Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:00 AM - Re: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x (Dremgragen .)
2. 11:03 AM - Re: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x (Roland M)
3. 11:13 AM - Re: I have a question regarding the crossover points in 4000x (Roland M)
4. 11:35 AM - Re: Center Channels and Rear Fill. (Roland M)
5. 03:55 PM - optical vs. coaxial (Eli A.)
6. 05:17 PM - Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago (Patrick Freeland)
7. 06:05 PM - Re: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago (John Smith)
8. 06:14 PM - Re: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago ()
9. 06:29 PM - Re: optical vs. coaxial (Roland M)
10. 06:31 PM - Re: Center Channels and Rear Fill. (NOTGSXR@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | I have a question regarding the crossover points in |
4000x
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Dremgragen ." <dremgragen@hotmail.com>
The crossovers included with my component set (AVI BSM-DIRECT -6.5" paper/cashmere
woofer, 1.2" silk dome tweeter) is set @ 2.5kHz (-12dB for woofer, -18dB fortweeter),but
I run the 4000X insteadand cross them over at 5 kHz with a slightly
steeper slope (at 367% the recommended power). My tweeter is set at the bottom
of the a-pillar rather than with the woofers down below, so I needed a higher
crossover point to make them blend a little better. I'm also against using
external passives when I have the option of using an active crossover (especially
one like the 4000X).
I believe the DACs in the 4000X are dual 20-bit Burr Browns, supposedly the same
as the C90. I've been meaning to do an A/B comparision of the analog vs digital
(C90 vs 4000X) but haven't gotten around to it. They both sound superior to
ordinary DACs though, I'm convinced of that.
:) -Brody Z.
From: "Pete" <DABROW@ORANGE.NET>
Subject: RE: XDP4000X-List: I have a question regarding the crossover points in
4000x
-- XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Pete" <DABROW@ORANGE.NET>
Hello,
I think the majority of people that have an xdp-4000x know the limiting
factor is the crossover points. It will work better for a 3 way than a 2
way. All it requires are crossover points for the tweeters at 2.0, 2.5,
3.0 and 3.5 (KHz). Hopefully the Matronics 4k control software will be
able to do this.
Brody hit the nail on the head in regards to your bass issue. The highs
on the crossover are the problem for the majority as Doug said.
I received my XDP4K last week and only today have I obtained the serial
cable to control it. My components require a crossover point at 2.5KHz.
The crossover for the components rolls off at 12db/octave. These
speakers (KEF KARS) do not match the XDP well at all. These play down to
40Hz not that will be letting them go quite that low.
I would be interested to know other peoples successful 2 way front
setups that they use with the XDP. If you were to buy a set of new
drivers what would you choose if you were working exclusively with the
XDP4K?
I have read through the archives (I think from the beginning) and would
be interested to know peoples opinions of the DAC's in the XDP4K
compared with that of the C90. I read in some post that they are the
same yet I read another that says otherwise. Could someone for the
record state which DAC the XDP4K uses and how many DACs it has? Are they
independent left and right channel?
I would imagine some people prefer the sound of the c90 yet the xdp
makes up the difference with the time alignment and eq. Or would you say
the DAC in the xdp is superior?
I know that some of the top end Naim Audio cd players (home audio) use
dual burr brown DACs - maybe a sign of the quality.
Any thoughts
Pete
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | I have a question regarding the crossover points in |
4000x
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
>I believe the DACs in the 4000X are dual 20-bit Burr Browns, supposedly the
>same as the C90. I've been meaning to do an A/B comparision of the analog
>vs digital (C90 vs 4000X) but haven't gotten around to it. They both sound
>superior to ordinary DACs though, I'm convinced of that.
>
>:) -Brody Z.
>
>
I'm not sure about what D/A converters are in the C90, but the XDP-4000X has
4 Crystal Semiconductor D/As--one per output PAIR. The C90 has dual D/A
converters--one D/A per CHANNEL (Left and Light).
Just as a mention I don't think I've ever seen an external/add-on processor
that used individual L/R converters. It seems high end HU's often get this
dual D/A configuration but EQ/DSPs (including all the ones I've seen from
Sony, Alpine, Pioneer, and Clarion) have one D/A per ouput pair. I.e. One
for Front (L&R) one for Rear (L&R) etc.
The advantage is that the xover/processing/eq can be done in the digital
domain for each output pair, but I guess because of the related cost they
keep it to one D/A per pair instead of per channel. An HU like the C90
while it has one D/A for L and the other for R has to do any
crossover/processing for F/R/Sub in the analog domain unless that processing
is applied to all 3 outputs at the same time as there is only a D/A for L&R
not for each range.
