Schiit Yggdrasil DAC and MQA

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,467
963
Greater Boston
This is a continuation of the MQA discussion from:

Comparison: Schiit Yggdrasil DAC vs. Berkeley Alpha DAC 2

***

Al, I thought it said on the site that the Yggy can play MQA files--unfortunately I see it cannot unfold them!:(
....after what I heard last night. ( BTW, apparently several large companies are getting on board with MQA...although we have all heard that before! ) MQA is.. at least IMHO, a major upgrade and one that I would definitely want as part of my DAC capability, even if there are scant few MQA files ( at the moment). One listen will tell you all you need to know...it's that good!
Mike Moffat should seriously consider offering an upgrade to allow the Yggy to unfold MQA...that is if he is serious about the product. Hate to say this, but without the ability of a DAC to unfold and play MQA files, IMO it is now lacking.

Davey, a couple of points here:

1. You report that MQA was so much better than the standard file in the event you attended. It may very well be that the standard files were suboptimal, in order to highlight MQA. Count me a skeptic. I am cautious because I still remember the first review of SACD in Hifi News & Record review in 1998, where the reviewer established that the SACD layer was a different mastering, given the frequency spectrum plot. No wonder the SACD layer sounded better.

2. If you don't want to spend extraordinary amounts of money on a DAC, at a given price the effort to implement MQA will suppress the quality left for plain Redbook decoding, which in my view is just a terrible compromise. Same with DSD. I love the Yggy because it concentrates on one thing only, high-quality decoding of standard PCM, and it does it so well. If it would have wasted resources on DSD decoding, requiring an entirely different, additional D/A circuit, I might never have bought it. Why should I spend money on implementation of a format that I am not the least interested in? Schiit made the right choice for me.

3. It's all relative: In an enthusiastic MQA review,

https://www.audiostream.com/content/mqa-reviewed

the author states:
"I went through the entire MQA gamut with the [Mytek] Brooklyn where each recording sounded lovely. How lovely? Is MQA/Mytek the equal of the at-present MQA-less dCS Rossini? Of course not. We're not talking miracles."

***

The Mytek Brooklyn spends resources on MQA and DSD, the similar priced Yggy does not have to compromise its standard PCM capabilities. Which of these DACs will sound better on standard PCM, which is where all the music is?

I certainly know that the Yggy is terrific on Redbook CD. Also, as I detailed here, while the Yggy doesn't decode HDCD as such either, playing it back as standard Redbook CD it can make it sound as resolved as another quality DAC (Berkeley) that decodes it as HDCD. Such are the amazing Redbook capabilities of the Yggy.

I think it would be a serious mistake to choose a DAC only because of its MQA capabilities, unless you are willing to spend large amounts of money. At lower DAC prices, implementation of MQA will inevitably lead to compromise in standard format decoding, given that the whole package works towards a price point.

You say "Mike Moffat should seriously consider offering an upgrade to allow the Yggy to unfold MQA...that is if he is serious about the product."

Mike Moffat is serious about the Yggy, that's precisely why he does not want to implement MQA. For all the reasons why Schiit does not support MQA, see:

http://www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa

Smart folks.

They don't blow in the wind of the moment, implementing formats just because of "fear of missing out". They don't have to: Sales of their DACs continue to rise. Apparently lots of people (not just me) appreciate their attitude of giving them what they want, which is optimal decoding of standard formats, undistracted by ultimately irrelevant 'unicorn formats' (Schiit terminology).
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,601
5,411
1,278
E. England
Agreed Al.
If I finally go streaming, Yggy dac will be in a very short shortlist.
Have heard MQA and it was fascinating, but I'm happy to leave it as a frisky dalliance than anything I'm going to investigate further.
I have no interest in higher rates, w my diet of deeply unfashionable prog, fusion and electronica, all of which is 16/44, a real aversion to "boutique" recordings in Native Hi Rez, a dac that gets down'n'dirty w 16/44 is all that interests me.
Good luck to those who must have MQA, there are plenty of dacs that will fit the bill.
Kudos to Schiit for sticking to a principled market decision.
They really know their customer base.
 

elescher

Member Sponsor
Sep 12, 2010
201
1
0
New York
I downloaded the latest beta version of hqplayer (http://www.signalyst.com/beta-install.html) last week and it has several new filters that are labeled xxxxxMQA. I don't know if these filters even actually decode the MQA file, and if they do, not sure if to the extent that one of these new DACs that have the decoder built in will, but it might be worth checking out. I am going to download (trial) Tidal and see what's up. In the meantime has anyone tried this beta version and have any thoughts to share?
 

