yggdrasil obsolete and john atkinson

[vmartell22]

You probably already know about:

 

https://www.facebook.com/stereophilemag/posts/10155024621014198

 

Now I would like to ask a question in the hopes of clarifying/improving my knowledge of DACs - to me, from what I know, I do believe that JA is confusing input bit depth with actual resolution of the DAC, which is 20 bits as per the ultra high precision, non audio parts used by our friends at Schiit, and at most 19 bits on most delta-sigma DACs.

 

 Is this a true statement ?

 

Thanks!

 

v

[The Computer Audiophile]

I'm not sure if John has confused input bit depth with actual resolution, because John is a smart guy and has been doing this for a long time. However, his subjective conclusion that the DAC is obsolete is a great headline. 

 

In my view the Yggdrasil is far from obsolete - 

 

[JoeWhip]

Yes, Schiit has incorporated the obsolete line into their ad copy.

[k-man]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

However, his subjective conclusion that the DAC is obsolete is a great headline. 

(Bold my emphasis) Did you really mean that?  Or was it subjective conclusion based on objective measurements, or subjective conclusion based on subjective measurements (ahem..agenda)?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, k-man said:

(Bold my emphasis) Did you really mean that?  Or was it subjective conclusion based on objective measurements, or subjective conclusion based on subjective measurements (ahem..agenda)?

 

 

Not really following you on this one. There is no possible way to call his characterization of the DAC as obsolete, as anything other than subjective. 

[semente]

6 minutes ago, k-man said:

(Bold my emphasis) Did you really mean that?  Or was it subjective conclusion based on objective measurements, or subjective conclusion based on subjective measurements (ahem..agenda)?

 

 

Subjective (technical) conclusion based on measurements is quite common sight on Sphile...

 

[vmartell22]

7 minutes ago, k-man said:

(Bold my emphasis) Did you really mean that?  Or was it subjective conclusion based on objective measurements, or subjective conclusion based on subjective measurements (ahem..agenda)?

 

 

Well - the quote itself leans toward objectivity, right? 24 > 20, therefore obsolete... 

or am I looking at this the wrong way...

 

v

[Rt66indierock]

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I'm not sure if John has confused input bit depth with actual resolution, because John is a smart guy and has been doing this for a long time. However, his subjective conclusion that the DAC is obsolete is a great headline. 

 

In my view the Yggdrasil is far from obsolete - 

 

 

John and I had a discussion related to this point in April. Even Bob Stuart and I agree on a few things.

 

John

Submitted by rt66indierock on April 24, 2017 - 7:45pm

A couple of thoughts can to mind as I’m preparing my April update of MQA is Vaporware. You are focused on the container and I’m focused on the music itself. Yes you can store music in a big container of 24 or 32 bits but if the music only has a dynamic range of 12 or 14 bits I have to question the necessity of the container size being over 16 bits.

In a bit of irony since I can’t comment myself let me quote Bob Stuart. "Principally because of the combination of environmental noise and microphone self-noise (plus tape noise with analogue masters), very few recordings achieve let alone exceed 16-bit dynamic range. Add to this the fact that we can hear signals within noise only to about 10dB below the noise level (see olive curve in Figure 21) and it follows that bits 19 to 24 carry no useful information."

As far as modern best practices go, I’m not hearing results. It’s still the same people messing up recordings now just as they messed them up in the past. Record companies can make good sounding records they just choose not to.

 

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/chesky-release-mqa-cds-may#GWu2QgvWxolOKiXi.99

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, vmartell22 said:

 

Well - the quote itself leans toward objectivity, right? 24 > 20, therefore obsolete... 

or am I looking at this the wrong way...

 

v

 

To say a DAC is obsolete because 24 bits is greater than 20, is preposterous and purely subjective. Saying the DAC has xx bits is objective, but the conclusion drawn from that objective information is subjective. 

[k-man]

That interpretation is quite different, since I'm also looking at it in @vmartell22's point. Not the characterization of DAC, but utilising THE obsolete 20-bit chip.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Perhaps we should agree on a definition of obsolete. Anyway, we define it, the conclusion that Yggy is obsolete is subjective.

[mansr]

1 hour ago, vmartell22 said:

actual resolution of the DAC, which is 20 bits as per the ultra high precision, non audio parts used by our friends at Schiit, and at most 19 bits on most delta-sigma DACs.

High-end delta-sigma DACs achieve as much as 132 dB SNR which is equivalent to 22 bits.

[vmartell22]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

High-end delta-sigma DACs achieve as much as 132 dB SNR which is equivalent to 22 bits.

 

Sure  - not arguing that -  but applying same logic that would be obsolete too, right?

 

I am afraid I am oversimplifying - that said,  is that actual resolution or  implied in the SNR achieved?

