[fjrabon]

  I also presently use sonarworks with audio hijack, along with OOYH. A system wide solution is really interesting, especially if it could somehow resolve the multichannel issue. Right now when working with a 5.1 or 7.1 track the only way to use sonarworks is to put it at the end of the chain after down mixing, and it doesn't sound good. I'm still not entirely sure why. When engineering music, in general, gain-based effects like EQ do need to go before time-based effects like surround upmixing. So it does makes sense from that perspective.
 
However, this is my first time using an EQ dedicated to shaping the spectrum of the monitoring transducer/speaker and not the music. Placing this kind of EQ at the end of the chain right before the headphones seems like it ought to work. Yet, the result sounds artificial and not as transparent as it does when putting SW at the start of the chain. 
 
Can anyone shed some light on this? Am I just hearing it incorrectly? Also, I wonder if a system wide SW solution will be able to handle multichannel or if technical/processing requirements will be prohibitive. 

yeah, I've heard a pretty noticeable increase in quality when I put sonarworks at the beginning of the chain and canopener (which has time domain elements) towards the end.  I got there by pure trial and error, so it is good to know my trial and error, by ear, figuring has theory that backs it up.

 

[RudeWolf]

I love audiohijack, so if you guys could create more or less an improved version of that, with your own takes, aesthetics and features, that would be awesome.

My must haves:
1) ability to treat different source programs differently in the chain (is route iTunes one place, safari another place and system sounds another place)
2) ability to control the flow of plug ins. I need to be able to precisely say that sonarworks goes first, then mid-side, then CanOpener, etc
3) ability to have multiple "outputs" as I run two different DACs as our simultaneously and sometimes a recorder as a third out.
4) a full suite of basic plug ins, like meters, channel pans, basic EQ, etc
5) one thing that would be nice that I don't currently have/can't find is a precise latency creator. Why would I ever want to CREATE latency? Well, I run a subpac in my system sometimes and I don't want any EQ applied to it. So, my options are thus: 1) run to the DAC that feeds subpac straight from the player, run to the DAC feeding HD800 from sonarworks in linear mode, just deal with the differences in latency between the two outputs (not good at all) 2) run to subpac's DAC straight from iTunes, run to HD800's DAC from sonarworks using minimum phase mode. (Less than ideal, I prefer linear phase, but this works better than option 1). 3) run the after sonarwork's linear phase adjustment feed to another minimum phase EQ that essentially undoes Sonarworks EQ to the subpac's DAC and run the linear phase from sonarworks straight to my HD800's DAC. (Less than ideal, but it's what I've gotten best results with). With a "latency creator" plug in that just simply added a specified amount of latency I could run the signal straight from iTunes to that, read out the after sonarworks linear phase latency, type that in to the latency creator program and have everything perfectly synced up between subpac and HD800, while still being able to use linear phase mode and not needing extraneous EQs thrown in anywhere.

You guys made any head way on a crossfeed program? I know you talked about it at the very beginning of sonarworks but hadn't heard anything since. I adore goodhertz CanOpener, but would certainly be interested in anything you guys might put out as well.

 
What we're having in mind is less of an AudioHijack type of affair and more of a simple OS level audio enhancer utility. With the exception that you don't immediately disable it, like you do with most of bundled in laptop/mobo bloatware.
 
Your case looks like where audio hijack is needed coupled with some plug-ins. I'm sure you could do most of these gymnastics with stock AudioHijack tools. As for crossfeed, we're firm believers that it needs to be tackled in a more complex fashion. Think - Waves NX complex, so we're focussing on perfecting the Reference software suite and leaving HRTF to our colleagues from other companies.
 
 

   
Auto makeup gain for the plugin first please.
 
Such a fundamental piece of functionality compared to the rest of SWR3. It's a nonsensical omission.
 
Regarding a system wide application, Audio Hijack have nailed it (and it only costs $49). That's the bar you need to at least equal.
 
Using Audio Hijack as a base requirement (multiple plugins, meters, flow control), point 1 of fjrabon's requests is especially useful; multiple instantiated routes.

 
By auto makeup gain you mean a compressor, right? You can't really "recover" lost gain without trading something for it and with compression you're losing resolution at peaks. It's a good idea for times when one is short on analog gain.

 

[Yoga]

  What we're having in mind is less of an AudioHijack type of affair and more of a simple OS level audio enhancer utility. With the exception that you don't immediately disable it, like you do with most of bundled in laptop/mobo bloatware.
 
By auto makeup gain you mean a compressor, right? You can't really "recover" lost gain by trading something for it and with compression you're losing resolution at peaks. It's a good idea for times when one is short on analog gain.

 
Ah, system wide only. That's still very useful as it negates the need for DAW plugins and Audio Hijack in some instances (it would in my standard use case). Look forward to it!
 
Actually it's much simpler than that. I may have my wires crossed here however - when you lower the volume via Avoid Clipping, I assume it does that pre EQ?

 

[RudeWolf]

  Actually it's much simpler than that. I may have my wires crossed here however - when you lower the volume via Avoid Clipping, I assume it does that pre EQ?

 
Yup, we're dropping overall levels to make up for additive correction. Because you can't really add anything digitally.

 

[Yoga]

  Yup, we're dropping overall levels to make up for additive correction. Because you can't really add anything digitally.

 
All good, ignore previous request :¬)
 
Any ETA on the system wide app? I'd be happy to beta test.

