[pinnahertz]

...or, this example that shows how crossfeed can collapse the otherwise enveloping and dimensional image.

 

[71 dB]

Well, I don't know of a speaker setup that is spatial distortion free, to use your terminology. None are. And that's hardly simple, is it?

It seems our definitions of spatial distortion varies. Mine comes from mr. Linkwitz and according to it speakers can't produce spatial distortion because of acoustic crossfeed which happens always no matter what the setup is. In other words spatial distortion has to do with excessive channel separation (at low frequencies were our spatial hearing uses ITD and assumes mild ILD) and since crossfeeding in effectively reducing channel separation, crossfeed reduces / removes spatial distortion according to this definition.

I suppose your definition is about how accurately the sound image (angles and distances of instruments etc.) resembles the original? If so, a lot of our debating could have been caused by differing definitions of concept "spatial distortion".

 

[71 dB]

...or, this example that shows how crossfeed can collapse the otherwise enveloping and dimensional image.

That's is a very good and headphone-friendly recording with almost no spatial distortion. I would listen to this crossfeed off or with very weak crossfeed, because the spatial information is so on point. To give final judgement of this recording I'd like to hear it with CD quality, but it may belong to the 2 % of recordings without spatial distortion (excessive channel separtion). That's why cross-feeders must have off switch. Yes, even I listen to recordings like this one without cross-feed because you don't fix what isn't broken.

Unfortunately most recordings don't have this kind of spatial properties and I want to use cross-feed because I hate the sensation excessive channel separation makes me suffer. The sensation is kind of like if I wore a vibrating helmet making my head vibrate and the band was midgets playing on my shoulders and touching my ears. Bass sounds "fake" to me if there is too much channel separation. It doesn't have the physicality of large objects vibrating as is the case on real world. Spatial distortion also makes the sound image in my head wrinkled kind of if you watched a movie on a wrinkled silver screen the picture would be distorted. Impulse-like sounds spread all over the sound image. To me cross-feed makes bass more "real", sound image smoother, vibrating helmet go away, band midgets jump from my shoulders to a few feet away from me to and grow in size, impulse-like sounds become steady points in the sound image (triangle, drum etc. is hit in a certain sharp point) and fatique problem goes away. It's more like just listening to the environmental sounds in that sense.

So, that's how I see (hear) cross-feed. Your mileage may vary… …maybe I should feel lucky since cross-feed does so much good for my headphone listening?

 

[pinnahertz]

It seems our definitions of spatial distortion varies. Mine comes from mr. Linkwitz and according to it speakers can't produce spatial distortion because of acoustic crossfeed which happens always no matter what the setup is. In other words spatial distortion has to do with excessive channel separation (at low frequencies were our spatial hearing uses ITD and assumes mild ILD) and since crossfeeding in effectively reducing channel separation, crossfeed reduces / removes spatial distortion according to this definition.

I suppose your definition is about how accurately the sound image (angles and distances of instruments etc.) resembles the original? If so, a lot of our debating could have been caused by differing definitions of concept "spatial distortion".

Not at all. In fact, you're NOT using the Linkwitz definition!

From "Spatial Distortion in Audio":
"Spatial distortion is obvious for earphones when music or voice are perceived between the ears and inside the head." Please note that your cross-feed method doesn't change this at all.

"Even when listening to a binaural recording that was done with microphones in a dummy head it is difficult to localize the orchestra in front and at some distance outside the head. Sources that were to the side, behind or above are more readily externalized, but are perceived closer than they were in reality." So clearly even Binaural doesn't get around spatial distortion, and therefore cannot be the ultimate solution!

"With earphone based systems the perceived distance to the source is usually too close or in the head." Again, your cross-feed method does nothing to change this at all.

"With loudspeaker based systems there is a minimum objective and perceived distance, which is the distance to the nearest loudspeaker." And there we have spatial distortion in loudspeakers. What's the correct minimum distance? If it's not what was intended by the original creators, we have spatial distortion...with speakers!

Need more?

"Spatial distortion is introduced in the production of a recording by the placement and types of microphones used. Distortion can be reduced to some degree in the following mixing and processing stage. Spatial distortion is added during playback depending on the loudspeaker radiation pattern, loudspeaker and listener placement, and the reflective characteristics of the room." Linkwitz clearly indicates there is spatial distortion with speakers. Whose definition are you using?

