[71 dB]

Now, was that so hard?

No, not hard at all, but mentioning the word "subjective" makes it sound as if there weren't objective scientific facts backing up what I say. It would be like trying to educate ignorant people about climate change saying "well, it's my subjective opinion that climate change is real."

Also, are we supposed to give our subjective opinion about cross-feed in this thread, or are we supposed to give our subjective opinion about what we think science says objectively about cross-feed? There is subjectivity somewhere to make the topic even meaningful, because without subjectivity the topic of this thread would be like "Is two plus two four or five? That is the question…"

 

[pinnahertz]

No, not hard at all, but mentioning the word "subjective" makes it sound as if there weren't objective scientific facts backing up what I say. It would be like trying to educate ignorant people about climate change saying "well, it's my subjective opinion that climate change is real."

But if you said "Climate change is real!", would you not expect someone to say, "Show us the evidence!"? And if we had data that showed a global average temperature increase charted over time, then we have some objective data to support the statement.

You said, "Cross-feed is a miraculous improvement! Takes headphone listening to a whole new level!" but the data to back that up was one guy's opinion, stated firmly with conviction. That's not objective data, so there's no support for the hypothesis that your cross-feed is perceived as an improvement by anyone other than you, let alone the other questions about when it's an improvement and how much.

Also, are we supposed to give our subjective opinion about cross-feed in this thread, or are we supposed to give our subjective opinion about what we think science says objectively about cross-feed? There is subjectivity somewhere to make the topic even meaningful, because without subjectivity the topic of this thread would be like "Is two plus two four or five? That is the question…"

If you post an opinion as fact backed by science and someone doesn't share your view, be prepared to offer scientific data to back up your claim. If you don't have it, then post as opinion. Subjective results are easily quantified into objective data, which can then be simply compiled into an average, but that takes some organized testing.

Nobody has disputed how a cross-feed system does what it does. What has been disputed is your evaluation of the results...how well cross-feed does what it does. If this had been a peer-reviewed technical paper you'd have had the same reaction. The defense given was to state years spent in research, deriding what others said, restating your position with conviction, and the entire thrust was to "educate" (possibly ignorant?) people with opinions and experiences that conflict with yours.

Now, why would that not go down well?

 

[71 dB]

But if you said "Climate change is real!", would you not expect someone to say, "Show us the evidence!"? And if we had data that showed a global average temperature increase charted over time, then we have some objective data to support the statement.

Of course, but the evidence for climate change does exist. Temperatures are raising, sea level is going up, more extreme weather conditions (Ask people in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico etc.). The evidence it literally destroying people's lives!

You said, "Cross-feed is a miraculous improvement! Takes headphone listening to a whole new level!" but the data to back that up was one guy's opinion, stated firmly with conviction. That's not objective data, so there's no support for the hypothesis that your cross-feed is perceived as an improvement by anyone other than you, let alone the other questions about when it's an improvement and how much.

Science tells us about spatial hearing and how cross-feed improves headphone listening. You yourself found cross-feeding because of science of spatial hearing. I am not the only one enjoying cross-feed. I know a lot of people who admit cross-feed improves things. I think that's a strong case. Now, try to show how cross-feed does not take headphone listening to another level and we'll see how strong case you have.

You keep telling how cross-feed is imperfect, but you fail to offer anything better. Cross-feed is what we have. Luckily I am very happy with it. Yes, I don't have 100 % objective facts and data, but I have a practical solution to the problem of spatial distortion. I have even given here the schematics for a headphone adapter for anyone to use. I give solutions. You keep questioning them. Why? For what purpose? How does what you do help anyone? Your approach of making everything fuzzy and iffy only makes people confused. In one sentence you are for cross-feed, then you disagree when I say cross-feed is a miraculous improvement. What? Are you promoting cross-feed or not?

If you post an opinion as fact backed by science and someone doesn't share your view, be prepared to offer scientific data to back up your claim. If you don't have it, then post as opinion. Subjective results are easily quantified into objective data, which can then be simply compiled into an average, but that takes some organized testing.

