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

[bigshot]

Everything is uncalibrated in Finland... that's the problem right there!

 

[castleofargh]

 

[gregorio]

3. Most consumers don't care about spatiality.
3a. I don't know what definitions you accept. ...My preferred term is spatial distortion, but people here opposed that [3a1] so I started to use excessive spatiality, but apparently that's not good either. [3a2] You have a personal preference too which is that excessive spatiality is ok, even needed as artistical intent.
3b. Without crossfeed the spatiality is VERY messy and excessive. [3b1] Crossfeed improves the spatiality very much, the proper crossfeed level being about -2 dB.
[3b2] Are you saying I should consider this kind of personal experiences irrelevant?
[3b4] Why should I consider your personal experiences more relevant?

3. Do you have some reliable evidence to back that assertion up or did you just make it up? If we created a mix with no spatial information, say recorded it in an anechoic chamber and mixed it in mono with no added reverb or delay based effects, don't you think consumers would notice/care? But that's not the point, the actual point you made was the importance (to you) of NATURAL spatiality and consumers absolutely would care about that because the restriction of natural spatiality would preclude almost all rock and popular music recordings from around the mid/late 1960's onwards. Do you really think that if there were no rock or popular music genres most consumers wouldn't care? Isn't that the definition of "popular" music?
3a. As the spatial information in a recording is NOT distorted when replaying with headphones (without crossfeed), then why isn't it obvious that "spatial distortion" is an inappropriate term?
3a1. Of course that's not good either, the word "excessive" means "too much" and you have decided what is "too much" according to your perception/preferences, not according to objective fact but you are employing the term as an objective fact, which is false!
3a2. No, that's a FALSE assertion that you have just made-up! "Excessive" ("too much") spatiality is NEVER ok, where we differ is our opinion of what constitutes "too much". Artists NEVER create recordings with too much (excessive) spatiality, their recordings contain exactly the amount of spatiality they desired, which may or may not be "too much" according to your personal preferences!
3b. No it's not, it's actually not messy enough and there's not enough spatiality! Which is why I prefer it on speakers, which adds more spatiality and "mess" (the listening environment acoustics).
3b1. No it doesn't, it makes it worse! With crossfeed we still have the same amount of spatial information only now it's crossfed!
3b2. The answer is obvious and even in the question itself!!! Your personal experiences are relevant to YOU personally.
3b4. You shouldn't consider my personal experiences more relevant to YOU personally and I've NEVER stated that you should. HOWEVER, the fact that my personal experiences (perception and preferences) are different to yours, disproves your assertion that YOUR personal experiences are objective facts that apply to everyone, because they do not apply to me (and others). Your solution to this problem is effectively to state that our personal experiences are invalid (because we are idiots and ignorant) and therefore do not contradict your assertion. However, you've got no reliable evidence to support this statement AND you have no reliable evidence to support your assertion that your personal experiences/preferences are objective facts that apply to everyone. The OBVIOUS, RATIONAL conclusion is that your personal preferences are just that, YOUR personal preferences and not everyone else's!

[1] No crossfeed is MUCH worse coarse simulation than crossfeed.
[2] I never said stereo was invented in 1950's, because I know the first experiments were in 1880's!

1. Clearly that statement is false, it might be better for you but it's not for me (and others), so your statement is not a general or objective fact. AND, not crossfeeding obviously has no HRTF simulation at all.

2.This is what you actually stated: "In the 50's the stereophonic commercial sound format finally arrived and stereo sound because a marketing gimmick. That kind of thing often happens with new technology: When digital sound formats arrived to movie theatres in early 90's and allowed extremely strong low frequency effects, movies of that era used excessive bass to exploit the new technological possibilities until the low frequency effects returned to more rational levels." - Again, you are contradicting yourself, if you know the first experiments were in the 1880's how could it be a gimmicky new technology 70 years later?

1. I don't know why you don't see what I say is based on facts so I don't know what to say.
2. Dolby Digital 5.1 or not, you whether have calibrated fixed levels or you don't have.
[2a] According to this article from 2013 there is no fixed calibrated level in Finland.
3. I am NOT clueless!

1. You're joking? When challenged enough you admitted to just making-up some facts, you also eventually admitted another of your facts was wrong, because you failed to check something you were told by the brother of a friend but despite that admission, you are STILL arguing about it? ...

2. What do you mean Dolby Digital 5.1 or not, what other digital audio format "arrived to movie theatres in the early 1990's"?
2a. So let me get this straight; You make-up (or according to you, repeat) a false fact, admit it was wrong, carry on defending that false assertion anyway and to support it you post an article about loud theatrical sound 20 years later, when that "new technology" (Dolby Digital 5.1) didn't even exist as a theatrical audio format any more! Any you wonder "why I don't see what you say is based on fact"? I do see that it's based on facts, FALSE facts!

3. Then why are you so determined to prove that you are?

G

 

[71 dB]

3. Do you have some reliable evidence to back that assertion up or did you just make it up? If we created a mix with no spatial information, say recorded it in an anechoic chamber and mixed it in mono with no added reverb or delay based effects, don't you think consumers would notice/care? But that's not the point, the actual point you made was the importance (to you) of NATURAL spatiality and consumers absolutely would care about that because the restriction of natural spatiality would preclude almost all rock and popular music recordings from around the mid/late 1960's onwards. Do you really think that if there were no rock or popular music genres most consumers wouldn't care? Isn't that the definition of "popular" music?

G

Crossfed rock doesn't become non-rock so the music wouldn't disappear by reducing excessive spatiality. You may have 20 dB ILD on a rock album, but that ILD is reduced to about 3 at low frequencies with speakers.

 

[71 dB]

3a. As the spatial information in a recording is NOT distorted when replaying with headphones (without crossfeed), then why isn't it obvious that "spatial distortion" is an inappropriate term?
3a1. Of course that's not good either, the word "excessive" means "too much" and you have decided what is "too much" according to your perception/preferences, not according to objective fact but you are employing the term as an objective fact, which is false!
3a2. No, that's a FALSE assertion that you have just made-up! "Excessive" ("too much") spatiality is NEVER ok, where we differ is our opinion of what constitutes "too much". Artists NEVER create recordings with too much (excessive) spatiality, their recordings contain exactly the amount of spatiality they desired, which may or may not be "too much" according to your personal preferences!
3b. No it's not, it's actually not messy enough and there's not enough spatiality! Which is why I prefer it on speakers, which adds more spatiality and "mess" (the listening environment acoustics).
3b1. No it doesn't, it makes it worse! With crossfeed we still have the same amount of spatial information only now it's crossfed!
3b2. The answer is obvious and even in the question itself!!! Your personal experiences are relevant to YOU personally.
3b4. You shouldn't consider my personal experiences more relevant to YOU personally and I've NEVER stated that you should. HOWEVER, the fact that my personal experiences (perception and preferences) are different to yours, disproves your assertion that YOUR personal experiences are objective facts that apply to everyone, because they do not apply to me (and others). Your solution to this problem is effectively to state that our personal experiences are invalid (because we are idiots and ignorant) and therefore do not contradict your assertion. However, you've got no reliable evidence to support this statement AND you have no reliable evidence to support your assertion that your personal experiences/preferences are objective facts that apply to everyone. The OBVIOUS, RATIONAL conclusion is that your personal preferences are just that, YOUR personal preferences and not everyone else's!

G

3a. Spatial distortion happens in the brain and is caused by excessive spatial information which the brain can't decode property. That's why it is a good name imo.
3a1. Science of spatial hearing tells as what is too much.
3a2. Luckily I have crossfeed to sort out the disagreements between the artist and me.
3b. Speakers + room add spatial information (reflections, reverb especially), but the ILD at low frequencies goes toward about 3 dB which typically means reduction on ILD.
3b1. We have a MUCH BETTER coarse simulation of acoustic crossfeed of direct sound with speakers.
3b2. Yes, very much so.
3b4. You can't deny that crossfeed means MUCH BETTER coarse simulation than no crossfeed. My claim can be OBJECTIVELY proven by comparing signals. Below 800 Hz crossfeed gives significantly closer results compared to "perfect" HRTF convolution or speakers listening in a anechoic chamber. You can't debunk this claim no matter how hard you try. All you can do is say HRTF convolution is better and you are correct, it is, but this is crossfeed vs no crossfeed and in that battle crossfeed wins no matter what you try.

 

[bigshot]

Distortion can definitely happen inside the brain.

 

[71 dB]

1. Clearly that statement is false, it might be better for you but it's not for me (and others), so your statement is not a general or objective fact. AND, not crossfeeding obviously has no HRTF simulation at all.

2.This is what you actually stated: "In the 50's the stereophonic commercial sound format finally arrived and stereo sound because a marketing gimmick. That kind of thing often happens with new technology: When digital sound formats arrived to movie theatres in early 90's and allowed extremely strong low frequency effects, movies of that era used excessive bass to exploit the new technological possibilities until the low frequency effects returned to more rational levels." - Again, you are contradicting yourself, if you know the first experiments were in the 1880's how could it be a gimmicky new technology 70 years later?

1. What you seem to not realize even at this point is that there ought to be something, whether the real deal or a simulation. The fact that no crossfeed omits this something is the damn problem and the cause of spatial distortion. That's why I use crossfeed: To have that something and avoid spatial distortion in my brain. You can have this something implemented in the recording itself by producing omnistereophonic recordings so that the headphone user doesn't need crossfeed, but you have been very much against any regulation of artistic intent conserning spatiality and even if 100 % of recordings from today onward were omnistereophonic, there's decades worth of stereo recordings which need crossfeed.

2. You don't need marketing gimmicks if you don't have a mass product to sell. In the late 1950's stereophonic sound became finally a mass product, and marketing gimmicks started to have a purpose. Apparently I need to explain everything as if you were a child to not be smeared by you.

1. You're joking? When challenged enough you admitted to just making-up some facts, you also eventually admitted another of your facts was wrong, because you failed to check something you were told by the brother of a friend but despite that admission, you are STILL arguing about it? …

2. What do you mean Dolby Digital 5.1 or not, what other digital audio format "arrived to movie theatres in the early 1990's"?
2a. So let me get this straight; You make-up (or according to you, repeat) a false fact, admit it was wrong, carry on defending that false assertion anyway and to support it you post an article about loud theatrical sound 20 years later, when that "new technology" (Dolby Digital 5.1) didn't even exist as a theatrical audio format any more! Any you wonder "why I don't see what you say is based on fact"? I do see that it's based on facts, FALSE facts!

3. Then why are you so determined to prove that you are?

G

1. My facts being wrong doesn't automatically mean yours are correct.
2. To my knowledge DTS and SDDS.
2a. Because I am confused about what we are arguing about. What does the sound format matter? Whether you have a volume knob or you don't (fixed calibrated levels). I think I have demonstrated that in Finland those volume knobs exists and they are used.
3. Because you keep challenging me.

 

[bfreedma]

 

[jgazal]

Distortion can definitely happen inside the brain.

I miss Oliver Sacks:

 

[sonitus mirus]

It should be played at Wimbledon because the participants could benefit from competing on "grass."

 

[Steve999]

. . .

 

[Davesrose]

I miss Oliver Sacks:

At least he was prolific in his personalized stories of people with various conditions. He was generous and always thought first about how a particular person (with often unique afflictions) saw the world in their own eyes (and IMO, what made his work really great: he was far from clinical). I read quite a bit of his works while growing up, and did read his account of Temple Grandin before seeing her own biography (such as Claire Daine's performance). I've bookmarked your video. Another story I remember reading from Sacks is the case of a surgeon with Turrets: he needed to have music in the OR to not have any incidence. I did see the intro of the vid where he mentions music might be unique to humans...even though there are mating songs of different animals. Well whether there are other species that have a sense of music, I do think it's interesting how anyone does identify with music (I've notice people who are even tone deaf can be deeply moved with music). That we can savor particular stimuli (auditory, visual, taste, touch, smell)...I do think it's an indication that it's evolutionary.

 

[gregorio]

3a. Spatial distortion happens in the brain and is caused by excessive spatial information which the brain can't decode property.
3a1. Science of spatial hearing tells as what is too much.
3a2. Luckily I have crossfeed to sort out the disagreements between the artist and me.
3b. Speakers + room add spatial information (reflections, reverb especially) ...
3b1. We have a MUCH BETTER coarse simulation of acoustic crossfeed of direct sound with speakers.

3a. No it doesn't, you just made that up! Maybe YOUR brain is weird "can't decode spatial information properly" and then creates some sort of imaginary "spatial distortion" but that's YOUR brain, my brain does NOT do that. Therefore, your statement is FALSE! Spatial distortion does NOT happen in "THE" brain, it happens in YOUR brain. This is your big problem throughout your postings, you assume/assert that what your brain is creating/imagining is the same as what everyone else's brain is doing, despite the fact that you've presented no reliable evidence to support that assertion AND despite the fact that it's disproven by my (and many others) perception.
Furthermore, by your own admission this weird imaginary/perceived "distortion" is a creation/product of your brain, the actual signal itself (without crossfeed) does NOT have any "spatial distortion". Your use of the term is therefore incorrect as the term "spatial distortion" means an actual distortion of spatial information and there isn't any. A more accurate term would therefore be "your personal imaginary distortion"!

3a1. No it does NOT! If you assert that it does, then you must present that science. However, after over a year you have still NOT done so and of course you can't, because there is no science that tells us what is "too much". All the science tells us is the limits of certain aspects of spatiality as they occur naturally/in nature but of course that's irrelevant because we're not dealing with what occurs naturally! Music recordings do not exist in nature, they are an entirely man-made invention/creation, they virtually NEVER comply with "what occurs naturally/in nature" and are deliberately designed not to, because they are are designed as an art form, NOT an accurate documentary/record of "what occurs in nature". "Too much"/"excessive" is therefore your individual, personal preference, NOT an objective or scientific fact!

3a2. You mean: "Luckily you have crossfeed to lower the fidelity of the artistic intention". As music itself (as well as the recordings of music) is the actual embodiment of artistic intention, then I wouldn't say "luckily", I would say "ignorantly" but it's your recording to reproduce however you choose. So, playback your music recordings from a vinyl LP, with a valve amp and crossfeed if that's what YOU like/prefer but don't assert here or tell me that's actually "better" for me and everyone else!!!

3b. Why would anyone want to "add spatial information" to recordings that (according to you) already have too much spatial information? So everyone who prefers to listen to music recordings on speakers (which add even more spatial information) are what, idiots, ignorant?
3b1. Again, you must stop simply making-up FALSE assertions! I (and others) have repeatedly told you that I do NOT perceive/experience a better simulation of HRTF with crossfeed, in fact, I often don't perceive crossfeed as any sort of HRTF simulation, let alone a "better" one. So, your assertion is proven FALSE, "We" do NOT "have a much better simulation"! For your assertion to be true, you could ONLY state: "I personally perceive a much better simulation".

1. What you seem to not realize even at this point is that there ought to be something, whether the real deal or a simulation.
2. You don't need marketing gimmicks if you don't have a mass product to sell.
2a. Apparently I need to explain everything as if you were a child to not be smeared by you.

1. Why on earth would I want to realise at any point (let alone "even at this point") that a false assertion is true? Presumably, you'd agree that there doesn't "ought to be something" with a binaural recording? What about with a stereo recording which is not binaural but has been designed for headphone listening?
2. Exactly my point! Both natural and unnatural spatiality, were explored many years before stereo was a consumer product, let alone a mass product. Even extreme unnatural spatiality (Stockhausen for example) was created before stereo was a consumer product, so how could it be a marketing gimmick if you don't have a mass product to sell?
2a. Well of course you do, because if you explained it as an adult then it wouldn't make any sense! It's like trying to explain that Santa Claus is real, try doing that to anyone other than a child and see what happens!

1. My facts being wrong doesn't automatically mean yours are correct.
2. To my knowledge DTS and SDDS.
2a. Because I am confused about what we are arguing about.
[2b] I think I have demonstrated that in Finland those volume knobs exists and they are used.
3. Because you keep challenging me.

1. No, but it does automatically mean that your facts/assertions are wrong, duh! And of course, anyone is free to check if my facts are correct.

2. DTS and SDDS both came some years after Dolby Digital. However, it makes no real difference to your (false) assertion because they all had the same SPL calibration, which was the same as the previous analogue theatrical audio format!
2a. That proves my point then! You are just arguing, even though you admit you don't know what you're arguing about and apparently don't care about logic, if your facts are wrong or mine are correct. Do you think that's what a smart, educated person would do or do you think that it's pretty much the exact opposite? ... As it's pretty much the exact opposite, then why don't you expect us to give you the respect due to the opposite of a smart educated person?
2b. You have demonstrated that, however there was no need to, because firstly, I already know that and secondly, it's IRRELEVANT to your assertion anyway! What you have demonstrated pertains to more than 20 years AFTER dolby digital was a "new technology" and in fact so long after, that not only wasn't Dolby Digital a "new technology" but it was such an old technology that it wasn't even supported by theatrical systems any more! And incidentally, neither were DTS or SDDS. The digital technology (DCP) that replaced 35mm film in the 2000's ONLY allows wav audio format, none of the data compressed audio formats (DD, DTS, etc) are supported!!

3. Again, that's EXACTLY my point! You are choosing to place your desire to not be challenged above any desire to be factually accurate (or even logical) and therefore above any desire to be respected as anything other than "clueless". That's your choice of course but you cannot blame me or anyone else for your choice! Also, the whole point of this sub-forum is to be factually accurate, so your choice is not valid here.

G

 

[mindbomb]

@gregorio

He's right about spatial distortion. This can be demonstrated by listening to a regular audio track on headphones and then listening to it again on speakers. People can note a big difference in the imaging, a result of the distortion of headphones.

 

[71 dB]

3a. No it doesn't, you just made that up! Maybe YOUR brain is weird "can't decode spatial information properly" and then creates some sort of imaginary "spatial distortion" but that's YOUR brain, my brain does NOT do that. Therefore, your statement is FALSE! Spatial distortion does NOT happen in "THE" brain, it happens in YOUR brain. This is your big problem throughout your postings, you assume/assert that what your brain is creating/imagining is the same as what everyone else's brain is doing, despite the fact that you've presented no reliable evidence to support that assertion AND despite the fact that it's disproven by my (and many others) perception.
Furthermore, by your own admission this weird imaginary/perceived "distortion" is a creation/product of your brain, the actual signal itself (without crossfeed) does NOT have any "spatial distortion". Your use of the term is therefore incorrect as the term "spatial distortion" means an actual distortion of spatial information and there isn't any. A more accurate term would therefore be "your personal imaginary distortion"!

3a1. No it does NOT! If you assert that it does, then you must present that science. However, after over a year you have still NOT done so and of course you can't, because there is no science that tells us what is "too much". All the science tells us is the limits of certain aspects of spatiality as they occur naturally/in nature but of course that's irrelevant because we're not dealing with what occurs naturally! Music recordings do not exist in nature, they are an entirely man-made invention/creation, they virtually NEVER comply with "what occurs naturally/in nature" and are deliberately designed not to, because they are are designed as an art form, NOT an accurate documentary/record of "what occurs in nature". "Too much"/"excessive" is therefore your individual, personal preference, NOT an objective or scientific fact!

