KVR Audio

buscemi · Post by **buscemi** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 2:28 pm

You could also run though an audio routing app (Soundflower, WireTap stuff, sorry I'm on Mac so those come to mind) and route through something that supports VST. I'd use (again on a Mac) Audio Hijack Pro myself since I've had it forever and it supports VSTs, just hijack the audio from the player into it and put Redline in one of the VST slots. I believe these methods would work just fine for Mac users.

lydia · Post by **lydia** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:48 pm

dj! (112dB) wrote:The idea by itself makes a lot of sense--getting your ears used to RM is as essential as listening to new nearfield monitors to get to know their particular sound. But even if it were available as a standalone (which it isn't) how would you listen to music with it? Wouldn't you need a media player to play the music in the first place?

That said, foobar2000 supports VST plugins (via a wrapper) and Redline Monitor runs fine in that, so that would be one way to achieve this. And undoubtedly there are other media players that support either VST or AU.

Take care,

-- dj!

Cool I got foobar with Redline Monitor working now. What settings are the most common to use? I mean I don't have any monitors so I don't have really a reference. But if I had some nearfields what would be more or less the adequate settings? (as I may get some nearfields to work in a normal bedroom desk in the future).

minx · Post by **minx** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:20 pm

lydia wrote:
dj! (112dB) wrote:The idea by itself makes a lot of sense--getting your ears used to RM is as essential as listening to new nearfield monitors to get to know their particular sound. But even if it were available as a standalone (which it isn't) how would you listen to music with it? Wouldn't you need a media player to play the music in the first place?

That said, foobar2000 supports VST plugins (via a wrapper) and Redline Monitor runs fine in that, so that would be one way to achieve this. And undoubtedly there are other media players that support either VST or AU.

Take care,

-- dj!
Cool I got foobar with Redline Monitor working now. What settings are the most common to use? I mean I don't have any monitors so I don't have really a reference. But if I had some nearfields what would be more or less the adequate settings? (as I may get some nearfields to work in a normal bedroom desk in the future).

Ive actually found there is no point in using RM for listening to Mixes done using speakers as these are correctly balanced.

dj! (112dB) · Post by **dj! (112dB)** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:33 pm

I think lydia's idea is to listen to commercial mixes through Redline Monitor in order to get familiar with its sound, much like you would run CD tracks you know well through a new pair of nearfield monitors to get used to their particular sound. Without knowing how any given playback system sounds--no setup is ever truly neutral--it is hard to make informed decisions about a mix.

In response to the question of "common" settings I would recommend the default setting of 60° and -1.5dB center level, with Distance dialed in according to personal taste. The latter doesn't really affect the stereo image as such but enhances the spatial sensation--at least for many people (including me). If it doesn't do that for you just turn it off by setting it to 0m. This will give you a perfectly flat frequency response while still preserving RM's spatial imaging.

-- dj!

K-Slash · Post by **K-Slash** » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:14 pm

dj!,

Sorry to hijack, but do you have any news about an harmonic saturation per-band feature on the upcoming Redline Equalizer ?

Thanks

flugel45 · Post by **flugel45** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:03 am

I glanced through most of this thread, and didn't see discussion about this (someone correct me if I missed it)...

Any thoughts on using RM with open versus closed end headphones? Does it make any difference?

JD

dj! (112dB) · Post by **dj! (112dB)** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:57 am

@K-Slash: no hard news I'm afraid--haven't had much time to work on Redline Equalizer with Reverb coming up first. What I can say is that I firmly plan on having it in there and that the first prototypes sound promising, but I'm not going to add it unless I'm 110% happy with it. Hold on a liiiiiiitle longer!

@flugel45: I think the topic came up somewhere before--not necessarily in this thread though

. Redline Monitor works equally fine with open or closed headphones, it's mostly a matter of personal preference and application which type you prefer. Personally I swear by open because they just "feel" more natural to me--YMMV.

Ciao,

-- dj!

K-Slash · Post by **K-Slash** » Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:17 am

dj! (112dB) wrote:@K-Slash: no hard news I'm afraid--haven't had much time to work on Redline Equalizer with Reverb coming up first. What I can say is that I firmly plan on having it in there and that the first prototypes sound promising, but I'm not going to add it unless I'm 110% happy with it. Hold on a liiiiiiitle longer!

Ciao,

-- dj!

Oh yeah, I definitely can wait for the end of Q2 (june) to see its release, if of course it includes this "magic" coloration feature, no problems at all for me, I'll be patient.

So of course, I'll have enough time to save up

!

Keep up the good work man.

Cheers,
Jay Key

Headphone Hi-Fi · Post by **Headphone Hi-Fi** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:42 pm

Post cancelled

buscemi · Post by **buscemi** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Headphone Hi-Fi wrote:Maybe some of you are interested in an other approach to the problem of headphone listening.
The goal was to emulate the sound of near-field monitoring speakers (no room simulation) with only EQs and short delays (< 1ms). Unlike other solutions I use 2 different path for the direct- and the crossfeed-channel to get a better "out of head localisation".
As this project is still in development I can only offer some demos you can listen to:
http://www.headphonehifi.ch/Headphone-Hi-Fi/Demo.html

Hope you like it

Nice first post, I do wish you luck with your product but I find it kind of slimey to hone in on a competitor's thread for your first post and to be honest you might want to also be more prepared with the "pudding" (as in where the proof is, a working product) before being so bold. IMHO, of course

dj! (112dB) · Post by **dj! (112dB)** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:17 pm

Thanks buscemi.

BTW Headphone Hi-Fi: You're walking a thin line posting copyrighted music on your site. I'd advise you to take those songs down before they get you into serious trouble.

-- dj!

Headphone Hi-Fi · Post by **Headphone Hi-Fi** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:45 pm

buscemi wrote: Nice first post, I do wish you luck with your product but I find it kind of slimey to hone in on a competitor's thread for your first post and to be honest you might want to also be more prepared with the "pudding" (as in where the proof is, a working product) before being so bold. IMHO, of course

Hello buscemi,
I didn't wanted to be so bold. You're right, it's the tread of dj! and I am very sorry for that.
I canceled my post and maybe you should also delete yours with my quote.

Thank you and sorry again

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:37 pm

Headphone Hi-Fi wrote:
buscemi wrote: Nice first post, I do wish you luck with your product but I find it kind of slimey to hone in on a competitor's thread for your first post and to be honest you might want to also be more prepared with the "pudding" (as in where the proof is, a working product) before being so bold. IMHO, of course
Hello buscemi,
I didn't wanted to be so bold. You're right, it's the tread of dj! and I am very sorry for that.
I canceled my post and maybe you should also delete yours with my quote.

Thank you and sorry again

I don't think Dj has too much to worry. Competition is always good.

@Headphone hi-fi: Personally I think your process sounds pretty bad. It messes with the frequency response a lot and becomes all smeary and phased out. Localization seems to work somewhat but because the frequency response is so messed up, it's nearly useless. This kind of technology, when pulled off properly, would be very valuable so keep working on it!

I think one of the problems is that HRTF is just a generalization. Somebody needs to create a physical model of a head/ear shape/ear canal thing that the user can modify to suite their own head/ear shape. Or then we need better "neutral" implementations that do not mess with the basic frequency response at all but instead simply provides the localization.

Cheers!
bManic

dj! (112dB) · Post by **dj! (112dB)** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:05 pm

bmanic wrote:I think one of the problems is that HRTF is just a generalization. Somebody needs to create a physical model of a head/ear shape/ear canal thing that the user can modify to suite their own head/ear shape. Or then we need better "neutral" implementations that do not mess with the basic frequency response at all but instead simply provides the localization.

Very good suggestions, and FWIW I'm currently working on exactly that for Return Of The Son Of Redline Monitor--Redline Monitor 2 for short

--, though not necessarily through physical modelling. But definitely a way to adjust HRTFs to each individual user's ears.

Also on a way to provide localization without HRTF (and thus with the same perfectly linear frequency response that RM provides with the Distance simulation off) through head tracking. This will require additional hardware but I can honestly say that first results are very encouraging and cost won't be that prohibitive.

Stay tuned!

-- dj!

grymmjack · Post by **grymmjack** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:02 pm

i really like redline monitor. works better than hdphx i've been using it for a week now, and it's helpful.

Redline Monitor - how does it work?