[castleofargh]

This is for violin and piano. I haven't heard anything as stark in a concerto. I HAVE noticed that crossfeed can also help with singers who like to turn about like madmen.

you don't get it. it's correct, they're just very active in the studio

Spoiler: Bob in the studio that day

how something mastered so stupidly can get me in a total frenzy anytime I play the song, is one of life's biggest mysteries. the song has most of the stuff I hate, including so much background noise... arrrrrgh. yet here I am headbanging just moderately enough to keep the headphone on my head and singing along like I'm about to start a revolution.

 

[71 dB]

That Bod Seger song sounds a bit crazy with crossfeed and without crossfeed it's the craziest thing I have ever heard and not in a good way at all.

 

[71 dB]

1. No it hasn't gone anywhere, it's just been avoided by making it irrelevant/inapplicable! Because...
1a. Exactly, the "result is flat" and the resonant "law of acoustics" of the ear canal is irrelevant.
1b. Then we don't apply any EQ, you hear the sound with the ear's usual resonant boost but as that boost is expected the result is perceived as flat and that resonant "law of acoustics" is irrelevant.
Whichever way we play your argument, that "law of acoustics" can be or is avoided!

1. Really?
1a. You need to know how the resonant is in order to make it flat. Something you need to know is not irrelevant, but relevant. Also, you confuse transparency of sound reproduction chain to normal/natural spectral colourization of human hearing. You aren't supposed to flat out those, because they provide spatial cues to our spatial hearing to help decoding the sounds and their spatial properties. Because ear canal resonance is normal/natural, you need a very good reason to filter it flat. Protecting hearing against loud sounds comes to mind.
1b. Yeah, you can do that of course if you want to be ignorant and not understand human hearing, not understand why for example shaped dither has a spectral dip around 3-4 kHz.

1. No they don't! Those recordings do not make sense and speakers do not "regulate interaural differences". Just because you apparently can't hear it does not mean it does not exist. You said you wanted to understand but that's just more nonsense words, what you really want is to just repeat the same old nonsense over and over again. What's the point, you think we're going to agree if you state it 53 times instead of 48 times?

A speakers alone don't regulate anything, but most of the time speakers are used in a room and that combination of a room and speakerS does regulate interaural differences. If you play a mono recording you get a sound field in the room with about 3 dB ILD at low frequencies. Almost The same happens if you play a ping pong stereo recording with huge channel difference. So, if a system makes almost constant 3 dB ILD out of sources with channel separation ranging from zero dB to 100 dB or so, I'd call that regulating. At higher frequencies things change, but even there regulating happens. How come doesn't all below 1 kHz stuff sound almost mono (same) in a room if ILD is almost constant 3 dB? Because below 1 kHz spatial hearing is mostly based on ITD. Sometimes you need to say something 53 times because someone holds on to their believes so strongly.

2. Huh? Wagner didn't play with synths, DAWs or iTunes on an iPhone either, what's that got to do with anything? Wagner did play with what was available to him at the time, he played with reality, with what occurs naturally in the real world and with the expectations of hearing. Do you even know what chromaticism is, what it's reliant on and what centuries old principles of science it broke/avoided?

2a. How about I completely ignore how you decide I should create art and call you a fascist instead? If you want to try and evolve art that way, go right ahead and knock yourself out but you don't get to tell me what I should do, I get to create art however I want, using whatever tools are at my disposal, including with big interaural level differences if I so wish and I care not even the tiniest little bit if you think it sounds unnatural or not. People thought Wagner sounded unnatural as well, heck Beethoven got hammered decades before Wagner for the same reason. Now I don't actually think you're a fascist, just so ignorant of art/music production that you come across like one!

G

2. ILD became an issue only after stereophonic sound reproduction was commercialiced. Before that music was always live (natural ILD) or mono recordings.
Music theory isn't my strong points, but I know what chromaticism means on basic level, that is extends the tonal harmonic language.

2a. You are entitled to do that. It's 100 % your choice. In my opion you confuse artistic and technical choices. Personally I am interested of music that is based on things such as rhythm, counterpoint, melody, harmony, timbral effects, sound design, catchy chorus, etc. I have never heard anyone listening to music for excessive channel separation, so I don't know why that's so important for you. You can have great spatial effects naturally using natural levels of ILD together with ITD and spectral effects. That might force you to learn a new way of thinking spatiality, so I understand we you don't like the idea.

 

[bigshot]

tedious. Let's talk about Beethoven again.

 

[gregorio]

1a. You need to know how the resonant is in order to make it flat. Something you need to know is not irrelevant, but relevant. [1aa] Also, you confuse transparency of sound reproduction chain to normal/natural spectral colourization of human hearing. [1ab] You aren't supposed to flat out those, because they provide spatial cues to our spatial hearing to help decoding the sounds and their spatial properties. Because ear canal resonance is normal/natural, you need a very good reason to filter it flat. Protecting hearing against loud sounds comes to mind.
1b. Yeah, you can do that of course if you want to be ignorant and not understand human hearing, not understand why for example shaped dither has a spectral dip around 3-4 kHz.

1a. No we do not need to know "how", why or even if there is a resonance, just that there is (or is not) an unwanted peak at that frequency as perceived by human hearing (in any channels/points in the music). So how do we know if human hearing will perceive such a peak? We use human hearing to find out! We do not mix according to science because the science may be inapplicable depending on a number of factors, we do not "paint by the numbers" which you know isn't art, right?
1aa. No I'm not, you just made that up, for a change. And why do you think mastering exists?
1ab. Again, just complete nonsense you've made up! Making up nonsense in areas (music creation, recording, mixing, production, etc.) you clearly know nothing about is bad enough but to present and argue that nonsense to someone far more educated than you, who does it for a living, that's nuts!!!
1b. You're clearly the one who "wants to be ignorant", who wants to remain ignorant and use that ignorance as an defence! Who is it do you think who applies that noise-shaped dither and decides how much of a dip it has? Duh!

Sometimes you need to say something 53 times because someone holds on to their believes so strongly.

My strong belief is based on years of relevant education, years of practical professional experience and many decades of tens of thousands of other engineers' relevant education and/or practical professional experience. Your strong belief is based on a few scientific facts that you've taken out of context (because you know nothing about and are not even considering the "context") and a whole bunch of nonsense that you've just made up based on those out of context facts! Sometimes repeating something 53 times just makes you look like a fool 53 times over!!

Music theory isn't my strong points ...

Clearly! So why make up nonsense and argue about it with someone who was formally educated and trained in music theory and was a practising professional? It's bad enough when someone does this without realising they're ignorant but you're doing it even though you actually know you're ignorant?! And, you're not just doing that with music theory but with music history, music composition, music orchestration and performance, music recording, mixing, mastering and production. This approach is so utterly inconceivable, especially here in the sound science forum, that only two rational explanations spring to mind, either: A. You're trolling or B. You're shockingly delusional?

[1] In my opion you confuse artistic and technical choices.
[2] Personally I am interested of music that is based on things such as rhythm, counterpoint, melody, harmony, timbral effects, sound design, catchy chorus, etc.
[3] You can have great spatial effects naturally using natural levels of ILD together with ITD and spectral effects. [3a] That might force you to learn a new way of thinking spatiality, so I understand we you don't like the idea.

1. For someone who clearly does not understand the principles of art and who knows next to nothing about the "technical choices" of music theory, recording, mixing, etc., your opinion is WORTHLESS. Actually it's far worse than worthless because it's delusional, attempting to mislead others and insulting!!!
2. Obviously that is not true! If you really were interested in music then: A. You'd learn something about it rather than just make up nonsense and B. You wouldn't base your belief on facts which are inapplicable because you've completely ignored what music is!
3. But I (along with all other sound engineers) choose not to limit myself to what occurs naturally and to pre-1950's recording, mixing and music creation techniques!
3a. That is NOT a new way of thinking spatially, it's a very old and pretty much obsolete way of thinking about spatiality, which I already know anyway! Almost no one wants commercial music recordings and genres created today as they were in the 1950's (and earlier) and I don't want to create music recordings that way. So obviously (and completely contrary to your assertion), you've utterly failed to understand why I "don't like the idea"!!!

