• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Genelec Aural ID vs Slate VSX (or other options)

Volutrik

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2023
Messages
47
Likes
20
Sup everybody, I'm searching a lot for a solution that gives immersive studio/speaker sound on headphones and I came across what I think are the best ones: Genelec's Aural ID and Slate VSX. Genelec's option of course being the best one because it uses your own HRTF, whereas Slate VSX uses a general HRTF, hoping that this HRTF fits you.

There's also the Mesh2HRTF method, but since one would have to buy an iPhone to do the scannings and an iPhone is basically the same price of the annual subscription of Genelec's Aural ID, which gives you the SOFA file already, I think it makes more sense to buy that. You would also not have to deal with all of the complicated mesh processing, computer power to do all of this and etc.

Impulcifier is another option, but it requires access to a studio and/or a decently treated room with good enough speakers to be useful, so it's not an option because I'm already looking for such a solution because I don't have access to that.

Waves NX is good, I've used it and it does the job, but from what I've heard online, Slate VSX is better.

Has anyone in here tried Aural ID and Slate VSX? Is Slate VSX good enough or is Aural ID worth spending more?
 
OP
V

Volutrik

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2023
Messages
47
Likes
20
Hey @Volutrik , did you ever figure out what was the best of these options?
Hey there! Yes! I did the Mesh2HRTF process and it generated my own HRTF, which I can then use with APL Virtuoso (a binauralizer plugin that supports SOFA files - basically your HRTF). Now there's another new plugin called Noisemakers Binauralizer Studio, which also supports SOFA files, but I haven't tested it yet (it seems to be another very good option, tho!) If you don't want to do the whole Mesh2HRTF process and/or just want to test it out, you can also use Virtuoso with the default HRTF profiles, which can already give you way better results than Waves NX, for example. If you're willing to do the Mesh2HRTF thing, I can help you out if you want.

But if you have access to a studio, doing the Impulcifier process seems to be the ultimate solution because there's no "mimicking", sort of saying. It's a real recording being made (basically what the very expensive Smyth Realizer does). But with the tools mentioned before you can get very accurate results, too. These are the best tools available right now, at least that I'm aware of
 

eden.ekendahl

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2023
Messages
6
Likes
4
Hey there! Yes! I did the Mesh2HRTF process and it generated my own HRTF, which I can then use with APL Virtuoso (a binauralizer plugin that supports SOFA files - basically your HRTF). Now there's another new plugin called Noisemakers Binauralizer Studio, which also supports SOFA files, but I haven't tested it yet (it seems to be another very good option, tho!) If you don't want to do the whole Mesh2HRTF process and/or just want to test it out, you can also use Virtuoso with the default HRTF profiles, which can already give you way better results than Waves NX, for example. If you're willing to do the Mesh2HRTF thing, I can help you out if you want.

But if you have access to a studio, doing the Impulcifier process seems to be the ultimate solution because there's no "mimicking", sort of saying. It's a real recording being made (basically what the very expensive Smyth Realizer does). But with the tools mentioned before you can get very accurate results, too. These are the best tools available right now, at least that I'm aware of
Did you ever try Realphones or Acustica Sienna?
 
OP
V

Volutrik

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2023
Messages
47
Likes
20
Did you ever try Realphones or Acustica Sienna?
Yes, and they don't even come close to what Virtuoso does. After trying Sienna, I wasn't sure to why people were always bragging about it... Realphones was a bit better, but I preferred Waves NX and then DearVR Monitor. Virtuoso has a 7 or 14 day trial, you'll see what I'm talking about! You don't need your custom HRTF to make Virtuoso better than the other options, although it's the icing on the cake. Curious to know what you think about it!
 

eden.ekendahl

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2023
Messages
6
Likes
4
Yes, and they don't even come close to what Virtuoso does. After trying Sienna, I wasn't sure to why people were always bragging about it... Realphones was a bit better, but I preferred Waves NX and then DearVR Monitor. Virtuoso has a 7 or 14 day trial, you'll see what I'm talking about! You don't need your custom HRTF to make Virtuoso better than the other options, although it's the icing on the cake. Curious to know what you think about it!
Sounds interesting! What headphones are you using?
 
OP
V

Volutrik

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2023
Messages
47
Likes
20
Sounds interesting! What headphones are you using?
Quick edit:
I use the Philips SHP9500. According to this page (https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/Impulcifer/wiki/Measurements#speakers-and-headphones), "fast and well resolving headphones are recommended although any decent pair of around ear headphones can create illusion of listening to speakers in a real room." So, basically any decent headphones can be used for simulation, they'll be equalized anyways, so I wouldn't stress too much about it
 
Last edited:

majorhon

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2022
Messages
3
Likes
1
I've been using the Aural ID for a month and it sounds very much close to my real speakers . My speakers are calibrated and My room had good acoustic treatment. So I think Aural ID really did a good job.
I have also used NX, DearVR, and Virtuoso. But Aural ID is the one I feel most satisfied . Unfortunately, the annual fee is too expensive. I did not pay the annual fee to get the SOFA file.
And there is no head tracking:rolleyes:

Otherwise, I think Virtuoso+SOFA file should be a better choice.
 
Last edited:
OP
V

Volutrik

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2023
Messages
47
Likes
20
I've been using the Aural ID for a month and it sounds very much close to my real speakers . My speakers are calibrated and My room had good acoustic treatment. So I think Aural ID really did a good job.
I have also used NX, DearVR, and Virtuoso. But Aural ID is the one I feel most satisfied . Unfortunately, the annual fee is too expensive. I did not pay the annual fee to get the SOFA file.
And there is no head tracking:rolleyes:

Otherwise, I think Virtuoso+SOFA file should be a better choice.
If you are willing to go through the process in the name of science, you can use Mesh2HRTF to generate your SOFA. You just need an iPhone to perform the scanning of your head and ears, preferrably X, XS, XR, 11 or 12, as those have the best Face ID sensors, and some time to do the mesh optimization afterwards. I don't know about Genelec's process, but I guess it's the same thing, just that you do it yourself in this case. I can help you with that if you want
 

majorhon

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2022
Messages
3
Likes
1
If you are willing to go through the process in the name of science, you can use Mesh2HRTF to generate your SOFA. You just need an iPhone to perform the scanning of your head and ears, preferrably X, XS, XR, 11 or 12, as those have the best Face ID sensors, and some time to do the mesh optimization afterwards. I don't know about Genelec's process, but I guess it's the same thing, just that you do it yourself in this case. I can help you with that if you want
Yes, I would definitely like to do this! I think I can do scanning myself. I have watched related videos on YouTube, but I got stuck when it came to the blender step.I would really appreciate it if you could help me!
 

majorhon

New Member
Joined
May 13, 2022
Messages
3
Likes
1
If you are willing to go through the process in the name of science, you can use Mesh2HRTF to generate your SOFA. You just need an iPhone to perform the scanning of your head and ears, preferrably X, XS, XR, 11 or 12, as those have the best Face ID sensors, and some time to do the mesh optimization afterwards. I don't know about Genelec's process, but I guess it's the same thing, just that you do it yourself in this case. I can help you with that if you want
About Genelec's Aural ID, They will first take photos of my ears measured with a ruler, and then take a video around the body and ears.

ee9dfef2b4481a534260f1a4ff30d59.jpg


Here is the link how they take the video around the body and ears.

I don't know how accurate this is, but to me it‘s much better than the general HRTF.
 

rirelien

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 7, 2023
Messages
14
Likes
23
If you are willing to go through the process in the name of science, you can use Mesh2HRTF to generate your SOFA. You just need an iPhone to perform the scanning of your head and ears, preferrably X, XS, XR, 11 or 12, as those have the best Face ID sensors, and some time to do the mesh optimization afterwards. I don't know about Genelec's process, but I guess it's the same thing, just that you do it yourself in this case. I can help you with that if you want

I'm interested in these ideas. I find loudspeaker listening much more satisfying than headphone listening, but can't always listen to the loudspeaker setup due to family or neighbour constraints.

I'm interested in both stereo and surround listening. My loudspeaker setup is a 4.0 system with Dirac.

A question, if I may: have you tried Apple's customised profiles with their devices that support spatial audio -- eg AirPods? If so, how do you find APL Virtuoso combined with a custom HRTF generated by something like the above compared to Apple's approach?

I have tried the following:
  1. APL Virtuoso with the provided HRTF options (they provide three to try, with very noticeable differences s you would expect -- the B one works OK for me.)
  2. Apple's default HRTF
  3. Apple's customised HRTF (using the iPhone to scan your head.)
My findings so far are as follows. All listening conducted with AirPods Pro (1st gen) as output device, as that's what I have on hand. Set in APL Virtuoso so it EQs for those (it's one of their long list of headphones supported.)
  1. Virtuoso has lots of options and parameters that you can tune.
    1. For stereo listening, I can get a relatively realistic stereo setup, but the resolution feels somehow low, and the stereo image illusion is sometimes not as strong.
    2. For surround, the rear/side effect is OK, but I get no sense of height when testing 9.1.4 input (via Dolby Functional Testing on Apple Music -> Blackhole -> APL Virtuoso.)
  2. Apple default HRTF is pretty good.
    1. For spatialised stereo, the effect is less "I'm in a room", much less simulated room effect on the sound, a wider image, but it's artificial.
    2. For surround/Atmos, I feel it's better than APL Virtuoso.
  3. I've tried the individualised HRTF twice -- I reverted to the default HRTF because it was actually better than the custom one, but have tried another scan and it seems better than the first one.
Things I'd want to try:

- Mesh2HRTF to generate a SOFA for my head.
- Better headphones (not bluetooth, not in-ear?)

I wonder if this is worth trying.

Theoretically, a perfect individualised HRTF when combined with very good headphones should give me the sense of being in an ideal room with ideal loudspeakers, right?

And then, I would think that a really high quality IEM should in theory be better than a circumaural headphone, since it's excluding the pinnae which might already be in the HRTF -- anyone have any thoughts or research to point to on this?

Thanks for this thread.
 
Top Bottom