This should have read "on-axis relative to both speakers" and "off-axis in the front-to-back plane," which was implied by the "more than one row" but not explicitly stated. Sorry for any confusion. Besides the acoustical interference, there is the further problem of different HRTFs for identical signals coming from different vertical positions.
If one likes identically driven dual centers or L+R for the center feed, that's totally fine, but one cannot pretend that Gerzon describes L+R as the "best way" or that Toole et al would not have objections. Simple statement of opinion is completely valid. Misrepresenting (intentionally or not) the opinions of others as supporting one's own is not.
I was not aware that "jaunty" is considered to be strong language (IMO, I consider the "golly" paragraph to be written in a jaunty manner), and misrepresentation is simply "an assertion that is not in accord with the facts." I avoided "strong language" like "lying" or "deceiving" for a reason. At this point, there is only one other relevant section from Gerzon's article, so let me go ahead and quote it now: "For each of these transmitted modes, a different optimum psychoacoustic matrix is required...2-channel stereo requires the use of an optimised 2×3 decoding matrix as described above."
As for myself, I prefer listening to stereo content in stereo form when I'm the only listener (the center image appears to be more spacious and further back compared to an actual center when adjusted for appropriate distance and level), but the virtues of a center channel become quickly apparent when I'm sitting next to my wife or on an adjacent chaise that suboptimally located.
Cheers, and happy listening.
Youngho is correct in his reading of "it" and I am wrong. My apologies to the him/her and the forum.
(If any excuse is possible, it is that the sentence talking about Bell/Klipsh and the mysterious not-to-be-revealed-yet "it" is 55 words long, not counting punctuation.)
Bentoronto, I agree that the sentence in question was complicated, which is why I tried to simplify it (and make it easier to parse) in my second post in the thread. If you didn't look at the link about Moulton's setup, the reason why simple L+R may narrow the soundstage is related to summing localization, where identical signal reproduced from two (or more) sources results in the creation of a phantom image intermediate between those two (or more) sources. Hence, the very mechanism that underlies stereo reproduction results in an unsatisfying center-enhanced stereo experience when simple L+R is used as the center feed, since a typical stereo setup would have a 60 degree spread soundstage from the direct signal (wider once room reflections are included), but simply plunking a center channel down and driving it with L+R may collapse the direct signal soundstage to 30 degree spread (again, wider once room reflections are included).
Although Gerzon didn't get into it, this is all shown in Moulton's diagram on the first page (Moulton Laboratories :: A Happy Accident: A Better Way to Play Back Stereo?) and explained in the second page. I wonder whether extremely wide dispersion speakers with room reflections may be required when the speakers are spaced this far apart, since the room reflections will increase each channel's apparent source width (ASW), rather than collapsing the soundstage as occurs when conventional stereo speakers are spaced too far apart.
I haven't read through the Dolby, Audyssey, Harman, or Neural document libraries to see how they approach the center feed with stereo signal in their respective algorithms, but it seems to me that the simplest approach would be something along the lines of L&R, such that the center feed content is the signal common to both L and R channels. The L and R channels could then be L-(L&R) and R-(L&R), though probably only some fraction of (L&R) would be subtracted, possibly according to user preference. Although not possible at the time of Bell and Klipsch, this could be performed easily and inexpensively with digital signal processing. The center feed of L&R would need some equalization to compensate for the "fundamental one-toothed comb," as Toole describes it," i.e. some attenuation near 2kHz. More sophisticated processing would incorporate psychoacoustics, e.g. the contributions of different portions of the frequency spectrum to localization, spaciousness, etc.
I apologize if I'm stating the obvious. I'm a casual enthusiast who has done only a little reading, and all of this can be reasoned from first principles. As for Airsound, I suspect that this is likely to remain low- or mid-fi, relegated to iPod dock products or small home theater applications, unless one were to supplement it with front wide channels.
Although Gerzon didn't get into it, this is all shown in Moulton's diagram on the first page (Moulton Laboratories :: A Happy Accident: A Better Way to Play Back Stereo?) and explained in the second page. I wonder whether extremely wide dispersion speakers with room reflections may be required when the speakers are spaced this far apart, since the room reflections will increase each channel's apparent source width (ASW), rather than collapsing the soundstage as occurs when conventional stereo speakers are spaced too far apart.
