[bigshot]

You are right... there are exceptions. I was talking about normal speakers that most home stereos have... cabinet speakers with three speakers, bookshelf speakers, etc. There are speakers designed for very large rooms, clubs or even theaters that can be spread further apart, but those are a different animal from the average home stereo speaker. The general rule of thumb though for home speakers is 8 feet at most. Often more like 6 feet. The most common mistake I see in people's stereo system is speakers placed at opposite sides of a room. It's as if their function as an end table is more important than their function as a speaker. Home theater people usually get this right though, because they have the screen in the middle they need to keep anchored to.

 

[Pazz]

What if you placed two speakers exactly parallel to your ears(so at maybe a 10 degree angle from the horizontal I guess)? I find that sound to be very similar to what it sounds like with surround sound processing with headphones, and it's not bad to listen to. Neither are there any holes, if I understand that right. 

 

[bigshot]

That isn't the way most well engineered music is mixed though. It's designed for a front soundstage. You want the sound in front of you, not in your head.

 

[castleofargh]

it might be my own assumption, but to me crossfeed is aimed at making us hear a little like it's from stereo speakers. while most surround effects are aimed at blowing our mind with super wide full 180°(or even 360) sounds.
 
while I found the razer software real nice for games and some movies, I didn't use it for music. but I found the calibrating process to be brilliant. I think all products from headphone to 7.1 speakers should have something like that sold with them.
I found the topic about the foobar surround settings very interesting but I really didn't like the results with most of the settings suggested. again it was fun, but not for my music. I see those stuff for games and videos.
 
for audio the only thing that really impressed me a few times(but also disappointed me a few times) was binaural, but still it's mostly one position in front of us. the way things are recorded and mixed for music don't push me into believing that albums are done for surround. and that's not the surround softwares fault.
personally I would like some gyroscopic response so that the sound changes with me turning my head. maybe I'm a raptor thinking he's a human, but when I concentrate on music I tend to turn my head a little. I think of it like using my dominant eye to shoot(pictures mostly^_^), I kind of focus on one instrument by turning my "dominant ear" toward it a little(and now everybody thinks I'm crazy). and I would kill(aiming with my dominant eye) to get a headphone taking my head moves into account for the surround effect.
it's probably a dumb thing, but that's really why I favor speakers.

 

[Pazz]

  and I would kill

Really? Have you heard of the Smyth Realiser?
 
 
As for music designed for frontal soundstage only in mind, I do agree that it would not sound right with headphones or speakers configured parallel, however I do find that quite a few recordings work well enough with headphones with surround or crossfeed signal processing, or speakers placed in parallel. With those exceptions, it would sound more like the instruments are placed on the left or right, maybe 3 meters away, depending, instead of the same but coming from front left, or front right. At that point it's more a matter of preference. 
 
Of course the real problem here is that not all recordings are made equal, with different equipment, and different design philosophies. There are just too many variables both on the production end, and the consumer end, that there will always be a disconnect between using headphones, speakers, IEMs, and within those groups, there will also be disconnects between individual model and makes, needless to say (since we're are at head-fi, after all). In any case, as the audio industry goes forward, and as the technology advances, we might one day have a standard that truly everyone adopts, which would end this search for what seems to be the holy grail of audio listening. 
 
Also, I didn't say this because I assume everyone would intuitively know, but just in case, many people, perhaps even the majority of people nowadays, listen to music through portable solutions, music which was most likely made by musicians who only used speakers, and designed for listening only on speakers. 

 

[bigshot]

  it might be my own assumption, but to me crossfeed is aimed at making us hear a little like it's from stereo speakers. while most surround effects are aimed at blowing our mind with super wide full 180°(or even 360) sounds.

 
I can't speak to cross feed, because I've never used that, but surround sound isn't just for ping pong effects. Stereo forms a clear soundstage left to right. Adding rear channels pulls that soundstage out into the room and creates a sound field that is all around you. This means that even if your listening room is cramped and dead, it can sound open and live. Sound fields are like dimensional sound stage.

 

[Strangelove424]

 
Quote:

  What if you placed two speakers exactly parallel to your ears(so at maybe a 10 degree angle from the horizontal I guess)? I find that sound to be very similar to what it sounds like with surround sound processing with headphones, and it's not bad to listen to. Neither are there any holes, if I understand that right. 

 In my experience, Dolby doesn't push the soundstage to the sides, only a little further out in front. If It didn't keep the image in front, I don't think it would do such a freakishly good impression of my speakers. What you describe reminds me a tad of the K702 experience.
 
 

   
This means that even if your listening room is cramped and dead, it can sound open and live. Sound fields are like dimensional sound stage.

Yup. Can attest to this. My listening room, which is pretty small, grows in surround sound. It's like the back wall dissapears. Definitely sounds bigger than the room. 

 

[Pazz]

   In my experience, Dolby doesn't push the soundstage to the sides, only a little further out in front. If It didn't keep the image in front, I don't think it would do such a freakishly good impression of my speakers. What you describe reminds me a tad of the K702 experience.

