[438555]

While this might be mostly true for LFE channels for movies, it's not necessarily true for music.

I have albums with bass, drums, etc, more in one channel than the other and I've certainly mixed recordings that way, too.

Yeah it seems there's some lack of clarity when taking stereo preouts to a mono sub input and whether one should use a stereo to mono adapter to connect the sub.

 

[Jason Stoddard]

2017, Chapter 1:
Why Do We Do What We Do?
 
How best to start the year?
 
In 2016, I started with a bunch of blather about marketing. And I do have some thoughts on that subject for this year. But I think it’s best to hold those for a while, until after we make some announcements. Then we can talk a whole lot about the futility of (much) marketing, where it’s gone wrong, what matters, what doesn’t, and how to make it right(er).
 
So you get to hear about the other thing that I had on my mind when I sat down to write this, and that’s about why we do what we do. Or, to put it in more grandiose terms, about the philosophical underpinnings of Schiit Audio.
 
Specifically, I’ll be discussing the whys that affect our products—why we choose to design what we do, why they are the way they are, why they have one feature, but not another.
 
This chapter is largely prompted by one kind of questions we get, both on these forums and via support, that boil down to:
 

• Why didn’t you include XYZ, I really wanted XYZ?
• Why does it have to work that way, I think it should work the other way.
• Why don’t you support (insert FOTM technology here).

 
Because, from the inside looking out, there’s a lot of method to our madness. But it may not look that way from your side of the screen. Especially if you’re looking only at a single product. Especially if you don’t have the time to grok us in fullness. Especially if it simply comes down what’s best for your needs.
 
(Or, in other words, if you are a normal human being who has not absorbed so much of my blather that you can read my mind…you know, like 99.99999% of the planet.)
 
Now, before I begin, a cautionary note:
 
Just because there are good reasons our products are the way they are, it doesn’t mean you’ll agree with those reasons.
 
Go back and read that again.
 
In fact, you may disagree with one or more of our whys. You may reject the philosophical basis of our products. And that’s fine. This isn’t about us telling you the One True Way. This is about explaining the reasons we do what we do. You can decide for yourself if it makes sense…or if it’s BS.
 
Cool? Okay, let’s get down to the whys.
 
 
Nuts, Volts, Switches, Metal, and Code: Design Whys
 
There are a million ways I can organize these various whys (technology, user interface, business philosophy, etc), but there will probably end up being some unclassified stuff, as well as some supercategories. So let’s just dive right in to the biggest and most diverse category I can think of: design.
 
Design is really broad. It covers every part of digital and analog topology and implementation, every bit of why our products look the way they do, everything about how they operate. So, I’m going to see if I can break this down into top-level categories. Hopefully they’ll make some sense.
 
Why #1: because sound is what it’s all about!
Sounds obvious, doesn’t it? And yet there’s a lot of gear out there that gets introduced first by the extravagance of their chassis, the size of their touchscreen, and the laundry list of “smart integration” features that they sport. There’s no mention that the audio path includes things like volume control chips proper to smartphones and $199 receivers. There’s no mention the designer used electronic switches, rather than relays. There’s no mention that the analog inputs are converted to digital with a $7 ADC chip, or that the amplifier outputs are sonically approximated in Class D.
 
You know, because audio should integrate with your lifestyle. Products should be beautiful and unobtrusive. And because that’s really the future—seamless, perfect, high-integration stuff with all the right standards and logos discreetly etched on a polished panel.
 
And, well, yes, the mindblowing cost, that’s because this high integration demands new processes, new thinking, huge R&D costs, blah blah, BS BS…
 
No. Sorry. We aren’t having any of that. Sound is what it’s all about. The audio path shouldn’t be compromised. There’s no reason to compromise it, especially at nosebleed prices.
 
Consider just one example: Routing audio through a black-box IC for volume control or input switching is a travesty when compared to the use of relay switching and relay attenuators.
 

1. In the first example, you have literally no idea what the signal is running through—there could be hundreds of active elements in the path, or there could be entire amplification stages.
2. In the second, you know exactly what it’s running through—a set of mechanical switches and individual resistors.

 
So how is this “sound is what it’s all about” philosophy reflect on our designs? In myriad ways:
 

• We use discrete analog stages whenever possible. Discrete design allows us to tailor the amplifier stage exactly to its purpose. Discrete design also allows us to break out of the largely-similar forms of amplifier available on a chip. Discrete allows us to easily integrate tubes in meaningful ways. Discrete allows us to create gain stages with low or zero feedback. Discrete enables higher power output and greater voltage swing. In short, we believe that discrete design, done right, provides superior sonic results. So we do discrete whenever we can…but, of course, there are times we can’t. These times usually are constrained in cost or size…or both.
• We employ digital architectures with no missing codes and closed-form filters whenever we can. Mike didn’t spend a good chunk of his lifetime creating new platforms for multibit DACs because we wanted a buzzword to market with. We literally believe multibit sounds better than the delta-sigma alternatives, and that it is the correct way to approach digital audio for maximum fidelity. Of course, there are those who will argue with us, and that’s fine, and of course, there are times when the more costly multibit approach doesn’t fit into the budget…but as technology improves, who knows?
• We use Class A and AB topologies only. Yes, we know that Class D is better than it has been, and that you can get like three billion watts out of a matchbox-sized device (just exaggerating a little.) But we also think that it, like delta-sigma, is a mathematically compromised approach that approximates the input signal, and is not yet (or perhaps ever) a candidate for ultimate fidelity. Sure, if size and cost are constrained, it has a place. But if you don’t have to use it, why seek it out? Understood some will disagree, but like I said, this is how we feel, not The Ultimate Truth for Everyone.
• We use linear power supplies in almost everything. Except for Fulla 2, everything we make has linear power supplies. And yes, we’re aware that switchmode supplies are much better than they have been, but again, why seek noise and complexity when none is needed? We understand some will disagree, but again, this is how we feel.
• We use good old mechanical switches and relays. If you’re using a switch on our products, it’s connected to a switch using mechanical contacts, not a mystery-meat IC for switching or control—unless it’s connected to a relay, also using mechanical connections. Call us paranoid, but we like to know what our sound is passing through. And mechanical connections and discrete resistors are the most innocuous things in the path.
• We use real analog potentiometers. No volume control chips were harmed in the making of a Schiit product. If our products don’t use a relay stepped attenuator, they use real analog pots—quality stuff from Alps.

 
Why #2: because the simplest interface wins.
Or at least it should, in our opinion. That’s why our stuff uses simple knobs, switches, and pushbuttons for control. Turn a knob for volume. Press a button to step through inputs. Flick a switch to change gain. Our goal is something that’s easy enough to hook up, plug in, and use immediately, without a lot of education or fuss.
 
This is why you won’t see things from us like:
 

1. Redundant controls for the sake of controls (like digital filter switching)
2. 156-page owner’s manuals
3. Cranky, slow touchscreens with 5 levels of menus
4. Displays that don’t do anything some lights couldn’t do
5. Meters that may never move, or provide no useful information

 
Is this too simple? Again, this isn’t about being right for everyone. This is about why we do things. If you like it, cool. If you don’t like it, that’s cool too.
 
Why #3: because it should look good, too…
Yes, yes, sound is what it’s all about, but you know what? It doesn’t really cost anything to create something that’s reasonably attractive. In fact, if the chassis design is smart, it might cost even less than the dominant paradigm of “sled+top+front panel” model. It might even cost less than something that uses standard extrusions and front and back panels.
 
What this means is that we spend a reasonable amount of time making our stuff look good. At least to us. No, it won’t ever be the most complex, bejeweled product on the planet, but we consider it worth the effort to make it look good.
 
So how do we keep looks from leading us down a path to ultra-expensive gear? A few tricks:
 

• We have a small number of basic chassis designs, which we modify slightly to create new products. This saves us tons of time and effort—otherwise we might want to create something unique for each product, which would be a disaster.
• We don’t go for known-expensive production techniques—things like milling the enclosure from a solid block of aluminum, or using 1” thick front panels, stuff like that. Everything we make is bent sheetmetal or turned aluminum.
• We keep everything as simple as possible. Most of our chassis are 2 pieces, as compared to 3 for most other products. Believe it or not, this is really significant when it comes to cost.

 
Why #4: because half-baked technology sucks.
One of the things we’re asked about most often is why we’re not supporting things like Bluetooth, or WiFi, or I2S, or Ethernet, or why we don’t make things with batteries. Well, all of those fall into the category of “half-baked technology,” at least to us.
 
“But wait, batteries?” you ask. “You gotta be kidding, everyone’s using lithium polymer, it’s a well-known technology, it’s literally everywhere.”
 
Yes. Tell that to Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7.
 
Sure, lithium polymer is pretty well worked-out today, but schtuff happens. And sometimes it’s not pretty. As a much smaller manufacturer (who would want to do something totally bonkers like using two 11.1V LiPo cells), we’d be taking on a much greater risk of failure. And even if we stuck to a tried-and-true single 3.7V cell and switching rail generator, you’re probably still looking at capping the warranty at 1 year. So, okay, maybe LiPo tech is ¾ baked, but excuse us if we decide we have other, more interesting stuff to design first.
 

1. Bluetooth? Still has problems with stable connections and doesn’t support lossless audio. Two strikes against that one. Again, for those saying “it’s worked out,” talk to Apple and the iPhone 7 about their Bluetooth issues. Excuse us for sidestepping that customer-service nightmare.
2. I2S, Ethernet? Fringe use cases, complex and painful to use. Anything that might blow up if connected to the wrong thing (I2S) or needs a lot of care and feeding to get working right (Ethernet) gives us hives. I think if I asked Mike, he’d say, “better to fix USB first.” But that’s up to Mike.
3. WiFi? It means you’re selling a computer. Have fun entering your WiFi domain and password with one knob and a screen. Or no screen. Yes, there are ways around this, but nothing that makes us want to wade in. 

 
And…let’s go a bit deeper. Because USB itself may be called half-baked technology, because its standards keep changing. Or even all of digital audio…after all, it keeps evolving as well. And this is why, if you have to use a half-baked technology, or sell products based on half-baked technology, we feel that you also have to address obsolescence. Because razing your wallet when tech changes really sucks.
 
And that’s why our more expensive DACs are upgradable.
 
Why #5: because bad ideas should be actively resisted.
Whether it’s HDCD in the 1990s or MQA today, we believe that we shouldn’t lie down and add questionable technology in fear of losing a few customers. After all, look what happened to HDCD. All that panic…for nothing.
 
While we have no problem with MQA as a format that can be decoded by a software player, we have extreme objections to them knowing, and, worse, dictating, aspects of our DACs’ code. We have even further extreme objections to any attempts to make audio more like home theater, with its dizzying arrays of requirements (I am told that one standard requires 1200 separate test tracks to be run through a multichannel Audio Precision), customer confusion, and lack of independent progress (other than proscribed by the All-Knowing Pundits of the Standards Bodies).
 
So yes, we’re actively resisting what we consider to be bad ideas. Call us crazy, as we look forward into an uncertain future (we have no idea if Tidal will survive, what “high res” format Pandora and Napster will support, much less if Apple or Spotify will join the fray.)
 
Bottom line: we’ll see how it shakes out. But I’d expect Mike will be designing deep fryers before he designs a DAC for MQA.
 
 
Bureaucrat Level 36 Report: Biz Whys
 
Tyler (our head of financial stuff) really should be writing this, rather than me. He’s actually proud to be compared to Hermes on Futurama. Hell, sometimes he wears ties and fancy shoes to work. Despite this, he’s actually a cool guy.
 
But, since Tyler doesn’t write these things, you get me. I’ll do the best I can, but in actuality, this is the part of the business that I like the least…the actual business.
 
(And I know, in reality, I really can’t ignore it.)
 
Why #1: Because thinking big beats thinking small.
Huh? This might sound a little weird, but let me explain. I’ve worked for companies that thought small. How small can this run be? How few can we make? How can we avoid inventory? How can we do it CNC and avoid tooling? How can we shrink the time it takes from conceiving a product to getting paid. Companies like this are usually looking to conserve cash, because doing big runs and keeping inventory is costly. Ask Alex and Tyler how they feel when a whole bunch of big product runs line up in a month.
 
Despite this, we’ll think big any day. Thinking big—as in, large runs of products, investing in tooling, not worrying about doing things just-in-time, keeping inventory, buying ahead, etc—allows us to provide much higher overall value. Even though this means we have to be extremely fiscally conservative, Mike and I would prefer to re-invest in the company, increase runs, invest in tooling, and find new ways to make things better. We work directly with distributors and manufacturers to increase quality, combine parts purchasing, and to maximize what we can put into a product.
 
Does this work out all the time? Of course not.
 
As I write this, I know we’re out of stock on some critical products. Blame the holidays, and the sustained high sales rate that historically follows the holidays. Or blame our inability to predict how popular some new products will be.
 
