Did LTT "KILL" True 7.1 Surround Headsets?

[G3NTs]

I am writing this topic as a critique on a episode released 4 years ago, in which Linus and his crew test surround sounds solutions in a rather simplistic methodology. The solutions tested are shown below. Now here is the critique: most headsets are referred to as software solutions. This however sketches an incomplete picture as each software solution is tested with possibly a different headset. Consequently, this favors Dolby Atmos as the best solution cause it is likely tested on the corsair hs50. Which is known for its superior imaging capabilities.

What imaging is:

Imaging qualities are inherent to the audio content; the headphones have to 'reproduce' them rather than 'create' them. They determine how accurately the objects are positioned in the stereo image and how transparent the imaging is.

In other words: it measures the differences between the right and left speaker. This is often measured in both latency and phase delay. Headsets with correct imaging produce identical sounds in both ears at the same time, while bad imaging produces non identical sounds at different delays. Now it might be understandable how imaging can influence surround sound effectiveness and how it incorrectly shows the performance of for example DTS as a surround solution.

Here is how the surround sound should have been compared: Software solutions should have been tested on the same hardware. Eliminating the differences in imaging between headsets. Then each and every hardware solution should have been tested with every possible software solution. Fun fact: did u know that the Razer Tiamat 7.1 is compatible with Dobly Atmos Home Theater?!? Interestingly Razer also warns users about incorrectly setting up the audio on their pc, as not properly enabling surround sound on the computer can result in only 2 out of the 7 audio channels to be properly used by the computer.

 

Final Thoughts:
I really hope this video gets revisited sometime cause it hurts me to see how the industry has changed due to this video. True surround headsets are no longer being produced like they used to, while Dolby Atmos is being referred to as the holy grail. But when it comes down to it, the tests were performed rushed and incomplete. Currently the best way of comparing actual surround is by using https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/changelogs as their tests were performed more accurately. The only thing that they are still missing is the comparison between software solutions.

 

Greetings, G3NTs

Here the video in question: 

 

[mMontana]

I'd wont go viewing the video again, but... 7.1 on headphones IMVHO was a marketing stunt, and in the long term that did not make any sense, as (IMO) 7.1 unless done properly.

 

Now.

Most hardcore audiophiles believe than less is between the source and the loudspeaker, better is for sound fidelity. Adding things (at the same industrial/market price) only lowers the level of the used parts so... it has to be worth for something.

 

Having the most perfect stereo layout, headphones could achieve spatial sound like no other loudspeaker arrangement. Adding more loudspeakers into the headphones lower the speaker level, then still can do something (adding tweeters, for instance). Hardware 7.1, compared with stereo headphones, had lost before start.

Using software implementation for 7.1 is way cheaper, and moves the management of sound positioning from loudspeakers to sound processing. However...

If you don't have soundstreams designed for being optimized coming from different positioning and working speakers... what's the advantage of simulation of having more speakers positioned around you?

Probably better 3d soundstage. Ok. But this can also be done with good and well managed stereo signal. And this is true for "recorded"/"produced" sound from a registration.

 

And when the sound is generated, like in games? Things could become easier: playing a pre-recorded streaming IMHO it's all about the best matching between what was inside the sound engineer at recording and mixing time, with encoding, with decoding. Lottery is not the better term but... it goes close.

When the sound generation system knows (sort of) which kind of loudspeaker you're using, can dynamically change the signal distribution between both channels for create some sort of 3d location. Managing two audio channels, not seven plus sub downsampled to two. A lot of computational power saved.

 

Using patentend technologies for increase the perceived immersion of the listener while consuming content can be a huge upgrade in term of immersion. I don't like that much that technologies, but they've been refined during decades, even when they chop frequencies. 

But having more boxes (a transparent amplifier, a good stereo loudspeaker not colouring sound that much) is a gamechanger in sound dynamics and experience. Even with a headphones amplifier and good high impedence headphones. 

 

Long story short: IMVHO it was BS since the start. But sometimes, company want to surf on BS waves, if this can get them more revenue.

[maplepants]

I don't think they're video on this type of product really mattered.

