Centre Channel

Yes, although a phantom centre channel is an idealized position, dependent upon the ability of the L and R loudspeakers to pinpoint the centre channel, well, dead center.

Strangely (and some others may notice this) I find that the addition of a center channel to my system has made dialogue less "distracting", in the sense that one does not need to process the spatial cues from two loudspeakers–they come from one discrete location.

I'm using an n-Vi, usually with only two front speakers: perfect for music and even good for films. Some times I add rear speakers (these are normally used as main speakers of my sons's system) and enjoy wonderful surround sound. I never missed a centre speaker (and am a little curious what the difference might be). I (almost) never missed a sub because I'm very satisfied with the bass that comes out of my n-Vi/SBLs.

I would definitely say the centre speaker is probably the most important in a surround set-up!

Say, for instance, a car went across the screen from left to right. In phantom mode, with no centre speaker present the effect of the car travelling would not be as accurately presented as if the FL,Centre and FR speakers were all present. I guess this depends on how well the downmix was achieved?

Likewise, for a dialogue passage the dialogue is normally sent to the centre channel and the ambient sound sent to the other channels. I guess this adds clarity to the vocal, wheras in phantom mode it would all be mixed in together?

Mind you, I've always had a centre speaker of some sort so I haven't compared the difference. I just assumed ahem.

IMHO the center speaker is the most important speaker for watching movies, because it carries the majority of the information. It connects dialogs and picture and reliefs your brain from creating the phantom image.

It´s crucial that the center matchs the front speakers tonaly and it makes no sense to add just a cheap box and put it in the middle. A voice moving from one side to the other, must not change it´s characteristics when coming from the fronts or the center.

I have to admit that for quite some time I had no center, because I used my stereo system as you described and found no matching center. Since I divided stereo and AV, I´ve a matching AV set and I would not want to step back. The requirements for music and cinema presentation are quite different. Maybe it´s a classical, you don´t miss what you havent tried. :-)

brgds..TC

A center channel speaker benefits off-axis listeners. This piece goes into more detail.

If you're talking 5.1 there is a discrete center channel in the mix, the most important bits are generally coming from that channel. IMO, using a processor to compensate for a phantom center channel is a compromise. It's akin to playing a re-processed for stereo record that was intended to be mono.

If you have a 5.1 source, it is best to give that straight trough "unprocessed" to 5.1 speakers. Any kind of "downmixing" affects quality...

But as an intermediate stop to going full 5.1 it is very practical to be able to change that in the setup. So to keep the quality you have from your 2.0 setup and not having to add cheap surround additions all at one time.

happy listening
Adrian

P.S. You can press the mono-button on your HiFi to have an analogue downmix. Still the same music, but something is missing

Dear Adrian,

There are times when I reckon mono is nicer than bad stereo! I have found that little is lost, certainly not musically.

Whether it is ideal in absolute terms, I would avoid a centre speaker, and go for a projected image. I can see that if the viewers were not in quite the right place, that having the speaking channel divided between the two front ones on either side, might not be as fine as it might be...

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Adrian,

There are times when I reckon mono is nicer than bad stereo! I have found that little is lost, certainly not musically.

Whether it is ideal in absolute terms, I would avoid a centre speaker, and go for a projected image. I can see that if the viewers were not in quite the right place, that having the speaking channel divided between the two front ones on either side, might not be as fine as it might be...

ATB from Fredrik

Fredrick,

However even my modest HT setup is vastly improved when using the centre and rear channels. Stereo (2.0) is defnitely not in the same league as Dolby Digital!

regards
Pete

Dear Fredrik,

I knew the mono proposal was a bit provocating I'll take anytime good mono over bad stereo from a musical standpoint. So I would a good stereo over a bad multichannel setup.

That's what I meant above: If you have a good and balanced stereo system, and you want the same results in surround, then the old hifi rules still apply in homecinema. You ideally take the same brand of speakers, amps, cables, ect. to build it up. Of course it will be more expensive, but you can go there step by step. Add surround speakers, then center, then sub. I am not finished with my own surround extensions being on 5.0 at the moment.
A mixed set of different speakers and amps is good enough to try whether you like the surround effect or not. But it will never give a balanced experience as a whole, and that's where I am aiming. "Exploding aliens" is not enough to me for a multichannel system. I want musicallity and PRAT too, as I am used to from my stereo gear.

Remember: The bigger your picture gets - the more you will need a center! Alone in front of a small TV a phantom center will probably do good enough. But I guess you won't be so selfish, to keep everyone else out from the joy of your ~100" screen? Because only one can sit in the sweet spot. I tried to avoid it too for some time, because the placement is inconvenient. (I would like that naim had wall-mounts for their centers!) But I would never give it back now. I am even thinking about going from 175 to 145 to feed it. A lot of times, this is the only active channel, and the others are waiting for something to do.

The easy way is to place the center above or below the screen. Then usually the tweeters are not at the same heigth as the front speakers. (Some place both above AND below a center to improve this.) Perfect would be an acoustically transparent screen and place the center behind it. But the only ones I found to do this without the need of an equalizer (yikes!) is http://www.screenresearch.com/ and that comes at a price. This is one of the reasons why I have not gone the projector way myself up to now...
It would go over all my 3 front speakers, and that's the only way to get a really big picture at my place. I can't push the front speakers further apart, because in stereo use that would mean a hole in the middle effect.

If you have 2 rooms to spare, it could be easier to have separate systems for movies and music...

I am in the same position with the sub. I thought I could easily go without a sub because of the DBLs. I don't miss a sub! But to my surprise, I found a thread in this forum where they told me different. This acknowledges the rule -> 5.1 source matches best 5.1 system. Mixing missing channels in others is a compromise.

In the end, you can't miss what you never had. I hope you find a good dealer to lend you a matching amp and center.

happy listening
Adrian

As others have posted here, the centre channel speaker is nigh-on essential for 5.1 or 7.1 digital surround sound.

I also made the mistake of initially thinking my super-duper stereo could do a better job. Wrong!

I then tried a KEF centre channel speaker with modest amplification which was a vast improvement & I thought was fine. Wrong again!

I now have a NAP 145 dedicated to driving a Naim Axcess Centre speaker and the difference it makes is astonishing.

As has been pointed out already, digital movie soundtracks are mixed specifically to provide discrete channels to six or eight speakers and if you want the best sound you need the appropriate speakers and amplification. This includes subwoofers for the same reason; I eventually ended up with two active subs, each with 1,250 watts of amplification and digital room equalisation. No real-world conventional stereo speakers can hope to emulate the profound levels of bass these produce.

Surround sound is part of the audio-visual experience and as such can't be compared directly with "pure" stereo. If you went to the cinema and the sound was being produced through two stereo speakers you'd be pretty disappointed!

Personally, I really enjoy live concert DVDs. It sure ain't pure stereo but it doesn't half sound good!