The thing is, we will get back in stock—and sooner than ever, since we’re now working with our suppliers more effectively. They know they can count on us for reasonable requests (not arm-twisting for lower and lower prices every time), large orders and fast payment, so they work harder for us. And they ramp up, to meet our larger production needs. It works well.
 
And, at the same time, we’ll get back into stock quickly, thanks to a highly talented and motivated team. While other companies think small (as in, “how little can I pay someone,”) again, we think big. Schiit operates beyond “first world” wages. This type of investment pays off in increased productivity, greater flexibility, and increased ability to scale.   
 
Sounds idealistic? Maybe a little old-school? Yes. Perhaps. So be it. This isn’t about maximizing weekly profit—this is about building something that will stand a long, long time. Or at least we hope so.
 
Why #2: Because cost should be as low as possible, but no lower.
This one might sound a bit weird, too. Because isn’t it a business’ goal to drive down cost? The short (-sighted) answer is, “Yes.” The longer answer includes knowing when to back down on your rabid goal of shareholder value.
 
We do a ton of things to ensure that the cost of our products are as low as possible, and that everyone gets a deal they’re happy with. Some are internal. Some are external.
 
Let’s look at a few things that we do to keep costs down:
 

• We standardize as much as possible and buy in large quantities. I mentioned this before—simple and similar chassis, ganging parts buys, scheduling for additional discounts. All this stuff makes sense.
• We keep staffing lean. We’re a very efficient company. If we staffed at “industry norms,” we’d have 5x the employees. Because we have well-paid, motivated people, we can do more with less—and keep costs down. And it doesn’t hurt that we don’t have salespeople or anyone with a marketing title.
• We don’t waste time and staff on sales. No sales, no special deals, no discounts, no points systems, no loyalty rewards—believe it or not, stuff like that takes a ton of time to create and administer. As an added bonus, everyone who didn’t get the product at the sales price feels like they got screwed. As an added added bonus, sales stop until the discounts happen, leading to a never-ending cycle of sales.

 
And here are some things we don’t do:
 

• Push suppliers to the breaking point. When it’s time to reduce costs, it’s fashionable to go and yell at your suppliers. We don’t do this. If we need to reduce costs, we have a discussion with them. If it’s not feasible, we increase the price of the product, or elect to take a lower margin.
• Decontent the product. On the other hand, we can go the Taco Bell route, and continue taking the meat out of the meat until it’s not meat anymore. Hell, in the 1980s we were calling it “puppy chow in a tortilla.” I don’t want to know what it is today. Look at the progression of, say, receivers in the 1990s. Prices held steady, as faceplates got thinner, then eventually turned to grained plastic, transformers got smaller, chassis got weaker, etc. Nope. Sorry. That’s not us.

 
Why #3: Because you need to resist the creep.
You know what I’m talking about. It’s that moderately-priced product that, in its second generation, put on a few pounds (of billet) and ballooned 50% in price. And, in its third, put on a whole lot more weight and added a zero to the tag. That’s the creep.
 
Yes, we know. It’s tempting. Wow, it’s a hot product. You can move the price up, right? And if you add a few more features, you can move the price up again, right? And if you add some fancier cosmetics, the price can go up again, right? Because you’re moving upmarket. You’re getting in front of buyers with more disposable income. You’re playing in the big leagues.
 
Yes. And you also may be killing your company.
 
Good luck when the winds shift, or when the current demographic dies out. Good luck with ever-shortening runs in a world where mass production is key to reasonable cost. Good luck explaining why this makes sense with digital products, in a world where digital costs keep dropping.
 
We’ll stick to what we’ve always done: building a product to a reasonable price, applying a standard multiplier, and setting the most reasonable price we can. If it’s a hot product…the price stays the same. When we redesign it…we don’t add bling. And, when the cost of production drops…we pass it along. Like with Bifrost.

Resisting the creep—that’s just what we do. We may be crazy. Who knows?
 
 
Are You Guys Crazy? Personal Whys
 
Now, all of the above has probably been touched on at one point or another in this book. It was probably past time, though, for an omnibus post about why we do things from a design and business point of view.
 
What I haven’t talked about much is some of the more intangible whys—the personal whys. I can speak to my own, and I can infer some for Mike, but if you want to know his whys, it’s probably best to ask him directly. Mike and I both love music. That’s kind of a given. Mike knows a lot more about (more kinds of) music than I do, though, and he’s much more deeply involved with acoustic, live, “real,” music.
 
