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

[71 dB]

"Objectivity doesn't matter. I like what I like. How can we even define something objectively when our brain is involved?"

Another great quote that doesn't belong in Sound Science in a single day!

By measuring of course! I can measure ILD for example. We can also measure HRTF from people and see what are natural levels of ILD. To me there is a match between these things and my personal preference. 0-3 dB of ILD is natural at lowest frequencies* and my brain agrees. I use crossfeed to turn crazy 10 dB ILD to 3 dB ILD and make it natural...

* unless the sound is very near head.

 

[bigshot]

Now you're arguing with yourself.

Here is what you are ignoring...

Without a time alteration, there is no spatiality. Stereo imaging using headphones is a one dimensional line through the middle of your head from left to right. There is no spatiality because headphones don't lend any distance cues to the sound. Crossfeed doesn't lend any distance cues either. All it does is blend channels along the same one dimensional line.

Speakers blend the two channels too, but that isn't what creates the feeling of space. Spatiality is created when a sound source is at a physical distance from the listener. The speakers interact with the room, creating room reflections which ALTER TIMING and are perceived as distance cues. If you were arguing that reverb increases spatiality in sound, I would agree with you. That is the way to synthesize spatiality. Crossfeed doesn't increase spatiality because it doesn't alter timing.

Spatiality is created by SPACE. It isn't caused by making stereo closer to mono. Yes, speakers do one thing similar to crossfeed. But that isn't the thing that causes spatiality. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

 

[gregorio]

Sure, but not using crossfeed ignores those things also!!

No it does NOT, it doesn’t just crossfeed ILD, it crossfeeds everything within the crossfeed bandwidth. You know this, so why are you falsely stating otherwise? It’s only you who are ignoring those things in your nonsense reasoning for why it works for your perception!

I can't stop you calling my posts nonsense. To me it is not nonsense.

Great, to me, my theory on Einstein’s equation isn’t nonsense, for exactly the same reason. Although of course it is nonsense!

G

 

[bigshot]

You ignored my post.

I sense we're reaching the end of your cycle. This marks the third time.

 

[71 dB]

You ignored my post.

I sense we're reaching the end of your cycle. This marks the third time.

You apparently expanded your post. I only saw one line and it was not worth commenting. It is 1:50 am here and I should sleep. I am in very bad mood because I am sick. I feel really bad. dizzy as hell. My ears are ringing. so annoying so tired. have not slept well for 2 weeks.



Speaker spatiality is a line from one speaker to the other speaker. We don't hear it that way thanks to the illusion. Same with headphones. Illusion creates spatiality. Headphones lack room reflections, but there are (should be) these reflections, time delays in the recording. Headphone spatiality rely on those. The space is the concert hall the music was recorded in. The mic records reflections too, not only direct sound from instruments. If it is electronic music (no room) maybe digital effects were used to generate it. Without those cues headphone sound is insanely dead. Luckily almost all music has those cues in the recording. In fact if those cues are really well recorded, the lack of listening room with headphones can be a plus, because the room acoustics does not ruin the spatiality.

I use time delays all the time in my music to create spatiality. So does pretty much all music makers.

So, when I use crossfeed, the ILD level gets natural and my spatial hearing can "hear" freely the spatial information in the recording and is fooled by it.

 

[bigshot]

Speaker spatiality is a line from one speaker to the other speaker.

Ignored from the post you are replying to...

Without a time alteration, there is no spatiality. (snip) Spatiality is created when a sound source is at a physical distance from the listener. The speakers interact with the room, creating room reflections which ALTER TIMING and are perceived as distance cues.

A mono speaker can have spatiality if it is a distance from the listener and the sound inhabits and reflects off the walls of a room. The separation between speakers is CHANNEL SEPARATION, not spatiality.

Headphones lack room reflections, but there are (should be) these reflections, time delays in the recording.

Secondary depth cues are exactly the same, whether you are listening to headphones without crossfeed, headphones with crossfeed or speakers. Secondary depth cues are spatial, but they aren't enhanced by crossfeed. They are irrelevant to this discussion.

