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

[bigshot]

Crossfeed, hot mastering, inaudible frequencies being audible, psychology making testing impossible, phono cartridges that reproduce more than CDs, worrying about inaudible sound that might be audible under extreme conditions, super golden ears that hear what bats only hear.., We're gathering quite a rogue's gallery in this forum. Every day there's a different assortment. We really should make up some bingo cards so we can all play the Sound Science home game.

 

[bigshot]

He's right about spatial distortion. This can be demonstrated by listening to a regular audio track on headphones and then listening to it again on speakers. People can note a big difference in the imaging, a result of the distortion of headphones.

I don't think anyone is denying that. We're just saying that crossfeed doesn't make headphones like speakers.

 

[71 dB]

1. Why on earth would I want to realise at any point (let alone "even at this point") that a false assertion is true? Presumably, you'd agree that there doesn't "ought to be something" with a binaural recording? What about with a stereo recording which is not binaural but has been designed for headphone listening?
2. Exactly my point! Both natural and unnatural spatiality, were explored many years before stereo was a consumer product, let alone a mass product. Even extreme unnatural spatiality (Stockhausen for example) was created before stereo was a consumer product, so how could it be a marketing gimmick if you don't have a mass product to sell?
3. Well of course you do, because if you explained it as an adult then it wouldn't make any sense! It's like trying to explain that Santa Claus is real, try doing that to anyone other than a child and see what happens!
4. No, but it does automatically mean that your facts/assertions are wrong, duh! And of course, anyone is free to check if my facts are correct.
5. DTS and SDDS both came some years after Dolby Digital. However, it makes no real difference to your (false) assertion because they all had the same SPL calibration, which was the same as the previous analogue theatrical audio format!
6. That proves my point then! You are just arguing, even though you admit you don't know what you're arguing about and apparently don't care about logic, if your facts are wrong or mine are correct. Do you think that's what a smart, educated person would do or do you think that it's pretty much the exact opposite? ... As it's pretty much the exact opposite, then why don't you expect us to give you the respect due to the opposite of a smart educated person?
7. You have demonstrated that, however there was no need to, because firstly, I already know that and secondly, it's IRRELEVANT to your assertion anyway! What you have demonstrated pertains to more than 20 years AFTER dolby digital was a "new technology" and in fact so long after, that not only wasn't Dolby Digital a "new technology" but it was such an old technology that it wasn't even supported by theatrical systems any more! And incidentally, neither were DTS or SDDS. The digital technology (DCP) that replaced 35mm film in the 2000's ONLY allows wav audio format, none of the data compressed audio formats (DD, DTS, etc) are supported!!
8. Again, that's EXACTLY my point! You are choosing to place your desire to not be challenged above any desire to be factually accurate (or even logical) and therefore above any desire to be respected as anything other than "clueless". That's your choice of course but you cannot blame me or anyone else for your choice! Also, the whole point of this sub-forum is to be factually accurate, so your choice is not valid here.

G

1. You find an assertion false until you realize it is true. Binaural or other recording designed for headphones don't contain excessive spatiality so I listen to that kind of recordings without crossfeed.
2. Stockhausen hardly thought about headphones. I'm sure he intented his music for speakers. In fact so did later also recordings.
3. Your responses are getting lacklustre. Now we have Santa Claus involved. What next? Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer?
4. I admit when I am wrong. Do you?
5. Yes, they did come a few years later. So what? SPL calibrations are not used in Finland. Not today, not 10 years ago and not when the digital formats arrived 25-30 years ago.
6. I don't take enough time to post. This is time consuming and I do argue about things such as American politics on other forums. I do post stupid things every now and then. Education doesn't mean freedom of mistakes. Everybody makes them. I am smart and educated enough to admit them.
7. Sound formats here are irrelevant. Compressed or not, volume knob is used to have different SPL on different screening, I believe day screenings are typically quieter than late screenings.
8. Being factually inaccurate about movie theatre sound has very little to do with headphone spatiality. I claim some expertise of the latter only.

 

[bigshot]

I have a simple question... why do you keep on like this? It makes no sense. I don’t think you’re cut out for the internet. You should go out into the real world more. You’d realize why this kind of approach just doesn’t work.

