Haha, I like the idea of an Iron Man armour for hifi. But for the whole body bass fanatics this (from pud.com) might be a more practical alternative:
Haha, that seems interesting.
Interesting. 40ms, that is a long time. Are these from big halls (late reflections) or with no reflections at all?
In my experience a free field HRIR does not work so well. Stereo is a compromise for reproduction in (listening) room, isn't it?
It was a large space—the very onset of early reflections, not the late ones. With a touch of the tweaks we discussed, you could even achieve a free‑field response. And yet, we all harbor that vague romantic notion of free field, don’t we? I certainly did, and so did other Korean users. My thread—and my experiences—are grounded in the conventional strengths and compromises of typical recording/playback methods, but sometimes the benchmark becomes simply what I want and what I’d love to hear.
For example, I’ve tried directing the speakers toward a high ceiling and tweaking the response intensity to test it out.
I’m not one for subjective descriptions, but sometimes it’s fun to get lost in a background stream that feels like stars falling from the night sky.
Yes, I fully agree.
The question for me is, how does a BRIR with reflections (see above) look like that is as neutral and restrained as possible, that lets the spatial characteristics and cues from the recording present themselves as clearly as possible?
That will vary depending on the environment/response each user designs. There are plenty of articles about this on ASR as well. (This applies not only to BRIR but to all speaker playback—after all, BRIR has speaker + space.)
I think you can strike an appropriate compromise that reflects your own preferences and goals—so long as the playback side doesn’t overpower the recording. If you search ASR for “Early Reflection,” “first reflection,” or “Sound stage,” you’ll find many long‑running discussions on exactly this topic.
Both methods work. BRIR is essentially the same as speaker + space. I got so deep into HRIR/BRIR that I even got rid of all my speakers, but I still have a small, fist‑sized $15 speaker on my desk. I use it occasionally for testing and to play the news on YouTube.
What I mean is that all the characteristics of a BRIR (FR signature, ITD and frequency dependent ILD) are incorporated in the recorded signal of a binaural recording with a dummy head. The diffuse field compensation is a rather broad FR correction that (among other things) is a natural way to prevent that the ear gain piles up when listening either through speakers or through headphones (that create the ear gain - Harman curve). In other words it is similar to the EQ I apply after convolving with my BRIR (from ear canal microphones) to get a neutral sounding signal to use with headphones/earphones in the same way as one would use the direct stereo signal.
My idea would not be to delete the crosstalk from the recording as this is a natural part of binaural listening. The correction I think is necessary is to"correct" the HRTF from the dummy's to my own. Not only in a broad sense but with taking the signatures of the pinnae (dummy's and mine) into account. This is hardly possible as the dummy's is not known normally. This correction would be a simple EQ without further crossfeed.
Yes—that’s essentially an extension of HPCF. The headphones and IEMs used for BRIR need to be equalized.
The problem is that a simple EQ can only compensate to a certain degree and may not be very meaningful. It depends on the microphone insertion method and recording technique—and once you factor in differences between the dummy head and my own ears, variations between different headphones, and the EQ needed for the particular headphones I use, you might see “some” improvement. But the core issue remains: the recorded ITD and ILD aren’t mine. (Of course, that’s less of a problem if the sound sources aren’t close.)
So yes, you can apply all those corrections, but as I said before, while I appreciate the binaural recording approach, I don’t have high expectations for the source material itself.
Well speakers are external sound sources that will be perceived externally in a natural way (unless such trickery as Bacch is used). Somehow I do not get the point of this comparison.
I’m referring to the difference between speakers and headphones/IEMs when listening to binaural recordings. Under the same conditions—speakers (with crosstalk cancellation applied) versus headphones/IEMs (with no crosstalk)—the latter tend to be perceived more “inside” your head. In contrast, speakers—unlike the pinna‑proximate effect of headphones—are heard as coming from a distance and thus externalize the sound much more easily.
Below is an excerpt from the Bacch paper.
I agree about many "modern recordings" being quite good, but there are differences and some are not good. And I would prefer a good atmos mix over the corresponding stereo mix (both over virtualization) any time. And a good binaural recording - IF made with my own ears - WILL be better than a good stereo recording (again over virtualisation) in my view (spatiality, auditory envelopment, realism...). I absolutely agree with Toole about stereo. But it will be different too, as the artistic and technical goals are different (not the least being listening over speakers of course). That is a question of preference.
Yes, of course preferences vary, and that’s the most important thing—I agree.
Personally, I actually don’t like Atmos mixes. The Atmos versions of the tracks I’ve listened to felt stimulating with lots of panning and dynamic elements, but I’m more interested in spatiality than in individual instruments or sources being panned around, so it didn’t really suit my taste. Above all, the sense of space in my stereo setup—shaped virtually to my own imagination—already surpassed the colorful mixing of Atmos… (But just as I respect your opinion, this is only my personal view. Please don’t misunderstand.)
First of all, I should head to bed soon—it’s quite late. Thank you for sharing so many insights in the thread today. If you happen to reply again, I’ll check it tomorrow.
