[DougD]

 
The one thing about Schiit that really comes through is that, as much as Jason likes to fake-complain about them (they make for great stories!), figuring out the challenges of doing things differently and better is the why of Schiit and the reason he and Mike do what they do. I mean, it's not like they don't integrate others' work into their designs, but it seems that they really aren't interested in simply profiting without innovating in some way - even their less expensive offerings are innovative in that they solve design problems inexpensively and bring their stuff out at unexpectedly low prices.
 
Maybe I've misread their intentions, but I really don't think so. It's one of the more appealing things about Schiit as a company.

 
Well said. This is exactly what I was trying to convey in a previous post that I bungled. It goes to the opportunity cost that Watchnerd brought up in an earlier post, but he didn't consider opportunity cost along the correct dimension. The relevant constrained resource is Mike & Jason's time ... and they choose to only work on things where they get the intellectual challenges and rewards of invention and discovery. They are not functioning purely as profit-maximizers.
 
Is the Schiit Mani the world's best phono amp? Probably not. (Not as Gen 1, anyway.) 
 
Is the Schiit Mani the world's best phono amp available for $129 USD ??? You could make a very strong case that's true. 
 
And the same extremely disruptive value-to-cost ratio runs throughout the entire Schiit lineup of products. Mike & Jason don't just excel as engineers in the design side, it's perhaps under-appreciated how much they also excel as engineers in the operational side of assembling and managing the manufacturing processes involved.
 
 
Mike Moffat, as quoted by Jason Stoddard: "“Yeah, but we aren’t most companies.” Amen to that.
 
(edit, fixed minor typo)

 

[earnmyturns]

The one thing about Schiit that really comes through is that, as much as Jason likes to fake-complain about them (they make for great stories!), figuring out the challenges of doing things differently and better is the why of Schiit and the reason he and Mike do what they do. 

That's why I got so interested in their work, it resonates with why I love and keep at my "day job" instead of just retiring to ski-bumhood I'm looking forward to their two-channel ideas, but I agree that a remote would be nice, especially when my better half comes into the living room and complains that my playing of John Scofield's "Past Present" is way too loud for her.

 

[DougD]

The "Big SYS" is a REALLY good idea.
 
I just bought an old but refurbished Stax SRA-12S amp, which is a fully functional pre-amp coupled with a power amp. for electrostatic headphones. (Excuse me, I meant "ear speakers.") It will be arriving soon.
 
Until I had the chance to buy that, I really hadn't thought about how much I needed a dedicated control/switching center for my headphone gear. But I really do, and many of you have a lot more components than I do.
 
Besides the input switching on the Bifrost (USB vs optical vs digital coax), my current headphone setup involves 2 SYS boxes, one used as an output director to powered speakers. And if I want to try another DAC or bypass the AVR I have to physically move cables, which is a real PITA. Plus I'm about to put my old turntable back into service, which would be another input with no place to go. Testing a Fiio X7 DAP with various other components this past week involved switching cables numerous times. 
 
A Big Sys switchbox that assumes a serious head-fier might have 6-8 digital and analog sources, plus a couple of DACs and a couple of amps, would be fabulous. Ideally the Big Sys would have an A-B switch to allow instant switching between DAC 1 and DAC 2. (Or even better, 3 choices, A-B-C.) Ditto for the selector for power amps. Going crazy, maybe even a separate volume control for each output channel, to allow volume matching when switching.
 
A remote control would be icing on the cake. 
 
I could live with the power switch on the back, it's a now-venerable Schiit tradition.

 

[watchnerd]

  "License the Hagerman Cornet 3 design from Hagerman Labs ?
 
 
 
 
Sounds like taking their design and slapping your sticker on it to me.

 
It's not the same: Slapping a label on another product is OEM or white box.  Technology licensing is taking a core piece of tech and adding to the implementation (see previous example of CD player licensing) to make a new product.
 
For example, you could improve upon the basic Cornet 3 circuit by:
 
1.  Ditching the boost converter to add a traditional transformer-based power supply (which wouldn't fit in the original DIY chassis, but might fit in an Lyr chassis)
 
2. Getting rid of the wall-wart, use a standard IEC connection (dependent on #1)
 
3.  Add selectable input impedance, rather than the fixed 47k of the original design
 
4. And for an improved upscale model in a Mjolnir/Gungnir size chassis, add a balanced output stage.  The design goal here could be to offer a balanced output alternative to the Decware ZP3, but at 70% of the price and without the pesky tube-rectified PS.
 
