Yup, been reading Toole who says the meat is in the center channel and shows in many places in his book how a successful center channel is valuable - including for stereo music, speech sources, and stuff on your screen. I think Toole's endorsement includes derived center channels as well as discrete channels playing through a speaker box(s) in the middle... but not a "phantom" center channel created from two L and R speaker boxes.
How I got a good center channel for HT appears in a post here.
Toole also emphasizes that quality stereo reproduction of the recordings of ping-pong matches is not an important goal while getting good concert hall ambient warmth vibes is. An interesting thought and might be novel to many people (including me). Evaluation typically looks at accuracy of stereo localization as if there were the sine qua non of accurate reproduction.
If you are as old as I am, you might recall that at the Dawn of the Stereo Age, some major speaker company of major speakers had a Grand center channel supplemented by cheesy FL and FR. Hey, the opposite of most cheap HT set ups.
So, anybody tried three-speaker systems with their stereo? Or quality center speakers with a 3.1 (or higher) home theater? Tried listening with your L and R speakers cheek-by-jowl? Gone to mono?
Sidebar: I have a whole bunch of ESL panels - enough to wallpaper maybe 40 square feet of wall. And to drive them with a continuous/panned L to R signal?
How I got a good center channel for HT appears in a post here.
Toole also emphasizes that quality stereo reproduction of the recordings of ping-pong matches is not an important goal while getting good concert hall ambient warmth vibes is. An interesting thought and might be novel to many people (including me). Evaluation typically looks at accuracy of stereo localization as if there were the sine qua non of accurate reproduction.
If you are as old as I am, you might recall that at the Dawn of the Stereo Age, some major speaker company of major speakers had a Grand center channel supplemented by cheesy FL and FR. Hey, the opposite of most cheap HT set ups.
So, anybody tried three-speaker systems with their stereo? Or quality center speakers with a 3.1 (or higher) home theater? Tried listening with your L and R speakers cheek-by-jowl? Gone to mono?
Sidebar: I have a whole bunch of ESL panels - enough to wallpaper maybe 40 square feet of wall. And to drive them with a continuous/panned L to R signal?
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I feel there are a lot of room dependencies to consider.
My HT set up is 5.1 but I haven't yet connected the centre channel for want of a short cable. Yet the two big floorstanders doing duty as L and R channels provide a sound stage that covers the full width of the screen (several feet) leaving nothing 'wanting'.
I see a centre channel as problematic for placement. I have to choose between mounting the speaker above the screen (too high) or below the screen (too low). I have to use a small speaker to allow me to fit it in, unlike the big L and R floorstanders. If I rely on stereo imaging from my L and R speakers which can be positioned at ideal height then no worries. I don't want the expense of a high quality acoustically transparent screen.
As for concert hall ambience - depends very much on room reflections (in my opinion) to be able to say that a centre channel is required.
As for mono - it's on my list to try. Because stereo has issues with room effects, seating position and domestic issues with placement of speakers cables and furniture I suspect I may find mono to be a part of my future. It also allows a DIYer to lavish their $ on one channel.
My HT set up is 5.1 but I haven't yet connected the centre channel for want of a short cable. Yet the two big floorstanders doing duty as L and R channels provide a sound stage that covers the full width of the screen (several feet) leaving nothing 'wanting'.
I see a centre channel as problematic for placement. I have to choose between mounting the speaker above the screen (too high) or below the screen (too low). I have to use a small speaker to allow me to fit it in, unlike the big L and R floorstanders. If I rely on stereo imaging from my L and R speakers which can be positioned at ideal height then no worries. I don't want the expense of a high quality acoustically transparent screen.
As for concert hall ambience - depends very much on room reflections (in my opinion) to be able to say that a centre channel is required.
As for mono - it's on my list to try. Because stereo has issues with room effects, seating position and domestic issues with placement of speakers cables and furniture I suspect I may find mono to be a part of my future. It also allows a DIYer to lavish their $ on one channel.
Yes, I get super wide-stage sound from my pair of speakers but Toole provides abundant evidence that having a center channel helps a lot and a lot of correlated/center sound might inevitably and by recording engineer choice be sitting there in the recording.
If you go to the link, you'll see how I connected two quality speakers (Leigh Instruments, formerly K-W) flanking the screen to create a center channel. Beats me why any careful person would want a speaker under or over their big screen - just as you say! At the movies, typically right behind.
If you go to the link, you'll see how I connected two quality speakers (Leigh Instruments, formerly K-W) flanking the screen to create a center channel. Beats me why any careful person would want a speaker under or over their big screen - just as you say! At the movies, typically right behind.
That makes sense, but I've been surprised. I've been to a number of cinemas in the US and Europe where the speakers were not behind the screen, but above or below. Some of these where outside gigs, some inside, some permanent, some temporary. It wasn't bad at all. The speaker location is very quickly forgotten.
A small room and distance to the screen might make this more noticeable, though.
I've also listened to a number of good mono rigs. OK, but I like mono thru 2 speakers better, strangely enough.
A small room and distance to the screen might make this more noticeable, though.
I've also listened to a number of good mono rigs. OK, but I like mono thru 2 speakers better, strangely enough.
I would never consider a system without a center channel. Even my nearfield system has three front channels (3x Tannoy System 8 NFM II).
However, I don't get why people do centers different from their mains. One wouldn't spec a different left from right speaker, so why a different center? Use the same speaker, at the same orientation and elevation.
I just derive the center channel for most material via DPL2 or dts neo:6.
However, I don't get why people do centers different from their mains. One wouldn't spec a different left from right speaker, so why a different center? Use the same speaker, at the same orientation and elevation.
I just derive the center channel for most material via DPL2 or dts neo:6.
It would probably give a better center "stage" for multiple people. Which is good for HT.
3.1 is an interesting idea as I don't care much for rear effects.
How would the center channel be mixed?
Something like V.I?
V.I Stereo to 5.1 Converter VST Plugin Suite
ambient channels could be added if desired.
If one would go wild, what frequencies would be needed for the added sources. Considering L and R to be fullrange down to 80Hz?
3.1 is an interesting idea as I don't care much for rear effects.
How would the center channel be mixed?
Something like V.I?
V.I Stereo to 5.1 Converter VST Plugin Suite
ambient channels could be added if desired.
If one would go wild, what frequencies would be needed for the added sources. Considering L and R to be fullrange down to 80Hz?
I resisted the centre channel for a long time, but eventuallly bit the bullet and I'm glad that I did.
The man benefit I find is in producing a rock-solid and tight, central image, particularly when seated off-centre. Dialog in particular benefits from improved coherency and image size.
A lot of people have their TVs set way to high. As with a computer monitor, for comfort your eye level should be at the middle to top of the display. If you set it up that way, you can then place a centre channel on top of the display, which will bring the tweeter up to a level to match the mains. Fortunately the ear is not too good at discriminating in the vertical axis.
The man benefit I find is in producing a rock-solid and tight, central image, particularly when seated off-centre. Dialog in particular benefits from improved coherency and image size.
A lot of people have their TVs set way to high. As with a computer monitor, for comfort your eye level should be at the middle to top of the display. If you set it up that way, you can then place a centre channel on top of the display, which will bring the tweeter up to a level to match the mains. Fortunately the ear is not too good at discriminating in the vertical axis.
Last edited:
I have the center channel above and below the screen, 7.1 setup. It works well for dialog in movies as mentioned above but don't use it for music. Don't care for any of the processors when listening to music and just run it 2.1 as it was recorded. I find that it depends on how the source is recorded, it should match how it is reproduced.
Also, the term "Phantom center" means an illusion of center with no actual center drivers. It is just derived from the left and right with processing.
As for the timbre of the center channel, it will be skewed anyway as the high freq. is recorded with higher output as it was originally designed to fire through the screen in the theater and the screen would soak up some of the high freq. and it would balance with the left and right which are usually mounted on each side of the screen and not behind. This does carry over to the HT setup as the recordings are not altered for HT use.
Also, the term "Phantom center" means an illusion of center with no actual center drivers. It is just derived from the left and right with processing.
As for the timbre of the center channel, it will be skewed anyway as the high freq. is recorded with higher output as it was originally designed to fire through the screen in the theater and the screen would soak up some of the high freq. and it would balance with the left and right which are usually mounted on each side of the screen and not behind. This does carry over to the HT setup as the recordings are not altered for HT use.
Hello pedroskova
That's true but they did record some material in 3 track and it's available. A prime example is some of the Living Stereo recordings. When they were released to SACD the multitrack layer has the original 3 channel recordings. They are quite a treat! Better than the stereo versions IMHO
Rob
Hello pedroskova
That's true but they did record some material in 3 track and it's available. A prime example is some of the Living Stereo recordings. When they were released to SACD the multitrack layer has the original 3 channel recordings. They are quite a treat! Better than the stereo versions IMHO
Rob
Bert White used to write about the 3 track recordings he made for Everest (I think) in his column in Audio Mag., back in the day. He never got over being beaten out by the WAF ( three big boxes in the LR) ... the WAF was in effect even back then.
I am not personally aware of any major DVD / Blu-Ray that has been released with the same mix that is used for theaters (Transfer of older movies to DVD is another story.) In any case, the theater system is already equalised for the screen absorption. Screens, auditoriums and theater sound systems vary too much for a compromise equalisation embedded in the audio to be effective.
An alternative to the HT version of a center channel is the "summed" center channel that was advocated by researchers at Bell Labs decades ago. This is what I use in my system that is strictly for music ("two channel")
The circuit is rather simple and has no "steering" or band passed filtering. A number of folks on the Klipsch forum use this for thier "two channel" systems and a schematic (it is just a few resistors and a pot) from Paul Klipsch can be found on the forum also. Klipsch was one of the few advocates of this technique.
