swannie007
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2013
- Posts
- 942
- Likes
- 217
Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up
- Thread starter Jason Stoddard
- Start date
-
- Tags
- schiit audio schiit-audio
tonykaz
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Posts
- 778
- Likes
- 388
Mr. Yethal ,
Took a while but I discovered it : LIPINSKI is the name of the Outfit and the owner .
You will discover Lipinski Monitors in the top Mastering Studios , Universal , etc .
The Monitors are not all that expensive , at least not as expensive as PMC monitors .
The Lipinski seems willing to sell to Consumers too , the basic full range unit is powered , costing about $4,000 each , Subwoofers are added if needed .
Tony in Michigan
Took a while but I discovered it : LIPINSKI is the name of the Outfit and the owner .
You will discover Lipinski Monitors in the top Mastering Studios , Universal , etc .
The Monitors are not all that expensive , at least not as expensive as PMC monitors .
The Lipinski seems willing to sell to Consumers too , the basic full range unit is powered , costing about $4,000 each , Subwoofers are added if needed .
Tony in Michigan
Thank You!
http://lipinskisound.com/
Well, there is some impressive schiit in here I wonder why I've never heard of the company before, considering the fact that there aren't many Polish companies specializing in audio products.
Aside from Lipinski there's only Unitra and perhaps Mayones but they build instruments, not audio equipment per se. Once again, thank You for the info.
twinkle
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Posts
- 93
- Likes
- 30
Warning - On-Topic and Long - Warning
Some more thought following BackToAnalog thoughts on Jason's thoughts.
The problem with streaming is that it's licensing of music, not sale of music. You don't own anything except the right to listen as long as the company can keep its end of the bargain and stays alive. Hence the quandary: if it's free people are willing to risk loosing access at a moment's notice. If you've been dutifully paying your recurring fee on the other hand, and suddenly half the catalog disappears, guess how happy you will be. Especially if you pay premium fees for CD-quality or better streaming.
Streaming free music is acceptable to the consumer, but not to the labels or artists of course, who get zero compensation for their effort. It's acceptable to the streaming service because they're supposed to make oodles of money with advertising and contracts with "ecosystem" companies.
Streaming for pay, as mentioned above, is like leasing without any option to buy at the end. It may be acceptable to the consumer, but not the savvy one.
To the labels it's a lot less revenue than physical media both in % and in total revenue. Why do they go along with it? because it's better than nothing. For the artists it's a very bad deal: they get a tiny % of revenue, and this time you can't chalk it up to distribution costs. I can see why they'd want to leverage their position (the ones who can) to stop the bleeding right now. For the artists the best model still is physical media or paid downloads. A lot more worthy artists could make a living in the current market if the pricing structure made sense: this would mean albums in CD quality at CD price or less, albums or songs at mp3 quality at 1/4 or 1/5 of the price of CD quality. In other words fair prices that people are willing to pay for what they get. Given the low cost of production these days, labels would definitely make their cash.
If we follow Schiit's business model of creative engineers making products and cutting off the distribution network, the music equivalent would be artists and/or labels using quality, well managed direct sales paid downloads services. Otherwise artists and labels will basically subsidize the advertising business, for ever and ever...
Some more thought following BackToAnalog thoughts on Jason's thoughts.
The problem with streaming is that it's licensing of music, not sale of music. You don't own anything except the right to listen as long as the company can keep its end of the bargain and stays alive. Hence the quandary: if it's free people are willing to risk loosing access at a moment's notice. If you've been dutifully paying your recurring fee on the other hand, and suddenly half the catalog disappears, guess how happy you will be. Especially if you pay premium fees for CD-quality or better streaming.
Streaming free music is acceptable to the consumer, but not to the labels or artists of course, who get zero compensation for their effort. It's acceptable to the streaming service because they're supposed to make oodles of money with advertising and contracts with "ecosystem" companies.