"Spatial distortion in an audio system is perceived in comparison to one's experience and memory of the characteristics of real acoustic events." How, then, can a recording suffer from spatial distortion when we have no memory of an even created entirely electronically in a studio? There is no memory of the characteristics of the real acoustic event because there was no real acoustic event to begin with. That's true with virtually all pop music from the last 40 years, country from the last 30 years, EDM...all of it...and many other genres as well. But look at classical music. Have you a memory of the specific all and orchestral layout? Are you aware that with most orchestral recordings, nobody except the mixing engineer, has that perspective? Again, no memory of the acoustic event because in the recording it never existed!

"A recording engineer should be in a better position to make spatial distortion judgments, because he has immediate access to the live event. The monitor loudspeakers used and their placement in the room limit what he can hear, if he is even interested in providing an accurate spatial rendering. More likely he is directed by the producer, the performers or by his own ideas as to what the recording should sound like in order to be successful in the market. He becomes artistic and creates a sonic painting that elicits a different reaction from the listener than a documentary recording of the same auditory scene. "

The above is most interesting because it indicates quite clearly that spatial distortion is intentional. IF you had a process that could remove it, you're mucking with what was intended! And you have NO REFERENCE for what is correct.

I could continue this, but I think the point is made. You're not using the Linkwitz definition, you've made up your own. You apply it to just about every recording, by your own made-up statistics, 98%.

I strongly disagree. And so does Linkwitz.

edit: one more late addition from the Linkwitz page, "A large contributor to Auditory Scene distortion is the loudspeaker."

 

[pinnahertz]

That's is a very good and headphone-friendly recording with almost no spatial distortion. I would listen to this crossfeed off or with very weak crossfeed, because the spatial information is so on point.

How on earth would you know if it's distorted or not without knowing what the original was?

To give final judgement of this recording I'd like to hear it with CD quality, but it may belong to the 2 % of recordings without spatial distortion (excessive channel separtion).

No, it belongs to a HUGE group of recordings that have many things in common, including that sort of spatial presentation. 2% is your own made-up figure. The vast majority of classical music is recorded similarly. And yet you'd still use crossfeed!

That's why cross-feeders must have off switch. Yes, even I listen to recordings like this one without cross-feed because you don't fix what isn't broken.

You have now contradicted yourself.

Unfortunately most recordings don't have this kind of spatial properties and I want to use cross-feed because I hate the sensation excessive channel separation makes me suffer.

I've bolded and italicized the portion of your sentence that actually reflects the truth. You hate the sensation of excessive channel separation. You are possibly unique that way. However, that sensation doesn't even begin to fully define spatial distortion (according to Linkwitz), with the foremost being a too-close perspective, or inside-the-head localization, neither of which your cross-feed addresses...at all.

To me cross-feed makes bass more "real", sound image smoother, vibrating helmet go away, band midgets jump from my shoulders to a few feet away from me to and grow in size, impulse-like sounds become steady points in the sound image (triangle, drum etc. is hit in a certain sharp point) and fatique problem goes away. It's more like just listening to the environmental sounds in that sense.

Great! That's your opinion. But you are NOT correcting spatial distortion! You're re-mixing the recording according to your preference. That's it, that's all, nothing more.

So, that's how I see (hear) cross-feed. Your mileage may vary… …maybe I should feel lucky since cross-feed does so much good for my headphone listening?

Yes, and let's just keep it that way.

 

[castleofargh]

I've been a little curious about crossfeed myself, but don't really know enough about it to know if it will help any .
I really don't have a clue on what to do about fatigue. All I know is that it happens , and I lose focus with the music and have to walk away for a few hours. I don't listen extremely loud either. It varies between 60to 75db (with peaks).
What does it for me is trying to keep the sound as a whole. Then the separation starts to work on me.

I'm open to any suggestions that would help. Speakers are a no go in my situation lol.

the big issue is that for headphones, be it the signature or a crossfeed setting, the answer for you might not be the answer for me. part of the signature you perceive as flat comes from signature change created by your own body. when you use a headphone you bypass those changes so ideally the headphone should have them in it's signature to compensate and still deliver a balanced signature for you. the issue their is obvious, I don't have your body. so I'll need a more or less significant change in signature compared to you.
for crossfeed it's the same issue, the amount of attenuation at given frequencies should ideally align with how the sound would be blocked by part of your face, or how it would bounce from your torso... as for the delay for sending the left channel into the right ear, that should ideally be adjusted to your own head and the delay sound in the air take to travel from one ear to the other from a 30° angle sound source(if we decide to mimic speaker position).
which is why there is no great universal signature and great universal crossfeed acclaimed by everybody. we need to set those stuff ourselves and it takes time, patience and ideally a good speaker reference to easily compare what you have on headphone and adjust it.

also why as you can see, there is no consensus on crossfeed, that's because basic crossfeed is and oversimplification of speaker sound on us. so how much benefit you receive is kind of subjective and also a function of the music you're listening to. music mixed and mastered on speaker for speakers aren't providing the proper stereo signal for headphones. that is a fact. crossfeed is IMO a halfway measure(the big idea is right, the application is oversimplified), and as such the value really lies in how bad the music's "imaging" is for you on your headphones. so we're back to custom needs and custom appreciation.

another very subjective opinion: I would run away from long listening sessions with a non EQed HD700(or 800 for that matter).

