Let’s talk center speakers!

[4-earredwonder]

Strange, I have only one center channel speaker and five subwoofers.

Do you play bass in a rock 'n roll band, frogmort?

 

[boxhead]

He liked his music in mono but his smoking in stereo.


Ah yes...the sad, old story....if only he had spent more time twiddling the OTHER set of knobs....

What is that speaker anyway? I almost think I need one!

Looks like a Quad (the brand, not the format) ESL 55?

Sent from my K5000 using Tapatalk

 

[Soundfield]

What is that speaker anyway? I almost think I need one!

Shame on you for not recognising one of the most famous, and probably most important, speakers of the 20th century – the Quad ESL57 electrostatic!! The remarkable thing is that, despite its age (manufactured between 1957 and 1985 in that form), it almost certainly sounds better than very many (if not most) of the speakers being used for centre channel use today! It’s only real short comings were / is a slightly weak low bass performance – largely overcome in the current production models I understand. Always wanted these wonderful open sounding speakers, but being dipoles they need a lot of breathing space around them (something that my living room does not afford - certainly not for five of the things!).

 

[Soundfield]

I'm surprised you didn't comment on the 'fruit bowl' under the Missus' chair........they were listening to Prokofiev's "The Love For Three Oranges" and the reason for the divorce: the carpet didn't match the drapes!

This photo was part of a Quad advert for its speakers and amplifiers in the UK in the fifties, and you should remember that this was a picture of a country that was just climbing out of a very deep post war recession. There was still some rationing in force. Everywhere had been very drab and lifeless for the last decade. As the economy started to recover people reacted against the lifelessness of the depression and boy did the pendulum swing in the other direction! The fruit (which would still have been considered a luxury by many) would have been a very deliberate addition to the photo as a sign of a couple enjoying a rich quality of life. At this time everything went crazy in terms of design, art and fashion. If you think this picture looks mad in B/W you should see what it would have looked like in colour! My parent’s new house was decorated throughout very much like that, and in the most violent colours you could imagine – even their ceilings were bright purple (I cannot bring myself to look at some of the old family photos!). It was all just a lead in to the freewheeling sixties of course....

 

[key_wiz]

Shame on you for not recognising one of the most famous, and probably most important, speakers of the 20th century – the Quad ESL57 electrostatic!! The remarkable thing is that, despite its age (manufactured between 1957 and 1985 in that form), it almost certainly sounds better than very many (if not most) of the speakers being used for centre channel use today! It’s only real short comings were / is a slightly weak low bass performance – largely overcome in the current production models I understand. Always wanted these wonderful open sounding speakers, but being dipoles they need a lot of breathing space around them (something that my living room does not afford - certainly not for five of the things!).

I should know more about vintage audio gear, you’re right. But I actually don’t have a clue.

I love the look of all that mid-century stuff. My parents were nowhere near that hip.

 

[ssully]

Who can tell us how most of the albums are mixed? Are they using five identical speakers in the studio?

They're 'supposed' to use 5 full-range loudspeakers.

I suspect that some strange music mixes sound that way because that ITU recommendation was not adhered to. That, and not properly calibrating the levels and EQ of the system they do use.

And how many systems are sold this way? Aren’t pretty much all surround sound systems—-even the high end ones —-sold with a center speaker that is not the same as the L/R?

For aesthetic reasons, not acoustic ones.

My center, like Kal's, is identical to the L/R. When I watch video, I lower the Center and tilt it up to fire at my seat. Works pretty well. Makers *could* sell identical L/C/R sets, and advise listeners to do this. preferably with proper level calibration and EQ matching. But the SAF (spouse acceptance factor) would probably be low.

An alternative is to mount a TV or project an image high enough so that the Center at ear height does not block it. This is a bad idea, unless you like looking 'up' to watch video or can sit far away. (When i see TVs mounted above fireplaces....yikes)

 

[key_wiz]

They're 'supposed' to use 5 full-range loudspeakers.

I suspect that some strange music mixes sound that way because that ITU recommendation was not adhered to. That, and not properly calibrating the levels and EQ of the system they do use.




For aesthetic reasons, not acoustic ones.

My center, like Kal's, is identical to the L/R. When I watch video, I lower the Center and tilt it up to fire at my seat. Works pretty well. Makers *could* sell identical L/C/R sets, and advise listeners to do this. preferably with proper level calibration and EQ matching. But the SAF (spouse acceptance factor) would probably be low.

