[Ableza]

   
I'm not saying that these products are poorly engineered, but they are poor examples of practical design, as at that point it's mostly driven by marketing, not engineering.

Ah, perhaps I misunderstood.  Practical design is very different from proper engineering, although many so-called boutique products prices are driven just as much by hand-assembly, low volume and use of very expensive components as they are be marketing, just so you know. 

 

[madwolfa]

  Ah, perhaps I misunderstood.  Practical design is very different from proper engineering, although many so-called boutique products prices are driven just as much by hand-assembly, low volume and use of very expensive components as they are be marketing, just so you know. 

 
That's why I like Schiit products - they're an epitome of practical design for me. And as they've stated before - it's pretty much part of their philosophy.
Tube DAC is not an example of practical design, hence they're not going to make one. That was my point.

 

[audioholik]

   
I'm not saying that these products are poorly engineered, but they are poor examples of practical design, as at that point it's mostly driven by marketing, not engineering.

 
That still sounds like a sweeping statement to me.
 
We shouldn't forget that marketing plays a role in all product designs no matter their price.
 
What differs is the sales pitch; forget about those high-priced components, anything more expensive than our device is basically all marketing 

 

[madwolfa]

  What differs is the sales pitch; forget about those high-priced components, anything more expensive than our device is basically all marketing 

 
You're right, we all like to think we got the best bang for our buck. 

 

[Ableza]

   
You're right, we all like to think we got the best bang for our buck. 

 
There are some of us who only want the best SOUND for our buck, no matter what it might cost.  And by the way, I like tubes in my DACs and I pay whatever it takes to get the sound I like.  YMMV. 

 

[madwolfa]

   
There are some of us who only want the best SOUND for our buck, no matter what it might cost. 

 
But then the principle of diminishing returns kicks in... But, oh well. Don't we love our hobbies!

 

[Armaegis]

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

The Loki has a hard time selling because people don't like the idea of having to outsource the DSD decoding to another box when there are other solutions that can do it all in one box. It's not an "elegant" solution and for neurotic audiophiles that is an issue.
 
The audience that is interested in DSD are those who tend to be the most discerning and willing to spend money to satisfy those OCDs, this solution does not check off any of those audiophile OCD checkboxes. Audiophiles argue about cables and additional components to the "chain" that will impact quality, the Loki is a neurotic audiophile's worst nightmare, I'm not surprised it's not selling well. Also, it does not support balanced operation, which also is another of those audiophile OCDs. Are these OCDs substantiated? Probably not Most likely not Almost certainly not, but it comes with the territory.
 
 
I guess you could argue that the Loki is targeted towards the entry level DSD audiophile who has not yet developed these OCDs. The reason these people are not purchasing it is because they are looking for something affordable, probably came to the website to buy the Modi (which is a ridiculous deal btw at $99), and then saw that the Loki was an additional $149 and figured they'd just purchase the Modi in the meantime and hold off on buying the Loki until they find that they needed it. Well given that they don't have those audiophile OCDs (and remember, they were looking for something affordable), they never end up purchasing higher-priced DSD tracks and live the rest of their lives consuming redbook or possibly even just a streaming service. The Loki is forgotten.
 
I haven't heard the Loki myself, and doesn't work for me in terms of connectivity options (yes an audiophile OCD), but I'm sure it sounds great as there are people I trust who say it gets the job done, so I do find it unfortunate that it is having a hard time selling.

 

 
Ok, this argument I can understand, rather than all the other flap going on. It also marks an interesting point about marketing to audiophiles... targetting general wants/needs vs targetting neuroses (not necessarily mutually exclusive, but still).
 
I actually do think a separate DSD box is elegant. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's handled the same way. It's quite fundamentally different from a pcm box and should have its own separate hardware etc. So why muddy it up and put everything together which (could) compromise both?

 

[Ableza]

   
But then the principle of diminishing returns kicks in...

 
Of course, but only if that matters to you. 

 

[madwolfa]

  Of course, but only if that matters to you. 

 
Looking at some other (non-audio related) purchases of mine... you're right.

 

[audioholik]

  I actually do think a separate DSD box is elegant. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's handled the same way. It's quite fundamentally different from a pcm box and should have its own separate hardware etc. So why muddy it up and put everything together which (could) compromise both?

 
The way USB DACs deal with it is by using different sets of filters for PCM and DSD. Anyway, the lack of DSD128 capability was the final deal breaker for me. I could accept no PCM support, no tubes even but the lack of 2x DSD capability was just too much for me, or rather too little. 

 

[EraserXIV]

Ok, this argument I can understand, rather than all the other flap going on. It also marks an interesting point about marketing to audiophiles... targetting general wants/needs vs targetting neuroses (not necessarily mutually exclusive, but still).

I actually do think a separate DSD box is elegant. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's handled the same way. It's quite fundamentally different from a pcm box and should have its own separate hardware etc. So why muddy it up and put everything together which (could) compromise both?

Yes I agree, there are usually bad compromises that need to be made if you want DSD support in addition to PCM since they are so fundamentally different. So yes, many times it is better to outsource it to a dedicated DSD DAC instead of doing internal conversions that are detrimental for the sake of having another buzzword.

I guess the creme de la creme for a neurotic audiophile is to have a DAC chip that natively can decode both PCM and DSD with no internal black-box conversions inside the chip.

Interesting article on the matter, skip to the DSD and PCM sections: http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-thorsten-loesch-amrifi

 

[Wildcatsare1]

^excellent article, bought an iDSD for this very reason, fits nicely behind my Schiit stack.

 

[zabzaf]

Trust me, it could be much, much worse. We have had that happen multiple times in our food warehouse. It's really not funny when it happens in the freezer where the frozen food is kept...unless you are looking to recreate the Miracle on Ice!

 

[mithrandir38]

You missed my point. All pcm files can be upsampled to 2x or 4x DSD. And with the Schiit Tube DAC capable of handling such stream, the product would be very tempting indeed.

Take note that Mytek has already sold more 3000 units of its 192-DSD DAC, iFi/AMR has been churning out successful DSD devices for some time now. But they are capable of playing DSD at higher rates than the Loki and are also backwards compatible with PCM. 

I think the first part would violate Schiit's basic bit-perfect philosophy. I think both Jason and Mike are on the record as categorically disliking upsampling.

 

[ab initio]

I think the first part would violate Schiit's basic bit-perfect philosophy. I think both Jason and Mike are on the record as categorically disliking upsampling.

What are you talking about "backwards compatible with PCM"!? PCM formats are superior to DSD in the audible spectrum!

:braces self:

Cheers