Streaming for pay, as mentioned above, is like leasing without any option to buy at the end. It may be acceptable to the consumer, but not the savvy one.
To the labels it's a lot less revenue than physical media both in % and in total revenue. Why do they go along with it? because it's better than nothing. For the artists it's a very bad deal: they get a tiny % of revenue, and this time you can't chalk it up to distribution costs. I can see why they'd want to leverage their position (the ones who can) to stop the bleeding right now. For the artists the best model still is physical media or paid downloads. A lot more worthy artists could make a living in the current market if the pricing structure made sense: this would mean albums in CD quality at CD price or less, albums or songs at mp3 quality at 1/4 or 1/5 of the price of CD quality. In other words fair prices that people are willing to pay for what they get. Given the low cost of production these days, labels would definitely make their cash.
If we follow Schiit's business model of creative engineers making products and cutting off the distribution network, the music equivalent would be artists and/or labels using quality, well managed direct sales paid downloads services. Otherwise artists and labels will basically subsidize the advertising business, for ever and ever...
BackToAnalogue
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
- Posts
- 106
- Likes
- 30
Warning --- ON & OFF TOPIC, A bit of drift ---- Warning
Yes I mostly agree with you on that.
Mr Shakey made the point that listening to MP3 or streaming MP3 is like listening to Radio. I first heard a lot of great music (I particularly remember 'Lola') on Radio Luxembourg on Medium wave and the signal was so poor that it drifted in and out over maybe a 10 second cycle. FM didn't become common in the UK until much later than the US because we are a small Island and have less band width to share around. We also had Governments who were obsessive about retaining control of the radio waves. So the quality got better but still nowhere near like a 45 or an LP so we went out and bought them by the container load. They sold in vast numbers. A hit single could sell a few hundred thousand copies in a market of maybe 10 Million active buyers (the UK a guess) in a few weeks. I recently discovered that Shellac 78s also sold by the hundreds of thousands, sometimes even Millions in the USA.
Streaming and MP3s also give us more choice, and that is a big plus over radio, but we still like Radio a lot of the time.
You say that artists get nothing from Spotify, is that true? I know that the music industry really took its eye off the ball when it negotiated the deals with Apple and Spotify etc, but I thought they still got a small royalty which was related to number of plays. I may be wrong? In either case they clearly negotiated a very bad deal even if they do get some royalties.
They may have decided (though I doubt they thought about it) that allowing access to their material in a lower quality 'leased' form cheaply via Spotify would promote it in the same way that Radio play does. For an initial release they aren't in the least bit interested in the Performing Rights revenue from Radio, TV, Theatre, Clubs etc. They just want it promoted, and in the old days when it worked it was like getting four cherries in a row on a slot machine. Nowadays that doesn't happen as much or as often, but it still happens and generates a lot of cash when it does.
So I never really understand this debate which seems to be going on in places about whether HD Audio will be distributed by streaming or by download because they will both work (from a technical viewpoint) eventually and both will probably be used, but streaming is going to be a lot harder and you may need to buy 2 or 3 Wyrd boxes connected in series to make it work properly at first if your super-fast (100Mb/s) broadband is as variable and jerky as mine is.
I agree, people will want to own HD Files because they will want the freedom to be able to play them when and where they like. To take them round to a mates house and see if they sound as good on their system. All sorts of reasons. Streaming HD doesn't really appeal to me because it takes away some freedom. And I don't mind paying something for that freedom. But it certainly isn't £25 or $40 per album, particularly if it is an album I have already paid for 2 or 3 times already. The music industry has realised that this freedom is the big selling point for file downloads and that is why Pono (I'm not sure about any of the others or Crapple) are not copy protecting their files, because they know we don't buy them if they do.
