In an HT system, you don't HAVE to use a center channel *or* a subwoofer (2 Viewers)

[bobbyg2]

I'll just set it to 80Hz.

 

[Torgny Nilsson]

I have large, 5' tall, full-range tower speakers, each of which has a 12” subwoofer, a 10” woofer, two 6 1/2" midranges, and a 30mm tweeter, which do go to 20Hz. And I have heard other large, full-range speakers as well. While you don't need anything else for 2-channel music, and while you don't necessarily need an additional sub for movies, I have yet to hear any full-range speakers in any price range that don't benefit from adding one or more separate subs. So I have a sub for movie use despite the very good bass I get from my main speakers (and from my center and surrounds).

In my opinion, while you may get by without a matched center and a sub, you are doing yourself a disservice because you are not hearing the sound that the movie makers wanted you to hear.

While you sometimes hear someone claim that their system (without a center or sub) sounds "as good as" systems with those speakers, you seldom hear anyone claim that their system (without a center or sub) sounds "better than" systems with those speakers. While I admit that I have now and then heard people make that latter claim, in each case it seemed to me that they were either using mismatched speakers, had them set up improperly, or were just plain nuts.

But it is easy enough to try your system with and without these speakers and make up your own mind as to what you prefer.

 

[LanceJ]

From my original post:
So for the third time in this thread :frowning: I'm not saying subs and centers cannot make a positive difference - I am just pointing out there are options for certain people in certain situations where a sub/center is more trouble than it is worth; and that to hear surround sound a sub/center is not needed.

 

[Torgny Nilsson]

There are a lot of options for setting up a surround sound system with more or less accuracy. But I am not sure what your point is. All I am trying to say, and all that I hear others trying to say, is that you might have a decent set-up, considering your limitations, if you skip a center or a sub. But you won't get accurate surround sound reproduction unless you have a center and a sub.

Heck, 2.0 is better than nothing, 2.1 is better than 2.0, 3.1 is better than 2.1 (for HT at least), etc. But you have to understand that you are making accoustic trade-offs when you skip a center or a sub. If you are okay with that, or can't do anything else, then enjoy what you have. But don't delude yourself into thinking that you are getting accurate surround sound reproduction.

 

[Joe S.]

Well, a Playboy centerfold doesn't need to have a trim, sexy figure and 36D customizations - but it sure doesn't seem to hurt their chances either!

I'll keep my 7.1 system, thanks...

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I *think* what he's trying to say, which has been lost along the way, is that a person doesn't have to save up 7.1-type money and think that that is the "entry fee" to good HT sound. I remember watching movies in the early 90's with a good 2 channel system. That was my 1st experience with "home theater", and it's just as valid an approach as today with a full blown 7.1 setup. Might not sound as good, but relatively speaking, it's still better than TV speakers.

 

[LanceJ]

Kevin's got it right.

And an FYI: there are no movies on standard-def dvd with a true/discrete 7.1 soundtrack; and very few 6.1 soundtracks with a discrete back surround channel: only DTS offers such a format and Dolby's EX format uses a matrixed signal for the back channel, kind of a messy way to do things and very similar to old-skool analog Pro-Logic and its front center channel. So.......those back channels in a 7.1 system? They're made up of processed audio pulled from the left/right rear channel signals.....again, pretty close to a matrixed system. So technically speaking, not 100% accurate either as far as the directors' vision (and I have never personally seen or heard of a 7.1 mixing room for movies).

The audio industry in general is slipping down the toilet folks as we speak e.g. Tweeter is expected to declare bankruptsy any time now; many respected audio manufacturing companies that have been around for decades are consolidating themselves just to try to stay afloat (and Kenwood finally just plain stopped building any home gear), etc etc so I will to continue to offer people real world options that short-sighted salespeople will not, options that can provide much of the experience a "complete" system can AND many times for much less money & with a lot less logistical hassle at home and hopefully help keep some $$ flowing to Pioneer, Onkyo, Cerwin-Vega etc that otherwise would not if X person thought it was 100% mandatory that he buy six to eight speakers.

And yes, for many people stereo is still a viable option for listening to movies.

 

[LanceJ]

Since this is basically a thread about a 4.0 system, I thought I would add some links concerning quadraphonic music, the grandaddy of surround music formats like sacd, dvd-audio and DTS-CD that have taken the modern music world by storm and caused near-riots at music stores on release day......no wait, that's just the Benadryl talking.

Quad at Wikipedia

Sansui QRX-9001, considered by many the best quad receiver ever.

quadraphonic Pink Floyd in 96kHz/24bit PCM + Dolby Digital + DTS *dvd-audio* form

www.quadraphonicquad.com

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Speaking of 4.0, I think this thing is really cool:

http://www.samsontech.com/products/p...fm?prodID=1916



It'll record and output four 24/96 channels (as two stereo .wav files, front and back) from its 4 built-in mics in a W-XY pattern, and you can use these to encode your own DD or DTS 4.0 or 5.1 discs (or author a DVD-A, of course).

For $200, certainly looks like a fun way to record some live stuff. If I could sync the audio to my video cam, I could say it's for recording the baby.

 

[LanceJ]

^ that's a cool gizmo. Didn't think they could cram such a sophisitcated DAC and 4 microphones into such a small device. I wonder if you could set it up in the middle of a band and get a decent "immersive" surround recording?

If anyone ever gets a chance to listen to a quad recording* via a modern surround rig, about the only thing you might notice missing is the center channel. But the chances for this happening are low as long as the front mains are of decent quality & are placed correctly. As far as the sub, if the fronts and rears are large* - and I do mean large i.e. have at least one 10" woofer - depending on the person listening, the bass produced will sound good-to-great for music purposes. But if you're lucky and your player or receiver has a good bass management system, listening in a 4.1 configuration will result in more accurate bass.....but then that "pure" quad experience is nullified.



* I'm not sure what would happen to the quad soundfield if a quad recording were processed into a 6.1 or 7.1 signal (specifically speaking of the 6 or 7 satellite channels). Taking the two rear channel signals and spreading them among 3 to 4 speakers and creating a center channel from the right/left front signals might upset the balance created by the original mixing engineer when he used *4* studio monitors.

Also: there are quite a few dvd-audio, DTS-CD and sacds that feature the original quad mixes, though sometimes the label decided to include a center channel and .1 signal by extrapolating these from the quad mix, supposedly to make buyers feel they weren't getting ripped off :rolleyes......but OTOH this is fortunate for the many people that need to use a subwoofer and who own hi-res players (this doesn't apply to DTS-CDs) with lousy or non-existant b.m. systems. DTS Inc's Moody Blues DTS-CDs are like this, with the center signal having a rather ghostly sounding mixed version of the left/rights. But to hear the original 4.0 mix, just shut off the sub and center. And for the Pink Floyd dvd-audio mentioned above, deactivate the sub only - that .1 channel was added by the dvd-audio's creator.