New Schiit SYN - Analog Surround Sound Processor

[ThatM1key]

I think generally this is a bad product with a bad price. The best way to full utilize this product is with classic 5.1 PC gaming, the issue is that is plenty of way cheaper options.

Products that would beat this product down is the "Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5" (Current $99 USD) and at-then "EVGA Nu Audio Card", which usually sold for $130 USD and also had a 7.1 add-on option. As much as I hate PCIe based audio, there's barely any USB competition so Schitt would get the win but is really worth going towards that for triple the money? If you don't care about PC surround sound gaming, there is plenty of great cheap stereo DACs out there.

Care about headphones? You can build a better

In terms of decoding, you can easily decode DTS and DD with plugs and various software solutions, all for free. Why bitch about it not having decoding baked in? Who's gonna purposely use this product (A $399 product mind you) with ancient DTS/DD players with optical outputs?

In terms of using this with a TV. Its a very very stupid idea. It's either lossless stereo or lossy 5.1. Want lossless stereo? go buy a cheap Topping DAC. Want lossy 5.1? Go buy a cheap AVR from the 2000s, because who cares about sound quality at that point. Buying this product for lossy 5.1 to "Get the most out of it" is like buying a Topping E50 and just playing MP3s on it.

 

[AllanMarcus]

I think generally this is a bad product with a bad price. The best way to full utilize this product is with classic 5.1 PC gaming, the issue is that is plenty of way cheaper options.

Products that would beat this product down is the "Creative Sound BlasterX AE-5" (Current $99 USD) and at-then "EVGA Nu Audio Card", which usually sold for $130 USD and also had a 7.1 add-on option. As much as I hate PCIe based audio, there's barely any USB competition so Schitt would get the win but is really worth going towards that for triple the money? If you don't care about PC surround sound gaming, there is plenty of great cheap stereo DACs out there.

Care about headphones? You can build a better

In terms of decoding, you can easily decode DTS and DD with plugs and various software solutions, all for free. Why bitch about it not having decoding baked in? Who's gonna purposely use this product (A $399 product mind you) with ancient DTS/DD players with optical outputs?

In terms of using this with a TV. Its a very very stupid idea. It's either lossless stereo or lossy 5.1. Want lossless stereo? go buy a cheap Topping DAC. Want lossy 5.1? Go buy a cheap AVR from the 2000s, because who cares about sound quality at that point. Buying this product for lossy 5.1 to "Get the most out of it" is like buying a Topping E50 and just playing MP3s on it.

I'm not sure you get this device. I didn't at first, but I'm starting to warm to it.

First off, there is no DTS or DD decoding. The Syn takes stereo and manipulates the sound to produce a pleasant surround effect. If you want decoding for the home theater (as I do with my 7.1.4 system), don't use the Syn.

What I might want to use the Syn for is my two channel dedicated listen room. I have a tube preamp, no remote. I happen to have a Schiit Bifrost DAC and a separate solid state amp and sub. If I add a Syn (once it starts to sell used for $250 ) I will add a second amp with some rear speakers. I will not have a center. This may give me some interesting 4.1 sound for music. It also gives me a good remote volume control.

I'm not sure the DAC in the Syn is better than the Bifrost MB gen 1, which I really like. I imaging if the Syn sells better than expectations, then may add a MB card.

As for headphones, not sure what competes with the Syn, even in software. Obviously as a DAC/Amp alone it's not a great deal. The special sauce is the sound field manipulation, which you will either like or not like.

I agree that for a home theater or even a desktop rig, an AVR is probably better for encoded surround sound. The Syn, however, is small than an AVR, so space may be an issue with an AVR. I think the actual buyers will be folks with two channels that want to play with matrix sound.

 

[Chaconne]

I don't understand why so many people seem to be criticizing this product on the grounds that is it is not what it is not intended to be. It's like criticizing a mini-monitor for not reproducing 20 Hz bass. Nobody intended it to do that and nobody should demean it for not doing that.

 

[Cbdb2]

Its the orignal Dolby surround matrix (it was analog). 50 year old tech you can recreate with a analog mixer. L+R to the center, L-R to both surrounds. And many AVRs still do this. Whoopie.

 

[ThatM1key]

First off, there is no DTS or DD decoding. The Syn takes stereo and manipulates the sound to produce a pleasant surround effect. If you want decoding for the home theater (as I do with my 7.1.4 system), don't use the Syn.

Hmm, I wonder what product(s) also tried to gain surround sound from a stereo source .

What I might want to use the Syn for is my two channel dedicated listen room. I have a tube preamp, no remote. I happen to have a Schiit Bifrost DAC and a separate solid state amp and sub. If I add a Syn (once it starts to sell used for $250 ) I will add a second amp with some rear speakers. I will not have a center. This may give me some interesting 4.1 sound for music. It also gives me a good remote volume control.

