[sander99]

I thought that it would have 2 outputs.. 1 HDMI to go to the preamp/processor (or receiver) as a pass thru and an HDMI direct to the TV. (Since many receivers cant pass HDR)

Unfortunately no, and that never was planned. Maybe you misread posts on this forum of people talking about using a source device (like oppo bluray player) with two hdmi outputs?
(By the way, for the people who don't know it yet: oppo plans to stop developing and producing bluray players.)

Oh, I was looking at one of your previous posts: you have a Samsung BD-F7500 it also has 2 hdmi outputs. And the Samsung UBD-M9500 upgrade you considered also. Problem solved? (One hdmi out direct to the tv, the other first to the A16, and the hdmi out of the A16 to the AV7702. Not the other way round, because the AV7702 probably would not pass on bitstream or pcm surround formats, only stereo and downmixed to stereo.)

 

[462429]

Haha, that certainly is a lot of work. You're right though, I don't need to offer a definitive "no way" opinion without having heard it set up in the way I personally believe may produce a more accurate representation for my own listening desires. I just think that if Smyth were targeting that stereo listening demographic, they would consider offering at least some of the considerations I mentioned during the demo that would better prove its capabilities for stereo reproduction. In my conversations with them, they made it clear that my setup desires are a very small representation of their majority demographics, and quite literally told me that "most people that want to do what you're trying to achieve already have two speakers and don't need this."
Believe me, I've spent years dreaming about the a8's (and now the a16's) capabilities to recreate $50-100k demo rooms at various dealers.

If Dolby Atmos coded music with it's 16 channels sounded 'compressed' to you (and you said it was compared to the loudspeakers performance, not to your different expectations!) then surely 2-channels music would not have done any better. If your impression is correct, that would mean violation of the main promise - accurately replicating any sound room. 'Any' includes 2-channels turntable systems too, although that is, thanks to God, not the main target of the Realiser A16.
If that reported sound degradation was caused by a poorly measured PRIR, that would be a great relief for us, but also a great minus for the Smyth Research.
If the PRIR was done correctly, but it quasi needed manual tweaking to achieve accurate sound, that would simply be a self-delusion.

Thanks for your comments. I am a Kickstarter backer and am interested in both movies and stereo, but primarily the latter. I heard the demo at Axpona last year and my impressions were similar to yours.
...

So, we have two people who have the same impression - that the Realiser A16 is not good enough for music, but only for movies. If that impression is correct, could it be that all those delighted faces in Smyhs' advertisements were depicted in moments while listening to explosions, and not to the music?!?

 

[Maestroso]

Fact: Convolution with binaural impulse responses always runs the danger of compromizing the dynamics of the original signal. That's in the nature of the principle and can only be migitated by averaging multiple IRs. However, minor (perhaps non perceiveable) changes might remain to some extend. The question is how high is the tradeoff?

 

[Fox1977]

When i got the demo, i watched movie samples (since it will be the main purpose for me to get A16) and i simply didn't hear a difference between actual speakers and headphones. During A/B comparison, when i was putting headphones back on, it was switching automatically back to headphones, without even a click to let me know that it switched, and i couldn't notice at which moment i started to hear from the headphones. But i did not try with music.

 

[musicday]

So many times before we were complaining about a possible shipping date in the near future, and now people are not convinced that the A16 will sound good with music?
Come on guys, the Realiser A16 is a game changer from every single angle you are looking

 

[sander99]

Fact: Convolution with binaural impulse responses always runs the danger of compromizing the dynamics of the original signal. That ... can only be migitated by averaging multiple IRs.

averaging multiple IRs: this is what happens if you do repeated sweeps with the Realiser during the PRIR measurement? Or is this something different?
(The A8 can do repeatet sweeps, and longer sweeps. As we just learned the initial firmware of the A16 only does the standard non-repeated, short sweeps, but there may come a future update for the other options.)

