[JAChichorro]

Is DTS actually needed in DPS chain? There doesn't seem to be any difference between DTS-MM-Dolby HP and just MM-Dolby HP with FLAC and MP3 files.

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAChichorro /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is DTS actually needed in DPS chain? There doesn't seem to be any difference between DTS-MM-Dolby HP and just MM-Dolby HP with FLAC and MP3 files.

The DTS is required for the 5.1 Surround Test File from lynnemusic.com not for stereophonic files.

 

[owenhan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flognuts /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought for music 2 channels was the best. Whats the point in creating surround sound for a 2 channel source by adding an echo? I mean it sounds alright but 2 channels sounds much more crisp IMO

After comparing FreeSurround with regular stereo on several tracks the sound is definitely much sharper and crisper without FreeSurround but not in a way that I like. Some instruments come off as a little harsh and intrusive. Also when disabling FreeSurround it feels like a vortex has suddenly sucked all the instruments to a point inside my head. Overall I really like the warmth and space that FreeSurround brings. After switching it off music just sounds unnatural to me.

 

[santsant]

waow,, what a nice effect on my Ultrasone pro2500

 

[Flognuts]

Free surround is defiantly better than channel mixer, much more clearer.

Free surround takes a bit of the edge of these ad900's, while keeping its clarity, still undecided whether its better than normal 2ch but its growing on me.

I got amplification @ 200% with no DTS is this right?

what are your free surround and dolby headphone setting?

 

[fenixdown110]

I still have the DTS in my list. The center is set at 0.5 and the Dolby amplifier is at 150%.

 

[noparanoia]

Sorry if this has been asked already (I really cant face reading all 18 pages). I have Headroom Ultra Micro Amp and DAC. How does Headroom crossfeed effect this set up? Should I turn it off? Or is there something in the settings I should change to take this into account? Thanks

 

[wali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graphicism /img/forum/go_quote.gif I really think the skepticism comes from a plugin or 'effect' that is putting a lot of people off simply trying it. If it were hardware with a price tag and had this many positive reviews people would be all over it.

You're absolutely right.

I think you need a lot of credit for this and I recommend everyone to give it a try. Especially Xonar XTS/ST owners, because the headphone amp of that card is unlistenable without crossfeed, but this plug-in takes it a step further and widens the soundstage (which automatically extends the highs) while bringing forward the vocals and tightening the bass... how it does it, i don't know and i don't care... thanks!

 

[adrift]

Been messing around with Free Surround and trying to A/B it with Channel Mixer and Frank Zappa's Apostrophe' 5.1. Not very easy to do really. Anyways. Free Surround does sound more vibrant... I wouldn't say clearer, but definitely more vibrant. I'm assuming at least part of that has to do with turning up the amplification in the Headphone Wrapper to 200% which I'm guessing will make audio sound clearer since its louder. My problem is trying to figure out if the surround sound layout is more accurate with Free Surround. I really can't tell. The spacing feels better. Certain instruments and vocals seem closer or further away and the effect seems more realistic (again with 200% amplification which I'm sure has more than a little to do with it), but I simply can't tell if they're in the proper place and that bugs me a little. I'm just not experienced enough to make a proper judgment.

 

[Headdie]

After a "surround" high, I'm coming back to stereo listening and it's good. Dolby HP gives you soundstage, but you loose timbre and details. It's a hard to do tradeoff.

Funny enough, I have twice the same CD of Billy Cobham (a DTS version and a stereo version). I like it better with Upmix (FS or CM) than the DTS version...

Now, I understand that ATsurround supercedes FreeSurround. Does anyone can tell us if it's a better 3D processor ?

Also, does anybody can tell how FS/CM + DolbyHP compares to OSS/3D or OzoneMP ?

I'm planning a come back to surround headphone, but it has to be better than CM + DolbyHP.

 

[pro_optimizer]

MusX pointed me to this thread.

There had been some questions on the various surround processors available in FB2K. I am the last person you should believe in this regard since I wrote one of them (FreeSurround), but I'll try to be honest nevertheless. What all of them do is determine the position of any source around the listener, according to a matrix coding specification.

While doing so, FreeSurround does not change the volume of any source (and therefore does not color the sound by itself). Like the others, it has three main effects: first, a center speaker is introduced into front rendering. In Dolby Headphone, all speakers are of equal quality, and thus, that helps clarity. Second, some sources (such as echos), are spread over the sound field, including the listener's rear (called "magic surround" in Dolby's recording manual). These are not added/amplified, but just moved. Third, sources with spatial cues (set during recording/mixing via pan-and-rotate units) are placed at their appropriate locations around the listener -- but only select albums contain such sources. The sliders can further move and transform the sound field around the listener (e.g. dimensions shifts it forward or backward), which allows to be inside the stage at some settings (even if it is normally in front of the listener) -- this is the effect that most of you are looking for, I presume.

