[71 dB]

I like a little crossfeed in my headphones. With speakers your ears get so much more additional information from the cross-channels, it would seem to me that headphones will always exaggerate the separation by comparison. I really like the Meyer crossfeed plugin for Foobar2000 (I'm using it now).

If anyone has any observations about the relative merits of the Meyer crossfeed plugin in Foobar2000 I'd be interested.

On my Behringer DEQ2496 DSP you can narrow the stereo image for headpnone listening in pretty fine increments, and adjust other crossfeed variables as well. Narrowing it just a little goes a long way toward me enjoying the music better. YMMV.

If anyone has any observations on using the Behringer DEQ2496 for crossfeed I'd be very interested to hear it.

I have never used Foobar2000 and it's crossfeeders, but I used Vox player which has three crossfeed options (Defaulf, Chu Moy and Jan Meier). Most of the time however, I used crossfeeders (based on Linkwitz-Chu Moy "X"-topology) incorporated into my DIY headphone adapters fed by my AV amp like speakers. That way I don't need headphone amp so it's very cost effective. I also have a tiny DIY Meier-Crossfeeder available between the pre-out and main-in connectors of my AV amp.

Jan Meier is a "H"-topology crossfeeder meaning it has different kind of sound than "X"-topology crossfeeders. "H"-topology crossfeeders sound more aggressive and wide. The sound is spead from left to right depending on the spatial information of the original signal, while "X"-topology crossfeeders emphasize ±30° angles simulating speakers. I prefer "X"-topology for it's softer and calm nature, but it really depends on the music style which crossfeeder topology is optimum. In winter 2017 I build a "wide crossfeeder", a variation of the standard Linkwitz-Chu Moy that simulates speakers that are at ±90° angles. Because the sound is "wide", this "wide crossfeeder" works really nicely with movie surround sound, but the downside is it lacks the forward sound feel stardard Linkwitz-Chu Moy has. Center sounds are located near your nose!

The ability to adjust crossfeed level is very important, because recordings are not the same regarding excessive stereophony. Some recordings don't need crossfeed at all, some just a little bit and some "ping pong" recordings need MASSIVE crossfeeding. Try different settings and trust your ears. It takes a minute or two for ears to adjust to crossfeed properly so don't jugde after 5 seconds. Just as there is speed blindness, there is excessive stereophony deafness. It means after turning crossfeed on, the sound may sound too narrow for a while, but after about a minute or so spatial hearing adjusts to it. That's why even those who like crossfeed, tend to prefer mild crossfeed on everything, even when strong crossfeed is called for.

I don't know Behringer DEQ2496 DSP, but it seems it's just basic stereo separation adjust which is not proper crossfeed at all.

 

[71 dB]

2. No, ILD is what YOU are discussing and it was YOU who bought up HRTF, which is obviously NOT only ILD! You know this fact, yet you are deliberately misrepresenting it, so how is that not lying or trolling?

3. You're joking right? You think that a pan pot is the ONLY tool used when mixing? Have you never even seen a picture of a mixing desk or noticed there are controls other than just a pan pot? You asked how sounds were panned and I answered. You did NOT ask how timing information or reverb/acoustics is created or handled!
3a. Crossfeed obviously feeds the L/R timing information (early reflections, delays and reverb) to the opposite HP driver at the same time. Thereby damaging/destroying that L/R timing information, which is the exact opposite of shaping it into something that is more natural! Are you really that ignorant of stereo reflections, reverb and delays, despite the fact it's been explained to you several times? Either you are still that ignorant and are not deliberately lying or you are not so ignorant and are deliberately lying, which is it?

4. "Very small", "microscopic", compared to what? Compared to ILD in sound which has been filtered out and is 40dB or so below the wanted/musical material? Now that's microscopic and compared to that, it's not "very small", it's very significant! Though not to you of course because you are obsessed with ILD at the expense of everything else.
4a. Yes, yes, no one but you knows what crossfeed does to the sound, blah, blah, blah. Is this where you again call educated professionals, uneducated idiots, compared to you?

5. Why would anyone like vinyl, tube amps, whacking up the bass or various other forms of distortion?
5a. Yes and there are people who love vinyl, tube amps and whacking up the bass for the same "good reason"!

6. That's a lie which you've just made up! I both know and accept the benefits of crossfeed. However, I also know and accept the disadvantages/negative effects of crossfeed, which is where YOU have a mental block! Even to the point of lying about what I accept and lying/misrepresenting what I've said "to justify your delusions"!

