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

[Jacob C]

You just can't say it any better than that.

 

[Dick Boneske]

I have determined that my HT system sounds equally as good with or without the center channel. I use Infinity Quantum II's for the main left and right speakers. They are spaced 13' apart and seating is 15' from them. Center channel info, usually dialogue, appears to come from the 57" TV screen that is between the speakers and at the same height as the midrange and tweeters. There is no seating in my room that causes listeners to be aware there is no center channel speaker.

I tried using a third Infinity Quantum speaker in the center directly above the TV screen. It sounds OK, but does not improve the system. With this speaker in place, it is relatively easy to switch the amplifier between "phantom and center channel" modes for comparison. After getting my wife's and other people's opinions of the two modes, I removed the center speaker and have never missed it.

The Infinity Quantum II's are large floor standing acoustic suspension systems with 12" Watkins woofers that are down 3 db at 28 HZ--better than most subwoofers. The addition of two Parts Express 15" Infinite baffle subs driven by a Hafler DH-500 did improve the system. I have not suceeded in eliminating all the room vibrations and buzzing caused by the IB mounting in the floor behind the main speakers. This will take quite a lot of work, as everything seems to rattle at these low frequencies--15-25 HZ.

 

[LanceJ]

I figured this might be a good time to review this thread (and the economy is even worse IMO, so this might ease the pressure on certain HT fans).

 

[Greg-ST]

Like a few others have said, I want to experience a soundtrack the way it was intended to be experienced. For 5.1 I'll use a center and a sub as well even if some people feel that two speakers up front can equal the job of four (center, left, right, sub). Why would I phantom the center when my JBL EC35 performs its job admirably? My two E30's up front can image very well, but I'd never have them take over the job of the center with a 5.1 soundtrack. I have indeed tried it before and it's just not the same. A great center channel can really enhance the experience regardless if you feel that two speakers up front phantoming the center sounds good, IMO.

As for the sub, well, it's not leaving my setup anytime soon.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

While for multichannel music you probably can get away without a sub and obviously a 2 channel setup doesn't need a center, but for HT? I say that you need a sub. At least assuming that it does extend the low freq range and improve loudness with less distortion than the mains. And if you have seating off-axis from the center of the room, then you need a center to to keep that info pinned to the display.

 

[LanceJ]

You know, I don't remember ever saying to anyone that centers and subs are not useful or that they should stop using the ones they already own.

In my original post, which few people seem to be reading, this thread is for people with specific needs i.e. 1) they can't AFFORD all the speakers for a 5.1 system 2) they don't WANT a full 5.1 system because of decorating issues or don't give a rat's behind about sub-40Hz bass or 3) they CAN'T USE a particular speaker because of a room's or living situation's restrictions.

Millions of people think an iPod or a $300 HTiB are the height of audio fidelity - that type of thinking is what makes me write posts like this.

 

[Dick Boneske]

Lance's three points in the above post are very true. There is a fourth point, also. If your room requires placement of the two main front speakers fairly close to each other (my Infinity Quantum II's are 7' apart), and your listening position is 14' from the speakers and TV screen, a center channel speaker does not add anything to the home theater experience. My Pioneer 1014X, which is similar to other receivers, allows switching from a real center channel to phantom. I've done an A/B test with and without a third Infinity Quantum center channel. My wife and others that listened to various programs agree--the center channel adds nothing.

The surround speakers I use are ARLSTII, which have tweeters pointing left, right, and center. This helps create a better, smoother transition from front speakers to surround when the program requires. These surrounds are 20' apart and 14' from the front speakers, which is directly aside the main listening position. The rear surround, a single AR3a, is centered behind the listening position and 30' from the front speakers. The rear surround effects, especially on DTS-ES programs adds quite a lot of spatial realism.

I use a pair of Dayton Infinite Baffle 15" subs mounted in the floor behind the main speakers. These and the rear surround are driven by a Hafler DH500 power amp through the preamp outputs on the Pioneer receiver. This subwoofer setup helps with bass output level below 60 Hz, even though the Infinitys go well into the 20 Hz range. With the subs turned off, there is no problem with low frequency response, but as you know, with home theater, you sometimes need a lot of bass output level.

One final thought--A conventional two-channel stereo setup needs a center channel fully as badly as a home theater setup. Most music has vocals in the center of the stage--just as most vocals in movies are in the center. Some postings imply that information is lost by not having the center or subwoofer speakers in place. This is not true of modern receivers. They send the info to the front, surround, and rear speakers if you select the proper configuration. I won't get into a discussion of "large" versus "small" for receiver speaker settings. This seems to generate a lot of controversy.

 

[Greg-ST]

I don't think that's what's being implied. It's just that you're squeezing in even more sound information to those speakers that wasn't meant to be heard from them in a 5.1 soundtrack.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Actually- Greg has a good point. The biggest thing I got out of comparing the 5.1 mix vs 2.0 mix of Dark Side of the Moon, was that the 5.1 mix had a lot more clarity. I could hear *deeper* into the soundstage. And I directly attributed that to the density of information per speaker being less in the multichannel mix vs the 2 ch mix.

Lance- I think it was Home Theater mag, they just reviewed a $60 HTiB. Very well written review, and they said that actually for the $60, it was a great starting point for a proper Home Theater setup.

I think when it comes down to cost it's not that a lot of people tradeoff video vs audio, they simply don't care about the audio as much. So cost isn't even the issue.

 

[Brian L]

That is correct if you are talking about DD and DTS stuff decoded in the receiver. It may also be correct if you are talking hi-rez stuff that gets from the player to the receiver via DenonLINK, iLink or the like.

But it all goes to hell when you are talking hi-rez that gets from the player to the receiver via a 5.1 analog connection.

Its pretty well known that the .1 channel gets lost if the player is set for no Sub, and I think either DVD-A or SACD will not down mix the center is you delete that channel.

As far as my 2CH system goes, I sit dead nuts in the sweet spot 90% of the time, and the center image is solid and coherent. Would a real center channel sound better? Perhaps, but how would it be derived from 2CH content?

And when I don't sit in the sweet spot, I still don't get a full collapse to the adjacent channel. Perhaps that has to do with the dispersion capabilities of my loudspeakers (NHT Absolute Zero's), but the point is that I do not feel compelled to add a center to my 2CH rig.

But in a MC rig, I would say that it is a necessity for off-axis listeners.

IMHO, of course.

Brian

 

[Chuck Bogie]

For a movie (and I sit 12' away from a 92" screen), I prefer a center channel. But for music (and that includes DVDs), I think things sound better without it. And while my HT speakers are low/mid-end (Infinity Entra Threes for fronts, the larger of the two centers for the center, Entra twos on the sides (floor speakers on top of 4' high shelves), and two of the small centers hanging from the ceiling for the rears), they do match with each other pretty nicely.

I recently bought a Behringer FBQ3102 equalizer, and it's got a sub out, with 18db crossover, etc... I'm going to build another pair of subs, this time probably sealed boxes, and run them under the fronts, and see how that works. I'm guessing things may get interesting as I turn my 2-way speaks (TMM) into three-ways. I'm a little nervous about running the speaks as "large" with as much LFE as is present in today's flicks, so we'll see what happens when I do this... I'm going to keep my present dual 15" LFE sub, and just use the "speaker subs" for the "full range" fronts.

In my living room, I have a pair of maggie MMGs, and I wouldn't use a center with 'em. But I wouldn't have 'em in the basement either, since I tend to play a little loud down there...

 

[LanceJ]

Key word in that phrase: the LFE channel. I haven't done any intensive controlled research on this, but the really rumbly stuff is not in the satellite channels.....which makes sense, because that's what the LFE channel exists for in the first place.

From listening to (and literally feeling ) my own speakers while various movies play & reading pro sites about movie soundtrack mixing, it seems about the lowest frequencies that get sent to the sats is around 40Hz. That isn't exactly "lite" bass itself and can still punch you in the chest at higher volumes, but it's nothing like the scary/colon-jarring stuff that is sometimes placed in the LFE channel these days (Attack Of The Clones is a good example of all this).

Surround MUSIC is a whole other story though.

 

[Ed+S]

I agree with Albert. If your 2 channels have a good soundstage, they will always sound better than an added center channel. The center channel is only beneficial if your mains do not create a good soundstage in your listening position.

My Paradigm Reference Studio 100's, driven by an Aragon amp image wonderfully. When I am by myself, I turn off the center speaker and enjoy the sound more. When there are other people with me in compromised listening positions, the center channel is re-activated.

Anybody that thinks their center channel makes their system sound better in the sweet spot has a problem with their 2 channel set-up. It could be poor speakers, poor speaker location, or room problems. Room problems and speaker location problems are extremely common. Life is full of compromises when integrating a HT system into a living room.

If your mains create a sweet spot (not all people are fortunate enough to have a true sweet spot where you hear music coming from an entire sound stage) 2 channel is the best for a front soundstage. I have yet to hear a movie soundtrack that requires the center to sound proper and don't think one exists. If the center channel is ever anything more than matrixes LORD, it would totally destroy any ability to create a cohesive soundstage using 3 speakers.

With a good soundstage, 2 channel music is much more realistic than multi-channel. I can not remember the last time that I listened to a multi-channel SACD. I always listen to 2 channel SACD. They sound more like live music coming from a stage.

As for a sub... Not needed, but even though my speakers have great bass extension, I will never give up my Paradigm Servo-15.

Ed

 

[LanceJ]

Not to get too philosophic, but what exactly is "realistic" music? And I don't mean the sound of the music, but the music *itself*. Because if painters, sculptors and other artists were held to such a standard, we would be missing out on so much beauty & they wouldn't be able to properly share their thoughts/emotions which don't always match the next person's.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

You must have not listened to a good multichannel music setup yet then. Humans hear in 3-D. A proper MC music setup will always beat a 2-D stereo setup for soundstage, imaging, envelopment, immersion, etc. I actually used to think like you do: give me stereo or give me death! ... Until I got the DSOTM SACD.

