Hi Dan,
Just curious. Do you characterize the sound as neutral, warm, cool or something else. Just a word or two trying to sum it up if possible.
Playing beyond it's price point
- Thread starter Kingrex
- Start date
Hi Dan,
Just curious. Do you characterize the sound as neutral, warm, cool or something else. Just a word or two trying to sum it up if possible.
Yes, I still have mine, but it's in my system only since one and a half years
A friend of mine sold his dCS Vivaldi for it. No schiit. We both preferred the Yggdrasil in his system.
Wow, that is quite something!
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Well with people bringing up various DACs I have to put in the T+A DAC 8 DSD. Granted, it is not the cheapest DAC out there. Current pricing is $4500 I believe, however I would compare, and I have seen it compared to DACs several times its price. Unless I could afford a MSB Reference system or Select II, maybe one of the fantastic Lampi's then I think you would be hard pressed to find a better performing digital setup then Roon, HQPlayer, going through a T+A. They custom make their own 1 bit DSD processors and they can stand with most everything out there.
If you have never compared HQPlayer upsampling everything to DSD512/48 (24.6 Mhz) through a capable DAC then you have never heard how truly amazing digital can be.
If you have never compared HQPlayer upsampling everything to DSD512/48 (24.6 Mhz) through a capable DAC then you have never heard how truly amazing digital can be.
jdandy
New member
Joe.......You may find my Schiit Audio Yggdrasil Review interesting. You may also find my Esoteric K-01X versus Schiit Audio Yggdrasil review to be an eye opener.
To me the Yggdrasil DAC sound is neither warm or cool. It is richly organic with natural timbre of voices and instruments. The dynamics and three dimensional sound stage are astonishing. The Yggy is a pure joy to listen to.
Yes, and a mutual friend of ours picked the Yggy as preferred over the Vivaldi in a blind test on least 3 very different music samples, each time mostly after just about 10 seconds (he has incredible ears).
In fairness I have to say though that, unbeknownst to us at the time, in that comparison the audiophile power cord on the Vivaldi handicapped it, the Yggy ran on stock power cord. The Vivaldi later sounded better than on that occasion on stock power cord; that is when I started to dislike audiophile power cords. Yet subsequently the Yggy was still preferred over the Vivaldi when both were on stock power cords.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Interesting question. I would be rather surprise if a good head to head of these two DACs is out there. The two machines appear to be designed for completely different markets.
The Yggy seems to be designed around PCM. I know people that are fans who feel 96 Khz is the max resolution that is needed for digital...
The T+A does very well on PCM with its 8 BurrBrown chips, but it is really designed around DSD. T+A designed their own 1 bit converter specifically for DSD. Most T+A customers are fans of DSD.
After Norman convinced me that I had to try DSD I have never looked back. DSD512 with 48 base clock is simply amazing... yes the T+A can do this (with HQPlayer... dammmmm)....
Randy Myers
Well-known member
It definitely is HQPlayer upsampling, both DSD downloads, SACD rips, CD rips, FLAC downloads, etc. up to DSD512/48 (24.6Mhz). The Yaggy does not do DSD, therefore it can not play anything upsampled to DSD, so the only comparison would be comparing PCM capabilities of the two DACs. I think the T+A would probably compare very well going by the opinion of a club member who writes for Stereophile. He is a fan of PCM and did not use any DSD512 files in his review of the DAC 8 DSD. He rated it as very good.
I have honestly never listened to anything but DSD512 since getting the T+A. This is the main reason that I believe most people buy the T+A. So to compare the two head to head the T+A would be greatly hampered to its less emphasised section. They use completely different sections, BurrBrown chips for PCM but their own customer 1-bit convertors for DSD. Even so, I believe they would be very close.
I just realized you are probably thinking a PCM file played through the Yaggy and the same file upsampled to DSD and played through the T+A. Probably would depend on if you are a fan of DSD or not. However, in my view, and most T+A owners, I would take DSD over anything playing straight PCM. Not that PCM can't be great, because of course it can. But head to head at their best, Roon->HQPlayer (through a powerful enough computer)->good USB cable->W4S Recovery->same USB cable->T+A... might be interesting.
I have honestly never listened to anything but DSD512 since getting the T+A. This is the main reason that I believe most people buy the T+A. So to compare the two head to head the T+A would be greatly hampered to its less emphasised section. They use completely different sections, BurrBrown chips for PCM but their own customer 1-bit convertors for DSD. Even so, I believe they would be very close.
I just realized you are probably thinking a PCM file played through the Yaggy and the same file upsampled to DSD and played through the T+A. Probably would depend on if you are a fan of DSD or not. However, in my view, and most T+A owners, I would take DSD over anything playing straight PCM. Not that PCM can't be great, because of course it can. But head to head at their best, Roon->HQPlayer (through a powerful enough computer)->good USB cable->W4S Recovery->same USB cable->T+A... might be interesting.
Another device that draws my attention is the iFi Audio Pro iDSD.
It gets raving reviews in Stereophile, Hifi Critic (a magazine that I trust, as it doesn't need ads to survive), Hifi News.
Stereo (Germany) is less enthusiastic but still gives a solid 88%.
Any first hand experiences here?
It gets raving reviews in Stereophile, Hifi Critic (a magazine that I trust, as it doesn't need ads to survive), Hifi News.
Stereo (Germany) is less enthusiastic but still gives a solid 88%.
Any first hand experiences here?
Randy Myers
Well-known member
Hey Rex, I did find one pretty good comparison between the Yggy and the T+A... The reviewer was actually comparing with the Benchmark, but did a decent, short comparison with the Yggy.
"Schiit’s Yggdrasil jumped in with a more competitive sound but a feature set well short of the T+A’s or the Benchmark’s. The Yggy needs a preamp -- it has no volume control -- can’t process DSD, and offers no alternative digital filters beyond their custom one. I restored to the system my Hegel P20 preamp, set the output of the DAC 8 DSD to line level, and listened for differences. The ultimate resolution of the DAC 8 was reduced by the additional analog processing, with now a slight softness to the sound. The Schiit provided a much more musical sound than the Benchmark, sounding far more like the T+A with Bez2 filter engaged. The Yggy had a wider but shallower soundstage than the DAC 8 DSD, Harry’s voice sounding a bit narrower and set farther back in the soundstage, making the Schiit sound more laid-back in comparison. Female voices sounded similar through the Schiit and T+A, and both DACs produced well-defined, three-dimensional central aural images. Both also offered similar levels of bass impact, the Yggy more than able to keep up with the T+A’s pace and timing. The clarity of both DACs’ sound was high, as was their sense of musicality. Still, the Schiit offers no choice of digital filter and can’t play DSD, and requires a traditional preamp to remain in the signal chain. With the almost-twice-as-expensive T+A DAC, you get what you pay for."
He seems to like it better than the Benchmark but felt it feel short of the T+A from what I read in the review. Here is the full review:
https://www.soundstagehifi.com/inde...oakustik-dac8-dsd-digital-to-analog-converter
daveoo
New member
I really liked the Virtue Audio Tripath amps. Did well with my Piega TC 70x coax speakers. A little rolled off in the highs, smooth midrange a bit thick and fine bass with control.
daveoo
New member
Thanks for the welcome. I think I joined months ago, but just woke up today. Time is scarce to get too involved in forums, but I joined out of respect for Mike. He aided me in elevating my system last year.
Seems like a fun/nice place here.
Seems like a fun/nice place here.
Last edited:
kzhtoo
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2014
- Messages
- 1,615
Comparing Yggy with DAC8 has to go beyond DAC only comparison. What I mean by that is the best configuration for DAC8 requires HQ Player upsampling to DSD512, which means a Windows PC that isn’t designed for music playback. To those us who has ever switched from PC/Mac to a dedicated music server (Aurender, Lumin, Melco, Innous, etc), we know the improvement isn’t subtle and it’s a whole different world altogether. So, unless DAC8 is fed by a dedicated music server that can upsample everything to DSD512, I don’t see how DAC8 could become attractive to those who use dedicated music servers.
Randy Myers
Well-known member
One thing that I believe you are missing is that a Windows machine can definitely be built and configured to work as an amazing music server. I would put my configuration against most any dedicated music servers out there (unless you are going many times higher in pricing) and I am very confident that mine would come out the winner. After all, dedicated music servers are in essence computers. Many times using the identical parts internally, but many times using inferior parts, processors, etc. And yes, I am familiar and have worked with several music servers and in my view they were usually much inferior to my Windows PC, in almost every way.
I would also say that it also depends on what software you are using on your dedicated music server. Many now work perfectly fine with Roon, and even though I think Roon with HQPlayer is better, Roon can in fact up-sample. Also, most every music server can do DSD at least at some level. You do not have to go all the way to DSD512 to appreciate how good the dedicated 1-bit processor is.
