Steven Slate VSX Headphone

[bmanic]

Slate tried to go for full HRTF but it proved to be a too big bite to chew. So they instead focused on a more subtle design which should cater to most people. I have yet to hear a convincing HRTF solution that does proper surround and acoustic environment.

What Slate instead gets very correct is that the actual product goal and marketing slogan is spot on. You put the headphones on, you enter a vitual studio and then you mix to the best of your ability in that virtual room, then take it out into the real world and will notice quite immediately that it translates exceptionally well!

This is something that I have not experienced with headphones before. Never have I been this confident in mixing with purely headphones and I've tried.. oh lord have I tried! Every damn headphone + plugin + hardware combo to duplicate reliable mixing results. I have absolutely no idea why VSX works so well, but it does.

Does it sound strange, phasey and slightly funky the very first time you put them on? Yes! At least they did for me. But once my brain calibrated itself to the image after forcing myself to be non-critical and just listen to a lot of references, it all suddenly clicked. Now I can mix very reliably on these things. Especially levels, dynamics and overall levels are easier to setup than on any other system I've encountered.

Do I still work quicker and more reliably in the studio? Yes. But I'm unsure about the reason.. maybe because I have literally tens of thousands of hours in it? (about 15 years in the same place with similar equipment and same acoustics).

[djanthonyw]

Have speakers directly against your ears is uncomfortable. I don't even use headphones or earbuds for recreational use because I find them to just be annoying. I don't ever see it to be possible for headphones to honestly sound like an actual room.

[digitalboytn]

Have speakers directly against your ears is uncomfortable.

I find that when I have speakers strapped to my ears,my neck gets a little sore because of the weight...

The smaller speakers are easier to strap on and cause less problems for my neck,but the bass response is not as good

[TS-12]

Too bad waves are not expanding their abbey road studio 3 plugin, waves seems to me less ad-hyped and with more features (but less rooms and monitors )

[Ploki]

Bassports that fire into pads is pretty unique tho

[bmanic]

I don't ever see it to be possible for headphones to honestly sound like an actual room.

It's probably going to happen at some point.. but that's definitely in the realm of science fiction at this point in time. I suspect the headphones need to somehow "scan" your whole head and insides of ears, then apply some voodoo AI magic to calculate the perfect HRTF for you..

[Ploki]

It's probably going to happen at some point.. but that's definitely in the realm of science fiction at this point in time. I suspect the headphones need to somehow "scan" your whole head and insides of ears, then apply some voodoo AI magic to calculate the perfect HRTF for you..

that or brain implants.

but yeah, you're right. With a perfect copy of your HRTF and a good flat headphones you should be able to get extremely close.
Still, feeling the low-end is another story

[bmanic]

.. you just need a gut puncher accessory.

[andymcbain]

Too bad waves are not expanding their abbey road studio 3 plugin, waves seems to me less ad-hyped and with more features (but less rooms and monitors )

Hyped indeed but considering the positive feedback from beta testers this time (including one guy I implicitly trust) - I think the hype may be real this time round

[lfm]

Have speakers directly against your ears is uncomfortable. I don't even use headphones or earbuds for recreational use because I find them to just be annoying. I don't ever see it to be possible for headphones to honestly sound like an actual room.

Try quad IR's that do true stereo which also has bleed left and right channel.

My own guess what is lacking is the number of reflections algorithmic reverbs do for ears/brain to process like IRL. An IR contain whatever is there, unless plugins cheat in some way. I saw some IR plugin that also claim to generate IR from own specs, and guess that cheats also in number of reflections you get.

I listened to many dozens of demos of various surround/3D binaural stuff said to be aiming for phones. When it comes to true forward and back position it's more complicated than left/right to each ear. Even having HRTF's to muffle obscured angles in position it's not there yet.

Here is one testing surround phones and Dolby Atmos too.


3D video is really out there projecting an image in the room right in front of you. You expect audio to do it's part in this too. Audio is such a big part in how you experience video/film.

I activated Windows Sonic in Xbox and ran some games which do surround with spatial processing for normal phones. When really close up it works a bit sensing where opponents are or come from. But 2m or so away there is not enough for brain to really feel - regarding in front of you or behind you.

It's decades of research behind what we see today in this field, and upcoming VR really need better audio processing to work.

QSound has many patents too, and is used by DTS folks.
http://www.qsound.com/demos/binaural-audio.htm

Behind you like barber shop demo really works I think.

Not sure why there isn't a demo doing right in front of you?

If you are outside in an open field and a dog is barking, you will have trouble sensing where it is - unless there is something to reflect sound too. Even a forest helps in this to guide brain.

I think their patents are used for modern PA systems that make audience at various distances get the right amount of each frequency in arenas. This is really rocket science, I think.

This DTS X demo is pretty good. They licensed Qsound technology to use.


This kind of mixes is nice where music is allaround you

[dionenoid]

In the meanwhile i'm demoing Realphones : https://www.dsoniq.com/

Much cheaper than Slate VSX and you can use it with your own headphones, so you can actually demo before buying. It's highly customizable, and more room/type simulations are announced. To me it sounds much better than Sonarworks, but Realphones can load your Sonarworks and Morphit profiles too.

[Passing Bye]

[legendCNCD]

Monday cant come soon enough, first time for everything eh?

[JCJR]

My own guess what is lacking is the number of reflections algorithmic reverbs do for ears/brain to process like IRL. An IR contain whatever is there, unless plugins cheat in some way. I saw some IR plugin that also claim to generate IR from own specs, and guess that cheats also in number of reflections you get.

I'm not anti-phones for mixing/listening but usually use speakers. Not trying to "prove any point" in this message, just an observation.

OK, there are many "philosophies" of studio treatment. LiveEnd/DeadEnd, extreme diffusion, etc. Treating the room for "as dead and flat as you can get" is commonly disfavored. But I generally like "dead" and because reflections are the cause of "non-flatness", in a small amateur room treating for "broadband dead as possible" is about the easiest way to get the room response "fairly flat".

But even heavy-treated for dead/flat with absorbers, there are still plenty of reflections in a typical room. You really have to do the overkill to make an anechoic room. Probably more expensive to build a good anechoic chamber than a good monitoring room.

Am just sayin, when I'm listening I don't keep my head locked-in always facing the same direction, with the head at the exact center of some sweet spot. I look left/right, up/down. Sometimes roll the chair closer-in or farther away from the studio monitors. Sometimes if I want to listen closer to something on the left monitor I will lean over so the head is close to the left monitor. Ditto if sometimes I need to listen closer to something on the right monitor.

Every little head movement or position change, or even different body postures or arm/leg positions, makes different HRTFs of interaction of head/ears/speakers/far room reflections/near room reflections. That happens even in a heavy treated dead/flat room.

So unless a headphone HRTF audio processing constantly modifies itself according to realtime head/body position and attitude tracking, as one might expect from some super-duper sci-fi body-tracking virtual reality helmet--

With just static HRTFs, no matter how realistic-- If it always sounds the same regardless of head/body orientation and posture, as if your head is perpetually clamped at the exact sweet-spot in the headphone-simulated speaker/room system-- Then it is not going to sound as realistic as speakers in a room.

Maybe for many or most, good-enough headphones with good-enough static HRTF processing would be better and more practical for mixing than speakers in a treated room. I'm not dissing the concept. Just sayin, it probably won't sound "excellently realistic" without some kind of real-time head&body-sensing system to dynamically adjust the HRTF in real-time.

[lfm]

Maybe for many or most, good-enough headphones with good-enough static HRTF processing would be better and more practical for mixing than speakers in a treated room.

I think current room models are cheating too much, like mp3 is cheating in it's processing. You loose essential information for brain.

Algorithmic reverbs probably do it not to get cpu up too much. Maybe this is where Bricasti excel, that they went the extra miles.

I'm experimenting a lot with the quad IR's made from Bricasti M7 as well as rooms to see how they are different. But just started.

To support that theory - simplifying reverbs too much - is that running Panorama 6 I get pretty good sense closeups around 1m distance or so and sense of direction. But as soon as further away this is diminishing quickly.

I suspect this is to do with simplifying room model too much. When mostly direct sound it works, but not when reflections start to become bigger part.

I'm not dissing the concept. Just sayin, it probably won't sound "excellently realistic" without some kind of real-time head&body-sensing system to dynamically adjust the HRTF in real-time.

I think it's too much to ask for VR in mixing situation. One position is enough for the job. Even if we in real world do move around when we listen.

I even do the Micky Mouse Ears trick, hands as a cup by each ear to get more highs to hear they are lush and nice. Which obviously cannot be done in phones.

Listening to those 3 links above comparing VSX to other products VSX stood out as producing very clear image and rather liked the sound.

But one huge mistake in his demos is that he did not do the mix as is first, then with these activated. Just jumping around between car and some other room presets.

But Realphones I felt was really bad, like some cloth curtain between you and the sound or something. Something was really lost and sounded boring. But he didn't get the correction parameter adjusting curve.

It would have been interesting to hear VSX compared to the mix without it also. I think the idea is really good, selling with a partiular set of phones with it. Then that part translates to what software is doing.

Realphones had common phones on market to choose from, which is good idea too. And the phones he had demoing, might be far from what we are listening to - not making it justice.