And therein lies the problem which Jason discussed. We can steal them if we choose, we have been doing that since the advent of the Phillips Compact Cassette. And everyone seems to feel less and less guilty about doing that, myself included. The only way to stop that is to price them at a level which makes it more attractive to just buy them rather than messing around with all that torrenting nonsense. That price is not $40 a pop. But there is a price level which would probably make me and a quite a few of you folks out there, start buying these HD Audio files a dozen at a time. Any thoughts on what the optimum price is?
Yes I mostly agree with you on that.
Mr Shakey made the point that listening to MP3 or streaming MP3 is like listening to Radio. I first heard a lot of great music (I particularly remember 'Lola') on Radio Luxembourg on Medium wave and the signal was so poor that it drifted in and out over maybe a 10 second cycle. FM didn't become common in the UK until much later than the US because we are a small Island and have less band width to share around. We also had Governments who were obsessive about retaining control of the radio waves. So the quality got better but still nowhere near like a 45 or an LP so we went out and bought them by the container load. They sold in vast numbers. A hit single could sell a few hundred thousand copies in a market of maybe 10 Million active buyers (the UK a guess) in a few weeks. I recently discovered that Shellac 78s also sold by the hundreds of thousands, sometimes even Millions in the USA.
Streaming and MP3s also give us more choice, and that is a big plus over radio, but we still like Radio a lot of the time.
You say that artists get nothing from Spotify, is that true? I know that the music industry really took its eye off the ball when it negotiated the deals with Apple and Spotify etc, but I thought they still got a small royalty which was related to number of plays. I may be wrong? In either case they clearly negotiated a very bad deal even if they do get some royalties.
They may have decided (though I doubt they thought about it) that allowing access to their material in a lower quality 'leased' form cheaply via Spotify would promote it in the same way that Radio play does. For an initial release they aren't in the least bit interested in the Performing Rights revenue from Radio, TV, Theatre, Clubs etc. They just want it promoted, and in the old days when it worked it was like getting four cherries in a row on a slot machine. Nowadays that doesn't happen as much or as often, but it still happens and generates a lot of cash when it does.
So I never really understand this debate which seems to be going on in places about whether HD Audio will be distributed by streaming or by download because they will both work (from a technical viewpoint) eventually and both will probably be used, but streaming is going to be a lot harder and you may need to buy 2 or 3 Wyrd boxes connected in series to make it work properly at first if your super-fast (100Mb/s) broadband is as variable and jerky as mine is.
I agree, people will want to own HD Files because they will want the freedom to be able to play them when and where they like. To take them round to a mates house and see if they sound as good on their system. All sorts of reasons. Streaming HD doesn't really appeal to me because it takes away some freedom. And I don't mind paying something for that freedom. But it certainly isn't £25 or $40 per album, particularly if it is an album I have already paid for 2 or 3 times already. The music industry has realised that this freedom is the big selling point for file downloads and that is why Pono (I'm not sure about any of the others or Crapple) are not copy protecting their files, because they know we don't buy them if they do.
And therein lies the problem which Jason discussed. We can steal them if we choose, we have been doing that since the advent of the Phillips Compact Cassette. And everyone seems to feel less and less guilty about doing that, myself included. The only way to stop that is to price them at a level which makes it more attractive to just buy them rather than messing around with all that torrenting nonsense. That price is not $40 a pop. But there is a price level which would probably make me and a quite a few of you folks out there, start buying these HD Audio files a dozen at a time. Any thoughts on what the optimum price is?
wink
His amps are made out of recycled beer cans
and his source from tomatos.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2009
- Posts
- 20,312
- Likes
- 3,656
Sounds fishy to me.......... Is it Gill the breathing organ or Gill the weight measurement?
