[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 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.

Rick, you are a man in the know as far as analog audio circuits are concerned, but computers-as-source audio doesn't seem to be your strong point.
There are shurely listeners out there that plug some cheap headphones directly into a soundcard, but hardly any head-fier would do that.
I do have the direct comparison between a hardware based solution (Corda Cross I) and a good software based solution ( headplug).Both have their strenghts and weaknesses.The Corda is a bit more transparent, and the headplug DSP effect is totally adjustable to your anatomy and to the specific needs of a song ( by imprinting the effect once into the file by utilizing the diskwriter function, no further need to fiddle around with sliders or knobs while you are listening to different songs).
The austrian programmer (Paul Groke) of the headplug plugin frankly admits that there's still room for improvement ( BTW by making it more complex, especially the dithering algorithm he implemented is too simple in his opinion.

I guess with a little fine tuning of the DSP effect it would finally render hardware based solutions inferior and useless at least as far as digital non DRM audio is concerned. Quote:

But think about it for a moment.Why would you want all the steps involved with either a stand alone DSP/CODEC ......

Maybe because it's totally free since the computer is already there?
Quote:

And what about those who still have quality analog sources ? Analog tape ? Vinyl system ? FM radio

Well, from my point of view they are pretty much locked into a hardware based solution so not only are options limited but direct hardware based/software based comparisons impossible.

Generally speaking you are generalizing your experience with analog circuits resulting in an "as simple as possible" approach and expand it to the digital realm where it doesn't apply.Complaining about "millions of calculations" is like a computer guy complaining about "gazillions of electrons" in analog circuits.
And a dozend of bad sounding DSP effects don't mean that the whole concept of DSP is flawed like ten weird women in your past don't mean to avoid women at all.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

and the headplug DSP effect is totally adjustable to your anatomy and to the specific needs of a song

YES ! EXACTLY !

And goes back to my overcomplicating the simple statement just to have more controls even if the simple is better and to the "because I can" DSP style is not for me

My personal belief is the more control you leave in the hands of both the coder and the end user on this type of device the more likely you will see "misuse" and poor results which in the end make the user claim the idea of a headphone-crossfeed itself is wrong.
Too many options being available instead of one,two or three "optimised" settings.Different settings for different songs is a recipe for disaster when a simple "little bit,little bit more,a LOT" triple setting will do for 99.9% of listening.

Do we listen to loudspeakers that different ? Do we not get pretty much the same expereince in a concert hall with the only variant being where we actually sit ? Or do we instead "tune" the venue to suit each indvidual artist or song.

this is the very reason tone controls are no longer commonly avaialble.Not because they are not sometimes useful but because most have no idea how to use them so almost to a person use them to the point where the sound is distinctly changed rather than in minute amounts as a corrector.
This "no clue how to properly use" habit of the average human ends up with blanket statements such as "tone controls suck" or "crossfeeds suck" because the way used they DID suck and suck big time

Of course if you like it cool.

Quote:

The austrian programmer (Paul Groke) of the headplug plugin frankly admits that there's still room for improvement ( BTW by making it more complex, especially the dithering algorithm he implemented is too simple in his opinion

YEEEESSSSS !

again man,you make my point for me

Simple hand full of passive parts is now this hugely complex algorythm that needs a "fix" to make the "fix" work as well as the simple passive device

Quote:

I guess with a little fine tuning of the DSP effect it would finally render hardware based solutions inferior and useless at least as far as digital non DRM audio is concerned.

we are being led to a totally digital environment for all things music and it will look nothing like our present two channel audio (and why there is a SAVE STEREO AUDIO movement made up of audiophiles and select manufacturers).
Because it will all at that time be "in the box" once it passes through the ADC (if one is even needed

) everything from the front end to the final transducer will have the same mediocre sound and most will never even know it being so busy twiddling with electronic "virtual" controls.

The same folks who brought us copy protection,lossy compresssion and quadraphonics will convince a large majority that their "big a*s cell phone disguised as audio system" makes better music than what has gone before and it will work because so many are already attached at the hip to their computer and is their personal standard for music reproduction.
Anything less is considered "old fashioned" even though on the sonic merits the old usually will beat the "new" down.

Multichannel "wandering image" digital audio with a multitude of crapty little speakers driven by digital amps,every kind of virtual manipulation known to man (more ways to screw up the music by the clueless

) and touted from hilltop to valley that it beats everything that has gone before until someone actually does a simple one to one direct comparison and at that time that person will be PISSED !

Just my opinion man and not etched in stone fact.


I am still into triodes for electronics,have a serious Pultec Type tone control "in system" ,use balance controls (actually dual mono volume pots,no steppers

) and have both analog tape and a vinyl playback system if that is any indication of where I am on music playback

analog man in a digital world ? Could be rabbit

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 Too many options being available instead of one,two or three "optimised" settings.Different settings for different songs is a recipe for disaster when a simple "little bit,little bit more,a LOT" triple setting will do for 99.9% of listening. :

Rick, there is a "optimised" setting for the clueless, it's called the "default" button.The default setting is rather conservative and it works.
For those who are not clueless (like me) there's the option to choose the best settings.Your simple tripple setting approach (like implemented in the Corda) doesn't really fulfill my needs.This is not academic or enjoying a more complicated tool.Just listen to certain old hard panned Beatles recordings.Totally unlistenable through headphones without crossfeed, bearable at the strongest setting of the Corda, and wonderful when the software crossfeed is set right.It's a huge difference and well worth the few hours you'd need to learn how to use it properly, about the same time you'd need to study the schematic, get the parts and solder a hardware crossfeed.
Most settings are set once according to your anatomy and taste and never touched again anyway ( e.g. the proper delay is dependant on the size of your head).
Quote:

Simple hand full of passive parts is now this hugely complex algorythm that needs a "fix" to make the "fix" work as well as the simple passive device

Again, Rick, it doesn't work as well as the simple passive device, it's already better in some aspects, and further improving the sound quality would make it better or at least as good in all aspects.
I can't see the difference between this and the active headroom hardware crossfeed that has been improved over several generations.It's called progress.
The same has happened with CDPs.One of the reasons the latest CDPs do sound better are improved (and more complex) dithering algorithms.Nothing wrong in improving an already decent sound quality in my view, by what means ever.
For the consumer this kind of improvement isn't complex at all, most even don't know anything about it and they don't have to.They just enjoy the improved sound quality.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Again, Rick, it doesn't work as well as the simple passive device, it's already better in some aspects, and further improving the sound quality would make it better or at least as good in all aspects.

does not work as well as a simple RC network and that is a plus ?

Seems to me a pime example of doing a thing just to do it and not because it is a better way.If you prefer digital domain for all things audio then cool,it works for you.I and many others however feel there is zero reason to go through multiple steps,each of which has sonic impact,to not even be on equal footing with what is readly available with a "promise" that at best this will be as good as.

better is pretty much doubtful no matter what the research says.You can not force a "new" thing to just BE through sheer will alone and the same rules have to apply that others have come to through actual listening (turnover frequency,cross channel blend amount,high end boost,etc.).

There is a reason this is in the 600-700hz range and that is through listening after what was on paper proved wrong even though in theory should not have been-a thing we humans are good at :Hearing things not evident in the specs.
The fact that Chu optimised the original Linkwitz filter through listening even though the numbers in his first attempts at the mod should have worked but which in reality sounded like crap (from the article but my words

) is why the DSP and theory miss the mark when directly compared through actual listening.

I have listened to every single software based crossfeed available and every single hardware based one I know of and even the worst example of the analog filters win out over the best of the written in code examples.Obviously only my personal opinion here.

but I have to tell you the promise of "will be as good and maybe possibly at some future point maybe better but no gurantees" is not a great selling point for all the added complexity involved since I already have what I need at the flip of a single toggle switch so the argument really falls on deaf ears (yes,I meant the inside joke

)

Again.personal choice is cool with only limited options uncool so if you rather an algrythm to an RC network i will not try to talk you out of it but will argue the why i choose not to instead

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 better is pretty much doubtful no matter what the research says.You can not force a "new" thing to just BE through sheer will alone and the same rules have to apply that others have come to through actual listening (turnover frequency,cross channel blend amount,high end boost,etc.).

The findings of others, scientific researchers or listeners, are shurely a good starting points, but most probably my ears differ from Chu's, and the software crossfeed does provide adjustability of turnover frequency,cross channel blend amount,high end boost,etc. Quote:

Again.personal choice is cool with only limited options uncool

Finally we agree.I have them both and I do apply them depending on their suitability for the purpose.
To my ears the software crossfeed is better suited for hard panned 60's recordings listened through circumaureal cans and for imprinting the crossfeed effect into files for my portable listening, and the Corda is better whenever my K1000s need an extra kick of crossfeed in addition to the truely natural crossfeed they do provide anyway (which is really rarely necessary).

 

[michaelconnor]

Hmm, I've been trying the software crossfeed in foobar2000 and I can't hear any difference. I'm playing old Beatles recordings with total separation, but with crossfeed on, I can't hear any vocals on the left, or instruments on the right.
Am I missing something? I've heard hardware crossfeed on the aria and microstack, and they are way more apparent than this when they're on.

 

[Beauregard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 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 ).

So true! And I think it's important that folks are occasionally reminded that not all opinions are created equal...

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelconnor Hmm, I've been trying the software crossfeed in foobar2000 and I can't hear any difference. I'm playing old Beatles recordings with total separation, but with crossfeed on, I can't hear any vocals on the left, or instruments on the right. Am I missing something? I've heard hardware crossfeed on the aria and microstack, and they are way more apparent than this when they're on.

The Beatles recordings are pretty odd, and the best example of what exactly not to do while recording stereo, (along with other artists) there is absolutely no way of fixing them, unless switching to mono, which sometimes I prefer for headphone listening. The crossfeed is a very subtle device that remedies the fatigue associated with the channel separation, in recording done in the best sense of the stereo, but will not do miracles, and these Beatles recordings need indeed a miracle...
I use crossfeed all the time, and what I feel is a more natural and more speaker like presentation of the musical experience. The one I use is the Cross-1 which I reco all the time, and as all passive devices, the only con IMO, is a little of sound attenuation which can be fixed just increasing the volume a little bit, but even though the attenuation is pretty subtle also...after a few weeks of crossfeed is hard to go back, it is simply addictive....

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

The findings of others, scientific researchers or listeners, are shurely a good starting points, but most probably my ears differ from Chu's, and the software crossfeed does provide adjustability of turnover frequency,cross channel blend amount,high end boost,etc.

the turnover freq is pretty mucj already "locked in" for a crossfeed network to be useful for audio and goes from a low range of 600hz (too low) to high range of 750hz (too high).again easily selected with a simple resistor if this is a plus which to be honest I beleive is just more room for someone to screw up the sonics.

Wanting it to be otherwise does not make it so and could be the real reason there are limited examples from a large amount of vendors : not wanting to walk on someone elses turf that has already "taken" a certain turnover frequency.Not a whole lot of room between 600 and 700 hz !

The blend rate ? Replace the fixed resistor with a simple variable resistor,better known as a 'pot".Again no real need for a "simulation" of what is readily available and easily implemented by even a novice.

Treble trim the same thing.Check out the Headroom crossfeed and Jan Meiers Cross-1.Nothing fancy just a simple switch and passive parts.

Quote:

Finally we agree.I have them both and I do apply them depending on their suitability for the purpose.

never was actually not agreeing as much as putting forth an argument for simplicity over complexity.
I CAN see where totally written code has areas where it is that way or nothing (portable mulltifunction cell phones/palm computers etc) but feel still any audio device that can be put on a "diet" is a good thing and to replace a 3x3x1 inch box with something requiring a power source is the wrong direction in a lot of cases.
Even though the computer is headed to the living room and will be the center of most AV systems that does not mean it will be a better way,just A way and like with software equalisers fine if the medium is already in the digital domain but not so very if not and that is using the best of them not the worst examples.
Is there a more misunderstood program right now than the simple little equalisers built into just about all music players ? More misadjustment ? More "what is the best setting for..." type questions ?
check the portables and computer as source forums right here at headfi for the story.Pretty it is not

Quote:

To my ears the software crossfeed is better suited for hard panned 60's recordings listened through circumaureal cans and for imprinting the crossfeed effect into files for my portable listening,

Right there is an example of choice.I would never pre-encode music to be usable with only one type of listening,in this case headphones only,but would rather have a switch to make that decision depending on what at the time is my chosen method-speaker or headphone.

the "to my ears software crossfeed is better suited..." compared to what ? every other commonly available hardware crossfeed ? Have you actually compared ? If yes then i have to respect your choice .If no then it is a bold statement backed up by conjecture only.

I personally can say I have built and listened to every version of the linkwitz crossfeed network from the original to Chu Moy's implementation to Jan Meier's version to John Conover's.
i have also heard the Headroom crossfeed in the format formerly in the Max,the cosmic and the earlier Audio Alchemy Headphone amp liscenced version plus every single software crossfeed that has ever been discused at a headphone forum site or is available for download from the various player sites as a plug in.

To me personally the best of them do not compare to any of the hardware versions and some are damn unlistenable.My computer is fast enough and my RAM large enough for there to be no limitaions on my processing of the plug-in so iyt is the actual code that fails my ears and as I said previously.
Even if they eventually become the equal of what i already own and use why would I be moved to make the change ?


I who have gone to great lengths to get as much "out of the box" as humanly possible (ADC/DAC all analog stages in and out) can not see a future where I would be moved to put somthing back in and especially so if it brings nothing special to the table.

I have yet to see any passive device "lock up",have drop outs or suffer the blue screen of death and require a full reboot before it can be operational again.

Quote:

and the Corda is better whenever my K1000s need an extra kick of crossfeed in addition to the truely natural crossfeed they do provide anyway (which is really rarely necessary).

cool but maybe you need to be looking for a passive device with more positions between your portable player and your amp ?

kiddin' man

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelconnor Hmm, I've been trying the software crossfeed in foobar2000 and I can't hear any difference. I'm playing old Beatles recordings with total separation, but with crossfeed on, I can't hear any vocals on the left, or instruments on the right. Am I missing something? I've heard hardware crossfeed on the aria and microstack, and they are way more apparent than this when they're on.

Foobar's crossfeed is good for nothing IMO.Just try the headplug plugin for winamp and if you don't like winamp (like me) imprint the effect into the files that are in desperate need for lots of crossfeed like those weird Beatles recordings and play them later through foobar.
To me a cranked up headplug crossfeed sounds way better than mono.

 

[TheSloth]

The HeadRoom crossfeed always was and continues to be an active system, and has used various monolithic opamps over it's history, beginning with the OPA275, used until July '04 when they moved to an OPA2134, and then '05 where they now use 2 OPA627's in their flagship.

Just for the sake of detail Rick...

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickcr42 I have yet to see any passive device "lock up" or suffer the blue screen of death and require a full reboot before it can be operational again.

The last time one of my computers seriously crapped out was, wait, I can't remember, maybe spring 2002, and even that was hardware related, a fan didn't work anymore due to a defective bearing and the built-in safety curcuit shut my PC down.
I'm sure you've implemented similar curcuits into your tube amps in case one of the tubes is running wild.

Quote:

Is there a more misunderstood program right now than the simple little equalisers built into just about all music players ? More misadjustment ? More "what is the best setting for..." type questions ? check the portables and computer as source forums right here at headfi for the story.Pretty it is not

You are talking about clueless kids.Just give them some time, they will grow out of it.How much time and how many blown parts did it take when you first got into DIY?
Quote:

Right there is an example of choice.I would never pre-encode music to be usable with only one type of listening,in this case headphones only,but would rather have a switch to make that decision depending on what at the time is my chosen method-speaker or headphone.

Long live diversity.Personally I don't like to adjust anything during listening to songs, it distracts me from the flow.
At the moment I'm experimenting with HRTF equalization tailored to my personal hearing.This means a different equalization for different headphones.Standalone phase correct studio equalizers are nice and do provide lots of features (I mostly don't need), but they are seemingly too expensive for my modest income.
In the end I will probably use a combination of free and affordable and self programmed computer based tools, but this will push my PC to it's performance limit (and sometimes beyond since a PC operating system is no realtime operating system).No one wants audio that stutters from time to time, so I will end with several USB-harddiscs full of pre-encoded files for different purposes.
I have already six harddiscs full of audio files, and all I can hope for is that new HDs continue to grow in storage size as fast as my demand.

That might sound hilarious to you, but c'mon, that's not totally different from the reasons why you got into DIY long ago.
You couldn't afford commercial high-end analog audio, and I can't afford high-end DSP audio and therefor I'm getting into a kind of digital DIY.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Just for the sake of detail Rick...

You also know that I know that from previous threads on the subject and in fact have the schemo banging around somewhere on Headrooms earlier AA liscensed version

Just using the the Headroom examples as an illustration of just how many headphone crossfeed networks I have actually listened to.Some for extreme long periods,others shorter in duration but still real time use with music as the test
My point being personal experience rather than beliefs just based on literature or theory.You stick around audio long enough and be the type that must try every new gadget conceived by even a warped mind (me) and you can usually figure out if a thing is valid or just hype a mile off and what is just a "shade" of something else just named a "new thing".

Quote:

The last time one of my computers seriously crapped out was, wait, I can't remember, maybe spring 2002, and even that was hardware related, a fan didn't work anymore due to a defective bearing and the built-in safety curcuit shut my PC down.

You are one lucky human.I have at least one screwup every day or two and mostly because I treat the computer as if it were a "real time" hands on tool such as a hammer or a screwdriver.By asking it to do things at my pace I sometimes try to make it do things simultaneously that go dead against capabilities.My sons say I try to confuse computers intentionally just to prove I am superior to a machine but the real truth is far worse.
The real truth is I am just an impatient person and want everything done NOW if not sooner and try to make my world comply at which time it balks more often than not which really pisses me off even more than waiting

Quote:

I'm sure you've implemented similar curcuits into your tube amps in case one of the tubes is running wild

Funny you should bring that up.I run my electronics HOT and that means stacking is many times off the list of possibles.I also never do "combination" audio componants preferring instead to break everthing down into building blocks,each part with its own enclosure in its own self contained world but connected to the greater whole.
This means I need space.Space for the Class-a and Triode hot heads to breath and space for the footprint of each building block module. Because I hate being locked in to a single "way" and do not like throwing out everything to change a single aspect it works for me.
You will not see a crossfeed network or any other "correctors" inside the same box as any of my gain stages,buffers,amps,line driver/receivers,booster stages or switch boxes.Everyhing instead has its own place and can be plugged into the "group" or taken totally out without the rest skipping a beat !

So there

(just messing with you man.Having a bit of fun

)

Quote:

You are talking about clueless kids.Just give them some time, they will grow out of it.

Yup.And toss the software EQ entirely or replace it with a well implemnted hardwired version as thier taste matures and their penchant for HUGE GOBS OF BASS subsides

Quote:

How much time and how many blown parts did it take when you first got into DIY?

man,I could have this joint in tears if I did the ugly little history of my early DIY days.If still in the archives at HEADWIZE (edited in !) do a search for "ricks tales of destruction" where I touched on a couple of my more spectacular pyrotechnic experiences !

In my defense there was no internet then but monthly magazine articles that until I actually began to know the why of how things worked would build blindly according to whatever the pages said i should do.sometimes after a month of pulling out my hair and letting out all the "magic smoke" there would be the next issue and the "oopsy ! We screwed up ! It should have read....."

YOU BAST*RDS !

Not only was the failure rate painful but parts were VERY hard to come by then and were in fact extremely expensive in "one of" quantities (like five smackers or better per transistor.About $20 per in adjusted dollars !

).Blowing crap up was not good for a fourteen year old picking up loose change doing odd jobs to buy parts

Quote:

Long live diversity.Personally I don't like to adjust anything during listening to songs, it distracts me from the flow.

I can see where that can be a plus but it does preclude popping the CD out of the portable and into the car player or even someone elses home system then playing back over loudspeakers.Unlike the "mixed for speaker use" then used with a crossfeed for headphones there is no valid "reverse" fix.Those puppies are strictly headphone playback (and BTW-if you had less adjustments to make while listenng it would not be such a pain in the a*s to adjust on the fly

)

Quote:

At the moment I'm experimenting with HRTF equalization tailored to my personal hearing.This means a different equalization for different headphones.Standalone phase correct studio equalizers are nice and do provide lots of features (I mostly don't need), but they are seemingly too expensive for my modest income. In the end I will probably use a combination of free and affordable and self programmed computer based tools, but this will push my PC to it's performance limit (and sometimes beyond since a PC operating system is no realtime operating system).No one wants audio that stutters from time to time, so I will end with several USB-harddiscs full of pre-encoded files for different purposes.

been there and done that.More aplicable to creating space artificially (and potentially well though still not real) than it is correcting for the WALL put in the way of the left and right channels of music by your head being in the way and all the sound coming from the sides.

ever listen to a mono signal using HRTFs to make it psuedo stereo or even synthesized binaural ?
No longer sounds like mono but by no means does it sound as good as what it tries to emulate and that is the main reason I am highly suspicious of the research going on.The "con" will be "better than real" which is as we all know imposible and if you have real already why would you emulate it ?

Why if you have access to a stereo disc would a person contemplate buying a mono one then trying to ake it sound like the stereo version already available and far better anyway ?

same with binaural and the HRTF versions.you want true binaural ? then record with omnis in a dummy head.you want an "approximation" that sounds close but no way is as good ? Choose the HRTF path

Quote:

I have already six harddiscs full of audio files, and all I can hope for is that new HDs continue to grow in storage size as fast as my demand

I have a mostly empty single hard drive and boxes,cabinets and racks full of music software

Quote:

That might sound hilarious to you, but c'mon, that's not totally different from the reasons why you got into DIY long ago

Just one of those inquisitive compulsive readers at a young age and for some reason audio electronics "took" evenb though it was another thirty years before I had a clue and am still learning daily. Was never about "need" but joy.
To this day I am 100% content listening to a car FM radio if the song is one I like.There is a serious disconnect between the extreme measures I CAN choose and the simple measure that I actually DO choose when building or designing or even contemplating for purchase.I get a woody over elegantly simplistic circuitry even though I have a small amount of knowledge in and can in fact delve into the darker deeper areas of mad scientist gone wrong

Quote:

You couldn't afford commercial high-end analog audio, and I can't afford high-end DSP audio and therefor I'm getting into a kind of digital DIY.

you got that right ! I lusted after a pair of Dahlquist DQ-10's driven by a Theadra/Ampzilla combination with a Linn Sondek front end and settled for a Hafler preamp and DH-500 built from kits driving the DQ-10s and using an AR XB and Grace F-9E as the front end.Later i added an Advent dolby Cassette recorder and a Teac open reel deck plus a few home brew "gadgets" just because i could.

Sounded pretty damn good too all things considered !

Getting late here and I am starting to get a bit loopy so will have to take this up another time.

G'night man

rickster

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

Momentarily, I'll agree with Rick here: I've heard lots of DSP HRTFs and have never experienced any degree of adjustability that I felt I could hear clearly enough to self-adjust properly. Additionally, when we first developed the crossfeed network we had a box tha allowed us to adjust all the perameters an I simply wasn't able to hear the effect of twiddling knobs well enough to feel that I was doing something I wanted to do. So, I'm not a big believer in controls for HRTF variables ... yet.

While I'm certainly a believer that our analog crossfeed implementation does a lot to fix headphone audio, I also believe there are things that can be done in the digital domain that would deliver a superior listening experience. How much superior is the question. My answer would be significantly superior. For example, while I think Dolby Headphone sucks for two channel, I think it does wonders for movies. I've also heard an experimental HRTF that delivered an astonishingly convincing out of head listening experience, but it moved things much too much in the up direction.

Personally, I think there's room in the world for both analog and digital versions of crossfeed. In the end, however, I'll bet that it will be a digital version that becomes the most widely used.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

For example, while I think Dolby Headphone sucks for two channel, I think it does wonders for movies. I've also heard an experimental HRTF that delivered an astonishingly convincing out of head listening experience, but it moved things much too much in the up direction.

Even when we disagree we mostly agree but word it differently

The HRTFs and DSPs do work well for multichannel "out of head" images and also suck across the board in my experience for two channel stereo audio and that every single time I have listened because it bears no relationship with actual events on the disc.
When I use the word "sucks" it is not because the sound is unlistenable or even bad just when directly compred to the original does it become obvious that the two channel DSP free sound is more natural and sound better while the other artificial.Some WANT artificial and sounds coming from all directions,I just want a forward diffuse field image like i hear when I listen to speakers or live music.

No vocalist creeping up on me from behind seemingly,no "keyboards in the sky",no solo piano that that now comes from an outdoor arena seating 100,000 concert goers and no artificial "Room 1/Room 2/Room 3" type effects.
Unnatural FX just to do it and nothing like natural music.We have live recordings for that and with a simple L-R matrix can be extracted and reproduced true to the original.You want "Fake" live ? Same matrix crossfed between channels and recycled to reproduce false echos (reverb not actually present)

a headphone crossfeed network is NOT a special effect and is NOT surround sound but a simple attempt to recreate forward positioned open air speakers in a side mounted channel seperated headphone.no more,no less.This means interchannels blend,no need for a DSP there,and an all-pass filter to shift the image forward.Again simple singl pole filter and no reason for a DSP.Passband ripple and treble attenuation are simply addressed in a fixed treble boost and ripple in the passband with good filter design.
Tossing such a simple device to the virtual ciruit would be like usig your computer to add a simple -10 dB attenuator pad because you think it is better than two resistors.It can be done but tht does not make it right or that you should unless you are just hell bent to do it.

Quote:

In the end, however, I'll bet that it will be a digital version that becomes the most widely used.

Only because we will be forced into it by that being the only choice.I watch trends and pay serious attention to research going on outside the audio realm which always in the end crosses over into our playground because if the corporations do not have a "new thing" to beat us over the head with every few years which enables them to get into our bank accounts they become an afterthought.
The push IS to mutlichannel multidirectional for every single piece of gear capable of playing music and at that time when it becomes the standard most will be so busy marvelling in the "gee whiz" aspecs they will not even listen closely and realise what they had before not only sounded better but cost them little in direct comparison.
Quadraphonics,analog delay,digital delay,soundfield simulators,surround sound,multichannel DVD-A/SACD,HRTFs.........

Have witnessed the rise and fall of every single on of them until Dolby surround chose MOVIES as the target audience instead of MUSIC which is an artificial state and folks knew it and why it fails every time if there is a choice no matter what tricks are palyed on the signal.

They are not giving up easy and are instead slowly wearing us down over time which by corporate time standards is nothing are just prepping the public for the future where choices will be zero unless you want to break the bank and go outside the normal mid-fi audio highway where everything will be copy protected compressed audio that you can download for a fee ($1 per song sounds cheap until you have a 30 song album and could buy the whole damn CD for $10 !) and every aspect of the soundfield right there adjustable with a "virtual" knob or slider in the hands of a public that can not even properly adjust a bass control

Bottom line is a TRUE crossfeed is actually a simple device easily done in hardware.Multichannel/multidirectional not and better done in the digital realm but where they mostly get it wrong is they toss the baby out with the bath water.
Instead of leaving the original alone and then ADDING TO IT the new signal they instead futz with everything and leave mostly nothing resembling the original and why my Hafler Dynaquad PASSIVE surround system whips the crap out of my $1K Pioneer surrounf sound receiver with music as the source.We don't need to be amazed and impressed with music but only for movie FX which is larger than life on purpose just as the on screen action is.We just want it to work and be beleivable..


confusing multichannel movie surround with stereo music crossfeed is a huge mistake and why Dolby Headphone works great for movies and seriously sucks for music listening.totally different requirements,totally different expectations and entirely different realities.Music as FX ?

i'll personally take a pass