1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by jasonb, Oct 21, 2010.
First
 
Back
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
99 100 101 102 103 104 105
Next
 
Last
  1. bigshot
    Could you PLEASE group your replies into a single post. Six contextless two sentence dismissals in a row are too much. Better yet, if you have nothing to say, don't reply at all. If you do that, I promise we will. When you start posting blather like "I don't care what you think because I don't like you." you project a very poor impression of yourself. It's pretty clear to everyone but you that we aren't the problem, you are.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
  2. castleofargh Contributor
    that's how I understand it, removing the unnecessary silence at the start on the wave files, so you don't create as massive a lag when applying the convolution(probably not an issue for music only playback).
     
  3. ironmine
    I spent the whole day today trying to apply the selected HRTF impulses in True Stereo Convolution mode (LiquidSonics Reverberate) to see whether I can make a good crossfeed out of this idea.

    The "head" was chosen using the Demo Sounds that were processed first with the HR correction impulse for my earphones. (I did not correct the HR 100%, the dry/wet was set to 20% which is my preferred value. Anything above 20% makes the earphones sound too thin).

    Different angles were tried. 30 & 330. 45 & 315.

    There is a certain crossfeed effect that can be clearly heard, but it's not enough. Some excessive spatiality still remains and, to my ears, even a little bit of it is too much and distracting.

    I am coming to the conclusion that this kind of method still requires additional processing. Maybe, it still needs Low Pass Filtering to a certain degree.

    But, I guess, those folks who like light crossfeed effects may actually find the result I got quite pleasing. It preserves all the details in music and remains very transparent. But, in my opinion, there's still too much stereo remaining and the sound sources are too close to the listener.

    During testing, I compared the audio files processed with the method above against my standard 112dB Redline Monitor. I preferred the latter.
     
  4. castleofargh Contributor
    that approach still misses or approximates several variables, so it's hard to know what subjective result someone is going to get. a few possible ideas:
    - those impulses are still not your own, it's pretty much a certainty that you could get better result with in ear mics.
    - they're impulses from anechoic chamber. as good as that is to "compose" our own sound field(or whatever that's called), you're missing a room, even a very clean one like in a recording studio.
    - is it possible that in reverberate(I only know the free one so no true stereo option, but the rest seems similar), you somehow don't have set things to get the full compensated signal(no dry/wet stuff at all)? for example on the 30/330 impulses, if you play some track with only left sound, do you get 30° subjectively? if not, we have 2 options, the impulses aren't that good for your own head. or the signal is not processed the way it should for some reason. personally I never felt 2m distance for anything, and as I've explained, the moment I open my eyes or move my head a little, anything on headphones collapses back near my skull. but I do get the angles right when I switch the processing ON and OFF(then after a while my brain starts to compensate for what it thinks it should be and I'm back to more or less headphone panning).
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
    ironmine likes this.
  5. gregorio
    1. Again, NONSENSE! When listening to speakers, there is indeed a lot of "natural" spatial information added by the listening room acoustics but what are you adding that spatial information to? OBVIOUSLY, you're adding it to the spatial information already contained in the recording, which is far from natural. The natural spatial information of the listening environment does NOT magically turn the unnatural spatial information on the recording into natural spatiality and of course, stereo is an illusion anyway, that does NOT exist in nature! And if all this isn't more than enough by itself, you've ALREADY ADMITTED that it does NOT equal "natural spatiality"!! So why are you just repeating your original assertion yet again, contradicting pretty much everything, INCLUDING EVEN YOURSELF!
    1a. Yes, there is LESS spatial information with headphones because you're missing all the intended spatial information added by the listening environment, all manner of time delayed, freq dependent and directional reflections. Out of ALL this additional spatial information, the ONLY thing we've got more of with headphones is ILD, everything else is not just less but missing entirely. How does LESS spatial information = more/excessive spatiality?

