Quote:
Originally Posted by Wmcmanus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You have an extraordinary command of the English language. You're obviously extremely bright! Thanks for sharing your experiences here.
|
I don't know about the bright part. Us Dutchies (from Holland AKA the Netherlands that is, not to be confused with Deutschland AKA Germany) have a reputation for speaking foreign languages. After all we are typically taught English, German and French at school, besides our native Dutch). I've travelled a lot as well though, and have read a huge amount of science fiction and fantasy. Anyway, thanks for the compliment, but now back to the topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfkt /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I agree with Evilking, the processed file sounds pretty terrible: muddy, recessed mids and sibilant, partially clipping treble. I made a Delta file of the original and processed version, showing the differences (missing frequencies) between both files... the result is pretty scary. This Delta file doesn't sound bad at all, to my ears it actually sounds better than the processed file itself. It shows what an extreme amount of information is lost with this processing. BTW, for some subtle (i.e. the opposite of this "Dolby 5.1" audio massacre) and very precise (64bit internal) crossfeed based on the Haas Effect I like Refined Audiometrics HDPHX VST.
|
I acknowledge your impressions of the VI/DHW set-up, because everyone's entitled to his own opinion, and everyone's got different ears and brains. And I'm grateful for your sharing of the HDPHX VST. I've listened to it and I like it a lot. It's indeed very detailed and high quality. I compared it to BS2B and it did sound better to my ears.
However, your delta file doesn't say anything about the loss of detail. There are bound to be huge differences between the files, because the music is slightly shifted in phase and delayed in time. Your delta file did not measure the frequencies that were lost, merely the ones that were moved up the timeline.
And even though I liked HDPHX, I still prefer my VI/DHW setup by a wide margin, and I still don't feel at all disturbed by the slight loss of detail I might experience. It's all about what you expect to hear and what you're used to. For me it's a bit like the difference between a studio and a live album. With some artists I prefer the detail and finesse of a studio recording, but with some I absolutely prefer their live albums. Usually there's less detail, but a lot more atmosphere and aliveness.
And I must repeat my opinion of A-B testing. At the switchover the focus is always on what's missing. That's just the way our brain works. It's like sleeping in a hotel bed. It might be a better bed for you once you get used to it, but you still have trouble sleeping that first night, because your body and mind are still "programmed" to your own bed. So while testing this, please take some time to get used to it. You may never want to get back to your old bed.
Now here are some
practical tips on how to tweak the sound to make it fit better with some people's hearing:
too much bass: switch off the LFE button (I myself now feel more inclined to leave this off. It makes the bass a little less present, but more defined and textured)
sound too muddy/diffused/cave-like: Move the 2 middle sliders more to the left, either all the way to completely remove the subtle room reverbs, or my suggestion, at the same setting as the top and bottom slider at -4
The new, more direct, and (possibly) improved settings would look like this:
Attachment 8339
Take it or leave it.
