What a long, strange trip it's been -- (Robert Hunter)
Dec 15, 2017 at 4:36 PM Post #6,031 of 14,564
Digital to digital converters have a degree of popularity these days. If the gadget also performed that function then you would have another angle to sell it. In addition for those who want to use USB from a source to a DAC it could also perform the function of being a USB to USB decrapifier.

So that would result in 3 products in one, two that people understand and one they don't.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2017 at 4:49 PM Post #6,032 of 14,564
OK, OK.................... Here is the Winders/Dr. P challenge: Even if you do not like each other, is it possible to find anything you have in common, or any likes or dislikes? I once worked with with someone who I thought was perhaps the most arrogant prick I had ever met. He thought I was an unfiltered ass. Although the truth was that we were probably both right, we sort of mutually discovered that we didn't have to like each other to accomplish a job we both needed to do. Years later I ran into him at a banquet where, like the scene in Patton, we toasted each other as sons of bitches, laughing as we did so. Although I still do not think I would want to go out to dinner with him, I know I could work with him again. So how about it guys? It would make this thread not just more enjoyable for me, but probably others as well. I am sure you could find something you like or hate in common. Smalahove? Lutefisk? Korean Makkali? Mid-Fi? Beats Headphones?
Nelson?
 
Dec 15, 2017 at 5:03 PM Post #6,033 of 14,564
In the past month we've done two experiments investigating The Gadget's lowered tuning with professional trombone players.As if we don't see enough of each other playing professionally in an opera company we often get together to play recreationally and to investigate combinations of beer, wine and food. Of course none of what follows is double blind and it might be interesting to come up with a more rigorous double blind procedure.

On the first day we played an anonymous15th century piece (much more sonorous and consonant than later music) and some Bach chorales, first at normal A=440Hz pitch. We then tuned our instruments down to the A=430.5 pitch, which equates to the C=256Hz pitch of The Gadget. Most of our tuning slides had to go to their physical extension limit to get down to the Gadget pitch. To keep us honest and to prevent our drifting up to the A 440 or sharper pitch we've all played at all of our lives I kept a stroboscopic tuner set to A 430.5 on my music stand; we were able to keep the strobe wheel stable while we played. We all found the lower pitch very easy-feeling and our opinions were that the Gadget pitch seemed comfortable - more blended and more resonant were common comments.

While we were messing around with the two tunings I had a call from a friend who was in the neighbourhood. He's retired now but he used to own a high-end stereo store, selling Audio Research and similar brands. I invited him over and we played him the same music in the two pitches. He's not a trained musician but his reaction was similar; he found we sounded more relaxed and "better" but of course he couldn't describe what he was hearing technically.

A couple of weeks later five of us got together for more playing and smoked meat with beer. One player was delayed so we started with quartets, again Bach Chorales at the two pitches. We had the same reactions as previously and when our colleague arrived we repeated the experiment for him. We couldn't hide what we were doing from him; he saw us pull our tuning slides out to their limits. But his reaction was the same - more relaxed, more resonant, more comfortable and easier-sounding.

None of this is definitive, of course. But it's beyond interesting. My personal opinion has always been that choirs, string quartets and trombones have a natural resonance advantage because they can adjust their tuning to resonant temperaments. But the addition of the C=256 factor gives more food for thought and experimentation in music performance.
 
Dec 15, 2017 at 5:14 PM Post #6,034 of 14,564
In the past month we've done two experiments investigating The Gadget's lowered tuning with professional trombone players.As if we don't see enough of each other playing professionally in an opera company we often get together to play recreationally and to investigate combinations of beer, wine and food. Of course none of what follows is double blind and it might be interesting to come up with a more rigorous double blind procedure.

On the first day we played an anonymous15th century piece (much more sonorous and consonant than later music) and some Bach chorales, first at normal A=440Hz pitch. We then tuned our instruments down to the A=430.5 pitch, which equates to the C=256Hz pitch of The Gadget. Most of our tuning slides had to go to their physical extension limit to get down to the Gadget pitch. To keep us honest and to prevent our drifting up to the A 440 or sharper pitch we've all played at all of our lives I kept a stroboscopic tuner set to A 430.5 on my music stand; we were able to keep the strobe wheel stable while we played. We all found the lower pitch very easy-feeling and our opinions were that the Gadget pitch seemed comfortable - more blended and more resonant were common comments.

While we were messing around with the two tunings I had a call from a friend who was in the neighbourhood. He's retired now but he used to own a high-end stereo store, selling Audio Research and similar brands. I invited him over and we played him the same music in the two pitches. He's not a trained musician but his reaction was similar; he found we sounded more relaxed and "better" but of course he couldn't describe what he was hearing technically.

A couple of weeks later five of us got together for more playing and smoked meat with beer. One player was delayed so we started with quartets, again Bach Chorales at the two pitches. We had the same reactions as previously and when our colleague arrived we repeated the experiment for him. We couldn't hide what we were doing from him; he saw us pull our tuning slides out to their limits. But his reaction was the same - more relaxed, more resonant, more comfortable and easier-sounding.

None of this is definitive, of course. But it's beyond interesting. My personal opinion has always been that choirs, string quartets and trombones have a natural resonance advantage because they can adjust their tuning to resonant temperaments. But the addition of the C=256 factor gives more food for thought and experimentation in music performance.
That's amazing!

It would make for interesting test recordings as well - play and record with the modern tuning, then play and record the same piece with the older tuning, and compare the Gadget-retuned version of the modern tuning with what you played using the older tuning.

And if you gave the recordings to Schiit royalty free without restrictions, they could show the world what the Gadget does by offering digital versions of the input and output for download (yes, I haven't given up on that dream, sorry).
 
Dec 15, 2017 at 5:52 PM Post #6,035 of 14,564
This confirms my own, rather limited and haphazard experiments of using the pitch control inside jriver to reduce the pitch for the music I play on my system.
I have kept this adjusted pitch as a 'normal' setup function for my system ever since.

JJ
 
Dec 15, 2017 at 6:47 PM Post #6,037 of 14,564
As excited as I am for the gadget, I'm sure that Mike would be infinitely more gratified to bring a revolution in classical music for C=256 throughout the symphony halls and opera houses of the world. It would also make high C just a smidgen easier to sing!
 
Dec 15, 2017 at 8:10 PM Post #6,038 of 14,564
The Asgard 2 is Class A and meets it's specs with zero global feedback. As an EE myself, I appreciate it for that fact alone.

Besides, it sounds great!

JC

Exactly right it sounds great! I have heard all of the Schiit amps except for the Lyr 2. I believe that the Asgard 2 is the most impressive achievement in terms of value. Especially when you combine it with the Bimby. To me the Asgard 2 is a very good amp regardless of price. And getting that sound for $250 along with that quality of build and form factor made in USA is astounding. I vote to keep it in the lineup. Though I now have a Ragnarok (for use with HD800S and speakers) I am keeping my Asgard 2 and will continue to enjoy it. Some do not take it seriously because of its low price but I say their loss. Its well executed 1 watt of pure class A into 32ohms is particularly good with Grados. I use it with pair of RS1s and prefer it over a much more expensive tube amp I have. And if I upgrade to one of the flagship Grados I will pair it with my Asgard 2 and Bimby. As far as I am concerned that could easily be an end game system.
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2017 at 11:41 PM Post #6,039 of 14,564
I remember seeing Fantasia for the first time at age 6. The visuals that went with the music made a very strong impression on me imprinting them together in my mind...I was particularly into the visuals and bleeding chunks pieced together from Stravinsky's "Rite" and it's conjuring of a point in time incomprehensibly long ago.

I heard the "Rite" performed live in my mid 20's for the first time in Philly, suddenly it all made sense. Instruments that normally carry melodies being used as if they were percussion instruments, percussion instruments providing a melodic flow, horns and woodwinds providing both and at times almost like punctuation, the crazy different simultaneous time signatures. Even the visual aspect played a part, as I viewed the stage the orchestra reminded me of observing the inner workings of a mechanical watch with springs and levers and gears all performing in unison their various functions perfectly, like a living, breathing machine. The greater the complexity the more it sucked me in. The dynamic range of the sound was unlike any reproduction system I had ever heard, (or would ever hear to this day). From that point on I got it.

I bought and heard my first Mahler (the 2nd) at age 26/27. Based on the album cover picture and a recommendation from a knowledgeable sale clerk at the record store (with very few exceptions these don't exist anymore, the stores or the clerks) after my telling him I was satiated with the Beethoven and Brahms stuff. It was Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra (recorded 1970). My musical world was well and truly "rocked" and I was never the same after that, seeing it performed live the following year branded me a dedicated Mahlerite! Can't tell you how over the moon I was to obtain a CD copy (to add to 2 dozen other's I have) of this performance on a specialty Japanese label pressing a few years back, even has the original artwork.

Pop music figured heavily during the late 1950's for me, especially the "Rock-a-billy" and "Motown" stuff. It was always easy for me to come to a thumbs up/down decision fast on these 3 to 4 minute songs. ("It had a good beat and was easy to dance to, I give it a 95, Dick!") But it was in college with the "Airplane" "The Doors" and other metal guitar oriented groups that followed that I got hooked into that genre and it's (seemingly to me) greater complexity and richer sound. But I continued to listen to classical and pop side by side for a number of years. Somewhere along the way (70's, 80's?) pop music became too pretty-fied, cute-sy for my taste and the last 20 or 30 years or so it all became too overproduced and lost it's edge, and all same sounding to me. "Drive by Truckers-Decoration Day" was my last purchase in that genre. Over the past 2 decades Jazz has become of greater interest for me although classical and the late romantics and Impressionists in particular are still my musical meat and potatoes.

My experiences over 7 decades with music have taught me that I never know when something will "click". I revisited many composers (like Schoenberg and Berg) that didn't initially speak to me but eventually started to make sense and provide enjoyment, especially with the right conductors interpretation and musicians performance. (Although Verdi has just never made the cut for me, but my opera likes are fairly rigid and limited to just a handful of composers with a very few one-offs.) I never thought of the time spent re-listening as a second job, more a labor of love. Reading about the music and it's composer sometimes illuminated aspects that help me to understand where he was coming from and why, and what he is attempting to convey, be it programmatically or in abstraction.

It's about the journey.

I wonder whether visuals are still as wedded to music as they used to be for you. I generally find them distracting and close my eyes even in the symphony hall or at the opera (though I haven't been to either in years). When I listen at home, it's usually in the evening with all the lights turned off. I enjoy music most when I'm not using my eyes at all.

I've never been to a performance of the Rite of Spring, but on that particular piece it's easy to see how watching the orchestra might add a layer of interest to the music. "[T]he orchestra reminded me of observing the inner workings of a mechanical watch with springs and levers and gears all performing in unison..." I can totally picture it.

Mahler I have heard live. Quite an experience.

***********
"...especially with the right conductors interpretation and musicians performance." In fact, I forgot to mention that a great part of classical musical enjoyment is to try out different performances/recordings. Sometimes a performance will just sit there like a block, leave you cold and unmoved (not to say bored). You will think you don't like the piece. Then you will hear a great performance and: Wow! So this is how it's supposed to sound! You suddenly have a very different take.

Verdi not making the cut? He definitely does for me, but it brings me to another point about learning to appreciate classical music: there are just some pieces that, no matter how many times you listen to them or how many different performances you try, you will simply not like. I have a few pieces that I try and try to like but hate each and every time.
 
Last edited:
Dec 16, 2017 at 2:45 AM Post #6,040 of 14,564
I find Chopin as mostly "plink. plink, plink" except some pieces which I really love.

Overall, I prefer Satie and Godard to Chopin..... as usual, YMMV...... :ksc75smile:
 
Dec 16, 2017 at 7:48 AM Post #6,041 of 14,564
I wonder whether visuals are still as wedded to music as they used to be for you. I generally find them distracting and close my eyes even in the symphony hall or at the opera (though I haven't been to either in years). When I listen at home, it's usually in the evening with all the lights turned off. I enjoy music most when I'm not using my eyes at all.

I've never been to a performance of the Rite of Spring, but on that particular piece it's easy to see how watching the orchestra might add a layer of interest to the music. "[T]he orchestra reminded me of observing the inner workings of a mechanical watch with springs and levers and gears all performing in unison..." I can totally picture it.

Mahler I have heard live. Quite an experience.

***********
"...especially with the right conductors interpretation and musicians performance." In fact, I forgot to mention that a great part of classical musical enjoyment is to try out different performances/recordings. Sometimes a performance will just sit there like a block of lead, leave you cold and unmoved (not to say bored). You will think you don't like the piece. Then you will hear a great performance and: Wow! So this is how it's supposed to sound! Very different reaction.

Verdi not making the cut? He definitely does for me, but it brings me to another point about learning to appreciate classical music: there are just some pieces that, no matter how many times you listen to them or how many different performances you try, you will simply not like. I have a few pieces that I try and try to like but hate each and every time.