7. Then how come you get it? You've got a completely closed mind for EVERYTHING except ILD. If crossfeed had no disadvantages/negative effects and was so perfect then how come everyone doesn't use it, how come there is any need to develop of emulate HRTFs?

8. You do not know how correct the timing information is or is not AND you do not know or place any value on what the artistic intention of it is, regardless of whether it's technically correct or not!! And furthermore, you not only repeatedly mentioned "nearly non-existent" sound (which you didn't even realise was traffic noise) but even stated that the small amount of ILD on that "nearly non-existent" sound destroyed/damaged the realism. How is this not complete hypocrisy?
8a. Some people do care and crossfeed does NOT create similar comb-filtering to loudspeaker listening, as you well know!!

9. You are contradicting yourself!! You've already openly admitted (in other threads) that you actually know very little about how mixing works and you even had to ask the most basic (beginner) questions about panning, which still you apparently fail to fully understand!

G

2. I tried to simplify this. ILD alone seems a huge source of disagreement between us.
3. To me panning includes all spatial cues, not only amplitude. However, I'm all ears to hear how you add timing information.
3a. No, crossfeed doesn't sent the information "at the same time", but delayed by about 250 µs typically. L/R -timing information is not damaged or destroyed but modified, because crossfeed happens at frequencies where the wavelenght is bigger than the "travelling time difference". If you add two sinewaves of with different phases and amplitudes together, you get a new sinewave with a new amplitude and phase. Also, all of this happens with speakers too acoustically and in most cases much stronger, because acoustic crossfeed is stronger than average crossfeeds are. I don't know why anti-crossfeeders totally ignore acoustic crossfeed. If it doesn't destroy speaker sound then why does crossfeed destroy headphone sound? It's more or less the same thing! You are delusional if you think people can hear with 100 % accuracy "artistic intentions". No, people have less than 100 % perfect speakers/headphones in whatever acoustics in whatever set up and if they are lucky they hear a sound they enjoy. Crossfeed is the most controlled effect in the listening chain and you keep complaining how it destroys things. Huh! So ridiculous.
4. I don't feel you understand at all what is significant and what is not. Sorry. I wish sound engineers understood these things, but apparently that's not the case. The errors introduced by crossfeed depends of the music (channel correlation) and crossfeed level. I don't deny errors. I know they exists. I know it's impossible to consume music with 100 % accuracy. I know listening to speakers introduce MASSIVE errors compared to headphones, crossfeed or not. I know excessive stereophony is the only serious problem in headphone listening. In this context being worried about miniscule errors is silly.
4a. That's only because I have studied crossfeed intensively last 6 years. 7 years ago I knew nothing about crossfeed. Thanks to my education it didn't take me many months to get a good grasp of crossfeed and after that it has been about increasing my understanding and knowledge.
5.-5a. People seem to like. Ask analogsurviver.
6. The disadvantages of crossfeed are miniscule compared to the advantages and you don't need to use crossfeed always on everything. There is stuff that I listen to without crossfeed. Especially with a crossfeeder with adjustable level it's about optimazing the sound like if you optimazed speaker sound moving the speakers. Crossfeed doesn't mean you get something perfect. It means getting something better, more natural, less fatiquing. Look at what Steve999 just wrote above: "I really like the Meyer crossfeed plugin for Foobar2000 (I'm using it now)." That is a rational opinion by an open-minded person who cases about the enjoyment of music, things that matter.
7. I try to be open-minded, but I don't have delusions anymore about not being closed minded about some things. In 2012 I got this "awakening" about the problems of spatial information between speakers and headphones. With speakers you have acoustic crossfeed and room acoustics. With headphones you don't. That is a challenge for the spatial information of a recording. I know only two solutions:

1. You mix everything for speakers and use crossfeed with headphones.
2. You mix recordings to have "omnistereophonic sound" and don't use/need crossfeed with headphones.

The reasons why everybody doesn't use crossfeed are many I think. One is ignorance. Even I myself was ignorant about this before 2012! It's so easy to just think everything about headphone sound is ok and that headphones and speakers just sound VERY different. However, with crossfeed headphones can be a little bit closer to speakers in some respect, have that same natural pleasant feel even if the soundstage is much smaller or even inside your head. Another reason is the lack of intensive for manufacturers to promote crossfeed. I have been trying to spread the "crossfeed message" to people for years now and it is hard work. Most people just blast their pop with default Apple earbuds and think everything is fine. It is nearly impossible to sell crossfeed to these people. Then there are crossfeed skeptics like you yourself spreading horror stories about crossfeed how it indroduce errors and destroys ITD and what not. HRTF is practically the same thing as crossfeed, just on much more sophisticated level.