I haven't read through the Dolby, Audyssey, Harman, or Neural document libraries to see how they approach the center feed with stereo signal in their respective algorithms, but it seems to me that the simplest approach would be something along the lines of L&R, such that the center feed content is the signal common to both L and R channels. The L and R channels could then be L-(L&R) and R-(L&R), though probably only some fraction of (L&R) would be subtracted, possibly according to user preference. Although not possible at the time of Bell and Klipsch, this could be performed easily and inexpensively with digital signal processing. The center feed of L&R would need some equalization to compensate for the "fundamental one-toothed comb," as Toole describes it," i.e. some attenuation near 2kHz. More sophisticated processing would incorporate psychoacoustics, e.g. the contributions of different portions of the frequency spectrum to localization, spaciousness, etc.
I apologize if I'm stating the obvious. I'm a casual enthusiast who has done only a little reading, and all of this can be reasoned from first principles. As for Airsound, I suspect that this is likely to remain low- or mid-fi, relegated to iPod dock products or small home theater applications, unless one were to supplement it with front wide channels.
Yeah, that's the problem, reasoning from first principles as opposed to an empirical basis.
A lot of nonsense from Hollywood recently (now all but gone) about the WHOLE WORLD needs 3D movies. Sure? Anybody have trouble driving a car with one eye closed? License bodies don't care if you are blind in one eye, for the good reason that it doesn't reduce your distance judgment in any practical way.
Likewise, the evidence seems to be that a fantastically simple resistor creating an L+R signal does lots of good in creating a center channel. On the other hand, adding vast complexity, however absolutely necessary from a reasoning-from-first-mathematical-principles point of view hasn't caught any more interest than 3D movies... which are re-discovered every 15 years.
Which is stronger, (1) your sense of direction of a sound in a small highly reverberant room or (2) the "ventriloquist effect"?
You take something as synthetic and contrived as the stuff on the purest of classical CDs and then infinitely fuss over which math principle will most perfectly capture something in a center channel that never existed in the first place, seems unwarranted.
A lot of nonsense from Hollywood recently (now all but gone) about the WHOLE WORLD needs 3D movies. Sure? Anybody have trouble driving a car with one eye closed? License bodies don't care if you are blind in one eye, for the good reason that it doesn't reduce your distance judgment in any practical way.
Likewise, the evidence seems to be that a fantastically simple resistor creating an L+R signal does lots of good in creating a center channel. On the other hand, adding vast complexity, however absolutely necessary from a reasoning-from-first-mathematical-principles point of view hasn't caught any more interest than 3D movies... which are re-discovered every 15 years.
Which is stronger, (1) your sense of direction of a sound in a small highly reverberant room or (2) the "ventriloquist effect"?
You take something as synthetic and contrived as the stuff on the purest of classical CDs and then infinitely fuss over which math principle will most perfectly capture something in a center channel that never existed in the first place, seems unwarranted.
Last edited:
Except professionals with experience in the field like Gerzon, Holman, etc.
MONO IS KING!!! END OF DISCUSSION!!! Forget it, I tried to be reasonable, I'm out.
I thought this was the standard in the good old Dolby Cinema decoder (+ the surround part). Center is summed from L+R then subtracted from the Left and Right for those signals. (Surround being the out of phase info.) I.E.:
- Center = L+R
- Left = L-center
- Right = R-center
For a home rig, the amount of summed center that is removed from L&R should be adjustable. I've actually tried to build a matrix like this using transformers, but haven't gotten too far - yet.
Since the ear can be so easy to fool, just adding some L+R to a center speaker often works remarkably well.
I thought this was the standard in the good old Dolby Cinema decoder (+ the surround part). Center is summed from L+R then subtracted from the Left and Right for those signals. (Surround being the out of phase info.) I.E.:20 years ago I had the service manual, but it's long gone. So I may be quite wrong about this.
- Center = L+R
- Left = L-center
- Right = R-center
For a home rig, the amount of summed center that is removed from L&R should be adjustable. I've actually tried to build a matrix like this using transformers, but haven't gotten too far - yet.
Since the ear can be so easy to fool, just adding some L+R to a center speaker often works remarkably well.