You do realize those who disagree me don't necessary have scientific data to back up their claims either. Good luck demonstrating how science shows no cross-feed is being better than cross-feed. I'm curious to see such attempts taking place. However, I don't demand anyone to prove their opinions scientifically.

Nobody has disputed how a cross-feed system does what it does. What has been disputed is your evaluation of the results...how well cross-feed does what it does. If this had been a peer-reviewed technical paper you'd have had the same reaction. The defense given was to state years spent in research, deriding what others said, restating your position with conviction, and the entire thrust was to "educate" (possibly ignorant?) people with opinions and experiences that conflict with yours.

Now, why would that not go down well?

If I put $50 in a DIY cross feeder, the improvement is DECADES larger than if I invest the same money on cables or other improvements so in that sense what you get for $50 is miraculous and I don't think it's just my opinion.

 

[pinnahertz]

<snip!>

I edited the quote because we are now really locked in a circular loop. No need for me to respond again to issues I've already responded to.

If I put $50 in a DIY cross feeder, the improvement is DECADES larger than if I invest the same money on cables or other improvements so in that sense what you get for $50 is miraculous and I don't think it's just my opinion.

The above just underscored my point again.

"DECADES larger" ....on your subjective scale?
"Miraculous and I don't think it's just my opinion." Ok, fine. Who else's is it? What percentage of a random group agrees with you? "I don't think..." is somewhat less than scientific data. And your dataset consists of one data point, not even enough for a trend.

 

[71 dB]

"DECADES larger" ....on your subjective scale?
"Miraculous and I don't think it's just my opinion." Ok, fine. Who else's is it? What percentage of a random group agrees with you? "I don't think..." is somewhat less than scientific data. And your dataset consists of one data point, not even enough for a trend.

So, what does this mean? Perhaps to a conclusion that people should not really bother with cross-feed, because the data shows there is only one person (me) who finds it's miraculous*. The problem with that statement is that it's so lame I don't bother spreading in anywhere online. I watch Youtube videos of Loki The Read Fox instead.

What definitive and objective can we say about cross-feed?

* as if only miraculous improvements were worth $50. How about oil snake cables costing thousands and improving the sound only because of placebo effect?

 

[Mr Rick]

I see crossfeed as akin to EQ. If it enhances your enjoyment of the music, use it.

BTW, I love to EQ.

 

[pinnahertz]

So, what does this mean? Perhaps to a conclusion that people should not really bother with cross-feed, because the data shows there is only one person (me) who finds it's miraculous*.

You are WAY overthinking this, and have now attached your own meaning.

What definitive and objective can we say about cross-feed?

So far, nothing. So the possibilities are still open.

* as if only miraculous improvements were worth $50. How about oil snake cables costing thousands and improving the sound only because of placebo effect?

Now you're attempting to attach value to "miraculous", even though it remains undefined, and unproven. Why the creative writing exercise?

 

[71 dB]

So far, nothing. So the possibilities are still open.

That sucks. I spend years in university to be able to say something scientific and objective, have authority in something, feel that I have value and respect as a person in something.

Now you're attempting to attach value to "miraculous", even though it remains undefined, and unproven. Why the creative writing exercise?

Well, you kind of have to do that when you decide what to do in life. I find cross-feed miraculous and snake oil cables not, so I say yes to cross-feed and no to snake oil cables.

 

[pinnahertz]

That sucks. I spend years in university to be able to say something scientific and objective, have authority in something, feel that I have value and respect as a person in something.

Nothing was said or even implied about your education or value as a person! Don't make this more than it is. There is one issue here only, and it's not about any of the above.

I find cross-feed miraculous and snake oil cables not, so I say yes to cross-feed and no to snake oil cables.

There it is! Wonderful! I'm so happy I'm going to relax and listen to music on my headphones...with cross-feed!

 

[71 dB]

Nothing was said or even implied about your education or value as a person! Don't make this more than it is. There is one issue here only, and it's not about any of the above.

