[rickcr42]

Quote:

Expands the soundstage. Muddies (blurs) the tones, reducing precise encapsulated sound imaging and location in the soundstage. .

actually it makes the sound stage more accurate with headphones not less accurate because it shifts the image forward where a band/orchestra/performer/loudspeaker would be instead of dead left/dead right which could only be replicated if you were right on stage with the perfromers to your sides aiming their instruments at you !

It also adds a bit of left/right blend to simulate the effect you would have again with live music or speakers unless there was a wall between the left and right sides.

Is it perfect ? Hell no !

Any time you add two things together in a frequency selective way you get cancellations of some frequencies,reinforcement of others (hills and valleys) and introduce some ripple into the pass band but all in all these are fairly easy to correct and the part of headphone listening it addresses it deals with well.
Overdone would be like too much of a bass control,very unnatural,but also like a tone control if used in small amounts and unobtrusive can be very effective.Enough for some to make the difference between being able to listen to headphones for only very short periods of time and unlimited headphone sessions.Should be an OSHA enforced must for any work requiring long headphone seesions !

Quote:

I hate it because I want to hear a sharply delineated sound image, focused in a precise spatial location in the soundstage

Not with headphones you can't ! That is a "false" image because like I said no where in music does the signal come from directly to the sides of the listener only and as for "sharply delineated" that is more "Hi-Fi" than it is real.
Real music,even electronic music is in a very diffues sound filed that when you get your system to repoduce you begin to listen to the music and not the electronics

Quote:

I can do with or without crossfeed, to be honest with you I don't hear a huge difference.

that means it is working as it should.If it was blatantly in your face noticeable that would be big time distortion and more FX than enhancement

Quote:

I like to use crossfeed for chamber music.. Baroque as well.. It adds a very "cathedral" like feeling to the instruments. Sounds like the concert hall is twice the size... Gives me a feeling of visiting an old Montessori..

you just described a "diffuse" sound field

Quote:

I found the sound stage in my head thing unpleasant and I felt at times that I was going cross eyed. I added a crossfeed unit into my rig and the whole listening experience improved as the musical image moved out of my head. As for loss of musical integrity or whatever, I didn't notice any as I was too busy enjoying the music.

Quote:

It's a tool, it's useful to have on certain recordings. Sometimes you want it, sometimes you don't. On older recordings, it's a must have

Quote:

I can't live without it personally. If you search this forum, there are lots of posts of people (that are experienced head-fiers) that feel the same (love it and don't want to buy an amp without it)

Exactly what it is meant to do.No more,no less

On the software crossfeed end :

I am in the "no vote" camp so far but that is because I have been using proper crossfeeed networks for years and they lack in direct comparison (mostly just TOO MUCH but with some wrong decisions on turnover freq also).
They may eventually get it right but my idea is why bother ? When you can accomplish the same thing with a tiny amount of resistors and caps this seem to be using technology as the way just because unless ALL your music is straight from the computer headphone jack.Then it is the only option.
Is it the lack of controls ? Do most need switches and knobs or they feel like they have no control (mostly a good thing

) ?
Could be.

Quote:

I find it funny that people say crossfeed improves the soundfield. Honestly, I must have alien ears because for me, it GREATLY reduces imaging and soundstage to me, and additionally, I find that it lessens overall dynamics and clarity.

many of us find standing on the stage or having our speakers to the sides to be the strange image.Headphones do not and can not let the left signal bleed to the right side and the right signal bleed to the left side as they do in every single stereo system known to humans and is the natural way to listen to a live event.I personally will take a bit of the live experience (image and dynamics) over perfect pitch tonal accuracy every single time and to be honest so would most others if they actually realised that is exactly what they do every time they audition for "accurate" loudspeakers.

If they are all so tonally accurate then someone needs to explain to this dummy why they all sound different ? If perfect in tone would they not all sound identical ?

YMMV of course.All about personal choice in what is THE most personal thing in all of high fidelity : the Personal Stereo System otherwise known as the Headphone Hi-Fi.

One on one baby !

 

[Beauregard]

rick is a hard act to follow; he loses more audio knowledge brain cells with a glass of wine than I have in my entire head. I should just refer you to what he said but I don't want to leave my last post dangling.

Because I lack the time to write up a new bit, please have a look at this post to see my impressions of HeadRoom crossfeed.

I think anyone who spends a lot of time listening to phones owes it to themselves to audition at least one version of crossfeed.

To me, the biggest shortcoming in the burgeoning head amp biz that's been fostered by Head-Fi is the lack of new and competitive crossfeed implementations. As rick said, none of them are perfect and I wish there was greater "audiophile" acceptance of the concept to stimulate amp designers to invent a better mousetrap.

Best,
Beau

 

[Superpredator]

I speak primarily from experience with Meier Audio crossfeed in the Corda Aria. I speak also from the limited amount I've read about crossfeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Art: Without crossfeed you do get recordings with one instrument on the far right and another on the far left and a third in the middle.

With crossfeed you still get instruments separated left to right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells These three instruments have a precise location, and their tones are sharply etched in space with empty air surrounding them (the tones are encapsulated in space). This is how they sound from a front center seat up close to the instruments, and far from walls.

This isn't exactly how instruments sound from a front and center seat up close. The sound from the instruments on the right of the stage still makes it to your left ear, and vice versa. It really isn't at all like listening to headphones without crossfeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Crossfeed expands the tones so that the three instruments expand and merge together more. They are blurred together more rather than remaining separated. This is how they sound from further away from the stage, say way back from the instruments, where walls, ceilings and floors carry delayed reflected sound. This phase distortion muddies the sound and blends the instruments together.

FROM MA website: <<Fortunately, the mean directional information is provided by the time delay and level of attenuation of the sounds that reaches the opposite ear. The CORDA HEADAMP can electronically simulate this process and, with appropriate attenuation and delay, add some of the right audiosignal to the left channel and vice -versa. This considerably reduces the adverse symptoms of headphone listening.

A unique feature of the crossfeed circuitry of the CORDA HEADAMP is that it "recognizes" the virtual positions of the instruments and singers in a recording. The sound of an instrument in the middle of the soundstage will be equally present in both audio-channels and isn't given any crossfeed. A crossfeed signal is only generated for instruments that are not placed at the center. The more off-center the instrument is placed, the stronger the crossfeed and the longer its delay. This feature is called "natural crossfeed".>>

I think the point is that good crossfeed creates a more natural sound and only "muddies" the sound as much as listening to sound in real life with two ears on either side of one's head. Hearing sound in real life includes being up front near the stage listening to a performance. Even in the most acoustically ideal settings, both ears are receiving at least some of all of the sound. Intelligently implemented crossfeed would seem to mimic an ideal acoustic environment, sending SOME of each side of the signal to the opposite ear. It doesn't sound like a "mass" of sound to me at all, but does tend to give me much less of a headache. So useful I almost couldn't do without it. I guess I'll just have to live without inner detail and perfectly encapsulated tones.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

I wish there was greater "audiophile" acceptance of the concept to stimulate amp designers to invent a better mousetrap.

Unfortunately Beau all the work being done on that front is more to the "immersed soundfiled" DSP type of effect which is more surround sound than stereo image than it is in any "enhanced stereo image" research and to me personally that is a huge mistake on a few levels.

For one it is aimed at the headphone experience to create "virtual" realities.Notice I used the word "realities" and it was no slip.We live in a "I can make things BETTER than real" time period where everyone is out to reinvent the wheel instead of just making a better wheel and the only reason I can see for it is because they can.Because the technology is there to run the sims and let a program do all the work then sit back and say "gee am I not the greatest ?"

You want true realism in a headphone without a crossfeed network ? Binaral is the ticket.
Because the omnidirectional microphone is placed where you ears would be on a "dummy" head all sounds picked up in this manner,recorded,then palyed back with headphones is damn near scary in the realism but over speakers ? We would be discussing the "anti-crossfeed" to make the same music sound right with forward placed loudspeakers.

So we have natural dead on reproduction for headphones and for some reason it is not good enough so we need a DSP to do millions of calculations to do what two little omnis can for .0001 the price ! typical.

real is not good enough so we need to make it more real than real

And what about those who still have quality analog sources ? Analog tape ? Vinyl system ? FM radio (Ok maybe not in the same class

).Should we then take this analog and send it to a DSP with its own "iffy" at best ADC/DAC combination both of which will add or subtract from the original signal ?

Imagine spending $5K on a vinyl playback system then sending it to an all in one mass production Home Theater receiver.

Same thing as the DSP "soundfield manipulator" type devices being worked on.The main body of work is as usual NASA and the military with a few universities getting research grants to come up with their own alternative methods but it will end up the same : Consumer surround for all audio or video sources and you can choose the "venue" at the push of a button.

Old story,old technology,old failed idea but with the new twist of software coded DSP instead of logic chips and hardware plus head tracking so the image will adjust to head movement with headphones on.

May be cool for movies but my initial thought is about as phony as it gets for music and that from playing around with every single generation of "better than live" technology since the seventies.Impressive,flashy and eventually tiring.

Crossfeed is not a radical change to what goes in and adds nothing not there already.

you want headphone surround ?

widen the front image,shift it forward,add a center fill dialog channel and shift that forward also,add another "surround" channel and keep it at the dead left/dead right and you just emulated the sound system in every theater you ever visited with surround sound.If the movie is matrixed with a Dolby surround type encoding ,this WILL extract it and reproduce it in a natural way.

Music ? drop the center channel,bring the two front signals closer together (crossfeed) and if the recording is a live recording punch in some ambience from the "rear" to simulate room size.

Solo performer in a small room ? Back to straight Left/Right Crossfed Stereo.

Where is the DSP ? The milions of calculations ? The "bigger than life" sound ?
The really really cool electronic diplay with all those cool graphs and neat little lights ? and why is it not connected to my computer ?

Not rocket science guys and the crossfeed limitations such as they are to me are better than any alternatives I know of.Stereo has held up under the assault on it longer than it should have by marketeers looking for any reason they can come up with to sell you more gear,more amps,more speakers.The fact we still have two channels as the basic system says we cn be fooled but not totally

They will never tell you your surround system can be done with a simple resistor matrix to get the center channel,that the dialog channel only needs to cover the midrange,that the rear channels are effects channels only and need be no more than a boatload of crapty little high wall/ceiing junction mount school PA speakers (

) and a 70V speaker distribution system on a crappy 30w amp because not only would they not be able to SELL you stuff but there would be no STUFF to show off in the forums so others can drool

Round about way of answering the "why no better mousetrap" in crossfeed technology.

because there is no profit in it !

A small easily manufactured inexpensive device that worked and sounded good would mean we would not fall for the "next generation" of special effects gadget that ALL the major player are not only working on but have been trying to con us into going all the way back to the first Hafler Dynaquad passive surround device that for my money is the only one that is actually valid anyway because it adds nothing which also means it takes away nothing unlike every single electronic manipulation device ever made............except the crossfeed network

BTW : thank for the props Beau

 

[TheSloth]

Well, it's all been said. But to answer the thread question, 'I do'!

I do believe it to be an important function for a headphone amplifier, and I also agree with Beau that there is too little competition in this area. Though, HeadRoom are doing a good job at competing with themselves and reworking their crossfeed all the time.

 

[smeggy]

I wish they'd work it in a way we could buy as a small cheap device to plug in between our source and amp. I know there are some DIY versions, one of which I have already built and the Corda Cross (which is still pretty expensive). I want a nice, simple and cheap version that works well.

 

[saint.panda]

Rick's said it all but I'll try to add my 2 cents as well.

While some say it's interaural distortion, some call them interaural time/intensity differences. I think it's the latter and I think it's good if properly implemented. It's the same reason why I prefer headphones over canalphones because of the "distortion" added by the ears to create a more natural sound (HRTF for headphones).

I don't really like the foobar crossfeed because it sounds a bit like a rather unsophisticated yet subtle mono-fier.

From my experience with the Meier crossfeed in three different incarnations (Corda HA-2 built-in, Cross-1, DIY version):

Pro:
- reduces long-term listening fatigue
- makes for a less intrusive listening experience
- creates a more continuous auditory space
- essential for old recordings with drums on right and piano left for instance
- slightly increases soundstage depth, or rather, it moves everything a tad away from the listener towards the front
- creates a more coherent presentation depending on the recording
- sometimes the music sounds clearer and more effortless

Con:
- reduces soundstage width (you could argue that the non-crossfeeded stereo separation was unnatural to begin with)
- reduces immediacy (you could argue that it simply reduces the music-beating-against-the-ear-drums headphone effect to provide for a more natural experience)
- reduces perceived bass
- sometimes reduces harmonic richness to my ears

My main complaint about the Meier crossfeed is that the lowest setting wasn't subtle enough for me. Besides, with some amps I don't think it's quite as beneficial or necessary as with others and I also don't really listen much to music that absolutely requires crossfeed. There was time when I couldn't live without crossfeed but now I somehow feel that headphones offer something unique through their crossfeed-lessness and if I really need crossfeed I just use speakers. Preference-thing obviously.



Quote:

Originally Posted by smeggy I wish they'd work it in a way we could buy as a small cheap device to plug in between our source and amp. I know there are some DIY versions, one of which I have already built and the Corda Cross (which is still pretty expensive). I want a nice, simple and cheap version that works well.

There's Xin's crossfeed adapter. Small and inexpensive but I'm not sure about its fidelity.

 

[smeggy]

I already contacted Xin a while ago about one but he has stopped making them.

 

[White Fox]

I use the X-feed in my Corda HA-2 all the time with stereo recordings (except some CDs with a really narrow soundstage) with the lowest setting for most recordings, and the highest (this amp only has two levels of crossfeed) for the CDs that hard pan the sound left-to-right (ie. Giant Steps).

For me, the word 'incoherent' comes to mind when listening to most of my recordings without Meier crossfeed now. Even separate instruments in themselves can sound weird without the crossfeed - multi-tracked drums are good example. The sound tends to 'bounce' back and forth from each part of the drum as opposed to sounding more as one instrument. Even solo piano that uses two tracks can sound 'ping-pongy' without the crossfeed - the left & right sides in competition with one another. And any sort of muddying of the sound is outweighed for me by the more natural headphone sound through the Meier crossfeed. But I do perceive that bass, especially that which is only in one channel, but also, and to a lesser extent, slightly off center, is significantly less muddy or boomy sounding with my amp's crossfeed engaged, even though in reality there is some distortion added by the circuit.

I do wait for more crossfeed designs that have some respect for the integrity of the orginal recording to come (no artificial cave-DSP junk!)...

 

[rickcr42]

For the readers among you who like to know "how things work" the best page is John Conover's.Not only does it have references to all the headphone crossfeed models that went before (one stop shopping

) but breaks down each section into easily understood bites that allows an understanding of exactly what is going on.
This could also be a good starting point for anyone contemplating being "THE ONE" ! The person who is willing to do the work,run the tests and the re-tests to maybe come up with that Nth degree universal crossover but don't expect to get rich.
Just so much you can charge for such a simple network and why it is usually an "add-in" as the previous "I still find the Cross-1 expensive" comment said and why probably Headroom no longer offers a stand alone headphone crossfeed device
When a person considers it is the actual casing and hardware in a product that costs most of the budget they would realise a stand alone crossfeeed can not be much cheaper than the amp/crossfeed combo since adding another circuit intothe same casing is cheap,two box solutions not so very,and why stand alone networks usually fail and a all-in-one solutions do not even though by being separate they can be far more flexable and be used in many situations the other way precludes.

http://www.johncon.com/john/SSheadphoneAmp/

 

[Beauregard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 ... Round about way of answering the "why no better mousetrap" in crossfeed technology. because there is no profit in it !

Thanks for the post; makes lots of sense to me. There's obviously no pressure in the mass-market create-reality world for a new audiophile crossfeed. But it would be great if threads like this one create an incentive for someone in the head amp business to put in the effort to be "THE ONE" you mentioned in your follow-up post. You need to twist some arms and get some of the other heavy-hitters on the board to chime in on the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 BTW : thank for the props Beau

Like you need them...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSloth ... there is too little competition in this area. Though, HeadRoom are doing a good job at competing with themselves and reworking their crossfeed all the time.

