The Mike Moffat (#2 at Schiit) Blog

Considering the gen 5 usb boards by themselves cost $100, the Eitr is $80 more for a S/PDIF out, case and power supply. You would have to add the full Gadget functionality for $29. I guess we don't know the BOM for The Gadget so it's always possible, but I have a feeling The Gadget will have the standard Modi Multibit/Modi 2 USB.

 

Yeah, good point. In that case I'd venture to say it won't have Eitr functionality.

 

S/PDIF in and out is my guess.

 

Seems like it will have gen 5 USB, but not in the smaller one

 

Like they've been suggesting, probably a Sys looking one with SPDIF in SPDIF out, and a Jot sized one (unless they're introducing a new size again) with USB in and assorted outputs (AES, SPDIF etc).

 

Seems I've asked these same questions before...

 

My understanding is that the higher-end tier will be using machine learning algorithms to automatically detect the required pitch adjustment. This one will likely require more trial-and-error testing than a Ragnarok...

Plus I also recall that Mike was once discussing more factors (13?) that could be adjusted programmatically like this. It's possible the fancier versions will have more factors to adjust than just pitch.


````
Here's Mike on the 13 parameters:

 

Very interesting.
I think it is disingenuous to say that altering the tuning or temperament is the same as just swapping speakers. Of course there are many things in the chain that affect what you hear, but there is a difference in altering the actual pitches. I love a lot of historically-informed performances where they use old instruments, tuned to different pitches than A=440, or in different temparments. They're great but they are absolutely conscious artistic decisions. Though an artist can't predict with 100% accuracy how the mix will translate onto someone's earbuds, they can sign off on what they hear in the control room. This isn't moving from a crappy seat to a good seat, this is turning the tuning pegs on the instrument. And while we can't all have top-tier listening rooms, there are very clear and established targets for a good listening room and frequency response of a speaker playback system if you want to hear 99% of what the artist or engineer heard in that mix or master room. Of course headphones are still in flux.
All that being said, I am not opposed to it. I am very curious to hear it. I don't have a problem listening to a DJ mix where a song is tempo-adjusted (along with pitch, or not) to fit the vibe. But a very curious undertaking. I don't think Mike would make something that sounds like ass and I don't think Jason would agree to bring it to market if he thought it would lose them money. I don't remember anyone mentioning "all the music sounded horrific" at the shows where they've had stealth Manhattans.

 

I agree philosophically with you on this, and I think it's a different category of change than the usual EQ, speaker, room, etc. stuff that audiophiles have used. I assume it will have a zero setting so you can always get what was on the recording if you wanted to hear that.

I think some people will find it ironic that such a device comes from a company that talks about making DACs that don't change samples, and I say this as an Yggdrasil and Modi Multibit user. I guess it's that you don't want to make unintentional change, and any change should be done with full knowledge and control of the listener.

 

Ding ding ding ding!

Nor should change be forced upon you. It's all about choice.

 

The idea I struggle with is not so much whether the Gadget reproduces an artist's original intent, but how tuning might affect the original performance.

The Vienna Philharmonic uses a tuning of A=443. The Gadget would play their recording at C=256 (A=430). Would the orchestra have played the same piece differently if they had tuned instead to C=256? I would say definitely yes.

A musician responds to how their instrument sounds. A pianist will adjust their performance to the tone of the individual piano and the acoustics of the room. If the piano is tuned up or down, the pianist will respond to it as well.

So if you alter the pitch of a recording, it seems to me like a hypothetical performance that didn't really happen — the musician might (or not) have played it differently with a different tuning.

 

I mean, that's what it is. For better or worse, this is a thing that specifically does not work in service of the usual audiophile "fidelity of the performance" goal. This is a thing that lets you post-process it to get something that sounds euphonic, even though it's purely manufactured. It's like running your photos through a Snapchat filter. You might like the result, but there's no question it's further removed from reality after it's gone through the filter.

 

Honestly, I don't give two shits about artist intent or maintaining the integrity of bippity boop whatever. If it sounds good, then it does. If it sounds like ass, does anyone really think the crew at the Schitter would bring it to market. They are smarter than that.

My question is this...if I'm already using custom EQ, will this device still work for me? Can the MP and user EQ play nice together?

 

@Metro I think you're missing the point. While I agree that a musician will adjust their performance due to any number of variables, it has no weight on the discussion of the Manhattan Project. This gadget is meant to please OUR ears, same as finding the system of components that work for your auditory preferences.

 

There's a simple solution to this.

Don't buy the MP.

 

Just want to restate that I wasn't slagging the idea or product. Just thinking out loud about the philosophical ramifications and I think it was a discussion worth having. I'm sure everyone here is fully aware that they have a choice to buy or not. I'm interested to hear the results.

 

EQ is altering the relative loudness; MP is altering the pitch. Different goals entirely. Also, the engineers who mixed and mastered the recording most probably used EQ too.

Anyhow, by what wizardry and voodoo do you think Schiit has any clue what other manipulation you might be doing before or after the MP box? This isn't digitally signed MQA.

 

Orchestras tune to woodwind: the oboe is the standard. What do you think is objective about an open violin string? There's a screwy thing on the end, right? In fact, sometimes on both ends.

The internet tells me that, where orchestras have gone modern and use an electronic tone generator, tradition is appeased by the oboist having the task of turning it on and off. True? I don't know, the internet told me!

Somebody asked if music would have sounded different if it had been played at a different pitch. One has to ask the question, played on the same instruments? The instruments are designed for, give or take, the pitch that they are intended to play at. To level the playing field, the instruments would have to have been designed accordingly.

I have friends who fight with, and about, each other, on intricate maths of of pitch and temperament. I'm innumerate: their juggling of fractions and decimals and where where and how the gamukas (slides and ornamentations) in Indian music go leave me quickly... wanting to listen to some music. And I'd like a gadget that tunes the whole lot down a couple of octaves so I can that high stuff again.

(Actually, yes, I believe some hearing-aid technology actually does that: shifts the audio we can't hear into octaves that we can. Whilst the audiophile in me screams Noooo at the very idea, perhaps WTF... I (and the audiophile in me) can't hear it anyway. But it is hard to completely abandon dogma)

WTF indeed. Let all twiddle their knobs until their music sounds just right to them. Why did Schiit never think about bringing back the tone controls? Their absence is the result of audiophile dogma beating real-world ears, real-world rooms, and real-world choice into the ground.

Dogma. Twiddling the knobs... well, it isn't hifi. It just isn't. But nor is the high-end-boosted screech that sounds about as close to music to my ears as my memory can manage to certify.

Twiddle knobs, have eargasm. Nobody ever went blind from knob twiddling although more than a few have gone deaf by twiddling up to 11 too often.

 

What about instruments that aren't traditionally tuned? Most percussion, xylophones, chimes, etc...

Is tuning spread across all instruments? It does, doesn't it?

 

This is really, really interesting. This is way over simplifying things, but as the gadget doesn't affect tempo, is it similar to the pitch control function in Ableton Live? Obviously more fine tuned and with the goal of hitting one specific tuning with everything you listen to? I'm just a dumb drummer and don't have much experience with tuning to a specific pitch (the high school days of timpani) so maybe I've got the wrong idea completely.