Listener fatigue

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by SilverEars, Nov 3, 2017.
  1. bigshot
    Isn't Stereophony a magazine that publishes reviews for audiophools?
  2. pinnahertz
    Your definition, then is: "works well on both speakers and headphones (without crossfeed)". That's completely subjective, and thus can never be standardized. Standards must be verifiable objectively.

    Today's tasks included raking and blowing leaves, so I used by headphones with their highly adjustable cross-feed app, and randomly selected tracks from my library of 10k or so. It took about 90 minutes to finish raking, I listened all the time. Never once did I find a single track that, in my opinion, benefitted at all from cross-feed. All were rendered spatially constricted, confined, flat and lifeless in my opinion. For me cross-feed sucked out any sense of immersion, depth, dimension or palpability. That was about 20-30 tracks, genres all over the map, vintages from the early 1970s to this week. My personal experience today resulted in 100% not benefitting from cross-feed.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
    I use FreeSurround and Matrix Mixer on Foobar 2000 to upscale 2.0 music to 7.1 and 3.1 configurations. The best thing in multichannel versus 2.0 is that you don't need to sit dead center.
    bigshot likes this.
  4. bigshot
    I think it's more a problem with making too big of a compromise. If a mix is limited just to what works well in headphones, that eliminates a big chunk of techniques that work well on speakers. You end up with a "lowest common denominator". it would be like saying that you want a 5.1 mix to sound basically the same in 2 channel. That would mean not being able to use the center channel and rears as discrete channels. they could only be ambience. That's like tying your hands.

    Speakers are much more flexible than headphones. It makes sense to mix for the method of reproduction that offers the most opportunities for creative expression. Headphone listeners can add cross feed to taste if they need to make it work for them.

    I really think that DSPs are the future of high end audio. We've solved all the fidelity issues with recorded music. The problem that needs to be addressed is the space around the music.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2017
  5. 71 dB
    I have online discussion board fatique. I am burned out. I need to step back from this board, relax and enjoy life "elsewhere." I apologize for stating my opinions as facts so often. I have to accept the fact that I will never be a guru of anything. I will be loser forever. So, I keep crossfeeding my misery away and others can do things better. Crossfeed is my life and I nearly distroyed one of my only sources of happiness on this board within a few weeks. So stupid of me! From now on you will see fewer of my posts, because I have so little to offfer to the world. For many of you it will be a relief. Enjoy.
  6. castleofargh Contributor
    of course this is your absolute right and the world is big enough not to bother about some forum bickering on ultimate definition of terms. on the other hand, expecting no confrontation on a plateform that is the entire world, that's really overly optimistic. I can't find a dinner table that will not argue to death about something and we here have the biggest dinner table :wink: .

    you keep trying to say that crossfeed is great and right, to a point where even those like me who use some and loved it for years come to think you're exaggerating. on the other hand we could say with a straight face that speakers aren't proper stereo. it's really just a matter of reference.

    -in nature a sound comes from one point not from 2 or more so speakers are wrong that reference that is nature.
    -but mixing and mastering is done on speakers, so the expecting result is make to be played on speakers. so speakers are right in that new reference that is a mastering studio.
    -headphones in that last reference are super wrong without any fix. but on the other hand, they have the potential to be better than speakers if the target was to recreate reality with 1 sound source for each sound, as it mitigates greatly the various crosstalk/crossfeed(depends on delays/distance/angles) . but of course pretty much no albums are made for that purpose so in practice headphones are just the worst stereo playback system to play speaker mastered media. a matter of reference.
    -crossfeed can simulate a more or less simplified version of speaker stereo in a headphone(excluding reverb that would need another trick). but just because it can be seen as an improvement over how wrong headphones are for speaker mixed albums, it doesn't mean you can just forget about everything that is still incorrect. I'm sorry but you've been painting a portrait of crossfeed that's very optimistic, even if we think that you have nailed when and how much attenuation you should apply and the delay you need for your very own head. something that most crossfeed users won't even have if we're thinking typical consumer use.

    you've also clearly taken it way too personally, which is something I don't even criticize as I'm doing it all day long, but it's worth admitting it. @pinnahertz admitted several times that it was a tools and like any tools it could provide help, how much could depend on the album. why aren't you happy with something like that? I'm an avid Xfeed user. nowadays I'm a step up in customization with true stereo convolution and a much more custom FR than just rolling off an area and be done. same for the delay, I believe that I'm now pretty close to what I experience in real life. but even if I still consider all that as just Xfeed, several of the points raised by our fellow dinner members feel relevant to me. Xfeed is kind of your baby, you wish to defend it, ok we all got the message loud and clear. but don't let that turn you into a one sided fanboy when you clearly understand all the points mentioned and decide to fight them on their weakest parts as personal internet bickering, instead of acknowledging what typical consumer Xfeed really is, and that it is not HRTF simulation in the consumer versions of it. and revern also deserve a place at the table, no matter all the good Xfeed can already do on its own.
    like Jim Jeffries says, "we can all do better". I personally do that by not answering to every dumb post I read on the forum. it's a small step and I still feed the trolls a lot each day. but just like crossfeed, steps in the right directions are already progress :wink: .
    Try comparing this record with and without crossfeed

    Crossfeed eats up one of the guitars. Reduction in detail as I had thought.
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
  8. 71 dB
    This is not the type of music I listen to but this is what I think:

    This recording requires pretty mild crossfeed, about -8 dB being proper level. Our hearing is sensitive to channel difference L-R and as crossfeed transforms some of L-R to L+R, the perceived loudness level seems to drop. I think crossfed music should be played a couple decibels louder for equal perceived loudness. Yes, some of the guitar sounds have a lot of L-R information and when this is attenuated in favor of L+R information, it gives an impression of eaten up sound, but that's delusion, as the excessive stereo information causes those sounds be exaggerated without crossfeed and after crossfeed the level is more correct. What happens with loudspeakers? Acoustic crossfeed "eats up" the guitar as well. You just can't "verify" it, because you can't turn acoustic crossfeed off. It's not about the information disappearing, it's about it becoming quieter to your ears.

    Strong crossfeed : -1 to -4 dB
    Moderate crossfeed: -5 to -7 dB
    Weak crossfeed : -8 to -11 dB
    PETEBULL likes this.
  9. bigshot
    The thing about signal processing is that there's no "one-size-fits-all" DSP, and different people are going to have different tastes in how they want the music to sound. That's fine. Nothing wrong with it. It's really good to have the option though. I think more amps should have both DSPs and EQ. I can't imagine listening to my speaker system without either of those things.
    Just use Equalizer APO on your PC. Simple, free, efficient, powerful, supports VST. Building an amp with all this functionality via analog is too damn expensive.
  11. bigshot
    The problem is, an amp is where EQ belongs. Otherwise computer source would be calibrated and player source wouldnt
    Not sure if I understand what you mean by "computer" and "player" if computer IS player.
  13. bigshot
    Most people have more than one source. I have a computer and a blu-ray player. If the EQ is in the amp, one setting would work for both the computer and the blu-ray player. If it's built into the computer, I would have to run everything through the computer and use that as the switcher instead of the AVR. Running video through a computer is an invitation to occasional dropped frame and sound sync problems. My EQ is in my AVR. I just wish it had more bands.

Share This Page