Channel Mixer decodes according to the exact same specification, and therefore gives all the same effects. It has the dimension slider, too: called front in rear -- only that here, the stage is not moved but copied (and that it's active by default). The same things hold for ATsurround (plus that ATsurround has it's own headphone mode in addition). The only real difference of the three is the type of decoder being used. Channel Mixer uses a Dolby Surround-type decoder (a "passive decoder"), ATsurround uses a Dolby ProLogic I-type decoder (an "active decoder"), and FreeSurround uses a Dolby ProLogic II-type decoder. See this interview with Jim Fosgate (who created several decoders) on these matters. The differences between decoders (spatial accuracy, clarity, locality) can be snooped out by playing back a matrix-encoded channel test file, attached.

 

[mlantinen]

Just wanted to thank the OP. This is a really nice change of pace from the stereo listening. I'm really enjoying the added clarity of the vocals and instrumental definition. At first I thought it would be more fatiguing but so far so good.

I use foobar for surround music listening and media player for stereo listening. Both are pinned right next to each other on my toolbar.

Love'n it!

On a side note, quite a freak'n challenge (for me anyway) to find a theme that works with Foobar2000 1.0 and windows 7, etc, yada yada. Talk about plugins. I'd find one that I think will work, but then the album art won't show up or something else wacky will happen. But finally found one that works.... or at least works for the most part.

 

[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pro_optimizer /img/forum/go_quote.gif MusX pointed me to this thread. There had been some questions on the various surround processors available in FB2K. I am the last person you should believe in this regard since I wrote one of them (FreeSurround), but I'll try to be honest nevertheless. What all of them do is determine the position of any source around the listener, according to a matrix coding specification. While doing so, FreeSurround does not change the volume of any source (and therefore does not color the sound by itself). Like the others, it has three main effects: first, a center speaker is introduced into front rendering. In Dolby Headphone, all speakers are of equal quality, and thus, that helps clarity. Second, some sources (such as echos), are spread over the sound field, including the listener's rear (called "magic surround" in Dolby's recording manual). These are not added/amplified, but just moved. Third, sources with spatial cues (set during recording/mixing via pan-and-rotate units) are placed at their appropriate locations around the listener -- but only select albums contain such sources. The sliders can further move and transform the sound field around the listener (e.g. dimensions shifts it forward or backward), which allows to be inside the stage at some settings (even if it is normally in front of the listener) -- this is the effect that most of you are looking for, I presume. Channel Mixer decodes according to the exact same specification, and therefore gives all the same effects. It has the dimension slider, too: called front in rear -- only that here, the stage is not moved but copied (and that it's active by default). The same things hold for ATsurround (plus that ATsurround has it's own headphone mode in addition). The only real difference of the three is the type of decoder being used. Channel Mixer uses a Dolby Surround-type decoder (a "passive decoder"), ATsurround uses a Dolby ProLogic I-type decoder (an "active decoder"), and FreeSurround uses a Dolby ProLogic II-type decoder. See this interview with Jim Fosgate (who created several decoders) on these matters. The differences between decoders (spatial accuracy, clarity, locality) can be snooped out by playing back a matrix-encoded channel test file, attached.

wow. great information pro_optimizer. thanks! So I think the question everyone wants answered is... which one is the best.

 

[fenixdown110]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif wow. great information pro_optimizer. thanks! So I think the question everyone wants answered is... which one is the best.

You'll just have to trust your own ears for that one. I prefer Free Surround.

 

[Graphicism]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pro_optimizer /img/forum/go_quote.gif MusX pointed me to this thread. There had been some questions on the various surround processors available in FB2K. I am the last person you should believe in this regard since I wrote one of them (FreeSurround), but I'll try to be honest nevertheless. What all of them do is determine the position of any source around the listener, according to a matrix coding specification. ...

Brilliant, thank you for your input. I'll have a listen to the test files and post back later. I also plan to update the initial post with the optional decoders and give my review of each.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlantinen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just wanted to thank the OP. This is a really nice change of pace from the stereo listening. I'm really enjoying the added clarity of the vocals and instrumental definition. At first I thought it would be more fatiguing but so far so good.

Yeah it's not at all fatiguing, quite the oposite as your breaking out of the traditional left-right placement which is unnatural.