What a long, strange trip it's been -- (Robert Hunter)
Feb 25, 2017 at 1:55 PM Post #2,071 of 14,566
 
  Just because something costs more does not mean it performs better.

 
I realize that, of course, but I just thought Mike might like to discuss his design decisions, if asked to build to an $8000.00 price point.
L3000.gif


The thing is, Mike could build a better phono pre for $800 than the one that goes for $8K. He might hit a grand if he put a quad of 6SN7's in the gain stage. 
wink_face.gif

 
Feb 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM Post #2,072 of 14,566
On 6DJ8/6922/6N1P vs 5670/2C51/6N3P/396A vs 6SN7/5692/VT-251 tube families for phono preamp design, and how to deliberately raise prices (Pleeeeeze notice 12AX7 family is absent - except for comment below):
 
So here we go - elimination. Unless you have a nostalgia for noise, distortion, and a desire for old bad analog, we can throw out the 12Ax7 family. There – wasn't that easy. Much as I love the 6SN7 family for it's linearity, I have to let it go for phono because of its noise. Nowhere near as bad as the stuck toilet noise of 12AX7 family stuff, but over the limit nonetheless. So that leaves us with the 6DJ8 and 5670 families. Way back in 1976, when the world was listening to 12AX7s, I stuck 6DJ8s in the first audio preamp - way less noise and distortion. Now, almost 40 years later, there are new ones being built from increasingly tired tooling in limited quantities at higher and higher prices. Most of the old stock is selling at sky high prices. It turns out that the 5670 family is every bit as good as the 6DJ8 family. Funny thing is that no big audio maker has ever used them. They have a completely different pin-out, and there are a lot of them out there for cheap. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
So if I use these tubes, I can save a phuc-ton of $$$ and pass it on. I said the 6DJ8 and 5670 families are equivalent – on average, the same. Rollers looking for the cloacal gush sprayed glass version of 6N3P of the scrotal gettered 2C51 will be relieved. This results in a huge price savings when I design with this family, making a price difference on our site of low hundreds of bucks.
 
My designs are also minimal. Few parts lets me get better ones equals better sound. I can then spend something more on regulation. More better sound for less. Oh, and if I am going to roll the dice on the success of this product I build a thousand and production engineer it. None of this hand made bullschiit for a lot more money and no difference in sound. Add the same functional Schiit packaging and we end up with a several hundred, not several thousand buck phono preamp. No jewelry, I am afraid. We could spend on the jewelry, but it would be to our taste. We suck at jewelry.
 
You want jewelry, hide our phono preamp which doesn't exist behind something else which doesn't either.  After all, no knobs or switches on the thing.  Better yet, if you want to spend $8K, get one of our non exixtent several hundred buck phono preamps, a bomb-ass turntable and cartridge, and the $8K leftovers on jewelry for your wife or SO. Happy, happy, happy.
 
A happy wife is a happy life.
 
My best design think.
 
Schiit Audio Stay updated on Schiit Audio at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
 
https://www.facebook.com/Schiit/ http://www.schiit.com/
Feb 26, 2017 at 2:10 PM Post #2,074 of 14,566
  Yes, that is why I have my music on a NAS as well...it serves my Sonos's in other rooms of the house. I did come across this Raspberry based device, made by a company in France called Audiophonics... not up to the microRendu's functionality though:-
 
http://www.audiophonics.fr/fr/appareils-hifi/audiophonics-raspdigi-lecteur-reseau-raspberry-pi-3-digipi-spdif-wifi-p-11134.html  
 
Well, if do you come across any such devices, please let me know. In the meantime, the Squeezebox does the trick and I have the microRendu USB solution as well. Thanks for your input.


Charente,
That looks a lot like a Raspberry Pi3 using Moode player (http://www.moodeaudio.org/).  Here's a screen shot of mine playing: 
 
Feb 26, 2017 at 2:23 PM Post #2,075 of 14,566
 
Charente,
That looks a lot like a Raspberry Pi3 using Moode player (http://www.moodeaudio.org/).  Here's a screen shot of mine playing: 

Never mind, it looks like the AUDIOPHONICS RASPDIGI uses "rune audio". 
 
