Old 04-20-2013, 09:45 AM   #81
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
I keep pushing because I keep getting none specific responses on that other than the better choice being your system. Which given its description I completely agree with. And - while I completely get the VRM would not be someone's cup of tea to be so dead set against it just seems a bit over the top. Zero use just seems a bit much which usually indicates far more subjectivity than objectivity. For example if you agreed that others could get the same benefits I described but your personal choice is that you dislike headphones that much or are fine with missing the benefits you could get that response would make sense to me. It's like saying that if you had access to all of the other monitors you wouldn't see the benefit in using them.

Evminitors. How is having access to them for $100 not value added? (Assuming of course you don't have access to the ACTUAL monitors like an Auratone, PC speakers, and the list of popular monitors)
Because having a VRM is in no way like having access to "the ACTUAL monitors" you keep listing. There is virtually no similarity in the listening experience. This claim that you keep making is very misleading at best (and utterly false at worst).

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
Do you mean no model or no perfect model? Have you tried the VRM Box with headphones made for it and tried all the monitors? As for getting the code right I would imagine they are far closer than not. All they have to do is run sweeps and test the hell out of the result at the listening position in a proper room and set up. Surely not years ago - but now they can see it all - or at least damn close. They can see volumes, phase shifts, delays etc. Now having said this the headphones you use, even if they are the ones they used in the design, are not perfect, each hum,an hears different and the design as you say is not perfect.

Like I said the VRM is not the best choice. The right system, set up and room is. But even for it's imperfections it is far better than crap, set up wrong in an untreated room.

Have you tried the device?
I used the HD280s (which happen to be a pair of cans I'm VERY familiar with as they are my primary pop/click/noise checkers for a while now, a task at which they excel) and a pair of 770s (which I don't know very well, I've used 880s over the years but not really 770s much), both on the list of cans used in the development of the product (that was the closest I could find to a "recommendation", though, they don't use that word at Focusrite).

Yes, I'm clearly saying no model is "perfect", but I've gone farther than that: I've stated that no model is even useful in this task today. And unlike many of the more sophisticated offerings of this sort, VRM has no flexible HRTF control (although to me this is a moot point as even those which do don't come close enough to be very useful either).

You keep making the claim that VRM is better than an untreated room; having worked in a whole lot of rooms over the last 20 years (some treated, some not; some amazing and some horrendous) I would have to say I disagree with this notion entirely. VRM comes nowhere close to even a poor, untreated environment when it comes to making reverb decisions or judging dynamics (two of the tasks I think headphones are the worst at).

When you posted your initial plug I didn't pop back into the thread to say I didn't like VRM. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's right for the forum to hear everyone's. But after numerous repeat posts of this same false (in my view) claim (that VRM is unarguably better than an untreated environment OR that VRM makes headphones a suitable listening environment) I think contrary opinions are appropriate.
__________________
cheers,
@ngarjuna
Gist
ngarjuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 12:07 PM   #82
Stu
Human being with feelings
 
Stu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sheffield, UK
Posts: 851
Default

I own a VRM box, which I use when I'm working late at night when my family are sleeping. Generally I try to keep late night tasks to editing or checking for clicks/pops etc - tasks very suited to working with headphones, and for these I just stick on my phones and get to work.

The VRM box generally only comes out if I'm wanting to work on a mix and the only time I have available is late at night, and for making mix decisions I would say that using VRM is much, much better than using headphones alone. If a person is forced, for whatever reason, to mix with headphones, VRM is an excellent way to make that easier. Given the choice between using my monitors in an untreated room vs VRM, monitors win hands down, but if there is NO OPTION but to use headphones, I found I could get used to the sound of VRM and make better decisions with EQ, dynamics and overall mix balance than with headphones alone.

Just sharing my experiences.
Stu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 01:06 PM   #83
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu View Post
I own a VRM box, which I use when I'm working late at night when my family are sleeping. Generally I try to keep late night tasks to editing or checking for clicks/pops etc - tasks very suited to working with headphones, and for these I just stick on my phones and get to work.

The VRM box generally only comes out if I'm wanting to work on a mix and the only time I have available is late at night, and for making mix decisions I would say that using VRM is much, much better than using headphones alone. If a person is forced, for whatever reason, to mix with headphones, VRM is an excellent way to make that easier. Given the choice between using my monitors in an untreated room vs VRM, monitors win hands down, but if there is NO OPTION but to use headphones, I found I could get used to the sound of VRM and make better decisions with EQ, dynamics and overall mix balance than with headphones alone.

Just sharing my experiences.
Agree
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 01:15 PM   #84
BillT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 88
Default

Been following this thread as I was looking at the emulator route. One bit of info that a newbie like myself didn't pay attention to is the quality level and type of headphones being used. I think many of us started looking at the product not simply due to noise level constraints in our home studios but to a low cost method to mix without spending a lot more on real monitors and room treatment. After seeing the cost of the headphones mentioned in the thread, for me I'll just go with decent monitors, a diy treated room, and still be less than say the hd880's.
That doesn't address the noise after hours issue, but it does address cost. Btw, I think my closed back $129 Sony headphones would suck for any emulator which means $$$ openbacks. Just my newbie opinion...
__________________
Bill
Win 7 Home 64bit, I5 CPU, 12gb, nVidia Fx1700, Focusrite Scarlett 212,
JBL LSR 305's, Reaper, EZDrummer, Treated room, & 1 large cat.
BillT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 01:27 PM   #85
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
Because having a VRM is in no way like having access to "the ACTUAL monitors" you keep listing. There is virtually no similarity in the listening experience. This claim that you keep making is very misleading at best (and utterly false at worst).


I used the HD280s (which happen to be a pair of cans I'm VERY familiar with as they are my primary pop/click/noise checkers for a while now, a task at which they excel) and a pair of 770s (which I don't know very well, I've used 880s over the years but not really 770s much), both on the list of cans used in the development of the product (that was the closest I could find to a "recommendation", though, they don't use that word at Focusrite).

Yes, I'm clearly saying no model is "perfect", but I've gone farther than that: I've stated that no model is even useful in this task today. And unlike many of the more sophisticated offerings of this sort, VRM has no flexible HRTF control (although to me this is a moot point as even those which do don't come close enough to be very useful either).

You keep making the claim that VRM is better than an untreated room; having worked in a whole lot of rooms over the last 20 years (some treated, some not; some amazing and some horrendous) I would have to say I disagree with this notion entirely. VRM comes nowhere close to even a poor, untreated environment when it comes to making reverb decisions or judging dynamics (two of the tasks I think headphones are the worst at).

When you posted your initial plug I didn't pop back into the thread to say I didn't like VRM. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it's right for the forum to hear everyone's. But after numerous repeat posts of this same false (in my view) claim (that VRM is unarguably better than an untreated environment OR that VRM makes headphones a suitable listening environment) I think contrary opinions are appropriate.
I agree, and have stated several times, I prefer to use my system, treated room etc than the VRM. And for exactly the things you mention - specifically reverb. But you lose me when you say you can somehow use a bad set up and room to get that right. Reverb is especially susceptible to comb filtering and echo flutter and an overly live room. The only way you get it right is using the experience you have in that room AND others and have learned how to audibly compensate.

Stating a bad set up and room is somehow better than the VRM is just objectively incorrect. Of course people get to have different opinions. They do not get to be objectively wrong. The only way being in a bad environment is even acceptable on any level (and still not better than the box) is if you are near field (where comb filtering and echo flutter are minimized) and somehow learned the systems enough to compensate for their various flaws. Especially below 300hz. On that basis, accepting that objective reality, I can understand someone who doesn't like headphones for example saying they understand the flaws their choice entails but choose to deal with the net minus and learn to compensate.

Why do I say this? Because even if the VRM does not model each monitor perfectly I would bet they are damn close. And I would imagine the studio they model is reasonably average and the sound they recorded and modeled had no room issue components in it - like flutter, comb filtering etc and is flat. All of that is significantly more reliable than a bad or even normal untreated room can be. Again having some subjective or objective reason not to like or use the box is possible and may very well be reasonable. But to say it cannot be useful is just patently absurd,objectively wrong, misinformed or intellectually dishonest.

An HRTF control is a red herring. Everyone hears different due to the make up of their ears, inner ear, head shape - even sitting height and having hair over their ears. Given that the best of monitors and rooms sound different to each person and each person makes due by learning the difference or making adjustments to compensate for there own peculiarities. Given that one could still EQ the VRM sound they hear to compensate for KNOWN and MEASURED issues. So on that level the VRM and sitting in a great room are the same.

Last edited by imispgh; 04-20-2013 at 01:43 PM.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 01:31 PM   #86
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillT View Post
Been following this thread as I was looking at the emulator route. One bit of info that a newbie like myself didn't pay attention to is the quality level and type of headphones being used. I think many of us started looking at the product not simply due to noise level constraints in our home studios but to a low cost method to mix without spending a lot more on real monitors and room treatment. After seeing the cost of the headphones mentioned in the thread, for me I'll just go with decent monitors, a diy treated room, and still be less than say the hd880's.
That doesn't address the noise after hours issue, but it does address cost. Btw, I think my closed back $129 Sony headphones would suck for any emulator which means $$$ openbacks. Just my newbie opinion...
One of the headphones the VRM was designed to was the Sennheiser HD-280s. Which can be gotten very reasonably.

From the site

"We used the Sennheiser HD 280/HD 650, Beyerdynamic DT 100, Beyerdynamic 770 and the PROline 650s to test VRM with, though during development the concept was tested on a wide variety of headphones of different designs (e.g. open and closed) and of varying cost and quality."

Again I am not saying this device is perfect. I am also not saying it is preferred over a good environment. Nor am I saying those who hate headphones should deal with them anyway. I am saying and stand by the device is far better and more reliable than a bad environment and is a good tool to have to double check. That belief is objective as well as subjectively valid.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 01:40 PM   #87
BillT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
One of the headphones the VRM was designed to was the Sennheiser HD-280s. Which can be gotten very reasonably.

From the site

"We used the Sennheiser HD 280/HD 650, Beyerdynamic DT 100, Beyerdynamic 770 and the PROline 650s to test VRM with, though during development the concept was tested on a wide variety of headphones of different designs (e.g. open and closed) and of varying cost and quality."

Again I am not saying this device is perfect. I am also not saying it is preferred over a good environment. Nor am I saying those who hate headphones should deal with them anyway. I am saying and stand by the device is far better and more reliable than a bad environment and is a good tool to have to double check. That belief is objective as well as subjectively valid.
HD 280's... Not bad. For that value, maybe then a second set of "ears" (and late night).
__________________
Bill
Win 7 Home 64bit, I5 CPU, 12gb, nVidia Fx1700, Focusrite Scarlett 212,
JBL LSR 305's, Reaper, EZDrummer, Treated room, & 1 large cat.
BillT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 01:45 PM   #88
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillT View Post
HD 280's... Not bad. For that value, maybe then a second set of "ears" (and late night).
Let me know what you think if you try them.

(By the way I find for just listening there are several monitors modeled that make the 280s sound much better overall)

Last edited by imispgh; 04-20-2013 at 01:52 PM.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 01:51 PM   #89
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43 View Post
Oh my.....
I am not being extreme, but of course I am being subjective; that's what we all do when we make decisions based on our own opinions and needs. VRM had zero use for me because I consistently did better mixes without it. It was a waste of my time and money. Of course someone else may get more use from it, but my not wanting it at all does not make me extreme or reactionary; I just don't want to use it. And you keep talking about it with language like "It's like saying that if you had access to all of the other monitors you wouldn't see the benefit in using them...." VRM does not give you access to any monitors, it is emulation software. See ngarjuna's well-iterated response (again!). VRM was not worth anything FOR ME and MY WORK. Besides, when I was struggling to finance more treatment for my room, it was also a time when $100 was better spent toward better mics, cables, preamps.... maybe food for the family...lol. I can't stress enough the part about IF IT WORKS FOR YOU-AWESOME. VRM was not a good option for me, my mixes did not gain from using it, therefore I did not buy it. But if it makes you feel better, I do own a Focusrite Scarlett that I use for a quick and dirty mobile interface for quick and dirty mobile recording, so if you want to tell your Focusrite reps that are secretly paying you for promo and sales that you sold it to me, I will gladly lie and corroborate the story so you get a bonus.....
I still don't know why you don't like the device. Not saying you have to. Just trying to understand if there is an objective reason or it is all feeling, emotion and subjectivity. Why is that important to me? Because you may very well describe something that is an issue I never thought of and would like to know in case I missed something. And I would like others to be able to formulate an informed subjective and objective opinion. Was it wearing phones? Some frequency issue? The sound of the room they modeled had a quality you didn't like? And if so it was? Of course you can not like them and you don't have to justify a damn thing to me. Having said that I would really like to know what the objective and subjective specific reasons are. (Like reviewing a monitor. Maybe there is a freq dip or bump your hear you don't like? Or port noise? Or bad imaging etc)

Last edited by imispgh; 04-20-2013 at 01:56 PM.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 02:07 PM   #90
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
Again I am not saying this device is perfect. I am also not saying it is preferred over a good environment. Nor am I saying those who hate headphones should deal with them anyway. I am saying and stand by the device is far better and more reliable than a bad environment and is a good tool to have to double check. That belief is objective as well as subjectively valid.
No, indeed it is not objective at all whatsoever. There is no proof of any kind (other than your personal preference) that this device lives up to the continued claim of being "far better and more reliable than a bad environment" which, as I've mentioned, flies against almost 20 years of my own experience. Please note: I'm not saying you're wrong or that your subjective beliefs should be discarded, but you cannot give an opinion on something with no factual support (and in this case there is probably no factual support to be found, you either like it or you don't; you either find it helpful or not; there is no objective validity to be had) and call it objective. That's precisely the problem as I see it: you believe your opinion on VRM is a matter of fact. It's not, it's just your opinion.
__________________
cheers,
@ngarjuna
Gist
ngarjuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 02:25 PM   #91
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
I still don't know why you don't like the device. Not saying you have to. Just trying to understand if there is an objective reason or it is all feeling, emotion and subjectivity. Why is that important to me? Because you may very well describe something that is an issue I never thought of and would like to know in case I missed something. And I would like others to be able to formulate an informed subjective and objective opinion. Was it wearing phones? Some frequency issue? The sound of the room they modeled had a quality you didn't like? And if so it was? Of course you can not like them and you don't have to justify a damn thing to me. Having said that I would really like to know what the objective and subjective specific reasons are. (Like reviewing a monitor. Maybe there is a freq dip or bump your hear you don't like? Or port noise? Or bad imaging etc)
I don't know how I can be more clear. I mixed with different options, one being using the VRM. The VRM assisted mixes were not as good, not as balanced. In fact, I'll agree with ngarjuna and say that if I still did not have a decent room, I can still produce more consistent mixes WITH monitors in this same mediocre room than I can with the emulated rooms in VRM. How much more do I need to say; I didn't like my mixes when using it. Objective, subjective... you decide. This is not an emotional reaction, it is an audio reaction. It's not for me, and I think that it gives people a distorted comfort zone that is not realistic or even close to accurate.

Edit;
Read ngarjuna's last post. He nailed my thoughts well.
__________________
http://soundyaudio.com/ The Sounds of the Hear and Now
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 08:08 PM   #92
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
No, indeed it is not objective at all whatsoever. There is no proof of any kind (other than your personal preference) that this device lives up to the continued claim of being "far better and more reliable than a bad environment" which, as I've mentioned, flies against almost 20 years of my own experience. Please note: I'm not saying you're wrong or that your subjective beliefs should be discarded, but you cannot give an opinion on something with no factual support (and in this case there is probably no factual support to be found, you either like it or you don't; you either find it helpful or not; there is no objective validity to be had) and call it objective. That's precisely the problem as I see it: you believe your opinion on VRM is a matter of fact. It's not, it's just your opinion.
Yes there is proof it is better (although I agree how much better is subjective at some point), 20 years experience should tell you there is obvious objective support.

Virtually all untreated rooms have echo flutter, comb filtering and nodal issues below 300hz. (Some of that minimized by set up and room dimensions. However room dimensions rarely involve no common multiples so it would be rare if the room had no natural nodes let alone several). As such virtually all untreated rooms have multiple issues that result in very inaccurate sound reproduction. That being in level, phase, time of decay, echo and multi-path issues. That is objective fact.

Good headphones are not perfect in freq response but do not most of the room related issues. Now having said that the downside of that is that there are many good room interactions we want.

So that is where VRM comes in. It models the GOOD characteristics of a room with NONE or very little of the bad ones. Does it do either of those perfectly? I would imagine not. However the end result is far more accurate and dependable than virtually all untreated rooms. That is an objective fact.

I am perfectly fine with someone acknowledging all of this as true but still having personal reasons to not use or like it. What is ridiculous and patently absurd is to dismiss the objective science and physics as ENTIRELY non-existant by saying there is no proof. Math, common sense and well established audio engineering principles dictate there is overwhelming objective support that you are incorrect.

20 years of experience usually means absolutely nothing. (Not necessarily in your case). Most people are barely competent at what they do and 20 years at best is really 5 years experience 4 times over. And it a lot of case it is 2 years experience 10 times over. Time allows for more opportunity for experience but usually not only doesn't guaranty it but it is usually, as time goes on, a very unreliable and disproportionate indicator.

Your 20 years does you no good if you think this far from objective reality regarding the current topic of discussion. What I am not going to allow is you to mislead those who are looking for truth and to be better at what they do. Again some may not like or desire the VRM box. That is fine. But to negate the engineering and science is foolish, intellectually vacant or dishonest.

Someone with 6 months of open minded, informed and objective experience would realize this and trump your 20 years in this area.

(After all of this is it possible you make great mixes and I as well as they do not? Yes. But there are many other factors involved. Apples to apples though our mixes would most likely have a far better shot at being much better)
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 08:40 PM   #93
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
Yes there is proof it is better (although I agree how much better is subjective at some point), 20 years experience should tell you there is obvious objective support.

Virtually all untreated rooms have echo flutter, comb filtering and nodal issues below 300hz. (Some of that minimized by set up and room dimensions. However room dimensions rarely involve no common multiples so it would be rare if the room had no natural nodes let alone several). As such virtually all untreated rooms have multiple issues that result in very inaccurate sound reproduction. That being in level, phase, time of decay, echo and multi-path issues. That is objective fact.

Good headphones are not perfect in freq response but do not most of the room related issues. Now having said that the downside of that is that there are many good room interactions we want.

So that is where VRM comes in. It models the GOOD characteristics of a room with NONE or very little of the bad ones. Does it do either of those perfectly? I would imagine not. However the end result is far more accurate and dependable than virtually all untreated rooms. That is an objective fact.

I am perfectly fine with someone acknowledging all of this as true but still having personal reasons to not use or like it. What is ridiculous and patently absurd is to dismiss the objective science and physics as ENTIRELY non-existant by saying there is no proof. Math, common sense and well established audio engineering principles dictate there is overwhelming objective support that you are incorrect.

20 years of experience usually means absolutely nothing. (Not necessarily in your case). Most people are barely competent at what they do and 20 years at best is really 5 years experience 4 times over. And it a lot of case it is 2 years experience 10 times over. Time allows for more opportunity for experience but usually not only doesn't guaranty it but it is usually, as time goes on, a very unreliable and disproportionate indicator.

Your 20 years does you no good if you think this far from objective reality regarding the current topic of discussion. What I am not going to allow is you to mislead those who are looking for truth and to be better at what they do. Again some may not like or desire the VRM box. That is fine. But to negate the engineering and science is foolish, intellectually vacant or dishonest.

Someone with 6 months of open minded, informed and objective experience would realize this and trump your 20 years in this area.

(After all of this is it possible you make great mixes and I as well as they do not? Yes. But there are many other factors involved. Apples to apples though our mixes would most likely have a far better shot at being much better)
Your wordy "proof" is still lacing any real proof, especially scientific proof. Yes, all or most of what you say in regards to the common issues in "virtually" all untreated rooms is true. That much is probable scientific proof. But any relation to VRM is not proof that using it is better than not using it, and that is where your opinions are ..."is foolish, intellectually vacant or dishonest..." (You can't slam my quote, now can ya?)
There is no proof that VRM will deliver what you and it claims, that is your opinion sir. And I am getting the feeling that while you might not be an employee or rep of Focusrite (but I still suspect this... ha ha), I am guessing that you own it, use it, and want to have irrefutable justification in your choice. Go for it.
I will also speak from personal work experience that ngarjuna's 20 years of experience are not 2 years 5 times over, and maybe not even 5 years 4 times over. he knows his stuff and has ears that most of us can only fantasize about (in a non-sexual audio-geek sort of way...lol). Anyway, all ngarjuna and I are saying is that VRM may be a godsend for you and many, but your constant insistence on wanting us to validate your using it as scientifically proven as a good thing is ridiculous, kind of rude, and completely inaccurate and misleading. I would still gladly guide a young engineer down the evil path of badness by telling them that carefully familiarizing themselves with their monitors, even in a less-than-great room, is much better than relying on or even trusting emulated acoustic spaces pumped through headphones. bwahahaha..... It is as unreal as a person can get, in my opinion. And remember, I tried VRM. And now that you have pushed so hard, I can quit being polite and say that my true feelings about the product were that I thought it was gimmicky, unscientific, and a dangerous placebo that could set a person back much farther than advance them towards getting better mixes.
Phew.... I've finally gotten that off of my chest. It's such a burden trying to be polite sometimes. I hope we can still be friendly with each other. Peace.
__________________
http://soundyaudio.com/ The Sounds of the Hear and Now
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 08:43 PM   #94
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
20 years of experience usually means absolutely nothing. (Not necessarily in your case). Most people are barely competent at what they do and 20 years at best is really 5 years experience 4 times over. And it a lot of case it is 2 years experience 10 times over. Time allows for more opportunity for experience but usually not only doesn't guaranty it but it is usually, as time goes on, a very unreliable and disproportionate indicator.

Your 20 years does you no good if you think this far from objective reality regarding the current topic of discussion. What I am not going to allow is you to mislead those who are looking for truth and to be better at what they do. Again some may not like or desire the VRM box. That is fine. But to negate the engineering and science is foolish, intellectually vacant or dishonest.

Someone with 6 months of open minded, informed and objective experience would realize this and trump your 20 years in this area.
And I thought that this section was the silliest and most misleading part ever. Come on, do you really think that?? That just tells me that you don't know what you are talking about.... even open minded and objective 6 months will never trump 20 years of actual time in this work.
__________________
http://soundyaudio.com/ The Sounds of the Hear and Now
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 09:06 PM   #95
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
Yes there is proof it is better (although I agree how much better is subjective at some point), 20 years experience should tell you there is obvious objective support.

Virtually all untreated rooms have echo flutter, comb filtering and nodal issues below 300hz. (Some of that minimized by set up and room dimensions. However room dimensions rarely involve no common multiples so it would be rare if the room had no natural nodes let alone several). As such virtually all untreated rooms have multiple issues that result in very inaccurate sound reproduction. That being in level, phase, time of decay, echo and multi-path issues. That is objective fact.
It is not an objective fact that the negatives which come with many/most rooms are worse than the negatives that come with mixing only in headphones, even with VRM. Yes, rooms have problems; of course rooms also have benefits, that is also an objective fact; and it's thus far unproven (or at the very least disputed) that VRM brings any of those benefits to headphones. It's your opinion that it does; it's my opinion that it does not; no facts are in play yet. Of course, you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater: not only do you lose all of the negatives of a room/speaker setup with headphones/VRM, you lose all of the positives too. And unless you have defined professional standards of acoustics you have nothing but your own senses and opinion (iow subjectivity) to judge which of these are more essential to you. There's nothing wrong with making those judgments; there's even nothing wrong with sharing them and the process by which you reached them. But declaring them objective fact is nothing more than hubris.

Quote:
Good headphones are not perfect in freq response but do not most of the room related issues. Now having said that the downside of that is that there are many good room interactions we want.

So that is where VRM comes in. It models the GOOD characteristics of a room with NONE or very little of the bad ones. Does it do either of those perfectly? I would imagine not. However the end result is far more accurate and dependable than virtually all untreated rooms. That is an objective fact.
No, no, no, no. It is not in any way an objective fact that the end result is "far more accurate and dependable than virtually all untreated rooms". That is your opinion. That is not a fact in any possible definition of the word. Nor is it even a logical conclusion that can be drawn from your facts on the ground because it would ultimately only be as true as the VRM's modeling is effective; in other words, not very.

If you want to contend that you find your mixes come out better with VRM, you can say that (and people like me won't argue the point, it's your subjective experience and I welcome you to share it). But as long as you keep declaring your personal opinion a "fact" you should expect continued resistance.

Quote:
I am perfectly fine with someone acknowledging all of this as true but still having personal reasons to not use or like it. What is ridiculous and patently absurd is to dismiss the objective science and physics as ENTIRELY non-existant by saying there is no proof. Math, common sense and well established audio engineering principles dictate there is overwhelming objective support that you are incorrect.
You have brought zero/none/nil science or math to support any of what you're calling objective. And let me save you some time in your next reply: it doesn't exist. This proof you're looking for isn't out there because it isn't an objective fact that VRM is superior to untreated listening environments just as it isn't an objective fact that VRM is inferior to untreated listening environments. The only thing you have continued to use to prove your point is Focusrite's marketing speak and superlatives about what you believe VRM is doing without ever addressing the elephant in the room: that VRM + a pair of headphones sounds/feels nothing at all like sitting in a nice control room with good monitors.