 

[71 dB]

Great! That's your opinion. But you are NOT correcting spatial distortion! You're re-mixing the recording according to your preference. That's it, that's all, nothing more..

If that was the case then people would be re-mixing their recordings acoustically every time they listen to loudspeakers.

 

[Whazzzup]

If your fatigued have a nap, solved

 

[castleofargh]

If your fatigued have a nap, solved

that works.

 

[71 dB]

How on earth would you know if it's distorted or not without knowing what the original was?

Because I know how bass sounds. I know what smooth means. I know that music is for pleasure, not suffering. Crossfeed make the sound more speaker-like and that's what the music was mixed for in the first place so I know I am going to the right direction even if I don't get the same level of sonic depth than with speakers. That is so difficult that my skills are nowhere near to tackle it, but I can do a lot.

No, it belongs to a HUGE group of recordings that have many things in common, including that sort of spatial presentation. 2% is your own made-up figure. The vast majority of classical music is recorded similarly. And yet you'd still use crossfeed!

2 % of my 1500 CDs is 30 CDs and that's pretty close to how it is. It is a rare occasion when I say "Wow, this CD doesn't have spatial distortion." If most of your CDs are like that example then you probably have a lucky taste in music.

You have now contradicted yourself.

Really? I said 98 % is broken, 2 % is not and I don't fix that 2 % because it's not broken. Where do you see contradictions?

I've bolded and italicized the portion of your sentence that actually reflects the truth. You hate the sensation of excessive channel separation. You are possibly unique that way. However, that sensation doesn't even begin to fully define spatial distortion (according to Linkwitz), with the foremost being a too-close perspective, or inside-the-head localization, neither of which your cross-feed addresses...at all.

I don't think I am unique. People cross-fed long before me, even you did! People around me tend to admit that cross-feed is beneficial.

I thought I got the definition of spatial distortion from Linkwitz since his cross-feeder (actually Linkwitz-Cmoy) was the first I studied. Seems like I got it somewhere else. It was half a decade ago and my memory isn't the best in the world. So, did I get my definition of spatial distortion from Cmoy? Jan Meier?

In my opinion cross-feed does address too-close perspective and inside-the-head localization a bit. Not 100 %, but a little. It kind of enlarges the sonic cloud my head is in so that a lesser percentage of the cloud is inside my head and larger percentage outside. I don't mind sounds inside my head just as I don't mind thoughts inside my head. For people who don't want sounds inside their head my advice is: Don't use headphones! Use speakers!

 

[Guidostrunk]

That's the reason I asked. I know nothing about crossfeed, other than what I've read the last day or so, which piqued my interest. I certainly don't need to go down any rabbit holes either. Lol.

I'll play it safe for now , and get the eq that was suggested a few posts back. I also spent $12 on the mod house mod for the hd700. Fingers crossed that this minimal investment works.

the big issue is that for headphones, be it the signature or a crossfeed setting, the answer for you might not be the answer for me. part of the signature you perceive as flat comes from signature change created by your own body. when you use a headphone you bypass those changes so ideally the headphone should have them in it's signature to compensate and still deliver a balanced signature for you. the issue their is obvious, I don't have your body. so I'll need a more or less significant change in signature compared to you.
for crossfeed it's the same issue, the amount of attenuation at given frequencies should ideally align with how the sound would be blocked by part of your face, or how it would bounce from your torso... as for the delay for sending the left channel into the right ear, that should ideally be adjusted to your own head and the delay sound in the air take to travel from one ear to the other from a 30° angle sound source(if we decide to mimic speaker position).
which is why there is no great universal signature and great universal crossfeed acclaimed by everybody. we need to set those stuff ourselves and it takes time, patience and ideally a good speaker reference to easily compare what you have on headphone and adjust it.

also why as you can see, there is no consensus on crossfeed, that's because basic crossfeed is and oversimplification of speaker sound on us. so how much benefit you receive is kind of subjective and also a function of the music you're listening to. music mixed and mastered on speaker for speakers aren't providing the proper stereo signal for headphones. that is a fact. crossfeed is IMO a halfway measure(the big idea is right, the application is oversimplified), and as such the value really lies in how bad the music's "imaging" is for you on your headphones. so we're back to custom needs and custom appreciation.

another very subjective opinion: I would run away from long listening sessions with a non EQed HD700(or 800 for that matter).

