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

[Steve999]

FWIW I use a Behringer Monitor2USB gizmo with my computer setup, computer USB out to gizmo, that gives me two headphones outs with variable crossfeed and a second source input and three monitor outs, one of which I use for nice speakers in the computer area.

https://www.amazon.com/Behringer-MONITOR2USB-BEHRINGER/dp/B01DV237NA/ref=sr_1_1

It's a very basic headphone crossfeed but it does the trick for me. For me the issue is I want variable crossfeed, not a preset amount someone else decided upon, and the amount of crossfeed is very flexible with a nice knob, and there's a nice big volume knob for the line out too.

The only downside is you have to get some balanced to non-balanced cables if you are running normal line stereo home inputs or outputs. There is a button in the back where you choose between +4 dBu and -10 dBV depending on if you are running to a balanced input or not, or something.

Here is a big long article about this confusing button:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...humored-attempt-demystifying-10-dbv-and-4-dbu

I don't understand it but if you read the article you might, or you might already know.

But here's the "practical takeaway":

• If you’re feeding a +4 dBu signal into a -10 dBV input, you’re running hot levels into receivers not necessarily equipped to handle them. Turning the +4dBu level down is a good idea.
• The reverse is also true; if you connect a -10 dBV signal into a +4 dBu input, you’ll want to raise the -10 dBV signal—however, beware: You will also be raising the noise-floor of the signal, which, depending on the consumer-level piece of gear, might degrade the sound.

 

[castleofargh]

+4dBu gives about 1.23V (RMS)
-10dBV gives about 0.32V (RMS)

you just have to consider this as a gain setting but instead of having "low gain" and "high gain" or a value with a multiplier, or some more or less defined dB variation, here they use famous standard values and nomenclature for people used to handle those all day long. depending on what you plug into that device, you'll get better gain matching if you switch from one setting to the other. the end.
forget the confusing article that brings stuff up just to say it's irrelevant, but still follows up to explaining the unrelated stuff in great details for no reason.

 

[viveksaikia22]

I have very recently found an Audio Unit plugin (and the concept of crossfeed) for Audirvana plus on my macbook called CanOpener Studio by GoodHertz -
https://www.goodhertz.co/canopener-studio/

This has changed the way I listen to music for good. On engaging, the sound comes out much more natural and I feel it adds a very less coloration. While I am at it, I also switch LR. This further improves the sound to my ears. But maybe, it's just my ears.

Only downside is this plugin costs $60 and currently I am using the 15 day trial period. I am pretty certain that I will buy it, unless I find something which less expensive or even better, free.
Crossfeed for life

It's a new revelation for me and musical enjoyment is all I care and I can throw out all the measurements out of the proverbial window as long as I keep enjoying my music. But again, it's just me.

 

[71 dB]

FWIW I use a Behringer Monitor2USB gizmo with my computer setup, computer USB out to gizmo, that gives me two headphones outs with variable crossfeed and a second source input and three monitor outs, one of which I use for nice speakers in the computer area.

https://www.amazon.com/Behringer-MONITOR2USB-BEHRINGER/dp/B01DV237NA/ref=sr_1_1

It's a very basic headphone crossfeed but it does the trick for me. For me the issue is I want variable crossfeed, not a preset amount someone else decided upon, and the amount of crossfeed is very flexible with a nice knob.

Variable crossfeed is important, because recordings contain differing levels of excessive spatiality to be scaled down with crossfeed. My term for the correct level of crossfeed for each recording is proper crossfeed. For some recordings no crossfeed is proper crossfeed and that's why you have the on/off switch.

The reason why the level of spatiality varies from recording to recording so much is because it can. Most music is mixed primarily for speakers. Speakers + room acoustics not only act as a spatiality regulator (a mono recording creates almost as much spatiality as a ping pong stereo recording due to the room acoustics), but also the result to our ears is by default natural spatiality containing natural levels of ILD, ITD and ISD. It's not correct, intended spatiality, because your speakers and room don't replicate with 100 % accuracy the spatiality the sound engineer heard in the studio, but natural nevertheless. Headphones do not "regulate" spatiality. So, we need variable crossfeed to do that.

 

[71 dB]

I have very recently found an Audio Unit plugin (and the concept of crossfeed) for Audirvana plus on my macbook called CanOpener Studio by GoodHertz -
https://www.goodhertz.co/canopener-studio/

This has changed the way I listen to music for good. On engaging, the sound comes out much more natural and I feel it adds a very less coloration. While I am at it, I also switch LR. This further improves the sound to my ears. But maybe, it's just my ears.

Only downside is this plugin costs $60 and currently I am using the 15 day trial period. I am pretty certain that I will buy it, unless I find something which less expensive or even better, free.
Crossfeed for life

It's a new revelation for me and musical enjoyment is all I care and I can throw out all the measurements out of the proverbial window as long as I keep enjoying my music. But again, it's just me.

Crossfeed revolutionized my headphone listening too in 2012 when I discovered it and stopped being a spatial ignoramus. I'm glad you had the revelation too.

I'd say that plugin is worth the $60 ($65?) if you like it. The DIY headphone adapter crossfeeder I am using cost about that much to build (plus countless of hours of designing and building it, buts that's a hobby…) Headphone amps with adjustable crossfeed cost much more than $60.

 

[gregorio]

Crossfeed revolutionized my headphone listening too in 2012 when I discovered it and stopped being a spatial ignoramus.

I discovered crossfeed many years earlier than that and despite trying various different crossfeeds since then, I've always discarded them because I was not enough of a "spatial ignoramus"! You seem to be going round in circles and never moving from where you started well over a year ago. Crossfeed solves some problems and creates others. Some people are not that bothered (or using your terminology, are a "spatial ignoramus") about the problems it causes, are happy with the problems it solves and therefore personally like crossfeed. Others of us are not "spatial ignoramuses", are bothered by the problems it causes, as much, if not more than the problems it solves, therefore we do not personally like crossfeed and prefer to hear the recording in the highest fidelity as created by the musicians/engineers. The difference between us is that I don't go around calling people who aren't aware (or aren't bothered) by the problems of crossfeeding "ignoramuses", it's just a difference of perception and/or a personal value choice.

So, enough of the ignoramus BS, because if anyone is being an ignoramus, it's you! Not least because we've already gone over ALL of this more than a year and 30 pages ago!!!

G

 

[Whazzzup]

Just a wee bit o crossfeed please

 

[71 dB]

I discovered crossfeed many years earlier than that and despite trying various different crossfeeds since then, I've always discarded them because I was not enough of a "spatial ignoramus"! You seem to be going round in circles and never moving from where you started well over a year ago. Crossfeed solves some problems and creates others. Some people are not that bothered (or using your terminology, are a "spatial ignoramus") about the problems it causes, are happy with the problems it solves and therefore personally like crossfeed. Others of us are not "spatial ignoramuses", are bothered by the problems it causes, as much, if not more than the problems it solves, therefore we do not personally like crossfeed and prefer to hear the recording in the highest fidelity as created by the musicians/engineers. The difference between us is that I don't go around calling people who aren't aware (or aren't bothered) by the problems of crossfeeding "ignoramuses", it's just a difference of perception and/or a personal value choice.

So, enough of the ignoramus BS, because if anyone is being an ignoramus, it's you! Not least because we've already gone over ALL of this more than a year and 30 pages ago!!!

G

Too much crossfeed creates problems making the sound unnecessorily narrow and monophonic, but proper crossfeed doesn't do that. I don't tell people to crossfeed their music to death. I am telling how the need for crossfeed varies from recording to recording and some recording need zero crossfeed while some ping pongy crazy stereo recordings require heavy crossfeeding, in some extreme cases sounding best completely mono!

What exacly is "as created?" Is listening to the recording on speakers with acoustic crossfeed, early reflections and room acoustics all of which change the spatially a lot "as created"? Or is listening to the recording in the same studio where it was created in with acoustic crossfeed, but much less early reflections and reverberation due to heavy acoustic treatment "as created"? Or is listening to the recording with headphones without crossfeed "as created"? Of all of these choices I'd say the middle one is "as created", because the sound engineer made mixing desicions in the studio based on what he/she heard in the studio. If not then why do we have studios in the first place? If "as created" means headphones without crossfeed then speaker sound is not "as created", because there's acoustic crossfeed + room acoustics to make it "not as created." People would need at least crosstalk canceling to switch off acoustic crossfeed.

If both speakers and headphones were "as created" then the recording should be created to avoid spatial information that relies on avoiding the differences of the two. That is certainly possible to a certain degree and I have myself studied "omnistereophonic" spatiality that tries to avoid the problems related difference of speaker and headphone listening. It is about avoiding large ILD at low frequencies and use large ILD at high frequencies were high ILD (10-20 dB) is natural. It is about using natural ITD (0-640 µs) to create spatiality, and Haas-effect type of larger (1-30 ms) than natural ITD to create sense of space and depth without excessive ILD. It is about using ISD to create natural spatial cues. It's about using auditory masking to "hide" unnatural aspects of individual tracks. It's doable, but most recordings are not created like this. Maybe newer pop music uses this kind of tricks more and more (pop producers are generally well aware of the need for limited ILD at low frequencies and use sophisticated plugins to create natural spatial effects), but that is a tiny limited fraction of all stereophonic recordings in the history.