Quote:
20 years of experience usually means absolutely nothing. (Not necessarily in your case). Most people are barely competent at what they do and 20 years at best is really 5 years experience 4 times over. And it a lot of case it is 2 years experience 10 times over. Time allows for more opportunity for experience but usually not only doesn't guaranty it but it is usually, as time goes on, a very unreliable and disproportionate indicator.
If it makes you feel better to think this, go right ahead. But it's downright foolish. Though I suspect you're just being hyperbolic to defend VRM and don't really believe such a thoroughly ridiculous position. Honestly I'm truly lost as to why you're so desperate to cling to this 'objective fact' bullshit in the first place; by clinging to this untenable position you've only obscured your own subjective credibility (which would have been no more or less than anyone else who piped up in this thread) and made what would have been a legitimate opinion seem dubious.
__________________
cheers,
@ngarjuna
Gist
ngarjuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2013, 11:30 PM   #96
Nip
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
Have you tried the VRM?

Nonetheless I have stated that good monitors set up well in a treated space is the preferred option.

Also the VRM is an outstanding second option to verify things. Have you seen the list of monitors emulated? Auratone, Yamaha 50M, Adam, Genelec, KRK, Rogers, Stirling and Quested? If you get the mix right on most or all of them using the studio setting you have a good mix.
I don't know how outstanding it is - just having headphone out, and not even supporting regular phones up to 600ohm.

My conclusion is not that it's aimed for professional use.

I think the idea is excellent, but they do not target the most demanding users.

Personally I wasn't fond of the idea that the actual drivers doing the job - is on your computer - not a chip in this unit. A bit worried it might interfere with main audio as such on daw. Otherwise I think I might have gotten one to get a second opinion on mixes.

See my conversation with Focusrite below on the matter:

My Q:
">Hi
>Looking into getting a vrm box.
>But a bit puzzled over the output power on different phones.
>Already at 150 ohm it's down to half.
>
>I had a bad experience with Twintrak Pro where I used 250ohm phones and had to move up knob to about 8, instead of below 3 for normal 60 ohm. And going all the way up to 10 I still had comfortable level. 600 ohm phones are not to think of. I returned the 250 ohm phones too.
>
>How come this vrm product strictly made for phones - but not all kinds?
"

Focusrite A:
"
What will the impedance be of the headphones you are going to use with VRM box?

To be able to accomodate for every type of headphone; from low impedance ones to very high impedance ones; then the output of the VRM box would need to have a variable output impedance. As the VRM box is only bus powered it can not produce a very high voltage, therefore a lower output impedance is more suitable. This is because a higher impedance would need a higher voltage to drive the same amount of power. Also as most high impedance headphone (600 Ohms and above) are only used in professional studios and broadcasting, where they wouldn't be plugged straight into a normal headphone output, then it is assumed that most people using the VRM box would not be using these types of headphones.
The sensitivity of a pair of headphones also plays an important part in the overall pressure level of them, if the impedance of them is high and they are not producing much power but the sensitivity of them is also high then it should still produce a high SPL output.
"


My followup Q:
">Thank you.
>
>5V would give you 42mW at 600 ohm, and 167mW and 150 ohm.
>So power is there, but you only use 1.5V for amp for headphones
>obviously - giving 15mW at 150 ohm.
>
>So you do not have to invent something new - which it sounded like in
>your comment.
>
>I was glad that my current phones HD280 also were used when testing by
>you, so those would work fine I guess. But thinking upgrading a notch or
>two on phones is not for this unit I think.
>
>But still I might get the VRM box, it can help checking out different
>systems how it might sound.
>"

Focusrite A:
"Yes the HD280s would work great with the VRM. If you wanted to upgrade your headphones to a higher impedance, I am sure you would still be able to get a good level out of it, though I would advice you to test them out first.
The VRM is a good product to add to your setup for listening to and fine tuning your mixes on various speakers."
__________________
----- Windows 7 Pro x64, i7-860 2.8GHz 16G, RME HDSP 9632+Ai4S+Audient ASP800, Reaper 4.7 x64 -----
Nip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 06:34 AM   #97
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nip View Post
I don't know how outstanding it is - just having headphone out, and not even supporting regular phones up to 600ohm.

My conclusion is not that it's aimed for professional use.

I think the idea is excellent, but they do not target the most demanding users.

Personally I wasn't fond of the idea that the actual drivers doing the job - is on your computer - not a chip in this unit. A bit worried it might interfere with main audio as such on daw. Otherwise I think I might have gotten one to get a second opinion on mixes.

See my conversation with Focusrite below on the matter:

My Q:
">Hi
>Looking into getting a vrm box.
>But a bit puzzled over the output power on different phones.
>Already at 150 ohm it's down to half.
>
>I had a bad experience with Twintrak Pro where I used 250ohm phones and had to move up knob to about 8, instead of below 3 for normal 60 ohm. And going all the way up to 10 I still had comfortable level. 600 ohm phones are not to think of. I returned the 250 ohm phones too.
>
>How come this vrm product strictly made for phones - but not all kinds?
"

Focusrite A:
"
What will the impedance be of the headphones you are going to use with VRM box?

To be able to accomodate for every type of headphone; from low impedance ones to very high impedance ones; then the output of the VRM box would need to have a variable output impedance. As the VRM box is only bus powered it can not produce a very high voltage, therefore a lower output impedance is more suitable. This is because a higher impedance would need a higher voltage to drive the same amount of power. Also as most high impedance headphone (600 Ohms and above) are only used in professional studios and broadcasting, where they wouldn't be plugged straight into a normal headphone output, then it is assumed that most people using the VRM box would not be using these types of headphones.
The sensitivity of a pair of headphones also plays an important part in the overall pressure level of them, if the impedance of them is high and they are not producing much power but the sensitivity of them is also high then it should still produce a high SPL output.
"


My followup Q:
">Thank you.
>
>5V would give you 42mW at 600 ohm, and 167mW and 150 ohm.
>So power is there, but you only use 1.5V for amp for headphones
>obviously - giving 15mW at 150 ohm.
>
>So you do not have to invent something new - which it sounded like in
>your comment.
>
>I was glad that my current phones HD280 also were used when testing by
>you, so those would work fine I guess. But thinking upgrading a notch or
>two on phones is not for this unit I think.
>
>But still I might get the VRM box, it can help checking out different
>systems how it might sound.
>"

Focusrite A:
"Yes the HD280s would work great with the VRM. If you wanted to upgrade your headphones to a higher impedance, I am sure you would still be able to get a good level out of it, though I would advice you to test them out first.
The VRM is a good product to add to your setup for listening to and fine tuning your mixes on various speakers."

Great post

Actually there are issues with their implementation affecting my PC. Something I have actually sent them data on to it can be hopefully improved.(Focusrite did say that they do not see this issue often. I am open to it being on my end but they nor I have been able to figure out what it is other than the USB controller)

When running my latency (DPCLAT and Latency Mon) goes up - pretty. significantly. My DPCLAT shows 4X more latency (still Green though)Latency Mon shows it is the USB controller that is causing the issue. Given this it might not be wise to use the tool in live situations or maybe even when you project is loaded up with tracks and Fx.(My PC is a QUAD core 2.8G w/6M RAM 64X.). Even with this though I think the downside is negligible and manageable.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:15 AM   #98
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

ngarjuna

- Somehow technology can make Fx that involve modelling rooms for Fx like convolution reverb and measure the sound characteristics of speakers and headphones (in anechoic chambers etc) but it cannot measure a speaker in a chamber, then a standard control room and model that speaker and how it sounds at the listening position by figuring out the difference between the chamber and the room? Please try to be less emotional and apply some logic and common sense. If you can get convolution reverbs to sound close to real you can handle the VRM box
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution_reverb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspe...ic_measurement

- Saying there is no way this can be done at all on headphones is where your argument invalidates itself. I can buy that there are reasons someone may believe it is not good enough yet (which i would disagree with) is patently absurd. I and others on the site here have said it does as advertised, to various degrees, enough to be helpful to various degrees.

