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

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by jasonb, Oct 21, 2010.
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Page 35 of 50
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
  1. castleofargh Contributor
    different variables are better on each option. but when albums are mixed/mastered using speakers in a room, the expected playback system should involve speakers in a room. IMO everything else comes second to that. but ultimately, with different mixing/mastering habits, or with better than just crossfeed(real use of complete individual HRTF), then I agree that we'd achieve better fidelity with headphones. and maybe a subwoofer for the body shake^_^.
  2. 71 dB
    Normal mono is just L+R and L-R gets lost. This makes the mono version sound "dull" compared to the original stereo version. Vivid mono sums L-R high pass filtered (1000 Hz) and delayed 0.5 ms to L+R. This retains about 20 % of the vividness of stereo and a lot of L-R information. Better than nothing. The comp filtering effects created by summing L-R to L+R delayed "simulates" stereophonic sound creating "vividness." It's not hi-fi, but what can you do? It makes mobile phone ring tones made from stereophonic sources less dull. Call it nonsense if you want, but I'd like to hear about your "better" stereo to mono algorithm. Have one? L-R can be as much as 50 % of all information in a stereophonic track, so normal L+R mono is quite brutal.

    None of that defines creative intent.[/QUOTE]

    If your creative intent is to have excessive ILD and ITD then you are a headphone artist hating loudspeakers and natural sound.

    Semantics. Reduction or correction. Better than nothing. The problem is defined well enough, for example ILD is 12 dB at bass when it should be less than 6 dB.

    How about acoustic crossfeed? Room acoustics, directivity of your speakers etc. define acoustic crossfeed. People just listen to their speakers without thinking if acoustic crossfeed is correct (same as in the studio the record was mixed?) You are nitpicking too much brother...

    Science is on my side. All you have is "artistic intent". Please.
    ironmine likes this.
  3. WoodyLuvr
    Again, the "best speaker setups trounce the best headphone setups" only in certain listening environments/situations... perhaps the reason why headphones were created in the first place. I do get your point but your generalization still doesn't apply to all and most especially on a headphone oriented forum :p !
  4. bigshot
    Well, I have very good headphones and a very good 5.1 speaker system, and for listening to music, the speakers are the way to go. I lived in an apartment for 30 years and I understand needing to contain sound so the neighbors don't get mad... well, at least containing it enough that they don't get *too* mad. But now that I have a dedicated listening room that isn't anywhere near where anyone is trying to sleep, I barely use my headphones any more. For listening to music, speakers are a no brainer. Headphones are best if other people don't want to hear what you are hearing.

    A lot of the people in this forum have never actually heard a good multichannel speaker system. If they did have that opportunity, and they had a place in their home for it, they would put their cans in a drawer just like I did.
    bfreedma likes this.
  5. bfreedma
    Agree regarding 5.1 (or more) being preferable but still tend to use headphones later in the evening to not disturb the family. With two high output subs in my home theater, the bass does tend to be intrusive throughout the rest of the house.
  6. pinnahertz
    Just as I expected. You've ignored the 6dB center/L+R build-up. Problem known since the beginnings of consumer stereo. The traditional correct fix is to sum using a 90 degree network resulting in a 3dB L+R sum, putting it back in balance with the rest of the mix. Your "fix" won't achieve the correct balance as it relies on your interpretation of how much L-R there is, which is NOT a reliable indicator of mix balance.
    You've completely missed two important points. 1. You have NO IDEA what the creative intent was. 2. If the creative intent is to have a very wide image on speakers and a super-wide image on headphones, they don't hate either one, the love both and have chosen to embrace the effects of both on their mix. You wound never know (and clearly not assume) that condition exists.

    YOU are the one hating things and imposing YOUR value judgements on everyone else by denigrating them for their opinions!
    No, not semantics, definitions.

    Reduction : the action or fact of making a specified thing smaller or less in amount, degree, or size.
    Correction: a change that rectifies an error or inaccuracy.

    Semantics: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
    That is YOUR OPINION, and is NOT universally shared! Have we not already established this? Or do I need to go back to the last time we had this ridiculous argument and quote it to you?
    No, that defines the mathmatical relationship of ILD in a specific instance. Your definition ignores creative intent and subjective opinion! Your definition ignores the resulting subjective effects and their desirability (or lack of) and general listener preference, which will vary widely for each individual AND each recording.
    There is no such thing as "acoustic cross-feed"! What you define above is "spatial hearing" and "localization". That's how we hear, it's not an anomaly, or something artificially generated. Yes, people don't usually think that their speakers and room acoustics match the studio or not. That's not the point at all. Everyone working in a studio already knows the target venue for music (film is different) will likely not match theirs! That's part of the considerations applied in mixing! You don't "undo" that, you accept it as their intentions!
    No, your science has proven nothing. If you want to apply science, then take your hypothesis and apply the scientific method! All you've done is stated a hypothesis as fact. That could not be farther from science! You've done no actual research into listener response and preference, it's just all about YOU and you're theories.

    I'm not challenging your theory itself, or your math, or your analysis. I'm challenging you to prove one thing: your hypothesis of universal efficacy. You thing you've "discovered" something, but you have only found what has been known for decades, but has not, for some mysterious reason, been embraced with even a tiny fraction of the universality you think is so critical. Why not? It's not because it's difficult to do, or expensive, or heretofore unknown. It's had its chance, and been voted down. You're bucking the existing tide, but refuse to even begin to prove your point other than to re-argue the details of you're marvelous "discovery" ad-nauseam.

    You have proven nothing other than a possible mental block.
  7. 71 dB
    We believe you are the luckiest man alive and have the best multichannel system known to man. Other people aren't as lucky so we use headphones. Ok?
    ironmine likes this.
  8. 71 dB
    Okay, now I believe I can't earn your respect. There is no reason for me to communicate with you. Sorry.
    ironmine likes this.
  9. bigshot
    Sure. Make do!
  10. WoodyLuvr
    My issues/constraints are both physical and social:

    • Wall-to-wall marble flooring with marble,brick, and tile walls... talk about an echo chamber.
    • The main room I vegetate at (where I have luckily been able to claim a small space for myself) is actually one continuous hall containing an entry hall, large living/family room, dining area, large bar area, and then a full sized western kitchen and has a strangely vaulted ceiling of varying angles/levels ranging from 4 to 8 meters in height.
    • Tropics = Open Windows with Fans or Air Conditioning
    • Two to four young Siamese females present in the house 24/7 (if you don't know Siamese are extremely talkative, active, and noise prone creatures to say the least!).
    • All three (3) flat screen televisions are running Thai soap operas and/or Thai music throughout the waking hours whether or not they are being viewed.

    • And most importantly most of my listening is at night-time when all the monsters are asleep and I am all alone which means headphones
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
  11. pinnahertz
    What do you want me to do? Draw you a road map? I've already give you step-by-step instructions. More than once.

    I believe you don't want to try to earn the respect of the members of a scientific community. You just want to say you're right and everyone will believe you. I know of no communities of any kind where that works.

    If you think things are tough here stop over to hydrogenaudio and try to pull that stuff.
  12. pinnahertz
    Who are you speaking for with that "we"?

    I think Bigshot probably has a great system and would love to hear it some time, but I seriously doubt it's the best known to man. Nor does it need to be to accomplish the core goals, his or most people's.

    Oh...sorry, was that just your sour grapes sarcasm?

    I really don't get the banter about which is better, headphones or speakers, for whatever reasons. Both have their points, neither is perfect no matter how much you spend. Neither method does what the other does, it can't, and that's not the point anyway. The point is presenting music in an enjoyable manner, and both can be enjoyable for different reasons. The key issues have always been frequency response, and until relatively recently, headphones seemed to solve most of that with less expense. But you can't really compare them to speakers because speaker systems and headphones have completely different purposes. You can't walk down the street with your 5.1 system, now can you? And you shouldn't wear headphones while driving. You can't crank up the SPLs in certain environments without irritating others, and some music is highly personal, and sharing is not desired. You can't get controlled reliable directional cues from headphones, but if you want a sound there, you can put a speaker there...if you settle the WAF issue.

    What's better? Both, just for different reasons. Which gets you better sound for less money? I still think probably headphones, but with certain compromises, and some definite limitations. Mostly we can get good smooth speakers now, but positioning and the room are still darn difficult problems, so there's a big expense there if you want to get it right.

    I just don't get why argue about it, it's apples vs cumquats. Both can be anything from fantastic to rotten.
    jgazal and 71 dB like this.
  13. 71 dB
    You could stop shooting down everything I say. You could provide lisp code for Hilbert transformation so I could try myself 90° phase shift. I'm not sure if I can figure it out myself. Perhaps I could approximate it with all-pass-filters? After giving it some thought I admit it is an interesting idea for sure to have 90° phase shift prior to downmixing stereo to mono.

    No, I don't say I am right. It's you telling me I am wrong. We never debate as equals because you put yourself above me.

    Maybe it's the sound engineers with their "artistic intents" who are wrong? At some point artistic intent goes outside what is reasonable to accept. I myself made music for year with excessive stereo separation because I was spatially ignorant and now I can see how wrong I was. I simply do not believe that most excessive stereo recordings are artistic intents. In my opinion excessive stereo recordings exists because:

    - mixed for speakers, headphones ignored (less true nowadays)
    - more appealing to spatially ignorant people (almost everybody)
    - lack of sophisticated mixing tools (not true anymore)
    - lack of understanding of the psychoacoustic problems of excessive separation.

    I sense that you almost fear stereo sound with natural ILD and ITD, but that's not a limitation really because there's so much more you can do in music, so much other possibilities for artistic intent.
  14. bigshot

    Time to build a guest house in the back!
    WoodyLuvr likes this.
  15. WoodyLuvr
    They would invade that as well! LOL.
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Page 35 of 50
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Share This Page