E.Auer
Super Member
http://www.schiit.com/news/news/schiit-previews-the-gadget
I have no idea where this is heading...
Eric
I have no idea where this is heading...
Eric
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
Schiit "The Gadget"
- Thread starter E.Auer
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
nj pheonix
Lunatic Member
?
I'm stumped
I'm stumped
I LIKE MUSIC
Super Member
Can we all say "auto tune"?
"Mike brought on a full-time Ph.D to develop new, proprietary, high-quality and efficient algorithms for pure pitch-shifting."
"The Gadget being previewed at RMAF is a single-purpose, digital-in and digital-out device".
A home version of what has been done in the studio.
"Mike brought on a full-time Ph.D to develop new, proprietary, high-quality and efficient algorithms for pure pitch-shifting."
"The Gadget being previewed at RMAF is a single-purpose, digital-in and digital-out device".
A home version of what has been done in the studio.
nj pheonix
Lunatic Member
Ya think?
Condorsat
Audio Enthusiast
Excerpt From DAR website (<<click link)... 14 days ago.
Schiit
At RMAF 2016 Schiit’s took aim at high end pre- and power amplifiers for loudspeaker systems.
This year, Schiit invite us commit audiophile heresy by tweaking our source’s sound. For the analogue domain, the recently announced Loki Mini EQ box (US$149) is a “device that has knobs on it, knobs that control the frequency response.”
For Denver show itself, something even more bizarre. Time to start polishing that tin foil hat.
The Gadget is a signal processor that “dynamically re-tunes the concert pitch of music from an assumed A=440Hz to C=256Hz” but – crucially – without altering the tempo.
According to product designer, Schiit’s Number 2 Mike Moffat, music’s tuning pitch has slowly crept upwards over time. The Gadget corrects for this drift with digital signal processing (DSP). Changes can be applied in real time with the twist of a knob with users finding their own unique “aah” point – one where, according to Moffat, music will sound more fluid and more immersive.
The magic box’s input and output socketry – 1 x USB in, 1 x coaxial in, 1 x coaxial out – points to the digital heart within: a SHARC processor. The Gadget sits between streamer/PC/Mac and DAC and even with no turning applied, it could serve as an affordable USB-S/PDIF converter or S/PDIF re-clocker.
With some retuning dialled in, a defeat switch enables instant A/B comparisons both at home and, stepping outside of the norm once more, also at audio shows like RMAF.
According to Schiit’s press release, the Gadget will sell for somewhere in the region of US$200. And absence of product photos suggests that this year’s RMAF demo will utilise a prototype with availability remaining TBC.
Last edited:
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 always pictured myself as Barry White. I just need the low-slung leather couch, the bottle of Thunderbird, mood lighting, and my leopard print robe to go along with it.
musichal
poet emeritus
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 wondered the same thing, basically. You expressed it better, I just wondered about how it would affect timbre.
I wonder if timbre refers to the same thing as formants. That term I learned through acoustics studies, not music studies, but they may indeed be referring to the same or similar qualities that are affected when pitch is changed.
Didn't mean to be that wordy, but there is a lot more going on in what we hear than just a fundamental pitch. I think that is why the concept of pitch adjustment is hard to understand, just from the standpoint of changing not just the pitch but how the instrument or voice sounds. And that is why many out there who think they can arbitrarily change the pitch and not affect anything else end up making a mess of things.
Good example. Listen to the popular 45RPM hit release of "Runaway" by Del Shannon. Now listen to "We'll Follow The Sun." Next, find an episode of the TV series "Crime Story" and listen to his re-recording of "Runaway." Notice something? With the latter two I mention, his voice has similar colorations--his voice might sound older in the re-recording, but it still sounds like the same person. The hit release of "Runaway" was sped up by a semitone. Slow it down from B-flat to A, and then his voice will "lock in" to how it sounds on those other two recordings, with those same colorations again. On that sped up version, the slightly "helium-ish" sound of his voice is due to those formants being played back at higher frequencies.
BTW, I think I get the vibe of Schiit's feeling of this device. They just offer it for sale; they leave the usage of it (and the validity) up to the end user. They kind of do the same thing with the Wyrd (which is their USB "decrapifier")--they tell us what it does, but leaves it up to us to decide if we really hear a difference or not.
Condorsat
Audio Enthusiast
Another FYI on this ... I found on YouTube ... Tyll Hertsens (inner/fidelity) interviews Mike Moffat (Schiit Audio) about the Gadget
CanJam at RMAF2017 <<< link
Last edited:
Their site is down temporarily, but I remember it was not too favorable.
Had to agree with some of it, but I would also not be burning bridges in this sometimes fickle industry.
