Anyone compared a Slate VSX with a Sonarworks SoundID and a compareable Headphone for example the Sennheiser HD650 ?

 

I can't tell any about Slate,I have used some sonarworks, also morphit from toonebooster. Finally proved dSONIQ Realphones. I liked it and bought it. very happy. it works. I have a HD650 too.

 

Looks like I need to buy both and compare them myself :/

 

Was about to post the same question. Have DT770 250ohm, but I have been told not great for mixing, and room treatment not an option, so wondering whether I wait for the VSX to become available again, or go down the route of 990’ or even 1990’s with Sonarworks (or others in that price bracket) I generally record live electric / acoustic guitar and bass, VST drums and synths, but also venture into mediation music, so looking for advice from more experienced people that use either solution as well as proper treated rooms.

I use a UFXii, and annoyingly have a pair of Adam A7X’s that I can’t utilise, but to be fair, my old room that was used is fine for backing tracks, but I wouldn’t say for commercial releases.

 

I have the Slate VSX headphones and I must say that they really knocked it out of the park with this pair. The price is steep yes, so its kinda hard to spend, but I can definitely say that I got an incredible set of headphones. They are SUPER light weight so they are incredibly comfy. With or without the Plugin running their impulse room responses (basically just room modeled reverb) these headphones really work for me. Super mid range heavy and also very flat so it allows me to really dial in the perfect midrange balance fast. I can recommend them. If it was 200-300 dollars I would just say that they have destroyed the competition but for 500 its kinda a bit of a stretch. But yeah I think even for 500 it was really worth it for me. Saves me hours and hours of bouncing a mix and then coming back to rebounce after a car ride. The algorithms of room models are kinda weird at first, but once you understand them it just helps to use them as a backup checking before you bounce. and the plugin auto bypasses unlike sonarworks, (i have the old one). if its a serious mix I still use my AT50x and sonar works in conjunction with the Slate. just to have some other sources to know its dialed in good.

 

Well I tested (nearly) all room/crosstalk/headphone flattening software.

I ordered the slate VSX tried them and sent them back. For me, the system is not better than any other headphone monitoring software. The main reason I sent it back was the headphones feel really cheap for the price. The VSX is not worth the money in my opinion. Like @MojoDavey said half the price ... maybe ...

For me, the best all-in-one solution with room simulation is embody studio.
Try the (14 day) demo yourself. It supports the dt 770 pro.
It is like the VSX without the headphones. And I have to say on my dt 990 there are 3 rooms/monitors that sound excellent. I was surprised.


Even sonarworks is not my favorite for headphones flattening. I prefer toneboosters morphit.

For me the best cheap headphone mixing solution is morphit + canopener and sometimes if I want room morphit + dearvr monitor.
I get good results.

Waves ocean way is not that bad too. The possibility to turn down the room effect makes it useable compared to waves studio 3.

But this whole "Headphone "room-simulation flattening thing" is personal taste. My advice, try them all yourself. Only you can decide if headphones can work for you .

 

So far, Acustica Audio Sienna and Slate VSX are the best simulations. For the former, it provides far more headphones than SoundID. At the same time, the calibration is based on psychoacoustics rather than completely flattening, which retains good translation capabilities and excellent sense of hearing. Most importantly, it also allows you simulate on different types of playback, such as mid-field and far-field speakers, and their sound in a real room. This includes filtering effects and reflections, as well as reducing the sense of separation of binaural effects.

Slate VSX is a complete framework. Its hardware is designed for a universal calibration model.
Of course, if Steven Slate proves that VSX allows engineers to work well on headphones, then you can do the same. We all know his The mixing skills are much better than his expression.

Currently Acustica Audio provides Sienna for free for a limited time. Once you purchase it, you can have it forever. Although the number of rooms and speakers is limited, it has a complete headset list support.

 

Sienna? Really? I tested the free version, I never heard so much phasing in any headphone software. For me it is the worst I heared. And normally I, really like AA plugins.

 

Sonarworks SOUNDID is the best one, but is a correction room software .
The emulation of other headphones and speakers is super accurate if you use good monitors and headphones, but is just a plus.
Waves is a stupid toy with a cool 3D interface.

 

What dont tou like of the A7X?

 

Sennheiser - dearVR MICRO (version 1.00)

Enter the world of Spatial Audio


Create mind-blowing audio productions with the free binaural panner plugin dearVR MICRO and experience being placed directly in the center of a surrounding audio scene. Joining forces with the Dear Reality team, we are proud to present the successor of the successful AMBEO Orbit plugin.

Enjoy new creative mixing possibilities in a full three-dimensional space far beyond the reach of a simple stereo panner. The free full version of dearVR MICRO enables you to position signals in any location left, right, above, below, in front, or behind your head - instead of only left or right.

