Smyth Virtual Surround Technology for Headphones

[blubliss]

Please count me in for the visit. Will people be bringing other gear?

[Edwood]

You should bring your favorite headphone and amp to try out on their system.

-Ed

[blubliss]

And source?

[lan]

Originally Posted by Edwood

One thing I want to try with the Smyth SVS is to turn off all the EQ they had with the system trying to match the sound quality of the speakers they had there. It made the K1000's and Triple.Fi's sound extremely shrill and bright.

Don't forget they used a cheap source for the demo. That could've aggravated the highs for you also.

[909]

Originally Posted by blubliss

And source?

if you bring yours, i'll bring mine.

[wavoman]

nicolasb -- I agree, I want to tune the system to my own ears, no question.

But can't I do that with the Beyer Dynamic HeadZone software on my laptop? Listen with my own ears, as you say, then adjust, iterate, etc.

I honestly don't know myself, got to try it. All I'm saying is that as long as you can adjust the DSP, maybe the mikes-in-the-ears is not as essential a piece of the equation as I first thought.

Start with a system built for the KEMAR dummy head, and adjust it a bit. Maybe this works, who knows?

The key is the head-turn tracker. This is 100% essential. BD and Sony and others have it too, now, for sale ... that was the main point of my post.

[wavoman]

Is it OK to argue with myself and post again, in the hopes of clarification? If not, please don't flame me!

Here goes:

The Smyth optimization/personalization process is automatic, so clearly it is more convenient. It replicates the physical speaker system, so your speakers better be good, or you have to travel to a measurement room. And you can experiment only by moving physical speakers.

You manipulate the sound of the Beyer Headzone by moving virtual speakers. The optimization process is manual, iterative, entirely subjective. You listen, then fiddle with the settings, over and over I assume. But you are not trying to match anything, just trying to optimize the sound. At home. And you don't even have to own speakers.

Are their not advantages to both approaches?

I assume the head tracking works the same on both, but don't know for sure. It would seem to from the various descriptions on the Web.

[Erik Garci]

Originally Posted by wavoman

You manipulate the sound of the Beyer Headzone by moving virtual speakers. The optimization process is manual, iterative, entirely subjective. You listen, then fiddle with the settings, over and over I assume. But you are not trying to match anything, just trying to optimize the sound.

What concerns me about the Headzone is that even if I try every possible setting, it might not sound similar enough to any actual speaker system. In other words, the optimized setting might not be good enough for me.

Are there any Headzone audio clips that can be downloaded, so you can try before you buy?

[AudioDwebe]

For those of us who are "Old School" and two-channel only (assuming I'm not alone in this), does the system bring about a more "speaker-like" presentation in the music? Or is it only for those who watch movies and listen to music in surround sound?

Would I want this IF I only listen to Red Book CD's and vinyl?

Thanks.

[Mazz]

Originally Posted by wavoman

It replicates the physical speaker system, so your speakers better be good, or you have to travel to a measurement room. And you can experiment only by moving physical speakers.

I'm waiting for someone to suggest that Smyth (or Beyer or ...) may be able to go one further and determine the response of "ideal" speakers at your ears (for some value of "ideal"). It seems at first glance that it's a matter of determining the speaker response (without your ears & head) and applying one more inverse transformation to the chain (just like they seem to do with the headphones). But no doubt there be dragons in the details...

[Erik Garci]

Originally Posted by AudioDwebe

For those of us who are "Old School" and two-channel only (assuming I'm not alone in this), does the system bring about a more "speaker-like" presentation in the music? Or is it only for those who watch movies and listen to music in surround sound?

It works for 2-channel. It also works for 1-channel, for those who are really old school.

Originally Posted by AudioDwebe

Would I want this IF I only listen to Red Book CD's and vinyl?

I think so. Basically, if you want your headphones to sound like speakers, then you want this, even if you only use 2 speakers.

[Mazz]

Originally Posted by wavoman

...and Beyer says it is patented, and make no reference to Smyth ...

IANAL so don't count on anything I say here, but at least I do a reasonable amount of work with patent attorneys.

It depends heavily whether they are granted or are just a patent application being processed by the Patent Office - companies have been known to be very loose in their terminology, failing to clearly distinguish between the two.

And it matters exactly what the patent claims say - because if someone does everything you say in one of your claims except for one tiny element they are not violating your claim.

And the priority date matters if there are conflicting patents (i.e. when the application was filed in most cases), and even then a granted patent may be invalidated after a long and expensive court case if it can be shown that the claimed invention was in existence at the time of filing. There are also variations on some of these issues depending on country.

Most US patents are currently taking four or five years to be initially reviewed by the Patent Office - and often go through multiple rounds of revision before they are issued. This means the issued patent may bear little resemblance to the original filing, and between the Patent Office process and actions by the filer it can take a lot longer than that in some cases before the patent issues.

I talked to a Smyth about patents and the indication was given that they had at least filed some applications, but since they've been working on it for maybe five or six years it's hard to infer when they filed and on what subject matter. The Patent Office is now publishing applications 18 months after filing so you can find them on their website.

You'd need to take a good look at the space to figure out who did what and when and how likely they are to have/end up with a patent that stops a competitor from doing something significant in their own products. In a crowded or complicated field that sort of question may take a team of lawyers a long time to consider.

[rimrocks]

Originally Posted by Erik Garci

What concerns me about the Headzone is that even if I try every possible setting, it might not sound similar enough to any actual speaker system. In other words, the optimized setting might not be good enough for me.

Are there any Headzone audio clips that can be downloaded, so you can try before you buy?

This is really the big conceptual difference between the two systems. SVS is trying to replicate an existing room (and the listener in that room), whilst Headzone tries to recreate a 'virtual reference room'. With SVS you can at least attempt to compare the virtual and the real rooms; with Headzone there is no real room to compare with - by design.

Mike

[Erik Garci]

Originally Posted by Mazz

I'm waiting for someone to suggest that Smyth (or Beyer or ...) may be able to go one further and determine the response of "ideal" speakers at your ears (for some value of "ideal").

Along those lines, I think it would be nice if the SVS box could apply its own DRC (digital room correction) to your speaker system. The DRC could optimize for exactly where you are sitting during the calibration process, as the DRC should not care about avoiding negative effects for other seats.

[Erik Garci]

Originally Posted by rimrocks

With SVS you can at least attempt to compare the virtual and the real rooms; with Headzone there is no real room to compare with - by design.

True, but I have some idea of what real rooms sound like. So if the Headzone does not sound realistic, then it probably does not work well enough for me.