[gunwale]

Yes, that's what the thing does.
Read my posts. Did I say any of those things?
The Realizer is a special case, a processor designed for one purpose: to replicate a surround audio system while listening to headphones only. Yes, it does that. That has nothing to do with how a stereo recording sounds on headphones. Nothing.

I did, though, many many times. They image inside your skull where no sound should ever be. That's a nonexistent (sigh!) soundstage!

the topic never said anything about stereo recording.

it is about sound stage and imaging.

i am just sharing my hypothesis on sound stage and imaging for a headphone system and how is this not scientific?

 

[gunwale]

Sound and light may share a few principles, but their properties and wavelengths are vastly different. More importantly, our ability to perceive dimension and localize the source for each is radically different and unrelated.

No, they present their own unique (argh!) "soundstage" that doesn't exist in any other situation, most importantly the creative environment AND the actual acoustic event.

And exactly why do you think I haven't?

ok. if you have. can you explain the difference in the sound stage during the demo?

 

[pinnahertz]

again i never once said anything like my speakers have imaging problem.

why do you always assume i have those problems?

Here it is at Post #38:
"i only started to listen to headphone like 1 year ago and i was listen to speaker all the time. all the recording sounded weird and yes there wasnt any sound stage or depth.

it is just sad stereo and even weider binaural ablums."

it is general knowledge that speakers can produce sounds that feels like coming from the back of the speaker, between and all the way behind the listener.

Then why did you say what you did in Post #38?

you can also produce similar effect using headphone. have you heard a sound coming from behind using headphones?

Of course. Binaural recordings do that quite well.

i never once said anything about speakers and i agree on everything you said about speakers.

Post #38....

i am refering to headphone.

do you even have a proper headphone setup?

Yes. But if you want, you could explain what you think a "proper" headphone setup is.

 

[pinnahertz]

the topic never said anything about stereo recording.

It's implied. You can't get anything but dead center in mono. What kind of recording were you referring to?

it is about sound stage and imaging.

...which are terms you don't seem to understand.

i am just sharing my hypothesis on sound stage and imaging for a headphone system and how is this not scientific?

Your "hypothesis" isn't stated as such, and is contrary to actual scientific research.

 

[pinnahertz]

ok. if you have. can you explain the difference in the sound stage during the demo?

I can both describe it and explain it. But the discussion of the Smyth Realizer is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[gunwale]

Here it is at Post #38:
"i only started to listen to headphone like 1 year ago and i was listen to speaker all the time. all the recording sounded weird and yes there wasnt any sound stage or depth.

it is just sad stereo and even weider binaural ablums."
Then why did you say what you did in Post #38?
Of course. Binaural recordings do that quite well.
Post #38....

Yes. But if you want, you could explain what you think a "proper" headphone setup is.

all the recording sounded weird in headphone because i was listening to speakers like since birth.

 

[gunwale]

I can both describe it and explain it. But the discussion of the Smyth Realizer is irrelevant to this thread.

here you can read it yourself.

The only 3D headphone system that works. You simply cannot tell the difference between the real and the virtual loudspeakers. This means that the Realiser can precisely emulate what you would hear sitting in the sweet-spot of a $100,000 home theatre, with it’s expensive sound treatment, powerful amplifiers and loudspeakers, over just regular stereo headphones. In fact the A16’s core 3D sound technology is so accurate, professional film studios and broadcasters, around the world, use Realisers every day for their editing, post production, screening and QA operations.1

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1959366850/realiser-a16-real-3d-audio-headphone-processor

how is this irrelevant? this is not possible if a headphone cannot reproduce a recorded sound stage.

here are some screen captures.

 

[pinnahertz]

here you can read it yourself.

Ok, let me point out exactly the problem:
"The only 3D headphone system that works. You simply cannot tell the difference between the real and the virtual loudspeakers."

You apparently don't get the fact that the Smyth Realizer is not just headphones! Headphones alone, as I've been saying, cannot do that. It's a processing system that first makes measurements of a space, hopefully a really good one, then virtualizes that space. So, what you get is the perspective of the recording filtered through a home theater system which is then virtualized into your headphones. That is nothing like playing music on headphones, which is the perspective you seem to love/hate/I really can't tell anymore!

