Phantom Center channel for movie watching

[abar20]

I currently sit in a circle of speakers with about a 6 foot diameter. I could expand that if i knocked out the center channel. Also, I could save myslef a trip to the hardware store (i would need to build a custom mounting option for the center speaker.) on top of that id save about 90 dollars on the speaker itself. My question is.. With proper speaker placement and calibration, can you achieve equal results using a 4.1 channel system. Keep in mind I have the onkyo sr507 and this speaker arrangment is soley for watching dvds/blurays but mainly blu ray. will the receiver do the job of taking 7.1 channel blu ray audio and converting it to 4.1? Thanks..

 

[JerryLove]

Generally it depends on the distance between your front speakers and (to some extent) your distance from them. With my L/R speakers about 10ft apart: I prefer the sound with my center channel off.

I've become a big proponent these last couple of months of 4.2 systems specifially for the sound they produce (except in very large rooms, where 7.2 and 9.2 start kicking in)

 

[oppman99]

In my limited experience I find that if I sit in the sweet spot (mains pointed directly where I'm sitting), not using a center is no big deal. Sitting farther to either side, you tend to hear sound coming from the left or right speaker specifically and it can be distracting. Whether or not you go with a center depends on how many people are watching/the seating positions. If you already have a center, experiment a little and see what you prefer.

 

[JerryLove]

I haven't experimented with it, but I can see where a wide audience area might also come into play.

Though that still ties in to front speaker distance. If they are right next to each other: there's no difference from "left" and "center" in terms of orientation far off-axis.

 

[m_vanmeter]

if for no other reason, I prefer using a center channel speaker because it locks the dialog to the TV, regardless of whether you are sitting in the sweet spot or not. There is so much audio information on the center channel of a typical DD 5.1 mastered DVD, it seems a waste not to use it properly.

 

[JerryLove]

if for no other reason, I prefer using a center channel speaker because it locks the dialog to the TV, regardless of whether you are sitting in the sweet spot or not. There is so much audio information on the center channel of a typical DD 5.1 mastered DVD, it seems a waste not to use it properly.

Except that it can also cause comb filtering that significantly reduces sound quality.

I have a matched center speaker (paradigm studio 470); it's disabled because the sound is better with it off: and that includes the imaging.

Not everyone will have my experience.. and I think the major variable is speaker distance. If you've already got the speaker: try both; but I think for most people, in a small room, the center channel and the extra surrounds (in 7.1) do more harm than good. Better to spend the money on an external crossover and second sub.

So my experience for best sound? 4.2 (with the subs in stereo and tied to the fronts for virtual full-range) for small rooms.

 

[m_vanmeter]

"Jerry", no dispute here. Like everything in this hobby, it still comes down to "trial and error" until you find what each person likes in their own setup.

 

[JerryLove]

"Jerry", no dispute here. Like everything in this hobby, it still comes down to "trial and error" until you find what each person likes in their own setup.

Absolutely true. It would be... something less than through ... if one has a center, to not try both ways and experiment a little. See which way works the best for your ear and your setup.

I'm genuinely interested to find out how many end up preferring phantom centers and what the variables involved are.

 

[lsiberian]

"Jerry", no dispute here. Like everything in this hobby, it still comes down to "trial and error" until you find what each person likes in their own setup.

Or it comes down to the willingness to listen to good advice.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

My experience is much better using the center. I have tried it both ways several times and using the center just works better in my set up.

 

[njedpx3]

Except that it can also cause comb filtering that significantly reduces sound quality.

I have a matched center speaker (paradigm studio 470); it's disabled because the sound is better with it off: and that includes the imaging.

Not everyone will have my experience.. and I think the major variable is speaker distance. If you've already got the speaker: try both; but I think for most people, in a small room, the center channel and the extra surrounds (in 7.1) do more harm than good. Better to spend the money on an external crossover and second sub.

So my experience for best sound? 4.2 (with the subs in stereo and tied to the fronts for virtual full-range) for small rooms.

