Just got a Yggdrasil!

[Ralf11]

not exactly the same you know...

[esldude]

3 hours ago, GUTB said:

Okay so, hear me out.

 

I suspect, now, that many of you guys have never been exposed to real hi-fi. I was informed in hi-fi by high-end headphone listening. With high end headphones and quality amp/dac, you should be able to place instruments in your head-stage with very good accuracy. They should have not only distance relative to each other in 2D, but also in 3D. Now, the imaging capabilities of even very high end headphones is very limited. The stage is a globe around your head, with most of it inside your head. It's a very intimate presentation.

 

When I listen to a stereo speaker setup and I can't place the 3rd-dimension it aggravates me because the system is falling short. Obviously, many types of music, like modern pop rock, hip-hop, etc, won't be able to produce a 3D image. A stereo transfer from a mono recording isn't going to have 3D capabilities. But anything recorded in stereo with correct mic placement / mixing SHOULD produce a 3D image. The large majority of my music library SHOULD produce a 3D image.

 

If I may, it seems like many of you guys think hi-fi is clarity, dynamics and timbre -- and imaging is something that you adjust to taste. For example, do you like a focused center, or a more dispersed, wider sound? Soundstage doesn't make or break hi-fi to you guys. Is that about right? You guys would have been very impressed with the Schiit room -- clear, detailed, coherent. Except that the image lacked DEPTH, so it didn't impress me.

Do you know how many recordings are made with the kind of miking and limited track mixing so there is even a possibility of realistic 3-dimensions (which actually you really are only talking about 2 dimensions)?  The number is a tiny percentage not even a majority of 1 % of all recordings.  If the large majority of your music library is made of such it is very, very unusual.  Not impossible, I don't know what you have, but unusual to the point of being unlikely.

 

For instance of the two you asked us about, only one has the chance, and that is the Chesky.  The other was recorded in a way it could never have that highly dimensional soundstage as part of it other than as an effect.  The effect could be pretty convincing, but actually not what was recorded.  A case of judging recordings thinking you are doing so by fidelity when actually it is simply by preference.

[PeterSt]

I understand the physics of what could and what could not happen. Outside that though, I assume we are familiar with the phenomenon "flat as a pancake";

 

Because this phenomenon exists, we also know about the opposite, to whatever extent that is. Over here though I am able to fill the complete room in a way that I can not determine where the speakers are, in the z axis (depth). This requires a certain SPL though, which is logical to me because all works with reflections.

Do notice that I am per se not saying that I can locate instruments etc. in the z axis - only that there is no source of the speakers "visible".

 

The specialty of this, is that this comes along with no detectable standing waves of any frequency; and this is not because I don't play loud.

 

I can tell that at some stage this started to work for me and this is, say, pure "quality" related. Like dive under a certain jitter level; have a better USB interface (+ cable) which again will be about jitter but more indirectly.

The last step I took in this realm was a second USB isolator (our Phisolator and this is outside the in-DAC isolation which is also there, thus 3 galvanic isolations in series now) but after 3-4 week playing with it, I thought it was "over". It adds so much hall which seems genuine (not processed or fake or wrong on one or the other way) that all now sounded as if it were live. The lacking audience was the only proof of the recording not being live at all. The effect is also strange because normally with such an outcome (more hall) the accuracy decreases. Not so with this situation.

So I took out the 2nd isolator and think I am more happy.

 

Moral of this : we all can not tell how the real intentions have been of a recording, because it can be "tweaked" massively afterwards (up till too much of "depth" so to speak).

Btw, earlier on in this topic I announced an "audio show" in our spaces, and while that happened I used a couple of tracks of which I knew how crazily they "improved" regarding this depth and hall and I explicitly asked everyone how they perceived the tracks which they were all familiar with (this was an audio club who handed their own test tracks they always use). Without exception they never heard a thing like it. Statistics may tell to some degree that you (all) too never heard the phenomenon of opposite of the pancake but in negative sense (at least that is what I think). The truth will be somewhere in the middle, but nobody knows where it is (varies per recording, per playback system, per room).

 

 

 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Over here though I am able to fill the complete room in a way that I can not determine where the speakers are, in the z axis (depth).

Strong rear and/or side reflections will do that.

[mansr]

10 hours ago, GUTB said:

I suspect, now, that many of you guys have never been exposed to real hi-fi.

Drop the attitude.

