Smyth SVS Realiser Virtual Surround Technology for Headphones

[wavoman]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

Was anybody at the meet on Saturday?? How was the SVS in relation to the Headzone® unit?? Unfortunately I haven't heard the SVS yet...

See:

beyerdynamic Headzone -- Review


Executive summary -- for DTS and Dolby surround sound, the HeadZone Home is fantastic. For two channel audio, we did not expect it to be, and it was not, as good as the Smyth, since it cannot be customized fully. Moreover, some found its sound "gimmicky". I understand Version 2 of the firmware might correct this. In BYPASS mode, it was great.

We are looking forward to testing the HeadZone PRO, and v.2 of the HOME unit.

You deserve great kudos for beyerdynamics customer support, which was above and beyond all expectations, really phenomenal.

[malldian]

I have impressions in the NJ impressions meet. The summary is a good one - I am not sure what wavoman will do with it but I personally would have returned the unit.

[wavoman]

Gonna swap the Headzone main unit for one with the new firmware, and then it goes in the TV room as I said, for solo late night watching/listening to great DVD concerts and movies.

I love this thing -- for DTS and Dolby!

And I am going to audition the Pro, as soon as the unit with AES/EBU input is on the market.

When the Pro unit gets here and I have the new listening room set up (like 6 months) then you and John come over.

Can Jam 09 is in LA, so that's when I bet we can buy Smyth units.

[earwicker7]

So let me get this straight... I can make a $50 set of headphones sound like a $500,000 speaker setup? Wow, I hope this is true, but it sounds a little pie in the sky to me.

[Cecala]

Originally Posted by earwicker7

So let me get this straight... I can make a $50 set of headphones sound like a $500,000 speaker setup? Wow, I hope this is true, but it sounds a little pie in the sky to me.

Read the whole thread it explains how this is so, and BTW one would not use $50 headphones with this unit. It's the equivalent of using re-treads on a Ferrari.

[scompton]

I haven't followed this thread religiously, but at the beginning it was stated that the system was going to come with Stax SR-303s. Has that changed?

[tyrion]

I've deleted a couple of posts for being off topic. They may be some more that have to go and I will get to it later. Please stay on topic.

[Cecala]

Originally Posted by tyrion

I've deleted a couple of posts for being off topic. They may be some more that have to go and I will get to it later. Please stay on topic.

Hope you do otherwise I get it into my head that you just removed my response to CountChoculaBot.

[Cecala]

Originally Posted by scompton

I haven't followed this thread religiously, but at the beginning it was stated that the system was going to come with Stax SR-303s. Has that changed?

No, although they have stated that any phones would do, the best result would be achieved with high quality open type units.

[tyrion]

Originally Posted by Cecala

Hope you do otherwise I get it into my head that you just removed my response to CountChoculaBot.

I thought I deleted Count's post as well. I just did.

[earwicker7]

Originally Posted by Cecala

Read the whole thread it explains how this is so, and BTW one would not use $50 headphones with this unit. It's the equivalent of using re-treads on a Ferrari.

I did read the thread, and I just can't understand how (as an example) a dynamic headphone could sound like an electrostatic speaker. How does signal processing make the diaphragm fast enough to match the quickness of a stat? Isn't this breaking some law of physics? Or, as another example, how does a bass shy headphone suddenly become capable matching a body shaking subwoofer?

I don't mean to knock the technology, as I find the surround aspect of it very interesting, but some of the claims of "headphones that sound like any speaker system in the world" just strike me as being a physically impossible marketing gimmick.

[Cecala]

Originally Posted by earwicker7

I did read the thread, and I just can't understand how (as an example) a dynamic headphone could sound like an electrostatic speaker. How does signal processing make the diaphragm fast enough to match the quickness of a stat? Isn't this breaking some law of physics? Or, as another example, how does a bass shy headphone suddenly become capable matching a body shaking subwoofer?

I don't mean to knock the technology, as I find the surround aspect of it very interesting, but some of the claims of "headphones that sound like any speaker system in the world" just strike me as being a physically impossible marketing gimmick.

Let me rephrase what I said earlier, you could use any phone whatsoever although to get the best that this unit or topology offers you must use a high quality electrostatic open type phone. The SR-303s will be offered as a set with the unit and provide great sound although for the well heeled, you could purchase the O2s and be blown away.The subwoofer element is the limitation though, no phone in production can provide that effect. Considering what you are getting here, a small price is paid for the subwoofer bass in return for the quid pro quo.

[earwicker7]

Originally Posted by Cecala

Let me rephrase what I said earlier, you could use any phone whatsoever although to get the best that this unit or topology offers you must use a high quality electrostatic open type phone. The SR-303s will be offered as a set with the unit and provide great sound although for the well heeled, you could purchase the O2s and be blown away.The subwoofer element is the limitation though, no phone in production can provide that effect. Considering what you are getting here, a small price is paid for the subwoofer bass in return for the quid pro quo.

I actually own the O2 and still can't imagine how, with all of the massive processing that is going on, you can do this and not destroy the original intentions of the recording. Just to be clear, this would throw accuracy out the window, wouldn't it? It still sounds like a cool idea, but I don't think purists like myself are going to have much interest in it.

[zotjen]

Originally Posted by earwicker7

I actually own the O2 and still can't imagine how, with all of the massive processing that is going on, you can do this and not destroy the original intentions of the recording. Just to be clear, this would throw accuracy out the window, wouldn't it? It still sounds like a cool idea, but I don't think purists like myself are going to have much interest in it.

This was my concern too. I can see how this would be beneficial for movies but is it really appropriate for a two-channel recording? I'm not debating the sound quality of it, just that you're now taking a recording and making it sound different than it was originally intended. Of course, if I ever hear this thing I may feel differently. Is there anyone who also had this opinion but changed it in favor of the Smyth once they heard it?

[Cecala]

Originally Posted by earwicker7

I actually own the O2 and still can't imagine how, with all of the massive processing that is going on, you can do this and not destroy the original intentions of the recording. Just to be clear, this would throw accuracy out the window, wouldn't it? It still sounds like a cool idea, but I don't think purists like myself are going to have much interest in it.

Originally Posted by zotjen

This was my concern too. I can see how this would be beneficial for movies but is it really appropriate for a two-channel recording? I'm not debating the sound quality of it, just that you're now taking a recording and making it sound different than it was originally intended. Of course, if I ever hear this thing I may feel differently. Is there anyone who also had this opinion but changed it in favor of the Smyth once they heard it?

I myself would not use this for two channel sound, others who have heard it say that it sounds superb. I would use this purely for films.