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).]