So you want to turn stereo music into 4.1 with remote control? Why not just buy an AVR? Plenty of AVRs that can turn a stereo source into a good fake surround mix.

 

[Chaconne]

Hmm, I wonder what product(s) also tried to gain surround sound from a stereo source .
View attachment 278703




So you want to turn stereo music into 4.1 with remote control? Why not just buy an AVR? Plenty of AVRs that can turn a stereo source into a good fake surround mix.

Is it fake if the signals directed to the rear speaker are already in the recording?

 

[ThatM1key]

I'm pretty certain I was wrong about this being a multi-channel DAC. This product takes stereo signals and converts them to "virtual" surround but outputs them like an old multi-channel DVD player. I consider this misleading since when you hear surround, you think basic DTS/DD or native 5.1 or 4.1 or whatever.

I was looking at the FAQ and they really try to defend this odd product. Here's a snippet of it and my reply:

1. Plenty of AVRs made in the last 20+ years can create virtual/fake surround out of a stereo source from a optical source. Technically speaking, you can use an AVR without touching calibration and never worry about "a few knobs", although your experience might be worse this way.
2. AVRs these days are very user friendly. My Sony STR-DN1080 can calibrate a room in about 1 minute. Although I do wish my Sony had "31-band EQ" versus the standard Bass/Treble 2-band EQ. One thing I will admit, is that bass management with a subwoofer is a nightmare. Some sources are too non-bass and some sources are just too bass heavy.
3. Although 5.1 is widely considered the "bare minimum" for surround sound, having a 6+ channel setup is amazing. Sure 5.1 is easier to setup than a Dolby Atmos setup, but the risk vs reward is amazing. Hearing raindrops above your head is a great experience.
4. Yes surround formats do change but its like every 10 years and they are backwards compatible.
5. Just like a Dolby Atmos setup would versus virtual surround.
6. Sure the "front" signal will be the same but the experience is different when compared to natively listening to that stereo source.
7. You can take and output the cleanest signal but the "surround experience" is just virtual.
8. My friends would call me a dumbass if I spent $400 on a product that turns stereo into virtual surround when I can get a true Dolby Atmos Onkyo receiver (used) for the same money.

 

[ThatM1key]

Is it fake if the signals directed to the rear speaker are already in the recording?

If the product can detect "other signals" in the recording, then its not fake. On the product page, I seen no mention of decoding "Example Format" and so It must take in a stereo source and spit out a fake surround mix. I mean sure it would be cool if this thing could decode old 1970s quad formats but it doesn't.

 

[617]

Nobody who owns a tube amp wants to look at a second hand AVR.

Sorry, if you don't get it you don't get it.

 

[ThatM1key]

Nobody who owns a tube amp wants to look at a second hand AVR.

Sorry, if you don't get it you don't get it.

I mean if you own a Tube amp (Which means your fine with altering the sound), Why not get an AVR?

 

[BJL]

Is it fake if the signals directed to the rear speaker are already in the recording?

"Fake" in this context is used as a pejorative for post processing that takes a stereo recording and expands (or upmixes) to a multi-channel format. The muli-channel post processing is not what the original engineer (or artist) intended, or perhaps, at the time made, surround sound did not exist. I have found numerous stereo recordings that, for my listening enjoyment, benefit from the dts and/or Dolby algorithms. This is a matter of personal choice and preference, but what purist audio enthusiasts call "fake" I would call an interpretation.

But it is correct to point out that a stereo recording processed to 7.1.4 (or other surround format) is a modification to the original mix, no different in my opinion to changing equalization, effectively a modification to the mastering decisions of the recording's engineer.

 

[ThatM1key]

"Fake" in this context is used as a pejorative for post processing that takes a stereo recording and expands (or upmixes) to a multi-channel format. The muli-channel post processing is not what the original engineer (or artist) intended, or perhaps, at the time made, surround sound did not exist. I have found numerous stereo recordings that, for my listening enjoyment, benefit from the dts and/or Dolby algorithms. This is a matter of personal choice and preference, but what purist audio enthusiasts call "fake" I would call an interpretation.

But it is correct to point out that a stereo recording processed to 7.1.4 (or other surround format) is a modification to the original mix, no different in my opinion to changing equalization, effectively a modification to the mastering decisions of the recording's engineer.

I'm not against upmixing. I sometimes use the "movie" DSP for my music on my Sony AVR. I consider it not pure because its a DSP messing the original source, not fixing like a EQ DSP. EQ DSP fixes the faults of the speakers and room layout to better match the engineers idea.

 

[617]

I mean if you own a Tube amp (Which means your fine with altering the sound), Why not get an AVR?

