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

[LanceJ]

uh oh, I seemed to have hit all these keys with my elbows while drinking my second Long Island tea and then clumsily brushed that fun-filled glass against the mouse while the cursor happened to be hovering over the post reply button.

 

[RichardH]

"There is simply no way even the best stereo mix can give you the immersed feeling that a good MC mix can."

But that's not the goal per se of a stereo mix. And an immersive experience is not the goal for every music listener. Plus, there's some debate b/w mixers as far as mixing styles: surrounded by the band vs. band in front of you, ambience in back, etc. I have no doubt that a 5.1 mix of the same music is going to be more immersive than a 2.0 mix, and likely more revealing by virtue of the fact that you're splitting up the layers of sound between more speakers.

"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?"

A 5.1 movie is mixed in 5.1, and is intended to be listened to as such. That is the ideal situation. In the same way, a 5.1 music disc is mixed in 5.1 and also intended to be listened to as such. But it seems like you're pitting 5.1 music against 2.0 music in general. (Apologies if that's not what you're saying.)

If a disc is mixed in 5.1, then 5.1 is the ideal way to listen to it. If a disc is mixed in 2.0, does that make it inferior if no 5.1 mix exists? I would say no. Should every 2.0 disc be remixed in 5.1 because it is "missing" something? Again, I would say no. What I was saying before about your comparison before is that any time you do another mix, stereo vs. surround, or stereo vs. another stereo, it's going to sound different. It's impossible to say how much of the added "clarity" comes from different mixing and mastering sessions vs. the surround aspect.

Of course anyone's free to listen to a 2.0 mix in a pseudo surround modes on their receivers. I've tried it, and I do like it for some discs.

And I have nothing against surround music. I've tried it, and I think it's great too! Interesting questions would be:
Should all music from now on be recorded and mixed in surround? The answer is probably different across different groups and ages. Should all movies from now on be recorded and mixed in 5.1 as a minimum? I think this one is a lot easier, but there could still be people who would say no. I guess that's what is great about this hobby.

 

[LanceJ]

Not exactly theater related but does involve four speakers :

I've now been able to listen to some quadraphonic recordings, Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon and a Moody Blues compilation, on my system in 4.0 channel dvd-audio form.

Wow even though both of these date back to the early seventies, the mixes sound good-to-excellent. The center channel wasn't missed (many modern surround music mixers still won't use it) and despite no digital technology being used, mixes still could be very enveloping and "full" sounding. Sound quality itself was very good (while not as accurate, musically-speaking analog can still compete with digital IMO, even with recordings from back then).

But I will admit that since none of my satellites have a woofer larger than eight inches*, bass was a bit on the light side so my sub would have been nice to have working, but this was not a make-or-break thing. My Pioneer DV-656 dvd-audio player can generate an LFE channel when set up that way, but IMO its crossover point is much too high - typical of many hi-res players to this day - and bass ends up sounding quite boomy.

FYI: there is a total of around 4,000 quad recordings made before that format bit the dust in the late 70s (there were five competing formats!) and us surround music fanboyz still hope some of their owners will re-release them in dvd-audio, DTS-CD, sacd or dvd-video form as has been done already with a sprinkling of titles in these formats.

If you want to read in detail about how Alan Parsons mixed that album into 4.0 form, check out this indepth & rather technical article (surprisingly at a site called the Stereo Society).


* actually, all of my sats use a single eight inch woofer

 

[bobbyg2]

IMO, a setup is unlistenable without a sub...

 

[JohnRice]

I've looked everywhere I can find, and my receiver has no wright channel anywhere. I guess I'm missing out.

Alfred, if your system sounds better without the center, something is seriously wrong. That said, the OP is certainly correct. Ever since Dolby-Pro, receivers and processors have had a phantom mode, though DD models don't specifically call it that. And as Philip pointed out, not everyone is in a situation where a sub is acceptable, certainly not a good one. A lot of people just don't care how much they annoy their neighbors.

One other thing, I kind of feel sorry for anyone who believes watching movies without a sub is not enjoyable.

 

[bobbyg2]

I don't really watch too many movies. My system is used 90% for music, 8% for TV, and 2% for movies. That's why I enjoy the subwoofer so much, it makes my music sound good.

 

[MaxL]

that's it mr.rice - stick it to the kitten killer!

 

[bobbyg2]

Stick it to god?!

 

[JohnRice]

Bobby, you might want to review the HTF rules. I'm a little surprised that sig hasn't been nuked already.


Still max, that cracked me up. Bobby's response REALLY cracked me up. I hear jets flying over my head.


BTW max, why do you insist on calling me "Mr"? Is it an inside joke?

 

[MaxL]

no inside joke. no real reason i can think of, politeness and respect i guess? i'm quite happy to call you john if you prefer, or bobby basher ...

i just called phaseshift mr.shift. maybe it's a subconscious reference to resevoir dogs and the anonymity of strangers. deep huh...

 

[bobbyg2]

I find it funny how we always manage to change the direction of threads, usually someone commenting on my posts.

 

[LanceJ]

I get the feeling many people here have never owned a set of large loudspeakers......and when I say large I mean truly large i.e. not a bookshelf with a 6.5" woofer. Instead, something with a 10" or larger woofer, that can fill a room with sound - and bass - with ease. While such a design may not get down to 20Hz, the bass it does have can do music justice and even movies with rumbling soundtracks can be reproduced well enough to literally shake pictures on the wall. Audio is not a black/white and yes/no subject but instead there are shades of gray. As someone's signature said once (I think Voltaire was credited with this):

And all this hand-wringing over all receivers being stressed out reproducing all types of bass is unfounded in my experience. But then again, I don't turn up my system loud enough to cause the neighbors to call the police.

 

[bobbyg2]

Every time I get home that volume knob is at least halfway, which is pretty darn loud. It rattles my whole mobile home with bookshelf speakers. That says somethin', doesn't it?

I have experienced 12", but they sounded a little weird... Too much bass I must say (Which is rare coming from my mouth). It also seemed a little "jumpy". It would over-exaggerate the mid-base levels (75-150) and there it would just BLAST the room away. It's like a subwoofer set to max volume only playing that frequency range. I told my friends dad that he chose bad speakers, but he replied with "Bigger is always better!".

 

[LanceJ]

Welllllllll, not always. The larger they are the more carefully they need to be placed because of their output capabilities......which is basically the same case with subs! Though obviously subs are easiER to locate in the optimum location, and as long as their crossover point is chosen carefully, the sats actually blend properly and the sub's phase/distance setting is correct and you always sit in the same place you set that parameter for.

I do have a sub in my system now, a homemade system made up of an unused Pioneer receiver and a vintage Realistic loudspeaker with an 11" (yes eleven) acoustic-suspension woofer w/cast aluminum frame bought at a resale shop. Cost? Five bucks. Added some 16ga lamp cord I already owned and ta da! clean bass going furthur down than my Boston CR9s and much more of it. Downside: anywhere but my listening position and bass is very boomy and weaker at the same time, something my Bostons don't have in common.

 

[bobbyg2]

In a small room like mine, the sub probably doesn't need any "Strategic" placement. It'll sound the same (besides direction of sound) from all sides. My room is only 9'wide x 10'long x 7.5'high. Small, eh?

 

[JohnRice]

I think we need to nickname Bobby "D.B. Cooper: The Thread Hijacker."

 

[bobbyg2]

FYI, you just changed the topic again, good job.

And no one answered my question. Is there a "medium" setting? I'd like to get SOME bass out of my fronts...

 

[JohnRice]

No "medium" setting.

 

[bobbyg2]

Alright, thank you.

What's the real problem with large setting? Just bottoming?

I would assume that a small setting will give the fronts better upper-base frequencies response, as well as a better over-all sound. Is this assumption correct?

EDIT:
Woops, I'm in the wrong thread, aint I?

 

[LanceJ]

Actually, smaller rooms are usually more sensitive to incorrect subwoofer placement.

Large vs. small: in a way, you actually could create a "medium" setting by adjusting your receiver's crossover to a very low xover point, say, 60Hz or 40Hz. In music anyway, a lot of bass is located between those frequencies and why so many speakers over the years (including large ones with 10+ inch woofers) have a lower effective limit of 40Hz which results in very full sounding music but don't require a lot of power to operate vs. a speaker that hits 30Hz or lower - THEN you get into much more power-hungry speaker systems.....and why 99.9% of subwoofers come with their own amplifier.