that dreaded center speaker

[herbu]

no takers on mono discrimination?

EUREKA- IVE FOUND IT -CENTER CHANNEL NIRVANA!!!

What's left to discuss/debate?

 

[big O]

What's left to discuss/debate?

see below

so here is my question to approach this from a different angle- is there any science out there that may support why I am finding the phantom center to be far more pleasing than an actual center speaker?



here is my latest experiment. THREE identical speakers- paradigm atom v3s- one for the left, one for center, and one for right. distance between left and right is approx 6 feet, and the center was in the middle, either below the tv or above the tv.

my thinking was that the reason the center has never sounded good was because i was not using identical speakers-so i changed that. well, what would you know- center speaker still sounds small, boxy,weird, but sum the center to left and right to create a phantom and voila - smooth, natural,lush -same exact speakers being used, no eq.

Maybe this is the reason why you can have an identical speaker in the center and it still sounds worse? because we are better judges of quality when only listening to one speaker? I think this may be the answer and I was looking for discussion on if anyone else thinks the same.

btw, I now audition speakers in mono as well as stereo, not just stereo

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

No dread IMO.

For truly amazing discrete 5.1, I don't see how a phantom center is better than a great dedicated center speaker in terms of clarity and intelligibility of dialogue, especially during loud scenes.

But for 2.0 original sources, I think keeping it 2.0/2.1 is the way to go.

Of course, whatever works best for us is good.

 

[markw]

IF your system sounds better without a center speaker, then mazel tov. Go for it.

but, most people find that the center image collapses when you move out of the sweet spot.

If that doesn't bother you, or you watch movies alone, then fine.

But, if others are watching with you, they might not get the intended effect, or perhaps not even be able to clearly make out the dialog. IT's your call.

But, for music, which is two channels, I'll disable the center by simply selecting "stereo"

 

[big O]

No dread IMO.

For truly amazing discrete 5.1, I don't see how a phantom center is better than a great dedicated center speaker in terms of clarity and intelligibility of dialogue, especially during loud scenes.

But for 2.0 original sources, I think keeping it 2.0/2.1 is the way to go.

Of course, whatever works best for us is good.

I won't disagree. Please see my opinion of the klipsch kg 5.2 as center.

Of course the keyword in your post is great. A great Centre trumps a phantom center .many center speakers are not great.

Great center > phantom center >average center speaker

 

[prerich]

agree on the horizontal - but I also tested the paradigm center vertical. still sounded small. also the atom was vertical- still sounded small.

when i say mono what i mean is that movies have the dialogue ( and a lot of other content) hard panned to that center speaker, with no blending with the other speakers.

having said that I only listen to two channel music and multichannel is reserved for movies -this may be one reason I have found the center to be a detriment- maybe listening to actual multi channel music may be different.

so, what about the smoothing effect of multiple speakers that I alluded to in my first post? for example with subwoofers. wont this be even more important with full range speakers?

What do you mean when you say that the center channel sounds "small"? I'm using three Klipsch Cornwalls (the center channel happens to be a Cornwall Vertical). My pans are smooth and the soundstage is very unified. Now my speakers are much further apart than yours (about 15 feet apart with the Cornwall Vertical at the mid-way point) - I sit about 12 feet from my side speakers and about 11 feet from the center.

Wow!!! I just read the rest of your post....I only listen to 2 channel music...in 2 channels. Listening to a multi-channel performance will bring out the difference. Multi-channel is reserved for multi-channel and 2 channel is reserved for 2 channel. The only processors that I've found that can properly synthesize 2 channel music into multi channel are these Ol' Timers:

Fosgate Model 3A - panorama and Jazz modes engaged
Citation 7.0 - Six Axis engaged
Lexicon CP3

All three of these were with identical speakers.

 

[prerich]

anyone want to comment on this? this pic is the sound system of a guy i bought(he practically gave it to me) and amp from. im looking at sonus faber amati homage speakers 20k / pair. i dont know what the other speakers are but they look expensive. this pic easily contains over 50k worth of audio gear, and the expensive center speaker is sitting on the floor. so in this case, wouldnt it have been better for this guy to use a phantom center?

He has a 2 channel set up and a surround setup. The surround setup looks like Joseph Audio speakers - the center channel on the floor - because of its size it was convenient to place it there. No it wouldn't be better to use a phantom for multi-channel sources, what would have been better was a small stand to get his center about 6 inches off the floor. However many people are about looks - and the fit - would look better on the floor than on a stand in front of his other gear.

 

[big O]

I'm using three Klipsch Cornwalls (the center channel happens to be a Cornwall Vertical

very nice. i now have three klipsch fortes across the front. very pleasing sound

 

[big O]

He has a 2 channel set up and a surround setup. The surround setup looks like Joseph Audio speakers - the center channel on the floor - because of its size it was convenient to place it there. No it wouldn't be better to use a phantom for multi-channel sources, what would have been better was a small stand to get his center about 6 inches off the floor. However many people are about looks - and the fit - would look better on the floor than on a stand in front of his other gear.

thanks for posting. i was wondering what those other speakers were.
my center channel i now have on the floor, ironically enough lol

 

[big O]

He has a 2 channel set up and a surround setup. The surround setup looks like Joseph Audio speakers - the center channel on the floor - because of its size it was convenient to place it there. No it wouldn't be better to use a phantom for multi-channel sources, what would have been better was a small stand to get his center about 6 inches off the floor. However many people are about looks - and the fit - would look better on the floor than on a stand in front of his other gear.

found out the surround. hales transcendence t8 fronts , t1 surrounds, and cinema center. nice

 

[gene]

Reviving an old thread with a relevant article and Youtube video we just published.