Tube amps do not alter sound in a way is perceptually significant except at extremes.
People buy tube amps because they like the way they look and they respect the ethic of the people who make them. These people do not want to look at an AVR.

 

[mhardy6647]

Hmm, I wonder what product(s) also tried to gain surround sound from a stereo source .
View attachment 278703




So you want to turn stereo music into 4.1 with remote control? Why not just buy an AVR? Plenty of AVRs that can turn a stereo source into a good fake surround mix.

Well, as the ad copy points out (bottom right) -- this one (Panasonic) was just slightly ahead of [its] time.

 

[mhardy6647]

Nobody who owns a tube amp wants to look at a second hand AVR.

Sorry, if you don't get it you don't get it.

Well, I mean... you might be surprised.



I use that (5.1) Yamaha as a preamp for this SE 2A3 amplifier sometimes.



Only for two-channel stereo -- or mono, though.
And it (the Yamaha, that is) was a dump find (i.e., zero-cost).

But -- yeah -- if I wanted to extract the out of phase "ambience" in a normal two-channel recording, I'd use the Hafler circuit and save a lot of $.
Especially since I already have a Dynaco QD-1 (as shown earlier).

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Well, I mean... you might be surprised.



I use that (5.1) Yamaha as a preamp for this SE 2A3 amplifier sometimes.



Only for two-channel stereo -- or mono, though.
And it (the Yamaha, that is) was a dump find (i.e., zero-cost).

But -- yeah -- if I wanted to extract the out of phase "ambience" in a normal two-channel recording, I'd use the Hafler circuit and save a lot of $.
Especially since I already have a Dynaco QD-1 (as shown earlier).

Ahh. It's glorious. The Yamaha, I mean.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Is it fake if the signals directed to the rear speaker are already in the recording?

Are they in the recording of a 2.0 mix?
If sound is coming from other sources than two from a stereo mix it's fake. Or "upmixed".

I can go to the recycle center and pull out an old Sony STR AVR for the cost of a sixpack, that has 20 upmix DSP profiles that works with stereo sources and brings it to 5.1 channels.

I didn't like any of this upmixing. It somehow sounded weird. Sometimes there was sounds that was expanded to surrounds that I knew should be on stage for example. Every single upmix DSP I've tried had had this error in more or less severe degrees. I was much into home theater many years ago.

Quality multi channel sound is only possible through decoding where the sounds are placed where they are supposed to be. All else is just an approximation and fake.
Including this "revolutionary" new Schiit Syn.

 

[BJL]

I didn't like any of this upmixing. It somehow sounded weird. Sometimes there was sounds that was expanded to surrounds that I knew should be on stage for example. Every single upmix DSP I've tried had had this error in more or less severe degrees. I was much into home theater many years ago.

Placing the listening position in the center of the musicians (rather than in front of the stage) is also common in recordings mixed for surround, some examples: Miles Davis "Live Evil" (quad) Kraftwerk "3D The Catalog" (atmos) Santana "Abraxas" (quad) Nitty Gritty Dirt Band "Nitty Gritty Surround" (DVD-A 5.1); Grateful Dead "American Beauty" (DVD-A 5.1). So that may not be to your taste, but it is an interesting approach. I've tried dts X post processing on some concert recordings that created a better front stage with good ambiance in the heights and surrounds. I've also tried the same with some recordings and had a terrible result. It is fun to try and often rewarding. The Syn approach though seems kind of primitive in comparison with Dolby and dts algorithms, or DSP in general.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Placing the listening position in the center of the musicians (rather than in front of the stage) is also common in recordings mixed for surround, some examples: Miles Davis "Live Evil" (quad) Kraftwerk "3D The Catalog" (atmos) Santana "Abraxas" (quad) Nitty Gritty Dirt Band "Nitty Gritty Surround" (DVD-A 5.1); Grateful Dead "American Beauty" (DVD-A 5.1). So that may not be to your taste, but it is an interesting approach. I've tried dts X post processing on some concert recordings that created a better front stage with good ambiance in the heights and surrounds. I've also tried the same with some recordings and had a terrible result. It is fun to try and often rewarding. The Syn approach though seems kind of primitive in comparison with Dolby and dts algorithms, or DSP in general.

Well your examples, as I understand, are multichannel by design and needs proper decoding.

I'm talking about stereo 2.0 upmix to more than 2 channels. Which is horse manure as far as I'm concerned because I've never heard it done correctly. Always with some weird sounds and weird volume differences between sounds.

And yes, the SYN seems like a quick way to cash in. But that's on me..

 

[mhardy6647]

Ahh. It's glorious. The Yamaha, I mean.

Aged but functional -- kind of like me, come to think of it.