But beyond that, I think we also both love tinkering with things. We are engineers, after all. I know that one of the best things about Schiit, for me, is the freedom to experiment. Sometimes it doesn’t go anywhere—hell, most of the time it doesn’t go anywhere—but when it does, it’s the best feeling in the world.
 
And…I really, really like the fact we’re making things that people can enjoy. I spent a long time in marketing, where high praise is “well, it’s not that offensive,” or “that’s kinda clever.” And that’s if you got it past the client (more on this in a future chapter.) And, in the same way, I love the fact that most of what we do is affordable. Changing the economics of high-end is important to me. (And yeah, I like to tweak the gold-plated Bentley crowd a bit, too.)
 
I don’t know about Mike, but I’m very happy to have found a place where I think I really fit—where I can use marketing, and writing, and engineering, and pull it all together, and create products that make audio better.
 
Hopefully.
 
If I don’t mess it up…

 

[darkarn]

Good post to start off a good year!
 
PS: And all this is not just for businesses, these are really applicable to personal living too!

 

[lblb]

I incorporated 2017 Chapter 1 in the ebook, see my signature.

 

[mwhals]

Big companies in my business have reduced staff to relatively unsafe levels to cut costs and appease Wall Street. It hurts customer service and employee loyalty. It is refreshing to see a company that operates like Schiit Audio.

My industry is the chemical industry in case one wonders why reduced staffing can result in safety problems.

 

[judmarc]

  2017, Chapter 1:
Why Do We Do What We Do?
 
...not worrying about doing things just-in-time...

 
 
Because there was a real danger you might be accused of that....
 
 
(Just kidding, it was a big fat hanging curve I couldn't resist swinging at. 

 )

 

[belgiangenius]

<standing ovation>
 
I love supporting Schiit as a company.  You have built a company I'd proud to patronize.

 

[Vigrith]

  2017, Chapter 1:
Why Do We Do What We Do?
 
Why #3: because it should look good, too…
Yes, yes, sound is what it’s all about, but you know what? It doesn’t really cost anything to create something that’s reasonably attractive. In fact, if the chassis design is smart, it might cost even less than the dominant paradigm of “sled+top+front panel” model. It might even cost less than something that uses standard extrusions and front and back panels.
 
What this means is that we spend a reasonable amount of time making our stuff look good. At least to us. No, it won’t ever be the most complex, bejeweled product on the planet, but we consider it worth the effort to make it look good.
 
So how do we keep looks from leading us down a path to ultra-expensive gear? A few tricks:
 

• We have a small number of basic chassis designs, which we modify slightly to create new products. This saves us tons of time and effort—otherwise we might want to create something unique for each product, which would be a disaster.
• We don’t go for known-expensive production techniques—things like milling the enclosure from a solid block of aluminum, or using 1” thick front panels, stuff like that. Everything we make is bent sheetmetal or turned aluminum.
• We keep everything as simple as possible. Most of our chassis are 2 pieces, as compared to 3 for most other products. Believe it or not, this is really significant when it comes to cost.

 
Firstly, wonderful chapter as always, Jason, a pleasure to read.
 
I do have a question related to the part I've quoted however and I understand there may be no real answer to it but I figured I'd ask either way - is there any real possibility you'll ever offer black as an additional/optional finish to your products rather than just the regular silver? I know the occasional black Schiit product pops up here and there due to manufacturer mistakes (right?) and your standard silver is beautiful as is but as a black electronics fanatic I can't help but wish black would be offered as an option some time further down the line.
 
I've read the explanation as for why you don't do it, because it'd drive up production costs significantly, though I do wonder if the extra volume sold (if any) would potentially make up for the extra costs. I've read comments from plenty of other people who'd like it to be a thing but then again most, if not all, are already Schiit customers as is.
 
Been on the hunt for a black Valhalla 2 and/or Jotunheim for a while now and I'd lose my Schiit over a black Mjolnir 2 but it seems almost impossible to come by as someone located in the EU. Either way this is mostly theoretical and I understand if you don't want to go in-depth about it other than just "na not gonna happen" but it is something I'm very curious about.

 

[Jason Stoddard]

   
Firstly, wonderful chapter as always, Jason, a pleasure to read.
 
