gregorio
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Posts
- 6,901
- Likes
- 4,134
Crossfeed in my opinion makes the stereo image cleaner, it's kind of focusing a unfocused picture so that instruments don't overlap eaxh other or be scattered all over..... This is my friedly opinion.
Firstly, NO, that is NOT your "friendly" opinion because time and again you state it as objective fact and insult those who do NOT share your opinion. Secondly, your opinion is WRONG! What's actually happening is the exact opposite of what you describe; crossfeed is kind of like unfocusing a focused picture so that instruments DO overlap each other because obviously, you are taking the signal from one channel and overlapping it on the other. I don't doubt that you personally are somehow perceiving a "cleaner stereo image" with crossfeed but that's just your personal perception. Unfortunately, instead of realising that it's obviously not a cleaner stereo image but just a function of your personal perception, you cherry-pick scientific facts and misrepresent or simply make-up other facts in a fallacious attempt to turn your personal perception into an objective fact! How many times?
1. Which is just a more polite version of what you've falsely stated previously. Firstly, the implication of your statement (which you've expressed explicitly in the past) is that if someone disagrees or doesn't perceive what you're perceiving, it's not because they simply have different perception to you but because they haven't put in the effort to "get used to it [crossfeed]", which is just a politer variation of they're idiots, ignorant, etc. Secondly, your statement is self-contradictory and doesn't make any logical sense! If, as you claim, crossfeed somehow makes the spatiality "natural", why would anyone need to "get used to it"? Surely they've had their entire life to "get used to" natural spatiality? So, if someone needs to "get used to" crossfeed, it must be because crossfeed is NOT natural spatiality![1] As I said I think jumping to the world of crossfeed takes "getting used to".
[2] The sound is less sparkly and energetic and even more monolike so if you are into "special effects" you may find it disappointed at first, but for me the "sparkle" comes back in a minute or so when my ears adjust to the lower levels of ILD, only better!
2. Firstly, NO, obviously the sound is NOT less "sparkly and energetic" because obviously it's exactly the same sound just crossfed!! Secondly, how does the "sparkle" come back? Does your DAC or crossfeeder know when your ears have "adjusted to the lower levels of ILD" and change the FR of it's output or, is this just a function of your personal perception? The former would be an objective fact (but obviously isn't what happens) and the latter is just a function of your personal perception and is NOT objective fact! How many times?
1. This is NOT the "71dB's opinion" forum, it's the science forum. What "matters the most" to you is a preference, your personal preference, NOT a scientific fact![1] Does this diffrence matter? What parts do matter? I think everything matter, but the difference in ILD levels (lack of acoustic crossfeed) is in my opinion the thing that matters the most. [1a] The lack of ER and reverberation is less of a problem, because recordings tend to have own spatiality, all kinds of reverberations and delay effects used.
1a. NO, the "lack of ER and reverberation is less of a problem" because that's your personal preference, NOT because "recordings tend to have their own spatiality"!
1. Exactly, "for you" (your perception/preference) but not for everyone. For me, the BIG issue that needs fixing is a lack of depth, crossfeed doesn't fix that issue and typically makes other aspects worse, hence NO crossfeed! The difference is that I realise this is my personal perception/preference, so I don't falsely assert it's an objective fact and I don't insult you because you have a different perception/preference!!! How many times?[1] So, for me the lack of acoustic crossfeed is the BIG issue that really needs fixing, hence crossfeed. I believe you can improve sound by fixing only one thing.
[2] You may have both distortion and silly bass boost in your sound and fixing only either the distortion OR the silly bass boost would improve sound even when the other remains. I don't see giant holes in my picture, because I am not talking about "the most natural" spatiality, but "more natural" spatiality.
2. Firstly, obviously crossfeed doesn't fix distortion in the recording! Secondly, I personally prefer to hear the "bass boost" the artists/engineers have put in the recording, regardless of my personal opinion/tastes (even if I think it's "silly"). You of course are entitled to a different preference but what you are NOT entitled to do here, is state that your preference is an objective fact that "improves the sound"! How many times?
[1] Can people hear snake oil cables in blind tests? Can people hear crossfeed in blind test? Clearly I am not "selling" snake oil, because the effects of crossfeed are easy for everyone to hear. The only debate is whether the effect is positive or negative.
[2] It's interesting how selling snake oil is easier than selling crossfeed.
[2a] Crossfeed market is small and people tend to make their own crossfeeders including me.
1. Despite it being CLEARLY explained to you TWICE, you STILL don't understand the analogy! So, let's use a different one, vinyl for example. Yes the debate IS whether the effect is positive or negative one. In a blind test it's reasonably trivial to differentiate vinyl from digital. Most likely there would be someone who preferred the vinyl to the digital, would this prove that vinyl is higher fidelity or "improved sound" relative to digital or would it just be a function of their preferences/perception? If this person stated that in their opinion vinyl is higher fidelity (on the basis that it sounded better to them), would that opinion be an objective/scientific fact or would it be contrary to the actual facts/science?
2. Not here in this forum it's not! No one is saying that crossfeed is snake oil, what's snake oil is your false assertions that your preferences are objective facts. How many times?
2a. If it's an objective fact that crossfeed makes headphone presentation more natural, why is it such a small market? Why isn't crossfeed a standard default on all headphones? How many times?
1. How many aspects of speakers in a room do headphones take in to account? Zero. No wonder the result is nonsencical spatiality.
[1a] One aspect is better than none. A washing machine really is more closer to F1 than handwashing in a sink.
2a. You must renovate your whole house, renovation only the kitchen is not an improvement?
[2a1] I don't keep things in isolation. [2a2] I talk about what matters, what is relevant as you say.
[2a3] You say I talk about ILD, but not ITD. That's because ILD matters and ITD doesn't matter in THIS context. Why?
[2a4] Because crossfeed to mess up with ITD it must be correct in the first place,
[2a5] but how could it be when recordings are mixed for speakers assuming acoustic crossfeed, ER and room acoustics?
[2a6] My claim is ITD is very messed up with headphones (because there is not acoustic crossfeed, ER or reverberation) and crossfeed makes it less messed up if anything.
[2a7] That's why I don't need to address it as a problem, because it is not.
[2a8] If ITD was perfect for headphones, we would have problems with speakers since acoustic crossfeed, ER and reverberation of the listening room mess up things.
1. And how many aspects of natural spatiality do "speakers in a room" take into account? Zero. No wonder the result is nonsensical spatiality! You say you've studied, understand and take the science of acoustics into account but then your arguments deliberately ignore them, why is that? Even if recordings contained perfectly natural spatiality (which they don't), how would having the perfect spatial information of of say a large church inside your small living room be "sensical" spatiality? We pretty much never have "sensical"/"natural" spatiality, regardless of speakers or headphones and your failure to understand or take into account why the spatial information on commercial recordings might seem to be somewhat (or entirely) natural when played back on speakers is largely what invalidates many/most of your factual assertions! How many times?
1a. That's just unbelievably self-contradictory and ridiculous, only by ignoring the whole purpose of a F1 race car (and a washing machine) can you make such a statement, unless you're just insane? And, NO, one aspect is NOT better than none, because you consistently ignore the fact that by improving that one aspect (with crossfeed) you damage other aspects. Your analogy is a perfect example:
2a. If in the process of renovating your kitchen you wreck your living room, then as far as your whole house is concerned, NO, renovating only the kitchen is NOT an improvement, it's probably worse!
2a1. BUT you've just done exactly that! You've isolated the kitchen from the rest of the house and are ignoring what you've done to the sitting room!
2a2. Maybe you never use the sitting room and all that matters to you is the kitchen but that's just YOU, other people do use their sitting room, it does matter to them and as far as the "whole house" is concerned it's entirely relevant and it's falsehood for you to state otherwise!!
2a3. Exactly, WHY?? The answer appears to be: Because "this context" is someone who's fixated on ILD and ignores/dismisses everything else! And then to justify that position you simply make-up more nonsense:
2a4. And here's the nonsense! Obviously, you CAN have messed-up ITD (or anything else) and mess it up even more!
2a5. You've answered your own question BUT you continually refuse to accept the obvious fact! Recordings that are mixed for speakers assume a combination of crossfeed, ER and other room acoustics, they do NOT assume ONLY acoustic crossfeed!! How many times?
2a6. And how does just endlessly repeating that obviously false claim make it true? We have all sorts of messed-up time/delay (spatial) information on just about all commercial music recordings. Crossfeed cannot and does deconstruct the recording and magically make that "messed-up" time/delay information less messed-up, all it does is crossfeed the signal. So what we have is, if anything, even more "messed-up" because we've "messed-up" the directional information the time/delay information also contains. Again, you personally seem to perceive this as somehow less messed-up and more natural, even though it's really the opposite, but that's a function of your perception, not what's actually occurring! How many times?
2a7. That's obviously nonsense! You're admitting you're basing this assertion on the assertion in the previous point, which is also demonstrably false! Furthermore, if it wasn't a problem then pretty much everyone would use crossfeed as standard and no one would have bothered to try to improve it (with HRTFs, etc.), another fact you refuse to acknowledge. How many times? The REAL reason YOU don't need to "address it as a problem" is because YOU personally are incapable of perceiving it and with simple crossfeed everything sounds fine and dandy to you. But then that's an issue of your personal perception, not of what's actually occurring! How many times?
2a8. Yes, we do have problems with speakers and the acoustics of the mix studio/listening room does mess things up, which is why we have music recording, mixing and mastering engineers in the first place (rather than just a computer doing it all automatically)! If you had a basic/reasonable understanding of this (and the implications of it), then a lot of your nonsense assertions would stop/disappear!
1. You don't seem to understand that cherry-picked scientific facts is NOT science, it's pseudoscience or complete irrelevant nonsense. Again, skin effect is a scientific fact but cherry-picking that one scientific fact, ignoring the others (such as skin effect doesn't affect audible frequencies) and applying that one scientific fact to analogue audio cables is NOT a "scientific point of view", it's the opposite, a perversion of the science! How many times?[1] What I have tried to do is justify the use of crossfeed from scientific point of view, cherry picked or not.
[2] It's not like crossfeed was invented "accidentally" without scientific reason. It was reasoned from the facts that ILD is larger with headphones than speakers. Attacking my arguments you kind of attack also those pioneers who invented crossfeed.
[3] I thought I had finally discovered the purpose of my life being a messias of universal truth of crossfeed ...
[3a] I still have nothing to offer to the World except insults. [3b] Depressing.
2. Huh? Using your logic, science itself is kind of attacking "those pioneers who invented crossfeed", by dropping crossfeed in favour of more sophisticated models and of course the "proof of the pudding" is that crossfeed is as you say, a small market because in practice it doesn't work (is not preferable) for many people. I don't subscribe to your logic though!
3. That's a pretty serious error of judgement on a number of different levels! Firstly in trying to be a messiah of anything. Secondly, picking something that maybe a truth for you but isn't a universal truth and lastly, trying to achieve that in a science forum!!!
3a. And insults are just as unacceptable here as falsely presenting a preference as a "universal truth".
3b. That's up to you. But just endlessly repeating the same false "universal truth" is not going to change anything here. Which brings us back again to the cliche attributed to Einstein, which you're ignoring!
G
Last edited: