Third Channel (i.e., 3.1) or Not?

[John Parks]

Hey AH peeps! I've been doing some thinking and researching and would like solicit your valuable collective input. As some of you may or may not know, my main interest when it comes to audio playback is strictly two channel - I have no real interest in setting up a surround system. Recently, I purchased a Pioneer Elite VSX-LX503, mostly to play with features not found in your typical 2CH setup (MCACC, etc). What has been bothering me is the Pioneer has all these "wasted" channels of amplification. So I got to thinking, "What if I were to add a center channel and have a proper 3.1 setup?". I really, really like my Elac Adante AS-61s and there is a matching center channel speaker, the AC-61, which is quite the monster:

It originally retailed for $2K and I can get a new one for around $800. This kind of makes sense to me because yes, my system is dual purpose and video is a part of it. I have no problems with dialog and my "phantom center" performs admirably, but adding cubic inches of speaker displacement is always fun! Also, I have a lot of 3 channel SACDs (most of the Living Stereo collection was originally recorded this way) and multi channel SACDs, DVD Audio and Blu-Ray Audio.

The only real issue is how my system exists today and where I would place the center speaker:

I would need to place it on the second shelf and shift my AVR and Blu-Ray player to the first shelf. The second shelf is 19" above the floor, placing the center line of the drivers at just about 24" (keep in mind my LR speakers sit on 24" stands and the midpoint between tweeter and woofer is at approximately 34"). Luckily, the AC-61's shape allows it to easily orient it in an upward angel and comes with handy dandy rubber "wedges" to do so. Also, it is kind of neat that the AC-61 is almost exactly (minus 1/2") the size of the opening between the supports!

My main questions are 1) do y'all have experience with strictly 3.1 systems and how do you like it 2) will my soundstage "drop" because of the lower center 3) is it even worth it or am I just throwing money around?

Now onto the "Not" portion of the subject line. If I decide to not go the 3CH route, I am seriously considering replacing the Pioneer with a two channel integrated. I'm just not sold on the audio performance of the VSX-LX503, even listening via "pure direct" mode (oddly enough, it sounds much better with MCACC engaged - color me surprised!). Now I'm not really talking about tonality (though my flawed aural memory says it is not quite there) but imaging and soundstaging. No matter how I configure my speakers (toe in, toe out, moving back and forth, in and out) I can't get a super solid center image - it is rather diffuse - and the soundstage rarely, if ever, extends beyond the line of the speaker drivers. My Yamaha A-S801/KEF R500 setup that I had to sell had a rock solid center image (when it was on the recording) and, on certain tracks (take Roger Waters' Amused to Death for example) sound cues stretched to beyond 180 degrees (i.e., sounds coming from over my shoulder). I thought it was perhaps my Elacs, but my Focals are the same way, which leads me to believe it is my AVR. Anyway, this would be my first choice:

Or, I may go back to Yamaha because it is a known entity and I can save some $$$!

Opinions? Lighting torches? Rabble rousing?

 

[Zildjianmeister]

Hi,
I have a 3.1 setup and I think it makes a big difference. i used to have a 5.1 setup at my previous residence but with the way our family room is setup currently I can't really add surrounds. It's more like the WAF. As much as I'd like surrounds the 3.1 gets the job done for me.

I'm mostly 2 channel as well as I don't watch as many movies on the system. However when I do I find I enjoy it more than with just stereo mode. Myself I do have an integrated with an avr in home theater bypass mode. I've tried just using the integrated with 2 channel and movies with phantom center; leaving the avr out of the equation. I find it's just not as enjoyable.....for me.... If anything I think an avr or processor would be needed to get the LFE and a more enjoyable experience with movies, even in 2 channel. If the movies are older and mostly dialogue it probably won't matter.

In fact soon I might not have a choice...I may have to drop my center at some point because my wife is currently looking at a new shelving setup. sigh...... oh, I have my center on the bottom shelf of our tv stand. Seems fine in my setup but then again I haven't tried it on the upper shelf.

