delivery to my system, but some distortion remained. As I had hoped for, the LIM provided relief here as well. The distortion now is almost gone. This is in line with what I heard with reduction of distortion on the Rite of Spring and other music. I re-checked with the Yggy OG. On the OG it's a nasty metallic distortion in this particular passage of the mezzo-soprano singing (a timbral swing out of nowhere really). I had thought it was my speakers clipping, but it was the OG ‘clipping’ -- or the speakers reacting badly to what the OG does. Other than that though the OG sounds natural and very human on the voice, without obvious metallic coloration. It's just that the LIM sounds even more inviting. It is just a tad warmer still on the voice, and perhaps a tad more present. On the OG the voice is gorgeous, yet on the LIM even more so! I tested the bass on a few rock/pop recordings: Pink Floyd ‘The Wall’ Porcupine Tree ‘Closure/Continuation’ Billie Eilish ‘When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?’ There is no less mid-bass and deep bass than on the Yggy, but it is more controlled. Very nice. *** Finally, a summary of areas where the Yggy LIM excels just as much as the Yggy OG, contrary to reports elsewhere (including my own initial impressions reported above): -- spatial depth, low-level resolution -- micro-detail -- dynamics, micro- and macro -- rhythm & timing (on both DACs it is among the best I have heard) -- amount of bass -- energy of presentation (if you adjust for the frequency anomalies of the OG) Thus, the Yggy LIM has all the strengths of the Yggy OG, but without some of the weaknesses. There are no compromises to be made when switching to the LIM. I would therefore say that the LIM is the superior DAC, hands down. I also heard the comparison in a friend’s very advanced system with CH Precision amplification (L10 preamp and M1.1 monoblocks) and Magico M Project speakers. This was where I had heard the LIM first, but with a unit that had not been fully broken in yet. Now we both heard that the LIM was superior, with a number of things standing out in his system that were also standing out in mine. Over the past few years the Yggy OG has given me immense listening pleasure, and in my friend’s system I have experienced it beating DACs that are multiples the price (including one costing more than 10 times the Yggy). Yet now it is time to move on to the Yggy LIM. I have ordered the LIM board, and my friend has already received his LIM board and installed it. Thanks again for your review, Joe, which has helped in keeping me being interested.

Well, that's all fascinating. Luckily for me, I can still try the Yggy LIM in my own system as well for little money. I just have to send my original Yggy 1, which I also still have, to Schiit for modification, and the upgrade is only 450 bucks (I confirmed with them). Long live a company that actually takes their own claims of upgradeability seriously, unlike some others in the past.

Interesting observations, feelingears. How the two DACs are perceived may also depend on the system context. In my friend's system I did not feel that things were "masked" or "crowded out" on the Yggy OG; we listened to rather complex orchestral music. Yet unavoidably, somewhat different tonal balances and energies, as the two DACs present, will automatically create slightly different emphases and attenutation of musical lines relative to one another. That's the nature of the game. I personally did not hear more resolution and nuance with the Yggy LIM than with the Yggy OG. But I do like the greater liveliness, action, energy that, as you say, the OG represents.

Thanks for a well-written review, Joe. While I don't doubt what Joe heard, let me offer a contrarian opinion. I have heard the Yggy LIM in a friend's system (with Magico M Project speakers) after he had had it for 11 days, in a direct comparison with the regular Yggy Analog 2 (Yggy OG) that both he and I have. The Yggys were on HRS Nimbus footers, and fed via AES/EBU from a CD transport, Simaudio Moon 260D (not from computer via USB as in Joe's case). Resolution was excellent with the LIM, in terms of separation of instruments and timbral micro-detail (also on massed orchestral strings). Quite comparable with the Yggy OG. Yet the OG has a more robust sound on orchestra, and the LIM sounds a bit lighter. On solo violin, the sound with the LIM was more midrange-y; the OG presented the frequency range of the instrument in a more expanded fashion, from more luminescent highs to more wooden lows. The instrument had greater energy and it seemed to be more present in front of the listener. The LIM comparatively sounded a bit soft. It also did so on John McLaughlin's electric guitar on Live at Ronnie Scotts; the OG had more appropriate bite on it. The LIM also sounded a bit lighter on the bass guitar. Interestingly, while Joe has different findings, a greater softness of sound with the LIM was found by other reviewers as well. My friend and I agreed on our observations. He will send the LIM back and keep his Yggy OG. I will keep mine too. It's a tremendous DAC, and holds its own against much more expensive DACs multiple the price, as I could hear on several occasions.

Indeed. Very few people are willing to admit mistakes. It's a sign of insecurity and false self-protection. If you are really sure of yourself, you should be proud of having the ability to admit mistakes, frankly, because it won't diminish you. After all, everyone makes mistakes, and the self-awareness that you do should count for something. Of course, in this case the inability to admit mistakes helps continue the damage to the industry. But what do they care? Or perhaps they are still on Bob Stuart's payroll, who knows.