 

Thnx!

 

v

 

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

To say a DAC is obsolete because 24 bits is greater than 20, is preposterous and purely subjective. Saying the DAC has xx bits is objective, but the conclusion drawn from that objective information is subjective. 

 Please, show me a 24-bit DAC that actually has 24-bits of resolution. Just as 16-bit DACs don't actually have 16-bits of actual resolution, most 24-bit DACs have 17-19. Having 21 actual bits of resolution would be a GOOD THING I would think!

[mansr]

1 hour ago, vmartell22 said:

Sure  - not arguing that -  but applying same logic that would be obsolete too, right?

It's not possible to reach 24-bit resolution at room temperature due to thermal noise. If you're willing to use liquid helium cooling and spend millions, you can probably do better.

1 hour ago, vmartell22 said:

I am afraid I am oversimplifying - that said,  is that actual resolution or  implied in the SNR achieved?

What do you mean by actual resolution?

[JoeWhip]

I can't believe we are rehashing this "only" 21 bit resolution nonsense again. Isn't there something new to argue about?

[Ralf11]

nonsense?

[JoeWhip]

Yeah, how many DACs have more than 21 bit resolution? This is just a red herring, hence nonsense and has been discussed  at length before here and elsewhere.

[vmartell22]

52 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's not possible to reach 24-bit resolution at room temperature due to thermal noise. If you're willing to use liquid helium cooling and spend millions, you can probably do better.

What do you mean by actual resolution?

 

well - think I am not explaining myself - lemme try - 

 

1) from the original quote: 

 

"high-end delta-sigma DACs achieve as much as 132 dB SNR which is equivalent to 22 bits."

 

first of all, I am only trying to put it in the context of what JA stated in the original facebook post - he said, "obsolete because 24 > 20" - all I am saying is that by JA's logic, that would be obsolete too

 

2) What I mean by "actual resolution" is this  - I am keying in the word you used, "equivalent", that is performing as 22 bit device - implication is that it may or many not be. 

 

Which makes sense - right? delta-sigma devices do not work like that, at least from what I understand.

 

I am truly only asking to strengthen my understanding, thru the means of confirming or invalidating my opinion of JAs statement

 

I thought it could be interesting to discuss.

 

No intention of attacking or defending the yggdrasil; that is not my point. Whether 24 bit is physically possible or not, not part of the discussion... I don't want or need (or care for ) any device to have an internal resolution equal to the accepted inputs!

 

I doubt I could hear it....

v

 

 

 

 

 

[vmartell22]

23 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

I can't believe we are rehashing this "only" 21 bit resolution nonsense again. Isn't there something new to argue about?

 

Well, the thread is not supposed to be about that, at least in my opinion - the question is that whether JA go confused in his concepts. 

 

Did he? 

 

I guess a follow up question is, if yes, why?

 

He should have known better, right?

Could it have been that he did not like the sound of the dac and carelessly looked for an objective ( 20 vs 24 bit input) reason to justify it?... notice that once Jason from Schiit chimed in, no more updates from JA   - maybe he realized the mistake he made.

 

Again, all of this in the context of looking for a reason for the statement... confirming or denying that he should have known better...  

 

v

 

 

[vmartell22]

13 minutes ago, JoeWhip said:

Yeah, how many DACs have more than 21 bit resolution? This is just a red herring, hence nonsense and has been discussed  at length before here and elsewhere.

 

Can some one say it then? "Yep, JA got confused" 

?

 

v

[JoeWhip]

I can't speak for JA so I don't know if he was confused. You don't see too many of the Audio press admit they are ever wrong or confused. Absolute certainty rules the day.  The point I was trying to make is that this issue has been discussed quite extensively, 

[beerandmusic]

any dac that doesn't support dsd and have galvanic isolation and costs over $300 is obsolete....just stirring the pot...

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

any dac that doesn't support dsd and have galvanic isolation and costs over $300 is obsolete....just stirring the pot...

 

Good, because we clearly don't have any pot stirring folks around here :~)

[jabbr]

7 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

Now I would like to ask a question in the hopes of clarifying/improving my knowledge of DACs - to me, from what I know, I do believe that JA is confusing input bit depth with actual resolution of the DAC, which is 20 bits as per the ultra high precision, non audio parts used by our friends at Schiit, and at most 19 bits on most delta-sigma DACs.

 

One question that remains unanswered is how many bits are audible? Perhaps >16 and <24.

 

Now suppose a 16 bit DAC with 12 Gsps rate (Analog Devices has these), at some point do we have a type of 16 bit SDM at 12 Gsps? It is a mistake to look purely at bit depth. No this isn't an obsolete approach by any stretch, in fact Schiit is the first to take advantage of this new generation of DAC chips... watch this space