[bigshot]

Responding to: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...n-totl-headphones.918386/page-6#post-15525800

Shall I start offering my guests headphones instead of listening on my 5.1 speaker system? I can do that, but the whole point of a speaker system is soundstage, and you don't get that with headphones. You don't get sophisticated directionality either. It's pretty obvious that for those aspects alone, speakers are better. They don't have headphone jacks in the seats at movie theaters and concert halls. Physical sound in space is better than sound channeled directly into your ears. As I said, headphones are better for isolation, convenience and portability. They are also less expensive.

Space doesn't distort sound. It modifies it in the way it is intended to be modified. Distortion is a pejorative. It is unintentional and unwanted change.

The effect that real space has on sound is infinitely more complex than digital reverbs. If modern digital reverbs are better than real physical space, then set one to exactly duplicate the effects of a room on speakers and compare it to the real thing. I want science that people can actually experience, not science that is in pure theory that is pinpoint focused on worst case scenarios and stuff that just isn't applicable in the real world. "Which is better to drink, spring water or seawater? Spring water! That's just YOUR opinion!"

Just listen to a good set of headphones, then listen to a good multichannel speaker setup. It's self evident. I am glad to hear that you have a surround system in your home now though. I can recommend some multichannel recordings that will demonstrate what it can do for music as opposed to just movies.

Blackwood, what recordings have you heard that sound better on headphones than speakers. I'd like to hear that. Because I have the Kraftwerk Catalogue box set that includes both multichannel Atmos and headphone Atmos tracks. I've compared both and the headphone mix is just the same as any other album on headphones. The surround mix for speakers flies in all directions and sounds as fun as a three ring circus. Let me know the recording that sounds better on cans and I'll order it on Amazon. I'd like to hear that.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Shall I start offering my guests headphones instead of listening on my 5.1 speaker system?
[2] I can do that, but the whole point of a speaker system is soundstage, and you don't get that with headphones.
[2a] You don't get sophisticated directionality either. It's pretty obvious that for those aspects alone, speakers are better.
[3] They don't have headphone jacks in the seats at movie theaters and concert halls.
[3a] Physical sound in space is better than sound channeled directly into your ears.
[4] Space doesn't distort sound. It modifies it in the way it is intended to be modified.
[4a] Distortion is a pejorative. It is unintentional and unwanted change.

1. What has what you offer your guests got to do with factual accuracy and science? You think maybe science is defined by what you offer your guests?

2. This statement is false. You can get soundstage with headphones, a recording made or produced for a HRTF the same or very similar to yours will provide soundstage.
2a. Again this is FALSE, in fact not just false but pretty much the exact opposite of true! Given a recording made with a HRTF compatible with yours, headphones can provide FAR MORE sophisticated directionality than a 5.1 speaker system. While a 5.1 speaker system is obviously capable of far more sophisticated directionality than a 2 channel speaker system, it is in practice still very limited, that is why 7.1 was invented, which was STILL limited and therefore led to the invention of more sophisticated surround formats. Maybe you personally have never heard a good binaural recording compatible with your HRTF but this isn't the "What bigshot has experienced" forum, surely you must know this? You must also know that even if speakers are better, not everyone always prefer what is "better".

3. This is a non sequitur! It's obviously not practical or financially viable to provide every member of the audience with headphones and neither is it feasible to create an individualised HRTF for every member of the audience. This OBVIOUSLY doesn't prove that for an individual listener in their own home, speakers are always better than headphones with a binaural recording suited to their HRTF.
3a. That's nonsense! Physical sound in space must also be channelled "into your ears", if it wasn't you wouldn't hear it with your ears. Therefore, your assertion is that sound in a physical space that's channeled directly into your ears is better than sound channelled directly into your ears! Nonsense!

