[71 dB]

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.

I am the first to admit my social problems because that's who I am. I'm pretty sure I have mild asperger, which is not something that makes you a social genius. I have also very unattractive physical appearence and serious issues with self-confidence, but a guy with 20,000+ posts accuses a guy with 1,000+ posts about attention seeking? That's quite ironic. You don't even care about headphones and still you keep posting here as one of the most active members?

 

[bigshot]

I focus on discussing topics with other people, not constantly directing attention to myself. I'm not telling you to shut up. I'm suggesting you focus more of your energy into understanding what other people say to you, and not pour so much energy into attracting attention to yourself. You might find that you can learn from other people by admitting you are wrong once in a while. You also won't have to desperately scramble to validate yourself all the time, which can give you more time to actually make points that are useful to the people around you. At this point your content level has dropped to zero and you're just flailing around trying to defend yourself. When I post jokes and funny images and start answering in blank one sentence replies, it's because I know that you're not listening to a word I say. Why should I bother to interact with you in a real conversation? Your strategy and goals probably deserve rethinking. You've seriously messed up with Gregorio. You could have learned a lot from him, but your attitude has completely pissed him off. For good reason, I might add.

 

[castleofargh]

a Finn telling people in other countries that he's an introvert, that's like me as a French announcing that I'll soon be on strike. what else is new? ^_^

now, can we try to post crossfeed related stuff please.

 

[bigshot]

or not...

 

[71 dB]

a Finn telling people in other countries that he's an introvert, that's like me as a French announcing that I'll soon be on strike. what else is new? ^_^

Have you ever met drunken Finns? Enough alcohol turns introvert Finns into extrovert party animals. This drastic change can be a very surprising experience for people from "extrovert cultures" who think Finns are always introvert. I don't drink alcohol so I am never extrovert. For some unknown reason alcohol doesn't work for me in this sense. You give me alcohol and instead of becoming extrovert like others, I become passive and sleepy. Sleepy introvert is even less extrovert than just introvert.

 

[sonitus mirus]

 

[gregorio]

[1] Can I stop calling it an objective fact, stop insulting people or am I "doomed" for the rest of my life?
[2] Questions I have for you:
[2a] Why do I experience a more focused stereo image with crossfeed?
[2b] Why doesn't this unfocusing happen with speakers due to acoustic crossfeed?
[2b1] 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.
[2b2] 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.

1. Why are you asking me/us? It's entirely up to you!

2a. Because that's simply the result of your personal perception trying to interpret the mess of spatial information that a commercial music recording contains but different people's perception will interpret it differently. How many times?
2b. It DOES happen with speakers. How many times?
2b1. It IS an epic mess. How many times? ... Clearly, you are misunderstanding the situation and are asking the wrong questions! The question you should be asking is: Why doesn't this epic mess generally sound like an epic mess (with speakers), why does it seem to make some sort (or even a very accurate sort) of spatial sense to most people's perception? I'll break the answer to this question into two related parts (to fit your rather strange way of looking at the issue):

The first part you've unwittingly already answered yourself! The reason "overlapping" with acoustic crossfeed (when listening to speakers in a room) doesn't end up just making a bad situation worse is PRECISELY because it ISN'T just acoustic crossfeed! Acoustic crossfeed ONLY EVER OCCURS in nature ALONG WITH ERs/reverb (never just on it's own) and the human perception of distance and direction ("spatiality") works by comparing the direct sound with all these factors and INTERPRETS the results based on past experience (EG. Expectation biases and preferences). What happens if we remove some of the vital/required/expected parts of that equation, EG. Just have acoustic crossfeed and not ERs/Reverb/other room acoustic effects? The results are largely unpredictable because as far as perception is concerned what is actually being heard is impossible (does not/cannot exist) and our perception will therefore alter it's interpretation (to make it possible) BUT, as "interpretation" is based on past experience, biases and preferences, everyone's interpretation is liable to be different. IE. The vast majority of peoples' perception will in effect just invent/make-up the missing parts of the equation to fill in the blanks but each person's "made-up invention" is likely to be at least somewhat different. What your perception makes-up apparently results in you "hearing" (think you are hearing) a relatively normal soundstage, just smaller. My perception results in me still "hearing" (thinking I'm hearing) a flat (without depth) presentation but narrower (less width) and with some other artefacts I find undesirable, such as comb-filtering effects and loss of spatial detail/information. But, as we're effectively talking about a made-up invention of each individual's perception, there is NO objective fact or universal truth! The situation with speakers is obviously quite different, our perception does not need to invent/make-up information to "fill in the blanks" because we do not have any missing (required/expected) parts of the equation, they're all there, acoustic crossfeed AND ERs/reverb/other room acoustic effects!

The second part is dealt with in point 2b2: Well yes, you could say that "overlapping is only a problem if it happens in a certain way" but that's a very imprecise/vague way of putting it. However, there are two bigger problems in your statement: Firstly, NO, crossfeed doesn't magically (or "luckily") make all the spatial information "overlap in a way" that isn't a problem as explained above (although it's possible some individuals might perceive it that way). Secondly, it is NOT "luck" that it isn't a problem with speakers, luck has nothing to do with it, what do you think a mix engineer/producer do? Let's take the example of say a rock band, typically there would be different spatial information added to each of the elements in the band, the singer would have one acoustic, the guitars another, the bass another and the drumkit another (this is an over simplification as usually for example, there will be different acoustics applied to different parts of the drumkit and to different guitars). If we just dialled in a reverb preset for each element what we would end-up with is an unacceptable mess, a very muddy mix with a serious lack of clarity. So we employ a range of techniques to avoid this situation, the different reverbs maybe EQ'ed differently, other parameters of the reverbs will be changed, we may eliminate the reverb portion of some of the reverbs entirely (only use the early reflections portion), we may use a simple delay with limited feedback instead of a reverb or we may use some other tactic but usually we use a combination of tactics. The result of course is absolutely nothing like any sort of natural acoustics (it's actually an unnatural combination of unnatural acoustic information) but we're not making a university project on real/natural acoustics, we don't care how "unnatural" it actually is, just whether it gives us the separation, clarity and depth we're after and sounds subjectively "good". And of course we're doing all this using our perception/preferences and speakers in a room. It takes a long time and considerable experience to understand the various interactions at play and learn how to apply and manipulate reverb/delay based effects (acoustic/spatial information), there's little/no luck involved!

The above covers pretty much every assertion you have made about crossfeed and it's not the first time!

1. Ok, what does science objectively say?
[1a] You talk about how everything must be scientific, but [1b] you don't give much scientific substance, do you?
[1c] In other words, you don't give scientific alternatives to my opinions, you just keep telling my opinions are no good here.
[1d] For example, what is the limit scientifically for crossfeed level to ruin ITD? -25 dB? -10 dB? -3 dB?
[1e] In my opinion the useful range of crossfeed level is ....
2. Again, all you talk about is my personal preference.
[2a] Does the science exist or doesn't it? [2b] Am I supposed to ignore my own preferences just because they are just my personal preferences?
[2c] How can we discuss about crossfeed at all if EVERYTHING is just personal preferences and science is nowhere to be found?
[2d] What does science say about the lack of ER and reverberation?
3. So what is your solution to address the issue of depth?
4. Bass boost in this context means of course boost caused by some technical problem or human error that the artist didn't mean.
4a. 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.
[4b] How many times are you going to write "how many times?"

1. You're joking right? Don't you think you should have asked (and answered) that question a few years ago, BEFORE you started making objective scientific assertions?
1a. That's a lie, a lie that's pretty much the opposite of what I've actually stated! I have stated numerous times that this is the Sound Science subforum but I've also stated numerous times that commercial music recordings are art and therefore not subject to all the rules of science! How many times?
1b. I give a considerable amount of scientific substance, for example, some of the actual facts of how commercial music recordings are created, as opposed to some (erroneous) made-up assumptions from someone who self-admittedly has little/no idea!
1c. And again, that's a LIE! I am NOT telling you your opinions "are no good here", what I AM telling you is that presenting your subjective opinions as objective fact/science/"universal truth" is "no good here"! Plus, I refute the actual objective facts you cite which are erroneous!
1d. That's actually an excellent example! Science can tell us the limits of ILD of a particular media type, it can tell us the limits of ILD as far as human ears are concerned, it can tell us very accurately what ILD we actually have and it can tell us what ILD occurs in nature but it CANNOT tell us what is the limit "to ruin" it, because "ruin" is a subjective human valuation/preference. You seem to define "ruin" as anything beyond what occurs in nature but that definition is false because commercial music recordings are art and do NOT adhere to what occurs in nature. If they did, the vast majority of music recordings (and music genres) simply wouldn't/couldn't exist!
1e. Exactly, it's your (subjective) opinion, it's NOT an objective fact!! How many times?

