yggdrasil obsolete and john atkinson

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

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

 

  

uhhhhhh

[esldude]

Well for starters, JA didn't say the Yggy was obsolete.  He said it used an obsolete DAC chip.  Yes even that is wrong as it is a current product for other purposes than audio.  And many of the 24 bit DAC chips are unable to achieve more than 18 bits of genuine real world resolution. 

 

Tempest in a teapot. 

 

Click-bait for the click bucket. 

 

Oogles for Google.

 

Almost makes you think JA and Stoddard are in cahoots.  Keep a flimsy controversy like this going and it is free publicity for all involved. 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

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

 

Well remember Philips thought 14 bits was enough.  While many things went into that decision it also wasn't thoughtless.  14 bits handled well is likely enough when things like thermal noise, home playback levels, ambient noise levels and noise levels of microphones are considered.  With modern mastering practices more than 99% of modern music would be more than sufficiently served with 10 bits, and some good dither (about the same as good clean vinyl playback).

 

Quote

 

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  

 

By my crude calculations if we had 16 bit SDM, we could use a first order analog filter and a touch over 3 Gsps per channel would get us 16 bit noise floors over the range we need. 

 

Besides, if 20 < 24 bits make the Schiit DAC obsolete, then 24<32 bits makes most of the DACs Stereophile tests and recommends obsolete.  Think Sphile will no longer issue passing grades on sub-32 bit DACs?  Yeah RIGHT!!!.  It will happen the day after Stereophile refuses all reviews of vinyl and related gear because of its obsolete noise levels, and the day before they refuse to review vacuum tube gear for the same reason.

[firedog]

7 hours 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?

It's important at all times to have a negative thread about the Yggy running on the site....

[gmgraves]

8 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Me either. It just goes to show how specs can be used to damn one product while using the same specs to boost the reputation of another.

[vmartell22]

23 hours ago, firedog said:

It's important at all times to have a negative thread about the Yggy running on the site....

 

Will take advantage of this post to kind of round off the thread

 

1) First of all, not attacking the sound, design, or architecture of the yggdrasil - if anything, the post is a little bit negative about JA. But not too much or offensively so, I hope.

 

2) In conclusion, and from the posts in this thread, his statement that the chip is obsolete because 24 > 20 is wrong  - he should know better but indeed it looks like he confused the context of each number as it relates to the technology.

 

3) Wonder what Arnie Krueger thinks about this?

 

v

 

[alice]

Who cares, just listen to the music.

[semente]

5 hours ago, alice said:

Who cares, just listen to the music.

 

That's the spirit.

I got my 12 year old one of these:

 

[mansr]

4 hours ago, semente said:

That's the spirit.

I got my 12 year old one of these:

 

I'm sure skateboards can be fun, but I fail to see the music connection.

[vmartell22]

10 hours ago, alice said:

Who cares, just listen to the music.

 

hmm - while obviously a reasonable statement - I mean people often accuse audiophiles of listening to the equipment and not the music...

 

BUT

 

well - in this context... hmm - after all this is the computer audiophile forum! this is is a technical forum! if we are not gonna discuss this, where? rec.music.classical? progressive ears? all that jazz?  when I want to discuss music I am over there!

 

this is the spot - and is good to have a back and forth and I did learn - even though I saw attitudes of just wanting to win an unrelated argument... 

 

v

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, alice said:

Who cares, just listen to the music.

 

I will partly agree, but music sounds better when the fidelity is higher.  As proof, I just spent 10 hours listening to a car stereo.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

I will partly agree, but music sounds better when the fidelity is higher.  As proof, I just spent 10 hours listening to a car stereo.

Listen to the music, not the equipment.

[Ralf11]

the equipment helps you listen to the music - that is the raison d'etre for such forums (or fora)

[semente]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Listen to the music, not the equipment.

 

In theory the better equipment will/should have less "own sound" so one would indeed be able to listen to more of the recording.

 

Lower-fi means you listen more of the equipment's sonic signature. 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, semente said:

 

In theory the better equipment will/should have less "own sound" so one would indeed be able to listen to more of the recording.

 

Lower-fi means you listen more of the equipment's sonic signature. 

I know that. Can a guy no longer be silly without using a damn smiley?

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

I know that. Can a guy no longer be silly without using a damn smiley?

 

It is almost as bad as having to deploy the Winkie of Absolution after every snarky sarcastic remark, when, by convention, a simple period (full stop) should suffice.

 

 

[fas42]

On 17/06/2017 at 0:52 PM, jabbr said:

 

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  

 

16 bits are plenty. I've done experiments, deliberating throwing away bits, and "nothing significant is lost". I have only one recording, by a female opera singer, on a famous label, where I hear digital 'lacking' - at the start of the first track. What's going on here? ... Ripped it, had a look; some "fool" in the mastering did a major stuff up and left very nasty, digital-like noise artifacts - way above the noise floor of the CD ... had the gain structure in his monitoring gear all wrong perhaps at the start, corrected it after some minutes, but left the damage on the plastic, for eternity ... . Everywhere else on the disk, everything's fine.

[Andyman]

...well I have a Gumby and to be quite honest I'm feeling unfairly left out from any criticism. Let's face it I only have 19 bits of resolution and an inferior dac chip and usb interface compared with big bro Yggy.

 

Would someone (Mani, anyone?) mind posting some negative opinion, preferably supported by graphs and/or measurements. Don't worry if you don't understand them yourself. They don't even need to relate to SQ. I just think I'd feel more a part of the forum (victimised if you will).

 

Thanks in anticipation...

[The Computer Audiophile]

12 minutes ago, Andyman said:

...well I have a Gumby and to be quite honest I'm feeling unfairly left out from any criticism. Let's face it I only have 19 bits of resolution and an inferior dac chip and usb interface compared with big bro Yggy.

 

Would someone (Mani, anyone?) mind posting some negative opinion, preferably supported by graphs and/or measurements. Don't worry if you don't understand them yourself. They don't even need to relate to SQ. I just think I'd feel more a part of the forum (victimised if you will).

 

Thanks in anticipation...

 

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read this. It's a much better hobby when we can all have a good laugh.