2.1 or 3.1 channels? And coordinating speakers...

[tentaguasu]

For home theater use, is there any benefit to 3 channels over straight stereo?

I'm setting up a home theater and have a 5.1 channel receiver. In time, I'm sure I'll have a 5.1 setup. For now, I can only afford 2 or 3 speakers. So I'm curious about whether it makes sense to have 3 channels, or if the logical jump is right from 2.1 to 5.1. I'll probably be using DIY speakers (recession buster kit from madisound), so it's really a question of whether I just build a third.

I'm assuming receivers can be set up to manage the sound through however many speakers you have running, correct?

Also, I'm a bit mistyfied about how you add mismatched speakers to a system. What if I pick up some really lousy speakers for the side/rear channels (as in two speakers for $20 at a garage sale quality), can they be integrated into the system and improve it? Or will their low quality bring the whole system down?

 

[Lordoftherings]

Hi,

The best is 5.1-channel (or even 7.1), but you can still use only 2 speakers if you like, no problem there. If your mains are full range, better it is. If not, the addition of a subwoofer is highly recommended.

And if you sit right between a good pair of speakers, you can do without the center speaker, because of the great imaging (good for only one listener).
And, Yes, you can set your A/V receiver for the number of speakers you have, no problem. It's all in the speaker setup of your receiver.

So, you can start with only two speakers, and then add up more, as the funds become available.

And those speakers for only $20 at a garage sale, it all depends of which speakers they are. Do you know the brand and model #?

You have a great day,

Bob

 

[markw]

Movies are generally set up to deliver most dialog from the center channel.

While you can do without a center speaker, the only time the voices will seem to come from the correct place is when you're sitting in that one "sweet spot" where both channels are at the same level, as far as your ears are concerned.

A center channel speaker anchors the voices to the screen, where the actors are so the voices appear to emanate from the picture from anywhere in the room, not just one spot.

For movies, the rears are used mainly for ambiance and sound effects and are generaly less important. You have a lot of leeway there before the effect suffers. Music can be a different story.

 

[john72953]

Before this whole HT kick got started, I listened to 2-channel for movies going back to the mid-seventies. I was just as happy with it then as I am now listening in surround. You do NOT need a full 5.1 setup to enjoy Blu-rays or DVD's. If you can do it, that's great, but it's not essential.

As far as a Centre Channel is concerned, a good set of fronts with proper imaging ability will "anchor" voices just as well. Make sure you have them properly positioned though. This is easily done by letting your ears do the listening...you don't necessarily need an SPL meter or run a program like Yamaha's YPAO. If those are available, then that's a bonus, but you can do it by yourself.

I don't have a sub-woofer, so I can't really comment in that regard, but I would venture to say it makes perhaps the most difference. Luckily my speakers are fairly able in producing the bottom end and I'm no bass-freak to begin with, so it's all good in my situation.

Start with the best set of fronts you can get and work your way up. Don't rush into anything just "because".

John

 

[cwall99]

If it's possible, I would recommend getting the stereo mains first. If possible, I would look to get some at the start of the model's life span (for instance, if the speakers are newly upgraded from their previous model) so that you make it easier to buy a matching center in a year or two's time, you can be more certain of getting matching drivers.

I don't think it's as critical for the surround channels' drivers to match as it is for the drivers across the front (my rears are an old pair of NHTs, for instance, while I have B&W 600-series across the front).

So, I'd suggest getting a good pair of left and right mains, then adding a center channel, and then surrounds. If you already have a pair of speakers that can do your surround work, then you should be good to go.

I'm just never able to upgrade everything at the same time, so I look for ways to upgrade in ways that make sense... at least to me.

 

[markw]

True, with one qualifier.

As far as a Centre Channel is concerned, a good set of fronts with proper imaging ability will "anchor" voices just as well.

As long as you're in that sweet spot. That spot can get crowded quite quickly when there's several people viewing.

 

[Robof83]

I say if your can afford the third speaker than get it, that is unless you will be the only one watching the movies.

If you have multiple people watching a movie, only 1 person is going to have a proper experience with the voices coming from the center screen. Everyone else with either hear the voices coming from the left or right of the screen depending on which side they are sitting.

I tried running running a phantom speaker with my betas and while it sounds sweet from where I normally sit, if I move just two feet from to my left or right it sounds funky.

 

[just listening]

If possible, I also agree with three of the same speakers, unless you want towers, then the third will need to be a matching center or a single monitor. I tried a 2.0 setup for movies, and was just never happy with the dialogue. Once I added a center channel I found it much easier to enjoy listening to voices. For many rooms a 3.0 or 3.1 works quite well. One can always add-in two rear speakers.

 

[john72953]

As long as you're in that sweet spot. That spot can get crowded quite quickly when there's several people viewing.

Correct, but that holds true for every other configuration as well. There is only ONE SWEET SPOT. If your guests are sitting closer to the left side of your setup they are not getting a proper experience. A sweet spot is a space about 2 sq.ft from optimum alignment. And it doesn't matter how good your 5.1 or 7.1 or other configuration is.

John

 

[markw]

Sorry, no

Correct, but that holds true for every other configuration as well. There is only ONE SWEET SPOT.

The fact that the dialogue emanates from the center speaker ONLY assures that it will always draw the listener's attention to that spot from anywhere in the room. I'm currently watching Madagascar with my friend and his daughter and I'm off to the right of the right speaker and the dialog is still coming from the center speaker.