Yet AGAIN you've proven my point better than you could if you'd deliberately tried. You said you were leaving this thread but here you are again, posting another whole load of ignorant, made-up nonsense, exactly as I predicted! Sadly, you don't even appear to recognise you've proven my point but regardless, AGAIN, enough! If you want to know something about music theory or any other aspect of modern commercial music recordings then ask. You can't just say it's "not my strong point" (as if that were a valid excuse for making-up nonsense) and then say/imply that anyone who disagrees with your nonsense is ignorant!

G

 

[71 dB]

My post number 500!

1a. No we do not need to know "how", why or even if there is a resonance, just that there is (or is not) an unwanted peak at that frequency as perceived by human hearing (in any channels/points in the music). So how do we know if human hearing will perceive such a peak? We use human hearing to find out! We do not mix according to science because the science may be inapplicable depending on a number of factors, we do not "paint by the numbers" which you know isn't art, right?
1aa. No I'm not, you just made that up, for a change. And why do you think mastering exists?
1ab. Again, just complete nonsense you've made up! Making up nonsense in areas (music creation, recording, mixing, production, etc.) you clearly know nothing about is bad enough but to present and argue that nonsense to someone far more educated than you, who does it for a living, that's nuts!!!
1b. You're clearly the one who "wants to be ignorant", who wants to remain ignorant and use that ignorance as an defence! Who is it do you think who applies that noise-shaped dither and decides how much of a dip it has? Duh!

1a. Yeah, you use human hearing. In other words you measure equal loudness curves. Or you model the ear canal and calculate an estimate for the resonance it causes. That is science of acoustics.
1aa. Record companies want to release music of high artistic and technical quality (read: high commercial potential).
1ab. Looks like you can't compete with me in this area so you label my arguments as nonsense while claming that I understand/know nothing. You can brag about your experience on the field of sound engineering and I don't deny that at all, but I'd expect more from someone like you. The best counter argument you and pinnahertz give to my claims about spatial information are "artistic intent" and "human perception." I get those arguments, but I think they are weak, althou I keep thinking about the latter just in case I realize something I haven't realized before.
1b. I didn't say YOU don't know how to use dither. My point was you need to know the science of acoustics. No matter how much you include "artistic intent" in your music production, the science of acoutics is there too.

My strong belief is based on years of relevant education, years of practical professional experience and many decades of tens of thousands of other engineers' relevant education and/or practical professional experience. Your strong belief is based on a few scientific facts that you've taken out of context (because you know nothing about and are not even considering the "context") and a whole bunch of nonsense that you've just made up based on those out of context facts! Sometimes repeating something 53 times just makes you look like a fool 53 times over!!

There are many aspects of music production I wouldn't dream of challenging your knowledged about. I'm challenging you on one thing: Encoding of spatial information. Why do you think crossfeed exists and why some people prever using crossfeed? Is that a sign for you that you and other sound engineers have got spatiality 100 % right?

I have said 2 % of stereophonic recordings do not need crossfeed. Somehow these recordings sound great on speakers and headphones as they are. Below is one example of these recordings:

The spatial information on this recordings is so on point that use of crossfeed makes it sound worse. The engineer is Jürgen Rummel. Somehow he got it right here.

Again you made clear you know this stuff and then you discredit me ("out of context nonsense"). How does that look to other people reading this thread? I'm just worried about your credibility. Looks like I am kicking where it hurts.

Clearly! So why make up nonsense and argue about it with someone who was formally educated and trained in music theory and was a practising professional? It's bad enough when someone does this without realising they're ignorant but you're doing it even though you actually know you're ignorant?! And, you're not just doing that with music theory but with music history, music composition, music orchestration and performance, music recording, mixing, mastering and production. This approach is so utterly inconceivable, especially here in the sound science forum, that only two rational explanations spring to mind, either: A. You're trolling or B. You're shockingly delusional?

Aren't you repeting yourself here? You have the education/experience and I am making up nonsense. Yeah, yeah, you said that already. I think I have seen that said about me two dozen times already. With your education and experience you should be able to make convincing counterarguments to the claims of someone who makes up nonsense. For some reason instead of doing that, you spend your time discrediting me. That's what teenagers who are too young to know much anything do online. I haven't claimed expertise on the history of music, composition etc. I am claiming knowledge of one thing

A. I'm trolling
B. I'm shockingly delusional
C. I actually have insight about what I write about.

Readers of this thread can pick one or come up with another one if they feel like it.