Roland M.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | I have a question regarding the crossover points in |
4000x
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
>I have read through the archives (I think from the beginning) and would
>be interested to know peoples opinions of the DAC's in the XDP4K
>compared with that of the C90. I read in some post that they are the
>same yet I read another that says otherwise. Could someone for the
>record state which DAC the XDP4K uses and how many DACs it has? Are they
>independent left and right channel?
>
>I would imagine some people prefer the sound of the c90 yet the xdp
>makes up the difference with the time alignment and eq. Or would you say
>the DAC in the xdp is superior?
>
>I know that some of the top end Naim Audio cd players (home audio) use
>dual burr brown DACs - maybe a sign of the quality.
>
>Any thoughts
>
>Pete
>
See my last email for part of the answer to this question (regarding the
number of D/As in the XDP and how they process the information)...
In regargards to which D/As are better, I'm pretty sure the Crystal ones in
the XDP-4kX are supposed to be better than the ones in the C90. I've often
seen the high end Crystal D/As used in stand alone D/A converters...
Again, I think the advantage of having each output PAIR being crossed over
and EQ'd in the digital domain far outweighs the benefit of having twin D/As
for L&R (when you have more than two speakers that is). I suppose dual D/As
on every output would be even better but that would make for EIGHT (!) DACs
in a unit like the XDP-4k and would probably drive the price up by double...
Roland M.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Center Channels and Rear Fill. |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
>--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: NOTGSXR@aol.com
>
>Also, as far as a center channel goes, i know we can get the proper signal
>by
>using a Y adapter for both the left and right output and then use those
>signals for a pair of channels on an amp in "bridged" mode effectively
>combining the signal, but what about rear fill??? How could we get that
>signal?? Is it possible to use the rear Analog RCA outputs from the
>headunit
>directly to the amp and use the Front RCA's to the 4000X for the Tuner
>Signal???
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Dan
>
I know I'm a little late replying to this (didn't check my email much over
the holidays), but I'd like to point out a couple things.
First is that yes you could mono mix the L and R to get a single channel for
the centre channel, but simply using an RCA Y-Adapter isn't the way to do
it. You need to place a resistor on the single line of the "Y" (or was it a
capacitor--I can't remember) to COMBINE two RCA signals properly. If you
don't do that then the RCAs can short out at certain signals or something.
Sometimes that isn't a problem but it is one of those things you aren't
supposed to do. Splitting is a different story and Y-cables can be used
without worry when splitting one RCA into more than one.
However even if you did mono mix the L/R I don't know how good of a sound
you'd get that way as I think you'd throw off a lot of the stereo image and
separation that way.
I've seen a few car audio centre channel processors though, which would
probably be the best way to do it if you REALLY want a centre channel. I
THINK AudioControl makes one but I can't remember...
Personally, though, I would stay away from the centre channel though, unless
it is used only for Dolby Surround/Dolby Digital/DTS surround playback that
has been properly processed by an appropriate decoder.
Roland M.
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | optical vs. coaxial |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Eli A." <ea62@msn.com>
I have a question, this may be completely of the recent subject. Does anyone
know of a sonic, discernable difference between optical and coaxial digital
connections? Is there a difference that can be heard? If there is a
difference would wind, road noise affect that? Just wondering.........
Eli - C90/210EQ/XT40V/XVM-50/XAU40D/CDX838/MDX65/(3)ATS 1-farad
caps/Phoenix Gold ZX350V.2/MTX4300/Boston Acoustics 6.43/Xtant sub
The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days ago |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Patrick Freeland" <ultra_19@hotmail.com>
First, I appreciate all your responces. Through the answers and suggestions
I recieved, I think that my questions was misunderstood. First let me say
that I have the 4 way set up with a JL10 W-7 for the bass (500 watts 4
olms), and the Alpine flagship 3- way (tweet and midrange in fiberglass
kickpanels, and the midbass in the doors). Each tweet and midrange is
recieving 75 clean watts at 4 olms and each midbass is recieving 150 watts
at 4 Olms THESE SPEAKERS ARE VERY HIGH QUALITY MADE OUT OF KEVLER MATERIAL
(SPELL CHECK) AND THE MID BASS CAN CLEANLY PLAY NOTES AROUND 60HRTZ WITHOUT
DISTORTION, at least to the volume level that I will need to use when I
compete in my SQ shows. And as for the responce with time allignment, well
that had nothing to due with my question either, but thank you the
additional thought.
