[bigshot]

Speakers just sound better than headphones, that's all. If you absolutely have to use headphones, do whatever you have to.

 

[pinnahertz]

1. I have some idea. If I hadn't I wouldn't be making claims here. Education/knowledge of spatial hearing + listening experiences give me an idea, just not verified scientifically. I have mentioned I have low self-esteem which means I keep my mouth shut about things I know/feel I don't know much. This is something I am very confident about so I make claims online.

"You have no idea" means you have no scientific and statistical data to support your claim. You don't.

2. Under any conditions and with any material/mix.

That is impossible.

Audio science makes little sense if we keep insisting subjectivity. We should try to find objective truth. Having "larger than HRTF" ILD/ITD as your artistic intent is kind of a bad intent, because you can't have "larger than HRTF" values with speakers, only with headphones. So you are doing something that will sound "against your intent" on speakers. Such productions should have a sticker on them saying "For headphones only. Don't use crossfeed." The only recordings with such stickers are binaural recordings and they are especially free of any "larger than HRTF" values for ILD and ITD. Another point is that large ILD is related to sounds very near head/other ear and causes an annoying feeling so that we know to use our hands to swipe the damn bee before it flies into the ear canal! Smaller ILD is more comfortable to listen to.

The above, again, indicates your knowlege gap. You are still focussed on a very firm and invariant definition based on very simple math. For a full and complete understanding, you must go outside that and include human perception. Until you do, we will be knocking heads.

 

[pinnahertz]

1. It's not "fail", because OFF is one of the crossfeed levels for situations when excessive channel difference doesn't exist such as binaural recordings.

So because your cross-feeder has an "OFF" setting, you can set it to "OFF" and still claim to use cross-feed?

2. The 2 % is not an indisputable fact. It is what seems to agree with my listening experiences.

Well, you're the only one claiming that figure, pretty much everyone else here claims something else. So I guess, it's been disputed, and adequately.

3a. I take back the idiot part. 3b. I don't know why I ever wrote that! I still feel ignorance might play a part for some people.

3a. Thank you. I hope it stays that way, but confidence is low...
3b. That is why you wrote it. So long as you dismiss opposing opinion as ignorant and refuse to attempt to understand, the possibility exists for that kind of post to return.

 

[pinnahertz]

I listened to Steve Roach's 'Kiva" last night on Spotify with headphones. I used wide crossfeeder and the sound image was very immersive, almost binaural.

You probably ruined Roach's intent completely using cross-feed. I'm well acquainted with Roach, from "Structures From Silence" (1984) on. Roach's work is "Space Music", which is based on a highly immersive, super-real experience (think of the vastness of space, only with actual sound). I've listened to some of that same recording with and without cross-feed. My opinion is that it's a perfect example of when not to use cross-feed. In fact, on speakers, a 5.1 or greater upmix would be great, as would acoustic crosstalk cancellation, if you had a system that worked.

edit: This genre, the development of which hinged on the advent of non-artificial sounding digital reverb devices (Lexicon 224, etc.) that made artificial hyper reverberant sound fields practical, is rooted in hyper-dimensional, hyper-reality, and spaciousness that exceedes the bounds of physical acoustics. Prior to these tools, you had a handball court-sized physical reverb chamber, an huge EMT plate, or various less-applicable attempts at reverb using springs. None had infinitely variable decay, pre-delay, or reflection response shaping. That device, the digital reverb, made the Space Music genre bloom. They'd have done 5.1 or Atmos if it was accessible then, but many of these guys didn't make a living with their music, so the arrival of even the most basic tools like reverbs gave them a dimensional palette that was essential to their art form.

Cross-feed collapses their hyper-dimensional sound field, and kills the art.

 

[bigshot]

Don't forget slap back! Elvis wouldn't be Elvis without slap back!

 

[pinnahertz]

Yeah, but his best slap echo stuff was mono. I think that's 100% cross-feed by some peoples definition...if they leave the switch "on".

Wouldn't mono also be 100% spatial distortion? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! (you can get that last bit out with a 60Hz notch).

 

[71 dB]

You probably ruined Roach's intent completely using cross-feed. I'm well acquainted with Roach, from "Structures From Silence" (1984) on. Roach's work is "Space Music", which is based on a highly immersive, super-real experience (think of the vastness of space, only with actual sound). I've listened to some of that same recording with and without cross-feed. My opinion is that it's a perfect example of when not to use cross-feed. In fact, on speakers, a 5.1 or greater upmix would be great, as would acoustic crosstalk cancellation, if you had a system that worked.

edit: This genre, the development of which hinged on the advent of non-artificial sounding digital reverb devices (Lexicon 224, etc.) that made artificial hyper reverberant sound fields practical, is rooted in hyper-dimensional, hyper-reality, and spaciousness that exceedes the bounds of physical acoustics. Prior to these tools, you had a handball court-sized physical reverb chamber, an huge EMT plate, or various less-applicable attempts at reverb using springs. None had infinitely variable decay, pre-delay, or reflection response shaping. That device, the digital reverb, made the Space Music genre bloom. They'd have done 5.1 or Atmos if it was accessible then, but many of these guys didn't make a living with their music, so the arrival of even the most basic tools like reverbs gave them a dimensional palette that was essential to their art form.

Cross-feed collapses their hyper-dimensional sound field, and kills the art.

I just love to ruin artist's intents!

Seriously, I disagree with what you say. Digital reverbs generate artificial reverberation, but it's not hyper-dimensional or hyper-reality! Nor does listeners have hyper-ears to listen such sounds even if they existed. Roach's "Kiva" took me to a soundworld of exceptional realism WITH crossfeed and you call that ruining intent. Well, in that case ruining intents really is my thing!

What happens to Roach's intent with speakers? Room acoustics get's added, HRTF reduces ILD/ITD and you are worried about my crossfeed? It is frustrating to see how after hundreds of messages on here it seems people still have misconceptions about crossfeed. I really don't know how to make people understand these things...

 

[71 dB]

Speakers: Rooms acoustics gets added. HRTF. Reduced ILD/ITD.
Headphones: No room acoustics. No HRTF. ILD/ITD as they are.
Headphones with crossfeed: No room acoustics. No HRTF. Reduced ILD/ITD.

On what logic speakers and heaphones without crossfeed are cool, but headphones + crossfeed "ruin" intent? The only logic is that speakers and headphones are the "default" and crossfeed is something extra. That's narrow-mindness and I want to make crossfeed "default."

 

[pinnahertz]

I just love to ruin artist's intents!

Seriously, I disagree with what you say. Digital reverbs generate artificial reverberation, but it's not hyper-dimensional or hyper-reality! Nor does listeners have hyper-ears to listen such sounds even if they existed. Roach's "Kiva" took me to a soundworld of exceptional realism WITH crossfeed and you call that ruining intent. Well, in that case ruining intents really is my thing!

You've missed the point entirely. The intent is hyper-dimensionality.

What happens to Roach's intent with speakers? Room acoustics get's added, HRTF reduces ILD/ITD and you are worried about my crossfeed?

What happens on speakers...happens on speakers. His intent is realized to the extent it can be. On headphones without cross-feed, even more intent realized. If you reduce that, you've missed the point of the music.

It is frustrating to see how after hundreds of messages on here it seems people still have misconceptions about crossfeed.

I agree with that.

I really don't know how to make people understand these things...

You can't because you don't!

 

[pinnahertz]

Speakers: Rooms acoustics gets added. HRTF. Reduced ILD/ITD.
Headphones: No room acoustics. No HRTF. ILD/ITD as they are.
Headphones with crossfeed: No room acoustics. No HRTF. Reduced ILD/ITD.

Yes, but which does the listener like, and which conveys the creator's intent better? You can't seem to grasp that.

On what logic speakers and heaphones without crossfeed are cool, but headphones + crossfeed "ruin" intent? The only logic is that speakers and headphones are the "default" and crossfeed is something extra.

Actually missed it yet again! Let me give you an example: In my opinion, cross-feed can, sometimes, be used to reduce extreme separation to a subjective improvement, it usually reduces separation that flattens perspective and removes dimensionality, which is not a subjective improvement.

That's narrow-mindness and I want to make crossfeed "default."

I think the irony of the above is apparent to all. No doubt you want to make cross-feed "default" for the entire world. I have no issue with you listening to cross-feed and enjoying it. Making it mandatory for the world? Not going to fly.

