Please share your center channel experiences

[Larry B. Larabee]

I have OS3s used as surrounds and never thought of using one as a center instead of the dedicated OS3 center.
The Polk at 40hz,40lbs,huge, a different dispersion profile compared to the Mirage and not exactly a fair comparison.
The question is how much of an unfair comparison is it? As it stands would you consider a smaller, 2 way, light weight, frequency limited center speaker foolish for anyone claiming to be serious about proper multi-channel sound reproduction?

 

[AdamG]

I have like you tried maybe 10 different center channel speakers. Always just ended up boosting the center channel to get the sound anchoring I wanted. Then I tried the Martin Logan hybrid Center. No measurements to prove any claims here. But this speaker is the best one I have ever had. Pretty interesting design with a curved front electrostatic panel combined with a ribbon tweeter right in the middle backed by dual 5 1/4” woofers.

MartinLogan | ElectroMotion ESL C

www.martinlogan.com

 

[AdamG]

I have like you tried maybe 10 different center channel speakers. Always just ended up boosting the center channel to get the sound anchoring I wanted. Then I tried the Martin Logan hybrid Center. No measurements to prove any claims here. But this speaker is the best one I have ever had. Pretty interesting design with a curved front electrostatic panel combined with a ribbon tweeter right in the middle backed by dual 5 1/4” woofers.

MartinLogan | ElectroMotion ESL C

www.martinlogan.com

This is the one I really wanted! But the price kept my eagerness at bay!

MartinLogan | Illusion ESL C34A

www.martinlogan.com

 

[Madjalapeno]

No measurements to prove any claims here. But this speaker is the best one I have ever had. Pretty interesting design with a curved front electrostatic panel combined with a ribbon tweeter right in the middle backed by dual 5 1/4” woofers.

That's a bold design.

 

[Sal1950]

I have like you tried maybe 10 different center channel speakers.

My goodness you guys must be unbelievably fussy/anal over this. 10 really Adam?
I know that those here have purchased quality products so that's not the problem.
Maybe it's the "theater" thing and most MTM's have lobbing issues for more than one listening location
and I only have to worry about my single center seat?
That said I didn't have many complaints about my old HSU MTM when it came to center imaging.
And I find my current JBL HDI-4500 completely satisfactory.
Maybe I'm just deaf?
10 different speakers ????

 

[Certainkindoffool]

I bought a Revel c205 and wish I had gone with the c208 while I was able to get a good price. It's still fine though, I'm probably just in withdrawl from 2 decades of upgradeitis.

 

[Duke]

I did not get a nice blending of the center sound with the other speakers. My main complaint has been that I rarely found that sounds appeared to come from the tv. Usually the sound localized to the center speaker and was distractingly annoying.

I can live with the (inevitable?) collapse in soundstage depth that accompanies a center channel speaker on movies, but imo that totally ruins the illusion on music videos. And music videos are my priority as far as sound quality.

... please share your center channel experience and whether it required any special speaker or placement to yield good results.

The second-best center channel solution I have used was a coaxial with matching left and right speakers. They were prototypes that never went into production.

The best center-channel solution I have used is phantom center mode with controlled-pattern main speakers toed-in aggressively. You can see an example of such at this link (it's not my room):

AK Prismas as Phantom Center

AK Prismas as Phantom Center

www.audiocircle.com

I understand the arguments for having a dedicated center channel versus using phantom center mode. They make sense. But to my ears the spatial quality is much better in phantom center mode, even for off-centerline listeners, assuming appropriate speakers and setup.

That being said, for listeners with a significant hearing imbalance (one ear hears better than the other), the time-intensity trading setup that I prefer is usually impractical, and a center-channel speaker is called for.

 

[pseudoid]

ASR tested Polk Reserve R350 owner: @#$% it...
They say "Once bitten, twice shy" but no one tells you what happens at the 3rd try.
So, I am not about to find out ever again!

 

[Blumlein 88]

I use a jbl lsr 308 mk ii for the center. It actually sounds slightly better for everyone vs the exact center seat. I use a projector so there is a little extra room below it. The side by side mtm types seem to cause issues. You do sometimes feel the dialog is coming from too low, but not usually.

 

[Sancus]

Genelec 8351B is the first center I've used that just works and I don't feel any need to adjust levels for any content. Everything sounds correct and dialogue intelligibility is fantastic anywhere.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Genelec 8351B is the first center I've used that just works and I don't feel any need to adjust levels for any content. Everything sounds correct and dialogue intelligibility is fantastic anywhere.

I'd like one of those too. Cost is holding me back.

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

I can live with the (inevitable?) collapse in soundstage depth that accompanies a center channel speaker on movies, but imo that totally ruins the illusion on music videos. And music videos are my priority as far as sound quality.



