Let’s talk center speakers!

[key_wiz]

One of my 5.1 set~ups includes a pair of Bowers & Wilkins 802 Nautilus Speakers in the front with a B&W 'recommended' center channel and speaker stand [angled upward] and the rears include two smaller bookshelf B&W speakers. I'm using a Parasound P7 ALL ANALOGUE pre amp which has NO audyssey room correction, etc. and a Krell 5.1 AMP to drive the system.

While watching blu ray movies and/or satellite, the system sounds 'relatively' balanced and the center acquits itself admirably doing what it is supposed to do.

While playing SACDs, DVD~A, etc. I'm a little more critical of my 'imbalanced' center channel and when I decided to play the AP three channel SACDs of Nat King Cole I did notice that the center wrecked the 'illusion' for me. When I disengaged the center.....the B&W 802s simply did their job and produced a 'perfect' phantom center and sounded way more balanced ... and might I add AUDIOPHILE.

And Ask yourselves: when playing a QUAD SACD do you really miss the [physical] center channel?

Much HAS been written about how the center channel was 'added' as a 'dialogue' channel for cavernous movie theaters and how SOUND ENGINEERS when remixing a MUSIC album into 5.1 simply weren't used to the need for a center since a perfectly balanced 4 channel system, FRONT and REAR can actually produce TWO PHANTOM CENTERS [Front and Rear].

As every system is different and one's preferences vary as well, I would think it wise to try the NO CENTER approach UNLESS your fronts are PERFECTLY MATCHED [even down to speaker cables and amplification]. Even though my B&W center channel was recommended by B&W as the perfect accompaniment to the full range B&W 802 Nautilus speakers [f/r / f/l] I can relate to you from first hand experience it is great for movies/TV but NOT for 'serious' music listening.

This is about how I feel about my system most times. When the center is great, it’s awesome sounding. But I find I’m almost always fussing with it between different discs.

As a system for movies and TV, it works great. For music? It often sounds as if the center channel is someone “forced” into the mix, for lack of a better term.

OTHO, as Frogmart put it, I like having the control. Most of us agree that the Chicago albums are among the best of the 70s quad mixes, but many of us have commented (myself included) that the lead vocals are too quiet on some of them. Having a center channel to boost would be nice!

 

[Kal Rubinson]

My 5 speakers are Celestion's -- 4 MP-1s and one center channel speaker. I think I bought them back in the late '90's at Woofer & Tweeter (long since out of business) and they've held up really well. Here's a description - http://www.gammaelectronics.xyz/sght_v2n2_ Celestion.html

Looking for more MP-1s? I have two pair sitting the closet.

 

[key_wiz]

Anyone with a serious listening system not treating it as a novelty?
Sorry if that's too snarky! The 5.1 format calls for 5 full range channels though. That's what the mix is made for. You have no choice if you want to hear it as intended. Playing it back on anything else gets into the same territory as unbalanced stereo (side to side). You'd hear that all the time in car stereos back in the day. Some people were so 'novelty' about it they didn't care if they only had one channel hooked up. Now, using different speaker managed arrays for surround is fine but it has to be calibrated properly. 5.1 may still often be quad based for the meat n' potatoes of the mix but you really do need to have channel 3 hooked up properly. To be fair, a surround system is extremely tech heavy to set up and calibrate! Not even close to plug and play. The watered down TV and movie surround mixes don't help either. These are made to come across on just about any mishmash of a system! People end up with center speaker levels off and Lfe levels off by as much as 10db or more and you're none the wiser with TV and movies. Now these dense immersive music mixes come along demanding a calibrated system.

That said, there ARE a lot of wonky mixes that isolate the vocal (for one example) in the C channel but then all the reflection support in the other channels is missing. Especially some of those cookie cutter mixes from circa 2000 DVDA disks. This can be tricky to be fair! Probably the easiest thing to get wrong. The first time you try that and realize you need to separate the ambient support between different coordinates with time differential between them and all that.

And herein lies the basic flaw with surround sound music as a commercially viable medium, IMO. If it ONLY works well on rather expensive systems with 5 identical speakers and no systems are even sold or marketed as such?

If I’ve spent thousands of dollars on audio equipment and I’m still finding I have to rebalance settings for each different disc because my system still isn’t good enough to be above “novelty” listening?

Well geez. No wonder the entire discipline has been relegated to uber-niche status.

 

[sjcorne]

My center speaker and rears match exactly, but the fronts are bigger (from the same series though). I use a vintage Marantz quad amp, so my center is powered by a separate mini amp. This does have some perks- namely, the ability to easily control the volume on the center or isolate it on playback, but it can be a pain to balance the center volume dial with the Marantz volume dial. Usually prior to my listen of a 5.1 disc, I run test tones to assure everything is properly balanced.

Regardless of any system-related issues, I think it is an absolute fact that there are many 5.1 mixes where the center channel volume is too low (Misplaced Childhood, Songs From The Big Chair, etc) and even a few where it's too hot (Octoberon, The Stranger). I think the center channel vocals work better when you have reflections in all four quadrants, such as in the Elton John 5.1's and Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms. Some of the SW mixes have the reflections in the rears only and literally no trace of the vocal track in the front left and right.

 

[wavelength]

On which discs is the plane seamless, every title you own?

On every disc I play, yes. For example I can't tell the difference between a center channel signal and a phantom center. I have to put my ear up to the center speaker to see which it is.

 

[jimfisheye]

Well geez. No wonder the entire discipline has been relegated to uber-niche status.

Well... think about how many people you know who can't even set up for stereo. Speakers right next to each other. Or at goofy angles and/or different planes. Or aimed at their shins.
What's the math? With 6 speakers, you have 36 different ways to screw it up and that's even besides positioning them!

 

[edisonbaggins]

If I’ve spent thousands of dollars on audio equipment and I’m still finding I have to rebalance settings for each different disc because my system still isn’t good enough to be above “novelty” listening?

But some, such as myself, have a much easier, cheaper time of it.
Yeah, I've spent a few grand on my system(s) and again on music, but people spend that annually on other hobbies, like snow sports.
My fairly modest system sounds awesome on the vast majority of sources.
Speaker angles reasonably close to specs, a little room correction and voilà!

 

[filper]

That's a cool setup and quite a comprehensive strategy of rotating speakers. What are those speaker stands, if you don't mind saying?

The stands are Ikea bar stools. Uncomfortable as hell. I sat on one once when I first put them together. The seat height is adjustable making them perfect for fine-tuning the tweeter height.

 

[key_wiz]

Well... think about how many people you know who can't even set up for stereo. Speakers right next to each other. Or at goofy angles and/or different planes. Or aimed at their shins.
What's the math? With 6 speakers, you have 36 different ways to screw it up and that's even besides positioning them!

True.

But most of those stereo mixes were created with those audiences in mind to at least some degree. Obviously not the guys who hide one speaker in the closet, but mixed so that they’d sound as good as possible on a boom box or transistor radio as well as on an audiophile system.

5.1 music was first introduced with the surround sound home theater market in mind, was it not? To mix it presuming everyone would have 5 identical speakers seems a bit foolish, IMO.

 

[key_wiz]

My center speaker and rears match exactly, but the fronts are bigger (from the same series though). I use a vintage Marantz quad amp, so my center is powered by a separate mini amp. This does have some perks- namely, the ability to easily control the volume on the center or isolate it on playback, but it can be a pain to balance the center volume dial with the Marantz volume dial. Usually prior to my listen of a 5.1 disc, I run test tones to assure everything is properly balanced.

Regardless of any system-related issues, I think it is an absolute fact that there are many 5.1 mixes where the center channel volume is too low (Misplaced Childhood, Songs From The Big Chair, etc) and even a few where it's too hot (Octoberon, The Stranger). I think the center channel vocals work better when you have reflections in all four quadrants, such as in the Elton John 5.1's and Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms. Some of the SW mixes have the reflections in the rears only and literally no trace of the vocal track in the front left and right.

I agree that the Elton’s and DS are maybe the best examples of center channel vocals. They sound just about perfect on my system and make me very happy that they aren’t just quad mixes.

As much as I like Wilson’s mixes otherwise, I’m still often futzing to get the center vocals to sound their best. Same with the Genesis DVDs

 

[key_wiz]

But some, such as myself, have a much easier, cheaper time of it.
Yeah, I've spent a few grand on my system(s) and again on music, but people spend that annually on other hobbies, like snow sports.
My fairly modest system sounds awesome on the vast majority of sources.
Speaker angles reasonably close to specs, a little room correction and voilà!

Well, don’t get me wrong. It’s not like I’m complaining that my system sounds horrid or anything. I’m really talking about that last couple of degrees of getting things closer to “perfect”.

But that’s great that you have your system set up in a manner that works so well for you.

No doubt I could spend more time trying to adjust for room correction and that my listening room is far from the ideal listening space.

 

[marpow]

I have matching front from the Diamond series B&W center and front R/L. The center and two rears have a 3 channel amp at 300 watts per speaker and the the front R/L have a 2 channel amp at 450 watts per speaker.
This really means nothing as I think when having the set up, the placement is very critical. I use my system for TV/Movie/Music.
I have Audessy correction which seems to be most helpful for TV. In the TV/Movie watching the center seems super important, especially with my hearing as dialogue sometimes gets lost. Sometimes I just watch from the two TV speakers only which eliminates all the ambient stuff in surrounds that just clogs my ears with unnecessary stuff anyway.
I have the Auto Audessy mode, nice tweak article here and I have direct mode which in both these modes I can change levels of speakers. I have a Pure Direct mode which I cannot change levels, this is all on my AVR McIntosh MX122.
For 4.0 listening, not needed of course, except when some of my digital Quad8 files activate the center and I just zero the center.
I guess this comes down to active 5.1 music listening. I like the center to be equally active to the fronts. My placement of the front R/L woofer is about ear level and the center is a little higher (not ideal). My speaker setup is measured from my listening position accurately.
I like AR's post #7, interesting concept, have to try.
I am more committed these days to turning on any type of surround music, settling in my listening position and changing levels, fairly quickly this can be achieved.
I think the Wendy Carlos surround page here is very good.
My listening room would probably be considered poor/moderate to the point I couldn't even do some of the Wendy Carlos suggestions.
Good subject, thank you I continue to learn a few things.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

Apologies for a slight diversion, but...
I seem to recall filling out an equipment profile when I joined this forum.
Did that all go away when the software was updated?