- Have you ever heard of the company Headroom? They make products that emulate listening to a binaural system. That simulates listening to sound sources coming from in front of you. Like from speakers. (They do not model the room interaction only headphones to speakers)
http://www.stereophile.com/headphones/530
http://www.headphone.com/learning-ce...ne-imaging.php

- Have you heard of Q Sound? (Or SRS from Polk or even the Sonic Holigraphy unit from Carver ages ago)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound

So with these proven technologies to model speakers through headphones as well as being able to make convolution reverbs sound right it is somehow some IMPOSSIBLE leap for VRM to use that and other technology to get it's box to model specific speakers at the listening position in ANY way at all? All the science is here. I can't do any more for you. Hopefully others who are able to think less emotionally can form the right objective conclusion. My suggestion to you is that your thought and emotional processing is impacting your competency and life in a way that is counter productive to yourself, and given you massively misleading public statements and the attempted leveraging of your vast experience, is harmful to others who are trying to learn and do the right things. For your own good and theirs please find a way to take a deep breathe and look at this objectively and logically. Don't let your ego or frustration with me stunt your ability to learn and take something positive from this experience. Stubbornness and ignorance can be self defeating.

richie43 - My 20 year and 6 month experience comment was meant to be about this subject only. A simple study of acoustics and delving in to the links I have provided here (and beyond) would take less than 6 months to do. Given that anyone who is new to the field and did that will understand more than ngarjuna on this subject. But to take my comment to the actual literal level let me offer this - relative to mixing etc. If an intelligent and motivated person spent 6 months with Bob Katz and Roger Nichols (prior to his passing) in the prior 20 years do you not think that six months might be pretty damn close to the twenty years experience most engineers have? If not WAY more? Of course this point while plausible is not probable. Given that one might be able to do the right things in the right way with the right people and get that 20 years in 2 years right? The point being that time is far less of a factor regarding establishing your competence level than is drive, intelligence, persistence and even luck.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:38 AM   #99
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
ngarjuna

- Somehow technology can make Fx that involve modelling rooms for Fx like convolution reverb and measure the sound characteristics of speakers and headphones (in anechoic chambers etc) but it cannot measure a speaker in a chamber, then a standard control room and model that speaker and how it sounds at the listening position by figuring out the difference between the chamber and the room? Please try to be less emotional and apply some logic and common sense. If you can get convolution reverbs to sound close to real you can handle the VRM box
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution_reverb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspe...ic_measurement

- Saying there is no way this can be done at all on headphones is where your argument invalidates itself. I can buy that there are reasons someone may believe it is not good enough yet (which i would disagree with) is patently absurd. I and others on the site here have said it does as advertised, to various degrees, enough to be helpful to various degrees.

- Have you ever heard of the company Headroom? They make products that emulate listening to a binaural system. That simulates listening to sound sources coming from in front of you. Like from speakers. (They do not model the room interaction only headphones to speakers)
http://www.stereophile.com/headphones/530
http://www.headphone.com/learning-ce...ne-imaging.php

- Have you heard of Q Sound? (Or SRS from Polk or even the Sonic Holigraphy unit from Carver ages ago)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound

So with these proven technologies to model speakers through headphones as well as being able to make convolution reverbs sound right it is somehow some IMPOSSIBLE leap for VRM to use that and other technology to get it's box to model specific speakers at the listening position in ANY way at all? All the science is here. I can't do any more for you. Hopefully others who are able to think less emotionally can form the right objective conclusion. My suggestion to you is that your thought and emotional processing is impacting your competency and life in a way that is counter productive to yourself, and given you massively misleading public statements and the attempted leveraging of your vast experience, is harmful to others who are trying to learn and do the right things. For your own good and theirs please find a way to take a deep breathe and look at this objectively and logically. Don't let your ego or frustration with me stunt your ability to learn and take something positive from this experience. Stubbornness and ignorance can be self defeating.

richie43 - My 20 year and 6 month experience comment was meant to be about this subject only. A simple study of acoustics and delving in to the links I have provided here (and beyond) would take less than 6 months to do. Given that anyone who is new to the field and did that will understand more than ngarjuna on this subject. But to take my comment to the actual literal level let me offer this - relative to mixing etc. If an intelligent and motivated person spent 6 months with Bob Katz and Roger Nichols (prior to his passing) in the prior 20 years do you not think that six months might be pretty damn close to the twenty years experience most engineers have? If not WAY more? Of course this point while plausible is not probable. Given that one might be able to do the right things in the right way with the right people and get that 20 years in 2 years right? The point being that time is far less of a factor regarding establishing your competence level than is drive, intelligence, persistence and even luck.
I don't disagree with much of what you are saying. but ngarjuna didn't either, actually. the biggest point that we are trying to make is that everything you are saying is still can not be validated as fact, or scientific proof. Nobody said that VRM ( or any modelling software) can't be helpful to some people, I am sure that it is. But there is no "proof" that using it is universally better than not using it. Your claims of "science" and your insistence that your opinions are anything more than opinions is the problem here. I will say it again; I am happy that you feel that VRM is helpful to you, but that does not make it scientifically certain that it will do anything at all for anyone. Maybe it will, maybe not. And that is totally cool. Make great music with it. Awesome. Sweet. You go man! But please stop trying to convince anyone that this is hard facts, because it is not.
Regarding this whole 6 months of hard-core focused experience thing.... really? Yes, 6 months with Bob Katz would doonders for anyone in this biz, but I would bet that Bob himself would tell you that 20 years of critical listening would still bring you further than 6 months with him. i dare you to ask him, he is often quite approachable (I have emailed him several times and gotten thoughtful and fairly prompt responses). 6 months with anyone, Bob Katz, Rick Rubin, Jimmy Page..... that still won't train your ears and give you 'experience". It still would take years to actually absorb and use this.
I like your enthusiasm and "stick-to-it-ness", but I still maintain that your main premise that any feelings you have for any emulation are unfounded and inaccurate, as well as misleading.
But on a personal level, you are starting to stoop lower than my tastes allow comfortably with the brash insults, mainly directed at ngarjuna. Him and I have never met face-to-face, nor have we even spoken on the phone. But through the wondrous power of the internet, we have collaborated on many different audio projects ranging from simple track swapping to mixing, mastering, and even getting full albums completed and released. So I feel it necessary to speak from personal/professional experience that he is no slouch and I would trust his ears over someone, for instance, that's main experience was 6 months with a Bob Katz level guy. For real.
Keep this helpful. Don't try to bamboozle people into thinking that your personal preferences, which are fine, are fact.
__________________
http://soundyaudio.com/ The Sounds of the Hear and Now
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 07:43 AM   #100
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,549
Default

Just keep this real. There is no proof, all of the mentioned software is MODELLED. It would be like me saying that my Nebula console presets (which are amazing) are scientifically proven to be better than an algo console plugin. The Acustica site goes into great detail why Nebula's sampling technology captures the entire static signal path, not just a snap-shot. Therefore, it is fact....right?
__________________
http://soundyaudio.com/ The Sounds of the Hear and Now
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 08:09 AM   #101
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43 View Post
I don't disagree with much of what you are saying. but ngarjuna didn't either, actually. the biggest point that we are trying to make is that everything you are saying is still can not be validated as fact, or scientific proof. Nobody said that VRM ( or any modelling software) can't be helpful to some people, I am sure that it is. But there is no "proof" that using it is universally better than not using it. Your claims of "science" and your insistence that your opinions are anything more than opinions is the problem here. I will say it again; I am happy that you feel that VRM is helpful to you, but that does not make it scientifically certain that it will do anything at all for anyone. Maybe it will, maybe not. And that is totally cool. Make great music with it. Awesome. Sweet. You go man! But please stop trying to convince anyone that this is hard facts, because it is not.
Regarding this whole 6 months of hard-core focused experience thing.... really? Yes, 6 months with Bob Katz would doonders for anyone in this biz, but I would bet that Bob himself would tell you that 20 years of critical listening would still bring you further than 6 months with him. i dare you to ask him, he is often quite approachable (I have emailed him several times and gotten thoughtful and fairly prompt responses). 6 months with anyone, Bob Katz, Rick Rubin, Jimmy Page..... that still won't train your ears and give you 'experience". It still would take years to actually absorb and use this.
I like your enthusiasm and "stick-to-it-ness", but I still maintain that your main premise that any feelings you have for any emulation are unfounded and inaccurate, as well as misleading.
But on a personal level, you are starting to stoop lower than my tastes allow comfortably with the brash insults, mainly directed at ngarjuna. Him and I have never met face-to-face, nor have we even spoken on the phone. But through the wondrous power of the internet, we have collaborated on many different audio projects ranging from simple track swapping to mixing, mastering, and even getting full albums completed and released. So I feel it necessary to speak from personal/professional experience that he is no slouch and I would trust his ears over someone, for instance, that's main experience was 6 months with a Bob Katz level guy. For real.
Keep this helpful. Don't try to bamboozle people into thinking that your personal preferences, which are fine, are fact.
The objective and proven part is that the VRM can provide at least a reasonable simulation of specific monitors in a standard and well designed studio. ngarjuna said that was literally not possible.

As for whether someone likes it or finds it useful is of course another matter. But those reasons given the science would be far more subjective than objective. (Like not liking to wear headphones unless there is some physical reason which makes the issue objective). As such that subjective choice is or can be counter productive. Not necessarily as a prime choice if you have the right environment but as a second option.

