1. If all channels are set to large, will there be any output from the .1 channel? 2. Is the .1 channel discrete or is it derived bass from the other channels? 3. Is the center channel full frequency response or is the bass limited like some processors from the past?
Thanks, Reed

Reed - I assume that these questions relate to the Model 950 and its bass management.

1. When all channels are set to large, the only data that should be sent to a subwoofer is the .1 channel of a Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS soundtrack. No bass from the other channels would be re-directed to the subwoofer.

2. Technically, one could argue that the .1 channel refers only to the LFE channel contained in Dolby Digital and DTS soundtracks, which is not derived from the other channels. The subwoofer output from the 950 (and any similar processor) will include the .1 channel and any redirected bass that might exist (depending on the bass management settings that have been selected).

3. The 950's center channel is full range when set to "large" and is not bass limited. This should be the case for all Dolby Digital and DTS processors, as both surround formats include full range channels for center and surround, as well as Dolby Pro Logic II. On the other hand, it was not true of Dolby Pro Logic; the matrixed center and surround channels that Pro Logic used were frequency limited (although I forget what the exact upper and lower limits were).

------------------
gonk -- 950 Review | LFM-1 Review | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | Saloon Links

Thanks Gonk. Your answers to my 3 questions is how that I thought it worked. I plan on using 3 electronic crossovers to add a subwoofer to each of my 3 front channels and will set them to large. I will also add a 4th subwoofer for the .1 channel to reproduce that information. My surround channels will be set to small and that information should go to the .1 channel. I now have to build the room for all of this stuff.

Just to check, are you setting the 950's signal to large, send the signal to the crossover which then splits it appropriately to the sub and speaker?

Yes, that is the way I will be setting my 950. I will be setting each of the 3 front channels to large, then go to 3 separate electronic crossovers, then to 6 amplifiers. Three to the regular front channels and 3 to the subwoofers. There will also be the 7th amplifier for the .1 channel subwoofer. My surround will be set to small as they are not full range. Their bass should go to the .1 subwoofer and be added to the regular .1 information. I will be using the M-200 for all of my channels including surrounds. I am still in the process of building the room so it is not set up yet.

Perhaps all that needs to be said has been said, but I’m still typing

There has been no absolute standard by which subwoofers are judged that could result in a universally recognized performance/value ‘points system’ where one could say, “I compared two subs (1.3 rated) with one sub (2.6 rated) and found that I prefer such-and-such.” So when one can’t answer the question of which sub is twice as good as another, one can’t really even arrive at the question, “Which is better, one ‘twice-as-good’ sub or two ‘good’ subs?” I guess the question comes to, “Which do I prefer, two, three or four of the best $1X dollar subs I can find, or one of the best $2X, $3X or $4X dollar subs I can find?” Because the particular listening environment you have plays such a large part in finding that answer, the only real way to find out is find the time to give each a proper setup and listening test in your environment.

I recently had the chance to compare the use of two Sony WX-700’s (about $250 each) with two Sunfire Signature’s (about $1150 each). These subs were built with similar design goals – two moving surfaces, small footprint. The WX-700’s have a slightly larger footprint while the Sunfire Signatures have slightly larger drivers. Because the Sunfire’s drivers are more exposed, each Sunfire needed slightly more clearance than the Sony’s, so each type needed just much floor space as the other. I would have liked to have included two LFM-1’s in the comparison, as their performance at their price point is very, very good, but the LFM-1’s were not as easily obtained and returned.

Quick Q&A’s:

1: What were the notable differences? The Sunfires offered more output and lower frequency extension, but two WX-700’s still offered plenty of ‘authority.’

2: Was the Sunfire “four times” better than the Sony? Nope.

3: If a budget had room for them, would I spend the extra $$ for the Sunfires? Yes. As is usually the case, as one approaches diminishing returns, a ‘50%’ improvement may cost four times as much.

4: On a tight budget, how would I spend? I’d buy two of the WX-700’s for now. One to four years from now, I would expect I could upgrade – I would have time to save and I expect that the price performance of subs will continue to improve, so perhaps a sub with better performance than the WX-700 will be available later on for less than the Sunfire Signature costs now. And the WX-700’s would still sound great in a second system.

Again, I wish I could have had the LFM-1 in the comparison. Perhaps it is that value, sought in the last paragraph, available now, between the WX-700 and the Sunfire model compared. The LFM-1 is about twice the cost of the WX-700 but about half the cost of the Sunfire Signature.


bossobass: In the setup mentioned in the post of August 28, how would you control the playback volume? If you are using the 950, then the LFE subwoofer level would remain unchanged while everything else, going through the 950, would be variable.

at least subwoofers (speakers really) arent becoming redefined as quickly as other gear... they can last you quite a long time, perhaps indefinitely.

i would have to agree with your statement about 4x as much money for 50% improvement in general, but that is why one must be selective when searching for his answer. there are good values out there, you just have to look or get lucky.



------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.

BB4B,

Good question.

I use an outboard low frequency processor that has a seperate channel for each sub, including a preamp section with gain, thatI use to level the volumes. I leave the 950's SW trim and the player's SW level at a reference level and season to taste from there using the LF pre/pro gain controls.

The 950's master volume keepsthe RB sub fairly leveled with the satellites.

I say 'fairly leveled', because when the volume is lowered for the system to below a certain point, the Fletcher Munsen hearing curve makes it sound as though the low frequencies are not calibrated anyway.

I've found that the .1, or LFE sub needs no leveling in the case of DVD-A/SACD multichannel tunes because they mostly contain low levels of signal in that channel.

In fact, I find that, in that case, if I lower the rest of the system, volume-wise, the LFE sub's volume staying the same fills out the Fletcher Munsen curve perfectly.

On DVD playback, I simply don't listen at all over the map levels. The roughly 3 different levels I use, for whatever reason, are easily and quickly adjusted to as to what level the LFE sub should be for each setting, and I adjust the LFE pre/pro gain accordingly before starting the disc.

This can just as easily be done using the LFE sub's amp gain, or the SW trim in the player's menu.

If I watch a flick late at night and don't want to disturb anyone (in which case, it's never a bass-heavy action flick), I simply mute the LFE sub altogether (as well as bump up the center channel trim 3 dB for dialog).

Why, oh why can't the pre/pro designers just add a discrete LFE output jack and a toggle to sum the outputs (RB and LFE) ALA the Lex MC-12??

Some recent trivia:

I've recently worked with 1 design team of a new pre/pro regarding this very thing and the related bass management particulars.

I've also begun some interesting modulation distortion tests based on the idea that this set up (of discrete RB and discrete LFE subs vs the single, summed signal to whatever number of subs) results in huge improvement in reducing this kind of distortion during playback of MC audio.

BoB- The Fletcher-Munson info begins to screw with a person's beliefs when you start to realize that the overall volume has to be a significant value before the sub-20 Hz content even registers...