Waiting for SO 7 update news

[TonalDynamics]

I understand where you're coming from, and agree with your conclusions...but not necessarily how you got there. It's true Alan Blumlein used the word "binaural" in the 30s. But unfortunately the audio industry does not have a style guide, and the meaning has changed in the past 90 years. In "modern" usage, binaural recording has come to represent what that Neumann dummy head does - mics placed at ear positions, intended for headphone playback, and capable of capturing HRTF cues, ear shadowing, and pinna filtering. So given that the Blumlein pari is designed to produce a realistic stereo image for speakers or headphones, it's considered a stereo technique, not a binaural one. Then again, we're in an industry where aftertouch has five different names that all mean the same thing...

I listen to my binaural mixes on headphones when I take walks, and prefer them to the stereo mixes. But, they're 48 kHz uncompressed WAV files. I guess I'd need to get them on Tidal or do downloadable FLAC files or something to be able to demo them properly. I've learned my lesson about binaural and YouTube. It has added a 256 kbps option for music videos if you subscribe to YouTube premium, but the free tier is typically 128 kbps for stereo on iOS and older devices, so you have 64 kbps per channel. No wonder there's a problem. Their Opus codec is most common for desktop and Android, and it runs around 160 kbps - in theory. But, YouTube changes the bitrate dynamically based on the device and network connection. So who knows what you're really getting...I don't.

BTW thumbs up to the Swedien comment. We did some seminars together in Mexico and he was your basic humble superstar, with humor added into the mix. We got to hang at various times and it was always educational. Fortunately, I didn't suffer any lasting physical injuries from laughing too hard

Yes, he was quite a lovable figure indeed apparently... one of my buddies actually got to be an assistant for him on some projects back in the day and personally learned a lot of miking techniques from him. Yes, I am jealous.

Super cool that you got to meet him.

So Youtube is utterly nuking the binaural bitrate somehow eh? That's so weird that it isn't ruining the stereo mix as well...

Aaand I just realized I forgot to link the music for that choir... woof.

Here goes, true binaural goodness in the choirs a la Bruce:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Choir so close I can smell it!

I'll push back a bit and contend that while Blumlein might not fit the modern criteria for binaural (didn't want to get into HRTF etc.), binaural is certainly still just a stereo technique since we basically hear in stereo.

You're basically saying what I'm saying though vis a vis the Neumann mic vs. a binaural 'rendering' pipeline...
If you want true binaural, you gotta record in binaural.

I realize YT is mucking up the binaural mix, but here was my original comparison to the stereo below
The analysis might change a bit if you get a HI-Q re-up somewhere (don't worry if it's too much trouble)
But the general sentiments and impressions for binaural rendering pipelines is all there:
To be clear, none of this is me trying to educate you Craig, I realize you know all this stuff.
It's just intellectual discussion of various impressions for the folks at home (if anyone's interested).

Thanks for posting those Craig... as I am a huge nerd for comparative listening, I plopped those two mixes into HOFA Blind A/B for a quick shootout. Cool song btw.

Intro: The reason the upmix sounds immediately better is because this pad is virtually mono/straight up the middle in the stereo mix, which unironically doesn't sound stereo at all. You can achieve this with simple M/S processing during mixing (I assume the binaural upmix is just some type of M/S matrix in general). I would have either double-tracked the pads, panned 50-100 with a stereo slapback in the opposite channel, and applied some kind of stereo verb after the fact regardless of what else was done. In any case it sounds like a bell cut around 300 and 700-1000hz would have left a lot more room for the lead vocal, the center is simply too crowded for both.

Vocals: When the Lead VOX enters here the MONO Pad is a double whammy, because since there's no space in the center of the mix the pad frequencies mask out the lead vocal leaving it sounding muddy and lacking clarity, as pads/strings have a tendency to do.

Chorus:
Again, the guitars here are a bit too narrow for my taste, adding to that center-congestion. This is why the binaural render seems to be helping so much.

Funny enough the snare drum sounds BETTER/punchier in the chorus because those tack-piano sounding keys that double the guitars on the DMaj-AMaj-Emin chords at the start of the bar are pushed out to the sides along with the guitars, making space for a snare drum that was being strangled a bit. But it seems that only the HI end of those keys is pushed right in the BiA mix, which separates them from their low end components and makes it sound smeared.

Lead vocal... this is the double-edged sword of this kind of plugin/preset based upmixing process: In the chorus the Lead Vocal gets completely un-centered compared to the stereo MIX. To my ears it sounds like a MONO vocal is being taken and having it's frequencies distributed across the stereo field. This traditionally leads to a lot of phase-smear which ruins our brains ability to echolocate the origin of a sound (lead vox in this case) and presents a confusing point-source to the listener. It's basically just HAAS effect (doubling+time/pitch-shift) being introduced onto a mono source to make it wider at the expense of ruining its phase coherency... does more harm than good in almost every situation IME.
Oh, and it tends to ruin transients as well which often leads people to try to overcorrect for it with slower compression to emphasize attack, where they should simply remove the HAAS effect or M/S processing and fix the problem at its source.

Generally the low end of the entire song (which is quite good in the stereo mix honestly) is diminished by whatever's happening with the binaural processing. 'Stereoizing' BASS instruments is less of an aesthetic restriction than a matter of energy distribution, i.e. if you have one speaker with +3dB more of bass energy, the mix simply won't be turned up as loud by the listener.

Bass instruments don't have to be centered, but BASS energy must be balanced across both channels or it will not be comfortable to listen to. You also have tons of imaging problems in venues with such mixes where one side of the audience doesn't have bass in their ears...

The BASS in the binaural mix has the same panorama-smearing going on as the lead vocal, making it confusing to localize and diminishes the perception of PUNCH.

It also sounds to me like there is some kind of HI-shelving going on in general with the upmix, it's just generally more present. This also should have been done during the stereo mix. (EDIT: Apparently this was due to Youtube?)

I like to call these various rendering solutions 'stereo+'. The 'stereo+' upmixing pipeline is just a Wal-mart version of what Bruce did his whole career. It's a simulation of depth and width at the expense of phase smear/coherency and destruction of the existing pan scheme. You can only achieve that in earnest with a Blumlein pair/DUMMY-mike (for true 'binaural'), or just record XY/ORTF/AB and mix it properly, it will sound WAY better than casually performed M/S processing on an existing stereo MIX.

Binaural 'upmixing' -- regardless of which plugins are being used -- is nothing that can't be achieved by a half-decent mix engineer/producer and in my view isn't really worthy of being called a true 'binaural' experience. This has to be done at the recording, engineering and mixing stage.

Honestly any great stereo recording technique will yield far better results than a binaural rendering workflow. I do agree it's a nice post-trick/band-aid for fixing a poor stereo mix, though. And while the song itself in this case is pretty good, we sadly not only have a lot of poorly written and recorded music these days, much of it is horrendously mixed due to cost-cutting, or to be perfectly fair, just mixed at home by hobbyists with rather poor monitoring solutions that can't be helped.

Abstract/TLDR: Binaural rendering/post-processing generally improves tracks that were poorly mixed for stereo, and tends to ruin tracks that were mixed well which already possess adequate width and depth. Regardless of the quality of the source mix, phase-coherency and instrument placement is largely destroyed in the process.

If you want 'real' binaural, you gotta record in binaural... no shortcuts.

But as we were discussing, even binaural is child's play compared to what Atmos is capable of... being surrounded by speakers enables you to eliminate masking from almost every sound source by several orders of magnitude compared to stereo. It's just that no artist/producer combo have taken advantage of it yet. Too expensive, too complicated, not enough ROI, etc...

Binaural rendering will no more give the sound of a binaural recording than listening to an Atmos/Spatial tagged-track in headphones/earbuds will reproduce the sound of an Atmos setup.

I will gladly eat a large portion of crow if you upload a HI-Q version that YT doesn't destroy (or not, no pressure!)
As someone who's heard a lot of binaural upmixes though, I doubt my impressions would change very much and this shootout reflects my general take on the subject.

JB

 

[Jemusic]

Bell Labs and Phillips developed the first binaural recording dummy head around the 1930's.

 

[Craig Anderton]

To be clear, none of this is me trying to educate you Craig

Every time I log into this forum, I learn something! And I'm always interested in different perspectives.

FWIW I did not upmix the binaural. I do separate mixes from the ground up for binaural and stereo. So, there's no true way to do a valid 1:1 comparison, because it's impossible to know what changes were due to the differences in the mixes themselves, and what the differences were due to the "spatial audio." Unfortunately, downmixing to stereo from binaural isn't an option. The result isn't even close. Also, I think Atmos messes with the frequency response. This was something I wrote about in a blog post (grab it before it goes away!) that compares a stereo downmix before/after applying the same kind of equalization applied to the binaural file.

I think Atmos boosts in the 2 to 5 kHz range, whether you want it to or not. Maybe that's kryptonite to the 128 kbps AAC data omission - oops, I mean data compression - algorithm. Someday I'll try a binaural render with a cut in that range, and see if that makes a difference.