Control the acoustics of a surrounding virtual room in the reflection section by adjusting the room size and the reflection's level. Alter the reflection timbre and create unique acoustic environments by choosing between five different wall-, ceiling- and floor materials.
Find the optimal balance between the 3D perception and the overall tonal preservation with the new FOCUS parameter. Define your personal sweet spot within the range of full 3D externalization and a maximum spectral balance of your mix. Developed by the Sennheiser AMBEO team, the FOCUS parameter is an advancement of the patented Clarity algorithm.

dearVR MICRO offers you the same advanced HRTF filters as Dear Reality’s high-end binauralizer plugins dearVR PRO and dearVR MUSIC. Choose between Dear Reality’s advanced HRTFs or the well-known Sennheiser AMBEO Orbit HRTFs based on the famous NEUMANN KU100 dummy head.

Code:

https://de-de.sennheiser.com/ambeo-orbit

 

Love them!! Have a pair that I can’t use!

 

Would you say the 990’s are are big improvement on the 770’s for mixing?

 

Well, the sound stage is better. Most people like open headphone more for mixing, because of the sound stage. If this is a big improvement is like everything with hearing subjective. I would use the 990 any day over my 770 for mixing. But not for tracking ;).

 

Any thoughts on the 990 vs 1990???

 

And out of interest, I use Cubase 11 Pro, and I use Control Room to send a separate Cue Mix to my phones, so I would place Sonarworks / Morphit to flatten the response, then the likes of Waves Nx / Studio 3 / Ocean Way?? Will demo Embody though I think

 

The 1990 are a step-up from the dt 990/880/770 mostly in build quality. They are made out of metal and have a detachable mini xlr cable. They are definitely the best Headphone in the dt line. In terms of sound and a complete other league in build quality.

Yes, that is what I do. Set up a listening bus, flatten the headphones, I prefer morphit because you can exactly adjust the amount of "flatting" to taste. In my case I set it to 92% so I get a tiny bit more bass and highs from the natural tuning of the headphones. I really hate completely flattened headphones (without a room simulation). They sound like shit and I can't work with them. After the flattening, I set up a cross-feed or room simulation software. I mainly use can opener, which is only cross-feed because I am used to it, I use it for a long time.

Waves products you need a flattening software in front, the rest have a build in correction software for dt 770. Embody, dsoniq realphones and Acustica audio sienna. I think theese are all products that are doing what VSX does, simulate a complete studio - room and monitors environment, and they all support 770s.

So if you try them you do not even need morphit or sonar works.

Embody is not cheap, but it is worth a try. I will get it as soon they have a sale. The waves plugins, I would suggest Ocean way. It sounds the most natural in my opinion. But again this headphone flattening-room thing is really subjective, you have to try all this different pieces of software products yourself.

 

Last edited: Jul 22, 2021

Thanks for the assistance and guidance, got some playing to do this weekend it would seem!

 

OK that s jsiut teh room but wont change the freqiuency response, or make it flat.

 

Question: In general, what is the procedure for EQ'ing based on a headphones response curve in order to make headphones seem flat? I always thought the HD-280s were "flat" until I saw the response curve @ headroom!

1.) You do not normally want a flat (on-head) frequency response in headphones, except when listening to binaural recordings. Stuff mixed for speakers will sound too bright then. The ideal frequency response for this kind of material would look more like the HD650's freq response (perhaps a tad flatter still and minus the bass dropoff). Your idea for obtaining a desired freq response is right, plus one would normalize the EQ so that the highest value is +0 dB. The logarithmic frequency axis starts out in units of 20 Hz, then goes to 200 Hz, then 2 kHz.

2.) Everybody's "flat" is different and EQ settings for the ideal "flat" are more or less meaningless except for the person doing the EQing and his clone perhaps. 'More or less' because our perception of bass and lower frequencies in general are quite similar since those frequencies are hardly affected by the ear shaping.

A flat headphone frequency graph is also rather meaningless. As markl said, a flat curve sounds horrible due to the human ear's individual HRTF, head related transfer functions, which is caused by the different ear shapes. A flat signal measured outside the ear won't measure flat at the entrace of the ear canal (due to personalized HRTF) and it will be different for every single person. So a flat signal measured at the entrance of the ear canal, which is where most headphone measurements are done, must have been a very weird original signal. Simplified, it's like: HRTF (flat original signal) = "the weird graph you see on Headroom"

So if we have: HRTF (original signal) = "flat graph", then the original signal can't have possibly been flat or neutral. HRTF is a function here and (...) is the function variable. Like f(x) = y

Further, a flat frequency graph alone is only part of the story of accurate reproduction of sound. Another important aspect is the way of equalising, such as direct-field equalised or diffuse-field equalised and others, which will influence our perception of the naturalness of the sound.

But I find Headroom's graphs to be quite useful nonetheless for correcting serious problems in the frequency response. For instance, the HD 25-1 has a major spike at 8-10 Khz and reducing the spike using an EQ severely reduces the sibilance of these headphones to a normal level.
In any case, frequency graphs and the field of psychoacoustics studies associated with it is a subject to endless research and various institues thereof. So it's not quite that simple unfortunately.

Source: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/eqing-to-make-headphones-flat-based-on-headroom-graph.151622/