Reffub - 11 hours ago »
It never was 5.1 it hasn't been down mixed to 2.0.
So we're not talking about down mixed 5.1 here it was only ever 2.0 channel same goes for last years results show only ever 2.0.
No one said it has. Last years series the main show was 5.1. The results show has never been in 5.1 since the first series.
I was attempting to illustrate that you can go from 5.1 to 2.0 without losing any bass content. You can also create pseudo 5.1 from 2.0 without losing any bass it still finishes up coming from the subwoofer.
Would you expect someone with SACD player and playing back a SACD stereo disk (lossless audio) on a 5.1 system to lose the bass content, that is patently absurd.
Last year bass wise there was no difference at all between the main show and the results show.
You seem to be rather obtuse, you were clearly under the impression that in that in the absence of a .1 channel your subwoofer doesn't work. It should work exactly the same if the recording was made in DD 2.0.
If you are finding a lack of bass on stereo content (CD TV whatever) compared to a 5.1 mix the issue is down to your equipment or the way it's set up.
In 2.0 the two front channels contain the full range of frequencies possible including the lower frequencies. It's down to the setup at your end depending on what speakers you use. You might have a pair of £5000.00 full range front speakers. If so there is little point in having a subwoofer. If as most of us you a small closed back enclosures that are very inefficient, they need a powerful amplifier and that the bass is handled by a seperate large speaker. This requires the amplifier to split the frequency sending the low frequency to the speaker designed to reproduce it.
When we used large bass reflex enclosures (these use the sound from the rear of the speaker and a tuned port to output the bass and as they are not sealed the speaker cone can move a lot more). A 15W valve or solid state can generate more audio than a 100W design feeding small speakers.