Z

 

[NINaudio]

You seem to have a good deal of multi-channel audio that would benefit from a center.

I'd personally want a center on the top shelf of that stand where the TV currently resides. Could you wall mount the TV and then put the center channel there?

 

[John Parks]

Hi,
I have a 3.1 setup and I think it makes a big difference. i used to have a 5.1 setup at my previous residence but with the way our family room is setup currently I can't really add surrounds. It's more like the WAF. As much as I'd like surrounds the 3.1 gets the job done for me.

I'm mostly 2 channel as well as I don't watch as many movies on the system. However when I do I find I enjoy it more than with just stereo mode. Myself I do have an integrated with an avr in home theater bypass mode. I've tried just using the integrated with 2 channel and movies with phantom center; leaving the avr out of the equation. I find it's just not as enjoyable.....for me.... If anything I think an avr or processor would be needed to get the LFE and a more enjoyable experience with movies, even in 2 channel. If the movies are older and mostly dialogue it probably won't matter.

In fact soon I might not have a choice...I may have to drop my center at some point because my wife is currently looking at a new shelving setup. sigh...... oh, I have my center on the bottom shelf of our tv stand. Seems fine in my setup but then again I haven't tried it on the upper shelf.

Z

Thanks for input Z - that really helps! I'm glad to hear that the placement on the lower shelf is not too detrimental...

 

[John Parks]

You seem to have a good deal of multi-channel audio that would benefit from a center.

I'd personally want a center on the top shelf of that stand where the TV currently resides. Could you wall mount the TV and then put the center channel there?

Hey NIN! Yeah, that's the idea (multi-channel music) that's driving this (aside from shiny new toys!). Dunno if I want to go to the trouble of wall mounting as I'm currently in an apartment. When I designed these apartments, I designated blocking in the walls for just this scenario but the blocking is in the wall that makes the most sense for the most users which is, unfortunately, the wall opposite to where I need it. *I never thought I would be living here...

 

[lovinthehd]

Since your previous Yamaha 801 couldn't actually process a center channel, you are comparing the phantom center on the same 2ch stereo content just by sonic memory? No speaker or room or positioning change came along with the change in amp? Soundstage isn't an amp function particularly, it's a recording thing, altho I suppose upmixing might affect perception of it.

I have used 3.1, but did eventually expand to 5/7 channels the two times I started that way (and now have 2 7ch systems and 2 5ch systems as well as a 2ch system). I prefer the ability to handle whatever the recordings have to offer. With most multich content you're "wasting" the info by downmixing I suppose could be one way to look at it, altho those old 3ch recordings could be the exception. I wouldn't worry about unused amp channels, tho, just more juice available to the other channels.

If I added a center to the stand in your pic, it'd go on the top shelf and I'd either wall mount the tv or put it on a riser, but I'd want the center as close to the screen and ear height as I could get it.

 

[John Parks]

Since your previous Yamaha 801 couldn't actually process a center channel, you are comparing the phantom center on the same 2ch stereo content just by sonic memory? No speaker or room or positioning change came along with the change in amp? Soundstage isn't an amp function particularly, it's a recording thing, altho I suppose upmixing might affect perception of it.

I have used 3.1, but did eventually expand to 5/7 channels the two times I started that way (and now have 2 7ch systems and 2 5ch systems as well as a 2ch system). I prefer the ability to handle whatever the recordings have to offer. With most multich content you're "wasting" the info by downmixing I suppose could be one way to look at it, altho those old 3ch recordings could be the exception. I wouldn't worry about unused amp channels, tho, just more juice available to the other channels.

If I added a center to the stand in your pic, it'd go on the top shelf and I'd either wall mount the tv or put it on a riser, but I'd want the center as close to the screen and ear height as I could get it.

Well, I am relying on my memory but also extensive notes that I write down during listening "tests" (I don't do this often and only when evaluating a new piece of gear) and drawings ("visual" stimuli, grids, dimensions, plotted degrees, color/material impressions/representation). The room has not changed but the speakers have (why I mentioned both the Elacs and Focals).