[Jud]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Statistics may tell to some degree that you (all) too never heard the phenomenon of opposite of the pancake but in negative sense (at least that is what I think). The truth will be somewhere in the middle, but nobody knows where it is (varies per recording, per playback system, per room).

 

Right, a bit of a philosophical dilemma - Is there a recording where "opposite of the pancake" or even "disappearing of speakers" does not happen?  For ordinary stereo or mono, "disappearing of speakers" is very typical for me because of the Vandersteens.  But take the early Beatles' Capitol-mangled hard-panned "stereo" with vocals on one side and instruments on the other, and if your system makes the speakers disappear there, then my guess is it's an effect and not true to the source.

[PeterSt]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

But take the early Beatles' Capitol-mangled hard-panned "stereo" with vocals on one side and instruments on the other, and if your system makes the speakers disappear there, then my guess is it's an effect and not true to the source.

 

Jud, It is a good idea, but maybe doesn't work out as intended. This is because it is about the depth. So what I am claiming (between large quotes) is that the speakers can not be located in the depth (envision that sound is everywhere in that z plane, and which is completely different from left/right being mushed. So yes, I would be able to locate hard panned (speakers) but this still doesn't tell me where in the depth it is. Well, that is what I think, because I should try it for real (and somehow I already feel I will be wrong at this).

[Ric]

On 4/22/2017 at 6:45 PM, GUTB said:

Listened to Yggdrasil in the Schiit room at AXPONA. Vidar and Freya setup playing on a Song3 tower speakers. Very resolving, up there with the better DACs at the show -- W4S DAC2v2SE, Optologic, etc. The Schiit setup was a little thin on harmonics and shallow soundstage.

 

Really? I was there Saturday and Sunday and both days they had a Bifrost/Saga setup. I saw pictures from Friday and it was the same setup then too. There was an Yggdrasil set up in the headphones area. I asked Mr. Stoddard if they had a Freya at the show and he said they didn't bring one. The AXPONA review on Stereophile's website even says he wanted to stick with an affordable setup; the whole thing costs less than an Yggy.

 

[gmgraves]

12 hours ago, esldude said:

Do you know how many recordings are made with the kind of miking and limited track mixing so there is even a possibility of realistic 3-dimensions (which actually you really are only talking about 2 dimensions)?  The number is a tiny percentage not even a majority of 1 % of all recordings.  If the large majority of your music library is made of such it is very, very unusual.  Not impossible, I don't know what you have, but unusual to the point of being unlikely.

 

For instance of the two you asked us about, only one has the chance, and that is the Chesky.  The other was recorded in a way it could never have that highly dimensional soundstage as part of it other than as an effect.  The effect could be pretty convincing, but actually not what was recorded.  A case of judging recordings thinking you are doing so by fidelity when actually it is simply by preference.

 

Three dimensional recordings, of the kind you are talking about, are very rare. Esldude hit the nail squarely on the head, there. To achieve true three-dimensionality requires a true stereo miking technique (for that's what three-dimensional recordings really are, they are stereo recordings). One cannot sprinkle a forest of microphones about an ensemble and get stereo. No. What you get under those conditions is multi-channel mono. There is a reason for doing it this way; actually there are more than one reason for doing it that way. First of all one has to realize that recordings aren't made for audiophiles. In order to reach as large an audience as possible, recordings are generally made to the lowest common denominator and it has always been that way. IOW, most listeners may be music lovers but they don't really care about "high-fidelity" in the way that we audiophiles understand it, and their listening equipment reflects that and always has. So-called Boom-boxes, and all-in-one systems, CD and media players, the size of an old clock radio, in-car stereos, people's desktop computer systems; these are the order of the day, and most classical recordings are specifically aimed and engineered to be listened to on these devices. The second reason is that, counterintuitive as this may sound, it's cheaper to throw up a mess of microphones and close-mike the individual instruments or instrumental ensembles. That way, they can bring in the uber expensive talent, get the performance down on multi-track media and get the talent out of there (and off the clock) as soon as possible. Then the producers and engineers can sit at the recording console and fiddle with the balances and added "ambience effects", vacillating between different mixes 'till their hearts' content. 

