[gregorio]

[1] Of course omnistereophonic recordings become more challenging when the amount of instruments/singers increase. It doesn't mean it's an error of judgement/musicality. That's just something we are not able to do with our knowledge and recording technology [1a] (using a Jecklin/Schneider disk could work maybe),
[2] but the real reason in my opinion is that hardly nobody cares. [2a] As long as the spatiality is good on speakers only people like me worry about spatiality with headphones.
[2b] It seems these rare omnistereophonic recordings are just "happy accidents."

1. It's not really anything to do with "our knowledge and recording technology", it's more about the laws of physics and human perception/preferences. To comply with BOTH of these, "omnistereophonic" not only becomes more challenging under most conditions but impossible and therefore IS an error of judgement/musicality! Obviously this is not true in your particular case, as you personally place ILD above just about all other possible preferences.
1a. Using a simple stereo mic'ing technique is a fairly common cry amongst many audiophiles, audiophiles who don't understand how recordings are made or why. In practice, there are very few occasions where a simple stereo mic'ing technique gives preferable results and antiphonal baroque is certainly not one of them. Professional/Commercial music engineers virtually always use more elaborate mic'ing techniques, not because they are ignorant (as you have previously stated) but for EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE reason!

2. Firstly, how can anyone care about a term that doesn't exist, that you have just invented?
2a. You've repeated this falsehood a number of times! It would be rare that a mix or master is not checked on headphones and it is NOT true that engineers do not worry about spatiality with headphones. However, they/we typically have priorities significantly different to your personal preferences.
2b. Again, what else could it be? You've invented the term "omnistereophonic" and no one else even knows it exists, let alone what you mean by it!

2. I know your opinion. It's pointless for me to argue about it. It's your opinion. You are the one who "controls/owns" it.
3. In my opinion the (allowed/natural) parameters of spatiality come from things like HRTF and are set. You have to modify your body/head to change HRTF. The level of bass is not like that. There is no "set" value for how much bass is correct.
[3a] It's an artistic choice.
[4] Music is mixed for speakers. [4a] Headphone spatiality is by default wrong.
[4b] Sometimes wrong in a lucky way so it doesn't matter. Most of the time just wrong and I use crossfeed to address that.

2. There can be a point to arguing against an opinion. For example, in the case of an opinion that contradicts the facts. For instance:

3. The level of bass IS like that and there IS a "set value" for how much bass is correct. In any particular situation, an acoustic instrument produces a "set" amount of bass. However, we typically/routinely override that "set amount" in the name of "human perception/preferences", exactly as we do for spatiality!
3a. Yes it is, in BOTH cases!

4. Generally, music is mixed primarily for speakers but commonly, not exclusively.
4a. Both speaker spatiality and headphone spatiality is by default wrong.
4b. But crossfeed does NOT address that! Even with crossfeed it is still "just wrong" but "just wrong" in a different way, which may or may not be preferable to a particular individual.

You've made ALL the above points more than once previously and they've be rebutted more than once previously, so when I asked "Are you really going to go round and round this same circle yet again?" - The answer is apparently "Yes", Oh dear!!

G

 

[71 dB]

The level of bass IS like that and there IS a "set value" for how much bass is correct. In any particular situation, an acoustic instrument produces a "set" amount of bass. However, we typically/routinely override that "set amount" in the name of "human perception/preferences", exactly as we do for spatiality!

G

Acoustic instruments can be said to have a "set" bass level, but the "bassheads" are into electronic music...

 

[gregorio]

Acoustic instruments can be said to have a "set" bass level, but the "bassheads" are into electronic music...

But I'm not talking about "bassheads". I'm simply making the point that we typically override the "set"/"natural" bass level in just about every recording of every genre, the same is true of the "spatiality" and for exactly the same reason (human perception/preferences).

G

 

[pinnahertz]

Acoustic instruments can be said to have a "set" bass level, but the "bassheads" are into electronic music...

How about those really sub-bass-heads that lust for a solid or 32' organ pipe note? IIR, that's roughly 16Hz, and can be LOUD. Seems like contemporary bass I hear coming from the sub in a car driving down the street is about 40Hz, and confined to one note, which gives me a bass-headache.

 

[71 dB]

But I'm not talking about "bassheads". I'm simply making the point that we typically override the "set"/"natural" bass level in just about every recording of every genre, the same is true of the "spatiality" and for exactly the same reason (human perception/preferences).

G

I mean acoustic instruments have a physics based bass level they radiate. The bass level at ears can be very different depending on the acoustics. Spatiality is also dependent on the acoustics, but has perhaps lower level of freedom and that's why for example large ILD is an issue to some people. Frankly I have given up trying to justify crossfeed based on science. I thought I can so it quite easily, but I have convinced hardly anyone so far. So much energy and time wasted. I find crossfeed beneficial to most recordings and to me science justifies why. Some other people agree with me, but that's it.

How about those really sub-bass-heads that lust for a solid or 32' organ pipe note? IIR, that's roughly 16Hz, and can be LOUD. Seems like contemporary bass I hear coming from the sub in a car driving down the street is about 40Hz, and confined to one note, which gives me a bass-headache.

Car subwoofers are often band-pass boxes creating high bass output level at a narrow frequency band and in the traffic that's all you hear coming from the car as other low frequencies gets masked by the traffic. So it sounds like one note bass…

The 16 Hz stuff is "SPL people" having ~20 kW amps driving a dozen of 18" woofers to create "sonic hair dryers" to impress girls and vibrating car doors to impress dudes…

 

[gregorio]

[1] I mean acoustic instruments have a physics based bass level they radiate. The bass level at ears can be very different depending on the acoustics. Spatiality is also dependent on the acoustics, but has perhaps lower level of freedom and [1a] that's why for example large ILD is an issue to some people.
[2] Frankly I have given up trying to justify crossfeed based on science.
[3] I find crossfeed beneficial to most recordings and to me science justifies why.

1. Bass level at the ears can be very different depending on the acoustics but the point I'm making, again, is that we routinely change the bass to levels outside/beyond what does (or even could) exist according to acoustics. The exact same is true of "spatiality" and we have the same amount of freedom or arguably even more, defined/limited purely by artistic intention, which in turn is based on the human perception and preferences of the artists and their target audience.
1a. No, what I've just stated is the reason why "large ILD is an issue to some people", IE. It's a preference and therefore, BY DEFINITION, there will always be at least "some people" who do not prefer it. Just as there will always be at least some people who do not prefer pretty much any/every aspect of music recording creation; bass level, dissonance, treble level, intonation, distortion, etc, etc, etc.

2. But clearly you haven't given up trying. Isn't this debate you started, about there not being an equivalence between bass level and spatiality, exactly that, an attempt to justify crossfeed based on science?

3. Yes, "science justifies why" to YOU, because you cherry-pick, misrepresent and/or mis-apply the science in order to "justify why"! Again, this debate about no equivalence with bass level is another typical example: You stated "In my opinion the (allowed/natural) parameters of spatiality come from things like HRTF and are set." - You are defining what is "allowed" according to what occurs "naturally" in the real world. You then state "There is no "set" value for how much bass is correct. It's an artistic choice." - But you now admit that there IS a "set value" for how much bass is "correct"/"allowed" if we apply the SAME CONDITIONS, ie. What occurs "naturally" in the real world. So, you mis-applied the science, you cherry-picked the science which is defined by the real/natural world as far as spatiality/ILD is concerned but omitted/misrepresented the science which is defined by the real/natural world as far as bass levels are concerned! Music recording creation is an art-form and therefore the science defined by the real/natural world is NOT applicable, period ... It's not applicable to bass levels or anything else, including spatiality!

G

 

[FlavioWolff]

I wonder how large should your head be so that your ears have the adequate distance from each other to correctly hear the spatialization the “artist intended”

 

[pinnahertz]

I wonder how large should your head be so that your ears have the adequate distance from each other to correctly hear the spatialization the “artist intended”

As long as your head is roughly the same size as the artist, you're done.

