5.1, is the .1 a discrete audio mix done in the studio or is it dependant on the crosover settings?

tonyvdb said:

Ok all you audio Geeks, hear is a question that I was sure I knew but now I am not sure, on a 5.1 or 7.1 digital master is the .1 a discrete audio mix done in the studio or is it dependent on the crossover settings?

Click to expand...

Its done in the studio. I think you are mixing the LFE, and the sub channel up. The sub carries all bass below the selected bass management frequency, and the whole LFE as well. If the mains are set to large, then only the LFE will come from the subwoofer(if one is present). The LFE channel is a discrete independent channel just like all of the others.

eljay said:

The LFE (.1) channel on a multi-channel (movie) track contains discrete, low-frequency effects audio. Depending on your speaker size and crossover settings, however, your AVR can also route low frequencies (say, below 80Hz) from other channels to the LFE channel so, in that sense, the LFE output from your AVR is not necessarily just the discrete audio from a multi-channel (movie) track.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Depending on your speaker size and crossover point, your AVR can route bass information from the main channels to the SUBWOOFER, not the LFE channel. The LFE channel is combined with the bass from the main channels into the SUBWOOFER.

If you tried to combine the bass from the mains below 80hz into the LFE channel, you would overload the input circuits of your AVR.

Then why not call it 6 channel or 8 channel discrete Why 5.1 or 7.1?

tonyvdb said:

Then why not call it 6 channel or 8 channel discrete Why 5.1 or 7.1?

Click to expand...

It is called 6 or 8 channel discrete. The 5 and 7 to the left of the dot represents full range discrete channels. The 1 to the right of the dot represents the discrete LFE channel, and any extension or matrixed channels. DD EX would be 5.1+1(It is wrongly listed as 6.1 but it sixth channel is not discrete).

Hmmmm, this is interesting Im still not convinced LOL If that was the case then how is it that I can go "full range" or even better "Pure direct" on my mains and still get everything that the .1 channel gets if I want (not a good idea) but it can be done?

tonyvdb said:

Hmmmm, this is interesting Im still not convinced LOL If that was the case then how is it that I can go "full range" or even better "Pure direct" on my mains and still get everything that the .1 channel gets if I want (not a good idea) but it can be done?

Click to expand...

Full range only apples to the main speakers, not the LFE. If a sub is present, all of the bass from each of the 5 or 7 independent channels will be carried by the 5 or 7 main speakers, and only the LFE will go to the sub. If there is no subwoofer, then the LFE will be split between the L/R mains, and reduced 3db's to maintain the power response of the system, and keep the signals from overloading the input circuits. I know this because I had a 5.0 system for years(didn't really need a subwoofer with those speakers). Bass management is a wonderful thing!

When you go "pure direct", that means you are bypassing(or shutting off) the video circuits so there is no electrical interference effecting the audio. This has nothing to do with the LFE(or the audio) at all.

eljay said:

Conceptually, no. Terminologically, yes. I referred to "the LFE output from your AVR", by which I mean the subwoofer output. (I have seen it labelled "LFE Out", but perhaps that label no longer exists.) I wasn't implying that an AVR will attempt to mix low-frequency audio from other channels into the LFE audio channel, merely that LFE is discrete, it is output as the .1 channel from an AVR, and that low-frequency bass below the crossover point can also be output in that .1 channel.

My apologies for any confusion my incorrect use of terminology may have caused. :innocent: :bigsmile:

Click to expand...

The marketing departments of the CE companies have wreak so much havoc it is pitiful. Truthfully speaking you have a LFE channel, and a subwoofer output and speaker. The subwoofer is not a channel, but an output device. The LFE is an actual recorded channel that is apart of the 5.1 or 7.1 system. The .1 is the LFE(not the subwoofer), and it along with potentially bass from the mains comes out of the subwoofer output and speaker. I could eliminate the subwoofer entirely, and the LFE channel would remain in the mix. The LFE and the subwoofer are not intertwined components.

I hope I don't appear like I am being rude, but( :blink: ) I like to make these distinction extremely clear so we don't have the confusion that makes this question Tony asks necessary.

Sir Terrence said:

I hope I don't appear like I am being a butt, but( :blink: ) I like to make these distinction extremely clear so we don't have the confusion that makes this question Tony asks necessary.

Click to expand...

You don't at all appear like you're being a butt, and you are entirely correct about the importance of proper terminology. So, in order to avoid muddying the waters unnecessarily, I've "commented out" my original posts (I don't have the rights to delete them). :bigsmile:

(Mods, please feel free to remove all my posts - and any subsequent references to my posts - from this thread.)

all good clarification, I have never said that I know it all and Im learning things all the time. This is one topic I really want to understand as to how it is done.

eljay said:

I've "commented out" my original posts (I don't have the rights to delete them).
(Mods, please feel free to remove all my posts - and any subsequent references to my posts - from this thread.)

Click to expand...

Please don't delete your posts. This is a message forum and we can't carry on a coherent discussion on a topic if you do that.

WooferHound said:

Please don't delete your posts. This is a message forum and we can't carry on a coherent discussion on a topic if you do that.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your comment, but the reason I had asked for my posts to be deleted is because my response to the OP - although I was essentially saying the same thing Sir Terrence had said - contained incorrect and potentially confusing wording. I felt it was better to eliminate the confusion than to leave it intact.

I was hoping the mods would also delete all subsequent references to my posts (including Sir Terrence's replies and the content he quoted from my posts) in order to completely eliminate all confusion and "cross-talk". But they didn't, so everything I originally said remains "on the record".

I'll just have to watch my wording from now on... :sweat: