![]() ![]() More so, that power is not what comes out of your DAC but goes through other circuits which themselves have immunity to power differences. Making the source power cleaner makes little difference here. This filtering may be as good as 100X better than what comes in. The power goes through a conversion to another voltage and filtering. Reasons are obvious from engineering point of view: no DAC uses USB power as is. We could test more DACs until we get bored out of our mind but for now, I say we have convincing results that with any half-decent DAC, including Schiit's own, the Wyrd does nothing.Īs many of us suspect, products like Schiit do nothing to improve the output of DACs. Wyrd of course does nothing for this good implementation.Īs an aside, see how the noise floor is lower on dac1 in lower frequencies (bottom of the tones) than Schiit Modi 3. Now the results fall right on top of each other because of stable performance of dac1. I left out the Schiit power supply as it works fine with USB power alone (I also tested with its external power supply and results are the same): Per above, I tested the Schiit Modi 3 alone and with Wyrd. In English, this processing substantially lowers the measured noise of the DAC, allowing us to see the smallest distortion and spurious responses. This is done with a very deep "FFT" of 256,000 points. Any improvement better show up in the output of the DAC or it doesn't exist as far as I am concerned.įor testing very small differences especially as it relates to data interconnects, I use jitter measurements. To cover our bases, I also tested with another DAC under review (March Audio dac1).Īs I always do, I test what happens to the output of the DAC, not what the device does or does not to USB signal. So why not clean them and generate better sound? Schiit doesn't provide any measurements to show efficacy of the product so that job falls on our shoulders.įor this testing I thought I should measure the performance of Schiit Modi 3 DAC per picture above. I don't know enough about the technical aspects however, I'd be curious to hear from someone who does.Įdit: I also want to note that it did not fix the static pop sounds when playing/pausing the Bifrost using Wasapi/ASIO (problem is mainly with Wasapi though).These solutions make "perfect" intuitive sense: USB is a computer port so by definition must have dirty power and signal. My instincts kind of tell me that the Bifrost might be doing a better job than the $99 Wyrd at processing the signal, it sounds a bit more clear and sharp without the Wyrd. Haven't made up my mind yet, but I would definitely like to get the USB Regen to compare. Whatever it is doing, there is a difference, and I've went back and forth so many times to try to determine if I prefer it or not. ![]() It makes you wonder if the Wyrd is cleaning up the signal to be more accurate, or if it is coloring the sound. (These observations were made before looking at other opinions, seems they match up for the most part) Things do seem to be more open/deeper with a bit more space around the instruments. At first I thought it was removing detail, but I don't believe that's the case anymore. It certainly affects the treble, and it's hard to explain how - it takes the edge off, but at the same time doesn't make things sound darker exactly. ![]() Thing is, I'm not entirely sure if it's positive at this point, it's just different. It really is interesting what the Wyrd does to the sound, there is absolutely a difference, although it is on a smaller scale obviously. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |