[alpovs]

the record is still good, but DXD sounds significantly better different. And I like it better!

This is applicable absolutely to everything.

 

[Derrick Swart]

In one of Jason`s chapters (I don`t remember in which one) there was a good story about tests. How he could not tell the difference between amplifiers in improperly organized test.

When I`m trying a new food, I just taste it. No special conditions, no weighted portions or calories calculating. Because this is how I normally eat. When I want to understand if something sounds better or worse, I just listen to it (usually for a long period of time). I trust my ears and my perception of sound. Otherwise there is no point in all this expensive audio gear, which could be easily "outperformed" on paper by a cheap off-the-shelf-DAC.

There is no sense in telling me I could not tell the difference, because I hear it clearly and have no doubts about it. You can convert that albums and listen to them yourself. If you could not tell the difference.. Well, my congratulations, it makes things easier for you, that`s great.

I am sure we hear differences and have preferences but i think they are very small compared to the production differences. I would like to see studio standard for consumers, you know the same thoughout the whole chain

 

[ScubaMan2017]

Well quoted, sir. Makes sense to me.

I am perfectly happy with my Schiit MB DAC and 16/44.1 Redbook music.

If DSD or DXD sounds better then go for it!
After all, it's a personal experience. You're not going to sell me any DXD recordings

With MP3 as a mature (lossy) technology, I wonder how that'll affect the media player market. In the 2017 article that I linked to, paragraph 5 muses how this codex, at high bit-rates can subjectively sound identical to uncompressed tracks. It might become even more common way to stream music 'from the cloud'. Meh, until electronic storage becomes expensive, FLAC all the way!

 

[jacal01]

The tutus were excessive...

Potato/Potahto...

 

[artur9]

Too many people want audio to be the "Swiss Army Knife" approach: one device does everything. The problem with that approach is there are inevitable compromises and trade-offs that means it might "do" everything but it does not necessarily mean it does them well. I point to the average "receiver" as an example.

Decide what function you need and get a device to accomplish that task. One box, one function. It usually leads to the best result, IMO.

The only problem I have with that approach is all the power cords and power supplies.

It would be interesting if Schiit could take their one-box/one-purpose approach and apply it to a power supply as well; think Cthulhu on steroids. Each device with an appropriate jack and one big power supply to connect them all. Call it the Ringe

 

[Leigh]

After that digression through surround sound decoders, gaming rigs, and phones let me return to the three building blocks of digital to analog converter boxes. The first was digital input selection, formatting, and routing circuits. This where the digital input signal gets picked, converted to I2S or BWD or whatever the engine requires, and de-jittered in a more sophisticated design. To properly execute this, an engineer should be very conversant with digital theory and if clever will analyze the analog characteristics of the digital signal.

Mike, perhaps you could expand upon what you mean when you say what I've bolded. I would imagine some of that is proprietary, but maybe not. I can math to Calc3/Diffeq.

 

[US Blues]

Mike, perhaps you could expand upon what you mean when you say what I've bolded. I would imagine some of that is proprietary, but maybe not. I can math to Calc3/Diffeq.

I may be off-base here, but I believe @Baldr is referring to analyzing the sound using the finest test instrument known- the human ear.

 

[artur9]

Mike, perhaps you could expand upon what you mean when you say what I've bolded. I would imagine some of that is proprietary, but maybe not. I can math to Calc3/Diffeq.

Many, many years ago I worked with an analog engineer. He had a fair amount of disdain for digital engineers because they basically just assumed that everything in the digital domain worked like the math said it would. Once a digital device was put on a board maybe it did, maybe it didn't according to his measurements.

All kinds of crazy in the analog domain, like how different capacitors do different things to the sound despite having identical specs. Digital engineers get blindsided by that.

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

Blindsided are all who base their ordeals on measurements and theory alone.
For audio the human ears are the most important measurement devices.

 

[rkw]

I am sure we hear differences and have preferences but i think they are very small compared to the production differences. I would like to see studio standard for consumers, you know the same thoughout the whole chain

That's what MQA claims to be

 

[bosiemoncrieff]

Too many people want audio to be the "Swiss Army Knife" approach: one device does everything. The problem with that approach is there are inevitable compromises and trade-offs that means it might "do" everything but it does not necessarily mean it does them well. I point to the average "receiver" as an example.

Decide what function you need and get a device to accomplish that task. One box, one function. It usually leads to the best result, IMO.

This has been the Schiit MO hitherto, and for (pre)amps and DACs, indeed for ADCs, analog EQ, it works well. However, as Jason has conceded, Eitr and Wyrd are ending their lives as products because they are not, as Steve Jobs would have said, "products." They're features. Gen 5 is now built into DACs, and the new USB will be built in as well, presumably. Lyr and Jotunheim and Rag 2 incorporate DAC/phono very much to their betterment. If I were buying my Schiitstack new today I would either get a Rag 2 or a MultiLyr.

The problem facing the digital pre is whether it has enough features to become a product. Bundling it with the transport would both (1) double down on @Baldr's opinion that spinning discs are the best way to hear digital audio and (2) create a product with enough features to satisfy many folks within the niche end of our market. The Mac mini, to analogize, is a great product not because it is 1 box that does 1 think — it's because it's flexible and can accommodate a lot.

Now, would I buy a Gadget as it stood in Beta in 2017? Sure. Given the further development that the product has surely seen in the last 18 months, I would be even more confident in where it stands today. If that's the route Mike wants to take I'm ready to hand over the $300 or $400 or (ugh) $500 to get it in my system. But I think a digital front end that declares war more totally on the computer audio industrial complex would perhaps be to his taste. It would certainly be to mine.

--

On an unrelated note, the Busoni piano concerto (Ogdon recording) sounds pretty thrilling out of HE-6 and the Schiit stack (with Panache). It's an underrated piece. I should review HE-6.

 

[Ripper2860]

Does Modi now incorporate Gen 5? It'll be quite some time before Unison USB trickles down to the lower end products, according to Jason.

 

[bosiemoncrieff]

Fair point - it doesn't.

 

[Ableza]

I would argue that drawing an analogy between audio equipment and a personal computer is a fallacy. Even though audio equipment can contain computers, and computers can be used as audio equipment, the two are fundamentally different. Unless or until all parts of the audio chain are controlled from source to loudspeaker in software... a situation I do not desire... then you might be able to draw a valid analogy between the two.

I do like the Jobs philosophical comment, although I would argue with him that a feature properly packaged is indeed a product, and would point to Apple's bluetooth ear buds as an example.

 

[Pietro Cozzi Tinin]

I would argue that a personal computer is just that and not an audio hi end product.