Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Special Forums › Head-Fi Bloggers › Jason Stoddard › Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up - Page 209

post #3121 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by trentrosa View Post

I'd like to see a stand alone preamp from Schiit housed in their small chassis and in the $100 range.

Edit: With a gain stage

It seems plainly obvious that will happen. With the Mani they now have two classes of source - digital and analog. They need a cheap-ish active preamp, since the Sys won't work for everyone.

The only real question is whether it will be a new product or an incrementally numbered Magni or Asgard.

I gotta say a Mani - Modi - Magni 2 stack would be pretty cute.
post #3122 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

 

There was an article in the NYT about placebo medicine, where people who had fake treatments got well as effectively as those that had the actual operation done. If anything, it shows how much the mind controls the body!

 

You are right about differences being small. The reason for the arguments is because, over time, we sensitise ourselves to small differences, so we notice them more when listening to equipment.  It's the same with everything. For example, the first time we go into a new, large department store, it is overwhelming and we don't know where to find things. But after going there many times, we know the store so well that we notice even small changes in the placement of products. Another example: A friend of mine drew part of The Lion King. While it looks like a regular cartoon to us, to her, she can watch it and other cartoons drawn around that time and tell you who at what point drew the frames. She is extremely over-sensitised to tiny subtleties (and it ruined her appreciation of animation, sadly).

 

As for ridiculous misconceptions, they are rife in everything, including science. As much as people who buy expensive equipment are accused of justifying their purchases, people who refuse to buy expensive equipment seem to do the same. I say screw that: Buy what you want and don't buy what you don't want and be happy. Jason and Mike are making what makes them and their customers happy.

 

I disagree with the conclusion that you drew from placebo studies. The fact that a sugar pill can give similar improvement as X drug demonstrates that the perception of treatment is what is causing people to report feeling better. The actual pill (whether sugar or real) is irrelevant. This goes to show how far our minds are influenced by biased perceptions/impressions over objective fact.

 

A similar situation occurs in audiophile settings when someone hands you "legit" audiophile gear to test out. You report the sound being better because you already have that expectation bias in mind. Just like when you receive fake treatment, you expect to feel better, so you report feeling better... receiving 'audiophile-grade' equipment without being blinded, you expect the sound to improve, so you report the sound improving. 

 

The price of equipment has no correlation to sound quality, but price is one of the confounding variables that influence people's perceptions. There are many other confounding variables such as brand name, looks, build quality, etc that have no correlation to actual sonic performances. The point of blind ABx testing is simply to remove all biases/expectations to ensure an accurate comparison! I don't understand how there can be any debate about its usefulness. If you can't hear a difference in a blind test, but you can hear the difference non-blinded... it is very suggestive that the perceived sonic difference is due to confounding variables.

 

I agree that you should just buy what you like. However, many people around here peddle their personal opinions and preferences like facts without realizing that many of these impressions/small differences may be unnoticeable or non-existent in a blind test. People argue over all these different silly things around these forums, because people here think that their subjective experience equals the objective truth. There is nothing wrong with personal impressions, but without any underlying system for measuring sonic performance or rating sonic qualities... there is no way for other people to relate!

 

"X headphones are very detailed. Y amp is so transparent." There is never any reference point! And even when there is a comparison, the fact that it is not blinded introduces so many confounding variables that it is hard to take the results seriously. There is a reason that medicine requires studies to be double-blinded or else the results are disregarded!!

 

Websites like head-fi catering to audiophile enthusiasts are seriously lacking in any real scientific research or objective data, which sadly turns them into nothing more than a vehicle for advertisements & personal endorsements. I think blind ABx testing and a more objective approach to the actual sonic changes between different gear would be greatly beneficial to this hobby.