As for the brash insults. I do not accept they were brash or insulting. That presupposes that my comments were not accurate, properly measured or deserved. I believe they were. When you are on a public site making statements you say are fact and you leverage what you believe to be 20 years of experience you are setting an experience and professionalism benchmark and trying to use that to persuade the reader you are correct. That reader usually gives you the benefit of the doubt especially if they do not yet have the experience to know otherwise on their own. This then leads to people being misled by willful ignorance. While this is a hobby for most the readers I am sure it is a profession for others. And even at the hobby level is can be pretty darn important to people as their creations are extensions of themselves. There are just too many self professed experts in this world who are hurting others and the professions they are in. In some fields this can do far more than perpetuate bad sounding music. It can literally get people killed. And I assure you these people do not change their pattern of behavior proportional to the depth and breadth of damage they could inflict. If ngarjuna were a doctor who was training others very bad things would happen at some point. And that is NOT because he doesn't like the VRM. That isn't important. In his desire to be right he was willing to state an absolute and then try to leverage his experience to satisfy sell that absolute. He said there was NO WAY the VRM or any other device could in any way model specific monitors in a room. Not that it couldn't do it well enough but that it could not be done. That massive leap makes him a fool. ---Foolishness, the quality of having poor judgement or little intelligence.--- That bad judgement can be harmful to others. I am simple trying to identify and rectify that.

As for the time to get as experienced as Katz. It can be done in two years. And by that I mean literally day to day. Katz took decades to get to where he is because most days were not spent learning the right thing to do at every minute or hour. It takes time to experience new situations, learn new things, learn from mistakes etc. I assure you he spent days, weeks and maybe months not learning a damn thing. That was because the opportunity didn't present itself and he was doing the repetitious parts of his job. No different than any other field. I assure you he could boil all of that down into a course that would take 2 years or less to do. And by that I mean 8hrs a day X 5 days as week X 100 weeks. That is 32k hrs of contiguous learning. Think of your own life. How many true hours on complete back to back learning have you done? Usually after the initial learning curve you can go days, weeks or even longer before something new becomes available.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 08:17 AM   #102
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43 View Post
Just keep this real. There is no proof, all of the mentioned software is MODELLED. It would be like me saying that my Nebula console presets (which are amazing) are scientifically proven to be better than an algo console plugin. The Acustica site goes into great detail why Nebula's sampling technology captures the entire static signal path, not just a snap-shot. Therefore, it is fact....right?
I agree and disagree

To an absolute I agree it cannot be modeled perfectly. And by that I mean any of the topics here.

But I believe that these things can be modeled good enough. And by that I mean so they are a net positive.

Lets take that some were much larger and more difficult. Apply this to what NASA does or weapons or missile programs. Most of that is modeled. And it it weren't damn close or close enough none of these program could be successful.

I worked in full motion aircraft simulation for some time. We modeled the flight characteristics of specific aircraft in specific environmental conditions. The sims were on full motion platforms. An instructor could pull up a storm and cause various faults to occur on the simulator. Do you think modelling how a storm affects a helicopter might be a bit harder than modeling a specific speaker in a room? Did the engineers make it perfect? No. But I assure you it feels (and actually is) so accurate and real to the pilots that they benefit from it greatly. It is close enough to real to be accepted, with some prudent reservation, as real.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 08:24 AM   #103
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,354
Default

Quote:
Do you think modelling how a storm affects a helicopter might be a bit harder than modeling a specific speaker in a room
No, much easier to do the helicopter SIM.

Quote:
The objective and proven part is that the VRM can provide at least a reasonable simulation of specific monitors in a standard and well designed studio.
Where and when was it proven, just show the data/studies instead of just saying it. Just saying it doesn't make it objective much less proven or true.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 08:37 AM   #104
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
No, much easier to do the helicopter SIM.



Where and when was it proven, just show the data/studies instead of just saying it. Just saying it doesn't make it objective much less proven or true.
So you have been in full motion sims for the major airlines or the military and know that modeling them, a storm and their mutual interactions is easier than modeling a speaker in a room? Your contention is preposterous. How does it not make at least common sense to you that you have no idea what you are talking about? The variables in the sim environment both on board and exterior to the craft have almost infinitely more variables than sound in a room.

The fact is that given current technology one could make a competent speaker simulator relatively easily. You could actually do a lot of it using Reaper and the right Fx.

Measure the new speaker and your studio speaker in a chamber.(Your local monitor has to be full range and of enough quality to replicate the ranges of frequency characteristics of the modeled speaker). Then measure each in the same room from the same position with a microphone and system meant for the task. Once you have all of this you then analyze the differences of freq response, phase, timing etc and create software that changes the source signal to arrive at the same measurements for the after condition. There is more to it than this to do it well but this would get you close. As for going to headphones you have to perform similar activities but then deal with putting the right cross signals on opposing transducers and deal with the psychoacoustics of the ear.

And I showed the data through connecting the dots of other proven technologies.

My guess is you are simply trying to bring down the know-it-all. I understand that desire fully. But don't let those feelings cause you to say things that are counter productive for yourself. Trying to knock down others while felling yourself isn't very productive.

I am curious. How old are you, what is your background and what do you do for a living?
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 08:40 AM   #105
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
So you have been in full motion sims for the major airlines or the military and know that modeling them, a storm and their mutual interactions is easier than modeling a speaker in a room? Your contention is preposterous. How does it not make at least common sense to you that you have no idea what you are talking about? The variables in the sim environment both on board and exterior to the craft have almost infinitely more variables than sound in a room.

The fact is that given current technology one could make a competent speaker simulator relatively easily. You could actually do a lot of it using Reaper and the right Fx.

Measure the new speaker and your studio speaker in a chamber.(Your local monitor has to be full range and of enough quality to replicate the ranges of frequency characteristics of the modeled speaker). Then measure each in the same room from the same position with a microphone and system meant for the task. Once you have all of this you then analyze the differences of freq response, phase, timing etc and create software that changes the source signal to arrive at the same measurements for the after condition. There is more to it than this to do it well but this would get you close. As for going to headphones you have to perform similar activities but then deal with putting the right cross signals on opposing transducers and deal with the psychoacoustics of the ear.

Your doing it again, we are waiting for data/studies not anecdotal analogies. Its OK if the above is what you think but that again does not make it fact.

Quote:
Your contention is preposterous
Hardly, flight SIMS take life and death into account and they are good enough to work. Audio doesn't and they still can't pull it off as well. Nothing here to argue until you show proof instead of your subjective personal conclusions. Either way flight SIMS and Audio Emulation are horrible comparisons much less proof of your claims.

Last edited by karbomusic; 04-21-2013 at 08:58 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 08:59 AM   #106
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
But I believe that these things can be modeled good enough. And by that I mean so they are a net positive.
NOW you are speaking more accurately.
And I totally disagree with anyone's ability to absorb something as vast as what you imply in 2 years. I still dare you to ask Bob himself. As I said, he may be willing to offer an opinion, provided that you ask him in an unbiased way, with no presumptions of artificial "facts". It seems to me that this interesting and intellectual conversation has been transformed into a ridiculous display of something I don't know what to call it. lol. You have still not said anything that resembles fact, proof, or data other than typing the words "fact", "proof", and "data". More lol.
__________________
http://soundyaudio.com/ The Sounds of the Hear and Now
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:01 AM   #107
richie43
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 8,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
I am curious. How old are you, what is your background and what do you do for a living?
This could be fun.......
__________________
http://soundyaudio.com/ The Sounds of the Hear and Now
richie43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:14 AM   #108
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43 View Post
This could be fun.......
I missed that question.

Quote:
I am curious. How old are you, what is your background and what do you do for a living?
So, I turn 50 in just a few months. I started in audio when I was 7 (1970) and was soldering my own circuits by the time I was 8 years old. I spent no less than 30 years in professional audio and electronics including performing, mixing, engineering and recording during those years. The things I have done during that time are pretty countless from building speakers from scratch AKA hand making working voice coils from mountain dew cans and manually winding them to spec to working with NASA with computer related stuff to playing for 10k people. And I've developed a lot of software, I've also worked on some 50 million code line projects. That's some of it, being 50 makes it a pretty damn long list seriously but I don't see the relevance to be honest.

I now debug code for fortune 100 companies at the assembly instruction level and audio is mostly a hobby over the last 10 years but people still pay me to play, engineer and record when I have the time.

I don't get the value in the above since you are convinced experience means nothing and I particularly don't care to go around boasting my skills whether they are good or bad. Actually at 5600 posts I don't think I've ever mentioned much about my professional life. I'd prefer my skills be evaluated by those I come in contact with vs blurting them out in forums as if it would mean anything to perfect strangers. Not my usual style.