Through all of our discussions, much of what we feel makes the best stereo
image will be relative to what we have learned, what we are personally used
to hearing, and what we think would be best. Despite the fact that sub bass
is not directional, I personally think that the lower the bass you CAN put
to the front of the car, the better the resulting stereo image you will
have. It makes the sub feel like it is kicking from the front seat, and it
makes the midbass and subwoofer interact smoother as the sound is coming
from both the front and back of the car. That is my rationale for placing
such lower bass to the mid bass speakers. Obviously if you want big bass
sound, you would not put this additional strain on the midbass, since the
sub can easily handle this. But if you wanted to try to perfect, as much as
possible, the stereo image for SQ purposes, then this is one option (and
theory) to try.
Here was my original question. Lets say I didn't want to use my
4000x sub X over setting because it was not as low as I desired, SO I TUNRED
IT ON FULL RANGE and sent this full range signal to my JL amp, which the
crossed over setting is at 62 hrtz and down with 24/db slope. I would of
coarse not hear that much bass noticeable above 62 hrtz due to the 24/db
slope. My question was this: Theorectically, wouldn't I still have the
same bass sound if I turned ON MY 4000X CROSSOVER AND THE JL AMPS
CROSSOVER, SINCE THE JL AMP IS THE FINAL AND LAST COMPONENT TO MANIPULATE
THE SOUND and is lower than the 4000x's crossover point? From my experience
I would think that it would produice the same bass sound. But this did not
happend why I tired it. This confussed me, so I was wondering what this
forum new of the interaction between the 4000x and other components
regarding the usage of multiple crossovers being placed in its signal path.
Also, if anyone is wondering, I did not have a gap in my sound field from
midbass to sub bass. My midbass is playing 62hrtz and up (24/db slope) to
500 hrtz. The 4000x xover point was set at 500hrtz and down, while this
signal then hit the JL amp which crossed over the sound to play above 62
hrtz. Thus, resulting in a midbass range of 62 - 500. From there I began
to look at resetting the sub crossover point around the 60's, which is when
I came up with my questions. Perhaps I should just stick with the 4000x
settings, but I am looking to tweak as much as possible. It is wise to look
at all the strengths and weaknesses of each component and use them together.
With the amps and 4000x, we have many crossover options, perhaps to
many....well.... no that is not true :)
I hope I have demonstrated meaningful dialouge. If you got this far in
reading this, I thank you for your time. Any additional responces are
welcomed.
Patrick Freeland
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days |
ago
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: John Smith <veritasz34@yahoo.com>
Your question is kind of hard but I think I've got it.
If you defeat the 4000x and just run the Jl which has
a 24dB slope you will hear one sound. If you activate
the 4000x and crossover you will actually sum the
slopes. If they are both set on the same point it's
not that big of a deal you just have a heck of a
slope. If not you are having the signal processed to
death with filtering. They both will be performing
duties but in different areas which can just be
wasting power and have serious effects on stereo
imaging and tonal integration of drivers. EX: 4000x
100Hz @72dB and jl 80Hz@24dB. Now plot these on a
graph (Look at the software with 4000x and you should
see what I mean) The overlap region will have a
steeper rolloff due to the unison of both crossovers
Actuall 96dB) due to this you will have less output in
the desired frequency area and all area that they
interact. This interaction occurs beyond the actual
cutoff frequencys involved due to the slopes involved.
As the slope/frequency area changes the actual slope
of the attenuation changes. EX: 80Hz may be 96dB but
60Hz may be 70dB and so on as you down the frequency
chain. Best answer is try the three available
configurations you have a use the best version you
hear. Hope this helps.
--- Patrick Freeland <ultra_19@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Patrick
> Freeland" <ultra_19@hotmail.com>
>
> First, I appreciate all your responces. Through the
> answers and suggestions
> I recieved, I think that my questions was
> misunderstood. First let me say
> that I have the 4 way set up with a JL10 W-7 for the
> bass (500 watts 4
> olms), and the Alpine flagship 3- way (tweet and
> midrange in fiberglass
> kickpanels, and the midbass in the doors). Each
> tweet and midrange is
> recieving 75 clean watts at 4 olms and each midbass
> is recieving 150 watts
> at 4 Olms THESE SPEAKERS ARE VERY HIGH QUALITY MADE
> OUT OF KEVLER MATERIAL
> (SPELL CHECK) AND THE MID BASS CAN CLEANLY PLAY
> NOTES AROUND 60HRTZ WITHOUT
> DISTORTION, at least to the volume level that I will
> need to use when I
> compete in my SQ shows. And as for the responce
> with time allignment, well
> that had nothing to due with my question either, but
> thank you the
> additional thought.
