Comparison: Schiit Yggdrasil DAC vs. Berkeley Alpha DAC 2

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,606
5,415
1,278
E. England
I realise there's a lot of cynicism re uber pricing, Hell, I'll put the boot in whenever I can
But surely Vivaldi dac can only be seriously superior to the Yggy
If it isn't on a/b, then this will be a serious feather in the cap for the Schiit
Maybe the Yggy will go on to be known as "Seriously Hot Schiit!"
 

ack

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
May 6, 2010
6,774
1,198
580
Boston, MA
It would be interesting to read your review if you are able to try the Yggy in your system. Compared to the Berkeley connected to your SV pre amp and using your Spectral SDR as a transport.

If possible of course :)

I'll ask Al for a loan - but honestly, I see no point
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
Piano

As it was suggested by Mike and others, I compared the two DACs on piano music. Both DACs were run through the Pass B1 buiffered preamp (Berkeley Alpha 2 at level 54 out of 60, as suggested for fixed output by manufacturer), with volume matched. Both DACs stood on Herbie's Tenderfoot isolation feet. I played two CDs, with piano music by Wolfgang Rihm (Siegfried Mauser on piano, label Kairos) and by Stockhausen (Ellen Corver on piano, recording and mastering by the composer himself, released on his own label Stockhausen Verlag). The comparisons were on two consecutive evenings.

Piano sounds great on both DACs. For perspective, the differences are not as drastic as to be easily identified as distinct characteristics of either DAC in casual listening. Yet they are still significant. While the sound signatures of the two DACs are similar on the piano music played, the Yggy's sound is more expanded towards both ends of the frequency spectrum, with significantly more weight in the lower register and slightly more energy in the higher register. The Yggy reproduces piano with slightly more harmonic 'glow', with a somewhat richer tone without losing attack and incisiveness.

Both DACs are capable of explosive dynamics with powerful attack, but the greater weight of the Yggy's sound enhances the effect in all frequency ranges. Specifically, low end dynamics are actually better. There are also other dynamic differences. Around 17 minutes into Rihm's Nachstudie ('after-study') there is a constant, fast repetition of a chord played on keys in the upper middle/upper register. It is played in several waves of dynamic swelling and deflating. This dynamic process is reproduced in a more pronounced and incisive manner on the Yggy. I repeated that comparison three times to be sure.

Decay and tonal detail of it are similar on the two DACs. They both are capable of clearly distinguishing two separate yet overlapping decay events at the same time (if I am not mistaken, achieved by continued pressing of keys on one chord while subsequently playing another). Yet I heard one slight difference. Rihm's Piano Piece No. 6 begins with a softly played chord on held pedal. It decays for more than 10 seconds before the next chord is played. On the Berkeley the decay virtually stopped being audible just before the next chord started, on the Yggy there was still a more audible faint trace of the first chord just before the next chord. It was a small difference, but to my ears reproducible. I repeated that comparison several times.

Overall winner: Yggy.
Margin of win: not large, but still significant.
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,368
4,410
Piano

As it was suggested by Mike and others, I compared the two DACs on piano music. Both DACs were run through the Pass B1 buiffered preamp (Berkeley Alpha 2 at level 54 out of 60, as suggested for fixed output by manufacturer), with volume matched. Both DACs stood on Herbie's Tenderfoot isolation feet. I played two CDs, with piano music by Wolfgang Rihm (Siegfried Mauser on piano, label Kairos) and by Stockhausen (Ellen Corver on piano, recording and mastering by the composer himself, released on his own label Stockhausen Verlag). The comparisons were on two consecutive evenings.

Piano sounds great on both DACs. For perspective, the differences are not as drastic as to be easily identified as distinct characteristics of either DAC in casual listening. Yet they are still significant. While the sound signatures of the two DACs are similar on the piano music played, the Yggy's sound is more expanded towards both ends of the frequency spectrum, with significantly more weight in the lower register and slightly more energy in the higher register. The Yggy reproduces piano with slightly more harmonic 'glow', with a somewhat richer tone without losing attack and incisiveness.

