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

[71 dB]

1. No one knows ALL the history, I certainly don't but I do know many of the most important, relevant and defining parts. You on the other hand apparently don't, you either completely ignore them or just make-up false histories.

2. The answer to your question is (unwittingly) in your very next sentence. Head Shadow is NOT just a "Level Difference", it is NOT created just by changing the level of a signal, it's a highly specific level difference created by an EQ reduction contour, which is defined by the absorption characteristics of an individual's head. Furthermore, "head shadow" is just ONE of several factors involved in the perception of spatial information and localisation.
2a. No, it's is NOT a scientific fact. It's a gross oversimplification of a scientific fact, EVEN if we were ONLY talking about ILD, which we are NOT! You/we are talking about the perception/localisation of spatial information (as a whole).

3. No, headphones without crossfeed means no head shadowing at all, there is no (head absorption) EQ reduction contour applied, "full" or partial! Headphones with crossfeed does not apply the head absorption EQ reduction contour either!

4. Which is why we have science in the first place, to stop us simply making-up (or extrapolating) any old understanding and justifying it with personal experiences!!

G

1. So you define the history you know relevant and the parts you don't know irrelevant? How convinient for you. I don't think I have made-up false histories.

2. Of course head shadow isn't just ILD. You know I know that, but you keep smearing me misunderstanding me on purpose. I know the factors involved in the spatial perception because I studied acoustics in the university. If I remember correctly, I got the highest grade 5/5 on the course that included this stuff.
2a. Yeah, oversimplification if you will. I know. Whatever.
3. YES! No head shadowing at all! That is 100 % wrong!!!! Crossfeed is a coarse simulation of the exact head shadow so it's less than 100 % wrong. The real head shadow effect is very complex as you say, but actually not that complex at low frequencies where crossfeed operates. That's why crossfeed is pretty good approximation despite being oversimplification. If my ears expect the ILD to be 0-6 dB at 200 Hz and no crossfeed gives 30 dB (acoustic leak) while crossfeed gives say 3 dB, crossfeed is MUCH closer even if the correct ILD would be 4.12 dB. If your salary is $3000 and your employer pays you $0 do you say that's better than if he/she pays you $2500 ? If I can't get the EXACT correct shadowing, I want something that is in the ballpark rather than nothing. Crossfeed allows me to get on the ballpark and spatial hearing can cope with the inaccuraties that aren't totally irrational.
5. Science has it's empirical side and some people agree with my personal experiencies

 

[bigshot]

It would be nice if you gathered all your responses into a single post rather than floods of little ones.

 

[gregorio]

1. So you define the history you know relevant and the parts you don't know irrelevant? How convinient for you.
[1a] I don't think I have made-up false histories.
2. Of course head shadow isn't just ILD. You know I know that, but you keep smearing me misunderstanding me on purpose.
[2.1] I know the factors involved in the spatial perception because I studied acoustics in the university. If I remember correctly, I got the highest grade 5/5 on the course that included this stuff.
2a. Yeah, oversimplification if you will. I know. Whatever.
3. YES! No head shadowing at all! That is 100 % wrong!!!! Crossfeed is a coarse simulation of the exact head shadow so it's less than 100 % wrong.
5. Science has it's empirical side and some people agree with my personal experiencies

1. You're joking? Subsequent history and current practice defines what (history) is important and relevant, not me, I've got nothing to do with it, I just learn what is already defined by history to be relevant/important. How do you not know this?
1a. So you are sticking with your "history" of the novelty factor of the LFE channel which didn't exist before Dolby Digital, despite the actual history which proves your "history" false? That stereo was likewise a new technology in the early 1960's, that Blumlein "didn't know any better" and various other false histories!

2. No, you are smearing yourself. You are the one who continually defines spatial perception by just ILD.
2.1 What's studying acoustics got to do with it? The "factors involved in the spatial perception" is the science of psychoacoustics, not acoustics!

