How do you like your 2CH home theater setup?

[JimTW]

Anyone running a 2 channel home theather? How do you like it?

I'm thinking of a HT setup composed of a pair of 805s and maybe
with a sub for some music and movies. Will I be unhappy? Yes, my
ears have been long spoiled by demo-ing 800N, 802D, 803D, 803S,
and 804S. Ugh!

[JKalman]

I've been using B&W 802Ds as a 2.0 setup. I have loved it so far, but am selling the B&W 802Ds to upgrade to a more expensive speaker (Pawn Shop 802D Link ).

As I'm sure you know the 802D has excellent bass extension so I didn't need a subwoofer. I turned off the center channel so its signal was routed through the two 802Ds and also turned off the surround channels so they too are routed through the 802D front stereo speakers. I use a Bryston SP1.7 for preamp/processing and a Bryston 9B SST for my 5 channel amplifier.

I used to have a 5.1 B&W 700 series setup but traded it in for the 802Ds and now use the 9B SST 5 channel amp to bi-amp the 802Ds. I do not regret this trade-in one bit. I am selling the 802Ds now so that I can upgrade the stereo speakers even more to speakers that cost almost twice as much, but whose stereo image is so life-like and holographic that it is stunning, which it should be at the price differential. Sadly, my B&W dealer does not carry the Wilson Watt Puppy 7s I want to buy, so I can't do a straight out trade-in and instead I'm selling the 2-3 month old B&W 802Ds online.

[JimTW]

As I'm sure you know the 802D has excellent bass extension so I didn't need a subwoofer. I turned off the center channel so its signal was routed through the two 802Ds and also turned off the surround channels so they too are routed through the 802D front stereo speakers. I use a Bryston SP1.7 for preamp/processing and a Bryston 9B SST for my 5 channel amplifier.

Jeff,

So how does the system sound when watching movies? With the 802Ds
being so transparent, do the sound from the rear channels actually sound
like they might be coming towards you from your side or behind? And how
does the vocals sound? I heard 90% of the dialogues come from the
center channel.

Tks!

[JKalman]

Jeff,

So how does the system sound when watching movies? With the 802Ds
being so transparent, do the sound from the rear channels actually sound
like they might be coming towards you from your side or behind? And how
does the vocals sound? I heard 90% of the dialogues come from the
center channel.

Tks!

It sounds great. The sound spreads out far to the sides to make up for no surround sound, but it isn't the same as surround sound. You can't substitute sound in the front for sound in the back. The surround sounds do sound like they are coming from the side with 5.1 material, but I think that is more a function of the processor than the speakers themselves, since the processor reroutes the signals.

90% of the vocals do come out of the center channel in 5.1 amd DTS films. What most people don't know is that you don't need a center channel unless you have off axis viewers, i.e. - if no one is sitting 8 inches off the center axis, two stereo speakers has the same effect if you reroute the center channel through them via the preamp/processor by creating the phantom image which has been used for years in stereo music. The center channel was created to anchor dialogue to a screen for rooms of people, many of whom could not sit on axis, e.g. - movie theatres. Other than that, the extra speaker adds around 1.5 to 2 dB gain to the system, meaning you can reach a higher SPL at seating position before clipping will occur.

This is why I am not going to build my office system past a 4.2 setup until I have finished everything else in my system. A 4.2 setup gives me two speakers in the front, two speakers in the back, and two subwoofers for stereo with deep bass. I won't ever have anyone but my kids watching TV with me downstairs in my office, and even then the kids will be down in the basement only on rare occasions, and they don't notice the difference between off center and on center unless you make them aware of it. I suppose I will eventually get a center channel, but it really isn't a necessity, so it is the last item on my list of HT improvements.

[audioqueso]

Right now my system consists of a pair of Nautilus 805s combined with a Velodyne SPL-800R sub. My 805s are being driven by a Parasound HCU-1500A amp (200x2) & Marantz 6400 Pre-amp. My last setup was a complete 600 series surround set. For movies, the 800 series are amazing for movies. They produce such a nice soundstage that it feels a lot of time like you have more than 1 pair of speakers.

I'm not sure what you currently have, but here's my example of what a 2.1 setup with the 805s can do. The Matrix. With the 600 series setup, the slow motion bullet scene on the roof was my favorite. I would play it all the time as it showed off what a properly setup up surround setup can do. Your ears can follow the bullet as it moves from the front to the back. Then the next scene where Neo fires the minigun from within the helicopter, you can hear the bullets falling from all around the room. With the 805/Velodyne combination there is a pro and con. The slow motion bullet scene on the roof isn't a big deal anymore. I can only hear the bullet travel to almost half way up my room, then the effects die, but your ears can locate more precisely where the agent's gun cocks after every shot. The helicopter scene though is very impressive. This scene really shows what the 800 series can do. 2.1 setup. When Neo starts to fire the gun, you can hear exactly where each bullet falls to the point that it seems like it's right there in your room. The 600 series gave me the feel of the bullets falling around in a circle, but the 800 series gives the feel that one bullet falls 1 foot in front of you, 4 fall 3 feet towards your right, 2 in another location, and so on. And when the agents run from the room, and Neo's shots pan towards the right, you can heard the water drops pan from left to middle to right very clearly. I've played this scene for my friends and they all leave with a big smile. Like I said, that scene is very impressive on what the 800 series can do.

However, though my 805s make so many movies sound THAT much better, there are too many movies now in days that the 5.1 mix focus entirely on the center channel. I've tried moving from DD to stereo, or try something else, but some movies really do need a center. I plan on buying the center in February or March. Hope this helps.

[JKalman]

However, though my 805s make so many movies sound THAT much better, there are too many movies now in days that the 5.1 mix focus entirely on the center channel. I've tried moving from DD to stereo, or try something else, but some movies really do need a center. I plan on buying the center in February or March. Hope this helps.

A good preamp/processor that allows you to turn off the center channel and reroute the center through the front left and right speakers will take care of this no problem. My Bryston SP1.7 works well for this, but a Lexicon MC-12 would probably blow the SP1.7 away in terms of rerouting and creating surround from 2 channels. Yet the SP1.7 is more than enough to reroute the signal efficiently.

