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

[71 dB]

Subscribed.

I like fireworks

Thanks, but don't expect fireworks every week or even month!

 

[Amberlamps]

Thanks, but don't expect fireworks every week or even month!

It’s cool, a once a year rage’on is about as much as I can take from g.

Stick to the facts and science, something which is not practised in this sub forum no matter how much they like to tell you/folk that it is.

When rageon happens, please notify me by quoting my post, as I do not want to miss the upcoming angry man vein popping stroke that “is” coming your way

 

[gregorio]

1. Yes, they are repeats because the facts are still the same. [1b] I repeat them because we may have new people on this board who don't go 30 pages into the past.
2. Refuted only in your mind.
2a. I'm not purposedly insulting anyone here. If you get insulted it's your problem. Why do you get so triggered by my posts?
2b. You certainly don't behave like some with your experience in the field of sound engineering should behave.
2c. I would take you much more seriously if you recognized at least some of my points correct while offering solid arguments for your disagreements.
3. Natural in this context means that the spatial cues, however obtained (acoustic binaural recording, VST plugins in DAW or any other way) have somewhat natural levels of parameters such as ILD, ITD, ISP and reverberation so that the unnatural nature of the sound does not cause unnecessory listening fatique nor distortion of spatial information.
3a. Undertanding spatiality helps creating better ART, just as knowing music theory helps composing better music.
3b. Maybe music production should be about avoiding what would not occur "naturally" and exploring ARTistical possiblities within that framework?
3c. All artists need to ask themselves whether their artistical goals make sense, especially if you produce music for other people, the consumers. You have gotten away with nonsensical spatiality because most consumers are spatially ignorant.

1. Yes the facts are still the same and unfortunately, so is your ignorance and misrepresentation of them!
1b. Of course, some new people you can try and convert to your religious zealotry by misrepresenting the facts and insulting those who are less ignorant of them than you!

2. Refuted by the obvious facts, of which you are stubbornly determined to remain ignorant because they conflict with your (erroneous) belief!
2a. What is wrong with you, don't you even know what you are posting? How many times have you called me and everyone else who disagrees with you "idiots", "ignoramuses" and "ignorant"? Anyone can go back 30 pages or just a post or two ago and see your posted insults for themselves!
2b. Yes I do. Although the response of other experienced professionals to being called an ignoramus by an amateur, who clearly has no idea what they're talking about, would vary. Some would just consider you such a complete nutter that it's not even worth responding to you, while others would actually call you a complete nutter and/or far worse! And others would do as I have, just throw your own insult back at you.
2c. No you wouldn't, that's ALREADY been tried over a year ago and you DID NOT take it seriously, you just ignored it and/or invented more nonsense to defend your personal preference as fact!

3. No, that's just utter nonsense that you've invented. It would be true ONLY in the case of an unprocessed, unmixed binaural recording. The WHOLE point of applying say a VST (or other plugin type) reverb/time based effect is to change/distort the "natural" spatial information recorded into something else!
3a. Yet again, your statement just demonstrates your utter ignorance of both my/our understanding of spatiality and of how that applies to art. If that's not bad enough, you've now added music theory to the list of things of which you're obviously ignorant, well done! Understanding the science of spatiality can help create better art but the fact of which you are ignorant (and appear to want to remain ignorant of) is that art is not constrained by those rules/science, that's what makes it art rather than science! For example, the whole history of western classical music is predicated on bending and breaking the rules of music theory and in the 20th century, of deliberately avoiding every single one of those rules!! Were Schoenburg, Webern, Stravinsky, Cage and countless other great composers all "ignormamuses" compared to you? Just as with music, there is a great deal of science regarding visual spatiality (perspective), however, in the late 19th Century many artists decided not to apply that science to their art, in fact to deliberately avoid it. Were Matisse, Picasso and numerous others all "ignoramuses" or is it you who's the ignoramus for not knowing/understanding the difference between art and science and apparently not having the listening skills to identify what is "natural" and what isn't. Are Picasso's paintings "perspectively illegal", can you tell that his paintings do not conform to the science of perspective, should he have stuck to the science of perspective? Who's the ignoramus here?
3b. And there we have it! Maybe music production should go back to the 1940's, explore within your "natural framework" what's already been extensively explored and evolved beyond. Maybe Picasso should have only explored within the "natural framework" of perspective, maybe all his (and countless other) paintings should be labelled "illegal" for their "excessive" perspective. Maybe Wagner, Debussy and countless others should be "illegal" for bending and breaking the rules of music theory/harmony. Maybe all these great professionals are ignoramuses except for you ... or maybe, you're the ignoramus!!
3c. Yep, just like Picasso should have asked himself if his artistic goals made sense and obviously he's gotten away with his nonsensical perspective because everyone is "Perspectively ignorant", except presumably the enlightened 71dB.

