So I have been going back and forth  with the idea of upgrading the XLR DAC board on my Bifrost 2.  It would be a hardware upgrade that would turn my DAC into a truly balanced DAC.  So I decided take the AI approach and throw the information into  my paid version of Chat GPT.

Below is my interaction with Open AI, so if you are up for a nice read….continue on.  I found it very informative..



Take on the roll as an audiophile who is an expert in digital audio.  I currently own the “Schiit Bifrost 2” that is like two years old.  Since that time the company has released an upgrade board that is called the “Bifrost 2/64” that can be replaced by the owner.  Search all of the online forums as well as the technical data released from the company and let me know what the difference in the sound is by upgrading to this new board. Tell me the pros and cons associated with the purchase

Below is a reworked AI summary to conform specs of this forum.



Bifrost 2 vs Bifrost 2/64 in a Full Decware Signal Chain – Long-Form System Impressions & Advice

I wanted to share a consolidated analysis for anyone running a deep Decware signal chain, particularly with SET amplification and high-efficiency speakers, who is considering upgrading from the original Schiit Bifrost 2 to the Bifrost 2/64 analog board.

This is not a spec-sheet comparison. It’s a system-context discussion based on architecture, gain staging, impedance behavior, and how DAC changes are actually exposed in a Decware ecosystem.

Full System Context (critical for interpretation)

Digital Source / DAC

Schiit Bifrost 2 (original), owner-upgradable to Bifrost 2/64


Downstream Decware Chain

ZBIT (dual controls)

ZROCK2

ZSB

CSP3

SE84C+


Speakers

Decware ERR (2nd generation)

Upgraded with Duelund resistors

Miflex KPCU capacitors

Cabling


DH Labs Silver Sonic speaker cables

Primary Listening Genres

Jazz

Classical

Rock


This is a high-resolution, transformer-coupled, impedance-managed, harmonic-shaped SET system. It does not mask upstream changes — it magnifies them.

Key Architectural Difference: Why 2/64 Is Not “Just a Tuning Change”

The original Bifrost 2 uses:

2 DAC chips

Internally single-ended architecture

Balanced outputs derived after conversion

The Bifrost 2/64 uses:

4 DAC chips

Fully hardware-balanced DAC core

Cleaner differential signal before conversion to single-ended

Even when feeding single-ended gear, this matters because:

RCA outputs are derived from a cleaner, lower-noise differential source

Transformer-coupled devices (ZBIT) respond audibly to improved source integrity

Noise floor, image stability, and microdynamics improve before tone shaping

This is not about “balanced cables.”
It’s about signal integrity before the first transformer.

How This Plays Out Specifically in a Decware Chain
ZBIT + ZSB

These do not soften DAC differences — they clarify them.

Compared to the original BF2, the 2/64 typically presents:

Cleaner leading edges

Better low-level separation

More stable imaging

Less harmonic smear at low volume

With ERR speakers, this shows up immediately as:

More solid center images

Better depth layering

Improved instrument separation in dense mixes

ZROCK2 Changes the Risk Profile Completely

One of the most common concerns with the 2/64 is:

“More neutral / slightly leaner than the original BF2”

In a basic system, that can be a real tradeoff.

In a Decware chain with ZROCK2, it is not a risk:

Harmonic density can be dialed back in

Tonal contour is adjustable after resolution gains

You are no longer locked into the DAC’s native voicing

This makes the 2/64 a better upstream platform than the OG BF2 in a Decware stack.

NOS Mode + SET = Legitimate Second DAC

NOS mode on the 2/64 is not subtle in this system.

General presentation differences:

OS mode: speed, image focus, transient clarity

NOS mode: smoother flow, softer edges, continuous midrange

With:

Transformer coupling

Tube gain stages

SET output

NOS becomes:

Extremely compelling for jazz and acoustic material

Ideal for long, late-night listening

Less about “detail,” more about time coherence

This is one of the strongest arguments for the upgrade in a Decware system.

Genre-Specific Observations
Jazz (biggest improvement)

Better cymbal decay and brush texture

Upright bass has clearer pitch definition

Horns gain air without glare

Room ambience becomes more believable

NOS mode shines here.

Classical

Improved section separation

More believable hall size

Better low-level dynamic contrast

Less congestion in complex passages

OS mode excels for large orchestral works;
NOS works beautifully for chamber and solo material.

Rock

Tighter bass control

Better drum transient snap

Less mix congestion at volume

If you miss the OG BF2’s density:

ZROCK2 or tube choice easily restores weight

Interaction with ERR Speakers, Duelund, Miflex, and Silver Sonic

This is an important synergy point.

Duelund resistors restore tonal density and natural decay

Miflex KPCU caps preserve harmonic bloom

Silver Sonic cables emphasize speed and articulation

With OG BF2, that combo can sometimes sound a bit rounded.

With 2/64:

Speed and articulation improve

Decay stays natural

No drift toward sterility due to the tube/SET context

In short: the system absorbs the clarity without losing soul.

Final Recommendation (for Decware owners)

If you are running:

A transformer-rich Decware signal path

SET amplification

High-efficiency speakers like ERR

And you value imaging, microdynamics, and spatial realism

The Bifrost 2 → 2/64 upgrade is worth it.

Not because it is “more detailed” in isolation —
but because Decware systems actually let you hear what changed.

How I’d run it day-to-day:

OS mode for rock, large classical, critical listening

NOS mode for jazz and long sessions

Minimal ZROCK2 initially; add contour only if desired

For simpler systems, I’d call this a sidegrade.

For a fully built Decware chain, it’s a clear refinement upgrade that plays directly to the system’s strengths.

Hope this helps anyone else considering the move.

So there you have it in a nutshell.  The original chat interaction is so much more detailed, that included pics of my speakers, and flowed much more normal. When I originally tried to copied and paste it, the post maxed out so I would have had to create 2 posts. Just wanted to report my inquiry for those who have the same DAC.

Actually, I am not looking to do any upgrading as of now.  I have really impressed with the Kitsune lineup, and would much rather sell of my Bifrost and buy a new DAC, but I was just too curious not to look into it further.  

James…no worries….yeah that was a big read.  So I already own a dual control ZBIT and run my Bifrost 2 via XLR’s.  The issue is that the on board XLR’s are only 2 channels…so it’s not a truly balanced DAC.  I can swap out the current 2 channel XLR board and insert the upgraded XLR board that is 4 channels.  

In terms of listening, I actually do a lot of digital streaming.  On a regular basis during a listening session… I probably do 70% digital, 30% vinyl.  When I want to do critical listening, I do vinyl.  When company comes over, they almost always request vinyl.

So I do believe that buying this new board would yield a nice sonic upgrade.  The issue I am having is the consideration that is the $300 upgrade may be better served to put towards a better DAC like the Holo Cyan 2 or the Spring 3.

What I love about balanced is the gain output to play with. I really needed that in an earlier incarnation of my DAC where the single-ended output was about 1.3 volt, and that just was not sufficient for my system. Using the balanced gave me more gain and the system benefited. Now my DAC gives 4 volt output and the gain is wonderful to tailor the sound with via ZBIT.