Oh, I didn't mean the summation L+R but rather the correlated content between L&R (obviously would be part of a spectrum between 0 and 100%, the latter being if one played mono recordings, which might be reproduced by the center channel speaker alone, depending on the user's settings). Anyway, it was just a thought. In terms of splitting hairs, I wonder whether L+R for the center might be thought of as "stereo-enhanced mono" while something along the lines of L&R for the center (with appropriate changes to L and R) might be more representative of "center-enhanced stereo".
Honestly, mono often works remarkably well, too. One of the most important musical experiences of my life was hearing a recording of Nathan Milstein playing Bach's Ciaconne, reproduced through a Sony clock radio.
There are so many ways to do it. I was looking for the simplest solution that is enjoyable.
Just took a brief look around the web and did not see any Dolby matrix that subtracts Center from the Left and Right signals. Not sure where I got that idea. Maybe it was a Pro Logic, steering thing. With computer playback nowadays, it should be easy to pick whatever suits your needs. Expect for all those pesky analog sources.
Just took a brief look around the web and did not see any Dolby matrix that subtracts Center from the Left and Right signals. Not sure where I got that idea. Maybe it was a Pro Logic, steering thing. With computer playback nowadays, it should be easy to pick whatever suits your needs. Expect for all those pesky analog sources.
At some point of trick processing, we come to dead-ends of synthetic sounds. Like stock market derivatives - just to introduce a highly pejorative comparison - you can make the ping-pong ball go way left of the left speaker. Similarly, you can subtract L and L-R from the correlated L/R squared minus two and get something... but is it digestible.
Yes, I heard Nathan Milstein, a muscle-type violinist, do Beethoven's concerto with Fritz Reiner and Chicago in Orchestra Hall, before the renovations ruined it. A highlight for me too... and in stereo live sound. 1959, seems like only yesterday.
Yes, I heard Nathan Milstein, a muscle-type violinist, do Beethoven's concerto with Fritz Reiner and Chicago in Orchestra Hall, before the renovations ruined it. A highlight for me too... and in stereo live sound. 1959, seems like only yesterday.
Thought I'd drag this thread up rather than start a new one - we'll see where discussion goes.
I've been mulling over various ways to get the typical desktop environment to be a first-rate listening environment. Not easy. Conventional setups with the speakers to the L/R of the monitor have reflection problems and at their best sound 'small'. I went down the ambiophonic route which is interesting and somewhat promising, but a physical barrier doesn't work with a monitor (sounds good though) and I haven't been able to get any of the electronic approaches sound right. (Plus the extreme sensitivity to location/alignment in the electronic versions fails badly in the nearfield where tiny movements pull you out of the window)
So, more research led me to trifield, which seems like something that could be executed quite well in a desktop environment. Assuming it works, that is I'm fairly encouraged that there is very widespread feedback from the Meridian community indicating that many folks use trifield exclusively for music.
I went ahead and picked up the 2 1992 papers by Gerzon from the AES site. $40 is a bit annoying, but still way cheaper than a used Meridian processor. I've only started scratching the surface on the first paper - 'Optimal Reproduction Matricies for Multichannel Reproduction'. From a quick read though, it really does seem like he's just using a simple mid/side approach. Like youngho I had assumed/expected a more sophisticated correlation approach; there is no guarantee that the Meridian implementation doesn't involve additional processing, but it doesn't seem to be in this article.
I have a lot more thoughts on the correlation idea which I may post - in a nutshell it seems problematic since you have to select a time window to perform the correlation over. This introduces a time dependence in the algorithm which isn't quite 'steering', but the time-invariance seems to be a positive attribute of the trifield approach.
Anyway, from what I can tell the basic approach is pretty straightforward to implement in a DAW/DSP enviroment. The only trick is the high-pass/low-pass filters - if they aren't linear phase you have to use an all-pass on the 'side' branch to equalize the delays. I'm hoping to take a shot at implementing it using Reaper during some time off over Thanksgiving. I'll report back, but would be interested in further discussion of experiences and thoughts.
