|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 12, 2017 13:58:39 GMT -5
So, you can be clever with good taste and you can be clever with bad taste. Schiit is the only company I know that revels in the latter. Give your audiophile pastor or priest a Schiit Eitr for Christmas. If that person is a normal human being they'd say "thanks."  Sure, because he would be polite. Then he'd take it home and hide it in a closet or resale it on Ebay anonymously and make a donation to the ADA in your name and pray for God to forgive you. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 12, 2017 15:25:05 GMT -5
If that person is a normal human being they'd say "thanks." Sure, because he would be polite. Then he'd take it home and hide it in a closet or resale it on Ebay anonymously and make a donation to the ADA in your name and pray for God to forgive you. I have to agree with you on this one. I personally don't have a problem with it, but it's definitely quite polarizing, which from a marketing perspective, seems a little unwise. Reminds me of the Emotiva "speakers for angsty teenagers" (T1/T2); totally no need for it (style / name), and manages to isolate buyers. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 12, 2017 16:17:18 GMT -5
Sure, because he would be polite. Then he'd take it home and hide it in a closet or resale it on Ebay anonymously and make a donation to the ADA in your name and pray for God to forgive you. I have to agree with you on this one. I personally don't have a problem with it, but it's definitely quite polarizing, which from a marketing perspective, seems a little unwise. Reminds me of the Emotiva "speakers for angsty teenagers" (T1/T2); totally no need for it (style / name), and manages to isolate buyers. What are you referring to with the T1 T2? The airmotiv name? |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 12, 2017 17:19:25 GMT -5
I have to agree with you on this one. I personally don't have a problem with it, but it's definitely quite polarizing, which from a marketing perspective, seems a little unwise. Reminds me of the Emotiva "speakers for angsty teenagers" (T1/T2); totally no need for it (style / name), and manages to isolate buyers. What are you referring to with the T1 T2? The airmotiv name? Looks. I don't doubt they sound great, but they have a very low WAF. There is absolutely no need for those angles, so at that point you're just isolating potential buyers. People buy them, despite the looks, not because of them. |
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Dec 12, 2017 17:27:52 GMT -5
If some are that humor sensitive they may want to move on. My priest, my rabbi, my preacher, give me a break.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 12, 2017 17:44:54 GMT -5
I laughed at Schiit for a while. It's just not funny anymore and when the funny goes away all that's left is the coarseness. I didn't mention your (personal second person singular) anything so I'm giving you a break. And I'll move on, if I ever want to move on, when I'm damn good and ready, thank you! (Actually, I thought the idea of giving your [impersonal second person plural] pastor a Schiit Eitr for Christmas was humorous!)
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 13, 2017 10:36:55 GMT -5
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of course. But I refer to my earlier post about Schiit's attitude toward people who do not like their name. They have no problem if people with no sense of humor do not purchase their products. |
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Dec 13, 2017 10:51:59 GMT -5
I might and I might not ever purchase one of their products. Most likely not, not because of the insulting names, but more likely because of the vintage technology they use. Moffat is a new technology disser and it shows in his attitude toward anything new. On the other hand they do build their old technology at a good price point.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 13, 2017 10:56:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brubacca on Dec 13, 2017 12:34:12 GMT -5
Schiit may use obsolete old technology. Why is new technology instantly better?
I don't care about the technology or the name. I care that it sounds good and I can afford it. End of story.
Don't have my Eitr yet. Looking forward to tying it out.
