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