3. Below about 500Hz to 800Hz there effectively is no head shadowing, as these freqs pass through (and/or around) the skull pretty much unimpeded. Above that range is where head shadowing (a complex individual EQ absorption curve) occurs. A "course simulation" of head shadowing would therefore be some approximated/simplified absorption EQ curve applied to the crossfed signal above 800Hz BUT YOU HAVE STATED that you don't don't crossfeed freqs above about 800Hz at all, let alone with any sort of EQ absorption curve! So, how is a complete absence of a crossfed signal with an EQ absorption curve "a course simulation of the exact head shadow"??

5. And at the time, the personal experiences of some people who actually used Stanley's Snake Oil was that it worked very well!

G

 

[71 dB]

1. You're joking? Subsequent history and current practice defines what (history) is important and relevant, not me, I've got nothing to do with it, I just learn what is already defined by history to be relevant/important. How do you not know this?
1a. So you are sticking with your "history" of the novelty factor of the LFE channel which didn't exist before Dolby Digital, despite the actual history which proves your "history" false? That stereo was likewise a new technology in the early 1960's, that Blumlein "didn't know any better" and various other false histories!

2. No, you are smearing yourself. You are the one who continually defines spatial perception by just ILD.
2.1 What's studying acoustics got to do with it? The "factors involved in the spatial perception" is the science of psychoacoustics, not acoustics!

3. Below about 500Hz to 800Hz there effectively is no head shadowing, as these freqs pass through (and/or around) the skull pretty much unimpeded. Above that range is where head shadowing (a complex individual EQ absorption curve) occurs. A "course simulation" of head shadowing would therefore be some approximated/simplified absorption EQ curve applied to the crossfed signal above 800Hz BUT YOU HAVE STATED that you don't don't crossfeed freqs above about 800Hz at all, let alone with any sort of EQ absorption curve! So, how is a complete absence of a crossfed signal with an EQ absorption curve "a course simulation of the exact head shadow"??

5. And at the time, the personal experiences of some people who actually used Stanley's Snake Oil was that it worked very well!

G

1. The importance of historical events is subjective and often even controversial! Sure, the history of audio isn't that controversial, but for most people the history of audio is not important. My dad is a million times more interested of the history of stamps (e.g. the stamps of French colonies in Africa) than the history of audio. We are among a very small minority of people who are interested of the history of audio. Also, instead of just accepting everything you read as "facts" you should be critical to what is told. From whose perspective the history is told? Does Russia tell the history of WW2 exactly the same way Germany does?

1a. I am not sticking with anything. I am ready to change my mind if necessory. I have never denied LFE before Dolby Digital, but having LFE in 70's doesn't automatically mean the bass content is as strong as it was in 90's. The style of mixing movie soundtrack surely changed over 2 decades. Maybe things like THX made it so that the audio reproduction gear in the theaters got better during the 80's and 90's? Perhaps where you live the levels in theaters are calibrated, but that's not the case in where I live, in Finland. Quiet screenings can be 10 dB quieter than loud screenings. Maybe the style of mixing changed around 1990 and theatres had to learn to use appropriate levels so that the low frequency effects don't "open the doors" as people where joking. There's theoretical and practical side to things. Many people really experienced more bass in the 90's than in the 70's in movie theaters? 70 mm screening where rare and maybe the sound reproduction gear wasn't on the same level as in the 90's after THX etc. improvements? Maybe the levels increased? Maybe the style of movie soundtracks changed? Maybe what I said has some credit?

EDIT (forgot to address):
Of course I know stereo had been demonstrated and used in the late 19th century, but in the late 50's it became commercially popular meaning artists started to have commercial intentions. That's how I see it. Correct me if I am wrong.

2. I talk about ILD a lot because it's so relevant when talking about crossfeed, but if you read my posts you can see me mention ITD, ISD and other things too.
2.1 In my university psychoacoustics is included in the acoustics courses. That's not surprising, because a lot of acoustics has very little meaning without the knowledge of psychoacoustics. This kind of attacks from your part are totally pointless.

