Schiit Freya Modes: Subjective vs Objective Differences

Longtime lurker, first time poster here, thanks to all the contributors to this community over the years.

I’m curious if anyone has had experience with a firm subjective impression being negated, or at least complicated, by objective testing.

I recently purchased a Schiit Freya Noval unit and have been driving it hard and testing its output modes for the last month. I very much enjoy it, regardless of the following.

Ignoring the SS buffer for now, my impressions of the passive mode are that it is clean, clear, detailed, and transparent, at the cost of the lower midrange down feeling a little thin, as if the backing band is a few steps farther away from the singer. Vocals are prominent but the soundstage is a tad narrow. The tube mode on the other hand feels a smidge richer and fuller, with male vocals and acoustic guitar in particular having extra presence, weight, and warmth. The bass is more articulate and extended, and a pleasant haze falls atop the presentation, softening harsher details and making the soundstage seem wider and airier.

Or so I thought.

I decided to record the outputs of the Freya with a high end video capture device I use for work that has analog inputs. Using test tones, scopes, and the stepped attenuator, I’m able to achieve a dead-nuts exact level match between the two modes prior to making 24-bit/88khz recordings of a handful of songs spanning different genres. I sync these up in my editor program, and am able to instantly A/B them live listening with my Sundara headphones, sighted or blind.

The result: no difference. No difference as in truly zero difference between the passive and tube outputs. I’ve done this test in a few other contexts with other components before and always find some little detail I’m able to latch onto to establish a contrast, but not this time. Classical, bluegrass, rock, reggae, doesn’t matter: the passive and tube modes give the same output in my test.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that my methods and analyses aren’t flawed, I see two possible explanations:

Either A) The differences exist, it’s just that they are due to the interplay between the Freya and all downstream components in my main listening area, and therefore cannot be heard directly from the Freya to the capture device.

Or the dreaded B) There are actually no differences at all and this is purely one’s brain and ears, the collected influence of reviews and audio forums, confirmation bias, and the imprecision of level matching the modes while listening, playing tricks on me.

What do you all think? Is this something you have experienced as well? Thanks for reading and for sharing any impressions.



The three that I prefer are:

1) The Martin Logan Unison, it uses ARC room correction and also has an RCA in for a CDP or a TT and an app so you can use it as a streamer. This unit does not have a sub out so if you are using a sub get one of these others instead.

2) The Dspeaker Anti-Mode X2 is automated and very flexible, it can calibrate your speakers and multiple subs if you want.

3) The Mini DSP has a steeper learning curve and you have to BUY a microphone.

The Dspeaker is the one I would get if I were using a sub. The ML Unison I would get if I wanted a streamer function and didn’t have a sub. I would get the Mini DSP if you want to manually adjust curves instead of having it automated like the other two.

Amazing, thanks @kota1 I hadn't heard of the first two and I'm going to research them further. No sub in my setup right this second but when I do use one I do REL high level so all good.

The Martin Logan Unison is amazing, it has both optical and RCA inputs and has an app you can use to stream pretty much any service. It does hirez too, here is the measurement from my main system using it (and its on sale):


@kota1 Very cool! Can you only use ARC with the analog outs/ML wireless speakers, or is it possible to use that feature in conjunction with an external DAC? I would think not but worth asking.