[1] Can I stop calling it an objective fact, stop insulting people or am I "doomed" for the rest of my life?
[2] Questions I have for you:
[2a] Why do I experience a more focused stereo image with crossfeed?
[2b] Why doesn't this unfocusing happen with speakers due to acoustic crossfeed?
[2b1] The soundwaves from speakers clearly overlap on each other! Not only that, but you have early reflections and reverberation all overlapping! Should be an epic mess if overlapping was such a problem you say it is with crossfeed.
[2b2] My understanding of this is that overlapping is only a problem if it happens in a certain way (some people call it simply "bad acoustics" for example) and luckily the way it normally happens in speaker listening or in crossfeed isn't that bad.
1. Why are you asking me/us? It's entirely up to you!
2a. Because that's simply the result of your personal perception trying to interpret the mess of spatial information that a commercial music recording contains but different people's perception will interpret it differently. How many times?
2b. It DOES happen with speakers. How many times?
2b1. It IS an epic mess. How many times? ... Clearly, you are misunderstanding the situation and are asking the wrong questions! The question you should be asking is: Why doesn't this epic mess generally sound like an epic mess (with speakers), why does it seem to make some sort (or even a very accurate sort) of spatial sense to most people's perception? I'll break the answer to this question into two related parts (to fit your rather strange way of looking at the issue):
The first part you've unwittingly already answered yourself! The reason "overlapping" with acoustic crossfeed (when listening to speakers in a room) doesn't end up just making a bad situation worse is PRECISELY because it ISN'T just acoustic crossfeed! Acoustic crossfeed ONLY EVER OCCURS in nature ALONG WITH ERs/reverb (never just on it's own) and the human perception of distance and direction ("spatiality") works by comparing the direct sound with all these factors and INTERPRETS the results based on past experience (EG. Expectation biases and preferences). What happens if we remove some of the vital/required/expected parts of that equation, EG. Just have acoustic crossfeed and not ERs/Reverb/other room acoustic effects? The results are largely unpredictable because as far as perception is concerned what is actually being heard is impossible (does not/cannot exist) and our perception will therefore alter it's interpretation (to make it possible) BUT, as "interpretation" is based on past experience, biases and preferences, everyone's interpretation is liable to be different. IE. The vast majority of peoples' perception will in effect just invent/make-up the missing parts of the equation to fill in the blanks but each person's "made-up invention" is likely to be at least somewhat different. What your perception makes-up apparently results in you "hearing" (think you are hearing) a relatively normal soundstage, just smaller. My perception results in me still "hearing" (thinking I'm hearing) a flat (without depth) presentation but narrower (less width) and with some other artefacts I find undesirable, such as comb-filtering effects and loss of spatial detail/information. But, as we're effectively talking about a made-up invention of each individual's perception, there is NO objective fact or universal truth! The situation with speakers is obviously quite different, our perception does not need to invent/make-up information to "fill in the blanks" because we do not have any missing (required/expected) parts of the equation, they're all there, acoustic crossfeed AND ERs/reverb/other room acoustic effects!
The second part is dealt with in point 2b2: Well yes, you could say that "
overlapping is only a problem if it happens in a certain way" but that's a very imprecise/vague way of putting it. However, there are two bigger problems in your statement: Firstly, NO, crossfeed doesn't magically (or "luckily") make all the spatial information "overlap in a way" that isn't a problem as explained above (although it's possible some individuals might perceive it that way). Secondly, it is NOT "luck" that it isn't a problem with speakers, luck has nothing to do with it, what do you think a mix engineer/producer do? Let's take the example of say a rock band, typically there would be different spatial information added to each of the elements in the band, the singer would have one acoustic, the guitars another, the bass another and the drumkit another (this is an over simplification as usually for example, there will be different acoustics applied to different parts of the drumkit and to different guitars). If we just dialled in a reverb preset for each element what we would end-up with is an unacceptable mess, a very muddy mix with a serious lack of clarity. So we employ a range of techniques to avoid this situation, the different reverbs maybe EQ'ed differently, other parameters of the reverbs will be changed, we may eliminate the reverb portion of some of the reverbs entirely (only use the early reflections portion), we may use a simple delay with limited feedback instead of a reverb or we may use some other tactic but usually we use a combination of tactics. The result of course is absolutely nothing like any sort of natural acoustics (it's actually an unnatural combination of unnatural acoustic information) but we're not making a university project on real/natural acoustics, we don't care how "unnatural" it actually is, just whether it gives us the separation, clarity and depth we're after and sounds subjectively "good". And of course we're doing all this using our perception/preferences and speakers in a room. It takes a long time and considerable experience to understand the various interactions at play and learn how to apply and manipulate reverb/delay based effects (acoustic/spatial information), there's little/no luck involved!
The above covers pretty much every assertion you have made about crossfeed and it's not the first time!
1. Ok, what does science objectively say?
[1a] You talk about how everything must be scientific, but [1b] you don't give much scientific substance, do you?
[1c] In other words, you don't give scientific alternatives to my opinions, you just keep telling my opinions are no good here.
[1d] For example, what is the limit scientifically for crossfeed level to ruin ITD? -25 dB? -10 dB? -3 dB?
[1e] In my opinion the useful range of crossfeed level is ....
2. Again, all you talk about is my personal preference.
[2a] Does the science exist or doesn't it? [2b] Am I supposed to ignore my own preferences just because they are just my personal preferences?
[2c] How can we discuss about crossfeed at all if EVERYTHING is just personal preferences and science is nowhere to be found?
[2d] What does science say about the lack of ER and reverberation?
3. So what is your solution to address the issue of depth?
4. Bass boost in this context means of course boost caused by some technical problem or human error that the artist didn't mean.
4a. It's also funny how much you worship/respect the personal intent of artists and sound engineers (even above your own preferences!) while giving zero respect to for example my personal preferences. I guess artists and sound engineers are priviledged first class citizens while I am just an ignorant second class citizen whose opinions doesn't count.
[4b] How many times are you going to write "how many times?"
1. You're joking right? Don't you think you should have asked (and answered) that question a few years ago, BEFORE you started making objective scientific assertions?
1a. That's a lie, a lie that's pretty much the opposite of what I've actually stated! I have stated numerous times that this is the Sound Science subforum but I've also stated numerous times that commercial music recordings are art and therefore not subject to all the rules of science! How many times?
1b. I give a considerable amount of scientific substance, for example, some of the actual facts of how commercial music recordings are created, as opposed to some (erroneous) made-up assumptions from someone who self-admittedly has little/no idea!
1c. And again, that's a LIE! I am NOT telling you your opinions "are no good here", what I AM telling you is that presenting your subjective opinions as objective fact/science/"universal truth" is "no good here"! Plus, I refute the actual objective facts you cite which are erroneous!
1d. That's actually an excellent example! Science can tell us the limits of ILD of a particular media type, it can tell us the limits of ILD as far as human ears are concerned, it can tell us very accurately what ILD we actually have and it can tell us what ILD occurs in nature but it CANNOT tell us what is the limit "to ruin" it, because "ruin" is a subjective human valuation/preference. You seem to define "ruin" as anything beyond what occurs in nature but that definition is false because commercial music recordings are art and do NOT adhere to what occurs in nature. If they did, the vast majority of music recordings (and music genres) simply wouldn't/couldn't exist!
1e. Exactly, it's your (subjective) opinion, it's NOT an objective fact!! How many times?
2. That's nonsense. I talk about objective facts, science, your personal preferences and how these are all related (or in your case, unrelated)!
2a. Of course, a great deal of science exists but firstly you have to quote the actual facts/science, not just make them up to suit your agenda and secondly, you have to account for ALL the relevant facts/science, not just cherry-pick the ones which suit your agenda! How many times?
2b. Again, you're joking right, don't you even know what science is? The whole point of what science is and why it was invented is to eliminate personal (subjective) opinions/preferences and thereby separate objective fact from fiction/myth/superstition.
2c. How can we discuss the actual facts of crossfeed if pretty much EVERYTHING is just your personal preferences presented as objective facts and false facts you've just made up?
2d. Science says that the perception of direction/distance ("spatiality" as you call it) is largely dependent on ERs/reverb, that the lack of it never exists in nature and that if we artificially manufacture circumstances where they don't exist, human perception will react unpredictably, most people's perception will attempt to compensate for this "lack" (in different ways)!
3. If we choose to use headphones, there is no universal audio solution/truth! The solution most likely to work for the greatest number of people is an individualised HRFT plus convolution reverb but as the perception of sound is not entirely based on audio properties (but also on past experience, knowledge, biases, preferences and our other senses), then even a theoretically perfect HRTF and convolution reverb will not work universally!
4. And how do you know what is a "problem/error that the artist meant didn't mean"? How do you know that what you judge/perceive to be an "error" wasn't intensional?
4a. You've said some pretty ridiculous things in the past but this one arguably
takes the biscuit! The WHOLE POINT of me buying an album by say Bjork is to hear the personal intent/preferences of Bjork (and her production team), certainly not my personal intent/preferences, not even the personal intent of say Amy Winehouse (and her production team) and DEFINITELY NOT your personal intent/preferences!
4b. I don't know, it entirely depends on YOU! On how many times you repeat the same false assertions and I/we have to repeat the same refutations. Of course I should only have to say it once to anyone with a rational mind, so the fact that I have to keep saying it indicates what?
2. I have my preferences, but stating scientific facts is only preference of truth.
2a. You haven't debunked my scientific facts, all you do is make some ridiculous claims that since I ignore some insignficant details I can't apply the science at all in my reasoning.
2b. We can talk about the significance of the details I "ignore", but I don't see much of that from you.
2c. All you do is put me down and then you wonder why I lose my marbles and insult people.
2. Utter nonsense, that's pretty much the opposite of science!
2a. And no one has debunked the scientific facts of "skin effect" (that many snake oil cable salesmen make), only whether or not those scientific facts are applicable! How many times? Additionally, I certainly have debunked some of your made-up false assertions.
2b. Then you have a very serious problem with what you "don't see", which apparently sometimes even includes what you yourself write because you subsequently contradict yourself and I have to quote it back to you!
2c. All I do is refute those objective facts you assert which are not objective facts (because they're either just your subjective perception/preference or you've just made them up). And, I don't wonder why you loose your marbles and insult people. You've explained why and I've got a pretty good idea anyway, based on numerous past experiences with audiophiles and false assertions/beliefs! More importantly though, you can't keep blaming your response and behaviour on me/us doing what this subforum exists for (to discuss the facts/science and refute false assertions of fact/science). Repeating false assertions and your response/behaviour when those false assertions are refuted is ENTIRELY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, no one else's. If you don't like it, either stop repeating your false assertions or go somewhere else, where false assertions are not refuted and you're treated as the messiah you (self-admittedly) crave! Again, how many times do I need to repeat what should be blatantly obvious to anyone with a rational mind?
Round and round we go,
G