Anyone else went phantom??tips advice

[Kingnoob]

Phantom center Channel set up and help

them . The right speaker was more toed in but it got flattened . Last two pics were the floor were my tv stand is stuck I can’t move it over more . My main audio source is spectrum cable app which is 2.0 stereo I get some strange bass effects to the sub channels from it .

 

[Kingnoob]

No one here uses Phantom? I have a center speaker but the tv legs are too wide won’t fit ontop of it .

 

[shadyJ]

A phantom center is really just stereo imaging. Just set your system to a 2 channels or 2.1 system and you will get the phantom center - so long as you are listening at a point equidistant from both speakers.

 

[Oddball]

If you want to use up-mixer for the surround channels you seem to have (2.0 which is your source to 5.1.2 based on the schematics you posted), then you would need a phantom centre but as noted that will cover only a very narrow area. IME from forums lots of people seem to use phantom centre setup but even more dedicated centre.

If you are getting strange effects for the LFE try using a different up mixer. There is no LFE in 2.0 signal, so up mixer is guessing what to route to LFE.

BTW why bookshelves on top of the front towers?

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

There is no LFE in 2.0 signal, so up mixer is guessing what to route to LFE.

Wondering if you’d explain the thought behind this. Do you mean routing to the LFE output, IE: subwoofers? Afaik, upmixers won’t “guess” on what to send to the subwoofers when upmixing 2.0. It will send bass below the XO point like always. The only difference is that the bass won’t be accompanied by the actual .1 signal bass. It will only be redirected bass.
One possible variable is that different upmixers might raise the bass level compared to others. I think auromatic sums the bass from all channels and raises the level a bit. I’ve seen people say that DTSnx does this, but never seen anyone verify that.

 

[Oddball]

It's has been couple of years since I had experience with 2.0 signal, but remember that LFE sounded different with different up-mixers. AVR still needs to recreate the LFE, even if as simple as applying the XO, and downmixing to 2.0 will loose a lot of original LFE signal. What individual up mixers do not really sure as this was a small part of content I was getting so did not really obsess over it.

My use case was also a bit different as I was for most part running LFE+Main, so there was a need for the upmixer to route low bass to both LFE and mains, which might have been additional confusion.

 

[Kingnoob]

If you want to use up-mixer for the surround channels you seem to have (2.0 which is your source to 5.1.2 based on the schematics you posted), then you would need a phantom centre but as noted that will cover only a very narrow area. IME from forums lots of people seem to use phantom centre setup but even more dedicated centre.

If you are getting strange effects for the LFE try using a different up mixer. There is no LFE in 2.0 signal, so up mixer is guessing what to route to LFE.

BTW why bookshelves on top of the front towers?

ahh this weird sound format but I’m considering removing those speakers just haven’t found a good storage spot for them.

Speakers

Speakers come in all shapes and sizes. Learn which ones are best for your home theater, how to hook them up, and what to do when things go wrong.

www.lifewire.com

It's has been couple of years since I had experience with 2.0 signal, but remember that LFE sounded different with different up-mixers. AVR still needs to recreate the LFE, even if as simple as applying the XO, and downmixing to 2.0 will loose a lot of original LFE signal. What individual up mixers do not really sure as this was a small part of content I was getting so did not really obsess over it.

My use case was also a bit different as I was for most part running LFE+Main, so there was a need for the upmixer to route low bass to both LFE and mains, which might have been additional confusion.

Not sure what to set mains to right now 40hz I had tried 60/80 .

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

AVR still needs to recreate the LFE, even if as simple as applying the XO, and downmixing to 2.0 will loose a lot of original LFE signal..

Well I think you may be confused a bit. The AVR will not “recreate the LFE”. LFE(.1) is a separate channel mixed into a soundtrack.
If you mean to use the term LFE synonymously with redirected bass below the XO then it is wrong to say it that way. I only say this for clarity for anyone else reading the thread. Which is ironically not about bass at all lol!
Also, not sure what you mean by “downmixing to 2.0 will lose a lot of original lfe signal”.