4. Again, that's a self contradiction! If space modifies/alters the sound then it is BY DEFINITION "distortion". "Distortion is the alteration of the original shape (or other characteristic) of something. In communications and electronics it means the alteration of the waveform of an information-bearing signal, such as an audio signal representing sound or a video signal representing images, in an electronic device or communication channel." - Wikipedia.
4a. No, it is NOT a pejorative, although it is sometimes used as one, and neither it is always unintentional or unwanted! In fact, electric guitarists pay considerable amounts of money for equipment specifically to intentionally add wanted distortion! "Distortion and overdrive are forms of audio signal processing used to alter the sound of amplified electric musical instruments, usually by increasing their gain, producing a "fuzzy", "growling", or "gritty" tone. Distortion is most commonly used with the electric guitar, but may also be used with other electric instruments such as bass guitar, electric piano, and Hammond organ." - Wikipedia. Without any exceptions I can think of, EVERY rock and other popular music genre commercial music recording contains intentional, wanted distortion, starting around the mid 1950's, ubiquitous by the 1960's and ever since!

[5] The effect that real space has on sound is infinitely more complex than digital reverbs.
[5a] If modern digital reverbs are better than real physical space, then set one to exactly duplicate the effects of a room on speakers and compare it to the real thing.
[6] I want science that people can actually experience,
[6a] not science that is in pure theory
[6b] that is pinpoint focused on worst case scenarios and stuff that just isn't applicable in the real world.
[7] "Which is better to drink, spring water or seawater? Spring water! That's just YOUR opinion!"
[8] Just listen to a good set of headphones, then listen to a good multichannel speaker setup. It's self evident.
[9] I am glad to hear that you have a surround system in your home now though.
[9a] I can recommend some multichannel recordings that will demonstrate what it can do for music as opposed to just movies.

5. No it's not. You can't simply make-up facts to support your argument. You clearly don't understand how modern (or even old) digital reverbs work.
5a. You're joking right? You think no one has ever done this? Do you even know what a convolution reverb is?

6. This isn't the "What bigshot wants science to be" forum. Science can be and often is "pure theory" but it's still Science, regardless of what you personally want. However, your argument here is fallacious anyway! Some "people CAN actually experience binaural recordings" suited to their HRTF. Just because you haven't experienced such a recording (or have but personally still prefer speakers) doesn't mean that's true of all "people". This is the Sound Science forum, not the "Bigshot's experience, impressions and preferences" forum!
6a. Again, that's a self contradiction! "A worst-case scenario is a concept in risk management wherein the planner, in planning for potential disasters, considers the most severe possible outcome that can reasonably be projected to occur in a given situation." - Wikipedia. By definition then, a worse case scenario MUST "be applicable in the real world", though obviously not to everyone and typically to extremely few. Which brings us back again to the fact that this isn't the "bigshot's experience (of his world)" forum!

7. Oh good, yet another fallacious audiophile tactic, the old "false analogy" ploy! Obviously, your analogy is nonsense, it wouldn't be just an individual's opinion, there's very solid, citable science that drinking seawater in sufficient quantities is dangerous/fatal to human beings. So, as with your analogy, where's the "very solid, citable science" to support your claims?

8. And yet another audiophile fallacy, way to go! You think as a professional sound engineer working in several of the world's top music studios AND dubbing theatres for over 25 years that maybe I've never listened to a good set HPs or a good multichannel speaker setup? Sure, it's pretty self evident that a stereo mix made for speakers and played back on headphones does not sound the same or as good as a dedicated 5.1 mix played back on a good 5.1 system. However, that's of course a nonsense "apples to oranges" comparison! If you're going to compare a speaker setup using a mix dedicated to that setup, then you need to compare it with headphones also using a mix dedicated to that setup (EG. A binaural mix), how is that not obvious? Given a good binaural recording suited to an individual's HRTF, headphones can indeed sound better than a 5.1 speaker setup, which is the exact opposite of your proclaimed "self evident"!!

