[gregorio]

Crossfeed in my opinion makes the stereo image cleaner, it's kind of focusing a unfocused picture so that instruments don't overlap eaxh other or be scattered all over..... This is my friedly opinion.

Firstly, NO, that is NOT your "friendly" opinion because time and again you state it as objective fact and insult those who do NOT share your opinion. Secondly, your opinion is WRONG! What's actually happening is the exact opposite of what you describe; crossfeed is kind of like unfocusing a focused picture so that instruments DO overlap each other because obviously, you are taking the signal from one channel and overlapping it on the other. I don't doubt that you personally are somehow perceiving a "cleaner stereo image" with crossfeed but that's just your personal perception. Unfortunately, instead of realising that it's obviously not a cleaner stereo image but just a function of your personal perception, you cherry-pick scientific facts and misrepresent or simply make-up other facts in a fallacious attempt to turn your personal perception into an objective fact! How many times?

[1] As I said I think jumping to the world of crossfeed takes "getting used to".
[2] The sound is less sparkly and energetic and even more monolike so if you are into "special effects" you may find it disappointed at first, but for me the "sparkle" comes back in a minute or so when my ears adjust to the lower levels of ILD, only better!

1. Which is just a more polite version of what you've falsely stated previously. Firstly, the implication of your statement (which you've expressed explicitly in the past) is that if someone disagrees or doesn't perceive what you're perceiving, it's not because they simply have different perception to you but because they haven't put in the effort to "get used to it [crossfeed]", which is just a politer variation of they're idiots, ignorant, etc. Secondly, your statement is self-contradictory and doesn't make any logical sense! If, as you claim, crossfeed somehow makes the spatiality "natural", why would anyone need to "get used to it"? Surely they've had their entire life to "get used to" natural spatiality? So, if someone needs to "get used to" crossfeed, it must be because crossfeed is NOT natural spatiality!

2. Firstly, NO, obviously the sound is NOT less "sparkly and energetic" because obviously it's exactly the same sound just crossfed!! Secondly, how does the "sparkle" come back? Does your DAC or crossfeeder know when your ears have "adjusted to the lower levels of ILD" and change the FR of it's output or, is this just a function of your personal perception? The former would be an objective fact (but obviously isn't what happens) and the latter is just a function of your personal perception and is NOT objective fact! How many times?

[1] Does this diffrence matter? What parts do matter? I think everything matter, but the difference in ILD levels (lack of acoustic crossfeed) is in my opinion the thing that matters the most. [1a] The lack of ER and reverberation is less of a problem, because recordings tend to have own spatiality, all kinds of reverberations and delay effects used.

1. This is NOT the "71dB's opinion" forum, it's the science forum. What "matters the most" to you is a preference, your personal preference, NOT a scientific fact!
1a. NO, the "lack of ER and reverberation is less of a problem" because that's your personal preference, NOT because "recordings tend to have their own spatiality"!

[1] So, for me the lack of acoustic crossfeed is the BIG issue that really needs fixing, hence crossfeed. I believe you can improve sound by fixing only one thing.
[2] You may have both distortion and silly bass boost in your sound and fixing only either the distortion OR the silly bass boost would improve sound even when the other remains. I don't see giant holes in my picture, because I am not talking about "the most natural" spatiality, but "more natural" spatiality.

1. Exactly, "for you" (your perception/preference) but not for everyone. For me, the BIG issue that needs fixing is a lack of depth, crossfeed doesn't fix that issue and typically makes other aspects worse, hence NO crossfeed! The difference is that I realise this is my personal perception/preference, so I don't falsely assert it's an objective fact and I don't insult you because you have a different perception/preference!!! How many times?

2. Firstly, obviously crossfeed doesn't fix distortion in the recording! Secondly, I personally prefer to hear the "bass boost" the artists/engineers have put in the recording, regardless of my personal opinion/tastes (even if I think it's "silly"). You of course are entitled to a different preference but what you are NOT entitled to do here, is state that your preference is an objective fact that "improves the sound"! How many times?

[1] Can people hear snake oil cables in blind tests? Can people hear crossfeed in blind test? Clearly I am not "selling" snake oil, because the effects of crossfeed are easy for everyone to hear. The only debate is whether the effect is positive or negative.
[2] It's interesting how selling snake oil is easier than selling crossfeed.
[2a] Crossfeed market is small and people tend to make their own crossfeeders including me.

1. Despite it being CLEARLY explained to you TWICE, you STILL don't understand the analogy! So, let's use a different one, vinyl for example. Yes the debate IS whether the effect is positive or negative one. In a blind test it's reasonably trivial to differentiate vinyl from digital. Most likely there would be someone who preferred the vinyl to the digital, would this prove that vinyl is higher fidelity or "improved sound" relative to digital or would it just be a function of their preferences/perception? If this person stated that in their opinion vinyl is higher fidelity (on the basis that it sounded better to them), would that opinion be an objective/scientific fact or would it be contrary to the actual facts/science?

2. Not here in this forum it's not! No one is saying that crossfeed is snake oil, what's snake oil is your false assertions that your preferences are objective facts. How many times?
2a. If it's an objective fact that crossfeed makes headphone presentation more natural, why is it such a small market? Why isn't crossfeed a standard default on all headphones? How many times?

1. How many aspects of speakers in a room do headphones take in to account? Zero. No wonder the result is nonsencical spatiality.
[1a] One aspect is better than none. A washing machine really is more closer to F1 than handwashing in a sink.
2a. You must renovate your whole house, renovation only the kitchen is not an improvement?
[2a1] I don't keep things in isolation. [2a2] I talk about what matters, what is relevant as you say.
[2a3] You say I talk about ILD, but not ITD. That's because ILD matters and ITD doesn't matter in THIS context. Why?
[2a4] Because crossfeed to mess up with ITD it must be correct in the first place,
[2a5] but how could it be when recordings are mixed for speakers assuming acoustic crossfeed, ER and room acoustics?
[2a6] My claim is ITD is very messed up with headphones (because there is not acoustic crossfeed, ER or reverberation) and crossfeed makes it less messed up if anything.
[2a7] That's why I don't need to address it as a problem, because it is not.
[2a8] If ITD was perfect for headphones, we would have problems with speakers since acoustic crossfeed, ER and reverberation of the listening room mess up things.

1. And how many aspects of natural spatiality do "speakers in a room" take into account? Zero. No wonder the result is nonsensical spatiality! You say you've studied, understand and take the science of acoustics into account but then your arguments deliberately ignore them, why is that? Even if recordings contained perfectly natural spatiality (which they don't), how would having the perfect spatial information of of say a large church inside your small living room be "sensical" spatiality? We pretty much never have "sensical"/"natural" spatiality, regardless of speakers or headphones and your failure to understand or take into account why the spatial information on commercial recordings might seem to be somewhat (or entirely) natural when played back on speakers is largely what invalidates many/most of your factual assertions! How many times?
1a. That's just unbelievably self-contradictory and ridiculous, only by ignoring the whole purpose of a F1 race car (and a washing machine) can you make such a statement, unless you're just insane? And, NO, one aspect is NOT better than none, because you consistently ignore the fact that by improving that one aspect (with crossfeed) you damage other aspects. Your analogy is a perfect example:

2a. If in the process of renovating your kitchen you wreck your living room, then as far as your whole house is concerned, NO, renovating only the kitchen is NOT an improvement, it's probably worse!
2a1. BUT you've just done exactly that! You've isolated the kitchen from the rest of the house and are ignoring what you've done to the sitting room!
2a2. Maybe you never use the sitting room and all that matters to you is the kitchen but that's just YOU, other people do use their sitting room, it does matter to them and as far as the "whole house" is concerned it's entirely relevant and it's falsehood for you to state otherwise!!
2a3. Exactly, WHY?? The answer appears to be: Because "this context" is someone who's fixated on ILD and ignores/dismisses everything else! And then to justify that position you simply make-up more nonsense:
2a4. And here's the nonsense! Obviously, you CAN have messed-up ITD (or anything else) and mess it up even more!
2a5. You've answered your own question BUT you continually refuse to accept the obvious fact! Recordings that are mixed for speakers assume a combination of crossfeed, ER and other room acoustics, they do NOT assume ONLY acoustic crossfeed!! How many times?
2a6. And how does just endlessly repeating that obviously false claim make it true? We have all sorts of messed-up time/delay (spatial) information on just about all commercial music recordings. Crossfeed cannot and does deconstruct the recording and magically make that "messed-up" time/delay information less messed-up, all it does is crossfeed the signal. So what we have is, if anything, even more "messed-up" because we've "messed-up" the directional information the time/delay information also contains. Again, you personally seem to perceive this as somehow less messed-up and more natural, even though it's really the opposite, but that's a function of your perception, not what's actually occurring! How many times?
2a7. That's obviously nonsense! You're admitting you're basing this assertion on the assertion in the previous point, which is also demonstrably false! Furthermore, if it wasn't a problem then pretty much everyone would use crossfeed as standard and no one would have bothered to try to improve it (with HRTFs, etc.), another fact you refuse to acknowledge. How many times? The REAL reason YOU don't need to "address it as a problem" is because YOU personally are incapable of perceiving it and with simple crossfeed everything sounds fine and dandy to you. But then that's an issue of your personal perception, not of what's actually occurring! How many times?
2a8. Yes, we do have problems with speakers and the acoustics of the mix studio/listening room does mess things up, which is why we have music recording, mixing and mastering engineers in the first place (rather than just a computer doing it all automatically)! If you had a basic/reasonable understanding of this (and the implications of it), then a lot of your nonsense assertions would stop/disappear!

[1] What I have tried to do is justify the use of crossfeed from scientific point of view, cherry picked or not.
[2] It's not like crossfeed was invented "accidentally" without scientific reason. It was reasoned from the facts that ILD is larger with headphones than speakers. Attacking my arguments you kind of attack also those pioneers who invented crossfeed.
[3] I thought I had finally discovered the purpose of my life being a messias of universal truth of crossfeed ...
[3a] I still have nothing to offer to the World except insults. [3b] Depressing.

1. You don't seem to understand that cherry-picked scientific facts is NOT science, it's pseudoscience or complete irrelevant nonsense. Again, skin effect is a scientific fact but cherry-picking that one scientific fact, ignoring the others (such as skin effect doesn't affect audible frequencies) and applying that one scientific fact to analogue audio cables is NOT a "scientific point of view", it's the opposite, a perversion of the science! How many times?

2. Huh? Using your logic, science itself is kind of attacking "those pioneers who invented crossfeed", by dropping crossfeed in favour of more sophisticated models and of course the "proof of the pudding" is that crossfeed is as you say, a small market because in practice it doesn't work (is not preferable) for many people. I don't subscribe to your logic though!

3. That's a pretty serious error of judgement on a number of different levels! Firstly in trying to be a messiah of anything. Secondly, picking something that maybe a truth for you but isn't a universal truth and lastly, trying to achieve that in a science forum!!!
3a. And insults are just as unacceptable here as falsely presenting a preference as a "universal truth".
3b. That's up to you. But just endlessly repeating the same false "universal truth" is not going to change anything here. Which brings us back again to the cliche attributed to Einstein, which you're ignoring!

G

 

[gregorio]

Hey @bigshot, can you do your usual and post an appropriate video clip please? I was thinking of the scene from "The Life of Brian" where his mother says; "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"!

G

 

[ironmine]

AirWindows Monitoring Redux

"Cans C" setting sounds good.
("Cans D" is worthless).

 

[71 dB]

Firstly, NO, that is NOT your "friendly" opinion because time and again you state it as objective fact and insult those who do NOT share your opinion. Secondly, your opinion is WRONG! What's actually happening is the exact opposite of what you describe; crossfeed is kind of like unfocusing a focused picture so that instruments DO overlap each other because obviously, you are taking the signal from one channel and overlapping it on the other. I don't doubt that you personally are somehow perceiving a "cleaner stereo image" with crossfeed but that's just your personal perception. Unfortunately, instead of realising that it's obviously not a cleaner stereo image but just a function of your personal perception, you cherry-pick scientific facts and misrepresent or simply make-up other facts in a fallacious attempt to turn your personal perception into an objective fact! How many times?

Can I stop calling it an objective fact, stop insulting people or am I "doomed" for the rest of my life? Questions I have for you:

- Why do I experience a more focused stereo image with crossfeed?
- Why doesn't this unfocusing happen with speakers due to acoustic crossfeed? The soundwaves from speakers clearly overlap on each other! Not only that, but you have early reflections and reverberation all overlapping! Should be an epic mess if overlapping was such a problem you say it is with crossfeed. My understanding of this is that overlapping is only a problem if it happens in a certain way (some people call it simply "bad acoustics" for example) and luckily the way it normally happens in speaker listening or in crossfeed isn't that bad.
- Perception is what counts. Music is not produced for signal analysers but for human ears. Raw unprocessed tracks are technically "cleaner" versions of the recorded sound (that's what the mics "heard") compared to the final mix of a track, but to human ears the final mix hopefully sounds much cleaner (polished). I "cherry pick" the facts that I think matter the most in the context. According to your logic we should use cross-talk canceling with speakers, because justifying acoustic crossfeed is cherry-picking scientific facts about spatial hearing. Read that again and think about it carefully, because that's what you are effectively saying.

 

[71 dB]

1. Which is just a more polite version of what you've falsely stated previously. Firstly, the implication of your statement (which you've expressed explicitly in the past) is that if someone disagrees or doesn't perceive what you're perceiving, it's not because they simply have different perception to you but because they haven't put in the effort to "get used to it [crossfeed]", which is just a politer variation of they're idiots, ignorant, etc. Secondly, your statement is self-contradictory and doesn't make any logical sense! If, as you claim, crossfeed somehow makes the spatiality "natural", why would anyone need to "get used to it"? Surely they've had their entire life to "get used to" natural spatiality? So, if someone needs to "get used to" crossfeed, it must be because crossfeed is NOT natural spatiality!

2. Firstly, NO, obviously the sound is NOT less "sparkly and energetic" because obviously it's exactly the same sound just crossfed!! Secondly, how does the "sparkle" come back? Does your DAC or crossfeeder know when your ears have "adjusted to the lower levels of ILD" and change the FR of it's output or, is this just a function of your personal perception? The former would be an objective fact (but obviously isn't what happens) and the latter is just a function of your personal perception and is NOT objective fact! How many times?

1. More polite? I am making progress then. I have been harsh in my words and my own frustrations in life have manifested in insults. If you read my first post about crossfeed after I registed here you can see I didn't insult anyone. It was after the first attacks to what I had wrote that where a total surprise to me that I lost my marbles and the insults started. It was a shock to read people oppose my beliefs so strongly, those beliefs I have put so much effort into. Crossfeed has been SO IMPORTANT for me for 7 years so it hurt badly to read all those "WRONG" replies. This is no excuse of bad behavior, but maybe explain why I insulted people.

Getting used to is needed, because I believe normal headphone sound is unnatural spatiality and you need to learn away from it. If all headphones had always had a crossfeed all people would regard that as the normality and headphone sound without crossfeed would sound very strange and unnatural. I believe this, but you can disagree.

2. It's less sparkly and energetic, because the level of S (side) channel has been reduced compared to M (mid) channel. So, some of the sparkle and energy that is the difference of mono and stereo sound is gone. The sparkle comes back when spatial hearing adjusts to the new spatiality and S channels gets more weight in the spatial decoding process. However, since the sound is crossfed, the spatiality is more natural meaning the sparkle is "better" thanks to more natural spatiality. Of course my crossfeeder doesn't know what my spatial hearing does nor is it needed. Why on earth would I want change in FR? This is all subjective. This is what I experience. Interesting if I am the only one. All objectivity disappears in audio if every person perceives things in their unique way. Also, what I learn about sound based on my own experiences has value only to myself and is useless nonsense for others. That is quite depressing. It's like developing a cancer drug that works only for one person in the World. I am really bad at doing things that have value to other people. I just don't know what matters to other people and how other people perceive things. That's my epic weakness.

 

[bfreedma]

Well, nobody has to like crossfeed. Everybody has their preferences. What I have tried to do is justify the use of crossfeed from scientific point of view, cherry picked or not. It's not like crossfeed was invented "accidentally" without scientific reason. It was reasoned from the facts that ILD is larger with headphones than speakers. Attacking my arguments you kind of attack also those pioneers who invented crossfeed. I thought I had finally discovered the purpose of my life being a messias of universal truth of crossfeed, but looks like that's not the case and my life still has no purpose and I still have nothing to offer to the World except insults. Depressing.

On the bright side I was able to fix my older CD player today! It had problems with the disc loading mechanism. I took the mechanism apart and boiled the rubber belt that drives the disc loading mechanism for 10 minutes and put it all together and now it works like new! The rubber belt had gotten loose and it also had a non-circular shape for staying in the same position as I haven't used the CD player for years. Boiling it fixed that. So, I am not 100 % hopeless human being. I can do something right.

Yes, I will enjoy crossfeed on those recordings that need it in my opinion, thank you.

My last comment to you on this topic.

1. I'm not attacking anyone - you are misconstruing the crossfeed "pioneers" intent as you tilt at your windmill
2. Your passive aggressive attempts to guilt everyone here over this ridiculous fixation on crossfeed are inappropriate. If these types of forums are causing you that much stress, I would suggest avoiding them.

 

[Davesrose]

I don't have the Atmos, but I've always preferred the original theatrical version of Blade Runner. Has that been remixed too?

I think most people who have multichannel systems prefer when the channels are discrete over ones that mesh to create sound fields. I usually like it when the sound reflects an overall space, but I know I'm on my own with that.

They did have different versions of the movie for the blu-ray release several years ago (so the theatrical is HD and DTS-MA 5.1). Ridley Scott really hates the theatrical version (the studio forced him to add a narration and make a happy ending). The UHD is the "Final Cut", which besides his preferred editing, also has some new digital effects (including inserting actors in certain scenes and using Harrison Ford's son for speaking new lines). The Final Cut was made for blu-ray with film scanned in 4K and 8K, and it seems Scott isn't like Lucas (who continued to redo digital effects for Star Wars for every home release.

 

[bigshot]

Yeah, I've seen the "Final Version" of Blade Runner. I don't care for it nearly as much. My blu-ray set has a work print version too. The original release is the best.

I am really bad at doing things that have value to other people. I just don't know what matters to other people and how other people perceive things. That's my epic weakness.

I bet you're heaps of fun at parties.

Hey @bigshot, can you do your usual and post an appropriate video clip please?

Couldn't find Monty Python. Will this one do?

 

[71 dB]

My last comment to you on this topic.

1. I'm not attacking anyone - you are misconstruing the crossfeed "pioneers" intent as you tilt at your windmill
2. Your passive aggressive attempts to guilt everyone here over this ridiculous fixation on crossfeed are inappropriate. If these types of forums are causing you that much stress, I would suggest avoiding them.