2. That's nonsense. I talk about objective facts, science, your personal preferences and how these are all related (or in your case, unrelated)!
2a. Of course, a great deal of science exists but firstly you have to quote the actual facts/science, not just make them up to suit your agenda and secondly, you have to account for ALL the relevant facts/science, not just cherry-pick the ones which suit your agenda! How many times?
2b. Again, you're joking right, don't you even know what science is? The whole point of what science is and why it was invented is to eliminate personal (subjective) opinions/preferences and thereby separate objective fact from fiction/myth/superstition.
2c. How can we discuss the actual facts of crossfeed if pretty much EVERYTHING is just your personal preferences presented as objective facts and false facts you've just made up?
2d. Science says that the perception of direction/distance ("spatiality" as you call it) is largely dependent on ERs/reverb, that the lack of it never exists in nature and that if we artificially manufacture circumstances where they don't exist, human perception will react unpredictably, most people's perception will attempt to compensate for this "lack" (in different ways)!

3. If we choose to use headphones, there is no universal audio solution/truth! The solution most likely to work for the greatest number of people is an individualised HRFT plus convolution reverb but as the perception of sound is not entirely based on audio properties (but also on past experience, knowledge, biases, preferences and our other senses), then even a theoretically perfect HRTF and convolution reverb will not work universally!

4. And how do you know what is a "problem/error that the artist meant didn't mean"? How do you know that what you judge/perceive to be an "error" wasn't intensional?
4a. You've said some pretty ridiculous things in the past but this one arguably takes the biscuit! The WHOLE POINT of me buying an album by say Bjork is to hear the personal intent/preferences of Bjork (and her production team), certainly not my personal intent/preferences, not even the personal intent of say Amy Winehouse (and her production team) and DEFINITELY NOT your personal intent/preferences!
4b. I don't know, it entirely depends on YOU! On how many times you repeat the same false assertions and I/we have to repeat the same refutations. Of course I should only have to say it once to anyone with a rational mind, so the fact that I have to keep saying it indicates what?

2. I have my preferences, but stating scientific facts is only preference of truth.
2a. 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.
2b. We can talk about the significance of the details I "ignore", but I don't see much of that from you.
2c. All you do is put me down and then you wonder why I lose my marbles and insult people.

2. Utter nonsense, that's pretty much the opposite of science!
2a. And no one has debunked the scientific facts of "skin effect" (that many snake oil cable salesmen make), only whether or not those scientific facts are applicable! How many times? Additionally, I certainly have debunked some of your made-up false assertions.
2b. Then you have a very serious problem with what you "don't see", which apparently sometimes even includes what you yourself write because you subsequently contradict yourself and I have to quote it back to you!
2c. All I do is refute those objective facts you assert which are not objective facts (because they're either just your subjective perception/preference or you've just made them up). And, I don't wonder why you loose your marbles and insult people. You've explained why and I've got a pretty good idea anyway, based on numerous past experiences with audiophiles and false assertions/beliefs! More importantly though, you can't keep blaming your response and behaviour on me/us doing what this subforum exists for (to discuss the facts/science and refute false assertions of fact/science). Repeating false assertions and your response/behaviour when those false assertions are refuted is ENTIRELY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, no one else's. If you don't like it, either stop repeating your false assertions or go somewhere else, where false assertions are not refuted and you're treated as the messiah you (self-admittedly) crave! Again, how many times do I need to repeat what should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a rational mind?

Round and round we go,

G

 

[71 dB]

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:

G

1. Speakers in a room create acoustically crossfed direct sound, early reflections and room reverberation, so they take everything into account. Speaker spatiality is very sensical, ask Bigshot if you don't believe me! Speaker spatiality is sensical, because the end result is a totally natural spatiality of what happens when you play music in a room with two speakers. Spatial hearing gets fooled (stereo sound makes sense because spatial hearing can be fooled so that for example if you play mono sound with left and right speakers, you can have the perceived point of sound be anywhere between the speakers by using simple amplitude panoration. If hearing wasn't fooled, such panoration would not work, we would simply hear sound coming from the speakers with different amplitudes and stereo sound wouldn't make much sense). Speakers in a room don't do anything that ruins the desired effect of stereophony illusion, spatial hearing get fooled in a sensical way and therefor the spatiality is sensical. I think all of this is due to the fact that totally coherent sound sources don't exist in the nature (are extremely rare at best) so our spatial hearing has not developped to deal with them and is fooled by stereophonic tricks. Headphones present the these stereophonic tricks in a twisted overblown form that makes it hard for spatial hearing to be fooled in the desired way, but crossfeed helps scaling the spatiality so that spatial hearing gets fooled a little bit like with speakers thanks to mimicking acoustic crossfeed.