 

[RichardH]

"The biggest thing I got out of comparing the 5.1 mix vs 2.0 mix of Dark Side of the Moon, was that the 5.1 mix had a lot more clarity."


I don't really see that as a valid test because those are two different mixes using the same multitrack. A more valid comparison would be listening to the 5.1 mix and the same mix folded down by the receiver.

The 2.0 mix was optimized for 2.0, and the 5.1 mix was optimized for surround. I'm sure there are things the engineer did differently to bring things out in the surround mix, as that's a large part of the reason for doing a 5.1 mix.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Duh! The whole point *is* to compare those two mixes. That 2.0 mix was specifically mixed for 2.0. The 5.1 mix was mixed specifically for 5.1. Why listen to the 5.1 mix downmixed to 2.0? The 5.1 mix is not meant to be listened to that way.

In other words, the best mix for 2.0 is the 2.0 mix. The best mix for 5.1 is the 5.1 mix. *That* is the way to compare whether stereo sounds "better" or "worse" than multichannel in terms of this or any other recording. The answer to me, is obvious.

The best way that I can describe it, and most of you should know this already, is that by itself, a good 2.0 mix can be fantastic. Soundstage, depth, width, etc. The problem comes in when you compare a good 2.0 mix of the same recording to a good 5.1 mix. Instead of being in front of the soundstage, in a good MC recording, you are in the soundstage. It is all around you. You are immersed in it. Imaging takes place in front of you, to the sides and back of the room. When you compare a good MC mix to stereo, the stereo mix seems one dimensional, flat, dull.

There is simply no way even the best stereo mix can give you the immersed feeling that a good MC mix can. There are only 2 speakers! At best, you can create a good soundstage in the front of the room. But "stereo" does not, and cannot create a soundstage in the entire room like a good MC mix played back on a well set up MC system can.

 

[LanceJ]

In addition to what Kevin said, I think many people have judged 5.1 music using a system optimized for movie soundtracks - the two systems aren't 100% identical.

And I've never heard 5.1 music this way, but I'm not sure what 5.1 music sounds like when played back on a 6.1 or 7.1 system with their side speakers firing almost directly into your ears (direct radiators) or with di/bipolar speakers which will cause unintended blurring of the rear sound field (and if these are part of a 6.1/7.1 system, IMO their blurry sound will clash with the disimmilar sound of the direct radiated sound of the back surround speakers.

And without meaning to piss off anyone, IMO using sats with 4 or 3 inch "woofers" in the typical living room to reproduce music is just not a good combination.

 

[Ed+S]

I have DSOTM and on SACD. DSOTM is quite possibly my favorite album (yes I still refer to them as albums - it is a age thing) of all time and definitely my favorite rock band of all time. The Mobile Fidelity CD (gold) is much better than the CD part of the SACD

My system is set up for movies, not music. I have a 5.1 channel system with dipoles that must perform double duty as my music rig.

I have Paradigm Reference Studio 100 v2, CC, ADP, and a Servo-15. My surrounds are amplified thru an Aragon 8008X5. My mains use a PS Audio GCC-250 in HT Bypass for HT and as a conventional 2 channel control amp for dedicated 2 channel music (HT turned off for 2 channel).

I can tell you that my HT processor can not do justice to 2 channel music like a dedicated 2 channel pre-amp, and I doubt that many can. This is why I still prefer 2 channel over multi-channel for music. My HT processor just can not keep up with the micro-dynamics like the dedicated 2 channel pre-amp.

I admit my system was not optimized for MC music and I might not have given MC music a fair shake, but as a spectator in live concert, or symphony music, you are not sitting with the musicians. Everything is in front of you. The same way 2 channel music is presented.

All 2 channel/MC music aside, my statement still stands. On HT, the center channel is only needed if your mains do not image well, or you are not in a good seating position for HT. I believe this would be true for MC music also, but have not experimented with it.

Ed

 

[Kevin C Brown]

So do you downmix DD and DTS 5.1 movie soundtracks to 2.0 to put the soundstage in front of you for a movie? If your system is truly optimized for HT, then you are *in* the soundfield for movies. So why is being *in* the soundfield for music a problem?

And actually for *any* live performance, how much reflected sound do you get from the venue itself, that creates the illusion of a 3-D soundfield? I will tell you, because it has been measured. Typically 70% reflected, 30% direct. An MC setup better replicates the soundstage of a live performance because all the reflections in the venue itself can now better represented with discrete signals sent to different speakers, rather than relying on reflections from just two speakers, replicated in an unknown room to the mixer.

And, last time I checked , DSOTM was not a live recording, similar to most MC SACDs and DVD-A's, so the 3-D soundfield that exists is purely an artificial construct anyway. As are in fact most stereo recordings too, with all the processing that unfortunately is part of the modern recording process.

Ed- I think you really owe it to yourself to search out a good MC setup someday, and do some more comparisons. (BTW, I have a black label Japanese Harvest CD of DSOTM that you will have to pry from my cold dead hands. Even though I also have the SACD. )