To crossfeed or not to crossfeed? That is the question...

[sonitus mirus]

The best way to fix the spatiality of music mixed for speakers is to play it on speakers. That’ll get you your wow.

I agree with the "wow" factor with speakers. Headphones simply cannot provide the experience I enjoy the most.

 

[lostrockets]

Can anyone recommend a resource to make a simple diy crossfeed adapter or even better one that already built? Budget <$200

 

[71 dB]

Can anyone recommend a resource to make a simple diy crossfeed adapter

The set-up you are using dictates what kind of cross-feeders can be added.

 

[bigshot]

I agree with the "wow" factor with speakers. Headphones simply cannot provide the experience I enjoy the most.

And it isn't just channel separation. Physical bass and dynamics in sound inhabiting real space are exciting. It's a sound you can feel, not just hear.

 

[gregorio]

Jecklin Disk is an example of a method to create this kind of recordings "mixed for speakers AND headphones." So, mixing and producing a recording as if it was recorded with Jecklin Disk should result in spatiality suitable for both speakers and headphones.

And yet pretty much no one ever uses only a Jecklin Disk to make commercial recordings. In fact any use of a Jecklin Disk is very rare. You think that’s because no music/sound engineers, past or present, know what they’re doing? Or maybe, just you’ve got it wrong in an attempt to explain your personal perception?

G

 

[bigshot]

I think I'd rather have it sound really really good one way than have it sound kinda good both ways. To be honest, I don't find that I really need crossfeed, because classical music and jazz generally are recorded with a fairly normal acoustic (even though it might be completely fabricated in the mix); and goofy Pink Floyd / ping pong artificial acoustics are supposed to sound artificial. I get listening fatigue from listening to headphones too long, but it has nothing to do with channel separation. Having little speakers strapped to my ears is tiring no matter what. I can sleep with speakers on, but not headphones.

 

[71 dB]

And yet pretty much no one ever uses only a Jecklin Disk to make commercial recordings.

True. I have never claimed they do.

In fact any use of a Jecklin Disk is very rare.

True. I did not suggest using only Jecklin Disk. I suggested using the spatial philosophy of Jecklin Disk meaning shaping the spatiality in a DAW to mimick Jecklin Disk.

You think that’s because no music/sound engineers, past or present, know what they’re doing?

I think the spatial compatibility with headphones has not been top of the list. For example recording an orchestra, sound engineer may think things such as the balance of instruments and reverberation etc. override headphone compatibility of spatiality.

Or maybe, just you’ve got it wrong in an attempt to explain your personal perception?

G

That is of course possible, but then again I am not the only person in the World using cross-feed. Maybe all of us cross-feeders are just wrong about everything? Maybe it is impossible for sound engineers like you to be wrong?

 

[bigshot]

You can use any kind of signal processing you want. It's fine with me. Some people like reverb. Others like v shaped EQ curves. Others like phase tricks. It's all fine. It's your ears, you can feed them any way you want.

But signal processing isn't fidelity. It doesn't return some attribute to sound and it doesn't restore it to being natural. It just adds a filter on top of it. If you like the sound of that filter, great. Some people put ketchup on everything and that is fine.

 

[71 dB]

And it isn't just channel separation. Physical bass and dynamics in sound inhabiting real space are exciting. It's a sound you can feel, not just hear.

Occationally I hear bass bumping from the neighbour flat. I think it is hip hop music. I find it annoying. If my neighbour used headphones it would not be annoying. I wonder how much it annoys my neighbours when I play music from speakers...

 

[71 dB]

I think I'd rather have it sound really really good one way than have it sound kinda good both ways.

Well, all recordings don't have a good spatiality even with speakers. A ping-pongy recording isn't that great even from speakers. Also, I think it is possible to do better than "kinda good" both ways using Jecklin Disk-type spatial philosophy. Speaker-spatiality is more "flexible" because the room does so much. This explains why there are so many types of microphone set-ups for speaker spatiality. So many ways to do it well for speakers, so why not choose those that work well with headphones too?

To be honest, I don't find that I really need crossfeed, because classical music and jazz generally are recorded with a fairly normal acoustic (even though it might be completely fabricated in the mix);

Almost always I use cross-feed with classical music, but often just a little bit is enough. With solo piano music the cross-feed level is very critical. Jazz (new enough to be stereophonic) REALLY needs cross-feed, because often the spatiality is really brutal for headphones, so much so that in most severe cases making the sound mono is the only way to make the sound suitable for my ears.

I get listening fatigue from listening to headphones too long, but it has nothing to do with channel separation. Having little speakers strapped to my ears is tiring no matter what. I can sleep with speakers on, but not headphones.

I feel comfortable enough to wear HD 598 for hours and I sleep in silence.

 

[71 dB]

You can use any kind of signal processing you want. It's fine with me. Some people like reverb. Others like v shaped EQ curves. Others like phase tricks. It's all fine. It's your ears, you can feed them any way you want.

But signal processing isn't fidelity. It doesn't return some attribute to sound and it doesn't restore it to being natural. It just adds a filter on top of it. If you like the sound of that filter, great. Some people put ketchup on everything and that is fine.

To my ears raw headphone sound is missing inter-aural correlation my spatial hearing expects to be there. On speakers this correlation IS there, because my both ears hear both speakers. This creates the correlation. With headphones I need cross-feeder to do that, because the amount of acoustic leakage between left and right ear happens at a level that is far too low. My solution is to produce spatiality that incorporates spatial inter-aural correlation into recording in ways that do not compromise speaker spatiality (because of doubled spatial inter-aural correlation). Since almost all my recordings do not employ this kind of solution, cross-feed IS the solution.

Stereophony is based on an illusion of spatiality. Therefor the spatiality is no fidelity. We can only experience an illusion of spatial fidelity.

 

[gregorio]

I did not suggest using only Jecklin Disk. I suggested using the spatial philosophy of Jecklin Disk meaning shaping the spatiality in a DAW to mimick Jecklin Disk.

Which again, pretty much no one ever does and why do you think that is? Which brings us back to the question of whether you think no engineer past or present knows what they’re doing?

For example recording an orchestra, sound engineer may think things such as the balance of instruments and reverberation etc. override headphone compatibility of spatiality.

Obviously balance of instruments is a priority. You might not care if a back desk violin is louder than the entire brass section as long as you perceive pleasing spatially but virtually everyone else does. Engineers do typically consider what the mix will sound like on cans but obviously we’re not going to prioritise your personal perception of headphone spatiality at the expense of everything else. For one thing, we don’t even know what your personal perception is.

That is of course possible, but then again I am not the only person in the World using cross-feed. Maybe all of us cross-feeders are just wrong about everything?

Come on, I don’t expect such fallacious arguments from you. If you believed the earth was flat, you wouldn’t be the only person in the world, does that mean the Earth is flat? And, using a non-sequitur about being wrong about one thing and therefore wrong about all things is beneath you!

A ping-pongy recording isn't that great even from speakers.

Yes it is. According to who isn’t it “that great”? Most ping-pongy recordings are quite early stereo recordings, where the typical consumer stereo speakers were inside a single cabinet or otherwise relatively close together and were therefore not as objectionable as they could be today, where consumer stereo speakers are typically much further apart. And if we’re talking about more modern recordings, how do you know it wasn’t intended by the musicians/engineers to sound objectionable?

Speaker-spatiality is more "flexible" because the room does so much. This explains why there are so many types of microphone set-ups for speaker spatiality.

No it doesn’t, what actually explains why there are so many types of mic setups is because there are so many different types and groupings of instruments and so many different types of sound the musicians and engineers wish to achieve.

So many ways to do it well for speakers, so why not choose those that work well with headphones too?

There’s not “so many ways to do it well for speakers”, there’s relatively few and fewer still if you’re after a particular sound, which virtually all musicians/engineers are. But again, musicians/engineers do typically consider headphone use, although not your personal perception of headphone use of course.

All the above has been explained to you before, more than once in some cases, so why are you still repeating the same falsehoods?

G

 

[bigshot]

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "spatiality". You appear to use it as a catch all word to justify whatever point you want to make.

There is more to speakers than just blending between channels. There's kinesthetic energy you can feel. There are incredibly complex primary distance cues that combine with secondary distance cues in the mix to create an illusion of *specific* space- not just generalized space. There are subtle timing effects and reflections of sound, all of which add to the naturalness. There's head tracking. You can get up out of your chair and move around the room and hear how the sound is different in different places. All of those things work together to define the space that the sound inhabits. The sound affects the space. The space affects the sound. Isn't that "spatiality"?