I've been mulling over various ways to get the typical desktop environment to be a first-rate listening environment. Not easy. Conventional setups with the speakers to the L/R of the monitor have reflection problems and at their best sound 'small'. I went down the ambiophonic route which is interesting and somewhat promising, but a physical barrier doesn't work with a monitor (sounds good though) and I haven't been able to get any of the electronic approaches sound right. (Plus the extreme sensitivity to location/alignment in the electronic versions fails badly in the nearfield where tiny movements pull you out of the window)
So, more research led me to trifield, which seems like something that could be executed quite well in a desktop environment. Assuming it works, that is
I'm fairly encouraged that there is very widespread feedback from the Meridian community indicating that many folks use trifield exclusively for music.I went ahead and picked up the 2 1992 papers by Gerzon from the AES site. $40 is a bit annoying, but still way cheaper than a used Meridian processor. I've only started scratching the surface on the first paper - 'Optimal Reproduction Matricies for Multichannel Reproduction'. From a quick read though, it really does seem like he's just using a simple mid/side approach. Like youngho I had assumed/expected a more sophisticated correlation approach; there is no guarantee that the Meridian implementation doesn't involve additional processing, but it doesn't seem to be in this article.
I have a lot more thoughts on the correlation idea which I may post - in a nutshell it seems problematic since you have to select a time window to perform the correlation over. This introduces a time dependence in the algorithm which isn't quite 'steering', but the time-invariance seems to be a positive attribute of the trifield approach.
Anyway, from what I can tell the basic approach is pretty straightforward to implement in a DAW/DSP enviroment. The only trick is the high-pass/low-pass filters - if they aren't linear phase you have to use an all-pass on the 'side' branch to equalize the delays. I'm hoping to take a shot at implementing it using Reaper during some time off over Thanksgiving. I'll report back, but would be interested in further discussion of experiences and thoughts.
I think a weakness of many home theaters is lousy center channel. Almost inevitable given the real estate. I flank my 42 inch plasma with two high quality identical small speakers on stands (about mid-screen height). Both are wired in parallel to the center channel.
People fret about that kind of low impedance load but really a non-issue until you are stressing the amp.
Toole is quite clear on the value of a physical center speaker, not a virtual source. But, it can be playing a virtual center signal - just combine L and R. Why not? See the distinction?
Here's why I think it matters. While you can create something like a "true to life" signal with two speakers, but actually having a middle speaker playing middle sound will always create a sound stimulus that is truer.
(for psych wonks: equivalent stimuli, Adelbert Ames, Helmholtz perspective).
People fret about that kind of low impedance load but really a non-issue until you are stressing the amp.
Toole is quite clear on the value of a physical center speaker, not a virtual source. But, it can be playing a virtual center signal - just combine L and R. Why not? See the distinction?
Here's why I think it matters. While you can create something like a "true to life" signal with two speakers, but actually having a middle speaker playing middle sound will always create a sound stimulus that is truer.
(for psych wonks: equivalent stimuli, Adelbert Ames, Helmholtz perspective).
I'd put the 2 small speakers above and below the monitor. Less image shift for people sitting off centre. and we're somewhat less sensitive to direction in the vertical plane.
I'm currently experimenting with speakers for desktop use. I find that the imaging is enhanced over typical room use, probably because the room reflections occur much later and at a lower level. I have one set of inexpensive Philips full-rangers designed for sitting on the desk with the drivers only a couple of inches off the surface, where the imaging is "holographic" - I can move my head right out to opposite either speaker before the image collapses.
I'm currently experimenting with speakers for desktop use. I find that the imaging is enhanced over typical room use, probably because the room reflections occur much later and at a lower level. I have one set of inexpensive Philips full-rangers designed for sitting on the desk with the drivers only a couple of inches off the surface, where the imaging is "holographic" - I can move my head right out to opposite either speaker before the image collapses.
Yes - I think that small full-rangers placed at the corners of the monitor/desktop may be one of the best possible arrangements - it manages the reflections very well. You need the right physical setup for that though, and since I typically work with a laptop right beside the main monitor it's not really suitable in my arrangement.
Trifield - very promising
I spent some time yesterday coding up a Trifield implementation using Reaper. I have to say that the JS scripting environment in Reaper is kick-*** for prototyping. The Trifield implementation is really pretty simple. Coding took maybe an hour or so despite being unfamiliar with the JS environment (although I'd spent time earlier in the week reading the JS docs).
