[71 dB]

The angle of the sound from the speakers doesn’t change as the room size gets larger.

You are right, but the angles of the reflections from room surfaces do.

 

[gregorio]

When I talked about direct sound from speakers, you told me to not forget the other stuff, reflections and reverberation. Now you are talking about direct sound!

You’re joking? Maybe I gave you too much credit for what you know? Yes, we cannot forget about reflections/reverb BUT OBVIOUSLY that does NOT mean we only consider reflections/reverb and forget about the direct sound. So yes, sometimes I talk specifically about direct sound and sometimes I talk specifically about reflections but we must always consider both! You seem to have a habit of considering just one thing (typically ILD) and ignoring/dismissing everything else. You seem incapable of understanding that a lot of factors are occurring simultaneously and interact with each other or that if I’m talking about one thing, it is ALWAYS in the context of everything else.

I meant of course early reflections from side walls, and yes, room dimensions do affect the sound angle. It is basic geometry!

But of course we cannot consider only the reflections but also the direct sound and the angle of the direct sound does not change which is also basic geometry! For example an equilateral listening triangle would have the speakers relative to the listener at an angle of 60deg. Make the room bigger and leave the listening triangle the same or bigger and the angle is still 60deg. When it comes to the angle of side reflections, room size does have an effect but again it is only one of several factors. For example, we would get the same angle difference as a bigger room by having exactly the same room but a smaller listening triangle. A weird trapezoid or pentagon shaped room will seriously affect reflection angles but of course not many consumers have such listening rooms we’re typically dealing with rectangular shaped rooms. Also, we cannot only consider the angle of reflections, we also have to consider the relative timing/delay of those reflections, the relative level and the spectral content. In addition, in the case of side wall reflections, this is also determined by the off-axis response of the speakers. And lastly, the most prominent initial reflection is typically the two reflection points on the rear wall directly in line with the speakers, behind the listener. These result in relatively small ITDs and ILDs compared to side wall reflections (same with ceiling and floor reflections) but they have specific spectral differences by the time they reach the ear drum which human perception relies on a factor you consistently ignore.

Since you want to talk about direct sound, there is acoustic crossfeed happening with it. I have tried to make that point, but you constantly move the goalposts!

I’m not moving the goalposts, the goalposts have always been the same but you don’t seem to realise the goalposts include all the factors, not just one at a time!

I don't and I don't understand how some people do.

And that’s the problem! I don’t perceive a completely natural result with headphones either but I DO understand how some people do, it’s the result of perception changing what we’re actually hearing in order to make sense of it and for a few people the result seems to be almost perfectly natural/realistic, for others less so and for a few (like you) it’s an uncomfortable mess. You don’t understand the 1st or 2nd group because you’ve come up with some “theory” which dictates these two groups cannot exist. Clearly they do exist, so obviously your theory must be wrong but you don’t seem able to let go of it in the face if this obvious evidence. This perception process which allows some people to perceive almost a perfect result without crossfeed is the same process you subconsciously use, although with the different result of you perceiving a near perfect result using crossfeed. In both cases the actual result is far from perfect/natural but your (and their) perception leads you to believe otherwise.

How do you hear large ILD at low frequencies?

I don’t understand the question. A large ILD is natural and not even especially uncommon, we experience a large ILD when a sound is close to one side of our head.

To me these things sound very unnatural and annoying.

But they’re not unnatural, a large ILD happens naturally IRL. Maybe you just haven’t experienced it much and therefore it sounds unnatural to you. In my case, I spent many years as an orchestral musician, so was habituated to having other instruments very close on either side of me (in various different ensembles), and in front and behind me. Maybe that’s why I’m not so annoyed by it and you are? Either way though, it’s not unnatural just because you perceive it to be.

Things are altered in a way that roughly simulates how they are altered in regards of direct sound in "real life".

You keep falsely stating that, presumably because you personally perceive crossfeed that way and your “theory” depends on it but these two things don’t provide any real evidence and actually contradict reliable evidence. The only thing they do provide is a self-reinforcing circular argument, which is why we’ve been going in nonsense circles for so long!!

Your statement is false because IRL we never hear only the direct sound and even considering only the direct sound, there are several important aspects that crossfeed does not simulate at all, roughly or otherwise. Your answer to this is that these “important aspects” not only are not important, they’re irrelevant and should be dismissed. That’s nonsense because it contradicts established science. As one single example, if we have a direct sound centrally in front of us and then the exact same sound centrally behind us the ITD and ITD are zero in both cases. We can tell the difference due to spectral differences caused by the different absorption of the front of the pinnae compared to the back of the pinnae and other absorption characteristics of the front of the body/skull and the back. Cross feed does not simulate any of these differences in any way at all, not even roughly and you cannot claim they are irrelevant because your perception relies on them as does everyone else’s. Unless you’re claiming that in this experiment you wouldn’t be able to perceive the different location of the sound in front or behind?