 

[sander99]

I don't care much for trying to discover tiny - real or possible imagined - differences between audio equipment in a demo at some show. The demo of Smyth was different for me because for me it wasn't about tiny differences, it was about the remarkable resemblence - especially all spatial aspects of it, the feeling that the sound was totally unrelated to the headphones on your head - of sound over headphones versus sound over speakers that normally are totally different. That is what all those delighted faces are about.
Even if there would be small differences with the real speakers, it still could sound very good. If a simulation of a $150K system in a dedicated treated room doesn't sound 100% identical to the real $150K system in the dedicated treated room, it could still be better than any real system you can buy for the price of a Realiser plus headphones, or even better than any real speakers you can afford (and have space for, and your neighbours will tolerate without having to make a sound proof room).
Of course it is a matter of how critical you are. If you are very critical you have to put in some extra effort to get better results. (Measure a better system, use the longer and repeated sweeps, do a few tries, use better headphones, maybe external dac/amp).
And don't forget the things you can do to even improve the simulated system over the real system, like with direct bass, and decreasing reverberation.
Everyone will have to judge for himself or herself .

@mlkri: when you get your A16, and if you are not satisfied with it maybe I'll want to buy it from you

 

[castleofargh]

it's not about degrading something or not. it's about what we gain in exchange of what we lose. to get not only the sound out of my head, but at positions in space where the instruments were supposed to be? I'd give half the dynamic range of my tracks and everything above 15khz in exchange, and I would still believe I've come much closer to the idea of high fidelity compared to usual headphone sound and of non binaural recordings(so most of them). of course that's just my point of view. we can't really prove that one variable is universally more important than another, we can only make our own mind about it.

all of you stop posting in here. I see messages and come reading, then I think about the A16 again. it's not nice to do that to me.

 

[profsbg]

@mlkri: You are misinterpreting my impressions. I don't know whether it is good enough for high-end stereo emulations, which is the scenario I was addressing. Some evidence suggests that it may require some manual fine-tuning and perhaps extremely neutral gear. Even then there would be theoretical limitations, such as emulating nonlinearities from tube-based amplification or speaker cone excursions (these aren't the kind of things I would want to emulate).

Also, the manual fine-tuning I was referring to is manual equalization of the headphones which is individual but not room-related, and what Smyth refers to as the HPEQ. HPEQ measurements and determination are distinct from the PRIR. It is quite reasonable that to obtain the highest accuracy in emulations some manual fine-tuning of the HPEQ is necessary. Smyth is aware of this and you can read about their reasoning and previous efforts in the A8 manual pp. 61-62. Their original approach had limited resolution and used subands and compression to avoid clipping associated with simply inverting the response. The procedure was also fairly time consuming. I am interested to see what the A16 can do in this respect, and how it impacts high-end stereo emulation, which I have not heard,

 

[462429]

I don't care much for trying to discover tiny - real or possible imagined - differences between audio equipment in a demo at some show. The demo of Smyth was different for me because for me it wasn't about tiny differences, it was about the remarkable resemblence - especially all spatial aspects of it, the feeling that the sound was totally unrelated to the headphones on your head - of sound over headphones versus sound over speakers that normally are totally different. That is what all those delighted faces are about.
Even if there would be small differences with the real speakers, it still could sound very good. If a simulation of a $150K system in a dedicated treated room doesn't sound 100% identical to the real $150K system in the dedicated treated room, it could still be better than any real system you can buy for the price of a Realiser plus headphones, or even better than any real speakers you can afford (and have space for, and your neighbours will tolerate without having to make a sound proof room).

Sorry, @sander99, but delighted faces and Smyth faces claimed the sound in headphones was/will be exactly the same as in the meassured room. You say small differences. And @BombayTheIndian says room good, headphones 'compressed' (which I understand as 'poor'). So, big differences.

Of course it is a matter of how critical you are. If you are very critical you have to put in some extra effort to get better results. (Measure a better system, use the longer and repeated sweeps, do a few tries, use better headphones, maybe external dac/amp).
And don't forget the things you can do to even improve the simulated system over the real system, like with direct bass, and decreasing reverberation.

The sound of the particular system was not the problem. The measurement done by a proffesional should have also been good. Headphones were very good. If all this gives 'compressed' sound, then the problem must be in the Realiser itself.

Everyone will have to judge for himself or herself.

Yes, @BombayTheIndian already did it and his experience worries me a lot.

@mlkri: when you get your A16, and if you are not satisfied with it maybe I'll want to buy it from you

Thank you, that is very generous of you. But, you wouldn't be ready to pay 915 GBP for it, would you?

So many times before we were complaining about a possible shipping date in the near future, and now people are not convinced that the A16 will sound good with music?

Well, in the meantime there was a presentation of the Realiser A16 and some people had disappointing experiences regarding music virtualisation. For me, that could be even bigger problem then the huge dalay.

Come on guys, the Realiser A16 is a game changer from every single angle you are looking

For you it is a game changer and for @BombayTheIndian it is a music changer.

it's not about degrading something or not. it's about what we gain in exchange of what we lose.
...

Well, I was ready to lose my 915 GBP and they were offering accurate audio virtualisation in return. Not 'compressed' sounding, but accurate.

@mlkri: You are misinterpreting my impressions. I don't know whether it is good enough for high-end stereo emulations, which is the scenario I was addressing. Some evidence suggests that it may require some manual fine-tuning and perhaps extremely neutral gear.
..,

If a 'good' system turns out 'compressed', how can you expect 'high end' system would turn out accurate? I think fine-tuning comes into play when you want to compensate possible shortcomings of one's ears. But you must have accurate virtualisation first.

 

[KrishM]

Sorry, @sander99, but delighted faces and Smyth faces claimed the sound in headphones was/will be exactly the same as in the meassured room. You say small differences. And @BombayTheIndian says room good, headphones 'compressed' (which I understand as 'poor').

The sound of the particular system was not the problem. The measurement done by a proffesional should have also been good. Headphones were very good. If all this gives 'compressed' sound, then the problem must be in the Realiser itself.

Yes, @BombayTheIndian already did it and his experience worries me a lot.

Thank you, that is very generous of you. But, you wouldn't be ready to pay 915 GBP for it, would you?

Well, in the meantime there was a presentation of the Realiser A16 and some people had disappointing experiences regarding music virtualisation. For me, that could be even bigger problem then the huge dalay.

For you it is a game changer and for @BombayTheIndian it is a music changer.

Well, I was ready to lose my 915 GBP and they were offering accurate audio virtualisation in return. Not 'compressed' sounding, but accurate.

If a 'good' system turns out 'compressed', how can you expect 'high end' system would turn out accurate? I think fine-tuning comes into play when you want to compensate possible shortcomings of one's ears. But you must have accurate virtualisation first.

I can see this becoming an ambiguity that people read into later, so I need to clarify what "compressed" meant to me when listening to the dolby atmos surround audio tracks:
1. The overall sense of 360 degree space was tighter than the speakers
2. The actual music had a hollowed-out sound, like the eq had sucked the original audio source and squeezed it - this is where my issue with music playback came from. Coming from multiple high end headphone and stereo setups over the years, I know what accurate vs inaccurate music reproduction sounds like (and more directly, what the a16 over headphones vs. the Yamaha monitors in the room sounded like side by side during the demo). Sound effects from movies sounded fun and immersive to me (coming from a non-headphone-using-movie-viewer) and I still see this being a great product for movie watchers.

Once again, remember that this was for surround tracks only, they didn't offer any traditional stereo recordings to see how that performs.

 

[musicday]

Maybe before we start worrying too much about the A16 not being that great as a 2 channel music system, we shall contact Smyth Research direct first and hear their answer?

 

[teacher1000]

There must be plenty of A8 owners who will be able to share their opinion on music reproduction. I can only imagine the A16 will be the equal of, if not better than the A8.

 

[StillaStillsFan]

We need a product similar to the Smyth device that is completely focused on simulation of very high quality 2-channel music reproduction. I, like some others here, have no interest in special effects (explosions, gunfire, thunder, automobile noise) being located accurately in front, behind, or to the side of me.

 

[Fox1977]

Yes, @BombayTheIndian already did it and his experience worries me a lot.

I understand your worries, but if Bombay felt that the sound was different, it doesn't mean it will be the same for you.
If you are not satisfied with the A16, i can imagine it will be a huge disappointment after waiting more than a year and a half. Yet, you should be able to resell it quite easily and maybe even make a bit of money out of it !
I got it for 1150€ (including taxes, shipping and a second head-tracker), the official price given by the french reseller is 2790€, so i could sell it for 1500€ or even 2000€ and it would still be a good deal for the buyer...