Confusion about surround sound headsets

So I have a laptop with Creative Sound Blaster Cinema software which, apparently, allows you to connect a stereo headset and experience surround sound.

Now, I know there are 2 main types of surround sound headsets - true and virtual. Virtual being software generated surround sound and true being an array of speakers in each earcup.

What I believe I have seems to be some sort of 3rd type of surround sound, where the virtualization is done within the computer, allowing a stereo headset to produce surround sound without any peripheral processing (that is, no processing done within the headset itself).

So now I'm wondering whether it would make sense to connect a surround-sound headset to my computer, or would this be a total waste of money?

 

ID say if you have the ability to go with an analog 5.1 wired headphone then you can leave the processing to the sound card, however I'd recommend a proper stereo headset with a good soundstage and input processing if you really need to .

 

You have it backwards. You have two ears. For true surround sound while wearing headphones, you need one speaker per ear. Anything else is a complete gimmick that you should not spend money on.

 

Actually, it turns out that my msi GT70's sound card doesn't fully support surround sound headsets (true surround) because you have to connect it in a stupid way:

Front Speakers -> Headphone Jack, Centre Speakers & Subwoofer -> Microphone Jack, Rear (Surround) Speakers -> Line-In and then the Microphone wouldn't be connected and the Line-Out would be left empty. I know I could re-map Line-Out to accommodate the microphone, but I don't want to deal with RegEdit stuff because it's too lengthy and complicated.

So now I'm investigating the alleged virtual surround sound that my Sound Blaster Cinema utility claims to produce. However, when I connected a stereo headset, there is no surround sound.... has anyone ever actually witnessed a working utility that takes surround sound from a game, translates it into differential timing (which is required to trick your ears into perceiving tonal direction) and then allows you to experience surround sound using a stereo headset?

I'm not so sure that you're right about this, let me tell you why.

Trying listening to this file: Virtual Barber Shop (Audio...use headphones, close ur eyes) - YouTube using normal earbuds/earphone/stereo headset. You will find that the sensation of surround sound is created by the audio file itself because it slightly modifies the timing of the sound delivered to each ear. What you are hearing is virtual surround sound.

Now, true surround sound is generated by multiple speakers for each ear, since each speaker will be angled differently in order to direct the sound waves at different sections of your ear, which in turn will change the timing that each signal reaches your tympani and gets transduced into a neural signal. So yes, multiple speakers for one ear CAN create tonal direction and it NOT a gimmick. It's equivalent in getting the job done to virtual surround sound. So it's only a gimmick for people who pay extra money for it. But if you can get a true surround sound headset on sale for cheaper than a virtual surround sound headset, then by all means!

 

The primary method of determining sound location in the horizontal plane is by your brain comparing timing and level differences of the same sound source being heard in each ear. With the right software, processing power, and fine tuning to the individual, stereo headphones can reproduce this 100% authentically.

There is just one small problem with that, that you can't determine if the sound source is in front of you or behind you. A single ear can kind of determine if the sound is coming from in front of or from behind the head. This isn't a real big deal when playing a computer game since you can use your eyes and your brain can guess pretty well, meaning that there is no difference.

A single ear is almost entirely incapable of determining sound location. Our brains determine sound location almost entirely on the difference between what the two ears hear. Each ear has only a single timpanic membrane to stimulate. All that is needed is a single speaker to stimulate it.

 

Ok, so now that we agree on the anatomy, do we agree that both virtual and true surround sound headsets will get the job done because:

1. Virtual surround sound headsets, with 1 speaker per ear, will create the illusion of surround sound by delivering a slightly modified frequency and intensity to each ear

2. True surround sound headsets, with multiple speakers per ear, accomplish the same thing by firing each speaker at a slightly different time

And could we return to my original question, which was whether it is possible for the processing necessary to create virtual surround sound, can be done by the sound card (which is Msi's claim) so that typical stereo headsets will play virtual surround sound without any external processing by the headset itself?

 

Yes. But it doesn't mean it'll necessarily be any good.

 

I think you created the environment for argument when you infer that the stereo pair is capable of surround sound in the traditional sense. The answer is no.

For example, under certain conditions one speaker bouncing sound off a wall can be classified surround sound--but therein lies the confusion: what you're getting is simulated surround sounds--a substitute. If you like it, keep it. But keep in mind that true surround sound needs space and distance.

It's like when people refer to white chocolate, or soy milk. All of which are acceptable substitutes, but none of which are the genuine items.

 

This comment appears to disregard the whole discussion about true vs virtual (which you've chosen to call "simulated") surround sound. It has already been established that 2 speakers can be used to simate surround sound. What I'm saying is that msi claims that the sound blaster cinema utility will do this, while experience dictates that it does not.

 

Yeah. And I've also answered the question.

Whatever MSI's doing may work, but how well it works is down to the algorithm and the implementation. e.g. Asus's Dolby Headphone implementations on their flagship soundcards stink, no matter what headphone you use.

