• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Are three channels better than two for stereo reproduction?

How would it be possible for a system with two channels to have center imaging as strong as a system with three channels as long as the speakers are in phase?
That is how stereo is supposed to work. Your left ear is hearing the left signal before the right signal, and vice versa. The shape of the head and psycho-acoustics also have something to do with it.

The key is to start with speakers that image well. In my experience, narrow baffles and low diffraction help with imaging. Concentric drivers also help with imaging.

I have KEF LS60 Wireless speakers in my office, which have both narrow baffles and concentric midrange/tweeter drivers. They image extremely well. If you have a dealer anywhere near where you live, do yourself a favor and go listen to them.

In my family room I have heavily modified ELAC UBR62 Uni-Fi Reference speakers. They also have concentric midrange/tweeter drivers. They are not as narrow as the LS60s, but they have convex baffles, which help to reduce diffraction. They imaged well out of the box, but improved with the modifications I made.

Lastly, DSP can help to improve imaging, for example by correcting for imbalances between the left and right channel frequency responses due to asymmetrical room reflections or slight differences in the left and right speaker drivers.

With my Elacs in my family room, DSP did improve imaging. Specifically, there are asymmetries due to the layout of the room and the speakers are not the same distances from the side walls. Without DSP there are significant differences between their frequency responses as measured at the listening position. I used DSP to tune both the left and right channels to the same target curve, and now they closely match.

I sit close to my LS60s in my office, and the imaging is great even without DSP. For those, I used DSP mostly to correct for room modes and to adjust the high frequencies a tad to compensate for not being able to toe them in much due to furniture being in the way.
 
Last edited:
For those saying that stereo can have a good center image, please read section 7.1 of the third edition of Floyd Toole's Book on sound reproduction. I am not necessarily saying there is a bad center image when listening to stereo speakers in a normally reflective room since the comb filtering issue is less than in an anechoic chamber, but it cannot match the timbre of the lead singer being right in front of you, presented by the center channel.
Floyd E. Toole, Sound Reproduction, 3rd ed., Section 7.1, p. 159, 3rd para.:

"It is not a black and white situation, and whatever personal opinions I may have, they are overwhelmed by experimental data from others; I am the messenger. So, read on and draw your own conclusions. It may be that 'one size does not fit all.'"

I have drawn my own conclusions and found what works best for me, as explained above. But, you need to draw your own conclusions and find what works best for you.

EDIT: A couple more thoughts. The comb filtering affect results in a dip in frequency response around 2 kHz at the listener's ears. But, as you noted, a normally reflective room reduces that dip. Nonetheless, even with the dip already present in the perceived signal, there are numerous commercially successful speakers that produce the BBC dip, which reduces the frequency response in that region even further. I have seen posts by members in this forum stating they actually prefer speakers with the BBC dip. So, whether the stereo dip adversely effects your listening pleasure, and how much it does so, is going to be subjective. Only you can make that determination.
 
Last edited:
Is the center out of phase with the L&R?
With the old Hafler set-up, the center front was the in-phase elements of the stereo signal, the rear channel was the out of phase elements. Wonky sounding at best.
 
Every time I've attempted upmixing I eventually revert back to 2-channel stereo. The latter simply sounds better to my ears in nearly all ways.

Native multichannel is a different situation, of course.
 
There have been a few excellent decoding efforts for 3ch front...

Lexicon with their Logic7 and Fosgate with DPLII put in a lot of effort into getting the center channel decoding right - with excellent results.

Primarily the solidifying of the stereo imaging, and the widening of the listening sweet spot (which can now in many cases include large parts of the listening space, rather than just the central seat)

People who heard Magnepan's demo 3 channel stereo setup, using a Bryston PLII decoder, were pretty much blown away.


Keep in mind the Logic7 and PLII decoders (especially higher end ones) - had a lot more configurable parameters, than most decoder/AVR's today...

Todays Dolby Surround does a decent job, but my auditory memory (with all its limitatons and doubts...) still thinks Logic7 sounded better back in the day...
 
Considering that two speakers cannot accurately reproduce a 3D acoustic event in the first place, would using a center channel summed to mono with LR playing normally provide for a superior/more realistic listening experience than just using LR? Please note that I am not referring to listening to three channel recordings, but rather up-mixing two channel recordings to three channels.

I am considering routing audio as such with a MiniDSP 2x4 product:
Output 1: Right Speaker (Right input channel)
Output 2: Left Speaker (Left input channel)
Output 3: Center Speaker (Right + Left input channels)
Output 4: Subwoofer(s) (Right + Left input channels)

From Floyd Toole's book, there are significant acoustic advantages to using a center channel. Are there any downsides to using LCR for stereo reproduction instead of LR?
View attachment 382242 View attachment 382243
If I am not mistaken, the original Heresy speaker from Klipsch was for a middle channel.
 
SACD multichannel is the best way to listen to music!

Too bad the studios expect for classical music and artists did not get on the technology!
 
There have been a few excellent decoding efforts for 3ch front...

Lexicon with their Logic7 and Fosgate with DPLII put in a lot of effort into getting the center channel decoding right - with excellent results.

Primarily the solidifying of the stereo imaging, and the widening of the listening sweet spot (which can now in many cases include large parts of the listening space, rather than just the central seat)

People who heard Magnepan's demo 3 channel stereo setup, using a Bryston PLII decoder, were pretty much blown away.


Keep in mind the Logic7 and PLII decoders (especially higher end ones) - had a lot more configurable parameters, than most decoder/AVR's today...

Todays Dolby Surround does a decent job, but my auditory memory (with all its limitatons and doubts...) still thinks Logic7 sounded better back in the day...
I loved Logic 7!
 
If I am not mistaken, the original Heresy speaker from Klipsch was for a middle channel.
My personal experience with multichannel did not leave me begging for more. At one time I had a Parasound 5.1 AV preamp. It was pre-HDMI. best video was S-video.

The problem was not that it never sounded great; the problem was I had no content that sounded consistently good. Most things just weren’t suitable. I’m afraid I will not live to see a large catalog log of music recorded and mixed for surround.

Most of my recordings are 40 years old or more. And it will take AI or something to convert them. I think it will bee done, but not soon.
 
If upmixing use I would all 5 or 7 speaker channels (and a sub). Many years ago 3ch was deemed a better option than 2ch but had a lot of hurdles to get that "consumerized". I'd just prefer actual multich recordings generally than an upmixer. Might depend on room purpose/layout and speakers, too.
 
My personal experience with multichannel did not leave me begging for more. At one time I had a Parasound 5.1 AV preamp. It was pre-HDMI. best video was S-video.

The problem was not that it never sounded great; the problem was I had no content that sounded consistently good. Most things just weren’t suitable. I’m afraid I will not live to see a large catalog log of music recorded and mixed for surround.

Most of my recordings are 40 years old or more. And it will take AI or something to convert them. I think it will bee done, but not soon.
Mine records (not including CD's, DVD's, Blu Ray & 4K) span from 1927 to about a year ago, with the majority being from the 60's-1990's.
 
Mine records (not including CD's, DVD's, Blu Ray & 4K) span from 1927 to about a year ago, with the majority being from the 60's-1990's.
My first purchases were mono. Not reissues.
 
My first purchases were mono. Not reissues.
Yes, some of mine are mono (I was 4 in 1961), when we moved from my grandmother's property to out of our City (thank God that I got to grow up in the country) & started buying records about a year later.
 
What it sounds like to me is that you want to mid-side processing where you have a mono channel, and then a stereo pair of side channels. For mixing and mastering, this is very helpful, but it's a DSP solution and only requires a stereo set-up to achieve.

It may be possible on some advanced level to add two extra speakers that just contain side signals that you can adjust to widen the image of your rig. But I'm not sure how practical or helpful that is since width adjustment is done in mastering of both music and film.

But, you are also describing in a speaker set-up what recording engineer sometimes do with mircophones. The Mid-side Microphone method isn't transferrable to speakers, at least as far as I know. I could be wrong (God knows, I have been wrong here :p )
 
Considering that two speakers cannot accurately reproduce a 3D acoustic event in the first place, would using a center channel summed to mono with LR playing normally provide for a superior/more realistic listening experience than just using LR? Please note that I am not referring to listening to three channel recordings, but rather up-mixing two channel recordings to three channels.

My experience has been that even with a high-end trinaural processor, the depth of the center of the soundstage is constrained relative to normal two-channel, and I have customers who have gone from trinaural back to two-channel because this was their experience as well. However this may be system-dependent; I think it's quite possible that in some systems there would be no significant difference in the soundstage depth between two-channel and upmixed three-channel.
 
My initial thought was to have the center channel only play content present in both channels and have the left and right channels play the difference between their channels, but I don't know how to achieve this, or if it would sound better than just having two speakers.
 
If I am not mistaken, the original Heresy speaker from Klipsch was for a middle channel.
Yes, it was designed as the center speaker for the Klipschorns or Scala's
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3
Back
Top Bottom