Post by Nagraboy February 28, 2011 (71 of 106)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
I was very precise in my wording when alluding to "... the reproduction of the original high resolution content available in SACD recordings as accurately AS POSSIBLE." And then, not only on headphones, but also on "... speaker-based stereo and multichannel 'direct' systems."
On the other hand, the problem is that some here refuse to admit to the compromises required to achieve the kind of spatial manipulation they so desire, as already "... discussed ad nauseam elsewhere on this forum."
I would readily admit that extra D/A/D stages are theoretically undesirable.
However, as I stated in my report from the show on Saturday, there was no audible difference between the speakers and the headphones.
Therefore, I conclude that the extra D/A/D stages and DSP of the Smyth Realiser are much less of an audible (or otherwise) compromise than the gross in-head (spatial) distortion of conventional headphones without the processing, when persuing the original sound of the recording which was made in a concert hall or studio.
I think we are both looking for the same type of goal. You are focused on the shortest, simplist signal path with lowest signal degradation in the electrical domain (if I understand) whilst accepting high distortion in the spatial domain (conventional headphones). I value this goal too, in fact I started this thread out of my liking for simple headphone systems and the accuracy they bring in their unique way. However, I also value accuracy in the spatial domain which, it seems, must come at the cost of distortion in the electrical pre-sound stage.
There's no need to be cynical about magazine adverts etc. It's just a unique way of accessing and enjoying your music that has amazed me and others with it's accuracy and implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
I was very precise in my wording when alluding to "... the reproduction of the original high resolution content available in SACD recordings as accurately AS POSSIBLE." And then, not only on headphones, but also on "... speaker-based stereo and multichannel 'direct' systems."
On the other hand, the problem is that some here refuse to admit to the compromises required to achieve the kind of spatial manipulation they so desire, as already "... discussed ad nauseam elsewhere on this forum."
There is a huge inconsistency between your two statements.
"The reproduction of the original high resolution content available in SACD recordings" is severely compromised by playing them on headphones which corrupt the spatial characteristics of the original. Of course, that unfortunate "spatial manipulation" does not occur if these recordings are played, with a minimum of intervention, over speakers.
However, with headphones, some intervention, in the form of the Smyth processor, is required in order to hear them "as accurately AS POSSIBLE."
As I said, you are missing out on a great experience by dismissing this out of hand.
Kal
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy February 28, 2011 (73 of 106)
|
|
How can Arnaldo be so dismissive in the face of our enthusiastic recommendations Kal? Doesn't he realise we only praise it because we heard it, it's amazing and we want others to feel good too? I wish I could've taken him with me, sat him in the chair, put the microphones in his ears and let things take their course...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
I think that in the end, Nagraboy showed the way when he wrote that "... You are focused on the shortest, simplist signal path with lowest signal degradation in the electrical domain (if I understand) whilst accepting high distortion in the spatial domain (conventional headphones). I value this goal too, in fact I started this thread out of my liking for simple headphone systems and the accuracy they bring in their unique way. However, I also value accuracy in the spatial domain which, it seems, must come at the cost of distortion in the electrical pre-sound stage."
Paraphrasing Yoda: Wise man, this Nagraboy is...
Well, clearly, you are willing to accept compromises that I will not and I am willing to accept some that you will not. So, and I am trying not to invoke any contention, why will you not take the opportunity to try this? Set aside any of the arguments, pro and con, for a moment and just listen to what it does with an open mind.
Kal
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
You see, the headphone world is a totally different animal...
I grant you that.
|
|
|
Post by kiritz March 6, 2011 (76 of 106)
|
|
I bit the bullet and have no regrets. I have a reasonably good system but not a great room for listening, despite it being tuned by an expert. And my system is stereo, rather than surround. So I decided to see if I could improve things by using the Smyth virtualization. To say that things are improved is an understatement. Thanks to Smyth, Lorr Kramer, who calibrated it to my ears, and AIX Recordings, whose sound room I used, I now have a 5.1 (and a 7.1) system running directly off my Oppo 83SE. My amp and speakers are quiet. The emulation is based on a system worth many times my own, in a room vastly superior to my own.
Even if the emulation is only 95% accurate, it is 95% of a sound/room so much better than mine that the end result is 300% above what I started with. I now can listen to Pentaphone Classics rqr recordings, other surround sound discs, and stereo discs and the experience is much like it would be listening in AIX's listening room. The speakers are "out there" in the room, not in my ears. They stay localized when I move my head. The imaging, tonality, everything is terrific. The calibration to my own ears made a huge difference. This is an essential aspect of the process, and the only negative, since I can't share my experience with others.
I am using two subs running from the shaker outputs. They add a sense of room involvement and also possibly something to the very low end.
I too was skeptical when I read initial descriptions of this. But, being an empiricist, I need to listen for myself. And I am certainly glad I did.
|
|
|
Post by Fugue March 6, 2011 (77 of 106)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
As per a previous post, the team behind the Smyth Realiser has a new firmware with a complex algorithm allowing the emulation of a purist stereo headphone environment.
Unfortunately though, for the software to work properly, users must buy two extra Smyth units ((US$3,999.99/each) and place them side-by-side in the exact center position of a full 5.1 surround speaker system in order to calibrate the surround balance with a sufficient amount of off-ear reflections, and in turn, recreate a pseudo-stereo headphone effect.
According to some early reports, while the Smyth Realiser's recreation of a stereo headphone environment is only 90% realistic, it's 100% worth the additional cost. But fear not, for they have further updates in the pipeline, aiming to make the stereo virtualization up to 95% realistic, albeit at 120% of the original cost.
Just out of curiosity, how does one quantify reality?
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy March 6, 2011 (78 of 106)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
As per a previous post, the team behind the Smyth Realiser has a new firmware with a complex algorithm allowing the emulation of a purist stereo headphone environment.
Unfortunately though, for the software to work properly, users must buy two extra Smyth units ((US$3,999.99/each) and place them side-by-side in the exact center position of a full 5.1 surround speaker system in order to calibrate the surround balance with a sufficient amount of off-ear reflections, and in turn, recreate a pseudo-stereo headphone effect.
According to some early reports, while the Smyth Realiser's recreation of a stereo headphone environment is only 90% realistic, it's 100% worth the additional cost. But fear not, for they have further updates in the pipeline, aiming to make the stereo virtualization up to 95% realistic, albeit at 120% of the original cost.
Arnaldo, I'm totally confused by what you have posted. I don't know what you mean at all. What is "emulation of a purist stereo headphone environment"? Doesn't that just mean wearing headphones as normal? Do you mean Smyth have created a way to make speakers sound like headphone listening? What are the three units used for? It's clear as mud...illuminate us, please.
|
|
|
Post by Nagraboy March 6, 2011 (79 of 106)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
C'mon... Sarcasm anyone?
I thought you might be on a wind-up! You seem to have that sort of sense of humour. Very funny ;)
|
|
|
Post by Fugue March 6, 2011 (80 of 106)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
C'mon... Sarcasm anyone?
Well, you got me there! I'm very sarcastic myself, so I'm surprised that I fell for it! On the other hand, it sounds like some idiotic statement that might appear in The Absolute Sound, so one never knows!
On an unrelated note, to those of you who own or have auditioned Sennheiser HD 800s, how well do they block out ambient sound? That is a definite shortcoming of the Stax headphones.
|
|
