[AdamZuf]

this is the new crossfeed unit from Meier Audio. i had it for a few months, and i decided that i now know it well enough to make a review. the unit is blacker and much more beautiful then shown in these pictures, taken from Meier's Cross-1 page.

member john_jcb already made a review of this unit:
http://www4.head-fi.org/forums/showt...ghlight=cross1
but i thought that i should add my findings after getting to know the unit.
john_jcb , i hope you don't mind, but i'll copy your sayings:
Quote:

The unit has four controls from left to right; 1) crossfeed on/off 2) bass response, 6 levels incremented over a range of 3dB 3) Crossfeed level Low, Medium and High 4) treble response, 6 levels incremented over a range of 3dB. If you know your source and load impedances the level can be matched to what you would hear without crossfeed. The settings are thoroughly explained in the manual.

[size=small]construction[/size]

Weight:
0.27 kg. - pretty light. i use short cables (25cm), and had to do a little effort so they won't raise the little thing in the air

but ain't to much of a thing to consider, really.
Size:
10.9 x 13.0 x 4.3 cm. - i love the size. very cute

Build quality:
top notch. hard to switch the knobs. i love it. will survive world war III.

[size=small]crossfeed[/size]

what is "crossfeed"?
here's a good explanation of Jan Meier.

my experience with crossfeed
from now on, much of my words also applies to other crossfeed designs i've tried:
Foobar2000's - a simple and excellent sounding on/off plugin. i like it best (even on top of the Cross-1 i believe), because its fixed level is suitable to most of my needs, and i just have to turn it on and enjoy its sound.
Winamp's "HeadPlug" - which is a complex crossfeed, nice to experiment but can be a bit of a drag (5 control slides..), many of the results will lead to a "slow" sound. it could be that it can result in a relatively better result then Foobar2000's, but Winamp already sounds a bit slower then Foobar2000 (and a few more other things).
Meier Porta Corda's - now that's not much of a help for most of you.. but its clear that its crossfeed is from the Cross-1's family.

of coarse it's hard to compare between these different crossfeed designs because each has a different environment.
but all crossfeed designs have a similar principal and effect, more or less.
in order to get the general idea of how i percieve crossfeed (and not just the Cross-1), you just have to "cut" my sayings that are related to the unique controls of the Cross-1 (crossfeed level, tone controls) or too specific stuff i say (like frequency response), and you got the picture

[size=small]sound: 1st approach:[/size]

i thought it would be right to start with the "don't use EQ" audiophile approach, and evaluate the crossfeed circuit alone:
set the "bass" & "treble" controls (which BASICLY should be set according to your source & amps' load impendance) to the true values, and just turn the crossfeed on and experiment with the 3 different levels of it, and compare them to bypass mode.

my rig:
cheap DVD->Belden 1965A 0.5m coaxial cable->tweaked ART DI/O DAC->25cm DH Labs silversonic BL-1 mk2->Cross-1->same DH Labs again->Earmax Pro->Beyerdynamic DT880/ Sony MDR-CD3000
my music:
i examined different kinds of music. rock, jazz, ethnic, art-rock, psytrance, electronica, R&B, pop.

i found that an interesting way to describe the differences between the perception of bypass & crossfeed is with arrows (which generaly represents the way details flow) and an imaginary cone (which represents a relevant way to refer to the soundstage).
the details's direction and the soundstage's shape are "bonded" and changes together when the crossfeed is turned on/off.

([size=xx-small]this sketch is not what i actually see/hear, but more the way i feel about how the mechanism work on me, and this is what my imagination told me when i tried to put it into words, in my very non-scientific way

[/size])

look at the direction of the details flow towards the ears, and the cone's shape, size and positioning next to the head and ears.

when the crossfeed is off, the details feels directed to the ears. sometimes the details can feel "too much" and sound not so natural: i precieve it like a "sponge" effect: somewhat artificial textures (in the lower mids especially,to some degree, depends on the music!). it pisses me off mostly on vocals & bass guitars (which are monophonic by nature, and that probably explains why the Cross-1 is better here).
another thing to mention is that when the crossfeed is off, it feels like the drivers tend to vibrate is a certain annoying way. the drivers display their physical presense, but the frontal view (that's there when crossfeed is off) don't, because there's no driver on your nose

so, the situation is infact reveresed to reality - where you get the sound vibrations from your front.
the degree of the "problem" (which we all live with) will change with different cans.

as i mentioned, the details's directional flow feels bonded ("attached") to the angle of the sides of the cone (soundstage) - as it gets thinner in the X axis when the crossfeed is engaged, the details are less directly projected to the ears, and more to the eyes. so you lose some of the details of the ears, and you gain the frontal presentation with the eyes.. and the crossfeed level will determine how much.
i believe that the effect is more natural also because the relation between sight and hearing is closer to reality, not only because the L/R channels are no longer completely seperated.
so, the soundstage is thinner, but allows better frontal depths and distributions (because the depth ain't masked by the other axises) and the music just flows better in that axis.
the sources of the sounds are more far away, making the soundstage (the real and non-coney soundstage) look more like a round ball then a football. yes, the crossfeed effect is more laid back.
the "sponge" effect (that i experience with no crossfeed) disappears, as the details tend to "flow" next to the ears instead of "bumping" into them (in some sort of way).
the music is more in front of you, and less in your head (look at the cone's position next to the head, it moves to the front and takes the arrows with it).
the drivers don't vibrate anymore - so the headphones disappear more easily. OTOH, the impact is less visceral. i'm a speaker fan, but i still prefer the feeling of crossfeed most of the time, yet i don't always use it because of the disatvantages. it depends on the headphones too, of coarse.
the DT880 asks for crossfeed more then the CD3000, because they feel more "dense" (visceral?) and are less capable of frontal imaging. the Cross-1 relatively sucks out more life from the CD3000, in many cases.
to my ears, the crossfeed effect mostly impacts the ~350-500hz range - the hot "tradeoff" range.
that's the range where you'll feel the differences most, and there it will shows most of the "disatvantages"; effecting mostly sounds that tends to be surrounding & environmental, like distorted guitars, or certain critical sounds in electronica. i hear less details and their edge, but i have yet to decide if the musical connection between frequencies is to my taste or not. it comes down to a very personal level, it's you and your recording and how you see the best of the two together!
when these frequencies dominate in the recording, the crossfeed will narrow the soundstage to a greater degree then usual. the result is less stimulative music, i can say "less fun". (it reminds me.. member markl=loves rock=loves guitars=hate crossfeed

)
overall, there's a sence of reduced weight, which origins from even lower frequencies that "gets a treat" from the the Cross-1.
with the crossfeed on, although the soundstage sounds less full, sometimes it feel more stable (sponge ain't stable!).
sometimes i will enjoy the crossfeed benefits even with the disadvantages of frequencies and stimulation loss, sometimes i'll pass and turn the crossfeed off. it can depend very much just on my mood.

mentaly, i can also percieve the differences as if i'm walking with the music into my front, where it happens (with crossfeed), instead of letting it hit me (on bypass mode).
i prefer crossfeed mostly with jazz, maybe because i can feel more "active" with it, because of the more natural place i can "expand" into.

the fatigue is lesser to a considerable degree, depends on the level. there was a time i used to get terrible headaches without crossfeed in a few minutes (i could tell if the crossfeed is off more by the headache then the sound), and crossfeed is what my mind asked for.

crossfeed level
until now, you can see that i didn't refer to the levels of crossfeed.
that is because i find the diffrence between bypass mode to the low level crossfeed mode is equal or even greater then the difference between the low level crossfeed mode to the middle level mode.
the disatvanteges i said about crossfeed are greater when you choose a higher level - but you gain the benefits on the right music.
a higher level will also result in a bit more laid back presentation.