What makes it irrelevant is that it's reproducing virtual home theater with home theater speakers playing a recording, not virtualizing a recording.

how is this irrelevant? this is not possible if a headphone cannot reproduce a recorded sound stage.

It's irrelevant because it is made for a very specific application: reproducing the perspective of a well-designed home theater using headphones. That's NOT AT ALL what you've been talking about! Your issue was with the (omg!) "soundstage" on speakers vs headphones of the original recording not a virtualization of a listening space. You've cited YouTube as a signal source, which implies two-channel stereo, not 5.1/7.1 surround. You've tried to say many times that headphones (no mention of the Smyth Realizer) reproduce the recording better/more accurately, whatever...but what you really are trying to say is you like headphones.

 

[pinnahertz]

here are some screen captures.

I don't need screen captures, I've spent plenty of time on their site some time ago, and they don't support any of your arguments anyway.

 

[gunwale]

Ok, let me point out exactly the problem:
"The only 3D headphone system that works. You simply cannot tell the difference between the real and the virtual loudspeakers."

You apparently don't get the fact that the Smyth Realizer is not just headphones! Headphones alone, as I've been saying, cannot do that. It's a processing system that first makes measurements of a space, hopefully a really good one, then virtualizes that space. So, what you get is the perspective of the recording filtered through a home theater system which is then virtualized into your headphones. That is nothing like playing music on headphones, which is the perspective you seem to love!

What makes it irrelevant is that it's reproducing virtual home theater with home theater speakers playing a recording, not virtualizing a recording.

It's irrelevant because it is made for a very specific application: reproducing the perspective of a well-designed home theater using headphones. That's NOT AT ALL what you've been talking about! Your issue was with the (omg!) "soundstage" on speakers vs headphones of the original recording not a virtualization of a listening space. You've cited YouTube as a signal source, which implies two-channel stereo, not 5.1/7.1 surround. You've tried to say many times that headphones (no mention of the Smyth Realizer) reproduce the recording better/more accurately, whatever...but what you really are trying to say is you like headphones.

you said many times that the headphone cannot reproduced recorded sound stage which not true.

most of us including myself does not have smyth realizer. the simplest example that i can give is a youtube recording and yes it not the best example but and it only output in stereo mode.

you kept denying the fact that headphone cannot reproduced the recorded sound stage.

i am not saying that a headphone is more accurate than real speakers with proper multi million dollar setup.

i am just saying that a headphone with like a less 1000 dollar tool, you can actually emulate the environment which means headphone is capable of listening to the recorded sound stage or in this case the emulated sound stage.

i was always refering to a proper headphone system.

try playing from your phone speakers and tell me that you can actually have a proper sound stage.

 

[gunwale]

I don't need screen captures, I've spent plenty of time on their site some time ago, and they don't support any of your arguments anyway.

so you knew about it and that's the reason why you keep running away from the facts?

so my arguement is that headphone can actually reproduced the recorded sound stage.

is that true or false or are you still in denial

 

[gregorio]

here you can read it yourself.
The only 3D headphone system that works. You simply cannot tell the difference between the real and the virtual loudspeakers. This means that the Realiser can precisely emulate what you would hear sitting in the sweet-spot of a $100,000 home theatre, with it’s expensive sound treatment, powerful amplifiers and loudspeakers, over just regular stereo headphones. In fact the A16’s core 3D sound technology is so accurate, professional film studios and broadcasters, around the world, use Realisers every day for their editing, post production, screening and QA operations.

This is the sound SCIENCE forum, marketing material is NOT science, do you realise the difference between science and marketing? One is based on facts, the other is based on ignoring, changing, misrepresenting or even outright lying about and making up facts, in order to sell products. Pretty much every sentence in this quote is a partial lie or a complete boldfaced lie!

I've tried a Symth Realiser, can I tell the difference? Easily! Does it precisely emulate a commercial or extremely high end home theatre? No. Do film studios and broadcasters around the world use Realisers every day for editing, post production, etc.? No, this lie is so boldfaced it's laughable!