First, I respect JerryLove's opinion and he has very good experience with audio and HT, but I respectfully disagree. I watch 95% TVs and DVDs (BD and standard) and I feel a center is very important for the dialog. I do agree matching the Fronts and the Center is very important to mantain timbre (seamless front sound). But after setting the speaker levels , either manual with an SPL meter or automatically using Audessey or "Audessey like" the center gives better dialog even in a smaller room.

Now as far as music listening I like a 2.1 setup with no center.

Your opinion my be different and if so I respect that!

Peace,

Forest Man

 

[jostenmeat]

For full disclosure, I use a center speaker in the HT, which has the worst speaker design ever made in the horiz MTM, but I take solace in the fact that 99% of my Audioholic brethren also have such a design for the center speaker. It is necessary in my theater for 8 people. However, I don't know if it's just me, but I find it to be paradoxical when h-MTMs are recommended for off-axis listening . . . I'm sure someone might agree with me. The last time I posted about this:

Good idea. FWIW, a lot of folks say that the center becomes more imperative when the viewers are spread out. However, I personally think it's important to point out that this is EXACTLY when the weakness of a horiz MTM rears its ugly head. The centering might* not be quite as good, but the dialogue intelligibility is just about always better in my experiences, when being off axis and comparing phantom vs horiz mtm. Again, just fwiw.


Yes. It's not a 3 way vs 2 way issue. The specific problem is the redundant drivers playing the same exact audio, while on the same horiz plane. Once you are at different distances from these two woofers, playing the same exact thing, you suffer random sets of boosts and cancellations depending on the angle you sit, due to the interference known as "lobing". What makes the typical horiz mtm so bad is what I alluded to before, and that is because the xover point is so high, that the set of lobing frequencies is very great, covers an enormous part of the freq spectrum, and inevitably compromises dialogue intelligibility.

That's the crux of the paradox. People tend to recommend the center speaker when being offaxis, yet it is precisely when you are off axis that it sounds worst, as far as the individual center speaker being mtm. If you are rather on axis to the speaker, I think mtm is fine. Depending on the design, normally you want to be within 20 deg cone, but I think straight on is the only way.

Now, ok, you're right in the sense of the 3 way, because having that single dedicated midrange driver allows the woofers to xover much lower from the rest of the speaker, so that lobing issues are much less offensive. In fact, some WTMWs (you guessed it, B&W), are designed so well with horiz WTMW, that lobing is simply inaudible (a big reason being that lobing starts very low, where we are insensitive to the effects).

Other tidbits/factoids: a horiz MTM could be better designed if the woofers are closer together (the "differing distances" are reduced when off axis, make sense?), and the xover point is lowered. However, I don't think I've ever once seen such a design, though I'm sure they exist. I'm sure the issues with driver limitations must come into play.

I copy/pasted some results, with highlighting here:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=632842&postcount=11

which came directly from this AH article:
http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/vertical-vs-horizontal-speaker-designs/conclusion-rankings-and-evaluation.html



I didn't google it sorry. What I will say is that the actual best possible match for your center speaker is yet another P4. Best is to put it vertical. If above TV, it's fine to flip it upside down. If horiz, you suffer lobing at and around the xover point, but it's better in the sense it's not everything below the xover point.

 

[JerryLove]

I watch 95% TVs and DVDs (BD and standard) and I feel a center is very important for the dialog. I do agree matching the Fronts and the Center is very important to mantain timbre (seamless front sound). But after setting the speaker levels , either manual with an SPL meter or automatically using Audessey or "Audessey like" the center gives better dialog even in a smaller room.

A nice post BTW

I'm very curious *why* our experiences differ. Dialog was one of my biggest problems prior to phantoming the center.

I'm still trying to understand both what happend (what the difference actually is) and why it happend. I think I need to play with many more setups, and preferrably get some other ears on the same rigs I'm listening to in order to form some conclusions.

I look forward to reading more experiences from people who have tried both, phantomed and real, in the same setup and what their experiences are.

I wonder too if, at least in some cases, it is a difference in ability to reproduce audio. I remember on my old sony HT, the center was as expensive as 3-4 of the bookshelves. With that rig, a center might sound better because, simply, the center is better.

I doubt that's an issue on your rig though.

Always more questions