There is nothing inherently special about a center channel except that it anchors certain sounds to the center of the viewing screen. A good processor will easily split that channel into the right and left stereo speakers so you can use a phantom image instead of a center channel. The only disadvantage is anyone off axis can't hear the phantom image accurately, and will get a very crappy movie experience sound wise.

In order to do this, you don't just switch from DD to stereo modes. You actually have to keep it in surround mode (5.1, 7.1, etc, though 5.1 would make the most sense in this case). You go into speaker setup and turn off the center channel. If you want to reroute the surround channels you go into that same 5.1 speaker setup menu and turn the surround speakers off also. You then play your movies in 5.1 surround mode with those speaker settings set to off. Some processors will let you do even more than this, but that is how it basically works, you might have to read the manual with some processors if their setup mode is a little more confusing to work with than mine was. The menu in some processors might use different terminology or employ proprietary technologies to achieve this same result, such as Yamaha or Bose with their one and two way surround processors, which use one or two speakers respectively.

If you do it wrong you will notice right away, because none of the center channel material will be loud enough to hear very well and the other channels, the right and left fronts will be very loud in comparison. This is why it is important to always RTM (Read The Manual) so you know how to work your processor in order to play with all its settings. :W

[JKalman]

The point is, no movie "needs" a center channel. All the channels are input streams that go into your preamp/processor. It is very simple for the processor to split the center channel stream as well as the surround streams and integrate that into the left and right channels.

I have never had a problem setting up my system to do this and the only difference has been gain loss due to having less speakers to raise the overall SPL. So basically I lose 4-5 dB from not having the 3 extra speakers. If your amp has enough watts per channel this is easily solved by turning the volume up a little more. If your manual is too obscure you should contact the manufacturer of the processor you use and ask them how to set this up on your system.

[audioqueso]

I do have my pre-amp set up that way. Center off, surrounds off. However, even though it's processed through my pre-amp that way, there are SOME movies that just don't come out right. The point of my post was that the 805/sub 2.1 setup is awesome for movies, but with some movies you'll eventually want to buy a center.

[JKalman]

I do have my pre-amp set up that way. Center off, surrounds off. However, even though it's processed through my pre-amp that way, there are SOME movies that just don't come out right. The point of my post was that the 805/sub 2.1 setup is awesome for movies, but with some movies you'll eventually want to buy a center.

I haven't had that problem yet with my surround processors. I guess some processors don't always work great with rerouting the signal. It wouldn't be a problem with movies, all the movies do is store information. The DVD player reads and sends the correct channel stream to the correct output and then the processor processes the stream. Different processors employ different algorithms to reroute the signals from the speakers that have been switched off.

I guess if your processor doesn't employ a great algorithm or is buggy you might want to consider buying a center, but I would be more concerned with getting a better processor in the first place or checking to see if there is a firmware update for your processor if it is not rerouting the signal well. Spending money on a center channel can be sort of silly if you are the only one watching movies on it, especially if you spent the kind of money on your speakers as I did and would have to pay upwards of 8k for a perfect pairing between the center speaker and the left and right speakers. My surround processor is less than half the price of the center channel speaker that I would need for a best match in sound characteristics. If I get a processor that excels with those movies that are more difficult for your processor to decode correctly it would save someone like me a lot of money. Of course there are many factors that could cause problems with processor rerouting during decoding of the digital signal besides just bad algorithms, e.g. old processor, slow processor, damaged processor, etc.

Which movies were you having problems with and what processor do you use for decoding? This could help a lot of people out who may be dealing with similar issues, like JimTW. A list of the movies would definitely be helpful for JimTW and myself so we can try those out on our setups to troubleshoot them, and of course, giving us the name and model of the processor unit you use would help us avoid the same situation, or in my case avoid me recommending that unit to people by mistake.

BTW, using the DVD player as the decoder won't work, at least with my DVD player that is, I have a Denon DVD-5910 and couldn't use that for rerouting even though it had a lot of similar features as my processor (it let me turn speakers off while keeping 5.1 and/or DTS on -- so just having those features doesn't always mean it will work, in my case the Denon did not work, but the Bryston processor does). I had to do the rerouting through my dedicated Bryston SP1.7 processor via the digital coax to get it working correctly all the time. I guess you want to make certain when you demo a preamp/processor unit, that it allows you to reroute center and surround channel signals to the stereo channels or you could end up in the same position audioqueso is in, or the same situation I was in with just the Denon DVD-5910.

Considering the last paragraph audioqueso, it is possible that your processor lets you turn off speakers but just doesn't do the rerouting of the signal. So JimTW, make sure you research which processor you are getting so that you are certain it reroutes. I assumed they all did nowadays, but perhaps only the newest ones do. Some of the newer ones even have their own trademark name for the algorithms they use to do this stuff I believe. Definitely worth researching before you get stuck with a processor/preamp that doesnt' accommodate this feature. If you can spend the money, Lexicon or Bryston have great processors. Lexicon being the best of the two...

Another possibility, which is the case with my Bryston, is that you might need to set it up separately for both DTS and DD. For my system I had to set them separately because they have two different modes, allowing you to save more configurations for your system in total, but making it more complex to program.

[audioqueso]

I think you're right Kalman in that my processor can turn off the speaker, but not actually reroute the signals. But it does great for music, so I'll just buy a center instead.

Sorry Jim, hope we didn't hijack your thread so much. Do you have any questions?

[JKalman]

It would cost me $8k to match a center to my speakers, or $4k if I settle for the HTM2D. I thank God my processor reroutes, or I would be screwed. :E

[JimTW]

Audioqueso and Jeff,

Oh no problem, you guys are not hijacking the thread at all. Good
info and discussion going around. I went out and bought the Matrix
last night as it is a classic now and I wanted to add that to my DVD
collection. Some good stuff man, I love hearing the bullets casings
drop to the ground.

Will there be a range of frequencies missing between where the 805S's
drop off and where a sub picks up again?

Tks.

[RebelMan]

JimTW, the conclusions you can draw from the discussion between audioqueso and JKalman is to try a center with and without your processor and decide for yourself if the expense is worth it to you. Some people need a center and some don't. I have conducted some comprisons on my own system and found the center to be beneficial regardless of the listening position. A two-channel HT system is a compromise that I would be unwilling to live with. If the opportunity to compare a 2.1 versus a 5.1 system presents itself, I suggest you take it. I think you'll hear a BIG difference.