 

But I don't think the topic is worth revisiting either. Windows 11 now has a bunch of simulated surround for headphones plugins. You'd have to include them, and then you've got games like Senua's Sacrifice which offer a "surround" experience with normal headphones. And most games are designed the same way, with a surround mix designed for speakers and a headphone mix designed for normal 2.0 headphones.

 

The value proposition of these headphones seems tiny, and not worth addressing. 

[Dedayog]

40 minutes ago, G3NTs said:

I am writing this topic as a critique on a episode released 4 years ago, in which Linus and his crew test surround sounds solutions in a rather simplistic methodology. The solutions tested are shown below. Now here is the critique: most headsets are referred to as software solutions. This however sketches an incomplete picture as each software solution is tested with possibly a different headset. Consequently, this favors Dolby Atmos as the best solution cause it is likely tested on the corsair hs50. Which is known for its superior imaging capabilities.

What imaging is:

Imaging qualities are inherent to the audio content; the headphones have to 'reproduce' them rather than 'create' them. They determine how accurately the objects are positioned in the stereo image and how transparent the imaging is.

In other words: it measures the differences between the right and left speaker. This is often measured in both latency and phase delay. Headsets with correct imaging produce identical sounds in both ears at the same time, while bad imaging produces non identical sounds at different delays. Now it might be understandable how imaging can influence surround sound effectiveness and how it incorrectly shows the performance of for example DTS as a surround solution.

Here is how the surround sound should have been compared: Software solutions should have been tested on the same hardware. Eliminating the differences in imaging between headsets. Then each and every hardware solution should have been tested with every possible software solution. Fun fact: did u know that the Razer Tiamat 7.1 is compatible with Dobly Atmos Home Theater?!? Interestingly Razer also warns users about incorrectly setting up the audio on their pc, as not properly enabling surround sound on the computer can result in only 2 out of the 7 audio channels to be properly used by the computer.

 

Final Thoughts:
I really hope this video gets revisited sometime cause it hurts me to see how the industry has changed due to this video. True surround headsets are no longer being produced like they used to, while Dolby Atmos is being referred to as the holy grail. But when it comes down to it, the tests were performed rushed and incomplete. Currently the best way of comparing actual surround is by using https://www.rtings.com/headphones/tests/changelogs as their tests were performed more accurately. The only thing that they are still missing is the comparison between software solutions.

 

Greetings, G3NTs

Here the video in question: 

 

They may have if you think they have some sort of massive control over people.  

 

Or you can objectively understand what headphone surround is and make your own decision.

[Arika]

54 minutes ago, G3NTs said:

it hurts me to see how the industry has changed due to this video.

you are putting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much faith in LTT's power. a single video changing the entire direction of a whole industry?

[redf5]

Answering the question, no, unless you have some data to back it up. Agreed with the necessity of more testing.

[HenrySalayne]

(True) multi-driver "surround" headphones are a lie.

 

For a very simple reason. Sound localization happens mainly with both ears. We "hear" the phase and amplitude differences between the signals of our left and right ear. Reflections and the slight sound changes cause by the shape of our heads and ears help us to "hear" height and distance of signal sources (with much less precision than the direction in the horizontal plane).

Because of this, adding additional drivers to earcups does not create "surround" sound. Only a single ear can hear the driver and the driver is way to close to the ear to be influenced by the shape of our head and ears. It's way - WAY better to use simple stereo headphones and artificially add phase, frequency response, reflections and amplitude changes to localize sound sources ("binaural audio" - example).

 

Not LTT killed "True 7.1 Surround Headsets", but physics and physiology.

[HanZie82]

I had a zalman headphones with 3 drivers in each side.
IT DOES NOT WORK any better then 2 drivers and good software.

You can hardly hear the difference between front and rear driver since they 3 cm from each other away.

(I still have it somewhere its huge, but i connected all drivers together for an immense soundstage with lots of bass. But i already blew a soundcard driving 6 drivers form headphone jack hehehe)

 

 

And by good software i dont mean the nonsense thats ATMOS or whatever, but good binaurial/directional sound.

Humans only have 2 ears anyway.
Only reason you do that (multiple surround channels) with speakers is because they are further away.

 

 

 

So yeah nothing LTT did, just physics like @Dedayogsaid.
It was nonsense crap marketing hype, and im glad its over. Now for only that fake ATMOS to stop, as thats nonsense too.

 

 

edit: this headset: https://bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/Zalman_5.1_ZM-RS6F_Headphones/1/

[tkitch]

100% not a thing.

 

Fake multi speaker audio is just that, fake.  These were destined to die before they ever took off.

 

If for nothing else:  Speaker driver size matters, and trying to put 3 or 4 drivers into a single earcup will limit the size of the primary driver as a result.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

I would say purchasers these days aren't susceptible to gaming gimmicks as much as before. 7.1 audio was a gimmick like the rest. Most people would prefer a good quality headphone with QOL features. If you need a headphone with a better "perceived" soundstage you'd go for a pair of openback headphone. That's why you see a healthy mix of audiophile quality gaming headphones in the market today. 

 

LTT could have done nothing and it'll still turn out the same today.

[Skipple]

This reminds me of that time I got into an argument with a Pop!_OS developer on the existence of "virtual 7.1" in headphones. Fun times. 

[Wintyr]

I have never experienced better sound then my turtle beach back int he day that hade like 3 speakers in each ear was crazy detailed and position accuracy was insane the GSX 1000/1200 does a pretty good job at the same thing but at sacrificing quality for better sound 

[cmndr]

Surround sound headphones have been considered a gimmick for the last 15+ years. 
Go on head-fi and ask about them and get ready to be told you're foolish. 

If you want FULL SURROUND SOUND you need a reasonably large room and a lot of speakers and pricey AVR. 

If you want "pretty solid" - then a good set of headphones gets you pretty close for a lot less cash. 

Trying to go from 2 good drives, 1 per side to like... 8ish drivers in a headphone is just going to mess with audio quality more than it helps. 

 

Context - have had "5.1 surround sound" headphones from turtle beach with 3 drivers in each side. Have had Sennheiser HD800 headphones. 
Have a 7.2.4 atmos surround sound set up in my room. 

Much of the perception of sound localization comes from the time and phase delays from which sound hits each ear. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization

[dilpickle]

They killed themselves.

[GOTSpectrum]

The truth is simply, we have two ears, you only need two sources(for headphones)

 

With the right processing and information it's pretty easy to trick your ears tbh 

[smcoakley]

Yep exactly. Humans only have two audio inputs to begin with. Any spacial perception that we have is just algorithmic trickery in our brains using knowledge about where those inputs are physically located in space and how the outer ear is shaped to pinpoint the very likely position of a sound source. So if you can reverse-engineer those algorithms to add or subtract those compensations in an original sound source piped directly into each input, it will sound just as good (if not better) than multiple physical surround speakers actually physically located in those places. This is almost always done in software, whether the software is running on your computer or on a microprocessor in the audio device itself.

 

Adding a bunch of drivers for "surround" into headphones is, and always was, a gimmick. And I am glad to see this practice slowly die. (Note that multiple drivers for capturing different frequency ranges more accurately without distortion is a valid reason for multiple drivers per ear, which is a separate problem.)

 

That said, Dolby Atmos is a bit shady itself for other, unrelated reasons...

[BobbyJHill]

LTT was far from the only outlet saying this, "true" 7.1 surround headsets was a marketing gimmick.

[RoseLuck462]

7.1 for a headset was a marketing gimmick, they never worked.

[LmnSour]

I like the 7.1 setting on my Soundblaster X3.  Its not "perfect 7.1" but I've found it to accurately portray sound direction in Call of Duty 

 

Using Drop + Sennheiser Pc38x headset.

[divito]

Surround for headphones has always been fake, has nothing to do with LTT.

[DSD27]

This video from Linus tells us that Dolby Atmos actually worked. So while virtual and 7.1 surround sound headphones are a gimmick, are the Dolby Atmos headsets, like the Corsair ones worth it?