Schiit Yggdrasil DAC and MQA

[DaveyF]

I'm a little puzzled as to why there are so many 'skeptics ' about this issue.
Instead of an open mind, it appears that some of you are exactly the opposite and bring preconceived ideas to the discussion. Without hearing MQA in action, you really have absolutely no idea as to what it brings to the equation...none!
When I visited Alex and Alma's get together this week, I had never heard MQA, and I had absolutely no preconceived ideas as to how it would sound...none. I can tell you that Alex and Peter were absolutely impartial to our experience...they were both simply trying to show the audience how much of an advance this technology is....and don't kid yourself, based on what I heard that night it is a very significant advance in digital reproduction.
Open minded is really, IMHO, the best way to experience something in this hobby. Something for several posters on this thread to contemplate!

 

[opus112]

...they were both simply trying to show the audience how much of an advance this technology is....and don't kid yourself, based on what I heard that night it is a very significant advance in digital reproduction.

Are there any explanations around for what makes MQA such an advance, subjectively? I've tried to uncover details about the process myself but haven't found anything convincing yet. Why would 'temporal deblurring' make such a huge difference for example?

 

[DaveyF]

Are there any explanations around for what makes MQA such an advance, subjectively? I've tried to uncover details about the process myself but haven't found anything convincing yet. Why would 'temporal deblurring' make such a huge difference for example?

Here's the thing of it....I don't really care how it works, so long as my ears tell me it works. What I heard that evening tells me all I need to know.

 

[Legolas]

I'm a little puzzled as to why there are so many 'skeptics ' about this issue.
Instead of an open mind, it appears that some of you are exactly the opposite and bring preconceived ideas to the discussion. Without hearing MQA in action, you really have absolutely no idea as to what it brings to the equation...none!
When I visited Alex and Alma's get together this week, I had never heard MQA, and I had absolutely no preconceived ideas as to how it would sound...none. I can tell you that Alex and Peter were absolutely impartial to our experience...they were both simply trying to show the audience how much of an advance this technology is....and don't kid yourself, based on what I heard that night it is a very significant advance in digital reproduction.
Open minded is really, IMHO, the best way to experience something in this hobby. Something for several posters on this thread to contemplate!

I wouldn't stress over positives on this. There are huge threads on CA and elsewhere with folk who talk for months on how crap it is and have never even heard it. I think most see 'ripp off' TBH. The hype train over new digital gear has pre-set that one unfortunately. I have also NOT heard MQA out of a good system or DAC yet. I have heard it out of a Meridian explorer I think it was. But that didn't mean anything as no control points. What we need is a decent high end DAC that many know the sound of already that can play RedBook and MQA as an A/B comparison, then we will know something. But factor in the possibility the version of the recording you hear may simply be better 'versions' further blurring the testing.

My thoughts are, if I change DACs at some point and that can do MQA I will try it then, not in a rush otherwise. But I am open minded. Tidal will drive it not the manufacturers. If MQA material is available in quantity, then we are going to see a change. Otherwise it will join the ranks of niche within niche replay format, and quite possibly vanish in 5 years.

 

[DaveyF]

I wouldn't stress over positives on this. There are huge threads on CA and elsewhere with folk who talk for months on how crap it is and have never even heard it. I think most see 'ripp off' TBH. The hype train over new digital gear has pre-set that one unfortunately. I have also NOT heard MQA out of a good system or DAC yet. I have heard it out of a Meridian explorer I think it was. But that didn't mean anything as no control points. What we need is a decent high end DAC that many know the sound of already that can play RedBook and MQA as an A/B comparison, then we will know something. But factor in the possibility the version of the recording you hear may simply be better 'versions' further blurring the testing.

My thoughts are, if I change DACs at some point and that can do MQA I will try it then, not in a rush otherwise. But I am open minded. Tidal will drive it not the manufacturers. If MQA material is available in quantity, then we are going to see a change. Otherwise it will join the ranks of niche within niche replay format, and quite possibly vanish in 5 years.

Ok, so go and hear it on a good system and good DAC. I'm very certain it will be an eye opener for you...as it was for me. If it goes away because of limited titles and little support/enthusiasm, I think that would be a shame for the world of digital music reproduction in general, IMHO.

 

[awsmone]

Here's the thing of it....I don't really care how it works, so long as my ears tell me it works. What I heard that evening tells me all I need to know.