Agreed on the center channel location, but as I mentioned to @NINaudio it's not really feasible at this point..

 

[lovinthehd]

Well, I am relying on my memory but also extensive notes that I write down during listening "tests" (I don't do this often and only when evaluating a new piece of gear) and drawings ("visual" stimuli, grids, dimensions, plotted degrees, color/material impressions/representation). The room has not changed but the speakers have (why I mentioned both the Elacs and Focals).

Agreed on the center channel location, but as I mentioned to @NINaudio it's not really feasible at this point..

I'd say it's more the change in speakers then if they are different (or are the Elac/Focal speakers in one case your old speakers?). Why can't you put the tv on a riser and put the speaker underneath that on the top shelf?

 

[John Parks]

I understand the change in speakers. The Elacs and Focals are what I have at the moment, replacing the KEFs that I sold last fall. Here is the thing: I've had two channel equipment all of my life from age 14 on (42 years). In the past 25 years (post college era) I've gone through may be five or six front end setups (CD/DVD/Blu-Ray players, pre amp/amps. integrated amps) and at least 12 sets of loudspeakers. Not once in that time was the imaging and soundstage lacking, even in various setup scenarios. Granted, some combos preformed better than others in that regard (the Yamaha/KEF paring being a recent case in point). From my not limited experience, I find it hard to fathom that not one, but two dramatically different speakers are having the exact same difficulties in a space that worked so well for the previous ones. I do not know why this may be, but I am inclined to think it is the AVR (and yes, in "pure direct" mode with any all processing [that I know of] turned off).

My equipment rack is right at 19" deep (two reclaimed 2x10s) and the Adante center channel is 15.61"D - not a lot of room. I also have to consider where and how far apart the TV's feet are. I like the idea of riser though...

 

[lovinthehd]

Can't help you, I've not had an issue between 2ch gear and avrs when it comes to imaging/soundstage with a wide variety of speakers in different rooms. Sonic memory, that's about as good as my regular memory these days LOL.

 

[2channel lover]

Hey AH peeps! I've been doing some thinking and researching and would like solicit your valuable collective input. As some of you may or may not know, my main interest when it comes to audio playback is strictly two channel - I have no real interest in setting up a surround system. Recently, I purchased a Pioneer Elite VSX-LX503, mostly to play with features not found in your typical 2CH setup (MCACC, etc). What has been bothering me is the Pioneer has all these "wasted" channels of amplification. So I got to thinking, "What if I were to add a center channel and have a proper 3.1 setup?". I really, really like my Elac Adante AS-61s and there is a matching center channel speaker, the AC-61, which is quite the monster:
View attachment 36997
It originally retailed for $2K and I can get a new one for around $800. This kind of makes sense to me because yes, my system is dual purpose and video is a part of it. I have no problems with dialog and my "phantom center" performs admirably, but adding cubic inches of speaker displacement is always fun! Also, I have a lot of 3 channel SACDs (most of the Living Stereo collection was originally recorded this way) and multi channel SACDs, DVD Audio and Blu-Ray Audio.

The only real issue is how my system exists today and where I would place the center speaker:
View attachment 36998
I would need to place it on the second shelf and shift my AVR and Blu-Ray player to the first shelf. The second shelf is 19" above the floor, placing the center line of the drivers at just about 24" (keep in mind my LR speakers sit on 24" stands and the midpoint between tweeter and woofer is at approximately 34"). Luckily, the AC-61's shape allows it to easily orient it in an upward angel and comes with handy dandy rubber "wedges" to do so. Also, it is kind of neat that the AC-61 is almost exactly (minus 1/2") the size of the opening between the supports!

My main questions are 1) do y'all have experience with strictly 3.1 systems and how do you like it 2) will my soundstage "drop" because of the lower center 3) is it even worth it or am I just throwing money around?