8. Apparently you don't place any value on the enjoyment of music consumers. What is accurate timing information good for, if I only get it with excessive ILD ruining the enjoyment for me? I don't listen to timing information for the sake of timing information. Enjoyment the reason of listening to in the first place. Can you at least explain to me what are these "artistic intentions" behind timing information? Maybe I didn't listen to your recording enough and I certainly didn't expect traffic sounds. Sorry.
8a. Why is acoustic crossfeed with speaker different than with headphones? There are some differences, but those don't mean headphone crossfeed creates stronger comb-filtering, in fact it's probably the other way around. So, maybe you should accuse crossfeed for not having strong enough comb-filtering!

9. I know how I mix myself, but I'm interested to learn how professionals mix. I don't have the expensive hardware/software to do what professionals do, but I have my own methods and nyquist plugins which have teached me a lot about what works and what doesn't work.

 

[gregorio]

I know how I mix myself, but I'm interested to learn how professionals mix. I don't have the expensive hardware/software to do what professionals do, but I have my own methods and nyquist plugins which have teached me a lot about what works and what doesn't work.

And there you go again. You don't even know what a pan pot is, let alone the expensive hardware/software that professionals use but nevertheless, professional sound engineers are not educated and "don't understand these things" but you, a complete amateur, are educated and do!! How delusional is that??

Thanks for proving my point and doing EXACTLY as predicted! Now, instead of repeatedly proving my point, do the sensible thing and STOP repeating exactly the same old nonsense you churn out at every opportunity!! I simply cannot be bothered to go through all those points again, when they've already be refuted, MORE THAN ONCE, in other threads you've trolled!

G

 

[71 dB]

1. And there you go again.

2. You don't even know what a pan pot is, let alone the expensive hardware/software that professionals use but nevertheless, professional sound engineers are not educated and "don't understand these things" but you, a complete amateur, are educated and do!! How delusional is that??

3. Thanks for proving my point and doing EXACTLY as predicted! Now, instead of repeatedly proving my point, do the sensible thing and STOP repeating exactly the same old nonsense you churn out at every opportunity!! I simply cannot be bothered to go through all those points again, when they've already be refuted, MORE THAN ONCE, in other threads you've trolled!

G

1. Yes, and so do you.

2. I know what a pan pot is, of course, but I didn't know what your sound engineer clan means by "panning". You are taking what I write and twisting it against me. Not very nice. Sound engineer are educated of course and know tons of stuff, but there are perhaps areas on knowledge which has been neglected. Me suggesting ILD limits of 6 dB below 500 Hz is not telling you how to do your job, because ILD below 500 Hz is a tiny tiny fraction of your work, isn't it? An "outsider" might see things "insider" are blind about. I have university degree and I have work experience on something. That means I am not an amateur in everything. My areas of expertise might overlap sound engineering, because sound engineering hardly is a totally separate profession from everything else. I am not telling you how to get proper ILD, that's your expertise. I am telling what the proper ILD is. That's my expertise because I have studied human hearing in the university and studied crossfeeding as a hobby + made computer music for 2 decades trying out things, writing nyquist plugins etc. If that doesn't make one to understand these things then I don't know what does (working with Vangelis apparently).

3. Why don't you just ignore me if you don't bother? You are not the only person evaluating my posts here. You are busy defending your sound engineering clan. Many others here don't need to do that and instead actually process what I am saying. I gave the HTRF measurements and explained how they justify what I say. Instead of giving fact based counter-arguments you blame me for taking only about ILD and if those HRTF-measurement were untrue because ITD is missing. You can't refute my facts so you constantly call me a troll. That's kind of sad.

 

[Steve999]

Good stuff. Thanks.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when Jan Meier had me try a bunch of resistors in a portable headphone amp and based on my preferences he custom-made me a customized three-setting crossfeed circuit in one of his low-end non-portable headphone amps (I don't think he makes them that cheap anymore, and the guy was incredibly generous with his knowledge and time). He told me he put all of his best stuff in it and would not charge me extra. I have it by my bedside.

I didn't know about "X” versus "H” topology. That's great. Thanks 71db. I fixed it. I’m actually a bit of a perfectionist.