[Karma]

HI JimTW,
I have a 805S based HT system with two ASW800 subs. There is always a potential gap between the the mains lowest frequency and the subs adjusted top frequency. There are crossover controls on your sub to allow the user to obtain a relatively seamless continuity between the the two.

If you check your subwoofers owners manual it will explain which adjustments are available and how to make the adjustments. The instructions will only get you into the ball park. Every different combination of mains and subs is different so the final result will depend on experimentation by you.

This process is called "integration". I have found the integration process to be tricky and usually requires quite a long period of listening, tweeking, and then more listening before you are satisfied. In most cases the result will be good and finally result in no detectable gap (or overlap) between the mains and sub. Don't expect it to just fall into place unless you are very lucky.

My HT system initially started with no center channel. I thought I could save a little money by depending on the virtual image formed by the main L and R speakers. Then I talked to a friend who is the manager of a local hi fi store and he strongly suggested using a center channel. He told me about the benefits of the center channel even for one centrally located listener. I scoffed for a while but he kept insisting until I gave in and tried one. Now, I would not be without the center channel (I have the HTM4S). I might go so far as to say that it is the most important channel in the system. It made a big difference for me.

Sparky

[audioqueso]

I agree with Sparky. A 2 channel HT setup CAN be done, but movies really don't sound the same without the center. My suggestion would be to just buy the pair of 805's, and see keep it for a month without the center. Don't buy anything else and save the month for the center. See if you like it. If you do, you can always use that money for something else. If you don't like, buy the center. Good luck.

[JKalman]

I agree, test it with and without a center channel. I did, and I only noticed a measured 2 dB gain on the SPL. When I started lowering the volume so that it was the same volume when I switched, they sounded exactly the same to me when I sat on axis. Whatever you do, don't take any of our words for it, test it out yourself, but be aware of a few things that most people are not aware of.

Every audio engineering textbook I've read says the only difference, when you reroute the signal from a center channel to left and right speakers, is a gain in dB. It is a known fact that people usually mistake a raise in gain for a change in the quality of the sound itself. I wager that is what is happening to the people above posting a huge difference in their systems. This BTW is why some scumbag audio dealers will change the sound level between equipment when you demo it. It is also why some companies engineer their equipment to have higher gain right off the bat, it ensures that most people will think their equipment sounds better when compared to another piece of equipment with lower natural gain.

I recommend going out and checking out some books on sound engineering as well. I would be very careful about figuring out what the truth is before laying down extra cash on something you really don't need in a surround system if only one person is going to use it. If more than one person is going to use it, it is a no brainer, because only one person can have the good or the best seat in a 4.1 system. In a 5.1 system many people can have the good seat, but only one person can still have the best seat.

Movies do sound the same without a center as long as your system can reroute the center channel to the right and left speakers well and you sit on axis... This is scientific fact.

[Karma]

HI Jeff,
With Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 the center channel is a discrete data path independent of any of the other channels. The mixing engineer can put anything on the center channel they wish. Usually, it's dialog info. It is not simply a summation from the Left and Right channels. It actually has its own microphone (usually) or, at the minimum, its own channel on the mixing board.

You should not assume that we are so easily fooled. But it doesn't matter. The improvement is real and that's all that counts.

Sparky

[JKalman]

HI Jeff,
With Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 the center channel is a discrete data path independent of any of the other channels. The mixing engineer can put anything on the center channel they wish. Usually, it's dialog info. It is not simply a summation from the Left and Right channels. It actually has its own microphone (usually) or, at the minimum, its own channel on the mixing board.

You should not assume that we are so easily fooled. But it doesn't matter. The improvement is real and that's all that counts.

Sparky

I am familiar with how sound engineering works with 5.1 recording. It is VERY easy to reroute that discreet data from the center channel into the left and right speakers. I never said it was a summation of signals, you are assuming that is my point of view, when it is not. I am quiet aware of exactly what it is and how it works which is why I am aware of how easy it is to move that signal out into the left and right speakers.

The exact opposite process is used in award winning technologies like Lexicon's active matrix decoding system "Logic 7" to take a 2 channel signal and split it into 5 channels or take a 5 channel and split it into 7 channels. As far as mixing of 5.1, the center channel is often added to the movie in the sound studio. If you research exactly what logic 7 does, you will see this stuff is extremely easy for today's processors to do.

The Dolby website itself is one of the best resources out there on the topic; there are tons of white papers on the site. Dolby Digital actually uses metadata in the Dolby Digital bitstream that gives the best information to processors on how to matrix/mesh the channels into mono, stereo, 5.1, etc, so it sounds as the engineers intended. It is easy to create hardware or software that can use the metadata to manipulate the channels.

Here is a great link from Dolby's site about the validity of 2 channel virtual surround (read page eight ). It also happens to mention how easy it is to move the center channel into the left and right speakers (by offhandedly mentioning what kind of process needs to be used), then goes on to describe a proprietary virtualizing circuit needed to correctly create the surround channels, which of course they will license to anyone making a preamp/processor for a fee I'm sure. See it is as easy as dividing the center signal equally between the left and right front speakers. Dolby Digital the creator of the technology not only states how easy the process is, it also states that two channel virtual surround if set up correctly works extremely well, with their proprietary technology of course.

I don't mean to be so blunt but you are being fooled. Whatever makes you happy is what counts I guess, I do recommend you read up on the topic for future reference. I researched it extensively after the last time the topic came up.

[JKalman]

JimTW,

If you are serious about a 2-channel setup, I would see if you can get a cheap add-on that uses the Dolby Virtualization technology, since they will likely have the best grasp on working with those surround channel signals. Or if you don't mind spending the cash, buy a good one. Either way you can daisy chain it through the rest of your system for use only when you want to watch a movie in virtual surround sound. I'm going to look into it myself over the next few days. :T

[JimTW]

Jeff, Sparky, audioqueso, RebelMan,

Thanks for all your feedback.

One question...