Once you do those, you're well beyond OEM/whitebox/label slapping, despite starting with the original circuit.

 

[watchnerd]

 
The one thing about Schiit that really comes through is that, as much as Jason likes to fake-complain about them (they make for great stories!), figuring out the challenges of doing things differently and better is the why of Schiit and the reason he and Mike do what they do. I mean, it's not like they don't integrate others' work into their designs, but it seems that they really aren't interested in simply profiting without innovating in some way - even their less expensive offerings are innovative in that they solve design problems inexpensively and bring their stuff out at unexpectedly low prices.
 
Maybe I've misread their intentions, but I really don't think so. It's one of the more appealing things about Schiit as a company.

 
Okay, I'll assume your reading is correct: that Schiit is as much a lifestyle as a business for Mike and Jason.  I can absolutely respect that.
 
Which makes an even greater case for saying:
 
"Hey, can I take the classic Marantz 7 tube phono stage's basic design and actually make it *better* and more modern?"
 
I don't think that's contradictory to their mission and would also be a helluva a challenge to undertake.  Not to mention some serious marketing USPs if they pull it off.

 

[artur9]

   
...

Sounds like a great idea... for your company.  Dunno why you're projecting your hopes and desires onto Schiit.
 
I think you're the only poster I've seen here write the same product suggestion over and over in such a short time frame.  I think we all have the idea by now.  Please give it a rest.

 

[disastermouse]

Sounds like a great idea... for your company.  Dunno why you're projecting your hopes and desires onto Schiit.

I think you're the only poster I've seen here write the same product suggestion over and over in such a short time frame.  I think we all have the idea by now.  Please give it a rest.

I get his frustration though. It's normal to want a company you like to develop a product you'd like to see - especially if you think they'd do the best job. I just don't think it's Schiit's MO.

 

[Angular Mo]

A motorized pot? No thank you.

Seems to me to be a noise machine and another thing to break.

 

[Baldr]

Well, I guess a shot quite a bit of my phono preamp new tech load back in 1977 when I did the original 6DJ8/passive/no-feedback Theta preamp. At the time, there were over a dozen preamps out there with essentially the same 12AX7/12AU7 feedback RIAA eq topology from Marantz, McIntosh, Dyna, etc. - even the Audio Research SP3. The feedback RIAA scheme runs out of RIAA accuracy in the mid bass down portion of the spectrum. The only passive RIAA preamp of that era was the HK Citation 1. The problem was that it utilized the same 12AX7 family of tubes, designed for the cheapest of consumer products. They have all of the noise of a stuck toilet, with the 6DJ8s being 12db quieter. The 6DJ8 family is much more linear as well. The curves of a 12AX7 are so bad that you must use feedback to get any proper performance. It is really a horrible tube, proper for nostalgists only. As I still tinker around quite a bit with phono, I think that the old Theta preamp design has held up well over the almost 38 years since it was introduced. It was the inspiration for the Mani, a solid state derivation. I admit to still being a tree-worshipping analog druid for much of my listening.
 
We could introduce old classic form components, such as Black and Gold with Glass fronts like MacIntosh or Champagne plating like Marantz, but then "we are not most companies".  There are far too many dressed up product versions of those old, tired circuits out there.

 

[disastermouse]

[COLOR=000000]Well, I guess a shot quite a bit of my phono preamp new tech load back in 1977 when I did the original 6DJ8/passive/no-feedback Theta preamp. At the time, there were over a dozen preamps out there with essentially the same 12AX7/12AU7 feedback RIAA eq topology from Marantz, McIntosh, Dyna, etc. - even the Audio Research SP3. The feedback RIAA scheme runs out of RIAA accuracy in the mid bass down portion of the spectrum. The only passive RIAA preamp of that era was the HK Citation 1. The problem was that it utilized the same 12AX7 family of tubes, designed for the cheapest of consumer products. They have all of the noise of a stuck toilet, with the 6DJ8s being 12db quieter. The 6DJ8 family is much more linear as well. The curves of a 12AX7 are so bad that you must use feedback to get any proper performance. It is really a horrible tube, proper for nostalgists only. As I still tinker around quite a bit with phono, I think that the old Theta preamp design has held up well over the almost 38 years since it was introduced. It was the inspiration for the Mani, a solid state derivation. I admit to still being a tree-worshipping analog druid for much of my listening.[/COLOR]

We could introduce old classic form components, such as Black and Gold with Glass fronts like MacIntosh or Champagne plating like Marantz, but then "we are not other companies".  There are far too many dressed up product versions of those old, tired circuits out there.