Both DACs are capable of explosive dynamics with powerful attack, but the greater weight of the Yggy's sound enhances the effect in all frequency ranges. Specifically, low end dynamics are actually better. There are also other dynamic differences. Around 17 minutes into Rihm's Nachstudie ('after-study') there is a constant, fast repetition of a chord played on keys in the upper middle/upper register. It is played in several waves of dynamic swelling and deflating. This dynamic process is reproduced in a more pronounced and incisive manner on the Yggy. I repeated that comparison three times to be sure.

Decay and tonal detail of it are similar on the two DACs. They both are capable of clearly distinguishing two separate yet overlapping decay events at the same time (if I am not mistaken, achieved by continued pressing of keys on one chord while subsequently playing another). Yet I heard one slight difference. Rihm's Piano Piece No. 6 begins with a softly played chord on held pedal. It decays for more than 10 seconds before the next chord is played. On the Berkeley the decay virtually stopped being audible just before the next chord started, on the Yggy there was still a more audible faint trace of the first chord just before the next chord. It was a small difference, but to my ears reproducible. I repeated that comparison several times.

Overall winner: Yggy.
Margin of win: not large, but still significant.

thanks Al.

how about the naturalness and precision of the 'key stroke, hammer strike'? is one less defined? smeared? blurred? compared to the other? maybe it's a very slight difference.

and the continuousness of the sustain? by continuousness I mean lack of any grain, but not smoothed over.

and lastly was there a difference in presence of the sense of the sound board of the piano? it's a big instrument and not every recording localizes the sound and projects that size, but some do.

and maybe you have already addressed these issues above but I did not understand.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
thanks Al.

how about the naturalness and precision of the 'key stroke, hammer strike'? is one less defined? smeared? blurred? compared to the other? maybe it's a very slight difference.

and the continuousness of the sustain? by continuousness I mean lack of any grain, but not smoothed over.

and lastly was there a difference in presence of the sense of the sound board of the piano? it's a big instrument and not every recording localizes the sound and projects that size, but some do.

and maybe you have already addressed these issues above but I did not understand.

Good questions, Mike. I didn't hear significant differences in all these things, other than what would be covered under the more general umbrella of harmonics and dynamics that I described. I may revisit the comparison with your specific points in mind.
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,368
4,410
Good questions, Mike. I didn't hear significant differences in these things, other than what would be covered under the more general umbrella of harmonics and dynamics that I described. I may revisit the comparison with your specific points in mind.

thank you Al.

it's just minutia I listen for since I find it indicates effectiveness on the inner touch of all music for me. especially 1 and 2. and typically 1 is a divider between analog and digital, and 2 seems to really reveal differences between drive systems in turntables (so is just a thing I pay close attention to). our ears can tell speed stability differences heard in piano sustain that we have trouble measuring. with digital it's not speed stability issues (with quality dacs discussed here anyway), it's grain and roughness differences (a real strength of the Select II against any other digital I have heard by a noticeable margin).

a go-to recording for me is RR's "Nojima Plays Liszt", both CD and Lp (the 33rpm original, not the abysmal recent 45rpm re-issue I acquired in good faith). I also have the Tape Project 15ips,1/4" master dub.

the CD is perfectly good.....and a great transfer from tape.
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2011
12,522
10,688
3,515
USA
I had a chance to revisit the DAC comparison by hearing Al's system again yesterday. Having just listened to the “Art of the Violin” with him last night on my system, I found it particularly interesting to hear this same music again on digital and to use it for the DAC comparisons. I must say that by the end of the session, by head was spinning. It was a cacophony of confusion.

I distinctly remember preferring the Berkeley the last time we made the comparison. Now, I am not so sure. Based on just the multiple listening to that one CD, each has it strengths and the differences for me now are more subtle and they come down to which attributes does one prioritize. Since the last time I heard his system, he has rotated the tub traps so that the diffusion/reflection strip is further out instead of fully against the corner of the wall. He changed his speaker cables and has added a power conditioner to the Schiit DAC. The Schiit DAC is also more fully broken in. I can’t remember if he had the same footers under the DACs last time.

