Hello, I am about to buy a new or used AV processor and have narrowed it down to the Krell HTS, Lexicon MC-1 or Outlaw 950, I would like some feedback from all of you on these three products, my usage will be 80% movies and 20% music, please let me know what you guys think. Prices for the Krell and the Lexicon are almost the same and the Outlaw is about $650.00 less than the others, 5.1 vs. 7.1 is not a big factor for me just the absolute best in sound quaility, the one thing that concerns me about the Krell is that I am by nature a tweaker which you can't do much with the Krell which I could live without if the sound quality was there, also ease of use is very important for my wife, my problem is that I have no way to audition any of these in my home with the exception of the Outlaw via there 30 day trial so I need feedback from people who actually own these products. Thank You for your help.

Shoot. I just typed a long post that got nuked. Drat drat drat.

In summary: Lexicon MC-1 is absolutely the best pick of the bunch provided that you don't need a 5.1 input for SACD or DVD-A.

I haven't used the Outlaw, but judging by the quality of other Outlaw gear I've used, I imagine it's quite a nice piece. Not as good as the MC-1, perhaps, but pretty darn good just the same.

As for the Krell, avoid like the plague. From what I've read about it, it's a piece of junk that delivers worse performance than a $100 Sony receiver, and sells on name recognition alone. (A lot like Bose.)

Check out the following review: http://www.homecinemachoice.com/testbench/frame.html?http://www.homecinemachoice.com/testbench/Processors/Krell/KrellHomeTheater.php

Jeff

Here's a quote from the above article:

everything that lexicon makes is exceptional. the problem i see is that most everyone says that dvd-a/sacd multi-channel audio isn't important to them...until they hear it. even the least trained ears i've shown the difference to (DSOTM CD vs SACD, for example) are wowed.

with the 950 you get all formats. most important of which, to me, are dvd-a/sacd multi-channel. you even get analog bass management for these formats, built-in, that works. plug-and-play hi-res multi-channel audio of exceptional quality, along with all digital formats, at THE price with 5 years warranty.

the 950 is simply hard to argue against. i think the lex MC-12B is the best pre-pro available today, but it's 10X the price. the MC-1 just doesn't have the capabilities that are required to do multi-channel right, IMO.

try the 950. try dvd-a and/or sacd. you'll never look back.

I agree with BossOBass that you should give DVD-A and SACD a try. Personally, I've tried it and haven't been overwhelmed, but then again, I own a Lexicon processor (the MC-12) so any improvements over 2 channels of sound directed to 7 speakers through Logic 7 is probably minimal.

However, you should make up your own mind. The MC-1 is an absolutely top-notch performer in almost every single aspect of performance ... except that one of DVD-A/SACD. So the question is, is SACD or DVD-A going to be more important to you than the sonic improvement of the MC-1?

Only you can answer this question. But I recommend that you listen to both before making a decision.

Another point to consider is that the 950 is a current model, whereas Lexicon has announced that there will be no more upgrades for the MC-1. That means that should a new surround format become available, you have no upgrade path with the MC-1. I don't know if you do with the 950, but it's worth looking into.

Honestly, I think you'll be happy with either product. Just don't get the Krell!

Jeff

This issue is very disc specific. There are a bunch of "multi-channel" discs out there that are no more than 2 channel mixes that have been "transformed" into surround mixes using Logic 7 or another process. There are, however, many other discs out there that were recorded and/or mixed to multi-channel surround sound. To say that you don't need one because you have the other means you're missing out.

If you're going to venture into a sound system investment that takes into account surround sound formats, leaving out SACD and/or DVD-Audio is a mistake. If you're building a system based on two-channel performance, then, by all means, listen and find the processor that gives you the best stereo reproduction for your money.

You say you're a "tweaker." If that's the case, I would go for the processor that features all the most current options. Otherwise, you'll be forever wishing you could try out the "next best thing."

Well hang on a second. I wouldn't go as far as saying that the Lexicon is "the next best thing" to the Outlaw. On the contrary, without even having heard the 950, I have no doubt that the Lexicon leaves it in its dust. The Lexicon would be my top pick for sound quality, if for no other reason than its amazing Logic 7 -- a surround processing algorithm that's considered by most to be the best at any price point.

The lack of a DVD-A/SACD 5.1 inputs is a significant handicap ... but only if DVD-A and SACD interests you. Opieie hasn't said whether this is a priority or not.

If it isn't, I'd recommend the MC-1 hands-down. It handles every single surround format worth mentioning, has extremely high-quality DACs and ADCs, and Logic 7 is truly a wonder to listen to. When I owned my MC-1, I almost never listened to anything other than Logic 7.

The Outlaw gives you component video switching, 5.1 inputs for DVD-A and SACD, and is a veritable tweaker's paradise in terms of the number of tuneable parameters.

I don't doubt that the 950's a great piece; everything I've seen of Outlaw's product line has impressed me. However, I think they're simply in two different weight classes.

Jeff

Sorry for not stating that clearer. I also have never heard the Lexicon, or the 950 for that matter, but I would be pretty sure the Lexicon would have the better overall sound quality. I'm also pretty sure that the Outlaw sounds great for its price range. I just feel that for someone who is building a current system, factoring out direct inputs, which are what would be used with SACD or DVD-Audio, is not a smart move. That one choice really handicaps the preamp. The ability to bypass processing is a big factor when considering preamps, at least in my experience.

With the "next best thing," I meant the different surround formats that opieie would want to try out. Sorry again for any confusion.

Jason,

Not a problem. I agree that the lack of a 5.1 input is a big limitation on the MC-1. In fact, I suspect that's one of the main things that drove the arrival of the MC-12 (and then later, the MC-8).

I also agree that opieie should factor that in when he makes his decision. If DVD-A or SACD is important to him, then his decision is pretty much made. The 950's the way to go, and I'd be willing to bet a toe (well, maybe not) that the Outlaw will serve him well. I've always been a big advocate of Outlaw gear, even before I bought any.

Outlaw excels at the "bang-for-the-buck" approach, whereas Lexicon excels at the "bang-at-any-price" approach. The fact that I use an Outlaw Model 770 amplifier with my Lexicon MC-12 surround processor should tell you how much I respect both manufacturers.

Jeff

actually...lex excels at pro sound reverb. it's simply the best. they brought that dsp know-how to the consumer division (logic-7 and bass enhance, for ex.). i'm not a fan of matrixed stereo or psychoacoustic tricks. they pale to a good dsd multi-channel disc (try spyro gyra's 'in modern times').

the MC-12 is the best, IMO, because of it's unrivaled I/O configuration.

the MC-1 lacks this advantage. dvd-a/sacd is the future of audio. i personally prefer sacd. re-mixed, 30 year old analog tapes (such as DSOTM) are not my cup-o-tea. i like dsd multi-channel recordings. nothing like them. they are relatively few, but this is just the beginning...more (MANY more) are on the way.

as far as an MC-1 leaving my setup 'in the dust'...well...bring one over...we'll see. you use logic-7, i'll use sacd multi-channel. i seriously doubt i'll be eating any dust.

Care to pit your setup against my MC-12, Model 770, and my Aerial 10Ts?

Jeff

P.S. One of the big problems with SACD (and DVD-A) is that they still haven't established a non-proprietary multi-channel digital connection That means that you're taking a digital signal, converting it to analog, converting it back to digital for processing, and then converting it back again to analog for amplification. Until there is a standard multi-channel connection, I think the formats are dead in the water.

I can hear the difference the conversions makes with my MC-12: imagine how must it must affect the owner of the average Sony receiver, whose DACs and ADCs will not be nearly the same quality as the Lex's.

I wish these paranoid dolts in the record industry would get off their duffs before SACD and DVD-A goes the way of Betamax.

Jeff

a smart man knows when to walk away...i bow to the MC-12.

except where sacd is concerned. no DSP needed with the 950. digital to analog in my sony ns900v, passed through the 950's analog BM and preamp stage.

a bit of placement, phase and level tweaking and my own discrete LFE sub work around, and...very, very good sound.

I think you may be misunderstanding the conversion process. SACD (or DVD-A) digital to analog processing is done in the player. The resulting analog signal is passed to the 950 via its 5.1 multi-channel analog inputs, bypassing (6-channel bypass!) any DSP processing. I understand you can do this A/D, D/A with your MC-12 to allow for some bass management, but it is not necessary. IMO, comparing Logic 7 to SACD is like comparing apples to oranges! Best wishes!

No, I understand the process all-right. Sure, you can use the 950's (or the MC-12's) analog bypass if you want, but then you lose out on all the enhancements your processor can give you, such as time-alignment and, in the MC-12's case, bass management, surround processing, and more.

Sure, I could run my 10Ts full-range through my MC-12's analog bypass, but then what's the point of a surround processor at all? Why not just hook the SACD player directly to my amplifiers?

The fact that there's a cheesy workaround doesn't absolve the recording industry from this travesty. DVD-A and SACD are digital media, and forcing a conversion to analog simply to prevent bit-perfect copies is a terrible solution that severely handicaps the quality of what you're getting.

Anyway, maybe there are some SACDs or DVD-As that sound better than a conventional CD piped through Logic-7. I've only listened to three or four DVD-As in my home, and no SACDs, so I'm not the best judge. However, those that I've listened to sounded better -- but not significantly better -- than standard CDs with Logic 7.

But those are just my impressions. Your mileage may vary.

But getting back to the original subject, whether inputs for SACD/DVD-A is a sine quae non really is opieie's decision. If it's important to him, that rules out the MC-1. If it's not, that makes the MC-1 his best bet.

Speaking of whom, Mr. O's been conspicuously silent recently. Opieie, you still reading this thread?

Jeff

Hello all, man I left for a couple of days and this thread has really got going, I had not considered DVD-A or SACD which pretty much rules out the Krell and the Lexicon so my search goes on, after a little more research I have come up with a few more options, B&K Ref 30, Rotel 1066 and the outlaw which all have 5.1 inputs, I have not heard any DVD Audio or SACD myself but I would hate to be left out if these become more popular, for what it's worth the B&K Ref 30 has a notch filter thats supposed to help match bass to your room, don't know if this is something to consider or not, and one problem I see with the Outlaw is the remote, it does not have seperate transport and menu controls for DVD players which does not effect the sound but........, anyway thank you all for your input this has already stopped me from one mistake.

Opieie,

Excellent. So we've eliminated the Lex and (thankfully!) the Krell.

Now that we're in the area of B&K, Rotel, and Outlaw, I strongly recommend considering the Outlaw. All three make extremely good equipment (although I've experienced quality control problems with B&K before), but given the nature of the retail sales markup, you're likely to get better quality for the dollar going with the Outlaw.

Unless there's a specific feature that one of the others have that the Outlaw doesn't, it's likely to be your best bet.

(Outlaws: does the 950 have DPLII?)

Jeff

Not so. I have bass management with the 950 if I choose to use it. I have time alignment available through my SACD player. I have no need for further "surround processing" with SACD.

Well, I don't know about you, but I bought my 950 to use first and foremost as a 5.1/7.1 surround processor for DD, DTS, DD-EX, DTS-ES, etc.

Why not? You have posted in this thread that, in your opinion, the MC-1 is superior to the 950 while admitting you have never listened to a 950.
You went on to say: Good advice- especially before passing judgement on a product- wouldn't you agree?
And it does, a little!
By the way, I'll bet your system sounds fabulous. I'm envious! Best wishes.

And, not having heard what good surround processing can do for your SACD, you'll probably be fine with what you've got.




