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