https://new.steinberg.net/immerse/

Most of us probably do not like second-guessing anything. I know I do not.
This plugin aside, someone on here started an interpretive thread about whether Steinberg might dispense with their dongle and go the subscription-model path. Apparently, Steinberg has suggested they won't do the subscriptions someone also suggested?

Watching this with the way it is authorised, opens the possibility that a personal phone and barcode app might be one avenue they are thinking of going. To reiterate, I do not like to second guess, but they're already using it on this vst, so it is not unreasonable to wonder if this may be the path they are considering? I am not second-guessing, only using what they have already recently implemented.

 

The barcode is part of the partner, Embody Immerse technology. I doubt this is a reflection of Steinberg's direction. BTW. Has anyone tried the Steinberg Immerse plugin? Has anyone tried the 2 channel Embody Immerse Virtual studio? These are two interesting tech cases. Steinberg Immerse is for mixing in multi-channel for movies and games in virtual multi-speakers via headphones. Embody Studio is for traditional music mixing, also emulating the sound of a well treated control room and speakers. Both technologies sound expensive unless they actually work with a good set of headphones with no need for acoustic treatment. Interesting shifts in mixing are coming. Thoughts?

 

Thanks for that. I thought as much which is why I tried to be clear and state that I really do not wish to second guess.
The issue I have with subscription models is not that they offer entire ranges of their products this way which on the surface is designed to promote 'good value' - My issue is that nobody ever owns what they pay for from that point onwards. End subscription = end of product usage.


As for the headphones - I think you are correct you need a decent set of headphones but from what I gather, if you have half decent monitors you can achieve the same thing.

 

I limit myself to one subscription. With Embody you can own it.... for a high price. The Steinberg Immerse is fairly affordable and not a subscription as far as I know. Sadly, subs will drown a person quickly, agreed BaSsDuDe

 

Nice one!
I find it very interesting that it analyzes your ear shape..

I guess it's not as perfect as a true full head measurement,
but it will be interesting to see how much of an improvement it can represent..


I've been using Waves NX + ToneBoosters Morphit a little bit lately,
and I find they work pretty well together..

Morphit does a much better job than Sonarworks with my particular headphones (DT880/K712),
and well Waves NX just seems to work as intended. (at least on the sweetspot position..)

I'm still not making Critical decisions with them tho,
it's difficult to judge when your tracks/mix are very dense/complex..

I still find it to be a bit overpowering with the Bass freqs,
and I don't know how accurate, or exaggerated that can be.. (Morphit being a factor too)

But it does give a realist spatial feel indeed,
so it can be somewhat of a reference, or an alternative to check there's nothing too crazy/out of place.

 

free Immerse en/decoders
http://research.spa.aalto.fi/projects/sparta_vsts
at least a way to TRY it!
Maybe take a look here to understand the issue with Multichannel productions:
https://www.whathifi.com/advice/dolby-atmos-what-it-how-can-you-get-it

its quite complex and NO, a Headphone cant make something like its 20 Meters behind you.You need a real 6- 10 speakersetup in the room.
But if you ever listend to this, u gonna be addicted.

 

Last edited: Jun 1, 2021

Awesome!!

I knew/tried Flux Spat, but this is like the Mad Scientist version,
and it includes many interesting little tools, awesome stuff..

 

The interesting part about using spatial plugins with normal stereo monitors is that if you do not go overboard with radical fast panning and only use it for stereo field placement, you can achieve some really nice separation. Obviously, the right environment to fully take advantage of this is a set of great headphones, but it does work in a normal stereo environment. If used properly it can create an illusion of reverb field placement (convolution) without using a reverb.

 

but you can make a stereo downmix better or worse, and the discussion whether customized hrtf´s are better than using averaged ones makes a big difference is interesting.

about the stuff steinberg sells: in my opinion it is bullshit to use buzzwords like "KI" for measuring ears - and even if it is good, modelling ears from a still image can also go quite wrong.

i mostly use speakers to listen to 3D content before i make a stereo or UHJ version. if it somewhat works good on speakers it will work for earphones, too.

 

exactly. it is also a great technique in the context of granular synthesis or echoes.

the stereo version will be almost as cool as using the 10 speakers setup.