Ergo, the term "anchor". This cannot be accomplished with a phantom center.

If this were only a left/right setup, all I'd be hearing is the right speaker and the dialog would seem to be coming from there, not the center.

 

[john72953]

The fact that the dialogue emanates from the center speaker ONLY assures that it will always draw the listener's attention to that spot from anywhere in the room. I'm currently watching Madagascar with my friend and his daughter and I'm off to the right of the right speaker and the dialog is still coming from the center speaker.

Ergo, the term "anchor". This cannot be accomplished with a phantom center.

If this were only a left/right setup, all I'd be hearing is the right speaker and the dialog would seem to be coming from there, not the center.

That may be, however you (siting on the right side of your couch or whatever) are not getting the expereince of the sweet spot position in the overall presentation of the movie.

My point several posts ago was only to point out that with a 2-channel setup one can still get a very decent aural experience. If the OP wants to introduce a center channel, so be it, and it would be a good idea. All I said was that is isn't necessary to still enjoy BD's or DVD's.

John

 

[markw]

John, see we're getting nowhere with this.

So I guess we'll just agree to disagree. We've both stated out cases and the OP can make his own decision.

But I do have one question. I've been invoved in this audio stuff since the early 60's. As far as I recall, primitive VCR's didn't hit the scene until the late 70's and stereo tapes didn't hit the market until the early 80's. I had an early Fisher VHS stereo that predated VHS Hi-Fi (Dolby Surround with linear tracks hit in '82) in the mid 80's. OTA MTS stereo arrived at about about the same time.

Where did you get multi-channel movies in the seventies?

 

[john72953]

Mark, it's all good!

So I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

We've both stated our cases and the OP can make his own decision.

And that is what the OP should be doing. Review the comments we as posters make and then make a decison. There is no right or wrong a lot of times, just personal opinion. We've expressed them and as long as the OP is happy with the decision he comes to in the end....it's all good.

Thanks for the exchange!

John

 

[tentaguasu]

And thanks to both of you for your great advice! I'm not sure what I'll do yet, but I have a good basis for starting.

 

[cwall99]

I read an interview with Jerry Harrison (sorry, I can't provide a citation), and he said that when he re-mixed the Talking Heads' music into 5.1 for their DualDisk Brick collection, he was really excited by how much having that third channel in the front opened things up. A lot of the Heads' music is pretty dense (Remain in Light features some pretty dense stuff), and Harrison said that he was able to get a lot more back in playback with that center channel.

I've read similar comments elsewhere.

 

[cwall99]

Ahhhh, found it.... Technically, it's not an interview, but here's the copy:

The early sound of Talking Heads tended toward the sparse, seasoned with haunting vocals. It wasn’t until the fifth and sixth studio albums — “Remain in Light” (1980) and “Speaking in Tongues” (1983) — that the band beefed up its sound. So when Rhino Records asked Harrison to go over the Talking Heads catalog for reissue, they asked him to start there. “Because they’re so dense with material, they seemed ideal for multichannel audio,” he says. “We did those two and they came out so well that we decided to put all the albums out at once.”​

If it's legal to post the link to the source, here it is: http://www.davidbyrne.com/music/cds/th_brick/press/harrison_apple.php

And if it isn't, I apologize in advance.

I do have this collection, and it's freaking awesome. The CD sides of the DualDisks have all sorts of cool extras. Demo tracks, works in progress that never made it out, and some really early stuff that illustrates how the band worked in the studio.

Way cool.

 

[Pyrrho]

For home theater use, is there any benefit to 3 channels over straight stereo?

I'm setting up a home theater and have a 5.1 channel receiver. In time, I'm sure I'll have a 5.1 setup. For now, I can only afford 2 or 3 speakers. So I'm curious about whether it makes sense to have 3 channels, or if the logical jump is right from 2.1 to 5.1. I'll probably be using DIY speakers (recession buster kit from madisound), so it's really a question of whether I just build a third.

I'm assuming receivers can be set up to manage the sound through however many speakers you have running, correct?

Also, I'm a bit mistyfied about how you add mismatched speakers to a system. What if I pick up some really lousy speakers for the side/rear channels (as in two speakers for $20 at a garage sale quality), can they be integrated into the system and improve it? Or will their low quality bring the whole system down?

It makes sense to have a center channel speaker in order to anchor the dialog to the screen. Regardless of being "off" for various effects, everyone in the room will be in the right place as far as the main dialog from the center is concerned if you have a center channel speaker. It makes sense to buy the front three speakers at the same time, so that they will match, which matters when sound pans across the front. The rear speakers matter less, due to two factors: First, the most important sounds in soundtracks are generally in the front, and second, human hearing is better toward the front (which is one of the reasons why people tend to naturally turn toward sounds, even in the dark when you cannot see the thing making the sound).

Any rear speakers will make sounds come from the rear, which can be an improvement, depending upon what effect one desires. The front speakers matter the most, although, ideally, all speakers would match perfectly.

 

[fredk]

It sounds like you are headed for identical speakers all around using the Madisounds. If thats the case, why not give the 3.1 a try. If it doesn't make any difference, when you have the money to build a 4th one, you can move the center to do surround duties until you have money for the final speaker.

As to using cheap speakers as surrounds, these are the least critical speakers in the setup in terms of voice matching, but cheap directional speakers may not work well as surrounds. Can you borrow speakers from a friend to try it out first?