In fact if those cues are really well recorded, the lack of listening room with headphones can be a plus, because the room acoustics does not ruin the spatiality.

False. Commercial music is mixed and mastered using speakers in a room, not using headphones. The engineers and artists judge the amount of secondary depth cues (baked in echo and reverberation) to be in proportion to the amount of primary depth cues (real reflections in a real room) as they mix a recording. Removing primary depth cues is not a "plus". It's a "minus". You're listening to music in a way that wasn't intended when it was created. Headphones are an incomplete way of reproducing music. Headphones' lack of primary depth cues is exactly the same sort of problem as excessive stereo separation. The problem is created by listening to music in a way that it wasn't originally intended to be listened to. If you want to correct excessive separation, you use cross feed. If you want to synthesize primary depth cues, you do that with some sort of digital delay scheme.

I use time delays all the time in my music to create spatiality. So does pretty much all music makers.

Feel free. But that is completely irrelevant to crossfeed.

So, when I use crossfeed, the ILD level gets natural and my spatial hearing can "hear" freely the spatial information in the recording and is fooled by it.

When you use crossfeed, you reduce the stereo separation and move it closer to mono. It has absolutely no effect on spatiality because secondary cues are present and audible no matter how you listen to music.

 

[71 dB]

Ignored from the post you are replying to...

A mono speaker can have spatiality if it is a distance from the listener and the sound inhabits and reflects off the walls of a room. The separation between speakers is CHANNEL SEPARATION, not spatiality.

Yes, I agree.

Secondary depth cues are exactly the same, whether you are listening to headphones without crossfeed, headphones with crossfeed or speakers. Secondary depth cues are spatial, but they aren't enhanced by crossfeed. They are irrelevant to this discussion.

All cues are crossfed. Also secondary cues can have "excessive" values on headphones and crossfeed can "tame" them to natural level. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, room reverberation is very diffuse sound field while direct sound is not meaning reverberation tends to have larger ILD, ISD and ITD values than direct sound. Early reflections are in the middle. In reducing especially ILD, crossfeed reduces reverberation in the recording in relation to direct sound (this is I believe the main reason why some people think crossfeed removes detail). Some recordings have problematic spatiality for headphones: Direct sound requires strong crossfeed while reverberation requires weak crossfeed (imbalance of spatial wideness), but to my experience these recordings are not common. Crossfeed can't save bad recordings obviously, but it at least gives choices to optimize the sound to be least bad.

False. Commercial music is mixed and mastered using speakers in a room, not using headphones.

I was not talking about mixing, but listening (consumer end). Mixing of course is done mostly on speakers and a little bit on headphones. This is the main source of the headphone compatibility issues crossfeed tries to solve.

The engineers and artists judge the amount of secondary depth cues (baked in echo and reverberation) to be in proportion to the amount of primary depth cues (real reflections in a real room) as they mix a recording.

Consumers of course have completely different rooms/speakers where they are listening, so this delicate proportion isn't generally what the engineers heard in studio. We can talk about headphone related problems till the cows come home, but speakers have their fair share of problems too.

Removing primary depth cues is not a "plus". It's a "minus".

Depends. If the listening room has bad acoustics, the primary spatial cues are bad. Removing them using headphones leaves secondary spatial cues which are the same (baked in the recording). Also, if the music was played in an acoustic space very different from "living room" such as in a large church, the lack of primary cues can help retaining the feel of a large space. If secondary cues say we are in a cathedral and primary cues say we are in a living room, where are we? Small church? For music recorded in studio rooms of similar size to living rooms this is not an issues in my opinion.

You're listening to music in a way that wasn't intended when it was created.

Am I listening to it the way it is intended when I use speakers? I have said many times I use both speakers and headphones.

Headphones are an incomplete way of reproducing music.

Indeed, because most music is not binaural! I make it less incomplete by using crossfeed.

Headphones' lack of primary depth cues is exactly the same sort of problem as excessive stereo separation.