9. Actually I don't currently have a surround system in my home but did for about a decade. However, I have had a 5.1 system in my personal studio since 1997, calibrated by Dolby themselves and it's pretty much guaranteed that my current surround system is significantly better than yours.
9a. You think maybe I've never studied/analysed any multi-channel music recordings, when for nearly a decade my job was EXCLUSIVELY creating multi-channel music recordings and I still do occasionally now, ten years later? Yet again, this is just a variation of the TYPICAL audiophile fallacy; If it's not "self evident" to you, then my system, hearing or experience must be better than yours.

Bigshot, most of the time I agree with your assertions because they align with the facts/science. However occasionally they don't, but what's surprising, shocking even, is that when refuted you sometimes resort to EXACTLY THE SAME ridiculous tactics used by misguided audiophiles that you yourself spend so much time arguing against: False analogies, their experience/impressions/preferences are self evident and/or applicable to everyone else, making up false facts/pure nonsense, self contradiction and deliberately changing or simply being ignorant of the terminology they're employing to support their false assertions! Honestly, I expect far better from such a long standing member of this subforum, not least because it leaves us all wide open to the criticism that this isn't a sound Science forum, it's just another impressions/subjective opinion forum no different from say the Cables forum except with different impressions/subjective opinions!

G

 

[bigshot]

TL : DR

At least this reply is in the right thread now.

 

[gregorio]

TL : DR

So, accused of employing exactly the same ridiculous tactics as misguided audiophiles, your response is a typical misguided audiophile tactic: "Bury your head in the sand" ..... Classic!

G

 

[bigshot]

Here's the problem...

I'm happy to chat with you, but you need to make some accommodations for the reader. Answering two paragraphs sentence by sentence or phrase by phrase in ten paragraphs with footnotes is a real chore to read. I'm not here to read the appendix to technical textbooks. I'm here to discuss. If we were having a verbal discussion, you sure couldn't communicate like that.

I speak in complete paragraphs, with an introductory sentence that states the theme of the paragraph, followed by some examples. I finish up the paragraph with a summation that offers my idea of a takeaway. It's a clear, concise and efficient way to communicate with people. They taught me this in high school, and it was drilled into my head all through college. I'm happy to communicate that way. But I'm not going to bother to read replies that cut the context of my paragraphs into little bits of confetti and strew it about on the floor with numbers referring to footnotes telling me how to reassemble the mess like a jigsaw puzzle. Quite frankly, it's more work than it's worth. If you make it hard on the reader, don't be surprised if you don't get read.

The adversarial tone you continually adopt makes me even less inclined to wade through the layers of complexity to decode your answers. I crack jokes, but I try to limit the parody to ideas, I don't go out of my way to insult people. You seem to have trouble with that. Given the choice, I'll just skip past and look for someone who communicates nicely with clear and concise paragraphs. But you don't skip by anything. You grab on with the tenacity of a pit bull and don't let go, even when the conversation has dissolved into nothing. The reason audiophools blow right past your answers is partially because of their phoolishness, but it is also your fault for not engaging with them properly.

I like you and I have learned a lot from you, but you are very poor at communicating in this discussion forum format. This has been pointed out to you, and you don't seem to care. Maybe this is the only way you can express yourself. That's fine. You have the choice of whether to write or not, and I have the choice of whether to read or not. Onward and upward!

 

[gregorio]

[1] Answering two paragraphs sentence by sentence or phrase by phrase in ten paragraphs with footnotes is a real chore to read.
[2] If we were having a verbal discussion, you sure couldn't communicate like that.
I speak in complete paragraphs, with an introductory sentence that states the theme of the paragraph, followed by some examples. I finish up the paragraph with a summation that offers my idea of a takeaway. It's a clear, concise and efficient way to communicate with people. They taught me this in high school, and it was drilled into my head all through college.
[3] I crack jokes, but I try to limit the parody to ideas, I don't go out of my way to insult people. You seem to have trouble with that.

1. Refuting a false statement, fallacy, false analogy, etc, typically takes longer than just making a false statement, etc., unless of course I just state "that's nonsense" or "no it's not" without any supporting explanation.

2. When you have a verbal discussion, do you have an introductory sentence then various paragraphs followed by examples and a summation or is it a rather bitty two way thing? What you've described they taught you at school/college is how to write an essay, not have a discussion.

3. I made it absolutely clear what I "have trouble with": People posting false assertions, false analogies and various other nonsense that contradicts the actual facts/science.

Bigshot, if you don't want responses where I refute virtually every individual sentence, the solution is simple: Don't post messages in the sound science forum where virtually every sentence is an individual false assertion, false analogy or other made-up bit of nonsense that contradicts the facts/science!

However, congrats on yet again employing another fallacious but typical audiophile tactic: Attack the format/style of the response rather than address the actual points themselves, ie. DEFLECTION! If you can't be bothered to follow a few numbered points in the order dictated by your own post, that's your prerogative but then it's my prerogative to accuse you of "burying your head in the sand" and indeed accuse you of even more, because you yourself call out misguided audiophiles for EXACTLT THE SAME "deflection" and "burying their head in the sand"!!

G

 

[bigshot]

Welp! I was honest because I like you. You can feel free to ignore my suggestions. I'll blow by your posts where you turn it into a Chinese puzzle box too. I'm betting you are more lovable in person.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I was honest because I like you.
[2] I'll blow by your posts where you turn it into a Chinese puzzle box too.
[3] I'm betting you are more lovable in person.

1. But that's the WHOLE POINT, your post was NOT "honest", it was jam packed with false assertions, fallacies, etc.

2. None of my posts are anything like a Chinese puzzle box. It's just a handful of numbered points corresponding to the points in your own post, how much simpler does it get? Nice use of a false analogy AGAIN though!

3. I'm betting you probably are too.

G

 

[Davesrose]

I'm not getting into Gregorio's bloviated outlines. When it comes to speakers, I also get more enjoyment with my surround system (used to be 7.1, now 7.1.4 3D). For quite awhile, I enjoyed BD concerts of music (usually 92KHZ 5.1). Interestingly, my receiver will still stick to DTS-MA if 92KHZ, while with normal 5.1, and normally surround is enabled with upmixed DTS:Neural.

With more and more older movies being mixed to Dolby Atmos or DTS:X, it is interesting to listen to differences. I've noticed with older movies being remixed, they can have more of a seamless soundstage of music going well to the sides on to center of my system's soundstage.

When it comes to headphones, I like dynamics. There's debates about what can "add soundstage" with crossfeed or such. No, I have never heard any solution that can place spaciality like speakers....and I don't expect such. I'd rather high quality (and with my headphone setup, it makes me tap my feet).

 

[sander99]

No, I have never heard any solution that can place spaciality like speakers....and I don't expect such.

What do you mean with 'I don't expect such'? Do you think it is not possible? I assure you it is possible, just listen to a Smyth Realiser with your own personal PRIR and HPEQ and using headtracking. And yes, critical listening can reveal that the virtual speakers don't sound identical to the real speakers that were measured, but the spatial aspects, the feeling that the sound is coming from a distance, and for example from the front, and seems totally unrelated to the headphones on your head, is very real (to me and almost everyone who tried it).
Of course there is a objectivity/subjectivity problem: I can never be sure you would have the same experience, and I can never prove to you what my experience is. But that actually is one of Gregorio's points (correct me if I am wrong, @gregorio) : no one can claim to know for sure that nobody can experience for example speaker like spatiality over headphones using the right tools.
One problem in the discussion here is that not everybody is always clearly seperating the different ways of using headphones in his mind, or doesn't always state exactly what way of headphone listening he is talking about. (Normal headphone listening to standard stereo recordings, generic or personal HRTF based binaural recordings, binaurally simulated - personalised or not, with or without headtracking - speakers , etc.)

