Jump to content
IGNORED

EarSpace!!!!


Blake

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, esldude said:

Well one of Frank's big ideas is soldering all connections.  So that would mean soldering all the connections between neurons.  Which will take some time.  Frank speaks about it taking lots of time.  It also means the normal plasticity of the brain to re-wire its connections would be impacted.  Which might lead to repeating the same thing over and over and over until you didn't realize there was anything else.  

 

Great idea!!  Think of the increased speed when you eliminate the slow diffusion of neuro-transmitters

Link to comment
On 10/19/2018 at 11:25 AM, STC said:

 

If what you are saying then the sound in anechoic room should be the same as the sound in a room with early reflection. 

On 10/19/2018 at 12:15 PM, esldude said:

Yes or something close to it. 

 

I use room correction myself.  There are those who say it is a bad idea.  In theory a perfectly flat speaker when measured anechoically with controlled directivity so you don't have too much side wall reflection is ideal.  In domestic size rooms we are said to hear mostly direct sound with our brain ignoring early reflections largely.  Such people say only below the Schroeder frequency where you have peaks and dips related to room size should correction be applied.  This being 500 hz or lower in most listening rooms.  Such people say measured response at the listening position will be somewhat to heavily corrupted by room reflections so EQ based upon that would bend the ideal speaker away from ideal.  In that case the result is a degradation of what you'd otherwise hear.  The preferred sound would be without the room correction. 

 

It is probably too extreme to say speakers sound the same in room as with early reflections.  But some say the general balance we hear is tilted heavily in that direction.  And our opinion of speaker fidelity even considering the parts we hear different from anechoically wouldn't change our preferred speaker qualities.  

 

So doing measurements of the IR of a speaker close enough to mostly avoid the room effects (in the critical zone where most sound power is from the speaker and not reflections), but far enough for multiple drivers to integrate might be a good approach. 

 

This argument given what is known seems well conceived and rather convincing. 

 

However, having heard room correction do some amazing things in terms of improving heard results I've not been fully convinced.   Perhaps most speakers I've heard are so far from anechoically flat, even in room measures can push it closer toward flat instead of corrupting it. I've used Tact room correction gear, and Dirac.  I've never heard it worsen the sound of a speaker.  Either approach always resulted in an improvement by all I've witnessed hear it.  Dirac seems better than Tact.  

22 hours ago, esldude said:

Apologies for the ambiguity. 

 

We are we humans.  The way hearing is known to work.   Some are some speaker designers and engineers who don't favor room correction because they see it as wrong headed for the reasons I've (perhaps poorly) summarized.  

 

Floyd Toole is of the opinion make the speaker respond evenly and do correction only at low frequencies.

 

Sean Olive is of the same opinion with the caveat the speaker has to be well designed.  He has tested some RC software with a speaker he said was not of good even response or directivity, and in listening test correcting some of those deficiencies were preferred to not correcting. On the JBL designs he is involved with he says they mostly only correct for below 300 hz. 

 

 Linn doesn't like using microphones performing in room measurements for correction. Though not so stated at the link below, they mostly fix below 300 hz based upon room dimensions, and make some adjustments based upon expected reflections due to room dimensions that may effect timbre. 

https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/want-true-room-correction-drop-the-mic

 

I believe the late Mr. Linkwitz had the opinion you mostly wanted to correct in the bass and have constant directivity speakers above the bass range.  He did say later on that some of the modern correction algorithms that did more than simple EQ and measured several places in the room could have a good effect on the result.  

 

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/rethinking-room-correction

 

Some quoted people in this article and the author think RC a bad idea. 

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.freshdesk.com/data/helpdesk/attachments/production/1002703322/original/RoomCorrection.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJ2JSYZ7O3I4JO6DA%2F20181019%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20181019T052301Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Signature=04ef42c4cd237d801849329017e400fcc02d3605a9253b7657af812b42f92973&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=Host&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf

 

Why Meridian only corrects for 300 hz and below in their digital active speakers. 

 

 

The Sean Olive test in my mind shows that with speakers not having good dispersion and flat anechoic response good room correction is a plus.  At least that is the result of his double blind testing.  Would it be a minus with well designed speakers?  I don't know, but they must not think it a plus as their own JBL room EQ with their better speakers only works in the low end or so they tell us. 

 

All of which is getting far afield of our discussion.   If I want to remotely hear more or less how your playback system sounds, would up close speaker IR responses be better to use, or would IR responses taken at the listening position be better?

 

 

 

 

This does not answer the question. You and I know very well that your speakers sound will not be perceived the same as in an anechoic room with or without room correction. You answered Yes which cannot be correct. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, STC said:

 

 

This does not answer the question. You and I know very well that your speakers sound will not be perceived the same as in an anechoic room with or without room correction. You answered Yes which cannot be correct. 

 

 

 

I answered yes or something close to it.  I have not been in an anechoic chamber.  But I've heard speakers outdoors.  They are recognizable as the same speaker without reflections.  True they don't sound the same either.  So the something close to it is perhaps how I should have answered.

 

It also is clear some of the difference outdoors is no room gain in the low end and no uneven bass down there either.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, esldude said:

I answered yes or something close to it.  I have not been in an anechoic chamber.  But I've heard speakers outdoors.  They are recognizable as the same speaker without reflections.  True they don't sound the same either.  So the something close to it is perhaps how I should have answered.

 

It also is clear some of the difference outdoors is no room gain in the low end and no uneven bass down there either.  

 

 

A balloon pop is a very familiar sound to us. To me it without looking at the video, it sounded just like a click. If this is what happens to a balloon the. The same should apply to the speakers. They will not be recognizable as same speakers. I have previously posted guitar, drums and sax videos. None of them sounded familiar to the instruments I heard live in a room. 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

A balloon pop is a very familiar sound to us. To me it without looking at the video, it sounded just like a click. If this is what happens to a balloon the. The same should apply to the speakers. They will not be recognizable as same speakers. I have previously posted guitar, drums and sax videos. None of them sounded familiar to the instruments I heard live in a room. 

Doesn't this support what I'm saying.  If I were in the anechoic chamber, I'd hear that anemic short muted pop. If the balloon were recorded in a room, I'd hear the louder, sharper explosive pop because of all the reflections.  

 

So they record in an anechoic chamber and my room reflections (that would make the balloon sound very different popped in my room) are ignored by my ear/brain allowing me over speakers to hear that muted pop.  I heard thru the room and heard what was recorded.  I heard a dead pop in a dead acoustic space.  A recording in a live acoustic space lets me hear that space not my room again. 

 

Over headphones it is more click like than a muted pop.  So maybe like I've said.  Something close to an anechoic chamber over speakers.  I would surmise my brain filtered out most reflections and some later ones came thru for the muted short pop over speakers.  Without the room it was the even shorter clicky muted pop over headphones.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

HQPlayer has a very user-friendly trial, if you want a different player to try it. The app is fully functional and plays for 30 minutes at a time, after which time you'll just need to restart it. 

 

I may do that.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Here goes. My measured impulse response files linked below. Please try applying them using a convolution engine to your headphone playback and let me know what you think. I recommend not applying cross-feed initially, as that's how I listen. See if this helps you visualize/hear into my listening environment. Very curious about your feedback! 

 

IR was captured at my listening position, playing a sine-sweep using REW using a Behringer calibrated mic. REW was also used to create the IR files. Room is my basement, somewhat cluttered and irregular wall/door openings but no windows. Thinly carpeted cement floor, speakers are located about 5m from the listening position, with about 4m in between, with very slight toe-in. Hung ceiling is about 8.5ft high. Speakers for this test were PSB Stratus Gold, and headphones were HE-560.

 

To me, the sound is much richer, more 3-D than when used without IR. A bit bass-heavy for my taste, but not exceedingly so. Tonal quality is very similar to my speaker playback, and I hear a lot of the spatial dimensions that must be part of the reverberant space in my listening room. Whether or not this accurately represents my room is hard to say, but I find that the sound is much closer to the in-room quality than without the IR "correction".

 

Actual IR files:

Left IR

Right IR

 

Here's my HQPlayer convolver configuration:

image.thumb.png.d2b44923e10a1deb833bb497fb158810.png

 

Measured response (left is red):

measured.thumb.png.720eed9fd57dfe13f397fe66df208ad8.png

 

IR (left):

ir-left.thumb.png.f85a84c5a12b9cee88d86029d527230b.png

 

IR (right):

ir-right.thumb.png.1e33a1ad8b6efaa3d6cd893612d4beae.png

 

 

Haven't done this over HQ Player yet. 

 

I did it in Reaper and in Foobar using its convolver.  Reaper lets you do this over ReaVerb.  I combined your two files into a stereo file for Foobar.  Reaper lets me do each separately for each channel.  I heard the same results with both softwares.  

 

Over headphones, I hear the moderately lumpier low end.  I hear the low end hang around longer than it otherwise does.  A bit different spectral balance.  I don't really get a sense of hearing someone else's room.  Or the different space over phones.  Still all mostly right inside my head. 

 

It actually worked better over speakers, where it does sound like a different space.  Still a little lumpier low end that is around too long, different spectral balance and a reverb like sound of another space though the effect is not overblown and obvious.  Just subtle but definitely there.  

 

I tried using Meier cross feed in foobar, and it somewhat did the same thing as speakers though not as well as speaker listening. 

 

So I wouldn't rate this approach a full success.  A maybe, a step in the right direction.  It is closer to what Jana's intentions are than binaural.  So does Jana really want us to hear the other system and the other space or do we get more if the IR's are taken very close to the speaker to reduce the room effect on the sound?

 

And maybe I need to try it in HQplayer which is perhaps processing differently.  However, both Foobar and Reaper gave the same results.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
On 10/6/2018 at 7:11 PM, kumakuma said:

 

And what are these shortcomings?

 

Great question.

 

And the answer is: you can't say because you are listening to a recording of the system playing a recording, not assessing it's performance in loco.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment

I would encourage those somewhat interested to download the IR responses posted, and tell us what you hear over phones and over speakers.  I'll be busy the next couple days, but I'll eventually get the IR response of some of my spaces to see how that compares. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, esldude said:

Haven't done this over HQ Player yet. 

 

I did it in Reaper and in Foobar using its convolver.  Reaper lets you do this over ReaVerb.  I combined your two files into a stereo file for Foobar.  Reaper lets me do each separately for each channel.  I heard the same results with both softwares.  

 

Over headphones, I hear the moderately lumpier low end.  I hear the low end hang around longer than it otherwise does.  A bit different spectral balance.  I don't really get a sense of hearing someone else's room.  Or the different space over phones.  Still all mostly right inside my head. 

 

It actually worked better over speakers, where it does sound like a different space.  Still a little lumpier low end that is around too long, different spectral balance and a reverb like sound of another space though the effect is not overblown and obvious.  Just subtle but definitely there.  

 

I tried using Meier cross feed in foobar, and it somewhat did the same thing as speakers though not as well as speaker listening. 

 

So I wouldn't rate this approach a full success.  A maybe, a step in the right direction.  It is closer to what Jana's intentions are than binaural.  So does Jana really want us to hear the other system and the other space or do we get more if the IR's are taken very close to the speaker to reduce the room effect on the sound?

 

And maybe I need to try it in HQplayer which is perhaps processing differently.  However, both Foobar and Reaper gave the same results.  

 

Thank you Dennis! So not a complete success. Lumpier low end is easy to explain if you look at the measured response -- it is bass-heavy with a downward tilt towards highs. 

image.thumb.png.ec9f0eb1c81c26796cedd8f3ef339658.png

 

The inside-your-head sound I would expect, since no cross-feed is contained in these IR files. The left file captures the IR from the left speaker, the right IR -- from the right. There's no mixing of the two that might occur when listening to a speaker system. See below for additional IR files to perform cross-feed using HQP.

 

A few questions:

 

1. Did you use any DSP correction besides the two IR files? That would be applying corrections twice, so definitely turn it off if not already

2. What headphones and DAC did you use?

 

I doubt HQPlayer will make a huge difference to the result, although it is a well-implemented player. Here are a couple more IR files that I generated for simple cross-feed if anyone's interested. The left and right IR files are delayed by 250 microseconds and frequencies above 2KHz are rolled off. It does move the sound a bit closer to the front and center, at least for me.

 

The idea is to mix the original Left IR with the delayed Right IR file to produce the left channel, and to mix Right IR with the delayed Left IR to produce the right:

 

Left IR 250us Filtered

Right IR 250us Filtered

 

Here are the settings in HQPlayer to use the original two IR files with these two to produce cross-feed effect:

 

image.thumb.png.6fa8c3cc7622944e8aa7882486d068ab.png

 

It would be interesting to capture IR closer to the speaker to remove some of the room effects. At least theoretically this should produce a way for someone to hear the tonal character of a speaker through their headphones.

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

It would be interesting to capture IR closer to the speaker to remove some of the room effects. At least theoretically this should produce a way for someone to hear the tonal character of a speaker through their headphones.

 

 

The thing is, I don't want to be aware of "the tonal character of a speaker" - if that is what is happening then the playback has failed ...

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The thing is, I don't want to be aware of "the tonal character of a speaker" - if that is what is happening then the playback has failed ...

 

Well aware of your ‘method’ Frank.  Obviously, the wiring at the speaker binding post is the most important thing, who cares about the speaker itself?

Link to comment
15 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 

A few questions:

 

1. Did you use any DSP correction besides the two IR files? That would be applying corrections twice, so definitely turn it off if not already

2. What headphones and DAC did you use?

snip....

 

No DSP in use beyond the IR files.  

 

I used an Antelope Audio Zen Tour for DAC and headphone amp, and pre for speakers.  I used Sony MDR 7510 phones. 

 

The most noticeable thing was the bass.  Not just that it was elevated a bit.  It had that quality of a room where the low end doesn't die down quickly.  EQ can give the elevated bass response without giving that sense the bass was dragging out over time.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
On 10/19/2018 at 10:33 AM, esldude said:

Now there is the idea our brain lets us mostly hear the direct sound of speakers and filter out the room other than low frequency issues below the Schroeder frequency.  So such an approach isn't too bad.  Even if our room had various issues above the Schroeder frequency our brain will ignore it and hear the speaker anyway

 

“It is quite incorrect to assume that the precedent  effect is some sort of masking which by blocking out the later arrivals of the signal prevents the auditory system from being confused.

 

Quite to the contrary, these arrivals that come in within a reasonable time after the first one contribute to our knowledge of the source. Furthermore, members of the set that are delayed somewhat too long actually disrupt and confuse our perceptions even when they may not be consciously recognize. If the arrivals are later yet, they are heard as separate echoes. In neither case are the late arrivals masked out.

 

Toole - Sound Reproduction. 

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, STC said:

 

“It is quite incorrect to assume that the precedent  effect is some sort of masking which by blocking out the later arrivals of the signal prevents the auditory system from being confused.

 

Quite to the contrary, these arrivals that come in within a reasonable time after the first one contribute to our knowledge of the source. Furthermore, members of the set that are delayed somewhat too long actually disrupt and confuse our perceptions even when they may not be consciously recognize. If the arrivals are later yet, they are heard as separate echoes. In neither case are the late arrivals masked out.

 

Toole - Sound Reproduction. 

 

I didn't say later arrivals were masked.  I said they got thru, and that might be why over speakers the balloon pop sounded a little different than the anechoic recording over phones.  I also didn't report them as echoes so they were less than delay needed to sound like echoes. 

 

"The precedence effect or law of the first wavefront is a binaural psychoacoustical effect. When a sound is followed by another sound separated by a sufficiently short time delay (below the listener's echo threshold), listeners perceive a single auditory event; its perceived spatial location is dominated by the location of the first-arriving sound (the first wave front). The lagging sound also affects the perceived location. However, its effect is suppressed by the first-arriving sound."

 

So dominated by the first arrival.  Similar to my idea the sound of speakers in a room is mostly like in an anechoic chamber, but not the same.  

 

I didn't say the combination of short delayed reflections help with determining location of sound within a room.  And I do remember from Toole that such is supposed to be the case.  But didn't have that in mind in my comments earlier in this thread. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, esldude said:

I didn't say later arrivals were masked.  I said they got thru, and that might be why over speakers the balloon pop sounded a little different than the anechoic recording over phones.  I also didn't report them as echoes so they were less than delay needed to sound like echoes. 

 

"The precedence effect or law of the first wavefront is a binaural psychoacoustical effect. When a sound is followed by another sound separated by a sufficiently short time delay (below the listener's echo threshold), listeners perceive a single auditory event; its perceived spatial location is dominated by the location of the first-arriving sound (the first wave front). The lagging sound also affects the perceived location. However, its effect is suppressed by the first-arriving sound."

 

So dominated by the first arrival.  Similar to my idea the sound of speakers in a room is mostly like in an anechoic chamber, but not the same.  

 

I didn't say the combination of short delayed reflections help with determining location of sound within a room.  And I do remember from Toole that such is supposed to be the case.  But didn't have that in mind in my comments earlier in this thread. 

 

Ok. Let’s agree to disagree. IMO, the sound is in no way similar to anechoic because the reflection is part and parcel of the sound. It is processed and alters the direct sound. But we seemed to disagree on this. 

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Ok. Let’s agree to disagree. IMO, the sound is in no way similar to anechoic because the reflection is part and parcel of the sound. It is processed and alters the direct sound. But we seemed to disagree on this. 

 

Cheers!

I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think. 

 

Contrary to what I would have thought, it seems the basic frequency balance of a speaker is mostly the direct first sound.  It is somewhat though not heavily influenced by early reflections in usual domestic sized rooms. Until reading of how this works from people like Toole it is not how I thought it would work.  

 

So simple minded experiments like recording from the listening position vs recording right in front of the speaker caused me to pay more attention to this.  At the LP, the recording has lots of obvious reflections (only some of which get close to being echoey).  Yet these are not heard separately in the original recorded signal.  So my hearing is ignoring or melding them into the initial direct wave so they have less influence than a measurement of sound would lead you to believe.  Using your balloon pop example over speakers is different than over headphones (without room reflections), but not nearly so different as I would have previously thought in the presence of so much reflection.  

 

Recording 1.5 meters from speakers, and listening over headphones or on someone else's system in another location, the sound has a frequency balance highly similar to what I hear with my speakers.  Which also leads me to believe the first direct sound has the overwhelming influence.  Not necessarily that reflections have none, but not as much as I at one time thought was the case.  So when people who know more than me say if a speaker is well designed room EQ over the schoeder frequency is a bad idea I think maybe they are right after all.  My positive results with room EQ comes from speakers with a flawed design and the room EQ bends them close to good more than it hurts them I think.  Corroborated by blind listening tests of room EQ systems using speakers known to have a flawed design.  

 

So which part of this do you highly disagree with?  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, esldude said:

I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think. 

 

Contrary to what I would have thought, it seems the basic frequency balance of a speaker is mostly the direct first sound.  It is somewhat though not heavily influenced by early reflections in usual domestic sized rooms. Until reading of how this works from people like Toole it is not how I thought it would work.  

 

Ok.

 

2 hours ago, esldude said:

So simple minded experiments like recording from the listening position vs recording right in front of the speaker caused me to pay more attention to this.  At the LP, the recording has lots of obvious reflections (only some of which get close to being echoey).  Yet these are not heard separately in the original recorded signal. 

 

This is the point I have been repeatedly trying to emphasis. Typical recordings do not have a lot of ambiance cues in them. Only the frontal ambiance (including reverbs) will be captured. When you listen to them, you are listening to your room acoustics also. This comes from all directions. Depending on the types of the microphone you are using you will be capturing two events now. The original sound and the delayed room acoustics. 

 

When you play this recording again, the original direct sound and the delayed room acoustics will originates form the SAME location unlike when you are listening to the original recording at your LP where the original sound will come from the speakers and room sound from everywhere in the room.

 

Since you are now listening the direct sound and your room sound emitting from the same location and separated by a delay, it will appear as two events. 

 

2 hours ago, esldude said:

So my hearing is ignoring or melding them into the initial direct wave so they have less influence than a measurement of sound would lead you to believe.  Using your balloon pop example over speakers is different than over headphones (without room reflections), but not nearly so different as I would have previously thought in the presence of so much reflection.  

 

This is still related to the previous para.

 

 

2 hours ago, esldude said:

Recording 1.5 meters from speakers, and listening over headphones or on someone else's system in another location, the sound has a frequency balance highly similar to what I hear with my speakers.  Which also leads me to believe the first direct sound has the overwhelming influence.  Not necessarily that reflections have none, but not as much as I at one time thought was the case.  So when people who know more than me say if a speaker is well designed room EQ over the schoeder frequency is a bad idea I think maybe they are right after all.  My positive results with room EQ comes from speakers with a flawed design and the room EQ bends them close to good more than it hurts them I think.  Corroborated by blind listening tests of room EQ systems using speakers known to have a flawed design.  

 

So which part of this do you highly disagree with?  

 

At 1.5meter, it is true that ambience will be lesser than at LP. I have no reason to disagree with this.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Ok.

 

 

This is the point I have been repeatedly trying to emphasis. Typical recordings do not have a lot of ambiance cues in them. Only the frontal ambiance (including reverbs) will be captured. When you listen to them, you are listening to your room acoustics also. This comes from all directions. Depending on the types of the microphone you are using you will be capturing two events now. The original sound and the delayed room acoustics. 

 

When you play this recording again, the original direct sound and the delayed room acoustics will originates form the SAME location unlike when you are listening to the original recording at your LP where the original sound will come from the speakers and room sound from everywhere in the room.

 

Since you are now listening the direct sound and your room sound emitting from the same location and separated by a delay, it will appear as two events. 

 

 

This is still related to the previous para.

 

 

 

At 1.5meter, it is true that ambience will be lesser than at LP. I have no reason to disagree with this.

Then I'm not seeing a disagreement.   Yes the recorded sound unveils the reflections of my room because they are coming from the same point as the music.  

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Here are my 600ms RT IRs. You may need to lower the volume or increase (depending on your DSP). These are IR reflected from 120 degrees. I really do not know how it will sound with your HP. Technically, these IRs suppose to function like the rear 5.1 music SACDs.

 

If this reverbs is to strong, I send 430ms RT IRs but It will not make any difference since most room RT is around 0.5s.

 

Left120STC

Right120ST

Link to comment
6 hours ago, STC said:

Here are my 600ms RT IRs. You may need to lower the volume or increase (depending on your DSP). These are IR reflected from 120 degrees. I really do not know how it will sound with your HP. Technically, these IRs suppose to function like the rear 5.1 music SACDs.

 

If this reverbs is to strong, I send 430ms RT IRs but It will not make any difference since most room RT is around 0.5s.

 

Left120STC

Right120ST

 

These are stereo files. How do I apply these four channel IRs to a two-channel playback? 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

These are stereo files. How do I apply these four channel IRs to a two-channel playback? 

 

Usually, you could just feed and the correct channel will be pickup by the convolution engine. Otherwise, you could edit the file to remove one channel and convert to mono. @esldude probably know how to do it correctly. 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Usually, you could just feed and the correct channel will be pickup by the convolution engine. Otherwise, you could edit the file to remove one channel and convert to mono. @esldude probably know how to do it correctly. 

Yes I just used it in Reaper where I had two duplicate stereo tracks.  Muted the un-needed track and used separate correction for each channel. In foobar I did what you described.  Dumped them in audacity and created a new stereo version with one impulse from each channel.  Saved the result as Foobar lets you use a stereo impulse for the convolver.  

 

BTW, only listened to yours briefly and did think it was a bit too long a reverb time.  Intend to listen some more this evening before making any other comments. 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...