[Erik Garci]

The user manual was updated on Feb 19. It contains a few minor corrections.

 

[dsperber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsperber /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only quirk relating to the Yamaha's interaction with the Realiser is the standard Yamaha "protective circuitry" which shuts it off to prevent overload (e.g. if you turn the volume up too high). Because of a voltage spike that the Realiser seems to emit when it comes out of standby, if you have the Yamaha already powered on when you turn the Realiser on the Yamaha will instantly turn itself off (i.e. to protect itself from the sudden voltage spike from the Realiser, even though the Realiser is actually being FED from the Yamaha and not the other way around). Odd, but true. The solution is simply to remember to always turn the Realiser on first, and then the Yamaha on second... no matter what true source component I plan to use.

Well, today I had occasion to mindlessly forget to power the Yamaha on last and off first. I'd gotten into the habit of doing this anyway, because when using the Motorola DCX3400 DVR which supports "native" resolution, but only holds that setting if the AVR is again powered on last and off first. Any other power on/off sequence causes the DCX to lose its "native" setting and revert to "fixed 1080i.

Anyway, today I mindlessly put the Realiser into standby without first powering off the AVR. I instantly realized my mistake and expected that the Yamaha would instantly power off as well, due to what I thought would have been the long-standing voltage spike from the Realiser.

Imagine my surprise when this did NOT happen! Huh??

I then played a little bit, powering the Realiser back on while the Yamaha was still on. For sure this had previously caused the Yamaha to "protect itself" from what I assumed was a voltage spike from the Realiser coming out of standby.

Well... once again, this did NOT happen. Huh?

So, there are only two possible explanations for this very definite difference in behavior between my original report on this issue back in late September and what happened tonight:

(1) as I'd reported the problem to Smyth early on, perhaps they have actually addressed the problem with one of the firmware upgrades which have been released, or

(2) my "lifting" of the power plug (to eliminate the ground pin) on my Stax headphone amp's connection to AC power in order to eliminate a ground loop hum which I'd initially thought was caused by the Realiser but was apparently not, has somehow eliminated the voltage spike from power on/off of the Realiser as seen by the Yamaha through the 8 analog connections.

Anyway, I won't say I'm not pleased! Now I can power on/off the Realiser at any time relative to on/off of the Yamaha... with no concern as to consequences.

 

[Erik Garci]

I recently came across this interesting Q&A with Smyth Research. It was posted a few months ago in a French forum. The Q&A is in English.

homecinema-fr.com - Voir le sujet - Le Smyth Realiser A8, l'ecoute 7.1 au casque Revolutionnaire

 

[dsperber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsperber /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now I can power on/off the Realiser at any time relative to on/off of the Yamaha... with no concern as to consequences.

Just a post-script to this statement of mine...

Looks like I was mistaken. Turns out that this annoying voltage spike DOES still occur... although there do seem to be some situations in which it does not cause the Yamaha to power itself off as "protection".

Obviously, these particular circumstances where I can power the Realiser on or off and the Yamaha stays on had just not been stumbled into early on, and I haven't quite isolated them so that I know exactly how/why I can get away with it. But it's definitely true that this is not a 100% event, so that I've once again reverted to my old approach of turning the Yamaha on last and off first, with the Realiser on first and off last.

Sorry for my earlier statement speculating that Smyth had made some change in the last firmware update relating to this voltage spike at on/off. It doesn't look like that is true after all.

 

[bdh]

For those that have world-class headphones, tube amps, etc., does this really re-create the experience of world-class speakers? Does it have all the nuances that I can hear when I use different tubes in the speaker system that's profiled? How does the sound change if I then use different tubes in the headphone amp?

When I had my speakers I positioned them near-field and they threw a life-size image five or six feet behind the speakers. It had increadable slam, dynamics, and detail. It was so life-like and I've still never heard anything like it in any high-end hi-fi shop, even by systems costing ten times as much (probably mostly due to speaker placement issues I think). Does it accurately portray a life-size image with all the sonic slam and detail (obviously without the massive air moving slam, but still...)? Or does it sound somewhat distant and uninvolving compared to straight headphone listening?

