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

[bigshot]

So, should everyone just agree with you 100 % after all we've posted? We have a different approach: You are after perfection or something like that no matter what it takes or costs. I am after the most bang for the buck. Most of us aren't millionaires, so "most bang for the buck" is a rational approach to us.

Welcome to the rational rationalists club!

One of the things I've noticed about audiophiles is that some people never get past the "This porridge is too hot." and "This porridge is too cold." to arrive at the "This porridge is just right." The sound can't be good because it isn't a high sampling rate... Your headphones don't perform well about 20kHz so they are crappy... Until you master the time domain, nothing can sound good... I used to think only dyed in the wool audiophools laid awake at night worrying about things that were completely inaudible, but I've come to learn that there's a faction of sound scientists that are just as absolutist on the opposite extreme. Your calibration is never precise enough... I can tell your system sounds like a dog's breakfast by looking at a photo of it... You aren't paying enough attention to my pet theory so you are absolutely wrong... Someone the other day was referring to it as "Audiophilia Nervosa". It appears to afflict people of all home audio religions and creeds.

 

[71 dB]

Welcome to the rational rationalists club!

Thanks!

 

[pinnahertz]

I try to base my opinions on science which is more or less objective. I don't want to promote BS. Cross-feed is an approximation and I never said it isn't,

"Cross-feed removes spatial distortion" doesn't sound like it's an approximation.

I expect open-minded people who are interested in improving their headphone listening experience concentrating on relevant "bang for the buck" things being open to what I say.

But then won't you please extend that same open mindedness to those who approached your solution with an open mind but don't have the same reaction as you?

Sorry. I am new to this forum and I am only learning to know you based on what you say. So far your approach has been rather "harassing." and other members here seem much nicer and more relaxed. 80 % of my energy and time here goes defending myself against your attacks (including this post!).

this is the Sound Science forum, we need facts backed with proof, and opinions differentiated from facts.

I did mention earlier that I have studied the problem of dynamic cross-feed too.
I have also said I think dynamic cross-feed is "going too far" and it's best to settle with "normal" cross-feed methods as those when done properly do fix the relevant problem, spatial distortion and messiness or sound image. In audio you can't have everything 100 % so it's best to know how to compromise in an optimal way. Understanding helps in it and I have used the last 5-6 years with studying cross-feeding so I'd say I know something about the issue. What I don't know is something I want to learn.

Yes, we mostly agree on this, but even though I wasn't happy with my results with dynamic cross-feed I do think there may be some program dependent adjustment that may be beneficial. I may have perceived a gap in your understanding of dynamic audio processing, but it's kind of a moot point since neither of us care for our results anyway.

Tell me something I don't know. Good luck finding your favorite music recorded using your own head.

Sarchasm noted. Silly, but noted.

I know that's impossible so I acquiesce in cross-feeding recordings and having if not 100 % authentic sound immersion something that is enjoyable and free of problems generated by excessive stereo separation.

I recognize that as your opinion. Thanks.

My subjective opinions on this issue are based on scientific facts/understanding and subjective experiences so you can call them semi objective if you want. Sometimes approximation is all it takes to solve a problem.

I'll stick with calling them your subjective opinion. I didn't see a lot of scientific fact, but plenty of personal opinion and preference. I'm not hearing any statistical evidence of preference across a population group (as we have with target curves, for example). I am hearing one guy making opinions sound like fact through conviction to them. That's not very scientific or open minded.

 

[71 dB]

Pinnahertz, what should I say to make you happy? Should I say that people should not use cross-feed because it's just approximative? What do you want? Frankly, I am done with you and this goes on in circles.

 

[pinnahertz]

Pinnahertz, what should I say to make you happy? Should I say that people should not use cross-feed because it's just approximative? What do you want? Frankly, I am done with you and this goes on in circles.

Just stop saying the crossfeed is so great and so absolute as if it's universal fact. If some decide it's not for them, or they don't like what it does, then don't jump all over the case. My main objection is your use of absolute terms when clearly the entire thing as an approximation with subjective results.

 

[71 dB]

Just stop saying the crossfeed is so great and so absolute as if it's universal fact. If some decide it's not for them, or they don't like what it does, then don't jump all over the case. My main objection is your use of absolute terms when clearly the entire thing as an approximation with subjective results.

Are you saying that the science of human spatial hearing does not objectively support use of cross-feed? It was this scientific aspect that made me realize the need of cross-feed in headphone listening.

My SUBJECTIVE opinion is that approximation works really well in cross-feed. Happy?

 

[RRod]

Are you saying that the science of human spatial hearing does not objectively support use of cross-feed? It was this scientific aspect that made me realize the need of cross-feed in headphone listening.

My SUBJECTIVE opinion is that approximation works really well in cross-feed. Happy?

The perfect is the enemy of the very good.

 

[bigshot]

And only God is perfect.

 

[pinnahertz]

Are you saying that the science of human spatial hearing does not objectively support use of cross-feed?

Did I say that? Read again.

It was this scientific aspect that made me realize the need of cross-feed in headphone listening.

Yep, me too.

My SUBJECTIVE opinion is that approximation works really well in cross-feed. Happy?

Now, was that so hard?

 

[bigshot]

And only God is perfect.

Yep, me too.

I was thinking about doing a line by line pick apart but I decided to let it speak for itself!

 

[leeperry]

VNoPhones VST remains king in my book and yes xfeed is mandatory for me otherwise my brain wonders wth it's hearing in dual-mono and not stereo huh.

 

[Strangelove424]

Assuming you meant that as a compliment...thanks, but no.

There are actually a number of broadcast audio processors that perform a sort of crossfeed on a dynamic basis. The goal is more consistent on air sound. I've tried them, and pretty much hate them all. The now even include algorithms for "fixing" mp3 compression artifact! And they work just about as well.

No, just a simple question. Why would you assume it was a compliment? I have no experience with your gear, so am in no position to make a judgment. I asked because you said earlier "my experiment with dynamic crossfeed didn't work well. It failed. That's why it's not in the Meier algorithm." I was curious how it would get into the Meier algorithm in the first place unless you designed for Meier.

We definitely live in a "just because you can doesn't 'mean you should" world now.

Capability vs taste, sometime's it's hard to figure out which was exceeded. With modern capabilities it tends toward taste.

 

[pinnahertz]

No, just a simple question. Why would you assume it was a compliment?

I respect the company, and like to assume the best intentions of people. My mistake.

I have no experience with your gear, so am in no position to make a judgment. I asked because you said earlier "my experiment with dynamic crossfeed didn't work well. It failed. That's why it's not in the Meier algorithm." I was curious how it would get into the Meier algorithm in the first place unless you designed for Meier.

Sorry, the way I stated that was indeed misleading. What I meant is it didn't work, and so Meier wouldn't have included it for that reason. I don't mean to imply I have any influence over what Meier does.

 

[pinnahertz]

I was thinking about doing a line by line pick apart but I decided to let it speak for itself!

I only do it because I know bigshot hates it

 

[Strangelove424]

No worries, sorry If I was confused. I respect Meier too. They're one of the names that stood out in the amp market to me though a bit expensive for my budget. One of the reasons I was glad to find a plugin version of their crossfeed.