# Virtual room simulation for headphone : which plugin ? Experience feedback ?



## leon chevalier

Hi VIC !

As I cannot work with speakers (family sleeping!) I'm considering one of those plugins for my mixes :

I've read several reviews on the web but did not find one those that stand out from the crowd.

*[List edited with all the ressources mentioned int the thread, if it can be any help to anyone] *

112dB Redline monitors : https://www.112db.com/plugins/redline/monitor/ $73
Waves NX : https://www.waves.com/plugins/nx $99
Ircam HEar V3 : https://fluxhome.com/project/ircam-hear-v3/ $103
Tineboosters Isone 3 (Part of the BusTools 3 bundle) : https://www.toneboosters.com/tb_bustools_v3.html $45
BVS Virtual Studio : https://www.beyerdynamic.de/bvs-virtual-studio.html Free !

Can Opener : https://goodhertz.co/canopener-studio $45

New Audio Technology Spatial Sound Card (virtual sound card): https://newaudiotechnology.com/products/spatial-sound-card-2/ $9 (through steam store)
New Audio Technology Spatial Sound Card Pro (virtual sound card): https://newaudiotechnology.com/products/spatial-sound-card/ Standart: $169, Stereo: $69,00

Sennheiser AMBEO Orbit : https://fr-fr.sennheiser.com/ambeo-blueprints-downloads FREE !
(Others... ?)

Any feedback will be much appreciated.

--------

And in more general way, is anybody releasing mix/master with this kind of software ?

Thanks a lot for your help guys and gals !

Leon


----------



## MartinH.

Might be worth taking a look at this: https://www.sonarworks.com/reference

I have no hands on experience with it, but they have an online preview of how much of a difference it makes. I'm wondering if it's worth it for me to get the headphone edition. I have Superlux HD 681 headphones, but spending almost 4 times their price on what looks like the audio equivalent of a "color profile", seems weird to me. And also I'm just a hobbyist, so it's not that big of a deal if stuff only sounds good to me on my own equipment. 


I'm afraid I can't answer your question, but I suspect people might need to know what headphones you have to make a better recommendation.


----------



## leon chevalier

MartinH. said:


> Might be worth taking a look at this: https://www.sonarworks.com/reference
> 
> I have no hands on experience with it, but they have an online preview of how much of a difference it makes. I'm wondering if it's worth it for me to get the headphone edition. I have Superlux HD 681 headphones, but spending almost 4 times their price on what looks like the audio equivalent of a "color profile", seems weird to me. And also I'm just a hobbyist, so it's not that big of a deal if stuff only sounds good to me on my own equipment.
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I can't answer your question, but I suspect people might need to know what headphones you have to make a better recommendation.


Thanks for your answer Martin, but reference is a headphone calibration soft, not a room simulation


----------



## aaronventure

I don't think room simulation will really help you (since it didn't help me). If you don't have calibration, I'd rather get that.

If any of these room sim plugins have a trial version, do try it out first. If speaker simulation is to have any ground, you headphones need also be calibrated after the fact (if their frequency response is one of the parameters you're trying to simulate).

If you just want to hear how your music sounds in a space played by two almost-neutral monitors, get a convolution reverb with some professionally recorded IRs in True Stereo like Altiverb, unless you already have it. Because that's essentially what it is (I don't know what else it could be) and naming your software "speaker simulation software" doesn't mean it'll do it better. Also, a speaker's response (I mean the general response you hear) changes as you change the room), especially if it's untreated. Only difference is that Altiverb has hundreds of rooms and over a thousand total positions where you can listen to, as well as a very, very wide usage spectrum as a reverb/space design tool.

EDIT: I forgot to take delay into account, which Room Sim plugins take care of, but the IRs don't. My bad. 

You don't have to actively monitor on speakers, just check every now and then and A/B to other recordings, doesn't even have to be loud. Then you just check the final mix real quick. Car also works.


----------



## Tfis

https://www.beyerdynamic.de/bvs-virtual-studio.html

Free


----------



## Bender-offender

The best I’ve tried (and use) is Sonarworks with Goodhertz Can Opener. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve removed my headphones thinking I left my monitors unmuted. 

I’ve tried the others you mentioned and it seems as if all they do is narrow the stereo image.

I think you can demo all you mentioned along with Sonarworks/Can Opener, so play around and see which you prefer. You may like a different plugin more.


----------



## Olivier1024

"I've read several reviews on the web but did not find one those that stand out from the crowd."

It's because it's impossible to find environnement and loudspeakers simulation that is right for all of us. It's something very difficult to acheive and it's still work in progress. There is no definitive solution.
If a solution work for me, it won't suit for you.

This document explain how it works.

First of all, you need to calibrate your headphones and then try all the softwares you can and decide by yourself.

ToneBoosters manual indicate :
" The calibration of the HRTFs to each user’s ears can be a somewhat tedious process, but fortunately is required only once if performed correctly ..." and it's not easy to achieve a good result.


----------



## rrichard63

aaronventure said:


> I don't think room simulation will really help you (since it didn't help me). If you don't have calibration, I'd rather get that.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you just want to hear how your music sounds in a space played by two almost-neutral monitors, get a convolution reverb with some professionally recorded IRs in True Stereo like Altiverb, unless you already have it. Because that's essentially what it is (I don't know what else it could be) and naming your software "speaker simulation software" doesn't mean it'll do it better. ...



I agree that these plugins should be used along with Sonarworks (or some other means of compensating for the frequency response of your headphones). Sonarworks comes after the room simulation plugin, not before (see this Gearslutz thread).

But I don't quite agree that room simulation is effectively the same thing as reverb, although a convolution reverb might be an okay substitute. All of the room simulation plugins are based on well-established facts about human hearing and how we know which direction sounds are coming from. Look up "binaural crossfeed" and "Head Related Transfer Function" for specifics on this. There's a relationship to reverb, but that doesn't make it the same thing.

When I looked at the four plugins in Leon's list, there was no clear winner for me. They all "work" in the sense of creating an illusion that the sound is coming from speakers rather inside your head.


Nx is designed to work with a Bluetooth head tracking device, and is annoying to use without one. (I've read that it is even more annoying to use with a webcam because of latency issues.) If you like the head tracking (which attempts to mimic subtle variations in the sound as your head moves in relation to a pair of monitor speakers), then Nx is a good choice.
TB Isone includes a collection of EQ curves emulating number of generic speaker types. This feature can be turned off, and when it is the plugin is very similar to Redline Monitor.
HEar includes, in addition to speaker simulation, a simulation of surround sound on headphones, when processing a surround mix. Since I don't have a surround monitoring setup, that feature appeals to me.

At least three of the four offer free trials (not sure about Toneboosters). For many of us, the package that includes TB Isone is well worth the money for other reasons. Try them all.

I haven't tried the Beyerdynamics or Goodhertz products mentioned while I was drafting this post. They've been added to my list -- thanks!


----------



## aaronventure

rrichard63 said:


> I agree that these plugins should be used along with Sonarworks (or some other means of compensating for the frequency response of your headphones). Sonarworks comes after the room simulation plugin, not before (see this Gearslutz thread).


Thanks for providing the source that has the official Sonarworks response. I edited my post to be more clear.



rrichard63 said:


> But I don't quite agree that room simulation is effectively the same thing as reverb, although a convolution reverb might be an okay substitute. All of the room simulation plugins are based on well-established facts about human hearing and how we know which direction sounds are coming from. Look up "binaural crossfeed" and "Head Related Transfer Function" for specifics on this. There's a relationship to reverb, but that doesn't make it the same thing.


Ah, fair points. I went experimenting and it seems I forgot about the delay that crossfeed plugins also appropriately introduce. Thanks, my bad. 

To contribute more, my experiences with such plugins aren't that rich, but Goodhertz sounds pretty natural, while HEar really changes the sound based on "speaker angle".

I personally don't use any Speaker Sim plugins when working with headphones. However getting Sonarworks was some of the best money I spent.


----------



## leon chevalier

Thanks all for your advices and feedback ! A lot of things to think about. Yes I have to try each soft but I was hoping to save that times 

I will definitely consider sonarworks reference.

I will update my list with the softs mentioned if it can be any help for others.

Thanks again !


----------



## pmcrockett

I've used both Nx and HEar (both in conjunction with Sonarworks) and I prefer Nx. It sounds a little less cramped than HEar. I typically do headphone mixes on Nx. I find that it's easier to judge stereo image with a room sim than it is without.


----------



## jcrosby

I've been interested and experimenting with this for a number of years now... Started with a VRM box and moved through or tried various other products... Redline Monitor, Isone, CanOpener, NX, (even tried the Beyerdynamic thing)...

My thoughts are this...
(This is totally opinion-based obviously... I find this is a very personal preference since it's still new territory...
I've also found a lot of people don't like room simulation... Definitely not for everyone...)

Isone: Didn't like it. Sounds completely artifical. Speaker settings sounded nothing like speakers I've heard...

CanOpener: Not bad, didn't find it to be anything like the hype/claims on the site though... (In terms of 'conjuring speakers from your cans'... ) The crossfeed thing's interesting and it does create the impression the image was slightly more forward, but at least to me my cans still sound like cans and I can't say I felt like it conjured up speakers...

Redline Monitor: Doesn't sound like speakers at all. Ironically this was one of my favorites for a while as it didn't color the sound and didn't feel like it was trying to be anything more than a utility for making the sound field a little more akin to imaging you'd get sitting in front of speakers. I also liked that it let you adjust the center level... Helped me get a vaguely better sense of a center image and boosting it a little was my preference. (It's also pretty darn similar to the SPL Phonitor which is very well regarded.)

Waves NX: Didn't like it. Just doesn't sound natural to me. I didn't like the artifical ambiance, (which was way too bright compared to natural ambiance. Also sounded very 'digital'; like gated-reverb digital...) I know people like it but it was my least favorite (paid plugin that is.)

Beyerdynamic Virtual Studio: Hated it. I've never heard a car stereo that sounds anything like that. Everything was way too hyped and the highs were harsh. This was all-around least favorite. (But agin, YMMV!!)

The two I like are:

New Audio Technology Spatial Soundcard: As far as I can tell these are actual binaural room impulses of the listening positions from a bunch of recording studios, post facilities, and a mastering room. There is some ambiance, but it's the natural ambiance captured in the impulses...

The other thing I noticed is this actually sounds very close to what speakers sound like when they move air... kicks 'knock' and have thump, and the low end sounds deep and rings out a little longer like it would in a room. It can be used to mix 5.1 in phones (as again, the recordings are binaural...) If anything came close to tricking me I was in a room it's this... I still use this partially, I find it's pretty great for getting a sense of how the tonality of drums or percussion will translate on speakers.

Sennheisser Ambeo Orbit: I'll start by saying this doesn't sound as realistic as Spatial Sound Card, but with the right settings it does give me a decent impression of the sound field and is less colored and ambient as SSC. It does have some artifical ambiance but you have control over it, and can turn it off completely... Takes a little playing with and YMMV...

My overall preferece is... Sonarworks + a few of their speaker EQs... After lots of messing around my all-around preference is correcting my phones and then applying one of the speaker curves... (Optimum Hifi, and Home Large are my preferences...) Is it like listening to speakers? Not at all... But to my ears it makes headphones a lot less fatiguing... (There's also been interesting research on this by Harman. The 1974 B&K Optimum Hifi is based on this curve...Personally like it...)

I keep Ambeo on my output as well and check my impression of the image occasionally, and as mentioned use SSC every once in a while to get an idea of how things might sound moving air.. Overall I generally prefer the headphone EQ but find the other two useful as a change of perspective...

Again, YMMV and you may well wind up hating what I like... That's not a bad thing though AFAIC. I see it the same as a monitor preference... The only right choice is the one you prefer..

Interesting video below where Bob Katz talks about EQing his cans using the Harman curve, and an interesting article on its history... Explore them all and have fun with it...

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/acoustic-basis-harman-listener-target-curve


----------



## gtrwll

I've only used the Waves NX and at least I believe it has helped me to mix better. It has a headphone calibration unit as well for select headphones (mine are AKG K702's) which I use as well.

It does sound a bit...wonky? But my mixes seem to translate better to other systems than before.


----------



## leon chevalier

jcrosby said:


> I've been interested and experimenting with this for a number of years now... Started with a VRM box and moved through or tried various other products... Redline Monitor, Isone, CanOpener, NX, (even tried the Beyerdynamic thing)...
> 
> My thoughts are this...
> (This is totally opinion-based obviously... I find this is a very personal preference since it's still new territory...
> I've also found a lot of people don't like room simulation... Definitely not for everyone...)
> 
> Isone: Didn't like it. Sounds completely artifical. Speaker settings sounded nothing like speakers I've heard...
> 
> CanOpener: Not bad, didn't find it to be anything like the hype/claims on the site though... (In terms of 'conjuring speakers from your cans'... ) The crossfeed thing's interesting and it does create the impression the image was slightly more forward, but at least to me my cans still sound like cans and I can't say I felt like it conjured up speakers...
> 
> Redline Monitor: Doesn't sound like speakers at all. Ironically this was one of my favorites for a while as it didn't color the sound and didn't feel like it was trying to be anything more than a utility for making the sound field a little more akin to imaging you'd get sitting in front of speakers. I also liked that it let you adjust the center level... Helped me get a vaguely better sense of a center image and boosting it a little was my preference. (It's also pretty darn similar to the SPL Phonitor which is very well regarded.)
> 
> Waves NX: Didn't like it. Just doesn't sound natural to me. I didn't like the artifical ambiance, (which was way too bright compared to natural ambiance. Also sounded very 'digital'; like gated-reverb digital...) I know people like it but it was my least favorite (paid plugin that is.)
> 
> Beyerdynamic Virtual Studio: Hated it. I've never heard a car stereo that sounds anything like that. Everything was way too hyped and the highs were harsh. This was all-around least favorite. (But agin, YMMV!!)
> 
> The two I like are:
> 
> New Audio Technology Spatial Soundcard: As far as I can tell these are actual binaural room impulses of the listening positions from a bunch of recording studios, post facilities, and a mastering room. There is some ambiance, but it's the natural ambiance captured in the impulses...
> 
> The other thing I noticed is this actually sounds very close to what speakers sound like when they move air... kicks 'knock' and have thump, and the low end sounds deep and rings out a little longer like it would in a room. It can be used to mix 5.1 in phones (as again, the recordings are binaural...) If anything came close to tricking me I was in a room it's this... I still use this partially, I find it's pretty great for getting a sense of how the tonality of drums or percussion will translate on speakers.
> 
> Sennheisser Ambeo Orbit: I'll start by saying this doesn't sound as realistic as Spatial Sound Card, but with the right settings it does give me a decent impression of the sound field and is less colored and ambient as SSC. It does have some artifical ambiance but you have control over it, and can turn it off completely... Takes a little playing with and YMMV...
> 
> My overall preferece is... Sonarworks + a few of their speaker EQs... After lots of messing around my all-around preference is correcting my phones and then applying one of the speaker curves... (Optimum Hifi, and Home Large are my preferences...) Is it like listening to speakers? Not at all... But to my ears it makes headphones a lot less fatiguing... (There's also been interesting research on this by Harman. The 1974 B&K Optimum Hifi is based on this curve...Personally like it...)
> 
> I keep Ambeo on my output as well and check my impression of the image occasionally, and as mentioned use SSC every once in a while to get an idea of how things might sound moving air.. Overall I generally prefer the headphone EQ but find the other two useful as a change of perspective...
> 
> Again, YMMV and you may well wind up hating what I like... That's not a bad thing though AFAIC. I see it the same as a monitor preference... The only right choice is the one you prefer..
> 
> Interesting video below where Bob Katz talks about EQing his cans using the Harman curve, and an interesting article on its history... Explore them all and have fun with it...
> 
> https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/acoustic-basis-harman-listener-target-curve



Thank you so much ! Great post !


----------



## jcrosby

gtrwll said:


> I've only used the Waves NX and at least I believe it has helped me to mix better. It has a headphone calibration unit as well for select headphones (mine are AKG K702's) which I use as well.
> 
> It does sound a bit...wonky? But my mixes seem to translate better to other systems than before.



As I said if it works it works! ... Glad you've got something that does work for you... Think area's a really useful arena, just hope we see more realistic sounding competitors come to the table in the next few years...



leon chevalier said:


> Thank you so much ! Great post !


 
Thanks  Try a bunch of stuff out and see what works... As a blanket statement, the one thing I would say is at least try the speaker profiles if you use S.W.... Very useful whether you're interested in room virtualization or not...


----------



## rrichard63

jcrosby said:


> The two I like are:
> 
> New Audio Technology Spatial Soundcard:


Does the Spatial Soundcard process audio delivered to your audio interface by ASIO drivers If not, in most DAWs it would require using WDM on Windows with latency that would be unacceptable to many of us. The developer's website doesn't mention this issue.


----------



## jcrosby

rrichard63 said:


> Does the Spatial Soundcard process audio delivered to your audio interface by ASIO drivers If not, in most DAWs it would require using WDM on Windows with latency that would be unacceptable to many of us. The developer's website doesn't mention this issue.


I'm on mac so unfortunately I'm not sure. I haven't reached out to them in quite some time but they're support's always been pretty good. Pretty sure I emailed them a couple questions before I bought it so might want to drop them an email and see what they say... Best.


----------



## Markrs

jcrosby said:


> I've been interested and experimenting with this for a number of years now... Started with a VRM box and moved through or tried various other products... Redline Monitor, Isone, CanOpener, NX, (even tried the Beyerdynamic thing)...
> 
> My thoughts are this...
> (This is totally opinion-based obviously... I find this is a very personal preference since it's still new territory...
> I've also found a lot of people don't like room simulation... Definitely not for everyone...)
> 
> Isone: Didn't like it. Sounds completely artifical. Speaker settings sounded nothing like speakers I've heard...
> 
> CanOpener: Not bad, didn't find it to be anything like the hype/claims on the site though... (In terms of 'conjuring speakers from your cans'... ) The crossfeed thing's interesting and it does create the impression the image was slightly more forward, but at least to me my cans still sound like cans and I can't say I felt like it conjured up speakers...
> 
> Redline Monitor: Doesn't sound like speakers at all. Ironically this was one of my favorites for a while as it didn't color the sound and didn't feel like it was trying to be anything more than a utility for making the sound field a little more akin to imaging you'd get sitting in front of speakers. I also liked that it let you adjust the center level... Helped me get a vaguely better sense of a center image and boosting it a little was my preference. (It's also pretty darn similar to the SPL Phonitor which is very well regarded.)
> 
> Waves NX: Didn't like it. Just doesn't sound natural to me. I didn't like the artifical ambiance, (which was way too bright compared to natural ambiance. Also sounded very 'digital'; like gated-reverb digital...) I know people like it but it was my least favorite (paid plugin that is.)
> 
> Beyerdynamic Virtual Studio: Hated it. I've never heard a car stereo that sounds anything like that. Everything was way too hyped and the highs were harsh. This was all-around least favorite. (But agin, YMMV!!)
> 
> The two I like are:
> 
> New Audio Technology Spatial Soundcard: As far as I can tell these are actual binaural room impulses of the listening positions from a bunch of recording studios, post facilities, and a mastering room. There is some ambiance, but it's the natural ambiance captured in the impulses...
> 
> The other thing I noticed is this actually sounds very close to what speakers sound like when they move air... kicks 'knock' and have thump, and the low end sounds deep and rings out a little longer like it would in a room. It can be used to mix 5.1 in phones (as again, the recordings are binaural...) If anything came close to tricking me I was in a room it's this... I still use this partially, I find it's pretty great for getting a sense of how the tonality of drums or percussion will translate on speakers.
> 
> Sennheisser Ambeo Orbit: I'll start by saying this doesn't sound as realistic as Spatial Sound Card, but with the right settings it does give me a decent impression of the sound field and is less colored and ambient as SSC. It does have some artifical ambiance but you have control over it, and can turn it off completely... Takes a little playing with and YMMV...
> 
> My overall preferece is... Sonarworks + a few of their speaker EQs... After lots of messing around my all-around preference is correcting my phones and then applying one of the speaker curves... (Optimum Hifi, and Home Large are my preferences...) Is it like listening to speakers? Not at all... But to my ears it makes headphones a lot less fatiguing... (There's also been interesting research on this by Harman. The 1974 B&K Optimum Hifi is based on this curve...Personally like it...)
> 
> I keep Ambeo on my output as well and check my impression of the image occasionally, and as mentioned use SSC every once in a while to get an idea of how things might sound moving air.. Overall I generally prefer the headphone EQ but find the other two useful as a change of perspective...
> 
> Again, YMMV and you may well wind up hating what I like... That's not a bad thing though AFAIC. I see it the same as a monitor preference... The only right choice is the one you prefer..
> 
> Interesting video below where Bob Katz talks about EQing his cans using the Harman curve, and an interesting article on its history... Explore them all and have fun with it...
> 
> https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/acoustic-basis-harman-listener-target-curve



Fantastic post really useful!


----------



## Hans-Peter

The only convincing solution is to capture (angle-specific aspects of) your individual HRTF via binaural impulse responses. This can be done easily with Impulcifer or the Smyth Realiser.

Impulcifer (free):








GitHub - jaakkopasanen/Impulcifer: Measurement and processing of binaural impulse responses for personalized surround virtualization on headphones.


Measurement and processing of binaural impulse responses for personalized surround virtualization on headphones. - GitHub - jaakkopasanen/Impulcifer: Measurement and processing of binaural impulse ...




github.com





Smyth Realiser A16 (not free ...)
https://smyth-research.com/
These will get you somewhere between 90% to 99% of response accuracy. I use both and would give the Realiser a slight edge in terms of performance (after all, the whole system is calibrated). However, Impulcifer is much more flexible (if you don’t know how to hack the Realiser). Also, both will compensate for your headphones’ response. The same techniques (BRIR) are also used in acoustics research, where I usually deploy my own implementation with a couple of extras (aptly named ‘Virtualizer’). The concept itself is not proprietary and was developed by Angelo Farina (University of Parma) in the beginning 90s.


----------



## Markrs

Hans-Peter said:


> The only convincing solution is to capture (angle-specific aspects of) your individual HRTF via binaural impulse responses. This can be done easily with Impulcifer or the Smyth Realiser.
> 
> Impulcifer (free):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GitHub - jaakkopasanen/Impulcifer: Measurement and processing of binaural impulse responses for personalized surround virtualization on headphones.
> 
> 
> Measurement and processing of binaural impulse responses for personalized surround virtualization on headphones. - GitHub - jaakkopasanen/Impulcifer: Measurement and processing of binaural impulse ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smyth Realiser A16 (not free ...)
> https://smyth-research.com/
> These will get you somewhere between 90% to 99% of response accuracy. I use both and would give the Realiser a slight edge in terms of performance (after all, the whole system is calibrated). However, Impulcifer is much more flexible (if you don’t know how to hack the Realiser). Also, both will compensate for your headphones’ response. The same techniques (BRIR) are also used in acoustics research, where I usually deploy my own implementation with a couple of extras (aptly named ‘Virtualizer’). The concept itself is not proprietary and was developed by Angelo Farina (University of Parma) in the beginning 90s.