The paper you want for this is 'Optimum Reproduction Matricies for Multispeaker Stereo' from Jul/Aug 1992. It's a good read. The foundation of the Trifield approach is that they observed that the two localization mechanisms - ILD and ITD - behave differently in a standard pan-pot mix (i.e L=H cos(45-theta) R=H sin(45-theta)). ILD tends to be percieved as wider than ITD for the same 'pan pot location'. (How this applies to naturally mic'd recording placement is not 100% clear, but I believe the a Blumlein setup should follow basically the same intensity rule) The Trifield matrix was arrived at by iteratively listening for a mix in which the two localization mechanisms came into alignment. The only additional piece is the observation that high freqs (over 5kHz) need explicit attention since our localization ability is limited at these freqs and the sound tends to collapse to the nearest/loudest source - in practice this amounts to reducing the center level for these freqs.
Results are very interesting and very promising. My setup is sub-optimal for testing at the moment since the center is mis-matched to the L/R and is much higher, but even given that Trifield seems to work very well. Large soundstage with good L/R placement, although not quite as pinpoint as in a very good conventional setup - I'm guessing this is partly due to the vertical mis-alignment. Certainly by far the best results I've had in this desktop arrangement, and easily good enough that I'm going to continue with experimenting with it.
I'm particularly interested to find out how the quality of the center channel speaker influences the overall perceived quality. I'm wondering whether it's possible to go with 1 really really good center and slightly lesser L/R speakers, or whether it really benefits from being matched across the board. I have 3 identical but merely 'ok' speakers (JBL Contorl Now) that I'll test with, and then swap out the center for a much better speaker (ProAc Super Tablette) and see how that fares.
The biggest downside of Trifield is that it's a active 3-channel solution and either needs a Meridian processor, or a computer implementation. If you go with a computer, you need 3 output channels, and subsequently some type of 3-channel volume control. I already had this arrangement in my PC system, but it's quite a shift in paradigm if you're currently 2-channel only.
I spent some time yesterday coding up a Trifield implementation using Reaper. I have to say that the JS scripting environment in Reaper is kick-*** for prototyping. The Trifield implementation is really pretty simple. Coding took maybe an hour or so despite being unfamiliar with the JS environment (although I'd spent time earlier in the week reading the JS docs).
The paper you want for this is 'Optimum Reproduction Matricies for Multispeaker Stereo' from Jul/Aug 1992. It's a good read. The foundation of the Trifield approach is that they observed that the two localization mechanisms - ILD and ITD - behave differently in a standard pan-pot mix (i.e L=H cos(45-theta) R=H sin(45-theta)). ILD tends to be percieved as wider than ITD for the same 'pan pot location'. (How this applies to naturally mic'd recording placement is not 100% clear, but I believe the a Blumlein setup should follow basically the same intensity rule) The Trifield matrix was arrived at by iteratively listening for a mix in which the two localization mechanisms came into alignment. The only additional piece is the observation that high freqs (over 5kHz) need explicit attention since our localization ability is limited at these freqs and the sound tends to collapse to the nearest/loudest source - in practice this amounts to reducing the center level for these freqs.
Results are very interesting and very promising. My setup is sub-optimal for testing at the moment since the center is mis-matched to the L/R and is much higher, but even given that Trifield seems to work very well. Large soundstage with good L/R placement, although not quite as pinpoint as in a very good conventional setup - I'm guessing this is partly due to the vertical mis-alignment. Certainly by far the best results I've had in this desktop arrangement, and easily good enough that I'm going to continue with experimenting with it.
I'm particularly interested to find out how the quality of the center channel speaker influences the overall perceived quality. I'm wondering whether it's possible to go with 1 really really good center and slightly lesser L/R speakers, or whether it really benefits from being matched across the board. I have 3 identical but merely 'ok' speakers (JBL Contorl Now) that I'll test with, and then swap out the center for a much better speaker (ProAc Super Tablette) and see how that fares.
The biggest downside of Trifield is that it's a active 3-channel solution and either needs a Meridian processor, or a computer implementation. If you go with a computer, you need 3 output channels, and subsequently some type of 3-channel volume control. I already had this arrangement in my PC system, but it's quite a shift in paradigm if you're currently 2-channel only.
I mounted the center channel above my screen in a small room. I am not distracted by any height cues. I usually use it as a derived center when listening to music. It has the best drivers of any in my system, a ScanSpeak Revelator and Discovery tweeter. Not everyone has the luxury of a large home theater room, I certainly don't. This dictates where my speakers are placed and it sounds very good despite this. I have done quite a bit of equalization with miniDSPs.