I've been listening to my current system... older out of the box 5.1 system, but
am not using the rear channels due to difficulty in wiring the rear speakers. So,
essentially, it is a 3 channel setup. I've watched movie with just 2 the main fronts,
and find that I am missing the concentration of the vocals in the center channel.
I've also watched it in the 3 channel mode, but sometimes find certain movies
to put out too much sound from the center speaker, and it really narrows the
width of the sound stage for me.

You experience what I'm describing?

[JKalman]

Jeff, Sparky, audioqueso, RebelMan,

Thanks for all your feedback.

One question...

I've been listening to my current system... older out of the box 5.1 system, but
am not using the rear channels due to difficulty in wiring the rear speakers. So,
essentially, it is a 3 channel setup. I've watched movie with just 2 the main fronts,
and find that I am missing the concentration of the vocals in the center channel.
I've also watched it in the 3 channel mode, but sometimes find certain movies
to put out too much sound from the center speaker, and it really narrows the
width of the sound stage for me.

You experience what I'm describing?

You need to read the specifications for your receiver or preamp/processor, it might not allow you to run DTS or Dolby Digital Surround formats with the center speaker turned off, i.e. it might not reroute the center speaker to the left and right front channels like mine does. Missing the vocals is a sign of your system not routing the center speaker to the left and right speakers. This happened to me when I didn't realize I needed to program different modes on my system separately by turning the center speaker off in each individual mode. Different systems handle this function in different ways though, for me it was just a matter of running the system in 5.1 or DTS mode but turning off the center channel and my preamp/processor routes it automatically. Mine explicitly states on the product website that it does let me run 5.1 in 4.1 and 2.1 modes in so many words: "In the digital mode, the SP 2 automatically detects the digital input signal, routes the signal through the DSP module, and adjusts to the appropriate mode. The digital circuit provides decoding for Dolby Digital, Dolby Prologic, DTS and THX formats, in 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 channels. There’s also Mono and Stereo Down-mixing for all modes, Bass Management modes for all speaker setups."

Which receiver, preamp/processor, etc are you using? It would probably have to be a decent one from the mass market companies or a high end piece in order to get those functions, e.g. Mass market like Denon, Harman Kardon, Marantz, Yamaha, etc, or High End gear like most pieces people on this forum have money invested into.

[RebelMan]

JimTW, it's important to understand that one needs to exercise the proper steps to setup and configure any system, weather it be a 2.0, 5.1 or a 7.1 system. Each system has an intended and specific purpose. Virtualization* techniques are compromised solutions driven mostly by cost, domestic constraints and the lack of knowledge and/or experience in creating the environment the listener wishes to achieve. Years ago people were just as passionate about mono versus stereo playback. People were just as adamant then and talked about all the scientific fact of the day that one needn't more than one "discrete" channel for proper reproduction. I for one am thankful to those people that disagreed and made our hobby what it is today.

Multi-channel systems and solutions are just an extension of that. The primary goal is to bring the listener as close to a realistic setting as possible. The argument that only two channels are necessary files in direct contrast to the other efforts Dolby is making with their newest codecs, Dolby Digital plus and Dolby True HD, which support up to EIGHT "full range" channels. If someone is going to conduct extensive research it shouldn't be taken out of context. Depending on how one wants to look at it, Dolby doesn't really know what they are doing or they really do!

Certainly, one doesn't "need" a pair of $22K speakers to make a stereo image either but that doesn't make it any less important... to them!

*vir·tu·al
adj.
1 Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name.

[JKalman]

JimTW,
To answer your original question. If you have a virtualization receiver and two nice speakers and a subwoofer, I don't think you will be unhappy with a 2.1 surround system. I love my Niro 2.1 (made by Niro Nakamichi) surround system and I have owned everything from a stereo to 7.1. People are different though, as this thread clearly points out, so your best choice is to go listen to one, since every high end audio store will have a preamp/processor of some kind hooked up which will allow you to turn off the center and surround channels to test it out.

Is 2.1 a replacement for a 5.1 system, no, but I think you knew that already. Don't let anyone pressure you into buying more pieces of a system than you want to at the moment. If you are like me, and are buying better stereo speakers now so you can save up for better surround speakers and center speakers later, then all the power to you. If this is the case, just use plain old stereo if you have to, it is worth it for a better system down the road IMO, and you will truly be happy when you put the entire thing together.

Your major problem seems to be that you don't have a receiver or preamp/processor that can turn off the center channel and route the signals to the front left and right speakers. This could mean an extra expense. Though, if you don't mind using stereo for awhile, you can still use it until you save up for better equipment.


RebelMan,
The purpose of a center channel has always been to anchor sound to the front of the movie screen for off axis viewers, it is defined in its specification... It makes no difference except an approximate 2 dB gain. You are still using all the channels of the 5.1 system, they are contained in the phantom image, you just lose the surround sound center channel phantom image if you sit off axis. I posted links to the Dolby site, they are the ones who created Dolby Digital surround and they list all this information right on the site in their white papers for anyone interested in why a center channel was implemented. I hope you are not still arguing that point. :lol:

More speakers, in other areas, except a 6.1 speaker, can make a larger difference because you can't make phantom images without them. A rear center channel and a front center channel however can be encoded into their surrounding speakers. It will be interesting to see if those new formats take off at all, I researched them a few months ago when looking into the new BluRay and HD-DVD formats. I guess they will be like 7.1 for awhile which is made by dividing new signal streams out of the existing 5.1 channels for the most part. I don't know where you got the idea that I was arguing that only two channels are necessary. I never said that... I think you are the one taking things out of context.

My argument has always been the following. If you are the only one using your system, and you can sit on axis, it is a waste of money to buy a center channel if you own a reciever like mine and can run 5.1 surround without the center speaker. I don't know why you feel the need to turn the argument into me stopping the whole future of audio, or excuse me, implying that I am trying to hold the future of audio in the dark ages. That is absurd, and is called a red herring fallacy in logic. I realize you are passionate about having bought a center channel, and there is nothing wrong with owning one, it just isn't necessary in some situations. With or without a center channel you get the same exact soundstage from the sweet-spot seating position, only with your entire sound field around 2dB lower in gain.