Feb 26, 2017 at 4:24 PM Post #2,077 of 14,566
Feb 26, 2017 at 5:08 PM Post #2,079 of 14,566
In doing some sound comparisons between USB & SPDIF, I've been using different filter settings on my current (modest) DAC. There are 3 settings...1.fast roll-off, 2.slow roll-off, and 3.minimum phase (per the manufacturer). To my (uneducated) ears, SPDIF sounds spot on with setting 1 (the default) and USB (with my setup) on setting 2. On USB particularly, this gives me the least harshness at one end and least muddiness at the other. I hope that makes sense.
 
In relation to Schiit and thinking about getting a Bifrost Multi, I notice there are no such filter adjustments available...so, my question is how are such variances between SPDIF and USB accommodated in the Bifrost ? Or, are both source types dealt with by one filter setting....is this a compromise ?
 
Forgive the rather simplistic nature of my question...as you can probably tell, I am no audio engineer.
 
Feb 26, 2017 at 5:23 PM Post #2,080 of 14,566
 
 
In relation to Schiit and thinking about getting a Bifrost Multi, I notice there are no such filter adjustments available...so, my question is how are such variances between SPDIF and USB accommodated in the Bifrost ? Or, are both source types dealt with by one filter setting....is this a compromise ?
 
Forgive the rather simplistic nature of my question...as you can probably tell, I am no audio engineer.

 
I don't know of any DAC that automatically switches to different filters based on the input.
 
Feb 26, 2017 at 5:40 PM Post #2,081 of 14,566
   
I don't know of any DAC that automatically switches to different filters based on the input.

I kind-of guessed that would be the case... so, if there are no manual filter settings on a DAC, it's a 'one-size-fits-all' source types filter...would I be correct ? Do you think they are 'skewed' towards any particular source type (e.g. USB) ?
 
Feb 26, 2017 at 5:41 PM Post #2,082 of 14,566
  In doing some sound comparisons between USB & SPDIF, I've been using different filter settings on my current (modest) DAC. There are 3 settings...1.fast roll-off, 2.slow roll-off, and 3.minimum phase (per the manufacturer). To my (uneducated) ears, SPDIF sounds spot on with setting 1 (the default) and USB (with my setup) on setting 2. On USB particularly, this gives me the least harshness at one end and least muddiness at the other. I hope that makes sense.
 
In relation to Schiit and thinking about getting a Bifrost Multi, I notice there are no such filter adjustments available...so, my question is how are such variances between SPDIF and USB accommodated in the Bifrost ? Or, are both source types dealt with by one filter setting....is this a compromise ?
 
Forgive the rather simplistic nature of my question...as you can probably tell, I am no audio engineer.

 
Since the super-burrito filter in Schiit's multibit DACs is considered to be optimal anything else, by definition, would be sub-optimal.
 
JC
 
Feb 26, 2017 at 5:49 PM Post #2,083 of 14,566
  I kind-of guessed that would be the case... so, if there are no manual filter settings on a DAC, it's a 'one-size-fits-all' source types filter...would I be correct ? Do you think they are 'skewed' towards any particular source type (e.g. USB) ?

 
The math of a closed-form filter doesn't change based on the input.
 
So, no, I don't think the Schiit filter is skewed towards a particular source.
 
Feb 26, 2017 at 5:56 PM Post #2,084 of 14,566
   
The math of a closed-form filter doesn't change based on the input.
 
So, no, I don't think the Schiit filter is skewed towards a particular source.

Ok, so the math normalises the input signal according to some constant rules determined by the manufacturer
 
Feb 26, 2017 at 5:59 PM Post #2,085 of 14,566
  I kind-of guessed that would be the case... so, if there are no manual filter settings on a DAC, it's a 'one-size-fits-all' source types filter...would I be correct ? Do you think they are 'skewed' towards any particular source type (e.g. USB) ?

Baldr himself has stated that he thinks coax is best, then optical. He does not like USB. 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top