Long awaited Smyth SVS Realiser NOW AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE
Oct 25, 2009 at 12:19 PM Post #376 of 2,910
WSR Reber: How does the fidelity of the headphones themselves impact performance? In other words, you’re going to get a different sound character from using just inexpensive headphones versus the STAX headphones.

Smyth: That’s right. When I first developed the Realiser, I was using electrostatic loudspeakers. And it always struck me that here you are capturing this very, very fast system, and how are you going to reproduce it? You’d better make sure that what’s playing out is equally fast. So you have to have a fairly transparent headphone if you really want to hear the characteristic of your loudspeaker. It isn’t as if you clearly hear the coloration of the headphone in the emulated loudspeaker, it’s not as simple as that. The emulated loudspeaker and room dominate, there’s no question about that. The coloration that the headphone adds is a lot less, but it is still there. And so our approach has always been: if you want to be able to judge the room and judge the loudspeakers, then make sure the headphones are good. And of course we have tried the top-of-the-line STAX headphones, and they’re better still. But are they that much better than the entry-level STAX? Maybe five or ten percent. What we supply is a very, very good system, but it doesn’t stop people from improving the headphones. You can improve to whatever level you want.

WSR Reber: Then the basic fidelity is going to come from your actual in-room loudspeaker system?

Smyth: Yes, because the room and the loudspeaker system is dominant. Of course, if the loudspeaker were in an anechoic chamber, you would hear only the loudspeaker. In that case, there would be a much closer divide between the fidelity of the loudspeaker and the fidelity of the headphone. But generally speaking, the room dominates, and so that is what produces the sound characteristic, not the headphone.
 
Oct 26, 2009 at 3:37 AM Post #377 of 2,910
Quote:

Originally Posted by dsperber /img/forum/go_quote.gif
WSR Reber: How does the fidelity of the headphones themselves impact performance? In other words, you’re going to get a different sound character from using just inexpensive headphones versus the STAX headphones.

Smyth: That’s right. When I first developed the Realiser, I was using electrostatic loudspeakers. And it always struck me that here you are capturing this very, very fast system, and how are you going to reproduce it? You’d better make sure that what’s playing out is equally fast. So you have to have a fairly transparent headphone if you really want to hear the characteristic of your loudspeaker. It isn’t as if you clearly hear the coloration of the headphone in the emulated loudspeaker, it’s not as simple as that. The emulated loudspeaker and room dominate, there’s no question about that. The coloration that the headphone adds is a lot less, but it is still there. And so our approach has always been: if you want to be able to judge the room and judge the loudspeakers, then make sure the headphones are good. And of course we have tried the top-of-the-line STAX headphones, and they’re better still. But are they that much better than the entry-level STAX? Maybe five or ten percent. What we supply is a very, very good system, but it doesn’t stop people from improving the headphones. You can improve to whatever level you want.

WSR Reber: Then the basic fidelity is going to come from your actual in-room loudspeaker system?

Smyth: Yes, because the room and the loudspeaker system is dominant. Of course, if the loudspeaker were in an anechoic chamber, you would hear only the loudspeaker. In that case, there would be a much closer divide between the fidelity of the loudspeaker and the fidelity of the headphone. But generally speaking, the room dominates, and so that is what produces the sound characteristic, not the headphone.



Very interesting. Did he have anything to say about the JH-13 ?

I didn't find the October WSR issue locally, so I signed up for the web edition. It says I should have access in 48 hours. Stay tuned....
 
Oct 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM Post #378 of 2,910
Good find, dsperber. I will pick up a copy of the October WSR.

I have also emailed Lorr just now about getting a calibration at the Egpytian. I'm not waiting until December. The heck with that
biggrin.gif
 
Oct 26, 2009 at 2:18 PM Post #379 of 2,910
Quote:

Originally Posted by Erik Garci /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Have you compared the sound of the AIX+Lamda preset to the AIX+Omega preset?


Quote:

Originally Posted by dsperber /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I know, you're really asking if the SVS EQ processing can make lesser headphones sound [almost] as good as better headphones, or if not then how close are they?

Anyway, I will get back to this particular experiment and do it right this time. I'll then give my opinion.



Did you get back to this? Do you agree with Stephen Smyth that the top-of-the-line STAX is maybe 5 or 10 percent better than the entry-level STAX?
 
Oct 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM Post #380 of 2,910
It shouldn't make much of a difference between the two. The Omega will likely have better lower end extension, but some of the things that make it so special as a headphone (soundstage, midrange tonality) over the lambdas wouldn't really apply in this application. They chose the 202 because it is technically about as good as it gets without being ridiculously priced. Other headphones in the same price range wouldn't be able to keep up with the speed or detail of Quad's, for example, and this is where a 202 comes in handy.
 
Oct 26, 2009 at 9:06 PM Post #381 of 2,910
Just got the web edition of WSR. Wow - quite an interview! Will take awhile to digest all of that info.

Did you see where Reber is hinting that Realiser owners could visit the WSR Reference Home Theater Listening Room for measurements? Hmm.....

I also noted a mention of Skywalker Ranch Studios. Another intriguing one....
 
Oct 26, 2009 at 9:33 PM Post #382 of 2,910
Better headphones absolutely make a difference. That is, IF they can handle the huge dynamic range that the Realiser puts out, particularly the LFE sub bass.

My absolute favorite to use with my Realiser is the JH13's. Speaker localization is clearer and more precise. Frequency response is the best I've heard, especially sub bass. There is also more subtle detail I can discern.

With a high quality PRIR, the Realiser absolutely scale well with higher end headphones.
-Ed
 
Oct 27, 2009 at 4:20 AM Post #385 of 2,910
Hi Edwood,

I notice that both you and dsperger both have indicated that you prefer to listen to 2 channel music without the Realizer A8 engaged. I myself only wish to use it for 2 channel music. Could you please explain why this is the case for you? Any input is sincerely appreciated.
 
Oct 27, 2009 at 6:38 AM Post #387 of 2,910
Quote:

Originally Posted by 701 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hi Edwood,

I notice that both you and dsperger both have indicated that you prefer to listen to 2 channel music without the Realizer A8 engaged. I myself only wish to use it for 2 channel music. Could you please explain why this is the case for you? Any input is sincerely appreciated.



I guess I'm more of a headphone purist, when it comes to 2 Channel music. Even though better headphones scale well with the Realiser, the Realiser's processing does change the sound signature. And that's the whole point of the Realiser.

The reason why headphones, and especially custom IEM's, sound so much better (in detail, accuracy, tonality, and such) than like priced speakers (more bang for the buck with headphones), is that Headphones are as close to a direct wire line into our brains for music. They don't have to deal with room acoustics, head shape, ear shape (with IEM's that is), and speaker size/set up. Those imperfections are what give speakers their characteristic sounds. The sound has the shortest path to your ears with headphones, with little to get in the way.

The Realiser adds all those "imperfections" such as sound reflections, reverb, resonance, etc. that make a convincing speaker set up sound. Unfortunately, it does diminish the sound details a bit. The larger the room, the more treble detail loss there will be.

-Ed
 
Oct 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM Post #389 of 2,910
I just want to say that the customer service of Smyth is top notch. I had a little problem with my unit and I had a new one in my hands the next day. Lorr came by personally.

@Sledge - I was running without the HPEQ like Ed but I calibrated yesterday and I do notice a more focused imaging, more precise placement of sounds, it's just a bit better, but is noticable.
 
Oct 27, 2009 at 4:16 PM Post #390 of 2,910
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sledge /img/forum/go_quote.gif
How do you calibrate IEM's? Don't you have to have the microphones and the headphones on for the headphone calibration?

EDIT: Nevermind. I forgot you have the A8 off for that.



There isn't a way to make an HPEQ for IEM's yet. But I don't think it's really necessary, especially with custom IEM's, because they are inside your ear canal. So, you essentially by pass the outer shape and features of your ears, which do have an effect on the sound that enters your ears.

-Ed
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top