Normal mono is just L+R and L-R gets lost. This makes the mono version sound "dull" compared to the original stereo version. Vivid mono sums L-R high pass filtered (1000 Hz) and delayed 0.5 ms to L+R. This retains about 20 % of the vividness of stereo and a lot of L-R information. Better than nothing. The comp filtering effects created by summing L-R to L+R delayed "simulates" stereophonic sound creating "vividness." It's not hi-fi, but what can you do? It makes mobile phone ring tones made from stereophonic sources less dull. Call it nonsense if you want, but I'd like to hear about your "better" stereo to mono algorithm. Have one? L-R can be as much as 50 % of all information in a stereophonic track, so normal L+R mono is quite brutal.
Just as I expected. You've ignored the 6dB center/L+R build-up. Problem known since the beginnings of consumer stereo. The traditional correct fix is to sum using a 90 degree network resulting in a 3dB L+R sum, putting it back in balance with the rest of the mix. Your "fix" won't achieve the correct balance as it relies on your interpretation of how much L-R there is, which is NOT a reliable indicator of mix balance.
If your creative intent is to have excessive ILD and ITD then you are a headphone artist hating loudspeakers and natural sound.
You've completely missed two important points. 1. You have NO IDEA what the creative intent was. 2. If the creative intent is to have a very wide image on speakers and a super-wide image on headphones, they don't hate either one, the love both and have chosen to embrace the effects of both on their mix. You wound never know (and clearly not assume) that condition exists.
YOU are the one hating things and imposing YOUR value judgements on everyone else by denigrating them for their opinions!
Semantics. Reduction or correction.
No, not semantics, definitions.
Reduction : the action or fact of making a specified thing smaller or less in amount, degree, or size.
Correction: a change that rectifies an error or inaccuracy.
And...
Semantics: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the
signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
That is YOUR OPINION, and is NOT universally shared! Have we not already established this? Or do I need to go back to the last time we had this ridiculous argument and quote it to you?
The problem is defined well enough, for example ILD is 12 dB at bass when it should be less than 6 dB.
No, that defines the mathmatical relationship of ILD in a specific instance. Your definition ignores creative intent and subjective opinion! Your definition ignores the resulting subjective effects and their desirability (or lack of) and general listener preference, which will vary widely for each individual AND each recording.
How about acoustic crossfeed? Room acoustics, directivity of your speakers etc. define acoustic crossfeed. People just listen to their speakers without thinking if acoustic crossfeed is correct (same as in the studio the record was mixed?) You are nitpicking too much brother...
There is no such thing as "acoustic cross-feed"! What you define above is "spatial hearing" and "localization". That's how we hear, it's not an anomaly, or something artificially generated. Yes, people don't usually think that their speakers and room acoustics match the studio or not. That's not the point at all. Everyone working in a studio already knows the target venue for music (film is different) will likely not match theirs! That's part of the considerations applied in mixing! You don't "undo" that, you accept it as their intentions!
Science is on my side. All you have is "artistic intent". Please.
No, your science has proven nothing. If you want to apply science, then take your hypothesis and apply the scientific method! All you've done is stated a hypothesis as fact. That could not be farther from science! You've done no actual research into listener response and preference, it's just all about YOU and you're theories.
I'm not challenging your theory itself, or your math, or your analysis. I'm challenging you to prove one thing: your
hypothesis of universal efficacy. You thing you've "discovered" something, but you have only found what has been known for decades, but has not, for some mysterious reason, been embraced with even a tiny fraction of the universality you think is so critical. Why not? It's not because it's difficult to do, or expensive, or heretofore unknown. It's had its chance, and been voted down. You're bucking the existing tide, but refuse to even begin to prove your point other than to re-argue the details of you're marvelous "discovery" ad-nauseam.
You have proven nothing other than a possible mental block.
!
