This may come down to how we each view the two processes: I see the similarities you mention, but I see greater differences. Yes, both processes are trying to widen the soundstage, but then so do other processes, like matrix decoders. This doesn't mean that LOGIC7 is the same thing as Sonic Holography or Bass Enhance.

Besides, I think the differences are significant. Holography uses crosstalk cancellation (Carver's words), fixed phase, exacting placement and specific delays. Bass Enhance doesn't use any of these technologies, relying instead on constantly shifting the phase (from 60 to 90 degrees) of the low frequencies between the speakers on the left side of the room vs the right side.

The effects of Holography are more noticeable as you use less monophonic recordings. The effects of Bass Enhance are more noticeable as you move towards recordings with more monophonic bass. The results are also quite different: Holography produces better localization with almost shockingly precise imaging in the front soundstage; Bass Enhance actually does the opposite, as bass becomes less localizable and more enveloping.

Going back to your original point about precise placement of speakers and ears: that may sometimes help Bass Enhance but it is an absolute neccessity for Holography. Confusing the two processes will result in placing a requirement on Bass Enhance that is not really, well, required.

As mentioned before, Lexicon has a mode similar to Sonic Holography, which does have all the requirements you've described: users have to dial in distance, angle and position of the listener relative to each speaker. Talk about precise placement! None of this is required with Bass Enhance, as there is nothing in the menu for setting it up. Also, the Holography-like "effect" can be adjusted over something like 62 steps; Bass Enhance is simply and on/off parameter. Again, the two processes are significantly different. I've read similar quotes from people trying to locate and intergrate a subwoofer (or worse, multiple subs) seamlessly with the rest of their speakers. This hasn't made me feel that the addition of subwoofers to home theatres was a less than successful idea.

Maybe we're using the term "successful" to mean different things. Properly set up, Bass Enhance delivers as advertised. I don't see what's particularly unsuccessful about that. Griessinger is definitely an interesting guy. Like many scientists, he can sometimes be an odd bird, especially in person. Lately he's been so obsessed with optimising LOGIC7 for cars that Lexicon, once again, has to drag him kicking and screaming to work on their home theatre products. I don't think Lexicon has ever really made an effort to push for LOGIC7 encoding for 2-channel material. Ironically, due to the equpment used in one mastering house (MiCasa Productions) there happen to be more L7 encoded DVDs than EX encoded titles. More a fluke than anything Lexicon actively attempted to do. BTW, these soundtracks decode incredibly well on the Outlaw 950 using the PL II CES modes.

As for influencing the industry as far as a discrete LFE system is concerned, it may simply not be a high priority for a company that does the kind of work that Lexicon does. Keep in mind that their speciality is signal processing (turning 2-channels into 7, turning mono bass into stereo, etc). Just a guess, but they seem like they'd put more effort into figuring out a proprietary solution to an industry problem rather than try to change the industry itself. From what some of the folks at Lexicon have told me, the reason behind the separate LFE output was to allow users to treat derived bass and discrete bass as separate entities. For example: the two sub outputs can be run as dual-mono, real stereo (bass filtered from all the left speakers vs all the right speakers), or even have Bass Enhance applied to the signal. In comparison, the LFE output is simply a passthrough; not even a crossover in the signal path!

Interestingly enough, I heard Bass Enhance work well in a system with no subwoofers. While on a quest for suitably "mucical" subs, a friend of mine temprarily set up his system with 6 floorstanding speakers and a small centre channel speaker (standard 7 speaker placement). While the floorstanders were by no means full range speakers, they had enough bass to show off Bass Enhance. Ultimately, Bass Enhance is not as much a process for subwoofers as it is a left bass vs right bass process. Likewise, apologies for anything I posted that may have come off as harsh. As I said in my previous post, nothing personal meant; even (especially) when our views are at odds.

As for surround processing, yes I'm an obvious fan; mostly because I use my processor 80% of the time for music listening, most of which is 2-channel CDs. It's been almost a decade and a half since I've listened to 2-channel material using only 2 speakers. I don't hear everything in the real world between two points in space in front of me. At this point in my hobby, I find it very distracting to listen using only 2 speaker. I guess that makes me the anti-purist audiophile?

Is surround processing an impediment to discrete multi-channel? I'm not so sure. Keep in mind that the best matrix decoders (LOGIC7, PL II, Circle Surround II) came out after DD 5.1 was already established. The argument could be made that discrete multi-channel is having a bigger influence on surround processing, rather than the other way around. Once consumers get a tase of discrete multi-channel, they start to want that same sound for everything in their library. Companies respond by creating surround processing that tries to bring 2-channel legacy recordings as close to possible as the discrete multi-channel experience.

One place where matrix decoding may be hampering the desire for more discrete channels is with Griesinger himself. His "ideal" playback system has 5 speakers up front (main L&R pair, centre, a pair at the first reflection points), 2 side speakers, 2 rears, 2 overhead speakers and a pair of subs. However, he doesn't advocate going beyond 5.1 discrete delivery channels for his 11.2 channel playback system. The bulk of the channels will be matrix encoded and recovered upon decoding during playback. If he didn't have such strong convictions towards processing, he'd probably be advocating more discrete channels (full range and LFE).

BTW, don't know if you've seen these yet, but for some interesting reading, check out this interview with Dr.G:

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/Lexicon/dg_qa1.html

As well as the good doctor's own website:

http://world.std.com/%7Egriesngr/

Best,
Sanjay




[This message has been edited by sdurani (edited April 22, 2003).]