[YCH]

Quote:

I'm just baffled why my "one speaker" measurement doesn't work. Just like the manual says, I calibrate only L channel, run SPK, sweep all 12 times. In the end there seems to be 8 channels (except the diagnostics show 5-8 as ==:==:== ??). Both L & C sounds like center , R sounds like it's coming from left, SW from right and every other channel is dead silent! I've been going through everything for hours. 

 
What are you trying to do? Make multi-channel sound from one speaker?

 

[hekeli]

Quote:

What are you trying to do? Make multi-channel sound from one speaker?

 
Well yes that's the procedure.
 
I also made a 5.0 using the LR/LsRs method (stereo speakers and second measure facing back) which worked just fine.

 

[YCH]

Quote:

 
Well yes that's the procedure.
 
I also made a 5.0 using the LR/LsRs method (stereo speakers and second measure facing back) which worked just fine.

 
Sorry, just making sure, I know that sounded a bit unfriendly.
 
I tried the procedure and got exactly the same result as you, ie "Both L & C sounds like center , R sounds like it's coming from left, SW from right and every other channel is dead silent"

 

[hekeli]

Quote:

I tried the procedure and got exactly the same result as you, ie "Both L & C sounds like center , R sounds like it's coming from left, SW from right and every other channel is dead silent"

 
Heh interesting. Has anyone actually got it working here?
 
I tried mailing Smyth few days ago about it, no answer yet..

 

[Erik Garci]

Quote:

 
Heh interesting. Has anyone actually got it working here?
 
I tried mailing Smyth few days ago about it, no answer yet..

 


When I first tried it, I ran into a similar issue.  Smyth suggested doing ERASE PRESET to erase the preset completely and then reloading the PRIR and HPEQ into the preset, and that solved the issue for me.

 

[YCH]

Quote:

 


When I first tried it, I ran into a similar issue.  Smyth suggested doing ERASE PRESET to erase the preset completely and then reloading the PRIR and HPEQ into the preset, and that solved the issue for me.

 
That didn't work for me. I erase a preset before I do any measurements, then load that "empty" preset and do the measurements. Then load the PRIR and HPEQ into the empty preset. Now I just erased the preset once more and reloaded the PRIR and HPEQ, but still the same problem.

 

[dsperber]

I'd been wanting to diagram my A/V system for a long time, but have never found software which did what I wanted or whose results was anything like I really wanted to end up with.
 
Bottom line: if you want it to come out "right" you have to do it yourself.
 
So that's what I did.  Photoshop.  Good ol' Photoshop.
 
Anyway, this is my "downstairs" system based around my recently acquired HDMI Realiser.  You can view it in your browser, and it will display in whatever size window you have.
 
It's a big picture (4196x3096), but if you have a competent image viewer program you can of course download it to your PC and then view it "full-screen" mode (where the viewer program resizes it to fit your monitor), or you can view it in "full-size" mode (which requires scrolling around of course) for full resolution and clarity.
 
Took two weeks and many revisions and design changes, but I'm very satisfied with the result.

 

[YCH]

Okay, I noticed an apparent downside to using the LsRs speaker cloning. Since I only have a 2 channel system, I use the LsRs speaker cloning to get myself a 5.0 speaker system. Thing is, the virtual center channel always sounded off-center but I didn't too much about it. After some investigation, I find out that the virtual center emulation isn't that great (at least for my system); I checked this my playing a mono track as a dual mono on L-R and as virtual center....what I found was that emulating the center channel via dual-mono on L-R sounds much better than using the virtual center. So what I did was set my source (my PC) to 4-channel so that any center channel audio would get mixed into the L and R channels (basically not using the virtual center). After doing this, the performance of "alternate" center channel is much improved. Movie dialogue etc now sounds dead-on center.
 
Anyway, eventhough this workaround is acceptable, it makes me look forward to getting my PRIRs measured in a true + good 5.1 and 7.1 environment.