Edited by money4me247 - 10/10/14 at 1:09am
post #3123 of 19573
+1. More blind testing would elevate headfi to being the "go to" for portable audio enthusiasts. Audio delivery to transducers is completely predictable. If two daps present an equally flat frequency response with a similar output impedence to transducers, those transducers will react the same way in a predictable manner. It's not voodoo.
post #3124 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mach-X View Post

+1. More blind testing would elevate headfi to being the "go to" for portable audio enthusiasts. Audio delivery to transducers is completely predictable. If two daps present an equally flat frequency response with a similar output impedence to transducers, those transducers will react the same way in a predictable manner. It's not voodoo.

 

No, they will not necessarily. If that were true, all amps would be is a couple of transistors and resistors and all the trouble Jason and Mike have gone to in designing their products wouldn't have been necessary.

post #3125 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post

No, they will not necessarily. If that were true, all amps would be is a couple of transistors and resistors and all the trouble Jason and Mike have gone to in designing their products wouldn't have been necessary.

+1 to this...pretty sure my tube amp purposely colors my sound...I bought it for this reason to pair it with certain headphones I own. For the other cans, I prefer the M/M stack.
post #3126 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by EVERYONE
BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH eternal arguments that will not be settled in this thread.

 

Looking forward to the next post from Jason or Mike.

post #3127 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by valiant66 View Post

It seems plainly obvious that will happen. With the Mani they now have two classes of source - digital and analog. They need a cheap-ish active preamp, since the Sys won't work for everyone.

The only real question is whether it will be a new product or an incrementally numbered Magni or Asgard.

I gotta say a Mani - Modi - Magni 2 stack would be pretty cute.

As much as it pains me, cute is a very appropriate descriptive word, however I would need a mani stacked in a modi, then a sys to switch the two into my magni 2 or active pre, and just because I want to see how big I can make this pile of Schiit, a Wyrd into my modi biggrin.gif
Edited by trentrosa - 10/10/14 at 7:51am
post #3128 of 19573

Double blind testing in clincal trials is always testing for effectiveness of a drug and the effectiveness of the drug is always some end goal that can be verified. With audio, the only goal is to produce sound that is pleasing to someone. People like their sound colored, uncolored, and everything else. Double blind testing doesn't prove anything about any product being any better/worse. It just shows what the preferences are of the people that are listening to them. That is why they are useless in audio. Each tester's goal for the product is unknown and probably different from other testers. Some people might not even notice a difference just because the goal they have for their sound isn't changing between products, but another user might find vast differences based on what they like. That isn't possible in a clinical trial because you're making unbiased measurements. Just as one post said, if you listened to the person taking the drug they might tell you it's a miracle or that they feel like crap, but you don't trust them, you trust the test. So a double blind test in audio is like asking a doped up patient how they feel, one guy is going to say its audio nirvana and the other one is going to say ancient MP3s on his iPod sound better. Nothing is proved.

 

As the wise man Donald "Duck" Dunn once said: "If the Schiit fits, wear it. Now scoot over goddammit!"

post #3129 of 19573

Guys, take it to the General Discussion thread if you wanna talk about double-blind testing. Seriously, the derailment is atrocious.

post #3130 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyWaj10 View Post
 

Guys, take it to the General Discussion thread if you wanna talk about double-blind testing. Seriously, the derailment is atrocious.

 

+1

post #3131 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck View Post
 

 

+1

+2 . Please

post #3132 of 19573

If spending $2k on a headphone amp, or anything else for that matter, makes one derive more pleasure from a product than would be derived from a $200 piece of gear,independent of the actual sound, I'm not in a position to argue that that is not a wise investment, especially as there will always another out there willing to throw $ around to make them feel better, so it can be sold on. Similarly, if it is the placebo effect of a drug that makes a patient feel better, who cares. I don't ever hear anyone try to argue that the effect is any less real just because of its source. Or maybe we are all that way, and it's only a matter of how much $ we have. If I had a couple billion, I'm sure I would have a very high-end sound system (actually many probably), a Ferrari, and a bunch of Piagets and Rolexes that tell worse time than my $200 Casio. In the end though, as long as the buyer is happier, not my business. The only basis for the whole objective/subjective debate is where one's own point of diminishing returns is. It seems kind of pointless to try to tell someone else what should sound good to them, or what is a waste of their $. Sound is like food in the sense that "good" is totally subjective. The difference is that sound can be measured. Unfortunately, "good" cannot. I love that I live in a time when I can get such good sound (subjectively of course, that's all that matters to me) for so little outlay. I also am glad I live in Denver so I can attend CanJam, which I'm going to do right now. So I can go look for "good," of course.:L3000:

post #3133 of 19573

It is imperative that a thread title that vaguely (even though completely intentionally) resembles defecation, should begin to talk philosophically.

