[1] Did the inventors of crossfeed cherry pick? Did headphone amp manufacturers who incorporated croddfeed into their amps cherry pick?
[2] No, because the limits of crossfeed are understood. [2a] I don't cherry pick, because I know the limits.
1. I have no idea, possibly, but if they did, it was certainly nowhere near the extent to which you cherry-pick! In the 1950's when they invented crossfeed, stereo as a consumer product had only been released a few years earlier, it's adoption was slow and there was relatively little reliable evidence/science regarding the perception stereophony. Much/Most of the science/evidence was developed more than a decade later and continues to this day, so how could the inventors of crossfeed deliberately omit (and thereby cherry-pick) science/evidence which didn't exist at the time? If as you state, you have studied crossfeed, how is it possible you don't know even the basic time-line of it's history? Either you know far less than you think you do or your question is a ridiculous attempt to support your position, which is it?
2. Your statement is false! How any particular listener perceives crossfeed with commercial music recordings is NOT well/fully understood. Therefore ...
2a. This statement is completely backwards! You "know the limits" ONLY because you cherry-pick! Conversely, if you didn't cherry-pick then you could NOT "know the limits".
[1] I discovered crossfeed, because I thought about headphone sound and how large ILD is a problem.
[2] I used the science I have learned in university, my understanding of human spatial hearing.
[2a] You say this was cherry picking, but to me it was using science.
1. Clearly you didn't discover crossfeed, you simply learned that it had already been discovered about 60 years earlier.
2. You've ALREADY admitted that "the science you learned in university" didn't even mention music production and clearly demonstrated that you have little understanding of either the spatial information contained in commercial music recordings or how it is perceived! And OF COURSE, science is NOT defined by your personal understanding of it.
2a. You ARE using the science of spatial hearing, no one is disputing that. However, you're ONLY using the science of the spatial hearing of real/natural acoustics and even then, ONLY some parts of that science. This is pretty much the text book definition of cherry-picking!
1) no crossfeed
2) crossfeed
the larger set of objective information says option 1) is better? How is that not cherry picking and ignoring the fact that headphones give larger ILD than speakers to which recordings are mixed?
Why are you asking this question, how can you not already know, if as you state you have studied this? The "larger set of objective information" demonstrates that neither is intrinsically better, that it depends on individual perception, although it indicates that crossfeed is not better/preferred by most. Also, "the larger set of objective information" does NOT ignore the fact that headphones give larger ILD than speakers, in fact quite the opposite! If it wasn't for the reduced ILD with crossfeed then "the larger set of objective information" would (probably) demonstrate that not using crossfeed IS intrinsically better and indicate that even fewer people prefer it! So CLEARLY your question and statement are nonsense!
[1] Both my understanding of spatial hearing and my ears say crossfeed is often better out of these two options,
[2] given there is excessive spatiality in the recording (almost always is because recordings are mixed for speakers).
1. Science is NOT defined by YOUR understanding of it or by what your "ears say" and this isn't the "71dB's understanding of science and what his ears say" forum!
2. It is NOT "given" that there is excessive spatiality in the recording (when listening with headphones), you've simply made that up and it's contrary to the actual facts! Completely opposite to your FALSE assertion, recordings do NOT have too much spatiality, they have too little because if they are designed for speaker reproduction there will be the additional spatial information created by the listening environment. This is the actual fact and is simple common sense but you ignore both and repeatedly state the exact opposite of the actual facts, despite it being refuted almost as many times as you repeat it. Your assertion is not just false but clearly ludicrous, some of those who try to compensate for headphone listening do so by adding MORE spatial information (reverb) not by trying to remove/reduce what's on the recording!
Round and round you go. Hey
@bfreedma, 71dB has discovered something, a perpetual motion carousel. The power of "agenda" is limitless, even Yoda would be overwhelmed!
G
I'd sooner agree that 32bit is an improvement, than agree to conclude that crossfeed is an obvious improvement over default headphone playback. because while irrelevant, at least with 32bit there are no unpredictable consequences on the listener's subjective experience. we can actually draw conclusions because we know how that model works. for crossfeed, we know jack crap about the consequences of having a partial, inaccurate (by how much? we don't know it's listener dependent), change applied to the sound. well what we know is that only a minority of people happen to enjoy using that on a regular basis. so we do know at least that it's not the improvement you make it to be. you deny reality in favor of your toy model of acoustic and your own subjective impressions. but want to play pretend that you're interested in facts and objective reality. that's denial.