You keep thinking you have something to "teach". I, for one, have learned it, absorbed, it, understand it AND disagree with the application of cross-feed. "Teaching" isn't the same as "convincing". Even teaching usually requires proof. You have no proof, you have preference only, but think of it as proof.

No doubt, you've missed what I did in my example that makes it ok.

You know what else is OK? Go ahead and make it YOUR default! You've made your choice, stop deriding others for their choices. You aren't "right", you've just chosen differently. You can't justify your rightness because you have no statistics for the general preference of cross-feed. The math may seem definitive, but it's far too basic to be. As a result, the effect is subjective. You keep trying to justify your position by stating the math, the logic. You ignore perception (which I suggested a few posts back), and that's your blind spot. You've got some of the mechanics down, and have ignored the perception part completely. And because of that, you can't understand the intent of music, or the way its mixed. Instead, you apply YOUR intent, as a dominant superior purpose, and in the view that even the creator is wrong. And you apply YOUR intent to everyone else in the universe.

Cross-feed: You love it, I don't. Some others like it, some other's don't. Some don't care. You have not proven which is in the majority. And that's just considering your basic form of cross-feed, there are many others.

What I don't get is, why the fight? What is there for you to win? You're not selling anything, you have nothing to gain or loose regardless of how many people love, hate, or don't care about cross-feed. If Greg and I suddenly came over to your side would the world be a better place? We're two guys! What about everyone else, including all the other professionals that agree with our position? Would you then need to win them over too? The way to win over professionals is by publishing a paper that details the discovery, and validates it with testing, and subjecting that paper to peer review. Not going to do that? Then you have no hope of winning the argument!

What's to gain by winning? The only thing I can see here is the need for validation. If you must have validation by getting the agreement with everyone, you will be disappointed. Always, not just with cross-feed. It's just not possible to do.

Will the world at large end if we leave it that way? Will yours?

 

[71 dB]

You've missed the point entirely. The intent is hyper-dimensionality.

What's that? I'm educated only on three-dimensional reality-based acoustics…
…maybe you are begining to realize you aren't so strong in this* bedate you have believed. It's ok, I have thought about crossfeed a lot the last 5-6 years.

* On many other things your knowledge can be superior to my knowledge, but crossfeed doesn't seem to be one of them.

1. What happens on speakers...happens on speakers. His intent is realized to the extent it can be.
2. On headphones without cross-feed, even more intent realized.
If you reduce that, you've missed the point of the music.

1. That's an honest answer. I give you that.
2. Are you sure? Does Steve Roach make music mainly for headphones? Hard to believe.

 

[pinnahertz]

What's that? I'm educated only on three-dimensional reality-based acoustics…
…maybe you are begining to realize you aren't so strong in this* bedate you have believed. It's ok, I have thought about crossfeed a lot the last 5-6 years.

See what I mean? I even told you what the point was, you still don't get it.

* On many other things your knowledge can be superior to my knowledge, but crossfeed doesn't seem to be one of them.

Uncalled for. Everyone reading this thread knows your opinion of me. Knock it off.

1. That's an honest answer. I give you that.
2. Are you sure? Does Steve Roach make music mainly for headphones? Hard to believe.

Yes, I'm 1000% positive. No, he doesn't, and that's NOT the point!

You still don't get it. I've explained it, now it's up to you.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Audio science makes little sense if we keep insisting subjectivity. [2] We should try to find objective truth.[3] Having "larger than HRTF" ILD/ITD as your artistic intent is kind of a bad intent, because [3a] you can't have "larger than HRTF" values with speakers, only with headphones. [3b] So you are doing something that will sound "against your intent" on speakers.
[4] Another point is that large ILD is related to sounds very near head/other ear and causes an annoying feeling so that we know to use our hands to swipe the damn bee before it flies into the ear canal! [4a] Smaller ILD is more comfortable to listen to.