Yes, it is technically similar problem, but luckily for me not that annoying. In fact I kind of like the intimate private feel the lack of primary cues create. However, I am annoyed by the lack of acoustic crossfeed. I compensate for that using crossfeed.

The problem is created by listening to music in a way that it wasn't originally intended to be listened to.

Yeah, exactly, but this thread assumes we are doing so. The question we should be concentrating here is do we do it with or without crossfeed?

If you want to correct excessive separation, you use cross feed.

Yeah, that is what I figured out a decade ago. I realized excessive separation is a thing in headphones and that headphone sound can be much more natural and enjoyable if this problem of excessive separation is fixed using crossfeed.

If you want to synthesize primary depth cues, you do that with some sort of digital delay scheme.

Obviously.

Feel free. But that is completely irrelevant to crossfeed.

Yes, irrelevant perhaps, by my knowledge and understanding of spatiality is constantly questioned. So, I try to demonstrate I have the understanding and knowledge I say I have.

When you use crossfeed, you reduce the stereo separation and move it closer to mono.

You have said that quite a many times and I have been agreeing with you.

It has absolutely no effect on spatiality because secondary cues are present and audible no matter how you listen to music.

For me excessive separation ruins the music including secondary cues. They are "audible", but in a wrong way. With spatial cues, quality matters more than quantity. Good cues are a result of good balance between ILD, ITD, ISP, etc. so that the combination of them makes sense to spatial hearing. In speaker listening, acoustic crossfeed is very strong at low frequencies and without it the balance is disturbed badly.

 

[bigshot]

You have a hare brained theory about spatiality, and I’ve patiently explained why you’re wrong more times than I can remember. I’m not the only one who has done that. You ignore all of us and keep on babbling what Gregorio calls nonsense. At this point, there’s no reason to engage in conversation with you. You’re here to do soliloquies with the sole purpose of entertaining yourself and patting yourself on the back. I know what happens when that phase comes to an end and the pendulum swings the other firection again. We’ve seen that several times over the past couple of years. When that happens, I can assure you it isn’t my fault. I have absolutely no connection with you. This is your solo turn and I have no part in it.

 

[71 dB]

You have a hare brained theory about spatiality,

I wouldn't say I have a theory of my own, hare-brained or anything else. I'm just applying the theories I learned in university in practise. The last 10 years have increased my understanding and knowledge of spatiality especially regarding headphones, something I didn't have before that because universities (at least the one I studied in) don't teach headphone spatiality, but human spatial hearing in general and one has to figure out himself/herself what it means when applied to headphones/audio/music etc.

and I’ve patiently explained why you’re wrong more times than I can remember.

Wrong? We agree about some things and disagree with others. What makes you think it is always you who is right? Are you some kind of all-knowing God who can't be wrong? The impression I have got from you is that you have done a lot audio work in life, mainly with speakers, but you are not that savvy in Math for example. Whenever I take things more technical/mathematical you tend to shy away. For example you haven't commented at all my analyse of the virtual barber 8D sound. Is it because you don't properly understand what my analyse is about? Commenting on it would be a good chance for you to demonstrate how I am wrong, but you pass the opportunity. Could it be because I am not as wrong as you assume I am?

I’m not the only one who has done that. You ignore all of us and keep on babbling what Gregorio calls nonsense.

You have been the most active recently. Maybe Gregorio has seen how I have learned some things here (that people hear spatiality differently) and I have admitted when being wrong (that is how we learn). I have changed my rethoric about crossfeed from 5 years ago. Maybe that makes Gregorio feel less need to correct me? You on the other hand require ALL people on this planet to agree 100 % with you regardless of whether you are right or not.

At this point, there’s no reason to engage in conversation with you.

So don't! Frankly your posts do not contribute much in here. My posts at least contain ideas that even made you think I have my own theories! I try my best to apply the theories of human spatial hearing in headphone context and all I get is I am wrong. It is as if you just want people stop using headphones.

You’re here to do soliloquies with the sole purpose of entertaining yourself and patting yourself on the back

Yes, I am a human being. I need the feel of relevance, that I have something to offer to the World. I hope that what I say here may help/inspire someone. Why are you here? To make other people feel bad about themselves?

I know what happens when that phase comes to an end and the pendulum swings the other firection again. We’ve seen that several times over the past couple of years. When that happens, I can assure you it isn’t my fault. I have absolutely no connection with you. This is your solo turn and I have no part in it.

For someone having absolutely no connection with me you have commented my posts A LOT! I wonder why...

 

[bigshot]

No, I’m done.

 

[gregorio]

Makes live much harder and more complex, but you folks demand it...

It’s not just us folks, it’s science that demands it. You are oversimplifying to (and beyond) the point of contradicting the facts/science. The actual fact is that the reality is much harder and more complex.

Crossfeed reduces ILD. It also lower ITD a little bit (increases 250 µs stuff). ISD improves closer to HRTF. Reverberation to direct ratio gets lower because reverberation has generally bigger channel separation than direct sound. Without crossfeed reverberation can be amplified for this reason. Did I ignore something?

Yes, you ignored a great deal and some of what you stated was not even correct to start with! Crossfeed does not lower ITD a little bit, it just crossfeeds the signal below the crossfeed freq threshold, the ITD above that threshold is unaffected and, by crossfeeding the signal you now have the timing differences between the two channels superimposed on the opposite channel. So now you’ve got an arbitrary timing difference between the same sound source between freq bands and potential phase issues. There are related issues with ISD and the spectral differences in the recording. Reverberation ratio to direct sound is unaffected because crossfeed does not separate reverb from direct sound, it crossfeed the entire signal (below a threshold) and reverb typically has less separation than the direct sound because it is diffuse. There are various other things you’re ignoring and/or misrepresenting but the above is enough to be going on with!

How do we even define objective spatiality when spatiality happens in our brains?

Nonsense, spatiality does NOT happen in our brains! Early reflections, reverb and spectral, level and timing of both the direct and reflected sound occurs in reality. These factors are what define spatiality, they are all objective and objectively measurable. All these factors then get modified again by HRTFs which again occurs in reality and is objective and objectively measurable. What happens in the brain is the determination of how and what we perceive in response to all this actual/objective spatial information and our personal preferences of it.

If there was objective spatiality, stereo would certainly be technically too simple for it.

But if there wasn’t objective spatiality stereo would not exist.

Spatiality is an illusion.

No, spatiality is a reality. The perception of spatiality when listening to stereo is partly an illusion.

Without the illusion we would probably need dozens of audio channels and speakers to have any reasonable spatiality.

No, you can have reasonable spatiality with just one speaker without illusion, you can have distance/depth using the previously mentioned objective factors. Of course, this is just the spatial dimension of distance (and potentially height) that doesn’t include width, so we could argue it’s “reasonableness”.

Speaker spatiality is a line from one speaker to the other speaker. We don't hear it that way thanks to the illusion.

No, (stereo) speaker spatiality is just two point sources (speakers). We perceive a line (under certain conditions) thanks to the illusion. Typically we perceive more than just a line (also depth) due to objective factors and how our brains interpret them.

Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, room reverberation is very diffuse sound field while direct sound is not meaning reverberation tends to have larger ILD, ISD and ITD values than direct sound.

As reverb is very diffuse it will have lower ILD, ISD and ITD values than direct sound, not larger. Except in the case of a direct sound in the phantom centre, in which case it will have roughly the same or marginally more.

Early reflections are in the middle.

ERs are not diffuse, the ILD and ITD values will depend on the relative position of the sound source relative to the initial reflection points and therefore can be greater or less than the ILD and ITD of the direct sound. The spectrum of the ERs will depend on the distance and reflective properties of the boundaries.

In reducing especially ILD, crossfeed reduces reverberation in the recording in relation to direct sound.

Crossfeed does not reduce “especially ILD”, it reduces/changes everything equally below the freq threshold. It also does not separate direct sound from the reverb/reflections and therefore does not reduce reverb relative to direct sound.

If secondary cues say we are in a cathedral and primary cues say we are in a living room, where are we? Small church?

We’re in a space that cannot possibly exist, you obviously can’t fit a large cathedral in a small living room. However, the human brain typically cannot accept such a scenario and will therefore change it’s perception to create a scenario it can accept. In most cases we would perceive we’re in a cathedral or at least a cathedral size/type space, due to the engineers manipulating the reverb according to his/her perception within their monitoring environment and also due to the brain’s plasticity in learning/adapting to listening environments. There is wide variation in localisation and related perceptual processes though, so it’s likely some would perceive a “small church” or various other spatial locations.

For music recorded in studio rooms of similar size to living rooms this is not an issues in my opinion.

It is probably the exact same issue or sometimes worse, because studio recordings are often close mic’ed and therefore have relatively little acoustic room information and often the rooms used in studio recording are not of a similar size and/or have significantly different acoustic properties.

I have changed my rethoric about crossfeed from 5 years ago. Maybe that makes Gregorio feel less need to correct me?

You’ve changed your rhetoric in regards to effectively stating that what you perceive is definitely right and anyone who perceives something different is an ignorant idiot. Obviously that was both factually false and exceptionally offensive but thankfully you don’t do that anymore, you seem to accept that perception varies and isn’t correlated to ignorance or idiocy. However, your rhetoric regarding spatiality, what crossfeed does to it and why it works so well for you, has not changed. I don’t correct you as much because your posts are generally not so offensively false, not as incorrect (except when you go off on your hobby horse of ILD at the expense of everything else) and sometimes I just can’t be bothered because it’s all been stated before and you either just ignore it or acknowledge and then dismiss it on the basis of circular arguments about your perception/preferences of ILD!

G

 

[71 dB]

It’s not just us folks, it’s science that demands it. You are oversimplifying to (and beyond) the point of contradicting the facts/science. The actual fact is that the reality is much harder and more complex.

I didn't know science demands anything. It is just that if you oversimplify too much, science stops working the way it is supposed to work. If I want to describe how an apple falls from a tree, I can oversimplify gravity. I don't need to worry about how the mass of Earth bends 4-dimensional space-time. So, Newton's simplyfied theory of gravity works just fine, but if I want to describe the movement of Merkurius around the Sun, I need Einstein's theory of gravity, because Sun is so massive that the way it bends space-time is significant at the distance of Merkurius.

Similarly depending on what I am doing with spatiality matters in how precise models I need to use. Crossfeed is a very coarse manipulation of spatiality and therefore looking at ILD only works fine. When you use HRTF to create very realistic soundstage you obviously need much more detailed models and ILD alone is not enough!

Yes, you ignored a great deal and some of what you stated was not even correct to start with! Crossfeed does not lower ITD a little bit, it just crossfeeds the signal below the crossfeed freq threshold, the ITD above that threshold is unaffected and,

Of course. Cross-feed level goes down with frequency. Similar thing happens acoustically with speakers, because with frequency the listeners head starts to shadow the sound more and more blocking crossfeed. this is part of the principles of spatial hearing and leads to natural spatiality.

by crossfeeding the signal you now have the timing differences between the two channels superimposed on the opposite channel.

Same happens with speakers. Spatial hearing is "used" to this, even expecting such cross-correlation between the ears and it means natural spatiality. Headphone sound can be avoid of such cross-correlation leading to unnatural spatiality.

So now you’ve got an arbitrary timing difference between the same sound source between freq bands and potential phase issues.

Similar thing happens with speakers. It is called mono colourization. Typically crossfeed happens up to 800 Hz (wavelength 43 cm) and crossfeed timing difference is typically 250 µs (8-9 cm). This means that the original and the crossfed signals add up close to in phase. At 800 Hz the delay is actually only 71 % of the 250 µs (180 µs to be generous whch is 54° phase difference) and even the crossfeed level has dropped by 3 dB making "phase issues" milder. The phase issues would be serious, if the phase difference was about 180° (canceling), but it isn't even close to that.