Dr Tone

Member
Apr 24, 2016
52
4
8
I downloaded the latest beta version of hqplayer (http://www.signalyst.com/beta-install.html) last week and it has several new filters that are labeled xxxxxMQA. I don't know if these filters even actually decode the MQA file, and if they do, not sure if to the extent that one of these new DACs that have the decoder built in will, but it might be worth checking out. I am going to download (trial) Tidal and see what's up. In the meantime has anyone tried this beta version and have any thoughts to share?

They don't decode MQA, Miska added them as a way to fix what he felt was wrong with MQA. Something to do with noise. They are meant to be used with a non MQA compatible DAC.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Ok, so here's the thing of it...as some of you know, I am FAR more into vinyl than I am digital. Having said that, the MQA demo I heard put on by Peter McGraph was an eye opener. Not just for me, but the entire audience! Is Peter using sub-par files for the standard file audition...i think NOT. The standard files are extremely good sounding files with what most people would consider excellent sound. The MQA files are in all ways far superior sounding---to my ears. ( I already stated on the other thread and on Alma's thread as to why i believe this).
Am I trying to in any way 'bash' the Yggy...absolutely NOT. Indeed I suspect it is a great piece of kit, even though I have not heard one. That's not my point, my point is that after hearing the MQA demo, i personally wouldn't consider any DAC that couldn't playback MQA files in their fully unfolded form. Now, if we are saying that this isn't possible until a certain price point, which may be a lot higher than the Yggy...well that I don't know?? I do know that if that is the case, I personally would wait until this technology becomes more readily affordable before buying ANY new DAC.
Sure Mike Moffat is making $$ on his Yggy, as I agree he should be, but to 'diss' a certain technology because we feel it isn't "ripe" enough strikes me as a little disingenuous. Go and listen to this format and then let's discuss! All IMHO.:cool:
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
With software that will do whatever processing is needed and send data to the DAC that is optimal for that DAC, does buying a DAC that can decode everything really matter?
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,144
2,812
1,898
Encino, CA
Al, not sure I get your point since MQA files are included with Tidal. Even if you don't think MQA matters, at least you are streaming hires files for the same price. I get that you don't stream, but 90% of audiophiles are doing so.

I tire a little on your constant praise of Mike Moffat, but note there are *many* talented designers on the other side.

I also chuckle that now you love R2R dacs after labeling MSB as colored not too long ago :)

ps. I share some skepticism for MQA as well since it seems just like a new filter in some ways
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
With software that will do whatever processing is needed and send data to the DAC that is optimal for that DAC, does buying a DAC that can decode everything really matter?

It does if there is no software or firmware option to modifying the particular DAC in question. While there are clearly some 'skeptics' about the value of MQA, I strongly suspect these very same people have NOT had the pleasure of hearing
a MQA demo like the one that Peter put on. Like I said before, go and listen to this format and then let's discuss. Without having this experience all else is simple supposition...and nothing more.
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
Davey, a couple of points here:

1. You report that MQA was so much better than the standard file in the event you attended. It may very well be that the standard files were suboptimal, in order to highlight MQA. Count me a skeptic. I am cautious because I still remember the first review of SACD in Hifi News & Record review in 1998, where the reviewer established that the SACD layer was a different mastering, given the frequency spectrum plot. No wonder the SACD layer sounded better.

To imply that Peter McGrath would use "suboptimal files" to make MQA look good is, for lack of a better word, preposterous.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,467
963
Greater Boston
Al, not sure I get your point since MQA files are included with Tidal. Even if you don't think MQA matters, at least you are streaming hires files for the same price. I get that you don't stream, but 90% of audiophiles are doing so.

Keith, I was not talking about the price of the software. I was talking about the extra price added to the DAC for implementation.

