Jump to content
IGNORED

The Best for the Least


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Looking at all the instrumented testing of various Schiit products from multiple people with Audio Precision and other analysis gear I have no idea how Schiit can be considered remotely competent gear. 

 

It’s because most people listen with ears not eyes.

 

Please show this incompetence where it’s present in what you consider the audible range. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

The have at least two other products that have shown less then optimal noise rejection both up the food chain.

 

Exactly at what point does their stack get competent?

 

Why does a $79 Behringer UMC204HD do better, significantly?

 

 

 

We need to be realistic here. Does any of this matter in DBTs or is any of this in the audible range?

 

objective data works both ways. If you’re saying the best measurements are what matters, we can probably find a product with -150dB SNR that will clearly be better than one with -149.  

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Yes it's in the audible. It's how the product came under scrutiny of further measurement.

 

I hope we aren't moving into the area of cut rate design is ok if it's kept 112 dB down.

 

Of course not. 

 

Im saying Schiit as a brand is far from incompetent as you suggest. 

 

Items like the zero crossing glitch glitch in the Yggdrasil were much ado about nothing to people who listen rather than look. 

 

I dont think Schiit should be thrown out as incompetent for issues with a $99 DAC and other issues that aren’t audible. Objectivists mustn’t move the goal post. If they demand DBTs and stuff be in the audible range in other situations but not here, something isn’t right. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, mansr said:

There is a point beyond which measured improvements are no longer audible. Many audiophiles nevertheless chant the everything matters mantra, even when there is no measurable difference or plausible mechanism known to science that could possibly have an effect. Yet, demonstrably poor measured performance is shrugged off with a "sounds good" excuse. Where is the logic in this?

I’m not shrugging off the Modi measurements. I’m asking for evidence the entire brand is faulty because that was the claim. 

 

I don’t see logic in what you said either. 

 

I’m also not big on pushing DBT but I like to use objectivist reasoning when objectivists are making an argument that seems to go against their beliefs. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Spacehound said:

Next to the Vivaldi 'stack', which I couldn't afford,  it's the best measuring DAC that exists. 

 

And I like it's shape :D,  and that most of their business is in studio stuff and military communications, so I know they have a clue. 

None of their current business is in studio stuff or military communications. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
5 hours ago, esldude said:

Then there are the Schiit Multi-bit Bifrost measurements. 

 

Hmmm, not too impressive either. 

 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/measurement-and-review-of-schiit-bifrost-multibit-dac.2319/#post-63533

 

 

It would be helpful to have the manufacturer’s feedback on this, just like all the other items posted over there. 

 

What does @schiit say about the write-up?

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mansr said:

Such claims always make me suspicious. If they really had invented a superior method for D/A conversion, they would/could/should be making billions by licensing it to everybody else.

It's far too expensive, large, and power hungry for other companies to be interested in licensing.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, mansr said:

I was talking about the D/A conversion core, not the whole device.

As was I. The Ring DAC and it's components are expensive, power hungry, and large. Compare the core to what's in an iPhone or a portable device. Almost all DAC tech these days is small enough, cheap enough, and power efficient to work in a mobile. 

 

Anyway, I'm not the defender of dCS, the company can take care of itself. I just see them as a bit different from those buying a boatload of Sabre chips and dropping them in. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Just now, mansr said:

What if those components were put in an integrated circuit?

Good question. I really don't know. But, if we bring this back to your assertion that the company would have made tons of money through licensing if its tech was that good, I'll say that putting it in an IC may not provide the performance dCS wants and it would take staff the company doesn't have. 

 

Not totally sure though, just guessing. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...