The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
FB360 3.x versus 2.2
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Led's Avatar
FB360 3.x versus 2.2

Hi, I've been playing around with FB360 2.2, as I'm on an earlier version of PT12.
So far it's not that impressive regarding the localisation of sound from the rear vs front. They both sound pretty much the same. I've been using the example session it comes with. I am just monitoring the binaural in headphones. I've got a little zoom that does B format, and converts to binaural on the headphone out of the unit, and even those sound a lot better out of the unit headphone than they do when imported into fb360. In FB360 there is no frequency rolloff with sounds placed behind as I'd expect. Am I doing something incorrectly?

Is there much improvement from 2.2 to v3? I don't really want to download the trial of Ultimate on my main system as everything is rock solid stable and I don't want to mess with it. I might DL onto my macbook to try it out, but was wondering about others experiences with the later FB360, or if there's any setting I should be looking into on V2.2
Thanks
Old 1 day ago
  #2
Gear Maniac
 
Calagan's Avatar
 

Actually, you opened an interesting thread where we could share some feelings about FB 360 workstation (because there's not a lot of infos/forums about it on the net).

I'm using FB 360 v3, and I think I found somewhere that they improved the rear/front localization compared to the v2, but actually I feel the same like you (I need to say I can't compare to the v2 because I never used it).
It's not absolutely the same between front and rear in my case, but it's still not there in my opinion.

Regarding stability, I'm using FB 360 WS V3 on Reaper, on a mac (Sierra) and everything is ok.

Another issue for me is the use of stereo sounds in the spatializer : sometime I can hear some strange phasing artifacts using stereo sounds (it may be something else than phasing, I don't know what it is, but it just sounds bad), and until now I didn't figure out how to improve that because on some sounds it's ok.
Is it the spacing of the sound (far or near of each other) ?
Is it the tonal quality of the sounds used (lot of highs ? lot of lows ?) ?
I don't have any clue, and I would be pleased to have some insight about that from someone who understand what exactly FB workstation is doing to audio for its ambisonic effect.

Last issue, the room modelisation is quite bad in my opinion. It sounds very digital, very harsh, and doesn't give much clues about the room where the action takes place (because you need to set it very low if you want to avoid the digital harshness). It sounds like a bad digital reverb (with only first reflections, so the eventual smoothing of late reflections is even not there).
Using some third party reverb (Breeze, Valhalla, Reflektor - so only good quality stuff) before the spatializer can be tricky too : sometimes it sounds very bad, and I guess it's related to the phasing artifact I'm speaking about when I used stereo sounds.

here are my 2 cents...
I hope someone else can contribute.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump