[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow I am more than a little bothered that a Headroom spokesperson would write such material without one iota of factual evidence to back this up. Headroom sells crossfeed as a feature, I would say gimmick, and this quote is nothing more than a sales pitch. Everytime I have seen recordings taking place I see lots of headphones. Sure the ultimate mix is determined by the target listener's equipment but these days that is as likely to be a headphone user as a speaker listener. I have a Beach Boys re-issue that points out that it was mixed for monaural AM car radios.

Hey, what Tyll said is correct. Crossfeed is NOT a "gimmick." If it doesn't do anything for you personally, don't use it/buy it.

As a recording engineer, if my original microphone placement was two mics, 8 feet apart, then the best way to play that recording back, with maximum soundstage/imaging fidelity, is to use a pair of stereo speakers placed 8 feet apart, for playback.

If my original recording was made with a coincident pair, or mid-side mic arrangement, then the most accurate soundstage/imaging reproduction on playback will be with headphones. This arrangement is typically called a "binaural" recording and they're quite rare in the industry.

Properly implemented crossfeed is a perfectly valid approach to make the playback of conventionally and or multi-mic'd recordings more pleasant, natural, and listenable when played back through headphones.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerophase I think the moral may be that it is objective - there is science behind it that tries to solve a problem, but in the end it's also subjective, because it boils down to personal taste. Whether it be an issue with source, music, amplification, cans, or even psychology, it's hard to say. I've rarely seen a double blind test performed here, and I think that's great. What sounds good to you and why? I think it's been made obvious why it sounds good to some, and like nothing has changed to others. Without trying to play thread police too much, I do still have a huge interest in the questions posted about cross*TALK*. At what point does crosstalk become noticeable for people? Still looking at the PIMETA's graph and technically speaking, is this something that the average ear could pick up? I've searched laboriously and I haven't found any detail on this topic. The general consensus is "less is better" but there isn't an explanation for why or what at threshold it would really start to matter. The PIMETA lowered crosstalk considerably versus the META42 design, but in reviews people have said they can't hear a bit of difference in soundstage. Also, I won't claim to be able to read these graphs correctly, but it would appear that the proper channel's data is about 5-8 times louder than the crosstalk data. Would a proper analogy be someone trying to have a conversation with you at normal volume, at normal range (60db) in the middle of a loud concert (110db+)? Thanks again for all the responses!

In terms of the audibility of crosstalk...
It depends upon how that crosstalk is manifested. If for example, it is the result of flabby supply rail in the amp, then it could be very audible.

Keep in mind that human hearing, like sight, is quite accommodating/forgiving. Our brains are pattern detectors & difference detectors. The brain likes to find recognizable/familiar patterns in what we see and hear. Further, our sense of "absolutes" when it comes to sight and sound are typically very poor.

Is the average person aware of the drastic differences in color temperature that occur ever day from sunrise to mid day to sunset? To the average, untrained person, the color reflected from any white surface looks absolutely the same from morning to night. If one were to take multiple uncorrected color photographs of the same scene from morning to night, looking at those photographs, one would notice drastic and profound differences in the color temperature of everything in the scene.

Same thing with recognizing sonic differences. Given a little time, the typical untrained ear will accommodate to a fairly wide range of sonic warmth or coolness and interpret all those differences as normal/natural with no differences noted.

It takes a trained/experienced eye and ear to recognize deviation from these absolutes without the benefit of immediate "relative" comparison.

Where was I going with all of this???

Oh yes, when one is listening to reproduced sound in the absence of a reference standard (live performance) it becomes easy for the brain to accommodate. Shortly, one can perceive even a very flawed presentation as normal and accurate.

The ear/brain is subject to obfuscation errors in interpretation. When one is listening to reproduced sound, again in the absence of the reference standard, distortions are much less obvious in the presence of a complex musical waveform than they are, say in the presence of simple sine waves or even white or pink noise, depending upon the type of distortion being detected.

In the presence of music, one may not notice crosstalk distortion even if it is only 10db below program level. The same distortion level would be far more detectable if you were reproducing a 6kHz sine wave on one channel while reproducing a 100Hz sine wave on the other. In the case of listening to these sine tones, most people would easily hear the same crosstalk distortions even at 40db or more below program level. That’s a 1000 times better ability to detect the same type of distortion, with just a change on program material. Why? Your brain wants to make sense of what you hear, so if the program material is music, your brain will fill in gaps, make up differences and ignore sonic anomalies that don’t fit the “pattern” (the music piece you’re listening to)

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg As I previously said, I have (and had) amps equipped with a crossfeed feature. But, when I switch back and forth, in order to compare use of crossfeed, and no crossfeed, I hear no (or almost no) difference. Why all of this discussion regarding a feature that is hardly, if at all, perceptible?

Mike,
As I illustrated in my post above, audibility is dependent upon a number of things. With the right program material/performance, crossfeed is VERY audible, and a very desirable sonic improvement for many.

 

[TheSloth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill You're right and i don't want to derail the thread, that was a little ironic comment but haven't you noticed that it's only (or mostly) solid-state/op-amp headphone amps which carry this kind of device?

HeadRoom Millet Hybrid. Of course, the crossfeed is still SS, but it's a 'tubey' sounding amp!

To build a tube version of HeadRoom's crossfeed circuit would be ridiculously complicated, and the coloration of the tube would make such a mess of the signal (it would go through 3 sets of active tube stages) as to make it pointless. Only the very, very best tube designs are basically neutral, with the vast majority introducting large amounts of enjoyable distortion. To crossfeed distortion upon distortion would probably result in something unlistenable. The fact that that distortion is also often non-linear means that the results of a given circuit would be inherently more unpredictable than with an equivalent solid state design. I'm not sure that the reasoning is anything to do with the fact that tubes somehow make up for the lack of spatial cues.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow You just keep repeating this gross generalization. How can you possibly make such a claim? You have anot got and cannot get evidence as to the purposes and standards for ALL recordings. ! Everyone is free to listen to what they want, but don't mislead people with claims that there is something "more right" about crossfeed. This is just a commercial sales pitch.

Tyll is on solid ground here. He doesn't need me or any one else to defend his position because as he said, there is sufficient data to back up what he said. You're just ignorant of that body of knowledge. Do some homework.

 

[Mastergill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSloth HeadRoom Millet Hybrid. Of course, the crossfeed is still SS, but it's a 'tubey' sounding amp! To build a tube version of HeadRoom's crossfeed circuit would be ridiculously complicated, and the coloration of the tube would make such a mess of the signal (it would go through 3 sets of active tube stages) as to make it pointless. Only the very, very best tube designs are basically neutral, with the vast majority introducting large amounts of enjoyable distortion. To crossfeed distortion upon distortion would probably result in something unlistenable. The fact that that distortion is also often non-linear means that the results of a given circuit would be inherently more unpredictable than with an equivalent solid state design. I'm not sure that the reasoning is anything to do with the fact that tubes somehow make up for the lack of spatial cues.

You don't get it. Of course i didn't meant building tube based crossfeed, LOL!

I meant that tubes gears are famous for real 3D imaging, especially triode amplification. This is certainly why you don't see any crossfeed implemented with pure tube headphone amps. There's no need for that. Thinking of that kind of signal processing associated with my 300B is such an heresy that i'm shaking in fear LOL, you have no idea!

But if you like crossfeed and that kind of artifact more power to you, hopefully i don't feel like i'm listenning "dual mono" with my headphone nor i have a brick wall build inside my skull.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill You don't get it. Of course i didn't meant building tube based crossfeed, LOL! I meant that tubes gears are famous for real 3D imaging, especially triode amplification. This is certainly why you don't see any crossfeed implemented with pure tube headphone amps. There's no need for that. Thinking of that kind of signal processing associated with my 300B is such an heresy that i'm shaking in fear LOL, you have no idea! But if you like crossfeed and that kind of artifact more power to you, hopefully i don't feel like i'm listenning "dual mono" with my headphone nor i have a brick wall build inside my skull.

Much of the illusion of 3d space that you hear with your amp is just that, an illusion. That's OK. Enjoy it! Enjoy the music!

Truth be known, "loudness compensation" circuits, when used appropriately, enhance the realism of the listening experience.

"How can I say that?" you ask?

When you listen to any program material at loudness levels less than that of the live performance, you are grossly distorting the signal as the performers originally intended it to be heard. The human ears' response to sound is not at all linear. Our ears are much more sensitive to midrange sound at lower amplitude levels than they are are, at say, 95db. So, if you listen to a "flat" (accurately reproproduced) program at less that live levels, you will NOT be hearing the performance anywhere near what the creators of that performance intended. A loudness compensation circuit boosts the low and high frequencies to compensate for the non linearity of the human ear at low listening levels.

Do you always listen to your headphone rig at live levels? I doubt it. You would go deaf in short order. If you listen at reduced levels, you are doing violence to the original signal and depriving yourself of the enjoymnent of the performance. What to do? Allow yourself to benefit from a "gimmick" as you call it. Preserve your hearing, make the perception of the playback more accurate by employing the "gimmick" developed at Bell Labs on the '30s.

Enjoy the music!

Signal processed or not! Just don't delude yourself with what reality is and is not.

 

[Mastergill]

Well in my experience you got a better 'illusion' of 3D space with tube's gear due to the inherent simplicity of these designs ----> More tiny 'space cue' captured by the mics are allowed to go through the audio chain.

Your comment about listenning level are very true but are you sure your reference to live level is really accurate? Since the music we listen at home has been recorded and mixed/mastered/monitored in the studio, i would better listen to the same level the guy used in the studio, (there a recent thread on Gearslutz about that) which seems to be around 85/90 dB on 'average'.

Enjoy your music too, kwkarth, i have to say that i really appreciate your input on this board.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mastergill Well in my experience you got a better 'illusion' of 3D space with tube's gear due to the inherent simplicity of these designs ----> More tiny 'space cue' captured by the mics are allowed to go through the audio chain. Your comment about listenning level are very true but are you sure your reference to live level is really accurate? Since the music we listen at home has been recorded and mixed/mastered/monitored in the studio, i would better listen to the same level the guy used in the studio, (there a recent thread on Gearslutz about that) which seems to be around 85/90 dB on 'average'. Enjoy your music too, kwkarth, i have to say that i really appreciate your input on this board.

The reference to "live" levels is going to vary a great deal depending upon the performance obviously. The whole point I was trying to make was that this whole idea of realism is, in many cases, largly a psychoacoustic illusion.

This is particularly true with any electronic, multi-mic'd, or studio recording. So, yes, I want my reproduction chain to be capable of accurate (what goes in - comes out) reproduction, but when the occasion occurs, I won't deprive myself of the greater enjoyment provided by various electronic "enhancements" that actually, do in many cases, contribute to the illusion of reality. Thanks for the kind words Mastergill, and happy listening!

 

[warpdriver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow You just keep repeating this gross generalization. How can you possibly make such a claim? You have anot got and cannot get evidence as to the purposes and standards for ALL recordings. !

Please. Give me a break. There are basic pyschoacoustic principles at work here, if you don't take the time to understand those basic differences for yourself, please don't waste anybody's time with your baseless (and rather rude) accusations. Research in HTRF is well covered in many IEEE papers. A crossfeed processor is an attempt at solving a known problem, a problem domain which is well documented. There are other pyschoacoustic processors sold by other companies. AKG, Dolby and others have also implementations of processors to solve the same problem.

Recording studios use speakers for mastering and mixing. You've obviously never been near a real recording studio. Again do some research. If you are going to be an *** about this topic, at least try to be an informed ***

 

[jlo]

I understand those who don't want to spoil their music with processors aso...
But I think that crossfeed, when really adapted to your ears and headphones, is a step to better fidelity, and doesn't screw anything.
As somebody already mentioned above, check http://www.ohl.to/interests-in-audio...or-headphones/
You can try your own parameters and easily compare with/without crossfeed

 

[Mastergill]

Some thought i had after a good listenning session last night. I don't understand why you want to reproduce a 'speaker sound' with your headphone, both have their strength and weakness, and ironically i've found that perception of the original size, ambience...etc, the actual soundstage with all spacial cues can be felt in a way that's amazing and truly unique with headphone because of one very important thing, there's no room interaction with the reproduced soundfield. Every serious headphone listener knows that.

There's lot of talk about scientific studies and theory from crossfeed proponents but IMO the real world is sometimes different especially when you talk about sound reproduction. Like when you say music is mixed for speakers so it works good only with speakers. This is too simplistic.
Don't forget that this music is mixed and mastered in carefully acoustically treated room and fact is that the original works by the sound engineer will be altered in most audiophile listenning room, where unfortunately less effort has been made in room treatment. Few audiophiles achieve a very realistic stereo soundstage with speakers.

Fact is that you can have a much more accurate overal sonic balance, which include a real sense of the original soundfield with headphones. The recording is reproduced in a 'immaculate' way without nasty room interaction. This is invaluable.

You also cannot argue that adding more circuitry will be benefit for the sound reproduction, no way. I'm not kidding when i say "my precious audio signal", i've spent a lot to achieve sonic perfection LOL!. No, more seriously, i've understood that when music is converted to electricity, you really have to take care of this electric signal, this is not vulgar battery juice and it's quite a miracle what all this signal can carry about sonic precision once converted back into sound waves.

About binaural recording. This is a myth that it's the best solution for headphones. This is a very limited recording technique. This is good for ambience/nature recording or very small acoustical ensemble and IMO this technique is the best when mixed with conventional recording like with some Pink Floyd and Roger Waters records, - Final Cut or Pros & Cons...- They've used a dummy head for the ambience track(s) which give a real sense of holophonic sound and it works really good with speakers as with headphones.

You will never get a real sense of depth with headphones, there's no room for the sound to 'develop'. You are surrounded by the drivers, but this give an immersion into the music that can be freaking addictive. This is a different sonic presentation. Now if you feel too much separation, a gap, from the left and right channel, there's a problem somewhere in your audio chain. A crossfeed is a poor way to fix that. This is not a high-end solution.

Just my 2 cents, sorry for my poor writing skills, hope you get my points.