 

With pop and jazz, there is another reason. Unless the ensemble is playing purely acoustic instruments, the performance often does not even exist in what we would call real-time. Electric Guitars and electronic keyboard instruments are generally not recorded out of their accompanying amp/speakers. but are usually plugged directly into the mixing board. The musicians usually hear what they are playing through headphones with the only miked instruments being the drum kit. Even real acoustic instruments such as saxophones and or trumpets are usually "Frapped" (connected to the recording console via contact microphones which are mechanically connected directly to the body of the instrument. The only stereo one can get from this arrangement is for the recording engineer to electronically place the instrument somewhere between all the way left stage to all the way right stage. That gives a sound field that stretches in a single line across an artificial soundstage. There is no depth in this arrangement at all . And finally, we have jazz. For some reason, ever since the dawn of stereo recording, jazz has been recorded in three channel mono, with the "featured player" in the center, and backup spread left, right, and center. No 3D sound stage there!

[semente]

Room reverberance and loudness can affect the sense of depth.

If we place the mics in the first 3rd of a largish room and two sound sources, one close and one far from the mic, we will get a sense of depth.

But recordings are rarely done this way, even less so if they are made in a studio where close- multi-mic'ing is the norm.

 

R

[Ralf11]

here are the effects of 2 factors...  note the interaction of delay time & SPL

 

 

[Jud]

39 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

here are the effects of 2 factors...  note the interaction of delay time & SPL

 

 

 

Masking?

[GUTB]

18 hours ago, esldude said:

Do you know how many recordings are made with the kind of miking and limited track mixing so there is even a possibility of realistic 3-dimensions (which actually you really are only talking about 2 dimensions)?  The number is a tiny percentage not even a majority of 1 % of all recordings.  If the large majority of your music library is made of such it is very, very unusual.  Not impossible, I don't know what you have, but unusual to the point of being unlikely.

 

For instance of the two you asked us about, only one has the chance, and that is the Chesky.  The other was recorded in a way it could never have that highly dimensional soundstage as part of it other than as an effect.  The effect could be pretty convincing, but actually not what was recorded.  A case of judging recordings thinking you are doing so by fidelity when actually it is simply by preference.

 

I picked two tracks that were close to extremes in my library between depth and soundstage and no soundstage. I can perceive depth in I Get a Kick Out of You, but it's mild, perhaps in just an artifact of my 845 SET. I agree with your assessment that it's a traditional left-right mix with no depth information to speak of. Tea Picking is the opposite extreme. In my system, you get a clear sense that that the steel percussions are floating from a far distance away, as if you were sitting well back from the stage of a hall.

 

Other comments by others here seems like they aren't used to hearing depth in the soundstage. But, doesn't common sense dictate that we perceive depth because our brains process time/phase cues? To record depth information, all you need are mics that pick up the depth cues and mixing that doesn't destroy that.

 

 

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

I picked two tracks that were close to extremes in my library between depth and soundstage and no soundstage. I can perceive depth in I Get a Kick Out of You, but it's mild, perhaps in just an artifact of my 845 SET. I agree with your assessment that it's a traditional left-right mix with no depth information to speak of. Tea Picking is the opposite extreme. In my system, you get a clear sense that that the steel percussions are floating from a far distance away, as if you were sitting well back from the stage of a hall.

 

Other comments by others here seems like they aren't used to hearing depth in the soundstage. But, doesn't common sense dictate that we perceive depth because our brains process time/phase cues? To record depth information, all you need are mics that pick up the depth cues and mixing that doesn't destroy that.

 

 

 

I don't know whose posts you've been reading, but you've just agreed with what a lot of people in the thread have been saying for ages.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

here are the effects of 2 factors...  note the interaction of delay time & SPL

 

 

 

Something interesting is that if you look at http://src.infinitewave.ca/ , the ringing of minimum phase filters is on the order of 1-2 milliseconds.  This would be just at the very edge of, or perhaps just shy of, where the "spaciousness" area on the graph above begins, if as @Miska has said from time to time, this ultrasonic ringing also causes "smearing" of the signal itself.

 

Just some possibly interesting speculation.

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Something interesting is that if you look at http://src.infinitewave.ca/ , the ringing of minimum phase filters is on the order of 1-2 milliseconds.  This would be just at the very edge of, or perhaps just shy of, where the "spaciousness" area on the graph above begins, if as @Miska has said from time to time, this ultrasonic ringing also causes "smearing" of the signal itself.

 

Just some possibly interesting speculation.

Notice the frequency of the ringing?

 

 All above 20 khz.  So yes Miska says smearing, but if smearing is ultrasonic will you hear it?