As far as two channels are concerned. No one is arguing that it is a replacement for 5.1, I specifically said the following: "it also states that two channel virtual surround if set up correctly works extremely well". I am just relaying what the Dolby website has to say about virtualization with 2 channels. I am not saying it can compete with 5.1, or is on the same level, just that it is a good substitute if you are constrained in some ways. I believe JimTW came here to ask if he would like 2 channel virtualization, not if his using it will hold mankind back from space travel. :

[JKalman]

My bad, he didn't even ask about 2 channel surround to begin with, he asked if he would like a 2 channel home theatre.

I personally think with great speakers, you will like it even if it is just two channels... That is how I feel about my setup at least.

[JimTW]

Which receiver, preamp/processor, etc are you using? It would probably have to be a decent one from the mass market companies or a high end piece in order to get those functions, e.g. Mass market like Denon, Harman Kardon, Marantz, Yamaha, etc, or High End gear like most pieces people on this forum have money invested into.

Jeff,

I have a system from Kenwood that is around 13 years old. It does not
support 5.1 (hahaha!) but has a virtual "movie" mode where the processor
inflicts an echo to the rear channel to simulate a movie theater. I use
it as a 3 channel system for movies, and stereo for music. The speakers
are 2 feet tall and covers quite a bit of range in freq so it sounds full, but
I always notice a lot less definition in music and depth and width for
movies after I do a couple hours of demo'ing at the dealerships of the
B&W 800 line. Hence, I'm about to retire the kenwood complete system.
The system has 5 decks, 1 for cd player, 1 for radio, 1 for equialization,
1 for tape, and 1 for sound processing. This was THE top model back in
the days.

I've been asking how you guys like a 2ch setup for some HT duty because
I can't make up my mind if I should research into the direction of 2
channel amps or 5 channel amps. I don't want to make an initial investment
and then have to change the setup forcing me to sell the first purchase.
Are there any good 3 channel amps around? If I want to go with 3 ch
amp, that pretty much means I need to get a preamp that does signal
processing right?

Tks.

[JKalman]

I've been asking how you guys like a 2ch setup for some HT duty because
I can't make up my mind if I should research into the direction of 2
channel amps or 5 channel amps. I don't want to make an initial investment
and then have to change the setup forcing me to sell the first purchase.
Are there any good 3 channel amps around? If I want to go with 3 ch
amp, that pretty much means I need to get a preamp that does signal
processing right?

Well if you want to run more than two speakers, you will need a processor/preamp I believe, unless there are specialty products which do only three channels.

Bryston has a three channel amp. I'm not sure about other companies, but there must be quite a few around since a good number of people probably want to separate their stereo speakers from the rest of their 5.1 system, because a lot of people put most of their money into great front left and right speakers so they want to give those two channels the most amplification. If you plan to build a 5.1 system and slowly upgrade your stereo setup as years go by, then a 2 channel amp with a 3 channel amp might be a good decision. I'm in the process of doing that myself. Except I'm using a 5.1 channel amp and adding a 2 channel amp. The only problem is mismatched amplifiers might sound noticeably different.

You need to figure out what you want to do. Do you want an audio system, a HT system, or both? Until you know what you want, no one can really help you. What if we help you and you end up buying stuff and then realize you don't want what you bought? Heheh, not a good situation. I'm personally using two channels right now in 2.1 surround mode, but I have a 7.1 surround processor for upgradability and a 5.1 channel amplifier which leaves me room for a very good two channel amp later on to complete a 7.1 system and to drive the better front end speakers.

I definitely recommend you do a lot of research and really know what you want before you buy anything. If I could go back a few months I would change a few things. I am happy with my Bryston SP1.7 preamp/processor though, but I would not have gotten the Bryston 9B SST since it won't match the other amplifier I'm getting down the road...

I would also reconsider my speakers, though that is changing now that I am starting to treat my room. I had to pull my speakers 8 feet out from the front wall to get a 3 Dimensional sound field for stereo music because I have a tube TV between them. Now I'm finally starting to get a 3D soundstage, but I have a lot more work to do before it is fully fleshed out. I'm even considering a room conditioning preamp since the 3D soundstage is what gives the whole system life and was exactly what my system has been lacking. The folks at Audiogon have been helping me figure out exactly how I can alter my audio space to cultivate its sound qualities.

[RebelMan]

I hope you are not still arguing that point. :lol:

Theoretically, one could argue that a center channel is unnecessary for on axis listeners. It's still just theory. Science can not prove nor disprove what a person hears. It's a very subjective nature. The techniques many recording engineers use to mix information varies from one to another. Dolby encoded formats encapsolate those efforts and surround sound processors present them. "Discrete" information is just that a one-to-one relationship between input and output . It's not intended to be matrix, nor mixed, nor summed, nor split... In the properly controlled environment in which I conducted a comparison between center and centerless configurations there are clearly audible differences, even on-axis.

Jeff, time to put your money where your mouth is. Arrange a session on YOUR system using a center and centerless configuration. I will fly out to your place and you can conduct your own A/B tests with me as your test subject. If I fail to detect the difference with your system I will publicly concede to everyone here that there is no difference. However, if I succeed you can hand over your 802D's! :twisted:

[JKalman]

Theoretically, one could argue that a center channel is unnecessary for on axis listeners. It's still just theory. Science can not prove nor disprove what a person hears. It's a very subjective nature. The techniques many recording engineers use to mix information varies from one to another. Dolby encoded formats encapsolate those efforts and surround sound processors present them. "Discrete" information is just that a one-to-one relationship between input and output . It's not intended to be matrix, nor mixed, nor summed, nor split... In the properly controlled environment in which I conducted a comparison between center and centerless configurations there are clearly audible differences, even on-axis.

Actually, a center channel causes more sound wave interference so a clearer signal is made with only two channels instead of three, there are less cancellations occuring from these interferences. That is the nature of sound waves. That my friend is physics, not theory. You can try to justify your preferences for a center channel however you like, but all you noticed was a change in the gain level and misinterprited that to mean something that it didn't. Even if you A/B test you will still have the same issue unless you match SPLs. This isn't theory guy, this is science and the nature of sound waves. Of course there are clearly audible differences, there is more gain. It is well known that the ear misinterprits a change in gain as a positive change in quality. Audio dealers have used this knowledge for years to manipulate customers, and likewise electrical engineers of audio equipment have used it for years to add more gain to their equipment so people would choose it in an A/B test.