I tire a little on your constant praise of Mike Moffat, but note there are *many* talented designers on the other side.

Did I deny that?

I also chuckle that now you love R2R dacs after labeling MSB as colored not too long ago :)

It was one specific DAC, and my judgement of the sound had nothing to do with the DAC topology. There are colored DACs in any topology. I also stated at the time that my impressions on the MSB DAC could have been system-related. Having recently read other observations where it even depends which digital source the DAC is fed from, I'll withhold further judgment at this time.
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,467
963
Greater Boston
To imply that Peter McGrath would use "suboptimal files" to make MQA look good is, for lack of a better word, preposterous.

I am not accusing Peter McGrath of anything. Someone else could have suggested to him which files to use. Or perhaps by chance the files were just mastered differently (see my comment about the SACD/CD layer that I brought into my original argument).
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
I am not accusing Peter McGrath of anything. Someone else could have suggested to him which files to use. Or perhaps by chance the files were just mastered differently (see my comment about the SACD/CD layer that I brought into my original argument).

Al, before we go much further with this thread, can you answer me one question....have you actually heard any MQA files in their fully unfolded state and through a good DAC?
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
I am not accusing Peter McGrath of anything. Someone else could have suggested to him which files to use. Or perhaps by chance the files were just mastered differently (see my comment about the SACD/CD layer that I brought into my original argument).

You basically have no understanding who Peter McGrath is or what he does. Those are his own recordings, he engineered them himself, using recorders he knows intimately. He chose which files were sent to MQA for encoding, and they were already sent in fully realized, mastered form.

And if you had heard ANY MQA comparison, you would've realized that the improvements are just not possible by just "mastering" the files differently. It's not EQing, I can assure you.
 

Dr Tone

Member
Apr 24, 2016
52
4
8
Audioquest's Dragonfly is basically MQA-compatible for $99.

Dragonfly is a renderer only, not a fully MQA compatible DAC. Software has to do the unfolding prior.
 

Dr Tone

Member
Apr 24, 2016
52
4
8
You basically have no understanding who Peter McGrath is or what he does. Those are his own recordings, he engineered them himself, using recorders he knows intimately. He chose which files were sent to MQA for encoding, and they were already sent in fully realized, mastered form.

Sorry for not reading the whole thread, did he do a comparison of his original master vs the resultant MQA encoded file being played through the same DAC?
 

asiufy

Industry Expert/VIP Donor
Jul 8, 2011
3,711
723
1,200
San Diego, CA
almaaudio.com
Sorry for not reading the whole thread, did he do a comparison of his original master vs the resultant MQA encoded file being played through the same DAC?

That's precisely what he did. Multiple times. Different stuff (solo piano, big classical, etc.)
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London
I have said before here too MQA is damn good, I was blown off when I heard it on the Meridian dac back in Feb or March. However, I did further investigation with two people who had bought the Meridian and then sold it, and one MSB owner/dealer who initially loved the MQA but had gone off it back to listening to PCM.

Apparently the reason was there wasn’t enough MQA music around. Plus, if MQA does become that big stream, most dacs will get it in. It will be like DSD is today with most, but better. The liquidity and tone of MQA is fantastic though I have only heard demo recordings. Meridian at 15k GBP new will be the best buy, it comes with a built in pre that you can change the voltage out for.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
It does if there is no software or firmware option to modifying the particular DAC in question. While there are clearly some 'skeptics' about the value of MQA, I strongly suspect these very same people have NOT had the pleasure of hearing
a MQA demo like the one that Peter put on. Like I said before, go and listen to this format and then let's discuss. Without having this experience all else is simple supposition...and nothing more.

I fully agree with you that listening is part of forming an opinion. However we have many reasons be very careful with listening results. No one seems to known anything solid about how files are encoded. I have not seen no serious technical evaluation of MQA results - at less a comparison of an accumulative spectra of the original and the MQA file carried at the analog output of the DAC.

I am an open mind person concerning new techniques. However I do not feel happy at all when my questions remain non-answered, particularly when they involve "correcting the digital signal for ADC faults". It happened with the HPQ and now happens with MQA.

But I appreciate the direct reports of WBF members on MQA sound quality and they triggered my curiosity!
 

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