Schiit Wyrd USB Power Isolator Review

  • Thread starter Thread starter mauidan
  • Start date Start date
wisnon said:
I dont bother responding to you anymore for several reasons. You never quite seem to understand and you tend to twist things. You show ZERO gratitutude and really have no desire to learn.

I tell you one thing and you argue…a day later someone else tells you the same thing and you thank them for it.

It is clear that we are better off giving each other a wide berth. Please enjoy you MSB which is perfect in your mind and stop trying to understand anything more. You cant improve on perfection.
Click to expand...

As said before, your modus operandi when cornered on accuracy is either a series of non sequiturs, a personal assault, or a retreat due to "lack of time" or "tired fingers. Here we go again; its time for assault.

So the problem is I am an idiot ("never quite seem to understand"), I am a liar ("twist things"), I am ungracious, don't try to learn and should stop trying. The problem Norman is you make outrageous statements and refuse to back them up with anything of substance. You can cut and paste others work (often which is not relevant to your claims) or go straight to one or all of the tactics described above. Thats it.

You can give me as wide a berth as you prefer, but if you or anyone says something I don't understand or something I consider wrong, I am going to query them. When I do this virtually every other person on this forum politely answers with logic and detail. You do anything but these things. Most of the time your comments are ones I understand but consider wrong. I provide reasonable evidence to this effect and and you revert to you highly predictable modus operandi. I plan to continue to treat you as I do every other member of the forum. Believe it or not some here actually appreciate this approach.
 
The evidence is there for all to see Paul.
I tell you one thing and you rephrase it as another…just as you did above, somehow contriving to make this into an accusation of being a liar. SIGH. I tell you 1=1=2 ans you reply asking why I say 1+1 =3? To me that is NOT a lie, its a clear misunderstanding of the concepts being explained. Other than that, you keep asking for explanations I have made repeatedly elsewhere, eg why a Balanced Lampi Dac (in a FULLY internally Bal system) may have a built in advantage over a SE one, given the fact that one SQ degrading step is avoided AND the use of the differential summator circuit for eliminating all digital noise. How many times must I repeat myself so that you are satisfied?

Cut and paste? Do you even read the words of these quotes? There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Nothing more to say FlexP!! Let it be, let it be.
 
Yash said:
iFi is a very interesting company and there's actually a very cool strategy behind it. Not sure you're acquainted with Thorsten Loesch, but if you have done some DIY research you may come across him at TNT audio. He also posts on audioasylum to this day. I consider him one of the most knowledgeable person in the audiophile field. He is one of the main persons behind the iFi designs.

Now, iFi is even more interesting because it is a budget arm of a thoroughly forward-thinking audiophile company, AMR (Abbingdon Music Research), who make some very fine DACs and other products way, way above iFi in terms of price.

What they did was launch a series of very affordable products but with careful design and even better, trickle-down technology from proven successful implementation from the AMR products.

To give you an example of how iFi operates: they launched, a couple of years ago I believe, the most affordable and DSD128 capable little DAC, the iFi iDSD Nano.

At that time, DSD128 capability in native DSD was very rare (it still is relatively), but what they did after that is even more interesting:

They released a firmware update, which brought native DSD256 capability to that little DAC...

...for free.

The DAC itself, which uses a spectacular Burr Brown chip, is only $190.

This is incredible vision. To me, they changed the industry completely (but I have to admit those of us who like DSD greater than 64 are a niche within a niche within a niche).

For a good overview of what they packaged in $190 that comes from the bigger AMR products, the official website page of the Nano gives a good overview. The reviews around provide a good outlook on what it does. The more recent products are certainly better.

I don't see iFi and Uptone lobbing worthless accusations against competitors.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. Sounds worthy of looking into in my book indeed.:) I love learning of this type of thing. I am seeing more and more companies in the high end audio area starting to do this. It's great and it's needed, especially if we are going to ween folks off of bad sound quality and get them to re-engage with music somehow.

As for the accusations and all that stuff, I am not judging because I don't know the whole story or the real motivations. I know the products and that's what I go on. I am not going to trash an entire audio company based on one ill-thought post from a co-founder. As far as I know in this case, Schiit is a good company on the whole that produces a quality product with 5 year warranties. I know many Schiit product owners and they are more than happy and they are legion. Until proven to be full tilt evil, I will continue to consider Schiit products for my own use at least.
This whole thing has crossed into the ludicrous and absurd seating section a long time ago in my opinion. The mud slinging, name calling, arguing over what I view as fiction, etc. There are even acronyms such as PHY and SI and whatever that don't even exist in Google. The only ones I can find in any lexicon are USB and DSD. So I don't get any of that.
I'm ignoring all of that stuff.
I will continue to consider Schiit, Uptone and iFi among good audio companies until proven otherwise. Everyone can purchase what they want from whom they want while we are still free to do so, period.
 
wisnon said:
The evidence is there for all to see Paul.
I tell you one thing and you rephrase it as another…just as you did above, somehow contriving to make this into an accusation of being a liar. SIGH. I tell you 1=1=2 ans you reply asking why I say 1+1 =3? To me that is NOT a lie, its a clear misunderstanding of the concepts being explained. Other than that, you keep asking for explanations I have made repeatedly elsewhere, eg why a Balanced Lampi Dac (in a FULLY internally Bal system) may have a built in advantage over a SE one, given the fact that one SQ degrading step is avoided AND the use of the differential summator circuit for eliminating all digital noise. How many times must I repeat myself so that you are satisfied?

Cut and paste? Do you even read the words of these quotes? There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Nothing more to say FlexP!! Let it be, let it be.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we are going to discuss the semantical difference between someone "twisting the truth" and "lying." Are you serious? If so, I am sorry for twisting things semantically. Also, are you going to now restate all the same things I have elsewhere refuted without adding any plausible counters to my statements.

I have said much of the following to you before. Of course, dac chips output differential. And of course, this eliminates the need for an initial phase splitter. So what? Many reference products go unbalanced because they do not believe the negative impact on SQ of a summator (even without a splitter) is a good trade for the common mode noise reduction. Cartridges output differential signals as well and many (most?) phono preamps are single ended for this reason and they have the same advantage of not needing the splitter but would face the disadvantage of needing the summator if they go unbalanced.

[All of this is in addition to the fact that many analog gain stages, be they phono or dac, often use OPA's that are "naturally" differential in and SE out which requires dual OPA's per channel for balanced but a single OPA used for unbalanced essentially negating the benefits of a differential signal origin because a splitter is still required. I don't know about Lampi so leave this point aside; I do not need it to make my point.]

So here is the problem. It is a fine line in making the decision to go balanced or unbalanced as a designer or consumer. All else constant, with short runs, the SQ difference is very, very small. Yet you are out talking in all the Lampi threads that the balanced dac increases the sound stage by 300% with significantly improved dynamics over the unbalanced simply because the chips are differential output. I am sorry Norman but once again I must question this kind of a statement. I have never heard anyone claim such a thing. Rather than bob-and-weave for pages and then just repeating your same illogical supposition (imo), can you show me any other support for your statement (besides Lucasz told me).

Putting two DHT devices in a chain can do what you describe, to a degree, as can putting two se or balanced units in a chain versus mixing se and unbalanced, but the differential output of a chip has nothing to do with this result.




 
Where did I say that? Lukasz and Joe have both told me of the huge soundstage increase and I think one or 2 others have confirmed it at other forums. I have repeatedly said that no one, not even Lukasz knows exactly why the soundstage increases (yes, I asked because I wanted to know for myself). Chip output has to do with the saving of a step and resultant purity. Chip output is already balanced, so no additional step is needed. Two completely different things. Again you confuse and conflate (you dont like the word twist, then how about warp?). I give up.

Over and out!
 
wisnon said:
Where did I say that? Lukasz and Joe have both told me of the huge soundstage increase and I think one or 2 others have confirmed it at other forums. I have repeatedly said that no one, not even Lukasz knows exactly why the soundstage increases (yes, I asked because I wanted to know for myself). Chip output has to do with the saving of a step and resultant purity. Chip output is already balanced, so no additional step is needed. Two completely different things. Again you confuse and conflate (you dont like the word twist, then how about warp?). I give up.

Over and out!
Click to expand...
You didn't read (or understand) a word of my post. Same old, same old.
 
Neither of you two actually read the others posts, you only read enough so you can be pissy back to each other. The discourse between you two is so great that you BOTH just want to piss the other off. And even if you don't want to and its not what you mean to do - that is the reality of what you guys are doing.

Back to the show . . . . . .

:popcorn:

FlexibleAudio said:
You didn't read (or understand) a word of my post. Same old, same old.
Click to expand...
 
the professor said:
Neither of you two actually read the others posts, you only read enough so you can be pissy back to each other. The discourse between you two is so great that you BOTH just want to piss the other off. And even if you don't want to and its not what you mean to do - that is the reality of what you guys are doing.

Back to the show . . . . . .

:popcorn:
Click to expand...
I do read them Prof, I just disagree on many.

I have no desire to be pissy. Maybe 1 or 2 posts weeks ago, but lately, no. I am out anyway, as it seems we both have entrenched positions and I can live with that. The posts are out there, so the info if considered valauable, is there for future reference.

One clever comment I have read is that the Regen (and the Wyrd) are cheap enuff that if people doubt the claims, they can try them out with little financial risk for the Wyrd and almost none for the Regen (which is so backordered, you could sell it for full price with no problem).
 
Mike said:
Soundstage increases possibly because there are more tubes!
Click to expand...

Of course it is Mike. Thats why I said in my last paragraph above- "Putting two DHT devices in a chain can do what you describe, to a degree."

However, apparently unbeknownst to me, even though the best you could ever expect a balanced system to do is match a single ended when no common mode noise is present (i.e., the splitter and/or combiner somehow magically had zero sq effect), you can now dramatically increase sound stage and dynamics cuz a dac chip is naturally differential out!!

So you eliminate the splitter, one of the two elements that affect sq in a balanced topography, (but still remain plagued by the other) and now you magically have an advantage over an unbalanced signal which never had either a splitter of a combiner from the start.

Wow!!! Pretty cool huh??
 
the professor said:
Neither of you two actually read the others posts, you only read enough so you can be pissy back to each other. The discourse between you two is so great that you BOTH just want to piss the other off. And even if you don't want to and its not what you mean to do - that is the reality of what you guys are doing.

Back to the show . . . . . .

:popcorn:
Click to expand...

Jock, Sorry to bother you but can you be more specific? (Maybe an example of me doing this.)
 
FlexibleAudio said:
Of course it is Mike. Thats why I said in my last paragraph above- "Putting two DHT devices in a chain can do what you describe, to a degree."

However, apparently unbeknownst to me, even though the best you could ever expect a balanced system to do is match a single ended when no common mode noise is not present (i.e., the splitter and/or combiner somehow magically had zero sq effect), you can now dramatically increase sound stage and dynamics cuz a dac chip is naturally differential out!!

So you eliminate the splitter, one of the two elements that affect sq in a balanced topography, (but still remain plagued by the other) and now you magically have an advantage over an unbalanced signal which never had either a splitter of a combiner from the start.

Wow!!! Pretty cool huh??
Click to expand...
What ARE you talking about?

Are you arguing with yourself? Cant be with me as I repeat, i made no such claim. Also are you talking about the Dac or the 211 amps, or both together?
 
wisnon said:
What ARE you talking about?

Are you arguing with yourself? Cant be with me as I repeat, i made no such claim. Also are you talking about the Dac or the 211 amps, or both together?
Click to expand...

Ok good Norman lets just answer simple direct questions with simple direct answers.

My answer: I am talking about audio balanced versus unbalanced circuits generally and the relative impact of dac chip output on these circuits.

You were asked this by a forum member:

"If the cable runs are short, I can't come up with a logical reason why the Lampi balanced DAC in a balanced system would sound superior (i.e. noise floor, soundstage, etc.) to the Lampi SE DAC in a SE system."

You responded with this:

"every PCM chip is ALWAYS Bal output. the Bal Dac has Dual mono DSD implementation, so the signal sources start as Bal and SE is THIS case, is the compromise, as it demand a conversion, unlike with analog sources (normally SE starts with the advantage). On top of that, the Bal Dac runs a differential summator circuit that eliminates/cancels digital noise."

So now I ask a question, can you explain what is incorrect about the following?

I am pointing out what I consider to be the significant flaw in your reasoning. If you start with the assumption that CMNR is not relevant (i.e., cable runs are short) which was stated clearly by the original poster the existence of the summator in the balanced system is a net negative relative to an unbalanced system. You seem to think that a differential chip output must be degraded to become single ended. That is simply not the case. Regardless of what approach is taken the worst outcome would be to drop a leg and reduce amplitude but thats it. On the other hand I am not aware of anyone who disputes that summators being present (with no CMNR required) yields a net loss in SQ. Regardless of these points you proceed to argue the opposite.

So here is the difference regarding conversations I have with you versus virtually every other forum member I interact with:

Rather than saying, oh Paul I see your point good catch or saying this is what I think you missed, you will go to your regular arsenal of illogical circularity, personal attacks, or retreat. The balanced vs unbalanced discussion is just one example of many that never end with a resolution and the topics are not complicated.
 
I've read and experienced by listening, that a properly designed and perfectly matched balanced circuit is better than a single ended one. The problem is that to perfectly match the balanced circuit is very very expensive / impossible to achieve. So up to say the last 10 years, a single ended circuit almost always sounded more musical to me than a balanced one. But these days parts are better and more matched.

As an example - I equate this to a stereo amp and mono amps. If the mono amps are matched then almost without fail, they will give more soundstage and a musicality to a system than a stereo amp. Of course, this gets expensive.

So I don't think its too much of a stretch to think that a balanced DAC in a tube DAC would give the same results. I know many SS DACs sound a lot better using the balanced out than the single ended output.
 
the professor said:
I've read and experienced by listening, that a properly designed and perfectly matched balanced circuit is better than a single ended one. The problem is that to perfectly match the balanced circuit is very very expensive / impossible to achieve. So up to say the last 10 years, a single ended circuit almost always sounded more musical to me than a balanced one. But these days parts are better and more matched.

As an example - I equate this to a stereo amp and mono amps. If the mono amps are matched then almost without fail, they will give more soundstage and a musicality to a system than a stereo amp. Of course, this gets expensive.

So I don't think its too much of a stretch to think that a balanced DAC in a tube DAC would give the same results. I know many SS DACs sound a lot better using the balanced out than the single ended output.
Click to expand...

Jock, thanks for the insightful post. A couple of thoughts: first, I point out what I am sure you realize, dual mono is not differential they are completely different things. Second, I am sure you realize it is difficult to compare different architectures in evaluating this type of a parameter. Great care must be taken to only change the variable being measured.

Examples:

1)Comparing a stereo amp to dual-mono single-ended is very different than comparing a stereo amp to dual-mono balanced. Are you chasing crosstalk reduction, common mode noise reduction (CMNR), or both? If you have no need for CMNR (as was the specific example Norman answered) what you are hearing is likely the benefit of dual mono architecture not a balanced design.

2)Comparing single-ended outputs on a fully balanced component is not the same as the single ended output on a true single ended component and vice versa.

(We could go through lots of these example which make it difficult to draw a meaningful conclusion in these types of comparisons.)

I do not argue you have heard the improvements you hear, but I wonder if you might possibly have the root caused defined properly. Maybe you do and I can be enlightened. From my knowledge, the ONLY benefit from a fully balanced topology is CMNR. As a matter of the science I have never seen anything to the contrary. It is possible the benefits of CNMR are what you are hearing and I would never dispute that. CMNR is without question real and a big deal in some environments particularly with long cable runs. But that was not the topic of discussion with Norman.

Much of the benefit of dual mono amps involves cross talk reduction and dedicated power for each channel which are by products of dual mono regardless of whether you are balanced or unbalanced. Some even confuse the inherent 6db gain in balanced versus unbalanced as sq improvement (Jock I am not referring to you here).

Regarding the state of current SOTA parts making this point moot, you may be right but many sota designers like Cyril at Soulution, CJ, Lamm, (the list goes on and on) might disagree with you. The following is from Soulutions web site . (They clearly back dual-mono single ended as the preferred architecture in their preamps because they are not convinced the benefit of NCMR outweighs the negatives of signal summation.)[h=2]Design[/h]Unbalanced design ensures the fewest components in the signal path. Physical separation of the left and right channel provides optimal separation and cross talk performance.


 
Norman has nothing to do with my post.

Why do you bring him up?

Yes, balanced vs single ended is certainly different than stereo and mono. I was only using that comparison as something else in our hobby that has a lot of the same sonic differences, as I hear them. Nothing to do with the science of it all. Sorry I confused the issue.

I have no clue if parts have changed, I only used that as a possibility. I do know, that more and more manufacturers can use the best/most expensive parts because of the retail of high end has gone up so much. So maybe the parts aren't any better but more manufacturers can afford to use them.
 
Also

Going straight from memory - so please forgive if I have it wrong.

Solution as you quote uses SE on its 500 series but goes to balanced on its top of the line seven hundred series. Obviously he doesn't think the balanced is bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top