And I bought my Lexicon for surround processing in all those, plus for music, too. (Well, not all those: I really couldn't care much less about the various DTS spawn.)

Besides, DD and its kin are surrounded-encoded programs much like SACD and DVD-A. Surely, you wouldn't stoop to surround processing on the DD and DTS sources, right? I mean, you just listen to them in standard DD and DTS modes, right?



Yup, that is indeed my opinion. I know this country's going to hell in handbasket and all, but as far as I know, I'm still permitted to hold my own opinion, whether you feel it's a good one or not.

If both Hyundai and Porsche came out with a new car for 2004, which do you think will probably drive faster? Or would you have no opinion whatsoever on the subject until you've driven both?



Indeed I did. Thank you for the liberal quoting.



Dear me, a barb from an officer of the Thought Police. And here I naively thought that I was entitled to have my own opinions, based on my extensive experience with home theater products in general, and a good amount with Lexicon and Outlaw in particular.

But I guess that doesn't entitle me to an opinion. Tell me, please, where do I register for an Opinion Eligibility Card? Can I do that at the post office?



Evidently.



Thank you. I'm actually a bit sad, because I can't think of much I can do to improve on it, and like opieie, I'm a bit of a tweaker. I won't waste money on snake oil like "audiophile" audio, video, and power cables, and I rent an apartment, so I can't do room treatment or paint the place neutral grey. Not sure what else to do next.

Jeff

And, not having heard what good surround processing can do for your SACD, you'll probably be fine with what you've got

UGGG I can’t do this right now but one thought. Did I speed read all this thread correctly. You’d prefer a lower resolution 2-channel CD processed via L7 VS potential 5.1 discreet channels at higher resolution. Although the quality of the HR discs and quantity placed in each channel IS all over the map currently.
(and do you prefer DD over DTS?) (or just DD vs the spawn?!) Eki! our ears are different. I do like your MC12!
Logic 7 is VERY good ….but its not that good!

I'd definitely prefer DVD-A/SACD with Logic 7 processing over DVD-A/SACD with a mere analog passthrough. And while I don't necessarily prefer CDs with L7 over SACDs/DVD-As per se, those multi-channel discs that I have heard (admittedly, only a handful) haven't struck me as significantly better than the CD+L7 combination.

As for DD and DTS, it's not that I prefer DD, it's just that I'm sick of this Bose-like "DTS is best" mentality. To date, there has not been a single double-blind, level-matched test that has demonstrated any superiority of DTS over DD; in fact, in the only such test that I know of, listeners were unable to distinguish between them.

Technically, DTS has been shown to be inferior to DD: in instance, a DD recording and a DTS recording were compared to the MLP master, and whereas the DD was pretty close to the original, the DTS differed strongly in many bands.

I've met the folks from DTS. I've been to their booth at numerous CES shows. They're nice folks; I like them. DTS sounds good. I have no problem with these points.

But when they say it sounds better, well, that's a different story. My answer to that is, show me the double-blind, level-matched test with a DD and DTS recording made from the same master, and then we can talk.

Jeff



[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited May 20, 2003).]

For what it's worth, I took part in a controlled comparison between DD and DTS verses the original 35mm magnetic master of a movie reel (Terminator II, nuclear nightmare sequence). This was done on a large mixing stage like the one where the movie was mixed originally, and the original mixers were present. At least for this reel and this movie, which had extremely soft and extremely loud sections, I could not tell any huge difference between DD and DTS, except for the fact that the DTS version was mysteriously more "hissy" than the DD version. Neither sounded totally transparent when compared to the 35 mm magnetic master, but it was actually closer than I would have thought.

The encoding of both the DD and DTS versions were done under strict supervision, so DTS couldn't do any manipulation to surround levels or bass level, as those in attendance would have picked this up immediately.

Soundhound,

That matches what I've been reading about it. One of the reasons I think people perceive DTS as better is because for a while, DTS was "accidentally" boosting the bass on its encodings. As I'm sure you know, a psychoacoustic phenemenon is that the louder sound is perceived as the better one, all other factors being equal.

So I do think that DD is superior to DTS. Why? Because if DD is compressed more than DTS, and yet DTS sounds no better than DD, it means that DTS is simply a less efficient coder than DD, giving you no extra benefit for that added space on the disc that is consumed.

Jeff


[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited May 20, 2003).]

Miss Lena, In a heartbeat! And it doesn't have to be L7 either: I'd take a 2-channel CD processed via PL II Music mode over (almost) any of the 20 or so multi-channel SACDs I've heard. Modern matrix decoders, like L7 and PL II, provide excellent envelopment and stable logic steering. Most importantly, they're adjustable to my tastes.

I mention personal tastes because, while I can hear the benefits of SACD, the increaded resolution does very little for me emotionally when listening to music. Truth is, unlike how I feel about -say- NTSC video, I've never felt that the CD format was lacking in resolution. A well made CD sounds really good to me! (Maybe I have pedestrian rather than audiophile tastes.)

The more I listen to discrete multi-channel mixes on SACD, the more I prefer the 2-channel mix via matrix decoding. Many discrete multi-channel mixes are either too tame or too distracting for my tastes. PL II Music mode, in comparison, can be dialed in to sound very natural and involving at the same time. Bite your tongue young lady!

Best,
Sanjay

Of the three choices you mentioned, I'd easily take the Outlaw; the other two simply don't have enough additional features to justify the greater expense (for me). You can take the money saved by getting the 950 and buy a lot of music (or movies).

BTW, what are your priorities in a pre-pro? Ergonomics, looks, particular features, tuner, surround processing, etc? Let us know.

Good Luck,
Sanjay

P.S. Avoid Krell. Their processors aren't junk, but they do represent an extremely poor value.

sd

Who was that masked man?

Jeff

Umm...if you process your hi-res source the same way you process a cd, i.e. Logic 7, well, the hi-res source won't sound that different. That's kinda not the point of a hi-res source. Re-digitizing (nice word!) a hi-res source makes it just the same as any other analog source your might have. Your processor is still doing the same converting. It might be cleaner, than say vinyl, but your still taking an analog source and making it digital.

I admit that SACD doesn't have all that many great multi-channel mixes on the market at the moment. I'll also admit that Logic 7 encoded 2 channel mixes may sound better than 2 channel SACD sourcs. It just when you say something like :

you're missing the point.

sanjay is no masked man...he's really agent smith, from the matrix.

no stereo matrixed dsp mode stands a chance against a good multi-channel sacd.

my challenge stands. ANY matrixed stereo CD using ANY processor vs my player/950 in sacd multi-channel. any test criteria is acceptable. you can even make me wear earplugs while the sacd is playing.

as far as DD vs DTS, i just listened to steely dan's 'gaucho' in DTS 5.1. this disc is a masterpiece of production. what's dolby got that i should use to compare?

That's the whole problem. Unless a direct comparison is set up such as the one I was involved in, there are no ways to directly compare DD to DTS with known controls on how each was processed. The only reason this one existed is so that a decision could be made on release format of a film by the producers involved. It is unlikely that you will ever get DD and DTS in the same room again to do this type of comparison, and having both formats on the same consumer disc are useless for comparisons.

"Catch me if you can" seems to be a good disk to demonstrate how the much the same dd and dts can sound.... listen to the opening credits in each...... I think I liked the higher frequency stuff in dts... but it's hard to tell.....

If you think that's all that Logic 7 does, you really ought to read up on it more.



So when a good multi-channel SACD recording passes my way, then you can convince me it's hot stuff and worth fainting over. Until then, I'm more than happy with what I've got, and as the old adage goes: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.



And that elusive point would be ...? Please clear it up for someone as obviously unenlightened as myself. You're being far too clever for someone as evidently stupid as me to keep up with you.

Jeff



[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited May 21, 2003).]

Challenge accepted. Get a hold of the Fellowship of the Rings, and listen to its 2-channel mix using Logic 7 on a properly set up MC-12 system that uses the full 7 channels and 3 subwoofers. If that doesn't blow away any multi-channel experience you've had to date, consider the round yours.

Jeff

But as Soundhound and I have been pointing out, unless you know for certain that both the DD and DTS on that disc are from the same master, level matched, and without any special boosting that DTS might "accidentally" do, it's really impossible to make a fair comparison.

Jeff

Jason, He's not missing the point at all. Keep in mind that MC-12 owners can compare a processed SACD/DVD-A 5.1 signal to pure analog bypass on the fly, by pushing one button. Jeff's pronouncement wasn't made in a vacuum; if he says he prefers the redigitized signal then he's saying so after two years of living with this feature.

Is the redigitizing audible on the MC-12? Yes, even with its 96/24 A-to-D converters. But the sonic degradation is so negligible, and so outweighed by the benefits of processing, that most MC-12 owners choose to process their multi-channel SACD/DVD-A sources rather than listen in bypass.

What LOGIC7 does with 5.1 signals is more subtle than radical. It doesn't do any logic steering up front (3 channels, 3 speakers, nothing to steer). The processing happens in the surrounds where 2 channels are steered over 4 speakers. Some surround content sounds better from beside the listener, other sounds seem more appropriate coming from behind the listener; and L7 does a pretty good job of making this decision (using cues in the other channels).

For the record, I have to agree with Jeff. Given a choice between 'bypass' and 'process', it's no contest: I'll choose the processed signal on every SACD I own. It's a decision I've arrived at after listening both ways.

Best,
Sanjay

Ver ry good misss terrr annn derr sonn. Agreed: there is always the chance that a recording engineer will arbitrarily create a surround mix that suits my tastes to a tee, and it will sound better than a matrix decoded 2-channel version. However, in the real world, that hasn't happened yet. Excepting a couple of SACD titles, I haven't found discrete multi-channel mixes that sound as good as matrix decoded 2-channel music. While a "good" multi-channel SACD always has the potential to sound better than a matrixed CD, I have yet to see that potential realized with music. It would be pointless, as we'd both walk away prefering different things. All that the challenge would do is re-confirm our personal preferences. Nothing more.

Best,
Sanjay

Sanjay,

As usual, you've managed to summarize what I've been trying to say much more eloquently and succinctly that I could have in a million years. You da' man!

Jeff

Thanx Jeff.

There are times when I really should keep my mouth shut. (Or my fingers quiet for that matter ) I knew I would provoke a reaction and that your responses basically lived up to what I expected.

You're right, I do need to "read" up on Logic 7.

"Dark Side of The Moon" is the best multi-channel mix I've heard yet if you're looking for a good mix. That's just my opinion.

I guess my point entails more than I wrote out. I apologize for that. I also apologize if you took any of the post personally for that was never my intention. I don't doubt your knowledge of your system or of any of Lexicon's products. Your posts are very informative and well written. (As opposed to the gibberish mess mine usually end up being.)

This was my sole point. Adding an extra digital conversion after a SACD source has been decoded to analog, to my knowledge, defeats the purpose of having a hi-res source in the first place. That's all.

Your also right that my point doesn't apply to every SACD. Some may be more noticable than others. I probably am relying on too much on theory. Again, sorry.

You may now proceed to repost my post in its entirety and disassemble it as you see fit. Have fun.

Jason,

My apologies if my post came across a little rough. I was still irked by Steves's slights, and I guess I took it out on you a little. I shouldn't have, and I'm sorry.

Right now, my current system only supports DVD-A, and even that is more of a side effect than by design. I simply chose what looked to be the best DVD video player, and it happened to have DVD-A capability.

The DVD-As I've listened to have been nice enough, but nothing particularly special compared to a quality CD plus Logic 7. Perhaps, as you say, it may be that the capabilities of both formats just haven't yet been tapped fully.

I've heard great things about the DSOTM recording, but just a caveat: from what I've read, there was a production error in a number of the discs that cause them to fall apart quickly from use. You should check out the SMR site for more details.

Again, I apologize for being sharp with you. I appreciate your opinion, and think you've acted like a mench. I should follow your good example.

Jeff

b][/QUOTE]It would be pointless, as we'd both walk away prefering different things. All that the challenge would do is re-confirm our personal preferences. Nothing more.

Best,
Sanjay[/B][/QUOTE]

not only would it not be pointless, it's THE point. if a direct comparison in the same room won't sway either side, why do people think a forum post is going to? to have the opinion that logic 7 is better than direct multi sacd is fine with me, but inferring that it's better as a matter of fact is pointless and begs a challenge.

BTW, the comments about there not being enough software or enough good multi sacd production available are growing quite old. there are well over 500 titles available. actually, many of them are quite good surround mixes. if someone owns 1 or 2 dozen sacds, he or she hasn't scratched the surface.

i'm with jason. double conversion is degrading and pointless. you end up with pcm, not dsd. a 20 bit dts-cd sounds as good.

the only way you can compare bypass to double converted 'on the fly' is if you have 5 full-range speakers, or outboard analog BM.

dts vs dd. to say that any dts version sounds better because of some sort of EQ manipulation makes no sense. if it was EQ only, then logic would lead you to say the DD version was poorly EQ'd. in every case of a soundtrack that's offered in both formats, i've found the dialog to be clearer and the surround effects to be more head turning.

i happen to believe dts is a better company that produces better product and i'm glad there is ANY competition for the 900 ton gorilla that is dolby labs.

mr. cummings:



We haven't said it's better. Please try to pay attention. We've both said that we feel it's better, given our personal experiences. Sanjay's right: it's about opinions and tastes.

Why are you insisting that we share your opinion?

Then, e.e. wrote:


That's fine. Neither I nor Sanjay have claimed to be an expert on all available SACDs. In fact, I claim quite the opposite for myself: I don't even have a SACD player. I've heard the demos, of course, so I know enough to feel it's a good format, but I won't adopt it until I can walk into any music store and find a reasonable selection.



Thanks for the hot tip. Now let's hope that the music industry gets its act together P.D.Q.



Only five?

Oh dear, you seem to have missed the point of Logic 7. (Hint: it's not the "logic" part that's important.)




I proposed that very question on the SMR forums a few weeks ago. If DD is more faithful to the original master than DTS but people seem to like the unnatural degradation and boosting of levels in DTS, then does this point out a failing in the original mastering?

But regardless, whether you like it or not, in every single instance where the DTS was level-matched and ABX compared against DD, nobody was able to distinguish between them. And since neither sounds appreciably better than the other, yet Dolby Digital can be compressed to occupy less data real estate, I guess that takes care of the "superiority" of DTS.



Whoopie. Find a DD soundtrack made from the same master, boost the bass up about 10 dB, and I'll bet you couldn't tell them apart.



Certainly, they produce better marketting and advertising. I love how they claimed that one of their weaknesses (poor compression) was instead a strength (higher bitrate). That was a brilliant stroke of strategy worthy of Bose itself!

BTW, I've met the folks from both DTS and Dolby Labs on a number of occasions. Have you? (And I'll sure bet that soundhound has! )



In what way is Dolby Labs a 900 ton gorilla? Your rhetoric is intriguing, but I don't see the logic in your metaphor.

Jeff

I'll go one further with the current supply of SACDs. Getting one that you like is sort of like getting a great quality audiophile disc that you like. If you don't like the content, who cares about the sound?? That's why I think DSOTM is also getting such good press. It's a good mix of music that is liked by a large percentage of the population. If you like classical, there are plenty of great SACDs out there. If you like rock, there are again plenty out there, some, of course, being better mixed than others. If you like jazz, well, again, there are plenty out there. It may not be every title in the world and it may not be your favorite album yet, but it's growing.

My major problem with the SACD format stems from a personal experience. I had the oppurtunity to work on a recording session with a popular artist. I will not name the artist as it would be detrimental to the studio I was working with. Let's just say it's a name you would recognize. I was there while they tracked to 16/44.1 hard disc. I was also standing there when the engineer said that the overdubs were being sampled at 24/96 into Pro Tools HD. Now the important comment. I was also there when the engineer said there will be a SACD of this album in the future.

This is what I believe to be the biggest issue with DSD/SACD technology. If you don't use it from the earliest stages, what's the point? Also, if you record DSD, edit in hi-res PCM, then release the disc as a SACD; isn't this the same thing? Give me a box that upsamples to DSD and I can do the same thing at home. I would love to see more pure DSD projects and direct analog master to DSD transfers. I would also love to see the record companies tell it like it is. Somehow, I don't see that day anytime soon....

I don't doubt one bit that on whatever consumer DVDs that might be listened to that contain both DD and DTS, the DTS has sounded "better" to some listeners. I've heard this myself with LOTR, but that "better" was the result of goosed up surrounds, and an overall level increase in this instance.

I seriously doubt that anybody here has had the opportunity to be present when representatives from both DD and DTS were on the same dubbing stage, at the same time, with their best encoder-decoders, and have compared them in real time to an original 35 mm magnetic master of a 5.1 film. I have, and like I said in my original post, neither myself or anybody else present (all sound professionals, about 10 in all) could not tell a significant difference between the DD and DTS versions, except for hiss in my instance (with no program material).

I'm sorry if this flies in the face of some firm beliefs of some superiority of DTS, but when all variables are removed, and everybody is playing by the same rules, I'm afraid they are pretty equal in sound quality.

Like a lot of "hot" issues in audio such as cables or what-have-you that marketing types like to give great importance to, the reality is much more mundane in nature.

For the record, I think that both sound unaccaptable when compared directly to an original master, either digital or analog.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited May 21, 2003).]

Soundhound,

Precisely. Pyschoacoustics rears its ugly head: louder sounds "better" to even the most informed listener. But that doesn't speak of the superiority of the format: you could always equally goose up the levels of DD if you wanted and once more level the playing field.

But what would be the result? You'd get the same kind of volume escalation you get with radio stations, and the same resulting compression of the signal to achieve it.

I think DD's got the right approach: try to stay as accurate as possible while achieving reasonable compression. Now obviously, something with no data loss like MLP is superior, but in terms of design philosophy, at least Dolby Labs had the right idea.

Jeff

jeff says:

whoopie. find a dd soundtrack made from the same master, boost the bass up about 10db, and i'll bet you couldn't tell them apart.
__________________________________________

now, THAT'S funny.

let's bet your MC-12. wait...what bass gets boosted? all 5 channels, or 6? or, is it 7? i haven't been paying attention.

I bet the same could be said of you through all your schooling, too.

Listen, if you want to believe that DTS is better than DD despite the lack of any supporting evidence and in the face of reliable contradicting evidence, go right ahead.

It makes no difference to me, and the nice folks at DTS have families to feed just like anybody else. You should also buy some nice Bose speakers to go with your DTS discs, since Bose makes the best speakers, too, in much the same way that DTS makes the best algorithm.

Knock yourself out. You're obviously much too smart for us here. Couldn't slip one by you, could we? Nosireebob. You're just too clever for us by a half.

Jeff

Who's trying to sway anybody? Do you really think that posting my personal preferences is going to change peoples minds? Look over my posts (none have been edited); where did I ever give the impression that I was stating a fact and not my opinion? 500 titles are trivial amount compared to what's available on CD, and hardly any of those SACD titles are ones I'm interested in buying. Is that your opinion or are you stating a matter of fact? He has scratched the surface, and he has no interest in going any deeper. He told me so himself (I talk in my sleep). I used to think that way until I actually tried it and listened, at which point I realized that it was far from pointless. That's OK; most of them started off as PCM (or analog). DSD is no magic bullet; there is very little being recorded natively or mixed in DSD. More often than not, DSD simply serves as the final distribution medium. See this report from Surround Professional 2003. That would be a good way to compare them if I wanted to find out how they DIDN'T sound on my system. Instead I prefer to do the comparison on my gear, in my room, with my ears. It is, after all, the system I'll actually be using when listening to music on a day to day basis (not one with 5 full range speakers and analog bass management). As a company:

- DTS theatrical system was in trouble from day one, when a Frenchman sued them for patent infringements and DTS had to settle out of court.

- DTS couldn't come up with a codec that worked within the data space left over from DTV transmission. So they worked with Widescreen Review magazine to give the impression that they were being conspired against due to politics and business strong-arming.

- There's the case of an infamous DTS press release announcing a number of high profile manufacturers as licensees when none had actually signed agreements and in some cases hadn't even negotiated with DTS. All those manufacturers were practically "forced" into supporting the format due to their customers belief that it had been "announced".

- A Parasound rep at CEDIA that year was complaining that his company was seriously considering being the first manufacturer to announce their lack of DTS support, he was so annoyed. Of course, market forces meant this couldn't happen, and he knew it.

- DTS claimed their codec sounded better than AC-3. But once studios got their own DTS encoders and no longer had to send soundtracks to DTS for encoding, suddenly many of these differences seemed to vanish. I remember the first DD vs DTS blind listening test that Home Theatre magazine conducted, where they couldn't reliably pick the two codecs apart. The staff was shocked. Brent Butterworth was shocked. As a longtime subscriber of Widescreen Review magazine (who had swallowed the DTS propaganda wholesale), I was shocked! Even worse than no benefit was the fact that the codec was so inefficient and took up so much space that supplementary material often had to be left off DTS DVDs.

- DTS weren't ready with their codec for DVD standard. Again, they and WSR had the PR spin machine paint them as underdogs, giving all sorts of reasons why they weren't being included in the original DVD spec. All sorts of reasons but the truth. Turns out a whole generation of DVD players had to pass before DTS was ready with their DVD implementation.


- When DTS finally did show up on DVD, it was introduced with the sample rate of 48kHz rather than 44.1kHz which was the standard on LD. The only decoder at the time, the Motorola 56009 couldn't reliably handle the required number of computations without getting far too warm and soft failing. The DTS code was so sloppy that companies like Meridian and Lexicon re-wrote it, which meant the 56009 could just about cope, but only with the aid of a heat sink and fan.

- Next they come out with DTS's own version of Surround EX, promoting the sonic advantages of a discrete surround-back channel. The science behind this technology is full of holes, as it asks us to hear dubious sonic improvements where our hearing is at its worst (behind our heads). And, unlike even their own ES matrix scheme, ES discrete means that every channel takes a sonic hit: encoding a sixth discrete channel reduces the data available to every other channel.

- Then comes DTS's Neo:6 matrix decoder, with terrible steering logic and artifacting. Mind you, this is not a judgement I made in a vacuum: anyone with a Lex processor or H/K receiver can instantly compare Neo:6 to PL II and L7.

- And now DTS has come up with their "96/24" technology. Every press release of theirs would have people believe that they've achieved six channels of DVD-A sound quality that can be passed through an S/PDIF connection. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lossy/perceptual encoding scheme that attempts to preserve sounds outside our hearing range. Only at DTS.

- And finally (my favourite DTS story): one of the principals at DTS telephoned a reporter at the British home theatre magazine 'What TV & Video' and threatened him with physical violence after he had had written an unflattering article about the viability of the format. That actually resulted in the magazine's editor calling the police.