 

[silverlight]

Quote:

Okay, I noticed an apparent downside to using the LsRs speaker cloning. Since I only have a 2 channel system, I use the LsRs speaker cloning to get myself a 5.0 speaker system. Thing is, the virtual center channel always sounded off-center but I didn't too much about it. After some investigation, I find out that the virtual center emulation isn't that great (at least for my system); I checked this my playing a mono track as a dual mono on L-R and as virtual center....what I found was that emulating the center channel via dual-mono on L-R sounds much better than using the virtual center. So what I did was set my source (my PC) to 4-channel so that any center channel audio would get mixed into the L and R channels (basically not using the virtual center). After doing this, the performance of "alternate" center channel is much improved. Movie dialogue etc now sounds dead-on center.
 
Anyway, eventhough this workaround is acceptable, it makes me look forward to getting my PRIRs measured in a true + good 5.1 and 7.1 environment.

I'm just about to adventure in to making some multi channel PRIR's this week from a 2 channel system.  I was thinking of moving one of my speakers to the center location to take it's measurement so as to avoid the issue of artificially creating that speaker.  Was going to experiment with a second approach of finding a great location for one speaker (using a speaker measurement tool for most linear location in the room), and then take 5 or 7 measurements from there.  Will post results on the PRIR thread when I get it sorted.

 

[silverlight]

So random question.... has anyone tried the Realiser with the HDMI output of the new MacbookPro Retina?  I have the pair, and the MBP sees the Realiser, but I get no sound coming out of it.  Totally different story with the Mac Mini with HDMI output which operates the Realiser just fine and (while its a pain in the ass) you can play MKV files created with multi channel 5.1 or 7.1 sound with the Mini's HDMI out (as long as you've properly ripped a Blu Ray with LPCM output or, used fun tools like Eac3to to separately decode DTS-HD or TrueHD to LPCM and then use something like MKVToolnix to mux or "stuff" the track back into the MKV container and hopefully not have sync issues).  But it would be really nice at a minimum to listen to audio and the occasional test video from the Retina MBP and just wondered if I've botched it, or there's a hardware incompatibility.
 

 

[darinf]

I know this has been asked before, but no one really answered the question, so I'll ask again...
 
I know some of you are using external DAC's with the Realiser. Can anyone comment on comparing the Realiser built-in DAC's with their external DAC's?
 
I currently don't have a DAC, but am considering getting one. I am also trying to figure out what quality the Realiser DAC's are when compared to other DAC's of various price ranges.
 
I would imagine a high end DAC that costs more than the Realiser should give you better sound, but would a lower end DAC still be better than the Realiser's?
 
Even if anyone has a lower end DAC that they use for a different listening system, I would love to hear if you are able to tell any difference when using that DAC with the Realiser.
 
Thanks in advance,
 
-Darin

 

[dsperber]

Quote:

I know this has been asked before, but no one really answered the question, so I'll ask again...
 
I know some of you are using external DAC's with the Realiser. Can anyone comment on comparing the Realiser built-in DAC's with their external DAC's?

 
The Realiser's internal DAC is excellent.  Hard to really compare objectively with an external DAC, as there are also "volume" settings in the external DAC as well as in the Realiser which have to be adjusted so that the "loudness" is the same, in order to avoid the natural tendency to describe "louder as the better sounding".
 
I prefer the external DAC (my Audio-GD NFB9) because it has XLR outputs to feed my Stax SRM-007tII amp via XLR, which I feel to be superior sounding to the RCA inputs... but again, maybe that's just not objectively true.
 
I've got the RCA headphone output of my Realiser going to INPUT2 of the Stax amp.  I've got the XLR output of the DAC (fed via optical headphone output from the Realiser) going to INPUT3 of the Stax amp, with the volume level of the DAC set so that it sounds as loud as the Realiser (with volume set at -10db) does from INPUT2.  I have the unbalanced RCA output of the DAC (which is 1/2 the level of its balanced XLR output) going to my DBX 14/10 EQ (where I have a preset to increase the level and tone of its output to match that of the XLR path on INPUT3 of the Stax amp) which feeds INPUT1 of the Stax amp.
 
So I can literally A/B/C compare by simply pushing the input buttons on the Stax amp.
 
Comparing the XLR output of the DAC to the RCA output of the DAC (both of which are being produced from the optical output of the Realiser) is "unfair", because I have specifically built the DBX EQ preset so that the two sound identical.  And they do sound identical (even though the RCA output is 1/2 the level of the XLR output) once the tonal and level differences are compensated for by the EQ.  There's certainly no question that the RCA output of the DAC is "lower", and tonally different, than the XLR output.
 