Glad it impressed you, and you enjoyed it

I must admit though your enthusiasm is ....a bit over zealous....it's like you had a "road to Damascus moment"

I can see that for inferior old digital recordings, removing preringing could make an obvious improvement

And for downloading hires streaming it is a nice packaging system in theory

Also deblurring may well be successful for older digital recordings where the techniques used are well understood

But, it's a digital "patch" and lossy packaging system, not an end point, and could well have its place for things like Tidal, and grand old digital recordings needing a retouch

Your ears tell you it's great, and that's fabulous for you

However, your enthusiasm doesn't mean we should not have a health dose of skepticism give what we know about technically so far, and digital long history of promised solutions

I dub you :- St Paul... of MQA

 

[Al M.]

I don't think we need a consensus on this, it's just a basic fundamental of digital audio

If you believe all digital audio is fundamentally flawed then I suppose no metric will ever satisfy you

If you believe digital audio has merit, but past attempts have been less than fully satisfying :- high resolution recordings ie 192 kHz or above is an excellent starting point as it conforms to the needs of Nyquist /Shannon as being twice the band limited content frequency sampling

All other lower samplings will always be digitally flawed, of which MQA is yet another "patch" solution

Why would all sampling rates lower than 192 kHz be flawed?

Nyquist /Shannon is exactly the reason why CD has a sampling rate not much above 40 kHz, because it was decided that the format should cover the generally accepted range of human hearing at 20-20 kHz. According to the Nyquist /Shannon theorem double the highest frequency to be sampled (here 40 kHz) is sufficient for lossless representation of the wave form.

 

[awsmone]

Why would all sampling rates lower than 192 kHz be flawed?

Nyquist /Shannon is exactly the reason why CD has a sampling rate not much above 40 kHz, because it was decided that the format should cover the generally accepted range of human hearing at 20-20 kHz. According to the Nyquist /Shannon theorem double the highest frequency to be sampled (here 40 kHz) is sufficient for lossless representation of the wave form.

It's flawed because the theory says in order to reproduce the continuous wave, the sampling must be at twice the band pass

It has nothing to do with hearing, it has to do with the maximum bandpass of the signal

Spectral analysis shows musical frequencies up to 70 kHz

Although these are not audible, they are important in terms of temporal information

Therefore the bandpass must be 2x above this rate such as 176 or 192khz

In order to limit the bandpass for CD an antialiasing filter has to be added to stop the frequencies above 22.05 being folded back into the 0 to 7 kHz range especially

This creates an artificial bandpass

 

[microstrip]

(...)

Spectral analysis shows musical frequencies up to 70 kHz

Although these are not audible, they are important in terms of temporal information

Never proved, as far as I know. And considering speakers known for their excellent resolution and spatial information, such as the Quad ESL63, have a sharp cut at around 18 KHz I find it difficult to accept.

Although just a preference, some people pick the 96 kHz as the best sounding rate using current DACs.

 

[opus112]

Spectral analysis shows musical frequencies up to 70 kHz

Know any mics with a 70k bandwidth?

 

[microstrip]

Why would all sampling rates lower than 192 kHz be flawed?

Nyquist /Shannon is exactly the reason why CD has a sampling rate not much above 40 kHz, because it was decided that the format should cover the generally accepted range of human hearing at 20-20 kHz. According to the Nyquist /Shannon theorem double the highest frequency to be sampled (here 40 kHz) is sufficient for lossless representation of the wave form.

Al,

According to theory and theorems we would be using perfect measuring electronics in our systems ...

ADCs and DACs are not perfect, most probably higher sample rates manage to disguise better their faults. Remember that audio ADC and DAC data sheets do not specify single sample linearity or monotonicity, contrary to our laboratory converters.

Except for jitter, digital audio did not create standard new measurements that could correlate with subjective audio - they are still using the old measurements developed decades ago for analog electronics. So we must use our imperfect ears ...

I am sure that MSB or DCS could teach us a lot on this subject, but I am sure they are not interested at all in doing it.

 

[still-one]

I wouldn't stress over positives on this. There are huge threads on CA and elsewhere with folk who talk for months on how crap it is and have never even heard it. I think most see 'ripp off' TBH. The hype train over new digital gear has pre-set that one unfortunately. I have also NOT heard MQA out of a good system or DAC yet. I have heard it out of a Meridian explorer I think it was. But that didn't mean anything as no control points. What we need is a decent high end DAC that many know the sound of already that can play RedBook and MQA as an A/B comparison, then we will know something. But factor in the possibility the version of the recording you hear may simply be better 'versions' further blurring the testing.

My thoughts are, if I change DACs at some point and that can do MQA I will try it then, not in a rush otherwise. But I am open minded. Tidal will drive it not the manufacturers. If MQA material is available in quantity, then we are going to see a change. Otherwise it will join the ranks of niche within niche replay format, and quite possibly vanish in 5 years.

I guess the dCS Vivaldi, the MSB Select II, the Brinkmann Nyquist and the Meridian 808v6, 818v3, Meridian Ultra aren't what you consider "decent high end DAC's. What a joke.

 

[ack]

Spectral analysis shows musical frequencies up to 70 kHz

Actually, it's claimed to be up to 102.4kHz or so - see https://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
PS Audio and others make reference to this subject and paper here http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/life-beyond-20khz/

I have privately argued with Al repeatedly in the past that RBCD's limited bandpass is its Achilles's heal, and that the proclaimed human limit of 20kHz is a dinosaur. Regarding the latter, I've been meaning to post comments from the Jan 2017 TAS claiming the same, citing recent medical research, but keep procrastinating.

Just catching up with this and other threads, but personally FWIW, I could not do without my analog, no matter how elevated my digital's performance is recently, and I do believe its extended bandwidth has a lot to do with it.

Regarding MQA, I think it does deserve an audition, but I just can't see how it can accurately correct errors in the digital recording chain, as it has been claimed in the magazines and elsewhere.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Another thread that's disappearing up its virtual arse
Al, I'm w you 100% on skepticism of all things non RBCD 16/44, physical discs etc
If Schiit have made a concious decision to pitch their flagship dac to maximise 16/44, no filters, no upsampling, no MQA, because to do so would compromise the inherent quality of what's possible in the Yggy at €2k plus, that's a good business decision
I have no idea how much extra it would cost to provide MQA comparability to the same level of quality as the rest of the dac
If it's only $300, then maybe Schiit are being shortsighted
If it's $1-3k, then obviously sales would be impeded.
Fwiw I've had one demo of MQA, strangely enough ELP Trilogy for a good old 70s prog workout, and I was impressed w the immediacy and dynamics of the sound, but ultimately I felt it was too in my face with a strange artificiality to depth of stage, sort of trying to impress me too much w one of those spatial filters that sound hypnotic at first, but coloured after a while
No other conclusion drawn, esp with only one sample of music in one system.

 

[opus112]

If Schiit have made a concious decision to pitch their flagship dac to maximise 16/44, no filters, no upsampling,

That's an 'if' too far - the Yggy does have a filter (the 'mega-combo-burrito' or some such) and it certainly does upsample (8X).

 

[bonzo75]

Another thread that's disappearing up its virtual arse
Al, I'm w you 100% on skepticism of all things non RBCD 16/44, physical discs etc
If Schiit have made a concious decision to pitch their flagship dac to maximise 16/44, no filters, no upsampling, no MQA, because to do so would compromise the inherent quality of what's possible in the Yggy at €2k plus, that's a good business decision
I have no idea how much extra it would cost to provide MQA comparability to the same level of quality as the rest of the dac
If it's only $300, then maybe Schiit are being shortsighted
If it's $1-3k, then obviously sales would be impeded.
Fwiw I've had one demo of MQA, strangely enough ELP Trilogy for a good old 70s prog workout, and I was impressed w the immediacy and dynamics of the sound, but ultimately I felt it was too in my face with a strange artificiality to depth of stage, sort of trying to impress me too much w one of those spatial filters that sound hypnotic at first, but coloured after a while
No other conclusion drawn, esp with only one sample of music in one system.

Which dac was this with?

 

[Al M.]

Al,

According to theory and theorems we would be using perfect measuring electronics in our systems ...

ADCs and DACs are not perfect, most probably higher sample rates manage to disguise better their faults.

Which is what I have said all along, Francisco. Higher sampling rates seem to facilitate practical implementation of digital, rather than being theoretically required. The problem with Redbook CD is that it was designed just so close to the theoretical edge, making proper practical implementation more difficult.

 

[Al M.]

Therefore the bandpass must be 2x above this rate such as 176 or 192khz

In order to limit the bandpass for CD an antialiasing filter has to be added to stop the frequencies above 22.05 being folded back into the 0 to 7 kHz range especially

This creates an artificial bandpass

Are you claiming that 192 kHz conversion does not use an anti-aliasing filter?

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ked, at Barry, SGM into Dac8

 

[awsmone]

Know any mics with a 70k bandwidth?

http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/report/reports.cfm?top=1&id=12
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e093pWoWCBs[/video]