Center Channel Conspiracy?

[RebelMan]

Something that has been on my mind for quite some time is what I like to call the Center Channel Conspiracy Theory. Many of us already know the "theoretical" importance of timbre' matching speakers, especially across the front stage. But what is the real (practical) importance of speaker matching when it comes to home theater?

Take B&W's newest 800 Series for instance. B&W has four centers, the HTM4S, HTM3S, HTM2D and the HTM1D. Each center was purposely designed to work with a specific set of speakers. The HTM4S with the 805S's, the HTM3S with the 804S's and 803S's, the HTM2D with the 803D's, and the HTM1D with the 802D's, 801D's and the 800D's. Or were they?

Just when you learned the HTM1D center goes with your shinny new 802D's your run across this statement from B&W...

Designed to partner the 803D, and even the 802/801/800 models when space restrictions preclude the larger HTM1D, the HTM2D features the phenomenal diamond dome tweeter in a full 3-way centre speaker. ...

What gives? Isn't the center channel the most important channel in home theater? Domestic constraints aside, why would B&W suggest the HTM2D in lieu of the HTM1D for the 802D's? After all they made the HTM1D for this purpose, right?

Their suggestion puzzles me. Perhaps there is a hidden message buried in their suggestion. I'm not completely certain what the hidden message is but one could expect it to be one of these three...

A. Speaker matching among the 800 Series really isn't that important.
B. A cabinet mounted FST driver is indistinguishable from a Marlan head mounted FST driver.
C. The perceived neutrality (openess) of the Marlan head mounted FST, over the cabinet mounted FST, has been over exaggerated.

My listening sessions with the HTM4S and the HTM3S would suggest the first of these possibilities. The voices sounded more shut-in with the HTM4S. But then again, it was sporting a different driver compliment. Still I could have been satisfied with it, it just wasn't ideal.

This is not the case when you compare the HTM2D with HTM1D. Sure the HTM1D has larger woofers, plus one. But in home theater this difference can be neutralized with a good subwoofer and proper bass management. Under these circumstances, I am compelled to believe in the last of these choices.

What do you think? :roll:

[csuzor]

Rebelman, why do you think that matching is not that important, if you say the HTM4S sounded more shut-in than the HTM3S? I think B&W is saying, the higher up you go, the less difference there is (law of diminishing returns), and each person has to stop before it hurts (either your budget or your marriage). There are plenty who have the HTM2D with 802D (any thoughts MisterDoggy?), for the reasons B&W list. But matching 802D / 803(S/D) with HTM4S would be wasteful. Perhaps your pain point limits you to the 803D or 802D and HTM2D? Would still be a great combo.

B&W is guilty of negligence for the 700 series, with only the HTM7. But with the 800 series, they cater for everyone's desire.

[RebelMan]

“I” think that proper matching is important. That’s why I opted to pair my 803S’s with the HTM3S instead of the HTM4S, but I hesitated at first because of the HUDGE investment that it was going to take. Still, I don’t think it was worth twice the price of its smaller sibling, but that is beside the point.

As I stated, there are more fundamental differences between the HTM4S and the HTM3S than there is between the HTM3S and HTM2D or the HTM1D with it. A center channel’s primary responsibility is dialog. The driver most responsible for that is the midrange, i.e., the FST driver in this case. If what defines proper matching could be narrowed down to one driver, the FST would probably be it, with respect to the 800 Series.

But wait a minute. If you read what others say about the Marlan adorned speakers and why most people upgrade to them from the 803D’s, and other FST’s bread cabinets, it is because they claim them to be “significantly” more open. If this is the case, then why do these same people choose to dumb down their system with an inferior center? After all, the Marlan FST’s should be a complete mismatch with a cabinet FST, if what they say is true. Right?

While I find the Marlan FST’s a little cleaner (less colored) sounding it isn’t what I would call significantly more open. Herein lies the conspiracy.

[Ash]

Hi RebelMan, I think that the HTM2D was mainly created to fill a gap that would have been created in the 800 product line with the introduction of the Diamond Tweeter and the 803D model.

I guess that it started with the 803D, being a speaker incorporating the Diamond tweeter with a Marlanless cabinet, providing the Diamond tweeter to customers who want diamond, but can't afford Marlan or don't have space for 802D and above.

Customers who buy the 803D would require a centre channel to compliment such a speaker, so the HTM2D was created, it is just like the HTM2S, but with a bigger bass drivers (7 inch) and has the diamond tweeters.

Again B&W realised that some people would buy the 802D or other marlan models and those might want a centre speaker that would match their main speakers “perfectly”, therefore, they developed the HTM1D for this market niche.

Then again, a lot of people would buy 80XD models mainly for stereo or music listening and would want a centre speaker for HT, they don't want a "perfect" match, but want one close enough. And many people won't have the space for a HTM1D, I mean it’s easier to place 802D in a room than finding a place under the TV for a HTM1D (and don't forget the WAF massacre that will happen when an audiophile enters the house with a HTM1D, and goes honey I have a surprise). For those people the HTM2D will do the job (and I think that most people would go for HTM2D).

I believe that B&W suggested both HTM1D and HTM2D for 80XDs because they have studied the needs of their customers and provided a product or solution that would meet the different needs of all those customers.