DTS, the company, has a consistent and chronic history of misdirection, lies and bogus science; from the very beginning.
There are reasons Dolby has acheived industry success that continues to elude DTS. Dolby delivers on its technologies and, as a company, they are extremely professional. And unlike DTS, Dolby never claimed that AC-3 was high end audiophile quality. Unlike DTS, Dolby's surround-back channel scheme doesn't require lowered resolution for any of the channels. Unlike DTS, Dolby is licensing a real hi-res format (MLP) instead of a bogus one (DTS 96/24). Unlike DTS, Dolby has developed and licensed a terrific matrix decoder (PL II) instead of a pointless one (Neo:6).

Get the point? (Please say yes; my little brain hurts too much to continue).

Best,
Sanjay

Sanjay,

Wow. I'm so glad I'm on your side. I'd hate to be on the other side of a debate from you!

Jeff

It's usually in the LFE. A good example of the typical DTS bass boost can be found on this DVD-A , which has DD and DTS tracks encoded from the same master. Pay attention to the 3 graphs that compare the lower frequencies of both formats to the MLP track (which is an exact copy of the original master). Notice something different about the DTS graph?

Best,
Sanjay

At least up till a couple years ago (last time I checked), DTS used a "propritary" bass EQ curve on their dubbers for playing back 35mm magnetic film soundtracks that they encoded (this EQ is the same thing in principle to the RIAA EQ curve for playing back LPs). This EQ just happened to boost the bass above what was flat. Funny how that works........

Now that most soundtracks are mixed to 24 bit digital, the soundtrack exists as computer files: who knows what they do with them when they encode in-house! Sometimes they have used the "safety" 35 mm magnetic master to encode - using this, aside from the EQ issue, they potentially get the benefit of a layer of analog tape sound.


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited May 22, 2003).]

Hello all, since all the discussion in this forum about logic 7 and the fact that the MC-1 does not have 5.1 inputs what do you guys think about using a Harman Kardon AVR-525 or an AVR-7200 as a preamp and how does the Logic 7 work on these is it the same as the Lexicon witout all the adjustments and does it work on DD and DTS as well, let me know what you think
Thank You

The LOGIC7 on H/K receivers is similar to the one on earlier Lexicon processors like the DC-1, DC-2 and MC-1 (L7 was completely re-written for the MC-12 and MC-8 to take advantage of the new SHARC DSP engines). Two big differences: the LOGIC7 on H/K receivers has three modes (Film, Music & Enhance) but offers none of the adjustments found on Lex pre-pros. L7 on H/K receivers works ONLY on 2-channel sources; no 5.1 L7 modes like on Lex pre-pros.

The latest H/K receivers do have the "triple crossover" that was apparently developed by Outlaw for the 950 and can be found on newer Cirrus DSP chips (used in H/K receivers). If you listen to a lot of 2-channel material in surround, the AVR-7200 might suit you better because it offers three (3!) matrix decoders: L7, Neo:6 & PL II. If that's not a priority for you than I'd go for the 950; it's a great value!

Good Luck,
Sanjay

sanjay,

notice this time, i've directed this post to you so you aren't confused.

i struggle to understand your opinion in this post, let alone see any point to it.

maybe you would be kind enough to do a paragraph-by-paragraph post in reply to these 2 files:

http://www.dtsonline.com/media/uploads/pdfs/dtsposition.pdf

http://www.dtsonline.com/media/uploads/prfs/dolbyrvu.pdf

dolby: the benevolent, best technology purveying, apolitical, most consistently professional, most innovative surround format czars. i prefer 900 ton gorilla.

dolby is established as the standard for DSS, DTV, DVD and HDTV, yet dts is preferred by a clear majority of people who care about sound. surround music, surround music video and soundtracks...name the largest selling titles, they are dts.

to tell us that they've acheived this by cheating, or 'boosting the LFE 10db', or threatening the life of a journalist (who we've never heard of) is pointless.

get it? that means there is no point.

maybe you should school guys like tom jung who have obviously succumbed to dts' (and apparently Sony's) underhanded, misleading, bogus, criminal rise to a distant #2 in a field of 2. after all, those guys have much more impact (as obvious players) on the consumer's loss in this conspiracy.

jeff...still waiting to hear the where and when of this bet you've proposed. i never refuse easy money.

Was I confused last time? If your last post wasn't directed at me, why did you start it off with a quote by me? Don't struggle. My opinions are clear as are my points (which are nothing more than replys to your statements): read them over and refute any you can. (go ahead, I'll wait) I agree: Dolby has a good track record, both for their business dealings and products. But as your last sentence displays, no good deed goes unpunished. Have any data to back this up? It's obvious that DTS is preferred by you, but I have yet to see any evidence that DTS is preferred by any "majority" anywhere. They, along with their boosters at WSR, are great a whipping a very vocal minority into a frenzy, but that's it. When VSDA surveys DVD buyers on popular features, DTS doesn't even register as a significant statistic. What majority are you talking about? Regarding the threatened journalist, don't take my word for it: please e-mail the editor of the magazine and verify the incident (police complaints are a matter of public record).

And why is it "pointless"? Because I can compentently refute your statements with solid examples? You asked about bass boost: I provided an example. Goosed up volume levels? See Soundhound's comments in this thread, or measure the difference for yourself (I did on my 'Crimson Tide' laserdisc, using a voltmeter at the line level outputs of my pre-pro; both the bass and surround channels were boosted on the DTS tracks. Funny how that works, as Soundhound said). You can "believe dts is a better company that produces better product" but I've provided plenty of examples to the contrary (you are free to point out which any that are factually incorrect). Sony is underwriting Jung's SACD releases, as they are with many small audiophile labels that are releasing SACDs. I don't doubt that Jung prefers SACD, but considering where his funding is coming from you'll have to forgive me for taking his opinion with a grain of salt.

If you're interested in playing the name game by tossing out Tom Jung, then I'll toss one out myself. I recently interviewed the principals of 5.1 Entertainment (who, along with Warner Brothers, are the most prolific in relaeasing DVD-A titles). 5.1 Entertainment dropped the DTS tracks from their DVD-A titles primarily because they couldn't hear any sonic benefit compared to the DD version. Ditto Warner Brothers. Actually, I'll let a real writer address points raised in the links you provided. He's done a better job than I could hope to.

The following article was written by Stuart M. Robinson, owner of SMR Home Theater sites, HighFidelityReview.com, and contributing writer to several British audio journals (BTW, the threatened journalist was a colleque of his).



Best,
Sanjay



jeff...still waiting to hear the where and when of this bet you've proposed. i never refuse easy money.[/B][/QUOTE]

Between the two of you, I wouldn't lay odds on Sanjay being the one who's confused.



I imagine that there's a lot of things you struggle to understand, such as the use of the SHIFT key.




Don't be obtuse, lad. Of course he's not going to waste his time doing a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis. You think he's like you, with nothing better to do with his time?

I do note, however, that failing to come up with any actual evidence, you simply posted a link to DTS's site. Doesn't say much about your ability to make a case. Unlike SoundHound and Sanjay who both produced actual evidence, you on the other hand have merely pointed us towards DTS's marketing literature. I could point you to similar material on the Bose web site, if you're looking for new speakers...



Yes, and I hope you'll pardon us for not taking you too seriously until you learn to speak English like the rest of us. If you want to call Dolby Labs to a "900 ton gorilla" without supporting what, if any, reason makes this analogy apt, that's your right. And it's our right to dismiss you as a crackpot and ignore you.



Oh really? The clear majority, you say? I presume you can point us to a non-biased census that shows this....?



Even if that were the case -- and I'm not convinced it's so -- name the largest selling speaker manufactuer; it is Bose.



Who you have never heard of. I suspect I know the journalist to whom Sanjay is referring.



Much like talking to you, I suspect.



It's "DTS's". The posessive of a singular noun always ends in apostrophe-'s', even if the noun already ends in 's'.



Um, what the hell are you babbling about now?



And I'm waiting for a coherent, intelligent statement from you. I suspect we both have a long wait ahead.

Dude, face it: you're wrong. We've presented mounds of evidence showing you that you're wrong, and the only thing you've been able to present is hyperbole and links to DTS's marketing literature.

You can babble on as long as you like, but until you actually provide some hard evidence, you really shouldn't expect us to take you for anything other than a nutcase who's trying to convince himself that all the extra money he spent on DTS titles wasn't wasted.

Oh, and by the way, take a look at your keyboard. You see that key to the left of the 'Z' key? Well, if you hold it down while you type a letter, you get to access a special easter egg hidden on the keyboard: 43 extra characters for free!!

Jeff



[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited May 22, 2003).]

So we're all agreed then: triodes sound better than pentodes

Finally, someone understands what I've been trying to say all along.

Sanjay

What was the middle part again, you know, the one about the thing?

Jeff

You mean the One Thing to rule them all?

Sanjay

I hear Spike Lee's making a remake of that movie called, "She's Got to Hobbit."

Jeff

Found this on another forum. It has nothing to do with this thread, but it's funny nonetheless.

Understanding Engineers - Lesson Seven

Two engineering students were walking across campus when one said, "Where did you get such a great bike?" The second engineer replied. "Well, I was walking along yesterday minding my own business when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike. She threw the bike on the ground, took of all her clothes and said, "take what you want." The first engineer nodded approvingly, "Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn’t have fit."

Since you're off-topic anyway...

Understanding Engineers - Lesson Eight

Optimist: "The glass is half full."
Pessimist: "The glass is half empty."
Engineer: "The glass is the wrong size!"

Sanjay

Actually, the true engineer would say: "The glass is completely full. It's half-filled with liquid, and half-filled with air."



Jeff

As an engineer (EE type), I know who is full of it!

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

And as a manager type, I know you probably think it's me!

Jeff

I have nothing against management. Really!

Love it, mean it!

Just the other day at work, we had a site-wide talent/skill contest.

Mr. Physics gave an inspiring lecture on quantum chromodynamics. So many big words, so little understanding.

Ms. Engineering presented a novel design for a multichannel instrumentation and data acquisition subsystem with integral pre-processor DSP that had an interface to the Mr. Coffee machine.

Mr. Administrative Assistant showed a software package that he had been consulted on that takes a voice recording and outputs the desired printed document, whether it be a memo, formal proposal, research paper, or whatever with a minimum of human intervention and in a wide selection of human languages.

The Management candidate presented a rousing and inspiring talk on employee motivation, touching on important topics such as layoffs, pay cuts, division consolidation and liquidation, the need for exemplary executive compensation and benefits. The new Mercedes. A most motivating presentation.

After all the presenters were finished, the panel of distinguished judges made their decision.

Miss Management had once again dominated (decimated) the corporate culture, putting all of the workers in their places.

Which is the unemployment line.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

[This message has been edited by Paul J. Stiles (edited May 24, 2003).]

Paul,

Believe me, I hear you. I'm not a manager at the moment, actually, because a "wonderful" computer corporation laid me off. It took me a year and a quarter to find another job with a 33% pay cut.

I'm not that kind of manager. I'm the kind of manager who says, "Let's skip the blamethrowing, folks, and try to figure out how to solve this problem." I'm the kind of delusional manager who thinks employees actually do a better job when they're happy.

Jeff


[This message has been edited by D'Arbignal (edited May 26, 2003).]

"I'm the kind of delusional manager who thinks employees actually do a better job when they're happy."

Jeff, how quaint. How in the heck do you expect to get to "golden parachute" status with an attitude like that?

