Quote:
Originally Posted by audible /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Is this compatible with ASIO? (Forgive my ignorance, I'm not too savvy with this sort of stuff)
|
Yes, it is. The original digital data is first processed by the DSP chain and then delivered to the computer's output in whatever way that's set up for you, so in your case that would be ASIO output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavoman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You move your head more than you think -- slight movements are needed for spatial cues, that's how the brain works. Without head tracking, virtual surround sound will indeed appear outside your head, in the room, but usually dead center and above the forehead. And when you turn your head, it just sound unnatural. That's my experience anyway, although I have not tried your soluton, I have tried many of the virtual surround sound systems in the market.
|
Well, I agree with the fact that if you would move your head, even a little as you say, and the sound would remain in its proper virtual place just like with speakers, that would indeed
reinforce the illusion. However, I disagree that the head tracking is an essential ingredient to spatial perception and that without it, the image would be created dead centre above the forehead. If that would be true, how do you explain the Virtual Barbershop, and all other binaural recordings for that matter. The spatial cues in those are rock solid. Of course to maintain the illusion, you will have to keep your head still, but there's really no need to get neck cramps because of it.
Another thing that occurred to me: The way I understand it, the Smyth system aims to simulate how a speaker system is perceived within a certain room. So, a red book stereo signal will sound just as if you're listening to a pair of speakers. The end result will have a sound stage determined by the quality of the speakers used and the acoustic room signature and it will be displayed in front of you.
The set-up in my OP does something altogether different, and I'm not saying better here, just different. The Dolby Headphone wrapper just translates a 6-channel surround signal into a binaural 2-channel track, so if you would feed it just the front left and right channel, it would create an image similar to the Smyth system, although for sure not as clean and sharply defined, because of the inherent limitations of general HRTF compared to ear-customized HRTF. What comes before it however, and as far as I can gather this is
not part of either the Beyer or the Smyth system, is the VI suite that creates a 6-channel surround track out of a 2-channel stereo track. If using VI's settings creatively (and of course this is as ever a matter of personal taste), the original stereo signal is "wrapped around" you in a 360 degree panorama that's totally different from the illusion of 2 speakers within a room. Depending on how a piece of music is recorded, sounds can be placed anywhere around you. This can in fact be somewhat strange and unusual, and I even agree that for some recordings it doesn't translate well, in fact, mostly with the ones that have quasi-binaural parts to it. But the realism that's created by VI's use of second-order
ambisonics is amazing. So what about those details that go MIA?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smeggy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's always been the issue with DSPs and crossfeed circuits, details tend to vanish and it can become quite distracting when you know what should be there. Still, they are interesting things to experiment with.
|
It's not that I disagree with some of you, who say that the sound becomes less detailed. It does, also to
my ears, but I don't seem to mind that much. Now why's that? I'm not sure anyone's interested in this, but over the years, meeting a lot of different hi-fi enthusiasts in my job as a salesman, I have developed a theory. Do you know those personality tests that classify people into 3 types in the way we relate to the world around us: visual, auditory and feeling. I have noticed a similar division in hi-fi listeners.
Imagine the perfect sound reproduction system. Whatever is played through it, is 100% the same as what's been put in. Of course no such system is ever made, but there are set-ups that come very close, let's say 95%. Anybody (not born tone-deaf that is
)will be able to appreciate that kind of realism, right? Now, let's take an average hi-fi system based on loudspeakers and say it is able to perform at 80% realism. What makes one person buy system A and another a totally different sounding system B although both are 80% realistic?
I think it's caused by the various aspects of realism that people are sensitive to in different degrees. I see it as two main categories of listeners. On the one hand you have people like me who focus on sound stage and timing, and on the other you have people who seem to focus more on accuracy and detail in the sound spectrum and resonant harmonics. I guess as one evolves as a hi-fi listener, one starts to want it all, but if we can't have it all, we tend to choose the set-up that has its missing 20% realism in areas we are not that sensitive to.
So I can absolutely understand if someone feels that using these DSP's is making the sound worse. It's not actually making it worse, and I disagree with the statement that this would be a "low-fi" solution. It's just that certain quality aspects of listening are "re-shuffled", so the sound is a little (for me!) less accurate, but a whole lot more spacious.
Fair enough? Wow, another lengthy post it seems. So be it!
