[1] personally I don't think crossfeed is attacking artistic intent, on the contrary I think it is protecting the artistic intent. ...
[1a] That's why I feel like I am protecting the artist using crossfeed: "Hey you artist X, you overlooked large ILD when producing your music, but don't worry! I use crossfeed to fix it to enjoy your music fully."
[1b] It took me two decades after studying the science of spatial hearing to realize how it reveals a potential problem in headphone sound so it's not surprising for me if the whole thing has always been more or less overlooked in music production.
[2] When I compare the original sound to sound crossfed at proper level it's hard for me to understand why the original sound represents the artistic intent more closely than the crossfed version.
[2a] Much more plausible for me is the assumption of music production culture ...
1. This statement and the one quoted in #1a, is an excellent demonstration of the point I was trying to make in
post #1617. In fact it's hard to think of a better demonstration! You've invented a conclusion that seems logical to you but clearly you are ignorant of the process and your conclusion is actually nonsense. For example:
1a. You seem to have the bizarre notion that the process of "producing music" is some engineer in a studio who doesn't understand what he's doing, throwing together a mix on speakers in a few hours and overlooking "large" things. While workflows can vary considerably, your "notion" is partially correct, the initial phase of mixing IS typically the creation of a (rough) mix in an hour or two but what you are ignoring (or ignorant of) is the rest of the mixing process, which is the vast majority! After this initial phase the producer is brought in, for a number of subsequent phases that typically take anywhere from a few days to a month. By the end of the mixing process there will have been a number of (rough) mixes created, each more refined than the last, listened to and analysed in minute detail by a number of people (the engineer, producer and typically one or more of the musicians/artists) on a variety of playback equipment. By the time the final mix is achieved, the engineer and producer will have heard the track hundreds of times and EVERY element and process in the mix will have been tweaked to an accuracy of half a dB or so. Then of course it's off to another studio and another engineer (the mastering studio and engineer) for further analysis and tweaking at an even more minute level. In all of this lengthy process, performed by a number of highly trained/experienced professionals, much of which is near, at and even BEYOND the limits of human audibility, the notion that they've all "overlooked" a "problem" that is ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE compared to every other aspect of the mix/master is just pure nonsense! I'm not saying it's impossible that a large ILD has been overlooked but certainly as a general rule, if a mix has a "large ILD" the vast majority of the time it is NOT because it's been "overlooked", it's there because it's intended to be there.
1b. Two decades, you're joking? When I started studying sound engineering, it took me about 2 minutes, as it does pretty much every new music engineering student! You have previously admitted you have no formal training, no professional experience and know next to nothing about commercial music production but here you are making grand sweeping (FALSE) assertions about those of us who do it professionally for a living. What an excellent example of TYPICAL audiophile nonsense: Make-up an assertion to justify a belief/agenda and then defend it to the death, regardless of the fact that it contradicts the actual facts and that it requires those who do it for a living, with years of formal training/experience (and all of the education systems which provided that training) are ALL more ignorant than an audiophile who admits near total ignorance. If that's not delusional, I don't know what is!
2. And there we have it! You are effectively stating that because "
it's hard for you to understand" then it can't be true, while your made-up, unsupported alternative (#2a), which contradicts professional practice (and the facts/evidence) must be true. A rational mind would obviously question their understanding but clearly, a strongly held agenda/belief precludes a rational mind! So round and round we go, AGAIN!
2a. Exactly! You make-up an assumption of music production culture which must be true because it's more plausible to you, DESPITE self admittedly being ignorant of commercial music production, never having even witnessed commercial music production culture, let alone been a member of it and contradicting those who have been a member of that culture for their entire working lives. Your response is pretty much a PERFECT example of what I stated in the first paragraph of my
post #1617, so thanks!
I can use my own head to figure out the intentions of the artist. Good art encapsulates intent and meaning.
Yes, good art does encapsulate intent and meaning but artists' ability to communicate ALL their intent and meaning is limited. Not even history's greatest artists were able to communicate all their intents and not even the most expert analysts can uncover them all. You have no training or professional experience of creating artistic intent (in a commercial music product) but of course, you're an audiophile with a belief/agenda and therefore you can achieve what no other human can! How many times have we seen such nonsense assertions in this subforum, audiophiles who can easily hear sound well into the ultrasonic range, noise that's a 1,000 times below the noise floor or a thousandths of a dB difference between cables? And, how many times have you yourself argued against such nonsense assertions? Sure, we can all figure out some of the intentions of the artist, if we couldn't we wouldn't be able to differentiate music from semi-random noise but you're deluding yourself if you believe you can figure out all the intents of the artists, as
@pinnahertz has demonstrated to you!
[1] In the era prior to recording, the goal was to NOT have a specific artistic intent. The performer or conductor would INTERPRET the music.
[2] On one night the music might sound one way and on another it might sound quite different, because that's how the musicians felt it.
[3] Recording brought in the desire among collectors to own the "one and true" version of a piece of music. Chasing after that is a fool's errand. There are "good" versions and "bad" versions, but if there is only one "true" version, that means the music is as dead as a doornail. I look for energy and expression in a performance and fidelity and balance in a recording.
[4] Personally, I think it would be better if rock artists did multiple live versions of their albums.
1. We have relatively little evidence of performance styles prior to the recording era. What we do know/deduce is that interpretation was generally more free/variable than it is today but certainly there has been a goal of specific artistic intent going back centuries but almost never only specific artistic intent, it was virtually always accompanied with other artistic intents that were less specific.
2. That's not necessarily true, in fact in some circumstances it would be impossible. With an orchestra for example we've got 60+ musicians, all potentially "feeling it" somewhat differently, this is why orchestras require a conductor in the first place. The music might sound slightly different on another night but can't change by much (without further detailed rehearsal) otherwise the end result is likely to be a complete mess. This isn't the case with genres such as jazz, which is structured and organised differently but then jazz didn't exist before the era of recording.
3. Certainly recording has restricted the variability of interpretation. A radical interpretation is going to seem particularly shocking to an audience accustomed to recordings of more traditional interpretations. There's still space somewhat different interpretations though, if there wasn't then classical music would be dead as a doornail and conductors could all be replaced with robotic arms.
4. Oh dear, I don't. In fact most rock artists simply can't do live versions of their albums, it's wasn't/isn't humanly possible as they're reliant on studio techniques that couldn't/can't be applied in real time. Therefore a live performance might be better in some respects but worse in others. My preference is generally for both live and studio versions, although it depends on the exact nature (construction/arrangement/etc.) of the rock song/track.
G