A friend of mine, who writes for Stereophile, did a review of the T+A DAC 8 DSD. He uses a Meridian server that does not even do DSD. He still rated the T+A as one of the best DACs he has ever tried. He even had a couple club members try the DAC to confirm what he was hearing.
The review I linked above that compared against the Yaggy was comparing in PCM and still rated it equivalent if not better than the Yaggy, but with all of the other capabilities was worth a ton more, in their view.
I would also say that it also depends on what software you are using on your dedicated music server. Many now work perfectly fine with Roon, and even though I think Roon with HQPlayer is better, Roon can in fact up-sample. Also, most every music server can do DSD at least at some level. You do not have to go all the way to DSD512 to appreciate how good the dedicated 1-bit processor is.
A friend of mine, who writes for Stereophile, did a review of the T+A DAC 8 DSD. He uses a Meridian server that does not even do DSD. He still rated the T+A as one of the best DACs he has ever tried. He even had a couple club members try the DAC to confirm what he was hearing.
The review I linked above that compared against the Yaggy was comparing in PCM and still rated it equivalent if not better than the Yaggy, but with all of the other capabilities was worth a ton more, in their view.
Kingrex
Active member
- Thread Author
- #58
You know Randy, it's funny how so many people forget every Aurender, Lumn, Linn, Sonor, antipodes etc is just a computer. It's like people think there's point to point wiring and a tube in there. Every single one is a case, PCB, CPU, RAM, PS and software. And just because most run Linux does not mean that OS is superior. Alrainbow has talked extensively about the sound of OS. Maybe in the end the OS sound comes down to preference, but my understanding is most producers use Linux as it's easy. You don't have to fight the MS software, you dont need AO. You dont have customers complaining the OS updated and nothing works.
I have used PC based machines and find they sound great. I have also looked on line at the multitude of images of the internals of many of the most popular brands. Most are built quite well, but are still always a computer .
I have used PC based machines and find they sound great. I have also looked on line at the multitude of images of the internals of many of the most popular brands. Most are built quite well, but are still always a computer .
Randy Myers
Well-known member
I agree in that no matter what OS is on the machine they are all still using the same hardware.
It is the same as people saying that you can not get as good of sound out of USB as some other ports. To this I also say balderdash. I use AudioQuest Coffee USB cables, a W4S Recovery (actually the first one off their assembly line) and an Ipower linear power supply and it sounds amazing!
It is the same as people saying that you can not get as good of sound out of USB as some other ports. To this I also say balderdash. I use AudioQuest Coffee USB cables, a W4S Recovery (actually the first one off their assembly line) and an Ipower linear power supply and it sounds amazing!
Kingrex
Active member
- Thread Author
- #60
I'm also USB. It sounds great. AES is suppose to be good to. So is I2S if done right.
I'm thinking of getting Adrian's Linear Soulution Audiophile Streamer. While I don't know that it plays beyond its price point. It plays solidly to it. Austionpop reviewed it in Audiophile Style. I also gave my impression of it there too. It is appearing to be a benefit to separate the load amoungst devices for optimum digital playback.
People seem to get tied up on the DAC. They forget everything that feeds the DAC. I still take issue with the Roon NUC. It's a great multi purpose device, but I don't think it is the best as far as performance. Now maybe there is something special about the Select II with the streaming card installed that negates everything in front of it. However, the rest of us don't have that quality of DAC and our equipment is affected by the source. IMO. I even asked Adrian if I had wasted money on a good server to feed his Audiophile Streamer. He said absolutely not. The better the source, the better the performance from the streamer. It all matters. FYI, there are builders taking the NUC and altering the PS. I have not heard to what affect at this time, but there is a push to better the basic box.
I'm thinking of getting Adrian's Linear Soulution Audiophile Streamer. While I don't know that it plays beyond its price point. It plays solidly to it. Austionpop reviewed it in Audiophile Style. I also gave my impression of it there too. It is appearing to be a benefit to separate the load amoungst devices for optimum digital playback.
People seem to get tied up on the DAC. They forget everything that feeds the DAC. I still take issue with the Roon NUC. It's a great multi purpose device, but I don't think it is the best as far as performance. Now maybe there is something special about the Select II with the streaming card installed that negates everything in front of it. However, the rest of us don't have that quality of DAC and our equipment is affected by the source. IMO. I even asked Adrian if I had wasted money on a good server to feed his Audiophile Streamer. He said absolutely not. The better the source, the better the performance from the streamer. It all matters. FYI, there are builders taking the NUC and altering the PS. I have not heard to what affect at this time, but there is a push to better the basic box.