I personally think that most people don't critically listen to movies as they do when they listen to music, therefore, most people would be satisfied with matching the HTM2D with 80XDs. The HTM2D sufficient sound to compliment any 80XD, as they will provide a sound that is very close to any 80XD, because they have the bass drivers, they have FST and they have Diamond. Therefore, they would not stand out as having a different sound signature.

However, if you are questioning the effects of Marlan on sound in general, the extent of improvements it provides, and its relevant cost-benefit relationship, then this would be a whole different story and a pretty subjective one perhaps.

[JKalman]

Well considering how sound coalesces when speakers are that close together (or how the mind coalesces the separate signals into a cohesive whole), chances are the merging of the sound waves (in the listener's brain) tends to compensate for any loss in openess by both decreasing the openess of the right and left speakers, and increasing the closed-ness of the center, thus balancing out any minor difference, since a front channel's output is overlayed by both the right and left speakers' outputs. I would guess that since the brain works to make a cohesive whole out of these separate outputs (and that stereo images in general are developed to manipulate this capacity of the human brain to unite seperate but similar signals) you risk losing the cohesiveness of a musical/theatrical image the further away from a match you get. Perhaps the HTM2D matches up closely enough that it does not pass beyond that critical threshold.

From what I have read, it isn't necessary to have a center channel unless you have off-center listeners anyway, i.e. if you watch movies alone 99% of the time, don't waste your money on a center channel speaker at all. Though I am building my system for my entire family, I am quite aware that my kids and I may be the only ones who watch it together, and none of them will notice if the sound isn't balanced or centered exactly right, and likewise I don't care if I sit off center when watching their movies. When I am watching my movies, chances are it will be alone since my wife's movies are always watched in the bedroom -- she doesn't care about surround sound and we have a 56" plasma in the Master Bedroom. For now I am probably going to add the center channel last in my system (a HTM2D) after I have gotten all the other pieces I feel are more important to my enjoyment of music and video.

[RebelMan]

Then again, a lot of people would buy 80XD models mainly for stereo or music listening and would want a centre speaker for HT, they don't want a "perfect" match, but want one close enough. ... For those people the HTM2D will do the job (and I think that most people would go for HTM2D).

For someone that is 50/50 AV it would seem that this falls under the first "theory." Admittedly, however, if I went with a pair of 802D's I would be placing a priority on two-channel playback.

I personally think that most people don't critically listen to movies as they do when they listen to music, therefore, most people would be satisfied with matching the HTM2D with 80XDs. The HTM2D sufficient sound to compliment any 80XD, as they will provide a sound that is very close to any 80XD, because they have the bass drivers, they have FST and they have Diamond. Therefore, they would not stand out as having a different sound signature.

Agreed, but then again if most people didn't (listen critically) then why do most people also agree that the center is critical in HT environments? Don't you think that this rational seems diametrically opposed?

However, if you are questioning the effects of Marlan on sound in general, the extent of improvements it provides, and its relevant cost-benefit relationship, then this would be a whole different story and a pretty subjective one perhaps.

Ah-ha! Perhaps there is a hidden message here?

[RobP]

Jkalman,
I would have to kindly disagree with that center channel theory, if you are listening to your movies in just stereo then yes you dont need one. But if you have a theatre utilizing a decoder then it is a must. The center channel is very important even if you are not sitting off center, it places the information on the screen where it needs to be, without it the relationship between the sight and sound will not be complete.

[JKalman]

Jkalman,
I would have to kindly disagree with that center channel theory, if you are listening to your movies in just stereo then yes you dont need one. But if you have a theatre utilizing a decoder then it is a must. The center channel is very important even if you are not sitting off center, it places the information on the screen where it needs to be, without it the relationship between the sight and sound will not be complete.

It isn't important if you are the only person watching the movie and can sit front and center, right in the sweet spot. Many decoders let you turn off the center channel (like my Bryston SP1.7) which they kindly reroute to the left front and right front speakers. The SP1.7 also lets me turn off the sub and the related crossover frequency, which allows me to start utilizing surround again the minute I bring home the two surround speakers.

[JKalman]

What I can't do however, is use 5.1 bypass mode on my SP1.7 unless the device outputting the signals (SACD/DVD-A/DVD-V player) also has the capacity to turn off the center channel and the sub.

[george_k]

JKalman,

I agree with you and provide a little more insight below,

Isn't the center channel the most important channel in home theater?

It depends...I was just reading Issue#1 of the audio perfectionist (freely available from his website) and he basically put into words what I have noticed about center channels. The center channel is only important to those who sit off-axis. In fact he even goes as far as saying that if you are sitting on-axis do away with the center channel completely.

I can say that in my setup I'm running a phantom center and I always sit on-axis and the dialog reproduction is great. Although I can't comment on whether it is better to use an center or not when sitting on axis (since I don't have one to test with). I invite you to read his article http://www.audioperfectionist.com/PD...journal1rh.pdf

The center channel is very important even if you are not sitting off center, it places the information on the screen where it needs to be, without it the relationship between the sight and sound will not be complete.

Soundgravy, I have to challenge that statement you made by quoting part of the article whose link is provided above.

" Tell your HT processor that there is no center channel speaker. It will mix center channel information into the left front and right front speakers.
Sit centered between your front speakers and listen to familiar material. Don't you hear an image with greater depth and dimension, and dialog that is better integrated with the acoustics of the scene? When you turn the center channel on, you hear monophonic voices coming directly from that speaker, don't you? Those voices often sound disassociated from the acoustics of the scene on the screen because they were actually recorded on an ADR stage, not at the time the film was made."

"But is it the most important channel? I don't think so. I'd call it a sometimes necessary evil."

[JKalman]

Sweet, I didn't realize it, but the SP1.7 also lets me turn off the surround speakers. I can do virtual surround with two channels using the SP1.7. :B

[gunny]

Until about a month ago, I owned the HTM3S (with 804S), and now I have 802D's with an HTM2D. For a brief period, I actually contemplated the HTM1D. But at 4 grand difference, I couldn't justify that kind of money for what I perceived would only be the Marlan head upgrading the midrange dialogue in movies, or even worse - talking heads on news programs.

So far, the only difference I can tell between the two centers is some occasional increased clarity and delicacy in the very high frequencies that are directed to the center channel. Because the 802D's always display this characteristic, I really only notice it occasionally from the HTM2D, when it is the only speaker playing.

[Andrew M Ward]

Something that has been on my mind for quite some time is what I like to call the Center Channel Conspiracy Theory. Many of us already know the "theoretical" importance of timbre' matching speakers, especially across the front stage. But what is the real (practical) importance of speaker matching when it comes to home theater?

Take B&W's newest 800 Series for instance. B&W has four centers, the HTM4S, HTM3S, HTM2D and the HTM1D. Each center was purposely designed to work with a specific set of speakers. The HTM4S with the 805S's, the HTM3S with the 804S's and 803S's, the HTM2D with the 803D's, and the HTM1D with the 802D's, 801D's and the 800D's. Or were they?

You know, B&W wasn't even going to make the HTM1D ... it was a suggestion from "Those who shall remain name-less" The conspiracy is real!!!

More later...

[JKalman]

That reminds me, I haven't see The Village in awhile...

[RebelMan]

george_k and JKalman, there is some truth in what you say about a (properly configured) "phantom" center image negating the need for a dedicated center channel for on-axis listeners. However, what you both neglected to mention was the physiological process involved to create that image in your brain. There is evidence suggesting that the work the brain must exercise to create this image is distracting and fatiguing.

A dedicated center also reduces the burden on the left and right channels. Using three speakers to reproduce sound enables each to be driven at a lower level and provide a cleaner sound. Additionally, sounds that move across the front stage tend to become smeared. A center channel mitigates these weaknesses and makes movement more realistic.

Tests that I have conducted with and without a center channel, while sitting on-axis, is a "revelation" not to be discounted. :T

[RebelMan]

You know, B&W wasn't even going to make the HTM1D ... it was a suggestion from "Those who shall remain name-less" The conspiracy is real!!!

More later...

Do tell! ( If and when you can. )

[DrJRapp]

A. Speaker matching among the 800 Series really isn't that important.
B. A cabinet mounted FST driver is indistinguishable from a Marlan head mounted FST driver.
C. The perceived neutrality (openess) of the Marlan head mounted FST, over the cabinet mounted FST, has been over exaggerated.

What do you think? :roll:

Just my $.02... In my quest for new speakers for 2 channel listning, I spent a long time a/bing the 803D vs the 802D in a nearly acoustically perfect room (that was huge) with each speaker set up in it's respective ideal position. Electronics were the same Halcro amps.

I listened very closely to the midrange since so much has been written about the "openenss" of the 802 vs the "boxiness" of the 803. Honestly, IMHO the 803 is not the slightest bit "boxy". There is a very minor difference in the midrange sound of the 802d over the 803d but that doesn't make either speaker inferior.

I'd be willing to bet that if one were to place an 802d in the left channel position in a more normal sized listening room, and an 803D in the right channel, then roll off everything below 40hz and balance the setup for volume, one would be very hard pressed to tell the fact that the speakers were "mismatched", room acoustics would probably level the differences.

I think what is important when matching a center in the 800 series is to have matching tweeter technologies. I wouldn't try to match up a S series aluminum driver with a D series diamond driver. The differences in sound character ARE noticable, and could be more of a "distraction" than having no center at all (phantom center).

[audioqueso]

Not to change the subject, but it's very interesting what Jerry and others have mentioned about the new 803 vs 802. In the previous Nautilus series, it was a big jump from the 803s to 802s. Yet with the new 800 series, B&W seems to have closed the gap a lot. Either by greatly improving the 803s or lacking with the 802s. I have not heard the new 802+, so I wouldn't know. But it sounds that way just from what others have mentioned.

[JKalman]

george_k and JKalman, there is some truth in what you say about a (properly configured) "phantom" center image negating the need for a dedicated center channel for on-axis listeners. However, what you both neglected to mention was the physiological process involved to create that image in your brain. There is evidence suggesting that the work the brain must exercise to create this image is distracting and fatiguing.

A dedicated center also reduces the burden on the left and right channels. Using three speakers to reproduce sound enables each to be driven at a lower level and provide a cleaner sound. Additionally, sounds that move across the front stage tend to become smeared. A center channel mitigates these weaknesses and makes movement more realistic.

Tests that I have conducted with and without a center channel, while sitting on-axis, is a "revelation" not to be discounted. :T

I would like to see the reference for this research you are mentioning, so I can read it myself.

