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

[jamesjames]

I listen to classical music through headphones. I've been listening with crossfeed for years now - I think it's essential. I've only just stumbled across this thread - it's very interesting. I agree with an idea that turns up in a number of the posts: that crossfeed really can create a performance space out of the head, to the front of the listener, greatly adding to the sense of realism. (Otherwise, to my ear, headphone listening produces an unnatural - if fascinating - effect.) In my view, when done well, crossfeed improves every aspect of playback. I wanted to add that I've long found analogue implementations more satisfactory than digital. I currently use two amps with switchable crossfeed circuits: the Moon 430HA; and the SPL Phonitor xe. The Phonitor circuit is adjustable in a number of respects; the Moon in none. I think both of these amps are tremendously good, but with slightly different emphases. The Phonitor is perhaps slightly more 'linear' in its output, which can leave the Moon seeming a little dark - but the Moon seems almost magical in the way it reproduces accurate acoustic timbre. I currently use MySphere 3.2 headphones (previously, I preferred HD800S Senns). Interestingly, I find myself using one of my amps for some months, before switching to the other, enjoying the slightly different takes on 'natural'. I might also mention for those familiar with the MySphere that of late I've been using them 'wide open' - that is, with the ear capsules angled forward to the maximum extent possible, rather than 'flat' to the ear. I've read reviewers whom I respect commenting that this is likely to reduce bass response to an unacceptable extent for most. My initial reaction was probably something like that. But I've learned (?) to prefer this effect (however it might be described) and, in combination with crossfeed, find it to produce an uncannily 'real' performance space.

 

[Rob the Comic]

I listen to classical music through headphones. I've been listening with crossfeed for years now - I think it's essential. I've only just stumbled across this thread - it's very interesting. I agree with an idea that turns up in a number of the posts: that crossfeed really can create a performance space out of the head, to the front of the listener, greatly adding to the sense of realism. (Otherwise, to my ear, headphone listening produces an unnatural - if fascinating - effect.) In my view, when done well, crossfeed improves every aspect of playback. I wanted to add that I've long found analogue implementations more satisfactory than digital. I currently use two amps with switchable crossfeed circuits: the Moon 430HA; and the SPL Phonitor xe. The Phonitor circuit is adjustable in a number of respects; the Moon in none. I think both of these amps are tremendously good, but with slightly different emphases. The Phonitor is perhaps slightly more 'linear' in its output, which can leave the Moon seeming a little dark - but the Moon seems almost magical in the way it reproduces accurate acoustic timbre. I currently use MySphere 3.2 headphones (previously, I preferred HD800S Senns). Interestingly, I find myself using one of my amps for some months, before switching to the other, enjoying the slightly different takes on 'natural'. I might also mention for those familiar with the MySphere that of late I've been using them 'wide open' - that is, with the ear capsules angled forward to the maximum extent possible, rather than 'flat' to the ear. I've read reviewers whom I respect commenting that this is likely to reduce bass response to an unacceptable extent for most. My initial reaction was probably something like that. But I've learned (?) to prefer this effect (however it might be described) and, in combination with crossfeed, find it to produce an uncannily 'real' performance space.

I have three amps - Cavalli Liquid Gold, Heed Canalot PSU - and the Phonitor XE ( no DAC version as I run it through a Schitt Yggdrasil. I sort of use the different amps for different genres and generally use the Phonitor for classical like yourself. I agree that the crossfeed for classical is a lot more ‘lifelike’ and I think, less fatiguing. I like your description of the fascinating effect, sans crossfeed; sometimes I cannot resist that ‘super stereo’ effect with the old Mercury Living Stereo boxes.

 

[71 dB]

I have a strong allergy against super stereo. When I watch an older movie with mono soundtrack using headphones, I am positively surprised how the stability and simplicity of the soundtrack allows me to concentrate on the movie itself. Many Youtube videos also sound "better" in mono, because people record themselves talking in a reverberant room. Since the direct sound to the microphone is very monophonic while the reverberation is diffuse, mono attenuates the reverberation a few decibels improving intelligibility. Many Youtubers don't know they should always do mono sound when speaking. In the worst case it is left or right channel only! Fortunately I have mono switch in my DIY crossfeeder. Of course binaural stereo is best on headphones, but mono has its place and works well with headphones when stability and simplicity is wanted. Headphone super stereo can be an "sonic effect", but it is quite unnatural and doesn't make much sense. The history of stereo sound has been so loudspeaker-centric, that spatial properties of headphone sound have been almost ignored I think until perhaps recently...

 

[jamesjames]

I have three amps - Cavalli Liquid Gold, Heed Canalot PSU - and the Phonitor XE ( no DAC version as I run it through a Schitt Yggdrasil. I sort of use the different amps for different genres and generally use the Phonitor for classical like yourself. I agree that the crossfeed for classical is a lot more ‘lifelike’ and I think, less fatiguing. I like your description of the fascinating effect, sans crossfeed; sometimes I cannot resist that ‘super stereo’ effect with the old Mercury Living Stereo boxes.

Thanks - I should have mentioned I also have the Phonitor and Moon sans DACs. I have for some years now used a Marantz SA10 digital player - balanced analogue connections to the amp. I like to keep things very simple. I play CDs, SACDs and USB drives (downloads) directly from the Marantz (no network or other server). I find sound quality is significantly better that way. I listen to a lot of hi-res material - not in an effort to find more frequency extension, but because I find it significantly enhances tone density. To my mind, the value of hi-res is just this - improvement of the holographic effect. I find subtle improvements are also possible by decompressing FLAC to WAV, and DST to DSD. I find these decompression differences to be inaudible via loudspeakers, streaming, and lower resolution headphone systems more generally, but quite worthwhile with my current headphone system. I'm inclined to think all these factors play a part in my preference for crossfeed - which really does seem to allow more scope to appreciate subtle enhancements.

 

[71 dB]

I listen to a lot of hi-res material - not in an effort to find more frequency extension, but because I find it significantly enhances tone density. To my mind, the value of hi-res is just this - improvement of the holographic effect.

What is "tone density"? What is "holographic effect" ?

 

[gimmeheadroom]

What is "tone density"? What is "holographic effect" ?

 

[71 dB]

I figured it must be something along these lines, in other words placebo-based audiophool nonsense, that doesn't belong to the Sound Science sub forum.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

I figured it must be something along these lines, in other words placebo-based audiophool nonsense, that doesn't belong to the Sound Science sub forum.

My post was meant to be humorous rather than as you understood it. I agree the terms are vague, though, especially tonal density. I think "holographic" is acceptable for a setup that has precise/correct instrument placement and accurate soundstage, which reproduces, to a degree, the sense of the venue where the recording was made. For analog this seems easier to produce; in a digital system, an accurate master clock helps a lot.

 

[71 dB]

My post was meant to be humorous rather than as you understood it. I agree the terms are vague, though, especially tonal density. I think "holographic" is acceptable for a setup that has precise/correct instrument placement and accurate soundstage, which reproduces, to a degree, the sense of the venue where the recording was made. For analog this seems easier to produce; in a digital system, an accurate master clock helps a lot.

Well, I did find your post humorous for sure...

As for the "precise instrument placement and soundstage" goes, 44.1 kHz/16 bit digital audio has about 1000 times more temporal precision than human hearing can detect. There is no way to improve it in audible sense with higher sampling rate or/and bigger bit depth. Furthermore, "precise instrument placement and soundstage" is definitely not easier for analog sound.

 

[jamesjames]

I guess I'd say my terms were intended to describe impressions, and were therefore impressionistic! 'Holographic' was meant to convey the sense of depth and placement within an apparent performance space. (This is, after all, just a psychoacoustic affect.) I find hi-res recordings can make quite a difference here. 'Density' was meant to convey the sense that more information is being conveyed. I find hi-res recordings can make quite a difference in conveying the nuances of timbre and dynamic shading that makes acoustic music seem 'real'. I have many 16/44 recordings that I consider to be superb. But I think the best and most successful recordings I have are higher-res. (Should we consider 16/44 perfect?) The decompression point is different. It's simply that more digital processing is required to do that job on the fly, and this can produce noise, even in the best systems.

 

[bigshot]

Just because you have hires files that sound good, that doesn’t mean that it sounds good because it’s hires. It’s more likely due to better mastering. There is no reason why hires files would be audibly different than the same track bumped down to 16/44.1. And there have been plenty of listening tests to prove it.

See the article CD is all you need in my sig file.

Expectation bias and placebo effect often are expressed using vague impressionistic terminology, because the effect is vague and totally dependent on subjective impressions.

 

[jamesjames]

Oh dear ... I can see where this is headed. I'm not interested in pursuing this - other than to suggest to anyone (still) reading this to download some hi-res files if sufficiently interested, and compare the various rates for yourself. It's very easy to do. Come to your own conclusions. The condescending tone here reminds me of decades past - I'm old enough to remember being told (in no uncertain terms!) that it was foolish to suggest that digital recording might be worth considering; that digital players might be worth considering; that single-bit processing might be worth considering ... Beware the self-appointed expert!

 

[bigshot]

Welcome to Sound Science! Sorry about your preconceptions.

 

[jamesjames]

Returning to crossfeed, it would be great to hear from anyone out there who has tried the new Burson 3X GT. I gather it has a variable crossfeed circuit, and provision for a subwoofer! I've never tried a subwoofer with phones. Is there anyone out there who has? I gather there's no low-pass filter with the Burson - simply summed left and right out on RCA.

 

[71 dB]

I guess I'd say my terms were intended to describe impressions, and were therefore impressionistic! 'Holographic' was meant to convey the sense of depth and placement within an apparent performance space. (This is, after all, just a psychoacoustic affect.) I find hi-res recordings can make quite a difference here. 'Density' was meant to convey the sense that more information is being conveyed. I find hi-res recordings can make quite a difference in conveying the nuances of timbre and dynamic shading that makes acoustic music seem 'real'. I have many 16/44 recordings that I consider to be superb. But I think the best and most successful recordings I have are higher-res. (Should we consider 16/44 perfect?) The decompression point is different. It's simply that more digital processing is required to do that job on the fly, and this can produce noise, even in the best systems.

Thank you for explaining what you mean by the terms you are using. However, your thoughts about hi-res are not scientific, but impressionistic. For hi-res to be better in depth and placement it should have audible better temporal resolution and one would think it has because of higher sampling rate, but the temporal resolution of digital audio at 44.1 kHz is already about 1000 times better than needed. Technically hi-res has more "information", but how much of it is audible? Even children can't hear beyond 20 kHz, and the possibility of a lower noise floor isn't something to be heard either. 44.1 kHz/16 bits is actually quite perfect, not by much, but when you are over the line, you are over the line. This is why you can have "have many 16/44 recordings that I consider to be superb" as you say. How good something sounds comes from how it was produced, mixed and mastered.

Oh dear ... I can see where this is headed. I'm not interested in pursuing this - other than to suggest to anyone (still) reading this to download some hi-res files if sufficiently interested, and compare the various rates for yourself. It's very easy to do. Come to your own conclusions. The condescending tone here reminds me of decades past - I'm old enough to remember being told (in no uncertain terms!) that it was foolish to suggest that digital recording might be worth considering; that digital players might be worth considering; that single-bit processing might be worth considering ... Beware the self-appointed expert!

Sorry if you are not interested in pursuing this, because you are in a place where you should be. If the 44.1/16 file is a different mastering than a hi-res file, you are not comparing formats, but masterings. How to compare formats?

1) Select a high-res file. Make a separate 44.1/16 version of it. Ask your friend to play randomly the two versions so that you don't know which one is playing and try to guess the version. If you guess wrong about 50 % of the time, the formats sound the same. If the high-res version gives more audible information/better depth and placement, it should be easy to tell them apart and guess over 90 % of the time correctly.

2) Open the two versions above in a sample editor program. Invert the 44.1/16 version. Add the two version together to get the difference of the two. Listen to the difference. It should be too quiet to hear at reasonable listening levels. This should make it easier to believe the hi-res format doesn't offer anything, unless it is a completely different mastering.