Recommended receiver for HT

I realized with a bit more afterthought that I had setup the subs incorrectly by using two Velodyne SMS-1 bass managers.  The outputs from the preamp need go through a single SMS-1 so it can provide acoustic room correction for the total sub configuration.

I don't have a stake in the debate about whether stereo is perceived below 100 Hz.  I was concerned about differences in level between the two channels, a concern probably not well founded.

db
 

cleeds:
"noble100

We all are unable to localize deep bass frequency soundwaves, that is determine where the sound is coming from, that are below about 100 Hz .

This is mistaken, and with the right system can easily be demonstrated.

there's no such thing as 'true stereo' deep bass and why the bass is summed to mono on frequencies below 100 Hz on all vinyl and cd recordings.

Bass below 100hZ is not summed to mono on all recordings. Not even close. And when it is summed for LP pressings, it's not because " there's no such thing as 'true stereo' deep bass."

If you doubt this, try to find a single vinyl or cd recording that is not summed to mono.

Done."

cleeds,

     Done?  What have you done? 
     I can tell you what you haven't done:

1.  You've failed to provide any evidence supporting your claim that humans are able to localize deep bass frequency soundwaves, that is determine where the sound is coming from, that are below about 80-100 Hz.  Your claim is in direct conflict with the scientific research results on this exact topic.  Here's a link to one of many examples:
https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_basslocalization.php

2. You failed to reference or list any information supporting your claim that, with the right system, it can easily be demonstrated that bass below about 80-100 Hz can be localized. 

3.  You failed to provide any evidence to support your claim that "Bass below 100hZ is not summed to mono on all recordings. Not even close. And when it is summed for LP pressings, it's not because " there's no such thing as 'true stereo' deep bass."

4. You failed to name a single vinyl or cd recording that does not have the bass summed to mono below about 80-100 Hz. However, that didn't prevent you from claiming you did on your previous post, here's a quote from your previous post listing a quote from me on a previous post directed to you followed by your odd reply :

"noble100:If you doubt this, try to find a single vinyl or cd recording that is not summed to mono.

Done."

     Actually, I fail to see any purpose in your last post on this thread. If it was meant as a rebuttal to my previous post, it's a very poor rebuttal.
     Apparently, you're still not able to name a single vinyl or cd recording that does not have the bass summed to mono below about 80-100 Hz, I'm only asking for a single example, any example.  
     If you can't, it definitely makes your claim that true stereo deep bass exists completely meaningless.  Even if your false claim was true and your system could playback true stereo deep bass, you'd have no true stereo deep bass recordings to play on your system and, therefore, true stereo bass, for all practical purposes, would not exist for you or anyone else whose system was also capable of playback of stereo deep bass. 
     Based on the above facts, I suggest it makes no sense to create one's audio system, or advise anyone else to create an audio system, that includes subs positioned and configured for stereo deep bass playback.
     It makes much more sense to position and configure any subs in one's system for mono deep bass playback so that playback of existing recordings, that contain exclusively summed mono bass below about 80-100 Hz, are also optimized for mono deep bass performance.

 
Tim

noble100

You've failed to provide any evidence supporting your claim that humans are able to localize deep bass frequency soundwaves ...

You failed to read what I wrote. I cited a specific mechanism that's been shown to allow localizing low bass frequencies. Please read more carefully.

Your claim is in direct conflict with the scientific research results on this exact topic. Here's a link to one of many examples:
https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_basslocalization.php

According to your reference, "... as the frequency drops below a critical frequency - usually around 80 Hz - it becomes very difficult to determine a sound's location." That doesn't seem to support your claim that "We all are unable to localize deep bass frequency soundwaves ... below about 100 Hz ." Please read more carefully.

 You failed to reference or list any information supporting your claim ... You failed to provide any evidence to support your claim ...  You failed to name a single vinyl or cd recording that does not have the bass summed to mono below about 80-100 Hz ... I fail to see any purpose in your last post ... your claim that true stereo deep bass exists completely meaningless.

