[bigshot]

I was answering your comment about price.

EQ requires you to learn how to use the tool. I think that’s a given.

The difference between crossfeed and EQ is that crossfeed alters the intended sound. EQ can get you closer to it.

 

[castleofargh]

Xfeed requires EQ, so I have a hard time understanding the argument here.

 

[GearMe]

I was answering your comment about price.

EQ requires you to learn how to use the tool. I think that’s a given.

The difference between crossfeed and EQ is that crossfeed alters the intended sound. EQ can get you closer to it.

Who's intended sound (your's, the artist's)?

 

[bigshot]

First you calibrate to as close to balanced as you can. That is the original artist’s intent. Then you listen to a wide range of recordings, and if you want to tweak the curve to your personal taste, you can do that. For most people with good hearing, that’s not likely to be more than a db or two here and there. With a good mix, calibrated sounds darn good.

 

[gregorio]

.25 for studio work? I mean jesus thats pushing it. .5 is kind of standard and you would need some good a&& ears.

Occasionally we use EQ adjustments down to 0.1dB but that’s not because we can hear a difference but to hit a specification. In most cases 0.7dB is the minimum we can hear but under certain circumstances that can extend to 0.2dB. This is why 0.1dB matching is required for scientifically accepted DBTs.

I’ve never come across anyone who could hear an EQ difference less than 0.2dB and I’ve tested many. I’ve met several who thought they could but under blind testing were not able to.

G

 

[redrol]

I assume you mean a shelf of frequencies because a small blip is not going to be hearable.

 

[gregorio]

I assume you mean a shelf of frequencies because a small blip is not going to be hearable.

Not a shelf, a parametric EQ with a very low (wide) “Q” setting. As 71dB stated, a narrow EQ band requires a higher dB level to be audible.

G

 

[GearMe]

First you calibrate to as close to balanced as you can. That is the original artist’s intent. Then you listen to a wide range of recordings, and if you want to tweak the curve to your personal taste, you can do that. For most people with good hearing, that’s not likely to be more than a db or two here and there. With a good mix, calibrated sounds darn good.

Thanks...your process makes sense as described.

In the end, the listener (you) is EQing to their preferences -- which sounds like is within a couple dBs from 'calibrated' for you. Additionally, it sounds you're listening to a lot of 'good' mixes and enjoying what you hear. Good on you...glad you're enjoying the music!


How do you work with the 'poor' mixes?

 

[bigshot]

With bad recordings, it depends on what's wrong with them. Sometimes older recordings might be dry or have surface noise. Running them through a DSP to add a hall ambience or noise reduction will help. If it's an EQ problem, like sibilance, I just dial a correction that sounds good by ear. Once you've EQed a little bit, you start learning the numbers that correspond to different parts of the sound, so it isn't so much of a trial and error thing. Generally, I try to make one correction at a time and keep it small. That helps me keep in control of the changes, so I don't end up wandering off randomly into a weird curve that doesn't work.

 

[71 dB]

I was answering your comment about price.

Well what does EQ cost? $1? $10? $100? $1000? Affordable is a relative concept. To you $100 might be pocket money, but to some other people is a lot.

EQ requires you to learn how to use the tool. I think that’s a given.

Yep. All tools require you learn how to use them.

The difference between crossfeed and EQ is that crossfeed alters the intended sound. EQ can get you closer to it.

Well, that's the point. I want reduced channel separation so I alter the "intended" * sound with crossfeed.

* Intented perhaps with speakers, but not so much with headphones. With speakers we have acoustic crossfeed. For some reason cross-feed skeptics are not worried about it while claiming that electronic cross-feed with headphones somehow ruins the sound.

 

[71 dB]

Occasionally we use EQ adjustments down to 0.1dB but that’s not because we can hear a difference but to hit a specification. In most cases 0.7dB is the minimum we can hear but under certain circumstances that can extend to 0.2dB. This is why 0.1dB matching is required for scientifically accepted DBTs.

I’ve never come across anyone who could hear an EQ difference less than 0.2dB and I’ve tested many. I’ve met several who thought they could but under blind testing were not able to.

G

I mix my own music using 1 dB accuracy which seem to be accurate enough for most tracks, but there are certain tracks that require 0.5 dB mixing. Typically these are quieter broadband supporting tracks (e.g. parallel reverb) that make the music "fuller" and are masked a lot by other tracks. These tracks are supposed to be "sensed" rather than heard. Increasing the level of such tracks by 1 dB makes their presence clearly "bigger" and those sounds can become too dominant for their role creating problems. Not doing anything might leave them too quiet to be even sensed. In those situations 0.5 dB level increase does the trick for me.

So, in my opinion tracks that are very dominant in the music can be often mixed with 1 dB or even 2 dB accuracy and the difference in sound is a matter of taste while quieter supporting tracks need to be mixed often at 0.5 dB accuracy, because otherwise they don't do what they are supposed to do for the music. The closer a sound is being masked completely the more important is accurate level.

I also believe that the better a track fits the other tracks (spatiality, spectrum, dynamic compression level, timbre, etc.) the easier it is to find a good mixing level and the less changes in level matter. So, if finding the correct mixing level is very difficult, something about the track is wrong in relation to the rest of the tracks. Those problems should be addressed first. Subtle things such as attenuating the track by 2 dB below 200 Hz with a shelf-filter can be game-changers.

 

[bigshot]

I have no interest in being dragged into another crossfeed discussion with you. If you like it, swell. Use it. Say you like it. But you don’t have to make scientific theories up to justify it.

 

[old tech]

This is a bit of a laugh. The plaintiff in this class action appeals to audiophile myths in their lawsuit against MoFI.

It will be interesting to hear MoFI's defence as they too subscribe to many of these myths.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2022/09/musings-regarding-mofigate-class-action.html

 

[71 dB]

I have no interest in being dragged into another crossfeed discussion with you. If you like it, swell. Use it. Say you like it. But you don’t have to make scientific theories up to justify it.

That's fair. You don't have to discuss with me about anything. It's you yourself who chooses to be active here. I have changed the way I talk about cross-feed from what is was when I came to this forum because I have learned the surprising thing that people have differing spatial hearing, something I don't really understand, but accept as a fact. Cross-feed is not unscientific mumbo jambo. It was invented decades ago based on theories of spatial hearing. If you don't understand the justifications of cross-feed that's your problem, not mine. Because cross-feed is so simple in the way it tries to "honour" spatial hearing and people have different spatial hearing, the result seems to be a matter of taste. Some like it, some don't. For me cross-feed provides astonishing improvement in headphone sound spatially increasing the comfort of headphone listening drastically, but that's me. I am a weirdo after all...

 

[MooMilk]

as of now - nothing had stood against double blind tests with noiseless ("clickless") switch between setups