Agreed. I noticed when I read through my comments from last April linked to in my last post that I said my general rule of thumb for using crossfeed is when the soundstage extends beyond my ears. At that time, I'd only been listening to the new crossfeed for a couple of months - and the improvement was obvious. But what I've discovered since is that many "in the head" recordings, mostly chamber music, benefit from the new crossfeed while they suffered under the older version. There's a palpable increase in the sense of dimensionality - without noticeable attenuation of center-channel detail - in well-done acoustic recordings that have a relatively narrow soundstage. I'd say the beyond-the-ears criterion still holds generally for studio pop music though. Though there's a fair amount of variability in the efficacy of crossfeed in both genres; depending, I assume, on recording techniques and what proportion of the signal ends up in the mono channel.

Best,
Beau

 

[TheSloth]

Rick, I'm curious about your resistance to software crossfeed. Let's assume that we have a digital signal. Does digital processing not have the potential to produce a more accurate crossfeed than analogue filtration? DSP's, assuming that they are programmed correctly (probably the hardest part) have the potential to make an almost infinite number of subtle and exact changes to the frequency response and time delay that can only be approximated with an analogue filter. I agree that no software has actually done this yet, but assuming we are talking about the world of digital, surely DSP has the potential to make a near-perfect crossfeed?

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Like you need them...

heh.Have not yet met the human that does not like a little bit of "atta boy" every once in a while.As long as that "slap on the back" is with an empty hand (no knife or other sharp object

).

Nice discusssion by the way.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Rick, I'm curious about your resistance to software crossfeed. Let's assume that we have a digital signal. Does digital processing not have the potential to produce a more accurate crossfeed than analogue filtration?

If your entire audio system is "in the box" computer based with only the actual headphones being external you are prettty much locked into a software soltution so not only are options limited but direct hardware based/software based comparisons impossible.

But think about it for a moment.Why would you want all the steps involved with either a stand alone DSP/CODEC and that also must take into consideration both ends of the analog/digital conversion process,when 6 resistors and three capacitors can accomplish the very same thing and by being totally passive introduce ZERO electronic noise to the original signal ?

no power supply noise,no line induced hum,no slew rate limiting,no dynamic compression,NO modification to the original input other than the actual effect desired ?

The problem with most modern solutions is they are overthought and take the long way around to what is in fact a simple solution many times.The day I feel a pressing need to replace a handful of componants with an expensive and highly complicated electronic/software solution will never come and this could be marked down to me thinking "old school".

If so then I plead guilty as charged because I come from a "simple is best unless you must complicate then as little as possible" attitude to music reproduction.Even if I feel I need a thing it must have the ability to be totally removed at will from the signal path.how else to compare ?

And if past experience combined with recent events have taught me anything it is that as soon as you turn over control of your sound to a techno geek you are in deep doo doo.DSP just doing the little things is off the list since the coders ALWAYS have to use the power at their disposal ! to not is inconceivable ! They DO want to reinvent the wheel and in the process more often than notend up making a wheel with opsing edges that has no shot at resistance free motion.The failure rate of the Imaging-FX type gadgets tells the tell better than I can and while they may sell in the beginning to the pimply faced generation (easy guys,whoah down

),who also BTW love to pump the bass up to +15 dB,as their musical sensibility matures they toss this formerly exciting to listen to gadget into the closet never to come out again.
"More real than real" is an oxymoron of the highest order of magentude

DSP or otherwise coded crossfeed means without a doubt in my mind more than a simple upper midrange turnover with left-right blend as the model and probably why all such currently available methods suck when listened to.
This is maybe what turns many off from the actual technology without ever having given the "fix" to a known problem a fair shot.

It very well may have applications in the multichannel A/V realm but for me I don't want all that mucking around with my two channel signal when what is currently available works pretty well.works and at the flip of a switch can be 100% eliminated from my analog audio signal path.Those who grew up in the gaming console/CD/computer era will likely feel different because they only have known digital solutions and always look in that direction first but that does not mean it is a better way.

Again,just personal opinion guys

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

If your entire audio system is "in the box" computer based with only the actual headphones being external you are prettty much locked into a software soltution so not only are options limited but direct hardware based/software based comparisons impossible.

I need to amend this statement.Both Chu Moy (Headwize Library) and John conover have amp/X-Feed/Headphone versions of the basic crossfeed network.
I have zero experience with either so can not report any findings on my part and I hate conjecture since more often than not I am flat out wrong when I practise it