No it doesn’t. Acoustic crossfeed of a direct sound can result in an ITD of anything from about 0µs to around 800µs. It’s depends on the horizontal position of the direct sound AND the morphology of the individual’s skull and body. Furthermore, ITD is not a single number, it varies non-linearly with frequency due to skull refraction by up to about 150µs.
You know I mean situation where the speakers are at plus minus 30° angle and the listener doesn't turn head, but your style is to create a scenario where what I said doesn't apply. If the speakers move around you or the listener turns his/head then yes, but I wasn't talking about such situations. Crossfeed generates the ITD at frequencies up to about 800 Hz. Below that frequency ITD is quite constant. Above 800 Hz the importance of ITD goes away with frequency and ILD becomes more important. 800-1600 Hz is the transition band.
Exactly, crossfeed mimics 250µs, which is not at all similar to actual ITD. It’s like saying a stopped clock mimics a functioning clock because it’s right twice a day!
At all?? Don't be so difficult. You know 250µs a proper approximation of ILD. My wide-crossfeed uses 640 µs, but that's another story. Not using crossfeed doesn't give ANY ITD because it doesn't crossfeed anything in any way! Crossfeed gives the 250 µs which is close to acoustic crossfeed.
No, I am presenting the facts which falsify your theory and explanation of why crossfeed supposedly works.
You are nitpicking. Your explanations made sense if I claimed crossfeed does perfectly everything, but I don't claim that. To some of us crossfeed is able to improve headphone sound a lot DESPITE of being VERY imperfect AND there is actually scientific explanation (that led to the original idea of crossfeed of simulating acoustic crossfeed with speakers) as to why this is the case. I have tried to explain this for 5 years now and I am fed up with you and other crossfeed-skeptics here.
Yes, you do admit what crossfeed can’t do and it’s limitations BUT, you then spend innumerable pages trying to explain why those limitations are either just irrelevant to start with or how crossfeed overcomes them using false/made-up assertions that it mimics or simulates what happens IRL (or with speakers). That is NOT “much more honest”, it is far less honest!!
They are irrelevant for me to enjoy music! Did it ever occure to you that people might enjoy headphone sound without using state of the art HRTF processing? To me crossfeed is good enough, but headphone sound as it is is NOT good enough.
Also, crossfeed does simulate certain things. Simulation can be very coarse. There is no threshold of how accurate simulation has to be to be called simulation. So, you are using semantics to discredit me and I don't like that AT ALL!! I am very honest here.
You say that to everything say. Maybe I am a machine that generates untrue claims? So funny. Who takes you seriously at this point? Some fools maybe...
. I’ve stated that crossfeed works very well for a few people, acceptably well for a group of people and even that I prefer crossfeed in a very limited number of cases.
Yes you have, but the next thing you say is that my scientific explanations are false, but they are not.
Generally crossfeed makes it far more difficult for me to interpret the cues in the recording, gives me a more mono and therefore a lesser feeling of space.
That is interesting. Thanks to you I know now that people like you exists and my way of hearing crossfeed is not the only way common to all people.
That’s because my perception, the perception of many/most others and loads of scientific evidence (such as HRTFs for example) falsifies your explanation of the process, regardless of how many times you repeat it!!
No. Scientific evidence tells us we can do things even better than crossfeed. We both agree HRTF is better than crossfeed, but my claim is crossfeed is better than nothing (and good enough for me to enjoy headphone sound).
Now who’s changing the goal posts? We do quite commonly experience large ILD in real life. And, I’ve already given you examples where we do even with music; anyone who’s ever played a flute, violin, tuba, some other instruments or in a closely spaced ensemble. You could add, children being sung to by their mother with one side of their head near her mouth, anyone who’s ever listened to a radio on their shoulder or a mobile with the speaker close to one ear and there’s probably some other scenarios. There are various potential real life scenarios (that are not incredible rarities) which falsifies your assertion that high ILDs are “unnatural”. Again, you’re just making up false assertions to justify your “theory”/explanation.
G
How an earth should I hear flute or tube at my ear when I listen to a recording of Elgar's 2nd Symphony? I am not supposed to play in the orchestra! I am supposed to sit in the audience 15 meters from the orchestra! Large ILD is not unnatural in all context, but it is unnatural in the context of music listening. There is also the matter of spectrum. When we hear large ILD in real life, it tends to be mid/high frequencies (insects flying by, mother singing lullaby). Low frequencies generally require large vibrating surfaces and if such objects are near head, it is near field* meaning the ILD isn't that large. In fact, (closed) headphones are the best way to generate large ILD at low frequencies, and that's also the danger and motivation to use crossfeed.
* the vibrating surface is so big, that even the nearer ear isn't that near the average distance. Only a small part of the surface is very near. That limits the ILD.