There was a time I was a purist because I had no money. The Dynaco Stereo 70 amp and Dynaco tube pre-amp were given to me by my father and all I could afford for a turntable was the AR (which had no anti-skating). I think that my HT system sounds better than that did. It would be nice to have six mono tube amps for my fronts which are actively crossed over http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif
If hearing is anything like vision, the brain uses a group of cues to construct a sound percept. The cues are given weightings based on their "ecological validity" (that is, which cues are the most trustworthy the most often). Strategies shift some depending on circumstances.
Persons of an engineering frame of mind, by contrast, select certain cues for examination based on what they think are their logical necessity or ease of computation using silicon computers (as contrasted to meat computers).
I think Toole would say that putting almost any reasonable signal into a middle speaker is better than anything you can do with just two speakers. Therefore, I think it should be concluded that the cues from the physical middle speaker are being used by the brain to create a more coherent percept and that the mathematical perfection of the signal to the middle being very secondary.
My guess is that having a center speaker that closely matches the flanking speakers (and so aids the brain in it constructive enterprise) and that has a lot more to do with a good sound than, once again, the mathematics (within reason, of course).
Which is why a lot of HT is faulty because the center speaker should be able to dispatch its role far better than the usual puny center speakers, ill-matched to the L and R speakers.
And in turn, the people who make the sound should would then be able to rely on the center channel like I suspect good movie sound does, and not fuss about stereo tricks.
Of course, in our world, speakers tend to come as pairs. But then, it is probably beneficial to use a pair of speakers for the center. (Obviously, I don't believe that acoustic "comb filters" can be really heard.)
Persons of an engineering frame of mind, by contrast, select certain cues for examination based on what they think are their logical necessity or ease of computation using silicon computers (as contrasted to meat computers).
I think Toole would say that putting almost any reasonable signal into a middle speaker is better than anything you can do with just two speakers. Therefore, I think it should be concluded that the cues from the physical middle speaker are being used by the brain to create a more coherent percept and that the mathematical perfection of the signal to the middle being very secondary.
My guess is that having a center speaker that closely matches the flanking speakers (and so aids the brain in it constructive enterprise) and that has a lot more to do with a good sound than, once again, the mathematics (within reason, of course).
Which is why a lot of HT is faulty because the center speaker should be able to dispatch its role far better than the usual puny center speakers, ill-matched to the L and R speakers.
And in turn, the people who make the sound should would then be able to rely on the center channel like I suspect good movie sound does, and not fuss about stereo tricks.
Of course, in our world, speakers tend to come as pairs. But then, it is probably beneficial to use a pair of speakers for the center. (Obviously, I don't believe that acoustic "comb filters" can be really heard.)
Last edited:
Center
The center is also mounted a couple of feet higher than the L/Rs. With the equalization and crossovers tweaked they sound really good. I really don't hear any odd placement issues. I would have liked to have the center mounted at the same level with the L/Rs but this is not possible. I also don't have enough room for two centers flanking the screen. There is just enough room for my L/Rs on each side of the screen. They do sound very good though so despite what I would have thought they sound equally great except for the Eton mag/ceramic tweeter is better with the highs. At some point I will find a woodworker to cut some baffles so I can replace the Eton mid-woofers with ScanSpeaks that match the center but I will keep the Eton Tweeters.
My center channel's mid-woofer, a ScanSpeak Revelator, is much better on paper than the Eton mid-woofers used for L/R. They are all actively crossed over. The center adds a lot. I was listening almost exclusively through Sennheiser HD600s and these speakers are far better sounding than the headphones.
The center is also mounted a couple of feet higher than the L/Rs. With the equalization and crossovers tweaked they sound really good. I really don't hear any odd placement issues. I would have liked to have the center mounted at the same level with the L/Rs but this is not possible. I also don't have enough room for two centers flanking the screen. There is just enough room for my L/Rs on each side of the screen. They do sound very good though so despite what I would have thought they sound equally great except for the Eton mag/ceramic tweeter is better with the highs. At some point I will find a woodworker to cut some baffles so I can replace the Eton mid-woofers with ScanSpeaks that match the center but I will keep the Eton Tweeters.
Last edited:
Hello Panomaniac
If you find it could you post it?? I would like to read it. It's not a typical set up to have 3 identical speakers. I always thought if they were voice matched it didn't matter. I always used a pink noise pan across the front channels to listen for obvious differences to potentially EQ out.
Rob
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.