> Through all of our discussions, much of what we
> feel makes the best stereo
> image will be relative to what we have learned, what
> we are personally used
> to hearing, and what we think would be best.
> Despite the fact that sub bass
> is not directional, I personally think that the
> lower the bass you CAN put
> to the front of the car, the better the resulting
> stereo image you will
> have. It makes the sub feel like it is kicking from
> the front seat, and it
> makes the midbass and subwoofer interact smoother as
> the sound is coming
> from both the front and back of the car. That is my
> rationale for placing
> such lower bass to the mid bass speakers. Obviously
> if you want big bass
> sound, you would not put this additional strain on
> the midbass, since the
> sub can easily handle this. But if you wanted to
> try to perfect, as much as
> possible, the stereo image for SQ purposes, then
> this is one option (and
> theory) to try.
> Here was my original question. Lets say I
> didn't want to use my
> 4000x sub X over setting because it was not as low
> as I desired, SO I TUNRED
> IT ON FULL RANGE and sent this full range signal to
> my JL amp, which the
> crossed over setting is at 62 hrtz and down with
> 24/db slope. I would of
> coarse not hear that much bass noticeable above 62
> hrtz due to the 24/db
> slope. My question was this: Theorectically,
> wouldn't I still have the
> same bass sound if I turned ON MY 4000X CROSSOVER
> AND THE JL AMPS
> CROSSOVER, SINCE THE JL AMP IS THE FINAL AND LAST
> COMPONENT TO MANIPULATE
> THE SOUND and is lower than the 4000x's crossover
> point? From my experience
> I would think that it would produice the same bass
> sound. But this did not
> happend why I tired it. This confussed me, so I was
> wondering what this
> forum new of the interaction between the 4000x and
> other components
> regarding the usage of multiple crossovers being
> placed in its signal path.
>
> Also, if anyone is wondering, I did not have a gap
> in my sound field from
> midbass to sub bass. My midbass is playing 62hrtz
> and up (24/db slope) to
> 500 hrtz. The 4000x xover point was set at 500hrtz
> and down, while this
> signal then hit the JL amp which crossed over the
> sound to play above 62
> hrtz. Thus, resulting in a midbass range of 62 -
> 500. From there I began
> to look at resetting the sub crossover point around
> the 60's, which is when
> I came up with my questions. Perhaps I should just
> stick with the 4000x
> settings, but I am looking to tweak as much as
> possible. It is wise to look
> at all the strengths and weaknesses of each
> component and use them together.
> With the amps and 4000x, we have many crossover
> options, perhaps to
> many....well.... no that is not true :)
>
> I hope I have demonstrated meaningful dialouge. If
> you got this far in
> reading this, I thank you for your time. Any
> additional responces are
> welcomed.
>
>
> Patrick Freeland
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few days |
ago
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: <andymack@bellatlantic.net>
Any and all crossover's (passive and/or active) will react with each
other if they are near or at the same crossover frequency. The XDP is
already beginning to reduce the signal before it reaches 78Hz. 78Hz is
usually known as the -3dB pt. But more than that, it becomes
unpredictable (unless mathematically reversed engineered) when you
combine 2 crossovers so close together. Thus the reduced output you are
hearing. It is usually never a good idea to combine crossovers like
that.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xdp4000x-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-xdp4000x-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Patrick
Freeland
Subject: XDP4000X-List: Llet me clarify my X over question I had a few
days ago
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Patrick Freeland"
<ultra_19@hotmail.com>
First, I appreciate all your responces. Through the answers and
suggestions
I recieved, I think that my questions was misunderstood. First let me
say
that I have the 4 way set up with a JL10 W-7 for the bass (500 watts 4
olms), and the Alpine flagship 3- way (tweet and midrange in fiberglass
kickpanels, and the midbass in the doors). Each tweet and midrange is
recieving 75 clean watts at 4 olms and each midbass is recieving 150
watts
at 4 Olms THESE SPEAKERS ARE VERY HIGH QUALITY MADE OUT OF KEVLER
MATERIAL
(SPELL CHECK) AND THE MID BASS CAN CLEANLY PLAY NOTES AROUND 60HRTZ
WITHOUT
DISTORTION, at least to the volume level that I will need to use when I
compete in my SQ shows. And as for the responce with time allignment,
well
that had nothing to due with my question either, but thank you the
additional thought.
