[dsperber]

Quote:

Many of the nicer STAX amps can drive 2 or 3 pairs.

In my opinion this notion of using a single Stax amp to feed simultaneous output to 2 headphones is not an ideal approach.  And the reason is that the personalized PRIR/HPEQ coming out of the Realiser is for one person. Duplicating that output to a second heaphone is, of course, not ideal.
 
Now that the Realiser supports independent two-person functionality, it's obvious that a second output headphone/amp path (from the rear 3/4 outputs) is what's really called for.
 
Of course, that further calls for a personalized measurement to produce a PRIR, for each member of the family who's going to share in the dual-output Realiser.  Bring the wife and kids along, and get a measurement for their PRIR in that room as well.  Then they'll do their own HPEQ measurement for whatever headphones/amp they're going to use.  And now the dual-output Realiser setup will give everybody maximum pleasure... through separate headphone/amp and separate PRIR/HPEQ.

 

[josesol07]

Quote:

  Bring the wife and kids along, and get a measurement for their PRIR in that room as well.Then they'll do their own HPEQ measurement for whatever headphones/amp they're going to use.  And now the dual-output Realiser setup will give everybody maximum pleasure... through separate headphone/amp and separate PRIR/HPEQ.

then, once I get the PRIR measurement from everyone, I could go home and later on purchase whatever suitable headphone/amp set I feel like, and generate the related HEPQs ? that sounds great!!
 

 

[dsperber]

Quote:

then, once I get the PRIR measurement from everyone, I could go home and later on purchase whatever suitable headphone/amp set I feel like, and generate the related HEPQs ? that sounds great!!
 

Correct.
 
Or, in the short term before their own personal headphone/amp they do get, they can use your existing "stock" Stax equipment that came with the Realiser.
 
The HPEQ is totally independent of the PRIR, and only reflects the personalization of a particular human/heaphone/amp combination.  It has nothing to do with any PRIR which reflects a listening room to that human.  So later on when different headphone/amp equipment is acquired, you can measure a new HPEQ for each person and store it in the library for possible future use.
 
Assorted HPEQ's (for assorted human/headphone/amp combinations) simply can be mix-and-matched with PRIRs (which are human/room measurements), depending on which actual headphone/amp you listen through.  The net result is simply an assortment of PRIR/HPEQ combinations for that person, producing an actual listening "preset" for THAT person to listen through THAT room using THAT particular headphone/amp equipment.
 
Substitute a different HPEQ (for a different listening headphone/amp for that person once the new equipment is acquired) and you now have the same room for the same person but using different headphone/amp equipment to reproduce it.

 

[bdh]

I asked this question very early on in this thread and was never answered satisfactorily..., but now that more people have one maybe one of you could answer it for me.
 
Is the Realizer good enough to reproduce the difference between between different manufacturer\vintage tubes I may use in my speaker setup, just like I can tell 'in real life'?  Is it that close to what it's like listening to the speaker system in real life?  Or are that level of subtle changes not reflected in the playback?
 
 

 

[dsperber]

Quote:

I asked this question very early on in this thread and was never answered satisfactorily..., but now that more people have one maybe one of you could answer it for me.
 
Is the Realizer good enough to reproduce the difference between between different manufacturer\vintage tubes I may use in my speaker setup, just like I can tell 'in real life'?  Is it that close to what it's like listening to the speaker system in real life?  Or are that level of subtle changes not reflected in the playback?
 
 

It very accurately "duplicates" the net total "sound" of any room listening environment (including the effect of all of the physical factors like walls, ceilings, baffles, carpets/drapes, floor, furniture, glass windows, etc., as well as all of the electronic factors like speakers and horizontal/vertical speaker placement, electronics, etc.) as heard by YOUR EARS, IN YOUR SEAT IN THAT ROOM... at the time the PRIR measurement is made.
 
That's the purpose of the Realiser (with an "s")... to DUPLICATE how your ears heard sound in that room where you were sitting, when the calibration was taken.
 