3a2. You mean: "Luckily you have crossfeed to lower the fidelity of the artistic intention". As music itself (as well as the recordings of music) is the actual embodiment of artistic intention, then I wouldn't say "luckily", I would say "ignorantly" but it's your recording to reproduce however you choose. So, playback your music recordings from a vinyl LP, with a valve amp and crossfeed if that's what YOU like/prefer but don't assert here or tell me that's actually "better" for me and everyone else!!!

3b. Why would anyone want to "add spatial information" to recordings that (according to you) already have too much spatial information? So everyone who prefers to listen to music recordings on speakers (which add even more spatial information) are what, idiots, ignorant?
3b1. Again, you must stop simply making-up FALSE assertions! I (and others) have repeatedly told you that I do NOT perceive/experience a better simulation of HRTF with crossfeed, in fact, I often don't perceive crossfeed as any sort of HRTF simulation, let alone a "better" one. So, your assertion is proven FALSE, "We" do NOT "have a much better simulation"! For your assertion to be true, you could ONLY state: "I personally perceive a much better simulation".

G

3a. I'm sure your brain decodes excessive spatiality into spatial distortion, but you don't realize it is spatial distortion. I didn't realize it either before 2012. I though of it just "headphone spatiality" which is what it is, but in 2012 I realized what it is and that you can reduce and even remove it. You can tell 1000 times these things happen only in my mind, but how do you explain other people enjoying crossfeed and finding benefits in using it? Why was crossfeed a thing long before I discovered it? Why did Siegfried Linkwitz create and publish his "Improved Headphone Listening" article in 1971? Why did Benjamin Bauer create crossfeeders 10 years before that? Something wrong with their brain too?

The original signal doesn't have spatial distortion, because it's out of context spatial information. Stereo sound is technical two mono signals with varying degree of correlation between the audio channels. The spatial information doesn't know HOW it is fed to our ears. Speakers? Headphones? The type of listening device and environment gives the spatial context and only then we know if spatial distortion exists in that particular context or not. In context of speaker listening spatial distortion doesn't exist, but in context of headphone listening spatial distortion is very common. Spatial distortion is not "imaginary". It's a result of how our spatial hearing works. I believe that all people hear spatial distortion, but only some people recognise it to be spatial distortion, result of something being wrong in the listening context.

3a1. Even the most obscure music creation listened with speakers is just two loudspeakers radiating mono sound into a room and there is no "too much" of spatiality. The same recording with headphones (completely different context) means too much spatiality unless we "naturalize" the spatiality with crossfeed or some other way like HRTF convolution.

3a2. Does applying RIAA playback EQ lower fidelity? No, because such equalizing is expected to happen with vinyl. Similarly crossfeed is expected to happen meaning it is not lower fidelity, it is HIGHER fidelity because spatial distortion created by brain is avoided.

3b. I didn't say anything about people wanting to add spatial information, but that's what happens with speaker. Adding natural spatiality is very different from having excessive spatiality. Adding spatial information in the form of reverb and reflections doesn't increase ILD, on the contrary it more or less decreases it.

3b1. Crossfeed is more of a spatial distortion reducer than HRTF simulator. To me the benefits of crossfeed are:

- Realistic "physical" bass instead of "fake" sounding bass.
- Reduced listening fatique
- Ordered solid soundstage instead of a fractured mess all over the place
- Miniature soundstage instead of head-sized microsoundstage.
- Lack of "sounds touching/tickling my ears" annoyance.
- More musical detail thanks to spatial distortion not masking stuff.

Crossfeed does not give speaker-like large soundstages or ultrarealistic binaural/HRTF convolution -type of sound, but the benefits above are so huge that crossfeed revolutionized my headphone listening.