[71 dB]

Exactly! So, as pretty much every song contains a snare drum recording with multiple contexts, pretty much every song should sound "unnatural" regardless of whether you reproduce it with speakers or HPs (with or without crossfeed), because neither speakers nor HPs (with or without crossfeed) can correct that "unnaturalness"!

G

The trick is to fool the hearing by having aspects if spatiality that reminds of natural spatiality. Speakers and crossfed headphones limit ILD at low frequencies in a way that reminds natural spatiality.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I’m not sure why you want to continue to assert a track is not an audio channel or object.
[2] Dolby’s own white paper on mixing with Atmos says that it comprises 128 tracks (5.1 or 7.1 or 9.1 channels taking up some of those tracks).
[2a] I understand that this is for mixing, and may not be the same as a “track” on a video file.
[2b] You say my use of the term “track” would make sense, but it’s incorrect.
[2C] However, Dolby themselves say that a track can be a channel or audio object (in the context of a session).

1. I've already defined what the term "track" means and that it's commonly used interchangeably with the term "channel". If you wish a fuller understanding, try this wiki page on "Multitrack recording". The reason I "want to continue to assert a track is not an audio channel or object" is because to understand what Atmos actually is, we have to get away from the traditional thinking in terms of tracks and channels. You yourself have quoted various different minimum channels for Atmos; 7.1.2, 7.1.4, 9.1.4 and 9.1. Using the traditional concept of tracks and channels, only one of these could be correct or possibly two if we make the (false) assumption that there are two versions of Atmos with different channel counts. However, in reality the consumer and theatrical versions of Atmos both have the same number of channels and the different channel/speaker configurations you have quoted are actually ALL correct because the traditional concept of tracks, channels and speaker configurations doesn't work with Atmos (or other formats which employ audio objects). I had thought you were starting to understand this new paradigm, due to your "edit" in your previous post, but this latest statement indicates that you're still having trouble.

2. Yes Dolby's paper does say that, BUT (!) you must understand the purpose of that paper is to explain what Atmos is, the basics of how it works and therefore introduce the concept of "audio objects". Dolby has used the term "tracks" because that's the closest reference with which readers of the paper (sound engineers, DCP authors, etc.) are already familiar, in order to progress to an understanding of what audio objects are.
2a. Yes, it is for mixing but you don't seem to understand the consequences of that and therefore what the term "track" actually means in that context. And BTW, there is no audio "track on a video file" with DCP. DCP is a hierarchical "package" of files, the audio files/tracks (in an MXF wrapper) are stored separately from the video file (JPEG2000).
2b. I can't actually remember that quote/reference but the use of the term "track" would make sense in a certain context, with a certain meaning. If you applied it outside of that context then it would be incorrect. Case in point:
2c. No, actually Dolby themselves did NOT say that! What Dolby actually stated was: "Thinking about audio objects is a shift in mentality compared with how audio is currently prepared, but it aligns well with how audio workstations function. A track in a session can be an audio object, and standard panning data is analogous to positional metadata." - Dolby were deliberately very specific about the context and meaning of "track" here, precisely to avoid confusion and incorrect assumptions. A "session" is the ProTools name for a project file (effectively a mix or sub-mix/stem) and ProTools uses the term "track" to mean "channel". So in this context a track cannot be "a channel or audio object", a track IS a channel and that channel can be assigned as an audio object or mixed to the "bed". Dolby is therefore stating that up to 128 of the 1,000 or so channels in a mix can be assigned as "audio objects", while the others would be assigned/mixed to the "bed".

I realise that much of this could easily be seen as just semantics and that I'm arguing about some irrelevant definition/s of a rather ambiguous term just for the sake of arguing. However, that's NOT the case! To understand what Atmos actually is and avoid incorrect/inapplicable assertions about channels and speaker configs, then one has no choice but to understand these "semantics" because they define the difference between Atmos (and other audio object formats) and what went before.

[1] In the case of the Living Stereo 3.0 SACDs, RCA claims that playing them in 3.0 with a center channel more precisely defines the placement of the instruments in the center of the soundstage because the recording was made in three channels with a symphony orchestra with a mike on left, right and center.
[2] You could mix it to stereo and just have the phantom center serve, but having a separate channel covering the center provides more interior definition of sound sources in the middle--
[2a] woodwinds would be spread better, rather than just in an undifferentiated middle.

1. Yep, that's marketing gumpf! No one has (or would) record a symphony orchestra with 3 mics (Left, Right and Centre) for more than 60 years. The results would be poor.

2. Having a dedicated centre channel, can provide a more defined/anchored centre position, that's all though!
2a. No, woodwinds would not spread better, they would spread exactly the same. And, the middle IS differentiated (in 2 channel stereo); it's differentiated by the fact that a signal in the centre position is the ONLY thing in a stereo mix which is identical in both channels. It maybe perceived as less differentiated, not well defined or anchored to the central position IF the stereo system is not setup well. For example, if the left and right speakers are spaced too widely and/or if the listener is not positioned equidistant from the two speakers.

[1] The trick is to fool the hearing by having aspects if spatiality that reminds of natural spatiality.
[2] Speakers and crossfed headphones limit ILD at low frequencies in a way that reminds natural spatiality.

1. Not it's not, you just made that up! With some/most acoustic genres, say a symphony recording, the "trick" is to create an illusion of a believable natural spatiality. But that is most definitely NOT the case with virtually all popular culture music genres. There is no attempt or (artistic) desire to create a "natural spatiality" or an illusion of one, in fact quite the opposite, the natural sound (including the "natural spatiality") is deliberately avoided! The "trick" with these genres is creating something that is deliberately not natural but is subjectively perceived as pleasing. Exactly the same as a modern or impressionist artist is not trying to create an illusion of natural perspective.

2. IF you think that speakers and headphones (with crossfeed) reminds you of "natural spatiality", then you have an issue with your perception! That's rather sad because it means you're not perceiving what was intended and are missing a significant part of the art you have purchased. If I looked at a Picasso cubist painting and it appeared to me as an illusion of a "natural perspective", there'd be something very strange with my perception and it would be rather sad because I'd be missing pretty much the entire point of Picasso's art!

G

 

[Davesrose]

1. I've already defined what the term "track" means and that it's commonly used interchangeably with the term "channel". If you wish a fuller understanding, try this wiki page on "Multitrack recording". The reason I "want to continue to assert a track is not an audio channel or object" is because to understand what Atmos actually is, we have to get away from the traditional thinking in terms of tracks and channels. You yourself have quoted various different minimum channels for Atmos; 7.1.2, 7.1.4, 9.1.4 and 9.1. Using the traditional concept of tracks and channels, only one of these could be correct or possibly two if we make the (false) assumption that there are two versions of Atmos with different channel counts. However, in reality the consumer and theatrical versions of Atmos both have the same number of channels and the different channel/speaker configurations you have quoted are actually ALL correct because the traditional concept of tracks, channels and speaker configurations doesn't work with Atmos (or other formats which employ audio objects). I had thought you were starting to understand this new paradigm, due to your "edit" in your previous post, but this latest statement indicates that you're still having trouble.

2. Yes Dolby's paper does say that, BUT (!) you must understand the purpose of that paper is to explain what Atmos is, the basics of how it works and therefore introduce the concept of "audio objects". Dolby has used the term "tracks" because that's the closest reference with which readers of the paper (sound engineers, DCP authors, etc.) are already familiar, in order to progress to an understanding of what audio objects are.
2a. Yes, it is for mixing but you don't seem to understand the consequences of that and therefore what the term "track" actually means in that context. And BTW, there is no audio "track on a video file" with DCP. DCP is a hierarchical "package" of files, the audio files/tracks (in an MXF wrapper) are stored separately from the video file (JPEG2000).
2b. I can't actually remember that quote/reference but the use of the term "track" would make sense in a certain context, with a certain meaning. If you applied it outside of that context then it would be incorrect. Case in point:
2c. No, actually Dolby themselves did NOT say that! What Dolby actually stated was: "Thinking about audio objects is a shift in mentality compared with how audio is currently prepared, but it aligns well with how audio workstations function. A track in a session can be an audio object, and standard panning data is analogous to positional metadata." - Dolby were deliberately very specific about the context and meaning of "track" here, precisely to avoid confusion and incorrect assumptions. A "session" is the ProTools name for a project file (effectively a mix or sub-mix/stem) and ProTools uses the term "track" to mean "channel". So in this context a track cannot be "a channel or audio object", a track IS a channel and that channel can be assigned as an audio object or mixed to the "bed". Dolby is therefore stating that up to 128 of the 1,000 or so channels in a mix can be assigned as "audio objects", while the others would be assigned/mixed to the "bed".

I realise that much of this could easily be seen as just semantics and that I'm arguing about some irrelevant definition/s of a rather ambiguous term just for the sake of arguing. However, that's NOT the case! To understand what Atmos actually is and avoid incorrect/inapplicable assertions about channels and speaker configs, then one has no choice but to understand these "semantics" because they define the difference between Atmos (and other audio object formats) and what went before.

I agree that we're mainly at a point of trying to agree on terminology (IE this is more semantics). But with your arguments, you're showing that you haven't read my referenced white paper from Dolby. And it's only counter productive to say that if I don't use the same terminology as you, that I'm ignorant of the whole subject. I will concede that my choice of words, in my previous short response, about "tracks" in a video file was not appropriate. I am used to authoring in mp4 container files, and video, audio, and subtitle "layers" are often called "streams". I understand now that the DCP is a container that has seperate video and audio tracks (and that a main audio track in that reference can refer to 24bit PCM). However, this is where you contradict even Dolby's terminology of Atmos:

"So in this context a track cannot be "a channel or audio object", a track IS a channel and that channel can be assigned as an audio object or mixed to the "bed". Dolby is therefore stating that up to 128 of the 1,000 or so channels in a mix can be assigned as "audio objects", while the others would be assigned/mixed to the "bed"."

If we use Dolby's terminology of 128 possible tracks within this final stage of mastering (Dolby Atmos tools), then it makes sense that Dolby says that Atmos can be used with a "bed" of 5.1, 7.1, or 9.1 "channels". Dolby indicates that Atmos doesn't have to be mastered just in 9.1. "Beds can be created in different channel-based configurations, such as 5.1, 7.1, or even future formats such as 9.1 (including arrays of overhead loudspeakers)." I also realize these channels are traditional channel arrays that comprises traditional panning, and remaining 118 audio objects are for height and localization.

Now I also understand that a "track" in music authoring can be a layer in the session software. In which case, there can be any number for having an instance of an instrument at one time (and shows how your reference of Wikipedia's "multi-track recording" is a different topic than the above).

 

[bigshot]

No one has (or would) record a symphony orchestra with 3 mics (Left, Right and Centre) for more than 60 years. The results would be poor.

Coulda fooled me! Those 3.0 Living Stereo recordings sound phenomenal to me.

 

[71 dB]

1. Not it's not, you just made that up! With some/most acoustic genres, say a symphony recording, the "trick" is to create an illusion of a believable natural spatiality. But that is most definitely NOT the case with virtually all popular culture music genres. There is no attempt or (artistic) desire to create a "natural spatiality" or an illusion of one, in fact quite the opposite, the natural sound (including the "natural spatiality") is deliberately avoided! The "trick" with these genres is creating something that is deliberately not natural but is subjectively perceived as pleasing. Exactly the same as a modern or impressionist artist is not trying to create an illusion of natural perspective.

2. IF you think that speakers and headphones (with crossfeed) reminds you of "natural spatiality", then you have an issue with your perception! That's rather sad because it means you're not perceiving what was intended and are missing a significant part of the art you have purchased. If I looked at a Picasso cubist painting and it appeared to me as an illusion of a "natural perspective", there'd be something very strange with my perception and it would be rather sad because I'd be missing pretty much the entire point of Picasso's art!

G

If you have a lion roaring in place of your speakers, the sound from the lion will come to your ear somewhat similarly as if you played a recording of lion in an anechoic chamber. The acoustics of your room is that natural spatiality.

Speakers and non-crossfed headphones give very different kind of ILD levels at low frequency. Which is the deliberate version? I have already explained Picasso. Frankly I am so fed up with you and that's why I write so little anymore. I tried over a year. I give up.

 

[gregorio]

[1] But with your arguments, you're showing that you haven't read my referenced white paper from Dolby.
[2] And it's only counter productive to say that if I don't use the same terminology as you, that I'm ignorant of the whole subject.
[3] However, this is where you contradict even Dolby's terminology of Atmos: "So in this context a track cannot be "a channel or audio object", a track IS a channel and that channel can be assigned as an audio object or mixed to the "bed". Dolby is therefore stating that up to 128 of the 1,000 or so channels in a mix can be assigned as "audio objects", while the others would be assigned/mixed to the "bed"."
[4] If we use Dolby's terminology of 128 possible tracks within this final stage of mastering (Dolby Atmos tools), then it makes sense that Dolby says that Atmos can be used with a "bed" of 5.1, 7.1, or 9.1 "channels".
Dolby indicates that Atmos doesn't have to be mastered just in 9.1. "Beds can be created in different channel-based configurations, such as 5.1, 7.1, or even future formats such as 9.1 (including arrays of overhead loudspeakers)." I also realize these channels are traditional channel arrays that comprises traditional panning, and remaining 118 audio objects are for height and localization.
[5] Now I also understand that a "track" in music authoring can be a layer in the session software. In which case, there can be any number for having an instance of an instrument at one time (and shows how your reference of Wikipedia's "multi-track recording" is a different topic than the above).

1. No, I'm not "showing" that! There are two potential possibilities of what I'm "showing": A. That I have fully read AND understood Dolby's paper but that you haven't! You therefore see my arguments as contradicting Dolby's paper and therefore assuming that I haven't read it. Or B. That you are correct and that I haven't read or understood Dolby's paper. So, which of these possibilities is more likely? Baring in mind that I've made my living for the past 27 years working in TV/Film sound, completed my first Dolby Digital theatrical film mix in 1998 and have actually mixed a theatrical feature in Dolby Atmos, which do you think is more likely? Of course I've read the paper you referenced, plus many others and in addition, I've discussed Atmos in some detail with Dolby engineers in person.

2. I use the same terminology as all other film mixers/engineers and more or less the same terminology as Dolby. Dolby has called the mixture of beds and audio objects "tracks" because there is no dedicated term for it and so Dolby used the nearest relevant term that we would understand. The apparent difficulty here is because our (sound engineers) understanding of the term "tracks" is somewhat different to consumers' understanding of it. You have demonstrated your ignorance/misunderstanding of the subject by making assumptions/assertions based on the consumer understanding/definition and then defending those assertions by referencing a Dolby paper which is actually using the professionals' understanding/definition!

3. No, my quoted statement does NOT contradict Dolby's paper, it is ENTIRELY in line with it! That you seem to think my statement somehow contradicts Dolby's paper indicates some misunderstanding on your part.

4. How does "it makes sense"? It ONLY "makes sense" if there is no direct relationship between what Dolby calls "128 tracks" and the traditional concept of tracks/channels.

5. No, there's no difference between a "track" in music or film/TV sound. The "session" software is the same and there can be any number of tracks for an instance of a film sound just as there can be any number of tracks for an instrument. The wikipedia article I referenced is therefore exactly the same topic. The only practical difference between film and music in regard to "tracks" used to be the physical media; music used magnetic tape to store the tracks while the film world used 35mm film (with a magnetic coating) but even that difference doesn't exist any more because for many years it's all digital audio files and regions on hard disks.

Coulda fooled me! Those 3.0 Living Stereo recordings sound phenomenal to me.

Which indicates they were not recorded with three mics! (Or possibly that you have a somewhat poor stereo setup).

If you have a lion roaring in place of your speakers, the sound from the lion will come to your ear somewhat similarly as if you played a recording of lion in an anechoic chamber.
[2] The acoustics of your room is that natural spatiality.

1. No it won't! If you have a recording of a lion roaring in an acoustic space (say a 100m arena for example), then playing that recording in an anechoic should chamber sound entirely different to a real lion in your listening room. When you play that recording on your speakers you are getting the acoustics of a 100m arena within the acoustics of your listening environment, without the acoustics of your listening environment (say in an anechoic chamber) you are just getting the 100m arena acoustics on the recording, which should sound entirely different to a lion roaring in your listening environment ... although apparently not to you!

2. How can you build a 100m arena inside a 10m (or so) listening environment? That's obviously against the laws of physics and therefore by definition CANNOT be "natural spatiality"!

G

 

[Davesrose]

1. No, I'm not "showing" that! There are two potential possibilities of what I'm "showing": A. That I have fully read AND understood Dolby's paper but that you haven't! You therefore see my arguments as contradicting Dolby's paper and therefore assuming that I haven't read it. Or B. That you are correct and that I haven't read or understood Dolby's paper. So, which of these possibilities is more likely? Baring in mind that I've made my living for the past 27 years working in TV/Film sound, completed my first Dolby Digital theatrical film mix in 1998 and have actually mixed a theatrical feature in Dolby Atmos, which do you think is more likely? Of course I've read the paper you referenced, plus many others and in addition, I've discussed Atmos in some detail with Dolby engineers in person.

2. I use the same terminology as all other film mixers/engineers and more or less the same terminology as Dolby. Dolby has called the mixture of beds and audio objects "tracks" because there is no dedicated term for it and so Dolby used the nearest relevant term that we would understand. The apparent difficulty here is because our (sound engineers) understanding of the term "tracks" is somewhat different to consumers' understanding of it. You have demonstrated your ignorance/misunderstanding of the subject by making assumptions/assertions based on the consumer understanding/definition and then defending those assertions by referencing a Dolby paper which is actually using the professionals' understanding/definition!

3. No, my quoted statement does NOT contradict Dolby's paper, it is ENTIRELY in line with it! That you seem to think my statement somehow contradicts Dolby's paper indicates some misunderstanding on your part.

4. How does "it makes sense"? It ONLY "makes sense" if there is no direct relationship between what Dolby calls "128 tracks" and the traditional concept of tracks/channels.

5. No, there's no difference between a "track" in music or film/TV sound. The "session" software is the same and there can be any number of tracks for an instance of a film sound just as there can be any number of tracks for an instrument. The wikipedia article I referenced is therefore exactly the same topic. The only practical difference between film and music in regard to "tracks" used to be the physical media; music used magnetic tape to store the tracks while the film world used 35mm film (with a magnetic coating) but even that difference doesn't exist any more because for many years it's all digital audio files and regions on hard disks.



Which indicates they were not recorded with three mics! (Or possibly that you have a somewhat poor stereo setup).



1. No it won't! If you have a recording of a lion roaring in an acoustic space (say a 100m arena for example), then playing that recording in an anechoic should chamber sound entirely different to a real lion in your listening room. When you play that recording on your speakers you are getting the acoustics of a 100m arena within the acoustics of your listening environment, without the acoustics of your listening environment (say in an anechoic chamber) you are just getting the 100m arena acoustics on the recording, which should sound entirely different to a lion roaring in your listening environment ... although apparently not to you!

2. How can you build a 100m arena inside a 10m (or so) listening environment? That's obviously against the laws of physics and therefore by definition CANNOT be "natural spatiality"!

G

No, I have read things quite clearly, and I don't need long outlined diatribes to prove my point. I do fully understand that the mastering stage of using Dolby Atmos tools uses what Dolby themselves call "128 tracks" (comprised of a bed of channels and audio objects)...they themselves go over the different stages of audio production in a movie in that paper. I can also do sceen grabes of the Dolby Atmos mixing software I saw with the demo series I watched (which has a left hand column showing available tracks...they are 128 slots). The presenter of that series is experienced with Atmos. It is only you who have claimed that an Atmos mix comprises 128 "channels". You continue to obfuscate by trying to reference other stages of sound production with Atmos (IE mixing "1000" channels to "128"). You say you: " more or less [use] the same terminology as Dolby". No you haven't! Otherwise you wouldn't try to belittle and tell me I don't understand all sources that say Atmos is comprised of 128 tracks.

 

[bigshot]

Which indicates they were not recorded with three mics! (Or possibly that you have a somewhat poor stereo setup).

Nope. I'm curious what your purpose is for posting stuff like this? Are you just trying to be a edgelord? If so, short answers like this serve the purpose better than long winded ones that people don't read all the way through... well, come to think of it, maybe other edgelords will take the time to savor every word of the edge. I'm too busy for that. Keep 'em short and sweet for me!

 

[ironmine]

This thread is hi-jacked by crossfeed haters who discuss anything but crossfeed. They dither the discussion so much that nothing but white noise remains.

Instead of this thread "To crossfeed or not to crossfeed? That is the question..." we need to create the new one and call it "To crossfeed. No longer the question... (without Gregorio)".

 

[bigshot]

I don't hate crossfeed at all. I just don't think headphones ever sound like speakers. If it was approached like any other DSP where you use it if you like it and don't if you don't, there would be no problem with me. The only thing I object to is the statements about crossfeed giving headphones spatiality. To have spatiality, you need to have space for the sound to inhabit. Crossfeed can create a primitive simulation of a certain kind of effect that space has on sound, but it doesn't come close to true soundstage with speakers. Heck, even if it was called pseudo-spatiality or synthetic spatiality it would be a non-issue.