[1] i am just sharing my hypothesis on sound stage and imaging for a headphone system and how is this not scientific?
[2] ... after a year trying to figure what is this sound stage thing in headphone, i finally concluded ...

1. No, it's not even slightly scientific! A "hypothesis" is a proposed explanation for a phenomena. In the case of stereophonic sound, there is already an explanation for the phenomena and not just a proposed explanation but a demonstrable, proven explanation for about 80 years!!!

2. There's your problem! You've observed something over the period of a year and then you've simply made up a bunch of facts/conclusions to fit those observations. Rather than just making up nonsense and posting it as science in a science forum, it would have been basic common sense to actually look up or ask about the science which already actually exists!!!

... and presents acoustic events in a space that cannot possibly exist: inside your skull.

Do you have any data/evidence for that? The reason I ask, is that it seems to me, by implication, that some/many audiophiles do indeed have acoustic space which exists inside their skulls, a rather large reverberant one apparently!!

G

 

[pinnahertz]

you said many times that the headphone cannot reproduced recorded sound stage which not true.

It is true, and the Smyth Realizer doesn't prove it isn't because it isn't reproducing a recorded soundstage, it's reproducing a listening environment playing a recording.

most of us including myself does not have smyth realizer. the simplest example that i can give is a youtube recording and yes it not the best example but and it only output in stereo mode.

The youtube recording didn't prove your point, sorry.

you kept denying the fact that headphone cannot reproduced the recorded sound stage.

No, I keep saying that headphones cannot reproduce the recorded sound stage as it was intended.

i am not saying that a headphone is more accurate than real speakers with proper multi million dollar setup.

i am just saying that a headphone with like a less 1000 dollar tool, you can actually emulate the environment which means headphone is capable of listening to the recorded sound stage or in this case the emulated sound stage.

That's the first time you've said that.

But it's WRONG! Even after posting screen caps you still don't get what the Realizer does!!!!

IT DOES NOT reproduce the recorded sound stage! It reproduces a listening environment with it's own sound stage! The application, specifically, is virtualizing a 5.1 surround listening environment on headphones. That's a VERY DIFFERENT GOAL and VERY DIFFERENT APPLICATION. In 5.1 film sound we have more closely standardized mix environments, and can, if budget allows, build a home theater that closely matches the industry standards. But that's a specific application which does not translate to two channel stereo music, where control rooms and mix environments have not been standardized. You literally have no idea what kind of system a recording was mixed on! What are you going to "realize"? The L/R speakers of that 100K home theater? It may sound good, but it won't be a replication of the original.

But your arguments are circular and make no sense. You said that headphones reproduce the recording's soundstage, and that's NOT TRUE. Then you say that everything sounded weird in headphones because you listened to speakers since birth. Then you toss in the Smyth Realizer into the discussion. Regardless of what that thing does, it doesn't change the fact that headphones, by themselves, cannot reproduce the original soundstage. There are some very specific conditions under which the Realizer can replicate the original, but they don't apply to any source you've cited so far, and since you listen to Tidal, they don't apply to that either.

 

[pinnahertz]

so you knew about it and that's the reason why you keep running away from the facts?

Yes, I know about it, yes I've auditioned it, yes it's amazing. It's also still irrelevant in this discussion, and that's a fact I'm not running away from.

so my arguement is that headphone can actually reproduced the recorded sound stage.

is that true or false or are you still in denial

Headphones cannot reproduce the recorded sound stage. The Realizer, under some very specific conditions, can virtualize a specific listening environment. If that matches the original, fine, but it's not going to for most music. And that doesn't change my statement that headphones (just headphones, which is what this was originally about) cannot reproduce the recorded sound stage.

I'm not in denial, but you don't seem to understand the issue.

Oh, BTW, there are millions, likely billions of headphone listeners. Not even a tiny fraction of a percent of them own a Smyth Realizer. So when I say "headphones can't reproduce the recorded sound stage", I'm addressing the vast majority of listeners.

 

[pinnahertz]

Do you have any data/evidence for that? The reason I ask, is that it seems to me, by implication, that some/many audiophiles do indeed have acoustic space which exists inside their skulls, a rather large reverberant one apparently!!

G

Ha! So true!