 

[Oddball]

Perhaps you are correct, and there is nothing more than mixer sending the below crossover to Sub for 2.0 content. It is just curious why DTS, Dolby and Auro get to clearly audible different results for all channels including the subs. Upmixer is obviously extracting other channels from the mix (like surrounds). I would guess that each of the up-mixers have their specs/process how they do conversion and they are not identical. Honestly not much interested in 2.0 up-mixing as either use stereo for music or get 5.1 or better signal for movies and shows. So my comments are just from previous practical experience.

When listening to 2.0 content, I noticed that bass levels and bass content are not the same as when one is listening the same title mixed in 5.1. Couple of years ago I was using local streaming service in Middle East that was distributing Max content - but in 2.0. Managed to compare same titles when they became available on other services that had 5.1 and/or Atmos versions. Was quite a bit of difference in low end with 2.0 sounding really not that great compared to 5.1.

 

[Kingnoob]

Perhaps you are correct, and there is nothing more than mixer sending the below crossover to Sub for 2.0 content. It is just curious why DTS, Dolby and Auro get to clearly audible different results for all channels including the subs. Upmixer is obviously extracting other channels from the mix (like surrounds). I would guess that each of the up-mixers have their specs/process how they do conversion and they are not identical. Honestly not much interested in 2.0 up-mixing as either use stereo for music or get 5.1 or better signal for movies and shows. So my comments are just from previous practical experience.

When listening to 2.0 content, I noticed that bass levels and bass content are not the same as when one is listening the same title mixed in 5.1. Couple of years ago I was using local streaming service in Middle East that was distributing Max content - but in 2.0. Managed to compare same titles when they became available on other services that had 5.1 and/or Atmos versions. Was quite a bit of difference in low end with 2.0 sounding really not that great compared to 5.1.

what should I set fronts to 40/60 or 80 hz ? I tried full range but they don’t seem to produce enough bass for that.
Spectrum app is 2.0, I’ve noticed basketball and certain sports games I get a lot of bass for some reason. Almost as much as Netflix movies . Can’t understand why cable companies are too cheap for 5.1 audio on there app ?
what auto eq set them too

 

[dlaloum]

Some years ago, I ran an all electrostatic 4.0 setup - no center, no subs.

2 x Quad ESL989 for front, 2x Quad ESL63 rear/surround

It was a little lacking in the lowest end (below 30Hz) - but I never found the center to be lacking - Phantom center was just fine.

Overall immersion was superb... WAF was low, and ultimately caused a change to more compact speaker types...

 

[Oddball]

what should I set fronts to 40/60 or 80 hz ? I tried full range but they don’t seem to produce enough bass for that.
Spectrum app is 2.0, I’ve noticed basketball and certain sports games I get a lot of bass for some reason. Almost as much as Netflix movies . Can’t understand why cable companies are too cheap for 5.1 audio on there app ?
what auto eq set them tooView attachment 68049

Not really sure what is the best option for you. 40hz is pretty low even for big towers. Best guess is either 60 or 80hz.

Yeah some providers seem to be still stuck in the past. I do get 5.1 for all my content, with 4K and Atmos available, but some providers are still stuck with HD only (like Showtime in EU).

 

[Kingnoob]

Not really sure what is the best option for you. 40hz is pretty low even for big towers. Best guess is either 60 or 80hz.

Yeah some providers seem to be still stuck in the past. I do get 5.1 for all my content, with 4K and Atmos available, but some providers are still stuck with HD only (like Showtime in EU).

yeah most cable providers only offer 1080p atleast here.
I set them to 60 I’ll try 80 later , these fronts.

KF-26 Floorstanding Speaker

Home Audio Products for Every Lifestyle, Application & Budget. Since 1946, no compromises in Legendary Sound. Free Shipping on All Online Orders in the US.

www.klipsch.com

 

[dlaloum]

Not really sure what is the best option for you. 40hz is pretty low even for big towers. Best guess is either 60 or 80hz.

