How many of you don't have a center channel in your theatre room?

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Going to be building a set Troels Jenzens ER's with the Nextel woofer instead of the ER. Jenzen CA

The Jenzens will become my front speakers and my previously built seas idunn's will become the rears https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...seas-idunn-2-way-speaker-kit-pair-parts-only/

I have read some people mentioning they don't run a center channel if viewers are directly in front of the screen as the centre is more to help with people sitting off to the left or right sides.
Others have said that a center can even have an adverse affect on sound.

So i guess before i put my order in for the drivers, i just wanted to see how many people here do or don't run a center speaker in their home theaters. My theater room will be a 4x5 or 5x6 meter once we build our house.

Thanks in advance
 
I don`t. My own view is this is the most useless product of marketing in the audio industry. Perhaps it was a good idea for those old CRT television sets, but for anything with a screen larger than 29" its more of a harm than a benefit - all your sound would come out of the bottom/top of the TV and not where it should come from, especially true if you`re running a large 50"+ screen. A good set of front speakers can easily position the image where it has to be and with far more natural results. I wonder when AV receivers would incorporate such "virtual center" processing to allow the front speakers act like a center when needed.
 
Stereo, no center here. Don't miss the center channel, but to be honest i watch everything with subtitles. Not because i am deaf, but i watch lot's of foreign arthouse. And i don't want to play at loud level's when i watch late at night. Screen 2.50 meter wide in a 5.5 x 6.5 meter room / theater.
 
Last edited:

6L6

Moderator
Joined 2010
Paid Member
I don't have a center channel speaker as I listen in stereo only.

When I did have a 5.1 system, all 5 of the speakers were identical and things worked quite well. But since going back to 'just' stereo I must report that overall I like the sound much better.
 
BTW: I've found that 5.1 setups must be carefully tuned for the room (i.e., implying measuring each channel separately and combining to match FR within one to 1.5 dB all the way around)--else stereo typically sounds better.

Many stereo recordings are not recorded with a 5.1 (or greater) surround synthesis in mind, i.e., non "Dolby Surround" recordings, and therefore sound terrible when these modes are turned on. I usually don't try to make more than two channels from two-channel recordings because of this. However, I've found that surround tracks always sound better than their stereo counterparts on the same source medium, once I got everything dialed in properly (including EQing and correcting crossover phase mismatches for the prime listening positions).

The center channel is always the most difficult to set up properly, but once it is, it should be seamless and undetectable as you move from side-wall to side-wall, and much better than stereo. And center-channel-only sequences in cinema, etc. are dramatically improved in intelligibility.

But the bar is high, unfortunately. Automated "Audyssey"-like systems I've found do not work nearly well enough in anything but very dead rooms (i.e., RT60 curves of 0.3 and below from ~100-20000 Hz). YMMV.
 
I run quadraphonic: pair of Behringer B2031Ps at the front, and some cheapie Sony surround speakers at the back, with 2.5" drivers. There's also a sub.

The Behringers provide rather good imaging, so I don't find any need for a centre speaker. I use VLC on my laptop, running through the usual Windows 8.1 sound processing, with "phantom channels" switched on. Never noticed any drop in vocal levels.
The surrounds are run quietly, just to provide a little ambience in things like restaurant scenes in movies. Music just gets the Behringers and sub.

Chris
 

6L6

Moderator
Joined 2010
Paid Member
I am curious too. 5.1 is not as big as i thought / or we are just all very lazy :rolleyes:


I suspect that many people had a surround system, and got tired of it in the last few years - there are too many formats and codecs for sound, all the studio have more than one, and because of that the sound becomes inconsistent. Stereo is stereo, and then your movies all sound good and consistent.
 
I haven't had anything more than 2.2 system for over a decade and didn't really miss it much but I recently took the plunge to 5.2. Not setup yet, so don't know whether it will be worthwhile long term. This is a dedicated HT system and I wanted a larger sweet spot for movie/sport watching.
 
2 Chanel's to reproduce something that was mixed mixed in 5 or more. May as we'll listen to your music in mono. The down mix to Dolby surround (the 2 channel version that fakes 4 Channel's) is usually mediocre, and dosnt include the sub channel. If you listen to real 5 channel mixes ( Dolby ac3 or better still, dts ) and you don't have a centre you will hear very little dialogue.
 
Thanks for all the replies. Looks like no center ffor now then. Just wanted to make sure that I was not needing to buy drivers along with my fronts at the moment.

I may still try one down the track but for starters will just run a 4.1 setup for movies and just use stereo for music.

Hopefully with the smaller room this will be enough.

Thanks again, was good to see how many people are happy not to have a center channel.
 
Having a center that is equal to your mains makes a huge difference IMO. I ran a 4.2 setup for years before finally giving a center a try again. The down mixing, and off axis issues involved with a stereo only front is noticeable.

Next time I upgrade my mains to something bigger I'm just going to wall mount my tv and run 3 identical towers across the front.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.