I never said, two front channels is the best way to set up a system. I said that it wasn't important if you are the only one watching the system. I don't consider minor fatigue to be an issue I worry about (I would wager this fatgue level is negligible, if the research is even valid), especially if I have the option of 4.1 surround without the center channel vs. having only stereo sound because I can't afford a center channel yet. It could be altogether likely that there are other explanations for changes in brain activity they find when people listen to stereo, such as induced trances and meditational states. I know there were experiments with using stereo images to effect brain wave states, to bring people into Alpha, Theta and/or Delta states. How convincing is this evidence, or is it contentious and lacking in proof? Evidence that can suggest one thing, can usually suggest a lot of other things as well. And, isn't it good to exercise your brain? I have read that exercising your brain helps to prevent degenerative brain disorders and memory loss.

Burden on the speakers is not something I have ever had an issue with using my current setup, and on a 5 channel system, the empty channel actually takes less power away from the other channels. So you see, you put less burden on the left and right channels but place more burden on all channels in the amplifier if you use a surround amp, or in the case of separate amplifiers, you spend a lot more money for more channels/amplifiers. I also haven't noticed any smearing using my 802Ds in virtual surround mode (or my 703s when I had them set up in 2 channel for SACD and DVD-A), perhaps smearing is something you have to worry about with lower quality speakers. I would want to see proof of this before I take it as fact. It would seem to me that smearing would be an issue if you were off center with no center channel.

I don't see a big difference between having a front channel or not when listening to music and movies with and without one. I do, on the other hand, notice the missing subwoofer. Perhaps my SP1.7's processor integrates the center channel into the left and right fronts extremely well. All said, I don't find a center channel important, it isn't a high on my must aquire list. I still don't see it as necessary to enjoy surround sound if you watch movies alone on axis. Certainly, in my case, not worth the 4k when I have other things that take priority.

I'll have to break out my copy of Total Recording over Thanksgiving and see what it mentions in regards to these issues. Happy Holidays everyone, be back in 4-5 days, or longer depending on how good the XBox360 games are.

[JKalman]

Oh, BTW, wouldn't it stand to reason that since we have two ears, even with a center channel, we would still have this fatigue occuring? The brain will still have to process the sound the same way, i.e. it will still have to construct a cohesive whole from two inputs (your left and right ear inputs), or is there some kind of proof that a center channel bypasses normal processing of sound signals by the brain?

I couldn't find anything about this particular area of psychoacoustics in the book Total Recording (fatigue from two stereo imaging), though the author mentions (paraphrasing) that it is a contentious field with a lot of untested assumptions, thus it is an area that is the subject of much research. The only mention of fatigue in the near vicinity of psychoacoustics in the book was fatigue caused by listening to music too loud.

[aphexist]

I think B&W is pretty clear when it comes to their recommedation. I think you are missing the obvious:

when space restrictions preclude the larger HTM1D, the HTM2D features the phenomenal diamond dome tweeter in a full 3-way centre speaker

How could you be more clear?

[audioqueso]

Oh, BTW, wouldn't it stand to reason that since we have two ears, even with a center channel, we would still have this fatigue occuring? The brain will still have to process the sound the same way, i.e. it will still have to construct a cohesive whole from two inputs (your left and right ear inputs), or is there some kind of proof that a center channel bypasses normal processing of sound signals by the brain?

No, because even though we have two ears, we are still able to determine sound in all depths around us. We don't have only two directions of hearing. That's like saying we have two eyes, but we can only see in one direction. There are no speakers in our everyday environment, yet we can hear things from all directions, right? If you walk down the street, do your ears get tired of working?? I believe that is the main goal of surround sound. To make the movies have a life-like surrounding soundstage.

[Pio]

IMO - you need to get the speakers to match / sound as close as possible because of how the room will interact with them. In other words, if you get identical speakers all around, be them 803's or 802's or whatever, and run pink noise through them they will sound slightly different because of the interaction. Specially the center that is placed so close to the TV's big reflective surface face.

[RebelMan]

I would like to see the reference for this research you are mentioning, so I can read it myself.

Are you from Missouri? :lol:

I never said, two front channels is the best way to set up a system. I said that it wasn't important if you are the only one watching the system.

True, you didn't. Perhaps you initially meant to say that it wasn't important to you. To be frank, not owning a center speaker places you in a position ill-equipped to make any meaningful comparisons. For you to say that a discrete center is not important at all demonstrates this and lessens the merit of your opinion. (The mismatched 703's and HTM7 that you previously owned is really not a good example to draw any conclusions from either. Perhaps in this case a phantom center would be better?)

At the risk of taking this thread of topic I will indulge your inquiries with the following replies...


On the issue of fatigue:

Dolby Labs is developing techniques with two speakers that simulates a full complement of surround speakers for those people that lack the financial and spacial means for discrete channels. One of the benefits their technology provides that other two-channel solutions lack is mentioned toward the end of the article which I captured here...

• Long-term listening comfort. By recreating the full acoustic characteristics of multiple speakers in a real environment, Dolby Virtual Speaker technology ensures long-term listening comfort. This is a great improvement on other virtualization systems that cause considerable listening fatigue over time because of their use of raw and oversimplified crosstalk-cancellation techniques.

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/techno...peaker_wp.html


On the issue of distractions:

Keep in mind this discussion is within the confines of home theater where a phantom center is trying to reproduce dialogue and special effects normally intended for a discrete channel. Contrary to stereo imaging where the intent is to create spacial queues and localization of instruments. The approach used in the studio to mix soundtracks on film differs for strict music reproduction.

Here is an excerpt from the Department of Music at Columbia University that explains this difference...

The Six Elements of a Film Mix ... Stereo features a phenomena known as phantom center which means that the output of the two speakers combine to give the impression of a third speaker in between them. This phantom center can sometimes shift as the balance of the music shifts from side to side, which can be very disconcerting to a listener. As a result film has always relied on a third speaker channel in the center in order to keep the sound anchored.

http://music.columbia.edu/~mando/HTM...tsFilmMix.html


On the issue of system demands:

It's a wildly know fact that multiple channels produces more sound and requires less demands on the "system overall". An informal experiment that I conducted showed a need to reduce the volume when all three speakers were driven. Facilitating less effort on each speaker and less work for a given channel on the amplifier. Although such measurable quantities are probably negligible. However, the additional detail and realism of the action was clearly audible and far more distinct when the center speaker was engaged.

I also haven't noticed any smearing using my 802Ds in virtual surround mode (or my 703s when I had them set up in 2 channel for SACD and DVD-A), perhaps smearing is something you have to worry about with lower quality speakers. I would want to see proof of this before I take it as fact. It would seem to me that smearing would be an issue if you were off center with no center channel.

When you obtain a properly matched center to go with your system conduct your own tests and I am sure you'll agree with me then. Until then enjoy your emulations. :lol:

I don't see a big difference between having a front channel or not when listening to music and movies with and without one. I do, on the other hand, notice the missing subwoofer. Perhaps my SP1.7's processor integrates the center channel into the left and right fronts extremely well. All said, I don't find a center channel important, it isn't a high on my must aquire list. I still don't see it as necessary to enjoy surround sound if you watch movies alone on axis. Certainly, in my case, not worth the 4k when I have other things that take priority.

We all have our priorities.

[RebelMan]

Sorry aphexist, I think you missed the obvious when I opened with the statement...

Domestic constraints aside, why would B&W suggest the HTM2D in lieu of the HTM1D for the 802D's? After all they made the HTM1D for this purpose, right?

[aphexist]

Sorry aphexist, I think you missed the obvious when I opened with the statement...

But in the quoted literature that is the only condition B&W recommends the HTM2D over the HTM1D. So if the "domestic concerns" are eschewed, then the recommendation is moot.

Maybe you are right. I guess there is a conspiracy where B&W is systematically trying to make less money by encouraging consumers to buy the cheaper product. Where is my tin foil hat?

[RebelMan]

But in the quoted literature that is the only condition B&W recommends the HTM2D over the HTM1D. So if the "domestic concerns" are eschewed, then the recommendation is moot.

Have you physically compared the HTM4S to the HTM3S? The size difference is substantial. Many on this forum, and else where, will tell you that the HTM3S is a HUGE center. I tend to agree and I own one.

If what you say was true, then B&W would make the same recommendation to people considering the HTM3S. That is, to use the HTM4S were space limitations are a concern. I suspect they don't because it would be acoustically mismatched.

I don't think B&W needed to make the HTM2D suggestion at all, yet they did. Most people shopping for speakers in this range are astute enough to know what will fit in their room, they needn't be told. Unless they were concerned about proper matching and need some certainty.

[RebelMan]

Maybe you are right. I guess there is a conspiracy where B&W is systematically trying to make less money by encouraging consumers to buy the cheaper product. Where is my tin foil hat?

Or maybe it's a way for B&W to get people to buy up from the 803D's. I think you sat on your hat. LOL :lol:

[misterdoggy]

Well, For those of you weighing in your opinions about not needing the center channel, but living with only fronts......... We can't really take your opinion seriously now can we ?

I fall into the category of 'uh oh' what would the little lady say if I walked in the door with the monster HTM1D. !! I mean when I walked in the door with the pair of 802D's it was already pushing it. The HTM2D was the perfect solution.

I have had many center speakers, and many conversations with experts at B&W Technical Dept, and other concerns and IMHO the center channel is THE most important speaker for Home Theater.

As I have said in another thread, in the home theater ALL the speakers should be equal in a perfect world. ALL 802D's or ALL 703's. The information is spread around, true more to the front 3 speakers, but none the less ALOT of information is destined for the center.

5.1 means 5.1 not 4.1 bridged !! :T

[george_k]

misterdoggy & others,

Well this thread among other things is generating good points on both sides of the camp. For myself, the matrixing provides clear enough dialog that I do not feel compelled to purchase a center channel...unless I were to sit off-axis.

The point we are trying to make is that it is generally stated that the center is the most important speaker in HT but is that really true if already a few of us in this thread have stated that we are happy without it? <-- again assuming on-axis listening...

I should also point out that the 2 pieces of evidence that support the use of center speakers have the potential to be mis-interpreted. Dolby's case could be either true or purely tailored for marketting purpose (i.e. you'll get tired of listening to 2 speakers so buy our product instead). B&W on the other hand may stand to lose revenue by not recommending a center channel. What I'm asking for is better evidence, not from people in this thread but from companies who make such statements.

This statement:

The Six Elements of a Film Mix ... Stereo features a phenomena known as phantom center which means that the output of the two speakers combine to give the impression of a third speaker in between them. This phantom center can sometimes shift as the balance of the music shifts from side to side, which can be very disconcerting to a listener. As a result film has always relied on a third speaker channel in the center in order to keep the sound anchored.

is too generalized, are people getting tired when sitting on-axis or are they getting tired when sitting off-axis?

I still fail to see concrete (and by that I mean not-subjective or unbiased) evidence supporting the use of a center (or not) when sitting on-axis.

Personally, I'd be more inclined to agree with a statement supporting that the subwoofer is the most important speaker in HT as it is the spreaker which ties together effects and realism, but that's just my opinion.

As for the center channel. I think the only true way to put it to rest would be to find some data where listerners have been subjected to watching the same movie on the same speakers (but with and without a center channel). Ofcourse these listeners should be sitting on-axis. Additionally some sort of permeable screen seperating the speakers from the listerner should be included...so that they do not know if a center channel is included or not.

[PavelL]

But noone has said anything about the fronts. You may not need a center channel only if your fronts are of good quality!!! Great imaging is a MUST, they must create realistic soundstage... Imagine those one-box-theatres without a center speaker!?!?!?

BUT on the other hand you do need a center if you want to hear tracks the way they were recorded and mixed...

[csuzor]

fwiw, i've had a htm7 as a center channel, and found it too boxy. I then had a 703 center, and tried a projector with a screen in front, the sound was great ("in the image") but the image was not great and the noise unbearable. I've now moved the 703 to another room, so I am back with 2x 704 and no center channel, and there is a hole in the center. I've had to move the L/R closer to the screen to bring back some clarity: stereo imaging works well at decent volumes, but at low volumes (kids asleep), dialog falls apart, the brain is missing some information and cannot recompose the image. I can live without a center channel, but I really want to buy one again.

B&W may claim you can use htm2 with any 80xD, and they also claim you can use htm7 with any 70X, but they are wrong on the 2nd recommendation, and the 1st may be a compromise too.

[Ryx]

Additionally some sort of permeable screen seperating the speakers from the listerner should be included...so that they do not know if a center channel is included or not.

I don't think a screen would be necessary, simply run a trial with it on as well as with it off (off in the processor that is). just cause you can see it doesn't mean you can tell if it is on or not (telling by vision would be difficult, and if your watching a movie chances are the lights will be turned down and it would be very difficult to see the speakers anyway)

[misterdoggy]

I have lived with and without the center channel and there is no question in my mind that the center channel is THE most important speaker. The only justification for someone not have one is $$.

Here's a mixing studio image. What do we see ?? They mix the sound like this and this is not "imaging" but center channel INFO. My advice to those without a center channel is to set up one of your surrounds in the center for a couple of weeks or borrow a trial speaker.

[PavelL]

I have lived with and without the center channel and there is no question in my mind that the center channel is THE most important speaker. My advice to those without a center channel is to set up one of your surrounds in the center for a couple of weeks or borrow a trial speaker.

Is it against the rules to have private messages posted? Hope not. Here is a conversation I had with misterdoggy. Nothing PERSONAL there: :W
Quote:
Originally Posted by PavelL
Hi, I've seen your system evolve and would like to ask you a question if I may. I myself have upgraded from 703s, HTM7 to 802s and have discovered that 802s sound GREAT even without a center channel /in my reciever center channel is set to none - signal is sent to fronts/. Up untill now I thought that a center channel was A MUST for HT. Yet with 802's perfect center imaging is HTM2d really that important? May I ask if you ever tried running 802s without HTM2ds and what your feelings were? After all unlike HTM1D this HTM2D is not a perfect match for "headed" 802s. Your answer may help me decide if I really need a dedicated center. Thanks in advance.



Sorry I took so long to check my messages. I don't know the answer as I've never tried without the center channel. I don't think an center image could replace a center speaker. The reason is that sometimes you jusst have the center speaker and sounds really are coming out of the 3 speakers separately.
Ideal world would be to have 5 802D's. The htm2d really blends right in and the diamond tweeters are perfectly matched.
If I have time I will try to do an A/B test with and without. I know when I play "pure stereo" you feel that there is the "image" in the center, but I think its a "bandaid" rather than a better solution. The time when it just can't work as well is when you ONLY have information from the center channel or when there are 3 speakers with all different information, it can't possibly be as clearcut.



Later you responded that you would not try an A/B test and that you did know the answer already. So when was it that you "lived without the center channel" anyway? I am puzzled.

[csuzor]

You're absolutely right about the importance of the center channel for movies.

And when you have heard music with a true center channel, you wish there was more of it. The problem is, the center channel must be as good as L/R, and the music must be high quality and correctly recorded.

A little history (from audiophile audition)
In 1956 Bert Whyte - known for his engineering of the Everest audiophile recordings - wrote a series of articles on three-channel recordings for Radio-TV News magazine. The first covered the “live or recorded” performance given by the San Francisco Symphony using a three-channel half-inch-tape Ampex deck and three Voice of the Theater speakers at the back of the auditorium stage. The second reported on a visit to Mercury Records in New York City and a demonstration of some of their three-channel masters on half-inch tape.

Whyte enthused, “The most startling aspect...was the infinitely greater sharpness and delineation of the inner orchestral details. This was quite unbelievable and I heard things on the tape that were but tenuous hints on the discs. String tone? You’ve never heard anything like this! Even in the highest registers of the first violins there was no screech, no eardrum-piercing edginess - rather there was a smoothness only previously encountered in the confines of the concert hall. The richness of the second strings, the mellow throb of the celli, the dark sonority of the contrabass, all were vibrantly alive with realism...With 3-channel stereo, brass sonotities are breathtaking. Trumpets have a clean brightness equaled only th the real thing. And with this brightness there is a roundness and fullness of tone, a sense of swelling power not found on discs or on regular tape either...The woodwinds are quite extraordinary...The characteristic breathiness of the flute and piccolo is almost palpable in its liveness and realism. Vibrato is noted to a much greater degree than on the other media. The clarinet, bassoon, oboe, English horn, are heard with exceptional purity of tone.”

Whyte goes on to describe the fantastic directionality of what he begins to call “tristereo,” and says he was surprised at the degree of superiority over two channel stereo. He found it unneccessary to stay in a circumscribed sweet spot, and found it best of all that there was no longer any hole-in-the-middle evident. Next he predicts “here is the thing that is going to stagger you!” And describes how Mercury has been recording everything in 3-channel stereo “with the intent and purpose of releasing recorded tapes for public consumption! No, I’m not kidding you... it’s a fact!”

We we all know that exciting prospect was in fact never realized.. . Until now - 48 years later.




Anyone know the history of the center channel for movies? Who did it first, what were their impressions?

However, back to the topic, I dont think Rebelman was asking if the center was necessary, but if the htm2 and htm1 (and even the htm3?) were so close that no-one could tell them apart in a L/R/C + sub configuration... or was there another question?

[misterdoggy]

Ideal world would be to have 5 802D's. The htm2d really blends right in and the diamond tweeters are perfectly matched.
If I have time I will try to do an A/B test with and without. I know when I play "pure stereo" you feel that there is the "image" in the center, but I think its a "bandaid" rather than a better solution. The time when it just can't work as well is when you ONLY have information from the center channel or when there are 3 speakers with all different information, it can't possibly be as clearcut.

Pavel, It was right after your message to me in September that I tried living without the center channel which lasted about 15 minutes. Who wants to live with something less good. It didn't need to take long. :bluezoned:

In reply to myself. I did try an A/B test and it was better WITH the center channel no question about it !! :T

Another note. I said That "pure stereo" created an incredible center image. I was talking about STEREO not HOME THEATER. When I play the D1XE Ayre in stereo no question about it. I would have to walk up to the center channel to make sure its not on.

We are talking about Home theater aren't we ? Stereo is a 2.0 signal and HT is 5.1

Imaging in Stereo is well placed speakers that create the full sound. Center speaker information in HT is individual 1's and x's destined for the center speaker ONLY.

I even said that I thought it probably was a "bandaid" solution to not have a center channel.

[RobP]

Anyone know the history of the center channel for movies? Who did it first, what were their impressions?

In movie theatres there has always been a "center channel speaker" but not until the addition of multichannel sound it was it called a center channel. Probably the first center speaker was the Western Electric Wide range system which is pictured below. It was made in the late 20's.

[PavelL]

Now's time to have this thread renamed - "conspiracy in the thread named "center channel conspiracy".I don't want to read between the lines 'cous I don't like what I'm reading :-). Frankly, misterdoggy, 15 minutes is an encounter. A brief one. You never LIVED without a center channel :lol: But of course you did not have to... I found that imaging was GREATLY improved after I biamped my Naut 802s /mids and highs isolated from the bass drivers/. Now I do have a center channel, but looks like it's time to say bye-bye to it. Any solution with a center channel is a "bandaid" in a way unless you have all your speakers absolutely identical... They must be placed at the same level and so on... My biamped N802s sound better without it... At least to me they do.

[misterdoggy]

Now's time to have this thread renamed - "conspiracy in the thread named "center channel conspiracy".I don't want to read between the lines 'cous I don't like what I'm reading :-). Frankly, misterdoggy, 15 minutes is an encounter. A brief one. You never LIVED with a center channel :lol: But of course you did not have to... I found that imaging was GREATLY improved after I biamped my Naut 802s /mids and highs isolated from the bass drivers/. Now I do have a center channel, but looks like it's time to say bye-bye to it. Any solution with a center channel is a "bandaid" in a way unless you have all your speakers absolutely identical... They must be placed at the same level and so on... My biamped N802s sound better without it... At least to me they do.

Pavel: I admit to 'mis-representation' about living with it. I did live without it for a trial and was not happy with it. I am man enough and honest enough to tell the truth :rofl:

But what I heard I did not like, so.... how much time does one need to judge.

I tried out a Goldmund DAC the other day in an A/B comparison and it didn't take 30 seconds to decide. I'm using it in Bypass for Stereo.

One thing is for sure, in a perfect world 5 802D's would be the solution. However, the Diamond Tweeters are "sweet" and the HTM2D has a diamond tweeter, and 2 vents behind so its got a lot of Gusto. Its not an 802D and stays out of the picture for True Stereo, but I stand firm for the Center Channel in MY system.

If you prefer just your 2 Nautilus', well...... I am sincerly happy for you.

[JKalman]

Are you from Missouri? :lol:

Where I come from has no place in this argument, it is pure fallacy.

Perhaps you initially meant to say that it wasn't important to you. To be frank, not owning a center speaker places you in a position ill-equipped to make any meaningful comparisons.

Nah, according to scientific validation, it isn't all that important if you are the only person watching (assuming you aren't a schmuck who likes to watch movies off center just to argue the point).

On the issue of fatigue:

Dolby Labs is developing techniques with two speakers that simulates a full complement of surround speakers for those people that lack the financial and spacial means for discrete channels. One of the benefits their technology provides that other two-channel solutions lack is mentioned toward the end of the article which I captured here...

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/techno...peaker_wp.html

All this section and its quote did was prove me right, i.e. - you can use two speakers instead of three in the front and Dolby is jumping on that bandwagon to produce their own proprietary methods of implementing it. A lot of processors already allow you to run virtual surround, like my SP1.7. Dolby is just trying to make more money by developing their own version and mass-selling it to manufacturers of audio equipment.

On the issue of distractions:

Keep in mind this discussion is within the confines of home theater where a phantom center is trying to reproduce dialogue and special effects normally intended for a discrete channel. Contrary to stereo imaging where the intent is to create spacial queues and localization of instruments. The approach used in the studio to mix soundtracks on film differs for strict music reproduction.

Here is an excerpt from the Department of Music at Columbia University that explains this difference...

http://music.columbia.edu/~mando/HTM...tsFilmMix.html

The keyword in the quote from a Columbia website is: "sometimes"... Nice try though. As I said earlier on, decent processors allow you to shift the center channel output to the right and left channels. What the website does not however tell you, is when you will "sometimes" have problems. I get to that point at the end of this post with a quote.

On the issue of system demands:

It's a wildly know fact that multiple channels produces more sound and requires less demands on the "system overall". An informal experiment that I conducted showed a need to reduce the volume when all three speakers were driven. Facilitating less effort on each speaker and less work for a given channel on the amplifier. Although such measurable quantities are probably negligible. However, the additional detail and realism of the action was clearly audible and far more distinct when the center speaker was engaged.

Actually, for every speaker you add you raise the dB a little (around 2-3 dB I believe). At the level of most speakers' sensitivities, that is negligible, since most are around 85-93 dB. You would need at least 10 times the current dB level in order to achieve what would be a doubling of sound level to the human ear, meanwhile you only gain 3 dB every time you double the power. The sound gain is nominal in consideration of how high the sensitivity places the dB level to begin with. "Less demands" though, not true. You are forgetting that more power in one box means more heat, which is probably one of the most dangerous things for an amplifier. If using a multi-channel amp you will run hotter or sacrifice overall WPC. If using separate amps, you spend more money. As far as "additional detail and realism" that is subjective bologna.

While I am amused by your sarcasm, it doesn't help your arguments. You have yet to prove anything of substance. And, for the record, I have demoed 800 series speakers with an equivalent center, at the store where I bought my speakers. It isn't much of a difference unless you sit off center, just have to turn it up a little more to achieve the same SPL. Fallacies don't win arguments either way. Even if I had never heard 800's with a well matched center (which I have), it doesn't diminish my arguments.

I'll end with a quote from a text used at Columbia University for one of their Music Signal Processing classes (Total Recording, David Moulton) and my response to it:

"The Precedence Effect dictates that anyone more than eight inches off the median plane will hear the mono signals emit from the nearer speaker of a stereo pair. This includes movie dialogue, of course. So, in the absence of a center speaker and channel to carry dialogue, at least 95% of the theatre audience will hear dialogue coming from the sides of the screen, a fatiguing and irritating cognitive dissonance that really disrupts the 'willing suspension of disbelief' that is at the core of the theatre experience."

Unless your head is bigger than 16 inches, I think you should be fine without a center channel if you are watching movies alone 99% of the time. This has been my point all along, and it has yet to be proven incorrect, and it is validated by esteemed sources.

BTW sorry my response took so long, I was away for a few days.

[JKalman]

As for the center channel. I think the only true way to put it to rest would be to find some data where listerners have been subjected to watching the same movie on the same speakers (but with and without a center channel). Ofcourse these listeners should be sitting on-axis. Additionally some sort of permeable screen seperating the speakers from the listerner should be included...so that they do not know if a center channel is included or not.

I agree, but it is important to remember to match their SPLs due to added dB of the extra speaker if anyone is to undertake this experiment. People often mistake changes in gain as added detail.

[JKalman]

BTW, I never said I wouldn't buy a center eventually. I plan on buying either a HTM2D or a HTM1D down the road. First things first though, I just got my XBox360 and need SXRD 60 inch TV to play it on.

I suppose I will buy surround speakers next. Then probably, a better source, possibly the Ayre C-5xe. Then a Sub. Then a center. Then monoblocks for my fronts. Then rear surrounds if I can fit them in a good position.

[RobP]

Well it seems JKalman that we can see here that sound is a subjective thing and everyone has his/her own preferences, and no matter what the experts have to say it comes down to what makes you happy. Hell, I still know people who like listening to a theatre system in a mono configuration. By the way I dont think that Rebelman was being sarcastic in any way whatsoever towards your views, he simply was providing information for you to chew on. Also the Missouri comment was meant as a moment of a thing called humor.

[Aussie Geoff]

Guys,

This is just a hobby and it seems that some of you are getting wayyyyyyy to intense here over subjective preferences.... Let's not make this personal...

Thanks

Geoff