Now onto the "Not" portion of the subject line. If I decide to not go the 3CH route, I am seriously considering replacing the Pioneer with a two channel integrated. I'm just not sold on the audio performance of the VSX-LX503, even listening via "pure direct" mode (oddly enough, it sounds much better with MCACC engaged - color me surprised!). Now I'm not really talking about tonality (though my flawed aural memory says it is not quite there) but imaging and soundstaging. No matter how I configure my speakers (toe in, toe out, moving back and forth, in and out) I can't get a super solid center image - it is rather diffuse - and the soundstage rarely, if ever, extends beyond the line of the speaker drivers. My Yamaha A-S801/KEF R500 setup that I had to sell had a rock solid center image (when it was on the recording) and, on certain tracks (take Roger Waters' Amused to Death for example) sound cues stretched to beyond 180 degrees (i.e., sounds coming from over my shoulder). I thought it was perhaps my Elacs, but my Focals are the same way, which leads me to believe it is my AVR. Anyway, this would be my first choice:
View attachment 36999
Or, I may go back to Yamaha because it is a known entity and I can save some $$$!

Opinions? Lighting torches? Rabble rousing?

It's really in the recording.

Sometimes I forget to turn the rear channel amp on, other times I just want to hear the difference w/o the rears...many of the better multi-ch hi res discs do use the rear channels and imo they are better than 3.1

Just a few examples.

Pink Floyd...Wishing You Were Here...multi-ch SACD
Jeff Beck...Blow By Blow....multi-ch SACD (quad mix)
Eagles...Hotel California...multi-ch SACD
Fleetwood Mac...Rumours...multi-ch SACD
Earth Wind & Fire...Head To The Sky...multi ch SACD (quad mix)

Just touching on a handful.

Playing any of these w/o the rears and you're losing something.

Other 5.1 recordings, the rears have minimal impact...say something like Norah Jones...Come Away W/Me...Miles Davis... Kind Of Blue...these sound almost the same whether I turn on the rears or not.

Many of my 5.1 blu rays...I could play them 3.1 and not feel like I'm missing anything.

So imo...nothing wrong with a 3.1 system that's destined to be a 3.1 system...but realize some recordings you're not getting the full scope.

 

[John Parks]

Can't help you, I've not had an issue between 2ch gear and avrs when it comes to imaging/soundstage with a wide variety of speakers in different rooms. Sonic memory, that's about as good as my regular memory these days LOL.

Yeah, my main reason for posting was the possible inclusion of a center channel (you had valuable input - thanks!) not the imaging/soundstage issue (that's just me venting).

 

[John Parks]

It's really in the recording.

Sometimes I forget to turn the rear channel amp on, other times I just want to hear the difference w/o the rears...many of the better multi-ch hi res discs do use the rear channels and imo they are better than 3.1

Just a few examples.

Pink Floyd...Wishing You Were Here...multi-ch SACD
Jeff Beck...Blow By Blow....multi-ch SACD (quad mix)
Eagles...Hotel California...multi-ch SACD
Fleetwood Mac...Rumours...multi-ch SACD
Earth Wind & Fire...Head To The Sky...multi ch SACD (quad mix)

Just touching on a handful.

Playing any of these w/o the rears and you're losing something.

Other 5.1 recordings, the rears have minimal impact...say something like Norah Jones...Come Away W/Me...Miles Davis... Kind Of Blue...these sound almost the same whether I turn on the rears or not.

Many of my 5.1 blu rays...I could play them 3.1 and not feel like I'm missing anything.

So imo...nothing wrong with a 3.1 system that's destined to be a 3.1 system...but realize some recordings you're not getting the full scope.

Excellent - thanks! Yes, I am aware of the more "immersive" recordings and have had some awesome demos!

 

[panteragstk]

Honestly, the only reason my office has a center is because that's where we used to watch TV for the most part (best TV in the house) and dialog was sometimes hard to hear. Other than that, 2.1 or 4.1 worked just fine. I don't upmix music in the office so 2ch always worked great.

 

[TLS Guy]

I think the issue of a center channel is a difficult one. They can and often do make matters worse. Horizontal MTM is not a good idea.

