Center channel for Home Theater

[Putter]

While I haven't found this to be absolutely, I would point out a couple of things. First the better Eq systems will decrease the differences between center and L/R speakers and even the surrounds. Also better speakers tend to have flatter frequency responses. My experience is that while I do hear some differences between my Beta C250 center and KEF Q150 (Hardly surprising sonic differences between a coaxial and D'Appolito center in a desktop system!). It seems an obvious candidate for blind testing. My guess is most will notice the difference, but many will not be bothered by it. As a final note I have Infinity Modulus sat's as surrounds and have a full 'surroundscape' on recording that place instruments in the rear and sides such Steve Wilson's Yes remasters. I have a Denon AVR X-3300w with Audyssey XT32. I'll have to try listening to recording with it off and see if it affects the soundscape.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Many AV processors have “center spread” which combines the center channel with some of the center channel mixed into the front L and R. Best of both worlds and sounds best IMO.

I'd avoid that.

I’ve tried this with Pines/Fountains of Rome and Scheherazade, the only two like that I’ve been able to get my hands on (the MLP titles have been unobtainium, up to this point). I find it challenging to tell the difference between the two. Might be my own physical limitations. My visual depth perception isn’t the very best, either.

Hmmm. I find the difference striking and I have successfully demonstrated it to dozens of others. (BTW, I have most of those discs available. )

 

[eboleyn]

I'd avoid that.

Hmmm. I find the difference striking and I have successfully demonstrated it to dozens of others. (BTW, I have most of those discs available. )

At various times in the past, with my living room AVR (Yamaha series AVR), I'd tried both L/R and L/C/R configurations, even tonally matched ones. For my own results, their "virtual center" mode has worked quite well, though admittedly with a loss of center localization when sitting far enough off-center, though I toe-in my L/R speakers to somewhat combat that.

To be clear, I feel like the sound sources roughly fall into 3 categories:

• Stereo
• Movie/TV-style multichannel
• Custom multi-channel material (i.e. designed to really take advantage of the 3 front channels)

My experience here was that for detailed Stereo material (audiophile music), the L/C/R configuration was worse, for Movie/TV-style material it was close enough to indistinguishable that I didn't care (with the loss of center localization as mentioned above depending on how far you are off-axis), and the few custom multi-channel sources I tried, L/C/R was better.

Having said the above, my main uses are Stereo and Movie/TV-style material, so I've been quite happy with my toed-in L/R setup + the rest of a multichannel system.

Part of the reason I don't really care about off-center localization is that for multichannel I use sides and rears as well, and they are all off to the side in multichannel sources which distorts the perception anyway, so it kind of ruins the effect. I.e. why optimize for a case I don't care about.

 

[Vacceo]

Any experience with the Perlistens? I know they are quite, quite expensive, but at the same time, I´d like to know how the array behaves as the directivity looks similar (in non center models) to the one in coaxials such as KEF, even when it visually may remind us of an MTM setup (which is non-ideal for a center speaker).

 

[luft262]

So I am curious what is best for home Theater
Option 1: Same identical speakers for all three fronts channels

Option 2: Same speakers for Left and Right and a horizontal designed center channel

All same brand and model series example:
Option 1: Three Revel F226be for L-C-R
Option 1: Two Revel F226be and C426be

All identical speakers would be better. However, it might not be possible and/or the audible advantages may be outweighed by the disadvantages. For example, even if three identical tower or standmount speakers would be better you might not be able to use a stand mount or tower speaker for the center channel, because it would block your view of the TV or you may have to mount the TV too high to see the screen over the center channel.

If you are building a home theater with a projector and use an sonically transparent screen then you can definitely use three identical speakers. If you're using a TV mounted to the wall or on a TV stand and the center channel has to be in front of the TV you might have to use a horizontal center channel so that the TV will be placed at the optimal viewing height and still be completely visible over the center channel.

If you are getting a horizontal center channel, getting one with a coaxial configuration or that is a 3 way speaker with dual woofers, one mid, and one tweeter will deliver the best off axis sonic performance, however, if you're mostly sitting in the sweet spot then an MTM configuration will be just as good and the quality of the drivers and the speaker's overall quality will be more important than the design type.

So at the end of the day everything is a compromise and it depends on your situation.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

The vocabulary is sticky but I agree with what you say but, also, that the center speaker sound is also somewhat more fully fleshed out when compared with the stereo pair (whether they are getting the mono or the stereo source).

Perhaps the best case for a center channel speaker is made by comparing the RCA Living Stereo or Mercury Living Presence SACDs and switching from the stereo tracks to the three-channel tracks.

Another really general way I'd describe the difference between centered dialog from phantom and true centers is that the sound coming equally from LR has similar characteristics to listening in a live room whereas from the center only it sounds more like listening in a dead room. That may be due to the same sound coming equally from LR having more similar characteristics to reflected sound. Even when the characteristics of a phantom center aren't the most realistic the sound can be pleasing with a more processed sense of wider soundstage and depth.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

To be clear, I feel like the sound sources roughly fall into 3 categories:

• Stereo
• Movie/TV-style multichannel
• Custom multi-channel material (i.e. designed to really take advantage of the 3 front channels)

To be clear, I am really only interested in classical recordings with a minimum of post-processing. They sound best in 5 channels (at the moment), less so in 4 channels and significantly less so in stereo.

Any experience with the Perlistens? I know they are quite, quite expensive, but at the same time, I´d like to know how the array behaves as the directivity looks similar (in non center models) to the one in coaxials such as KEF, even when it visually may remind us of an MTM setup (which is non-ideal for a center speaker).

Yes, I spent a couple of months with a pair of their big ones but not the center. Even so, I liked adding my own center when possible.

All identical speakers would be better......................................

Indeed.

Another really general way I'd describe the difference between centered dialog from phantom and true centers is that the sound coming equally from LR has similar characteristics to listening in a live room whereas from the center only it sounds more like listening in a dead room.

I would say that "from the center only it sounds more like listening" in the room in which was recorded.

 

[Vacceo]

Yes, I spent a couple of months with a pair of their big ones but not the center. Even so, I liked adding my own center when possible.

Are they as good as reviewers say they are? Because if I trust most reviewers, Perlisten seems to be among the best of the best.

I am thinking about upgrading my old system. One of my options is going from my old KEF IQ's to the current R series.
The other option is spending more and going Perlisten R series (not too distant from the S series in performance, it seems). I am considering those two cases because the directivity and pattern is quite similar, but directivity is just one of the elements of the whole sound.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Are they as good as reviewers say they are?

I believe every word in this review.

Perlisten S7t loudspeaker

I received an email from a longtime press representative I've known for years, telling me about a new loudspeaker company he's representing. The company is bursting from the gates with a line of products that includes floorstanders, standmounts, wallmounts, surrounds, center channels, and a...

www.stereophile.com

 

[JWAmerica]

This is insanely bad advice. Your center SHOULD be timbre matched - and better yet, have similar performance capabilities as the Left/Right speakers. A pan across the front soundstage will quickly reveal a dissimilar center channel, especially when it comes to timbre. I wish bad advice would die.

If you don't have identical L/C/R, timbre matching is nonsense. Most center speakers do not match the mains. The woofers and crossover are not the same even if the manufacturer markets them as a match for the mains. Usually only the tweeter is shared between mains and center, which is why timbre matching is regarded as a myth. If matching the center to the mains is important to you, buy three identical speakers.

 

[Vacceo]

I believe every word in this review.

Perlisten S7t loudspeaker

I received an email from a longtime press representative I've known for years, telling me about a new loudspeaker company he's representing. The company is bursting from the gates with a line of products that includes floorstanders, standmounts, wallmounts, surrounds, center channels, and a...

www.stereophile.com

Well, time to crunch numbers and aim for the cheaper R5t. If the father of the creature is right and they give 80% of what you describe, my neighbours will think the hammers of Rheingold are in my living room.

 

[Ozymand1as]

This is insanely bad advice. Your center SHOULD be timbre matched - and better yet, have similar performance capabilities as the Left/Right speakers. A pan across the front soundstage will quickly reveal a dissimilar center channel, especially when it comes to timbre. I wish bad advice would die.

I agree with sword on this one.

Furthermore, the vast majority of more affordable center channels do not match their LR counterpart because of the compromises that must be made for horizontal centers. For example, the JBL 520c versus the JBL 530. One is a terrible MTM design and the other is a rather brilliant affordable bookshelf design.

The only setup I've found that actually timbre matches are three identical LRC speakers or three KEF concentric speakers that are close enough, e.g. R3 and R2C.

Anecdotally, my wife always complained that I had the volume too low, and I never could understand why. I figured maybe she was losing her hearing. Then I learned more about audio and realized my awful center channel literally sounded different where she was sitting. Now I have a nice concentric driver and the whole couch hears the same thing. Unfortunately it doesn't match my right and left speakers, but I can't tell the difference.

 

[Oilman]

I'd avoid that.