1. The obvious fact you seem to be consistently missing is that much of what we're talking about has relatively little to do with audio science , we are talking about commercial recordings and commercial music recordings are NOT made by audio science, they are made almost purely by subjectivity, the subjectivity of the artists/engineers! You appear to have a shocking lack of understanding of the recording and mixing process, of the tools available and how those tools are used in practise. What tools are used, how and when they are used varies massively, from genre to genre, artist to artist and engineer to engineer and often varies very significantly even with the same artists and engineers between different tracks or albums. The arbiter of ALL of this is the subjectivity of the artists/engineers!

2. What objective truth, the objective truth of an artistic endeavour which is entirely subjective? How does this possibly make sense to you? What you've done is to massively oversimplify the whole process, take some notion of reality which in practise never exists, ignore the art of it all and then tried to find the "objective truth" of what's left.

3. So now you're telling us what artistic intent is allowed to be. Hilter and Stalin tried the same thing! I mastered a number of tracks a couple of years ago which had a lot of ILD and ITD. The artists (who were also the engineers) had mixed the tracks entirely on headphones, for playback headphones (though not exclusively) and a large part of my mastering was done with headphones. Although there were a few things which needed fixing/improving, I quite liked what they had done, the significant ILD in many places worked well, partly due to how they had mixed/processed it but according to you, it was "bad" (even though you've never heard it) and they should not have done that.
3a. That is not true, we can achieve this in effect, we can in fact make the stereo image appear to be much wider than the width of the speakers, one method for example is called "stereo shuffling". In fact you're missing all kinds of spatial effects commonly employed which rely on some combination of timing, phase and/or EQ such as: Chorusing, Doubling, Phasing, Flanging, Ring Modulators, Harmonizers, DDs, Echos and of course reverbs and this list goes on and there are innumerable variations of each of these, plus they are often used in combination! Additionally, how these effects are perceived depends almost entirely on the sound (and the different effects applied to that sound) of all the other tracks/instruments in the mix.
3b. That's a possibility, it's also entirely possible to have an intent which works fine on both speakers and HPs (without crossfeed) even though the presentation is different and indeed that is often the goal of mixing/mastering!
4. And what if we want a sound/instrument to "sound very near head/other ear", are we not allowed to because YOU find it annoying and for some bizarre reason think it's a bee?
4a. You are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the fundamental basics of music as an art form! Some pieces of music and in fact more than one entire genre of music, are based on NOT being comfortable to listen to! One could for example remix say "Ace of Spades" and make it comfortable to listen to but that would defeat the entire intent of the piece, as it would all heavy metal or metal genre. It's supposed to be harsh/metallic, distorted, loud and uncomfortable. Make it comfortable, take away the "heavy" and the "metal" and whatever you're left with is obviously NOT heavy metal! Now maybe you don't like heavy metal and that's fine but you can't say no one is allowed to make it and no one is allowed to listen to it. Yours is an opinion/perception/preference and thankfully this is a free world and you are not the dictator!

[1] Seriously, I disagree with what you say. [2] Digital reverbs generate artificial reverberation, but it's not hyper-dimensional or hyper-reality! [2a] Nor does listeners have hyper-ears to listen such sounds even if they existed. [3] Roach's "Kiva" took me to a soundworld of exceptional reality WITH crossfeed and you call that ruining intent. [3a] Well, in that case ruining intents really is my thing!

1. You can't be both "serious" AND "disagree" with what pinnahertz stated, only one OR the other, because what pinnahertz stated was entirely accurate! The only part of his post you could disagree with is the part he stated was his opinion.
2. That's clearly nonsense which contradicts the facts! Most digital reverbs do NOT just generate artificial reverberation, they generate all sorts or reverb type effects, such as plates and springs which incidentally were in use well before digital reverbs. There is one type of reverb unit which is designed to specifically generate/emulate artificial reverberation, the convolution reverb but even then, these can be post-processed and used/mixed in such a way as to a hyper-real/hyper-dimensional effect, if desired. And typically it is desired in many modern genres!
2a. And this statement is your problem, the problem you are ignoring and which invalidates most of what you're stating as fact. Correct, no one has "hyper-ears" but then no one listens to their ears and no one creates commercial music recordings for listeners' ears in the first place!! What listeners listen to and what artists/engineers create for is NOT their ears but their brain, their perception! And, it's relatively easy to fool the brain into a hyper-real/hyper-dimensional perception, in fact virtually all modern films and music genres RELY on doing just this!
3. Kiva is clearly ABSOLUTELY NOT a reality! You've got the spatial information of a cave, of a studio and other spatial information all occurring simultaneously. How is that any sort of reality, let alone an "exceptional reality"? And indeed it is NOT supposed to sound like any reality, it is supposed to sound surreal, that's the whole point! OBVIOUSLY, your crossfeed CANNOT turn a deliberately surreal mix into a reality, that's a technical impossibility. I can only assume you are perceiving it as "real" because you are ignorant of/very insensitive to spatial information. It would not sound real to me with crossfeed, it would sound flattened, unreal and would destroy most of the depths/distances which are so well crafted and a hallmark of this album!
3a. That does indeed seem to be the case. The fundamental intent is "surreal" but you've somehow turned it into (for you) "exceptionally real" and destroyed that fundamental intent!