The differences are minor and fairly subtle, but these are the differences I heard based only on the one recording: the Schiit sounds more open and effortless and the sound is less shaped. The sound more evenly and immediately fills the room. However, it sounds slightly bland or whitish, and tonally a bit flat. The Berkeley’s tonal color is more vivid and it sounds more lively and energetic. The image size also seems slightly more realistic, while the Schiit made the violin image seem slightly big. However, the Berkeley is also very slightly more fatiguing and what I thought was greater texture may be a slight artifact, or false sense of detail or resolution. There was a slight edge to the sound. The sound was also slightly cone shaped and sounded a bit like the “cupped hand” effect. The way in which the sound left the instrument to expand to the listener was not as natural as it was with the Schiit DAC. Perhaps the lower midrange was emphasized, but the tonal balance was not quite as neutral as the Schiit. The front corners of the room were not as filled with music with the Berkeley. Towards the end of the session, we focused repeatedly on the sound of the transients and incisiveness of the bow against the strings. After going back and forth numerous times, I can’t say now which has the better transients. They are both good. They both also have good body and decay.

If pressed hard, I don’t know which I would rather live with long term. They both sounded very good. I liked the open, effortless sound of the Schiit and the vivid tonal colors and energy of the Berkeley. The differences were fairly subtle and I don’t know if I could identify one over the other if blind, but I could hear the differences in rapid, level matched, sighted back and forth comparisons repeating the same music. Overall, I continue to be impressed with the sound of Al's system. The speakers just did not sound as if they were in the room or that any of the sound was coming out of them. The subwoofer integration was also particularly seamless and the sense of presence was outstanding. Overall, the sound is very engaging and convincing.

I think the fact that the Schiit DAC is now more broken in and it has its own power conditioner has really improved the sound since the last time I was there to where it sounds very much like the Berkeley. I really enjoyed hearing both in the system and appreciated hearing the slightly different flavors. Last time the differences were clear and I had a strong preference for the Berkeley. Now, I still hear differences, though they are slightly different from the last time, and those differences are less pronounced but I can definitely identify individual strengths for each DAC. It was a fun listening session and very interesting in comparison to the same music on vinyl in my system.

Here is the music we heard:

IMG_3103.JPG
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
Thanks, Peter, for coming over and for your impressions. It was a fun session indeed, but I agree, also confusing.

As you say, the differences between the DACs are relatively minor, at least on this violin recording (which we spent a long time on with comparisons). We didn't play a recording with much bass, where I think the differences are more pronounced, in favor of the Yggy. Interestingly, it now seems after all the long break-in drama with the Yggy that my first impression is confirmed, that the differences between the DACs are not that great. After the session I realized that in part the differences might be caused by the different power conditioning as well (the Berkeley running at 230 V on the Tice Power Block II, the Yggy on the, also over-dimensioned, Tripp Lite medical-equipment grade isolation transformer). -- I did not have the footers (Herbie's Tenderfoot) last time and I put them under both DACs for a level playing field (also literally; both DACs wiggle a bit on their own feet which they shouldn't).

We also listened to both DACs through the Pass B1 buffered preamp, something that Ack pointed out as beneficial for the Berkeley, and this time we both could hear that the sound of the Berkeley (set at output level 54, as manufacturer recommended) was more open through the Pass B1 than going direct. We made the same finding twice, the first time going from DAC direct through Pass buffer, and later on in the session going the other way around. You also pointed out (which I could not hear, sitting off center) that with DAC direct there was an artificial effect to the soundstage where the sound came forward from the violin as if through a funnel. It was definitely a good thing that the acquisition of the Yggy forced me to buy the Pass B1; it also had the indirect yet of course highly important effect that ultimately it made me buy new cables because I had to change lengths. When I first did the comparison DAC direct vs. Pass B1 I could not hear the differences, but at the time my system was also less transparent than now with DaveC's outstanding ZenWave Audio cables.

While we agree that the differences between the DACs were minor, at least on the violin recording and on the briefly listened to piano recording, I am not sure I fully agree with the characterization. I thought most of the time that the Yggy sounded more lively, but at one point I agreed with you that it did sound more bland and whitish (an 'OMG moment' at the time). But then I lowered the volume just a little bit (because I thought perhaps this time it had been just a bit louder), and upon replay I thought again that this was not the case and I preferred the Yggy once more -- one of the moments of confusion during the session. It is clear that our session confirmed how critical it is to exactly match volume, to the extent possible.

