I will not use the Quote function here, but try from the top on the engineer issue. The other aspects are less interesting for the broader audience, I'd think.

Bass management is indeed a tool for playback. Monitoring in the studio is playback. Yet, the thing only works if the rules by which people play are the same. These rules are very simple:
1. Music in all 5 channels, full range
2. Effects for LF in the LFE

These rules are constituted to prevent wrong base playback (and monitoring) and subsequent corrections by engineers and consumers that would make it worse, or that would make them to have different settings for various recording approaches. The rules are bent by engineers who use the LFE channel full range and ask to stick that loudspeaker to one side, center back or on the ceiling. These things will happen and are probably a lot of fun.

Before some further thoughts on this, let me put straight one assumption I made in my previous posting on the features of the Outlaw bass management module. My assuption was wrongfully based on a review that misinterpreted the way the thing was working. The claim was that regardless of the setting for big and small loudspeakers (paraphrasing) the LF content below a certain frequency would be sent to the sub from all other channels. I stated that such an approach would be wrong; the Outlaw bass manager however does not work this way, hence it is not wrong. A friend uses the Outlaw bass manager and explained how it works within his setup. I will lookup the manual tonight to check the final answer on that one, as it seems that the outlaw bass manager offers more layers of flexibility.


Back to the engineer versus manager.


Suppose the following situation (A):
Engineer records music alone, and 'copies' the content of the 5 channels below 80 Hz to the LFE.

This disk is played back on a system that has loudspeakers that do not go under 80 Hz and a subwoofer that is set to play from 80 Hz down to whatever it goes down to. This arrangement would constitute a 'flat' playback system.

The bass manager reroutes the low frequency content of the 5 channels to the sub. The information of the LFE channel is also routed to the sub.

Result: doubling of LF!


Situation B:

Engineer records music alone, and 'copies' the content of the 5 channels below 80 Hz to the LFE.

This disk is played back on a system that has loudspeakers that go as low as 40 Hz and the system includes a subwoofer that is set to play from 40 Hz down to whatever it goes down to for music, and from 80 Hz down for LFE channel information. This arrangement would constitute a 'flat' playback system.

The bass manager reroutes the low frequency content of the 5 channels to the sub. The information of the LFE channel is also routed to the sub.


Result: doubling of 40 to 80 Hz!


These simple examples show that the recording engineer has to stick to the rules to ensure that his sound survives. I would not assume that the recording engineer has full-range setups in the studio (do you know of any loudspeakers that are flat from 20-20k or beyond, by any chance?), but either ignores low frequency in the control room, or makes use of bass management in combination with one or more subwoofers. In that case, you may find that if the recording engineer does not understand the input-end, he may have made-up for it at the output-end in the studio. This may sound fine in the control room, but could result in either very lean or very thick sounding recordings.

Ergo, the engineer does indeed need a manager, yet as with many engineers under managers, they need to know their stuff, 'cause the manager probably won't.

Maybe this is another good moment to plug the Holman book?


Snarf

PS: Am starting to read the Outlaw manual now, but have to 'clear the line'. Must say that the Outlaw product is truly a wonder, especially the fact that you could do with smaller surround (and center) loudspeakers, and reroute their bass content to the front loudspeakers before that is picked-up by a sub (works with a Rel, as it taps the main left and right). In my case, with full-range center you can set the center to bypass the splitting so it stays unchanged while it's LF content is not copied to the sub (it is not entirely clear to me if this is true, have to read some more...). In other words a great product!

The choice of mixing the LF of the surrounds to the front channels is then given by the recording style and approach. I would think that for classical music where the orchesta is 'in front', it may not be desirable to electroncally add the (partly uncorrelated) bass of the surround channels to the front left and right channel, as it potentailly results in less focussed base playback. For an 'in the round' multichannel approach it would probably make a lot of sense to flip the switch and reroute the bass of the surround channels to loudspeakers that can play it. In the round recordings are more popular for pop music than for classical; for the latter it seems somehow interesting for 5 minutes, but for many compositions, it rips the instrumentation apart and makes it difficult to understand the color and the balances that are sought by the musicians.


Enough for today, I'd think.