The DEQ2496 has about six variables for the "stereo width" module (one of several modules in the gizmo) and you can rotate the image all over the place and set how the bass is affected and everything all in the same module. It shows you graphically what you are doing. But I agree it's not the equal of a well-done crossfeed circuit, nor is it in many cases as convenient. I run my DEQ2496 through my custom early-day Meier amp, so I can get my crossfeed any way I want it. Sweet.

I have never used Foobar2000 and it's crossfeeders, but I used Vox player which has three crossfeed options (Defaulf, Chu Moy and Jan Meier). Most of the time however, I used crossfeeders (based on Linkwitz-Chu Moy "X"-topology) incorporated into my DIY headphone adapters fed by my AV amp like speakers. That way I don't need headphone amp so it's very cost effective. I also have a tiny DIY Meier-Crossfeeder available between the pre-out and main-in connectors of my AV amp.

Jan Meier is a "H"-topology crossfeeder meaning it has different kind of sound than "X"-topology crossfeeders. "H"-topology crossfeeders sound more aggressive and wide. The sound is spead from left to right depending on the spatial information of the original signal, while "X"-topology crossfeeders emphasize ±30° angles simulating speakers. I prefer "X"-topology for it's softer and calm nature, but it really depends on the music style which crossfeeder topology is optimum. In winter 2017 I build a "wide crossfeeder", a variation of the standard Linkwitz-Chu Moy that simulates speakers that are at ±90° angles. Because the sound is "wide", this "wide crossfeeder" works really nicely with movie surround sound, but the downside is it lacks the forward sound feel stardard Linkwitz-Chu Moy has. Center sounds are located near your nose!

The ability to adjust crossfeed level is very important, because recordings are not the same regarding excessive stereophony. Some recordings don't need crossfeed at all, some just a little bit and some "ping pong" recordings need MASSIVE crossfeeding. Try different settings and trust your ears. It takes a minute or two for ears to adjust to crossfeed properly so don't jugde after 5 seconds. Just as there is speed blindness, there is excessive stereophony deafness. It means after turning crossfeed on, the sound may sound too narrow for a while, but after about a minute or so spatial hearing adjusts to it. That's why even those who like crossfeed, tend to prefer mild crossfeed on everything, even when strong crossfeed is called for.

I don't know Behringer DEQ2496 DSP, but it seems it's just basic stereo separation adjust which is not proper crossfeed at all.

 

[Steve999]

A pan pot is a knob that you turn on a mixer to move a mono signal, usually a particular instrument or voice, from left to right (or right to left!). Moving the instrument or voice from left to right (or right to left!) is called panning. You can move a channel around with it too if you have it set up that way. No biggie. Simple as pie. So now you know the great mystery.

Here's an article if you want to get in the weeds:

http://www.analog.com/en/analog-dialogue/articles/ultralow-distortion-panpot-amplifier.html

The dude works here:

http://www.analog.com/en/index.html

1. Yes, and so do you.

2. I know what a pan pot is, of course, but I didn't know what your sound engineer clan means by "panning". . .

 

[71 dB]

Good stuff. Thanks.

1. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when Jan Meier had me try a bunch of resistors in a portable headphone amp and based on my preferences he custom-made me a customized three-setting crossfeed circuit in one of his low-end non-portable headphone amps (I don't think he makes them that cheap anymore, and the guy was incredibly generous with his knowledge and time). He told me he put all of his best stuff in it and would not charge me extra. I have it by my bedside.

2. I didn't know about "x" versus "y" topology. That's great.

3. The DEQ2496 has about six variables for the "stereo width" module (one of several modules in the gizmo) and you can rotate the image all over the place and set how the bass is affected and everything all in the same module. It shows you graphically what you are doing. But I agree it's not the equal of a well-done crossfeed circuit, nor is it in many cases as convenient. I run my DEQ2496 through my custom early-day Meier amp, so I can get my crossfeed any way I want it. Sweet.