A gill (
i/ˈɡɪl/) is a respiratory organ found in many aquatic organisms that extracts dissolved oxygen from water and excretes carbon dioxide. The gills of some species, such as hermit crabs, have adapted to allow respiration on land provided they are kept moist. The microscopic structure of a gill presents a large surface area to the external environment.Many microscopic aquatic animals, and some larger but inactive ones, can absorb adequate oxygen through the entire surface of their bodies, and so can respire adequately without a gill. However, more complex or more active aquatic organisms usually require a gill or gills.[citation needed]
Gills usually consist of thin filaments of tissue, branches, or slender, tufted processes that have a highly folded surface to increase surface area. A high surface area is crucial to the gas exchange of aquatic organisms, as water contains only a small fraction of the dissolved oxygen that air does. A cubic meter of air contains about 250 grams of oxygen at STP. The concentration of oxygen in water is lower than air and it diffuses more slowly. In fresh water, the dissolved oxygen content is approximately 8 cm3/L compared to that of air which is 210 cm3/L.[1] Water is 777 times more dense than air and is 100 times more viscous.[1] Oxygen has a diffusion rate in air 10,000 times greater than in water.[1] The use of sac-like lungs to remove oxygen from water would not be efficient enough to sustain life.[1] Rather than using lungs, "[g]asesous exchange takes place across the surface of highly vascularised gills over which a one-way current of water is kept flowing by a specialised pumping mechanism. The density of the water prevents the gills from collapsing and lying on top of each other, which is what happens when a fish is taken out of water."[1]
With the exception of some aquatic insects, the filaments and lamellae (folds) contain blood or coelomic fluid, from which gases are exchanged through the thin walls. The blood carries oxygen to other parts of the body. Carbon dioxide passes from the blood through the thin gill tissue into the water. Gills or gill-like organs, located in different parts of the body, are found in various groups of aquatic animals, including mollusks, crustaceans, insects, fish, and amphibians.
The gill (pronounced[1]
i/ˈdʒɪl/) is a unit of measurement for volume equal to a quarter of a pint.[2] It is no longer in common use, except in regard to the volume of alcoholic spirits measures, but it is kept alive by the occasional reference, such as in the cumulative song "The Barley Mow".[3] It is also referenced in FX's animated cartoon "Archer", in both Episodes "Blood Test" (Season 2, Episode 3). [4] and "Heart of Archness: Part Three" (Season 3, Episode 3). [5] The word also appeared in a 2013 edition of the BBC TV programme QI, when it was mispronounced by show host Stephen Fry as gill (i.e. as in gill of a fish)Imperial gill
| 1 imperial gill | ≡ 5 imperial fluid ounces |
| ≡ 142.0653125 ml[6] | |
| ≈ 142 ml | |
| ≈ 1.2 US gills |
| 1 US gill | ≡ 4 US fl oz |
| ≡ 1⁄32 US gallon | |
| ≡ 1⁄4 US pint | |
| ≡ 1⁄2 US cup | |
| ≡ 8 tablespoons | |
| ≡ 24 teaspoons | |
| ≡ 32 US fluid drams | |
| ≡ 77⁄32 in3 | |
| ≡ 118.29411825 ml[7] | |
| ≈ 118 ml | |
| ≈ 5⁄6 imperial gills |
In Ireland, the standard spirit measure was historically 1⁄4 gill. In the Republic of Ireland, it still retains this value, though it is now legally specified in metric units as 35.5 ml.
A convenient method to remember the conversion from gill to litres is that 1 imperial gill = π - 3 litres, accurate to 3 d.p.
crazychile
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2003
- Posts
- 1,108
- Likes
- 412
Continuing the off topic trend.....
Twenty years ago it wasn't unusual fro me to buy 2 or 3 new CD's per week plus whatever deals I could find on used vinyl for $2-$5 a pop. I was single and had disposable income. It was a different era for me...
Guess how many CD's I've bought per year over the last 5 years or so? I've maybe averaged maybe 1 or 2 A YEAR. With Spotify and Pandora I have a means to look for new stuff I've never heard before. Usually the sound quality is good enough, and I don't pay for the premium versions of either. So would I subscribe to a premium hi-rez service? Probably, but I probably wouldn't justify more than $10 month. Yeah, I'm cheap, but thats $120 a year of my money that they're not currently getting. I would also be open to buying high-rez downloads but it would have to be cheap to motivate me to buy in quantity. I'm thinking around $5-7 per album would do it. I can buy older CD's from Amazon for less than $10 sometimes. So to not have the physical media, a few bucks less than that would be what it takes for me.
Twenty years ago it wasn't unusual fro me to buy 2 or 3 new CD's per week plus whatever deals I could find on used vinyl for $2-$5 a pop. I was single and had disposable income. It was a different era for me...
Guess how many CD's I've bought per year over the last 5 years or so? I've maybe averaged maybe 1 or 2 A YEAR. With Spotify and Pandora I have a means to look for new stuff I've never heard before. Usually the sound quality is good enough, and I don't pay for the premium versions of either. So would I subscribe to a premium hi-rez service? Probably, but I probably wouldn't justify more than $10 month. Yeah, I'm cheap, but thats $120 a year of my money that they're not currently getting. I would also be open to buying high-rez downloads but it would have to be cheap to motivate me to buy in quantity. I'm thinking around $5-7 per album would do it. I can buy older CD's from Amazon for less than $10 sometimes. So to not have the physical media, a few bucks less than that would be what it takes for me.
jacal01
You've just been blocked by Mr. Conviviality!
Good movie.
Re. the music media accessing market:
The price of low fidelity mp3 downloads appear to be relatively static, but I find that physical CD pricing, at least after initial release, is driven by supply and demand as well as availability, which also factors in the initial release quantity. It’s almost a separate world, with rare collectibles defining the market apex.
Re. high resolution vs. low fidelity:
Although high res audio is a self-defining goal in the audiophilic world, let us not forget that some song releases are purposely crafted as lo fi for that additional reminiscent and ethereal quality, since music is more about emotional impact than textured virtuosity. Two shining examples of that:
Chaos of the Galaxy/Happy Man
Pick You Up If You're There
twinkle
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Posts
- 93
- Likes
- 30
Okay. The good news is, the engine has exploded and we're all going to die.
Yeah but try your favorite guitar distortion on a really good, phase-correct DAC.
Take Garbage for example.
I mean the group.
The seemingly low-fi suddenly takes on new meaning.
twinkle
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Posts
- 93
- Likes
- 30
For me, I buy most of my CDs in the 5 to 8 € range, which is like 6 to 10$. Sometimes takes some patience for prices to come down. I'd pay about as much for a CD quality download, in spite of having to do CD archival myself. CD quality is 4 to 5 times the bandwidth of mp3s by the way.
HD files, I wouldn't really buy much except very well recorded/mastered ones, and only if vinyl is not available. I'd pay 12€ tops for that (15$). Problem is internet providers, they'd balk at the necessary bandwidth: HD files is another factor of 3 or 6 in PCM compared to CD, so it only works in specific, hyper-urban markets.
jacal01
You've just been blocked by Mr. Conviviality!
Ooh. Makes me want to fire up my Version 2.0 album again after I get my SOTA equipment.
rmullins08
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Posts
- 469
- Likes
- 98
I can't wait for these next four chapters. Should be an exciting end to the year
nbrowser
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Posts
- 36
- Likes
- 29
That's if Jason posts the remaining chapters in the next month, I'd like it if he did, the story has been great. Feels great knowing the gear I'm able to buy was made by people who care and respect their customers enough to have some seriously non PC fun, it's refreshing.
BackToAnalogue
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
- Posts
- 106
- Likes
- 30
I would like to cast my vote in favour of Mr Wink for this months most informative off-topic post on this forum.
Interesting, I had a similar price point in mind myself so that is three of us (a highly statistically significant sample I might say because of the very select population which was used). So that is around 20-30 % of what they are hoping to charge. Exactly the same mistake they made with CDs. When we can buy CDs for 7 or 8 Quid ($10-15 say) then we often buy a handful. The concept of the 'fifty quid guy', (just like I used to be a few years ago when I still bought CDs), who pops into a big record store every month or two when he feels like rewarding himself and comes out with a nice bag full of CDs, DVDs and maybe a book or magazine. So if they stick to that model we will all just pirate them or not bother at all. (Perhaps we should try and start a 'Schiit happened' market research focus group.)