I do have a question related to the part I've quoted however and I understand there may be no real answer to it but I figured I'd ask either way - is there any real possibility you'll ever offer black as an additional/optional finish to your products rather than just the regular silver? I know the occasional black Schiit product pops up here and there due to manufacturer mistakes (right?) and your standard silver is beautiful as is but as a black electronics fanatic I can't help but wish black would be offered as an option some time further down the line.
 
I've read the explanation as for why you don't do it, because it'd drive up production costs significantly, though I do wonder if the extra volume sold (if any) would potentially make up for the extra costs. I've read comments from plenty of other people who'd like it to be a thing but then again most, if not all, are already Schiit customers as is.
 
Been on the hunt for a black Valhalla 2 and/or Jotunheim for a while now and I'd lose my Schiit over a black Mjolnir 2 but it seems almost impossible to come by as someone located in the EU. Either way this is mostly theoretical and I understand if you don't want to go in-depth about it other than just "na not gonna happen" but it is something I'm very curious about.

I suspect there will always be one standard finish.

 

[Vigrith]

I suspect there will always be one standard finish.

 
Fair enough, I appreciate the response and I absolutely get the reasoning behind it!

 

[mwhals]

I think a black option would increase costs. Anytime there are additional options, cost increase.

 

[Poochi41]

   
Firstly, wonderful chapter as always, Jason, a pleasure to read.
 
I do have a question related to the part I've quoted however and I understand there may be no real answer to it but I figured I'd ask either way - is there any real possibility you'll ever offer black as an additional/optional finish to your products rather than just the regular silver? I know the occasional black Schiit product pops up here and there due to manufacturer mistakes (right?) and your standard silver is beautiful as is but as a black electronics fanatic I can't help but wish black would be offered as an option some time further down the line.
 
I've read the explanation as for why you don't do it, because it'd drive up production costs significantly, though I do wonder if the extra volume sold (if any) would potentially make up for the extra costs. I've read comments from plenty of other people who'd like it to be a thing but then again most, if not all, are already Schiit customers as is.
 
Been on the hunt for a black Valhalla 2 and/or Jotunheim for a while now and I'd lose my Schiit over a black Mjolnir 2 but it seems almost impossible to come by as someone located in the EU. Either way this is mostly theoretical and I understand if you don't want to go in-depth about it other than just "na not gonna happen" but it is something I'm very curious about.

All this talk about customization got my brain thinking..Jason should have a section on the Schiit website dedicated for accessories after your warranty dries up...they can call it....
 
"Pimp My Schiit"

 

[FLTWS]

Schiit could charge for the extra manufacturing costs for those that must have black finishes and make them "special order" as well as (perhaps) no 15 day send back option. I didn't want to wait for any black Schiit pieces, for like maybe forever, before they became available, so I made it easy on myself by going with the standard finish.
 
That being said I think the black finish with white lettering is more appealing providing a kind of "black tie" aesthetic, it's white lettering is easier to read, and the white knob really sets it all off nicely.

 

[Vigrith]

  Schiit could charge for the extra manufacturing costs for those that must have black finishes and make them "special order" as well as (perhaps) no 15 day send back option. I didn't want to wait for any black Schiit pieces, for like maybe forever, before they became available, so I made it easy on myself by going with the standard finish.
 
That being said I think the black finish with white lettering is more appealing providing a kind of "black tie" aesthetic, it's white lettering is easier to read, and the white knob really sets it all off nicely.

 
That is my thinking too - the "black tie" aesthetic is super attractive to me and the white knob rounds it off with incredible elegance.
 
Regarding the "made to order" idea I'd love that personally, I'd be more than willing to pay extra and sign a "no returns" contract if it meant I could get my Schiit in black - that might still not be reasonable production costs-wise but in case it is then I'm sure many of us would be interested. The black Jotunheim's I've seen out in the wild being posted here and there are absolutely stunning and the Valhalla 2 is just as incredible because of the more stark contrast between the finish and the tube glow (imo).

 

[DougD]

I was 100% with you until I hit this:
 

  I don’t know about Mike, but I’m very happy to have found a place where I think I really fit—where I can use marketing, and writing, and engineering, and pull it all together, and create products that make audio better.

 
You didn't just randomly **FIND** a happy place for your ethos, you & Mike **MADE** it. In your images, so to speak.
 
Thanks for another fabulous, thoughtful & insightful chapter on Schiit Audio, the most transparent firm in the industry.