[Kiritz]

Quote:

<<I have no expertise in the subject, but I do wonder how different PRIRs should really be from one person to the next. Isn't human hearing very similar or wouldn't everyone hear sounds like music, speech, etc very differently? That seems contrary to the evolutionary purpose of hearing (presumably to hear, localize, and interpert sounds of dangers).
.........
I wonder if you could get something close to a universal PRIR, by averaging together a large number of PRIRs taken on the same system/room (i.e. AIX).>>

Well that's just it.  Without getting inside someone's head, we have no way of knowing how music played over speakers in one room would sound to that person.  It's certainly true that there is enough similarity that I can understand your speech and well as my wife could understand your speech.  But she could also understand it if you had a head cold or were speaking from another room.  But that doesn't mean it would sound the same.  Similarly, I can listen to music and appreciate it coming out of a $100 speaker system.  But that doesn't mean it sounds the same to me as it would from a $100,000 speaker system.  We are made so that there is a huge range of variation in how a spoken or musical sample can be communicated.  But that does not mean that the sound of that sample is the same across individuals.  The differences are real and measurable (by the Realiser circuitry, for example in our case; but also they would be very apparent with accurate enough measuring equipment).  Evolution is indeed at work; but it is precisely the fact that there can be a large range of variation between one and another person's hearing apparatus, to allow all of us to accurately locate the source of sounds and many other things we hear, DESPITE how different the raw sensory input might sound to specific individuals.
 
As others have said on this forum, this is really an empirical, experiential issue.  You simply have to have the sound going into your own ears, with all the minute variations in how far apart they are, how they are oriented, the shape of the outer and inner ear, measured.  Then, when music is processed using these measurements, the effect will be much closer to what the actual experience is like for you, than if you listened by way of processing done for another person.  When you hear this, you will be amazed that actually, in fact, these small differences in shape, size, and distance, have a huge impact on the final experience.  

 

[VandyMan]

Quote:

the fact that you're brain is used to hearing things being filtered through your own anatomy

 
Thank you for the explaination. Doesn't that imply that one shouldn't correct the sound for the ear, because the brain already does it?

 

[VandyMan]

Quote:

  Similarly, I can listen to music and appreciate it coming out of a $100 speaker system.  But that doesn't mean it sounds the same to me as it would from a $100,000 speaker system

 
I take your overall point, but the Realiser is correcting phase and frequency response. There is not much difference in frequency response between a well made $1,000 speaker and a $100,000 speaker except possibly at the low-end (there are, of course, other differences). I'm referring to people with normal hearing, so I'll leave out cheapo speakers and the head cold from your analogy. I suspect that two normal hearing people, hear very much the same and that the brain corrects for any gross differences. Wrong?
 
[Edit: Thinking about this more, I realize that there are probably not many adults with "normal" hearing these days thanks to ipod, environmental noise, etc. So that may be a bit of a straw man argument on my part.]

 

[Kiritz]

Quote:

.<< I suspect that two normal hearing people, hear very much the same and that the brain corrects for any gross differences. Wrong?>>
 
 

Yes, evolution sets the scene for the brain correcting for gross differences.  But it is the small differences that make audiophiles like high resolution discs or great equipment that the brain doesn't need to correct for, in order for us to survive and function.  
 
You can tell you are drinking wine, whether it is Safeway brand or Chateau Lafitte Rothschild 1959.  No doubt about it.  That's just it.  Between the two are small differences that, for sure,  don't affect our categorization of the liquid as wine, i.e., the brain knows it is wine and not coke  But it is just these subtle differences that matter so much to most people, especially people who listen to a lot of music on good equipment or at live concerts or like good wine.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Thank you for the explaination. Doesn't that imply that one shouldn't correct the sound for the ear, because the brain already does it?

 
Your anatomy only has that effect on sounds that are at least a certain distance away.  The effect your ear has has on the sound from a headphone driver which is right next to it is much different from a something even 6 inches away.  All the frequency response differences, acoustic crosstalk, time delays between hearing with each ear, etc that occur with a "natural" sound at a distance are drastically different or disappear entirely when using headphones.
 
That's why it's easier agree on whether speakers are neutral or not than headphones and why speakers are neutral by simply by having a dead flat FR.  Everyone that hears a speaker hears it through their own HRTF just like they hear a live performance through their own HRTF.  Headphones bypass all that and don't apply your own HRTF to what you hear.  Instead your brain has to deal with whatever frequency response that the headphone's designer though sounded good.
 
Beyond that, most all music is recorded and mixed for playback via speakers so localization requires extra frequency dependent crosstalk between channels and delays between when a sound is heard by each ear.  No headphone can do that by itself so some sort of filter circuit is required.  Those range from simple and imprecise like the usual Linkwitz crossfeed to something as complex and personalized as the Realiser

 

[arnaud]

This horse has been beaten to death by now but ... there's a reason why all commercial products with generic HRTFs haven't been considered as very good for the purpose at hand. Of course, I can imagine that one finds that using someone else's prirs is better than not realiser at all (especially in 2.0 setup). But there likely will be significant coloration, and issues with precise placement (probably front/back confusion). I guess the question is how artificial can it be for one to still be satisfied without having a reference to compare against.

IMHO, if you're not getting a set of PRIR, you're overspending significantly and probably should try a cheaper virtualiser before going to the realiser.

As to how different all heads are, yeah it's not like my ears are above my eyebrows so there's only so much variations. But when you think the brain can defect phase / tonal variations due to less than 2-3 degrees change in the source position, it should tell you how well calibrated it is to your own head/torso and ear shape.

 

[Kiritz]

Quote:

This horse has been beaten to death by now but ... there's a reason why all commercial products with generic HRTFs haven't been considered as very good for the purpose at hand. Of course, I can imagine that one finds that using someone else's prirs is better than not realiser at all (especially in 2.0 setup). But there likely will be significant coloration, and issues with precise placement (probably front/back confusion). I guess the question is how artificial can it be for one to still be satisfied without having a reference to compare against.
IMHO, if you're not getting a set of PRIR, you're overspending significantly and probably should try a cheaper virtualiser before going to the realiser.
As to how different all heads are, yeah it's not like my ears are above my eyebrows so there's only so much variations. But when you think the brain can defect phase / tonal variations due to less than 2-3 degrees change in the source position, it should tell you how well calibrated it is to your own head/torso and ear shape.

 
 
Very well said!

 

[dsperber]

Ok... add me to the list, i.e. the "waiting list for an SR-009".
 
I paid a visit to Yama's in Gardena today, to get the plastic headband on my SR-Omega headphones replaced.  Somehow my cleaning girl managed to knock it off of the wooden stand and the plastic headband astonishlngly fractured into two pieces. Same type of thing happened to me three years ago, but from a different cause.  He was able to transfer a duplicate plastic headband from an old Lambda Pro they had (just as he'd done three years ago but using my own Lambda Pro as "the donor"), as it's the same plastic part used by my SR-Omega.
 
Anyway, while there I simply couldn't resist the temptation.  "Sign me up" I said.
 
So I'm #12 on the list waiting for the next batch of SR-009's to arrive, with no ETA from Stax on their next shipment to the US.
 
I'm already starting to get excited, as is my SRM-007tII.

 

[Edwood]

Wow, nice one, Darryl.  Will be interested in what you think of the SR-009 with your Realiser.

 

[madbull]

Congrats, dsperber. My first Stax is on the way too, a SR007 mkII.

Unfortunately the Realiser is gonna have to wait until next year though.

 

 

[sillysally]

Quote:

Ok... add me to the list, i.e. the "waiting list for an SR-009".
<snip>
I'm already starting to get excited, as is my SRM-007tII.

 
Ahh, you will love them with your Realiser and SRM-007 amp. 
My Stax SR-009/SRM-727 took me to a whole new level in audio.
 
On a side note, if you get a extension cord for you SR-009's make sure you get the one that is made for the SR-009's (the one with silver). .

 

[Kiritz]

I'm curious to know whether those of you who have the more pricey models of STAX have compared them to the entry level model that comes with the Realiser.  The latter is the one that I have.  I have wondered if there would be a significant noticeable difference in the listening experience, especially for music, which is my thing.  Buying a higher end STAX set would be a big investment, and likely cost more than the Realiser itself.  So I'd like to have a sense of what incremental improvements I might expect.

 

[wsilvio]

I just got back from LA after having my AIX PRIR done.  I would just like to publicly thank Lorr Kramer from Smyth and Mark Waldrep from AIX.  It was a fantastic experience and definitely worth the trip.  Everyone was super nice and very professional.  Highly recommended!

 

[sillysally]

Quote:

I'm curious to know whether those of you who have the more pricey models of STAX have compared them to the entry level model that comes with the Realiser.  The latter is the one that I have.  I have wondered if there would be a significant noticeable difference in the listening experience, especially for music, which is my thing.  Buying a higher end STAX set would be a big investment, and likely cost more than the Realiser itself.  So I'd like to have a sense of what incremental improvements I might expect.

Day and Night differentce, I have never heard anything like the SR-009/SRM-727 combo.  
Quote:

I just got back from LA after having my AIX PRIR done.  I would just like to publicly thank Lorr Kramer from Smyth and Mark Waldrep from AIX.  It was a fantastic experience and definitely worth the trip.  Everyone was super nice and very professional.  Highly recommended!

You sound like me when I came back from AIX, some of the best bang for your buck that I ever got. 

 

[wsilvio]

Yeah, when you think about what you get home with after leaving AIX, it is quite a value. Given that i probably won't ever be able to have a quarter of a million dollar surround sound mastering studio in my home, this is as close as I'll get.

For those of you who think the realiser is only for multi channel, think again! I may never be able to listen to normal headphones again. Yes, it is that good. Also for those who wonder if the 009's make a difference, they most certainly do. I have tried several other phones including the hd800 and the jh3a with the realiser and they all pale in comparison. However, that doesn't mean the realiser doesn't do an excellent job with other phones. But if you want to get every last ounce of fidelity and the most accurate representation of the room and equipment you have captured, the 009's seem to be the way to go.

On another note, has anyone here thought about running the toslink out of the realiser to a reclocker to reduce jitter? From what I understand, HDMI isn't the most jitter free digital interface. I'm thinking that if you ran the toslink out to an apogee big Ben or empirical audio off ramp the sound might be even better. Plus the signal would go in toslink and be available as coax or aes out to your dac. Of course my perfect wave dac is suppose to take care of the jitter so may be a waste of money. Just a thought.