3. Correct and that's why the ILD at low frequencies can't get larger than a few decibels unless the sound source is VERY near one ear. My passive crossfeeders use first order low pass filters meaning the "leakage" of sound to the contralateral ear dies out along -6 dB/octave slope above 800 Hz. So if the crossfeed level is say -5 dB, at 400 Hz the level is -6 dB (-1 dB point), at 800 Hz the level is -8 dB (-3 dB point), at 1600 Hz the level is -12 dB (-7 dB point) and at 12800 Hz the level has dropped to -29 dB (-24 dB point). Absoption curves at these low levels aren't very important, because the crossfed sounds are added to the ipsilateral sound which usually are much stronger so that errors are for the most part masked out. It's the ipsilateral EQ errors that actually count, but having no crossfeed also suffers from it! Headphone frequency target curves should address this issue anyway.

5. Snake oil makes people hear differences when there isn't any. Crossfeed clearly makes a difference (even people without analytical listening skills can tell the difference pretty easily) so it's not snake oil.

 

[bigshot]

Yawn.

 

[castleofargh]

1. The importance of historical events is subjective and often even controversial! Sure, the history of audio isn't that controversial, but for most people the history of audio is not important. My dad is a million times more interested of the history of stamps (e.g. the stamps of French colonies in Africa) than the history of audio. We are among a very small minority of people who are interested of the history of audio. Also, instead of just accepting everything you read as "facts" you should be critical to what is told. From whose perspective the history is told? Does Russia tell the history of WW2 exactly the same way Germany does?

1a. I am not sticking with anything. I am ready to change my mind if necessory. I have never denied LFE before Dolby Digital, but having LFE in 70's doesn't automatically mean the bass content is as strong as it was in 90's. The style of mixing movie soundtrack surely changed over 2 decades. Maybe things like THX made it so that the audio reproduction gear in the theaters got better during the 80's and 90's? Perhaps where you live the levels in theaters are calibrated, but that's not the case in where I live, in Finland. Quiet screenings can be 10 dB quieter than loud screenings. Maybe the style of mixing changed around 1990 and theatres had to learn to use appropriate levels so that the low frequency effects don't "open the doors" as people where joking. There's theoretical and practical side to things. Many people really experienced more bass in the 90's than in the 70's in movie theaters? 70 mm screening where rare and maybe the sound reproduction gear wasn't on the same level as in the 90's after THX etc. improvements? Maybe the levels increased? Maybe the style of movie soundtracks changed? Maybe what I said has some credit?

EDIT (forgot to address):
Of course I know stereo had been demonstrated and used in the late 19th century, but in the late 50's it became commercially popular meaning artists started to have commercial intentions. That's how I see it. Correct me if I am wrong.

2. I talk about ILD a lot because it's so relevant when talking about crossfeed, but if you read my posts you can see me mention ITD, ISD and other things too.
2.1 In my university psychoacoustics is included in the acoustics courses. That's not surprising, because a lot of acoustics has very little meaning without the knowledge of psychoacoustics. This kind of attacks from your part are totally pointless.

3. Correct and that's why the ILD at low frequencies can't get larger than a few decibels unless the sound source is VERY near one ear. My passive crossfeeders use first order low pass filters meaning the "leakage" of sound to the contralateral ear dies out along -6 dB/octave slope above 800 Hz. So if the crossfeed level is say -5 dB, at 400 Hz the level is -6 dB (-1 dB point), at 800 Hz the level is -8 dB (-3 dB point), at 1600 Hz the level is -12 dB (-7 dB point) and at 12800 Hz the level has dropped to -29 dB (-24 dB point). Absoption curves at these low levels aren't very important, because the crossfed sounds are added to the ipsilateral sound which usually are much stronger so that errors are for the most part masked out. It's the ipsilateral EQ errors that actually count, but having no crossfeed also suffers from it! Headphone frequency target curves should address this issue anyway.

5. Snake oil makes people hear differences when there isn't any. Crossfeed clearly makes a difference (even people without analytical listening skills can tell the difference pretty easily) so it's not snake oil.

in the graph below I'm using the settings you gave, applied to what I use at the moment to enjoy headphones more.
warning/explanation: the following FR graphs are only for one single sound source, one speaker 30° to the right and 0° altitude. the impulses are not my own but they're real measured HRIR of an actual human, and what subjectively works best for me so far when trying to keep the altitude and distance good enough to avoid complete nonsense in my brain:
-red is the direct response reaching the right ear.
-green is the FR from the same speaker when reaching the left ear and being masked by the head(as actually measured!).
-cyan is red with the -6dB/octave butterworth applied at 800Hz and the -5dB gain as you suggested in your post. so cyan is basically green minus the FR error you don't find very important to your otherwise so important ILD rational for correcting spatiality(to me that's a double standard and part of why I keep disagreeing with you).


you're going to argue that

Absoption curves at these low levels aren't very important

but my subjective impression emphatically disagrees with that opinion. out of all the crossfeed apps I've tried, even analog solution(I still own one amp with a setting for 2 levels of crossfeed), my made up stuff with custom ILD with some very small amount of reverb, and an EQ change for the headphone itself to better fit the simulation(basically making sure that mono is more or less at the right altitude when applying the convolution) is noticeably above the best experience I had of crossfeed. and still miles away from actually thinking I'm hearing speakers.
so are you wrong? are you missing out on something better because you refuse to give up after investing so much into basic crossfeed? are you simply lucky and you really happen to feel like crossfeed is fixing your subjective world? IDK. but I do know that there are many people with different experiences, different preferences and different ways to pretend that their views are objectively superior. among them, I know several who adore the amount of details they can get from headphones as they are. and most of those guys think that crossfeed degrades audio by making the bass feel weird, by making the singer sound veiled and EQed. and other arguments like that where they clearly consider the default headphone presentation as objectively superior. and just like you they can support their views by cherry picking the variables they consider important to win the argument. for example they will be able to pass a blind test and reach hearing thresholds well below what they will achieve on a pair of speakers with the same signal. therefore, they will have "evidence" that the experience has more fidelity. with crossfeed some of those threshold will inevitably rise. QED crossfeed is objectively inferior.
you're doing the exact same thing when you decide to disregard anything not improved or potentially degraded by crossfeed, while being stuck on discussing how crossfeed improves the variables you care about for "spatiality".
same same, but different, but the same. ultimately you like something and should simply enjoy it instead of trying to convert people to your righteous way of using headphones. there are many righteous ways of listening to music. some might say, all of them are.

 

[71 dB]

in the graph below I'm using the settings you gave, applied to what I use at the moment to enjoy headphones more.
warning/explanation: the following FR graphs are only for one single sound source, one speaker 30° to the right and 0° altitude. the impulses are not my own but they're real measured HRIR of an actual human, and what subjectively works best for me so far when trying to keep the altitude and distance good enough to avoid complete nonsense in my brain:
-red is the direct response reaching the right ear.
-green is the FR from the same speaker when reaching the left ear and being masked by the head(as actually measured!).
-cyan is red with the -6dB/octave butterworth applied at 800Hz and the -5dB gain as you suggested in your post. so cyan is basically green minus the FR error you don't find very important to your otherwise so important ILD rational for correcting spatiality(to me that's a double standard and part of why I keep disagreeing with you).

As these curves show, measured ILD is very small at low frequencies. The cyan curve might be proper crossfeed, because recordings don't always have infinite ILD as this graph suggests, in other words the result of applying cyan crossfeed curve to a stereo recording with limited ILD may give a result very close to the green curve, but there is also room acoustics involved. Room acoustics change spatiality compated to measurements in anechoic chamber, so we actually want something that is just below the green curve at low frequencies. Instead of about 1-2 dB at low frequencies, 3 dB is perhaps closer to what we have in a room. This simulation lacks treble boost for ipsilateral sound, but that's only a couple of desibels meaning the red curve should have a shelf-filtering of about +2 dB abouve 800 Hz.