Through all of our discussions, much of what we feel makes the best
stereo
image will be relative to what we have learned, what we are personally
used
to hearing, and what we think would be best. Despite the fact that sub
bass
is not directional, I personally think that the lower the bass you CAN
put
to the front of the car, the better the resulting stereo image you will
have. It makes the sub feel like it is kicking from the front seat, and
it
makes the midbass and subwoofer interact smoother as the sound is coming
from both the front and back of the car. That is my rationale for
placing
such lower bass to the mid bass speakers. Obviously if you want big
bass
sound, you would not put this additional strain on the midbass, since
the
sub can easily handle this. But if you wanted to try to perfect, as
much as
possible, the stereo image for SQ purposes, then this is one option (and
theory) to try.
Here was my original question. Lets say I didn't want to use
my
4000x sub X over setting because it was not as low as I desired, SO I
TUNRED
IT ON FULL RANGE and sent this full range signal to my JL amp, which the
crossed over setting is at 62 hrtz and down with 24/db slope. I would
of
coarse not hear that much bass noticeable above 62 hrtz due to the 24/db
slope. My question was this: Theorectically, wouldn't I still have the
same bass sound if I turned ON MY 4000X CROSSOVER AND THE JL AMPS
CROSSOVER, SINCE THE JL AMP IS THE FINAL AND LAST COMPONENT TO
MANIPULATE
THE SOUND and is lower than the 4000x's crossover point? From my
experience
I would think that it would produice the same bass sound. But this did
not
happend why I tired it. This confussed me, so I was wondering what this
forum new of the interaction between the 4000x and other components
regarding the usage of multiple crossovers being placed in its signal
path.
Also, if anyone is wondering, I did not have a gap in my sound field
from
midbass to sub bass. My midbass is playing 62hrtz and up (24/db slope)
to
500 hrtz. The 4000x xover point was set at 500hrtz and down, while this
signal then hit the JL amp which crossed over the sound to play above 62
hrtz. Thus, resulting in a midbass range of 62 - 500. From there I
began
to look at resetting the sub crossover point around the 60's, which is
when
I came up with my questions. Perhaps I should just stick with the 4000x
settings, but I am looking to tweak as much as possible. It is wise to
look
at all the strengths and weaknesses of each component and use them
together.
With the amps and 4000x, we have many crossover options, perhaps to
many....well.... no that is not true :)
I hope I have demonstrated meaningful dialouge. If you got this far in
reading this, I thank you for your time. Any additional responces are
welcomed.
Patrick Freeland
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: optical vs. coaxial |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Roland M" <mdx400@hotmail.com>
I'd put money on NOT being able to hear a difference especially in car (that
is if I had "money" :P )...
Though many of the so called "elite" audiophiles would say coax is better
(actually they'd say S/PDIF coax is "junk" as well) they probably couldn't
hear the difference either. Then again many of the same people "like" tube
amps, laserdiscs and records... (No, not trying to start any debates on
THOSE now :) )...
There is the obvious advantage to Toslink though--it is impervious to
EMI/RFI noise affecting the signal (in the cable at least), which proves to
be a great advantage when getting sound from a PC which is plaguged with
things such as an unshielded power supply and a multitude of wires going
everywhere out the back...
Roland M.
>From: "Eli A." <ea62@msn.com>
>Reply-To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com
>To: xdp4000x-list@matronics.com
>Subject: XDP4000X-List: optical vs. coaxial
>Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:12:49 +0000
>
>--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: "Eli A." <ea62@msn.com>
>
>I have a question, this may be completely of the recent subject. Does
>anyone
>know of a sonic, discernable difference between optical and coaxial digital
>connections? Is there a difference that can be heard? If there is a
>difference would wind, road noise affect that? Just wondering.........
>
> Eli - C90/210EQ/XT40V/XVM-50/XAU40D/CDX838/MDX65/(3)ATS 1-farad
>caps/Phoenix Gold ZX350V.2/MTX4300/Boston Acoustics 6.43/Xtant sub
>
>
>The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
>
The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Center Channels and Rear Fill. |
--> XDP4000X-List message posted by: NOTGSXR@aol.com
In a message dated 1/9/03 3:56:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mdx400@hotmail.com writes:
> Personally, though, I would stay away from the centre channel though, unless
>
> it is used only for Dolby Surround/Dolby Digital/DTS surround playback that
>
> has been properly processed by an appropriate decoder.
>
> Roland M.
I'm pretty much on your side.... But figured i would throw it out there :)
thanks
Dan
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|