What's new

Resolved: the "LFE channel" should never be utilized on SACD/DVD-A. (1 Viewer)

Ed St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
3,320
Javier_Huerta,
The .1 channel is a "special effects" channel. Nothing more. It's merely used to add some extra oomph to on-screen explosions and stuff like that. It was never designed as a music medium!
The .1 channel was indeed included in the "design" of both (DVD-A & SACD) HiRez musical formats. It was/is also used by DD 5.1 music & DTS 5.1 music.

I believe the problem with this thread starts with the misuse of the .1 channel as mixed by some no nothings & the lack of understanding and appreciation of a discrete channel.
I pity anyone that has not had the opportunity to hear .1 music mix that shows off, just what this channel can do.

Viva la Raza!
 

Steve_AS

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
412
Ed, I might be repeating myself from my first post.

The way I see it, the .1 channel should NEVER be used for music.

Why?

Scenario 1: You have a 5.1 channel mix.

1) People with NO subwoofer support won't get the whole mix. Because the .1 channel should never be mixed with the mains.
Denon may disagree, based on what I see in the owner's manual for the AVR3300 receiver. It looks like there's a 'bass output' setting that is separate from (and presumably follows in the signal chain) the small/large speaker settings. It's meant for users who have a sub + full-range front speakers. It's specifically meant to provide the option (called 'Front and Subwoofer') of sending the same low frequency info (bass + LFE) to all three speakers. The other option ('Sub only') is to direct only the LFE to the sub, leaving the fronts to get bass but not LFE.

If the fronts are set to 'small', then presumably the sub gets bass + LFE in both cases.
 

Ken_McAlinden

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2001
Messages
6,241
Location
Livonia, MI USA
Real Name
Kenneth McAlinden
I believe the tweeter does a great job of this. Within the limitations of the crossover, of coarse.
You very much missed the point, unless you are a firm believer in having only one tweeter for your entire 5.1 set-up.

The .1 channel in the multi-channel music formats was a carryover from the theatrical digital sound formats. For music, it is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

Regards,
 

Javier_Huerta

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
619
You very much missed the point, unless you are a firm believer in having only one tweeter for your entire 5.1 set-up.

The .1 channel in the multi-channel music formats was a carryover from the theatrical digital sound formats. For music, it is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle.
Exactly. :emoji_thumbsup: :star: :D
 

RaulR

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
175
Ed,

I will make one last attempt, then give up.

It seems that the problem is you think we're saying it's not necessary to reproduce the low frequencies that are sometimes found on the LFE channel. Wrong. What we're saying is that a discrete LFE channel is not necessary for reproducing low frequencies, and it was never necessary in the first place.

If you can't see a difference between those two statements, there's nothing more to be said.
 

LanceJ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
3,168
I've been thinking about this again.

What if all these dvd-audio player manufacturers simply don't WANT to put b.m. in their players? Maybe they are simply abiding by the multichannel mixer's decree of always using five full-range speakers.

They could easily put in a basic non-adjustable analog b.m. circuit: all satellites "small", subwoofer "on", xover at 80Hz. This would take care of most people's systems. This isn't NASA-level technology!

So why haven't they?

And to add to my audio credibility, I just felt like putting this here (I just discovered what that "extra smilies" link offers!):


LJ[
 

Lewis Besze

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 1999
Messages
3,134
The LFE channel itself? I wish they wouldn't use it at all. But if the customer has chosen to use a subwoofer, let the user's processor deal with the 5 main channel's bass as it sees fit.
For movies it's quiet useful because of the compressed formats like DD,but for music it's not necessary at all.
 

Ed St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
3,320
I need to use more smiles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
I thought the crossover reference with the .1 tweeter, would 'clue' everyone in.
No such luck!
I should have know this after reading a review where the reviewer thought that he was listening to "discrete" 7.1 thur logic 7!
Some people have no clue!

Well it comes to this;
.1 bass sounds better than low frequencies that have been put though a crossover.
Period!

Unless one of you has a perfect crossover!
Do any of you have a perfect crossover?
Please, tell us all of this electrical miracle!
 

Javier_Huerta

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
619
Well it comes to this;
.1 bass sounds better than low frequencies that have been put though a crossover.
Period!

Unless one of you has a perfect crossover!
Do any of you have a perfect crossover?
Please, tell us all of this electrical miracle!
:eek:

Uhmmm... Ed. Let's suppose the .1 channel is as discrete as you think.

If someone is recording an orchestra, how are engineers *supposed* to use a mike for the .1 channel? And if they actually did so, how could they ever avoid bleeding between the LFE and the rest of the channels?

If someone is recording a pop / rock record, would recording the bass guitar and the drums suffice for the .1 channel? If so, what is the upper frequency a bass guitar can generate? Should that be re-directed to the mains, because some subwoofers cannot remain linear above 120 Hz?

How in the world would a recording engineer know what is the upper-bass limit of your own subwoofer? The point where you are crossing over to your own speakers?

Or, could it be that most music mixed in 5.1 actually uses a crossover in the mixing stage to generate all .1 information, therefore negating every blessing you think the LFE channel has?