Top Six Reasons Audiophiles Hate The Center Channel

The center channel is perhaps the most important speaker in a home theater, but some audiophiles just hate it for music. We'll give you SIX reasons why we think along with our Youtube discussion.

www.audioholics.com

 

[gene]

 

[MrBoat]

Don't hate center channel, just don't have a need for it. I spent a lot of years working stereo and getting good at it. The only thing really missing was a more comprehensive bass management and BSC becoming a reliable standard with speaker design. Stereo managed to catch that stage forward presence and is pretty darn amazing. It was what ended up hooking so many of us old timers into audio in the first place and hold us there for decades.

The only downsides of more basic two-channel is, once you get it right, your done, and the only remaining and most persistent hurdle is recording quality differences. By "done," I mean, no more fixing anything or shopping for upgrades. Great, if the music itself is actually the end goal, perhaps not so, if system building and tweaking is. The other, being, that it doesn't leave much to talk about on audio forums. I mean, look how many new products you reviewers have to go thru just to keep this channel moving. Y'all need as many channels, new effects and speakers to talk about as you can get.

The same two speakers and subs that I have been listening to for nearly 6 years now, managed to hook me into a 13 hour session on Sunday that I should have been doing yard chores. Every time I would go to get up, a good song would come on and before I knew it, the dog was hitting me up for her dinner and it was getting dark out. Not once during that session could I imagine an improvement. It is instead, almost 'too' good.

I don't know. . .this constant, otherworldly, spatial effects chase, is getting a bit too involved for my needs. I don't envy those who never quite get enough. Instead I end up wondering WTH can be wrong with their room or their main speakers to where there are these 'holes' in their soundstage.

 

[ben_]

The only downsides of more basic two-channel is, once you get it right, your done, and the only remaining and most persistent hurdle is recording quality differences. By "done," I mean, no more fixing anything or shopping for upgrades. Great, if the music itself is actually the end goal, perhaps not so, if system building and tweaking is. The other, being, that it doesn't leave much to talk about on audio forums. I mean, look how many new products you reviewers have to go thru just to keep this channel moving. Y'all need as many channels, new effects and speakers to talk about as you can get.

At some point, I think people choose, consciously or subconsciously, between the music and the gear. Neither is wrong, but I wish people could be more honest about themselves about whether they're listening to the music, or listening to the equipment.

 

[HuenEye]

I don't like or use a center channel because it localizes voices and music. I design my own speakers so I selected drivers that have wide horizontal dispersion and I get uniform response no matter where I sit on my couch with no tonal shifts or phasing issues and when the music or special effects pan across the front there is no discontinuation. The phantom channel provides a taller dispersion than a center channel speaker would allow. I also I use Atmos speakers and dual subs. I own a JVC projector and 96" movie screen.

 

[TLS Guy]

I don't like or use a center channel because it localizes voices and music. I design my own speakers so I selected drivers that have wide horizontal dispersion and I get uniform response no matter where I sit on my couch with no tonal shifts or phasing issues and when the music or special effects pan across the front there is no discontinuation. The phantom channel provides a taller dispersion than a center channel speaker would allow. I also I use Atmos speakers and dual subs. I own a JVC projector and 96" movie screen.

Welcome another DIY speaker builder and designer. Care to share your designs.

 

[Arthur Watson]

I spent years listening to the equipment, spending money, changing nearly everything, but finally have arrived, I hope , at my destination. Klipsch floor standers all around, 2x 8insubs, 1x 12in sub, and now listening to the music it still took a while to get it right, but now I feel I am on the stage, centre front, with the music all around me, playing at concert hall levels, wonderful. I knew living on the Scottish moors, with the nearest neighbours around a mile away would turn out well!.

 

[HuenEye]

Welcome another DIY speaker builder and designer. Care to share your designs.

I'll post some pics when I get on another computer.

My speakers aren't pretty but I built them for sound . . . not looks. I have lots of crazy ideas which are based on my experiences of going to about 2000 concerts . . . and listening to the music and not the visuals. My late Dad taught me to 'hear' like that when I was about 5 or so and when my parents took me to Broadway musicals from 1957 on.

A photo I took years ago when I was working for CBS records as a photographer and received photo passes.

 

[Roy Heape]

Not an audiophile by no means, but a great read, even for us bottom feeders. I have 2 speakers and a subwoofer coming to try and get an old 5.1 receiver up and going. I was going to run at 2.1. Your article reminded me I have the same speaker as the ones I ordered in storage. The mate was damaged in a fire. 1'm going to give 3.1 a chance, just for the fun of it , and see what happens.

 

[Eppie]

One of Jacob's better articles and a good read. My AVR has two cinema surround modes, one for movies and one for music. The music mode puts less emphasis on the centre channel which does improve things but for stereo source material I still find the centre channel receives too much weight. I have the matching centre speaker to my mains in a WMTW configuration but I still notice the slight timber mismatch. It's very difficult to create a horizontal speaker that sounds exactly the same as its vertical counterpart, so I can understand the dislike for centre channels in music.

For movies and TV, the important thing to me is intelligibiity of dialogue and to have the dialogue anchored to the centre to give the illusion that the dialogue is coming from screen. A good centre speaker can accomplish this and dialogue is very clear on my system. For music I like to create the feeling of being at the performance and having the speakers disappear as point sources. Unless the centre channel blends in seamlessly, that illusion is lost. I don't think that it's so much audiophile snobbery but an illustration of just how difficult it is to create a truly seamless front stage with three speakers. Those with three identical front speakers are in the vast minority.