I have a 7.2.4 system, a 3.1 system and a 2.2 system.

The two channel system has excellent dialog that remains centered wherever you are in the room

The AV system uses coaxial drivers and I think does help movie dialog. I do not have to run it hot.

The 3.1 uses 2 way right and left and a 3 way center. If you run it 2.1 or 3.1 the advantages are minimal. I think voice clarity is marginally improved. Dialog is well centered whether run 2.1 or 3.1.

I did have a problem with the 3.1 which you may run into with your 3.1 plans. Your mains are 2 way and the center you like is 3 way. Now often times the center has to be reverse phased to avoid nulls at crossover. My center when all drivers are all wired in positive polarity has a null at the 400 crossover. So correcting this puts the mid out of phase with the mains. That was a disaster. Fortunately the null was sharp and only on axis, not off axis. So the null is not a serious issue, but it could have been.

I suspect this is an overlooked problem when 2 and 3 way designs are mixed across the front speakers.

I did get an FR of your proposed center.

I forgot to shut down the subs, and unfortunately time did not permit further measurements. The speaker had good voice clarity with just a trace of shout.

BBC engineering remain opposed to center channels and do not provide one. I think they have a point as they so frequently do more harm than good.

 

[John Parks]

I think the issue of a center channel is a difficult one. They can and often do make matters worse. Horizontal MTM is not a good idea.

I have a 7.2.4 system, a 3.1 system and a 2.2 system.

The two channel system has excellent dialog that remains centered wherever you are in the room

The AV system uses coaxial drivers and I think does help movie dialog. I do not have to run it hot.

The 3.1 uses 2 way right and left and a 3 way center. If you run it 2.1 or 3.1 the advantages are minimal. I think voice clarity is marginally improved. Dialog is well centered whether run 2.1 or 3.1.

I did have a problem with the 3.1 which you may run into with your 3.1 plans. Your mains are 2 way and the center you like is 3 way. Now often times the center has to be reverse phased to avoid nulls at crossover. My center when all drivers are all wired in positive polarity has a null at the 400 crossover. So correcting this puts the mid out of phase with the mains. That was a disaster. Fortunately the null was sharp and only on axis, not off axis. So the null is not a serious issue, but it could have been.

I suspect this is an overlooked problem when 2 and 3 way designs are mixed across the front speakers.

I did get an FR of your proposed center.

I forgot to shut down the subs, and unfortunately time did not permit further measurements. The speaker had good voice clarity with just a trace of shout.

BBC engineering remain opposed to center channels and do not provide one. I think they have a point as they so frequently do more harm than good.

Thank you for the informed reply! A couple questions, if I may. So, did you run a FR sweep of the specific speaker (Adante AC-61) I am looking at or a typical "3 way"? Also, I am not sure what you are referring to when you are saying "2 way" and "3 way": are you referencing the design of the speaker (as in crossover, etc) or the number of drivers? To clarify, the standmount I have, the AS-61 is classified as a 3 way speaker (mid bass/midrange/tweeter) and the center channel AC-61 same. The crossover points at 200Hz and 2,000Hz are identical with the only real difference is the AC has (2) midbass drivers as opposed to the single midbass driver in the AS. And of course, the size of the enclosures.

 

[John Parks]

Honestly, the only reason my office has a center is because that's where we used to watch TV for the most part (best TV in the house) and dialog was sometimes hard to hear. Other than that, 2.1 or 4.1 worked just fine. I don't upmix music in the office so 2ch always worked great.

Thanks! This is the firs time I have even considered a center channel - I'be been more than happy with 2.1 since, well, forever. I'm not under the impression that it will be this dramatic OMG! moment - just CenCurious...

 

[panteragstk]

Thanks! This is the firs time I have even considered a center channel - I'be been more than happy with 2.1 since, well, forever. I'm not under the impression that it will be this dramatic OMG! moment - just CenCurious...

I'd just put an extra speaker where the center could go and see if it helps. If not, don't waste your time/money.