Great tracks, never heard either before but enjoyed both. The first one does really sound quite reminiscent of Radio Luxembourg when it gets going. So I am guessing you also like Eels and Sigur Ros like I do?
Guitar distortion is one of the hardest things for a digital recording or rather a DAC to reproduce. If you want to hear the difference between vinyl and CD listen to quite a few different things you know and like in different genres. Guitar distortion, recorded properly in the days when music had both Dynamics and Dynamic Range, is one of the things you should listen to. And you don't need to go any further than Led Zeppelin.
Please don't shout at me if you like MP3s or CDs and don't want to hear the difference. Fine, you don't have to, no one is saying you are wrong.
I have been reading a lot about the history of the music industry recently. This will interest you all on the point about 'perceived quality.'
When Edison first launched the Phonograph machine he invited an audience to a large Hall ( I think it was Carnegie Hall the first time) and had a popular music hall artist sing a song standing alongside a phonograph. As the Phonograph was turned on she started to mime (not sure how she stayed in synch, must have had a clock signal) and then the audience were amazed that they hadn't been able to tell the difference. This was so successful that it was toured all over the USA. When the phonograph was improved by moving to Shellac 78s, and then again when a better horn was added, the same marketing technique was used again and was just as successful. They sold by the truckload.
Interesting, I had a similar price point in mind myself so that is three of us (a highly statistically significant sample I might say because of the very select population which was used). So that is around 20-30 % of what they are hoping to charge. Exactly the same mistake they made with CDs. When we can buy CDs for 7 or 8 Quid ($10-15 say) then we often buy a handful. The concept of the 'fifty quid guy', (just like I used to be a few years ago when I still bought CDs), who pops into a big record store every month or two when he feels like rewarding himself and comes out with a nice bag full of CDs, DVDs and maybe a book or magazine. So if they stick to that model we will all just pirate them or not bother at all. (Perhaps we should try and start a 'Schiit happened' market research focus group.)
Great tracks, never heard either before but enjoyed both. The first one does really sound quite reminiscent of Radio Luxembourg when it gets going. So I am guessing you also like Eels and Sigur Ros like I do?
Guitar distortion is one of the hardest things for a digital recording or rather a DAC to reproduce. If you want to hear the difference between vinyl and CD listen to quite a few different things you know and like in different genres. Guitar distortion, recorded properly in the days when music had both Dynamics and Dynamic Range, is one of the things you should listen to. And you don't need to go any further than Led Zeppelin.
Please don't shout at me if you like MP3s or CDs and don't want to hear the difference. Fine, you don't have to, no one is saying you are wrong.
I have been reading a lot about the history of the music industry recently. This will interest you all on the point about 'perceived quality.'
When Edison first launched the Phonograph machine he invited an audience to a large Hall ( I think it was Carnegie Hall the first time) and had a popular music hall artist sing a song standing alongside a phonograph. As the Phonograph was turned on she started to mime (not sure how she stayed in synch, must have had a clock signal) and then the audience were amazed that they hadn't been able to tell the difference. This was so successful that it was toured all over the USA. When the phonograph was improved by moving to Shellac 78s, and then again when a better horn was added, the same marketing technique was used again and was just as successful. They sold by the truckload.
AManAnd88Keys
500+ Head-Fier
I like to believe that story. I heard a Western Electric horn system from 1926 (!) a few months ago and it sounded extremely natural and accurate. The engineers back then really knew something... And it made me question a lot of the "progress" of the past decades.
So when Schiit announced that they use a filter (in the Yggdrasil DAC) based on a paper from the early 20th century (1917 if I remember correctly), I got pretty excited.