For all I care they can call it Schiit Sh!t. When it's tucked into my cabinet nobody knows the name anyway. It's another one of those stereo things we don't need.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Dec 13, 2017 13:22:06 GMT -5
Why is new technology instantly better? +1. This is SO true. It's not. Almost all tech I see is like 5 steps forward and 3 steps back. And many times it might look cooler or something, but it's moving backwards. Bottom line is that just because it's newer tech doesn't necessarily make it better. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Dec 13, 2017 13:27:24 GMT -5
There is absolutely no need for those angles, Emotiva certainly argues otherwise. They have said it here and I just read it last night in Sound & Vision. I forget the exact words but they claim it reduces reflections or something like that off the front face plate. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 13, 2017 13:32:19 GMT -5
Cabinet edge diffraction has been a controversial topic in loudspeaker design for decades. The science is indisputable in that the effect exists and certain "angles" reduce it. The impact on the listening experience is the question: in a typical home environment does it really matter? It is impossible to tell without individual user room measurements, but it certainly does not hurt. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Dec 13, 2017 13:56:31 GMT -5
Schiit may use obsolete old technology. Why is new technology instantly better? I don't care about the technology or the name. I care that it sounds good and I can afford it. End of story. I agree. Just because it is new doesn't necessarily make it better. I think what Schiit tries to do is produce the best products they can, regardless of whether it is using an "old" or a "new" technology. Look at all those AVR's that come out with new models every year or even more frequently, loaded up with more and more of the latest features, many of them that no one uses or is even aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 13, 2017 15:14:12 GMT -5
There is absolutely no need for those angles, Emotiva certainly argues otherwise. They have said it here and I just read it last night in Sound & Vision. I forget the exact words but they claim it reduces reflections or something like that off the front face plate. I seriously doubt it. Other manufactures (Elac and many others) are playing in the same price point (roughly) and either sound just as good or better depending on the review. So whatever those angles are doing, it's not much. The truth is, they just wanted something that looked unique. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Dec 13, 2017 15:59:55 GMT -5
Emotiva certainly argues otherwise. They have said it here and I just read it last night in Sound & Vision. I forget the exact words but they claim it reduces reflections or something like that off the front face plate. I seriously doubt it. Other manufactures (Elac and many others) are playing in the same price point (roughly) and either sound just as good or better depending on the review. So whatever those angles are doing, it's not much. The truth is, they just wanted something that looked unique. I'm not doubting you at all, just saying what they are claiming out loud.  Dasn't I go against anything Emotiva claims or says. I'll get bashed as a poo boy.  "Unique" as in a sort of Darth Vader look is what they got if you ask me. Although we're in the wrong thread this week to be discussing that.  |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 13, 2017 16:58:44 GMT -5
When it comes to design, there are both design factors that ALWAYS make a difference, and design factors that SOMETIMES make a difference (and, of course, some that NEVER make any difference). When it comes to speakers there is a whole long list of things that we traditionally try to avoid - because, at least sometimes, they cause performance problems. And there is a whole long list of things we try to do or incorporate in the design when it's practical - because, at least some of the time, they improve performance. In the case of speakers, sharp corners or edges on the front baffle tend to encourage diffraction and reflection effects. The edge creates a sudden drop in the acoustic impedance and, much as light acts oddly when it hits the boundary between air and water, sound can act oddly when it passes that boundary. It can diffract around the edge, hitting the wall behind the speaker, and reflecting forward again. Or it can reflect back towards the center of the front panel and end up cancelling sound coming from the driver - which can make for a rough frequency response. It doesn't always happen, but it happens often enough that "avoiding sharp edges" is on the list of "things that sometimes helps and rarely hurt when designing a speaker". And, to be quite honest, a lot of us actually think that they do look quite cool. And, since we though it looked cool anyway, and might actually make a positive difference, we didn't waste a lot of effort to see if they would "work almost as good" with more traditional square boxes. You might be shocked to know that many of those sexy curves you see on cars really help with the aerodynamics..... but some of them are just there because someone figured they looked cool. So, no, we didn't design them with all those facets "because it was so important to the design that we did it even though it looks ugly". We did it because we thought it might actually improve the sound AND WE WANTED THEM TO LOOK THAT WAY ANYWAY BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S COOL.
As usual, some people love the way they look, some people hate it, and some are indifferent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What are you referring to with the T1 T2? The airmotiv name? Looks. I don't doubt they sound great, but they have a very low WAF. There is absolutely no need for those angles, so at that point you're just isolating potential buyers. People buy them, despite the looks, not because of them. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 13, 2017 17:12:23 GMT -5
When it comes to design, there are both design factors that ALWAYS make a difference, and design factors that SOMETIMES make a difference (and, of course, some that NEVER make any difference). When it comes to speakers there is a whole long list of things that we traditionally try to avoid - because, at least sometimes, they cause performance problems. And there is a whole long list of things we try to do or incorporate in the design when it's practical - because, at least some of the time, they improve performance. In the case of speakers, sharp corners or edges on the front baffle tend to encourage diffraction and reflection effects. The edge creates a sudden drop in the acoustic impedance and, much as light acts oddly when it hits the boundary between air and water, sound can act oddly when it passes that boundary. It can diffract around the edge, hitting the wall behind the speaker, and reflecting forward again. Or it can reflect back towards the center of the front panel and end up cancelling sound coming from the driver - which can make for a rough frequency response. It doesn't always happen, but it happens often enough that "avoiding sharp edges" is on the list of "things that sometimes helps and rarely hurt when designing a speaker". And, to be quite honest, a lot of us actually think that they do look quite cool. And, since we though it looked cool anyway, and might actually make a positive difference, we didn't waste a lot of effort to see if they would "work almost as good" with more traditional square boxes. You might be shocked to know that many of those sexy curves you see on cars really help with the aerodynamics..... but some of them are just there because someone figured they looked cool. So, no, we didn't design them with all those facets "because it was so important to the design that we did it even though it looks ugly". We did it because we thought it might actually improve the sound AND WE WANTED THEM TO LOOK THAT WAY ANYWAY BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S COOL.