1. For someone who clearly does not understand the principles of art and who knows next to nothing about the "technical choices" of music theory, recording, mixing, etc., your opinion is WORTHLESS. Actually it's far worse than worthless because it's delusional, attempting to mislead others and insulting!!!
2. Obviously that is not true! If you really were interested in music then: A. You'd learn something about it rather than just make up nonsense and B. You wouldn't base your belief on facts which are inapplicable because you've completely ignored what music is!
3. But I (along with all other sound engineers) choose not to limit myself to what occurs naturally and to pre-1950's recording, mixing and music creation techniques!
3a. That is NOT a new way of thinking spatially, it's a very old and pretty much obsolete way of thinking about spatiality, which I already know anyway! Almost no one wants commercial music recordings and genres created today as they were in the 1950's (and earlier) and I don't want to create music recordings that way. So obviously (and completely contrary to your assertion), you've utterly failed to understand why I "don't like the idea"!!!

1. Do you really know me well enough to say I clearly do not understand the principles of art? Worthless opinions? Again, you are just discrediting me.
2. I know something, but that doesn't make me an expert of music theory. Not even close. I haven't made claims about music theory. What music is? Apparently it's excessive channel dirrerence! Give me a break. I listen to music several hours every day ranging from classical to pop music and a lot in between. I have about 1500 CDs. I make my own music (not very good, but anyway), I know the basics of music theory and you say I'm ignorant about what music is. I'd say I have some idea what it is.
3. Sometimes "natural" chances in time, sometimes it does not. Spatial hearing has not changed (why would it?), but for example the electronic sounds have become natural. The sound of violin was not natural before the instrument was invented and the sound of 19th century violin would not have been "natural" in the 17th century. Didn't matter, because the concept of "natural" evolved. You notion of artistic limitation because of avoiding excessive channel differencies is an excuse.

Yet AGAIN you've proven my point better than you could if you'd deliberately tried. You said you were leaving this thread but here you are again, posting another whole load of ignorant, made-up nonsense, exactly as I predicted! Sadly, you don't even appear to recognise you've proven my point but regardless, AGAIN, enough! If you want to know something about music theory or any other aspect of modern commercial music recordings then ask. You can't just say it's "not my strong point" (as if that were a valid excuse for making-up nonsense) and then say/imply that anyone who disagrees with your nonsense is ignorant!

G

I didn't promise to leave this place for good. I limit my activity and I don't respond to every post. I tested what happens when I "give in" and noticed that you and pinnahertz didn't follow my example so I am back defending my opinions. I try to do it with respect this time around to win the moral high ground. Reading your response I think that should not be difficult…

As for music theory, Rick Beato's YT-videos are helpful. As for the music production I could ask: Do you feel pressured to limit the dynamic range because of loudness war? How much freedom do you have on that front?

 

[bigshot]

I didn't promise to leave this place for good. I limit my activity and I don't respond to every post. I tested what happens when I "give in" and noticed that you and pinnahertz didn't follow my example so I am back defending my opinions.

Food for thought, guys.

A. I'm trolling
B. I'm shockingly delusional
C. I actually have insight about what I write about.

Create a poll and we'll find out for sure.

 

[gregorio]

1. Yeah, you use human hearing. [1a] In other words you measure equal loudness curves. [1b] Or you model the ear canal and calculate an estimate for the resonance it causes. That is science of acoustics. ... The best counter argument you and pinnahertz give to my claims about spatial information are "artistic intent" and "human perception." [1c] I get those arguments, but I think they are weak, ...
[2] Record companies want to release music of high artistic and technical quality (read: high commercial potential).

1. Yes, we listen!
1a. No we don't! How would measuring the equal loudness curves help? You realise that it's loudness curves (plural), which of the curves would we apply?
1b. And what does the science of acoustics say about how you will perceive an electric guitar, a vocal and a drumkit mixed together and therefore how each of them should or should not be EQ'ed? And, what does the science of acoustics say about mixing together the acoustics of an electric guitar with artificial echoes of a large arena, a vocal with the natural or artificial ambience of a plate reverb and a drumkit with the natural acoustics of a small room plus a large hall reverb on the snare? Answer these two questions! The science of acoustics CANNOT of course answer these two or numerous similar questions. In fact the science of acoustics tells us that we can't have all those completely different acoustic spaces at the same time (I doubt these inconvenient facts will get in the way of you making up some nonsense and passing it off as the science of acoustics though)!