 

[FlavioWolff]

As long as your head is roughly the same size as the artist, you're done.

goos to know. Gotta choose my artists more carefully. And make sure their mixing engineers have similar heads

 

[castleofargh]

I wonder how large should your head be so that your ears have the adequate distance from each other to correctly hear the spatialization the “artist intended”

Deep nihilistic yet accurate answer: it's irrelevant. The artist's intent is an audiophile utopia that forgets how our own perception of the world is deeply subjective(as in, wrong and unique). We'll never know what the artist really intended and he'll never know exactly how we're feeling when listening to his music.

More practical: it's irrelevant because your brain learned everything with your head, if you don't look left when someone on your right calls you, chances are that your brain is calibrated just fine for sound localization.
With crossfeed, you should have some setting related to your head size and the "virtual speaker" angle you want. So for this specific effect, it's irrelevant because all head sizes are right with the right setting.

 

[FlavioWolff]

Deep nihilistic yet accurate answer: it's irrelevant. The artist's intent is an audiophile utopia that forgets how our own perception of the world is deeply subjective(as in, wrong and unique). We'll never know what the artist really intended and he'll never know exactly how we're feeling when listening to his music.

More practical: it's irrelevant because your brain learned everything with your head, if you don't look left when someone on your right calls you, chances are that your brain is calibrated just fine for sound localization.
With crossfeed, you should have some setting related to your head size and the "virtual speaker" angle you want. So for this specific effect, it's irrelevant because all head sizes are right with the right setting.

i was joking

 

[bigshot]

Some artists and engineers have swelled heads. You might try wearing a hat.

 

[castleofargh]

i was joking

sorry
this hobby can make it hard to see the line between humor and a deadly serious argument.

 

[71 dB]

But clearly you haven't given up trying. Isn't this debate you started, about there not being an equivalence between bass level and spatiality, exactly that, an attempt to justify crossfeed based on science?

G

It's a process and I am not 100 % done giving up. People are told they should try in life and keep trying even when it seems hard.

Bass level can be whatever depending the acoustics and other things. Room doesn't "regulate" bass level. On the contrary room acoustics make the bass level even more random! ILD at low frequencies can be large only when the sound source is near one ear. If the intent of the artist is to have the sound appear near one ear large ILD is good for that (with headphones), but with speakers it doesn't work at all! You'd need AT LEAST crosstalk canceling, maybe unechoic chamber too. Since music is mixed primarily for speakers, artists should be aware that intents to have the sound near one ear are problematic to say the least: You are mixing for a reproduction system that doesn't really support what you are doing! That's like trying to make colorful movies using black and white flm.

 

[71 dB]

Yes, "science justifies why" to YOU, because you cherry-pick, misrepresent and/or mis-apply the science in order to "justify why"! Again, this debate about no equivalence with bass level is another typical example: You stated "In my opinion the (allowed/natural) parameters of spatiality come from things like HRTF and are set." - You are defining what is "allowed" according to what occurs "naturally" in the real world. You then state "There is no "set" value for how much bass is correct. It's an artistic choice." - But you now admit that there IS a "set value" for how much bass is "correct"/"allowed" if we apply the SAME CONDITIONS, ie. What occurs "naturally" in the real world. So, you mis-applied the science, you cherry-picked the science which is defined by the real/natural world as far as spatiality/ILD is concerned but omitted/misrepresented the science which is defined by the real/natural world as far as bass levels are concerned! Music recording creation is an art-form and therefore the science defined by the real/natural world is NOT applicable, period ... It's not applicable to bass levels or anything else, including spatiality!

G

We can't use science 100 % accurately, can we? So, we are doomed to cherry-pick and mis-apply the science. What level of scientific accuracy is needed to have gains? That's were we disagree. To me simple crossfeeder improves things despite of ignoring a lot of what science says. To you crossfeed doesn't do things well enough and ignores too much. Crossfeed doesn't make headphones sound like speakers (in other words what the artists intented), but to me it takes the headphone sound a step or to toward speaker sound while removing aspects or the sound that annoys me (because I don't like sounds that are very near my ears and I don't like how my spatial hearing interprets too large ILD. I don't have these problems when listening to speakers so why should I suffer from them with headphones if crossfeed can fix it for me?).