where do you cross over your ht setup

Exertfluffer- I agree with your points above and I have very much enjoyed your posts. I just mentioned the speaker-level connection scenario in my post to illustrate a point that Polk makes that there are often several options available for working around "double filtering" and connecting an active sub to a system and the LFE-OUT is not ALWAYS the best choice in certain situations. Certain connection options (like speaker-level) that are seldom considered by many people can often work very well depending on your particular type of speakers, etc. I agree that it's not necessarily the BEST choice for HT in the assumed 5.1 system, but as we both have both stated above (either literally or inferred), it can pay BIG dividends if you take the time to experiment and learn exactly what you are dealing with within your own system.

I fully agree with your recommendations as they pertain specifically to 5.1 discreet HT. However, the Polk recommendations I paraphrased above were taken somewhat out of context and were a bit generalized. The Polk website covers many scenarios including using a sub just for 2-channel music, sub-sat systems vs. full range mains+sub, etc. but I did not want to repeat the whole article word-for-word in my post.

But I do think it's important for people to be aware of the problems that cascading filters can cause(that hard-to-nail-down "hump" or "hole" in the mid-bass, for example) and that often people aren't even aware that this MAY be the culprit (or a contibuting factor) in their HT setups.. And it was not being mentioned prior to my post.

Cheers! JZ

I would like to add a few responses to exertfluffer. Some of what I said you responded to out of context. No worries and Im not going to troll through what you've said to quote, your posts are huge! :)

I somewhat resent your comments about 2ch. audiophile setup being somehow outdated. Acoustics is acoustics. Building a HT around quality 2ch. setups has produced the finest results in three rooms ive been involved in (one being my own). In fact I believe its the only way for true high performance HT. That is, performance closest to the source (origonal mix). Sure this can be difficult but its not impossible. My point is: people with a quality 2ch setup are already ahead of the game and likely dont need to crossover their mains so damn high!

With a good room, a little work, and proper surround speaker selection you might be suprised at how much lower you can cross your surrounds to! Again, its ALL dependant on SO many factors. However, trying to utilize every last little bit of linear response out of each speaker is worth the effort in my experience. This effort will also teach one much about his own system and acoustics in general.

Dont forget why surround sound is so fun to begin with. Instead of directional imaging taking place more or less within the boundaries of 2 speakers, with surround this directionality can now wrap around us and even hover above our heads. It can be outstanding but every octave cutoff from each channel is sound that no longer contributes properly to this illusion.

I would remind you also that THX standards were NOT designed with HT in mind. These standards were "adapted" to HT as a foolproof way to setup a system. Nothing more, nothing less. Does it work? Sure it does. Is it the best way to setup a HT? Not to these ears.

Vedric...I have cited my reason for a "high" (80-90 Hz)crossover...(to keep the LF that requires large cone excursions out of the mains so that they can better reproduce the rest of the sound). You have recommended 25-35 Hz, suggesting that there is directional information down there. (OK, but that argument does not apply if multiple SW are used).

Question to you...Why do you think that a cone driver mounted in the main enclosure is superior to a similar (perhaps identical) cone driver mounted in a different box?
Six of one: half a dozen of the other.

In my case, where the mains are planar MG1.6, there might be an argument that spatial effects would be different if the higher range of LF eminates from the SW. I have addressed this issue by building three multi driver SW systems into the wall behind the three MG 1.6, so that the SWs "play through" the screens. Believe me, 80-90 Hz works best, even though the MG1.6 measures flat in my room to about 40 Hz.

Dont put words in my mouth Eldartford. I haven't recommended any specific crossover point. I mentioned where MY system is crossed at. I have in fact stated its VERY system and room specific several times. I have also stated that preserving as much linear low frequency extention from each channel is critical to hearing the soundtrack AS IT WAS MIXED. What part of "hearing a 70hz buzz from the right-rear actually COME from the right-rear channel" do you not understand?