1. Oh, okay. Cool.

2. That's actually "H" and "X" -topology. In "H"-topology (e.g. Meier) both channels affect how sounds are crossfed. It means that there is no favored delay (angle of sound), but sounds are spread all over depending on the differencies of left and right channel. It also means the "H"-topology crossfeeders are mono neutral. They do nothing to mono sounds (there is no channel difference so nothing is done). "X"-topology crossfeeders operate differently. They crossfeed the signal always the same way no matter what happens in the other channel. That's why there is a favored delay, typically ~250 µs simulating the delay of stereo speakers of a ±30° set up. It also means mono signals are crossfed too causing tiny colourization, but nothing to be worried about unless you believe the horror stories of gregorio. "X" -topology simulates the acoustic crossfeed of speaker listening, while "H" -topology is more of a spatial effect that reduces excessive ILD while creating logical ITD-information. These differencies cause "H" and "X" -topology crossfeeders to have their own sound signature.

3. Oh, okay.

 

[71 dB]

A pan pot is a knob that you turn on a mixer to move a mono signal, usually a particular instrument or voice, from left to right (or right to left!). Moving the instrument or voice from left to right (or right to left!) is called panning. You can move a channel around with it too if you have it set up that way. No biggie. Simple as pie. So now you know the great mystery.

Here's an article if you want to get in the weeds:

http://www.analog.com/en/analog-dialogue/articles/ultralow-distortion-panpot-amplifier.html

The dude works here:

http://www.analog.com/en/index.html

Apparently I have managed to make myself look like I know less than I do. All of this panning is clear to me. I'm just thinking maybe the defenition of panning should be changed? Nowadays it's relatively easy to do accurate spatial effects combining ILD/ITD/ISD and even reverb to do "spanning" BETTER.

Thanks anyway for trying to help.

 

[gregorio]

1. Yes, and so do you.
2. I know what a pan pot is, of course, but I didn't know what your sound engineer clan means by "panning".
2a. You are taking what I write and twisting it against me. Not very nice.
2b. Sound engineer are educated of course and know tons of stuff, but there are perhaps areas on knowledge which has been neglected.
2c. Me suggesting ILD limits of 6 dB below 500 Hz is not telling you how to do your job, because ILD below 500 Hz is a tiny tiny fraction of your work, isn't it?
2d. An "outsider" might see things "insider" are blind about.
2e. I have university degree and I have work experience on something. That means I am not an amateur in everything.
2f. I am not telling you how to get proper ILD, that's your expertise. I am telling what the proper ILD is. That's my expertise because I have studied human hearing in the university ...
2g. If that doesn't make one to understand these things then I don't know what does (working with Vangelis apparently).

1. Yes and you know that I will because I've told you before that if you post nonsense I will refute it!

2. Exactly, you do not know!
2a. What's "not very nice" is posting nonsense in this thread/forum! Highlighting the fact that you're spouting nonsense and even contradicting yourself is not "twisting your words"!
2b. Have you been educated as a sound engineer? Have you even any vague idea of how sound engineers are educated? How then do you know what areas of knowledge have been neglected? Clearly you don't know, you're just making-up whatever suits your agenda!
2c. Again, how would you know? You demonstrate and actually ADMIT you know next to nothing about professional music engineering and yet you make all kinds assertions about how professional music engineers/artists are educated, what we know or don't know and what we actually do. How is that not self-contradictory? How is it not nonsense which you've just made-up?
2d. Again, how do you know what us "insiders" are "blind about"? And, as an outsider, particularly one with no professional education, knowledge or practical experience, how do YOU know what YOU are "blind about" or how those areas of blindness affect other areas?
2e. What's that got to do with anything? We're not talking about "something" or "everything", we're talking about creating/engineering music!
2f. And there, in those few words, is a major part of your problem/ignorance! What has expertise in human hearing got to do with it? Professional music artists/engineers are creating products according to the human perception of music/art, NOT according to the rules/science of human hearing!! You therefore have NO idea what the "proper" ILD is, and you don't even know if what you're telling us is something we already know anyway!! Did Picasso paint according to the science of sight, according to what we would actually see when looking at the world? Should you, with nothing but your study of sight at university and barely even knowing what a paint brush is, have told Picasso that he was uneducated, "blind about things" and told him what "proper" is? Would you not expect him and other artists to treat you like an ignorant imbecile if you did?
2g. Exactly my point, you obviously don't know what makes "one understand these things", in fact you don't even know what things you need to understand! And, if that's not already MORE than bad enough, you completely ignore, argue with, misrepresent or deem valueless those things when you are informed???! And lastly, you think that working with Vangelis wouldn't improve understanding? What about working with numerous other world class artists for decades or a formal education in the subject? How does that make any sense, even to you?