Firstly, you haven't even got the right science here because this has relatively little to do with the science of acoustics, the applicable science here would be the science of psycho-acoustics, NOT acoustics! Secondly, even the science of psycho-acoustics cannot answer those two (or numerous other related) questions! This is why your assertions that we (artists/engineers) must know and abide by the "laws of acoustics" are clearly absolute nonsense. If we actually did abide by the "laws of acoustics" then almost no commercial audio of the last 50+ years or so could exist.
1c. Those arguments are NOT weak, they're not even arguments, they are the WHOLE POINT, there is nothing else! How on earth do you manage to miss this whole point? Apparently you just take a science which tells us little/nothing about music, music creation/production, art or it's perception, prioritise that science above everything else and then use nonsense circular arguments that artistic intent and perception are "weak" or "excuses" because they contradict the (inapplicable!) science of acoustics!

2. That statement is ONLY true if we define "technical quality" as; what best allows the artist intent to be perceived. If you define "technical quality" as anything else, as you appear to be doing (adherence to the science of acoustics for example), then it is not true and you've demonstrated a complete lack of understand of what mastering is and why it exists!

1. Do you really know me well enough to say I clearly do not understand the principles of art? Worthless opinions? [1b] Again, you are just discrediting me.
2. I know something, but that doesn't make me an expert of music theory. Not even close. I haven't made claims about music theory. What music is? Apparently it's excessive channel dirrerence!
3. Sometimes "natural" chances in time, sometimes it does not. Spatial hearing has not changed (why would it?), but for example the electronic sounds have become natural. The sound of violin was not natural before the instrument was invented and the sound of 19th century violin would not have been "natural" in the 17th century. Didn't matter, because the concept of "natural" evolved. You notion of artistic limitation because of avoiding excessive channel differencies is an excuse.

1. I don't know you at all, the only thing I can go on is your assertions about the laws to which music recordings should adhere or else be "bad". Such an assertion demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the principles of art and therefore ...
1b. I'm not discrediting you, you're doing that all by yourself! All I'm doing is pointing out that you're discrediting yourself, as somehow you don't appear to realise it!
2. Huh? You state that you haven't made claims about music theory, what music is or the evolution of art and then state that it must adhere to the "laws of acoustics" (that it shouldn't have "excessive channel difference"), which is a clear and UNAMBIGUOUS claim about what music should be. You're contradicting yourself!
3. You're saying that an unnatural sounding C19th violin evolved into a "natural" violin sound. At last, an assertion I can completely agree with! Where we completely disagree is "what" evolved/changed and the consequence of this. If, as you state, the "laws of acoustics" didn't change, THEN WHAT DID? Are you saying that our C19th violin realised it sounded unnatural and gradually changed itself to sound natural? Where we disagree is that I'm asserting that the "laws of acoustics" didn't change AND that the violin itself didn't change, what DID change/evolve was our PERCEPTION of "natural". The obvious consequence/conclusion is that "natural" is NOT defined by the "laws of acoustics" but our PERCEPTION! How can you not understand this obvious/simple logic, ignore all the psycho-acoustics evidence which supports it and continue to argue that "perception" is a weak argument and an excuse? If we were to follow the logic of your assertions then that unnatural C19th violin should never have been used, music makers should have stuck with natural sounding C17th violins and those who didn't (Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky and all the other great C19th composers) were "ignorant" compared to you and just making excuses for creating bad art. Your example of Wagner was even more nonsensical because Chromaticism can ONLY exist by ignoring the natural "laws of acoustics" as discovered by Pythagoras 2500 years ago and still a cornerstone of the science of acoustics today! Can't you see that your examples completely support our "ignorant/weak arguments and excuses", while at the same time completely contradicting your "educated" assertions and therefore that you are discrediting yourself? Apparently not!

G

 

[barryt]

That Bod Seger song sounds a bit crazy with crossfeed and without crossfeed it's the craziest thing I have ever heard and not in a good way at all. [/QU

Music reproduction is an illusion, it is a form of staged magic.