I stopped doing binaural mixes of my songs because it didn't matter to enough people to justify the time. But one of these days, I'll give it another try. One thing I did notice was that it seemed that lower-density songs seemed to benefit the most.

 

[TonalDynamics]

Every time I log into this forum, I learn something! And I'm always interested in different perspectives.

As do I, keeps me coming back!

FWIW I did not upmix the binaural. I do separate mixes from the ground up for binaural and stereo. So, there's no true way to do a valid 1:1 comparison, because it's impossible to know what changes were due to the differences in the mixes themselves, and what the differences were due to the "spatial audio.

Ahhh, ok, ok... so the brightness/presence increase in the binaural is in fact just from a different MIX, I wondered about that because the difference in clarity is palpable. I do think your original stereo mix could have benefited from whatever HI-shelf/EQing you did to the BiA mix.

I'm assuming you just have your own M/S matrix stuff that you dig and apply as a 'widener/depth-maker' at various submix BUSSES.

There is no doubt that the result sounds SUPER wide, but again I'm a fan of doing this organically with stereo submixes of various instrument groups using multiple mics/amps/passes/true-stereo verbs, slapback delays, etc.... so if not recorded per se in the 'OG' style when I have the time/motivation to record it myself with tons of mics on everything, certainly MIXED that way. But this of course varies with workflow, time, project, artist, etc.

Does the phase/pan-smear not bother you though?
I'm no fan of the 'loudness wars' since I hate (loathe) the sound of over-compression, but in my mind some stuff just has to be centered in order to allow you to turn a mix up LOUD, regardless of speaker type, and the low-end is definitely not as centered in the binaural version.

But yeah, I'll repeat my conclusion from earlier since that post kind of dragged with nerd-talk a bit, Binaural rendering will no more give the sound of a binaural recording than listening to an Atmos/Spatial tagged-track in headphones/earbuds will reproduce the sound of an Atmos setup.

Also the various 'spatial' implementations where you can turn your head and have a virtual 'stage' in front of you that adapts to your head movements is... just gimmicky IMO, something to sell the tech in lieu of having songs that are actually engineered for the medium. I know some folks seem to enjoy it, I just find it underwhelming and gimmicky.

One thing I did notice was that it seemed that lower-density songs seemed to benefit the most.

Without question, especially when the soundsources are largely MONO.

When you said 'rendering' and emphasized the '0 investment' factor, I assumed you meant a binaural renderer engine akin to the Atmos renderer, which as I said I've seen/heard lots of uploads of, and I'm just not remotely sold on it, much like you're not sold on the Atmos...

(reads linked blog post) Yeah, this was always my impression as well ever since I heard early Atmos 'conversions'.
The renderer is destroying the mix essentially.

Without nulling a single thing, you can tell there's some highly destructive processing going on there...

This was something I wrote about in a blog post (grab it before it goes away!)

I'm currently on a 'Craig Anderton blog downloading spree' from that website, screenshotting stuff and saving audio examples... there's so much value here and stuff I haven't read yet that I can't help myself.
Just TRY to stop me, Presonus.

Not to worry though! As soon as you update your next S1 Tips book with all those articles, you've got another customer waiting right here.

 

[THW]

I don't have anything technical to share and it's really interesting to read the insightful and comments from experienced pros here, just wanted to share an observation about contemporary binaural and spatial music. And maybe this is stating the obvious...

Type 'binaural' into Spotify or any mainstream music streaming service and you will be met with a flood of hundreds of curated 'health' Playlists and albums of 'binaural music beats for relaxation/sleep/meditation/focus/stress relief/calming...insert buzz word' and ambient tracks advertising cortisol detox frequencies of 741Hz, or pineal gland activation at 963Hz, or REM sleep 3.2 Hz Delta brain wave activation...on and on.

Many of these Playlists, like the Spotify curated ones have been saved by listeners up in the hundreds of thousands, 1M range. I wish I could see the analytics on who these listeners are, but I am fairly sure they trend younger. When I hear non-musician folks mention binaural or spatial music, it's always in the context of this kind of ambient music. I think there is a strong correlation/connection with young generations with the word binaural and this music marketed as therapeutic healing music (just to clarify, my intent isn't for this to be a commentary on music therapy or my opinion on the healing power of music, just the word association with binaural.)

 

[Craig Anderton]

And maybe this is stating the obvious...