Room acoustics transform even the craziests ping pong recordings and even mono recordings to this sweet spot.

Not necessarily, again you’re just omitting various factors to maintain the myth of your false theory! Yes, those extreme, hard ping pong recordings you sometimes find in early stereo recordings do sound bizarre on HPs but they also sound fairly bizarre in a room on quite widely spaced near-field speakers/monitors. Not as bizarre but certainly not in this “sweet spot”. The “sweet spot” is achieved by having the speakers quite close together and the listening position further away, by decreasing both the ILD and ITD, increasing the ratio of reflections/reverb to direct sound and changing the spectral content of both the direct and reflected sound.

Crossfeed does similar thing,

No it doesn’t, apart from the ILD it does nothing similar to the above at all!

Related to this my newer theory is that intuitive people favor crossfeed more than sensitive types. Intuitive types (MBTI = xNxx) suffer often from overwhelming sensory information while sensitive types (MBTI = xSxx) control sensory information better.

Looks like you’re going to fall into the same trap again! A “theory” requires reliable supporting evidence, even a hypothesis requires some basis in or reference to reliable evidence. If you just make-up some idea based on your personal perception of observations that may or may not correlate and even if they do, may not imply causation; the chances are that some existing scientific evidence will falsify it and you’ll spend another decade believing a falsehood and then making up circular arguments to defend it! Wouldn’t it be better (and save many years) to first read as much scientific research/studies as you can on location perception and related issues?

G

 

[bigshot]

I don't disagree that the size of the room affects the reflection of sound off the walls, but no one was talking about the reflections off the walls of the room. You shifted to that when your comment about room sizes affecting the angle of the direct sound was pointed out to be incorrect. Room reflections are irrelevant because crossfeed doesn't produce room reflections, and that is precisely why it doesn't create spatiality. Normally, one would acknowledge their error, correct it, and then move on to another point. But you slid from an error to an irrelevant fact, hoping to try to bury your error under a subtle change of subject. That's not a particularly admirable argumentative technique. Discussions aren't about buffaloing one's point across come hell or high water. It's a conversational give and take. Acknowledging when the other person is correct is an important part of that, and intellectual honesty is what earns respect.

Sliding on and off points doesn't score points. It can only derail the point. It's always better to focus on arguing on point and not let your emotions force you to use argumentative tricks to "win" at any cost.

 

[71 dB]

I don’t understand the question. A large ILD is natural and not even especially uncommon, we experience a large ILD when a sound is close to one side of our head.

When is it in your opinion natural to have sound close to one side of our head?

 

[bigshot]

Reflections are important because that's what crossfeed is missing. That's why crossfeed doesn't affect spatiality.

The angle of direct sound is constant with speakers. With headphones it's constant at the wrong angle. With crossfeed, it's the same, just the signals are just mixed. There is no angle at all. It's a line through your head. Without room reflections, there is no direction and there is no space.

The problem is, your arguments aren't focused on point. They don't answer the arguments you are being given. They just deflect or change the subject entirely. You cut the argument you're given up into little bits and answer the bits, not the entire context. Line by line replies tend to encourage that kind of stuff.

 

[71 dB]

Reflections are important because that's what crossfeed is missing. That's why crossfeed doesn't affect spatiality.

Crossfeed affects sound, makes it different. You can call the chance whatever you want. I don't care what you call it. I call it improved spatiality and I don't need your approval for that! I have been a fool for wanting the approval of you. Reflections are missing in headphone sound, crossfeed or not. Lack of reflections is not a crossfeed thing. It is a headphone thing.

The angle of direct sound is constant with speakers.

It is not constant when the listener moves head sideways, but I get your point.

With headphones it's constant at the wrong angle. With crossfeed, it's the same, just the signals are just mixed. There is no angle at all. It's a line through your head. Without room reflections, there is no direction and there is no space.

My spatial hearing is fooled by crossfeed to think the angle changed. Also, the spatial cues in the recording fool my spatial hearing and I sense small space.

The problem is, your arguments aren't focused on point. They don't answer the arguments you are being given. They just deflect or change the subject entirely. You cut the argument you're given up into little bits and answer the bits, not the entire context. Line by line replies tend to encourage that kind of stuff.

I am so sorry I am so bad at everything. I try but this is the result always. I don't know how to do well.