Crossfeed skeptics say the process creates colourization. I respond to this claim saying:

- Colourization is very small, microscopic compared to the colourizations in speaker listening. Crossfeed or not, headphone sound is insanely uncoloured compared to speaker listening.
- Crossfeed happens effectively at low frequencies were the typical time difference of about 300 µs and is tiny compared to the wavelength resulting in practically nonexisting combfilter effects. At treble frequencies combfiltering would happen, only the crossfeeding typically fades away above 800 Hz. Only the strongest crossfeed settings can theoretically cause significant combfiltering.
- Even if colourization was significant, worrying about it while ignoring excessive spatiality is illogical to say the least. Excessive spatiality is in my opinion much worse problem than colourization which is natural aspect of acoustic systems. All headphones have coloured response to begin with and even the flattest headphones have much more colourization then crossfeed can ever introduce. Excessive spatiality on the other hand is a significant problem. ILD of over 10 dB at low frequencies really is a massive "spatial mistake" when about 3 dB is natural level and 6 dB is absolute max. Just putting things in perspective.
- Crossfeeding does not remove detail! This is a myth that needs to be busted. After crossfeeding both channels contain a mix of both channels with differing delays and amplitudes. Our spatial hearing is able to decode the channels from using difference signals/cross correlation and also EXPECTS incoming signals to be of that nature! In fact crossfeeding HELPS auditory system to decode the details of the sound better. Excessive spatiality creates confusion, spatial distortion that masks real spatial detail and causes listening fatique. Crossfed music sounds less detailed, softer and rounder and that's why people mistakenly thing crossfeeding removes detail, but the softer, rounder sound is the real detail, the same you hear on speakers thanks to acoustic crossfeed. It's only when you hear the softer crossfed signal after your ears have been exposed to excessive spatiality it feels soft, but it the correct signal while the non-crossfed signal is the wrong one with all of it's sharpness and fake details due to spatial distortion. Crossfeed requires the listener to get used to the natural levels of spatiality and when your ears have adjusted you notice how the real detail is all there unmasked by excessive spatiality. For me this adjustment of hearing takes about one minute. Switching crossfeed ON first makes the soundstage narrower because ears have been exposed to excessive spatiality, but after a minute or so ears have adjusted to the natural spatiality and sound is wide again, only free of spatial distortion making it more natural, less fatiquing and real details easier to listen to.

So your viewpoint of everything being fine without crossfeed and how introducing crossfeed generates serious problems is unwarranted. If you mix your music so that the spatiality relies on reduction due to acoustic crossfeed, spatially informed people want to use crossfeed with headphones for similar reduction to have natural levels of ILD.

Being an ignoramus in regards of spatiality is not a shame, because these things are not talked about generally. I studied human spatial hearing in the university (as part of the acoustics "101" course) in the early 90's, but it took me 2 decades (!) before I realized how the principles of spatial hearing make spatially correct music challenging when people use speakers, headphones and what not. It suddenly occured to me that there can be and is "spatially illegal" sounds (signals containing excessive spatially directly fed to ears with headphones). Of all the mathematically possible stereophonic signal pairs (stereophonic signal space) only a subspace is "legal." Speaker listening forces all signal pairs to become legal while headphones pretty much do nothing to the original signal pair causing illegalities to reach our ears. Crossfeed fixes this. I still remember the moment when I realized this. It is a powerful moment when you realize something fundamental and the light bulb turns on in your head.

 

[ironmine]

Audiophiles due to their ignorance are among the most stubborn people when it comes to progress in audio.

They always defend the older inferior quality-degrading technologies until their last breath.

It's funny to watch how they resist the advance of crossfeed nowadays in the same way they resisted earlier the appearance of standalone DACs (remember the debates what sounds best, DAC vs CD-player), digital room correction (DRC vs. "Bit-Perfectness" debates), digital audio vs. vinyl, etc.

 

[bigshot]

But stand alone DACs are hold over ignorance from the old days of separate amps and preamps. There's no reason why a player can't sound just as good as a stand alone DAC, and an awful lot of them do. In fact, I don't know of any that don't.