Analog all the way down to phonographs? Every time I look at the equipment, my wallet sobs. Then I think, 'Plus, I have to clean records, store them correctly, worry about vibration, etc.'

You've solved the 'not really the sample-sample' problem with the MBs. The benefit/PITA ratio for analog mediums just seems...not good.

 

[Baldr]

Analog all the way down to phonographs? Every time I look at the equipment, my wallet sobs. Then I think, 'Plus, I have to clean records, store them correctly, worry about vibration, etc.'

You've solved the 'not really the sample-sample' problem with the MBs. The benefit/PITA ratio for analog mediums just seems...not good.

Hey, it is all good.  They painful part of analog is not the up to a K$ or so for the hardware - the first hundred new records will be nearly triple that.  It is just that I am so old that I still have a schiitload of LPs collected over the years.  Makes it easier.  But the digi stuff is just fine too.  It is the majority of my listening.

 

[disastermouse]

Hey, it is all good.  They painful part of analog is not the up to a K$ or so for the hardware - the first hundred new records will be nearly triple that.  It is just that I am so old that I still have a schiitload of LPs collected over the years.  Makes it easier.  But the digi stuff is just fine too.  It is the majority of my listening.

My parents never kept their records. I was born in '74 and I remember 8-track and cassette. I came to CDs late in 1993, with a boombox and even then, the recordings were totally hit and miss.

I'd love analog just for the ritual, but I've heard that most pressings of what I like would probably be poorly mastered and pressed.

 

[bigro]

My parents never kept their records. I was born in '74 and I remember 8-track and cassette. I came to CDs late in 1993, with a boombox and even then, the recordings were totally hit and miss.

I'd love analog just for the ritual, but I've heard that most pressings of what I like would probably be poorly mastered and pressed.

Modern Pressings can sound like crap. But some of them I have recently purchased can put a CD to shame. On amazon you can get newly released albums from sub $15 a CD a lot of times closer to $10. Records that are not the cheap ones getting pushed out for the bandwagon buying craze but the "audiophile" pressings or just ones put out with better QC are $20 - $30 per album if not more. It probably Makes sense to only get Albums that are worth the extra dollars to you on Record. Go digital for the other stuff. 

 

[jfoxvol]

  Well, I guess a shot quite a bit of my phono preamp new tech load back in 1977 when I did the original 6DJ8/passive/no-feedback Theta preamp. At the time, there were over a dozen preamps out there with essentially the same 12AX7/12AU7 feedback RIAA eq topology from Marantz, McIntosh, Dyna, etc. - even the Audio Research SP3. The feedback RIAA scheme runs out of RIAA accuracy in the mid bass down portion of the spectrum. The only passive RIAA preamp of that era was the HK Citation 1. The problem was that it utilized the same 12AX7 family of tubes, designed for the cheapest of consumer products. They have all of the noise of a stuck toilet, with the 6DJ8s being 12db quieter. The 6DJ8 family is much more linear as well. The curves of a 12AX7 are so bad that you must use feedback to get any proper performance. It is really a horrible tube, proper for nostalgists only. As I still tinker around quite a bit with phono, I think that the old Theta preamp design has held up well over the almost 38 years since it was introduced. It was the inspiration for the Mani, a solid state derivation. I admit to still being a tree-worshipping analog druid for much of my listening.
 
We could introduce old classic form components, such as Black and Gold with Glass fronts like MacIntosh or Champagne plating like Marantz, but then "we are not most companies".  There are far too many dressed up product versions of those old, tired circuits out there.

I just spit up my coffee.  Also, yes.  12AX7 and the like are great if you're building a guitar amp and want breakup in your preamp.  Otherwise, mehhh.

 

[Astral Abyss]

  I just spit up my coffee.  Also, yes.  12AX7 and the like are great if you're building a guitar amp and want breakup in your preamp.  Otherwise, mehhh.

 
True enough.  I tried a Telefunken 12AX7 in my Ember II amp and it sounded like poop.  Only tube I can honestly say had a noise floor so high that it was distracting.