Jeff, time to put your money where your mouth is. Arrange a session on YOUR system using a center and centerless configuration. I will fly out to your place and you can conduct your own A/B tests with me as your test subject. If I fail to detect the difference with your system I will publicly concede to everyone here that there is no difference. However, if I succeed you can hand over your 802D's! :twisted:

Don't be silly. If I had the extra money I'd buy more components for my system, not waste it on proving to you what I already know to be true. Go do some research. This is becoming tedious. :Z I'm more than happy for you to think you are right, even if you aren't. However, I'm not going to let you subjugate someone else to your incorrect ideas on sound. Your incorrect, unfounded and unresearched ideas matter little to me unless they are polluting someone else who is trying to learn something.

The pleasure one finds between the sound of one speaker over another is the subjectivity people refer to when talking about speakers. A system with a center channel and a system without a center channel sounding different is known to be caused by a change in the gain of the system. Sure, it is subjectively pleasing, but you are still fooling yourself if you think it is "better" sounding. It is just louder. Again, not theory, sound engineering and physics... Go buy any book on the topic of sound engineering.

If I took you up on your offer (I just noticed the last part of your post about winning my speakers), I would be stupid, you have a 50/50 chance of winning my speakers by just guessing. Even if I balance out the SPL so you can't tell the difference, you could win my speakers by just guessing. That is stupid... And still doesn't prove anything. You are getting close to being on my ignore list.

You can lead a horse to water...

[JKalman]

I'm done with this topic, no point in beating a dead horse.

JimTW, if you have any more questions about the topic message or e-mail me. I'm always willing to help if you need anything, or if you decide you know what you are going to do and want to throw some ideas around, again feel free to contact me if you need anything. You could also start a new thread as well, I'll likely see it at some point. I recommend starting a new thread because threads generate a lot of ideas through the interactions that occur between all the people here.

[RebelMan]

Actually, a center channel causes more sound wave interference so a clearer signal is made with only two channels instead of three, there are less cancellations occuring from these interferences. That is the nature of sound waves. That my friend is physics, not theory. You can try to justify your preferences for a center channel however you like, but all you noticed was a change in the gain level and misinterprited that to mean something that it didn't. Even if you A/B test you will still have the same issue unless you match SPLs. This isn't theory guy, this is science and the nature of sound waves. Of course there are clearly audible differences, there is more gain. It is well known that the ear misinterprits a change in gain as a positive change in quality. Audio dealers have used this knowledge for years to manipulate customers, and likewise electrical engineers of audio equipment have used it for years to add more gain to their equipment so people would choose it in an A/B test.

As I stated the tests would be conducted on your system where you have total control over the SPL's and so forth. After all you cleary stated

I have never had a problem setting up my system to do this and the only difference has been gain loss due to having less speakers to raise the overall SPL. So basically I lose 4-5 dB from not having the 3 extra speakers. If your amp has enough watts per channel this is easily solved by turning the volume up a little more. If your manual is too obscure you should contact the manufacturer of the processor you use and ask them how to set this up on your system.

and then later you said

Every audio engineering textbook I've read says the only difference, when you reroute the signal from a center channel to left and right speakers, is a gain in dB. It is a known fact that people usually mistake a raise in gain for a change in the quality of the sound itself. I wager that is what is happening to the people above posting a huge difference in their systems

Clearly according to you there is no other difference except for a change in in SPL which can be easily compensated for with any processor.

Science attempts to describe the observations we make about the events that occur in nature typically through the gathering of data. What we are unable to observe or explain is hypothesized and theorized. We are not talking about the mechanics of sound waves but the effects of them, regardless of how they are produced. Again, I am offering you complete control of the experiment. Conduct your tests gather your data and draw your conclusions. I assume you practice what you preach?

Don't be silly. If I had the extra money I'd buy more components for my system, not waste it on proving to you what I already know to be true. Go do some research. This is becoming tedious. :Z I'm more than happy for you to think you are right, even if you aren't. However, I'm not going to let you subjugate someone else to your incorrect ideas on sound. Your incorrect, unfounded and unresearched ideas matter little to me unless they are polluting someone else who is trying to learn something.

The pleasure one finds between the sound of one speaker over another is the subjectivity people refer to when talking about speakers. A system with a center channel and a system without a center channel sounding different is known to be caused by a change in the gain of the system. Sure, it is subjectively pleasing, but you are still fooling yourself if you think it is "better" sounding. It is just louder. Again, not theory, sound engineering and physics... Go buy any book on the topic of sound engineering.

I am dead serious. Hmm... sounds like someone that is willing to "talk the line" rather than "walk the line".

If I took you up on your offer (I just noticed the last part of your post about winning my speakers), I would be stupid, you have a 50/50 chance of winning my speakers by just guessing. Even if I balance out the SPL so you can't tell the difference, you could win my speakers by just guessing. That is stupid... And still doesn't prove anything. You are getting close to being on my ignore list.

You can lead a horse to water...

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself a bit more on the way A/B/X tests are conducted it isn't that simple. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt. We can agree that I would need to choose correctly at least 80% of the time!

"If so powerful you are then why leave. Your faith in your new apprentice misplaced maybe, as is your faith in the Dark Side of the FORCE."

[JKalman]

As I stated the tests would be conducted on your system where you have total control over the SPL's and so forth. After all you cleary stated and then later you said Clearly according to you there is no other difference except for a change in in SPL which can be easily compensated for with any processor.

Science attempts to describe the observations we make about the events that occur in nature typically through the gathering of data. What we are unable to observe or explain is hypothesized and theorized. We are not talking about the mechanics of sound waves but the effects of them, regardless of how they are produced. Again, I am offering you complete control of the experiment. Conduct your tests gather your data and draw your conclusions. I assume you practice what you preach?


I am dead serious. Hmm... sounds like someone that is willing to "talk the line" rather than "walk the line".


Perhaps you should familiarize yourself a bit more on the way A/B/X tests are conducted it isn't that simple. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt. We can agree that I would need to choose correctly at least 80% of the time!