    The ONLY way your FALSE statements can be made true, is if you ONLY consider ILD and ignore/discount all the other spatial information (on both the recording itself and what would be produced by the listening environment with speakers). However, this presents several OBVIOUS problems and self-contradictions, for example: A. You falsely state you are not ignoring anything. B. You state you are correct because you studied an acoustics course at university. What was this course? Did they teach you all about acoustics and then tell you to ignore it all (except ILD)? C. You couldn't find a more obvious case of cherry picking! and D. Ignoring/discounting large swathes of science in order to validate your position is pretty much the opposite of science!
    So, which is it? EITHER you're cherry-picking and ignoring pretty much all spatial information except ILD in order to make your assertions true (in which case they're still false of course!) OR, you not ignoring anything and your assertions are just false to start with?

    2. Exactly, that's been your problem all along! You "DON'T CARE" about how anyone else (including science itself) defines it, you ONLY care about how YOU define it (according to your personal perception/preferences) BUT, guess what forum this is? Is this the "How 71dB defines it" forum or is it the sound SCIENCE forum?

    NO ONE is saying you can't cherry-pick to make an "improvement for you!!!!!" HOW MANY TIMES?????
    What you CAN'T do here in the sound science forum is try to turn what is an "improvement to you" into assertions of objective fact based on cherry-picked bits of science because A. That's NOT science and B. Your assertions of objective fact are FALSE! How many times?

    Round and round you go, each time digging the hole deeper, making yourself look more and more foolish/unhinged. WHY? Do you think that making yourself appear more and more foolish/unhinged will help you to become a messiah?

    G
     
  6. ironmine
    Getting in-ear mics is costly. I would invest this money if a successful result were guaranteed.

    Ok, I will still play with LiquidSonics for a while. Maybe I have indeed missed something.

    Do you know how to use Fog Convolver? I switched it to True Stereo mode, but for the life of me I don't know how load two stereo impulses into it. There is no button "load". Drag and drop does not work either. What an idiot designed its interface...
     
  7. 71 dB
    1. The music played on speaker excites the room the same way your fingers excite the strings of guitar. Stereo sound is an illusion. You have two mono sound sources playing simultaneously signal with a strong correlation and hopefully these correlations are samething that fools our spatial hearing in ways intented by the sound engineers. The room adds spatial information that is natural room acoustics to our hearing. It can help in fooling our hearing to think the spatial information of the recording is natural too, but it also means we have both natural listening room acoutics and whatever spatiality of the recording at the same time. Our spatial hearing must make sense of this. Especially the room regulates the spatial parameters to levels that are "expected by our hearing". If you play a recording with sound only on left channel, ILD of the recording is "infinite decibels", but your ears hear MUCH smaller ILD, because it has been regulated by the room. At lower frequences your right ear hears almost as loud sound as your left ear. That's natural to your ears, because that's what happens in life with sounds around you. You are constantly blaming me for not formulating things precisely, but these are difficult things to formulate and I am doing my best here. You don't help me at all with our attitude to turn everything against me. Concepts like "natural spatiality" are not defined precisely to my knowledge and if they are please GIVE me the definitions so I can use them precisely. This kind of termilogy is a bit fuzzy and requires the other people to have a will to understand what the other person says. If you actually tried to understand what I mean, you'd see I don't contradict myself, at least much. Why would I?

    Does natural sound mean that the spatial information is natural or does it mean the spatial information only seems natural? How fake can natural spatiality be? I use the term "natural spatiality" flexibly depending on the context. In some context fakeness is allowed and the context tells how much fakeness is allowed. If you demand me to use YOUR definitions of the term then give me your definitions!

    Using crossfeed means having some sort of regulation of the spatial parameters so that we don't feed infinite/too large ILD into our ears. I totally agree crossfeed isn't perfect, but it is better than nothing, to my ears much better than nothing and It is simple so you can implement is cheaply everywhere unlike those HRTF methods which are too complex and expensive to implement hardly anywhere!

    1a. It's about how the spatial information is encoded. Our (my) spatial hearing can take tons of spatial information if the parameters are within "natural" range. Rich spatiality (speakers in room) is different from excessive spatiality (headphones without crossfeed). Lack of spatial information such as ER and reverberation can't be substituted by making the existing spatial information bigger, because they are different parameters. ILD is not reverberation. You don't have reverberation no matter what, but you can crossfeed the ILD similar to what you have in the rich spatiality.

