In an HT system, you don't HAVE to use a center channel *or* a subwoofer (1 Viewer)

[LanceJ]

Remember folks, I'm only writing this to make CERTAIN people aware that they have options when it comes to the center & subwoofer--I never said these two items were worthless additions.

And some of you guys must be skimming over my long-winded post because I didn't say half the things y'all are saying I said! :frowning:

From Infinity's website: 50Hz – 40kHz (– 6dB)

The -6dB figure should apply just to the upper frequency response limit so (EDIT) > it looks like a misprint, because on Vann's website it says "30Hz-50kHz -6dB" which makes more sense.

But the standard +/-3dB is cited for the other rating for this 2 X 6.5" woofer design: 45Hz-20kHz.

My Boston Acoustic CR9's are rated down to a similar 42Hz +/-3dB and they have plenty of bass, enough to cause CDs placed on top to jitter off after a only a few seconds of rumbling from AOTC or LOTR and cause minor physical rumbling in my couch cushions (the brochure didn't bullshit about the woofers using a long-excursion design). THAT is why I'm not in a hurry to buy a sub, especially considering my current 2nd floor living situation.

Anyhoo.........

Also, if the Beta C360 is a sealed design like its nearly identical Alpha-series predecessor, its response will taper off much more gradually than a ported type so I'm guessing it will make it down to at least about 35Hz before it becomes inaudible. Either way, that's enough for me! And anyway, this thing is BIG and it weighs 35lbs--this is starting to push even my own practicality limits! And since bass management for the hi-res formats in

 

[Ilkka R]

If your mains can put out some major bass (very few can and they are not cheap!), there is no need for the sub. But that means they have dig deep, around 20Hz or lower. But on the other hand, most *subs* don't go that low (SVS's aside ).

But if you don't want to miss anything (or atleast very little), your FR should extend down to 20Hz.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

(emphasis mine)

 

[Philip Hamm]

Some people live in apartments and townhomes which can be a problem with subs. For these people no sub and no sound under 40Hz is not an option. It's that or eviction.

 

[Max F]

I find that my sweet spot for stereo is about 8 inches wide. I sit up straight with my feet on the floor while listening to music - it sounds great. For movies, i like to kick my legs up over the side of the couch and chill, not worrying about having my head positioned straight with my ears pointing toward the front speakers. Oh and my wife gets to be a part of the experience too.

Sure the center is not totally necessary, but i wouldn't want to live without it, especially with DD (in the prologic days the center wasn't that big of a deal). I actually really enjoy surround music too for the same reasons stated above.

A sub REALLY makes a big difference in movies, IMHO.

 

[AlbertD]

If a center channel is used, obviously care should be taken on which center channel to go with. Some feel that, if possible, the center channel should be the exact same speaker as the front mains, and oriented vertically and the same height as well. Anything less is a compromise. That compromise can be mitigated somewhat by going with a center channel that is from the same company, and from the same model line. And provided quality is equal to the mains, this can be a very good compromise and sound incredible. But with a two speaker setup as the front soundstage one does not lose material, it gets mixed and rerouted to the front mains, and provided that the room is large with a large sweet spot, and that the mains are up to the challange, the sound "can" exceed what can be created in a system with a center channel. For 99% of us, (including me) a center channel is a must due to the size of our rooms, where our listening position is, where the company sits, the ability of our receivers and front mains. So if you are going to go with a center channel speaker, it "can" be the most important speaker in the mix, but that in no way negates the fact that a high quality two speaker setup, given the right conditions, can meet or exceed any three speaker front sound stage.

Additionally, some find that lack of clarity in dialog in the center channel has more to do with lack of power in the amp than lack of quality in the speaker. But not always.

A few years ago, I believe there was a looooog thread on this site on 2 vs. 3 speaker setups across the front. It was a facinating discourse.

 

[BrianAe]

Even -6db at 40hz is pretty low for mains. Especially if this is supposed to be clean output with low distortion. I would have to say that most moderately priced monitors and even towers do more like -3db at 65 hz clean. I think a sub really helps the sound of most speakers if it is well integrated. Give a listen some time to a big orchestral piece with and without your sub. Listen to how much better the percussion sounds with the sub involved.

 

[John S]

I did look in manual. And it is true, if I setup, that I do not have a center speaker, the phantom center is setup in the front two speakers.

I may give it a shot some day.

 

[Robert_Dufresne]

Albert

The movie producers record a sound track that is mixed specifically to be played using a left, center and a wright channel. It is then logical to say that the best way of reproducing that soundtrack is by using a left, center and wright channel.

Using the phantom mode is a step back to the days of analog prologic where all channels where derived from a left and a wright channel. You loose the advantage of DD where all channels are distinctly recorded and meant to be played that way.





Yes it can, using speakers of equal quality ,a three speaker setup will always give a better placement of sounds (especially voices) than a two speaker setup can. You cant change the laws of physics.

 

[LanceJ]

People enjoyed watching movies long before subs or surround systems even existed, so for a good movie extreme low bass and/or surround effects are only supplements to the story & its characters.....in my opinion of course.

 

[Mifr44]

You definitely are a candidate for a center speaker for movies. For myself, I can sit at either end of our couch (5' wide seating area), and I still get a rock-solid stereo image pinned midway between the mains. It is because of this that I keep going back and forth between using the center speaker and not using it.

Michael

 

[ChrisHeflen]

Lance,
You have given some good ideas for people not in the know or short of funds.
But to have everybody sit there and say yes/no to a sub/center is futile.
It's like saying blue is better than red.
I'm mean really, one could say that you can still understand a movie if you just watched it through your tv speakers. That's a no brainer, but you are missing so much more by not listening to it on a system. Or are you?
My point is, to each his own after we know our options/limits. There is no wrong way to watch a movie if you can see or hear it, is there?

 

[AlbertD]

Robert:

You are certainly entiled to your opinions. I was careful to say "might" and "can". Your statements are specific:

"...three speaker setup will always give a better placement of sounds (especially voices) than a two speaker setup can. You cant change the laws of physics."

It can not be proven that a three speaker setup "always" give a better placement and futher there is no law of Physics that says three speakers sound better than two. While I respect your right to trust your own opinions and your own ears, these are not facts.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

People enjoyed movies long before color film even existed. That does not mean I will enjoy a movie that was filmed in color on a black and white TV, any more than I would enjoy 5.1 sound out of a 4.0 surround system. If the color is there, I want to see it and if the channel is there, I want to hear it. Users of the "phantom" center may have a point, but to claim a sub is not necessary because of a lack of

 

[Lewis Besze]

It has been "proven" for a longtime since the dawn of "Stereo". There has been considerable research been done by Bell Labs on this wery issue,and they concluded that 3 speakers are better to create a complete front satge then 2.They essentially called "Stereo" a compromise.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Whooops, better get over to the "Transporters are not possible" thread in After Hours. If you can't tread water in the deep end of that one, better not talk about the "laws of physics" here at the HTF. I'm an engineer and I barely held my head above water in that thread.

 

[AlbertD]

Actually it was Lewis that stated that a law of physics supports his statement that three speakers always sounds better than two. I'd like to see the law. But as this type of thread can easily spin out of control, and my opinions are clearly stated, I think I will take Parker's outstanding past advice and exercise my choice to ignore any further debate. But there is just something about people that post things as "facts" but don't provide "factual" evidence other than generally believed opinions. I don't hide, my opinions are just that, opinions.

 

[Edward J M]

I'm going to take exception with the nomenclature here. While I see what you are getting at, "4.0" (and other similar permutations) is not really an accurate way of describing what you are accomplishing with the speaker set-up menu. Take your example:

Speakers: 2 mains, and 2 surrounds.

Management Settings:
Fronts = large
Center = off/no
Surrounds = small
Subwoofer = off/no

The above is 5.1 - you are hearing all six channels, but you are just doing it with 4 speakers.

Now if you really wanted a "4.0" system, this is what you would have to do:

Speakers: 2 mains, and 2 surrounds.

Management Settings:
Fronts = large
Center = yes
Surrounds = small
Subwoofer = yes

This will send the center channel signal and the LFE channel signal into electronic oblivion, and would truly be a "4.0" system.

FWIW, I am also running a phantom center channel in my upstairs rig, using vintage New Advent Large speakers (set to "large" with the center channel set to "no"), and I like it just fine - vocals come through perfectly and the front sound stage is solid.

Regards,

Ed

 

[Philip Hamm]

No, that would be an unusable improperly set up cluster-eff.

And can we please give the whole "phantom is better/center is better" debate a friggin' rest??? That really does not have a place here, the original post was talking about a situation where for one reason or another somebody can not or does not want to accomodate a sub and/or a center. He was trying to make it clear that there are options for people who still want cool surround sound but can't use one of these speakers for whatever reason.

You can listen to and enjoy 5.1 or 6.1 soundtracks on 4 speakers if that's all you can accomodate or all you want. You don't have to give up on the concept.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Perhaps if you took the time to quote me correctly and not misrepresent what I said would be a good start? I didn't say that a law of physics supports the theory that 3 speakers are better that 2. What I said that there had been consideribale research on this and it's conclusion was that 3 are better then 2.But it isn't a law of anything.This is also an opinion,however it was based on countless studies of acoustics and how the ear/human brain percieves sounds.People like Floyd E Toole of CNR spent most of his life on the subject,and thanks to him and others like him, we[well some of us] have better understanding of this and and can enjoy it's results[like surround sound].You can ignore me all you want won't hurt my feelings,but you ignoring a lot of ojective studies on the subject too,and you will only do a disservice to yourself, if you have interest in this hobby.