There is no band in front of you, you are not in a concert hall or bar, if you open your eyes you will not see musicians.

It is the task of the recording folks and processes is to affect your mind with with visions or imaginary perceptions. By definition that is to make you hallucinate.

The EARGASM is when the magic trick works well bringing pleasure to our soul. We audio guys have become addicted to that pleasure and it's a cool addiction.

Somewhere along the line this thread forgot that. It became engaged in the thousands of variables that the magicians can use to get the desired effect.

Habituation is a physiological propensity of humans to adapt to sensual data coming in, that is usual, to in an effort to detect and be sensitive to what is new and not usual. Aural habituation seems to the experiential process that let out ancestors stand in tall blowing grass taller and pick out that twig breaking under the foot of a nasty predator seeking a meal. This is part of being human.

The effect of this is that a given illusion changes for any given individual at any given time.

To fool your mind into imagining a soundscape without the support of a equal visual landscape is very difficult to pull off, and unique to each individual.

All the arguments I am seeing in this thread are about the 'tricks' used to pull off the illusion. If this were about paintings we would be arguing about paints and brush strokes. There is a strong desire to make the 'science' absolute, cast in granite it were. In fact it is cast in Jello at best.

None of these tricks are absolute or work alone. The illusion is a gestalt, a 'whole greater than the parts" in this case, the effect of many things all happening at the same time.

I will concede that you are compelled to take the knowledge you have and make the world fit it as suggested in you texts.

I don't know, but I can find out - for me. I have the resources and equipment to do that. A couple of weeks ago I did a deep dive into the literature on this.

Over the last week I designed a unit that embodies all the features you have talked about in such a way that I can change the signal paths easily. I did a BOM. schematic, and simulation in SPICE to verify all the academics.

As I build high-end audio products anyway I have an inventory of premium parts, the wherewithal to assemble and test it.

So let me take all this 'science' you are running and reduce it to a pure high-quality analog manifestation, listen to it, pass it around to my audio critics.

I call it "The Active Speaker Simulator for Headphones" or ASSH processor and will report back in a while.

Barry Thornton
AustinAudioWorks.com
512-266-7142

1. Yes, we listen!
1a. No we don't! How would measuring the equal loudness curves help? You realise that it's loudness curves (plural), which of the curves would we apply?
1b. And what does the science of acoustics say about how you will perceive an electric guitar, a vocal and a drumkit mixed together and therefore how each of them should or should not be EQ'ed? And, what does the science of acoustics say about mixing together the acoustics of an electric guitar with artificial echoes of a large arena, a vocal with the natural or artificial ambience of a plate reverb and a drumkit with the natural acoustics of a small room plus a large hall reverb on the snare? Answer these two questions! The science of acoustics CANNOT of course answer these two or numerous similar questions. In fact the science of acoustics tells us that we can't have all those completely different acoustic spaces at the same time (I doubt these inconvenient facts will get in the way of you making up some nonsense and passing it off as the science of acoustics though)!

Firstly, you haven't even got the right science here because this has relatively little to do with the science of acoustics, the applicable science here would be the science of psycho-acoustics, NOT acoustics! Secondly, even the science of psycho-acoustics cannot answer those two (or numerous other related) questions! This is why your assertions that we (artists/engineers) must know and abide by the "laws of acoustics" are clearly absolute nonsense. If we actually did abide by the "laws of acoustics" then almost no commercial audio of the last 50+ years or so could exist.
1c. Those arguments are NOT weak, they're not even arguments, they are the WHOLE POINT, there is nothing else! How on earth do you manage to miss this whole point? Apparently you just take a science which tells us little/nothing about music, music creation/production, art or it's perception, prioritise that science above everything else and then use nonsense circular arguments that artistic intent and perception are "weak" or "excuses" because they contradict the (inapplicable!) science of acoustics!

2. That statement is ONLY true if we define "technical quality" as; what best allows the artist intent to be perceived. If you define "technical quality" as anything else, as you appear to be doing (adherence to the science of acoustics for example), then it is not true and you've demonstrated a complete lack of understand of what mastering is and why it exists!