    Headphones ignore everything. I ignore one thing less, because I don't ignore ILD. I don't understand how this ignoring thing is so problematic to you. Sorry, but my spatial hearing just doesn't demand total 100 % fix of every aspect to hear an improvement. My spatial hearing says excessive ILD is the largest problem of headphone sound by far and fixing it only, takes things far. What I mean by not ignoring anything means I am aware of everything, but I know I can in this context ignore all other things except ILD and STILL have improvement. Of course I know headphones don't have ER, reverb etc. That's just how it is, but I CAN get of rif of excessive ILD!

    I did 11 courses of acoustics + master's thesis.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
    ironmine likes this.
  8. 71 dB
    Screen Shot 2019-11-09 at 17.02.40.png
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
    ironmine likes this.
  9. gregorio
    1. And which one of them taught you to ignore all the other aspects of acoustics and consider only ILD?
    2. No you can't because you don't have the rest of the "rich spatiality"!

    So what's your plan now, simply invent a new made-up term ("rich-spatiality") and then repeat everything you've already repeated 100 times but using this new term? And this will make you a messiah will it or will it just make you appear even more unhinged/foolish, what do you think?

    G
     
    gopack87, bfreedma and castleofargh like this.
  10. SoundAndMotion
    @71 dB , I will bet you 100€ that your life (and every other person's reading this thread - not part of the bet) will be better if you put gregorio and bigshot on your ignore list, and never, ever respond to them. You are correct that gregorio knows a lot about some things (but not all), but he is not helping you at all. Keep on going exchanging posts with @ironmine and others, and posting in other threads. castle's posts may help you later, but he's lost his patience, so wait until his posts are constructive again.

    I'm serious! 100€ If you don't respond to or even ever read anything from them until my birthday (Nov. 28), but you do continue with @ironmine and others, and then you tell me that you are not happier, I'll send you the money. If you are happier (as I predict), I'll send you the link to a charity for you to donate.
     
    ironmine and Hifiearspeakers like this.
  11. bfreedma

    Happier - Likely
    Less informed - Also likely
     
  12. SoundAndMotion
    Happier - we agree.
    Less informed - I couldn't disagree more, and I'd invite you to give a recent example of that. @71 dB and gregorio are simply going in circles. How would @71 dB staying in the circle help inform him or anyone of anything? If he breaks the circle, he can interact with others (e.g. @ironmine ) for mutual benefit. Not possible for 71 with gregorio in this thread.
     
    Hifiearspeakers likes this.
  13. bfreedma

    Breaking the circle is entirely up to the poster in question. Ignoring factual data and substituting personal preference can't lead to being more informed.

    Are you suggesting that only taking information from those that agree with one's perspective and categorically ignoring facts that don't align with personal preference leads to being better informed? Can't agree with you there.
     
  14. Hifiearspeakers
    The onus isn’t only on the poster. It’s on anyone who is an adult. Any adult is capable of breaking the cycle.
    That said, the only reason this thread is even alive is because of 71db. He’s the only one who is actually talking about crossfeed, even if he is just repeating himself.
     
    SoundAndMotion likes this.
  15. 71 dB
    1. None. Crossfeed is ILD scaler. It can't for example add reverb no matter how much I want not to ignore it. Why is ignoring all the other aspects of acoustics ONLY an issue when I don't ignore ILD? Headphone ignore EVEN that, I don't so stop saying I ignore. It's silly.
    2. The importance of how important is having rest of the "rich spatiality" is based on our perception. I don't about you, but MY perception allow fixing ILD only as an improvement. I suppose the whole idea of stereophony collapses if you need everything, at least with headphones.

    I needed to coin the term rich-spatiality in order to discuss with you, but even that is difficult with you.
     
First
 
Back
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
99 100 101 102 103 104 105
Next
 
Last

Share This Page