Good article on valves attempts at lowering the bar for graphics
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/...-vr-running-on-a-four-year-old-graphics-card/
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/...-vr-running-on-a-four-year-old-graphics-card/
Rift, Vive, and Virtual Reality
- Thread starter idsn6
- Start date
any idea what kind of sports to prepare for VR?
ages ago i got immersed with Kinect and it make my muscle sore. Keeping your hand floating in mid-air is not tiring but make it feels sore :/
ages ago i got immersed with Kinect and it make my muscle sore. Keeping your hand floating in mid-air is not tiring but make it feels sore :/
Great find. So that confirms 45 -> 90fps re-projection planned for PC.
Jawed
Legend
My IEMs (Final Audio Heaven VIII) are pretty high end and they aren't close to the HD 800 S in transparency (but they are pretty transparent for IEMs). Ironically binaural is a great leveller: the IEMs still reduce the scale of binaural, but the basic quality of binaural still shines through. The positioning is still very precise.
I expect cheap IEMs will lose badly in their reproduction of scale.
I kind of secretly hope that VR will bring about a new era in music recordings: binaural music videos would be the starting point, eventually leading to lots more music being published for binaural consumption (without video). VR is going to put a lot of emphasis on sound and binaural done well is compelling enough on its own.
Rurouni
Veteran
Transparency probably mean all the detail in the audio being reproduced accurately. More transparent means that it is like you're actually there and not listening to a recording. Leveler in this case has nothing to do about audio but probably about binaural will reduce the quality gap between IEM and Headphone. Scale probably means simulating the environment scale as in size.
...
probably... maybe... something like that...
...
probably... maybe... something like that...
Audiophiles use lots of peculiar words to try and describe audio. Wet, dry, punchy, transparent, muddy...all to describe whether the audio has good frequency range and a clean signal. In truth, audiophile literature would probably be the dullest on the planet if not for their obsession with trying to describe non-audio qualities to their hobby!
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
So you agree that being IEMs aren't inherently disfavored for positioning?
Jawed
Legend
Imagine a sphere of sound around your head. With more transparent playback the sphere will seem to be larger and the objects making sounds within that sphere will seem to be closer to life size. The angles between sound sources don't change, no matter how small or large the sphere is.
I would expect very cheap IEMs to render positioning very well. But the sense of scale, the size of that sphere of sound, would be substantially diminished.
I would expect very cheap IEMs to render positioning very well. But the sense of scale, the size of that sphere of sound, would be substantially diminished.
There are elements of the listening experience that are influenced by more than what shows up on a frequency response graph or SnR rating though. Having a headphone that seals off the ear canal changes how you perceive the sound of your own body (both through your body and head directly and externally through the air and into the canal). It removes your ability to hear some amount of environmental acoustics and air movement that you otherwise experience every second of the day. Listening to a good open, over-ear headphone will routinely fool you into thinking you're hearing things from your environment that are actually coming from the headphones, but with an IEM I rarely find that to be the case (even with decent $300+ ones.)
He said a $600+ IEM still reduces the scale of a binaural recording (which should be the most ideal use case for an IEM over a headphone since you're playing back audio that was recorded in roughly the same position of the ear canal.) And of course a simulated head model with game audio isn't going to sound remotely as good as a live recording through an actual model head. The direction dependent high frequency attenuation you get from the HRTF is going to be reproduced to whatever degree of quality that your headphone is capable of, and in that sense an IEM is no different than a fullsized headphone, but there's more factored into your perception of space than that.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
-> Compared to $1500 headphones.
Cost/performance ratio argument still stands.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
No, he said dollar for dollar. As in an IEM that costs the same as an over ear or even on ear set of headphones will have worse audio replication. You need an IEM to be significantly more expensive than an on ear or over ear to achieve similar results, which will likely still be lacking in some areas compared to a cheaper set of over/on ear headphones.
This isn't something new. I used to be a huge proponent of IEMs and I still prefer them for many use cases (passive noise isolation with regards to size is unequalled for IEMs making them excellent for on the go useage compared to closed over ear headphones). But a few years back I got a bit more serious about audio and started to look into it more. There's lots of professional reviews that go into this. I have a 200 USD pair of IEMs that sound almost but not quite as good as my 125 USD over ear headphones (and the IEMs are noticeably less transparent and expansive). In the future I'll stick with IEMs around the 100 USD level as I don't think the ones I got are worth the slight increase in audio quality. Similar to how the value proposition of moving up to better sounding over ear headphones around the 300-500 USD mark isn't quite worth it for me for the slight audio quality increase, although I'd LOVE to have a pair.
Also as I mentioned before the 3D positional audio (as in the positioning of the audio, not necessarily the quality of the audio) will be the same for all 3 (Rift, Vive, PSVR) as long as you use the included headphones. Once you deviate from that you'll lose some accuracy in the positional audio. And what the developer mentioned is that people were far more likely to stop using the included IEMs than they were the over ear headphones on the Rift, thus he expects Rift users in general will get the audio as intended more than the other headsets (due to them using headphones other than the included IEMs). I imagine for the majority of users, however, they won't mind the slightly less accurate positional audio if they even notice it. Similar to how most people can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k on average sized TVs at normal living room viewing distances.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Jawed
Legend
Well, my HD 650, which is much cheaper than my IEMs, has more scale than the IEMs too. IEMs really struggle with transparency/scale.
But after all this talk about how awkward full size headphones are when combined with a VR headset, I have to admit there's a strong chance I will actually use my IEMs (which I didn't think of until it came up in this thread). Note that I am prolly a version 2, or later, VR purchaser, I think there's too much compromise in the kit being delivered this year.
But after all this talk about how awkward full size headphones are when combined with a VR headset, I have to admit there's a strong chance I will actually use my IEMs (which I didn't think of until it came up in this thread). Note that I am prolly a version 2, or later, VR purchaser, I think there's too much compromise in the kit being delivered this year.
Jawed
Legend
Could multiple GPUs split the shadowing work so that they do distinct sub-sets of the lights? And then send the results to their peers.
I'm not sure.
However if you look at slide 13. Its showing the two GPUs @ twice the number of pixels and it seems like its getting similar or better performance there.
It also shows 4 gpu's doing 3-4x the number of pixels and similar performance
Haven't had the chance to look through Vlachos's slides yet, but:
I think the issue would be copy times, and possible risk of bubbles and/or general fragility with timing and latency. Juggling large buffers between cards is not negligible when you consider that every millisecond you wait amounts to 10% of your available frame time. I haven't looked at any numbers recently, but the early VR-SLI beta sdk showed double digital percentage perf differences between 8x/8x and 16x/16x (3.0) pcie SLI configurations just by virtue of the eye buffer copy time from the secondary card back to the primary card. Granted those were pretty large buffers.
Similar threads
