On the Supreme Court: while I grant, Liz, that they have lots do, what they aren’t doing is deciding facts of the cases. They’re deciding what the law is. They have been asked whether it’s even allowed to limit the sale of “ultraviolent” videogames to minors, not whether there’s a harm that comes to minors from playing them. They’re being asked how much proof one needs, not whether or not there’s proof. Indeed, for the purposes of this case, they’ve been asked to assume that the California legislature believes there’s a harm; the question is can they then ban the sale to minors. Adults would still be free to buy them and give them to their children to play, if they wanted to. I would note that from your rant, you want the Supreme Court to be deciding this, since the alternative is that the California law would go into effect. (Well, not quite… the Appeals Court felt that it wasn’t allowed and the Supreme Court is being asked whether or not they’re right.) In any case, the arguments were heard last November, and we’re just waiting for the opinion to come out. A good source for all the arguments is here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/eanf/

Ahh, the old, “videogames are warping our children’s fragile, little minds!” debate.

I always break it down like this:

1) Was there ever an instance of violence prior to the existence of videogames?

I think we’d have to agree that, yes, yes there was.

2) Has there ever been an instance where a person played videogames and did NOT commit any acts of violence?

Yeah, I think that’s happened a few times…

3) Then videogames do not cause violence!

But they’re strange and scary to me and it can’t possibly be all those times I smacked my kid around that made him angry and lash out with an act of physical violence! It HAS to be videogames! I mean, they’re just such an easy scapegoat! Like movies, or rock music, or women doing anything other than being servants and making babies!

God I hate these stupids. Luckily, I can take out my aggression on a videogame instead of all over their faces 😀

On the AV tip, I don’t demand that all three front speakers actually BE identical. I just demand that they SOUND identical.

I can’t stand when a sound pans across the front and you can hear the timbre change as it goes from speaker to speaker. I’d rather remove the center speaker entirely and just run a “phantom” center than bear that!

Oh, come now Rob! Point (1) is irrelevant unless someone is claiming that videogames are the *only* cause of violence, which no one is. Point (2) is relevant only to those who claim that videogames *invariably* lead to violence, which is, I believe, also nobody.
I have no dog in this fight, and I really don’t much care who’s right, either, but I have a respect for the syllogism as a logical device. Here, let’s use your “logic:”
(1) Were there subwoofers that didn’t bother the neiGHbors before the subdude? Yep.
(2) Are their people who have insgtalled subdudes and still bother the neighbors? Yep.
Then, (3) Subdudes don’t work.

That’s “are there people”…. and “neighbors” and “installed” Hey, Tom, can you enable comment editing?

I would of liked to of heard your views on setting speakers to small or large on an AV Receiver. Re: soup to nuts

@rumblejack

I’m sure Tom will weigh in, but here’s my take.

If you set your speakers to “Large” they will potentially receive a genuine “full-range” signal with frequencies anywhere from 20Hz – 20kHz (or even above and below that threshold of human hearing, depending on the format). Now granted, professional sound engineers and mixers tend to avoid putting extremely low frequency bass into the main speaker channels, but there are still occassions when it happens.

There are extremely few speakers out there that are genuinely “full-range” and can produce the entire 20Hz – 20kHz range with nice, flat frequency response throughout and over a wide dynamic range (ie. keeping a flat frequency response whether the sound is loud or quiet). Even some of the most widely respected, large tower speakers really only play flat down to 35, maybe 30Hz or so. And in the case of more reasonably priced speakers, it’s rare to get truly great frequency response below the 40Hz range.

Bottom line is that it is almost always a good idea to chose “small” for all of your speakers. Now, that does not necessarily mean that you have to use the THX recommended cross-over frequency of 80Hz. If your speakers have a nice, natural roll-off at the bottom end that starts at 50Hz or something like that, then it’s fine to set the cross-over frequency lower to 60Hz or somewhere around there. But that super low stuff, the 20Hz-40Hz range, that is almost always better handled by a separate subwoofer, even with some of the most capable tower speakers available.

There is also the issue of speaker/subwoofer placement within the room. Your speakers should be placed in order to get the best imaging, soundstage and correct proximity to your television screen. It is rare that those positions will also be the best locations for deep bass. By setting your speakers to “small” and allowing your subwoofers to handle all of the deep bass, you can potentially position your subwoofers in better locations in order to reduce standing waves and large peaks and valleys in the frequency response.

So there really aren’t many benefits to running your speakers as “large”. But there are several benefits to running them as “small”. Playing with the cross-over frequency and the positions of your subwoofers will allow you to create a seemless “blend” from your speakers to your subwoofer. The final frequency response that you hear at your listening seat can still be nice and flat this way. In fact, there is a better chance of getting a nice, flat frequency response with good dynamic range by always setting your speakers to “small” and using subwoofers to handle the lower-than-80Hz stuff 😉

After all we’ve meant to each other… you can’t just trust me?