All of this within reason obviously. If your speakers and amp cant handle 105 - 110db dynamic peaks at XXhz and you often listen at that level then DONT run them that low. If your're sitting in a mode you cant get rid of then by all means cut them off and redirect it all to LFE and work with the sub.

Also what argument "doesn't apply" when running multiple subs? You do understand the difference between discrete channels and multiple speakers hooked up to a single channel correct? It does not matter how many subs you use for the LFE channel its still a single channel with each sub playing the same signal. This is not stereo, nor is it surround, the channels are not discrete. This is a mono channel and it will ONLY image at the acoustical center located somewhere between the boxes depending on where you place them.

There is a TON of discrete and panned directional information mixed into soundtracks below 80hz. Throwing it to LFE for any reason other than system capability or room interaction issues is a complete waste of not only your speakers but also destroys the mix below 80hz.

I would like to respond a bit more here. But first I want to comment to Eldartford's situation with his 1.6 Maggies. Eldartford, you NEED TO BE CROSSING THOSE MAGGIES AT 80 or so, indeed!!! Especially given the delicate nature of those speakers (I know, I've sold them on a retail level for several years!!) The 1.6's need to focus on what they do best, and that's world class clarity, transparancy, midrange, and speed, etc! Bass, most all of it, in an HT context only really works adequately with those speakers deligated to the sub! Plain and simple. If you want to have squashed dynamics with these dynamics, strainted sounding bass, and just plain dammage to your speakers with these Maggies, then just play em full range for HT and see!(I'm talking in general to the masses here.
P.s., for the record, even though I'm not a "planar" speaker fan per se, I think you can't get better sound for the money for gorgeous sound than the 1.6!...very pretty speakers sonically. They do things most others can't anywhere near the price, conceeded. I like what they DO DO WELL!..which is offer a tremendous sonic value to the audiphile...you just can't sit off axis with em, or rock hard on em...that's all..no biggie. But I like 'em!
...Anyway regarding Vedric's stance that he likes his HT system(I think I read that right) to just be his 2 channel system, playing full range, I have tons of experience with that approach. And my comments are these...
...First, my last HT set up in my home has been a 2 cnannel music/HT system for the past several years! I've not gotten around to building a dedicated full blown HT system as of yet, since I'm in the process of a new home where it will reside.
I must say that I've heard WAY WAY WAY too many 2 channel high end systems in my years, and the reality is that there are few and far between stricktly passive 2 channel systems that can really handle a full range DD/DTS signals properly!!!(I say that, assuming one's using an outboard pre/pro to process DD/DTS material, rather than stricktly going through the analog outs of a DVD player, whatever, into the analog in's of a 2 channel preamp!...as using soley the processing in one's DVD player, WILL NOT YEILD YOUR PROPER DYNAMICS AND SOUND FROM YOUR DD/DTS SOURCES!...AND MANY AUDIPHILES DON'T REALIZE THIS!..YOU GOTTA GET A PRE/PRO IN THE CHAIN!). The problems, again,(and you're fooling yourselves if you think your dynamics are "ALL THAT!", AND OR ACCEPTALBE TO PROPERLY PLAY BACK WHAT THE MIXING ENGINEERS INTENDED YOU TO HEAR!) lye in the inability of your standard passive home audiophile speakers, full range or otherwise, to handle the bass information accurately, and without dynamic compression and lack of control!..this is a MAJOR PROBLEM AND SHORTCOMMING OF STANDARD PASSIVE SPEAKER DESIGNS TODAY!
Bass, wich is the hardests thing to control in an audio system, has MAJOR HURDLES TO OVERCOME being reproduced through PASSIVE CROSSOVER NEWORKS that most speakers posses! This is where the ACTIVE POWERED SUB HAS A HUGE ADVANTAGE, IN DAMPING FACTOR, CONTROL, AND DYNAMIC OUTPUT AND RANGE! Infact, I came back from the Hi-fi expo in San Fran this past year, and must have heard several hundred 2 channel only set up's for music. These systems, playing full range dynamic music simply can't hang!..that's the way it is. Infact, achieving true dyanmic transparancy isn't really so possible from passive speakers mostly, especially in the bass reigion! This is where active speakers have a HUGE ADVANTAGE!