I have two very different sets of towers...

Gallo Nucleus Reference 3.2
B&O Penta

By shere/mere coincidence, they both provide good response down to 35Hz (both according to spec, and as measured during Dirac setup...)

In theory the sealed woofer of the Gallo's, can, if powered right (Biamping via its second voice coil), stretch down to 24Hz according to its specs.
I am not Biamping, but I am feeding the Gallo via a Crown XLS2500... 440W@8ohm 1200W@2ohm

Still the end result are I have two excellent tower speakers that both provide excellent bass down to 35Hz.

Getting below 35Hz (with any sort of substantive SPL) seems challenging with standard size towers

I would suggest, that for reasonably "standard" sized towers, somewhere between 40Hz and 25Hz is perfectly viable (based on my own experiences)

And there are therefore advantages to be gained from leveraging such "full range" speakers to provide excellent mid-bass... yes they are unlikely to extend into infrasonics... that would definitely require sub(s).

Any tower speaker SHOULD be "Full range"... and a full range speaker should extend down to 40Hz as an absolute minimum.

Speakers that are limited to 60Hz/80Hz are of course typical for the Home Theatre market (which is far larger than the traditional stereo market) - as they are designed to combine with an external woofer (most of which do no extend below 20Hz, so I tend to question the label "subwoofer"!) which will typically provide response from the mid 20's Hz through to around 120Hz

There are numerous excellent top of the line speakers from the 1980's, 90's and 2000's that can now be purchased for a heck of a lot less than their performance equivalents of today (the B&O Penta's being an example)... and these typically will have excellent performance well down into the bass region - outperforming in many cases, the smaller/cheaper "subs".

 

[Kingnoob]

I have two very different sets of towers...

Gallo Nucleus Reference 3.2
B&O Penta

By shere/mere coincidence, they both provide good response down to 35Hz (both according to spec, and as measured during Dirac setup...)

In theory the sealed woofer of the Gallo's, can, if powered right (Biamping via its second voice coil), stretch down to 24Hz according to its specs.
I am not Biamping, but I am feeding the Gallo via a Crown XLS2500... 440W@8ohm 1200W@2ohm

Still the end result are I have two excellent tower speakers that both provide excellent bass down to 35Hz.

Getting below 35Hz (with any sort of substantive SPL) seems challenging with standard size towers

I would suggest, that for reasonably "standard" sized towers, somewhere between 40Hz and 25Hz is perfectly viable (based on my own experiences)

And there are therefore advantages to be gained from leveraging such "full range" speakers to provide excellent mid-bass... yes they are unlikely to extend into infrasonics... that would definitely require sub(s).

Any tower speaker SHOULD be "Full range"... and a full range speaker should extend down to 40Hz as an absolute minimum.

Speakers that are limited to 60Hz/80Hz are of course typical for the Home Theatre market (which is far larger than the traditional stereo market) - as they are designed to combine with an external woofer (most of which do no extend below 20Hz, so I tend to question the label "subwoofer"!) which will typically provide response from the mid 20's Hz through to around 120Hz

There are numerous excellent top of the line speakers from the 1980's, 90's and 2000's that can now be purchased for a heck of a lot less than their performance equivalents of today (the B&O Penta's being an example)... and these typically will have excellent performance well down into the bass region - outperforming in many cases, the smaller/cheaper "subs".

interesting ! Nice speakers !
I linked my fronts in the post above ⬆, I could probably run those speakers full or 40hz easily with my avr . But unless I run Netflix the bass won’t show up because my source audio for cable is 2.0 spectrum cable application. This is one of the things I found from the Google search

Spectrum TV on Roku ultra No surround!

www.avsforum.com

 

[Hobbit]

No one here uses Phantom? I have a center speaker but the tv legs are too wide won’t fit ontop of it .

Search for TV Stands at Amazon. I found a nice looking one for about <$50 that did the trick. One like this you could adjust to either put the speaker on the base or have the TV lower and put the base on the speaker:

Amazon.com: Universal Swivel TV Stand/Base Table Top TV Stand 32 to 70 inch TVs 80 Degree Swivel, 4 Level Height Adjustable, Heavy Duty Tempered Glass Base, Holds up to 88lbs Screens, HT04B-002 : Electronics

This is just an example. There are quite a few options besides this one that may better suit your need.

IMO, the center is probably the most important speaker sound while watching TV. IOW, I wouldn't go phantom.

 

[Kingnoob]

Search for TV Stands at Amazon. I found a nice looking one for about <$50 that did the trick. One like this you could adjust to either put the speaker on the base or have the TV lower and put the base on the speaker:

Amazon.com: Universal Swivel TV Stand/Base Table Top TV Stand 32 to 70 inch TVs 80 Degree Swivel, 4 Level Height Adjustable, Heavy Duty Tempered Glass Base, Holds up to 88lbs Screens, HT04B-002 : Electronics

This is just an example. There are quite a few options besides this one that may better suit your need.

IMO, the center is probably the most important speaker sound while watching TV. IOW, I wouldn't go phantom.

That definitely is something I’ll look into not sure if my center will fit perfect on top of it but eventually I’d consider something like this .

KC-25 Center Speaker

Home Audio Products for Every Lifestyle, Application & Budget. Since 1946, no compromises in Legendary Sound. Free Shipping on All Online Orders in the US.

www.klipsch.com

 

[dlaloum]

interesting ! Nice speakers !
I linked my fronts in the post above ⬆, I could probably run those speakers full or 40hz easily with my avr . But unless I run Netflix the bass won’t show up because my source audio for cable is 2.0 spectrum cable application. This is one of the things I found from the Google search

Spectrum TV on Roku ultra No surround!

www.avsforum.com

That is VERY strange - Typically when encoding down to 2.0 - the LFE channel is mixed into the L&R stereo channels... and same deal when running with Phantom Sub (as I used to for some years) - the LFE channel is mixed into the 5 base channels (or at least into all channels that are marked "full range").

I'm not saying it isn't possible - but it seems distinctly odd.

And if the signal isn't there, then there is no configuration of speakers that will recover it!

 

[Kingnoob]

That is VERY strange - Typically when encoding down to 2.0 - the LFE channel is mixed into the L&R stereo channels... and same deal when running with Phantom Sub (as I used to for some years) - the LFE channel is mixed into the 5 base channels (or at least into all channels that are marked "full range").

I'm not saying it isn't possible - but it seems distinctly odd.

And if the signal isn't there, then there is no configuration of speakers that will recover it!

Subwoofer was getting bass signal even when the avr set fronts to 40hz and full range on prior calibrations. Despite this sources only 2.0 but a few surround modes shut sub off on full range. I set fronts to 60 now.

 

[dlaloum]

Subwoofer was getting bass signal even when the avr set fronts to 40hz and full range on prior calibrations. Despite this sources only 2.0 but a few surround modes shut sub off on full range. I set fronts to 60 now.

By default the sub always gets the LFE channel on most setups - if you have a crossover set (ie: mains are not full range) - then the sub "should" also get the part of the frequency range from the Mains which is below the XO point.

But when the AVR is set to "stereo" - then bass management may or may not be involved, depending on the AVR setup.brand etc...

Most AVR's also have a Direct or Pure-Direct mode - where the channels are passed through untouched to their respective speakers - typically that should disable XO's and if fed a simple stereo signal should output only to L&R.

The other thing to watch for, is how the sub is hooked into the system - so far I have assumed the sub was connected to the Sub output of an AVR, but lots of subs have alternative options - my Gallo sub has an input and an output for the L/R mains at speaker level, and then it acts as the crossover (adjustable for frequency, level and phase)...

If your sub is set up this way - with the XO being in the sub, then all signals fed out, will result in sound from the sub (depending on LF content obviously).