Blending the channels to reduce ping pong when you listen with headphones is fine. It might take a bit of the curse off of one downside to headphone listening. But it doesn't make headphones sound spatial like speakers. It just blends channels. That's a nice jury rigged patch on one problem. If you like it swell.

By the way, I happen to have this album and it sounds FANTASTIC on speakers! It's a lot of fun on headphones too.

 

[71 dB]

Which again, pretty much no one ever does and why do you think that is? Which brings us back to the question of whether you think no engineer past or present knows what they’re doing?

If sound engineer in general are as stubborn as you are it is no wonder fresh ideas are left alone. However, there are people able to "think outside the box" such as Jürg Jecklin. It is not about knowing what you are doing, but what are you doing. Headphone spatiality has been for whatever reason low priority. It is ridiculous to say there is NOTHING to be done to improve headphone spatiality.

Obviously balance of instruments is a priority. You might not care if a back desk violin is louder than the entire brass section as long as you perceive pleasing spatially but virtually everyone else does. Engineers do typically consider what the mix will sound like on cans but obviously we’re not going to prioritise your personal perception of headphone spatiality at the expense of everything else. For one thing, we don’t even know what your personal perception is.

Well, I don't think good balance and spatiality are mutually exclusive. I believe you can have both good at the same time and for both speakers and headphones. I don't expect my perception to be served, but rather a general perception based on the science of human hearing. Perception may vary from person to person, but we can do "objective" things such as use average HRTF to figure out what kind of spatiality could work for everyone with speakers and headphones better than what we have now.

Come on, I don’t expect such fallacious arguments from you. If you believed the earth was flat, you wouldn’t be the only person in the world, does that mean the Earth is flat? And, using a non-sequitur about being wrong about one thing and therefore wrong about all things is beneath you!

Well, I just don't know how to answer.

Yes it is. According to who isn’t it “that great”? Most ping-pongy recordings are quite early stereo recordings, where the typical consumer stereo speakers were inside a single cabinet or otherwise relatively close together and were therefore not as objectionable as they could be today, where consumer stereo speakers are typically much further apart. And if we’re talking about more modern recordings, how do you know it wasn’t intended by the musicians/engineers to sound objectionable?

ok. my bad im not using ancient cabinets. Jesus!

What comes to modern stuff: headphones and speakers give different spatiality so which one is intention? Also, as I hate excessive spatiality, I hate material with Intented ping pong that's me thou. You have your favorites

No it doesn’t, what actually explains why there are so many types of mic setups is because there are so many different types and groupings of instruments and so many different types of sound the musicians and engineers wish to achieve.

I have test CD with the same thing recorded with various mic setups, but I do understand you of course. That said, speaker spatiality IS more flexible BECAUSE the room is so much of the result.

There’s not “so many ways to do it well for speakers”, there’s relatively few and fewer still if you’re after a particular sound, which virtually all musicians/engineers are. But again, musicians/engineers do typically consider headphone use, although not your personal perception of headphone use of course.

How come some recordings works so well for both when others don't? I mean similar music in similar acoustics. Why do symphony recordings have so differing spatiality if there is only a few ways to do it? You assume I know nothing, but of course I know something because I have listened to recordings. I know how different they sound. To me this tells there is way to do things in many ways. Also, because I make music myself, I have tried spatial things myself. That's the reason I write about this stuff. I have knowledge and ideas, thoughts. Again, what the **** Am I, if my thoughts are wrong? Try to understand me and what I do. I know what can be done! I have tested things out. Many producers use similar ideas. You are shooting ideas down. That is not good. If ideas don't work then you know they don't work but how do you know if you don't try? What have you done to improve spatiality? Nothing?

 

[bigshot]

If sound engineer in general are as stubborn as you are it is no wonder fresh ideas are left alone.

As I've explained before, when someone starts out being out of line in their first sentence, I don't bother to read any further. Maybe you have something to say in the rest of your comments, but I'm not interested. Attacking the person instead of the point they are making is rude. If you need to resort to personal insults to defend your ego, you should speak less and not risk it. You're flailing around here.