Schiit "The Gadget"

Yeah, they really aren't sold on MQA. I seem to remember some video where they talked about it and said it's a fad, and if it takes off they'll just call it too mainstream and still not support it. Something like that.
 
It's kind of amusing, though. They want to sell this device we're discussing here in the thread, which has even less use to their average customer than MQA, yet they will not offer any MQA products. As much as I am skeptical (at best) of MQA, they are leaving money on the table by not offering a good sounding entry-level MQA DAC. They would probably sell a Schiitload of 'em if the price were right.
 
It's kind of amusing, though. They want to sell this device we're discussing here in the thread, which has even less use to their average customer than MQA, yet they will not offer any MQA products. As much as I am skeptical (at best) of MQA, they are leaving money on the table by not offering a good sounding entry-level MQA DAC. They would probably sell a Schiitload of 'em if the price were right.
Their DAC's are usually backordered, so I don't think they're too concerned about it.
 
I do think this is a marketing ploy of sorts, and don't understand the purpose of this box.

Is it to teach us about something before some product release we would not understand otherwise?

I understand what it does. But there are DAW plugins that do the same thing...
 
Last edited:
I understand what it does. But there are DAW plugins that donthe same thing...
I take it that some audio users don't want to bother with a computer or any sort of plugin. This seems to be a box that will sit between the source and a DAC, and allow the tweaking by adjusting a single knob.
 
It's kind of amusing, though. They want to sell this device we're discussing here in the thread, which has even less use to their average customer than MQA, yet they will not offer any MQA products. As much as I am skeptical (at best) of MQA, they are leaving money on the table by not offering a good sounding entry-level MQA DAC. They would probably sell a Schiitload of 'em if the price were right.


Cannot agree. MQA offers absolutely nothing except DRM to a customer.

This box actually DOES something. I respect that.
 
Guys, we are talking about a 4Hz pitch change here? Its not going to change a clarinet to a bassoon.
 
Last edited:
Didn't we have that huge MQA thread or was it in the sound science area of the headfi forum?

I remember it being a biiiit heated.
 
There are a lot of musicians and studio guys trumpeting the pitch modification, and have been doing so for awhile now. I used to talk with a lot of guitar guys that were going with A=432 and swear by it. There is a market there imo. Just as with the new Loki, twist a dial, no need for all of the digital crap.
 
Guys, we are talking about a 4Hz pitch change here? Its not going to change a clarinet to a bassoon.
What's the difference between a wooden clarinet and a bassoon?

The bassoon burns longer.

:D

Actually it is 8 Hz, since standard tuning for decades is A440, and some are claiming "benefits" tuning to A432. (A436 was a common tuning frequency at one point...hell, there have been a dozen or more in use for a couple of centuries.) That is, however, only for one note. It is better to think of this as a ratio; this is nearly a 1% change in pitch. But even that 1% is going to throw the formants off ever so slightly, if changed during playback.

It's one thing if musicians tune to a different non-standard pitch like 432 Hz, as the formants remain in place. A clarinet will sound like a clarinet, just 1% lower in pitch. But while playing back a recording and changing pitch after the fact, that is when things get thrown out of whack. Changing the pitch during playback also assumes that the musicians and/or vocalist actually tuned to A440. (I doubt very few out there actually use a tuning device.) Instruments can also drift over time. When we tuned up wind instruments, the pitch would rise as the instrument got warmer.

This theory also assumes that a digitally mastered analog recording was played back at precisely the same speed at which it was recorded. And who is going to sit there with a frequency counter, waiting for a single, lone note that they can check to make certain that what they are playing back is tuned exactly to an A432 scale?

That is my point. The whole A432 "theory" (at least during playback) has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese, in other words. :)

A final point on the A432 controversy: most of the general public doesn't have perfect or even absolute pitch, or anything close to it. They don't care; they won't even notice. IMHO it is turning into a case where a few with the A432 idea have claimed alleged "benefits" and like anything in today's social media, the followers latch onto it and preach it like it's the truth. It's a fad, like anything else. (And probably like MQA, or one could only hope. :D )

Schiit's device goes far beyond just that minor pitch shift--it lets users adjust it in a far wider range. I can see it useful for correcting incorrect pitch (which I have wanted for a few older recordings transferred to digital), but otherwise, um, no.

Cannot agree. MQA offers absolutely nothing except DRM to a customer.
For a product's purposes, it is only enough for the purchasers of that product to care whether or not MQA actually does something for them. ;)
 
most of the general public doesn't have perfect or even absolute pitch, or anything close to it. They don't care; they won't even notice. IMHO it is turning into a case where a few with the A432 idea have claimed alleged "benefits" and like anything in today's social media, the followers latch onto it and preach it like it's the truth. It's a fad, like anything else. (And probably like MQA, or one could only hope. :D )
The general public is not the client base that supports Schiit. I doubt that public would know what to do with or appreciate most of the Schiit product line. My guess is that plenty of people will find a use for that box. It probably isn't expected to be one of their top sellers.
 
They are getting into some strange Schiit now.

Having been cursed with perfect pitch since birth, and knowing only enough about acoustics to get myself into trouble, the whole concept of changing pitch is IMHO flawed. Correcting pitch is one thing (such as, the original analog reel-to-reel recorder running at a wrong speed when a performance was recorded, or a turntable not turning at the right speed, etc.), but I always considered this arbitrary changing of pitch to some magical frequency to be junk science. Some have sworn up and down that A=432Hz is more "correct" than A=440Hz. Yet why do all orchestras today tune to A440? Because it was standardized around 1940, to help stop the many disparate tunings of "concert A."