The second-best center channel solution I have used was a coaxial with matching left and right speakers. They were prototypes that never went into production.

The best center-channel solution I have used is phantom center mode with controlled-pattern main speakers toed-in aggressively. You can see an example of such at this link (it's not my room):

AK Prismas as Phantom Center

AK Prismas as Phantom Center

www.audiocircle.com

I understand the arguments for having a dedicated center channel versus using phantom center mode. They make sense. But to my ears the spatial quality is much better in phantom center mode, even for off-centerline listeners, assuming appropriate speakers and setup.

That being said, for listeners with a significant hearing imbalance (one ear hears better than the other), the time-intensity trading setup that I prefer is usually impractical, and a center-channel speaker is called for.

In your situation, I wonder why mono isn't an option. Maximum coherence and no directionality. It seems to be the perfect solution.

 

[Rick Sykora]

I'd like one of those too. Cost is holding me back.

The Genelec is a good swig, but only half the swig of Adam’s ML Illusion center!

Think I will stick with my (NLA) Mirage OMD-5.

 

[ThatM1key]

I currently I have 3.1/3.0 setup. It doesn't annoy me that much the sound comes the bottom of the TV. When I had my 5.1.2, I could use my heights (bookshelf's pointing down) to (AVR Setting) virtually move my center and it sounded like was coming from my TV, I didn't even have matching series but at least matching brand.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The Genelec is a good swig, but only half the swig of Adam’s ML Illusion center!

Think I will stick with my (NLA) Mirage OMD-5.

I don't think the Illusion will be good actually. They only claim 30 degrees horizontal dispersion. As an owner of some curved ESL's that curving doesn't disperse the sound like it might appear on first sight. I think a good center will need 60 degrees coverage or more.

hometheaterreview gave it good marks, but noted it had limited dispersion and people seated much off axis were not well served by it.

 

[Duke]

In your situation, I wonder why mono isn't an option.

Let me try to explain.

I enjoy spatial qualities, especially if it's a good recording. And apparently I'm not alone:

According to a paper written by Wolfgang Klippel and cited by Floyd Toole in his book (third edition, pages 185-186), the “feeling of space” makes a 50% contribution to "naturalness” (realism and accuracy), and a 70%(!) contribution to "pleasantness" (general satisfaction or preference). Here is how Toole sums it up (page 186):

"Sensations of sound quality and spaciousness contribute equally to impressions of "naturalness", and spatial quality dominated the impression of "pleasantness". Therefore whether one is a picky purist or a relaxed recreational listener, the impression of space is a significant factor."

And that's why mono isn't an option for me.

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

Let me try to explain.

I enjoy spatial qualities, especially if it's a good recording. And apparently I'm not alone:

According to a paper written by Wolfgang Klippel and cited by Floyd Toole in his book (third edition, pages 185-186), the “feeling of space” makes a 50% contribution to "naturalness” (realism and accuracy), and a 70%(!) contribution to "pleasantness" (general satisfaction or preference). Here is how Toole sums it up (page 186):

"Sensations of sound quality and spaciousness contribute equally to impressions of "naturalness", and spatial quality dominated the impression of "pleasantness". Therefore whether one is a picky purist or a relaxed recreational listener, the impression of space is a significant factor."

And that's why mono isn't an option for me.

I think I understand. It's important that you can't pinpoint where the sound is coming from so there is no binaural bias and a freedom from forced attention to what you hear.

 

[voodooless]

using another CBT was not an option.

What about the other way around:

It’s a tad on the big side of things though.

I’m preparing a center myself at the moment. It’s going to be a coaxial 3-way. I’m very space limited, so special care is needed to get enough output.

 

[Duke]

I think I understand. It's important that you can't pinpoint where the sound is coming from so there is no binaural bias and a freedom from forced attention to what you hear.

I don't know what you mean by "binaural bias"; other than that I think I agree.

I'd like to hear a good rendition of the spatial quality on the recording (assuming it's there to begin with). I'd like to hear a plausible illusion of where the voices and instruments are in space, which includes distance as well as direction. I'd like for the speakers to disappear, in the sense that they not intrude on the illusion as audibly discrete sound sources. I'd like to feel as if I'm immersed in the ambient soundfield on the recording, whether it's an actual venue or an engineered acoustic or a combination thereof. I would like for the sense of space to be dominated by the cues on the recording, rather than the cues inherent to my playback room. Ime these things are easier said than done.

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

a significant hearing imbalance (one ear hears better than the other)

With the above statement (I may have, incorrectly, attributed to you personally) I thought localization would be an obstacle. Your preference for a phantom center should have given me a clue that the disability was referring to the uninitiated or, as you say, a preference for non-localisation. Sorry for the confusion, I should pay more attention.