my order of preference:
1. middle level setting
2. low level setting (when i need the crossfeed but want more "edge")
3. high level setting (on the extremely stereo separated & probably poor quality recordings/old recordings most that don't have much "edge" to lose)

[size=small]sound: 2nd approach:[/size]

fine tuning with the "bass" & "treble" knobs;
many audiophiles regect the use of EQ. but here we have a different story - a passive device that needs impendance controls, and these control behave like "bass" & "treble". but it's not a simple EQ. in the past, i used to EQ my stereo and my HD600 (yes, i think they really need it), but i find the EQ of the Cross-1 different.

the "treble" is the leading control - it affects fidelity most, and reaching down to the middle mids with its effect - the sound is more closed and laid back on a low setting, open and upfront on higher (the depth alignment change much).. its effect range is wider then the "bass control" - which affects the lowest bass -> mid bass region.
when i choose to play with the tones, i'll addrees the "treble" knob first.

crossfeed or bypass? what is the "right" way for headphones, which aren't a "right" way to listen to music anyway?
what's more important in hi-fi sound? naturalness or a "correct" frequency response (according to the manufacturer's intention) ?
these are questions that anyone will have to face here, and the answers are personal and rig dependant.
since i don't think it's very clear which mode we're "supposed" to choose, i guess it is natural to take the cross-1 & your setup's disatvanteges and to compensate with the tone controls to a level where your ears find it right.

bottom line - i find myself not touching the tones most of the time, but with some recordings with certain frequency behaviour on certain headphones i have, i will.
i can sometimes reach an excellent tonal balance (which can be definetly superior to "none EQ" crossfeed or bypass modes), sometimes with a reletively a high level crossfeed setting combined with the tone controls. so if you consider the natural effect that the crossfeed adds, you realise that this is where the Cross-1 worth every penny. you are in for a balanced sounding and fatigue free listening.

[size=small]some issues:[/size]

caution! volume!
when you turn on the crossfeed, there's a slight volume drop (because of the circuit), so you'll have to take care of the volume anyway.
there's a tendancy to push the volume more with crossfeed (even if it was on before). why?
1. short term - the immidiate lust for some more of that "juice" we know from bypass mode.
2. longer term - the fatigue free listening fools us to believe that we less hurt our ears, and we can get even some more "juice" from volume (you know this one

)
a side note that fits here is that

Buying the Cross-1 as a tone controller to EQ a system?
i wouldn't go that route, because:
1. with the recordings that bypass mode is prefered for you, you won't be able to control the tone, and your systems' faults then be again revealed.
2.the impendance/tone controls works on the frequency response graph in a certain way - i'm afraid that some systems (and the ears that listens) would benefit the position and angle of the boosts/cuts on the graph, but others may go for constant settings (1st approach) - as they find that the tone changes doesn't hit the "sweet spot", and hurt fidelity (for me, it's mainly the naturalness of intruments and environment). so you are risking that for tonal balance. i prefer fidelity, if i have to choose one.
OTOH, it could be that things would work out great for you, but i wouldn't buy my unit based on that.

Cross-1 for computer sources?
i couldn't have done a fair and direct comparison with Foobar2000's crossfeed because the rig wouldn't been the same, but i find that crossfeed excellent, and superior in quality (comparing on and off) to the Cross-1 which tends to sound relatively thinner (so i prefer Foobar2000's crossfeed for the CD3000, which tends to reach critical points more often then with the Cross-1).
i can also recommend Speaker Simulator crossfeed plugin, if you use winamp. in that plugin you can adjust the exact amount of crossfeed and the delay.

maybe it's because the processing is done in the digital stage before any DAC, instead of being an analog unit that has all of the physical obstacles in the way of the signal.

i think that at its price, and dispite all of the nice options, the Cross-1 ain't the best way to spend your money, if you use your computer as a source.

otherwise, DOES IT WORTH $205?
if you listen to a wide range of genres, don't use a computer as a source, and your amp doesn't have crossfeed, i would say go for it!!
just remember that extra cables are needed

 

[HappymaN]

Good read, thanks!