Now, back to bass, just take a pair of Def Tech BP2000's, or NHT VT3's, or even ultra high end Avantgard horn speakers with ACTIVE POWERED BASS WOOFERS, and play em full range for movies versus ANY...I REPEAT, ANY standard passive home audio speaker for heavy dynamic, especially HT digital material, and you tell me which one's handle the bass properly!!!!....HANDS DOWN!..IT'S NO CONTEST! The standard home audio passive full range speakers out there can't handle the dynamics and the impact, that's capable from these current DD/DTS soundtracks, nor really demanding bass heavy music material!!!!
I beg to differ (it's all good..no worries..to each his own) with Vedric's stance that he believes that running your full range 2 channel music speaker set up for HT is just as good! I don't think so... And I've done maybe a 1000 home theater set up's in my last 15 years in this business. Infact, as I mentioned, I even pressently use a 2 channel set up for my HT!
Still, let me qualify that you CAN INDEED MAKE A 2 CHANNEL SET work well for HT! Infact, I'll take a quality 2 channel (added, you need a sub to do the bass though) system over a poor sounding 5.1 or better system any day! I prefer quality over quantity for certain. However, STill, as you've gathered, I've found out a few things the hard way over the years. And that's that you need to cross over your mains in a PASSIVE SPEAKER SYSTEM(wich most of us use), and let the active woofer handle the bass! Again, the bass dynamic range, output, and extenstion can't be handled properly by most all the passive speaker designs out there, for truely effective playback. yes, the bass will play down deep full range through a speaker, but it will be squashed, softer, less impactfull, less authoritative, and DEFINITELY less dynamically transparent! THX got this part very very right, and it works! Heck, they won industry awards from the Academy and such for their work....I think they know what they're doing when it comes to movie playback, as well as mixing! But hey, that's just my opinion/experience. To each his own.
And, like I mentioned, those of you(me included)who are doing your DD/DTS HT playback through your 2 channel preamp, without a dedicated outboard DD/DTS processor of some sort, your shorting yourself sonically! The dynamics and pressence, when you bypass the outboard processing just doesn't sound good!...sorry, that's the way it is.
I use an outboard DD/dts/pro-logic pre/pro looped into my 2 channel audio pre-amp's "BYPASS"(you can use Auxilary/dirrect, whateve) for best results in my two channel system. I then cross over the speakers as "small", or "80hz", (even though I can, and have tried different settings like 65hz, 50hz, 40hz, etc, etc), and kick in the powered sub for movies and heavy dyanamic music and such! There's really no comparison. Playing movies with the speakers full range doesn't cut it for movies...not even close.
But, I'm not saying I think everyone is don't it wrong using just their mains full range. But they will blow woofers, get shorted on the dynamic potential, impact, and accuracy of the sound in general for movie playback. But that's what it is. I've done it that way myself many many times, when I had no woofer. But it's not the best way. I'm sorry.
All you out there doing a 5.1 or 7.1 need a sub or two, or more...and you need to do bass managment to get the efficiency, dynamics, and control out of your system! You're effectively biamping your entire system, maximizing each portion of your sound spectrum from a "control" and "efficiency" stand point, and getting the sound you are supposed to by-enlarge! Only full active, high efficiency systems have it better in terms of total dynamic potential. And with movies out there like "The Hulk", "LOTR's", "Star Wars", action flicks in genral, whatever, proper bass distribution and control over the bass is a must if you want to hear more of what's capable from such demanding source material!
Again, as a comparison, go see any of these block buster, highly dynamic movies in the theaters, and then listen to em at home through your full range speakrs at home without proper bass MGMT! You'll be dissapointed I think. "The Hulk" just won't sound like it did in the movie theater...and it should!
Peace