The Yggy does slightly emphasize the upper midrange over the Berkeley, which on this particular recording may have caused you to perceive the Yggy to sound more whitish. At the same time I think that overall, over a number of recordings, the Yggy also has more body in the lower midrange (including on the piano recording). It just sounds more extended to me in all directions; yet again, apart from the bass, the differences are rather subtle.

In the bass the Yggy performs clearly better in my view, with more weight, slam and definition, even though the Berkeley is already excellent in that area, in absolute terms and compared to other DACs, as also FrantzM once pointed out. It's just that the Yggy is exceptional in the bass, as Robert Harley describes in his review as well.
 

MadFloyd

Member Sponsor
May 30, 2010
3,076
774
1,700
Mass
Very detailed report, guys. Nicely done.
 

lordcloud

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2016
218
101
175
47
Round Rock, Texas
you guys don't need me to tell you how to compare gear. but I do have a suggestion.

pick 4 or 5 piano recordings mic'd in particular ways and see where that takes you. likely one of them will allow you to find some common ground of reference.

I find that sustain/decay, harmonic texture, pluck/strike, scale/power/bloom and especially continuousness on piano seems to separate the men from the boys. it exposes the inner view to the music. and it's hard to hear these specific things differently. and these things seem to relate to the humanity and naturalness of a dac.

if a dac 'blurs' or 'smears' things it jumps out.....

I did not read any piano references in your descriptions.

Well recorded piano is the first thing I go to when evaluating a new component and when positioning speakers. If a component (system) can't convincingly put a piano together, I know there's an issue.
 

lordcloud

Well-Known Member
Jul 5, 2016
218
101
175
47
Round Rock, Texas
Maybe I missed it, but are there large differences in the presentation of the soundstage, between the two dacs? Particularly in image separation front to back, image dimensionality, and soundstage depth.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
The differences in spatial presentation are relatively minor. Both DACs provide the same absolute depth, and great spatial layering when the recording allows. The Yggy may sound a bit more forward with some recordings, but that depends; on many recordings spatial location of performers is more or less the same. I do notice that on a number of pop/rock recordings the voice is less recessed with the Yggy, which is welcome (unfortunately, on a system well capable of portraying spatial depth, you also have to deal with artificial depth as a result of reverb etc.). Image size may be a bit bigger, less 'pin-pointy' on the Yggy (as Peter mentioned on the previous page), which I find more realistic; but the portrayal of size depends on the recording as well. Hall information, including minor spatial clues, is well portrayed by both DACs, suggesting very good handling of low-level information. Both DACs have been praised numerous times for their spatial presentation, and rightfully so.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Just got a Yggy two days ago. This thing is outstanding! Sounded a little rough for the first couple hours but has gotten much better. From all reports it should get even better with more break in. I was fully prepared to send it back if I did not like it, but that is not going to happen.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
Just got a Yggy two days ago. This thing is outstanding! Sounded a little rough for the first couple hours but has gotten much better. From all reports it should get even better with more break in. I was fully prepared to send it back if I did not like it, but that is not going to happen.

Congratulations! I am also loving my Yggy more and more. Break-in is rough: you will have read some very divergent opinions on this thread, and some of it can be attributed to lack of break-in at the time -- some opinions changed as the DAC 'matured'.

Sometimes it may even seem that the DAC regresses, only to emerge from there even stronger. Be prepared for a month long 24/7 break-in period. Since you already know you will keep the Yggy, you will not lose patience. You will be rewarded. The Yggy is mindboggling value for the money -- a true high-end bargain -- and a really amazing DAC in absolute terms.

I am loving every minute of listening to it. It is musically so involving.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Congratulations! I am also loving my Yggy more and more. Break-in is rough: you will have read some very divergent opinions on this thread, and some of it can be attributed to lack of break-in at the time -- some opinions changed as the DAC 'matured'.

