+- Be Right Back, Uninstalling (https://www.brbuninstalling.com)
+-- Forum: Technology (https://www.brbuninstalling.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=51)
+--- Forum: Gadgets (https://www.brbuninstalling.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=70)
+--- Thread: This is sick. (/showthread.php?tid=8588)
This is sick. - Chief - 09-28-2008
http://www2.razerzone.com/Megalodon/
New headphones from Razer, with 7.1 surround sound. Looks awesome.
Do want.
Re: This is sick. - CaffeinePowered - 09-28-2008
Looks sick indeed
Re: This is sick. - exanimo - 09-28-2008
Personally, I'm not a big Razer fan. Heard too many stories of their shit not working properly.
Re: This is sick. - Mission Difficult - 09-28-2008
Fuck that. I love the razer mice I've had over the years, but when it comes to sound, cans are stereo. It might simulate some kind of virtual 7.1 (which is a little much as is) but it is no match for speakers. The psychoacoustics involved are interesting though.
Re: This is sick. - Versus - 09-28-2008
Mission, my Turtle Beach headset has four speakers in each cup. It does 5.1 surround sound, so a 7.1 headset shouldn't be that hard.
Re: This is sick. - Mission Difficult - 09-29-2008
It's not hard to shove a bunch of drivers into each cup and call it surround sound. ITU recommendations for a proper surround listening environment state the angles for speakers being 30 for front left and right, 110 for surround left and right with a 10 degree tolerance, and center being 0. All speakers equidistant from the listening position and at the same level (there is a 15 degree tolerance for the surround speakers though). Try putting that in a pair of cans that don't cover your entire head. In the end I'm guessing that most "surround sound" headphones actually gain results from the use of inter-channel amplitude differences to create "phantom" localizations of sounds.
Re: This is sick. - Versus - 09-29-2008
shit, I forget you do this stuff.
Re: This is sick. - Mission Difficult - 09-29-2008
Re: This is sick. - Versus - 09-29-2008
:-*
Re: This is sick. - dapngwnman - 09-29-2008
That is a smexy headset. My 30$ usb headset works fine though. SORRY RAZER.
Re: This is sick. - exanimo - 09-29-2008
Mission is so smart.
<3
Re: This is sick. - Surf314 - 09-29-2008
(09-29-2008, 12:06 AM)Mission Difficult link Wrote: It's not hard to shove a bunch of drivers into each cup and call it surround sound. ITU recommendations for a proper surround listening environment state the angles for speakers being 30 for front left and right, 110 for surround left and right with a 10 degree tolerance, and center being 0. All speakers equidistant from the listening position and at the same level (there is a 15 degree tolerance for the surround speakers though). Try putting that in a pair of cans that don't cover your entire head. In the end I'm guessing that most "surround sound" headphones actually gain results from the use of inter-channel amplitude differences to create "phantom" localizations of sounds.
I have no idea what you just said. I make my decisions in headphones based on the price per sexy ratio.
Re: This is sick. - CaffeinePowered - 09-29-2008
(09-29-2008, 12:05 PM)Surf314 link Wrote: [quote author=Mission Difficult link=topic=1494.msg41757#msg41757 date=1222664793]
It's not hard to shove a bunch of drivers into each cup and call it surround sound. ITU recommendations for a proper surround listening environment state the angles for speakers being 30 for front left and right, 110 for surround left and right with a 10 degree tolerance, and center being 0. All speakers equidistant from the listening position and at the same level (there is a 15 degree tolerance for the surround speakers though). Try putting that in a pair of cans that don't cover your entire head. In the end I'm guessing that most "surround sound" headphones actually gain results from the use of inter-channel amplitude differences to create "phantom" localizations of sounds.
I have no idea what you just said. I make my decisions in headphones based on the price per sexy ratio.
[/quote]
Audiophile to Normal Translation:
The headphones, much like Pam Anderson's breasts aren't real. They fake surround sound.
Re: This is sick. - Surf314 - 09-29-2008
(09-29-2008, 12:07 PM)CaffeinePowered link Wrote: [quote author=Surf314 link=topic=1494.msg41815#msg41815 date=1222707942]
[quote author=Mission Difficult link=topic=1494.msg41757#msg41757 date=1222664793]
It's not hard to shove a bunch of drivers into each cup and call it surround sound. ITU recommendations for a proper surround listening environment state the angles for speakers being 30 for front left and right, 110 for surround left and right with a 10 degree tolerance, and center being 0. All speakers equidistant from the listening position and at the same level (there is a 15 degree tolerance for the surround speakers though). Try putting that in a pair of cans that don't cover your entire head. In the end I'm guessing that most "surround sound" headphones actually gain results from the use of inter-channel amplitude differences to create "phantom" localizations of sounds.
I have no idea what you just said. I make my decisions in headphones based on the price per sexy ratio.
[/quote]
Audiophile to Normal Translation:
The headphones, much like Pam Anderson's breasts aren't real. They fake surround sound.
[/quote]
Yea but like her boobs they are still pretty sexy, I might want these.
Re: This is sick. - cbre88x - 11-12-2008
(09-29-2008, 12:06 AM)Mission Difficult link Wrote: In the end I'm guessing that most "surround sound" headphones actually gain results from the use of inter-channel amplitude differences to create "phantom" localizations of sounds.
That's because they do.
The only way to "accurately" simulate surround when the sound is that compact and close to the ear is to manipulate volume, At least that is what I noticed in my set of phones.
I'd love to take a Physics of Music class.