 

[gregorio]

He's right about spatial distortion. This can be demonstrated by listening to a regular audio track on headphones and then listening to it again on speakers. People can note a big difference in the imaging, a result of the distortion of headphones.

I'm not denying of course that the imaging using headphones is quite different from the imaging using speakers or that most/all people can hear that difference. However, that fact does NOT "demonstrate" that the difference is a "result of the distortion of headphones", it doesn't demonstrate anything at all about what's causing the difference, ONLY that there is one. So, what has led you to believe that the difference is "a result of the distortion of headphones"? Apart from the fact that 71dB repeatedly says so (and that it might resonate with your intuition) what actual evidence do you have to support this assertion? If you don't have any, that's an excellent demonstration of why it's so important to refute his assertion, that's exactly how pretty much all audiophile myths get started! Someone notices/perceives some difference and makes-up an explanation for it that seems believable because others also notice/perceive that difference but that's a classic correlation (cause and effect) fallacy.

I, on the other hand assert that: There is NO distortion of the spatial information when playing back using headphones, beyond some EQ/frequency response inaccuracies (which can affect our perception of spatial information) but this is largely irrelevant as crossfeeding does NOT even attempt to correct headphone freq response inaccuracies any way. So in fact, I'm asserting the exact opposite, that the difference is a result of the LACK/ABSENCE of distortion when using headphones! An absence of the additional spatial information that speakers/room acoustics would add. What evidence is there to support my completely opposite assertion? Well, we can take a measurement of the original signal (the music recording), take a measurement of the output of that signal from headphones, take another measurement of that signal being reproduced by speakers in a room and then compare all three measurements. The measurement of the speaker reproduction will clearly evidence the additional spatial (and freq response) information caused by the acoustics of the room, while the headphone reproduction will be extremely similar to the measurement of the original signal (bar some freq response inaccuracies) and evidence virtually no difference ("distortion") of the spatial information in the original signal! My (opposite) assertion is therefore supported with OBJECTIVE evidence that has been repeated and confirmed countless times over numerous decades.

71dB's further assertion, that crossfeed cures/fixes this "spatial distortion" is therefore nonsense, because you obviously cannot cure/fix a distortion that doesn't exist! What we can do, theoretically, is add the "distortion" that speakers/room acoustics would add but that's entirely different to crossfeed, it requires both a personalised HRTF (head related transfer function) and obviously, an emulation of room acoustics, NEITHER of which is provided by crossfeed! While he (eventually) admitted this to be true, 71dB asserts that: Because crossfeed can somewhat emulate ONE ASPECT of the spatial information added by speakers/room acoustics, that crossfeed is therefore close enough (for everyone) to cure/fix all the issues of not having speakers/room acoustics and that purely by virtue of being closer it MUST, by definition, be "better" (for everyone). This too is just another logical fallacy though. For example, there's a pretty obvious difference between say a symphony orchestra and thrash metal band. ONE ASPECT of that difference is that a symphony orchestra has a tuba while a thrash metal band doesn't. So, if we add a tuba to a thrash metal band does it become a symphony orchestra? To me, it's obvious that it does not. Does it become closer to a symphony orchestra? Technically yes it does and it's possible therefore that some people might perceive it to be an orchestra but it would be FALSE to assert that because it's closer to an orchestra that everyone would perceive it to be an orchestra. I personally would not perceive it to be an orchestra, I'd perceive it as a thrash metal band with a tuba, and that alone disproves the assertion that everyone would perceive it as an orchestra! However, 71dB gets around that "disproof" by stating that I'm an idiot who doesn't realise what he's listening to but that's just another false statement invented to defend the previous false statements. In fact, it's because I DO realise what I'm listening to that I DON'T perceive it as an orchestra and it's 71dB who doesn't realise what he's listening to! In addition to those who might perceive it to be an orchestra, there are those who wouldn't but might prefer the sound of a trash metal band with an added tuba. That's their choice/preference and they are entitled to it, personally I'd prefer just to hear the band as the band intended it (without a tuba), even though I'm not a particular fan of thrash metal.

I'm sure your brain decodes excessive spatiality into spatial distortion, but you don't realize it is spatial distortion.

Please provide some reliable evidence of what my brain is decoding! Of course you can't do that, you don't have any idea what my brain is decoding, let alone have any actual evidence for it! YET AGAIN, you've just completely made-up a false assertion to defend your agenda! What you want me to "realise" is something that you are imagining/perceiving, that I don't imagine/perceive and that objective measurements demonstrate does not exist. Whose ability to "realise" is therefore better, mine for realising there isn't any spatial distortion or your's for realising there is spatial distortion when in fact there isn't any?

The rest of your post is just another repeat of same old fallacious nonsense built upon your personal preferences/perception rather than objective facts! Here one example, which is particularly impressive because every single assertion is false(!):

3b1. Crossfeed is more of a spatial distortion reducer than HRTF simulator. To me the benefits of crossfeed are:
- Realistic "physical" bass instead of "fake" sounding bass.
- Reduced listening fatique
- Ordered solid soundstage instead of a fractured mess all over the place
- Miniature soundstage instead of head-sized microsoundstage.
- Lack of "sounds touching/tickling my ears" annoyance.
- More musical detail thanks to spatial distortion not masking stuff.

3b1. How can crossfeed reduce something that isn't there to start with? There is no spatial distortion with headphones!
- There is no "real physical bass" in pretty much any modern music, it's all fake (artificially manufactured and/or very heavily manipulated) bass. The very last thing I would therefore want is something that tries to make the (deliberately/intentionally fake) bass sound like a real, physical bass. In fact doing so would seriously damage or even completely destroy many popular music genres!
- Using crossfeed does not reduce listening fatigue, in fact for me it increases it!
- It does not order the soundstage, it does the exact opposite, it confuses/messes up the soundstage by crossfeeding it.
- I far prefer a head-sized though somewhat flat (2D) soundstage to a miniature though somewhat flat (2D) sounstage.
- I lack that annoyance without crossfeed, the sounds do not "tickle my ears".
- Spatial distortion cannot mask "stuff" because there is no spatial distortion! And, I actually perceive more masking of musical detail with crossfeed because obviously some of the detail is being overlaid by other detail from the opposite channel!

G

 

[71 dB]

Spatial distortion is of course one of the many differences between headphones and speakers. It's a major one, but still one of many. You can say what I hear and what my brain does isn't a proof of anything, but you can't use what you hear of course. Some people are spatial distortion deniers. They deny the fact that human hearing expects correlation between the sound in left and right ears, especially at low frequencies.

That's all I say for now, because I go out into the real world as suggested.

 

[bigshot]

ENJOY THE SUNSHINE!

 

[mindbomb]

@gregorio

It is the headphone form factor that is responsible for the spatial distortion. Spatial hearing is the result of comparing what one ear hears relative to the other, looking for specific patterns that indicate a direction. In headphones, the left and right sides are pretty much isolated from each other, so this system breaks down. And the "in your head" type sound is the result.

It is true that headphones, when measured, would be closer to the original audio, but you aren't meant to listen to the original audio. You were meant to listen to them on speakers, where the position of the speaker, and how it differentially hits both ears, would give it depth and an out of the head sound. There are recordings where you are supposed to listen to them on headphones, and the effect of using speakers is unwanted - they are called binaural recordings. However, most recordings don't fall into this category.

 

[jgazal]

I am trying not to fan the flames, but I just can't resist.
Stereo speakers in the first place introduce multiple kinds of distortion. Rooms also introduce distortion.
So what is the reference for distortion? To compare speakers to headphones? That seems fragile to me.
As gregorio wisely put, stereo reproduction is an illusion (please @gregorio, correct me if I say something wrong).
And headphones are, no more, no less, a different kind of illusion.
Cheers!

 

[gregorio]

[1] It is the headphone form factor that is responsible for the spatial distortion. .... It is true that headphones, when measured, would be closer to the original audio,
[2] but you aren't meant to listen to the original audio.
[2a] There are recordings where you are supposed to listen to them on headphones, and the effect of using speakers is unwanted - they are called binaural recordings.
[2b] However, most recordings don't fall into this category.

1. You can't have it both ways! EITHER headphones create spatial distortion, in which case we can measure it in the headphone output OR, there is no distortion in that measurement, in which case the headphones are not creating distortion.

2. What evidence do you have to support that assertion?
2a. That's not quite correct. Binaural recordings are a specific sub-category of stereo recordings; a binaural recording is defined by 2 audio channels incorporating a HRTF. However, "there are recordings where you are supposed to listen to them on headphones" that do NOT include a HRTF and therefore are NOT binaural recordings. This too is essentially a large part of 71dB's fallacious argument. While it's true that commercial music mixes/masters are created using speakers (monitors) and are designed for playback on speakers, they are at the very least checked using headphones and if anything unwanted is noticed (by the artists or engineers), then the mix/master will be changed/altered. In fact, the purpose of "mastering" (the reason it exists in the first place) is to change/adjust the final mix, thereby creating a pre-master (usually just called a "master"), that plays back as intended on consumer equipment, rather than only in the studio where it was created. In the 1970's and earlier, extremely few consumers used headphones and therefore masters were typically (though not always) not adjusted for HP playback (and sometimes not even checked with HPs). However, that changed rather dramatically in the 1980's, due to the introduction of Sony's Walkman, which was so popular that it's credited for the fact that cassette tapes out sold vinyl for the first time (in 1983). Therefore:

2b. No, I dispute that! Sure, extremely few recordings fall into the category of "binaural recordings" but many/most do fall into the category of "you are supposed to listen to them on headphones" (or speakers) and therefore you ARE "meant to listen to the original audio"! So, how do we know which we are supposed to listen to with headphones? 71dB states that any recording with "unnatural" spatiality is not supposed to be played back with headphones and therefore requires crossfeed. However, that's a fallacy for two reasons: Firstly, pretty much all stereo recordings (with the possible/arguable exception of binaural recordings) employ unnatural spatiality, since even before stereo was available as a consumer format, REGARDLESS of whether they are "supposed to be listened to with headphones" (without crossfeed) and Secondly, crossfeed does NOT introduce the spatial distortion ("the effect") of using speakers anyway!

@jgazal no corrections necessary!

G

 

[71 dB]

Before running back to the subshine quick remarks:

1. You can't have it both ways! EITHER headphones create spatial distortion, in which case we can measure it in the headphone output OR, there is no distortion in that measurement, in which case the headphones are not creating distortion.

2. What evidence do you have to support that assertion?
2a. That's not quite correct. Binaural recordings are a specific sub-category of stereo recordings; a binaural recording is defined by 2 audio channels incorporating a HRTF. However, "there are recordings where you are supposed to listen to them on headphones" that do NOT include a HRTF and therefore are NOT binaural recordings. This too is essentially a large part of 71dB's fallacious argument. While it's true that commercial music mixes/masters are created using speakers (monitors) and are designed for playback on speakers, they are at the very least checked using headphones and if anything unwanted is noticed (by the artists or engineers), then the mix/master will be changed/altered. In fact, the purpose of "mastering" (the reason it exists in the first place) is to change/adjust the final mix, thereby creating a pre-master (usually just called a "master"), that plays back as intended on consumer equipment, rather than only in the studio where it was created. In the 1970's and earlier, extremely few consumers used headphones and therefore masters were typically (though not always) not adjusted for HP playback (and sometimes not even checked with HPs). However, that changed rather dramatically in the 1980's, due to the introduction of Sony's Walkman, which was so popular that it's credited for the fact that cassette tapes out sold vinyl for the first time (in 1983). Therefore:

2b. No, I dispute that! Sure, extremely few recordings fall into the category of "binaural recordings" but many/most do fall into the category of "you are supposed to listen to them on headphones" (or speakers) and therefore you ARE "meant to listen to the original audio"! So, how do we know which we are supposed to listen to with headphones? 71dB states that any recording with "unnatural" spatiality is not supposed to be played back with headphones and therefore requires crossfeed. However, that's a fallacy for two reasons: Firstly, pretty much all stereo recordings (with the possible/arguable exception of binaural recordings) employ unnatural spatiality, since even before stereo was available as a consumer format, REGARDLESS of whether they are "supposed to be listened to with headphones" (without crossfeed) and Secondly, crossfeed does NOT introduce the spatial distortion ("the effect") of using speakers anyway!

@jgazal no corrections necessary!

