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.
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
100 101 102 103 104 105
  1. 71 dB
    I have considered that now that you encourage you will do that, but I won't pay 100 €, sorry. @ironmine has been very nice as you say, much nicer than I have been because I am full of anger and frustration for all this feuding. I lose nothing putting bigshot on ignore, because all he says 10 times a day is "speakers are the way to go" - on a headphone forum!
  2. SoundAndMotion
    Since that is not at all what I am suggesting, you can't really agree or disagree with me, only with your own words that you attempted to put in my mouth.

    71 dB has some useful knowledge, some opinions and some difficulty expressing what he wants to communicate. The exact same can be said of gregorio, although his communication problems are entirely different from 71's.
  3. 71 dB
    Interesting thoughts and indeed there has been difficulties in communication.
    I have now added gregorio and bigshot on ignore. Let's see if that make me happier, nicer and more balanced person.
    ironmine and SoundAndMotion like this.
  4. SoundAndMotion
    No problem. Then we won't bet. But both @bfreedma and I believe it's likely you'll be happier if you ignore both. We disagree about whether you can gain any knowledge from gregorio at this point, now that your communication with him is poisoned. Yes, he has useful knowledge, but none of it benefits you right now. His communication method is not compatible with you learning from him, and everything he can offer you can be found elsewhere... with less damage to you.
    Hifiearspeakers likes this.
  5. 71 dB
    Thanks for giving me this sort of credit. It helps me feel better! :)
  6. 71 dB
    Absolutely agree, thanks for encouraging me to take this step.
    I feel totally the same, I can learn elsewhere in much nicer way so why have a teacher who makes you only angry?
    SoundAndMotion likes this.
  7. bigshot
    It was a good try Sound and Motion. He did last 25 minutes before he replied to Gregorio. Maybe he isn't listening to you either. I think he only hears what he wants to hear.

    I agree 100%. I also would take it one step further... ignore this topic entirely for a while and come back only if you are willing to engage in conversation instead of grandstanding and buffaloing.

    If he simply admitted that it was a preference, we wouldn't be having this problem. Anyone will allow him to have a personal preference. The problem is when he justifies his preference by calling it a scientific fact. Sound processing is 100% subjective. People interpret the sound their ears hear differently. I'm not interested in what someone else's interpretation sounds like. I put the salt and pepper on my food to my own taste. I only care that the baseline is correct to start with. After that, he's free to make whatever modifications his little heart desires. But those changes don't apply to me and what I hear.

    All he can really say is, "Try it and see if you like it." It isn't making for more realistic spatiality because it doesn't involve real space. I've heard people argue that binaural is more "real". It's only more real if you happen to like reflections bouncing back at you like in the men's washroom at the train station. There is no front and back and no real distance, only reflections slathered all over like mayonnaise. And mixing the channels together doesn't create front and back nor distance either. There are DSPs I like. But they aren't making the sound more accurate, just making it sound better *to me*. I don't tell people that they are getting less true sound if they don't use them. I just say "Try it and see if you like it."

    You call this thread alive? He isn't just repeating himself, he's talking to himself. Normally threads are considered "alive" when there is interaction going on and information being shared.

    When I went to college, my best professors were the ones that kicked my ass the most. I learned more from them than any other because they challenged me. I wanted to be challenged and I wanted to be forced to think things through. I was paying the school a tuition to do that. Luckily, I went to a good school where they did that. It taught me how to find people worth learning from, and how to break down complex problems so I could think them through.
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
    gregorio likes this.
  8. Hifiearspeakers
    Alive in the sense that anyone is posting anything here at all. So you don’t think this thread is going to be completely radio silent if 71db’s were to leave altogether? I believe, if that happens, then the only thing that will be left of this thread is cobwebs.
  9. 71 dB
    I'm not planning to leave, but I did put people on ignore meaning all that feuding is history, I hope. So, less activity...
  10. ironmine
    I've already done that. I added the folder in my computer, where impulses are stored, to Fog Convolver. I can see all the impulses in the folder, but when I click on the impulse name, it is added only as IR L (left), while the IR R (right) remain empty.
  11. ironmine
    Ok, I've figured it out. To be used in True Stereo mode in Fog Convolver, impulse files need to be re-named in a certain way: their filenames must coincide except the last letter. The last letter in the name of the impulse file that will be used as IR L must be "L". The last letter in the name of the impulse file that will be used as IR R must be "R":

    Test L.wav
    Test R.wav

    In this case Fog Convolver shows this pair of files as one line only ("Test") and when you click on it, both impulse files are loaded... And it's not mentioned in the manual...

    So, if I want to use impulse files

    I need to rename them into, e.g.:
    abracadabra L.wav
    abracadabra R.wav
    71 dB and castleofargh like this.
  12. 71 dB
    Ok, good it's settled now. Yeah, the manual could have this as it takes some effort to figure out...
  13. gregorio
    In what sense are you applying the Dunning-Kreuger Effect, that I'm overestimating my competence because I'm incompetent or that I'm underestimating my competence because I am competent? And,
    Yes but what is that useful knowledge? How do you differentiate "useful knowledge" from what might appear to be knowledge that is useful but is actually incorrect factually?
    For whose mutual benefit? Just himself and ironmine or everyone else's benefit? And, why should mutual benefit have anything to do with it anyway? This is the sound science forum not the "mutual benefit" forum, isn't the point of science to get to the actual facts, regardless of who they benefit? For example:
    71dB and ironmine had an exchange about dynamic EQ, was that useful (or potentially useful) knowledge or was it factually incorrect?
    A. What they were talking about was effectively just compression (of the band-limited crossfeed signal), not really dynamic EQ in the first place.
    B. Compression significantly (relative to a few hundred micro-secs of ITD) changes the perceived duration, time position, freq response and amplitude of transients peaks (and whatever else is above the compression threshold) and typically, also it's perceived stereo depth, more compression on one element of a mix, relative to another, usually results in the perception of it being more present/closer. Of course, the end result may or may not be preferable to any individual listener but it's not factually better, it's factually just distortion of the crossfed signal and intrinsically worse (but may be preferred).
    C. What 71dB was talking about was therefore effectively music mixing/mastering, which raises two problems: Firstly, the music has already been mixed and mastered by the artists/engineers and probably already with a considerable amount of compression, including bandlimited "multi-band" compression. Secondly, by his own admission, 71dB knows next to nothing about music mixing/production, only what he's picked up from watching a few YouTube vids and playing around a bit with a few productions of his own (which his friends apparently complimented).

    If we add A, B and C together, what have we got? Isn't it the typical sort of audiophile nonsense we see in the other forums here; mis- used/applied terminology, supposition or assumption based on ignorance and personal perception presented as objective fact? If we're just going to allow exactly the same here, then what is the point of this sub-forum?

    But he's already found it elsewhere, he's apparently already completed 11 university courses on acoustics and unless one or more of those courses were a "quack" course, then he was NOT taught to ignore swathes of acoustic science or to make up alternative, misleading terms instead of the accepted terms that already exist. If, for example, I were to slap a hall reverb on the crossfed signal, would I have just slapped a hall reverb over the entire crossfed signal (including the reverb it already contains) or would I have invented an "ILD spatializer"? Again, the audiophile world is rife with this sort of nonsense, should it be perfectly OK here in this sub-forum too?

    Even if that does happen, what would be left of this thread is "cobwebs" full of inaccurate/false assertions, is that what we want this sub-forum to contain? Is this forum for the benefit of 71dB, for the mutual benefit of 71dB and ironmine, for the benefit of everyone who's sick and tired of the "feuding" regardless of the actual facts OR, for the benefit of anyone who might come here looking for the actual facts/science? If it's for the latter, then how does 71dB and ironmine "ignoring" me (and anyone else who doesn't share their perceptions/opinions) help, rather than hinder? For example, ironmine has had me on "ignore" for a while now and is still referring to "excessive spatiality" (and trying to solve it by adding more spatiality)!

  14. bigshot
    Irresistable force, please meet immovable object...


    With headphones, the spatiality that matters is the space between your ears.

    Last edited: Nov 10, 2019
  15. Degru
    I took crossfeed into my own hands and made a simple EQ APO config:
    Very barebones, totally customizable, and works very well. Sounds great on my Etymotic ER4B, turning into a very enjoyable comfy sounding IEM combined with a careful +3dB bass shelf without messing with the resolution and clarity much. Can also expand this config to use binaural IR files, tho that's a bit more tricky to configure properly.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2019
    ironmine likes this.
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98
100 101 102 103 104 105

Share This Page