Perhaps. But if you don't even try, you will never change things. What is time better spent, writing to Decca or writing another post here commiserating about a technical aspect of MQA in a thread that few in the industry follow? I would suggest, once you're done with the former, you can merrily continue with the latter, to your heart's content.

I sent a complaint that I would never buy an MQA CD, with technical reasons mentioned and linked to, to Decca: https://shop.decca.com/help/ (click on "Any other questions") Haven't heard back from them, but it might be useful if they would hear from a couple of people. They probably live in a bubble and don't even realize that there is criticism.

My BADA2 already upsamples CD, but to 176 kHz PCM. Why would I convert to another format on the fly with all the losses in fidelity that this should bring? Here is a link I just found: Why DSD is a terrible idea in 2013 It's from a Linn staffer. Perhaps you disagree, but he does make technical points to be considered. Sure, from what I have repeatedly heard DSD may sound sweeter and warmer than PCM, but while this may be attractive, is it more realistic?

Precisely. I couldn't care less about DSD, all my music is on 16/44 Redbook. It's all about content. I am a music lover first, and audiophile second. I can only scratch my head about the DSD craze. But perhaps I am not a true audiophile… (shrug).

Yes, over at the WBF forum the Trinity DAC has been a big deal. Owners swear by it, and I have heard more than once that it beats the Vivaldi stack. However, I don't think Chris needs to perform a comprehensive comparison of everything with everything. I'd be happy to read why the Berkeley RS in his view is the best DAC that he has heard in his system, and how it compares to the BADA2 from the same company in sound (and on the technical level).

In my experience the resolution of great vinyl and 16/44 digital are roughly comparable -- given great recordings and, in the case of vinyl, great pressings (too many LP pressings are just mediocre). Yet I see strong points for each. For example, vinyl does a great job in reproducing the mellow breathiness and raspiness of tenor saxophone, as well as its depth of tone, while 16/44 digital falls remarkably short of that, at least on all recordings of this instrument that I have listened to. Conversely, 16/44 digital is better in my view when it comes to the timbre of brass instruments like trumpet and trombone, especially in ensemble setting (e.g., orchestral brass section). When attending live concerts I am surprised time and again how hard brass really sounds (in all but the most mellow sounding venues). 16/44 digital captures this natural hardness of sound very well, provided there are no overlaid artifacts of digital harshness, which are usually absent on good recordings played back on a great modern DAC, like the BADA2 (digital harshness is a thing of the past *). To date, I have not heard any vinyl playback capturing that natural hardness as well as digital does. -- In terms of timbral resolution of the micro-detail of brass sound vinyl and 16/44 digital are quite comparable, in my view. _____________________ *) I believe there has been great confusion in analog vs. digital debates over the decades. In my view many analog fans have confused the better reproduction of natural hardness of (brass) instruments with digital harshness. Conversely, the very real artifact of digital harshness (often related to jitter, as we now know) has often been denied by the staunchest proponents of digital. Yet I do not view the added 'sweetness' of vinyl playback as an asset, when it comes to brass sound -- CD sounds more real to me in this respect. The real comparison should not be analog vs. digital, but the triangle analog / digital / live music. Too often the last part has been neglected in debates.

You want my honest opinion? Cancel. At its price point (5 grand) the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 is an incredible performer and has shown me resolution that I had not thought possible from 16/44 digital (it needs to be on a good power conditioner, however, in order to shine; straight out of the wall may disappoint). I can't even imagine how ground-breaking the new Berkeley may be as an all-out shooting for the best. I have full confidence in the Berkeley crew after my experience with the BADA2. Yet obviously even with this, and rave reviews forthcoming, I would want to hear the machine for myself at home, which I can have the privilege to once I am ready to purchase, courtesy of Goodwin's High End (I did the same with the BADA2 before purchasing).

Thanks for the suggestion regarding the sampler disc. Obviously, I haven't claimed that CD on the BADA Series II sounds as good as hi rez PCM, only that I do think that CD replay on it through my system is of high resolution. As for the actual performance of the DAC in a system, this of course depends on several factors, one of them being good power conditioning. I found the unit to deliver substantially lower resolution straight out of the wall.

No, but when CD playback on the Berkeley DAC favorably compares in resolution to high-quality vinyl playback, which to my ears it does, then it is high-resolution in my view.

Cool. I can't comment on your other DACs, but I have had the Hegel HD 25 at home. While it is a nice DAC, it does not come close to revealing the amazing resolution that I hear from 16/44 on my Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 (which costs "just" 5 grand, and not the 16 of the new Reference model). So is mine, ultimately. Keeping on calling CD low-res does not make it so.