1. I don't know you at all, the only thing I can go on is your assertions about the laws to which music recordings should adhere or else be "bad". Such an assertion demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the principles of art and therefore ...
1b. I'm not discrediting you, you're doing that all by yourself! All I'm doing is pointing out that you're discrediting yourself, as somehow you don't appear to realise it!
2. Huh? You state that you haven't made claims about music theory, what music is or the evolution of art and then state that it must adhere to the "laws of acoustics" (that it shouldn't have "excessive channel difference"), which is a clear and UNAMBIGUOUS claim about what music should be. You're contradicting yourself!
3. You're saying that an unnatural sounding C19th violin evolved into a "natural" violin sound. At last, an assertion I can completely agree with! Where we completely disagree is "what" evolved/changed and the consequence of this. If, as you state, the "laws of acoustics" didn't change, THEN WHAT DID? Are you saying that our C19th violin realised it sounded unnatural and gradually changed itself to sound natural? Where we disagree is that I'm asserting that the "laws of acoustics" didn't change AND that the violin itself didn't change, what DID change/evolve was our PERCEPTION of "natural". The obvious consequence/conclusion is that "natural" is NOT defined by the "laws of acoustics" but our PERCEPTION! How can you not understand this obvious/simple logic, ignore all the psycho-acoustics evidence which supports it and continue to argue that "perception" is a weak argument and an excuse? If we were to follow the logic of your assertions then that unnatural C19th violin should never have been used, music makers should have stuck with natural sounding C17th violins and those who didn't (Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky and all the other great C19th composers) were "ignorant" compared to you and just making excuses for creating bad art. Your example of Wagner was even more nonsensical because Chromaticism can ONLY exist by ignoring the natural "laws of acoustics" as discovered by Pythagoras 2500 years ago and still a cornerstone of the science of acoustics today! Can't you see that your examples completely support our "ignorant/weak arguments and excuses", while at the same time completely contradicting your "educated" assertions and therefore that you are discrediting yourself? Apparently not!

G

 

[barryt]

Music reproduction is an illusion, it is a form of staged magic. It is not real.

There is no band in front of you. You are not in a concert hall or bar. If you open your eyes you will not see musicians.

It is the task of the recording folks and processes to affect your mind with with visions or imaginary perceptions. By definition that is to make you hallucinate.

The EARGASM is when the magic trick works well bringing pleasure to our soul. We audio guys have become addicted to that pleasure and it's a cool addiction.

Somewhere along the line this thread forgot that. It became engaged in the thousands of variables that the magicians can use to get the desired effect.

Habituation is a physiological propensity of humans to adapt to sensual data coming in, that is usual, to in an effort to detect and be sensitive to what is new and not usual. Aural habituation seems to the experiential process that let out ancestors stand in tall blowing grass and pick out that twig breaking under the foot of a nasty predator seeking a meal. This is vestige of human environmental evolution.

The effect of this is that a given illusion changes for any given individual at any given time.

To fool your mind into imagining a soundscape without the support of an equal visual landscape is very difficult to pull off, and unique to each individual.

All the arguments I am seeing in this thread are about the 'tricks' used to pull off the illusion. If this were about paintings we would be arguing about paints and brush strokes. There is a strong desire to make the 'science' absolute, cast in granite it were. In fact it is cast in Jello at best.

None of these tricks are absolute or work alone. The illusion is a gestalt, a 'whole greater than the parts" in this case, the effect of many things all happening at the same time.

I will concede that you are compelled to take the knowledge you have and make the world fit it as suggested in you texts.

I don't know, but I can find out - for me. I have the resources and equipment to do that. A couple of weeks ago I did a deep dive into the literature on the subject.

Over the last week I designed a unit that embodies all the features you have talked about in such a way that I can change the signal paths easily. I did a BOM. schematic, and simulation in SPICE to verify all the academics.

As I build high-end audio products anyway I have an inventory of premium parts, the wherewithal to assemble and test it.

So let me take all this 'science' you are running and reduce it to a pure high-quality analog manifestation, listen to it, pass it around to my audio critics. learn from the investment.

I call it "The Active Speaker Simulator for Headphones" or ASSH processor and will report back in a while.