 

[Davesrose]

What do you mean with 'I don't expect such'? Do you think it is not possible? I assure you it is possible, just listen to a Smyth Realiser with your own personal PRIR and HPEQ and using headtracking. And yes, critical listening can reveal that the virtual speakers don't sound identical to the real speakers that were measured, but the spatial aspects, the feeling that the sound is coming from a distance, and for example from the front, and seems totally unrelated to the headphones on your head, is very real (to me and almost everyone who tried it).
Of course there is a objectivity/subjectivity problem: I can never be sure you would have the same experience, and I can never prove to you what my experience is. But that actually is one of Gregorio's points (correct me if I am wrong, @gregorio) : no one can claim to know for sure that nobody can experience for example speaker like spatiality over headphones using the right tools.
One problem in the discussion here is that not everybody is always clearly seperating the different ways of using headphones in his mind, or doesn't always state exactly what way of headphone listening he is talking about. (Normal headphone listening to standard stereo recordings, generic or personal HRTF based binaural recordings, binaurally simulated - personalised or not, with or without headtracking - speakers , etc.)

I thought my post was pretty clear: I have not experienced and do not expect headphones to recreate accurate specialty. You say this can be subjective, but then claim that everyone you know who listens to X system/software will hear a realistic spatial field. I have seen other members post about such and such software making headphones giving realistic modeling, but with my experience....a lot of times, crossfeed or "3D surround" only knocks down detail and/or dynamics. When it comes to my headphone setup, it is what's in my sig. I mainly listen on LCD-2fs, with Benchmark DAC going to an iFi iCan (mixture of mp3s or flac usually from CD rips). Lets face it, most all music is stereo and not surround or especially binaural. The iCan does have a crossfeed dial. I've noticed that only on rare occasions it adds something to the music.

I've noticed Windows 10 includes Dolby Atmos. When trying to listen to stereo sources with it, it seems to only add bass. However, I have heard demos with actual Atmos tracks....with those, I do hear a soundscape that goes from about 60 degrees in front and all the way in back. When it comes to a soundstage with headphones, the best frontal image I've heard places the music on my forehead instead of in my head.

If I want a feeling of being at a live event, a blu-ray concert is much better (with surround speakers and visual information as well). Because spatiality is not a concern of mine with headphones, I'd rather focus on sound quality and dynamics.

 

[sander99]

You say this can be subjective

I was trying to be very carefull with what I say. I didn't mean that the spatial experience in itself is a subjective thing, but that you can not know for sure that someone else had it or not. Not because there would be something subjective in the working principle of the Realiser (I will eleborate on this point later). But because you can not check it by listening to the other person's PRIR/HPEQ. That is personal and only works for him/her (or not if it was a failed measurement). And you can not let him/her listen to your own PRIR/HPEQ for the same reason. All you can do is try to optimise the chances of a succesfull PRIR/HPEQ measurement and ask the person how he/she experienced it.

but then claim that everyone you know who listens to X system/software will hear a realistic spatial field.

That is not exacly what I said. I said that most people who tried a Smyth Realiser claim to have had a similar experience. I said most because again I wanted to be very carefull. The odd exceptions are probably due to a somehow failed PRIR- and/or HPEQ measurement. In one specific case someone at the Can Jam LA 2018 was not impressed by the A16 demo. But Smyth was experiencing problems with the in-ear microphones due to some static electricity problem. Which is why they now provide a grounding wristband to connect your body to the housing of the A16. Also they didn't have a isolated booth at that event, and hence some back ground noise during the measurements.

Now to why I say the working principle of the Realiser is not subjective.
What the Realiser does is measure the total net result of sound reaching the entrance of your ear canals as a result of sound being played over the real loudspeakers. That is including all colorations from bending round your head and into your ear, and including all reflections and reverberation and their coloration by bending, and of course including all relative timing between all those sound components. Also it measures the frequency response of your headphones on your head at the entrance of your ear canals. With these two measurements the Realiser can 're-enact' all the same changes and additions that the loudspeakers and room did to the sound and make sure that the same sound is going into your ear canals as would have happened if you were listening to the real speakers. It combines this with headtracking (for this purpose the whole PRIR measurement is done for a number of different head positions), and this adds enormously to the realism.

