Schiit Yggdrasil Stereophile Review + Measurements

I thought one of the main attractions to vinyl was that they can't master it too loud otherwise the needle would bounce out of the groove, that's why Marvey said if all things being equal. Correct me if i'm wrong though...

 

@murphythecat
comparing a specific CD to it's vinyl counterpart is tricky. You don't know how each was mastered. You can certainly determine if you like one better then the other, but I don't think you make an generalizations based on the comparison.

@Thenewerguy009
Music is inherently analog. Even if it's produced from a synth, the sound comes out a speaker, travels through the air, then is interpreted by our ears. When the music is digitized, it's broken is into tiny slices. Humans hear the tiny slices and filling the gaps. The gaps are so tiny, most people cannot year them. We are talking about 44100 slices per second for a standard CD. In addition, each slice has to convey which sound to reproduce. A standard CD uses 16 bits, which means each slice can convey 2^16 pieces of info.

"Hi Res" music can convey more pieces of info (24 bit), or more slices, 96,000 or more. DSD is different, but I will let you look that up.

The point is that with analog, like vinyl, there is no slicing or limited bits or pieces; all the information is there. And as added bonus, scratches and dust is there to make every play unique

The average person on an average (mediocre too crappy) stereo probably cannot tell the difference between he same music on a CD or a vinyl. They are more likely to like CD as it will sound "cleaner". Once you get into decent gear, and you have a trained or just a good ear, you might be able to tell the difference. Analog will sound more natural. That's one of the reasons folks use tubes; it imparts a degree a naturalness to the sound.

Now if the music is produced and captured digitally (never was played through a speaker and/or wasn't captured through microphones), then its possible the process of D to A, putting it on vinyl, then playing it back might cause a smoothing out that the artist didn't want smoothed out, and might not be as "good" as the original.

"Good" sound reproduction is generally defined as how well the system reproduces the sound to match the original. That is a very technical definition. What folks in these forums generally care about is how much they like the sound reproduction, not how well it matches the original. Nothing wrong with that. In the case of a fully analog system, many feel it reproduces the sound more accurately and more presently than a digital stack.

I think that's what Schiit was trying for with the Yggdrasil: natural sound over the most accurate digital reproduction.

One more note. Those hipsters than have USB turntables hooked up to bluetooth speakers, or even a decent receiver and speakers, aren't listening to analog. They are getting the worst of both worlds: all the pops and clicks of vinyl, then an A to D conversion, then a D to A conversion. USB Turntable = pretentious phool.

 

I disagree with this point given (1) an integral part of the Yggdrasil is the closed-form supercomboburrito filter designed to preserve the original samples, including their inherent phase and timing information, and (2) Schiit used the AD5791BRUZ chip. I'd argue that it's because the Yggdrasil so accurately reproduces digital music that it has such a natural sound. All this is plastered over the product page and FAQ.

The fact that so many here still prefer analog rigs speaks more to the fact that even the best digital is still an approximation of the real thing.

 

A belated reply, sorry:

There is a tough balance to maintain on print media/websites accepting ads, maintaining impartiality, and making a profit. (This applies to manufacturers as well, the difference being they place ads rather than accept them.) As an expert on assuming black or white positions, it is frustrating to attempt a simple side to side, much less two dimensional balance which this requires. First off, any company, whether it be opinion leading reporting enterprise or a manufacturer is absolutely required to make profit as a social responsibility.

Huh? Corporate pigs raiding victims? Yeah, that does happen, but when excessive profits become a problem, prices will rise. This makes it very easy for a prospective customer/client not to buy or support the offending company. Why does a company have a responsibility to make a profit? The owners of the company need money to live, continue to develop their products, and support what it has sold. Senior to that is it needs a profit to continue to exist. If there is no profit, the money has to come from somewhere. If it does not, the company will have to go out of business or sell to another entity, as JGH at Stereophile did to Larry Archibald so many years ago. Interestingly, Larry began to take ads and maintain a pretty respectable balance for years and years. Interestingly, when he lost that balance he too, had to sell. But what about non-profits, you say? They with their special corporate charters can accept tax deductible grants and contributions from those who support their endeavors.