Think about it...
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
I wanted to post a link to a Richard Elen article on Bob Katz' "Ambisonics" website promoting the NON-use of the LFE channel for music mixes, as his explanations are quite a bit more comprehensible than mine (and his opinions on the matter will probably be given a good deal more weight than mine!): http://www.ambisonic.net/bassmgt1.html

Does anyone feel any differently about this issue today than they did when we hashed this out before?
 

Larry Geller

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 10, 2002
Messages
608
wanted to post a link to a Richard Elen article on Bob Katz' "Ambisonics" website promoting the NON-use of the LFE channel for music mixes, as his explanations are quite a bit more comprehensible than mine (and his opinions on the matter will probably be given a good deal more weight than mine!):
Well, since he is pushing the moribund Ambisonics system, which doesn't use a center or LFE, he is hardly objective. I give YOUR opinion more weight!
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
Larry, while Katz' site is devoted to Ambisonics, I don't believe Elen's article has anything to do with the promotion of the Ambisonics system, but rather the approach to mixing surround music for all formats (DSD, MLP, Dolby Digital, DTS.... er, quad vinyl) so that the bass doesn't go all screwy. Right?

(Or didn't you read it?) ;)

But so long as you're giving my opinion any degree of weight, let me just say music mixers need an LFE channel like a fish needs a bicycle. And not only can you quote me on that, you should call me Ishmael when you do it. ;)
 

Lewis Besze

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 1999
Messages
3,134
Last time I checked I connect my sub to the pre out connector of my Pre/Pro,labeled as :"Sub" but if it used,that is where the LFE signal will emerge no matter what.
So I'm not sure what's he's point on this.
I agree with the rest of the article[except his seemingly snobish attitide towards BM in general,and less then tower speakers],which already been covered by some of us here.
 

Lee Scoggins

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Messages
6,395
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
Real Name
Lee
Larry, while Katz' site is devoted to Ambisonics, I don't believe Elen's article has anything to do with the promotion of the Ambisonics system, but rather the approach to mixing surround music for all formats (DSD, MLP, Dolby Digital, DTS.... er, quad vinyl) so that the bass doesn't go all screwy.
Well I worked with Bob on some albums and I think what he feels is that it is really hard to record that LFE channel and have it work right. There are also problems with the correct playbacks of an LFE channel...the best and simplest way is to record the right amount of bass as naturally as possible.

Another general comment I would have is that often bass is spoken of meaning really "low" bass like under 40hz. Record engineers often get annoyed at this as they have learned through experience that "midbass" has a lot to do with the accurate rendering of a performance.

One more thing: Bob may not be so biased for Ambisonics for just their products but more of his overall philosophy of using fewer microphones and keeping the recording chain as simple as possible.

Just my $0.02 :)
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
Last time I checked I connect my sub to the pre out connector of my Pre/Pro,labeled as :"Sub" but if it used,that is where the LFE signal will emerge no matter what.
So I'm not sure what's he's point on this.
I agree with the rest of the article[except his seemingly snobish attitide towards BM in general,and less then tower speakers],which already been covered by some of us here.
Lewis, I'm not certain what you're responding to... is it the distinction he's drawing between the pre-encoded LFE channel, on the one hand, and the bass that's redirected from your other speakers to your sub (if you use one), on the other? This is a crucial distinction as, most significantly, it points out the uselessness/superfluousness of a pre-encoded LFE channel when one is redirecting additional bass from the other channels anyway (or, conversely, redirecting that LFE channel back into the main speakers). Of lesser importance in most applications but hardly insignificant, it also points out the problems that arise in integrating LFE channels encoded at higher DBs than the other channels (essentially, Dolby Digital tracks on DVD-A discs).

If trying to preserve our ability to properly bass manage our individual systems is being "snobbish", then count me among the snobs!

But we can talk about LFE vs. redirected bass frequency integration difficulties, the problems this creates for sub-less systems, etc., but the real point here is why the hell do we need an LFE channel for MUSIC anyway?*

*And if anyone says "for bass management", I'll scream! ;)
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
Just to be clear, it's Richard Elen (who now works at Meridian, I believe) and not Bob Katz who wrote that article.
 

Lewis Besze

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 28, 1999
Messages
3,134
If trying to preserve our ability to properly bass manage our individual systems is being "snobbish", then count me among the snobs!
Oh I'm for proper BM but I'not sure he's.He's displaying the typical R.E. attitude of "anything less then 5 large speakers[no sub] is a compromise"[I.E. 5 bookshelves+sub= BM].Which is not only impractical,but could pose more problem from an acoustical POV.
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
That "LFE/subwoofer" thing is confusing as written, but I think what he means is that the LFE channel shouldn't be confused as "the subwoofer channel", which in nearly all of our systems will also contain redirected low-bass frequencies from our main/center/surround speakers in addition to whatever pre-encoded LFE channel may exist. But it's a confusing statement.

And while 5 full-range speakers is the ideal setup according to everyone, his point here is not that this is what we all have. His point is that most of us will be applying bass management specifically tailored to our systems, and when the engineers attempt to "pre-encode" bass management via an LFE channel, it's both superfluous and potentially problematic in a given application. Furthermore, unlike movie soundtracks, music recordings rarely dip down into the subterreanan levels of bass (you know, the example of the cannons in the 1812 Overture).

Let me ask you, Lewis: why do you think we need an LFE channel for music? What purpose could it possibly serve?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,523
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top