Thanks for this info! I will have a look into it 🙂


----------



## NekujaK

Waves also has the Abbey Road Studio 3 room simulation for headphones:








Abbey Road Studio 3 – Inside Your Headphones | Waves


The Abbey Road Studio 3 plugin brings the acoustic environment of the legendary Abbey Road Studio 3 control room to your headphones, so you can have better reference for your mixes and productions wherever you are.




www.waves.com





There is an option to use it with NX, but it works absolutely fine without NX. The only thing NX gives you is the ability to rotate the audio image in space with your head, which is not the most essential thing for mixing and can be accomplished manually in the ARS3 interface, if you need it.

I mix with monitors, but use ARS3 to check my mixes. It's nice because ARS3 simulates 3 different pairs of speakers at 3 different room positions, providing the opportunity to hear your mix in different contexts. I find it a useful tool for "sanity checks" on my mixes. Can't say how effective it is for full mixing duties, but I imagine it would work at least as well as any other headphone room simulators.


----------



## John Longley

I don't use it much, but I bought sonarworks for fun to test with my LCD X and HD650s. It works pretty well, but is a little hotter in the 1k area than I think it should be. The toneboosters morhphit option is also nice, but sounds a little scooped in the low mids. I think either option is great for the low price of entry.


----------



## Markrs

John Longley said:


> I don't use it much, but I bought sonarworks for fun to test with my LCD X and HD650s. It works pretty well, but is a little hotter in the 1k area than I think it should be. The toneboosters morhphit option is also nice, but sounds a little scooped in the low mids. I think either option is great for the low price of entry.


Is there a reason you don't use Sonarworks much? I am trialling it with my HD650s and you can hear a difference but to be honest it is not having to do a huge EQ correction. I am wondering if I really need it or not, though I might need it more for the DT770s I will get.


----------



## John Longley

Markrs said:


> Is there a reason you don't use Sonarworks much? I am trialling it with my HD650s and you can hear a difference but to be honest it is not having to do a huge EQ correction. I am wondering if I really need it or not, though I might need it more for the DT770s I will get.


It's really only because I have some pretty serious monitoring for my day job and I prefer to stay on my Tyler and Dunlavy mains. I don't do much actual work on headphones. I do have a monitor output setup in Wavelab pro with sonarworks for my LCD X but I only do quick QC checks for pops and clicks etc so it's very short. It does solve the mid dip in those headphones and it's much better than the software Audeze provides free (Reveal) and sells (Reveal Plus). 

I will say I think the generic curve for the HD650 is closer to spot on, likely because they measure a lot more of them. I don't use them often unless I'm sketching ideas and then I don't tend to want the latency imposed by SW. I

If I had to do a project with my LCD X and sonarworks I definitely could, and it's great value. They have a demo you can try out with existing headphones (if a profile is available). Keep in mind that even the low latency resolution still has a fair amount of latency, and using systemwide is even more. So definitely try it out if you can on the demo. 

Morphit has a free demo as well and is pretty similar, but cheaper (a lot cheaper). 

Excuse any typos, writing quickly from phone.


----------



## Markrs

NekujaK said:


> Waves also has the Abbey Road Studio 3 room simulation for headphones:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abbey Road Studio 3 – Inside Your Headphones | Waves
> 
> 
> The Abbey Road Studio 3 plugin brings the acoustic environment of the legendary Abbey Road Studio 3 control room to your headphones, so you can have better reference for your mixes and productions wherever you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.waves.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an option to use it with NX, but it works absolutely fine without NX. The only thing NX gives you is the ability to rotate the audio image in space with your head, which is not the most essential thing for mixing and can be accomplished manually in the ARS3 interface, if you need it.
> 
> I mix with monitors, but use ARS3 to check my mixes. It's nice because ARS3 simulates 3 different pairs of speakers at 3 different room positions, providing the opportunity to hear your mix in different contexts. I find it a useful tool for "sanity checks" on my mixes. Can't say how effective it is for full mixing duties, but I imagine it would work at least as well as any other headphone room simulators.


Been having a look at ARS3 and the mix room+NX both are cheap at the moment ARS3 $50 and mix room+NX $59. Not sure if I need them though. I have Presonus Eris 5 monitors but they are still in the box as treating the room with sound absorbing panels then having to but the full version of sonarworks Reference 4 with mic get quite expensive. This looks like it could be cheaper but you worry you are throwing money away on something you won't use in the end


----------



## Markrs

John Longley said:


> It's really only because I have some pretty serious monitoring for my day job and I prefer to stay on my Tyler and Dunlavy mains. I don't do much actual work on headphones. I do have a monitor output setup in Wavelab pro with sonarworks for my LCD X but I only do quick QC checks for pops and clicks etc so it's very short. It does solve the mid dip in those headphones and it's much better than the software Audeze provides free (Reveal) and sells (Reveal Plus).
> 
> I will say I think the generic curve for the HD650 is closer to spot on, likely because they measure a lot more of them. I don't use them often unless I'm sketching ideas and then I don't tend to want the latency imposed by SW. I
> 
> If I had to do a project with my LCD X and sonarworks I definitely could, and it's great value. They have a demo you can try out with existing headphones (if a profile is available). Keep in mind that even the low latency resolution still has a fair amount of latency, and using systemwide is even more. So definitely try it out if you can on the demo.
> 
> Morphit has a free demo as well and is pretty similar, but cheaper (a lot cheaper).
> 
> Excuse any typos, writing quickly from phone.


Thank you for this, for me sonarworks is to avoid having to sound treat a room to work with my monitors. I will keep trialling sonarworks them and see how I go


----------



## M_Helder

I have Sonarworks & Abbey Road Studio 3. Both are constantly in use, depending on the context.

I found that Sonarworks is a great little plugin to flatten my headphone response with very little CPU footprint, so it’s on by default when composing and arranging. Just don’t forget to turn it off before exporting your track.

Abbey Road Studio 3 is a different beast though and offers a way to reference your mix in, dare I say it, more natural environment? It’s certainly more than just a reverb and delay, since Waves made a binaural recordings of the space with 3 different monitors. Besides, it also offers headphone calibration for about a dozen of the most popular cans, so no need for Sonarworks (I actually noticed weird and unpleasant phasing when using both, so I would avoid combining them together). I usually use it only at a mixing stage, great way to get a new perspective and imagine yourself sitting in that multi million dollar studio. Who said music shouldn’t be fun? 

I’ve also recently purchased another room simulation plugin which was recommended to me by a good friend of mine who is somewhat an engineering nerd - Realphones https://www.dsoniq.com/
It has way more presets and settings to tweak compared to Abbey Road Studio 3 as well as a headphone calibration profile for almost every can (although you have to purchase them separately). The room is a Moscow film studio and, to be honest, I find this plugin’s simulation a bit more focused and realistic-ish?

But I still use both rooms in the end to check if there are any major discrepancies in every mix. Abundance of choice and all that.

They all have free trials, so I would definitely recommend to check those out first before buying. Just remember that it takes time for your ears to adjust, so I’d spend a couple of days just listening to my favorite mixes through different virtual speakers to really “get” the sound of the room. After that it’s plug and play.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## Markrs

M_Helder said:


> I have Sonarworks & Abbey Road Studio 3. Both are constantly in use, depending on the context.
> 
> I found that Sonarworks is a great little plugin to flatten my headphone response with very little CPU footprint, so it’s on by default when composing and arranging. Just don’t forget to turn it off before exporting your track.
> 
> Abbey Road Studio 3 is a different beast though and offers a way to reference your mix in, dare I say it, more natural environment? It’s certainly more than just a reverb and delay, since Waves made a binaural recordings of the space with 3 different monitors. Besides, it also offers headphone calibration for about a dozen of the most popular cans, so no need for Sonarworks (I actually noticed weird and unpleasant phasing when using both, so I would avoid combining them together). I usually use it only at a mixing stage, great way to get a new perspective and imagine yourself sitting in that multi million dollar studio. Who said music shouldn’t be fun?
> 
> I’ve also recently purchased another room simulation plugin which was recommended to me by a good friend of mine who is somewhat an engineering nerd - Realphones https://www.dsoniq.com/
> It has way more presets and settings to tweak compared to Abbey Road Studio 3 as well as a headphone calibration profile for almost every can (although you have to purchase them separately). The room is a Moscow film studio and, to be honest, I find this plugin’s simulation a bit more focused and realistic-ish?
> 
> But I still use both rooms in the end to check if there are any major discrepancies in every mix. Abundance of choice and all that.
> 
> They all have free trials, so I would definitely recommend to check those out first before buying. Just remember that it takes time for your ears to adjust, so I’d spend a couple of days just listening to my favorite mixes through different virtual speakers to really “get” the sound of the room. After that it’s plug and play.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark


I went with Realphones as well after trialing several other options. For me it gave me the best listening experience. Cannot say it is like monitoring speakers in a treated room as I don't use any. However I did like the sound it produced and the options it gave. The competitive sale price also helped!