Barry Thornton
AustinAudioWorks.com
512-266-7142

 

[bigshot]

I wouldn't be surprised if you listen to 95% of your music with cross feed for long enough, it would sound bad without cross feed. I think 71dB has just acclimated himself to cross feed. Maybe he likes the way it makes all music sound basically the same. I don't know. But two things I do know is that it doesn't make headphones sound like speakers in a room in any way shape or form, and it isn't at all what the engineers intended the music to sound like. If he likes it, cool. Different strokes. To me it would be like homogenized sound. But I don't have to worry about it myself, because I have a speaker system which does sound like speakers in a room and is what the engineers intended.

 

[pinnahertz]

The EARGASM is when the magic trick works well bringing pleasure to our soul.

Oh...NO!

I call it "The Active Speaker Simulator for Headphones" or ASSH processor and will report back in a while.

Barry Thornton
AustinAudioWorks.com
512-266-7142

<snicker> Um...are you...um...sure you want to name it that? 'Cuz then we might say, "It sounds like ASSH".

 

[71 dB]

Answer these two questions!

G

What am I? An Oracle? You want an answer? Here's one: 42

I wouldn't be surprised if you listen to 95% of your music with cross feed for long enough, it would sound bad without cross feed. I think 71dB has just acclimated himself to cross feed. Maybe he likes the way it makes all music sound basically the same. I don't know. But two things I do know is that it doesn't make headphones sound like speakers in a room in any way shape or form, and it isn't at all what the engineers intended the music to sound like. If he likes it, cool. Different strokes. To me it would be like homogenized sound. But I don't have to worry about it myself, because I have a speaker system which does sound like speakers in a room and is what the engineers intended.

Yes, your speakers do sound like speakers in a room just like my crossfeed + headphones sound like headphones with crossfeed. Both of these systems have a sound signature. Your speakers in your room make the recordings sound more alike, because the same sound signature and room acoustics gets added to everything. However all music hardly sounds the same for you, now does it? Does Miles Davis sound the same as Monteverdi? No, they don't. Not for you and not for me either.

 

[bigshot]

I'm not really talking about musical styles. I'm talking about soundstage width and depth.

In my room, the sound has a horizontal and vertical dimension. It also has a sense of scale. The depth cues baked into the mix combined with the distance I sit from the speakers give it a sense of depth. There is a dimensional plane of sound spread out in front of me. I can play recordings with defined soundstage, wild soundscapes with sounds flying around the front of the room, or ping pong stereo from the late 50s, and it all sounds good. Totally different ways of organizing sound that use the space between the speakers, the space between the listener and the speakers, and the space above and around the speakers differently. They all have a different dimensional feel.

When I listen with headphones, I'm sacrificing a lot of the definition of the soundstage I get with my speakers. No vertical dimension, no depth, just a straight line through my skull. I could reduce the channel separation with cross feed, but that isn't getting me any closer to the dimensionality of true soundstage. It's just blending the channels together, which to me is like reducing everything to the same lowest common denominator. Applying cross feed to all of the music I listen to is like saying that some of my food is soft and some is crunch and some is chewy. I'm going to blend it all together so it's all the same consistency.

I can see using cross feed with ping pong stereo if the extreme separation bothers you. But personally, I wouldn't mess with something that attempts some sort of soundstage or soundscape. To me, that would be taking it even further from speakers because a quasi-coherent soundstage running through the middle of my skull is better than one that has been muddled up into the middle.

I think it's better to focus on ways of making sound better, not ways to stick band aids on sacrifices we've already made. Just let headphones be headphones.

 

[pinnahertz]

What am I? An Oracle? You want an answer? Here's one: 42

Sometimes 42 isn't the answer to everything. Sometimes it's just a dodge because someone doesn't now the answer. However, the questions were valid, while the answer was not.

What are you? We're still trying to figure that one out.

Yes, your speakers do sound like speakers in a room just like my crossfeed + headphones sound like headphones with crossfeed. Both of these systems have a sound signature. Your speakers in your room make the recordings sound more alike, because the same sound signature and room acoustics gets added to everything. However all music hardly sounds the same for you, now does it? Does Miles Davis sound the same as Monteverdi? No, they don't. Not for you and not for me either.

You just made a pretty good case for not using cross-feed on everything.