Hell, who knows!?!?!?

This is _exactly_ why I hate the "bass mis-management" scheme that's in all HT gear. Nobody _including ME_ can really wrap their minds around what the manufacturers are exactly doing - and they're no help in clearing it up. I would take the article at face value, as he at least is making sense, and sounds like he's 'sessed it out.

The whole problem in my twisted view, and coming from the industry where this whole LFE mess started (the movie industry) is that they tried to force the actual dubbing stage and movie theatre model on a home envoronment. But _they_ don't use bass management anyway! It's all straight full range speakers, except for the sub. The LFE channel is a decendent of the 'baby booms' from the days when there was a transistion from 6 track magnetic soundtracks in common use and five channels behind the screen. They started using the half-left and halr-right speakers as 'boom channel' (circa 1977 'Star Wars"). This led to the LFE we have today, and only three speakers behind the screen. The problem arises on how do you integrate a LFE channel into a system in a home environment. The big mistake I beleve they made was not mandating that _all_ speakers be full range in the first place. Then no bass management, and no problems. Simple. Then they got the idea that most people wanted smaller speakers. Personally, I think they just thought that the costs of speakers would be too prohibitive if they were all capable of real bass. I disagree, but anyway, thus was born bass-management. Now, I have articles from "High Fidelity" magazine from the 1950s (I'm not _that_ old, however!) that detail a sub/sat speaker system in mono, then later when stereo started, in stereo. The idea is not new. But they didn't use any form of bass management other than a plain 'ol analog high and low pass crossover to devide to the sub.

I think you might get the impression that I hate bass management


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited October 12, 2002).]