What's that? I'm educated only on three-dimensional reality-based acoustics… [2] …maybe you are begining to realize you aren't so strong in this* bedate you have believed. [3] It's ok, I have thought about crossfeed a lot the last 5-6 years.

1. You just don't seem to get it; your education isn't the answer, it's the problem! Your education is largely inapplicable because commercial music recordings do not employ "three-dimensional reality-based acoustics"!! What you really need to be educated in, you appear to be almost completely ignorant of (the art of music creation, recording, mixing and mastering), and not only are you ignorant of these things but you apparently deliberately want to remain ignorant and ignore/exclude them, while at the same time mocking/insulting those who understand they are fundamental to every aspect of the sound waves contained in a commercial recording! It really is quite astounding.
2. Due to the above, it's the exact opposite. It really is a shame that you cannot realise how ignorant you are of what you are crossfeeding and why therefore it's not going to work most of the time!
3. But not unfortunately about the material you are trying to crossfeed. Oh dear!

G

 

[71 dB]

Yes, but which does the listener like, and which conveys the creator's intent better? You can't seem to grasp that.

I'm sure Mr. Roach would be impressed with the spatiality of "Kiva" with my wide crossfeed.

Actually missed it yet again! Let me give you an example: In my opinion, cross-feed can, sometimes, be used to reduce extreme separation to a subjective improvement, it usually reduces separation that flattens perspective and removes dimensionality, which is not a subjective improvement.

I don't experience flattened perspective or dimensionality with crossfeed unless I crossfeed too hard. I think you only assume this happening, because you think smaller ILD must do such things. No, that's not what happens. Reducing excessive ILD to natural levels of ILD gives the best chances for the spatiality of the recording to shine. It's when our spatial hearing makes most sense of the spatial information resulting in the most natural soundstaging of the spatial information in the recording. Removal of spatial effects caused by excessive ILD/ITD is not about flattening spatiality, it's getting rid of spatial distortion, "fake spatiality" to use Trumpian terminology. Recordings have less real spatial information than you have learned to think, but that's not a negative thing. Less is more. Natural spatiality makes possible to hear better small nuances. It's about accepting that less is more, becoming more mature and not demand "special spatial effects" everywhere. That's better for music and listeners.

I think the irony of the above is apparent to all. No doubt you want to make cross-feed "default" for the entire world. I have no issue with you listening to cross-feed and enjoying it. Making it mandatory for the world? Not going to fly.

You keep thinking you have something to "teach". I, for one, have learned it, absorbed, it, understand it AND disagree with the application of cross-feed. "Teaching" isn't the same as "convincing". Even teaching usually requires proof. You have no proof, you have preference only, but think of it as proof.

I don't mean forcing people to use crossfeed against their will. I mean educating people to actually notice the benefits of crossfeed so they WANT to use it. I also mean crossfeed to be "the third default" among speakers and headphones without crossfeed.

Yes, I feel I have something to teach on this issue. If I tell people why crossfeed is beneficial and what it does to the sound, people can test it themselves and possibly agree. If not, they can keep listening without crossfeed. They have nothing to lose, only to gain.

Regardless of what people, masses, think about crossfeed, I am totally convinced that crossfeed is the way to go with most recordings, be it 98 %, 80 % or just 50.01%.