"If so powerful you are then why leave. Your faith in your new apprentice misplaced maybe, as is your faith in the Dark Side of the FORCE."

Nice knowing you... I warned you not to insult my intelligence again. Bye bye.

[RebelMan]

I've been asking how you guys like a 2ch setup for some HT duty because
I can't make up my mind if I should research into the direction of 2
channel amps or 5 channel amps. I don't want to make an initial investment
and then have to change the setup forcing me to sell the first purchase.
Are there any good 3 channel amps around? If I want to go with 3 ch
amp, that pretty much means I need to get a preamp that does signal
processing right?

JimTW, I believe everyone here has good intensions. But don't be mislead into thinking that you can do well with less. I don't believe in doing anything halfa$$ed. If you want a HT system then build one properly from the start.

Any modern processor will support a 2CH HT system but it will be a severe compromise at best. If you are unsure what approach to take then I suggest that you make the best 2CH system you can now with plans to expand it when the time comes. There are several quality amplifier manufacturers that offer a variety of configurations ranging from just one channel to seven that would support your plans.

[audioqueso]

I agree with RebelMan in the last statement. Can you have a nice 2-channel HT setup? Yes, but don't expect full surround no matter what technology is used. Virtual Surround works nicely, but one thing that wasn't mention was that it only works if your room is just the way Dolby wants it. Both side walls, no obstruction, no windows, perfect rectangle/square. It's not easy to setup . So can you make a 2-channel HT sound nice? Yes. Can you make it as good as 5.1 or more? Definitely not. I like the way movies sound with my 2.1 setup. I wouldn't like it with any lesser speaker. But at least want my 5.1 setup.

You asked:
"I'm thinking of a HT setup composed of a pair of 805s and maybe with a sub for some music and movies. Will I be unhappy?"

As I've previously stated, buy your 805s and a sub first. Don't spend your money and anything else. Setup up your room, watch a few movies. If you like it, good. If not, then you still have movie to buy the surround speakers, equipment, and/or more. Good luck.

[pramod]

JimTW, I believe everyone here has good intensions. But don't be mislead into thinking that you can do well with less. I don't believe in doing anything halfa$$ed. If you want a HT system then build one properly from the start.

Any modern processor will support a 2CH HT system but it will be a severe compromise at best. If you are unsure what approach to take then I suggest that you make the best 2CH system you can now with plans to expand it when the time comes. There are several quality amplifier manufacturers that offer a variety of configurations ranging from just one channel to seven that would support your plans.

I Concur......, :T

[JKalman]

I got an e-mail response from Dolby concerning this issue. They concurred concerning the one listener on axis being able to use the phantom image instead of needing a center, but then recommend that if I have a center I should probably keep using it for greater flexibility in seating because the dialogue will pull to the side if anyone sits off axis.

I'm still waiting on a more technical answer from a research department of theirs. I'll post that when I get it.

[RebelMan]

In an effort to put the issue of center channel necessity for on-axis listeners to rest (once and for all), I decided to consult the best of the best in this industry for the real truth. According to a reply I received from a respected and prominent figure, with more years in the field than most, and whom has been affiliated with the most recognized and revered high fidelity publishing companies in the business had the following to say...

"A center-channel signal reproduced through a dedicated center-channel speaker provides more stable and solid imaging, in my experience. It also eliminates the problem of image shifts with small head movements (some loudspeakers are more sensitive to this than others). It's worth noting that in the early experiments with sound reproduction at Bell Labs, the engineers considered three speakers across the front a minimum, and two speakers a great compromise.

I've experimented at length with Meridian's Trifield mode, which creates a center-channel signal from the left and right channels for reproduction through a center speaker. The algorithm is derived from Michael Gerzon's Ambisonics research. In my experience, Trifield confers significant advantages in creating a deep and stable soundstage.

I played a little trick on a manufacturer who was visiting my room. He was an ultra-purist adamantly opposed to more than two channels or two loudspeakers. We were listening to his product (a power conditioner) for about an hour in Trifield mode without his knowledge. I then quietly switched to stereo and he exclaimed with disappointment and incredulity "What happened?" The soundstage and instrumental images became tied to the two loudspeakers rather than existing independently of them.

If you want to look at the academic research, a good place to start is the 1970's Ambisonics papers by Michael Gerzon, available at the Audio Engineering Society website, www.aes.org. Gerzon spells out the mathematics behind capturing and reproducing an entire 360-degree soundfield. Meridian may also have information on Trifield on their site that explains the concept in more accessible terms."

The early experiments conducted by the Bell Labs engineers was led by the distinguished scientist and engineer Dr. Harvey Fletcher, and is noted for his contributions in electrical engineering, acoustics, speech, and music, among others.

Meridian, which is credited as one of the preeminent digital signal processing companies in the world (even Dolby Labs consults them), describes Trifield Mode as using ...

" ... the two main left and right loudspeakers, along with the centre and subwoofer, to create an impressive enhanced form of 'stereo' replay which brings a new take to the format. The sound is naturally stretched way back into the room and there's a superb sense of three-dimensionality to it all, creating literally ... a curved wall of sound studded with images."

They do this by processing the L and R signals into a center channel, conversely the effect of what has been argued about the needless requirements for a center speaker.

Enlight of this information, one may say that the center speaker is not only important but perhaps the most important regardless of application (music or movies) or listening position.

Hopefully the above references can guide the technically unaware (JKalman) with their continued research until they have faithfully exhausted all avenues of scientific information and formulate more informed conclusions.

I raise my challenge to 100%! :B

[audioqueso]

RebelMan, why do you bother??? You know you're not going to be able to win on this. You're right, I agree with you about the center channel. But even though I have nothing against you JKalman, you come out as someone who thinks they know it all. Sorry, but it's true (and it's been apparent in a lot of your posts). And so RebelMan, as much proof as you show, that type of person will have the last word. The thread has pretty much becoming a pissing contest between the two of you.

Jim just asked if he would be happy with a 2 channel HT setup. We've shared our experience with full surround and two channel HT. That's what he asked. He didn't ask for anyone to try to sell him anything.