 

[SilverEars]

I've experienced certain tracks to sound odd like certain sounds are compressed on the left and right feeds. Try some of the 60's recordings. I notice it with Beatles recordings.

I have also read from others state that some of the older jazz recordings needs crossfeed for headphones.

Also, a saw a video of tyll talking about target curves, and the resonances caused by under the chin neck curviture area, ear geometry, for the general target curve. The curves targetted for headphones is to come close to 45 degree speaker directions to the ears, etc.. As the speaker directionality changes the curve.

That in particular was interesting since, over ear heaphones and speakers runs into ear exterior geometry and speakers the neck area, etc.. Inears has just the effects of ear canals.

 

[pinnahertz]

If that was the case then people would be re-mixing their recordings acoustically every time they listen to loudspeakers.

That is exactly what happens. Differences in the room acoustics, LP, speaker position, and speakers themselves.

 

[pinnahertz]

Because I know how bass sounds. I know what smooth means. I know that music is for pleasure, not suffering. Crossfeed make the sound more speaker-like and that's what the music was mixed for in the first place so I know I am going to the right direction even if I don't get the same level of sonic depth than with speakers. That is so difficult that my skills are nowhere near to tackle it, but I can do a lot.

In Your Opinion. But you did say "your mileage may vary" too. So which is it?

2 % of my 1500 CDs is 30 CDs and that's pretty close to how it is. It is a rare occasion when I say "Wow, this CD doesn't have spatial distortion." If most of your CDs are like that example then you probably have a lucky taste in music.

And your collection represents that of every other headphone listener in the world? Your statistics are YOURS, not anyone else's. You state your stats like they are global, which gives the wrong impression to readers in general. I didn't cherry-pick the example, it's an easy search in YouTube.

Really? I said 98 % is broken, 2 % is not and I don't fix that 2 % because it's not broken. Where do you see contradictions?

Here: In post #48 you said, " I would listen to this crossfeed off or with very weak crossfeed, because the spatial information is so on point."

And then you said, " I listen to recordings like this one without cross-feed because you don't fix what isn't broken. "

Which is it? With or without?

I don't think I am unique. People cross-fed long before me, even you did! People around me tend to admit that cross-feed is beneficial.

You are unique in your propensity for presenting opinion as fact in a public forum. People around you? Who? And what recording where they listening to at the time?

I thought I got the definition of spatial distortion from Linkwitz since his cross-feeder (actually Linkwitz-Cmoy) was the first I studied. Seems like I got it somewhere else. It was half a decade ago and my memory isn't the best in the world. So, did I get my definition of spatial distortion from Cmoy? Jan Meier?

...or you made it up on your own?

1. In my opinion cross-feed does address too-close perspective and inside-the-head localization a bit. Not 100 %, but a little. It kind of enlarges the sonic cloud my head is in so that a lesser percentage of the cloud is inside my head and larger percentage outside. 2. I don't mind sounds inside my head just as I don't mind thoughts inside my head. 3. For people who don't want sounds inside their head my advice is: Don't use headphones! Use speakers!

1. Thank you for stating it that way. I leaves room for other opinions that disagree. For example, I can't see how reduction of separation enlarges the "sonic cloud". But you're welcome to have your opinion.

2. Which is good because your cross-feed certainly doesn't get the image out of the head. Unfortunately, the image-in-head thing is at the very core of the Linkwitz definition of "spatial distortion".

3. A fine recommendation for head-fi readers.

 

[pinnahertz]

I've experienced certain tracks to sound odd like certain sounds are compressed on the left and right feeds. Try some of the 60's recordings. I notice it with Beatles recordings.
I have also read from others state that some of the older jazz recordings needs crossfeed for headphones.

Yes, certain tracks and recordings benefit from separation reduction, which is mosty what cross-feed does. Nobody's ever discounted that.

Also, a saw a video of tyll talking about target curves, and the resonances caused by under the chin neck curviture area, ear geometry, for the general target curve. The curves targetted for headphones is to come close to 45 degree speaker directions to the ears, etc.. As the speaker directionality changes the curve.

That in particular was interesting since, over ear heaphones and speakers runs into ear exterior geometry and speakers the neck area, etc.. Inears has just the effects of ear canals.

Yes, but all of that has to do with target response curve, not spatial distortion. But matching the response at the ear of a speaker at 45 degrees doesn't change where the image is placed inside the head with headphones.