 

Ok, I had read your answer, although I was hoping someone who's used the Sound Blaster Cinema utility would chime in and let me know whether it should work specifically with that equipment. Your "yes" applied to my question in a broader sense, that sound-card virtualization of surround sound is possible. I would like to know, however, whether Sound Blaster Cinema has successfully done this for ANYONE, or are they just branding it "capable" of doing it even though it really doesn't? I mean, you say that the processing can be done by the sound card but it will suck... but where do you draw the line between "sucks" and "doesn't work at all"?

 

If your current virtual surround sound software sucks, why not try something else? Razer Surround is free until 2014 and works just as well as the best software surround solutions such as Creative X-Fi CMSS3D and Dolby Headphone.

Razer Surround Personalized 7.1 Gaming Audio Software - Razer United States

 

Another alternative - I haven't tried MyEars yet, but it appears to be customised HRTF - which is the most effective way to do virtual 3D.

MyEars™- 3d Audio & Surround Sound Headphones System - Personal Audio

Most of the solutions on the market are based around a reference HRTF model (i.e. an 'average head/ear' calibration for the HRTF model) and the simple fact is that no-one's head/ears is reference.

 

Razer Surround is also customized HRTF since you calibrate it to your liking during setup. It's not just some one-size-fits-all, turn-it-on-or-off approach like what some of the other 3D sound software I've used do.

 

Hmmm. Didn't know about that one. Could they be licensing MyEars?

 

No idea. It doesn't say anywhere.

Big difference is Razer Surround is free until January 1, 2014, when it will go up to $20. So get it before then. Looks like MyEars is also $20-$30 with a free 14-day trial.

 

Hey thanks, so if using the software you've mentioned, I guess a headset like the Logitech G35 or Astro A40 would be unnecessary eh? (Since they produce their own surround(

 

You shouldn't be getting those anyway if you really care about sound quality. A good pair of stereo headphones and a cheap clip-on mic along with Razer Surround will get you surround sound along with way better audio quality than the gaming headsets at the same price.

 

Yup, but I do like the convenience of a wireless headset though. For sound quality, my Sennheiser and AudioTechnica headphones destroy my Corsair headset, but convenience and ok sound also have their place when I'm gaming.

 

If all you care about is gaming and you just want a throw-on headset, a G35 for example will be superior to many a better-sounding headphone working with some virtual surround implemented soundcards in a game that supports 3D audio properly. (And just to preempt Vicious appearing with his 'I threw my Logitech into the trash' statement, you never owned a G35) I hooked up my Sennheiser Orpheus to the Asus STX once and went through Crysis, the G35 destroyed the combo for placement accuracy and 3D layering.

I do have to say the Razer demo doesn't knock my socks off, even given that they've got a default set (but then so has the G35 / Asus STX / Creative Recon3D). I guess I'll have to subscribe and check it out.

 

Essentially, yes. Though for reasons stated above you may still want to get a dedicated headset. But in your specific case where you were intending to use the build-in surround of the soundcard, it's probably undoubted that the Razer/MyEars will get you better results - but I'm saying that with a caveat until I've actually checked it out for myself.

 

Awesome, lots of new information here.

All the circumaural headphones or headset would be used for would be movies and games. I -never- listen to music. I really can't call myself an audiophile. However, it is still really important to me that games and movies sound stellar, which will require headphones that would be used by someone who listens to a lot of music and cares deeply about sound quality.

So yes, I will try this Razer software and compare it with MyEars. If neither of those produces results comparable to that iconic barber shop sound file on Youtube, then I will look into something like the Logitech G35, since you said it will offer better virtual surround sound than a stereo headset + PC processing combination.

Lastly, the G35 uses up a USB port. The Astro A40 plugs into the 3.5mm jack. Yet both of them process the virtual sound sound internally and don't rely on the PC they are connected to. Any thoughts on what's better in terms of an audio connection? Doesn't 3.5mm output an analog signal while USB outputs digital?

 

Audiophiles might tell you that you get a much higher quality of sound from a 3.5mm jack compared to USB. Personally, I have found that a USB headset will offer good, but not excellent audio quality. Why that is the case I am not entirely sure. I used to own a pair of G35's, and suffice to say after switching to my current pair of Sennheisers (HD 285, not really the best pair), there is a definite difference in audio quality. Mids and Highs are clearer. Lows are weaker.

My advice is stick with the audio jack.

 

Ok, so I discovered some of my initial claims were a tad exaggerative.

I tried out Razer Surround Personalized 7.1 Gaming Audio Software and it's rather good, quite a bit better than Sound Blaster Cinema. After calibrating the software and running the test, all positional audio seemed accurate. Then I loaded up The Witcher 2 and stood next to a waterfall, had my room mate take the mouse and do 360's while I close my eyes and try to point to the waterfall, wherever it may be. Indeed, the positional audio was fairly accurate, although when the sound is coming from directly behind you (that is, not rear left or rear right, but really just a full 180degrees behind you, it becomes indistinguishable from sound directly in front of you, albeit with a slight volume difference).