From a theoretical standpoint it figures that if this complete process is performed with high enough precision then the brain will be fooled into thinking it hears real loudspeakers in a room (and okay, also psychoacoustic / visual support of being in the real room and seeing the real speakers there could be necessary for some people).
Could you agree with above statement in itself, independent of the question whether or not you believe that the Smyth Realiser A8 and A16 can do it or not?
I completely agree that some primitive cross feed can never do that, at least certainly not for all people. If the re-enactment is not close enough the brain rejects it and the sound seems to be inside or close to your head.

Because spatiality is not a concern of mine with headphones, I'd rather focus on sound quality and dynamics.

That is of course your right to have as a personal preference. Nothing wrong with that. And indeed normal headphone listening has it's own strong points.

But saying that it is not possible to have speaker-like spatiality over headphones is plain wrong. The problem is I can not prove it to you unless I can make you experience the same.

However if you understand the working principle of the Realiser, understand that if it this working principle is executed with sufficient precision then it should work, and would have witness accounts where say >98% of people who tried it say that it works would that at least be an indicator to you that maybe it could work?
I realise of course that there is one more problem: >98% of audiophiles believe all kind of nonsense that is scientifically proven wrong. But in this case it is not proven wrong by science, and there is a theoretical foundation to the claim. And that is why I was so very happy to see @gregorio counter the claim that 'you can not have soundstage with headphones'. (If the claim had been 'you can not have soundstage with headphones if you listen to standard stereo recordings or downmixed to normal stereo surround recordings without additional - binaural - processing, and most probably also not when just applying some primitive crossfeed' then I could have swallowed it.)

 

[castleofargh]

I thought my post was pretty clear: I have not experienced and do not expect headphones to recreate accurate specialty. You say this can be subjective, but then claim that everyone you know who listens to X system/software will hear a realistic spatial field. I have seen other members post about such and such software making headphones giving realistic modeling, but with my experience....a lot of times, crossfeed or "3D surround" only knocks down detail and/or dynamics. When it comes to my headphone setup, it is what's in my sig. I mainly listen on LCD-2fs, with Benchmark DAC going to an iFi iCan (mixture of mp3s or flac usually from CD rips). Lets face it, most all music is stereo and not surround or especially binaural. The iCan does have a crossfeed dial. I've noticed that only on rare occasions it adds something to the music.

I've noticed Windows 10 includes Dolby Atmos. When trying to listen to stereo sources with it, it seems to only add bass. However, I have heard demos with actual Atmos tracks....with those, I do hear a soundscape that goes from about 60 degrees in front and all the way in back. When it comes to a soundstage with headphones, the best frontal image I've heard places the music on my forehead instead of in my head.

If I want a feeling of being at a live event, a blu-ray concert is much better (with surround speakers and visual information as well). Because spatiality is not a concern of mine with headphones, I'd rather focus on sound quality and dynamics.

Accurate is going to depend entirely on the margin of error we accept as passing grade for localization. If 10 people identify a sound at 30° to their left as sound at 30° with +/-5°. Does that count as accurate perceived image?
If you think of speaker localization as something accurate because of how it's fairly consistent for all listeners in the same sit in that room(at least when it comes to horizontal angles). While you think of headphone localization as something insufficiently accurate, and highly dependent on the listener's HRTF(meaning we don't get consistency in the perceived position from one listener to the next), then something like the Realiser will be able to give you "accurate" imaging because it will give you a fairly convincing speaker simulation(at least when it comes to sound at the ears).
Having head tracking that relies on partial HRTF, simply solves most localization problems we usually have with headphones. Center image may never feel right to some listeners, but if you just slightly turn your head, it's not center anymore and now you get more tools that the brain can use to triangulate. Same thing with the so called "cone of confusion". Moving our head gives that extra data we needed to clarify the situation. It's not as complete as moving around with real speakers, it won't simulate us moving forward or to the side, and for now it also doesn't deal with tilting our head up, and of course it won't make you see speakers in the room if they're not there^_^. But compared to the static and HRTF-deprived sounds that we get with headphones normally, the subjective experience with the Realiser is soooo much closer to that of speakers. Forget crossfeed. It's a different world of simulation.

If speakers aren't your idea of accurate perceived image because of their own issues, then the Realiser+headphones also won't be it and we'll have to consider new solutions that probably involve making the music specifically for that new diffusion standard.


With this free advertising done, in the absence of specific criteria defining our reference of accuracy, I tend to side with @gregorio and say that the very notion of accurately perceived imaging is a fantasy. Most stuff were made subjectively by some guy using a reference room we're never going to experience ourselves. So be it speakers or headphones, how do we check the accuracy without the reference? there is something obviously wrong about this.
Instead we tend to make up a reference or pick one that is easier to get for ourselves. I'm fine with that so long as that reference is clearly explained to everybody in the conversation. When I read someone saying that something is accurate because it feels accurate to him... That's some "the world revolves around me and only exists through my eyes" kind of subjectivist BS.

 

[Davesrose]

But saying that it is not possible to have speaker-like spatiality over headphones is plain wrong. The problem is I can not prove it to you unless I can make you experience the same.

Yet in post #10, you say Realiser doesn't "sound identical to the real speakers".

 

[Davesrose]

Accurate is going to depend entirely on the margin of error we accept as passing grade for localization. If 10 people identify a sound at 30° to their left as sound at 30° with +/-5°. Does that count as accurate perceived image?
If you think of speaker localization as something accurate because of how it's fairly consistent for all listeners in the same sit in that room(at least when it comes to horizontal angles). While you think of headphone localization as something insufficiently accurate, and highly dependent on the listener's HRTF(meaning we don't get consistency in the perceived position from one listener to the next), then something like the Realiser will be able to give you "accurate" imaging because it will give you a fairly convincing speaker simulation(at least when it comes to sound at the ears).
Having head tracking that relies on partial HRTF, simply solves most localization problems we usually have with headphones. Center image may never feel right to some listeners, but if you just slightly turn your head, it's not center anymore and now you get more tools that the brain can use to triangulate. Same thing with the so called "cone of confusion". Moving our head gives that extra data we needed to clarify the situation. It's not as complete as moving around with real speakers, it won't simulate us moving forward or to the side, and for now it also doesn't deal with tilting our head up, and of course it won't make you see speakers in the room if they're not there^_^. But compared to the static and HRTF-deprived sounds that we get with headphones normally, the subjective experience with the Realiser is soooo much closer to that of speakers. Forget crossfeed. It's a different world of simulation.

If speakers aren't your idea of accurate perceived image because of their own issues, then the Realiser+headphones also won't be it and we'll have to consider new solutions that probably involve making the music specifically for that new diffusion standard.


With this free advertising done, in the absence of specific criteria defining our reference of accuracy, I tend to side with @gregorio and say that the very notion of accurately perceived imaging is a fantasy. Most stuff were made subjectively by some guy using a reference room we're never going to experience ourselves. So be it speakers or headphones, how do we check the accuracy without the reference? there is something obviously wrong about this.
Instead we tend to make up a reference or pick one that is easier to get for ourselves. I'm fine with that so long as that reference is clearly explained to everybody in the conversation. When I read someone saying that something is accurate because it feels accurate to him... That's some "the world revolves around me and only exists through my eyes" kind of subjectivist BS.

My opinion as to why speakers are better at localization is that they literally are placed in front of (or in the case of surround, have specific drivers all around you). As such "soundstage" with headphones tends to be how far out music can extend laterally from your head. It's much easier for speakers to convey a perception of spaciality since they are in front of you and not strapped to the sides of your head.

I understand certain DSP/EQs try to blend channels to create a fake frontal image, but I have yet to listen to one that gives an illusion of music being several feet in front of me. The best in 3D audio does seem easier at creating a soundscape that can wrap behind your head...but front of head seems harder.

You also mention creating music tracks that are specific to 3D headphone audio. There's not much of a market for that (there's not much Dolby Atmos music titles even)...so I'm content with sticking with normal stereo.