 

[cycle53x12]

Just got the trial version of Sonarworks and have been comparing it to the non adjusted HD800's. All I can say is I never knew how much hot treble their was with the stock HD800. I know many talk about it, but I guess  I have always leaned toward treble versus Bass, but now I cannot stand the HD800 without the Sonarworks doing its magic. Will be purchasing this since I also have the HD600.
I wish there was a profile for the Audeze LCD XC since those are noisy time headphones. I would love to hear them with this magic sauce!

 

[lenroot77]

Just got the trial version of Sonarworks and have been comparing it to the non adjusted HD800's. All I can say is I never knew how much hot treble their was with the stock HD800. I know many talk about it, but I guess  I have always leaned toward treble versus Bass, but now I cannot stand the HD800 without the Sonarworks doing its magic. Will be purchasing this since I also have the HD600.
I wish there was a profile for the Audeze LCD XC since those are noisy time headphones. I would love to hear them with this magic sauce!

We have another winner!!!

 

[fjrabon]

  Just got the trial version of Sonarworks and have been comparing it to the non adjusted HD800's. All I can say is I never knew how much hot treble their was with the stock HD800. I know many talk about it, but I guess  I have always leaned toward treble versus Bass, but now I cannot stand the HD800 without the Sonarworks doing its magic. Will be purchasing this since I also have the HD600.
I wish there was a profile for the Audeze LCD XC since those are noisy time headphones. I would love to hear them with this magic sauce!

I believe that they said they are working on getting the XC for the next round.

 

[cycle53x12]

That would be awesome if they get Audeze XC in there. I know it is not cheap to gather enough samples to make a meaningful profile. I love the XC but they are missing something next to the 800. Feeling satisfied.

 

[Weatherlight]

XC Yes!

 

[castleofargh]

  Initially we had a few pairs measured and the consensus was they're not too much different from the HD800. Then we got a pair which was significantly different. We need at least two extra pairs in for measurement, so we can be sure what's what.

could i be that one pair was modded?  because I would expect Senn to have a relatively good consistency(unlike some hifiman or audeze). and the hd800 ( and S) are supposed to come with extra attention to driver matching and overall target response.

 

[RudeWolf]

 
could i be that one pair was modded?  because I would expect Senn to have a relatively good consistency(unlike some hifiman or audeze). and the hd800 ( and S) are supposed to come with extra attention to driver matching and overall target response.

 
I can't really say, usually folks explicitly tell us that we're receiving a pair modded headphones so we mark them as such. The first HD800S pair wasn't modded (are there actually any 800S mods?), but it did measure and sound differently.
 
It's not unusual for a company to implement silent updates. Especially after first responses come rolling in for a new product or means of manufacturing change. What I don't like is keeping consumers in the dark. Everyone knows that there are white/dark driver HD650'ies. If they perform differently, issue a version change. It's usually good press. Unless you do it extremely rapidly, slash prices for the old version and alienate existing clients...
 
Overall Sennheiser is one of the few companies out there with consistently good products and commendable driver matching.

 

[MattTCG]

   
I can't really say, usually folks explicitly tell us that we're receiving a pair modded headphones so we mark them as such. The first HD800S pair wasn't modded (are there actually any 800S mods?), but it did measure and sound differently.
 
It's not unusual for a company to implement silent updates. Especially after first responses come rolling in for a new product or means of manufacturing change. What I don't like is keeping consumers in the dark. Everyone knows that there are white/dark driver HD650'ies. If they perform differently, issue a version change. It's usually good press. Unless you do it extremely rapidly, slash prices for the old version and alienate existing clients...
 
Overall Sennheiser is one of the few companies out there with consistently good products and commendable driver matching.

I would be really surprised if it were product variation from Sennheiser. I been buying their products for the past 10 plus years. Each one has measured and sounds identical. I guess anything is possible though. 
 
Some people still use rugliner mod with 800 S. 

 

[Zoom25]

So far I've tested the HD 800 and KRK KNS 8400. Really good results. The HD 598 is next on my list. Now I wish there was a profile for my Denon AH-D2000.
 
It's been a toss up between mixed and linear phase. Linear sounds more locked in and cleaner, but the sound can at times sound unnatural due to pre-ringing. The difference in the attack comes very well across on both headphones so far. This can mess with the overall punch that you know is supposed to be there. I think it's perhaps more noticeable on the HD 800 because of its inherent capabilities. I can't be the only one who has noticed this?
 
Perhaps another mixed combo within Sonarworks to address this if possible? Good stuff still. I'll report back on the HD 598.

 

[fjrabon]

  So far I've tested the HD 800 and KRK KNS 8400. Really good results. The HD 598 is next on my list. Now I wish there was a profile for my Denon AH-D2000.
 
It's been a toss up between mixed and linear phase. Linear sounds more locked in and cleaner, but the sound can at times sound unnatural due to pre-ringing. The difference in the attack comes very well across on both headphones so far. This can mess with the overall punch that you know is supposed to be there. I think it's perhaps more noticeable on the HD 800 because of its inherent capabilities. I can't be the only one who has noticed this?
 
Perhaps another mixed combo within Sonarworks to address this if possible? Good stuff still. I'll report back on the HD 598.

I've found that pre-ringing is more dependent on the amp.  Some amps it messes with, by sort of "pre-sucking" out quickly available current, so that the transient sounds softer.  But with better loaded current, it's less of an issue.