Thanks for sharing this. I also tried constructing an effect using ITD, ILD, biquad filters and delay lines in saqol, but I never got it to sound good (so that effect isn’t included in the web version): https://github.com/mTvare6/saqol/blob/main/crates/saq-dsp/sr...

Do you still have a working demo anywhere? The link in your post seems to be down, and I'd be interested in hearing it.

> two sound engines, one licensed from NEW AUDIO TECHNOLOGY

is this why i have to log in to an account to use Virtual Surround on gaming headsets

Yup, that would be an impulse response, and if the room acts as a linear (and time-invariant) filter, then you can easily figure all that out, and the write-up is basically about testing if it's so and how good the reconstruction is.

And there is a way to toggle it: the icon which is orange can be tapped on and off, and you can adjust the "bass" which is built in with the ring around it. Also, it's likely to have no effect on voice, more complex arrangements will have an audible difference.

There is similarly an example on Wikipedia too, which got me interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BinauralPaper.ogg.

Yes, it's called impulse response, used to capture convolutional reverbs, to model "real" sound stages like a large hall or what have you

There's a subwoofer slider (around the icon) if the bass feels too heavy, and some songs require it to be toned down if it's already processed to be bass-boosted.

My Jabra headphones don't seem to apply any processing by default, and I prefer how they sound with the processing. If your headphones already boost bass or apply another effect, stacking the processing can be grating (which I've experienced when I record a video and play that through the daemon running).

I guess it's a matter of taste. I just like music sounding as though it's coming from a little farther away, and I suppose the bass-boost might be what you're finding unpleasant.

Same here wrt to Bose. I respect their tech and science but then they add a bogus aesthetic layer on top.

I think it is meant to make jazz sound good. The eq-d bass and attenuated mids make a standup bass more apparent and the piano and vocals more present.

But it made me start to wonder if I started hating my favorite band: I was packing up to move this weekend and stumbled on my CD collection. Many Stereolab CDs. I played them in my basic acoustic waveguide radio. A slick bookshelf I inherited and rarely use.

45 minutes later I was telling myself "god this music sucks...just agonizing repetition." Turns out yes the motorik bass is repetitive...but the other key point of the band is the gentle singing and intricate delicate synth and organ melodies...all foreclosed on by some evil twin combo of an audio eng and marketer overindexing in mid low bass.

That is why I refurbished my Harman-Kardon amp from 1991 and listen CDs and LPs through it increasingly these days. It drives either some Revox speakers I be also bought at that time or a HifiMan Edition XS. That thing is outright amazing. The pinnacle of mixing was in the 80s as far as my collection is concerned. The 70s were much experimenting and the 90s already too compressed.

You’ll want to get something from Etymotic, they target the “precise and neutral” profile you’re after.

OP wants the `earwax` audio filter in ffmpeg.

100% agreed.

This fashion of cranking the base and the high end and removing the middle (simulating a subwoofer with some tiny speakers, basically) can't die fast enough.

I mean, fair play for the writer. If he wants it to sound that way he's of course free to do so. But this style is used a lot in concerts and open air amplification and I hate it.

My theory is that this style is popular with people playing their music too loud. If your ear feels 'blocked' after a while, your music is too loud.

One thing with this style is that, because it leaves the middle (speech) frequencies relatively empty, it feels less blocking. And the high base makes that it doesn't really sound tinny or harsh. But they high base cane easily damage your hearing still.

I was mostly trying to get this effect with ordinary stereo music on Linux, given how few sources offer multichannel audio (Netflix does in a mac, but now Linux). I'll keep this link in mind, downmixing would be a nice addition indeed.

I was also wondering whether sending particular frequency bands to different sources would sound decent, and whether I could combine that with a downmix.

I've reconstructed everything I'd wanted so far, but I'll keep an eye on this. This also has an option to learn from just a recording of its test sweep (like the technique I used). I suppose a learned model could be useful for nonlinear modes, allowing a more complex function when my current approach fails (which is quantifiable with the existing tests).

Further, what's technically the most correct, like SADIE or MIT are the least impressive sounding ones. I suppose the question then becomes which sounds the "best" and remain subjective.

I'd be interested in comparing it with the Nothing Ear effect. If it's linear (and time invariant), it should only require playing a test sample through it, recording what happens, and using an automated script to extract the responses.

As for the effect, I was trying to get a particular effect I'd liked using earlier, rather than the most realistic spatial audio algorithm. The earwax effect mentioned elsewhere in the thread also sounds quite close to what I wanted. Posting this also worked as discovery, getting me some good suggestions for other effects to reverse engineer.