Re: John, it gets stranger still...

Posted by John Kotches (R) on April 15, 2003 at 20:37:52

In Reply to: Re: John, it gets stranger still... posted by Kal Rubinson on April 15, 2003 at 18:44:18:

Kal,

Sorry, let's try this one more time, so I can make my point clearer:

Subwoofer inputs can be filtered or unfiltered. Well designed subwoofers have both filtered and unfiltered inputs.

For movies, which will engage the crossover in the Processor/Receiver, you would want to use an unfiltered input, or for a sub lacking an unfiltered input, you'd set the subs internal LPF as high as possible (150+ would be ideal).

However, with Telarc's method, assuming you have mains with solid response down to 40Hz, you have an octave of information which will be doubled up. So you turn the LPF down to about 40Hz to correspond with the speakers -3dB point. Cool. That handles the mains. Any material on speakers (say surrounds and CC) which don't have the same response characteristics (say a 60Hz -3dB point) you've lost information between the -3dB point and the LPF engaged on the subwoofer.

You are also forced to change the setting of the LPF when you change between movies and Telarc's authoring standards OR use two seperate connections (one to filtered, one to unfiltered) if your subwoofer has appropriate inputs.

BTW, some of us use passive subwoofers, driven by regular amplifiers which don't have low pass filters.

So as I said, the more I think about it th emore potential issues I see.

Regards,
John Kotches

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - LFE, DVD-A and SACD? - Jim Pearce 11:39:09 04/14/03 (21)

Re: LFE, DVD-A and SACD? - John Kotches 12:15:25 04/14/03 (20)

John, it gets stranger still... - Jim Pearce 12:59:37 04/14/03 (19)

I have a question regarding this Denon filter... - MT 15:28:54 04/14/03 (1)

Re: I have a question regarding this Denon filter... - Martin 07:08:30 04/22/03 (0)

Re: John, it gets stranger still... - John Kotches 13:50:14 04/14/03 (16)

Re: John, it gets stranger still... - Kal Rubinson 15:02:07 04/14/03 (15)

Re: John, it gets stranger still... - John Kotches 20:50:11 04/14/03 (8)

John, take a look at Michael Bishop's comments.... - Jim Pearce 11:29:29 04/16/03 (0)

Re: John, it gets stranger still... - Kal Rubinson 18:44:18 04/15/03 (6)

Re: John, it gets stranger still... - John Kotches 20:37:52 04/15/03 (5)

Not necessarily. - Jim Pearce 12:00:18 04/16/03 (2)

Re: Not necessarily. - John Kotches 13:00:51 04/16/03 (1)

Agreed, we're way off track. - Jim Pearce 13:28:25 04/16/03 (0)

Ah... - Kal Rubinson 08:02:31 04/16/03 (1)

Re: Ah... - John Kotches 09:03:10 04/16/03 (0)

Perhaps I wasn't clear... - Jim Pearce 20:16:36 04/14/03 (2)

Re: Perhaps I wasn't clear... - Dave Kingsland 03:43:28 04/15/03 (1)

You're right, Dave. - Jim Pearce 06:38:13 04/15/03 (0)

Re: John, it gets stranger still... - Dave Kingsland 16:57:26 04/14/03 (2)

I agree - Joe Murphy Jr 08:08:16 04/15/03 (1)

I disagree. - Jim Pearce 08:31:40 04/15/03 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: John, it gets stranger still... - John Kotches 20:37:52 04/15/03 (5)

Not necessarily. - Jim Pearce 12:00:18 04/16/03 (2)

Re: Not necessarily. - John Kotches 13:00:51 04/16/03 (1)

Agreed, we're way off track. - Jim Pearce 13:28:25 04/16/03 (0)

Ah... - Kal Rubinson 08:02:31 04/16/03 (1)

Re: Ah... - John Kotches 09:03:10 04/16/03 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.