Sienna by Acustica Audio

[psicomagia]

https://www.sienna.studio

This is the new headphone "VSX" by Acustica Audio. A headphone mixing plugin that simulates rooms that they actually sampled from some high-end and 'esoteric' music studio rooms, as the company owner related in their FB group. I think this is gonna be a really cool product, can't wait to try it. They personally measured all the headphones they're hooking up - I guess there's a list out there with the headphone models, some beta testers affirmed that it had really low cpu consumption (all their plugins are extremely heavy in comparison to algorithm plugins) and that the quality is crazy in comparison to what already exists. let's hear through it soon...

[Belka]

Owning Waves Ocean and combine it with Sonarworks actually, pretty happy with the results but always like to see some alternatives and progress, i think it will cost much more than Ocean + Realphones/Sonarwork because acoustica Stuff isnt cheap ... but possibly cheaper than VSX because they have no extra Can.

[Lost to the Void]

I consider these products gimmicks and nothing more.

Adjusting headphones to sounds like a particular room is a ridiculous phallacy that no one needs, isn`t useful, but somehow some vst companies are trying to convince people it`s a useful thing.

Headphones are an inherently different listening experience to a room and speakers. The proximity effect is always..... in effect.

Save your money, learn your speakers/headphones, and don`t worry about this kind of crap that will only add confusion and doubt to the process of mixing.

[psicomagia]

I consider these products gimmicks and nothing more.

Adjusting headphones to sounds like a particular room is a ridiculous phallacy that no one needs, isn`t useful, but somehow some vst companies are trying to convince people it`s a useful thing.

Headphones are an inherently different listening experience to a room and speakers. The proximity effect is always..... in effect.

Save your money, learn your speakers/headphones, and don`t worry about this kind of crap that will only add confusion and doubt to the process of mixing.

Well, I'll never know If I don't try the product. But in all honesty I intend to use it to check the mixes more than mixing with headphones, which doesn't work for me anyway. But I tried the Plugin Alliance headphone plugin and it blows CanOpener IMO, that's why I'm interested in checking this. I don't see anything wrong in trying it. I see it as an useful tool because I have other problems in my room that I can't fix at the moment (I need to seal my windows since I live in a really busy and loud street, for example).

If I were not to try something because people are in disbelief, I'd probably never touched Sonarworks, for example.

[Lost to the Void]

I consider these products gimmicks and nothing more.

Adjusting headphones to sounds like a particular room is a ridiculous phallacy that no one needs, isn`t useful, but somehow some vst companies are trying to convince people it`s a useful thing.

Headphones are an inherently different listening experience to a room and speakers. The proximity effect is always..... in effect.

Save your money, learn your speakers/headphones, and don`t worry about this kind of crap that will only add confusion and doubt to the process of mixing.

Well, I'll never know If I don't try the product. But in all honesty I intend to use it to check the mixes more than mixing with headphones, which doesn't work for me anyway. But I tried the Plugin Alliance headphone plugin and it blows CanOpener IMO, that's why I'm interested in checking this. I don't see anything wrong in trying it. I see it as an useful tool because I have other problems in my room that I can't fix at the moment (I need to seal my windows since I live in a really busy and loud street, for example).

If I were not to try something because people are in disbelief, I'd probably never touched Sonarworks, for example.

Sonarworks is based on sound theory.

there is nothing sound or useful about trying to get your headphones to sound like a specific room. Not only will it never work probably, it`s just not useful. I can`t think of one use that would be helpful to me, realistically, in a mixing context.

All you really need to do for headphones is deal with the phantom centre, if it is an obstacle to you, and maybe sort out forward directionality, which generally a lot of these can opener things do anyway. The rest is just magic button bollocks. It`s giving you features you are told are useful, but are in fact, useless.

[psicomagia]

I consider these products gimmicks and nothing more.

Adjusting headphones to sounds like a particular room is a ridiculous phallacy that no one needs, isn`t useful, but somehow some vst companies are trying to convince people it`s a useful thing.

Headphones are an inherently different listening experience to a room and speakers. The proximity effect is always..... in effect.

Save your money, learn your speakers/headphones, and don`t worry about this kind of crap that will only add confusion and doubt to the process of mixing.

Well, I'll never know If I don't try the product. But in all honesty I intend to use it to check the mixes more than mixing with headphones, which doesn't work for me anyway. But I tried the Plugin Alliance headphone plugin and it blows CanOpener IMO, that's why I'm interested in checking this. I don't see anything wrong in trying it. I see it as an useful tool because I have other problems in my room that I can't fix at the moment (I need to seal my windows since I live in a really busy and loud street, for example).

If I were not to try something because people are in disbelief, I'd probably never touched Sonarworks, for example.

Sonarworks is based on sound theory.

there is nothing sound or useful about trying to get your headphones to sound like a specific room. Not only will it never work probably, it`s just not useful. I can`t think of one use that would be helpful to me, realistically, in a mixing context.

All you really need to do for headphones is deal with the phantom centre, if it is an obstacle to you, and maybe sort out forward directionality, which generally a lot of these can opener things do anyway. The rest is just magic button bollocks. It`s giving you features you are told are useful, but are in fact, useless.

I just tried it and thought it was an awesome product and blew Sonarworks in the correction department. Sonarworks sounded way more "phasey" in comparison. I also liked the room simulation in 30%, I made some tests with a mix and it translated better that my headphones with only Sonarworks. As my room is treated but have other issues. It might not be useful to you, but it is to me.

And regarding Sonarworks being based on theory, yes. And the thing is that this product come with their own correction tool for headphones - which sounded way better to me. The problem is that Sonarworks filters are not really great - both for headphones and speakers, I hear a lot of pre-ringing and phase distortion in comparison to Dirac and now Sienna, but to each their own...

This added to the fact that I was totally turned off with the new paid sonarworks update.

[psicomagia]

In the end, I'm not telling anyone to buy it, just to try it. But if you think it's gonna be useless anyway that's fine too.

[Lost to the Void]

I'm not making an argument for Sonarworks, merely that the room correction (I don't use headphone correction) is based on sound theory.

Whereas the idea of turning headphones into different rooms is both pointless and will never represent accurately anyway.


I'll give the demo a go but it's not getting very good reviews.

(I've never had one single issue with phase or preringing with Sonarworks in the mastering room, the opposite. Phase has been tight tight tight).

[psicomagia]

I'm not making an argument for Sonarworks, merely that the room correction (I don't use headphone correction) is based on sound theory.

Whereas the idea of turning headphones into different rooms is both pointless and will never represent accurately anyway.


I'll give the demo a go but it's not getting very good reviews.

(I've never had one single issue with phase or preringing with Sonarworks in the mastering room, the opposite. Phase has been tight tight tight).

Regarding it sounding more "phasey" it was a comment about the comparison between the Acustica correction and the Sonarworks correction for headponhes only. When I A/B'd that was the feeling I was getting when I switched back to Sonarworks.

About the phase issue with the speakers: it definitely made it way clearer and defined than it was without correction. I can hear the transients in a much clearer way. 100%. The thing is that even with the correction I perceived I wasn't getting some of the low end right, thus affecting my judgement in that area. Probably it has to do with some issues - not that bad, but bad - that my room still have, even after treatment. But I found the same correction response for the room tighter with Dirac, for example. I believe it has to do with the difference between the filters. Recently Bob Katz said in a FB group that he isn't happy at all with Sonarworks results, he isn't with dirac either. He says the best is Acourate, I'll definitely sample my room and send them a couple of tracks for them to process and send back to me with the correction. It's gonna be an interesting comparison.

About the rooms, I don't know. I'm still trying it. I definitely feel it's much more comfortable with than without it to mix with headphones. But I guess the thing we should take in consideration is how well it translates. As I said. It probably makes no sense to use it if you already have a proper room to check your stuff. The thing is: what if you don't have it - and you don't have direct access to anything better ? If it works it's definitely a way to check your work. Definitely learning your speakers is fundamental, but what if - even with room correction - you still can't get some frequencies right? For me it's more about it. I don't think it's revolutionary, but as a tool it could definitely help me in what I've just described.

I do get your reaction though.

[Lost to the Void]

Bob is anal to the point of woo these days. He's kinda lost his mind over the last 5 years or so. I take everything he says with a pinch of salt these days.

I've been in 3 different mastering rooms that use Sonarworks now. It's why I ended up using it.

I'm not saying it is the best. But it certainly works very well.
As do the alternatives. They all provide a fine tuning of your monitoring. I'd happily use any of them, I happen to use Sonarworks, with it my mastering has leapt in quality.
So I can only report the difference it makes to me in my day to day business of mastering.

Again no, room referencing in headphones is useless.

It will never emulate a room accurately due to the proximity effect of headphones.
It will only ever be an approximation. Your ears will always know they are listening to an emulation of a space.

And then what? rather than focusing on and fully understanding your environment (a massively important factor in monitoring) all you are doing is adding another layer of confusion and doubt.
"Does it reference well to this approximation of a room I now have in my headphones?"
So then you now have 2 different environments, your own, and the new simulated one, to cast doubts over. Which do you trust? Maybe add another? And another?

The most important aspect of monitoring is consistency.

Understanding how your environment sounds and how it relates to translation. Monitoring at consistent RMS at consistent dbspl, like clockwork, to create and embed your own standard. Ear training.
There isn't a shortcut. You can make it easier by eliminating or lessening biases due to whatever, room, speakers etc, but it really takes a consistent, methodical monitoring process to get real world improvements. Without that it's a bit like putting a pig in a dress.

I also think headphone correction , in terms of EQ etc is sorta crap too.

Unless you get your specific headphones tested (Sonarworks offer this service) the all you are getting is an average....at best.

If you look into the process of headphone measurement, that in itself, is fraught with a lack of consistency in process. One company can test the same headphones as another and get different readings as the process isn't standardised.
Also the outer ear and inner ear become a much more important/crucial part of the process due to headphones beiing over or in the ear. Ask any audiologist about this. Same headphones can be heard differently by different people. The size ofnyour eardrums has quite an effect on sound when at close proximity.
Some software does now account for this and you can set loose parameters based on inner ear size and so on. But it's still a hooky process.

That's why I feel headphone frequency correction fraught with problems. It's why I don't use it. I just learned my headphones really well, and have been using them consistently for 3 years now. Using correction ended up being a distraction and probably introduced more issues.

That's why I say, just correct for crossfeed and phantomncentre if you need to, get some good headphones and learn them.

Canopener, to me, is the best crossfeed software. As long as you turn off the soft start feature.

[borg]

I never bothered with headphone adjusting software before, but was planning to do so once I get the studio properly set up again hopefully later this year (SonarWorks first in mind of course. What else, he, when hanging around here too much?). So, I'm following the discussions with growing interest.
I'm just trying out the Goodhertz Canopener, and it got me somehow confused. I haven't cross referenced with the monitors in an untreated attic, but my first impressions are, that most/all mixes made without Canopener, sound slightly better when Canopener is added later. It sounds rounder, more polished, more 'pro', although a bit less air/sizzle. The difference is not that big, but overall it feels more pleasing. This is using a level matched 'Mix Engineer' preset, and without the soft start.
Now, I started a new track with Canopener from the beginning, and when I reached a number of channels, and felt the body of the track was there, I A/B'ed with and without Canopener, and the difference was huge, like without sounded like total poo, something I would have made 20 years ago.

When trying on existing stuff, I was thinking 'hey man, maybe you learned some things along the way', but after 'composing/mixing into Canopener', I'm not so sure any more...

[Lost to the Void]

I like canopener for its simplicity and it's sound quality.
It deals with the phantom centre, and forward imaging, and that's it. I don't find it too drastic a change to get used to.
With anything to do with monitoring it takes your ears time to learn the sound. Realistically a month or two.

So when people buy a new set of monitors and after 2 days start whining, I'm just thinking "not enough time to be objective".

I've only recently started using canopener. I gave up on crossfeed plugins a while ago. I didn't feel they were really helping me.

But early indications on the mixes I have done with canopener are encouraging.

Mainly it's the crucial mid range frequencies and transients I'm noticing I'm getting a more accurate read on.

Give it a few more weeks of taking mixes up to the mastering room and I'll have a final say. But they really do seem to have got it right.

[borg]

Nice, will be interesting to hear your thoughts! I've yet to try with commercial/mastered music.

[Lost to the Void]

It does seem really good. I understand why it's generally applauded.
Before this I thought TBIsone was probably the best for the whole crossfeed thing.
This just seems much cleaner.
I think rather than just dealing crossfeed as a left/right channel thing, from what I gather, they approach it spectrally. So stereo behaviour is related to frequency making it more natural.
To me it seems to use similar tech to Nugen stereoizer.

With crossfeed things before I seemed to have trouble with mid range transient stuff. It seemed to smear somehow. Fall back into the image.
This seems to keep the centre image tighter. The top end doesn't lose air.

So recently I've been doing these really dense mixes that are really drum centric.
I want everything to sound big and monolithic and old. Like huge collapsing pillars in a canyon, there's loads of reverb and degredation, it's kinda mushy almost.
But I've been carving space into this for some more upfront percussion to really snap and cut through the mix, and be really close to the speakers.
It's really really.hard stuff to mix. Totally pushing my abilities to get these extremes to work together in a mix.
And having all that size and weight and reverb in the mix makes it super hard to mix in my in headphones.
Because everything has to really sit in just the right place in 3 ways, transient detail, frequency and stereo width placement.
I've said this loads but I prefer to make music at night. I'm a night person, my creative juices flow at night, and I love to immerse myself in sound when I make music (but not when I mix), which involves having really loud monitors or headphones.
But with the music I'm making right now, I'm having to spend more time in the day to clean them up on the monitors.
However since I got canopener I seem to have resolved that imaging problem. I really started to notice when I was comparing to my monitors.
I'm not struggling to get the mid range percussion to sit right any more. That centre image is really tight.
It seems to help with reverb judgements too, which are hard to make in headphones.

Yeah, it's encouraging. I certainly recommened headphone people try a demo at least.

[Lost to the Void]

Fuck that was so nerdy.

[PERIAL]

Crossfeed is definitely the no.1 tool for getting a much better mixes out of headphones and Canopener has the most transparent crossfeed I ever heard, it’s even more clean than an analog crossfeed on expensive SPL Phonitors. However, I’m still trying to find out the best settings as I want my music to sound really good also on headphones, so I use crossfeed now just 50% wet.