I have over a dozen variables I configure in my headphone system (input and output tubes, DAC settings, the different ASIO-4-ALL settings, foobar settings, etc.) If I make a change in one setting gives more PRAT or changes the sound-stage for instance, does that come across as more PRAT in the virtual speaker listening and does it effect the virtual sound-stage? Or does only how much PRAT during the profiled speaker system effect the PRAT during virtual speaker listening, etc.?

How much is the profiling process profiling the headphones vs. the speakers? If you change headphones later on, does it ruin the experience and you have to reprofile?

I can hear everything in the chain in my headphone system -- every 1db change in the foobar equalizer; every change of all the differrent ASIO-4-ALL settings, every cable change, every tube brand, etc. and set them all to my specific liking. Can I hear that level of transparency and detail in the virutal speaker system? Or is a lot of that lost and you're just presented with an amazing effect, but shouldn't listen too closely or you could be disappointed with critical music listening?

I remember mentioning to someone several years ago (Mikhail actually), that theoretically you could build something like this, but I wondered how complicated it would be to actually implement. I really want to try this, but would like a few more reviews first and am leary of them releasing a 1.1 version the moment after I buy it, as has happend with a couple of different items recently.

 

[Erik Garci]

The user manual was updated on April 3. Just a few sentences were added.

 

[bmoura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Garci /img/forum/go_quote.gif The user manual was updated on April 3. Just a few sentences were added.

Interesting. Any ROM software updates ?

 

[Erik Garci]

The latest firmware is still 10-NOV-09.

 

[GardenVariety]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdh /img/forum/go_quote.gif For those that have world-class headphones, tube amps, etc., does this really re-create the experience of world-class speakers? Does it have all the nuances that I can hear when I use different tubes in the speaker system that's profiled? How does the sound change if I then use different tubes in the headphone amp? When I had my speakers I positioned them near-field and they threw a life-size image five or six feet behind the speakers. It had increadable slam, dynamics, and detail. It was so life-like and I've still never heard anything like it in any high-end hi-fi shop, even by systems costing ten times as much (probably mostly due to speaker placement issues I think). Does it accurately portray a life-size image with all the sonic slam and detail (obviously without the massive air moving slam, but still...)? Or does it sound somewhat distant and uninvolving compared to straight headphone listening? I have over a dozen variables I configure in my headphone system (input and output tubes, DAC settings, the different ASIO-4-ALL settings, foobar settings, etc.) If I make a change in one setting gives more PRAT or changes the sound-stage for instance, does that come across as more PRAT in the virtual speaker listening and does it effect the virtual sound-stage? Or does only how much PRAT during the profiled speaker system effect the PRAT during virtual speaker listening, etc.? How much is the profiling process profiling the headphones vs. the speakers? If you change headphones later on, does it ruin the experience and you have to reprofile? I can hear everything in the chain in my headphone system -- every 1db change in the foobar equalizer; every change of all the differrent ASIO-4-ALL settings, every cable change, every tube brand, etc. and set them all to my specific liking. Can I hear that level of transparency and detail in the virutal speaker system? Or is a lot of that lost and you're just presented with an amazing effect, but shouldn't listen too closely or you could be disappointed with critical music listening? I remember mentioning to someone several years ago (Mikhail actually), that theoretically you could build something like this, but I wondered how complicated it would be to actually implement. I really want to try this, but would like a few more reviews first and am leary of them releasing a 1.1 version the moment after I buy it, as has happend with a couple of different items recently.

1) I have about $7K worth of speakers, a good processor and power amp. I can say with certainty that I now prefer the Realiser as my #1 movie listening experience. The Realiser alone cannot recreate the impact that you would get from a subwoofer but if you purchase tactile transducers then it's completely seamless.

2) The headphone EQ process is very simple and you can set a profile for each set of headphones. I can tell you that I've had several people listening to my "head" at a time and each person was blown away at the precise placement of the speakers. Now, it's much better (so I hear) to have each person have their own Realiser but this technology is so accurate that it completely blows away any other headphone technology before it.