[esldude]

24 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

I picked two tracks that were close to extremes in my library between depth and soundstage and no soundstage. I can perceive depth in I Get a Kick Out of You, but it's mild, perhaps in just an artifact of my 845 SET. I agree with your assessment that it's a traditional left-right mix with no depth information to speak of. Tea Picking is the opposite extreme. In my system, you get a clear sense that that the steel percussions are floating from a far distance away, as if you were sitting well back from the stage of a hall.

 

Other comments by others here seems like they aren't used to hearing depth in the soundstage. But, doesn't common sense dictate that we perceive depth because our brains process time/phase cues? To record depth information, all you need are mics that pick up the depth cues and mixing that doesn't destroy that.

 

 

I don't know that we have been saying we hear no depth.  My comments about recordings along with George's, you can't mix in mics stuck all over and not mess up phase and time cues.  Much less the various kinds of processing done to over 99% of all recordings. 

 

The other factor is your SET.  Never heard one that didn't add space and depth to any recording.  Some worse than others.  That is also fine if that is your preference. Most recordings will sound better that way. I used triodes in push-pull fashion for many years.  They do some of the same thing, and I like it.

 

My guess, backed up by some experience, is if you could use your 845 SET on some of the speakers you heard they too would have some depth that otherwise was not apparent.  It isn't that they are incapable of it.  It simply is most recordings don't and considering how they were made can't show lots of depth.

[Ralf11]

re: if smearing is ultrasonic will you hear it?

 

hate to make things more complicated, but there was a research paper I saw the other day to the effect that humans can perceive infrasonics that they cannot hear.... so....

 

(I am still working on just moving my speakers around...)

[Jud]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

Notice the frequency of the ringing?

 

 All above 20 khz.  So yes Miska says smearing, but if smearing is ultrasonic will you hear it?

 

Right - exactly why I noted the ringing is ultrasonic and that there could only be a "spaciousness effect" (if at all) if the "smearing" occurs in the (audible) signal itself.

[GUTB]

Yes, it does look like the Bifrost. It said Yggdrasil and Ragnarok in the equipment list, but no Ragnarok was in sight.

 

Very impressive clarity for such an inexpensive system. Ironically, the $2.9k Salk3 towers in the Schiit room sounded much better than the Exoticas in the Salk room. For those of you guys who don't believe in / care about soundstage depth would be very impressed by it. I fear it would end up being fatiguing though, but that's just an unfounded opinion, no way to know that for sure unless you listen to it for a length of time. I don't even to qualify that with "for the price". Criticism is that the system may lack some body / heft.

 

 

 

 

[semente]

51 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

I picked two tracks that were close to extremes in my library between depth and soundstage and no soundstage. I can perceive depth in I Get a Kick Out of You, but it's mild, perhaps in just an artifact of my 845 SET. I agree with your assessment that it's a traditional left-right mix with no depth information to speak of. Tea Picking is the opposite extreme. In my system, you get a clear sense that that the steel percussions are floating from a far distance away, as if you were sitting well back from the stage of a hall.

 

Other comments by others here seems like they aren't used to hearing depth in the soundstage. But, doesn't common sense dictate that we perceive depth because our brains process time/phase cues? To record depth information, all you need are mics that pick up the depth cues and mixing that doesn't destroy that.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken time/phase is for left/right localisation, not depth.

I have a presentation by Le Cléac'h somewhere... 

 

R

[Jud]

1 minute ago, semente said:

If I'm not mistaken time/phase is for left/right localisation, not depth.

I have a presentation by Le Cléac'h somewhere... 

 

R

 

Time can obviously indicate depth (sound from something further away takes longer to arrive).  Not certain about phase.

[GUTB]

In my researched opinion, it seems that depth comes down to linearity of the amp and speaker load and room interaction. Basically, a highly linear amp (like a SET) running speakers that don't brutalize the signal / time signals through their crossover network is the key. Unless the room is treated to block destructive modes you won't hear it either. So, my Zu Omen Mk.IIs with it's high end caps and silver wiring struggle to display ANY depth of stage -- almost none. But my Fritz Carbon VII SEs with a direct cap less crossover has much more depth rendering capability. Those same Carbon VIIs on the class D amp (D-Sonic, Pascal-based) had their soundstage almost completely crushed.

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, Jud said:

Time can obviously indicate depth (sound from something further away takes longer to arrive).  Not certain about phase.

Time and phase are the same thing.

[Ralf11]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

Time and phase are the same thing.

 

actually, time is just space in drag