So much of upper management has such a greedy "l'etat, c'est moi" attitude it sickens me. HP, American Airlines are recent examples. Upper management only cares about themselves and employees are only incidental. They brag about how many thousands of workers they dumped and the business commmunity in general applauds them.

I use to be concerned as to where a product was made. If there was a U.S. made equivalent,(not likely in the audio equipment unless you are in the high-end market) and it did not cost a whole lot more, I would go for the U.S. made product. I do expect to pay more for U.S. made, after all, my fellow American workers should not be expected to work for third world wages.

With so many companies screwing over their workers, their shareholders, and their customers just to give big rewards to upper management (who are NOT as essential they like to think of themselves), I will have to make an even more informed choice in my purchases: where was the product made/designed and what is the attitude of the people who run the company.

So many companies want to import workers to fill job vacancies (and who are willing to work for lower wages, less benefits and less security) I say why not import upper management type from overseas and save some money there, too. Heck, while we're at it, lets import political leaders, too. So many of our political leaders seem to be in the pockets of big business.

Off of soapbox now!

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

editt two ficks spel missteak

[This message has been edited by Paul J. Stiles (edited May 25, 2003).]

Exactly. My parachute was bronze, but I'm sure glad I had it. If they hadn't given it to me, I would have had no choice but to sue them ... which is of course why they give them at all. They certainly don't do it out of the kindness of their hearts, because they don't have hearts.




That's a really good philosophy, and I like it!

Regarding the necessity of management, whenever I get too arrogant, I would ask myself: could my direct reports do their job without me? Could I do my job without them?

Management adds value, but without the workers, management is absolutely useless. Therefore, my priority was and always will be, make the employees happy. If they like what they're doing, they'll do more of it.



Heh. Michael Moore made a similar suggestion and I think it's right on the money.

Of course, you know why the lower level guys get laid off but the higher level ones don't? Because the higher level ones are the ones making the decision! ("Well, I'm obviously not going to lay myself off, so who else can I get rid of?")

Jeff

Attention Outlaws:

We're a bit concerned that the tone of this thread is beginning to get a bit out of hand. We encourage and welcome free expression and discussion of topics related to home theater, but we cannot and WILL NOT tolerate name calling that involves either people or companies.

Please be mindful of this as you post in this thread, or anywhere in the Saloon. If the type of discussion we see here continues we will be forced to lock this thread and take such further action as we deem necessary.

Regards,

Scott

Understood. I'll try to police my posts a little better in the future. Sorry you had to intervene.

Jeff

Me bad.

Me sorry.

For punishment, NO spanking for me.

Paul

------------------
the 1derful1

Don't beat me....I like DTS. I guess I was just duped into it with all the hype and audio trickery. But, in the end I put this little flat disk into the thing that makes it go round and round and sound comes out, and I like it.

On the serious side, I would like to add that I think that DTS, regardless of what you think about the format, has stimulated the Home Theater market. You get DD with everything it seems, but DTS is something special for the HT. Yes, its mostly a marketing ploy, but people are buying it and liking it, even if it has it's weak points.

P.S. You will never hurt my feelings by adding a few db to the LFE.

[This message has been edited by MeanGene (edited June 07, 2003).]

Why would I beat you? Your answer is extremely refreshing. You don't claim that there's any inherent technical advantage in DTS, you don't quote any of their marketing literature: you just say that you prefer DTS.

To me, that's the perfect post. You're sticking to facts, not hype. I certainly can't dispute what you prefer!

Jeff

A few thoughts on this one and other posts.

The quote below/above (?) assumes that there is a need to actively process SACD or DVD-A information. This may be true for DVD-V, as it intermixes multichannel encoding in the stero signal.

For SACD, read listening to music, there is no need to do ANY processing. In fact, if you have SACD, you are probably thankful for a digital format that sounds like analog. Pushing it to a processor, regardless whose, is killing the resolution of the format, and thus taking all the fun out of the experience, especially when it comes to the low level acoustical information that, with SACD at least is present in full resolution in all (6) channels.

With DVD-A, only the front channels are in the higher resolution, the others are in lower resolution... This in itself is ashame, because the high resolution is especially needed for the lower level acoustical information (another reason beyong sound quality to 'need' a higher resolution). It is only in the application of the movie encoding in the multichannel disks when you need processing. I am not aware of any DVD-A disks that use such an encoding (as you may end-up with... 10 channels of information? Nice platform for experiments here, btw).

For DVD-V disks, the encoding is there in the stereo channels, and thus you would need a decoder to get it folded out to the 5.1/6.1/7.1/10/2 (haha, the last one not yet).

In another post it was suggested that the lexicon would fold-out the stereo tracks on an SACD to 5.1. This means that the multichannel on the SACD is ommited. Regardless of the quality of the processor, this would be a waste. Especially in classical recordings, special care is taken to make 2 and 5 channel SACD portion with dedicated balancing for each. I would never suggest taking a balance made for stereo through a lower resolution digital process to squeeze it into 5 channels using - IMHO suspect algorithms - while a fully balanced multichannel version is available at full difital resolution, that has a direct - artistic - link to the performers and balance engineers.

The fact that the formats are not made available in a digital form to go straight to the processor comes directly from the copy-protection side, and thus the music industry.

Hope this angle is constructive.


Snarf

Jeff, sorry, did not read all above... wrote this days ago but then the connection terminated and, well you know...


Anyway, it seems that you need the processing to align the timing of the loudspeakers etc, otherwise you'd connect the SACD straight to the amps. Well, if yu could, I would :-)

Most classical recordings assume some kind of ITU/EBU 773 alignment of the loudspeakers (center at 0 deg, L/R at 30deg, surround at 110-120deg, depending horizontal dispersion). If that is how you set your loudspeakers, the only alignment you need is level, whcih you could do at the amp. The sub is a different story, and, yes, some subs are slow (not really good ones...), so pick a fast sub). And the move your sub around so you get the best alingment in the room, as far as room modes is concerned, and see if you need to reverse the phase to maximize your output (etc. the Rel approach, so to speak).


I am not aware of a srround processor that can handle DSD yet, but I cannot imagine it wouldn't become available. The connection may be a light pipe, if that is the least likely method to be 'ripped' in the digital domein (or is it?).


Snarf

So how would you achieve bass management and time alignment for these formats? Or are you suggesting that listeners: 1) buy truly full range speakers for every channel, including the centre; 2) If you can't do full range speakers, then forego the bass content in some or all of the channels; 3) place all the speakers equidistant from the listener (can only be done for one spot); or 4) forego time alignment? Really? What are the resolutions of the front channel vs the other? Can you name some DVD-A titles that don't have 96/24 PCM data in all 6 channels? No need to unfold 5.1/6.1 soundtracks on DVD-V, as those are discrete multi-channel formats as opposed to being encoded "in the stereo channels".

Best,
Sanjay

1. Would be desirable, yes. Note that the LFE is meant for LFE and that there should be no music content. So, if you indeed have 5 full range loudspeakers, you could omit the sub.

If the engineer worked per code of the book for 5.1, there should be no need for base management if you listen to music alone with full-range loudspeakers. And that is my angle exactly.

2. Then use the sub. If you use the Rel method, you do not need a processor, assuming you can live without the low coming from the content in the surround channels. The rel connects Hi-Z to the loudspeaker output of the amplifier for the main channels.

3. Don't all loudspeaker arrangements have one mathematical center spot? What is the alternative? Put the speakers at random differing distances? What would that gain? It is sometimes possible to put the surround further behind, and at a slightly larger distance, depening room geometry and wall treatment without loosing the 'glue' between the front and the back , but I'd be carefull with that, especially when you listen to recordings that try to pan the sound between front and back. Our localization mechanism does not really jive with that in this arrangement.

There will always be one ideal listening area, and I think that the ITU/EBU arrangement is a decent compromize in realizing an acceptable size sweet-spot area. It is my experience that 5 channel music recordings have a much wider sweet spot than stereo.



What about all of them? Look at the code book. DVD-A cannot provide HD in all channels for its rated play length. My recollection of the DVD-A presentation at the latsest AES was that they typically provide a mix of 96/24 and 48/24, and then you may just need to hope that it is not lossy coded as well.


Snarf

BTW: Got confused a bit on what you 'attacked' me on. I am not against bass management at all, I understand we need it, especially since we cannot expect engineers to know what to do with the LFE (note hat some of these guys put the bass of the music program also in the LFE, leading to interesting disasters). My previous comment was on using a digital processor to do your base management and thus using something that is of a much lower order in a high-resolution signal path. I'd say, did Outlaw not make a fine product to solve that? $249, if I'm not mistaken ;-)

Snarf

So you're recommending people buy full range speakers for every channel? Which speakers give flat frequency response from 20Hz to...well, however high SACD and DVD-A go? If I omit the sub, what do I do with the contents of the LFE channel on my DVD-As, SACDs, DTS music discs, DVD-V concert titles, etc.? Simply disregard it? Bass management has nothing to do with how closely the engineer sticks to the "code of the book for 5.1". Instead it has to do with the playback set-ups in people's homes, where very few truly full range speakers exist. Why would I want to compromise a DVD-A or SACD title by discarding the low frequencies of the centre and surround channels? Are you saying that the bottom end of those channels is disposable? Also, if I use the REL method and my sub is a different distance away from my main speakers (very common in most homes), I can't compensate for the difference in distance by using time alignment. No one gains anything by purposely placing different speakers at varying distances from the listener. However, in the real world, there are very few speaker set-ups where every single speaker is the same exact distance away from the listener. That's why almost every receiver and pre-pro made today has a time alignment feature. Rather than reading specs in the code book, why don't you look at actual DVD-A titles that have been released. I have yet to run into a DVD-A that doesn't have 96/24 data in ALL 6 channels. And why should I "hope that it is not lossy coded as well"? The point of DVD-A is to avoid lossy compression altogether, that's why they use MLP encoding (Meridian Lossless Packing). Where did I "attack" you? Could you quote the offending passages? (Note that I haven't edited any of my posts). We obviously have differing views of how knowledgeable recording engineers are. The ICBM doesn't do time alignment. And besides, it does process the signal. Or does the term "processing" no longer apply to analog signal manipulation but only to digital signal manipulation?

Best,
Sanjay

Ok, here we go. This may be my last round in Outlaw. My 'attack' was between ' ' if that still means anything. No need to refer to quotes, I just perceive your approach to my contribution to be downlifting; the word attack in-between these '-hooks thingies or whatever you call them in English seemed appropriate. I apologize if that excited you more than intended.

Note again, my angle is mainly from music recording, and classical music in particular.

QUOTES from answers posted by sdurani:

Quote:

[b]So you're recommending people buy full range speakers for every channel? Which speakers give flat frequency response from 20Hz to...well, however high SACD and DVD-A go?

Yes, I'd certainly try to be full range for all front channels, and in the back, it would be desirable, especiallyt when you listen to multichannel material that has been recorded from the 'in-the-band' viewpoint.

Do I know of 20Hz - 20kHz loudspeakers? Let's view this as a hypothetical question and not as a way to kill the discussion.

We are talking about a satisfying listening experience. This is not always done with just a selection of loudspeakers because they fit on-top the TV. Nor is is done with just a subwoofer. I rather listen to something that is integrated in its sound than something that tries to encompass the so-called human listening bandwidth in technical terms.

Having, especially in classical music, multiple partly decorrelated signals (we're talking about reverberation here), it would indeed be desirable for envelopment to have 5 full-range loudspeakers. Sending this all to the sub will add it up electronically and will reveal the music spectrally more than spatially.

Quote:

If I omit the sub, what do I do with the contents of the LFE channel on my DVD-As, SACDs, DTS music discs, DVD-V concert titles, etc.? Simply disregard it?

From a music perspective: indeed, disregard it. Even for 5-channel music recordings, the LFE channel should not be used for program. It is undesirable that a producer puts the low end of a recording in this channel. You may find that this is the practice for many 5 channel recordings.

At home, the sub is the sub, and not persé the LFE. If the main loudspeakers cannot reproduce low fequency, bass management is indeed desired to REDIRECT the lower frequencies to the sub. This is what a bass management processor is supposed to take care of.

This becomes a problem if the engineer also redirected some of the bass information to the LFE. In that case you double the information, and you may hope that the signals from the LFE channel and the inserted LF is coincident, so you can at least adjust the balance at the playback level of the sub.

In this regard, I noted in one review of the Outlaw bass manager that regardless of the setting for large or small loudspeakers, LF is always redirected to the sub. That would not be desirable.

BTW, this programmatic requirement for program in the 5 channels and non-program LF in the subchannel is also valid for DVD-V. That way, you have control over what is happening. mixing it up, the electronic addition is the final answer that, depending the circumstances, can affect the listening experience negatively.

Quote:

Bass management has nothing to do with how closely the engineer sticks to the "code of the book for 5.1". Instead it has to do with the playback set-ups in people's homes, where very few truly full range speakers exist.

It has everything to do with how things are recorded. As explained above, it is very easy to get double base, or phased base if things go really wrong. It is confusing enough on the consumer side.

Visiting various AES conventions it was astonishing to learn that some of the celebrated engineers did not understand the underlying choices and principles, and that it would be very likely that playing their records would lead weird base. Other engineers were very consious of the rules of the game, and showed how that apparent limitation could lead to great artistic material. Note that this issue omits the fact that the .1 channel for the hi-rez versions is in fact a sixth channel that could be used by a producer in all kinds of ways, including surround center, but also surround ceiling... some liberty will be taken there, and it certainly adds to the fun of multichannel.

Quote:

Why would I want to compromise a DVD-A or SACD title by discarding the low frequencies of the centre and surround channels? Are you saying that the bottom end of those channels is disposable? Also, if I use the REL method and my sub is a different distance away from my main speakers (very common in most homes), I can't compensate for the difference in distance by using time alignment.

Well, at first, I would really try hard to go full-range on the center channel. It is unclear to some recording engineers what to do with it, leading to great comb-filterin issues that heavily narrow the seetspot. If treated as a full channel, which it really should, then the center channel will contain full-range material (orchestra recording, Decca tree et all).

For classical, although undesirable, not having bottom end of the surround then becomes an issue of tonality versus envelopment, and the choice is to the listener. If you 'collapse' the sound from the surounds to the sub, you have to see how it comes out in terms of additive fundament versus distraced spatial information. And that choice may differ per recording. In general, it may be very safe to collapse the low end to the sub.

Time-alignment can be an issue. Delaying the mains to get in line with the sub using digital means would degrade the hi-res signal and is for me not an option. I would stick to reolution above a slight time adjustment for very low frequencies.

Quote:

...In the real world, there are very few speaker set-ups where every single speaker is the same exact distance away from the listener. That's why almost every receiver and pre-pro made today has a time alignment feature.

Right, so for which spot do you time-align the loudspeakers? Again, I opt for moving the loudspeakers before degrading the signal by using another processing device in the chain that can degrade the signal. Yes, it would be great if the players had some processing in them at their resolution before it comes out analog but we probably have to wait for that another while.

Quote:

Rather than reading specs in the code book, why don't you look at actual DVD-A titles that have been released. I have yet to run into a DVD-A that doesn't have 96/24 data in ALL 6 channels. And why should I "hope that it is not lossy coded as well"? The point of DVD-A is to avoid lossy compression altogether, that's why they use MLP encoding (Meridian Lossless Packing).

Good for you. I have heard demo's of DVD-A still using 24/48 in the surrounds. Is this going the same route as the DDD label ;-)

Quote:

We obviously have differing views of how knowledgeable recording engineers are.

You have a lot of confidence in the engineers, or you are just very lucky only listening to the 'right stuff'. The various conferences I attended on the subject sometimes lead to hear-tearing moments.

Perhaps read Tom Holman's book on 5.1. It is already eight (!) years old, but it deals with these fundamentals in a fairly clear way. Or read others...

Quote:

The ICBM doesn't do time alignment. And besides, it does process the signal. Or does the term "processing" no longer apply to analog signal manipulation but only to digital signal manipulation?

Nag nag nag. Is there any willingness on your part to close a subject and see sense in what others contribute? You end many of your arguments by opening-up another subject, or by asking a snarky question.

If you really care about the anwer: I consider everything we do as processing. Fr instance, recording by itself is processing if you consider how the choices for microphone placement have an effect on the spatial character of a recording.

Snarf

[This message has been edited by Snarf (edited July 31, 2003).]

Sharf:

This thread describes how I have dealt with the bass issue:

http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000250.html

No need to apologize, I was just curious why asking you questions constituted an attack (your word, not mine). Yes, do you know of any 20Hz - 20kHz loudspeakers? If you're advocvating that folks use full range loudspeakers for every channel, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some real-world examples of such loudspeakers. I don't understand why asking for specifics, rather then delving into the hypothetical, would kill the discussion. Why would you have double the information? You make it sound asthough the recording engineer throws redundant information into the LFE channel and doesn't bother to monitor how it balances as part of the entire mix. If the mix was designed to include the LFE content, and that's how it was monitored in the recording studio, then discarding that entire channel will result in less bass than was intented by the recording engineer. It's a little contradictory to advocate changing the mix's original balance by tossing out the contents of an entire channel AND at the same time advocate a purist approach to listening to the signal on DVD-A and SACD discs. Understood, but are you saying that the LFE channel shouldn't be used by recording engineers because one Outlaw product creates double bass? What about all the other processors and receivers that don't have that problem? Why should they have to be saddled with one less channel if they can handle it properly? The examples you give of double bass are for situations where the recording engineer or the bass management system are faulty. Should this faulty behaviour then dictate how DVD-A and SACD discs are made, especially when there are recording engineers and consumer playback systems that are capable of properly handling LFE playback?

If, as you say, bass management "has everything to do with how things are recorded", then where in the recording chain is bass management taken into consideration? The only place is in playback/monitoring. Bass management is a playback tool, to deal with non-full-range speakers, not anything to do with recording. That's a valid choice; we each choose our compromises, and I can't argue against your personal preference. From my personal experience, I'd rather have the slight loss of resolution because I have found it more than compensated for by proper time alignment and bass management. The sweet spot. Whether you achieve proper time alignment by physically moving the speaker or electronically delaying certain channels, your speakers can only be equidistant from one spot. I agree that that would be optimal, requiring no compromise. But please realize that very few consumers, let alone audiophiles, have a set-up where all 5 or 7 speakers (and subs) are exactly the same distance away from the listening area. That may be happening little by little; I think the latest Sony SACD decoding chips contain rudimentary bass management and time alignment. Of course, if there were a hi-res digital interface for DVD-A and SACD, we could send the data from the player into the receiver/pre-pro and treat it as JADS (just another digital signal), rendering most of this conversation moot. OK, but aside from demos, do you know of any DVD-A titles that are configured this way? Again, I hope you don't think that asking for actual examples is my way of killing the discussion. First time I've heard a civil discourse referred to as nagging. I'm perfectly willing to see sense in what others contribute when those contributions make sense. However, things like discarding an entire channel of content during playback, or allowing the peculiarities of an Outlaw product dictate the bass content on SACDs and DVD-As, doesn't make sense.

As for closing subjects; are you asking for your statements go unquestioned? I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for real world examples to support what you're saying. If you don't want to or can't answer questions I raise, then just say so. Subject closed.

Best,
Sanjay

I will not use the Quote function here, but try from the top on the engineer issue. The other aspects are less interesting for the broader audience, I'd think.

Bass management is indeed a tool for playback. Monitoring in the studio is playback. Yet, the thing only works if the rules by which people play are the same. These rules are very simple:
1. Music in all 5 channels, full range
2. Effects for LF in the LFE

These rules are constituted to prevent wrong base playback (and monitoring) and subsequent corrections by engineers and consumers that would make it worse, or that would make them to have different settings for various recording approaches. The rules are bent by engineers who use the LFE channel full range and ask to stick that loudspeaker to one side, center back or on the ceiling. These things will happen and are probably a lot of fun.

Before some further thoughts on this, let me put straight one assumption I made in my previous posting on the features of the Outlaw bass management module. My assuption was wrongfully based on a review that misinterpreted the way the thing was working. The claim was that regardless of the setting for big and small loudspeakers (paraphrasing) the LF content below a certain frequency would be sent to the sub from all other channels. I stated that such an approach would be wrong; the Outlaw bass manager however does not work this way, hence it is not wrong. A friend uses the Outlaw bass manager and explained how it works within his setup. I will lookup the manual tonight to check the final answer on that one, as it seems that the outlaw bass manager offers more layers of flexibility.


Back to the engineer versus manager.


Suppose the following situation (A):
Engineer records music alone, and 'copies' the content of the 5 channels below 80 Hz to the LFE.

This disk is played back on a system that has loudspeakers that do not go under 80 Hz and a subwoofer that is set to play from 80 Hz down to whatever it goes down to. This arrangement would constitute a 'flat' playback system.

The bass manager reroutes the low frequency content of the 5 channels to the sub. The information of the LFE channel is also routed to the sub.

Result: doubling of LF!


Situation B:

Engineer records music alone, and 'copies' the content of the 5 channels below 80 Hz to the LFE.

This disk is played back on a system that has loudspeakers that go as low as 40 Hz and the system includes a subwoofer that is set to play from 40 Hz down to whatever it goes down to for music, and from 80 Hz down for LFE channel information. This arrangement would constitute a 'flat' playback system.

The bass manager reroutes the low frequency content of the 5 channels to the sub. The information of the LFE channel is also routed to the sub.


Result: doubling of 40 to 80 Hz!


These simple examples show that the recording engineer has to stick to the rules to ensure that his sound survives. I would not assume that the recording engineer has full-range setups in the studio (do you know of any loudspeakers that are flat from 20-20k or beyond, by any chance?), but either ignores low frequency in the control room, or makes use of bass management in combination with one or more subwoofers. In that case, you may find that if the recording engineer does not understand the input-end, he may have made-up for it at the output-end in the studio. This may sound fine in the control room, but could result in either very lean or very thick sounding recordings.

Ergo, the engineer does indeed need a manager, yet as with many engineers under managers, they need to know their stuff, 'cause the manager probably won't.

Maybe this is another good moment to plug the Holman book?


Snarf

PS: Am starting to read the Outlaw manual now, but have to 'clear the line'. Must say that the Outlaw product is truly a wonder, especially the fact that you could do with smaller surround (and center) loudspeakers, and reroute their bass content to the front loudspeakers before that is picked-up by a sub (works with a Rel, as it taps the main left and right). In my case, with full-range center you can set the center to bypass the splitting so it stays unchanged while it's LF content is not copied to the sub (it is not entirely clear to me if this is true, have to read some more...). In other words a great product!

The choice of mixing the LF of the surrounds to the front channels is then given by the recording style and approach. I would think that for classical music where the orchesta is 'in front', it may not be desirable to electroncally add the (partly uncorrelated) bass of the surround channels to the front left and right channel, as it potentailly results in less focussed base playback. For an 'in the round' multichannel approach it would probably make a lot of sense to flip the switch and reroute the bass of the surround channels to loudspeakers that can play it. In the round recordings are more popular for pop music than for classical; for the latter it seems somehow interesting for 5 minutes, but for many compositions, it rips the instrumentation apart and makes it difficult to understand the color and the balances that are sought by the musicians.


Enough for today, I'd think.

BTW, it bears mentioning that a lot of disc-makers are supplying full-range signals to the LFE channels in DVD-A/SACD. They shouldn't, but they do.

Jeff

Very nice!

And then I digress a bit...

The section about the historical relevance of the LFE channel is good, especially if you consider that the E stands for effects and not for program (speech and music). In fact, some music recording companies do not use the LFE or sixth channel at all for that specific reason. This is not to say that you may not need a sub, though. A sub is a sub, LFE is only a channel.

There MAY BE another reason to have more subs, and that is tied to the acoustical behavior of the (smaller) space. It turns out that having a sub 'up front' close to the main loudspeakers, but still coupled to the room, and a sub to the side is a good method to find complementary modal responses of the room. I have heard this, and it is quite convincing.

The Rel approach is convincing in that sense too: they almost claim that for a smaller room it is better to get small loudspeakers and then just one or more subs, as that way you have control over the low end. Well, I guess you could do the same thing for less by bi-amping a full-range loudspeaker, although it may be more effective to have separate control over the very low frequencies from a room-acoustics point of view by still adding one (or more) subwoofers. Oh well, it's just money ;-)

No problem; I use it simply because it help me keep my thoughts straight when addressing various points. I think you left out a step: when the recording engineer checks his mix, he hears the bass from all the channels PLUS five channels worth of additional bass coming from the LFE channel. Realizing that that's twice as much bass as he was intending, he adjust all the channels to achieve proper bass balance. Upon playback, none of the low frequencies are discarded, thus preserving the original balance. Or are you saying that recording engineers will copy the low frequency content of 5 channels but won't bother to find how that (rather large) change impacts the mix? In this example, the subwoofer is playing 2 things: derived bass (derived from the other channels) below 40Hz and discrete bass (from the discrete LFE channel) from 80Hz downwards. From 40Hz to 80Hz the sub is only reproducing the LFE signal; no derived bass. How is this "doubling of 40 to 80 Hz"?

I still don't understand what you have against the LFE channel. For it to create the problems you describe, there seems to be a prerequisite of an inept engineer during recording and/or improper bass management during playback. Hey, that's my question. But to answer it, yes I do. However, the few that are truly full range (Infintys, Martin Logans, Dunlavys, etc) are all very large and all use a separate bass enclosure that is almost as big as the speaker itself. Oddly enough, the manufacturers still refer to these two-piece units as one speaker.

Since it is impractical to have 5 of these large speakers in the homes of most consumers, let alone have the room to place each one of them the same distance from the listener, I feel it is practical to apply bass management and time alignment to SACD/DVD-A signals, even if it means digitizing the signal (of course, using high quality A/D and D/A conversion). I don't know if you are aware but pre-pros from Meridian, Lexicon and Mark Levinson ALL digitize a 5.1-channel signal upon input.

As impractical as it is to have 5 or 7 full range speakers at home, it is not that difficult to find affordable subs that go down below 20Hz. With that in mind, it makes more sense to me to process a SACD/DVD-A signal and enjoy the full content of all the channels rather than discard the entire LFE channel. Again, this may all come down to personal preference and what each one of is willing to compromise.

You started your participation in this thread with the claim "For SACD, read listening to music, there is no need to do ANY processing." Rather than reply with something just as definitive, insisting that the signal needs be processed, I instead wanted to point out that there are genuine and practical benefits to processing the signal. Whether you choose to or not is up to the individual listener; there are benefits and compromises to both methods. Again, personal preference.

As for your comments about the 950: That's one are where we are in 100% agreement.

Best,
Sanjay

Last round as far as I'm concerned. I kindly ask to re-read my post because you ask questions that are really answered in there.

1.
You make the assumption that I'm against the LFE. Not at all, but understand please that the E stands for Enhancement read effects. There is NO NEED to put porgrammatically important information in this channel. Do not mix the LFE with the sub. LFE is a channel carrying the signal, the sub is a loudspeaker capable of handling low frequency at decent level.

I like the LFE, because it gives the low frequency effects a chance. Mind you, in historical sense, without the LFE we wouldn't have so many subs to choose from.

The sub is great if your loudspeakers don't carry so low.

2.
I did not leave a step out. I think I assumed in the post that the engineer has a playback system with a bass manager. For him it is a matter of coat pocket versus trouser pocket where the bass manager can be set such that it compensates for the mistake made at the recording. This does then thus not reveal the mistake, since it sounds great in the studio. And of course it does!

The consequence of leaving total freedom at the recording is that the consumer has to change the settings at the bass manager for each and every recording.


3.
Situation B
Well, let me try again to explain this rather simple example:

DC to 80 Hz in the LFE, since the engineer mixed this frequency range in that channel.
40 to 80 Hz from the main loudspeakers, as the bass management is set to match the capability of the loudspeaker.

So, 40 to 80 Hz is played twice!

Note here that the 80 HZ is somewhat arbitrarily. If we keep freedom here, we have to read at the back of the CD at which frequency the engineer has chosen to set his or her crossover in the studio so that we consumer can make adjustments in our system, compensating for our own system layout.


4.
The bad news is: inept engineers exist, and what's worse, they come in bundles of 10. Even worse, some of the celebrated ones (and rightfully so) may make great recordings, but are also still very confused about the issue. May I plug a good read here again?

Bass management at fault, perhaps. But may we at least assume that a consious audio lover has adapted the sub in the specific system to match the other loudspeakers such that it makes for a nice and flat frequency response when listening to music? If that setting is wrong, sure, we have a problem at the home side. It is indeed very likely that it is wrong in many households but I give the audiophiles a chance here

Note the word music, as for DVD-V the LFE is allowed to go up to, I believe 120 Hz for LFE effects. This is why some people have a music and a DVD-V setting, so they optimally enjoy both.

Also note that a badly routed recording will be very difficult to compensate for unless you have an - here it is - Outlaw bass management box and a driver layout that has some room (read range). I hope I don't have to explain this one.


5.
And yes, what a surprize, I know all those loudspeakers you talk about, and can even name a few others. That was not the point of my question...

With the Outlaw bass manager you can enjoy sitting inside a cirlce of handsome standmounted two-ways and a sub or two and decently enjoy full range music. Indeed, the sub is a handy thing, especially with a good bass manager.

But I want that bass manager to be analog unless it can handle the high resolution signals of SACD and, if you like, DVD-A. I would avoid any cascading of AD-DA steps, how good the convertors may sound, even if that is at the cost of handy features. Timing can be solved with schlepping for now.

Personal preference indeed; I'd almost suggest listening to both signal streams (straigh out and via an AD-DA step) carefully, but I won't. All the talk about focus and grain and air and space and envelopment and all that other HiEnd talk should apply there.

6.
My appreciation of the analog bass manager is with regard to the ICBM (or whatever it is called) and not the 950. Is that only 80% off since it still says Outlaw on the outside? Sorry about that, but read the post again and you will see that the specific paragraphs about settings apply to this analog fellow and not the 950.


Snarf

Snarf:

The stereo sub article I did was meant as a good compromise to accommodate exactly this bass mis-management situation on all recordings from CDs to DVDs to multi-channel music without having to set the sub configuration differently for each. The Outlaw ICBM does this too, except that it has a fixed crossover frequency of 80HZ in stereo bass mode.

The LFE track is a movie convention meant for low frequency effects - that's why it was created, and when it was conceived, no thought was given to music reproduction. It has it's roots in the days when the movie "Earthquake" was released - music was never meant to come from it. An interm solution during the release of "Star Wars" in 1977 was to use two of the 5 behind the screen speakers in 70mm theaters as "baby booms" - to act as subwoofers. A stripe on the 70mm film print was devoted to this effects track. I know this from conversations I've had with a film mixing engineer who mixed "The Empire Strikes Back".

You never answered the questions about full range speakers, DVD-A titles with 24/48 surrounds, why there would be bass doubling on pre-pros that handle the LFE signal correctly, etc. Let me get this straight: the recording engineer has double bass in the recording (bass in all 5 channels plus the summed bass copied from ALL channels in the LFE). His studio's professional monitoring set-up does "not reveal the mistake" but a consumer home theatre does? You're really expecting me to believe that no one in the production chain would catch a double bass problem? Yes, inept engineers exist, but they're not a reason to broadly advocate discarding the the LFE channel. Why? Because some engineers might actually know how to use it properly. Or do you not think it's a remote possibility that there are recording engineers that understand how to create a mix using an LFE channel? If the system is set up wrong, then bass problems will occur for all sources, not just DVD-As and SACDs. Bad bass management doesn't discriminate that way. Conversely if "a consious audio lover has adapted the sub in the specific system to match the other loudspeakers such that it makes for a nice and flat frequency response when listening to music", then the frequency response should be flat for 5.1 channel DD & DTS material as well as 5.1 SACD & DVD-A sources. All those sources have LFE channels and the system won't give you double bass on SACDs but not double the bass on DVD-Vs.

You can balance a system around a 5.0 source, where the sub only sees derived bass from the other channels. THEN, introducing the LFE channel would give double bass. But why would anyone do that, especially at a time when the LFE channel is ubiquitous on multi-channel material (music and movies)?

Again, for the your examples of double bass to occur, the prerequisites seem to be: 1) a problematic recording that has twice the bass, because this problem was apparently never caught by the recording and mastering engineers; and/or, 2) a problematic speaker set-up where if you reproduce the bass in all the channels plus the LFE content, you automatically end up with double bass.

By your argument, any system that faithfully reproduces the contents of an SACD (i.e., the full contents of all 6 channels) is automatically doomed to the double-bass problem. And surprise, that's why you didn't name a single one, even though I asked you twice. No need to suggest it; I do it routinely. At the push of a button, I can switch the 5.1 inputs on my pre-pro between the digitized version or pure analog bypass. Can I hear the loss of resolution with the digitizing step? Yes. But it's negligible compared to the benefits that proper bass management and time alignment give. Based on listening to it both ways, I've always chosen the digitized version. As I said before, we each choose where to compromise (until there's a digital interface and the digitizing step won't be needed).

BTW, my pre-pro also allows me to adjust the volume of the LFE channel separately from the volume of the derived bass from other channels. I've tried dialing down the LFE on SACD/DVD-A recordings; the result always sounds anemic compared to the flat setting. But then again, my system was set up and balanced with the LFE channel in mind. Sorry, my mistake. I have no experience with the ICBM so, unfortunately, I'll have to withdraw the only "100% agreement" I had with you.

Best,
Sanjay

SH:

Do you know this to be correct?
I would think this would make for a really bad bass sollution for people who have "not quite full range speakers" and want most of the bass information to come from the mains. ie... crossover at 40Hz or 60 Hz...

I have used the ICBM in stereo, and I don't believe that it overides the settings to a 80Hz default crossover.

Otherwise, I concur with your use of stereo subs, and admire the design of your system as a means to that end. I also wish to second your past comments that the overall power and envelopment of a 2 sub configuration is a significant sonic benefit over just one.

Thanks...
Allan

Allan:

I got the 80Hz figure from looking at one of the manuals on-line, but I certainly could be mistaken on this point. From what I gathered, you have the ability to adjust the crossover frequency with a traditional mono sub setup but if you flip the stereo bass switch, the crossover is fixed at 80Hz. I was thinking of possibly buying one and noticed this, but please correct me if I'm wrong!

From looking through the manual just now, it appears to me that the stereo subs still allow a user-selected crossover.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

SH:

I just spoke to Scott at Outlaw... he verifies that "Stereo Sub Mode" uses the same adjustible crossover settings as the "Mono Sub Mode".

In stereo, the ICBM sums all the Left channel low-pass signals with half of the center channel low-pass signal, and sends this to the Left Sub Output. Similar for the Right channel.

The ICBM also allows the LFE signal gain to be adjusted independently from the low-pass signal, which is a great feature.

One limitation of the ICBM is that you are limited to fixed crossover points (ie., 40, 60, 80, 100,120Hz, or bypass) as opposed to most Subwoofers that have a continuously adjustible crossover where you could choose 50Hz, or 43.752Hz if you so desired.

Allan

[This message has been edited by AGAssarsson (edited August 01, 2003).]

Thanks for the clarification. I probably got confused by the fixed crossover frequencies aspect. There was some reason I had to disqualify it from purchase though, but I can't think of it now.

snarf:

Welcome to the Saloon!

I've enjoyed reading your inputs. A couple of notes:

Sanjay is one of those guys about whom you could say 'It's not what he says, but rather, how he says it'. He's an avid fan of DPLII and Logic 7, as well as the Bass Enhance feature of the Lex PrePro. He's very knowledgeable on these and other subjects, but being quoted line by line with each quote followed but a reproval takes some getting used to.

On the question of derived (or, as I would rather refer to it, redirected bass) taken from the 5 sat channels and summed with a copy that is recorded on the LFE channel, Sanjay is correct. Whether or not they are reproduced by 5 full range sats and a sub (playing the LFE channel), or 5 speakers set to 'small' and a sub playing the redirected bass and the LFE copy, they are still reproducing what the engineer obviously intended. It is, in fact, double bass, but it's intended, and therefore called Low Frequency Enhancement.

Getting back to my greeting, there are many things you've posted that are great subjects for those who simply read these threads and never post and so I would take this opportunity to ask you not to part our company because you feel 'attacked'.

By all means, post away. You input is welcome and the reason I come here often. You're an obviously intelligent person who has a grip on some of this currently evolving medium that is multichannel audio.

Sanjay:

I've been meaning to ask you to try something for my sake. Since you are one of the few guys who seem to understand Bass Enhance, or seem to have done more than simply research it, I wonder if you might use a SACD multichannel disc and:

Connect 1 sub to LFE discrete out and 1 sub to reproduce redirected bass. Dial in the LFE sub until it appears sonically balanced and listen to a particular passage.

Then, connect the 2 subs with redirected bass and LFE summed with Bass Enhance engaged.

Tell me what you hear as the differences. I would very much appreciate the report, if you're so inclinded to try it (and, of course, if you have any multichannel SACD discs that you like).

I am here to learn as much as I am here to share my knowledge, experience and insights. It was fun, until now; I am indeed about to chime-out.

What seemed a fun discussion turned into a conversation about competence. The only way to earn credibility points - this conversation is apparently about winning something - is if you can answer trivia questions or show off by casually mentioning makes and models of full-bandwidth loudspeakers - I did mention B&W or Wilson Audio already, didn't I? - or titles of DVD-A discs which interest me the least - as if there are so many DVD-A titles already - or otherwise pee against some tree that is apparently relevant to the poster. Bashing is easy, but it says usually more about the basher than about the bashed.

If you need to know what my background is, then ask a direct question, but do not hide behind secret criteria that are irrelevant to the discussion to value the input. The encouragement from other posters is very much appreciated though, and I know that it is not chique to quit, but what is there to gain except frustration. What I encounter here is sheer lack of willingness to understand the issue from at least a technical point of view. If the willingness is not there, then let's stop. If the reason for the unwillingness is caused by my reluctance to 'pee against the tree' as defined above, so be it. If my arguments sound unbelievable, understand that bass management is a matter of logical science, not a matter of religion. The frustrating part to me is that I am unsuccesful to wade through the smoke screens, and that I am unable to explain why there is a need for regulation of the bass management issue. If my explanation of this issue is not clear, but you are interested in the matter, please dig around elsewhere, do DD under the professionals, and, as suggested before, read a book or two about the subject.

The 'high-end' world is mostly flushed with discussions about esoteric issues, which are fun to watch from a safe distance, but the subject of bass management should not have to become one of these subjects. The rules of the game are simple and straightforward, and are made to serve the consumer with a consistent sound balance that, once the loudspeaker configuration of the consumer is tuned, will work with every recording without adjustment. The need for these rules are there because the recording industry cannot and should not expect the listener to continuously make these adjustmens. We are talking about facts here. That not every engineer and high-ender is aware of the facts and rules is not surprizing, although somewhat alarming.


On the bass management subject again.

LFE is for effects, not for music or other content that is of value for the program. This is in some cases an artistic choice, and only in a very few cases a technical choice. If you have a sub and decent bass management then there is no need at all to double the bass information in the LFE channel. If you do not have a sub, same applies.

Some of you may have noticed that I made a mistake in my previous posting. There I explained the doubling of base between 40 and 80 Hz in situation B. While travelling it occurred to me that there is doubling of the entire DC-80Hz region, except that DC-40 is doubled in the sub (redirected bass+LFE channel) and the doubling between 40 and 80 Hz occurs in the sub AND the main loudspeaker. Quite a significant issue, as the phase response and loudspeaker color of that doubling may cause interesting psychedelic artefacts, depending on the specific components, loudspreaker placement and acoustics.

On the subject of the sound in the recording studio, I already explained that the engineer would in fact NOT pick-up on the unwanted doubling because he or she already KNOWS that the signal feed is doubled. Self-fulfilling prophecy, n'est pas (I can pee in French too)? It is in the 'dialing in' of the sub in the system in the studio that the engineer still listens to a balanced system that now in fact NEEDS the double signal feed (via LFE and redirected bass). This will in fact only sound half-decent if the cut-off to the LFE is set at the same frequency as the cut-off from the mains to the sub so the signal doubling occurs only at the subwoofer, otherwise you would get different loudspeaker drivers, electronics and signal paths driving the 'difference bandwidth' which, as suggested above, has the potential for weird effects. As you see, the discovery of my previous mistake has lead to a potential worsening of the sound quality in the studio environment. I sincerely hope that no-one still wonders why we need rules for bass routing and management...

Suppose for a moment that... (dream music starts) studios have different loudspeakers and different settings for the cross-over, then the resultant sound would be different every time, (music turns grimm) and even worse, not even a fine bass manager as our hosting company makes can make-up for that, because we have to tune the trapped bandwidth. What a mess would that be! Lucky for us studio's all use the same equipment and loudspeakers (dreamy music picked-up again). What a happy dream...

I may start a new thread with an old question I have about binding posts that still have not been able to answer.

For this subject I am done, unless relevant iterations come up in good spirit.


Snarf

I agree with your comments about SACD...I'm a big fan of the format.

I began my multichannel listening experience fully believing that the ITU standard (5 identical full range satellites, set equidistant from the LP and 1 sub for LFE) was the setup that would produce the best results at playback.

I soon realized that it doesn't work for the simple reason that low frequency reproducing speakers are very placement critical. But, so are the 5 satellites. The placement of the low frequency speaker must be experimented with in a given room, where the satellites have a very fixed spot and can't be moved.

The idea of stealing the bass from the satellites and redirecting it to a subwoofer then seemed a good idea because the satellites can be placed exactly where they are required to be and the subwoofer can be moved about until the best spot for it is found. Omni-direction of low freqs allows this to work.

Ahhhh, but then there was still the LFE signal. Once you adjust your subwoofer to optimally reintegrate the stolen bass into the soundfield from which it is stolen, you then have to suffer the summing of LFE into the same subwoofer.

To make matters worse, most pre/pro/receivers won't let you seperately adjust the slope/LP/phase/volume of the LFE. Only the summed signal can be manipulated.

If you buy a sub that's capable of withstanding the 121 Db onslaught of the Dolby reference level spec, it surely is worthless for music reproduction. Some software has a mild doubling of bass, some a brutal dose. Some have music soundtrack that will be summed with 'dinosaur footfalls'. Some even have full range info in the .1 track.

The answer really is simple. 1 sub for redirected bass and another sub for LFE. The LFE sub will have it's own preamp/processor with a crossover (not just a low pass filter), selectable crossover points, slopes, variable phase adjustment and a preamp that's optimized for LFE reproduction and provides unity gain from a player or preamp to a hi-fi amp or a pro sound amp. The high pass out of the LFE crossover can feed a 6th satellite.

You then set up your redirected bass sub to make your satellites happy while blending in the LFE sub as best suits the program.

Much less is demanded of each subwoofer. Intermod distortion takes a nosedive. The music lover is as happy as the HTphile. Heck, you can even mute the LFE if the double bass offends you. And, no more lost LFE because you choose a 40 Hz. crossover for redirected bass (though some preamp makers claim to send the full LFE along with any chosen RB low pass, it's really ridiculous to expect 1 subwoofer, or many, for that matter, to handle both signals correctly).

There are many more advantages to this setup, but the biggest one is in listening. Low frequencies are a beautiful thing when done right.

As an artist, please don't take away the LFE before we've even had more than a heartbeat's time to experiment. Anyone who tells me I can't write a dinosaur footfall into a piece of music or that there are no instruments but a pipe organ that have low frequencies (sheesh, I hate that one) is an arrogant fool with the imagination of an engineer.

I designed such a low frequency processor, had it built by Dr. Phil (Marchand), custom built each subwoofer for it's specific chore using proprietary parts from around the globe, tweaked placement, room treatments and circuitry, all the while charting and graphing the in-room results against the summed-signal subwoofer system.

But, as I said earlier...it's really in the listening in the end. A discrete redirected bass sub system (or 2, if you prefer stereo low freqs) along with a discrete LFE sub system is the simple answer in production of and playback of multichannel audio.

Don't slam the door shut before it's even been opened. BTW, my newly designed 1 string bass requires 2 people to play it. Wait til you hear THIS baby.

I've read recently that the omnidrectional nature of bass is not quite correct and has been repeated so many times since 1964 that it has been accepted as gospel. From what I remember offhand the original study noted that MOST people (blind study by the way) could not sense/hear the direction of low bass but the percentage of people who could increased as the frequency increased above 70hz.

I also run sound through two subs right under the mains but cannot understand (or did I miss it above) why no one really discussed phase problems which can occur when you split the bass signal to two subs--you can have some notes (depending on distance/position of the subs I believe) cancel one another out (except perhaps for some harmonics). Luckily my subs have a phase switch so when I'm watching movies with the combined .1 LFE I can flip the phase switch on one of the subs and double the LF impact in many scenes.

I don't pretend to be and expert and a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing but I think this is an issue that you're missing in this discussion. Soundhound mentioned phase issues monitored in the recording process but that wouldn't do anything for identical sounds played by two subs which cancel each other out because they may be out of phase (or is it in phase? I think out) due to their position.

Anyway, I just wanted to hear some feedback from folks who know more than me.

Up.