3) With speakers you often lose ultimate clarity and the small nuances of a soundtrack unless you have a completely dedicated room with amazing treatments and hundreds of thousands in equipment. With the Realiser you hear every detail and it really brings you into the world the sound engineers wanted to create.

Given the option between my very decent speaker setup or the Realiser I will always go with the latter. For clarity, convenience, immersion and a pristine quality of fidelity I would have no hesitations putting the Realiser up against most Home Theater Systems.

 

[GardenVariety]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Garci /img/forum/go_quote.gif The latest firmware is still 10-NOV-09.

I have been told that they are working on a new firmware but I am not aware of an expected release date.

 

[dsperber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GardenVariety /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can tell you that I've had several people listening to my "head" at a time and each person was blown away at the precise placement of the speakers.

I actually find this surprising... that they would even find the result "coherent".

I had a request for one of my PRIR files from a new Realiser owner who hadn't yet had a chance to get a studio-based calibration session set up, and wanted to hear something other than the factory-provided "generic" (whatever that could mean) preset (which obviously does not represent his ears listening to the sound room in Camarillo).

So I sent him the PRIR I listen to pretty much 100% of the time, which is the "AIX 5.1 with Bass Management enabled", which in my opinion is hands down the absolute best-sounding PRIR for my tastes and for my source setup. I prepared him for the fact that it would probably not sound good to him, but if he wanted it then here it was.

Well, as expected, it was not great for him. And understandably so.

So honestly as much as I, too, would like to share my own personal Realiser-based listening experience with others, I just don't think it's possible... without their getting their own personal calibration and PRIR.


Quote:

Now, it's much better (so I hear) to have each person have their own Realiser but this technology is so accurate that it completely blows away any other headphone technology before it.

Here's an interesting comment on this thought...

For a number of years before the Realiser finally became available for purchase (just about one year ago, exactly) I had been using the Dolby Headphone alternative. I used a Pioneer DIR-SE1000C as the base unit/processor, but connected the very same external DBX 14/10 EQ and Stax SRM-T1S headphone amp and Stax Omega-1 headphones as I use today with the Realiser. I did not use the included wireless headphones that came with the Pioneer product.

As it turns out, I also sampled a Pioneer DIR-SE800C that I had a friend get (it's really the same Dolby Headphone part, but with a cheaper amp and cheaper wireless headphones). I also bought (and returned) the Pioneer DIR-SE2000C product, which had somewhat better headphones than with the 1000C but which had in my opinion an inferior powered amp that drove the wired headphone outputs, making my listening experience actually worse thanwith the 1000C. Again, the Dolby Headphone processing component in the 2000C was identical to that found in the 1000C and 800C.

And, finally, I also tried (and still own) a Philips 1500U Dolby Headphone unit. This is quite a different (and superior) unit to the Pioneer products, having TWO analog inputs/outputs and TWO digital inputs/outputs... in addition to TWO wired headphone outputs as well as the standard wireless headphone transmission output. But I actually preferred the sound of the analog wired headphone amp on the Pioneer DIR-1000C unit, so that's the one I used as "production".

The EQ was plugged into the wired headphone output (which has an analog volume control) of the Pioneer base unit, just as it is today plugged into the RCA headphone outputs of the Realiser (which has a digital volume control). In both cases, the unit feeding the EQ is really acting as a "pre-amp" to the Stax headphone amp, and I set the levels on that "pre-amp" so that I can have the volume control on the Stax amp set at about 2 o'clock.

Well a few months back a separate analog 27" SD TV died in another room, and I decided to get a 32" Sony XBR9 to replace it, since it would fit in the same enclosure space. At the same time, I replaced my DirectTV SD receiver which was source for that SD TV to instead be an HD DVR from Time Warner Cable. And also at the same time, I decided to break out the old Pioneer DIR-SE1000C which had been "mothballed" last year when I got my Realiser. I was going to at least be able to listen to "pseudo-surround" while watching HDTV in that second room, using the old method I'd used for many years. Only real difference... no DBX EQ, and no Stax amp/headphone. Instead, I would just plug a pretty decent Sony CD950 headphone directly into the wired headphone output of the Pioneer.