Mind you that without crossfeed the cyan curve drops down so much it would hardly show up in this graph. How much is up to how much the headphones leak acoustically. Open headphones are better in this sense but still much worse than crossfeed.

 

[71 dB]

you're going to argue that but my subjective impression emphatically disagrees with that opinion. out of all the crossfeed apps I've tried, even analog solution(I still own one amp with a setting for 2 levels of crossfeed), my made up stuff with custom ILD with some very small amount of reverb, and an EQ change for the headphone itself to better fit the simulation(basically making sure that mono is more or less at the right altitude when applying the convolution) is noticeably above the best experience I had of crossfeed. and still miles away from actually thinking I'm hearing speakers. so are you wrong? are you missing out on something better because you refuse to give up after investing so much into basic crossfeed? are you simply lucky and you really happen to feel like crossfeed is fixing your subjective world? IDK. but I do know that there are many people with different experiences, different preferences and different ways to pretend that their views are objectively superior. among them, I know several who adore the amount of details they can get from headphones as they are. and most of those guys think that crossfeed degrades audio by making the bass feel weird, by making the singer sound veiled and EQed. and other arguments like that where they clearly consider the default headphone presentation as objectively superior. and just like you they can support their views by cherry picking the variables they consider important to win the argument. for example they will be able to pass a blind test and reach hearing thresholds well below what they will achieve on a pair of speakers with the same signal. therefore, they will have "evidence" that the experience has more fidelity. with crossfeed some of those threshold will inevitably rise. QED crossfeed is objectively inferior.
you're doing the exact same thing when you decide to disregard anything not improved or potentially degraded by crossfeed, while being stuck on discussing how crossfeed improves the variables you care about for "spatiality".
same same, but different, but the same. ultimately you like something and should simply enjoy it instead of trying to convert people to your righteous way of using headphones. there are many righteous ways of listening to music. some might say, all of them are.

This is "to crossfeed or not to crossfeed" tread, isn't it? The choices are crossfeed or not crossfeed. I consider HRIR convolutions crossfeed too, just more sophisticated. You convolve and add (crossfeed). You must know how it goes, don't you? That's just doing numerically what happens acoustically. So make up your mind about what you consider crossfeed! If you think you have a better way of crossfeeding than me then great for you! My point is almost any crossfeed method is better than no crossfeed because no crossfeed means most of the time excessive spatiality which CANNOT be ideal by definiton because it's excessive.

Am I missing out? Of course I am! I am not a billionaire who can do whatever I want. I have to use my limited resources and try to enjoy life the best I can. I think people who don't use any crossfeed are missing out. To me crossfeed is a bang for the buck solution to not miss out so much. All I know is crossfeed makes headphone listening much better for me. I totally disagree with people who think crossfeed makes bass weird. Bass with large ILD is weird, bass with small ILD is natural. But these people can do whatever they want and they should allow me to do whatever I want.

 

[gregorio]

1. We are among a very small minority of people who are interested of the history of audio.
[1.1] Also, instead of just accepting everything you read as "facts" you should be critical to what is told. [1.1a] From whose perspective the history is told?
1a. I have never denied LFE before Dolby Digital, but having LFE in 70's doesn't automatically mean the bass content is as strong as it was in 90's. The style of mixing movie soundtrack surely changed over 2 decades.
[1a1] Perhaps where you live the levels in theaters are calibrated, but that's not the case in where I live, in Finland.
[1a2] Quiet screenings can be 10 dB quieter than loud screenings.
[1a3] There's theoretical and practical side to things.
[1a4] ... maybe the sound reproduction gear wasn't on the same level as in the 90's after THX etc. improvements? Maybe the levels increased? Maybe the style of movie soundtracks changed? Maybe what I said has some credit?

1. If you are interested in the history of audio, why don't you actually learn some rather than just make-up your own?
1.1. Maybe we have a very different definition of what being "critical" means? For example, blindly accepting (and repeating it as fact) something that a fiend's brother told you, who once worked in a cinema, is pretty much the opposite of "being critical"! Furthermore, I do not just accept everything I read as facts, you just made that up! Sure, I've read a lot of facts but then in addition I've worked in some of those studios where the history was actually made and worked with some of the engineers (and/or their apprentices) who made it.
1.1a. Which is the more valid perspective: The witnessed, documented and verified history or, the perspective of someone just making-up a history to suit their agenda, which contradicts the documented history and who has no evidence. Or how about; the perspective of someone actually working in commercial dubbing theatres when the change to Dolby Digital occurred (and supported by both the technical documentation of Dolby themselves and the information given by Dolby engineers in person) or, the perspective of someone who was told something by the brother of a friend who once worked in a cinema?

1a. Exactly, the style (artistic intent) certainly did evolve over the two decades but now you are contradicting yourself because you have previously discounted artistic intent! And, you stated it changed/evolved in response to the novelty of the invention of the LFE in DD, which was false.
1a1. Again, if you are actually interested in the history, then why don't you actually learn the history instead of just making up false history to defend your assertions/beliefs? What you are stating would have been impossible! A cinema couldn't just go to a store and buy the Dolby equipment required to read and decode the Dolby Digital signal on 35mm film, it was only available direct from Dolby themselves and only under a licence agreement. The only way of getting the equipment was to make an appointment for a Dolby engineer to bring the equipment to your cinema and install it (which included calibration) and to maintain the terms of the licence agreement a Dolby engineer had to return every 6 months to check/adjust the calibration.
1a2. Today, certainly. But that's nothing to do with Dolby Digital 5.1, in fact quite the opposite! The theatrical distribution format of films today, and for quite a few years, is not 35mm film but the DCP (Digital Cinema Package). DCP does not support Dolby Digital 5.1 and therefore cinemas did not require a Dolby licence or the equipment to be installed and calibrated by Dolby engineers! Again, why don't you learn the actual facts rather than just putting two and two together and coming up with five?
1a3. There is indeed, so why are you now quoting both sides but previously completely ignored the practical side? For example, the practical side of mic usage to record music, which precludes "natural spatiality"?
1a4. That's a lot of "maybe's", why don't you actually find out/ask rather than just inventing a bunch of "maybe's"?

Of course I know stereo had been demonstrated and used in the late 19th century, but in the late 50's it became commercially popular meaning artists started to have commercial intentions. That's how I see it. Correct me if I am wrong.
2. I talk about ILD a lot because it's so relevant when talking about crossfeed ...
2.1 In my university psychoacoustics is included in the acoustics courses.
3. Correct and that's why the ILD at low frequencies can't get larger than a few decibels unless the sound source is VERY near one ear.
[3a] My passive crossfeeders use first order low pass filters meaning the "leakage" of sound to the contralateral ear dies out along -6 dB/octave slope above 800 Hz.
5. Snake oil makes people hear differences when there isn't any. Crossfeed clearly makes a difference (even people without analytical listening skills can tell the difference pretty easily) so it's not snake oil.

This isn't the "how 71dB sees it" forum, especially when "how 71dB sees it" contradicts the actual facts! Stereo music recordings only became available in 1957 and it became "commercially popular" over the course of well over a decade. The already quoted Stockhausen production demonstrates a huge amount of artistic intention a year before stereo was even released to the public, let alone was commercially popular! And, it's historical fact that EMI, Decca and others were experimenting with artistic intent with regards to natural spatiality long before 1957 when stereo became available to the public. You are free of course to "see it" however you want but this is the science forum and you can't simply state that "how you see it" is fact when it contradicts the actual facts!

2. But not so relevant when talking about spatiality when listening to music recordings (and therefore artistic intent).
2.1. So it was an (introductory) 101 acoustics course with some phsychoacoustics.

3. And why can't we have a sound source "VERY near one ear"? Is this some artistic intent law you've just invented?
3a. So a simple one pole filter then, not a simulation of a complex EQ absorption curve.

5. There was clearly a difference, whether one put "Snake Oil" on the afflicted joint or not. The question was not whether or not there was a difference but whether that difference correlated with an actual effect on the symptoms or merely the perception of an improvement (the placebo effect).

G

 

[bigshot]

I just play through speakers and get real spatiality, not synthetic approximations. Last night I was playing a 5.1 album and there's absolutely no way it could even sound remotely similar using headphones.

 

[71 dB]

I'm sorry my knowledge on history is lacking. It's possible my friends brother was wrong, but before this NOBODY has questioned it so I haven't had a reason to doubt it. People seem to agree that volume changes from screening to screening so calibration is what it is. My friend told that the volume really is changed and is not fixed. Maybe that's how it's done in Finland and the US operates differently? I don't know. I admit if made false statements of stereo. Maybe I have misunderstood something. Doesn't change much the facts of spatiality.

3. And why can't we have a sound source "VERY near one ear"?
3a. So a simple one pole filter then, not a simulation of a complex EQ absorption curve.

G

3. We can of course, but do we want that? Aren't sounds very near one ear annoting? Kind of tickling? One problem is contradictory spatial cues. ILD may indicate near sound, direct sound to reflections may indicate distant sound => contradiction. Sound very near ear are loud because they are near. How does it sound when kick drum goes off near ear? Hearing damage? Pain? Not nice. That's why we listen kickdrums from a distance, not very near and ILD at low frequencies is small. Listening to speakers the sound isn't very near unless good crosstalk canceling is used => artistic intention of near sound destroyed => do not have such intentions, because speakers destroy it.
3a. I thought I presented the circuits when I came here so I assumed you knew it's simple one pole filter. That's why it's so cheap and easy. Don't you even know what I have been talking about?

 

[71 dB]

I just play through speakers and get real spatiality, not synthetic approximations. Last night I was playing a 5.1 album and there's absolutely no way it could even sound remotely similar using headphones.

Do you really think all people in the World can have it as good as you? Didn't it take you 30 years to get to that point? I'm happy for you, but for 90 % of all people in the World what you have is utopia. Most people need MUCH more affordable solutions.

 

[bigshot]

Boo hoo hoo. I already told you I wasn’t going to feel sorry for you. Yes, speakers have much more spatiality than headphones ever will. Yes, cross feed is a compromise some people who are forced to use headphones make to take a little of the curse off that. But cross feed doesn’t create spatiality that doesn’t exist. If you want spatiality, you need speakers. It’s pretty simple. Even a small scale inexpensive stereo speaker system has more spatiality than the best headphones with cross feed.

 

[71 dB]

Boo hoo hoo. I already told you I wasn’t going to feel sorry for you. Yes, speakers have much more spatiality than headphones ever will. Yes, cross feed is a compromise some people who are forced to use headphones make to take a little of the curse off that. But cross feed doesn’t create spatiality that doesn’t exist. If you want spatiality, you need speakers. It’s pretty simple. Even a small scale inexpensive stereo speaker system has more spatiality than the best headphones with cross feed.

I think the spatiality I get from headphones crossfed is all I need. Recordings have spatiality in them, if they didn't what's the point of making stereophonic and multichannel recordings? Why not make mono recordings and let the speakers and room create true spatiality? When I watch my 32" TV I have miniature actors walking around, but still I can enjoy the movie. Similarly the scale of soundstage doesn't mean much for me. Miniature soundstage is enough as long as the spatiality appears natural and there is no excessive spatiality.

 

[bigshot]

If real spatiality isn't important to you, and headphones are fine for you, then that is great.