Last edited by karbomusic; 04-21-2013 at 09:25 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:15 AM   #109
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richie43 View Post
NOW you are speaking more accurately.
And I totally disagree with anyone's ability to absorb something as vast as what you imply in 2 years. I still dare you to ask Bob himself. As I said, he may be willing to offer an opinion, provided that you ask him in an unbiased way, with no presumptions of artificial "facts". It seems to me that this interesting and intellectual conversation has been transformed into a ridiculous display of something I don't know what to call it. lol. You have still not said anything that resembles fact, proof, or data other than typing the words "fact", "proof", and "data". More lol.
I posted the links to similar and leveraged technology that exist. The extension to the VRM is intuitive at that point.(I of course didn't design the VRM or other technologies. I do however understand what they do and how they do it at a basic level. But more importantly I have HEARD Q-Sound, the Headroom products, the Polk SRS system, the Carver system, The VRM and have a well tuned listening room. And I have the ability, even when aggravated of thinking objectively. I am nowhere near great at it but good enough. An by that I mean that if you or anyone else makes a point that I understand defeats one of mine I will admit it readily and change my way of thinking going forward. For example I am more than open to you making a point about the VRM that would cause me concern in using it. Something I had not thought of or missed when listening)

If someone spent every day, 8 hours a day, learning ONLY the best information known at the time they could excel at almost any career in two years. (And I do not mean science or math heavy fields or those that require practice at a physical skill. Examples being a physics research scientist or a pilot). If you totaled up all of the CONTINUOUS time in minutes or hours Katz or most other experts in their field have it would not be measured in decades. As just a rudimentary example look at colleges or better yet tech schools. How many ACTUAL hours are spent on actual relevant material? How many classes a week does an electrical engineer take that are directly germane to the field? How many hours total in 4 years? That doesn't make you an expert (or even competent in most cases) but the point is that very little actual continuous time was spent in knocking out the basics. Now take those 4 years of continuous material from Katz. I assure you he does nor most experts know that much. The point being that there is usually plenty of time on ones life to be a real expert in almost anything. While time is a factor it is not the main one by far. That would be intelligence and drive.

As for what we are doing we are now discussing general competence and unfortunately spending time in a tete-a-tete as opposed to just allowing for common sense and established fact and science to dictate.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:32 AM   #110
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,354
Default

Quote:
For example I am more than open to you making a point about the VRM that would cause me concern in using it.
That's the entire point. No one wants you to change your mind or what works for you, only that that's not the defacto result for everyone else or scientifically proven to be so for everyone else. You have my 100% support to use whatever gets you results you are happy with. It's entirely possible that it works for you exactly like you say and it doesn't for Richie exactly like he says and you both be right about that part, end of story. But replying instead that he is inexperienced, then find out he is experienced and stating experience now doesn't matter then implying he has hearing damage because having a different experience than you can't be true is silly.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:36 AM   #111
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I missed that question.



So, I turn 50 in just a few months. I started in audio when I was 7 (1970) and was soldering my own circuits by the time I was 8 years old. I spent no less than 30 years in professional audio and electronics including performing, mixing, engineering and recording during those years. The things I have done during that time are pretty countless from building speakers from scratch AKA hand making working voice coils from mountain dew cans and manually winding them to spec to working with NASA with computer related stuff to playing for 10k people. And I've developed a lot of software, I've also worked on some 50 million code line projects. That's some of it, being 50 makes it a pretty damn long list seriously but I don't see the relevance to be honest.

I now debug code for fortune 100 companies at the assembly instruction level and audio is mostly a hobby but people still pay me to play, engineer and record when I have the time.

I don't get the value in the above since you are convinced experience means nothing and I particularly don't care to go around boasting my skills whether they are good or bad. I'd prefer my skills be demonstrated to those I come in contact with vs blurting them out in forums as if it would mean anything to perfect strangers. Not my usual style.
Thank you for the information

First I agree on demonstrating skills as well. But this is just a forum so given the medium we just have to make the best out of it. I will accept blurting. I am forcefully direct, passionate and opinionated. That can unfortunately result in a message that is off putting to some. I wish that weren't the case. I have obviously not found a way to be direct, passionate and driven about my opinions and beliefs that doesn't sometimes wind up creating a negative unintended consequence. (I am so much better at this in person)

I am not at all convinced experience means nothing. The exact opposite actually. As you state it should be demonstrated. And to do that it doesn't not usually require decades.

I am almost 50 as well. I have been a software engineering manager for all of NORAD as well as a SW Project Manager on an Aegis Weapons System program and a PM, PE and SE in defense simulation. Of course none of that means I know what I am talking about nor does my time spent strictly as a hobby in high end stereo, mixing and composing. But I try very hard though to not be a hypocrite. And by that I mean if one pontificates they should be able to demonstrate they are not full of the same BS they say others are. My point about experience was that there are far fewer experts in reality than those who say they are. (And some don't even know it because they haven't had the exposure. An example being software development. I was in defense for 13 years. They are surely not perfect but are far better at developing than most non-defense companies. And I base that on being with some major companies in banking, healthcare and consulting to other non-defense industries. By comparison they are a mess. Yes they make money but are nowhere near as good as they could be. An metaphor that I think works is the Olympics. In the usual race there is the winner, a small group that quickly follows, then another pack and then the stragglers. People ask themselves why the hell the stragglers go to the Olympics and why they thought they were good enough in the first place? Well in their countries with the competition they have they are the best. So the issue quite often is that you think you are great because of who you measure yourself against. That is why anecdotally I am all for (REAL) CMMi to Level 5)

I was going to ask you if you thought that the code in the VRM is even close to that in real (not gaming) simulators and in the associated weather sims. (Which to do right takes supercomputers). Full motion sims take tens of millions of lines of code and just as much or more time in researching and measuring the values needed to write the correct code and algorithms. Just looking at the relevant staff of Focusrite and the defense and aerospace industry tells you there is a lot more work in making a 747 sim and it simulating how it would operate in a storm with a bad engine than making a speaker sim for headphones. But I have no doubt you understand that. (Not to take anything away from audio engineers)
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:41 AM   #112
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
That's the entire point. No one wants you to change your mind or what works for you, only that that's not the defacto result for everyone else or scientifically proven to be so for everyone else. You have my 100% support to use whatever gets you results you are happy with. It's entirely possible that it works for you exactly like you say and it doesn't for Richie exactly like he says and you both be right about that part, end of story. But replying instead that he is inexperienced, then find out he is experienced and stating experience now doesn't matter then implying he has hearing damage because having a different experience than you can't be true is silly.
My issue is not with the subjective opinions around how much the VRM can help someone. Of course there is some valid subjective or even objective reasons someone would not choose to use the device. My rant as it were happened when the argument went to there being ZERO OBJECTIVE way the device does ANY good modeling at ALL. That argument is objectively and factually incorrect. Then to throw in 20 years experience etc just adds fuel to the fire. Misleading those who don't know otherwise with that approach is not to be tolerated. Regardless of the subject matter.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:46 AM   #113
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,354
Default

Quote:
And by that I mean if one pontificates they should be able to demonstrate they are not full of the same BS they say others are.
That's what we were asking you to do making all of this a circular argument.

Quote:
My point about experience was that there are far fewer experts in reality than those who say they are. (And some don't even know it because they haven't had the exposure. An example being software development.
Absolutely and I would not have had the great jobs I've had the pleasure of having if there weren't so many armchair experts in the world because I deliver the goods they cannot. I interview these types on a regular basis and its astounding how they don't even come close to the garbage boasted in their resume. And if they present garbage, I will take them to task on it and find out what they really know very quickly. They hate it when I do that.

However, I hinted very early in my responses that this forum contains more than armchair idiots and Richie, ngarjuna, zappa and a few others in this thread are anything but inexperienced self-proclaimed know-it-alls. They all went out of their way to not dismiss VRM and only ask not to make claims that aren't directly provable. The audio world is the absolute worst venue to do that due to it's magic dust audiophile history.

Let me add that regardless of our lack of agreement on all things, I do appreciate the civility of the discussion.

Last edited by karbomusic; 04-21-2013 at 09:54 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:03 AM   #114
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,354
Default

Quote:
I was going to ask you if you thought that the code in the VRM is even close to that in real (not gaming) simulators and in the associated weather sims. (Which to do right takes supercomputers). Full motion sims take tens of millions of lines of code and just as much or more time in researching and measuring the values needed to write the correct code and algorithms. Just looking at the relevant staff of Focusrite and the defense and aerospace industry tells you there is a lot more work in making a 747 sim and it simulating how it would operate in a storm with a bad engine than making a speaker sim for headphones. But I have no doubt you understand that. (Not to take anything away from audio engineers)
Sorry I missed that one. I can't dismiss the complexity of the flight SIMS. My main objection was the ability for that same complexity to be as convincing with audio as psychoacoustics are immensely tricky and goes beyond complex measurements for lack of a better example.. I have no doubt that VRM is better than just headphones but as good as we are with emulations some areas are still falling short but that I am happy to say is my opinion. I haven't used VRM so I don't want to be guilty of the very things I complained about.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:04 AM   #115
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

I agree with you to a point. That point being when ngarjuna made the absolute statement about no device being able to do the proper modeling at all. Had the comments not gone that far or near that point I would have stopped long ago.