 

[milt]

Apologies for a slight diversion, but...
I seem to recall filling out an equipment profile when I joined this forum.
Did that all go away when the software was updated?

I asked Jon about that some time ago after the forum update...

I use identical L\C\Rs in my 7.2 system
The side surrounds do not match the fronts.
The rear surrounds have the same mid-woofers as the fronts.

I have friends that have "horizontal" centers matching the L & R right & they sound pretty dang seamless.

To me, the key is good room correction software & setup.

Unlike to OP, I see lots of speaker systems made for surround and many are not what I consider expensive.
My first surround system in 2003 was one of these. Worked great.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Center channel.. I hadn't had a Center channel for several years and now I have a "matching series" one, a Polk S30 which , although it doesn't go as low as the S50s BUT it does go all the way up to 44K like the S50s....
Anyway.. my take on CC is that it's a psychoacoustic dilemma.. since everybody's "microphones" are different and the ears have a different angle to them depending on the person, it's all relative...just saying...

 

[key_wiz]

I have matching from the Diamond series B&W center and front R/L. The center and two rears have a 3 channel amp at 300 watts per speaker and the the front R/L have a 2 channel amp at 450 watts per speaker.
This really means nothing as I think when having the set up, the placement is very critical. I use my system for TV/Movie/Music.
I have Audessy correction which seems to be most helpful for TV. In the TV/Movie watching the center seems super important, especially with my hearing as dialogue sometimes gets lost. Sometimes I just watch from the two TV speakers only which eliminates all the ambient stuff in surrounds that just clogs my ears with unnecessary stuff anyway.
I have the Auto Audessy mode, nice tweak article here and I have direct mode which in both these modes I can change levels of speakers. I have a Pure Direct mode which I cannot change levels, this is all on my AVR McIntosh MX122.
For 4.0 listening, not needed of course, except when some of my digital Quad8 files activate the center and I just zero the center.
I guess this comes down to active 5.1 music listening. I like the center to be equally active to the fronts. My placement of the front R/L woofer is about ear level and the center is a little higher (not ideal). My speaker setup is measured from my listening position accurately.
I like AR's post #7, interesting concept, have to try.
I am more committed these days to turning on any type of surround music, settling in my listening position and changing levels, fairly quickly this can be achieved.
I think the Wendy Carlos surround page here is very good.
My listening room would probably be considered poor/moderate to the point I couldn't even do some of the Wendy Carlos suggestions.
Good subject, thank you I continue to learn a few things.

I agree. I had never considered playing with the distance adjustment. I measured the distance from the speakers to my sitting position with a laser measurer and set them according to that and have since left them alone.

I will have to play with this and see what the results are.

Thanks for the link to the Carlos page!

 

[wavelength]

Apologies for a slight diversion, but...
I seem to recall filling out an equipment profile when I joined this forum.
Did that all go away when the software was updated?

It's under Your Account -> Preferences. You can see your own but it's kinda useless because you can't see anyone else's.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

If I’ve spent thousands of dollars on audio equipment and I’m still finding I have to rebalance settings for each different disc because my system still isn’t good enough to be above “novelty” listening?

I do not find that necessary.

 

[hirez]

On every disc I play, yes. For example I can't tell the difference between a center channel signal and a phantom center. I have to put my ear up to the center speaker to see which it is.

SAME HERE

 

[jimfisheye]

And herein lies the basic flaw with surround sound music as a commercially viable medium, IMO. If it ONLY works well on rather expensive systems with 5 identical speakers and no systems are even sold or marketed as such?

If I’ve spent thousands of dollars on audio equipment and I’m still finding I have to rebalance settings for each different disc because my system still isn’t good enough to be above “novelty” listening?

Well geez. No wonder the entire discipline has been relegated to uber-niche status.

Well, yes and no.
It only works if you hook gear up right. And this part is mission critical. Literally the difference between surround being a novelty at best vs proper.
It does not have to break the bank though!
Scare up 5 decent little speakers and a sub. Spend time with placement. (Get out the tape measure and level.) Speaker manage the array properly. (A few test tones and frequency sweeps will get you there.) The computer is your master playback device. <- That part is huge! Acess to literally every format without the need for multiple seriously expensive hardware boxes which can go obsolete as new formats come out. A new format is usually just a software install away. Bluray (for one example) required a new drive which was still only $200 10 years ago when that was new. Just an accessory. You can build a really snobby audiophile system for a factor of 10 less than in the past.
Even if you go really frugal and get 5 little 2 way speakers with 6" bass drivers (6" would be the absolute minimum) and no sub, the combined headroom of that system with surround program will blow most stereo systems out of the water. Send any stereo program to both front and rear if desired.