Why? Have you tried it? If I understand your interests and your reviewing role at Stereophile, you’re not really a home theater guy. Correct me if I’m wrong. For a multichannel music optimized system with identical L/C/R, I agree with you. For those of us with home theater, with a traditional non-matching center channel under the screen (not a matching large tower center channel behind or below the screen), center spread does a nice job of bringing dialogue up to the screen. Without it, dialogue feels very anchored below the screen. Even on music alone, in the same scenario, I think center spread does a good job in giving a perceived matching tonal balance across the front soundstage.

 

[Pogre]

3 identical speakers is definitely optimal. I kind of have 3 identical speakers up front, but my center is oriented like a 3 way center channel. Same drivers and almost the same volume boxes tho, just different form factor.

I did stick with main speakers that had a matching 3 way center channel, not a 2 way mtm.

 

[ryanosaur]

I would vote for matching LCR assuming that you can go vertical at all three locations.
I would consider a smaller vertical center to match the Mains if I had too. (Currently, my setup.)
I would only choose a horizontal center if it was a good 3-way design and blended well my mains.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that matching Tweeter is the most sensitive component. Moreover, I think matching the Midrange is more important. The Woofers are least important in my book, though I would still expect [read: Demand] a Center that can at least cover mid-30s with some authority.

For me, Phil 3s are Mains with a vertical BMR Monitor at Center. (The BMR Monitor does work well in horizontal alignment, too, as long as you rotate the Raal Tweeter. I used this design for a while.)

 

[Vacceo]

Why? Have you tried it? If I understand your interests and your reviewing role at Stereophile, you’re not really a home theater guy. Correct me if I’m wrong. For a multichannel music optimized system with identical L/C/R, I agree with you. For those of us with home theater, with a traditional non-matching center channel under the screen (not a matching large tower center channel behind or below the screen), center spread does a nice job of bringing dialogue up to the screen. Without it, dialogue feels very anchored below the screen. Even on music alone, in the same scenario, I think center spread does a good job in giving a perceived matching tonal balance across the front soundstage.

Mr. Rubinson has stated publicly several times that he has moved to multi channel audio for quite some time. You can read it in his reviews.

Sure, not by means of of an av receiver, but there are other methods to get multichannel.

 

[Sancus]

Why? Have you tried it? If I understand your interests and your reviewing role at Stereophile, you’re not really a home theater guy. Correct me if I’m wrong. For a multichannel music optimized system with identical L/C/R, I agree with you. For those of us with home theater, with a traditional non-matching center channel under the screen (not a matching large tower center channel behind or below the screen), center spread does a nice job of bringing dialogue up to the screen. Without it, dialogue feels very anchored below the screen. Even on music alone, in the same scenario, I think center spread does a good job in giving a perceived matching tonal balance across the front soundstage.

AFAIK Center Spread is a Dolby Surround upmixing option intended for upmixing stereo music, unless you're talking about something totally different.

This also means it's not even possible to enable it for Atmos content and while I suppose it might work with 5.1/7.1 content it's not really for that.

 

[Pogre]

I like center spread for upmixing from stereo music so my soundstage isn't collapsed but not for actual 5.1 content. Your center signal is smeared across the front end with spread turned on and you lose that anchoring for center sound.

*PS, I don't listen to much stereo music upmixed to 5.1, hardly ever. Every once in a while I guess it's kinda fun tho, and that's when I use center spread.

 

[Teeter]

All I know is my Center Channel along with my mains are more for HT 5.1 surround, as I am NOT a critical Hi-Fi person. My ELAC speakers sound great for internet AAC or MP3, using multi-channel on my AVR, including classic piano.

I have had matching Mains and a DIFFERENT expensive mfg center channel, with the AVR Audyssey, it was okay. With my current ELAC mains with the matching Center, there is a whole lot more BALANCE, both for movies and music.

Whatever suits your fancy to your ears, that is all that counts............................Yes, the center channel of good quality, is needed for DD movies. Long story short. Everyone's ears are not the same. Some prefer Klipsch, SVS, plus a whole lot of others at different price points. Less expensive speakers from one manufacture may out do a more expensive one from another.

Have a nice week!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Why? Have you tried it? If I understand your interests and your reviewing role at Stereophile, you’re not really a home theater guy. Correct me if I’m wrong. For a multichannel music optimized system with identical L/C/R, I agree with you.

You are correct but my 2nd system is an HT system with a relatively large OLED and equipped for Atmos. So the answer is, yes, I have played with center spread options but have not found them a useful replacement for a physical center speaker with a discrete channel feed. With three identical floor-standing speakers for L/C/R, voices do not seem to be low or below the screen. Of course, that may depend on the radiation parameters of the speakers.

And, of course, all these issues are not black-and-white and none of us can fully optimize every aspect of the system in our small portion of the real world. We do what seems most advantageous for us.