But comparing INPUT2 on the Stax amp (which is coming directly from the RCA headphone output of the Realiser's DAC with volume -10db) to INPUT1/INPUT3 pretty much yields a wash.  If there is any discernible improvement from the DAC/XLR path, it's small.  Absolutely not "dramatic".
 
The Realiser's DAC is excellent... and I have a relatively expensive external DAC to compare against.  I think it's psychological, that I have "pure" Realiser to DAC (via optical) to Stax amp via XLR... and prefer it.

 

[jazzfan]

Quote:

I know this has been asked before, but no one really answered the question, so I'll ask again...
 
I know some of you are using external DAC's with the Realiser. Can anyone comment on comparing the Realiser built-in DAC's with their external DAC's?
 
I currently don't have a DAC, but am considering getting one. I am also trying to figure out what quality the Realiser DAC's are when compared to other DAC's of various price ranges.
 
I would imagine a high end DAC that costs more than the Realiser should give you better sound, but would a lower end DAC still be better than the Realiser's?
 
Even if anyone has a lower end DAC that they use for a different listening system, I would love to hear if you are able to tell any difference when using that DAC with the Realiser.
 
Thanks in advance,
 
-Darin

Here's a link to my previous comments on this topic:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/418401/long-awaited-smyth-svs-realiser-now-available-for-purchase/1815#post_8435018

I primarily listen to both Red Book CDs ripped to FLAC and high res (192kHz/24bit) downloads.  Digital processing and Toslink digital output from the Realizer is 48kHz/24bit.  Logically, I see little benefit to passing this potentially lower res signal to an external DAC for processing, even though that exactly describes my current system configuration (Realiser optical -->  W4S DAC2 analog RCA--> STAX SRM-727II).  In my experience with the equipment I own, the differences I noticed between the internal vs. the external DAC, were small - especially when compared to differences between PRIRs.

If you are contemplating investing in a highend DAC to improve the performance of the Realizer, my suggestion would be to save the money, and redirect those funds towards the purchase of a headphone upgrade (ie. SR-009), where you would most likely realize greater sonic improvements.

 

[darinf]

Quote:

But comparing INPUT2 on the Stax amp (which is coming directly from the RCA headphone output of the Realiser's DAC with volume -10db) to INPUT1/INPUT3 pretty much yields a wash.  If there is any discernible improvement from the DAC/XLR path, it's small.  Absolutely not "dramatic".
 
The Realiser's DAC is excellent... and I have a relatively expensive external DAC to compare against.  I think it's psychological, that I have "pure" Realiser to DAC (via optical) to Stax amp via XLR... and prefer it.

 
Quote:

If you are contemplating investing in a highend DAC to improve the performance of the Realizer, my suggestion would be to save the money, and redirect those funds towards the purchase of a headphone upgrade (ie. SR-009), where you would most likely realize greater sonic improvements.

Thanks for the quick responses!
 
I really appreciate all the great information. That's exactly what i was looking for.
 
I am actually surprised how good the built-in Realiser DAC is. That's good news though. Now I don't have to think about getting a DAC for it.
 
Good idea about redirecting funds towards a headphone upgrade, although it's unlikely I will ever upgrade to a 009 regardless. I already stretched my budget just to get the Realiser and the Stax... Maybe when I sell all my Cello audio gear, I will have enough to upgrade.
 
I am finding it hard to listen to anything on headphones without the Realiser. I've been recording the two channel processed output of the Realiser and playing it back portable on my Sansa Clip+ and my modified Koss PortaPro headphones. For something I can fit in my pocket, the sound is amazingly good. I had a friend listen to some 5.1 Dark Side of the Moon on my portable "Realiser" rig and it blew his mind! Just wait until he hears it using a PRIR I do for him and play it back on the Realiser with the Stax!

 

[mirohh]

I got a beginners question. I just ordered a Realiser. How do connect the Realiser anolog to my av-reciever? Its a Denon 2312 and has only clamps at the analog speaker outputs. There are no cinch outputs.