Dolby Headphone primarily processes 5.1 channel audio to make it listenable on headphones. Using the plugin by itself on stereo audio will make the two channels come from the front two virtual speakers. It might be redundant but the config for processing stereo audio is basically converting the two channel information to 5 channel information and then feeding it through Dolby Headphone. This way, the original placement of the sounds with vanilla headphone listening is preserved while improving imaging, depending on the recording. This is the configuration I was referring to, and the one used by RPGWiZaRD on this forum.

 

[Strangelove424]

  Dolby Headphone primarily processes 5.1 channel audio to make it listenable on headphones. Using the plugin by itself on stereo audio will make the two channels come from the front two virtual speakers. It might be redundant but the config for processing stereo audio is basically converting the two channel information to 5 channel information and then feeding it through Dolby Headphone. This way, the original placement of the sounds with vanilla headphone listening is preserved while improving imaging, depending on the recording. This is the configuration I was referring to, and the one used by RPGWiZaRD on this forum.

I've always been curious about what Dolby Headphone processing does exactly. If you know of any in-depth threads on this feel free to link them. 

 

[Pazz]

I get my knowledge mainly from tinkering with the stuff myself, as well as reading up a tutorial or two. Sound is mainly mechanical and can be modeled with math, so it's probably not terribly hard to understand how they did it. Factoring in the average HRTF is one thing. So is replicating the right time delays between the channels, and the right amount of reflections and their delays, as well as getting the right amplitude shifts for frequencies after they travel around the head, shoulder, and from reflections, and so on and so forth. 
 
EDIT: And in case you're not asking about that, I'm guessing a simple google about "how does dolby headphone work" will suffice. As far as I know, Dolby Headphone's primary use is as a headphone DSP for movies with 5.1 audio. However, it happens to also work with stereo sound, in which it makes the sound come from the front two speakers. Logically, you could then assume that their software calculates and mixes together the sound as if it came from each individual speaker placed in a specific room setting. 

 

[Strangelove424]

  I get my knowledge mainly from tinkering with the stuff myself, as well as reading up a tutorial or two. Sound is mainly mechanical and can be modeled with math, so it's probably not terribly hard to understand how they did it. Factoring in the average HRTF is one thing. So is replicating the right time delays between the channels, and the right amount of reflections and their delays, as well as getting the right amplitude shifts for frequencies after they travel around the head, shoulder, and from reflections, and so on and so forth. 
 
EDIT: And in case you're not asking about that, I'm guessing a simple google about "how does dolby headphone work" will suffice. As far as I know, Dolby Headphone's primary use is as a headphone DSP for movies with 5.1 audio. However, it happens to also work with stereo sound, in which it makes the sound come from the front two speakers. Logically, you could then assume that their software calculates and mixes together the sound as if it came from each individual speaker placed in a specific room setting. 

No, that is what I'm asking about. I've googled it before, information is slim probably because it's proprietary. It always comes down to some kind of "special algorithms". I guess if they released the "algorithms" themselves, and told us exactly what parts of the sound are being adjusted and to what degree (reverb, frequency, timing, etc.) then they would be giving away the recipe to their special sauce, and their entire business is making that special sauce... and putting logos on things.      

 

[Pazz]

Why not just take measurements of the sound before and after signal processing, and use that data to create a similar algorithm? You can measure a real speaker system, and use that to come up with signal processing to make quite accurate sounding simulations. That is what Darin Fong did that I mentioned earlier. The only problem you might come into with doing this type of reverse engineering is with legal problems, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure about the real terms. You could very well do it for yourself given good coding skills, but it might not be worth the effort. 

 

[Strangelove424]

  Why not just take measurements of the sound before and after signal processing, and use that data to create a similar algorithm? You can measure a real speaker system, and use that to come up with signal processing to make quite accurate sounding simulations. That is what Darin Fong did that I mentioned earlier. The only problem you might come into with doing this type of reverse engineering is with legal problems, but I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure about the real terms. You could very well do it for yourself given good coding skills, but it might not be worth the effort. 

Way over my head. I never enjoyed programming, even making macros or scripts in visual-based software drives me nuts. For my own purposes, I'm pretty happy with Dolby anyway.  

 

[Pazz]

I presume most people would concur.

 

[castleofargh]

 

  and I would kill

Really? Have you heard of the Smyth Realiser?

ok 2900$ so I'm guessing it turns into at least 3000€ here in france. better be more than a toy.
didn't know that existed, I see I can demo it in Paris so I'll go and try next time I'm going there. I had no idea there was real solutions out there.
I tried something for games once that attempt to link your webcam to your sound to get head movements, but it was soooo laggy, not really a great experience. here they say the head position is refreshed every 5ms, so 200hz(I'm used to screen and mouse refresh rates so i prefer to think with hz) it's actually not bad at all if the head movement is measured precisely and we don't move like we're in a rave party.
I'm really intrigued. anyway thank you so much for mentioning it