Can channel crosstalk be actually a good thing?

[Asylum Seeker]

Theory - stereo imaging suffers in headphones because, unlike speakers, each ear is isolated from what the other ear hears.

Question - can some channel crosstalk--and I am not talking about 'crossfeed'--be actually a good thing for imaging in headphones/earphones?

 

[majingotan]

Theory - stereo imaging suffers in headphones because, unlike speakers, each ear is isolated from what the other ear hears.

Question - can some channel crosstalk--and I am not talking about 'crossfeed'--be actually a good thing for imaging in headphones/earphones?

That statement is incredibly misleading. Binaural recordings employ the use of minimal crosstalk in order to provide accurate imaging. If the crosstalk is incredibly bad, say -45dB then the channel bleed and imbalanced or even weird imaging will be apparent and what you'll hear is NOT what the engineers intended for the binaural presentation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstalk

From wikipedia:

In stereo audio reproduction, crosstalk can refer to signal leaking across from one program channel to another, reducing channel separation and stereo imaging. Crosstalk between channels in mixing consoles, and between studio feeds is a much more noticeable problem, as these are likely to be carrying very different programmes or material.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Not for headphones but Acourate has a thing called AcourateFlow which deliberately introduces frequency dependent crosstalk

https://www.stereo.net.au/forums/topic/118374-acourateflow/

 

[dwkdnvr]

How exactly does 'crosstalk' differ from 'crossfeed' in your mind.

The other aspect of headphone listening that is 'artificial' is that sound is injected directly from the side, bypassing pinna processing and HRTF. Both of these also contribute to the unnatural presentation.

I've been playing around with 'Impulcifier' lately (https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/Impulcifer ) which is a DIY package which measures HRIR and simulates speakers-in-a-room over headphones. I doctored up the approach to only apply HRTF/HRIF and NOT crossfeed in order to compare. I have to conclude that at least for the majority of recordings, having crossfeed works better than not having it.

I"m still experimenting, but given that virtually all recordings are mixed/mastered on speaker setups and hence expect some level of crossfeed to be present, eliminating it will generally be a deviation.

 

[Asylum Seeker]

That statement is incredibly misleading. Binaural recordings employ the use of minimal crosstalk in order to provide accurate imaging. If the crosstalk is incredibly bad, say -45dB then the channel bleed and imbalanced or even weird imaging will be apparent and what you'll hear is NOT what the engineers intended for the binaural presentation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosstalk

From wikipedia:

I am talking about stereo, not binaural.

 

[Asylum Seeker]

How exactly does 'crosstalk' differ from 'crossfeed' in your mind.

The other aspect of headphone listening that is 'artificial' is that sound is injected directly from the side, bypassing pinna processing and HRTF. Both of these also contribute to the unnatural presentation.

I've been playing around with 'Impulcifier' lately (https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/Impulcifer ) which is a DIY package which measures HRIR and simulates speakers-in-a-room over headphones. I doctored up the approach to only apply HRTF/HRIF and NOT crossfeed in order to compare. I have to conclude that at least for the majority of recordings, having crossfeed works better than not having it.

I"m still experimenting, but given that virtually all recordings are mixed/mastered on speaker setups and hence expect some level of crossfeed to be present, eliminating it will generally be a deviation.

Crossfeed is narrow band. Cross-talk is wide-band, all-band (?).

 

[majingotan]

I am talking about stereo, not binaural.

Applies to both. Increased crosstalk simply reduces perceived imaging of the recording

 

[Asylum Seeker]

Applies to both. Increased crosstalk simply reduces perceived imaging of the recording

Then what's the theory behind 'crossfeed'? How does crossfeed improve/restore imaging in headphones?

 

[Chrispy]

So you can't even listen to vinyl I assume?

 

[dwkdnvr]

Then what's the theory behind 'crossfeed'? How does crossfeed improve/restore imaging in headphones?

I think you have to be careful. What crossfeed is generally trying to do is remove the 'in the head' aspect of headphones, not really alter/improve 'imaging' as such. It's true that any crosstalk/feed will reduce the lateral spread of the system, but many find that this is a good trade if it results in better externalization of the sound.

Of course you have complicating factors like the Ambiophonics guys - who spend a lot of time and money trying to REMOVE crosstalk from speaker systems. It can work spectacularly well on some recordings, but isn't really a general purpose technique. (this is actually what I was trying to do with Impulcifier - recreate ambiophonics over headphones. my results haven't been completely sucessful so far)

 

[majingotan]

Then what's the theory behind 'crossfeed'? How does crossfeed improve/restore imaging in headphones?

I see crossfeed as only applicable to old recordings with extreme channel separation since the recording techniques back then are still simplistic. Modern recordings are much more complex in their mixes and as such modern DACs have evolved in a way to reproduce the mix as close to the source as possible. Sure you can toggle crossfeed on, but you aren't hearing the original source, but rather imaging that suits your subjective preferences. Then again, to me it's an equivalent of a tube effect box to me which is I'm also guilty of using.

