Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by LanceJ, Jan 27, 2003.
This article is a total crock!!! First off, the writer assumes that the consumer's player will perform adequate bass management. With SACD and DVD-Audio, this is NOT a known variable. My mains won't do much below 55Hz, which would leave out a ton of audio info when the LFE channel is not used for bass.
Also, in my system, the LFE channel IS connected straight to the sub. The writer seems to be addressing the "double-bass" problem in a strange fashion. Presuming all consumer systems to possess good bass management makes his conclusions fallacious...
This is another good link regarding this topic:
Info from the LFE channel in a 5.1/6.1 setup is not lost if the sub out is not used. That information is redirected to the mains or whatever other speaker is set to large. The alternative to using the sub out, as stated in the link above, is to use the line in/out on the back of the sub with your mains.
Any beginner/newbie should take a look at that link for basic bass management information for a HT setup.
That author lost all credibility when he mentioned the "height" channel.
This is already a known misrepresentation of facts. Because of that, everything he says is suspect, it appears he really doesn't know what he is talking about.
I am not sure I see all that much to argue with in the article.
I would agree that there are lots of issues with BM, particularly with universal players, but he is correct that all bass can be mixed into the mains, and BM will normally send it where it needs to go (if i is working right!).
Does anyone remember the controversy when Tarzan came out on DVD? People were going to return it because it was mixed in 5.0.....oh no, it has no bass, its going back.
And why is the mentioning of the height channel a problem? I don't expect to have one in my rig anytime soon, but I would like to hear a demo to judge for myself how it sounds.
IMHO or course.
Wow, I didn't think this article would provoke this kind of reaction!
The height channel thing: I've never heard a system with this channel, but this does seem kind of.....dumb (for lack of a more technical term :b). Chesky has a (sacd or dvd-a?)with this format. Oh jeez I can see it right now when my buds come over: "What the HELL is a speaker doing hanging from the middle of the ceiling?!?" No thank you--regular mulitchannel is already complicated enough!
Personally, I would like a 5.0 format for music. Bass for movies is one thing: I'm not all that concerned if an explosion is reproduced 100% "accurately" enough . But music bass? Whole different story for me. And I don't want to worry about phase anomalies, incorrect crossover points, bass "holes", etc. that can occur with systems containing subwoofers. I have no problem making space for two full-range speakers up front. And most rock/pop (usually) contains little bass below 40Hz anyway.
Speaking of bass management: I briefly skimmed the new Sound and Vision magazine and they had an article about that new Pioneer reciever and universal dvd player with "i.Link". The receiver is capable of FULL bass-management for every format through the i.Link. The authors were understandably excited about this. And they also reviewed the new Yamaha universal player ($999). And as is usual for S&V nowadays, they barely mention how the damn player sounds! Arrrgh!!! Same with reviews of the sacd/dvd-audio discs themselves. What irks me especially is they almost alway neglect to mention the stereo track's performance (particlularly dvd-audio's 192kHz format). While I very much enjoy m-ch music, I realize some music doesn't translate well to multiple channels and stereo is enough. So their constant harping about stereo being an archaic, old-fashioned format is irritating.
I find the article interesting. Especially when you consider that the reason that Outlaw created the ICBM is that most semi-inexpensive receivers don't do bass management, especially from SACD players. Lots of times the input from these systems is routed directly to the speakers bypassing the bass management, if any, in the receivers. I have one of those inexpensive zero management systems in my corporate apartment. Unless it comes from the LFE channel, I get no bass out of the subwoofer, period.
Sure, if you got a high end receiver, you get good bass management, but how many people have one of those.
How does Mr. Elen expect these to work if everything is put onto the main channels and there is no bass management? Sounds like he's not describing the real world, but the higher end systems. Wonderful.
This article is not a total crock. People have to distinguish between 5.1 HT setups and surround music applications. With out a doubt the 5.1 configuration is not well suited to surround music.
Not using the LFE channel in no way means giving up any bass for music. Check out the article referenced above on Chesky's website. The height channels are a better alternative than the 5.1 most people try to use for surround music.
Myron, putting all your bass in the main channels is not the same as having no bass management. The low frequencies will still end up at your sub woofer. Read the article.
Tim,I would be hesitant to so readily take out my flame thrower unless I had a pretty goog understanding of the topic. The author does make many valid points.
Below is an article that lays out the deception of any "REAL" height channel existing on any DVDs.
My Denon sends a very good signal to my rsw 15 via lfe.I love it for music,its a punch in the chest that not many full range speakers can deliver without a sub.I want stereo lfe's!