I understand some of what you put there, but seeing as I've never used those I'm not aware of the specifics, but I'm sure I'll find out about it if I try it. So you've tried Impulcifier yourself then, as in done your own measurements, so that's created your unique Target Curve? Or are you using someone else's Impulcifier measurment? You like the results of Impulcifier better than the others?
OOYH STILL doesn't work with Win10.
I just wanted to say that there are some BRIRs (binaural room impulse response) e.g. from scientific publications (This was one of my favourites for long time) which are freely available and that I preferred over the rooms in OOYH and the Spatial soundcard.
Sorry for the late reply.
Ok, good, so HeSuVi doesn't create any latency, that's comforting to know. I've got a few different options I can try now re different Virtual Surround Sound systems, which I'll do when I've got some time I want to dedicate to it.....I am happy with the Soundblaster Virtual Surround implementation on my G6 DAC, so I'm not in major need of a replacement, but I do still believe that it can be improved on, so I'm willing to try other surround sound implementations.Sorry for the late reply.
I usually run EqualizerAPO with a few filters like low pass (to cut out over 22/24kHz, 96db/oct.), preamplification (obviously), the HeSuVi configuration and the headphones equalization.
I usually use 64k resolution and there is no latency and something like under 7.5% CPU usage on one core with an initalization time of under 85ms. I have a i5 6600K, so a simple quad core without HT. But I don't trust the readings of the CPU usage so much because it says the same when the CPU is at 800MHz and at 4400MHz...
On HeSuVi I personally use DTS Headphone:X without reverb for watching movies and since I don't play first person shooters seriously anymore I just use stereo for casual gaming
Nice, well that would be interesting to hear any differences you experience between the old CMSS-3D and the newer SBX on the G6. I have indeed heard of CMSS-3D, and someone once linked me a Youtube vid comparing various surround sound technologies from actual repeatable in-game footage and CMSS-3D was the best of the bunch, although I don't think SBX was included in that video, can't quite remember, but I do specifically remember CMSS-3D as sounding the most convincing to me of the ones demonstrated. That's a real pity that the HeSuVi emulation of CMSS-3D doesn't seem to have the same positive effect.....how come they're different, do you know why they'd be different, I'm not aware of the technical limitations (or indeed process) associated with any conversion process in HeSuVi? Have you thought much about how you're gonna compare the G6 to the CMSS-3D to arrive at some accurate results? Do be aware that the Surround variable that you can set from 0-100 in SBX of the G6 makes an absolutely humongous massively large difference to how effective the surround sound implementation actually is for you. It might be related to personal HRTF differences between people, but I know from experimentation that 30 is the most realistic setting for me in the SBX software for the Surround setting.....so definitely consider playing with that variable to tweak SBX to it's best effect. Have a look at my first post in this thread I post a link to a simple voice related 7.1 speaker test, and I find that equates 100% to setting up a virtual 7.1 system properly, I find it very easy to tell if the virtual speakers are in the right position.....in fact the Surround variable (0-100) in SBX influences the positions of the virtual speakers, which is very easy to tell in that test, here's the test (don't need to refer to 1st post) (close your eyes when listening to try to picture the positions of the different speakers as the voice migrates to each speaker, set up the surround variable until they're in the right position):
That's really very interesting what Creative say about the virtual speakers and the effects of the Surround variable, but I've found the opposite or at least for some of the speakers. When I test it, increasing the Surround variable definitely moves the front left & front right speaker closer to the centre speaker, and does the same for rear left & rear right speakers - in fact if I set the Surround variable to 40 then for some strange reason the rear left speaker almost sounds the same as the rear right speaker and actually feels it's coming from the right more than the left! To me the Surround at 30 actually represents a 30 degree front left & right speaker (equalateral triangle).....unfortunately I don't think it quite nails the positions of the rear left & rear right speakers, as in they both feel at about 200 and 160 when I think they should be at 210 and 150 (or am I wrong about the where the rear speakers should go in 7.1, genuine question, not googled it?). But increasing the surround variable to 40 or beyond just moves the front left & front right speaker too close to the centre speaker and makes both rear speakers sound the same. A lot of this might depend on the initial frequency response of your headphone that the SBX is acting upon, because the effects are based on frequency response/gain changes I think, so a reliable frequency response of a headphone I would think is a good basis on which the SBX can function well. In fact, SBX is designed to work not just with headphone but with real speakers too, so it can take 2 front channel real speakers and then create virtual side & rear speakers.......now I remember reading a comment on reddit from a Creative Dev saying that in this case you want to set up your two front speakers at a 30 degree angle to you, so that marries quite well with the idea that it makes sense to have a frequency response in your headphone that is trying to mimic "speakers in a room" arranged in an optimal manner (equilateral triangle, 30 degrees each speaker), which was the basis for the Harman Curve creation.....so I use a Harman Curve EQ as a basis on which to apply the SBX effects.....and I believe this to be optimal in experience & for those reasons.
Ah, very interesting! I've tested out your files, and come to some definitive conclusions. SBX 33 sounds the best out of all them for accurate positioning, and the HeSuVi version works just as well, maybe it sounds just slightly different but the positioning is the same. SBX 67 moves the front left and front right speaker too close to the left & right side surrounds so they sound almost the same......yesterday I said that SBX 30 is the best (which still holds true for me) and that SBX 40 brings the front left & front right speaker too close to the centre speaker, but recently I had not tried greater than SBX 40, so it seems that between SBX 30 as you progress to SBX 40 then it moves the front left & right closer to the centre, and then probably as you progress above SBX 40 it starts moving the front left & right back out away from the centre and toward the side surrounds (but not tested that theory thoroughly, just the SBX 67 file you linked as a datapoint in that region)....either way SBX 30 is still ideal for me for correct positioning. CMSS-3D didn't work for me at all, no sensation of behind the head, the rear speakers sounded the same as the side surround speakers......I'm quite surprised about that because I remember from a demonstration I tried back at end of 2019 I thought it was the best, but that was when I was using my K702 at stock without a Harman EQ, so perhaps that's why. I do believe using a Harman EQ along with a virtual surround implementation like SBX is the way to go. I also tried your HeSuVi Steam Audio aka Phonon 3D and that was a very similar experience to CMSS-3D in-as-much that there was no behind your head sensation, and the rear speakers sounded the same as the side surround speakers. Which did you find most accurate/convincing from a positioning perspective?
Yes, you've had a completely different experience to me then in your preferences, and we also have the same headphone, I have HD560s as well as k702 EQ'd both to Harman Curve, and my experiences are the same with the HD560s.....so the differences between us must be somehow HRTF based then (as you said).
Are you sure your AE5 is not 7.1?? My G6 is 100% definitely 7.1, it appears as a 7.1 device in Windows - does your AE5 not appear as a 7.1 device in Windows (if you set it as such)? It's also possible to test it's actually 7.1 by using that test file I linked in the first post of this thread and using EqualiserAPO to apply say a -99dB negative preamp to one of the 7.1 channels, and you'll hear that this channel is then omitted from the test file.
Just to make it clear for people, you'd have to watch this video making sure your soundcard was in Stereo mode with all Surround Sound processing for the soundcard turned off, because the surround information has been baked into the 2 channel stereo sound of the video, that's correct right?
