[smitty1110]

Awesome, do you work for Schiit?
Schiit is great and I've emailed them acouple times about a certain medical concern and they replied back really quick and were very helpful, again Jason layed it out that other companies are more about a over price tag then sometimes quality. I definetly notice a diffrence when using the magni and modi vs directly to my iphone.

Thank you!
 

Yes, Alex works for Schiit, that's why he has "Sponsor: Schiit Audio" as his custom title. He's a really great guy, and somthing like a cross between a Senior Tech and an office manager. Emailed me about my Yggy mailing address before I had even realized that there was a mismatch between the address on the order form, and the paypal address.

 

[bretemm]

Great, nick t is who I've been messaging acouple times when I have a question (or well he's tge one that's been replying to my emails when I have sent one)

Yes, Alex works for Schiit, that's why he has "Sponsor: Schiit Audio" as his custom title. He's a really great guy, and somthing like a cross between a Senior Tech and an office manager. Emailed me about my Yggy mailing address before I had even realized that there was a mismatch between the address on the order form, and the paypal address.

 

[wink]

 Awesome, do you work for Schiit?

He works for fun.  Fun pays ALL the bills............ 

 
Quote:Alex Redacted

 I have seen and listened to [redacted] and it is amazing.  The [redacted] and the [redacted] are things I am really looking forward to later this year.

The [REDACTED] lives....... 

 

[Don Hills]

  He works for fun.  Fun pays ALL the bills............ 

...

 
"If you aren't in business for fun or profit, you shouldn't be."

 

[OddE]

"If you aren't in business for fun or profit, you shouldn't be."

-Make that fun AND profit, and you're all set.

 

[senorx12562]

This is going to stir it up some more!

Marketing.

 

[Anavel0]

As fun a name as [Redacted] is, it's not Norse and wouldn't fall in line with the others. :/ Plus we couldn't ever say it for the other future [redacted] that's coming out.

 

[Duke650]

[Re-DAC-ted] in Norse mythology = eternal fireplace (converting ice and meat into tasty soup)
 
Future [Redacted] = [Redacted 2] and [Redacted Uber]

 

[Bazile]

I can only hope the Redacted is a small product. If it is physically large, it then becomes heavily redacted, and the government might find that infringing on much of their output.

 

[wink]

The [REDACTED] is gonna be HUGE........   

 

[cytoSiN]

As fun a name as [Redacted] is, it's not Norse and wouldn't fall in line with the others. :/ Plus we couldn't ever say it for the other future [redacted] that's coming out.

 
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that "redact" in Norwegian is "redact."  Feel free to correct me if you're fluent.  It's obviously not a mythological name like the others, but it's not entirely unrelated to what they're doing either, especially with "DAC" right in the middle...

 

[arnyk]

 

• Meets that challenge you. You know, I’ve been thinking a lot about the whole objective/subjective dichotomy we have in audio lately, and I think it may be time to create a new kind of test. Not ABX with unfamiliar music, but ”"Letting people choose their own music and switch between two different signal chains when they wanted (both level-matched and with distortion lower than audibility, you know, typical “good test results.” The goal would be to see if (a) a consistent majority preferred one signal chain over another, and (b) to see how many people could consistently tell the difference. Yes, I know, this kind of test will never satisfy the ABX folks, but I think it might get us a little closer to the truth about whether or not there are some people who consistently hear audible differences in systems that should sound the same. I suspect the answer is neither 100% subjective nor 100% objective, but a continuum…some people can hear the difference, some can’t, some care, some don’t…and all of that is fine. Of course, this is a big undertaking, but…hmmm…I need to think about this some more, I kinda just write stuff as it comes to me.

 

 
The above paragraph clearly shows that we've got yet another internet eggspurt who doesn't know scratch about blind testing, but pretends to know-it-all.
 
"Not ABX with unfamiliar music"  
 
In general ABX tests are done with familiar music-certainly no reason not to. One of the hallmarks of ABX testing is their interactivity.
 
"Letting people choose their own music and switch between two different signal chains when they wanted (both level-matched and with distortion lower than audibility, you know, typical “good test results.”
 
In general ABX tests are done with listeners controlling their own tests - switching when they want. I repeat: One of the hallmarks of ABX testing is their interactivity.
 
So this poor naive soul damns ABX for not being what it is and has been for almost 40 years, and then wants to turn around and reinvent ABX exactly as it already is!
 
This would be understandable if ABX were some kind of state secret, but in fact there are probably about a dozen or more different software-based ABX tests on the web, some  just recetnly linked out of this forum! All would make good DIY experiments for actual seekers of truth.
 
<beating head against the wall>

 

[jacal01]

   
I PM'd Jason and told him that "[redacted]" would be a great name for the product when it is released.
 
It's memorable, it's amusing, it'd be a continuing reminder of the the running insider [redacted] gag, and it hints at internal top trade secrets. It's perfect, in other words.

 
You mean Umskipti?

 

[GearMe]

The above paragraph clearly shows that we've got yet another internet eggspurt who doesn't kn
ow scratch about blind testing, but pretends to know-it-all.

"Not ABX with unfamiliar music"  

In general ABX tests are done with familiar music-certainly no reason not to. One of the hallmarks of ABX testing is their interactivity.

"Letting people choose their own music and switch between two different signal chains when they wanted (both level-matched and with distortion lower than audibility, you know, typical “good test results.”

In general ABX tests are done with listeners controlling their own tests - switching when they want. I repeat: One of the hallmarks of ABX testing is their interactivity.

So this poor naive soul damns ABX for not being what it is and has been for almost 40 years, and then wants to turn around and reinvent ABX exactly as it already is!

This would be understandable if ABX were some kind of state secret, but in fact there are probably about a dozen or more different software-based ABX tests on the web, some  just recetnly linked out of this forum! All would make good DIY experiments for actual seekers of truth.

Please sir, show me where I can find this 'truth' so that I shall thirst no more...

(chuckle)

 

[jimmers]

Please sir, show me where I can find this 'truth' so that I shall thirst no more...

(chuckle)

First you must head to Sound Science, then read all the posts and in time the truth will become known to you, if you are worthy.