 

[MalVeauX]

Hrm,

Raise your TV; get a 3rd copy of your L/R mains and use that as your center (vertical) to avoid any comb filtering and you're good to go.

My personal experience, I'm actually quite pleased with 2 channel audio even in movies even though I have 5.2 and 7.2 systems. I've done 3 channel systems and ultimately didn't care enough to warrant the difficulty placing that center speaker with several setups compared to what it added. If you're happy with 2 channel, stick with 2 channel probably.

Very best,

 

[TLS Guy]

Thank you for the informed reply! A couple questions, if I may. So, did you run a FR sweep of the specific speaker (Adante AC-61) I am looking at or a typical "3 way"? Also, I am not sure what you are referring to when you are saying "2 way" and "3 way": are you referencing the design of the speaker (as in crossover, etc) or the number of drivers? To clarify, the standmount I have, the AS-61 is classified as a 3 way speaker (mid bass/midrange/tweeter) and the center channel AC-61 same. The crossover points at 200Hz and 2,000Hz are identical with the only real difference is the AC has (2) midbass drivers as opposed to the single midbass driver in the AS. And of course, the size of the enclosures.

A two way speaker has a tweeter and a mid woofer or more. A three way has woofer, or more, plus mid or mids and tweeter.

Your speakers are two way. The center you sighted is a three way with mid/tweeter coaxial driver. That is the speaker that I showed the FR for.

The problem comes that in three ways there is often a null at crossover and this can be dealt with by reversing the phase of the mid driver, like Dennis Murphy's Philharmonitor for instance.

The problem comes if the mains are two way and the center three way, then correcting the null puts the center mid out of phase with the main's bass mid. I can assure you that is not good. So it becomes better to accept the null and keep the mid in phase with the mains.

The problem is that a center 2 way MTM with horizontal lay out is compromised, especially when the crossover is in the speech discrimination band.

So the solutions are a vertically aligned center, a full range driver for the center, a coaxial driver for the center , or a three way with a mid good enough to cover the whole of the speech discrimination band. The problem is that really good full rangers are very rare, coaxial drivers are also not plentiful, nor are mids that can cover the whole of the speech discrimination band at power plentiful. All of this adds to making a center speaker a real design challenge. I agree with the BBC that center speakers in most cases are a problem and not a useful addition if the mains are capable and can project a stable central image over a wide area.

Solutions I have employed are a full ranger (vintage JW) at our Eagan residence. This was a small town home, and this actually worked out very well.

In the AV room a biamped TL using two SEAS coaxial drivers, which is a unique, 2.5.5 way. That is an incredibly good center channel with the most natural speech I think I have heard from any speaker. Its development was arduous to say the least. I think though of all the speakers I have designed that is the one I am most proud of. The mains though seemingly more complex, and they are were in fact the easier design project. The center matches them perfectly, though different in design and construct.

In my latest in wall design for our now home's great room, I designed a system with right and left MTM 2 way, for the center a three way with a mid crossed at 400 Hz and 4 KHz. So the mid covers the speech discrimination band. The sub is a TL in wall. Quite honestly this system would have been fine as a 2.1 system. So it really became 3.1 as I wanted the challenge of designing a three way center. I have to say that center speakers pose a huge design challenge.

Full range center system, now taken down.

Coaxail TL center.

Three way center in wall system.

Here is the null I was talking about. The back trace is the on axis response.

However the null gets obscured. This is all channels driven, at all the listening chairs in the room, plus the green line, which is way off axis and at the kitchen cook top, that is the green trace.

o perform

So it all ends up having good in room coverage over a wide area.

This system is jealously guarded by my wife, who regards it as her system. This is 98% a TV and movie system. She does blast her music from her ipod from time to time. The main thing is that speech clarity is excellent and natural. It is though also a very good music system, although that is not its primary purpose. It is to perform as an excellent TV sound system, was its primary purpose goal. It has made my wife happy.

So those are the only realistic options for the center channel in my view.

If you are happy with your system, and you a stable center image with good speech clarity, then I don't think a center will add anything of significance.