----------



## ChristianM

You have also *Blue Cat's Re-Head*


----------



## tmpc

M_Helder said:


> I have Sonarworks & Abbey Road Studio 3. Both are constantly in use, depending on the context.
> 
> I found that Sonarworks is a great little plugin to flatten my headphone response with very little CPU footprint, so it’s on by default when composing and arranging. Just don’t forget to turn it off before exporting your track.
> 
> Abbey Road Studio 3 is a different beast though and offers a way to reference your mix in, dare I say it, more natural environment? It’s certainly more than just a reverb and delay, since Waves made a binaural recordings of the space with 3 different monitors. Besides, it also offers headphone calibration for about a dozen of the most popular cans, so no need for Sonarworks (I actually noticed weird and unpleasant phasing when using both, so I would avoid combining them together). I usually use it only at a mixing stage, great way to get a new perspective and imagine yourself sitting in that multi million dollar studio. Who said music shouldn’t be fun?
> 
> I’ve also recently purchased another room simulation plugin which was recommended to me by a good friend of mine who is somewhat an engineering nerd - Realphones https://www.dsoniq.com/
> It has way more presets and settings to tweak compared to Abbey Road Studio 3 as well as a headphone calibration profile for almost every can (although you have to purchase them separately). The room is a Moscow film studio and, to be honest, I find this plugin’s simulation a bit more focused and realistic-ish?
> 
> But I still use both rooms in the end to check if there are any major discrepancies in every mix. Abundance of choice and all that.
> 
> They all have free trials, so I would definitely recommend to check those out first before buying. Just remember that it takes time for your ears to adjust, so I’d spend a couple of days just listening to my favorite mixes through different virtual speakers to really “get” the sound of the room. After that it’s plug and play.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark


I have used headphones to mix for many years and have recently started using the Waves Nx Virtual Mix Room (Nx VMR) and Abbey Road Studio 3 (ARS3). There are a few things that I haven't seen mentioned here that need to be.

1) Head tracking is very important. Why? Because no acoustic environment is perfectly flat. This is one of the things that makes it sound real. The peaks and valleys are different in each ear (above about 200.Hz) and change frequency and amplitude depending on the orientation of your head. So, in an actual acoustic space, the movement of your head essentially gives you an average of these peaks and valleys.

2) The peaks and valleys below about 200.Hz are much more stable. Assuming you have good speakers, these peaks and valleys are primarily caused by the room and its furnishings, but some amount of this is caused by the speakers themselves.

I've been evaluating both of these products and here's what I've found:
1) The Nx VMR is flatter than any of the three sets of speakers in ARS3. Approximately +/- 2dB for the Nx vs about +/- 4.5dB for ARS3.
2) Although both respond to turning your left and right, the Nx VMR head tracking also responds to left/right and front/back motion of your head. So, for me, the Nx seems to be better for judging a mix.

As concerns EQing the headphones, the problem here is who do you believe? I use AudioTechnica ATH-M50 with the recommended parametric EQ settings from AutoEQ (https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq). It sounds fine, but out of curiosity, bought the ToneBoosters plugin today to see what it did. Unfortunately, they are similar but not the same. The most obvious differences are in the 20-60.Hz and 10k-20.kHz regions. The frequency response measurements I've seen of this headphone makes me lean toward the AutoEQ correction curve as being more correct, but who knows? So, now I'm trying to suss that out.

EDIT 12/30/2020: I discovered that I had the wrong target curve set in ToneBooster's Morphit. With the Harmon AE/OE target selected, it is now very close to AutoEQ. So, either will do the job.

Enough of my jabber. Check this out: https://www.acousticsinsider.com/flat-frequency-response/


----------



## tmpc

I hesitate to suggest this, as I can just see all of the eyes rolling, but adding a bass shaker made a big difference for me. However, it took more than an amplifier and screwing the transducer to any old thing to get it to feel right. Although the following worked for me, I have nothing more than my opinion to back it up.

I initially tried mounting the transducer on a piece of plywood that my chair sat on, but found that it just didn't feel right. I felt it in my feet, but it wasn't "in the air". I then mounted it on the bottom of my chair and found that it worked much better; more like it was in the air, but still not quite right.

So, I took a little trip to my living room and played music at a decent volume over my stereo system that includes a sub woofer. One thing I noticed was that the floor vibrations never seemed to get out of control the way they did with the bass shaker. So, I went back to the bass shaker and realized that the uneven bass response due to its resonant frequency was a contributing factor. So, I used a parametric EQ to flatten it out. This was a huge improvement, but there was still something wrong.

I realized that the remaining problem was the dynamic range of the shaking. If I set the level so that it felt right at lower levels, it was too much during loud passages, and vice versa. So, I added a compressor and voila, that fixed the problem. But, why did that work? Why would vibrations in the floor seem to be compressed? The only BS explanation I could come up with was that the limited excursion of floors and walls might actually be acting as a natural soft clipper. All I know is, it worked for me.

You can all unroll your eyes now.


----------



## SupremeFist

dsoniq Realphones is excellent, but Slate VSX is the daddy. (I have both.)


----------