1. I don't think the intent of crossfeed pioneers was ambiguous at all. They didn't try to feed the hungry people of Africa. They realized stereophonic sound tends to have quite large ILD even at low frequencies, because acoustic crossfeed makes ILD smaller in speaker listening and mimicking such process electonically with headphones can be beneficial.

2. I agree. It has taken years to realize where the problem is. As I have said, coming here was a mistake and I would probably be a happier and more balanced person if I hadn't come here, but I DID come here because I mistakenly thought my opinions of crossfeed would be respected and it's difficult to leave.

 

[bigshot]

1) As I have said, coming here was a mistake and 2) I would probably be a happier and more balanced person if I hadn't come here.

1) I agree.
2) I'm not so sure about that.

You can become completely inactive if you would prefer. Fine with me.

 

[71 dB]

1. This is NOT the "71dB's opinion" forum, it's the science forum. What "matters the most" to you is a preference, your personal preference, NOT a scientific fact!

2. NO, the "lack of ER and reverberation is less of a problem" because that's your personal preference, NOT because "recordings tend to have their own spatiality"!

3. Exactly, "for you" (your perception/preference) but not for everyone. For me, the BIG issue that needs fixing is a lack of depth, crossfeed doesn't fix that issue and typically makes other aspects worse, hence NO crossfeed! The difference is that I realise this is my personal perception/preference, so I don't falsely assert it's an objective fact and I don't insult you because you have a different perception/preference!!! How many times?

4. Firstly, obviously crossfeed doesn't fix distortion in the recording! Secondly, I personally prefer to hear the "bass boost" the artists/engineers have put in the recording, regardless of my personal opinion/tastes (even if I think it's "silly"). You of course are entitled to a different preference but what you are NOT entitled to do here, is state that your preference is an objective fact that "improves the sound"! How many times?

1. Ok, what does science objectively say? You talk about how everything must be scientific, but you don't give much scientific substance, do you? In other words, you don't give scientific alternatives to my opinions, you just keep telling my opinions are no good here. For example, what is the limit scientifically for crossfeed level to ruin ITD? -25 dB? -10 dB? -3 dB? In my opinion the useful range of crossfeed level is between -12 dB and -1 dB depending on the recording and within this range ITD is not ruined. It is changed (-12 dB level changes it VERY little and -1 changes it more but the change is beneficial if anything, because it causes the stereo image to twist from normal left-right shape into a shape that has a little bit depth. It's kind of zoom lens of camera altering the lens angle.

This ITD business can be analysed by studying the phase shift when summing up sine waves of different phases. I have done this (years ago when I discovered crossfeed and wanted to know what it does to the sound) and I didn't lose my sleep over the conclusions. Acoustic crossfeed changes ITD a little bit, so does crossfeed. What's the big deal? Small change in ITD translates into small change in apparent direction of sound. 8 µs change in ITD means about 1° change in apparent angle. That's what science says.

2. Again, all you talk about is my personal preference. Does the science exist or doesn't it? Am I supposed to ignore my own preferences just because they are just my personal preferences? How can we discuss about crossfeed at all if EVERYTHING is just personal preferences and science is nowhere to be found? What does science say about the lack of ER and reverberation?

3. So what is your solution to address the issue of depth? Bigshot's solution is to put headphones away and listen to speakers. I agree, that's a good solution for THAT problem. When I listen to headphones I understand it's unrealistic to expect much depth. I can get some depth (miniature soundstage) if the recordings allows it, but nowhere near what speakers give. However, I can get otherwise very enjoyable sound using crossfeed.

4. Bass boost in this context means of course boost caused by some technical problem or human error that the artist didn't mean. It's also funny how much you worship/respect the personal intent of artists and sound engineers (even above your own preferences!) while giving zero respect to for example my personal preferences. I guess artists and sound engineers are priviledged first class citizens while I am just an ignorant second class citizen whose opinions doesn't count. How many times are you going to write "how many times?"

 

[71 dB]

1. Despite it being CLEARLY explained to you TWICE, you STILL don't understand the analogy! So, let's use a different one, vinyl for example. Yes the debate IS whether the effect is positive or negative one. In a blind test it's reasonably trivial to differentiate vinyl from digital. Most likely there would be someone who preferred the vinyl to the digital, would this prove that vinyl is higher fidelity or "improved sound" relative to digital or would it just be a function of their preferences/perception? If this person stated that in their opinion vinyl is higher fidelity (on the basis that it sounded better to them), would that opinion be an objective/scientific fact or would it be contrary to the actual facts/science?

2. Not here in this forum it's not! No one is saying that crossfeed is snake oil, what's snake oil is your false assertions that your preferences are objective facts. How many times?
2a. If it's an objective fact that crossfeed makes headphone presentation more natural, why is it such a small market? Why isn't crossfeed a standard default on all headphones? How many times?

1. There's two questions:

a) Do you prefer vinyl or CD?
b) Which one is technically superior? Vinyl or CD?

To a) anyone can give their opinion based on their preferences. To b) there is only one correct objective answer: CD is technically superior. It's quite hard to try and explain how vinyl is better than CD using science.

c) Do you like crossfeed?
d) Which is technically more correct, crossfeed or no crossfeed?

With crossfeed you of course have the aspect of c) and everyone is entitled to whether like or dislike crossfeed. We are debating about d) and I have tried to give scientific explanations and justifications for my argument that crossfeed really is technically more correct, not 100 % correct, but more correct than no crossfeed. What is the correct value of ILD for a recording? What I get with speakers should be more or less what it should be and crossfeed gives me ILD levels closer to speakers so in that sense it is technically more correct. Comparing the other aspects of spatial hearing is very difficult and perhaps totally meaningless, because headphone sound differs from speaker sound in regards of room acoustics, but ILD is something easy and simple enough to fix and so crossfeed was invented and is used by some people including me.

2. I have my preferences, but stating scientific facts is only preference of truth. You haven't debunked my scientific facts, all you do is make some ridiculous claims that since I ignore some insignficant details I can't apply the science at all in my reasoning. We can talk about the significance of the details I "ignore", but I don't see much of that from you. All you do is put me down and then you wonder why I lose my marbles and insult people.

2a. That's a great question and one that is interesting. Most people are not analytic listeners and don't pay attention to such things as ILD. If you haven't studied spatial hearing, concepts like ILD and excessive spatiality are totally alien. I have studied spatial hearing in the university and STILL it took me years to realize something is fundamentally wrong with headphone sound and the sound I experience with headphones isn't something I have to experience just because I use headphones. Spatiality can be scaled/modified to work better on headphones. As for more analytical listeners I believe many prefer more energetic/sparkly sound and they believe crossfeed just means duller and more mono sound. Maybe these people don't usually listen to music that long at a time so the fatique aspect isn't an issue for them. Crossfeed is just difficult to sell, because what it offers is "unattractive" things like less fatique/more natural bass etc. People want XTRA-MEGA-BASS, COLORS!!! EXPLOSIONS!!! VIOLENCE!! BLOOD! instead. Crossfeed is not about that. It's more about inner peace, the idea that less (ILD) is more (naturalism) and that just doesn't sell well. Crossfeed is like classical music. It has survived the test of time, but still it sells much less than pop music that is forgotten in 10 years.

 

[71 dB]

1) I agree.
2) I'm not so sure about that.

You can become completely inactive if you would prefer. Fine with me.

Becoming inactive is difficult, like quiting smoking.

 

[bfreedma]

 

[bigshot]

The internet sure is weird. One would think it would be a great form of communication, but some people would rather use it to pester people to get them to give them the attention they don't get from human interaction in real life. If it wasn't so annoying, I might feel sorry for them. But of course sympathy is also something they seem to crave. Ultimately, it's a waste of time.