Does the Brovia Quad kinda prove me right?

[Wseaton]

Ever since the days of Dolby Pro Logic I have *hated* center channels. I've heard some incredible systems over the years, but the extreme localization of a having a single, physical center channel speaker has always sounded artificial to my ears. Dolby Pro logic 'phantom mode' for the win. I've done shit over the years like split center channels with 5.1 and run two set of speakers up front. Wire them out of phase and there's no cancellation issues, and the center image magically floats in front. Phantom mode on steroids if you will, but it sounds seamless.

We then fast forward over the decades, and we're now seeing a few systems like the Brovia Quad that do without the center channel relying on better sound processing and mapping. Be it Sony's, Atmos, or a combination of the two I don't care. It's software based sound processing and it really doesn't make a difference.

While I haven't heard the Quads, I do trust the reviews on them being solid. Some reviewers claim after awhile they don't miss a physical center while others claim it's not quite as good as having a dedicated center. If we move the needle of consensus at the average of those reviews we still have a pretty good system that does a pretty good job sans center.

So, I have some conclusions here - some of them harsh.

- While the Brovia and its predecessor do a good job with this, there's no reason this type of sound mapping improvement couldn't have been done 20 effing years ago. Only reason it wasn't is the cartel in the HT industry wanted to push more speakers on consumers. Gotta have a center channel speaker to have a high end HT system, or you aren't doing it right Bob.

- The Sony system could, theoretically work with any speakers, not just Sony. However, given the economics of the hifi and electronics industry in general software is inherently valueless unless its coupled with something you can sell, like a speaker module made in china. I'm sure the sony quads are nice speakers and optimized for atmos, but I dare say many of us have superior speakers.

- Software doesn't give a shit about hardware. Years of working in the IT industry an on software routers, switches, and virtualization stacks taught me that. So, why isn't this software / processing available for non Sony systems? Do it with any 2/4 speakers I want. Or is it, and I've just been living under a rock?

Intelligent comments appreciated.

 

[staticV3]

More speakers around you enable more immersive audio experiences, especially if there are multiple people watching/listening, where a phantom center really doesn't work very well.

If you had localization issues when using a physical center, then that sounds a lot like an issue with the surround sound content, or the surround sound setup (perhaps a slightly "hot" center).

Claiming it to be an inherent issue of physical center speakers is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[kemmler3D]

So, devil's advocate: A very solid phantom center is possible with good mains that have even dispersion and smooth FR.

However, a lot of speakers sold in the late 90s - early 2000s do not fit that description. You could say the HTIB "wave" or "plague" if you prefer was more about selling people surround sound without necessarily hitting any particularly high mark for hi-fi.

In that case, a center channel is necessary just to get something approximating a decent image. Yes, you can argue it benefits manufacturers, but they don't make money by selling more speakers, they make money by selling more dollars worth of speakers.

Most consumers have a fixed budget to allocate to speakers, so a center channel is necessary to deliver on the promise of surround sound at lower price points. (by spreading the BOM cost across 5 speakers instead of 4, and just dealing with the trade-offs.)

Just upping the price of HTIBs by adding 1 more speaker doesn't expand the market by 20%, so if they could do a convincing surround effect with 4 speakers, they would have done it, and either kept some of they money as profit, or put more into 4 quality speakers, probably a mix of both.

That, and there are mixing standards where certain content is intended to come from a center channel. Pushed by the Dolby monopoly? Maybe. But a center channel is not a technically bankrupt idea, either.

 

[Jim Taylor]

More speakers around you enable more immersive audio experiences, especially if there are multiple people watching/listening, where a phantom center really doesn't work very well.

^^^ This ^^^.

Try watching a movie with three of four kids jumping around and cheering Spiderman on, and you'll see that phantom anything is going to disappoint someone. Kids (and I daresay quite a few adults) want their illusions, and a firm center channel helps give it to them.

Jim

 

[DVDdoug]

Most (all?) AVRs can be configured for the number of speakers you have and you'll get a down-mix. Without a center, the center audio should be routed to left & right (as it is when you play on a 2-channel stereo setup).

There a couple of advantages with a center - You can turn-up the dialog in movies. Often movies are very dynamic with loud effects and if the effects are too loud and you turn it down, the dialog gets too quiet. (There is also dynamic range compression but it might be better to turn-up the center.)

And with a real center everybody in the room doesn't have to sit in the sweet spot to get a good phantom center. From what I've read, that's the main purpose of the center speaker.

 

[Wseaton]

More speakers around you enable more immersive audio experiences, especially if there are multiple people watching/listening, where a phantom center really doesn't work very well.

Then multiple, logical centers would add to this logic, not less. This supports my agument...it doesn't defeat it. The concept of a single, mono center is a relic from decades ago and has always been the achilles heel of HT. Helped Sears sell HT systems.

IMAX and other large theaters do not use a single, logical center behind their screens. We have multiple, physical centers at play. There is no 'single, logical mono center channel.

"Kids (and I daresay quite a few adults) want their illusions, and a firm center channel helps give it to them."

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it.

Roughly 70% of multi channel information goes to you center channel, and having single, mono speaker element projecting that information sounds fake. If I wanted a glorified sound bar I would get one. Kids could care less if you are just down mixing to simple stereo.

I don't have kids to worry about, and the very high end HT rooms I've been in are increasingly moving away from mono center speakers and relying on DSP to defeat this illusion with some even adopting small line arrays to accomodate wider viewer positions. I feel like I'm arguing for Atmos like speaker arrangements in Audioholics forum on the late 90's and somebody is telling me to just use Dolby Pro Logic and phantom mode. Sorry, expected more.

The Sony system is getting some pretty damn good reviews for not having a center, and it's achieving via software, not speakers. If it's software, why can't that software be emulated on ANY system? Responses I'm getting are basically dismissing it....like active speakers being inferiour to passive ones 10years ago.

Love to have Amir take a crack at the system and hear his thoughts. Getting too much 'get off my lawn' here.

 

[moonlight rainbow dream]

Center channels are fine actually. I'd posit that you've just been listening to bad speakers. When you listen to a speaker in mono it unmasks more of its flaws than when you listen to a stereo pair.

 

[dlaloum]

A couple of "historical" things...

1) Stereo comes from the greek, meaning "solid" - as in an image that appears audibly solid or real
2) Stereo originally did not have any implication with regards to the number of speakers/channels in use
3) Early "stereo" research, proposals and demonstrations had 3 channels.... including a center. This was reduced to two channels for mass market purposes due to the widespread adoption of vinyl records as the primary distribution method, with its two channels. (had tape become the primary mass market media, 3 channels might well have been the standard for "stereo")

A superb "solid" image can be achieved at a limited central listening location using two speakers, but the only way to keep that image stable across a wider listening area, is to have a center speaker (or speakers...) - this is a result of how we hear and how our brain interprets what we hear.

Movie theatres with their acoustically transparent screens, have long used multiple center speakers behind the massive screens...

Our real problem today, is that in the home, the standard screen is a solid panel - so placing a speaker behind it is not an option - hence we start to compromise, placing speakers above, or/and below, or/and on either side.... as the screens get larger, the either side option is becoming problematic.
Sony's acoustic surface screens are a potential solution to the problem, but the "speaker" quality, and matching with other speakers in a surround setup, becomes difficult.