 

[AdamZuf]

review updated

 

[Anders]

Adam, good with an update! I have got the Prehead after you wrote the review and this should have the same crossfeed except the tone controls. On the other side, I have the advantage to have the crossfeed integrated in the amplifier without the extra cable and plugs for a seperate unit.
I think you picture gives a good illustration of the crossfeed effect. I can add that with good recordings and resolving equipment you can also get a strong height effect and hear the music vibrate in a very large listening room as a church or the hall of Boston Symphony Orhestra (I looked up the latter on Internet to verify that it is indeed very high). The crossfeed has been very useful on good recordings of acoustical music with the Prehead and Sennheiser HD650. It can be nearly uncanny, the usual "homogeneous" headspace is broken up and you hear only some individual instruments located in the room and nothing between, no artificial fill-in between. On more complex passages where many instruments are acoustically mixed you don't get this effect and shouldn't because it then would be an artificial separation.
The effect of the crossfeed is dependant on the quality of the recording. If it is not mixed to reflect the positioning in the performance, crossfeed cannot reconstruct that or only partly. Many rock etc. albums are not recordings of a performance but are mix of separate takes without accurate spatial information. Then I typically use the low level of crossfeed but on recordings with spatial information the middle position is usually the best.
The crossfeed effect is also dependant on the headphone (and the degree of resolution of the whole system). It works very well with HD650 and not equally good with Grado RS-1, soundstaging is not its strong side. If the headphone creates an artificial reverb, I also expect the crossfeed to be less effective.

 

[AdamZuf]

Anders,
thanks for your response - some very good points in there.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anders If the headphone creates an artificial reverb, I also expect the crossfeed to be less effective.

i think that there's some truth in that statement, because both reverb and crossfeed address related effects, but i also think it forgets a bit that the crossfeed mechanism's ain't parrallel to the reverb's mechanism enough to generalize, mainly because the effect of crossfeed is more individualistic then the reverb's.

mmm..if there are closed headphones that people tend to relate "reverb" to, the CD3000 are somewhere on the top of the list.
never the less, crossfeed is VERY effective with them, maybe more then with the DT880 (though it tend to hurt their performance relatively more). when i had my good times with the DT880, i remember that i could less blindly tell if the Foobar2000's crossfeed was on.
in the right recording, the effect can be really explosive, since the already relatively round soundstage of them forms into a perfectly structured easy-flowing soundstage.. once you merge with the music, the soundstage can be seen in a magical way. OTOH, the disadvatages are more annoying on many cases, to my taste.

 

[Anders]

My statement on crossfeed and reverb maybe was simplified and based on little empirical evidence. If the CD3000 behaves differently and crossfeed and reverb work together, I am happy about that.
A headphone I really can recommend with crossfeed from own experience is HD650 (at least if you have enough resolution in the system). I earlier had an older Headroom amp with a one position crossfeed and a system with less resolution than my present, and then the advantage of crossfeed was not so obvious. Meiers natural crossfeed with three positions (+ off switch) is much better.
A recording with decent soundstage information is a condition for crossfeed to really work in the sense that it "remixes" the recording from a 2-channel speaker mix to something that is more realistic with headphones. Of course crossfeed has an effect in other cases too, but it is more unpredictable and more of the kind of channel mixing than recreation of soundstage.

 

[AdamZuf]

Quote:

My statement on crossfeed and reverb maybe was simplified and based on little empirical evidence

can you please add some details?

Quote:

If the CD3000 behaves differently and crossfeed and reverb work together, I am happy about that.

infact, crossfeed can make the CD3000 more natural and less "reverbative", since it reduces their hump in the lower mids/upper bass region.
this is where the Foobar2000's crossfeed is prefered (to me), since it leaves the sony's less "hollow". i can feel a certain "void" with the Cross-1.
Quote:

A headphone I really can recommend with crossfeed from own experience is HD650

i don't know how much the HD650 are comparable with the HD600 (yet they have the same drivers), but i remember that one of the first things with the HD600 that i didn't like was that "visceral" vibrations that just prevented them to disappear on higher volumes.
crossfeed helped them much; i can really recommend it for these headphones too. (although it wasn't the Cross-1, but Foobar2000's)
how do you feel about these two, in that regard?