 

[dwkdnvr]

I see crossfeed as only applicable to old recordings with extreme channel separation since the recording techniques back then are still simplistic. Modern recordings are much more complex in their mixes and as such modern DACs have evolved in a way to reproduce the mix as close to the source as possible. Sure you can toggle crossfeed on, but you aren't hearing the original source, but rather imaging that suits your subjective preferences. Then again, to me it's an equivalent of a tube effect box to me which is I'm also guilty of using.

Well, but if you accept the premise that recordings are mixed/mastered for playback over speakers, then headphones are already going to guarantee that you aren't 'hearing the original source' in the first place. A proper (i.e. based on personal HRIR measurements) crossfeed setup will arguably bring you closer to what the original intent was, not farther away.

 

[majingotan]

Well, but if you accept the premise that recordings are mixed/mastered for playback over speakers, then headphones are already going to guarantee that you aren't 'hearing the original source' in the first place. A proper (i.e. based on personal HRIR measurements) crossfeed setup will arguably bring you closer to what the original intent was, not farther away.

That's why I listen exclusively to speakers and won't invest anything to headphones (despite the Raal SR1a and those e-stat STAX and Dan Clark Voce sounding subjectively good). I only put my money on IEMs as they serve the purpose of private listening while sacrificing imaging accuracy (well I've never heard any headphones or IEMs that sound like speakers, but Raal SR1a despite having an open baffle compensation, still sounds like headphones on the grand scheme of presentation). My Yamaha HS7 trumps all of them in pure sound quality in my subjective opinion

 

[Asylum Seeker]

I see crossfeed as only applicable to old recordings with extreme channel separation since the recording techniques back then are still simplistic. Modern recordings are much more complex in their mixes and as such modern DACs have evolved in a way to reproduce the mix as close to the source as possible. Sure you can toggle crossfeed on, but you aren't hearing the original source, but rather imaging that suits your subjective preferences. Then again, to me it's an equivalent of a tube effect box to me which is I'm also guilty of using.

Ok, but you are avoiding the question. My question to you is this - what is your underlying theory of cross-feed? Please answer the question since the basic premise of the query hinges on this.

 

[Asylum Seeker]

I think you have to be careful. What crossfeed is generally trying to do is remove the 'in the head' aspect of headphones, not really alter/improve 'imaging' as such. It's true that any crosstalk/feed will reduce the lateral spread of the system, but many find that this is a good trade if it results in better externalization of the sound.

Of course you have complicating factors like the Ambiophonics guys - who spend a lot of time and money trying to REMOVE crosstalk from speaker systems. It can work spectacularly well on some recordings, but isn't really a general purpose technique. (this is actually what I was trying to do with Impulcifier - recreate ambiophonics over headphones. my results haven't been completely sucessful so far)

Great. How--what is the theory behind it-- does crossfeed Do this?

 

[dwkdnvr]

That's why I listen exclusively to speakers and won't invest anything to headphones

Um, ok. But I"m now puzzled as to why you'd insert yourself into a discussion about headphones which clearly have a different dynamic than speakers.

And, you might look at Impulcifier I mentioned earlier - it's basically a DIY Smyth Realizer, and recreates the sound of your in-room speakers over headphones. It won't replace the 'big rig', but it does a very credible job and I can see it being ideal for a desktop or travel system.

 

[Asylum Seeker]

... if you accept the premise that recordings are mixed/mastered for playback over speakers, then headphones are already going to guarantee that you aren't 'hearing the original source' in the first place. A proper (i.e. based on personal HRIR measurements) crossfeed setup will arguably bring you closer to what the original intent was, not farther away.

I accept the premise. Therefore, why would a little cross-talk not be a good thing since it is operating on the same principle of cross feed?

 

[Asylum Seeker]

This question/discussion pertains solely to headphones.

 

[Asylum Seeker]

Um, ok. But I"m now puzzled as to why you'd insert yourself into a discussion about headphones which clearly have a different dynamic than speakers.

...

I am equally puzzled about his tangents.

 

[majingotan]

Ok, but you are avoiding the question. My question to you is this - what is your underlying theory of cross-feed? Please answer the question since the basic premise of the query hinges on this.

Personally, I do not use cross-feed and have no use for it on my system since I prefer inaudible cross-talk on my sound reproduction system. Cross-feed defeats that purpose and thus present imaging that is not true to the source. IEMs and headphones have different perceived imaging so even cross-feed switches or DSP cross-feed will NOT correct the imaging of headphones to the way the sound is presented through speakers. The common theory that I know of is that cross-feed helps older recordings sound tolerable on headphones. I certainly enjoy the way my CA Andromeda IEM images the sound without any additional cross-feed whatsoever. BTW, I've demoed my CA Andromeda through Chord Hugo 2 with those cross-feed switches and yep they turn my CA Andromeda to crappy imaging (to my subjective opinion) after flipping the cross-feed switches or balls in this case to any of "low, medium, high" settings