G

1. Spatial distortion happen in brain due to excessive spatiality that overdrives spatial hearing. That's the ONE way we have it.
2. Common sense?
2a. Binaural recordings certainly are a tiny sub-genre. Then there are also "semi-binaural" recordings incorporating approximations of HRTF such as recording done with a Jecklin Disk or Schneider Disk or just spatiality that is taylored to not cause spatial distortion for example limiting ILD to a few decibels at low frequencies. I wonder what fallacy of mine are you talking about here. Yes, recordings are "checked" with headphones, but does that "checking" include spatial distortion? I don't believe it always does. I don't believe the concept of spatial distortion is very well known even among sound engineers and mixers althou I think it has gotten better over the years (thanks to headphone listening becoming more and more popular) and newer recordings suffer less from spatial distortion than the older ones. Things maybe changed dramatically in the 80's, but in no way was the issue of spatial distortion completely dealt with.
2b. I believe the culture/conventions of music production doesn't fully recognise the issue of spatial distortion and that's why I bring (not make!) these things up. The fact that most people (consumers) don't know about spatial distortion and don't have the listening skills to separate real (natural) spatiality from excessive spatiality lets music producers to get away. People like me who whine about excessive spatiality are a minority, a minority that uses crossfeed or other techniques such as HRTF convolutions to address/fix the problem anyway.

Combining different elements of natural spatiality is ok (and a great way to express artistic intent!). The result is a fabricated spatiality, but it makes sense to our spatial hearing, because there is no excessive spatiality involved. Our brain is able to decode the parts of which the fabrication was made of. Our hearing is used to tons of sounds with different kind of natural spatiality at the same time, for example the sound of a spoon in your coffee cup 2 feet from your ears, people talking 20 feet away and distant thunderstorm rumbling 5 miles away.

 

[mindbomb]

@gregorio
I'm saying that albums were mastered on speakers, where the location of the speaker driver and room acoustics is providing additional spatial information, and it is assumed the end user will have some form of this as well. When you use typical headphones, this assumption is broken, and the imaging you then have is incorrect.

Binaural recordings demonstrate the inverse situation. It is assumed the end user will use headphones, and only on headphones is the imaging correct. With speakers, the additional spatial information is unnecessary and harmful in this case.

Looking at normal recordings and then binaural recordings, you get the whole spectrum of when speakers provide the correct imaging, and when headphones do it.

 

[bigshot]

Before running back to the subshine quick remarks.

NO. GO. Take a sailing ship to Tahiti and find a place to live Sit on the beach in the sunshine until you can handle an internet forum. That may take several years.

 

[bigshot]

mindbomb, I tried to get someone here to recommend some dimensional sounding binaural recordings of music a while back. No one could do it. They could only point to hair clippers and clapping hands. The one musical album they recommended and I bought sounded like any other album. It was arrayed from left to right through the center of my skull. I think binaural recording is one of those theories that just doesn't work in practice. It's a mental exercise that ultimately doesn't amount to anything.

Headphones present music as a line going through the center of your head. No space. No soundstage.
Stereo speakers put the sound as a flat plane 8 or 10 feet in front of you. It uses the space in the room to create stereo soundstage.
5.1 presents a natural soundstage in front with a horizontal plane extending from front to back. The room is very important and room acoustics can be simulated.
Atmos presents a box of sound with up/down added to 5.1. The room acoustic is very important and more sophisticated room acoustics can be simulated.

It's a progression from one dimensional to three dimensional.

 

[gregorio]

I'm saying that albums were mastered on speakers, where the location of the speaker driver and room acoustics is providing additional spatial information, and it is assumed the end user will have some form of this as well.

Which albums are mixed/mastered under the assumption that no end users will be using headphones?

1. Spatial distortion happen in brain due to excessive spatiality that overdrives spatial hearing. That's the ONE way we have it.
2. Common sense?

1. Spatial distortion may happen in YOUR brain due to what YOU perceive/deem to be "excessive" but it does not happen in my brain and I do not deem it to be "excessive". Therefore, that's NOT "the one way we have it" that's the one way YOU have it!

2. Who's common sense, your common sense or mine? Of course, that's why we have science in the first place and why it's evidence based, so we don't have to rely on what someone decides is common sense. So I ask again, where's the evidence?

The rest of your post is just the same repeat yet again and as it's already been refuted more than once, I can't be bothered to again. Why do you think that just repeating the same nonsense for over a year will eventually make it true, when it's already been demonstrated to be false?

G