Well, to be perfectly honest, it sounds like crap. Call me completely spoiled by the Realiser (which truly sounds like multi-channel reality in that AIX studio room), but the Dolby Headphone alternative now sounds like crap to me. I can't believe I was "satisfied" by this for so many years.

Of course there are lots of possible and plausible reasons for this striking difference between two alternative "virtual surround" technologies, not the least of which is the final-stage headphone system used to actually listen. I'd really need to put the DBX EQ and Stax amp/headphone in the other room and connected to the Pioneer unit, in order to really be able to get a feel once again of what the Dolby Headphone portion of the system sounds like compared to the Realiser... all other listening variables being the same. Using a simple Sony CD950 instead of the DBX EQ and Stax amp/headphone is not really doing this test fair.

Nevertheless, even taking that into account, the precision of the virtual speaker placement along with the superb tonal quality of those virtual speakers coming out of the Realiser is truly stunning when compared to the "noise" that comes from the Dolby Headphone process... well it's just amazing how different they really are.

The Realiser truly makes you think you're in that room, listening to those speakers. Dolby Headphone simply does not. It may provide a semi-illusion of multi-speakers in some way, probably through reverb and other tricks that occasionally do provide some directionality to an unusually separated sound in the multi-channel source. But overall, it's now truly like a toy in comparison to the professional-grade Realiser, in terms of the listening experience it produces.

I don't have tactile transducers (for the same reason I don't have actual speakers, and sub-woofer, in my 3rd-floor condo) so I can't comment on any added realism they produce. But just using the plain-vanilla Realiser into my DBX EQ and Stax SRM-T1S/Omega-1 setup... well, I could not enjoy listening to multi-channel HDTV and BluRay more if I was actually in the AIX studio room.

 

[bmoura]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GardenVariety /img/forum/go_quote.gif Realiser A8->Buttkicker 1000N Amp W/2 Sonic Shakers->Stax 007T->SR-404LE

I'm still using the Realiser A8 with the SR-202 and stock amp included in the bundle.

Any thoughts on how much of a step up the SR-404 would be with the Realiser A8?

I'm thinking that moving up the Stax family - or looking at the JH13 0r JH16 - might be my next move with the Realiser A8.

 

[GardenVariety]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmoura /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm still using the Realiser A8 with the SR-202 and stock amp included in the bundle. Any thoughts on how much of a step up the SR-404 would be with the Realiser A8? I'm thinking that moving up the Stax family - or looking at the JH13 0r JH16 - might be my next move with the Realiser A8.

The 404LE's combined with the better Stax amp have a much better bass response to my ears. The 202's sound wonderful but the 404's with my particular amp sound really amazing. I havent heard the JH16's but they wouldn't work for me because me and my wife watch between 7-10 movies a week and need to be able to communicate with eachother while doing so.

So, in summary, I can't really comment on how the 404 setup itself sounds with the amp that comes with that setup but with my setup it was a major upgrade.

 

[GardenVariety]

I actually find this surprising... that they would even find the result "coherent".

Yeah, that's what I thought too but my wife listens to my "head" everyday and always comments on it sounding just like speakers and hearing the placement of the surrounds. Maybe it's the fact that we are both similar in height.... I don't know.

It's funny, when we purchased the Realiser and went up to AIX she thought the whole idea was ridiculous. She kept on saying things like "What is this supposed to do?" and "Is this really necessary?" but now she brags to everyone how amazing it sounds.

 

[Erik Garci]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GardenVariety /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 404LE's combined with the better Stax amp have a much better bass response to my ears.

This comment from Smyth Research is related to bass response and amplifiers.

"We are testing different electrostatic amplifiers, because we feel that even a slight improvement in the low-end response of the Stax would be a big help - ie 3dB more headroom at 40Hz would be nice. This amplifier would then be sold by us as an upgrade to the basic Stax amp that we are bundling with our unit. We'd be trying to keep the cost of the amp as low as possible - we're not really interested in making headphones or headphone amps."