You know what else is OK? Go ahead and make it YOUR default! You've made your choice, stop deriding others for their choices. You aren't "right", you've just chosen differently. You can't justify your rightness because you have no statistics for the general preference of cross-feed. The math may seem definitive, but it's far too basic to be. As a result, the effect is subjective. You keep trying to justify your position by stating the math, the logic. You ignore perception (which I suggested a few posts back), and that's your blind spot. You've got some of the mechanics down, and have ignored the perception part completely. And because of that, you can't understand the intent of music, or the way its mixed. Instead, you apply YOUR intent, as a dominant superior purpose, and in the view that even the creator is wrong. And you apply YOUR intent to everyone else in the universe.

I have chosen carefully and wisely based on scientific knowledge of human hearing. The result of this choice is I enjoy headphone listening much more than I used to do.
Crossfeed is mathematically simple, but that it a good thing. We are free of the problems we have with HRTF being too detailed so that things go easily wrong. Crossfeed limits ILD using the simplest possible algorithm agreeing with the principles of human spatial hearing and that's also why crossfeed doesn't "mess up" spatiality as some people claim. Crossfeed is too simple to mess up anything. All it does is fix the problem of excessive inter-aural-differences.

Cross-feed: You love it, I don't. Some others like it, some other's don't. Some don't care. You have not proven which is in the majority. And that's just considering your basic form of cross-feed, there are many others.

What I don't get is, why the fight? What is there for you to win? You're not selling anything, you have nothing to gain or loose regardless of how many people love, hate, or don't care about cross-feed. If Greg and I suddenly came over to your side would the world be a better place? We're two guys! What about everyone else, including all the other professionals that agree with our position? Would you then need to win them over too? The way to win over professionals is by publishing a paper that details the discovery, and validates it with testing, and subjecting that paper to peer review. Not going to do that? Then you have no hope of winning the argument!

What's to gain by winning? The only thing I can see here is the need for validation. If you must have validation by getting the agreement with everyone, you will be disappointed. Always, not just with cross-feed. It's just not possible to do.

Will the world at large end if we leave it that way? Will yours?

I did not come here to fight. I came here to tell about my experiences with crossfeed and possibly to educate people. Since then I have been defending my claims.

 

[pinnahertz]

I'm sure Mr. Roach would be impressed with the spatiality of "Kiva" with my wide crossfeed.

Of course, I have the opposite opinion, but would never presume to know how someone I've never met would feel about cross-feed on his own work.

I don't experience flattened perspective or dimensionality with crossfeed unless I crossfeed too hard.

Yes, we know.

I
I think you only assume this happening, because you think smaller ILD must do such things.

No, I actually tried your cross-feed on that recording and drew my conclusion.

I
No, that's not what happens.

Whatever. That's what I hear.
Not quoting the rest.

I
I don't mean forcing people to use crossfeed against their will. I mean educating people to actually notice the benefits of crossfeed so they WANT to use it.

That's not teaching, that's persuading and convincing. There's a big difference.

I
I also mean crossfeed to be "the third default" among speakers and headphones without crossfeed.

Ridiculous. Ignoring the elephant in the room. Literally.

I
Yes, I feel I have something to teach on this issue. If I tell people why crossfeed is beneficial and what it does to the sound, people can test it themselves and possibly agree. If not, they can keep listening without crossfeed. They have nothing to lose, only to gain.

But what if they decide they don't like it? How do you view them?

I
Regardless of what people, masses, think about crossfeed, I am totally convinced that crossfeed is the way to go with most recordings, be it 98 %, 80 % or just 50.01%.

OMG! POINT MADE ALREADY!

I

I have chosen carefully and wisely based on scientific knowledge of human hearing. The result of this choice is I enjoy headphone listening much more than I used to do.
Crossfeed is mathematically simple, but that it a good thing. We are free of the problems we have with HRTF being too detailed so that things go easily wrong. Crossfeed limits ILD using the simplest possible algorithm agreeing with the principles of human spatial hearing and that's also why crossfeed doesn't "mess up" spatiality as some people claim. Crossfeed is too simple to mess up anything. All it does is fix the problem of excessive inter-aural-differences.

I highlighted the only meaningful statement.

I

I did not come here to fight. I came here to tell about my experiences with crossfeed and possibly to educate people. Since then I have been defending my claims.

That would be "a fight".