Quote:
1. Would be desirable, yes.
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?
Quote:
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 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?
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
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).
Quote:
BTW: Got confused a bit on what you 'attacked' me on.
Where did I "attack" you? Could you quote the offending passages? (Note that I haven't edited any of my posts).
Quote:
we cannot expect engineers to know what to do with the LFE
We obviously have differing views of how knowledgeable recording engineers are.
Quote:
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 ;-)
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
_________________________
Sanjay