Why don't modern DACs include crosstalk cancellation?

Some headphone amplifiers include a feature not commonly found in modern DACs and speaker based two-channel audio systems: crosstalk cancellation. What is that and why wouldn't it be included? Have a question you want to ask Paul? www.psaudio.com/ask-paul/
I am getting close to publishing my memoir! It's called 99% True and it is chock full of adventures, debauchery, struggles, heartwarming stories, triumphs and failures, great belly laughs, and a peek inside the high-end audio industry you've never known before.
I plan a few surprises for early adopters, so go to www.paulmcgowan.com and add your name to the list of interested readers. There's an entire gallery of never before seen photos too.

[@rich1051414]

I have the best crosstalk cancellation system in the world, and it fits on my head. A high tech piece of kit called headphones.

[@isettech]

Back in the 1970's some stereos actually had the mono, stereo, and wide switch. This was common on some of the portable stereos often referred to as boom boxes and no longer Politically Correct ghetto blasters, but that is what they were called by all races. Portable stereos used this switch as a way to widen relatively close spaced speakers in a portable stereo. This often made the sound un natural and this feature was dropped from newer portable stereos in favor of detachable speakers on mini or bookshelf stereos instead. The reference to a speaker pointed at a wall is the basic concept of the Bose direct reflecting sound to produce a room filling sound. This is pretty much rejected by audiophiles as it has very poor stereo image.

[@JoeJ-8282]

The "Stereo-Wide" switch on most portables, as you mentioned, was only a basic "phase reversal" switch though, that's why it pretty much totally ruined the "center image" and "soundstage", (of which there wasn't much on a portable boom box anyway, but...), however, *crosstalk cancellation* done in both speakers is slightly different than that. Look up a term called "ambiophonics" for comparison.

[@jdlech]

The way I see it, there are 3 types of audiophiles. 1. obsessed with music as it sounded in the studio - as if you were in the studio at the time they're recording it. Not necessarily as the engineer meant it to be heard, but maybe as if you were standing in the studio, in front of the band. Either way, it's always as one of the two. 2. Obsessed with accurate reproduction of the source material - with absolute precision and accuracy. These are the minimalists. 3. obsessed with recreating a live performance. They want the real walls of their home to disappear and replace them with different walls - those of a stadium, opera house, open field, etc.. Each of the three have completely different priorities. #2 would be horrified to hear you say 'let's keep some crosstalk in the DAC". Of course, they would also be horrified by the idea of converting from analog to digital and then back to analog. #1 would argue, "you get the crosstalk between speakers anyway - leaving it in the DAC only muddles the studio sound". #3 is like, 'meh - as long as it sounds like I'm standing right behind the conductor, I'm good'. I often bounce between all three, depending on my mood - so my home system is a jack-of-all-trades, and master of none. Non audiophiles call my system a "killer system", but a lot of audiophiles say I made the wrong choice for this or that - mostly because they're not interested in one of the three styles. But it's "OK" for the money I put into it.

[@tromick]

Exactly. But it is too hard to build these things. Almost costs like cheap car.

[@josegazal701]

I am afraid of being repetitive, but crosstalk cancellation should be considered in conjunction with binaural content (or at least stereo content with realistic level differences; ideally time differences also, but that is rare currently) and personal head related impulse responses. Please check the work of Dr. Choueiri (3D3A lab at Princeton and Theoretica) and Dr. Stephen Smyth (Smyth Research). To currently take advantage of such personalization, one need to go trough a laborious measurement routine. Without personalization and head tracking, crosstalk cancellation and binaural (and stereo to a certain extent) content do not achieve their full potential. IMHO, when and if such personalization become fast and simple enough for mass market, then it won’t be any further restrictions to the proliferation of binaural content, crosstalk cancellation and head tracking. Binaural content + xtc + headtracking + personalization leads to a very specific spatial presentation sightly different from, for instance, Ambisonics. Sincerelly, I would not call the stereo effect a 3d effect. Cheers!

[@mu_on]

Interesting. Yet, Ambisonics can be decoded into binaural also. And actually most virtual binaural plug-in use some kind of ambisonic virtual space. Maybe you where talking about native binaural recordings ? But this doesn't allow for personalized hrtf filters on playback. Also by xtc I assume you meant crosstalk cancellation and not ecstasy, right ? 😂

[@bjornahh87]

Dear paul have you tested headphones with these functions ? I personally tried a cheap pair of those crosstalk headphones and the sound is more live and vibrant and i think you loose some frequency range on the regular headsets, and i register it when i now go back and use the "old style" headphones without that option. So i would encourage you to try it out, but I'll admit that it is a kind of "learning" experience sometimes it "sounds" very good and other times it's just ok, so it depends on what you listen to just like the hifi speakers you got at home

[@Woofy-tm8si]

Coincidentally, I just received a Jolida Foz SS-X Tube Buffer and Soundstage Processor this afternoon. One of the core technologies used in the device either increases or decreases channel crosstalk. Users can vary the amount of crosstalk to vary the illusion from a narrow to wide soundstage or vice versa. Jolida also has another product designed by the same Jim Fozgate, the Foz XT-R, that reduces crosstalk during LP playback that performs a similar function specifically for LP playback. The effect is subtle and effectively convincing without sounding artificial. It's nothing like those awful DSP settings in AVRs, thank QAWD! The stock Tung-Sol tube is surprisingly neutral sounding with oustanding extension in both bass and treble with an appreciated lack of tube tubbiness. Yet somehow it makes listening to less than stellar recordings on CDs and mp3 files far more pleasurable. My DAC's balanced outs are connected to my preamp's balanced inputs so I can enjoy listening to well recorded/mastered recordings directly as well. After several hours of experimenting with the SS-X, the decision to keep it is a relative no brainer. Having a continuously variable crosstalk control makes sense for LP playback, and so far it appears to make everything I have played through it more enjoyable and isn't that what this hobby is all about?

[@SK-qu4wo]

I don't know if this is a related issue but I have an old Sony STR-AV230 stereo receiver that has an issue where audio from an active input can be heard faintly through all the other inputs when the volume is turned up about halfway or all the way up. Is this normal for these older receivers or is this a some kind of malfunction? How do i fix it?

[@JoeJ-8282]

Hmm, I wonder if what you're describing here is basically the same thing as what Polk Audio was doing with their "SDS-SRA" (or "SDA"?) series of multiple driver tower loudspeakers back in the late 80's?... I actually have a pair of those and they produce a LOT of this exact same aural effect, as in a very wide and deep "3-D" soundstage when set up as they recommend, (at least as far as my understanding of what you are describing here goes), and they do it through their proprietary interconnect cable that sends some of the left channel into the right speaker and some of the right channel into the left speaker, (out of phase I suppose?), and I believe it sounds very similar to the effect that you're describing here. Interesting. (Further investigation is necessary on my part to actually see exactly how they are wired and what they're doing internally and within their crossovers.)

[@markswank3750]

Polk had a line of speakers that did this. I think they had SDA in their name. Also, Carver's Sonic Holography units did the same thing.

[@JoeJ-8282]

Yep, I mentioned that too.

[@MAELOB]

Paul, some do such as Mcintosh Mha-150 and SPL phonitor headphone amps

[@sski]

Paul, do you remember the NAD Sonic Hologram gear?

[@gabevee3]

Dies anyone remember the Carver sonic holography? I heard it. One of my dear friends had the preamp with it and the cube. The sound was OK. I designed my own amp and based the design on what I got from tube amps and one in particular I grew up with. I got that tube sound from solid state and it made the amp sound like a 150 wpc at only 60 wpc. The soundstage almost literally wrapped around the listener. No sweet spot needed either like the Carver.

[@gelgel85]

Paul, I play Vinyl and I have recently purchase a chord mojo/poly to play with my IEM on the go. Just for convenience, i play the high res files I bought and plug my mojo/poly to my hifi system thru my Cary audio sli-80 intg amp and the results were really satisfying. I am convinced and plan to walk to a more serious road with High res music streamer /DAc. However a friend of mine told me I should get a good quality CD player like esoteric K-5 or K-3 that has a better DAC than a stand-alone DAC. which I am half convinced It might be true but I am not a fan of CD as I don’t have many CD collections. I can’t find any answers on the web regarding this: Is a stand-alone DAC better than a DAC in a high end CD player like the isoteric K-03x? How but a streamer DAC like the PS audio directstream? How do they compare? Please enlighten me Paul.

[@ryanray6215]

Paul , and that is why I also watch and listen my movies from pure stereo system only . Gave up long time ago stupid multichannel home theater system . Try it for yourself with your PS Audio gear and let us know your opinion on that .

[@endrizo]

The jvc biphonic system from late 70s was really impressive.

[@janinapalmer8368]

What happened right at the beginning..? Paul mispronounced a word then froze..! I had a pair of Koss headphones that had "Ambience Expansion " knobs on each headphone ... they were quite good .... but only really worked well when there was a good deal of channel separation. I only use 2 channel audio .. a left and a right speaker ... plus a 750watt 15 inch sub and sometimes while listening to some audio from the tv channels I get sound coming from anywhere BUT the speakers ... it is so lifelike that it makes me get up to see what's going on ...

[@lextr3110]

both ear will hear the cancelling signal and the original signal...

[@tormaid42]

Crosstalk cancellation is a destructive DSP process that belongs on a computer, not on bespoke hardware in the DAC.

[@tormaid42]

And honestly, headphones are just better for binaural recordings-you get more detail for all the spacial queues.

[@wilcalint]

No DSP chips in Pauls products :-)

[@InsideOfMyOwnMind]

Interesting. I think I can play around with this on my computer using GNU Radio Companion. My speaker placement is compromised by necessity so it should be loads of fun.

[@mu_on]

very well said

[@act.13.41]

I can tell you that listening to recordings that have no crosstalk through headphones can be fatiguing. With speakers, it is not an issue. There are times when I wish my headphone amp had an adjustment to add a touch of crosstalk.

[@KarlHamilton]

Why don't they incrude though?

[@hardcorecap]

@1:21 how is a speaker with this description not practical

[@BorkBorkDoggo]

One thing people seem to not consider is that if there is some crosstalk in a song, that's because the sound engineer wanted it there. Any producer could very easily pan things full L/R and eliminate any crossover between channels, but generally you allow some crossover to make things sound more full and natural with some things being panned center, 75% L/R. etc... If you go see a live musical performance and someone on the left side of the stage plays, you're still going to hear them with both of your ears. No point capturing that in a recording then trying to artificially widen things to the point where it is unnatural.

[@tromick]

Absolutely.

[@robertkat]

I love crosstalk, we sit around the campfire and talk back and forth.

[@crankjazz]

I'm slightly confused here. If you add a sub-woofer to a stereo system make it a 2.1 system? I'm in the UK and the idea of adding a sub-woofer to a "hi-fi" system seems odd to me.

[@rich1051414]

2.1 simply means 2 stereo channels and 1 subwoofer channel, which is mixed down to mono. It's usually not done for music listening, which has a woofer already and is able to keep stereo separation by it being in the same box as the other range speakers. However, it is important for a home theater to reproduce those bone rattling subsonic frequencies for explosions and the like.

[@crankjazz]

@@rich1051414 , I thought so. It appears that in the USA that a sub-woofer is used with a stereo system.

[@gteaz]

Na not all systems have external subs, Americans buy them for added bass, same as UK we buy them for added bass.

[@chrisvinicombe9947]

@@crankjazz stereo subs is better. In music listening a sub should be picking up where your speakers roll off (generally around 40hrz) and should be turned down low enough that you can't hear where it is in the room.

[@rich1051414]

As an american, subwoofers are for bass heads(not audiophiles) and for watching movies. It is rare to see them in a high end stereo system not meant for watching movies, but some people like it. It is simply not necessary unless you are listening to things heavy in the low end, which is usually contrary to hifi. Long story short, it is usually included in hifi systems for movies, that is the main purpose. Most audio sources for music don't even come in 2.1, and down mixing to mono is never ideal.

[@koreanfriedchildren]

Grace Design does

[@randomsomeone1617]

Great vid. Very funny also 👍🏼😁 "2 channel wackos" 😂

[@brianmoore581]

First comment here, and nothing to add, but talking about speakers, how are your new speakers coming along, Paul? Any idea when they might be released? I'm glad to hear they won't be "little fart" speakers! I don't want to buy "little fart" speakers, LMAO!

[@KarlHamilton]

Unfortunately you were second.

[@brianmoore581]

@@KarlHamilton not from what I saw when I started typing, slowly, on a smartphone, and not that it really matters, but I'll grant you the victory, such as it is.

[@InsideOfMyOwnMind]

@@KarlHamilton That's right, calm assertive energy and be the pack leader.😎

[@KarlHamilton]

Thanks everyone.

[@jm892]

Stereo signals aren't able to give a "true" reproduction of the initial audio performance, even for the so-called "hot spot". This is because the loudspeakers AND each listening rooms interact in a random way, even using the same audio system. Of course, differences will be more important if different audio systems are used. Obviously, these are dramatic issues, since Hi-Fi is so-called because we're after the reproduction of the initial signal,or at least as close as possible. As a consequence, if we reach our goal, we normally had to get the same audio result whatever the rooms and the systems, since we are dealing with only one initial audio performance. Everybody knows that this is far from to be true… These are intrinsic physical limitations of music reproduction... Presently, the only way to reproduce as close as possible the initial audio event is through a binaural recording and by headphones listening of this recording. It isn't possible to approach studio "paned" (multi-microphones) recordings neither through headphones nor through loudspeakers listening ! Even with a stereo pair in ORTF or XY or MS placement, the stereo images are unfortunately far from the "true" initial performance. Surround and whatever method with several loudspeakers still remain far from the binaural results, even if an immersive experience may be reached. After several experiences of crosstalk cancelation for loudspeaker listening even after room processing (passive AND active with audio processor presently a TRINNOV MC-Pro) and using active studio monitors with good directivity control, I'm still not convinced by the improvement of audio reproduction by the different algorithms I've already tested. It seems that BACCH has produced filters with some interesting results years ago. But they aren't presently widely accepted and I still have to listen to these filters to forge my personal opinion...

[@mighty9451]

Paul this is bullshit. Bacch is doing this and it is a revolutionary breakthrough in sound. This skill set is way beyond current hifi makers and will be more in the domain of APple and Google as sophisticated machine learning, vision etc is required as it gets more sophisticated. Computational Audio is about to change everything the traditional speaker guys are about to be like Nokia to iPhone.

[@apollorobb]

Cross Tock Cranceration lol