I played with Sound Blaster Cinema and discovered that it's not TOTAL garbage, it does actually do a little something, but not nearly anything clear or accurate enough to actually be useful in-game.

Again, I'm always referring to the Barber Shop audio on Youtube because that files PROVES that every direction can be accurately reproduced virtually.

So I guess the configuration of great stereo headset + PC virtual surround sound is out the window.

Now it's just a matter of finding some virtual surround sound headsets that support the 3.5mm jacks (since mine are gold plated and I don't want to waste a USB port).

 

You won't get what your're after because the end results are essentially the same. The best positional audio experience would be to have a 5.1 or 7.1 home theater setup with the satellite speakers placed in the appropriate locations. Then you can really distinguish between sounds coming from in front of or behind you and such. If you want a headset, then I'll reiterate that getting a good pair of stereo non-gaming headphones like a Sennheiser or Audio-Technica along with a cheap clip-on mic and Razer Surround is your best bet. Razer Surround is among the best if not the best software surround solution available with its user calibration and other processing capabilities, and it's free. It's what enables virtual surround on Razer's own gaming headsets, although admittedly their audio quality sucks. The sad truth is that so many people believe in the gimmick that is the "gaming headset." They are just low-quality drivers with the equalization all messed-up to emphasize bass at the expense of mids and highs which actually hurts your positional awareness in games not to mention sounding like poo outside of them.

 

Um... the emphasis on specific low frequencies of some of the better headsets use built-in features of the codecs which allow for transducer-specific effects. Which is why they're really difficult to replicate on a regular headset + soundcard. Assuming we're talking gaming-first, there are still definite reasons for going with some of the (USB) gaming headsets out there.

I'm going to have to check out Razer Surround and do 'the Crysis test' again. OP, if you wait a few days I can update.

 

Thanks, let me know what you find.

In the meantime, I found this article (or maybe one of you guys in this thread referred it, can't remember) and in the preamble before delving into the reviews for individual products, it mentions what octiceps has been saying about how headphones can be better than a headset: Mad Lust Envy's Headphone Gaming Guide: (Updated 9/2/2013: Sony MA900 added)

One thing this reviewer has been doing that I find really confusing though. He talks about how he uses Headphones + Dolby Surround (Instead of Razer Surround) + Mixamp by Astro. I'm a little confused by this as it seems redundant, but there must be some merit to it since this guy who write the article knows way more than I. If using a utility like Dolby or Razer for the virtual surround, why would you have a mixamp between the computer and the headphones?

(The guy's a console gamer, don't know if that makes any difference for this question)

 

Three things to keep in mind here:

1) Directional sound cues are represented by mid and high frequency sounds.

2) A set of headphones that have superior mid and high frequency sound will most likely be targeted at audiophiles, who will require 3.5mm analog input so that they can connect the audio device to any audio source. The sound quality of headphones is correlated to 3.5mm / USB input. It is not caused by 3.5mm / USB input.

Hypothetically, you could make a high-end pair of audiophile-grade headphones that had USB input. But nobody will do that, because very few people would buy them.


3) Audiophiles and gamers have different priorities. Audiophiles will want balanced, neutral sound to reproduce a 2-channel audio recording as accurately as possible. Gamers want "fun" sound and directional audio support. That often means that you want intentionally unbalanced sound to achieve that, by emphasizing bass frequencies (for "fun" sounding explosions).

Don't throw it out the window quite yet. What kind of headphones are you using?

To really get the most out of virtual surround sound, you want headphones that emphasize clarity in the mid-to-high frequencies. And you're most likely to find that in entry-level audiophone headphones. If you are using headphones intended for computer use, then they will most likely lack the clarity you need to really get the most out of surround sound.

Dolby Headphone, Razer Surround, Creative CMSS3D Headphone... they are just different implementations of virtual surround sound by different manufacturers. They all try to do the same concept... they all take a source 5.1-channel input audio signal, process that signal to calculate what your left and right ears SHOULD hear if you truly had a surround sound setup, and output that calculated processed sound signal into 2.0-channel stereo headphones.

Up until recently, most of these virtual surround processing technologies were baked into hardware. They either were built directly into USB headsets, or built into external plug-in devices like an Astro MixAmp or Turtle Beach Earforce DSS (both of which use Dolby Headphone as their virtual surround processing). So you had to buy an actual device of some sort (headphones or sound processor) to get access to virtual surround sound.

Razer Surround is the first widely-available virtual surround sound driver that is baked into a piece of Windows 7/8 software. The reason you hear so much about it is because it's free(or donation-based) for the rest of 2013, doesn't require you to buy any additional hardware above what you already own, and it does a pretty good job at emulating surround sound.

So to answer your question... no, you would not use multiple surround sound technologies (e.g. Razer Surround + Astro MixAmp). You would choose to use one or the other to handle the virtual surround sound processing.