 

[bigshot]

You can call it that, but crossfeed has nothing to do with spatiality. With headphones, stereo is a single dimension- a line down the middle of the head between the ears. Crossfeed simply moves sound closer to the center of the head.

 

[71 dB]

You can call it that, but crossfeed has nothing to do with spatiality. With headphones, stereo is a single dimension- a line down the middle of the head between the ears. Crossfeed simply moves sound closer to the center of the head.

It doesn't make sense to me to say a line down the middle of the head between the ears, because:

1. Nothing goes physically through our head when we use headphones
2. I don't hear it that way unless the recording lacks all secondary spatial cues (e.g. test tones)

 

[old tech]

@71 dB Just as an aside, the Myers-Briggs personality test doesn't have much (if any) scientific validity, certainly the evidence for it is lacking. Read for example:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4221

 

[71 dB]

Since everyone hears crossfeed differently, this is no different from arguing if strawberry ice-cream tastes better than banana ice-cream...

@71 dB Just as an aside, the Myers-Briggs personality test doesn't have much (if any) scientific validity, certainly the evidence for it is lacking. Read for example:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4221

I know, but getting into it last year has helped me to understand myself better so I guess it is better than nothing. It is weird that something with not much scientific validity is used so much.

 

[bigshot]

1) I hear spatiality with a recording with secondary depth cues.
2) I do not hear spatiality with a recording without secondary depth cues.

A) I hear spatiality with crossfeed and a recording with secondary depth cues.
B) I do not hear spatiality with crossfeed and a recording without secondary depth cues.

Maybe the spatiality has nothing to do with the crossfeed and everything to do with the secondary depth cues.

Secondary depth cues consist of recorded room reflections and reverberation, both of which involve timing changes.

Crossfeed does not alter timing, therefore….





…

 

[old tech]

I know, but getting into it last year has helped me to understand myself better so I guess it is better than nothing. It is weird that something with not much scientific validity is used so much.

It is not used at all in the psychology profession but it is analogous to Astrology being used a lot in the daily newspapers.

 

[71 dB]

Crossfeed does not alter timing, therefore….

I guess crossfeed does nasty things and was invented to ruin headphone sound. I am satanic for trying to give scientific justification to crossfeed. Fortunately blessed people like you work hard to defeat satanic forces threatening the mankind! Crossfeed is known to encourage some people to use more headphones. It tricks some people to even have out of head spatiality on headphones! How perverse! Headphone sound belongs inside head! Only speaker sound is allowed the freedom of outside head existence.

It is not used at all in the psychology profession but it is analogous to Astrology being used a lot in the daily newspapers.

In my case nothing was ever used. That's why I lived 50 years wondering why other people are so weird and different.

 

[71 dB]

No it doesn’t, apart from the ILD it does nothing similar to the above at all!

Acoustic crossfeed of direct sound creates ITD of about 250 µs. Crossfeed mimicks this 250 µs. So there is that similar aspect about ITD. Also, crossfeed mimick the ISD how acoustic crossfeed happens (very roughly): Low frequencies "leak" to contralateral ear more than higher frequencies. So, there is that similarity:

I am tired of you twisting things and terms in ways that are always as unfavorable to crossfeed as possible. I think I am much more honest: I admit what crossfeed can't do. I admit its limitation, but I also give credit to crossfeed when it is due. I see the positive and the negative. You want to see only the negative.

 

[71 dB]

Not necessarily, again you’re just omitting various factors to maintain the myth of your false theory! Yes, those extreme, hard ping pong recordings you sometimes find in early stereo recordings do sound bizarre on HPs but they also sound fairly bizarre in a room on quite widely spaced near-field speakers/monitors. Not as bizarre but certainly not in this “sweet spot”. The “sweet spot” is achieved by having the speakers quite close together and the listening position further away, by decreasing both the ILD and ITD, increasing the ratio of reflections/reverb to direct sound and changing the spectral content of both the direct and reflected sound.

I don't mention all things all the time. Doesn't mean I omit things. They have affected my thought process at some point. I agree totally with you about how ping pong recordings can be made better with speakers.

Looks like you’re going to fall into the same trap again! A “theory” requires reliable supporting evidence, even a hypothesis requires some basis in or reference to reliable evidence. If you just make-up some idea based on your personal perception of observations that may or may not correlate and even if they do, may not imply causation; the chances are that some existing scientific evidence will falsify it and you’ll spend another decade believing a falsehood and then making up circular arguments to defend it! Wouldn’t it be better (and save many years) to first read as much scientific research/studies as you can on location perception and related issues?

G

I don't mean scientific theory. I use the term theory loosely and I wish you could use semantic reading. I have thoughts about things. Thoughts don't need to be scientific. They can be anything.