Here is a history of "concert A" frequencies: https://www.healingsounds.com/the-tuning-conundrum/

I even once played a woodwind that was built for A436 vs. A440. (It was very slightly longer, with the distance between tone holes stretched out slightly, and it wasn't until my tutor saw the stamped "436" on the body that we figured out why I was struggling to play that horn in tune.) We have to consider now that instruments like woodwinds (and perhaps brass) are designed around A440, so changing it for the convenience of self-proclaimed "experts" just doesn't fly.

But, that is not the bigger problem. The big problem with altering pitch in this fashion is that this also alters the frequencies of the formants. Formants are those sets of overtones and other resonances which make a violin sound like a violin and not a cello, a saxophone like a saxophone and not a clarinet, and Diana Krall sound like Diana Krall and not Lena Horne. Our voices all have unique formants, which is how we can tell each other apart by voice.

Go right now and slow down or speed up the turntable with a record on. Notice how all of the instruments and voices take on a strange character to them? This is because we are changing the frequencies of those formants along with the fundamental pitch. If we could keep the formants at the same frequencies but change the pitch of the note, then we'd really be onto something. Even sampling synthesizers can't get it right...not unless they sample every single note on an instrument.

This seems like an awfully weird (and IMHO, useless) gadget Schiit is producing. Again, correcting pitch for an incorrectly recorded master is one thing (as that will also correct the formants), but this whole healing/zen nonsense has gotten out of hand. I can guarantee that if the formants are changed, the music will not sound "fluid and more immersive." It'll sound just flat out wrong. The purist might even say that the music should be reproduced electronically exactly how it was performed, and not altered after the fact. Even if this Schiit box (heh) could keep the formants correct, that doesn't exactly make changing the pitch right either.

Sorry for the rant, but this type of Schiit just cheeses me off... ;)

@DC

I don't understand why it makes you angry or why you think changing pitch is flawed. This device does not change the tempo, just the pitch. An old reel-to-reel or slowing a record is not the correct analogy in this case.

You know A-400hz is just a standard. The standard can be anything and in my opinion A-440hz is flawed and it sucks. Why you ask? Because it sounds like poo. So what is a standard?. It is whatever the overall majority adopts. So why A-440? It was implemented for more volume in early concert halls at the turn of the century, not because it sounds better. Quite the opposite. In the age of modern amplification A-440 is flawed and having perfect pitch has nothing to do with it. It was just implemented to make bands sound louder and in effect worse, because A-440 is more harsh and strident. If a standard was to be chosen A-436Hz is clearly better. Your sense of perfect pitch is just reacting to what is different, not what is really better. The pitch standard can be anything. We are clinging to an antiquated ideal that is NOT ideal in my opinion. The old musicians used their ears and knew what was better. Our ears are not machines, nor are they linear. I commend Mike Moffet for the effort!

I do agree it will alter the music and this is at odds with the purist ideal. I don't agree with your sentiment that music will sound flat or wrong. This makes no sense. It is just a pitch change, it won't alter the signal characteristics. I don't mind tweaking the tuning to sound better, as music for me is about enjoyment. Fidelity is not compromised, just the presentation has changed.

Having played instruments in the older pitches I can attest to the more pleasing sound.
 
What's the difference between a wooden clarinet and a bassoon?

The bassoon burns longer.

:D

Actually it is 8 Hz, since standard tuning for decades is A440, and some are claiming "benefits" tuning to A432. (A436 was a common tuning frequency at one point...hell, there have been a dozen or more in use for a couple of centuries.) That is, however, only for one note. It is better to think of this as a ratio; this is nearly a 1% change in pitch. But even that 1% is going to throw the formants off ever so slightly, if changed during playback.

It's one thing if musicians tune to a different non-standard pitch like 432 Hz, as the formants remain in place. A clarinet will sound like a clarinet, just 1% lower in pitch. But while playing back a recording and changing pitch after the fact, that is when things get thrown out of whack. Changing the pitch during playback also assumes that the musicians and/or vocalist actually tuned to A440. (I doubt very few out there actually use a tuning device.) Instruments can also drift over time. When we tuned up wind instruments, the pitch would rise as the instrument got warmer.

This theory also assumes that a digitally mastered analog recording was played back at precisely the same speed at which it was recorded. And who is going to sit there with a frequency counter, waiting for a single, lone note that they can check to make certain that what they are playing back is tuned exactly to an A432 scale?

That is my point. The whole A432 "theory" (at least during playback) has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese, in other words. :)

A final point on the A432 controversy: most of the general public doesn't have perfect or even absolute pitch, or anything close to it. They don't care; they won't even notice. IMHO it is turning into a case where a few with the A432 idea have claimed alleged "benefits" and like anything in today's social media, the followers latch onto it and preach it like it's the truth. It's a fad, like anything else. (And probably like MQA, or one could only hope. :D )

Schiit's device goes far beyond just that minor pitch shift--it lets users adjust it in a far wider range. I can see it useful for correcting incorrect pitch (which I have wanted for a few older recordings transferred to digital), but otherwise, um, no.


For a product's purposes, it is only enough for the purchasers of that product to care whether or not MQA actually does something for them. ;)

:)

It is an experiment in marketing. It will change the entire pitch of everything. Without affecting the tempo.
So it doesn't matter what what is tuned to.

Fully agree to you last statement!


Or, it could fully well be possible the thing does nothing at all. I mean, its schiit audio. Right?

:)
 
Here we are 4 years later and still waiting for this. The reason I looked for this thread is that a guitarist I follow mentioned how he uses 432Hz when playing, and he much prefers it.

I confess to knowing very little about this, but remember hearing that Schiit was waiting for a more powerful chip(presumably at a low price) to make this doable. They had written the code, etc.

I imagine that chip shortages due to Covid haven’t helped!
 
Back
Top Bottom