Will it sound ok to use 3 Superzero main fronts instead of a separate center ? (1 Viewer)

[Doug Brewster]

Ryan Tsang

Re: area rug - there is carpet right in front of the center channel.


I hate to even attempt this because it's so controversial a topic (and everyone's opinion is absolutely right), but here goes:

The center channel serves a far different purpose than the 2 front channels and any back channels.

1) It is monophonic. It is the only speaker that is meant to be a single channel at all times.
2) Though monophonic, it is meant to be dispersed to all areas of the "audience" and sound the same. This is not possible to accomplish, but is the intention when the sound is mixed.
3) It is meant to be keep focus on the center - grabbing the attention of "the audience" and directing it toward the center of the room. It would feel unnatural if most of the action was not re-directed toward the center. This is even more true of dialogue.
4) It is not intended to be a cover "full range". Much of the low end is meant to be sent to the subwoofer and not be played through the center. (Some forms of sound processing set the center at small and don't allow it to be changed).

A speaker, in order to accomplish the above, can't be like other speakers...Even more important if the center channel needs to be located "off-center" due to the limitations of the room environment - which many of us are subject to. :b

At 1:30 in the morning, this covers much of what I believe about it.

Now, having said all that, I'm not certain it seems as true to me regarding multi-channel music. As multi-channel is not usually considered to be the preferred way to reproduce music, I think there is little need to reconsider whether the center channel has unique requirements and is therefore in need of a unique design.

This post is likely to inspire heated dispute by those who think that the only way to experience home theater is in a "seamless" array of identical speakers. They might also believe that center channels are a way for speaker companies to make more money from the consumer because center channels cost more...But I'm responding to "I'd like to hear your thoughts on why a center speaker should be different.", so I won't try to present the other side.

 

[LanceJ]

(my emphasis)

Um, the highlighted part is definitely an opinion, not a fact.

And yes, the center channel in a surround music system does have specific requirements, the same as the fronts and the rear channels actually.

Depending on who mixed the album, the center can contain either nothing/next to nothing (Pet Sounds or the 5.1 DTS-CD of the Moody Blues' Seventh Sojourn) or a totally full-range signal combined with the main vocal (Linkin Park's Reanimation or Yes' Fragile album). So its contribution can be extremely significant.

The music CC should have wide dispersion, & decent bass capability (IMO down to at least 60Hz) and as far as most people's HT systems are concerned this is where there can be a major problem when using most "typical" CCs, especially if you don't use a full/proper bass management system (though this won't help with a center with lousy dispersion characteristics). Narrow dispersion causes beaminess, usually resulting in a dry & analytical sound--no thanks.

LJ

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Not sure if I understand your reasoning here. Why "can't" it be like other speakers? Dispersion, frequency response?

 

[Doug Brewster]

LanceJ

"Um, the highlighted part is definitely an opinion, not a fact."
And so is most of the un-highlighted part.

It was in response to:
"Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why a center speaker should be different. It interests me."

If there is any question, let me say clearly that most of my post was opinion and that which was not is selectively stated in a manner that would support that opinion.

However, most audiophiles would likely agree (i.e. hold an opinion) that a 2 (or 2.1) channel set-up is the best way to listen to music. I know an audiophile. An audiophile is a friend of mine and he would tell you, "Doug's no audiophile". :b

Jack Gilvey

Dispersion. You have to keep in mind that, the information in the center channel is intended to reach everyone in the room in the same manner and be centered for that individual. Ideals, of course, are seldom met.
If you are listening by yourself, dispersion wouldn't be a problem. Imagine how it would be to have the majority of the dialogue coming from any other area. Centering it creates a sense of balence. It isn't nearly as critical and unsettling when other information is off center, though that is not to say you wouldn't notice it. It just wouldn't be (isn't) as disturbing.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

You seem to be arguing for the very presence of a center channel, which I agree with. What I was asking about is how exactly is this "dispersion" and "centering" enhanced by using something other than identical speakers across the front? Why "can't" the center be like the others?

 

[Brian L]

I do not belive that is correct at all.

You should be able to develope a phantom image between any two channels. L/C, C/R, RF/RR Surround, etc. Thats the premise that the boys at WSR magazine base their "holosonic" imaging theory on, and I would have to agree.

The folks doing the mixing may or may not do that, and there will certainly be discrete sounds set hard center, but I will reiterate what most everyone else has said; 5 or 6 identical speakers is preferred if your layout allows it.

Horizontal MTM centers are a compromise that most of us have to live with, but identical speakers at all positions is the holy grail.

BGL

 

[Brian L]

Well, you know, while I would agree that a well done 2 CH mix can sound damn good, hi-rez multi-channel (again, done properly) destroys 2 CH, using any yard stick you choose to measure with.

Imaging, soundstage width and depth, ambience, you name it. "Audiophiles", however you choose to define the term, are just resisting change.

BTW, I do consider my self an audiophile (hey, I recently re-installed my turntable and am again spinning vinyl after a 12 year hiatus. Does that give me some street cred, or what?), but I will take a good hi-rez MC mix any day of the week.

BGL

 

[Ryan Tsang]

Hi Doug. Sorry to bring this up again, but i do appreciate your response. This topic is my favorite at HTF and my attention always perks up a notch when i see it. I'm not sure what to make of your opinion, though.



Are you talking about the center speaker or the center signal? The signal is full range. But the speaker is not, usually. Heck, I'd go one further to say even if you had "full-range" mains they should still be small, unless it has a sub.

The Queen alien screaming from the left speaker ideally should sound the same as coming from any other. I still can't think of why (in an ideal setup) the CC should be different.

 

[Doug Brewster]

Jack Gilvey

There is no intent on my part to be insulting in this response:
If what I posted is not clear, I'm at a loss as to how to better explain it. The questions you raise seem answered. Sincerely

Ryan

"Mono to me describes the format of a given recording."
Not to me. You can play a stereo recording in monophonic form, though not vice versa.

" guess you can think of a 5 speaker system as 5 mono channels each playing 1/5th of the spatial presentation."
Not true in that, when LF RF are listened to in stereo their image is incomplete if not heard together. If listened to in mono, they each broadcast all of the auditory information even when not heard together.

"The signal is full range. But the speaker is not, usually...even if you had "full-range" mains they should still be small, unless it has a sub."
The center channel, as manufactured by most companies, is not full range and neither is the signal - meaning it does not contain the same auditory range spectrum as the main channels. As for setting the mains to small unless you have a sub, that's backwards. Even when set to small, however, the mains are producing all but the LFE frequencies. The LFE information is meant only for the sub, but depending on the crossover setting, the sub may produce other lower frequency information.

"The Queen alien screaming from the left speaker ideally should sound the same as coming from any other."
I'm not certain of your point here, but if what you are trying to say is that there are some sounds in movies that are meant for all front channels, I would agree. I don't see how that precludes the need for a center channel to be different to meet it's unique requirements. I will quote from Vandersteen here as they specifically address the center channel issue:
"The previous thinking, that three identical speakers across the front would provide a consistent soundfield, proved incorrect as our research revealed that the center speaker is subject to unique demands and requires a highly specialized design."
Before you discount this statement, keep in mind that the purpose of quoting it would be to support my opinion, not to declare it as fact.

As stated in my very first post, this argument is endless for all true believers. It isn't my intention to continue to respond to posted challenges of my opinion, but I will continue to monitor this thread to see what others have to say. I do know this:
Whatever opinion you hold regarding this topic, you are absolutely right.

 

[Ryan Tsang]

Not true. Dolby states that "it is possible for a program to contain an LFE channel, but a decoder may provide no subwoofer output because of the all the bass in the program, including the LFE channel, can be produced by the main speakers. The opposite is also true......"

 

[Doug Brewster]

"I thought you can have a phantom image between L/C and R/C."
That isn't a contradiction of what I am saying. Just as you can listen to stereo recordings through monaural devices, if you don't have a center channel your processor won't direct the center channel information there. It will simulate a center channel by the way it mixes LF and RF - but it isn't the same as actually having a discrete center.

"Dolby Digital programs can deliver surround sound with five discrete full-range channels—left, center, right, left surround, and right surround"
Again, not a contradiction. It isn't saying that full-range speakers are a requirement or that all will get the full spectrum.


"I must be mistaken but if I ask a processor to turn the mains to "small" and set the crossover to 80hz, I expect the mains to cutoff at 80hz (let leave type of crossover out) and the sub to produce 80hz and below from L and R AND LFE"
For this I must apologize. I don't know why it came out that way. What I know to be true is that Fronts set to Large will produce their full range regardless of whether or not a sub is employed. The sub will get the frequencies allowed by the crossover, but the mains will still get all the bass information. You're right about the SMALL setting. Sorry to have mis-stated this.

"Not true. Dolby states that "it is possible for a program to contain an LFE channel, but a decoder may provide no subwoofer output because of the all the bass in the program, including the LFE channel, can be produced by the main speakers. The opposite is also true......"
I believe your quote didn't come out just right, but, again, this doesn't appear contradictory. It appears to say that if no LFE is employed, the mains will get the LFE information. The converse would also be true.
"...you don’t need a subwoofer to hear the content of the LFE track. If you don't have a sub, bass management can usually re-route the LFE to your fronts (though they better be of substantial mettle!)...
The purpose of the LFE remains one of headroom...By supplying deep bass information on a segregated track, the LFE channel effectively permits a higher output level of deep bass information while not imposing on the performance or levels of the rest of the system."

"Dolby states..."
Just remember that Dolby is not the only processor of surround sound. They can state what they believe to be true for their process, but not for DTS, Logic7, and others.

By the way, I appreciate that you are questioning my "facts" (and I do use that term loosely) as opposed to my opinion.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

They are not. Read my questions again.

 

[Doug Brewster]

Jack,
I realize I'm just quoting myself here, but I don't know how else to answer the question of why a center speaker should have a unique design.
" The information in the center channel is intended to reach everyone in the room in the same manner and be centered for that individual. "
What I'm saying and why:
The other channels don't have that requirement. The intent is to keep the center information coming from the area of the screen. To simulate why this would be necessary, set your screen off to a corner and leave your center channel centered (or vice versa). With LF or RF, you can easily adjust the volume until they balance out where you're sitting. If the center channel is not central to the screen, increasing the volume will not make up for the problem. That's why the dispersion of the speaker needs to give everyone in the room a sense that the information it broadcasts is coming straight at them from the center. To have it otherwise disturbs our sense of reference. Not true of the LF and RF, but would be a problem if the audio intended for the LF was being sent to the RF and vice versa. If dishes fell and broke stage right and the audio information came from stage left, we'd notice immediately.
The same is true if information intended to direct our attention to the center appeared to come from the side. If you sit off center, the sound should still appear to arrive from the center, and that is true of either side. A conventional speaker isn't able to achieve that.
Vandersteen addresses it this way:
"The previous thinking, that three identical speakers across the front would provide a consistent soundfield, proved incorrect as our research revealed that the center speaker is subject to unique demands and requires a highly specialized design."
I realize that this adds no information about why, but I just wanted to show a quote from someone who claims to have researched it and found that center channel speakers need to be different than others in the front.

I doubt this will impact those who already believe center channel speakers don't need to be unique. That's the way this topic goes. I respect the other opinion, I just don't agree. This is my last defense of my own opinion. If what I'm saying does not communicate the concept, I know it can't be explained by me. It doesn't mean I'm right, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong either. It would seem more likely a question of the opinion than the explanation would cause lack of clarity. I can't change anyone's opinion.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

All you're telling me is that a center channel should be in the center position...so the sounds eminate from there. We've established that. Should the dispersion be wider or narrower than a "regular" speaker in your view? Please explain your last statement...specifically how a "regular" speaker at the center position couldn't "center" things (you haven't addressed that). Be specific about dispersion patterns, and about the specific speakers being asked about.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

I see you added some edits after my post.


You are of course aware that most centers have severely limited dispersion. That's why I keep asking about it, since this concept you hold so dear is usually quite compromised in a "center" speaker...but not in a typical "regular" speaker.

 

[Ryan Tsang]

Jack:

I'm totally with you on this. Doug isn't making any sense to me either. I'm not disrespectful of his opinions, I just want to understand his beliefs.

Doug: The reason why this discussion is still goin' on is because none of us understand you; and we want to.


Great. We have all these inferior speakers, because a couple guys can't center his speaker to his screen.

 

[Doug Brewster]

Ryan and Jack,

As mentioned in my original post here, you are both absolutely right.

By the way Jack, listened to your song (Jack's Line6 blues...) and enjoyed it.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Hehe...thanks, Doug. The backing track is downloaded from somewhere with me on lead guitar (left channel) input directly to the soundcard through this. I thought it was a cool tone we worked out, kinda Satriani-like. We recorded/mixed it using Cakewalk software.