As usual, some people love the way they look, some people hate it, and some are indifferent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Looks. I don't doubt they sound great, but they have a very low WAF. There is absolutely no need for those angles, so at that point you're just isolating potential buyers. People buy them, despite the looks, not because of them. My Atom studio monitors have defraction agles as well. But that's OK on a computer speaker, it's not OK in a family room with a wife who wants something a little classy and a little less "styled for teens". Those T1's/T2's are the pontiac aztek of speakers. Yeah, a few people find they look cool, but how many buyers do you turn away with those polarizing looks before you realize that "looks cool" might not be the best metric of how to design a speaker? I think that comes across a little ruder than I mean, and I dont' intend to be rude but I don't know how to word that any differently. Basically, if you read these forums, other forums, reddit, and from people I talk to, there are a quite a few people who aren't buying them based on the looks. That's kind of sad, as I'm sure they sound great. And I have yet to read of someone who was comparing various speakers, and then chose the T1/T2 based on looks. So you're essentially turning more people away based on looks, then you are gaining. The other thing is, your entire product line looks the same way. So now guys like me have nowhere to go. I'm hoping you guys at some point build something a little classier. Anyway, it's your speaker and your company, I have no right to try and push my opinion around. But I do think from an outsider looking in that the style is definitely a mistake, "cool" or not. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Dec 13, 2017 17:43:43 GMT -5
When it comes to design, there are both design factors that ALWAYS make a difference, and design factors that SOMETIMES make a difference (and, of course, some that NEVER make any difference). When it comes to speakers there is a whole long list of things that we traditionally try to avoid - because, at least sometimes, they cause performance problems. And there is a whole long list of things we try to do or incorporate in the design when it's practical - because, at least some of the time, they improve performance. In the case of speakers, sharp corners or edges on the front baffle tend to encourage diffraction and reflection effects. The edge creates a sudden drop in the acoustic impedance and, much as light acts oddly when it hits the boundary between air and water, sound can act oddly when it passes that boundary. It can diffract around the edge, hitting the wall behind the speaker, and reflecting forward again. Or it can reflect back towards the center of the front panel and end up cancelling sound coming from the driver - which can make for a rough frequency response. It doesn't always happen, but it happens often enough that "avoiding sharp edges" is on the list of "things that sometimes helps and rarely hurt when designing a speaker". And, to be quite honest, a lot of us actually think that they do look quite cool. And, since we though it looked cool anyway, and might actually make a positive difference, we didn't waste a lot of effort to see if they would "work almost as good" with more traditional square boxes. You might be shocked to know that many of those sexy curves you see on cars really help with the aerodynamics..... but some of them are just there because someone figured they looked cool. So, no, we didn't design them with all those facets "because it was so important to the design that we did it even though it looks ugly". We did it because we thought it might actually improve the sound AND WE WANTED THEM TO LOOK THAT WAY ANYWAY BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S COOL.
As usual, some people love the way they look, some people hate it, and some are indifferent. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My Atom studio monitors have defraction agles as well. But that's OK on a computer speaker, it's not OK in a family room with a wife who wants something a little classy and a little less "styled for teens". Those T1's/T2's are the pontiac aztek of speakers. Yeah, a few people find they look cool, but how many buyers do you turn away with those polarizing looks before you realize that "looks cool" might not be the best metric of how to design a speaker? I think that comes across a little ruder than I mean, and I dont' intend to be rude but I don't know how to word that any differently. Basically, if you read these forums, other forums, reddit, and from people I talk to, there are a quite a few people who aren't buying them based on the looks. That's kind of sad, as I'm sure they sound great. And I have yet to read of someone who was comparing various speakers, and then chose the T1/T2 based on looks. So you're essentially turning more people away based on looks, then you are gaining. The other thing is, your entire product line looks the same way. So now guys like me have nowhere to go. I'm hoping you guys at some point build something a little classier. Anyway, it's your speaker and your company, I have no right to try and push my opinion around. But I do think from an outsider looking in that the style is definitely a mistake, "cool" or not. I'm a lucky guy I guess. My wife likes the T2's and thinks the C2 looks nice under the TV, too. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Dec 13, 2017 18:43:00 GMT -5
I'm a lucky guy I guess. My wife likes the T2's and thinks the C2 looks nice under the TV, too. Yes, that's the thing though; they are polarizing. People either seem to really like them, or really not like them. Not much middle ground compared to many other speakers where looks is more pleasing to more amount of people. That's why I mentioned the pontiac aztek (which is even worse); the people that hate them, really really hate them, and the people that like them really really like them. They teased us with a really nice concept; I would have bought that quite easily. But I should probably stop talking about all this, I've said my piece now etc. |
|