It is obvious that if a manufacturer offers a product at a fair price, he will have happy customers. If his price is not fair, he will have fewer takers and will have to raise his profit margin yet more to avoid selling to another or going out of biz. Much of this company caused inflation happens in high end audio today.

So if you are going to walk that walk, you need to maintain that balance. Yes, it gets difficult to have to say things they do not want to hear to people you like in our industry. It is just from time to time you have to. The secret to everything is walking with the right kind of three legged balance pole.

 

totally agree. details with a decent analog rig is just there without feeling it forced, you dont even really think in terms of detail with analog, you just listen to the space, the tone, everything is just more colourful with more color palette over the spectrum. I also agree that its not warmer then digital, its more raw, it sometimes actually feel coarser, dirtier, drier. digital seem to cover this and make everything uniform. its a totally different sound, imo much closer to reality

to me, comparing good 2 eye or 6 eye columbia or original atlantic Coltrane album to cd's or digital, its not even comparable. the vinyl is another level. My NOS r2r mosaic T or Yggdrasil just cannot come close to vinyl. its the combination of pressing quality, the good fresh tapes used in the 60's and the signal having never been transfered to digital.

interesting. I have a couple of modern bon iver and dinosaur jr vinyl, ill try to compare them to the digital version.

 

And a current one:

My wife absolutely loves Supertramp's Crime of the Century album so much she wants it played at her funeral. The last time I did this was when the Yggdrasil was a brand new product. I played her the CD through a well regarded CD player and she rocked her head back and forth with the rythm of the disc. I played it for her on the Yggdrasil, and she got up and danced. I played it on vinyl with my 4RC Decca cart and she wept. She has no idea of a bit versus a stylus and cares nothing about which hardware she listens to.

 

Seems your Yggdrasil journey is not yet complete.

 

when you play on your DAC and she wants to, er, you know, then you know you've done your DAC right!

 

The biggest difference in the modern age with vinyl and digital is that the vinyl masters tend to be different than the CD version.

If it's the same master version recorded yesterday (ie: 9.9/10 not recorded to tape, Blue Coast Records does however) then they should sound similar.

I'd love to try vinyl but I think it's a rabbit hole. Not only that, most of the music I listen to isn't either on vinyl or it's older generation music that I don't personally enjoy.

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned as far as digital files vs. digital files cut to vinyl is the actions of the cutting engineer. They can effect the final sound quite a bit.

The most famous and an extreme example is Robert Ludwig's first cutting of 'Led Zepplin - II'. He cut the first lacquer so hot (dynamic) that the president of Atlantic heard it skipping on his daughter's record player. He had Robert Ludwig re-cut the album with less dynamics and bass so that it was more likely to play on ordinary/poor record players of the day. The first RL pressings are now sought out for their sound.

I know that is an analog tape example, but the principle applies to digital tape, as well.

 

@baldr - I would love to know if you can imagine digital media playback capturing all of the positive qualities of analog record playback at some point in the future - ever.

 

I'd like to see a more modern analog format without all disadvantages of tape or vinyl. Maybe something like laser disc encoding but with modern blu ray lasers.

Although, we'd also need a movement to keep recording chains analog all the way through to go with it.

 

Yup........Already at least ten steps halfway there but has been VERY hard to tame for consistent production. At some point there are so many zeros in front of the halfway there increment that they become noise.
But a bad digital recording/master/remaster/etc. will still sound like ass through a RFG DAC.
What we really need now is a brought up to date version of the MF Gain 1 system, heh, heh.

 

So there is hope for a 60th anniversary release of Sgt. Pepper's! Make that 55th. I'm not getting any younger.

 

Audiophile Testing Rule 18b/iii... Wife testing only counts if she was listening from the kitchen.




(Oh sorry... that section is about cables.)