Sometimes it may even seem that the DAC regresses, only to emerge from there even stronger. Be prepared for a month long 24/7 break-in period. Since you already know you will keep the Yggy, you will not lose patience. You will be rewarded. The Yggy is mindboggling value for the money -- a true high-end bargain -- and a really amazing DAC in absolute terms.

I am loving every minute of listening to it. It is musically so involving.

Thanks Al. Good to know about what to expect with break in. It's been playing 24/7 since I received it Monday. Mike Moffat has been hinting about making a CD transport for it on Super Best Audio Friends forum. Hopefully that will happen.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
Thanks Al. Good to know about what to expect with break in. It's been playing 24/7 since I received it Monday. Mike Moffat has been hinting about making a CD transport for it on Super Best Audio Friends forum. Hopefully that will happen.

Oh wow, a CD transport, that's some news! File replay is not necessarily everything for Mike Moffat it seems (neither is it for me). Do you have a link to that forum discussion, Sean? My Simaudio Moon 260 DT CD transport is outstanding, as I have discovered also in another system that is even more resolving than mine. Would be cool if the Schiit transport were even better! Might not beat the price of my transport though, which is just $ 1.8 K.

***

Here's another thing that I recently discovered. I have an HDCD of the Janaki String Trio (label Jarlung) and had admired the uncommonly detailed, really remarkable timbral resolution of string tone on the Berkeley DAC. I had been wary about how the Yggy would fare with it since unlike the Berkeley it does not decode HDCD. Guess what, while the Yggy plays it as a regular Redbook CD, it manages to extract easily as much resolution of string tone as the Berkeley DAC decoding it as HDCD. Such is the power of the Yggy.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Oh wow, a CD transport, that's some news! File replay is not necessarily everything for Mike Moffat it seems (neither is it for me). Do you have a link to that forum discussion, Sean? My Simaudio Moon 260 DT CD transport is outstanding, as I have discovered also in another system that is even more resolving than mine. Would be cool if the Schiit transport were even better! Might not beat the price of my transport though, which is just $ 1.8 K.

***


































Here's another thing that I recently discovered. I have an HDCD of the Janaki String Trio (label Jarlung) and had admired the uncommonly detailed, really remarkable timbral resolution of string tone on the Berkeley DAC. I had been wary about how the Yggy would fare with it since unlike the Berkeley it does not decode HDCD. Guess what, while the Yggy plays it as a regular Redbook CD, it manages to extract easily as much resolution of string tone as the Berkeley DAC decoding it as HDCD. Such is the power of the Yggy.

Here you go Al. http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/the-mike-moffat-2-at-schiit-blog.3507/ It's Mike's blog. The hint's about a transport are around the second to last page. Sounds like he will Use BWD to send the digital signal instead of I2S, which he feels is a superior way to do it. That was the way it was done before Phillips developed I2S to save money.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Al, after my experience with listening to MQA files last night at the Alma audio event where Peter MCGraph demoed his outstanding original files vs. the same files decoded in MQA, I am a BIG believer in the value of MQA! Since the Yggy can apparently decode MQA, I would ask if you have heard any MQA files played back by the Yggy? If not, I think you will be in for a very large treat indeed! If so, what were your impressions?
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,685
4,474
963
Greater Boston
Here you go Al. http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/the-mike-moffat-2-at-schiit-blog.3507/ It's Mike's blog. The hint's about a transport are around the second to last page. Sounds like he will Use BWD to send the digital signal instead of I2S, which he feels is a superior way to do it. That was the way it was done before Phillips developed I2S to save money.

Thanks, Sean. If I understand correctly, he only talks about a "digital source component", not a CD transport (thread page 20). Someone else then suggested a CD player because there you could use internal BWD connectivity.
 

audioarcher

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2012
1,396
51
970
Seattle area
Thanks, Sean. If I understand correctly, he only talks about a "digital source component", not a CD transport (thread page 20). Someone else then suggested a CD player because there you could use internal BWD connectivity.

Hard to say. He is just hinting at what is to come. I'm hoping for a transport of the same quality as the DAC. Time will tell. I2S is just as fragile as BWD, but is being used to go from box to box in some instances.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing