Binaural is externalised perceptions of sound, there's still far far more work to do before they get this with this setup, it simply sounds like very nice stereo audio, for there is no binaural information that is making it externalised, don't believe what you read on the box, if it don't sound like binaural, it's not binaural.
I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts here and I agree in part. As mentioned in my reply to you on my Shigeru Kawai SK-6 improv video, I used the Blue Ripple Sound headphone encoder which derives a binaural signal from my ambisonic recording. In the case of this recording, I utilised the Pianoteq multi output feature to derive five microphone signals; two from a close stereo pair above the strings, two from a stereo pair outside the piano and one figure eight room mic signal from a ribbon mic. These signals are then upmixed into a third order ambisonic field and then decoded to binaural using the HRTF data embedded in the Blue Ripple encoder. For this recording, I also added some immersive room reverb using Acon Digital Verberate Immersive and injected that into the ambisonic field. The software binaural encoding method is not perfect and the results will vary widely from subject to subject depending on individual anatomy, sensitivity to ILD and ITD cues and deviation from the HRTF model in the plugin encoder. This plugin provides a good balance to my ears between externalisation over headphones, and minimal impact on frequency response when listening on speakers. Others, such as yourself, could experience a vastly different externalisation experience, as you have mentioned, which is very much anatomically and neurologically influenced.
@@danniielle Again you are using the technical terms ‘ The software binaural encoding method is not perfect and the results will vary widely from subject to subject depending on individual anatomy, sensitivity to ILD and ITD cues and deviation from the HRTF model in the plugin encoder.’ As I said the timing differences do not really matter, but just because they are written in a white paper that they are is entirely up to you to either take their word for it and accept it, as you seem to do, or, like me, test it, and I have, you can’t create binaural sound simply using the above quoted terms. You require binaural capturing devices, else it’s not binaural, you may find that the stereo effect is enhanced, it sure is, but it isn’t binaural. To prove it isn’t simply set up your system and walk over to the door or window, and knock, if then when you play back the recoded audio with your headphones on, played back at the correct volume I may add, does it convince you someone is knocking on your door or window? If not, then everything I have said is true, and you can’t get binaural sound from what you have, else if you do feel there is someone knocking at your door or window, please upload that video to prove a point that will help me understand my hypothesis is totally flawed and needs re-evaluating! It’s a simple test, let me know how it works out with a very short video demonstrating it
Again, I agree that software encoding is far from perfect. It is a binaural simulation and that simulation will depend largely on individual deviation from the HRTF model utilised in the software. Again, for me, the externalisation results from the Blue Ripple encoder, while not perfect, are the best of all the software methods I've utilised. The biggest limitation, again for my anatomy and neurological sensitivity, is the front-back and up-down plane. There is still considerable confusion in those with the Blue Ripple method but the left-right plane is very effectively externalised, again, FOR ME. I mix in ambisonics and monitor on an Atmos speaker layout in my studio and also on headphones (Beyerdynamic DT1990 Pro). The effectiveness of the Blue Ripple encoder is enough for me that there are times when switching between headphones and speakers that I actually take off my headphones to make sure I have actually muted the monitors.
Binaural is externalised perceptions of sound, there's still far far more work to do before they get this with this setup, it simply sounds like very nice stereo audio, for there is no binaural information that is making it externalised, don't believe what you read on the box, if it don't sound like binaural, it's not binaural.
I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts here and I agree in part.
As mentioned in my reply to you on my Shigeru Kawai SK-6 improv video, I used the Blue Ripple Sound headphone encoder which derives a binaural signal from my ambisonic recording.
In the case of this recording, I utilised the Pianoteq multi output feature to derive five microphone signals; two from a close stereo pair above the strings, two from a stereo pair outside the piano and one figure eight room mic signal from a ribbon mic.
These signals are then upmixed into a third order ambisonic field and then decoded to binaural using the HRTF data embedded in the Blue Ripple encoder.
For this recording, I also added some immersive room reverb using Acon Digital Verberate Immersive and injected that into the ambisonic field.
The software binaural encoding method is not perfect and the results will vary widely from subject to subject depending on individual anatomy, sensitivity to ILD and ITD cues and deviation from the HRTF model in the plugin encoder.
This plugin provides a good balance to my ears between externalisation over headphones, and minimal impact on frequency response when listening on speakers.
Others, such as yourself, could experience a vastly different externalisation experience, as you have mentioned, which is very much anatomically and neurologically influenced.
@@danniielle
Again you are using the technical terms ‘
The software binaural encoding method is not perfect and the results will vary widely from subject to subject depending on individual anatomy, sensitivity to ILD and ITD cues and deviation from the HRTF model in the plugin encoder.’
As I said the timing differences do not really matter, but just because they are written in a white paper that they are is entirely up to you to either take their word for it and accept it, as you seem to do, or, like me, test it, and I have, you can’t create binaural sound simply using the above quoted terms.
You require binaural capturing devices, else it’s not binaural, you may find that the stereo effect is enhanced, it sure is, but it isn’t binaural.
To prove it isn’t simply set up your system and walk over to the door or window, and knock, if then when you play back the recoded audio with your headphones on, played back at the correct volume I may add, does it convince you someone is knocking on your door or window? If not, then everything I have said is true, and you can’t get binaural sound from what you have, else if you do feel there is someone knocking at your door or window, please upload that video to prove a point that will help me understand my hypothesis is totally flawed and needs re-evaluating!
It’s a simple test, let me know how it works out with a very short video demonstrating it
Again, I agree that software encoding is far from perfect. It is a binaural simulation and that simulation will depend largely on individual deviation from the HRTF model utilised in the software.
Again, for me, the externalisation results from the Blue Ripple encoder, while not perfect, are the best of all the software methods I've utilised.
The biggest limitation, again for my anatomy and neurological sensitivity, is the front-back and up-down plane. There is still considerable confusion in those with the Blue Ripple method but the left-right plane is very effectively externalised, again, FOR ME.
I mix in ambisonics and monitor on an Atmos speaker layout in my studio and also on headphones (Beyerdynamic DT1990 Pro).
The effectiveness of the Blue Ripple encoder is enough for me that there are times when switching between headphones and speakers that I actually take off my headphones to make sure I have actually muted the monitors.