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