A little background because I think it is germane

I obviously have a visceral connection to this. (Which is emotional and I realize counters my point earlier on not letting emotions dictate the rational etc). Years ago the "experts" in the defense and homeland security area I was working decided to not make critical design changes to something we were working on. Those changes involved the safety and security of service members and the country. (Literally and with no exaggeration). I decided to try to change that. That led to me losing my job, the press getting involved, congressional hearing etc. That all wound up in significant hardship for me and my family (Far less than most suffer though). Through all of that and several other ethical issues I have been involved in I have come to realize that most people are incidentally ethical. When they are actually tested, which most are not thankfully, they fail far more often than not. My issue with ngarjuna is actually an ethical one. Not knowing you are wrong and forcefully pushing your point or misinforming others is understandable. Because that is a mistake and the intention is actually good. The ethical flaw comes in when you are informed you are wrong and do not try to validate it or simply ignore it and keep doing what you are doing. That is the point where people go from making a mistake to willful neglect etc. Is the silly VRM the issue? Yes and no. No it is not something that involves someones life or death. But to those who do this for a living getting bad information like that and more could lead to a situation where someone , in spite of their intentions and best efforts, become less competent than their competition and lose their jobs etc. That can on a very real level effect people's lives. That situation happens all the time in pretty much every field of endeavor. In another place I worked I was directed to falsify ETC budget data to drive down profit so the company didn't have to pay taxes. I was fired for fighting that as well). So when I see that happening I speak up.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:08 AM   #116
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Sorry I missed that one. I can't dismiss the complexity of the flight SIMS. My main objection was the ability for that same complexity to be as convincing with audio as psychoacoustics are immensely tricky and goes beyond complex measurements for lack of a better example.. I have no doubt that VRM is better than just headphones but as good as we are with emulations some areas are still falling short but that I am happy to say is my opinion. I haven't used VRM so I don't want to be guilty of the very things I complained about.
Thank you and I agree

I would be interested in you opinion of the VRM should you ever have the opportunity to try it.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:09 AM   #117
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
ngarjuna

- Somehow technology can make Fx that involve modelling rooms for Fx like convolution reverb and measure the sound characteristics of speakers and headphones (in anechoic chambers etc) but it cannot measure a speaker in a chamber, then a standard control room and model that speaker and how it sounds at the listening position by figuring out the difference between the chamber and the room? Please try to be less emotional and apply some logic and common sense. If you can get convolution reverbs to sound close to real you can handle the VRM box
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution_reverb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspe...ic_measurement
The thing is convolution reverbs do NOT sound like real rooms; even the very best of them have major limitations. This has been well known to engineers for a very long time (and is the reason many studios still bother to have reverb rooms). Of course, many people prefer the more modern sound of reverbs that have little in common with actual rooms. But this whole point fails because nobody would listen carefully to any convolution reverb on the market and say "THAT! That is what a great room sounds like!" Instead we've learned to cheat with reverbs and delays to use engineering skill to make them sit naturally in a mix even though there is very little about them which is "natural" in and of itself.

Quote:
- Saying there is no way this can be done at all on headphones is where your argument invalidates itself. I can buy that there are reasons someone may believe it is not good enough yet (which i would disagree with) is patently absurd. I and others on the site here have said it does as advertised, to various degrees, enough to be helpful to various degrees.
I'm not sure what "this" refers to but I don't recall anyone saying anything "can't be done at all". The question is to what extent is the emulation useful. Nobody, including myself, has said that the emulation brings NO useful qualities; instead we've suggested that, when weighed against the negatives of using cans and the positives of using (even untreated) rooms/speakers, it's certainly not a no brainer and one needs to decide whether or not the trade off is worthwhile. That's it. You keep repeating that the trade off is inherently, automatically, provably worthwhile; but here we are waiting for ANY KIND OF PROOF and you've still given us nothing but how you feel about it. That's nice, but how you feel about anything (or how I feel about anything for that matter) is not proof nor is it objective.

Quote:
Don't let your ego or frustration with me stunt your ability to learn and take something positive from this experience. Stubbornness and ignorance can be self defeating.
While this was obviously meant for me, maybe you should try taking it to heart:
Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic
They all went out of their way to not dismiss VRM and only ask not to make claims that aren't directly provable. The audio world is the absolute worst venue to do that due to it's magic dust audiophile history.
Quote:
The objective and proven part is that the VRM can provide at least a reasonable simulation of specific monitors in a standard and well designed studio. ngarjuna said that was literally not possible.

Please do show us any and all objective proof that VRM can and does provide at least a reasonable simulation of specific monitors in a standard and well designed studio. Please don't forget to define "reasonable" as your proof will only live up to your claims assuming it clearly meets that standard. We've been waiting for many, many posts.
As someone with your professional credentials, surely you understand what "objective proof" means, so please, we really want to see it. I'm happy to learn from things that are provably true and I'm sure there are many technologies whose ins and outs I'm unaware of (maybe even including VRM, not that we'd know because you've yet to provide even one iota of such ins and outs). But you just keep repeating your opinion that VRM provides "reasonable simulation". That is factually, provably true on the basis of what data?
__________________
cheers,
@ngarjuna
Gist
ngarjuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:14 AM   #118
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imispgh View Post
A little background because I think it is germane

I obviously have a visceral connection to this.
I think that's fair based on your experience and I can understand what you are saying. If it helps I can only add that during the 5 years or so that I have been here, ngarjuna has never let me down in a technical fashion and he is one of the few who's statements I tend to trust even when I don't completely agree. He has always been matter of fact and isn't afraid to present both sides; he does seem to be a stickler for evidence which I can't argue with in this particular line of work.

I also remember seeing expertise in posts of yours in the past that I also felt like I could trust so I don't think there is too much of a problem here. Hopefully its just great minds (myself not included) bouncing around our views.

Last edited by karbomusic; 04-21-2013 at 10:21 AM.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:25 AM   #119
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,354
Default

Quote:
The thing is convolution reverbs do NOT sound like real rooms; even the very best of them have major limitations.
Since we are on the finer points of emulation... You, I and Richie should turn him on to Nebula. I'm sure he would enjoy it. I'm being serious btw.
karbomusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:30 AM   #120
imispgh
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 484
Default

ngarjuna you said the items quoted below. See this is why I think my frustration and comments are warranted. You just said you "don't recall anyone saying anything "can't be done at all". That is a 100% definitive objective statement that is 100% definitely and objectively false given you own quotes. Words matter and they especially matter when someone tries to point out there is a problem. Instead of heading that you just keep plowing forward doing the same thing

"Yes, rooms have problems; of course rooms also have benefits, that is also an objective fact; and it's thus far unproven (or at the very least disputed) that VRM brings any of those benefits to headphones."

"Because having a VRM is in no way like having access to "the ACTUAL monitors" you keep listing. There is virtually no similarity in the listening experience. This claim that you keep making is very misleading at best (and utterly false at worst)."

"Yes, I'm clearly saying no model is "perfect", but I've gone farther than that: I've stated that no model is even useful in this task today. And unlike many of the more sophisticated offerings of this sort, VRM has no flexible HRTF control (although to me this is a moot point as even those which do don't come close enough to be very useful either)."

All of this are objective statements stating an ultimate conclusion. You say things like "no way", "virtually no similarity" and "no model is even useful". Those comments do not allow for any subjectivity or room to move at all. They are meant to be 100% definitive objective truths.

As for convolution reverbs I understand they are not flawless. But to say they "do not sound like real rooms" is wrong. Again you allow for no room to move or subjectivity. Of course they sound like real rooms to some degree. And to a very useful degree in many cases. That is the esscence of my opinion of the VRM. It is not an absolute and perfect model but is objectively close enough to be a net positive in many cases.

As for objective proof I do not have access to the code or algorithms. But I did link to leveraged existing technology they explains what is going on. And I will offer this. Your saying that that the VRM "is no way like having access to ACTUAL monitors" is exactly like me saying that the digital version of an analog tape recording is in no way like the original tape and then asking you to prove to me it is.

You created all of this and back yourself in to a corner when you make the statements you do THE WAY YOU DO. You really should think about that. I bet if you calmed down and typed what you actually think we would agree more than not.
imispgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.