post #3134 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by senorx12562 View Post
 

...I also am glad I live in Denver so I can attend CanJam, which I'm going to do right now. So I can go look for "good," of course.:L3000:

 

Enjoy CanJam and please report back to us. Wish I could join you.

post #3135 of 19573
Quote:
Originally Posted by money4me247 View Post
 

 

I disagree with the conclusion that you drew from placebo studies. The fact that a sugar pill can give similar improvement as X drug demonstrates that the perception of treatment is what is causing people to report feeling better. The actual pill (whether sugar or real) is irrelevant. This goes to show how far our minds are influenced by biased perceptions/impressions over objective fact.

 

A similar situation occurs in audiophile settings when someone hands you "legit" audiophile gear to test out. You report the sound being better because you already have that expectation bias in mind. Just like when you receive fake treatment, you expect to feel better, so you report feeling better... receiving 'audiophile-grade' equipment without being blinded, you expect the sound to improve, so you report the sound improving. 

 

The price of equipment has no correlation to sound quality, but price is one of the confounding variables that influence people's perceptions. There are many other confounding variables such as brand name, looks, build quality, etc that have no correlation to actual sonic performances. The point of blind ABx testing is simply to remove all biases/expectations to ensure an accurate comparison! I don't understand how there can be any debate about its usefulness. If you can't hear a difference in a blind test, but you can hear the difference non-blinded... it is very suggestive that the perceived sonic difference is due to confounding variables.

 

I agree that you should just buy what you like. However, many people around here peddle their personal opinions and preferences like facts without realizing that many of these impressions/small differences may be unnoticeable or non-existent in a blind test. People argue over all these different silly things around these forums, because people here think that their subjective experience equals the objective truth. There is nothing wrong with personal impressions, but without any underlying system for measuring sonic performance or rating sonic qualities... there is no way for other people to relate!

 

"X headphones are very detailed. Y amp is so transparent." There is never any reference point! And even when there is a comparison, the fact that it is not blinded introduces so many confounding variables that it is hard to take the results seriously. There is a reason that medicine requires studies to be double-blinded or else the results are disregarded!!

 

Websites like head-fi catering to audiophile enthusiasts are seriously lacking in any real scientific research or objective data, which sadly turns them into nothing more than a vehicle for advertisements & personal endorsements. I think blind ABx testing and a more objective approach to the actual sonic changes between different gear would be greatly beneficial to this hobby.


Money, you are doing nothing but projecting your own personal bias. There are dozens of ways to setup ABX tests to confirm the bias of the Tester, volume, time, non randomized presentation, etc., etc........ For many, Head Fi becoming a site based on blinded ABx Testing, would be as cold and dead as the amps so loved by many Objectivists.

 

The evaluation of the "sound" of a transducer of music is both an objective and subjective event. Both equally important, neither standing alone as an all encompassing tool. Innerfidelity's reviews are an outstanding example of this mix, HP that's too hot, hollow-bodiless mid range, the graphs may present the issue, with speakers, HP's it is a bit more evident, where it becomes almost impossible with current measurements is electronics. There are boatloads of amps that measure spectacularly that sound like crap, the amp that is an outlier is an oddity, and may or may not sound wonderful. Reading Head Fi experiences is a matter of seeking trends (realizing that group think occurs), identifying those with similar taste/biases, and for the most part we are big boys and girls who do not need to be told what they do/don't hear.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Jason Stoddard
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Special Forums › Head-Fi Bloggers › Jason Stoddard › Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up