It's not obvious! What you describe is also called "binaural beats" because the two tones generate beat frequencies. I wrote a blog post (it's still there, at least for now) about how to experiment with binaural beats using Studio One. So I think you have a point, binaural may need a different label that makes what it is obvious to consumers. "Spatial" and "immersive" are already taken and are assumed to mean either surround, or something only Apple does. Maybe a term like "Stereo+" or "Headphone Stereo"... those aren't great, but you get my point. Meanwhile, this whole discussion has inspired me to do two things:

• Create a binaural mix of some new material, and make it available as a downloadable FLAC file.
• Run some tests to see if there's something I can do to a file so that it plays back better on YouTube. Perhaps "undoing" the upper mid boost that Atmos rendering adds would help.

 

[TonalDynamics]

I wrote a blog post (it's still there, at least for now)

I just downloaded all 100 Craig blogs from that site.

Surely illegal in some state/s, but I don't care.

Incidentally Craig, is the presets content for those posts links that are under your control?
Please keep them up if so!

 

[THW]

It's not obvious! What you describe is also called "binaural beats" because the two tones generate beat frequencies. I wrote a blog post (it's still there, at least for now) about how to experiment with binaural beats using Studio One. So I think you have a point, binaural may need a different label that makes what it is obvious to consumers. "Spatial" and "immersive" are already taken and are assumed to mean either surround, or something only Apple does. Maybe a term like "Stereo+" or "Headphone Stereo"... those aren't great, but you get my point. Meanwhile, this whole discussion has inspired me to do two things:

• Create a binaural mix of some new material, and make it available as a downloadable FLAC file.
• Run some tests to see if there's something I can do to a file so that it plays back better on YouTube. Perhaps "undoing" the upper mid boost that Atmos rendering adds would help.

That is interesting! I just got home from a nice dinner out. Had planned to continue to develop a track I'm working on. But first I am going to read your blog post, and experiment with binaural beats in S1!

 

[Craig Anderton]

Incidentally Craig, is the presets content for those posts links that are under your control?

No, however I own the rights to what I wrote for the blog. The book download includes the presets and audio examples. FWIW, each book update also updates older presets where appropriate. So while I admire your tenacity in downloading the blog posts, and am actually honored the're important to you , for $19.95 you get all those posts, posts that haven't appeared, linked contents, internal links to other relevant posts, and free updates in the future. Seems like a better deal to me...!

 

[Gerran]

Seems like a better deal to me...!

As a well satisfied costumer I can attest to this and say it's a real bargain!

 

[TonalDynamics]

No, however I own the rights to what I wrote for the blog. The book download includes the presets and audio examples. FWIW, each book update also updates older presets where appropriate. So while I admire your tenacity in downloading the blog posts, and am actually honored the're important to you , for $19.95 you get all those posts, posts that haven't appeared, linked contents, internal links to other relevant posts, and free updates in the future. Seems like a better deal to me...!

Oh geez I must have missed something, I did not realize you had already updated your Studio One book with your old/removed/unposted blog articles?

I thought I read in your announcement thread that it was planned for the future but not yet available.

If it's already updated I'll go buy it right now!

 

[Vocalpoint]

Well - here is some news for you...take from it what you will...

VP

 

[sintil8]

Well - here is some news for you...take from it what you will...

View attachment 2587

VP

Looks to me like the the old Presonus servers are going to the salvage tip, kinda explains why the old forum was the first to go.
Oh well, onwards and upwards we go.

Best of regards moving forwards.

 

[TimC340]

I'm not sure this tells us anything we hadn't inferred from the login fiasco during the account 'unification' process a few weeks ago.

 

[Vocalpoint]

I'm not sure this tells us anything we hadn't inferred from the login fiasco during the account 'unification' process a few weeks ago.

While it is the logical conclusion to that debacle - it also makes me think that this is just the first shoe (of a few) to drop in 2026.

VP

 

[TonalDynamics]

While it is the logical conclusion to that debacle - it also makes me think that this is just the first shoe (of a few) to drop in 2026.

VP

Does that make us the cockroaches? :O

I just want a single giant company to go ahead and buy/own everything in the world already. Like go ahead and get it over with ya know, the suspense is killing me.

At least then we'd have a cool company store to spend our Apple Bux™ at, which hopefully does its own financing.

 

[sintil8]

I don't think it's a belated apology?


Time for a bedtime story to concrete the kids in bed and breath a sigh of relief, or am I being a little cryptic, maybe it's a clue to the future as VP said...

Anyway Regards

 

[TimC340]

Incidentally, VP, was that from an email? It's not one I've received...

 

[Sutajio_Ichi]

Incidentally, VP, was that from an email? It's not one I've received...

I received this as an email from Presonus around 8hours ago.

 

[TimC340]

Hmm. A search of my email accounts (including spam) reveals that the last time I received an email from PreSonus (other than tech support) was in 2020, despite having purchased various software and hardware many times since then!