 

[ironmine]

I don't hate crossfeed at all. I just don't think headphones ever sound like speakers.

Headphones with crossfeed sound more like speakers that headphones without crossfeed.

If it was approached like any other DSP where you use it if you like it and don't if you don't, there would be no problem with me. The only thing I object to is the statements about crossfeed giving headphones spatiality.

Crossfeed plugins makes the sound more natural in terms of spatiality.

To have spatiality, you need to have space for the sound to inhabit.

No, you don't need to.

Your ears receive a signal and your brain takes it as an input.

Your brain does not care whether this incoming signal is a result of the sound "inhabiting a certain space" or whether the signal is a result of the processing done by some plugin.

If humans ever create a perfect virtual game indistinguishable from reality (where video, audio, smells, tactile feelings, etc. cannot be separated from reality), if the players wear headphones while they play this game, the sound in their headphones will unavoidably have to be crossfed. It will be the mandatory auditory part of the game. Perfect crossfeed is what it will take to make the sound indistinguishable from reality in a perfect virtual reality game. Uncrossfed sound has no place in natural reality and thus it will have no place in a perfect virtual world.

 

[Davesrose]

Your ears receive a signal and your brain takes it as an input.

Your brain does not care whether this incoming signal is a result of the sound "inhabiting a certain space" or whether the signal is a result of the processing done by some plugin.

If humans ever create a perfect virtual game indistinguishable from reality (where video, audio, smells, tactile feelings, etc. cannot be separated from reality), if the players wear headphones while they play this game, the sound in their headphones will unavoidably have to be crossfed. It will be the mandatory auditory part of the game. Perfect crossfeed is what it will take to make the sound indistinguishable from reality in a perfect virtual reality game. Uncrossfed sound has no place in natural reality and thus it will have no place in a perfect virtual world.

Your brain doesn't just take in "a signal" as "an input" for audio perception. First, in the inner ear, there are many efferent and afferent nerve fibers that provide the sense of loudness and frequency. Second, for localization, the pinna of the ear is a major contributor. The way sound is funneled helps determine if sound is coming from front or sides (and rear is least direct since it's obstructed from the back). The main problem with headphones is that you have one driver hovering over your ear (or in your ear canal), and do not have a way to interact with the pinna in a natural way. Basic crossfeeding will help blend left and right channels to not have a sound just one sided. I'm sure the "ultimate" headphone surround scheme would have to be complicated and have to defy assumed physics.

I've heard serious gamers now play on UHD TVs and surround speakers for the best localization. I previously mentioned that I remember there have been some "surround" headphones with more than one driver in each cup. I know Dolby just came out with their own headphones, but it doesn't use multi-drivers. Then again, I'm sure sound quality wouldn't be as good as a single driver also....so there's always trade-offs and not one perfect system for everyone.

 

[castleofargh]

about multichannel stuff, this topic is in stereo and for headphone processes. I leave short off topics alone, but if it's going to last, move it somewhere else please.

Headphones with crossfeed sound more like speakers that headphones without crossfeed.



Crossfeed plugins makes the sound more natural in terms of spatiality.



No, you don't need to.

Your ears receive a signal and your brain takes it as an input.

Your brain does not care whether this incoming signal is a result of the sound "inhabiting a certain space" or whether the signal is a result of the processing done by some plugin.

If humans ever create a perfect virtual game indistinguishable from reality (where video, audio, smells, tactile feelings, etc. cannot be separated from reality), if the players wear headphones while they play this game, the sound in their headphones will unavoidably have to be crossfed. It will be the mandatory auditory part of the game. Perfect crossfeed is what it will take to make the sound indistinguishable from reality in a perfect virtual reality game. Uncrossfed sound has no place in natural reality and thus it will have no place in a perfect virtual world.

it's not about being anti crossfeed, I've used one version of crossfeed or another for almost 10 years. I never stopped, only moved to variants that I happened to prefer when I found them, or simply something more customizable(which apparently is just like what you've been doing for a while). I've said many times how grateful I am for crossfeed.
yet I clearly side with Gregorio and others before him in opposing @71 dB and his completely partial way of overselling the qualities of crossfeed. so to be clear, we never tried to be against crossfeed, because that doesn't make any sense in the first place to be against an end user DSP. it's like being against someone using compressor, EQ and any other DSP on his system. if we don't like it, we don't use it. and someone else will do whatever the F he wants, as he clearly should. the value of using such tool is subjective, the use is subjective, even the settings are subjective. it's a simple matter of taste and subjective experience. but it's not simple enough for @71 dB who has the urge to justify the use and benefits of crossfeed with BS arguments to make it look like more than it is. half baked objectivity and terms so loose that we cannot help but protest their abuse. if you've bother reading some of the exchanges, you must have seen how somehow, anything crossfeed does, must matter, and how he arbitrarily dismisses the importance of anything that's not in favor of his beloved crossfeed, be it acoustic or psychoacoustic. among other slightly infuriating moves, he's been playing a nonsensical game where you take 2 variables, one is improved, one is degraded, and he pretends that it's an objective improvement because he likes the one that improved better. logical fallacies and stubbornness are everywhere in his posts. he's been given the opportunity to simply say "I like it, some do not" many times and move on. but no, he has to keep talking about BS stuff like spatial distortion where his model of accoustic reference isn't actually a pair of speakers in a room, and his compensation isn't actually how acoustic would affect the signal, but still he will pretend to talk about objective notions such as distortions, ILD, ITD, always cherry picking what part of the signal is ILD and ITD worthy. it is the SS subsection, obviously not everybody is fine with those logical fallacies being continuously spammed. but it wouldn't be correct to assume that because someone defends crossfeed, and we reject his points, then we're automatically against crossfeed. we're against false claim and logical fallacies, not against(or for) crossfeed! people use some if they like it, they don't need me to agree or disagree and don't need the false righteousness of crossfeed forced onto us by @71 dB.

as for you, instead of being dragged in that crap, I suggest you pretend like it doesn't exist and go back to doing a great job of showing the VSTs and settings you tried and sharing your experience of them. that way we may discover new VSTs and be interested to go try them ourselves and come back to share our own subjective impressions. that's the right way to support crossfeed and show interest IMO.

 

[bigshot]

Good! If this is only about stereo headphones, I’m done. Hooray! No more spaciality!

 

[gregorio]

[1] I can also do sceen grabes of the Dolby Atmos mixing software I saw with the demo series I watched (which has a left hand column showing available tracks...they are 128 slots).
[2] It is only you who have claimed that an Atmos mix comprises 128 "channels".
[3] You continue to obfuscate by trying to reference other stages of sound production with Atmos (IE mixing "1000" channels to "128").
[4] You say you: " more or less [use] the same terminology as Dolby". No you haven't!
[5] Otherwise you wouldn't try to belittle and tell me I don't understand all sources that say Atmos is comprised of 128 tracks.

1. Why call them "slots" if they're tracks?
2. Nope, Dolby has: "A track in a session can be an audio object" - A "track in a session" is a channel!
3. So you can do a screen grab of "the Dolby atmos mixing software you saw with the demo series" and I'm the one "obfuscating" the mastering and mixing stages of sound production? You state you "fully understand" the mastering stage but you clearly don't! The term "mastering" in film is shorthand for "print-mastering" and is entirely different from the "mastering" process for music (which again is shorthand but it's shorthand for "pre-mastering"). In film sound, ALL positional (and other audio) information is created during mixing, print-mastering is simply the act of "printing" that mix. In the case of Atmos, there are various "packaging options" for printing the mix precisely because an Atmos mix is independent of tracks/channels!
4. Yes I have! The reason I have is because in professional usage the terms "tracks", "channels", "audio objects" and "slots" are interchangeable but can have different specific meanings depending on context. For the consumer, the term "slots" is perhaps the most appropriate because it avoids the confusion with "channels", "tracks" and speakers. An Atmos mix can comprise up to 128 "slots" which are independent (unrelated) from channels/tracks/speakers.
5. I am refuting your assertions that are based on your misunderstanding of the use of the terms "tracks" and "channels"!

Nope. I'm curious what your purpose is for posting stuff like this? Are you just trying to be a edgelord?

If an "edgelord" is someone who refutes false assertions, then yes, I'm just trying to be an edgelord. Not sure why you would be curious about why I'm "posting stuff like this"? Isn't refuting false assertions one of the main purposes of this sub-forum?

G