As a kid the visual aspects were a hook enticing me to hear more, imagine more, and understand more, about music as well as myself and the world around me past, present, and future. Over the years those internalized visual hooks began to dissolve, they didn't need to be there for my enjoyment, understanding, or appreciation. I set nothing in stone when it comes to listening to music, I let it just happen (or not). Take the "Goldberg Variations" for example, I can't imagine what visual images that work would be able to conjure up so I don't. But (for me), all music has to have forward movement, like a stream pushing forward and down from a starting point and making it's way to a finishing point. (Or climbing from the base to the top of a mountain.) It's about the journey and whether or not I get swept up in it's intellectual and / or emotional current that determines my desire to hear that work again either frequently or very infrequently, or maybe, not at all. That's how the "Goldbergs" affect me, it's a journey. Great Jazz also has this forward momentum aspect to it as well and while I'm nowhere near as steeped in that genre as Classical, I can still sense that forward flow. My brain can address non-programatic (or absolute if you like) music in a different way that is much more of an abstraction of thought processes or at most has me visualizing an orchestra performing (and yes, eyes closed focuses the thought processes. but I do not usually do that when "live"). Getting back to the "Rite", and dino's aside, it is a ballet about a gathering of humans, and ceremony, and dancing, and about death and renewal taking place in a past we can never fully know or understand. I can enjoy this work in different ways and I do like a good sacrifice, LOL!

A side note on the "Goldbergs"; bosiemoncrieff brought up Rosalyn Turek's performance a few weeks ago. I have her 1988 performance, (I think that's the year, the notes do not indicate) on the VAI label. Out of curiosity I've revisited this performance twice since then and there is a lot to like but I still have a tough time enjoying the too deliberate pacing of the Aria, and Aria da Capo that open and close the work, and her variation 30 just doesn't have the combination of joy and grandeur that completes the journey (figuratively) that I experience with Gould's 55' performance that really takes me to the summit of the mountain, and makes his Aria da Capo to follow a reflection on the journey and look back down the mountain to where it began.
 
Last edited:
Dec 16, 2017 at 12:05 PM Post #6,042 of 14,564
Take the "Goldberg Variations" for example, I can't imagine what visual images that work would be able to conjure up so I don't. But (for me), all music has to have forward movement, like a stream pushing forward and down from a starting point and making it's way to a finishing point. (Or climbing from the base to the top of a mountain.) It's about the journey and whether or not I get swept up in it's intellectual and / or emotional current that determines my desire to hear that work again either frequently or very infrequently, or maybe, not at all. That's how the "Goldbergs" affect me, it's a journey. Great Jazz also has this forward momentum aspect to it as well and while I'm nowhere near as steeped in that genre as Classical, I can still sense that forward flow.
I love those images, especially the climbing one. I do quite a bit of actual climbing and skiing on places like this or this, and mountain ascents and descents are the imagery most readily evoked in my mind by great abstract music. Speaking of JSB, I've been on a roll with some excellent recent recent hi-res solo recordings:

Sonatas & Partitas, Christian Tetzlaff, violin, Ondine
The Partitas, Richard Egarr, harpsichord, Harmonia Mundi
BWV 828, 911, 808, 903, ..., Nelson Freire, piano, Decca

and also the wonderful, period instrument ensemble

Art of the Fugue, Ottavio Dantone & Academia Bizantina, Decca
 
Dec 16, 2017 at 12:27 PM Post #6,043 of 14,564
tamar halprin
 
Dec 16, 2017 at 4:21 PM Post #6,044 of 14,564
Keep. Functions. Isolated. This means separate chassis. I don't want combo devices. Please.
Digital to digital converters have a degree of popularity these days. If the gadget also performed that function then you would have another angle to sell it. In addition for those who want to use USB from a source to a DAC it could also perform the function of being a USB to USB decrapifier.

So that would result in 3 products in one, two that people understand and one they don't.
No way. I already have a schiit ton of schiit and I do want a Gadget but I do not want it paired with a DAC. And I have an Eitr and don't want to buy one again inside the chassis of a gadget. Like Ableza said " Keep. Functions. Isolated."
 
Dec 16, 2017 at 5:18 PM Post #6,045 of 14,564
This confirms my own, rather limited and haphazard experiments of using the pitch control inside jriver to reduce the pitch for the music I play on my system.
I have kept this adjusted pitch as a 'normal' setup function for my system ever since.

JJ
Can you offer advice on how that's done in JRiver?
I would like to experiment - thank you!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top