4. My opinions regarding this issue are grounded in scientific facts (studied in the university) and careful thinking of the implications since 2012 after realizing the existence of excessive spatiality in certain type of music reproduction scenarious.
[4a] Excessive spatiality exists in most recordings whether it's due to ignorance or not.
[4b] My "opinion" about what is excessive spatiality is based on two things: The science behind human spatial hearing (HRTF etc.) and my own listening experiences which are well in line with the established science.
5. I do not believe the ART of King Crimson is about excessive spatiality at all! I believe their ART is about masterful guitar playing, inventive time signatures, musical energy, harmony, melodies, etc.
[5a] All that stuff gets to my mind best when I use proper crossfeed.
[5b] Very strange if the intent is often something that sounds bad to me and vice versa what sounds best to me is against artistical intent!
[5c] I don't dictate what is natural. Our spatial hearing dictates it. It's biology.

4. Are you really that ignorant and deluded? Your opinions are grounded ENTIRELY in your personal preference! In an attempt to justify that personal preference as objective fact, you then applied a few scientific facts you learned as a student and a few scientific facts you've learned since. However, it's all nonsense because those facts are only a small part of the picture, you've deliberately ignored other pertinent scientific facts (which contradict your justification), simply made-up nonsense/false facts where necessary, are apparently utterly ignorant of what art is/means and then use the circular logic of your preferences to define "excessive", "illegal", "illogical", "nasty", etc. It's all utter nonsense, you get to chose your own preferences, you don't get to present them as fact which everyone else must share or be an ignoramus and especially not here in this sub-forum!!!
4a. "Excessive spatially" does exist due to ignorance, YOUR IGNORANCE! Sure, HP's do present a wider stereo image but whether that's "excessive" or not is YOUR personal opinion based on YOUR personal preference, which is fine for YOU but I prefer to retain the fidelity of the artists' personal preference/intention and wanting to retain that fidelity does NOT make me an ignoramus, it makes you the ignoramus for apparently deluding yourself that your preference is objective fact!
4b. And again, there we have it, in your own words!! Firstly, it's YOUR opinion! Secondly, that is patently false even according to the science. Crossfeed is based on JUST SOME of the facts of HRTF but it omits others, which is why HRTF supersedes crossfeed and even a theoretically perfect HRTF is still only part of the picture if we're talking about emulating speakers, we would also need an impulse response of the speakers in a room and convolution. Clearly then, "your own listening experiences" are NOT AT ALL "well in line with the established science", you obviously have rather poor listening skills and are ignorant (deliberately or otherwise) of the science! And to make matters even worse, even if a perfect HRTF and speaker convolution were possible it may still be invalid because the artists may prefer/intend/like the HP presentation as it is!

5. This is not the "What 71dB believes" forum! And, on top of that, it's laughably ironic. I've spent many days/hours with Bill Bruford, he's in the top handful of most knowledgeable and intelligent people in the music business. Crimson was one of the most progressive/experimental of bands, they constantly pushed/broke the rules of music theory and those of music production, they absolutely did NOT stick to "natural" spatiality, they sliced diced and layered, processed and completely messed with spatiality (and the other aspects of music theory and production) all over the place, it was all entirely INTENTIONAL and they most certainly were NOT all ignoramuses!
5a. This is not the "What get's to 71dB's mind best" forum and it definitely is NOT the "What gets to 71dB's mind best is therefore fact" forum. There's no way that crossfeed can "fix" any of the spatial irregularities (or "illegalities" in your terminology) and make it conform to "natural" spatiality and even if it could, there's no way I'd want it to, any more than I'd want some processing filter to turn a Picasso painting into a "natural" perspective (and destroy the art). Again, you're free to play Crimson recordings however you choose but screwing-up their artistic intentions does not make you enlightened and me not wanting to screw it up does not make me an ignoramus!
5b. Why is it very strange? It's actually very common, many people at the time didn't like Picasso's cubism because it was unnatural, my mum hated Hendrix, couldn't understand why I liked him and couldn't understand why he didn't play the guitar properly/naturally. To some people the additional distortion of valve amps is preferable, others find analogue Vinyl preferable to digital, which is entirely up to them but it is NOT higher fidelity and is NOT an objective fact that it's better.
5c. No, you are not dictating what is "natural", what you're trying to dictate is that music production should/must be constrained by what is "natural", which is ridiculous nonsense!! Why are you even listening to King Crimson, doesn't all that "excessive", "illegal" spatiality drive you crazy? Is your perception really so deluded, your listening skills really so poor and your ignorance really so great that "in your mind" crossfeed magically fixes all the obvious, deliberate/intentional spatial "illegalities"??

I can't be bothered responding to your other points, they've ALL already been addressed earlier in this thread and they're all just variations of the above points: Complete falsehoods that you've just invented (like point #11 for example), deliberately ignore relevant scientific facts or ignore that art is not constrained by scientific facts anyway!

G

 

[Phronesis]

I haven't read the thread, I saw the title and am just jumping in without context of the discussion.

I've played around with cross-feed, and have had mixed results with it. Sometimes it makes things better, sometimes worse, and sometimes just different. It depends on the headphone and the track and my subjective preference. I haven't found that cross-feed can simulate the sound of speakers in a room when using headphones. I usually don't bother messing with the cross-feed settings of the Hugo 2, I just leave it off.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Because of the extra precision these additional 8 bits provide.
[2] A 32bit file converted from a 16 bit file will have extra 16 empty bits which are stuffed with zeroes.
[2a] But a 32 bit file converted from a 24 bit file will have only 8 empty bits. 24 bits are legitimate and 8 only are "zero-stuffing".

1. What extra precision? The precision is exactly the same. As soon as the audio enters the DAW environment it is converted to a (say) a 32bit float, at this stage it's precision is completely unchanged. However, as soon as the first mathematical process is applied, the result is at 32bit float precision and it remains at 32bit float precision throughout all the following mathematical processes until the plugin has finished it's processing at which point the final 32bit float result is output. This is exactly the same process and precision regardless of whether your original audio files were 16 or 24 bit.

2. No it won't. There are no 32bit DAWs/environments, they're all 32bit (or 64bit) float. A 32bit float converted from a 16bit file will have 7 bits stuffed with zeros, which will be replaced with relevant values as soon as it undergoes the first mathematical process (computer instruction). The other 9bits are a sign bit and 8 bits for the exponent.
2a. No it won't. There are no 32bit DAWs/environments, they're all 32bit (or 64bit) float. A 32bit float converted from a 24bit file will not stuff any of the 23 mantissa (fraction) bits with zeros, it will use the data stored in the 24bit file (the last 8 bits or so of which are most likely to be random zeros and ones). However, those mantissa bits will be replaced with other relevant values as soon as it undergoes the first mathematical process (instruction). The other 9bits are a sign bit and 8 bits for the exponent.

Again, all processing is at 32bit (or 64bit) float, regardless of whether you feed the DAW/environment 16, 24 or even 8bit audio files.

G

 

[71 dB]

71 dB doesn't know anything ad nauseum…

I don't know why it is, but I seem to have difficulties to make other people believe I know what I am talking about. It's really demoralizing. Why educate yourself about anything if you never get any recognition and respect for it? Is it because English isn't my first language? Maybe my language to too simple to give an impression of a smart person? My thinking happens on higher level than you think.

Picasso's art (which I value high) is not a good analoque of unnatural spatiality. You may not understand it, but I do. There is nothing unnatural about Picasso's art. It doesn't cause unnatural visual information. Perspective isn't real in 2D-art. It's an abstraction. The 2D picture is interpreted to have some kind of perspective. Paintings are just paint on a canvas! Nothing unnatural about that. Eyes see the paint and our brain interprets the paint as some kind of crazy perspective. Unnatural spatiality causes the hearing system to create spatial distortion which is also delivered to higher level and interpreted differently than what was intented. So, Picasso's art is not the same as excessive stereo.

If Picasso made VR art and created art where left eye sees different picture than right eye, then maybe there was unnatural aspects to it, like the right eye picture being up side down or much darker. That WOULD cause unnatural visual information and fatique, even headache. Visual crossfeed would balance the darkness and create natural visuality.

Sounds near one ear cause large ILD, but when and how? Low frequencies are created by large objects vibrating. If you go near a kick drum the drum is bigger than your head and more sound is leaked to the other ear. Also, the SPL is HUGE!! Auts! So you play quieter, hit the drum VERY softly to compensate. Good, but the sound of the drum changes! The spectrum changes, because the drum has non-linearities. So if you mix bass frequencies with large ILD you end up with sounds that have the spectrum of loud playing but the perceived loudness of quiet playing. This is why bass with large ILD sounds fake. Do you really want art with fake bass? If so then just know that speaker listening destroys this fakeness.

Spatiality has been abused (ping pong etc.) in music ever since stereophonic recordings were invented. There's two options:

(1) Have recording with excessive spatiality. Speakers are fine and headphones with proper crossfeed are good too.
(2) Create omnistereophonic recordings which work well as they are with speakers and headphones.

HRTF is crossfeed, just more detailed than "normal" crossfeed. So, when I talk about crossfeed it includes HRTF convolution.

This is all I want to say at this point. No point in repeating what has been said already. If you don't believe in me then you don't and I just have to accept not being respected by you. I believe you are a competent audio engineer and you probably know much more than I do about many things related to your work, but spatiality is an area were you might learn something from me.

I have suffered from low self esteem all my adulthood for many reasons. I fight everyday to increase my self-esteem. Being constantly rejected makes it really really difficult. Life sucks.

 

[bfreedma]

I don't know why it is, but I seem to have difficulties to make other people believe I know what I am talking about. It's really demoralizing. Why educate yourself about anything if you never get any recognition and respect for it? Is it because English isn't my first language? Maybe my language to too simple to give an impression of a smart person? My thinking happens on higher level than you think.

Picasso's art (which I value high) is not a good analoque of unnatural spatiality. You may not understand it, but I do. There is nothing unnatural about Picasso's art. It doesn't cause unnatural visual information. Perspective isn't real in 2D-art. It's an abstraction. The 2D picture is interpreted to have some kind of perspective. Paintings are just paint on a canvas! Nothing unnatural about that. Eyes see the paint and our brain interprets the paint as some kind of crazy perspective. Unnatural spatiality causes the hearing system to create spatial distortion which is also delivered to higher level and interpreted differently than what was intented. So, Picasso's art is not the same as excessive stereo.

If Picasso made VR art and created art where left eye sees different picture than right eye, then maybe there was unnatural aspects to it, like the right eye picture being up side down or much darker. That WOULD cause unnatural visual information and fatique, even headache. Visual crossfeed would balance the darkness and create natural visuality.

Sounds near one ear cause large ILD, but when and how? Low frequencies are created by large objects vibrating. If you go near a kick drum the drum is bigger than your head and more sound is leaked to the other ear. Also, the SPL is HUGE!! Auts! So you play quieter, hit the drum VERY softly to compensate. Good, but the sound of the drum changes! The spectrum changes, because the drum has non-linearities. So if you mix bass frequencies with large ILD you end up with sounds that have the spectrum of loud playing but the perceived loudness of quiet playing. This is why bass with large ILD sounds fake. Do you really want art with fake bass? If so then just know that speaker listening destroys this fakeness.

Spatiality has been abused (ping pong etc.) in music ever since stereophonic recordings were invented. There's two options:

(1) Have recording with excessive spatiality. Speakers are fine and headphones with proper crossfeed are good too.
(2) Create omnistereophonic recordings which work well as they are with speakers and headphones.

HRTF is crossfeed, just more detailed than "normal" crossfeed. So, when I talk about crossfeed it includes HRTF convolution.

This is all I want to say at this point. No point in repeating what has been said already. If you don't believe in me then you don't and I just have to accept not being respected by you. I believe you are a competent audio engineer and you probably know much more than I do about many things related to your work, but spatiality is an area were you might learn something from me.

I have suffered from low self esteem all my adulthood for many reasons. I fight everyday to increase my self-esteem. Being constantly rejected makes it really really difficult. Life sucks.

I certainly don't think your knowledge level or English skill are issues. Your use of English is impressive for a second language, and sadly based on what I encounter in the US, would be pretty good if it was your first language.


A couple of (hopefully constructive) suggestions:

Don't denigrate yourself due to disagreements in a technical debate. I've found the discussion interesting and found value in both sides. There is also a lot of personal preference involved beyond the pure technical aspects and what you prefer need not/should not hinge on those elements.

IMO, it would create a better debate environment if words like "ignoramus" weren't in play. Whether intended or not, it comes across as an insult and is going to escalate the tone of the responses.

 

[bigshot]

I would strongly advise that basing your self esteem on how well you do in discussion forum arguments is a very bad idea. Better to just state your case clearly, consider arguments to the contrary honestly, and move on if the other party tries to escalate it.

 

[71 dB]

I certainly don't think your knowledge level or English skill are issues. Your use of English is impressive for a second language, and sadly based on what I encounter in the US, would be pretty good if it was your first language.

Thanks! What I mean is my use of English language may look limited in regards of vocabulary and structure to a native speaker.

A couple of (hopefully constructive) suggestions:

Don't denigrate yourself due to disagreements in a technical debate. I've found the discussion interesting and found value in both sides. There is also a lot of personal preference involved beyond the pure technical aspects and what you prefer need not/should not hinge on those elements.

Yes, this is a good suggestion. I wouldn't mind so much if gregorio only targeted some details of my opinions. Fine detail such as exact dB limits for excessive ILD for example are debatable of course and values given by me are often rough estimates reflecting my current understanding of things. So if I say 3 dB is the limit, you can respond that actually 4 dB is the limit. What gregorio does is tell me that there's not limit at all, anything goes because it's art shooting my whole premise! It's interesting how gregorio and I do agree about a LOT of things, because we both understand digital audio for example, but when it comes to crossfeed, we couldn't disagree more.

IMO, it would create a better debate environment if words like "ignoramus" weren't in play. Whether intended or not, it comes across as an insult and is going to escalate the tone of the responses.

I agree. My first posts on this forum were polite and I believe most of my posts have been polite, but when my crossfeed posts got attacked so fiercely (I was really surprised and shocked) I totally lost my temper and called people even idiots. I shouldn't have done that, of course.

 

[71 dB]

I would strongly advise that basing your self esteem on how well you do in discussion forum arguments is a very bad idea. Better to just state your case clearly, consider arguments to the contrary honestly, and move on if the other party tries to escalate it.

My self esteem isn't based on how well I do in discussion forum arguments, but it takes hits if my opinions are rejected and I am told I know nothing. I wish it only mattered what I feel myself, but succeeding in life requires acceptance among other people. How can I even get a job (I am unemployed at the moment) if other people think I know nothing? What is it that I am good at? Spatiality? Not according to gregorio! What is my place in this World? What is it I give to the World? Knowledge about spatiality? Not according to gregorio! So sick all this rejection.

 

[castleofargh]

@gregorio stop attacking people! attack the ideas all you like, but there is no excuse to be this nasty toward @71 dB. surely you can explain things without being insulting.

It’s cool, a once a year rage’on is about as much as I can take from g.

Stick to the facts and science, something which is not practised in this sub forum no matter how much they like to tell you/folk that it is.

When rageon happens, please notify me by quoting my post, as I do not want to miss the upcoming angry man vein popping stroke that “is” coming your way

the content in the sub forum is what forum members post in it. the only way to have more facts and scientific approach to topics is for people to bother posting that. if you want to share some, you're so very welcome. but if you only care to come troll and complain, you're part of the problem.

 

[71 dB]

@gregorio stop attacking people! attack the ideas all you like, but there is no excuse to be this nasty toward @71 dB. surely you can explain things without being insulting.

Thanks for the support! It helps me a lot to know there's nice people here supporting other people. It helps me to use respectful language myself, something I fail to do when I feel bad inside.

 

[71 dB]

Maybe I should change my message to one in which crossfeed is a good tool to remove/reduce excessive stereophony if you want to do so?
Would that be more respectful and acceptable to mr. gregorio?

 

[Amberlamps]

@gregorio stop attacking people! attack the ideas all you like, but there is no excuse to be this nasty toward @71 dB. surely you can explain things without being insulting.



the content in the sub forum is what forum members post in it. the only way to have more facts and scientific approach to topics is for people to bother posting that. if you want to share some, you're so very welcome. but if you only care to come troll and complain, you're part of the problem.

I didn’t come to troll, no, as that would be unsporting to do such a thing ol boy, I just came in to see the fireworks.



Oh Suzy Q baby I love you, Suzy Q

 

[bigshot]

I'm going to be honest. This isn't a good place to go fishing for ass pats. You have to understand that your point of view is your own, and be secure in that. A lot of people aren't going to see it the same. There's nothing wrong with that. We aren't here to care about each other's personal problems and act as psychic sponges to help everyone feel warm and fuzzy about themselves. We're here to talk about home audio. That's the only subject I'm interested in discussing. If I wanted a Dr Phil forum, I'd go Dr Phil's site. But I will offer this advice... if it gets to be too much, just take a vacation from the forum for a couple of weeks and see how you feel after that.