It does contains an erroneous claim about LFE ('.1') audio track content : "The content is authored up to 120Hz so the only setting that is correct for this is 120Hz" (in fact and alas, content well above 120 Hz is not uncommon in LFE of surround music releases), but it goes on to usefully cite Roger Dressler and Mark Seaton as to why 120 may not be the best setting for LPF for LFE.
When i think about that... It doesnt make sense to me at all.
Because the LFE channel simply has no fixed position.... Theres a default in the dolbystandard but thats optional and the content creator does not now where the consumer sub is positioned.
So if a surround-music content-creator creates ≥120hz - locatable - bass on the LFE channel, he presents it - knowingly - somewhere locatable but random.
Does that make sense to you?
If you were that surround-content-creator producing valuable surround-music and therefore you got the knowledge that ≥120hz... And even ≥80hz (some swear 60hz) is locatable and you also surely know that there is front,center and surround channel available on known approximate position that definetly can play ≥120hz without a subwoofer...
Tell me why would you put that locatable frequency somewhere unkown...
I would call that a "bad surround content", cause the creator did not take the appropriate channel.
I dont wanna hear random positioned bass, thats not why i would listen to surround-music.
A good surround-content-creator should mix that locatable frequencies into a virtual position with front and surround... BECAUSE it is locatable it needs a direction.
In case you dont want it to have direction, you still not want LFE output that but front and surround channels equally to displace it in location through all directions.
Nothing else makes sense.
I see no case when a surround-content creator or a movie-creator should use the LFE, except it is only to provide MORE bass level or non-locatable shaking effects, so additionally on the other channels higher than crossover TOO or only very low on the LFE alone. in that case i absolutely dont mind it when that extra-energy ≥120hz is not presented on the LFE additionally where my transducer is dedicated only up to 80hz with my normal living room size. Still that same LFE signal is high on volume on my fronts, my preout-frontsubs, my surrounds and anything that is setup that low frequency... Otherwise the creator has NO reason to use the LFE.
See.
Please read this article to understand why we have LFE and how it works:
In 5.1 digital surround sound, the 0.1 channel is called the LFE or Low Frequency Effects channel. While in the commercial system it is referred to as the subwoofer channel, this is not necessarily true for home theater setups.
hometheaterhifi.com
Also dont forget that shaking and vibrating effects usually occur over a broad integral of the lf-spectrum. often beeing kinda pulsed, often enough it is more or less just like a flattering pink noise.
It contains that much to maximise the effect... But having it only 10-80hz with a transducer instead of 35-120hz with a cheap sub (four times the price of a transducer still minimum) doesnt minimise the effect... It maximises it still as the lower frequencies and the intensity of the transducer more than compensate that upper spectral gap.
Now please dont tell me that his is not the way it is meant to be because it lacks some detail of the original vibrance spectrum, because that doesnt matter, just that you have intense vibration at that whatever pulse. These effect never come solely ≥120hz.
In music this is basically for harmonic-overtones to make that music bass work on smaller speakers at all, or you wont hear it on a portable bluetooth box. But there is no real reason to put that ALONE on the LFE, since you also should know as the creator that the most Avr have it set 120hz by default, WHY the hell would you do that when have three other channels available to present ≥120hz from any direction or even no direction through sending it through all spatial directions (channels) evenly.
Your quote is absolute non-sense to me.
))