I need to show only one exception to your claim  ("We all are unable to localize deep bass frequency soundwaves ...  that are below about 100 Hz") to show that you're mistaken.

Even if your false claim was true and your system could playback true stereo deep bass, you'd have no true stereo deep bass recordings to play on your system and, therefore, true stereo bass, for all practical purposes, would not exist for you or anyone else whose system was also capable of playback of stereo deep bass.

That is begging the question, the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

    I suggest it makes no sense to create one's audio system, or advise anyone else to create an audio system, that includes subs positioned and configured for stereo deep bass playback.

You can certainly assemble a very fine system using mono bass - I've heard it done. But that doesn't support the canard that LF can't be localized. And since you obviously have never heard proper stereo LF, your opinion that "it makes no sense" in itself, makes no sense.

 

Hello cleeds,

Okay, I just reread your previous post and you’re not making any sense. I don’t know exactly what’s wrong with you but you’re not  actually giving examples or explanations that you think you’ve given.
For example, you stated:
"You failed to read what I wrote. I cited a specific mechanism that’s been shown to allow localizing low bass frequencies. Please read more carefully."

You blame me for not reading carefully, I reread your previous post thinking I may have missed something and discover there’s absolutely no mention at all of "a specific mechanism that’s been shown to allow localizing low bass frequencies". It’s as if you suffered a stroke and don’t yet realize your diminished cognitive and communication abilities or you’re under the influence of some substance. Meanwhile, I still have no idea exactly what this magic mechanism is. Do you?
There are numerous other examples from your last two posts like this. You stated: "I need to show only one exception to your claim ("We all are unable to localize deep bass frequency soundwaves ... that are below about 100 Hz") to show that you’re mistaken."

This is not actually a valid claim but you compound the nonsense by not even giving a single example or exception to the fact we are unable to localize deep bass soundwaves that are below about 80-100 Hz.

Your big point from your last post, and the only one that makes a modicum of sense is when you stated:
"According to your reference, "... as the frequency drops below a critical frequency - usually around 80 Hz - it becomes very difficult to determine a sound’s location." That doesn’t seem to support your claim that "We all are unable to localize deep bass frequency soundwaves ... below about 100 Hz ." Please read more carefully."

Wow, great point! I did make a mistake in my earlier post by forgetting that some early research results by experts stated we can’t localize deep bass tones below 100 Hz, while more recent research results usually states 80 Hz or an approximate range of 80-100 Hz due to more specific recent experimental data results.

My last example of your lack of focus and direct cogent rebuttals is your continued lack of response to my request that you name a single vinyl or cd recording example that does not have all the bass below about 80-100 Hz summed to mono. FYI, I know you'll be unable to find a single example in any recording format.

I don’t believe it’s worth the continued frustration of debating with you on this subject if you’re unable to identify even a single vinyl or cd recording containing stereo deep bass. The whole debate becomes moot and we should both just continue using systems we deem best suited to the existing music recordings available.
You’ll save a boatload of wasted time searching for something that doesn’t exist if you’re able to accept the reality of all current recorded music on vinyl, cd and high resolution digital audio files lacking stereo deep bass.


Until you find one,
        Tim

noble100

... you’re not making any sense. I don’t know exactly what’s wrong with you but you’re not actually giving examples or explanations that you think ... It’s as if you suffered a stroke and don’t yet realize your diminished cognitive and communication abilities or you’re under the influence of some substance ... you compound the nonsense by not even giving a single example or exception ... your lack of focus and direct cogent rebuttals is your continued lack of response ...
I don’t believe it’s worth the continued frustration of debating with you ...

I can’t help you with your compromised reading comprehension, your repeated illogic or your odd belief that your rambling and word salad somehow constitute a "debate."

You’ll save a boatload of wasted time searching for something that doesn’t exist if you’re able to accept the reality of all current recorded music on vinyl, cd and high resolution digital audio files lacking stereo deep bass.

There is very much such a thing as stereo bass. Because I have it, there’s no need for me to search for it. Have a nice day!