 

[kartik]

I did try Pinkfloyd's X-feed, but I wasn't really thrilled with its performance at least in my set up. On the other hand, when I plugged my headphones into my power amp, rather than my tube headamp preamp (with the preamp out of the circuit), I found the sound becoming very nice and focussed and very easy to listen to, even when louder and for extended periods of time. I noticed the same thing with my speakers, particularlty when the preamp is out of the loop. I wonder why? Any ideas? Does my amp have a hidden crossfeed?

 

[AdamZuf]

it just seems that your power amp is good and more fatigue-free

 

[Anders]

Actually I am not crystal clear of the meaning of "reverb". I have interpreted as as a little delay added to sound and coming from reflextions in the earcup chamber of a closed headphone, giving an impression of space. The only closed headphone I have is AT W11R. This doesn't with crossfeed give an equally detailed and spatial presentation of the concert hall as HD650 but it is hard to say how much this depends on reverb and on the more general spatial and detail performance of the headphone. In my understanding reverb is mostly artificial spaciousness that can be experienced as pleasant but not the same as an accurate representations of the concert hall acoustics. Reverb coming from reflexions in the earcup is a kind of distortion that the designer should try to minimize but I have seen arguments for closed headphones based on their increased spaciousness. This kind of spaciousness must be a form of coloration that of course can be perceived as pleasant.
I thought it would counteract the effect of crossfeed as it seem to do for W11R (or maybe there is explanation for this as well).

I can't really compare crossfeed on HD600 and HD650 because I listened to crossfeed on HD600 with the Headroom 1-position crossfeed and sold HD600 before I got the Prehead and HD650. The effect I hear is much greater on HD650 but this can depend both on headphones and amplifiers, and also change of CDP. I am not shure of what you mean with "visceral" vibrations on HD600. If it is the bass hump, that has disapperad on HD650. The bass performance of HD650 is excellent, especially with Zu Mobius, and much improved in relation to HD600. It is also better at resolving fine detail as spatial cues so I beleive it is even more suitable for crossfeed than HD600.

 

[AdamZuf]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anders I am not shure of what you mean with "visceral" vibrations on HD600. If it is the bass hump, that has disapperad on HD650.

it doesn't have anything to do with any hump. this is a certain behaviour that all non crossfeeded headphones have - it's just more obvious with the HD600.
try to switch between bypass and a high level crossfeed for a sec with your HD650, and try to feel the physical differences in the way sounds hit your ears, as if bypass is more "bumping" into them or in the close air.
well, that's the way i percieve it, at least

 

[Anders]

Oh yes, I perceive that too but prefer to call it more pushy, close-up or forward in contrast to a more laid-back presentation. Without crossfeed you get the sound more directly into the ear instead of hearing it at a point say 10 meters in front of you and closer to the center (with crossfeed).
Occasionally there can be a phenomenon which feels like different air pressure at left and right ear on the bass. I don't know but suspect that this has something to do with phase deviation, in the headphone, amp or the recording.

 

[AdamZuf]

phase deviation?

 

[Anders]

Phase deviations are common on for example speakers meaning that tones of different frequencies are not exactly in phase. In the case I mentioned above it could be that the left and right channels are somewhat out of phase and probably an error in the recording because it only appears shortly. Could be a cut in the master tape that is done badly. But all of this is only a hypothesis.

 

[AdamZuf]

Quote:

Occasionally there can be a phenomenon which feels like different air pressure at left and right ear on the bass. I don't know but suspect that this has something to do with phase deviation, in the headphone, amp or the recording.

so you've noticed this only with crossfeed?