3. Why don't you just ignore me if you don't bother?
3a. You are not the only person evaluating my posts here.
3b. You are busy defending your sound engineering clan.
3c. Many others here don't need to do that and instead actually process what I am saying.
3d. I gave the HTRF measurements and explained how they justify what I say.
3e. Instead of giving fact based counter-arguments you blame me for taking only about ILD and if those HRTF-measurement were untrue because ITD is missing.
3f. You can't refute my facts so you constantly call me a troll. That's kind of sad.

3. Again, see answer #1.
3a. Exactly and that's one of the reasons why your nonsense needs refuting!
3b. Yes, against your completely made-up lies about our lack of education!
3c. And how can they "actually process what you're saying" if all they've got is your made-up nonsense/lies?
3d. You did NOT give any HRTF measurements! You ONLY gave ILD measurements and as you well know that a HRTF is considerably more than just ILD measurement, then you are deliberately lying!!!
3e. That a HRTF is considerably more than just ILD measurement IS A FACT and not only is it a fact, it's an obvious fact because just it's name tells you that it's a transfer function an NOT just an ILD measurement! So, this is about as fact based an argument as there is! And furthermore, if you really have studied human hearing at university how on earth could you not know what HRTF means or that it's very significantly different from just ILD? Again, you're contradicting yourself!
3f. What facts? That ILD and HRTF are the same thing? That audio engineers are uneducated/ignorant about audio engineering? That you can dictate what is "proper"? These "facts" are NOT facts, they're nonsense which you've just made-up and continually pushing this nonsense as "facts" makes YOU the troll. And, this is worse than just "sad"!

AND AGAIN, ALL of the above self-contradictions and nonsense has been refuted and explained to you on several different occasions. Why then are you repeating all that same nonsense yet again, what other option is there but to conclude you are trolling?

G

 

[71 dB]

I Answer in parts, because this is so massive...

1. Yes and you know that I will because I've told you before that if you post nonsense I will refute it!
2. Exactly, you do not know!
3. What's "not very nice" is posting nonsense in this thread/forum! Highlighting the fact that you're spouting nonsense and even contradicting yourself is not "twisting your words"!
4. Have you been educated as a sound engineer? Have you even any vague idea of how sound engineers are educated? How then do you know what areas of knowledge have been neglected? Clearly you don't know, you're just making-up whatever suits your agenda!
5. Again, how would you know? You demonstrate and actually ADMIT you know next to nothing about professional music engineering and yet you make all kinds assertions about how professional music engineers/artists are educated, what we know or don't know and what we actually do. How is that not self-contradictory? How is it not nonsense which you've just made-up?
6. Again, how do you know what us "insiders" are "blind about"? And, as an outsider, particularly one with no professional education, knowledge or practical experience, how do YOU know what YOU are "blind about" or how those areas of blindness affect other areas?
7. What's that got to do with anything? We're not talking about "something" or "everything", we're talking about creating/engineering music!
8. And there, in those few words, is a major part of your problem/ignorance! What has expertise in human hearing got to do with it? Professional music artists/engineers are creating products according to the human perception of music/art, NOT according to the rules/science of human hearing!! You therefore have NO idea what the "proper" ILD is, and you don't even know if what you're telling us is something we already know anyway!! Did Picasso paint according to the science of sight, according to what we would actually see when looking at the world? Should you, with nothing but your study of sight at university and barely even knowing what a paint brush is, have told Picasso that he was uneducated, "blind about things" and told him what "proper" is? Would you not expect him and other artists to treat you like an ignorant imbecile if you did?
9. Exactly my point, you obviously don't know what makes "one understand these things", in fact you don't even know what things you need to understand! And, if that's not already MORE than bad enough, you completely ignore, argue with, misrepresent or deem valueless those things when you are informed???! And lastly, you think that working with Vangelis wouldn't improve understanding? What about working with numerous other world class artists for decades or a formal education in the subject? How does that make any sense, even to you?

1. You refute my "nonsense" by calling me an amateur who knows nothing. An amateur is not someone who knows nothing (that's Ignoramus), but someone who does things out of love for it (from Latin word amator "lover") instead of making money (a professional). By now you should know how passioned I am about crossfeed, so I should know something about the issue, right? I hardly even know which of my claims you are refuting? All of them? For example my claim:

Below 1 kHz ILD is larger than 6 dB only if the sound source is very near (a few feet or less) head. Do you refute this green claim?

If you do, what is your justification for your disagreement? On what facts do you base your own claims? I showed HRTF measurements to justify my claim.
If you don't, what is your justification for "artistic intentions" that go against this fact?

2. I am learning, something that makes this all meaningful. How about you?

3. I have an different opinion about this.

4. I have been educated as an electric engineer specialing in acoustics and signal processing. I have never heard of a sound engineer school. Maybe there just aren't any in Finland? There must be overlapping, because the same laws of acoustics and human hearing apply to both sound engineers and acoustic engineers. I try to stay on that overlapping area to avoid talking about something I don't know about much. I'm not telling you which distortion plugins to use for vocal tracks or where to place mics on a drum kit. I am telling what is the target ILD and that overlaps with my area of expertise. Sound engineers don't have the monopoly on human hearing! It belongs to every profession that deals with these things, even architects, because they study acoustics to some extent. So, you shouldn't put down even architects.

5. I don't make "all kind of assertions" and I try to be honest and humble about my knowledge.

6. Because I can literally hear what you "insiders" do. Your justification for excessive ILD has been "artistic intent". What if an acoustic engineer called his/her bad acoustic engineering "artistic intent"? I'm sure many would oppose that! It would be downright laughable. My "nonsense" has been "refuted" aggressively by sound engineers here, something that makes me feel I have exposed a blind spot in the working philosophy of sound engineers. Why else would my claims hurt so much?

7. How convenient for you to restrict this discussion within the area of your expertise. The ideas of outsiders can sometimes revolutionize things. I'm amazed how self-centered you sound-engineers seem to be.

8. Picasso's paintings don't violate human vision. 3D-movie with right eye picture turned up side down violates human vision. It's important to know in which way you can/should exploit artistic freedom and intent. You can create strange sounds as long as the spatial information makes sense. Spatial hearing does not dictate what kind of sounds can exist. It dictates what kind of spatial cues they contain due to the fact sound sources exist in (acoustic) reality in relation to the listener.

9. So, according to you my role here is to shut up and listen what sound engineers have to say? Sorry, but I don't accept that role. Your arrogance is mindblowing.

 

[bigshot]

You're ranting emotionally and attacking the person, not the argument. You aren't really making points any more. Just a quick heads up in case you didn't realize it.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Your arrogance is mindblowing.
[2] Picasso's paintings don't violate human vision.

1. That really is very funny, coming from someone who admits he knows next to nothing about music creation/engineering but nevertheless dictates the rules and laws of artistic intent. If my arrogance is mindblowing, what's yours, a supernova??

2. You're joking right, don't you even knowe what Cubism is, that the whole point of it is to "violate human vision"? Do you actually see the world like a cubist paining, in blocks of multiple simultaneous different perspectives? If so, you've got bigger problems than just being ignorance of music creation/engineering! As Picasso obviously was violating the rules/laws of human vision, would you have told him so? Would you have told him he was uneducated, that as an amateur you could cure his "blindness" and dictate to him the boundaries of artistic intent? If not, why not? And, would you not expect to be treated by other artists as an ignorant imbecile for doing so? What's the difference between this example and what you're doing???

Your whole argument seems to be: "I know something about hearing, I don't know anything about professional music creation/engineering, I love being an amateur and therefore I have the right to:make-up nonsense, dictate the boundaries of artistic intent and assert that actual professionals are uneducated and 'blind' compared to me." - And you call me arrogant?? That's not just ridiculously funny, it's deeply delusional!!!!

G

 

[71 dB]

The other part:

1. Exactly and that's one of the reasons why your nonsense needs refuting!
2. Yes, against your completely made-up lies about our lack of education!
3. And how can they "actually process what you're saying" if all they've got is your made-up nonsense/lies?
4. You did NOT give any HRTF measurements! You ONLY gave ILD measurements and as you well know that a HRTF is considerably more than just ILD measurement, then you are deliberately lying!!!
5. That a HRTF is considerably more than just ILD measurement IS A FACT and not only is it a fact, it's an obvious fact because just it's name tells you that it's a transfer function an NOT just an ILD measurement! So, this is about as fact based an argument as there is! And furthermore, if you really have studied human hearing at university how on earth could you not know what HRTF means or that it's very significantly different from just ILD? Again, you're contradicting yourself!
6. What facts? That ILD and HRTF are the same thing? That audio engineers are uneducated/ignorant about audio engineering? That you can dictate what is "proper"? These "facts" are NOT facts, they're nonsense which you've just made-up and continually pushing this nonsense as "facts" makes YOU the troll. And, this is worse than just "sad"!

AND AGAIN, ALL of the above self-contradictions and nonsense has been refuted and explained to you on several different occasions. Why then are you repeating all that same nonsense yet again, what other option is there but to conclude you are trolling?

G

1. Oh, because I might reveal something? What harm can my claims make?
2. It's not lack of education. It's about historical burden (recordings are primarily mixed for speakers so excessive stereo separation hasn't been a concern).
3. You label them nonsense/lies. They may think otherwise. I let them form their own opinion, do you?
4. ILD measurements are directly from HRTF measurements. ILD doesn't get large below 1 kHz unless the source is close and HRTF being "considerably more" doesn't change that. It is not lying, oversimplifying at worst.
5. Yes, we agree HRTF is more than ILD because we both now what HRTF is. ILD can be directly derived from HRTF comparing left and right ear magnitude spectrums. You know this, I know this. Case closed.
6. Sorry about calling ILD derived from HRTF HRTF just because I assumed you'd be relaxed enough to get that there's is a HRTF behind the ILD. It doesn't change my claims about ILD, now does it? I'm waiting for you to adress my claims (substance) instead of calling me a troll.

 

[Steve999]

I think there is a lot to learn from the clashing perspectives of recording engineers and an electrical engineer specializing in acoustics and signal processing.I'd be surprised if there were not disagreements between such people. It'd be nice to see it on the merits without the extraneous back and forth, so us less knowledgeable folks could get a feel for the core of the theoretical or practical disputes. I probably wouldn't take one side or the other but would read the posts keenly and then do my own reading.

It helps me keep the neurons regenerating in this old brain.

If I can get the ball rolling a little, what's ILD, and what is its role in this disagreement? Here's the gist of what I can find in Wikipedia:


fig.2 Duplex Theory
ITD and IID[edit]

Interaural Time Difference (ITD) between left ear (top) and right ear (bottom).

[sound source: 100 ms white noise from right]

Interaural Level Difference (ILD) between left ear (left) and right ear (right).

[sound source: a sweep from right]
From fig.2 we can see that no matter for source B1 or source B2, there will be a propagation delay between two ears, which will generate the ITD. Simultaneously, human head and ears may have shadowing effect on high frequency signals, which will generate IID.

• Interaural Time Difference (ITD) Sound from the right side reaches the right ear earlier than the left ear. The auditory system evaluates interaural time differences from: (a) Phase delays at low frequencies and (b) group delays at high frequencies.
• Massive experiments demonstrate that ITD relates to the signal frequency f. Suppose the angular position of the acoustic source is θ, the head radius is r and the acoustic velocity is c, the function of ITD is given by:[8]{\text{ 4000Hz}}\end{cases}}}">{\displaystyle ITD={\begin{cases}300\times {\text{r}}\times \sin \theta /{\text{c}},&{\text{if }}f\leq {\text{4000Hz }}\\200\times {\text{r}}\times \sin \theta /{\text{c}},&{\text{if }}f>{\text{ 4000Hz}}\end{cases}}}
  
  . In above closed form, we assumed that the 0 degree is in the right ahead of the head and counter-clockwise is positive.
• Interaural Intensity Difference (IID) or Interaural Level Difference (ILD) Sound from the right side has a higher level at the right ear than at the left ear, because the head shadows the left ear. These level differences are highly frequency dependent and they increase with increasing frequency. Massive theoretical researches demonstrate that IID relates to the signal frequency f and the angular position of the acoustic source θ. The function of IID is given by:[8] {\displaystyle IID=1.0+(f/1000)^{0.8}\times \sin \theta }
  
• For frequencies below 1000 Hz, mainly ITDs are evaluated (phase delays), for frequencies above 1500 Hz mainly IIDs are evaluated. Between 1000 Hz and 1500 Hz there is a transition zone, where both mechanisms play a role.
• Localization accuracy is 1 degree for sources in front of the listener and 15 degrees for sources to the sides. Humans can discern interaural time differences of 10 microseconds or less.[9][10]

I have been educated as an electric engineer specializing in acoustics and signal processing.

 

[bigshot]

I think there is a lot to learn from the clashing perspectives of a recording engineer and an electrical engineer specializing in acoustics and signal processing

You have a hell of a lot more patience than I do. I think it's a waste of time because you have to listen and attempt to understand to learn, and I don't see anything remotely resembling that going on here. But if you find it entertaining, I guess it has a purpose after all.