[JimTW]

Hehehe. Well, seriously, thanks to ALL who responded, I really appreciate it.
Now I'm thinking... I should setup the system with 3 channels... so that I can
use the 2 channel for stereo music playback, and 3 channels for movies. Good
compromise! and exactly the way I have it setup now with my existing old system.

Cheers!

[JKalman]

RebelMan, why do you bother??? You know you're not going to be able to win on this. You're right, I agree with you about the center channel. But even though I have nothing against you JKalman, you come out as someone who thinks they know it all. Sorry, but it's true (and it's been apparent in a lot of your posts). And so RebelMan, as much proof as you show, that type of person will have the last word. The thread has pretty much becoming a pissing contest between the two of you.

E-mail Dolby Digital. They seem to agree with me. If being right about this topic makes me a know it all... So be it. RebelMan can choose to remain ignorant, and worse, try to contract me into illegal gambling schemes that give him a nice chance of winning speakers even if he chooses blindly. That is his choice, and that is why I have him on ignore...

[JKalman]

I've been considering that another good reason that people are finding the center speaker is improving the sound of their system is because of how people place their speakers. I've noticed that a lot of folks place their speakers right next to the wall with a TV directly in between them. I noticed RebelMan's proposed layout for his system, if he were to purchase the 800Ds, was this exact kind of setup, two 800Ds jammed into a tiny space with a TV between them. If this is how people have their systems set up, then a center channel would make their system sound better because the stereo image would be horrible with that kind of speaker placement. In that kind of situation a center channel would correct an acoustic issue.

I still think it is funny that you think I am the type of person who thinks they "know it all". I actually have a lot of posts in these fora and Audiogon asking for help with understanding things, setting equipment up, etc. I don't know it all, but I do know a lot about this issue. Just because I stand up for the side of an issue that I and quite a few engineers believe to be correct makes me a know it all? Why don't you just call me names or figure out a better way to insult me, because that is all that post amounted to IMHO.

[RebelMan]

RebelMan, why do you bother???

LOL, good question audioqueso. Maybe it’s the misrepresentation of the facts that drives me in this case. Unfortunately, this discussion has degenerated somewhat from the original topic. People are entitled to take what they want from the posts made by all the parties involved; that’s the point after all, right? To share, to learn and to grow in this hobby.

However, I may call into question the credibility of an individual that simply regurgitates information and claim it as fact while having limited or no experience of the things they talk about. Let’s be honest, would you trust your life to a text book doctor? In one camp we have a technically educated individual that applies learned information in a real world environment and shares those experiences (RebelMan). In the other camp we have an individual that distorts the technical information learned and discusses it as though it is the absolute final word on the subject with having limited or no exposure (JKalman).

If someone is willing to throw caution into the wind by heading the advice of an individual that thinks that the best solution to sound reproduction problems is to through more money at it, obviously lacking the expertise to analyze, calibrate and treat their system and environment first, then sobeit.

[RebelMan]

I noticed RebelMan's proposed layout for his system, if he were to purchase the 800Ds, was this exact kind of setup, two 800Ds jammed into a tiny space with a TV between them. If this is how people have their systems set up, then a center channel would make their system sound better because the stereo image would be horrible with that kind of speaker placement. In that kind of situation a center channel would correct an acoustic issue.

Tip: The drawing to which you refer was a preliminary one, and was stated as such from the outset. It has since undergone significant redesign and planning, which was also stated as a possibility from the start. You will have the opportunity to critique the final design when I make it known. Oh! But first you will need to take me off of ignore. But wait, if I am already on ignore how is it that you know my business? Confucius say… A man of many contradictions!

[JKalman]

Here is a link to a periodical written by an engineer who agrees with Dolby and modern science: read the end of page 19 and the beginning of 20.

Thanks, BTW, to the guy who showed me this periodical a few days ago. I wish I read through the entire thing sooner so I could have posted it earlier.

As opposed to what I stated earlier, this engineer states that the stereo phantom image sound actually sounds better than 3 channel sound, not the same with an approximate 2dB gain loss as I was saying earlier in this thread. I think he makes an excellent point, and I agree because it explains my own experiences when I tested a few systems with and without the center channel turned on at home and at one of my dealers.

Some people like things that sound unnatural, and/or they set up their room so badly acoustically, as stated in a previous post, that it sounds better to have the third channel to counteract the limitations of their HT space. There is not much people can do about being limited to a certain space for their HT area, so I can understand a center speaker sounding better in this situation as it is alleviating a problem with the room that prevents the left and right speakers from creating a decent phantom image.

I personally had similar conflicts to resolve in my listening space and just decided recently that music was much more important to me than HT. Thus I will be moving my HD DirecTV box, my Xbox360, and my DVD-5910 to my work desk, and will be getting rid of the tube TV that was between my speakers distorting my stereo soundstage so I can start to use my system for music only. I'll wait and build a HT later on when my kids get old enough for me to convert their playroom. My system sounded so bad before I moved the speakers out into the room so they could breathe. What a huge difference speaker placement makes...

[JKalman]

Hehehe. Well, seriously, thanks to ALL who responded, I really appreciate it.
Now I'm thinking... I should setup the system with 3 channels... so that I can
use the 2 channel for stereo music playback, and 3 channels for movies. Good
compromise! and exactly the way I have it setup now with my existing old system.

Cheers!

I wouldn't waste your money unless you are constrained for space and have a terrible phantom image. You would gain much more by spending the money on surround speakers instead. That way you could have surround sound.

For instance here is audioqueso's setup as posted in another thread on this forum (The "Picture's of your B&W setup" thread):



I can see why a center channel makes a big difference in his system with such a big TV between the speakers.

If you are in a similar situation then I understand, but otherwise, you could spend the money better by getting surround speakers so you can listen to surround soundtracks.

Heck, even if your front speakers are like that I still think you will get more value out of surround speakers... Tis your money though.

[JimTW]

For instance here is audioqueso's setup as posted in another thread on this forum (The "Picture's of your B&W setup" thread):

Jeff,

Oh ya, I saw that pic in the picture thread... what a beautiful simple setup.

Question... so you'd prefer a 4 channel (2 fr and 2 bk) setup over a 3
channel (2 front, 1 center)?

Ofcourse, 5.1 would be ideal, but of those 2 choices...

Tks!