So, whatever total goes into that listening environment for you, as detected by the microphones in your ears when the measurements are taken, then that is what it should sound like when you use that same PRIR to play back anything.  The Realiser is astonishingly good at "photographing" the "sonic signature" of the overall listening environment, and then duplicating it when used for playback.
 
The post-measurement A/B-comparisons (between speakers vs. headphones via Realiser) in the room at the time the PRIR measurement is taken is always a remarkable smile-inducing experience.  You just can't believe it, how it matches not only the sound tonal quality but also the virtual multi-channel speaker apparent placement as heard via stereo headphones.

 

[bdh]

So is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?  I can easily tell the difference between a Telefunkin 12ax7 tube vs. a Amperex 12ax7 tube in the amp that drives the mid-range driver of my speakers?  Would I just as easily tell the difference when using the Realiser?
 
 

 

[dsperber]

Quote:

So is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?  I can easily tell the difference between a Telefunkin 12ax7 tube vs. a Amperex 12ax7 tube in the amp that drives the mid-range driver of my speakers?  Would I just as easily tell the difference when using the Realiser?
 
 

If your ears can "easily" tell the difference in two different tubes in an amp then there must be a significant and audible difference in the sound.  I have never had such an A/B-comparison for something like this, but maybe these two tubes produce a sonic difference that others could hear as well... not just you.  Or, maybe your "nose" is far more sensitive than most people's, who would not be able to tell the difference.
 
But if there's really an audible difference in the sound, then I would expect the very sensitive calibration microphones inserted into your ears during the PRIR processor to also be able to pick up the difference in tonal quality.  Don't hold me to it of course, because this really is pure speculation without an actual test.
 
On the other hand, the method of calibration is to drive full-range sweep frequencies through each speaker separately, and to pick up the result in the microphones in your ears.  So there may or may not be a sufficient amount of time spent on each frequency during the sweep to genuinely demonstrate the sonic difference between two tubes, which may be far more difficult to detect than the sonic difference between two speakers.
 
Anyway, the answer to your request for a yes/no answer is: I really haven't a clue, as I don't know that anybody has ever run this particular experiment.
 
But it would be very easy to set up if you wanted to. Just create two PRIR calibrations in the same listening room, one with each tube inserted in the amp.  Then produce two presets... P1 and P2, with the same HPEQ and the two different PRIRs.  Then listen to something you're intimately familiar with insofar as how it sounds on your system, with either tube in use.  Then see if you can tell the difference and pick the right answer, doing a P1-P2 A/B-comparison.
 
And that would provide you with the answer you seek.  Is that answer a deal-breaker, as to whether or not you buy a Realiser?
 
As for myself, I have far more fundamental motivations for wanting a Realiser, namely (1) the fact that I don't own a real 5.1/7.1 loudspeaker system, and (2) the ability to listen to pretty much the equivalent of the glorious zillion dollar AIX studio soundroom in my bedroom through headphones at any time day or night and as loud as I want, without bothering other people near me or the neighbors below me.

 

[TruBrew]

I think that is a "its supposed to". I will agree with that, and add that there are a lot of possible contributing factors. One factor is the headphone/amp that you chose. A faster headphone will likely be able to dish out more details. The 202's are nice but I am sure the O2's would be Superior. My 507 for instance can bring out more bass resolution than the stock 202. Second you have all of the potential signal conversions causing data loss. The traditional way it works is to go Digital>Analog>Digital>Analog. With the new update you can go Digital>Analog. If you couple that with a superior external DAC you should get better results. sillysally mentioned that going HDMI into the Realiser and optical out to his DAC helped bring out more details.
 
My point is it is an amazing system and it should be able to theoretically display those differences, but it may need some help from your implementation. It very well may be able to do it with the stock headphone system running analog in/out of the Realiser. I have no idea. I would love for someone to try it out and get back to all of us.
 
Either way, I think is is 100% worth the excursion to check out. It really is a phenomenal system. Maybe I can work something out with a local store to come and take some measurements of  their gear. If I am able to swap around tubes and notice a difference I will sure let everyone know. I don't think I will have time though. I start school in a week and I have a lot of prep to do before then. I am guess I wont be able to make a trip like that until winter break at the earliest.
 
​

Quote:

So is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?  I can easily tell the difference between a Telefunkin 12ax7 tube vs. a Amperex 12ax7 tube in the amp that drives the mid-range driver of my speakers?  Would I just as easily tell the difference when using the Realiser?
 
 

Edit: When I said you had to let us know about the Wilson's I assumed you would just record them in two channel. I am a bit hazy on how a virtual 5/7 channel system comes out when recording off of only 1/2 real speakers. I assumed you would just take the measurements to pure two channel listening. I assume creating a virtual system with them would work fine, but the real key would be to move the speakers around the room, and not swivel the chair. If you move the chair it will alter the room acoustics, and I imagine create an unnatural effect.
 

 

[josesol07]

Quote:

Edit: When I said you had to let us know about the Wilson's I assumed you would just record them in two channel. I am a bit hazy on how a virtual 5/7 channel system comes out when recording off of only 1/2 real speakers. I assumed you would just take the measurements to pure two channel listening. I assume creating a virtual system with them would work fine, but the real key would be to move the speakers around the room, and not swivel the chair. If you move the chair it will alter the room acoustics, and I imagine create an unnatural effect.
 

Hi, after doing the 7.1 measurement at the theater room, my next priority would be to record 2-channel PRIRs from both Wilson sets, as well as the Magneplanar 3.7. Then, if the dealer agrees, and there is time, I'd go for a 7.1 out of Wilson MAxx 2. But I bet they won't be willing to move a 400 pounds speaker around the room. Nevertheless, I guess that by swiveling the chair, the outcome might be quite interesting!!
 

 

[bdh]

Quote:

...
 
And that would provide you with the answer you seek.  Is that answer a deal-breaker, as to whether or not you buy a Realiser?
 
As for myself, I have far more fundamental motivations for wanting a Realiser, namely (1) the fact that I don't own a real 5.1/7.1 loudspeaker system, and (2) the ability to listen to pretty much the equivalent of the glorious zillion dollar AIX studio soundroom in my bedroom through headphones at any time day or night and as loud as I want, without bothering other people near me or the neighbors below me.

Yes, not knowing the answer to that is a deal breaker.  If the Realiser does not provide that level of fidelity, then it obviously won't pick up even less obvious, but still critical, aspects of the playback I've carefully selected in my speaker system.  And I'm not willing to pay that much money just to test whether if it's that good or not.
 

 

[dsperber]

 
Quote:

Yes, not knowing the answer to that is a deal breaker.  If the Realiser does not provide that level of fidelity, then it obviously won't pick up even less obvious, but still critical, aspects of the playback I've carefully selected in my speaker system.  And I'm not willing to pay that much money just to test whether if it's that good or not.
 

Don't get me wrong... I'm actually very jealous of the fact that you have your own high-end genuine loudspeaker system with electronics to go with it, and apparently a listening room with quality to match.  If I did I might not have been lusting after the Realiser since 2004 when I first read about its development.  I waited 5 years for it to finally become available for purchase, in April 2009 (when this thread started).
 
I'd been using Dolby Headphone on various Pioneer and Philips units (as I'm sure many others were) as my presumed "headphone solution" to my own absence of a real multi-channel setup and listening room.  In comparison, both (a) the virtual surround illusion provided by SVS and the Realiser, as well as (b) the remarkable fidelity and accuracy in reproducing the actual tonal quality of each particular listening environment captured by each particular PRIR measurement, well there's just really no comparison at all with Dolby Headphone (which is an "epic fail" in comparison to SVS).  So just as a replacement for Dolby Headphone, the Realiser for me is well worth the money (I opted out of the Stax 202 system, as I already had an Omega-1 and SRM-T1S).
 
So for me, my needs and desires were very specific... and as I said, quite basic and fundamental.  Living in a condo I simply didn't have the option to have my own listening room and appropriate electronics, to meet my dreams.  So what the Realiser could provide for me was honestly the next best thing to actually owning that equipment and room (and obviously much better than Dolby Headphone!).  Furthermore, I was now able to "capture" in a PRIR an excellent duplication of a high-end listening environment that I would never be able to afford myself, even if I had a room, and listen to it through headphones.  At $3K for something I would NEVER have been able to have before now, I felt the price for this was quite reasonable.
 
If you already have your own high-end listening room available, with high-end speakers and high-end electronics to match that all meet your requirements and provides you with great enjoyment (as I'm honestly sure it does, and again... I'm quite jealous), why exactly are you contemplating the Realiser?

 

[TruBrew]

It could be for a different room in his house, or to downsize. dsperber, you do make a great point though. The Realiser system is because you have to, it is not the ideal setup, but it is the best you, me, and many others can hope for. I also do not have the space for a perfect system, or the money. Lets say that the Realiser provides 95% the fidelity of the real system, I am just making 95% up for arguments sake. I had my recordings done at AIX, which I believe is around $250,000 in equipment, room treatments etc. lets cut that number down to $100,000. They do have a lot of equipment not used for my recording after all. Projectors, mixing boards and the like. OK so how much does it cost to build something 95% as good as a $100,000 system. With diminishing returns lets say 50%. So $50,000. Now the Reailser is now $3,670. So if for under $4,000 I can get the sound of $50,000 I am happy. Once again, all of my number are made up, but I think it proves a point.
 
On the other hand, if I have the room and money to build a $100,000+ theater room, you can bet I will. So if your system is perfect the way it is, don't give that up. 
 
Quote:

 

Don't get me wrong... I'm actually very jealous of the fact that you have your own high-end genuine loudspeaker system with electronics to go with it, and apparently a listening room with quality to match.  If I did I might not have been lusting after the Realiser since 2004 when I first read about its development.  I waited 5 years for it to finally become available for purchase, in April 2009 (when this thread started).
 
I'd been using Dolby Headphone on various Pioneer and Philips units (as I'm sure many others were) as my presumed "headphone solution" to my own absence of a real multi-channel setup and listening room.  In comparison, both (a) the virtual surround illusion provided by SVS and the Realiser, as well as (b) the remarkable fidelity and accuracy in reproducing the actual tonal quality of each particular listening environment captured by each particular PRIR measurement, well there's just really no comparison at all with Dolby Headphone (which is an "epic fail" in comparison to SVS).  So just as a replacement for Dolby Headphone, the Realiser for me is well worth the money (I opted out of the Stax 202 system, as I already had an Omega-1 and SRM-T1S).
 
So for me, my needs and desires were very specific... and as I said, quite basic and fundamental.  Living in a condo I simply didn't have the option to have my own listening room and appropriate electronics, to meet my dreams.  So what the Realiser could provide for me was honestly the next best thing to actually owning that equipment and room (and obviously much better than Dolby Headphone!).  Furthermore, I was now able to "capture" in a PRIR an excellent duplication of a high-end listening environment that I would never be able to afford myself, even if I had a room, and listen to it through headphones.  At $3K for something I would NEVER have been able to have before now, I felt the price for this was quite reasonable.
 
If you already have your own high-end listening room available, with high-end speakers and high-end electronics to match that all meet your requirements and provides you with great enjoyment (as I'm honestly sure it does, and again... I'm quite jealous), why exactly are you contemplating the Realiser?

 

 

[bdh]

Quote:

 
If you already have your own high-end listening room available, with high-end speakers and high-end electronics to match that all meet your requirements and provides you with great enjoyment (as I'm honestly sure it does, and again... I'm quite jealous), why exactly are you contemplating the Realiser?

In general I prefer to listen to my speakers rather than my headphones, but having a family and a speaker room that is not isolated from the rest of the house, plus having most of my listening time done in the morning before most people in my house are up, I just don't get enough speaker time.  And if the Realiser provides an 'indistinguishable' (sp?) experience compared to real life, I would get the Realiser.  If it doesn't, then it's a big gamble as to whether I would like it more or less than my current headphone systems.  If it is less, I would never use the Realiser.  This is for music listening.  I've probably watched three movies on my computer ever since it's been possible to play movies on our computers.  I'm just not into movies.  Now music... I would like to listen to all day long. 

 
 

 

[arnaud]

I have a similar concern (well curiosity actually because - although I haven't heard it - I know it will be miles better than using the stereo mix when matching movie through headphones) about the extent of the fidelity of such DSP system. From all the positive reviews, it's obviously working great. But I think anybody should be positively impressed when listening to headphone through some form of virtualization (esp. using personalized HRTFs like in this case).
 
I am a bit skeptical on such system to be able to pickup differences between say pairs of tubes considering they're probably not visible changes when looking for the frequency response or impulse response of the system... I am not saying the changes don't exist but given nobody really can objectively explain why a pair of NOS tubes sound better than production ones, it's difficult to imagine a DSP processor could grab the effect.
 
I was also originally skeptical as how one could reliably get a PRIR above say a few kHz given the hypersensitivity of the measurement to very slight changes in the mic (head) position. Seems to work alright though, amazing stuff!! I'll own one, some day
 

 

[dsperber]

 
Quote:

In general I prefer to listen to my speakers rather than my headphones, but having a family and a speaker room that is not isolated from the rest of the house, plus having most of my listening time done in the morning before most people in my house are up, I just don't get enough speaker time.  And if the Realiser provides an 'indistinguishable' (sp?) experience compared to real life, I would get the Realiser.  If it doesn't, then it's a big gamble as to whether I would like it more or less than my current headphone systems.  If it is less, I would never use the Realiser.  This is for music listening.  I've probably watched three movies on my computer ever since it's been possible to play movies on our computers.  I'm just not into movies.  Now music... I would like to listen to all day long. 

 

I understand and appreciate what you're saying, as to your own motivation for wanting one.  And it's also been the subject of a fair amount of discussion here, as to whether or not it's more "enjoyable" to listen to 2-channel CD-audio music through standard headphones, which provide a pure 2-channel stereo "headphone" sound but do allow superb articulation and the magic of high-end headphone/amp equipment as well as the subtleties of the music program content itself to be heard brilliantly.  This is really a totally different listening experience than sitting in a chair, even in a high-end listening room, and listening to that same sound come through 2 high-end speakers in front of you after passing through high-end electronics.
 
These are both high-end listening experiences, but I'd say they're two very different listening experiences.  Trying to apply the Realiser to an ordinary 2-channel stereo music source program... well I don't know which is "more enjoyable", that or just the pure "bypass-mode" unprocessed true "2-channel stereo headphone sound".  I don't think there's a right answer, only that 2-channel stereo through headphones vs. real speakers is chocolate vs. vanilla..
 
Now, quite distinct from your particular watching/listening habits, I watch a great deal of HDTV (including the occasional movie).  So having an acceptable virtual surround headphone solution to the DD5.1 audio provided with HDTV is what is my primary objective.  Being able to watch and listen to DD5.1 HDTV in the AIX sound studio is the goal... for me.  The Realiser makes that all possible for me, it's light years superior to Dolby Headphone or other similar products, and so I went for it.
 
In contrast, when listening to 2-channel CD audio I much prefer the delicate, elegant, precise, unprocessed and intimate sound of "pure headphones" (my 1995-vintage Omega-1 and SRM-T1S in particular, though I realize much better is available if I could afford it), and do not use the Realiser at all.