 

News from research - worth reading - I quote:

David Griesinger (Harvard University | Harvard, PhD Physics Harvard University) http://www.davidgriesinger.com
5th International Conference on Spatial Audio

To hear realistic sound, or to reproduce binaural recordings, we must individually match a headphone to our own ears. We have found a simple, non-invasive method to match the frequency response at the eardrum from a pair of headphones to the frequency response at the eardrum from a frontal loudspeaker. The result is frontal localization without head tracking and accurate timbre. A research version of our Windows app is available on our website, and there is a YouTube video showing how to use it. We have recently developed simple to use versions of the app for AAX and VST3 systems. We will demonstrate these apps informally at this conference and in an AVID booth at the AES conference in New York.

how to equalize headphones for accurate timbre and frontal localization without head tracking

Spoiler: Griesinger's Headphone EQ for Frontal Localization

Griesinger's Headphone EQ for Frontal Localization
To answer your questions:

Please read the "About" file in the app carefully, and watch the how-to video on YouTube. My website is also useful - but I update it frequently. Chrome insists on using older versions unless you delete history. So do that periodically.
Your major error is not using alternating noise bands to find your equal loudness data. There is an extensive literature on equal loudness tests which states unequivocally that to make an accurate map of the base sensitivity of human ears a test tone or noise band must alternate with a reference tone or noise at about a one second rate.

The reason is that human hearing continuously adjusts the sensitivity of the basilar membrane to optimize the signal to noise ratio of the ear as a function of frequency. So if there is a loud midrange signal the mid frequencies are turned down and if higher frequencies are soft, the higher frequency sensitivity is turned up. The ear/brain system keeps track of the changes in gain, so spectrum you perceive is still useful for detecting the identity of the source of sound and for determining its azimuth and elevation. Comparing the loudness of a test band to the loudness of a reference band with a rapid alternation defeats the auto gain control, and an accurate value can be found.

So you MUST use the app as it is designed. You must adjust the loudness of each band under test to match the loudness of the reference band as best you can. Doing this can seem difficult at first - but considerable experience with equal loudness tests finds that almost everyone can do the test reliably. It does not matter if the answer you get is "correct". It only matters if you get the same answer consistently. In the literature almost everyone is able after a few tries you get the same answer for each band with a consistency of +-1dB. The app uses this consistency to find the difference between the equal loudness from the speaker and the equal loudness loudness from the headphone. The proper eq for the headphone can then be found by subtracting the speaker data in dB from the headphone data in dB. With practice you should get the same answer going up and going down. I prefer to go up first, and then go back down making changes. When I go back up I seldom need to change anything.

I chose to use 1/3rd octave frequencies for each band because they are an international standard, and there are many 1/3 octave equalizers on the market that have been used successfully professionally for many years. Once the data is found with our app you can use it in many ways. For example there is a Windows app that allows you to set up a 1/3 octave equalizer of Q3 or Q5 for everything you play through the headphone jack. I chose Q=5 for our app to get a little better accuracy. The professional standard is Q=3 - but the Q=5 data works fine in a professional eq. My website now includes a link to a folder with the older Windows apps.

There is a binaural music file in that folder. Also in my powerpoints on proximity there are several examples of binaural recordings from other halls. All these files are equalized to be frequency flat from the front - which means a frontal source would be recorded with the same spectrum as a studio microphone. Some commercial dummy heads claim to have a "free field" setting which is supposed to make them frequency flat from the front - but in my measurements very few meet this criterion. "Diffuse field" eq is definitely wrong. So it is useful to check the spectrum of a commercial binaural recording by comparing it to an equivalent recording made for stereo reproduction. The spectra from a well recorded orchestra are pretty consistent.

David Griesinger

Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-headphone-eq-for-frontal-localization.20331/

 

I totally agree - I'm also one of those people who read, so I read the spoiler as well.
Thanks, that was REALLY interesting. The part I anticipated and was not disappointed with was "So you MUST use the app as it is designed. You must adjust the loudness of each band under test to match the loudness of the reference band as best you can." - It's fairly convoluted but it makes perfect sense.
I actually found Bluecat's Re-Head actually does a decent calibration without fiddling (I saved the preset adjustments to match my monitors as best I could). While that certainly won't adequately suffice for the vst I have in the thread header because it then becomes a vst on a vst; For normal late-night sessions (3am etc) it does not leave me with much I have to readjust in daylight.