1a. Well it wasn't me who came up with this analoque. I don't need to talk about F1 cars and washing machines here. I believe the improvements crossfeed does are significantly greater than any theoretical damage. If that wasn't the case I am sure after 7 years I would have noticed that the damages make crossfeed unusable? That's why I don't use crosstalk canceling with speakers either. I believe it's better to have that acoustic crossfeed, it's part of the tricks of stereophonic sound to fool spatial hearing in a sensical way. As I said I did analyse what crossfeed does to sound when I got into it in 2012 and noticed that the theoretical problems are insignificant compared to the benefits and my ears and spatial hearing agrees. Similar problems such as mono colourization exist also with speakers (due to acoustic crossfeed), but nobody seems to care and that's fine, because that's a part of the conceptual imperfections of stereophonic sound. People like you care about these "problems", because crossfeed appear ADDITIONAL processing of sound as the default sound with headphones is crosstalk canceled, which of course is not how it's supposed to be, but people have got used to the idea that headphones don't have crossfeed and people like me have hard time educating people to un-learn and then re-learn what headphone sound should be.

 

[gregorio]

1. Speakers in a room create acoustically crossfed direct sound ...
1a. I believe the improvements crossfeed does are ...

And again, round and round you go, just repeating the same falsehoods and circular arguments/fallacy, namely: "My ears/spatial hearing agrees with the cherry-picked science and false facts I've invented to explain what I'm hearing, therefore it must be a universal truth/scientific fact and everyone who disagrees must be ignorant/wrong/idiots, who are just trying to make me feel bad" bla bla bla, round and round we go!

G

 

[71 dB]

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!

G

2a3. I don't ignore these things in my mind. ILD is the BIG problem. I fix it and ITD get marginally "worse" *. The end result is superior to original sound. If ITD was a BIG problem I would be talking about it here as much as ILD but it just isn't and we are lucky it isn't, because otherwise crossfeeding wouldn't be a nice easy trick to improve headphone sound. Or at least crossfeeding would be technically more demanding to work.

* Frankly it's debatable what worse ITD means. Bad ILD is much clearer concept. Acoustic crossfeed "changes" ITD too meaning with crosstalk canceling we would have different ITD, but nobody cares, because acoustic crossfeed just happens with speakers, is considered normal acoustic behavior of speakers in a room. Your talk about me ignoring ITD is desperate attempt to find something against my claims. I don't ignore it. I just know it's an insignicant factor.

Let's say your artistic intent as the sound engineer is to have the listener experience ITD of 200 µs. What is in your opinion of the amount of ITD you need in the recording and what are the ITDs with speakers, headphones without and with crossfeed? If you do this exercise you'll see your ITD critisism makes no sense. There is no recording ITD that gives 200 µs with both speakers and headphones, but there is ITD that gives about 200 µs for both speakers and quite heavily crossfed headphones. Also, if the listener goes nearer to the speakers or move the speakers more apart, the perceived ITD will increase. Do you want to dictate the speaker angle and listening distance for speaker listeners to make sure they experience exactly the ITD you intented? I hop you don't and similarly I'd hope you to give some slack for us crossfeed users in this practically insignificant issue.

2a4. I think it's a good deal if you can fix totally messed up ILD and all it costs is a little bit more messed up ITD, but that's me and this opinion is related to the fact that I have never noticed "messed up ITD" be a problem in enjoying headphone sound.

 

[gregorio]

2a3. I don't ignore these things in my mind. ...
2a4. I think it's a good deal if you can fix totally messed up ILD and all it costs is a little bit more messed up ITD, but that's me ...

And again, round and round you go, just repeating the same falsehoods and circular arguments/fallacy, namely: "My ears/spatial hearing agrees with the cherry-picked science and false facts I've invented to explain what I'm hearing, therefore it must be a universal truth/scientific fact and everyone who disagrees must be ignorant/wrong/idiots, who are just trying to make me feel bad" bla bla bla, round and round we go!

G

!!!

 

[71 dB]

And again, round and round you go, just repeating the same falsehoods and circular arguments/fallacy, namely: "My ears/spatial hearing agrees with the cherry-picked science and false facts I've invented to explain what I'm hearing, therefore it must be a universal truth/scientific fact and everyone who disagrees must be ignorant/wrong/idiots, who are just trying to make me feel bad" bla bla bla, round and round we go!

G

I have clearly beaten you in this debate. The points by you I have been answering (tiresome work) are pretty weak and easy to rebuke and this post of you hits a new low, so much so that I am surprised. All you have at this point is "you are repeating the same falsehoods and circular arguments". Sure, I am REPEATING stuff like crazy, but they are FACTS! Speakers in a room create acoustically crossfed direct sound … is a 100 % fact and you know it. Me repeating it doesn't change anything. Facts are facts, repeated or not.

I don't want to beat you. That's ugly. I want you to see the light so we can agree about crossfeed and this debate comes to an end.

 

[gregorio]

[1] I have clearly beaten you in this debate.
[2] Sure, I am REPEATING stuff like crazy, but they are FACTS! Speakers in a room create acoustically crossfed direct sound … is a 100 % fact and you know it.
[2a] Me repeating it doesn't change anything.
[3] I want you to see the light so we can agree about crossfeed and this debate comes to an end.

1. It makes you feel better to believe that does it?

2. No it is NOT fact and certainly NOT 100% fact! Speakers in a room NEVER create only acoustically crossfed direct sound, they create ERs/Reverb and other room acoustic effects (except in an anechoic chamber). This is 100% fact and YOU know it!!!! How many times?
2a. Correct, you repeating only part of the facts does NOT change anything here in this subforum, so why do you keep doing it?

3. I don't want to see your light, I want to see (all) the actual relevant facts/science, which is what this forum is for and that would be true even if you were a messiah, because this is the Sound Science forum and NOT a religious forum!

Thanks btw for proving my statement: "And again, round and round you go, just repeating the same falsehoods and circular arguments/fallacy, namely: "My ears/spatial hearing agrees with the cherry-picked science and false facts I've invented to explain what I'm hearing, therefore it must be a universal truth/scientific fact and everyone who disagrees must be ignorant/wrong/idiots, who are just trying to make me feel bad" bla bla bla, round and round we go!"

G

 

[71 dB]

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!

G

2a5. Yes, we agree about the combination of crossfeed, ER and other room acoustics, but such recordings assume even less the situation of not even acoustic crossfeed happening. Optimal headphone crossfeed is often a bit weaker than acoustic crossfeed so that the difference of acoustic crossfeed and headphone crossfeed compensates the lack of ER and room acoustics with headphones. This also helps with having a miniature soundstage with headphone and too strong crossfeed would kill the stereophony inside the head (headstage).

How well fixing only X of parameters X, Y and Z works depends on the correlations between these parameters. There is strong correlation between ILD and ITD, but crossfeeders tend to modify ITD similarly to speaker (acoustic crossfeed) so fixing ILD changes ITD in a more or less correct matter and that's why what happens to ITD in crossfeed is pretty insignificant. Recording are mixed for speaker and therefor should assume ITD changes caused by acoustic crossfeed (ER and room acoustic create ITD information, but on totally difference scale, ms rather than µs) and ER + reverberation are heard as sepatate sound elements from the direct sound which mostly dictates the direction of perceived sound.)

2a6. I agree, the spatial information on commercial recordings is what it is. Speakers in a room help shaping all that into something that makes sense to spatial hearing, "acoustify" the sound. Headphones do pretty much nothing and we are on the mercy of how messy the spatiality of the recording is. Crossfeed helps by doing one thing that happens with speakers. This is just logic so far from false claims.

2a7. I have already tried to explain WHY crossfeed is not very popular and it has nothing to do with the problems you talk about. Crossfeed is not the end of the road in improving headphone sound. It is in my opinion a BIG improvement, but you can do better. Crossfeed is maybe a 80 % fix while HRTF techniques are perhaps a 95 % fix. Crossfeed is simple, HRTF is not. So, it's everybody's own choice how to improve headphone sound, but in my opinion everybody should use at least crossfeed rather than nothing, because I believe headphone sound as it is is fundamentally wrong because of the philosophy recordings are made for speakers. If recordings where made for headphones they would be binaural in nature and they would work brilliantly with headphones and crossfeed would make the sound much worse and also speaker sound would be bad and I would be writing about the need for crosstalk canceling with speakers to make binaural recordings sound better with speakers.