Also, crossfeeding happen from left to right and from right to left meaning things are mirrored on both "sides" and spatial hearing is able to figure out what is going on.

There are related issues with ISD and the spectral differences in the recording. Reverberation ratio to direct sound is unaffected because crossfeed does not separate reverb from direct sound, it crossfeed the entire signal (below a threshold) and reverb typically has less separation than the direct sound because it is diffuse.

Make a test signal of in phase (mono) noise and out of phase noise summed. Crossfeed it. You'll hear how the mono noise is not affect almost at all, but the out of phase noise gets attenuated. So, crossfeed indeed CAN separate signal components of differing channel difference. Since reverberation (diffuse sound field characteristics) tend to have much higher channel separation than direct sound (free field charasteristics), crossfeed can to some extend separate them and modify them differently.

There are various other things you’re ignoring and/or misrepresenting but the above is enough to be going on with!

You are just craping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to discredit me. Nobody is talking about "various other things" in the context of crossfeed and for a good reason: They are irrelevant! If you think otherwise then please give me a mathematical calculation of why these things shouldn't be ignored. I am a math guy. Give me the math and I believe you!

Nonsense, spatiality does NOT happen in our brains! Early reflections, reverb and spectral, level and timing of both the direct and reflected sound occurs in reality.

Reality generates spatial cues our brain interprets in a way that more or less aligns with the reality, but not always! If you play mono sound on both stereo speakers, the reality is sound is radiated from the speakers, but your brain interprets the situation as sound coming from the middle point between the speakes. Simple proof of spatiality happening in brain. Spatial cues normally happen in reality but can be generated other ways too such as HRIR convolution.

These factors are what define spatiality, they are all objective and objectively measurable. All these factors then get modified again by HRTFs which again occurs in reality and is objective and objectively measurable. What happens in the brain is the determination of how and what we perceive in response to all this actual/objective spatial information and our personal preferences of it.

They are objectively measurable properties of the reality, but how we hear them is a separate thing, although very highly correlated.

But if there wasn’t objective spatiality stereo would not exist.

Human spatial hearing has developed in reality so that's why what we hear and what the reality is are VERY close to each other. Our spatiality is subjective, but almost identical to identical with objective reality. That's why it seems our spatiality is objective, but there are differencies and the illusion of stereo sound is based on them.

No, spatiality is a reality. The perception of spatiality when listening to stereo is partly an illusion.

Yes, stereo is illusion.

No, you can have reasonable spatiality with just one speaker without illusion, you can have distance/depth using the previously mentioned objective factors. Of course, this is just the spatial dimension of distance (and potentially height) that doesn’t include width, so we could argue it’s “reasonableness”.

Yes, but I have limited this to stereo, because the topic of crossfeed "requires" stereo to make sense.

No, (stereo) speaker spatiality is just two point sources (speakers). We perceive a line (under certain conditions) thanks to the illusion. Typically we perceive more than just a line (also depth) due to objective factors and how our brains interpret them.

Yes, no disagreements here.

As reverb is very diffuse it will have lower ILD, ISD and ITD values than direct sound, not larger. Except in the case of a direct sound in the phantom centre, in which case it will have roughly the same or marginally more.

You are right if we talk about reality, but we don't crossfeed "reality." We crossfeed stereo recordings made in reality. Those recordings can have wild values depending on how they were produced. Also, when I said direct sound, I meant direct sound from centre of near centre. Sorry about that. Direct sound from the side has larger values than reverb as you say, but how often are instrumets recorded that way? You know this better than I.

ERs are not diffuse, the ILD and ITD values will depend on the relative position of the sound source relative to the initial reflection points and therefore can be greater or less than the ILD and ITD of the direct sound. The spectrum of the ERs will depend on the distance and reflective properties of the boundaries.

Of course not "100 % diffuse", but the combination of all ER is more diffuse than direct sound. Otherwise I completely agree.

