DIGITAL Adventures in second guessing the mastering engineer, Vol 1 - George Benson 'Breezin'

[sukothai]

Maybe the producers that use the LFE channel for music are following a similar rule: they want all the lower bass to come from a single speaker.

I wouldn't bet on that, though. My guess is that a mix that uses the LFE channel is "cooler".

Here I go again - getting in a rat hole with the LFE channel.

For music, the mains will have all of the low frequency information even if an LFE channel exists; so the single speaker theory doesn't hold true and is why for music, the LFE channel doesn't really make sense. In the end, if you have a good bass manager somewhere in your system, the LFE doesn't matter; as the bass manager will make sure all of the low frequencies go to the correct speaker (given you have it set up correctly.) Unfortunately, the "coolness" factor may be the only valid reason for a .1 channel. But once you understand how works, it is not so cool anymore.

 

[proufo]

Here I go again - getting in a rat hole with the LFE channel.

For music, the mains will have all of the low frequency information even if an LFE channel exists.

Really, all producers follow that rule?

So the SW signal is redundant, in all cases?

Thanks in advance, sukothai.

 

[sukothai]

Really, all producers follow that rule?

So the SW signal is redundant, in all cases?

Thanks in advance, sukothai.

If they didn't mix the lows frequencies to the mains, it would be a major mixing flub and you would hear about it on these boards. Many systems don't have a SW and rely on the mains for the low frequencies. Think of all those old 1970's speakers with 15" subs in each box. The SW is a relatively new development.

 

[quadtrade]

Yes it is. This is a invention to help sell movies. Period. It does not belong in music, low frequencies have direction and sound much more real from full range speakers.

Really, all producers follow that rule?

So the SW signal is redundant, in all cases?

Thanks in advance, sukothai.

 

[watsontr]

Anyone know if the SACD version suffers from the same problems or was it fixed?

 

[watsontr]

Anyone know if the SACD version suffers from the same problems or was it fixed?

Okay, just found steelydave‘s post on the SACD elsewhere. Thanks

 

[steelydave]

I think the center channel could be a little louder, but the SACD is night-and-day better than the DVD-A. It doesn't have the 18kHz (or whatever it was) frequency cutoff of the DVD-A, and it has seemingly a newly-created LFE track that's much more substantial. I never listen to the DVD-A any more, aside from the bonus tracks.

 

[4-earredwonder]

If they didn't mix the lows frequencies to the mains, it would be a major mixing flub and you would hear about it on these boards. Many systems don't have a SW and rely on the mains for the low frequencies. Think of all those old 1970's speakers with 15" subs in each box. The SW is a relatively new development.

Same rule applies to the CENTER CHANNEL. It was created to stabilize dialogue for large movie theaters. When the 5.1 craze set in in the DVD era, music engineers felt compelled to implement that and the SW into Surround MUSIC Mixes. Neither Sheiner, S Wilson nor chucky from Surround Master fame are fans of the center channel for MUSIC.

If you have 4 MATCHING full range speakers front and rear, perfectly imaged and program your Universal players that there is NO center nor SW, you'd be surprised [actually SHOCKED] how a lot of these faux pas disc mastering errors [anomalies] would disappear!