Of course nothing of this sort has been said or even hinted, but it's how this makes me feel. But that's my problem. Just venting my feelings here...

There it is! Wonderful! I'm so happy I'm going to relax and listen to music on my headphones...with cross-feed!

Well nice to hear that. Enjoy the music.

 

[71 dB]

It's funny. My knowledge and understanding of spatial hearing makes me assume that I can generalize my experiences of cross-feed to everybody. If I didn't know about spatial hearing, but enjoyed cross-feed nevertheless, I wouldn't generalize as strongly, because I would emphasize my personal preferences instead of general theories of hearing as the explanation.

 

[pinnahertz]

One observation; as iOS currently comprises a significant market share of DAP and DAP capable devices, is odd that there currently are no apps with cross-feed. The one that was evidently the only offering in that technosphere is no longer available. So no cross-feed for iOS!

Indicator? Opportunity? Both? Neither? Your call.

 

[71 dB]

Cross-feed should be incorporated to all portable devices capable of playing music with headphones, but that's not how capitalism works. In capitalism people have freedom to be completely ignorant and consume whatever is "cool", for example the newest iOS product on the market. It's the superficial dumbing down culture that makes it impossible to sell cross-feed to the masses or even educate them about it. In other words, Apple has calculated that cross-feed would not increase the cash flow to justify the effort.

(I'm not a Apple hater. I use a Mac Mini myself, and I think Apple products in general are good, perhaps overpriced, but it is a brand (and most of the time the design is top notch).

 

[Arpiben]

Cross-feed should be incorporated to all portable devices capable of playing music with headphones, but that's not how capitalism works. In capitalism people have freedom to be completely ignorant and consume whatever is "cool", for example the newest iOS product on the market. It's the superficial dumbing down culture that makes it impossible to sell cross-feed to the masses or even educate them about it. In other words, Apple has calculated that cross-feed would not increase the cash flow to justify the effort.

(I'm not a Apple hater. I use a Mac Mini myself, and I think Apple products in general are good, perhaps overpriced, but it is a brand (and most of the time the design is top notch).

Similarly, cross-feed's implementation in Lumia phones was not enough to change the fate of Nokia's phone division (unfortunately).

 

[pinnahertz]

Cross-feed should be incorporated to all portable devices capable of playing music with headphones, but that's not how capitalism works. In capitalism people have freedom to be completely ignorant and consume whatever is "cool", for example the newest iOS product on the market. It's the superficial dumbing down culture that makes it impossible to sell cross-feed to the masses or even educate them about it. In other words, Apple has calculated that cross-feed would not increase the cash flow to justify the effort.

(I'm not a Apple hater. I use a Mac Mini myself, and I think Apple products in general are good, perhaps overpriced, but it is a brand (and most of the time the design is top notch).

And yet "Sound Enhancer" has been in iTunes since the beginning.

I found cross-feed in the Parrot Zik3 headphone app. It goes beyond cross-feed into a bit of auralization and provides user adjustable angles and room size. I believe it only works with Parrot headphones (I have a pair). I personally never round a setting that works to my liking, always turn it off. Probably just a poor design.

Yeah, Apple is a little stodgy when it comes to adding features they didn't think of. We won't even have native FLAC support until iOS 11. But I wouldn't necessarily say they don't put on cross-feed because it wouldn't increase cash flow. They do a lot of things, many much bigger and more expensive to develop, that don't increase cash flow! My hot button is designs that don't permit user upgrades and replacements of things like HDD/SSD, batteries, memory, etc. That takes deliberate and special design, and the results do not add product appeal. It's why I won't buy a new MacBook Pro (mine's 2013, and has been extensively upgraded). Some might reason that the non-upgradable computer stimulates new sales, but if you have 3Tb internal now, what new MacBook Pro are you going to buy to replace it?

The way you increase cash flow with cross-feed is to develop an app. Yours, and their cash flow. It's a wide open field, a market gap. The first iOS app to make significant money was an audio app... fart machine. So there's always room at the bottom...and middle...and top.