Crossfeed does not reduce “especially ILD”, it reduces/changes everything equally below the freq threshold. It also does not separate direct sound from the reverb/reflections and therefore does not reduce reverb relative to direct sound.

Yeah, it reduces my blood pressure equally... ...depending on how the recording is mixed direct sound can have differing effect to reverb as I have explained above. If mono remains almost the same mono, but out of phase sound attennuates, there is separation. Now, it is up to the recording how mono or out of phase things are...

It is probably the exact same issue or sometimes worse, because studio recordings are often close mic’ed and therefore have relatively little acoustic room information and often the rooms used in studio recording are not of a similar size and/or have significantly different acoustic properties.

Yes, but don't those productions use room mics to add room acoustics?

You’ve changed your rhetoric in regards to effectively stating that what you perceive is definitely right and anyone who perceives something different is an ignorant idiot. Obviously that was both factually false and exceptionally offensive but thankfully you don’t do that anymore, you seem to accept that perception varies and isn’t correlated to ignorance or idiocy. However, your rhetoric regarding spatiality, what crossfeed does to it and why it works so well for you, has not changed. I don’t correct you as much because your posts are generally not so offensively false, not as incorrect (except when you go off on your hobby horse of ILD at the expense of everything else) and sometimes I just can’t be bothered because it’s all been stated before and you either just ignore it or acknowledge and then dismiss it on the basis of circular arguments about your perception/preferences of ILD!

G

I was VERY offensive back then, because the way my first posts here were received stunned me. Since then I have learned that this planet is VERY hostile toward crossfeeders and I better accept being a second-class citizen. So I am more humble, but also more depressed and I don't believe myself at all. I have always failed so I am a loser. At least 2012-17 gave me an illusion of knowing something relevant.

If I am wrong about why crossfeed works for me then can you tell me why it works for me? I have not seen your alternative theory. That's why I have no need to abandon my own theories. For me my theories make perfect sense. I don't understand why they don't make sense to you. You haven't been able to explain that. I need math. Your posts don't have much math. Sorry.

 

[bigshot]

When you tear posts into contextless tiny bits to reply to them, it's easier to convince yourself that you are countering them without actually addressing what they actually say.

I'll answer one of your questions...

If I am wrong about why crossfeed works for me then can you tell me why it works for me?

Subjective preference, the same way I like chocolate ice cream without any scientific evidence that chocolate ice cream is good for me.

 

[WoodyLuvr]

I was VERY offensive back then, because the way my first posts here were received stunned me. Since then I have learned that this planet is VERY hostile toward crossfeeders and I better accept being a second-class citizen. So I am more humble, but also more depressed and I don't believe myself at all. I have always failed so I am a loser. At least 2012-17 gave me an illusion of knowing something relevant.

If I am wrong about why crossfeed works for me then can you tell me why it works for me? I have not seen your alternative theory. That's why I have no need to abandon my own theories. For me my theories make perfect sense. I don't understand why they don't make sense to you. You haven't been able to explain that. I need math. Your posts don't have much math. Sorry.

My good man, with the utmost respect and the kindest of intentions, would you not like to discuss something else? You have been extremely hyper-focused on this particular subject and it's associated never-ending argument across a number of threads for way too long. It's not healthy mate. Your passion is commendable but it can have a real bad side to it as well if you let it take control (I was quite guilty of this too in my younger years so I am speaking from experience). If I may, have you considered participating in another thread... or better yet start a new thread about a completely different topic that interests you. Let others interact with you in a completely different situation on a completely different subject and you may be surprised what happens! It might cheer you up!

BTW: I don't think you are a loser. Losers tend to not have the passion, intelligence, nor the fortitude to argue a losing point-of-view for as long as you have! I am not saying you are wrong or right but rather trying to say that you been in a long-term battle and greatly out numbered. We are always are own worst critics and way too hard on ourselves. Don't take yourself or life too seriously... it is one big practical joke, a comedic tragedy, and then we die! LOL! Cheers.

 

[71 dB]

I have posted elsewhere too, but usually it is like talking to a wall:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/autechre-appreciation-thread.238228/page-2