I am not the golden ear of the year, but I have a somewhat trained analytical ear. If I can't detect a problem, I'm sure 90 % of population can't. What about the 10 %? Frankly, if you can detect problems smaller than I can, the excessive ILD of headphone listening should render headphones as they are totally useless. If you have large ILD at low frequencies it's a sign of a sound source very near one ear, but the recording may have other spatial cues indicating that the sound is not very near, such as direct sound/reverberation balance and the result is spatiality that is unnatural and doesn't make sense. This problem is so BIG that even untrained listeners can hear them if instructed what to listen to in the sound. That's why it's weird for me that you consider excessive ILD a non-problem WHILE being most worried about how crossfeed changes ITD a little bit. That's why I have said you seems to have problems knowing what matters and what doesn't matter, or matters very little.

2a8. Well, it's hard to learn from sound engineers when all they do is tell me my claims are false. It doesn't make me wiser, it makes me annoyed. What does it take in your opinion to have a basic/reasonable understanding? 5 years of working in the business? I have watched many Youtube videos of music producers teaching how to mix music, how to use side-chain compression, how to clean sound from ugly resonances, how to balance tracks, how to use glue compression, how to make tracks sound louder etc. and I have used these things in my own music making. I'd say I have at least a basic understanding of these things. I didn't study music production in the university, but I studied acoustics and signal prosessing, things that give in my opinion a great foundation for understanding the principles of music production. Sure, there are perhaps things you know (deep professonal knowledge) that I don't just because you have done it 25 years and I haven't, but to say I don't have a basic understanding is quite a reach of an attempt to attack my claims.

Things I don't know much about are things such as what are the microphone models best for recording singing. That's the stuff you learn when you work in the business, but I don't need such knowledge to know crossfeed improves headphone sound. If I ever need such knowledge I Google about it or ask someone who knows.

 

[71 dB]

1. It makes you feel better to believe that does it?

2. No it is NOT fact and certainly NOT 100% fact! Speakers in a room NEVER create only acoustically crossfed direct sound, they create ERs/Reverb and other room acoustic effects (except in an anechoic chamber). This is 100% fact and YOU know it!!!! How many times?
2a. Correct, you repeating only part of the facts does NOT change anything here in this subforum, so why do you keep doing it?

3. I don't want to see your light, I want to see (all) the actual relevant facts/science, which is what this forum is for and that would be true even if you were a messiah, because this is the Sound Science forum and NOT a religious forum!

Thanks btw for proving my statement: "And again, round and round you go, just repeating the same falsehoods and circular arguments/fallacy, namely: "My ears/spatial hearing agrees with the cherry-picked science and false facts I've invented to explain what I'm hearing, therefore it must be a universal truth/scientific fact and everyone who disagrees must be ignorant/wrong/idiots, who are just trying to make me feel bad" bla bla bla, round and round we go!"

G

1. Actually no. You are better than that and it would be nicer to see you swallow your pride and admit that I have a point defending crossfeed.

2. Why are you that dishonest? Are you that desperate at this point? I mentioned ER and reverberation. You quoted me without those and when I quoted you quoting me you blame for not mentioning ER and reverberation? Actually I noticed that a total asshole could try to use such dishonest moronic trick, but of course I expected better from you. I am sorry I have made you that desperate and made you dig yourself deeper. Yes, speakers in room create acoustic crossfeed, ER and reververation, so please next time quote me honestly, thank you!

3. I am pretty much one of the only ones here with science content (maybe because I actually studied spatial hearing in the university) while other people tell me I should just state my subjective opinion about crossfeed and stop trying to explain my opinions scientifically. Sometimes opinions can be very objective and grounded into science. For example "The Earth has got one Moon" is my subjective opinion, but from scientific point of views also a scientific objective fact. When objective facts are the basis of your subjective opinion, your opinions tend to be quite objective too. My discovery of crossfeed came from thinking headphone sound theoretically and realizing the fundamental problem (recordings are mixed for speakers, not headphones causing excessive spatiality on headphones) and my subjective experience of crossfed sound agrees with the theory, which is of course a good thing.

Lots of repeating, you are right. I have tried to keep my claims grounded to science and facts. I perhaps cherry pick, but sometimes it's the cherries that count. From my perspective you ignore the problems of excessive ILD for protecting ITD and other things I consider pretty insignificant in comparison and even your ITD talk is questionable as ITD is in no way preserved in speaker listening.