 

[ironmine]

But stand alone DACs are hold over ignorance from the old days of separate amps and preamps. There's no reason why a player can't sound just as good as a stand alone DAC, and an awful lot of them do. In fact, I don't know of any that don't.

Unlike CD-players, DACs do not require CDs (outdated, hard to copy and expensive source of sound) and they can play hi-rez music.
I get my music in any lossless and/or hi-rez format I want 100% free from torrent trackers for more than 10 years already and I listen to it through DACs.

When you play music through a DAC, you can process sound first in your computer (e.g. Digital Room Correction, thousands of professional studio quality VST plugins to your liking, crossfeeds, etc., etc.).

 

[bfreedma]

Unlike CD-players, DACs do not require CDs (outdated, hard to copy and expensive source of sound) and they can play hi-rez music.
I get my music in any lossless and/or hi-rez format I want 100% free from torrent trackers for more than 10 years already and I listen to it through DACs.

When you play music through a DAC, you can process sound first in your computer (e.g. Digital Room Correction, thousands of professional studio quality VST plugins to your liking, crossfeeds, etc., etc.).

Are you publicly admitting that you steal all of your music or am I misreading your post?

 

[71 dB]

and they can play hi-rez music.
I get my music in any lossless and/or hi-rez format I want...

What does hi-res give that 16/44.1 doesn't give you?

 

[ironmine]

What does hi-res give that 16/44.1 doesn't give you?

Sometimes I indeed prefer the CD version of an album, if its hi-res remastered version has squashed dynamics. There are CDs that sound excellent and are recorded great.

But under all other conditions being equal, I let a hi-res variant remain in my collection and I delete its CD version from my hard drive. Even not going into the discussion whether a hi-res can sound better than its CD counterpart, I prefer to feed my VST plugins with 24-bit resolution files than 16-bit files as it increases the quality of processing.

When I listen through heaphones, I use 112dB Redline Monitor for crossfeed effect. Through speakers, I use MathAudio Room EQ for digital room correction. These are my 2 VST plugins that I always use (plus dithering + monitoring). In 5% cases I may also use a VST equalizer (DMG Equilibrium is my favorite), mainly to boost LF by 1.0-2.0 dB.

 

[gregorio]

[1] If both speakers and headphones were "as created" then the recording should be created to avoid spatial information that relies on avoiding the differences of the two. ... It is about avoiding large ILD at low frequencies and use large ILD at high frequencies were high ILD (10-20 dB) is natural.
[2] Even if colourization was significant, worrying about it while ignoring excessive spatiality is illogical to say the least. Excessive spatiality is in my opinion much worse problem than colourization...
[2a] If you mix your music so that the spatiality relies on reduction due to acoustic crossfeed, spatially informed people want to use crossfeed with headphones for similar reduction to have natural levels of ILD.

Thanks for proving my point, every single one of the points in your response are just repeats of the exact same points you made over a year (and 30 odd pages) ago. Points which have already been addressed and refuted but here you are just repeating the same points again and insulting everyone how doesn't share your ignorance of the facts and your preferences! I'm not going to refute every one of your points because it's already been done in this thread, I'll just address your main point of ignorance upon which you base everything:

1. There is nothing "natural" about the creation or end result of commercial music recordings and there hasn't been for many decades. Music mixing/production is an ART, it has been for nearly 60 years, it is ABSOLUTELY NOT about avoiding what would not occur naturally, it's ALL about creating products that fulfil an artistic goal and that consumers will hopefully like/enjoy, COMPLETELY REGARDLESS of whether it's "natural" or not! In fact, in almost all cases "it is about" the exact opposite, creating spatial information which is not "natural"! You do NOT get to dictate how a "recording should be created" or dictate what should be avoided!!

2. EXACTLY, this is the heart of your ignorance! Firstly, it is YOUR OPINION and secondly, it's an opinion based on a falsehood! It's a falsehood because no one ignores "excessive spatiality". I've never seen or heard of a studio that didn't have headphones or of a mix being created without being checked on headphones (by the engineers, producer and artists) and this is especially true since the 1980's as more and more consumers listened to music using headphones. Your opinion about what constitutes "excessive" (spatiality) is just that, your opinion. Certainly HP listening presents a wider/more separated stereo image but it is YOUR OPINION of whether that is "excessive" or not. There are many cases where that "excessive spatiality" is the desired intention of the producer and artists (and in fact tools were often used to widen the image on speakers and make it more like HP listening, "shuffling" for example). The result is not "natural", it is not intended to be natural and you applying crossfeed is both lower fidelity AND going against the artists' intentions! Of course, if you like/prefer crossfeed and want to change/ignore the artistic intentions that's entirely your choice but it's NOT your choice to dictate that artists must follow what is "natural" and your personal definition of "excessive" and it's certainly NOT your choice to call others ignoramuses, especially as you're the one apparently completely ignorant of the fundamental basics/goals of music production!
2a. If "people" really were "spatially informed" they would realise there is nothing spatially "natural" in the first place, that "spatiality" in music mixes does not only rely on acoustic replay crossfeed, that crossfeed therefore can do more harm than good and does not by itself emulate acoustic speaker crossfeed/reproduction anyway. You don't appear to know or understand any of this, so clearly you are NOT one of those "spatially informed people"!

Your ignorance of the facts and dogged belief that your opinion/preference should be shared by everyone, including the artists themselves, results in you defending your belief with a barrage of false statements and complete nonsense, for example:

[1] Being an ignoramus in regards of spatiality is not a shame, [1a] because these things are not talked about generally.
[2] It suddenly occured to me that there can be and is "spatially illegal" sounds ...
[2a] Of all the mathematically possible stereophonic signal pairs (stereophonic signal space) only a subspace is "legal."
[2b] Speaker listening forces all signal pairs to become legal
[2c] while headphones pretty much do nothing to the original signal pair causing illegalities to reach our ears.
[2d] Crossfeed fixes this.
[3] I still remember the moment when I realized this. It is a powerful moment when you realize something fundamental and the light bulb turns on in your head.

1. Clearly. In fact you actually seem proud of being an ignoramus!
1a. That's a completely false statement, they're always talked about, on every single music mix!

2. Music production is an ART, consequently there are NO "spatially illegal sounds"! Pretty much all music productions for many decades are not spatially "natural", therefore if that's your definition of "spatially illegal" then pretty much all commercial music recordings are "spatially illegal" all the time, regardless of whether they're reproduced on speakers or headphones!
2a. Again, virtually no commercial music productions only employ a single stereophonic signal pair and therefore virtually all music mixes are "illegal" to start with.
2b. Nope, you've just made that up and clearly it's complete nonsense! How do speakers know what spatial "illegalities" there are in any particular music mix and even if they did, how would they correct and make them "legal".
2c. The "illegalities" "reach our ears" with headphones AND speakers, though they present those "illegalities" differently.
2d. No it does NOT! It just presents those "illegalities" differently again. So now we've got 3 different presentations of the "spatial illegality", none of which are "spatially legal"! Which one or ones a consumer prefers it up to them but personally I prefer to go with the fidelity of what the artists actually put on the recording.

3. That seems to be the heart of your problem, you had a "powerful moment" when you realised something. What you realised is in fact actually false (crossfeed does NOT "fix this"), it's nothing more than a personal preference but unfortunately, because for you it was a "powerful moment", you've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to turn it into something more than just a personal preference. In your mind you've (falsely) turned it into an objective fact, which you then try to force on everyone else on the (false) basis that it is an objective fact and therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant of those facts/an ignoramus.

You're like some extremist born again Christian who can't separate faith from fact, gets very upset with anyone who refutes their "facts" and just keeps preaching their faith as fact regardless!

[1] Audiophiles due to their ignorance are among the most stubborn people when it comes to progress in audio.
[1a] They always defend the older inferior quality-degrading technologies until their last breath. It's funny to watch how they resist the advance of crossfeed nowadays in the same way they resisted earlier the appearance of standalone DACs ...
[2] I prefer to feed my VST plugins with 24-bit resolution files than 16-bit files as it increases the quality of processing.
[2a] In 5% cases I may also use a VST equalizer (DMG Equilibrium is my favorite), mainly to boost LF by 1.0-2.0 dB.

1. They are indeed apparently ignorant, as your post demonstrates! Because:
1a. You have this backwards! Crossfeed is an older, inferior quality-degrading technology that's been around far longer than any consumer digital audio, let alone "standalone DACs" and despite the fact that crossfeed has been around for many decades, it's never really caught on.

2. No it doesn't, it makes no difference whatsoever! Your VST plugins process at 32 or 64bit float regardless of whether you feed them 16bit or 24bit files.
2a. DMG make some excellent plugins, I use several myself on a daily basis, although I don't really see why a consumer would need such complex functionality for such a simple task, when a free EQ plugin would achieve the same thing. Dave Gamble is a highly knowledgeable and respected developer and unlike many, he's perfectly willing to engage with consumers, so you could ask him yourself!

G