[Riku540]

Quote:

You don't need the Headzone Game, just the Headzone base. Game just adds the MMX300. Since most of us don't need the headset, we can save a few hundred by just getting the base.

Of course, I don't think any of us are fanatic enough to buy a gaming amp for over $1000...though I will say I am.

 
But I do want the MMX 300. D:
 
Y can I haz not boaf?

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

Of course, I don't think any of us are fanatic enough to buy a gaming amp for over $1000...though I will say I am.

Just man up and sell everything you own/rob a bank and get the smyth realiser

Comes with some stylish Stax headphones...
 

 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Half tempted on cancelling my Audio GD stuff, going with the modded M Stage+E17, returning the DT990s, and getting the Headzone... seriously. But the D7000 is definitely mine.

 

[chicolom]

Soo....out of curiosity I tried gaming with my M-stage + mixamp:    MixAmp  ->  M-Stage  ->  Q701
 
I immediately noticed that the soundstage became bigger.  I was not expecting that.  The M-stage stretched out the soundstage a bit past PC360 size and closer to AD700 size

  The seperation and positioning also benefited.  Strangely though, I tried the same test with my E9 when I had it and didn't get the same results.  The soundstage stayed the same or got slightly smaller with the E9 vs the Mixamp alone.  The main reason I didnt like the E9 setup was because the midbass became a bit boomy with the E9, like I had bass boost on (which I didn't).  I A-Bed several times between the mixamp and E9 and decided I preferred the mixamp standalone. 
 
I guess I'm gaming with my M-stage from now on

  I did the above M-Stage + mixamp test with a one dollar 3.5mm to RCA cable that I got from the dollar store

I also have upgraded opamps in my M-Stage (2x OPA602BP; one for sale in my sig

) that are known for giving larger/better soundstage performance than the stock opamp.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Yeah, the E9 doesn't really add anything in terms of soundstage over the Mixamp alone. I just use it as a means to drive headphones better. I'd like to try out the M-Stage. I did order it before, but cancelled last minute.

 

[chicolom]

MMmmm.  That smyth realiser looks sexy.  HDMI input and passthrough

 
Just saw this on the realiser FAQ:
 
"8.  It would seem that Beyerdynamic’s 5.1-channel Headzone product is not unlike the Realiser. Should I not expect similar performance?
 
Actually they are not very similar. The Realiser emulates specific rooms and specific sound systems as heard by a specific person’s ears, the personalisation being a key factor in realism.  Headzone creates a synthetic room which is heard through a generalised representation of ears.  Also the characteristics of the Smyth and Beyer head trackers are noticeably different."
 
That's cool that the realiser measures your own HRTFs with little ear mics.  I'm so jelly of that dude here with the realiser + Stax SR009s.

 

[maverickronin]

The downside is that the Realiser is pretty much useless unless you have access to a good system that's set up properly to take measurements from.
 
Most of the people in the Realiser thread were taking flights out to LA for the the day to pick up their Realiser and run around town with a guy from Smyth to take measurements in high end 5.1 mastering facilities at the special rates that Smyth negotiated for its customers.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

The thing with the Realizer is that its about emulating a real world sound system. Does it come with a few presets? I really wouldn't want the head tracking as it does nothing for me. If you're looking at a screen, there's no benefit to tracking your head. For concerts on disc, I can understand, just nothing else.

How much does it cost? The Headzone, while expensive, isn't exactly out of reach.

Edit: thanks maverick, exactly what I thought. Unless you have access to an awesome sound system, I don't see the benefit of the Realizer over the more ordinary Headzone. I'd only want one of these to mimic full surround sound placement. I don't need perfect audio playback. If the Headzone does surround even 50% better than DH, I'm all for it.

 

[chicolom]

Quote:

The downside is that the Realiser is pretty much useless unless you have access to a good system that's set up properly to take measurements from.
 
Most of the people in the Realiser thread were taking flights out to LA for the the day to pick up their Realiser and run around town with a guy from Smyth to take measurements in high end 5.1 mastering facilities at the special rates that Smyth negotiated for its customers.

It comes with at least 1 preset measurement. 
 
"9.  What if I don’t have any loudspeakers to measure? Does the Realiser come with any factory default sound rooms?
 
The Realiser is shipped with a default emulation which is simply a staffer’s measurement in the sound room at our laboratory. We do not consider this a reference-quality room, and of course the emulation is not personalised to the purchaser. Even so, most listeners find it far preferable to the surround virtualisers they have heard. While we urge you to make your own personalised measurements, the factory default emulation allows the Realiser to work right out of the box, and can be enjoyed while you are considering what personalised measurements to make."

 
Quote:

The thing with the Realizer is that its about emulating a real world sound system. Does it come with a few presets? I really wouldn't want the head tracking as it does nothing for me. If you're looking at a screen, there's no benefit to tracking your head. For concerts on disc, I can understand, just nothing else.
How much does it cost? The Headzone, while expensive isn't exactly out of reach.

I'd have to try headtracking before I make a verdict on it.  I realize that your looking at the screen when gaming, but even then I make minor quick head movements as I look at things on the edges of the screen.  I assume it would pick up on that.  The headtracker on the realizer is way less dorky looking than the Beyer one.
 
It costs $3670....so ya...out of reach :\
 

 

[Phos]

Considering that the realizer can calibrate itself to any headphones it really seems like they should offer it without the Stax set up as well.  
 
The beyer head tracking, is it a passive system?  I'd be interested in head tracking if it weren't another 5 speaker simulator, I don't see the point in simulating a set of speakers simulating a game environment.  
Quote:

Half tempted on cancelling my Audio GD stuff, going with the modded M Stage+E17, returning the DT990s, and getting the Headzone... seriously. But the D7000 is definitely mine.

Want another crazy suggestion while we're at it?  It's possible to throw an X-fi or the like into a home theater PC and then run the game console's audio into it via the X-fi's optical in, process it with CMSS headphone, and then run out back out via the other optical jack.  
 
Ya know those highly detailed character creations systems in Fallout 3 and the like?  It's be cool if one of these virtual surround technologies would let you recreate your ear in a similar fashion and then use that to build an HRTF profile.  

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

The thing with head movements is that if you're playing a game, your on screen avatar is still stationed in the same spot. Tracking my own head would be useless as it doesn't help at all. I'm sure the effect is amazing, as you will get the feeling of moving around your room, but for the main purpose I'd want it for... no need whatsoever. Sounds are still being played around your on screen avatar, not you yourself.

 

[NamelessPFG]

As far as the X-Fi optical-in -> decode Dolby Digital -> output CMSS-3D Headphone-processed signal thought is concerned, that would be immensely easier had Creative not removed the real-time decoding feature from their drivers on later cards. I don't even know if the original PCI X-Fi cards still support it under Vista/Win7. Even modified drivers haven't enabled the Decoder tab on other X-Fi cards. Some comments from around the Internet state that it just isn't worth the hassle involved.
 
Regarding head-tracking, I actually already have it on my PC in the form of a TrackIR, but that's obviously not slaved to a headphone surround processor, instead being a game input device in and of itself. (A must-have for anyone into combat flight simulation, if you ask me.)
 
Having that device made me wonder how TrackIR-enhanced games should position their sounds: relative to the display (sounds don't appear to change direction when turning head), or relative to the user's view (sounds do change direction when looking around)? I suppose that depends on whether the user's using speakers or headphones.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Quote:

The thing with head movements is that if you're playing a game, your on screen avatar is still stationed in the same spot. Tracking my own head would be useless as it doesn't help at all. I'm sure the effect is amazing, as you will get the feeling of moving around your room, but for the main purpose I'd want it for... no need whatsoever. Sounds are still being played around your on screen avatar, not you yourself.

I wonder how the TrackIR and the Smyth Realizer would pair up with 5 Screen eyefinity.  You'd probably look like the borg, but it would be amazing to try outl Pretty cheap too. 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Never heard of that. It sounds overwhelming, lol.

 

[Ra97oR]

I was actually planning on getting some TrackIR pods on my headphones, but seeing the cost and the lack of time I am playing race sims. I decided not to. TrackIR only really works on race, flying simulators, MechWarrior: Living Legends don't have it, nor does most fps.