OSSIC 3D headphones? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Rithers
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: October 05, 2016, 08:44:14 pm
content: https://www.ossic.com/"Ossic wants to bring you 360 audio to go along with your virtual reality headset."anybody have any thoughts on these? I'd hate to call BS on something if it turns out to be a viable product,but their whole website/ cancerous advertising / no specifics really smells of some Audio Wank to me./etienne

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2016, 08:57:51 pm
content: 3D headphones have been around for a while, the OSSIC ones are by no means the first. Given that we can tell where a sound is coming from, even with our eyes closed, and given that the sound fields (and phases) in the vicinity of the ears is all that is used to inform that sensation, it seems perfectly plausible to claim that these, and other 5.1 headphones, offer more accurate sound location to the listener than standard 2.0 headphones.One natural objection to 5.1 headphones arises from making the observation that each individual ear only receives a single "channel" of information; so even if the frequency content of a given sound depends on its location (e.g. sounds behind an observer are slightly muffled because the ear are not facing the right way), a single driver (per ear) could be used to simulate any sound from any location.However, everyone has different ears, so the transfer functions that you need to apply to a sound to locate it in a particular position is a function of both location and the specific user. Thus, it is actually plausible to claim that there are only two main options to achieve a really accurate result:Use 5.1 headphones, and allow the real user's ears to apply the transfer function that their brain is expectingUse normal (2.0) headphones, but have some sort of calibration step that measures the properties of the ear, and inform the 3D audio software on the computer to apply transforms accordinglyFrankly, the former option seems more practical, even if it's less cool.

author: BurningTantalum
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 08, 2016, 09:54:20 am
content: Google 'dummy head recording'. It was all the rage when I started work (but then so was 'CBS SQ' and who remembers that now?)It is a fascinating technical and physiological subject.We made a REALLY heavy and somewhat creepy head out of silicon rubber with microphone inserts buried in ear canals. It frightened the sh1t out of the security guard whilst on his night patrol !BT

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2016, 08:41:40 pm
content: 5.1 Headsets are BS. Theoretically, you can't simply generalize psychoacoustic effects. Practically, just listen to that video with a pair of good, regular 2.0 headphones:

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 09, 2016, 10:41:35 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on October 09, 2016, 08:41:40 pmWhat exactly are you claiming? That 2.0 cannot reliably simulate the effects of 5.1 because the shape of different people's ears is different, etc? Because that would imply that 5.1 headphones (that is, true 5.1 headphones with multiple drivers) are preciselynotBS. And if you're claiming that 5.1 is not enough to fully replicate any sound field, I'd agree, but it's still better than 2.0?

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2016, 12:25:53 am
content: Quote from: rs20 on October 09, 2016, 10:41:35 pmI'm claiming that trying to physically incorporate people's individual hearing characteristics is unnecessary because most people will still be able to reliably spatially allocate sounds in a regular stereo binaural recording, even when not tuned for head shadowing, outer ear amplification and other parameters of an individual. So you don't need to physically replicate any sound fields because this can entirely be done in software with user-tweakable values. As I said, listen to that example to bust any doubt that 2.0 isn't capable of delivering a truly immersive audio experience.Also, I do see a design flaw of 5.1 headphones, they basically assume that inside that small chamber there is absolutely no crosstalk between individual drivers.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 10, 2016, 11:02:25 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on October 10, 2016, 12:25:53 amOnly if your standards are sufficiently low? Sure I can tell left from right using headphones, but nothing has ever heard like it's behind me.Quote from: m98 on October 10, 2016, 12:25:53 amYes, user-tweakable paramaterisation of the properties of the ear are option B, as I elucidated in my very first response in this thread. The fact that this option exists loosely suggests that there is a problem here to be solved, a problem solveable (at least in principle) by 5.1 headphones as well. Your argument seems to reduce to "listen to how awesome this audio track is; nothing couldpossiblybe better". I'm not sure how I'm supposed to objectively evaluate that statement.Quote from: m98 on October 10, 2016, 12:25:53 amYou're just grasping at straws it seems. Crosstalk? How incredibly easy is that to avoid? Or do you mean acoustic reflections inside the chamber, a problem affecting 2.0 headphones, 5.1 surround sound speakers and everything else?I'm not claiming that 2.0 headphones are anything less than fantastic, but you seem to be claiming that 5.1 can'tpossiblybe an improvement (correct me if I'm wrong), a claim that you don't seem to be adequately defending?

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2016, 12:37:41 am
content: Nothing could possibly be better than one speaker per ear for audio quality, because only then it is possible to optimize its sound characteristics to an optimum. Regarding the user-tweakable psychoacoustic parameters, you just can't simply avoid that with 5.1 headphones, because it still can't change head shadowing effects or the sound shaping of the whole head with all its anatomic features. The posted video example was just a demo for computer generated binaural sound effects, so that's kinda relevant for VR applications. It is just a good start convincing people of the absolutely logic and reasonable conclusion that you don't need more speakers than ears to localize a sound on all planes. If you don't trust me on that, just read the conclusions of some reviews of those n.1 headphones. For example:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/surround-sound-headset-benchmark,3125-12.htmlAlso, If you've found a way to avoid mechanic and acoustic crosstalk of multiple drivers jam packed into a small acoustic chamber, don't call it incredibly easy, and run to your local patent office now. Remember that the sound of each speaker has to pass right through the right directional filter of the pinna, to be modified accordingly. All those issues are only for acoustic localisation on the sagittal plane, which can easily be simulated by modifying the signal in the so-called blauert bands. Also, a common trick used by audiophools to make a sound more "present". It does work and there is evidence for it. On the other hand, we have some dubious gaming headset companies claiming that n.1 headsets (with integrated DSP to generate conventional binaural effects, of course) could do any better. Those n.1 headsets rather seem like the attempt of a five-year-old to "invent something new" without understanding that there is already age old science and engineering behind something that simply can't be made better than it is now, without drastically changing its concept. I mean, you can't argue that "simply add some more speakers" could be a possible solution to create a more immersive audio experience.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2016, 03:00:38 am
content: I have to say, you are dramatically, dramatically confusing theory with practice here. I'm not claiming that specific 5.1 headphones available today are better than specific 2.0 headphones available today.Quote from: m98 on October 10, 2016, 12:25:53 amQuote from: m98 on October 10, 2016, 12:25:53 amYou're preaching to the choir, I said all this on my first message!! My concern is with the optimization and tuning that is required to achieve an optimal result. In principle, having multiple drivers could ameliorate this effect and make for headphones that are closer to optimal, for a wide variety of different users, "out of the box". So please stop attacking the strawman, I never said 2.0 headphones couldn't be perfectly optimised with a level of DSP and tuning that99% of people do not take the time to perform.It was literally option B on my first message. And I'd love to do that with my 2.0 headphones, how do I do it?I grant you that I hadn't considered the acoustic properties of the entire head. If you had raised that objection earlier, rather than making audiophool-style "just listen to this sample" arguments, I'd not be defending my viewpoint so rigorously. This is an engineering forum.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2016, 04:34:16 pm
content: Quote from: rs20 on October 12, 2016, 03:00:38 amSigh.http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Blauert-Filter.pdfhttp://acousticslab.org/psychoacoustics/PMFiles/PMDownloads/Plack2005_09.pdfhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4582445/

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 12, 2016, 11:39:16 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on October 12, 2016, 04:34:16 pmThanks, but what I meant to ask for was a software/hardware solution for my Windows machine for tailoring the spatial localisation in games+movies to my specific ears, not theory papers.