The trick is that the level of the center needs to be attenuated a few-to-several dB below the L & R.
It is difficult to describe but the "phantom center" becomes more "convincing" or "stable". IOW the problem with "hole in the middle" is mitigated. Additionally, the sweet spot is enlarged and is "less fragile". I am not very good at describing auditory percepts, so I put these comments in quotations.
The circuit is simple to build, so it is worth experimenting with. Don't worry about using an expensive amp and speaker for the center for the experiment. You will get a taste of the benefits with simple equipment (remember the gain on the center is less than the L & R).
Again, this configuration is different than the Home Theater version of a center channel.
The circuit is rather simple and has no "steering" or band passed filtering. A number of folks on the Klipsch forum use this for thier "two channel" systems and a schematic (it is just a few resistors and a pot) from Paul Klipsch can be found on the forum also. Klipsch was one of the few advocates of this technique.
The trick is that the level of the center needs to be attenuated a few-to-several dB below the L & R.
It is difficult to describe but the "phantom center" becomes more "convincing" or "stable". IOW the problem with "hole in the middle" is mitigated. Additionally, the sweet spot is enlarged and is "less fragile". I am not very good at describing auditory percepts, so I put these comments in quotations.
The circuit is simple to build, so it is worth experimenting with. Don't worry about using an expensive amp and speaker for the center for the experiment. You will get a taste of the benefits with simple equipment (remember the gain on the center is less than the L & R).
Again, this configuration is different than the Home Theater version of a center channel.
Last edited:
I have been using a center channel off and on for a couple months now. It's is a L/R summed mono. I listened to mono for a couple years and was fairly happy with it--no image irregularities. That's a problem I've had with stereo in every single system I've had--and I've had more than my fair share at my age. I've just now really got my stereo to where I enjoy it more than mono. I know, no one likes mono, but I did for various reasons. None of them had to do with spaciousness. The jury is still out on whether I prefer the summed mono center plus L/R vs. just regular old stereo. Things do lock better to the screen--I increase the output by 3dBs on the center vs. individual L/R monitors using pink noise. Dr. Toole says go 3-6 dB if I remember correctly. It also seems to make vocals more discernible even though it's not a problem w/o it (I have no issues following dialog either way) and spaciousness seems to remain the same. It would be hard for me to argue that it is in any way worse in any way, but the speaker I am using for this is measurably and audibly better that my L/R mains. That may be the whole reason for everything.
Great topic!
Dan
Yes, great topic!
So most of us find an advantage to the center channel for movies/TV - however it is derived, that not a big surprise. But what about for regular stereo music? WillT seems to like the summed center.
I've tried it on and off over the years and never really reached a conclusion. Perhaps I just didn't do it right.
So most of us find an advantage to the center channel for movies/TV - however it is derived, that not a big surprise. But what about for regular stereo music? WillT seems to like the summed center.
I've tried it on and off over the years and never really reached a conclusion. Perhaps I just didn't do it right.
Wow. Interesting stuff so far. Kind of like people coming forward with their little secret system!
Bell Labs... my old workplace. Lots of amazing good stuff in the past. I have a distant recollection that Leo Stokes' (AKA Stokowski) Fantasia movie was done with three channels.
Klipsch said to place his big system in the two corners of the LONG wall - and thinking there'd be 30 feet between in your mansion, thought you should have one of his "wall" speakers in the middle. The wall speakers had the same two upper horns and often the same woofer, in the past, I think.
I've tried super-wide stage stereo, say 120 degrees, and works just fine with my nicely matched meter-square dipole ESLs and without a middle speaker.
But now I'm thinking of a continuous wall of sound (or three meter-square speakers, up close to one another... 10 feet wide), with minor emphasis on ping-pong and major emphasis on ambiance. That much diaphragm surface (and we are talking dipole too) just might scare the room modes into better behavior, make directivity a non-issue, and have a broad sweet spot.
Yup, Toole has many data to support the wisdom of a center channel using a center speaker, but not a "phantom" created acoustically by the L and R speakers in the absence of center speaker. But... same benefits, I am pretty sure, by creating an L-R mixture and piping it into the center speaker (since L and R are already heavily correlated - and so is sound reaching your ears).
Last edited:
I remember reading him way back when. I wonder if those recordings are still around?
Rob
I think it's 3 channel.
JEAN SIBELIUS: Concerto for Violin and Orchestra in D minor Op. 47; Tapiola - tone poem - Tossy Spivakovsky, violin/ London Symphony Orch./ Tauno Hannikainen - (Dual Disc from 35mm master - CD + DualDisc of DVD-A/DVD-Video, 2 or 3-channel) Everest/Cl
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.