An alternative is to mount a TV or project an image high enough so that the Center at ear height does not block it. This is a bad idea, unless you like looking 'up' to watch video or can sit far away. (When i see TVs mounted above fireplaces....yikes)

Yes. It all has to be astetically pleasing. I actually do have enough room under my TV to put an identical center but that would require cutting a +/- 8” gap in the middle of the shelf that is beneath it. No way the wife will go for that!

Ideally I’d like to have a more premium music system where I could do five identical speakers and an Atmos setup down in my “man cave” but I’ve got issues there with the room layout.

As someone once said,it’s always something!

 

[jimfisheye]

But... audio equipment properly arranged for ideal listening as the first priority IS aesthetically pleasing.

 

[ar surround]

In the poll for Abbey Road 5.1 @ar surround wrote:
"I wonder how this mix would sound if my center speaker was identical to the fronts?"

@markshan replied:
"Better. It would sound better, just as every other surround mix would. I am the world's biggest believer in running matched speakers."

@salsdali asked:
"Why? IMO Voices sound different than guitars and guitars sound different than drums, etc.
I try to match each one of my speakers as to what sound (instrument) they will be playing.
My center voice speaker is much sharper and clearer than my sub for instance, why would I want them to match?
If you watch a band play on stage each member is producing a very different sound so why not try to reproduce that as accurately as possible as opposed to downmixing all those sounds to sound the same?
Also Atmos speakers have cut offs at much higher frequencies than fronts so why would I want them to match?"


I have more experience than I would like regarding trying to get speakers to match. When I replaced my "smallish" Boston A70 surround speakers with AR90's even Mrs. Surround (who doesn't care an iota about my system or audiophile stuff) noted that the system sounded much better with the new AR90's. The 4-way AR90 has the same drivers as the front AR9 except for dual 10" woofers as opposed to 12" in the AR9. Even then, I had to tweek the AR90's to get them fully tonally balanced to the AR9's.

Then there is that evil center channel speaker. I went from a two-way Boston A60 to a larger A70; and then to a three way AR48. All proved unacceptable as they were too either overwhelmed by the giant AR9's or tonally different. Finally I installed an AR91 which has the same drivers as the AR9 except that it is only a three-way system vs. the 4-way AR9 and AR90.

The AR91 is by far the best option so far. But the need to put the speaker below the TV means that there is a 16" difference in elevation between the midrange drivers of the AR9's and the AR91. This difference is only noticeable on mixes such as Abbey Road with very aggressive use of the center speaker for vocals. It's not that the height difference is noticeable, but rather that the center speaker draws attention to itself; and the front sound field isn't as seamless as with mixes having the vocals in the fronts as well as the center.

So in my experience, it is just as important to get the height of the midranges and tweeters of the front three speakers as close as possible as it is to have matching drivers.

Rebuttals?

 

[LuvMyQuad]

@salsdali asked:
"Why? IMO Voices sound different than guitars and guitars sound different than drums, etc.
I try to match each one of my speakers as to what sound (instrument) they will be playing.
My center voice speaker is much sharper and clearer than my sub for instance, why would I want them to match?
If you watch a band play on stage each member is producing a very different sound so why not try to reproduce that as accurately as possible as opposed to downmixing all those sounds to sound the same?
Also Atmos speakers have cut offs at much higher frequencies than fronts so why would I want them to match?"

I have more experience than I would like regarding trying to get speakers to match. When I replaced my "smallish" Boston A70 surround speakers with AR90's even Mrs. Surround (who doesn't care an iota about my system or audiophile stuff) noted that the system sounded much better with the new AR90's. The 4-way AR90 has the same drivers as the front AR9 except for dual 10" woofers as opposed to 12" in the AR9. Even then, I had to tweek the AR90's to get them fully tonally balanced to the AR9's.

Then there is that evil center channel speaker. I went from a two-way Boston A60 to a larger A70; and then to a three way AR48. All proved unacceptable as they were too either overwhelmed by the giant AR9's or tonally different. Finally I installed an AR91 which has the same drivers as the AR9 except that it is only a three-way system vs. the 4-way AR9 and AR90.

The AR91 is by far the best option so far. But the need to put the speaker below the TV means that there is a 16" difference in elevation between the midrange drivers of the AR9's and the AR91. This difference is only noticeable on mixes such as Abbey Road with very aggressive use of the center speaker for vocals. It's not that the height difference is noticeable, but rather that the center speaker draws attention to itself; and the front sound field isn't as seamless as with mixes having the vocals in the fronts as well as the center.

So in my experience, it is just as important to get the height of the midranges and tweeters of the front three speakers as close as possible as it is to have matching drivers.

Rebuttals?

I agree on the height comment. My TV is mounted on the wall high enough that I can use 5 identical speakers. The Front and rear L/R pairs are all on identical stands. The center is the same speaker as the other 4 but turned on its side to fit the cabinet. The center height of its drivers is within 2 inches of the R/L pair.

Most "matched' centers are horizontally oriented boxes (as opposed to vertical boxes) with the same drivers as the corresponding R/L speakers, but often with 2x the number of woofer/midrange cones. Sometimes the center will have front porting even if the matching L/R speakers have rear porting. While they can sound very close, they almost never sound identical.

I guess I can't understand the logic Salsdali uses. There are certainly times when the CC carries a discreet voice or instrument. But more often, it is a blend of the CC and R and/or L front that forms the complete signal. Just like there are phantom centers with stereo playback, there are phantom R-C and L-C with the front soundstage. You wouldn't want your L and R channels to be non-identical for stereo when making a phantom center, so why would you want the R-C and L-C phantom in a 5.1 soundstage to do that?

 

[BeoProf]

I don't have a center speaker at all, however I do have 4 identical full-range speakers, Beovox P45. With this setup I just have the phantom center channel, but I have to say I never felt that anything was missing from the mix, the vocals are crisp and nicely etched out in the soundfield.

For a while I had a smaller model from the same series, the P30, for the rear channels, and when I was finally able to replace them with a pair matching the front the difference was night and day - I actually did not expect it to be so drastic. Before most mixes just sounded unbalanced, some sounded rear-heavy and I needed to fiddle with the balance controls. After matching all 4 channels things became very coherent and balanced, and bass improved a lot. Overall, this was a huge improvement.

On a separate note, Paul McGowan of PS Audio has a YT channel and they are opening a mastering studio for multichannel releases, Gus Skinas is supposed to do their mastering. On a couple of videos they show that studio and the speakers are all identical.

 

[BeoProf]

Ps. Here are a couple clips where the new PS audio multichannel mastering studio and the speakers are shown:

 

[Soundfield]

I've no idea who that guy is but his confused and rambling explanation of beyond speaker imaging was about the worst I've ever heard.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Ps. Here are a couple clips where the new PS audio multichannel mastering studio and the speakers are shown:

All this has been known and discussed for two decades. Nothing new here except that Paul has finally done something (anything) about multichannel. If he can come up with something novel to make multichannel more domestically acceptable, he's a wizard.

 

[ar surround]

But the need to put the speaker below the TV means that there is a 16" difference in elevation between the midrange drivers of the AR9's and the AR91. This difference is only noticeable on mixes such as Abbey Road with very aggressive use of the center speaker for vocals. It's not that the height difference is noticeable, but rather that the center speaker draws attention to itself; and the front sound field isn't as seamless as with mixes having the vocals in the fronts as well as the center.

So in my experience, it is just as important to get the height of the midranges and tweeters of the front three speakers as close as possible as it is to have matching drivers.

Rebuttals?

So I will rebut my own post. After playing Abbey Road this afternoon I listened to Waiting For The Sun from the Doors Perception box set. I heard a nice seamless front sound stage with Morrison's vocals in the center. So I went over to the speakers to prove my point that the front sound stage sounds more seamless with mixes having the vocals in the fronts as well as the center. Geez......Morrison's vocals, like on Abbey Road, are only in the center channel yet don't suffer that disjointed sound field. So what's going on? Perhaps better execution on The Doors album?

 

[sjcorne]

Geez......Morrison's vocals, like on Abbey Road, are only in the center channel yet don't suffer that disjointed sound field. So what's going on? Perhaps better execution on The Doors album?

On those Doors 5.1 mixes, I'm pretty sure the center channel actually carries more discrete information than the mains - not just lead vocals, but also the entire (mono) drum track. Maybe the vocals and drums coming from the same speaker accounts for your perception of a more seamless front soundstage?

 

[quicksrt]

In the poll for Abbey Road 5.1 @ar surround wrote:
"I wonder how this mix would sound if my center speaker was identical to the fronts?"

@markshan replied:
"Better. It would sound better, just as every other surround mix would. I am the world's biggest believer in running matched speakers."

@salsdali asked:
"Why? IMO Voices sound different than guitars and guitars sound different than drums, etc.
I try to match each one of my speakers as to what sound (instrument) they will be playing.
My center voice speaker is much sharper and clearer than my sub for instance, why would I want them to match?
If you watch a band play on stage each member is producing a very different sound so why not try to reproduce that as accurately as possible as opposed to downmixing all those sounds to sound the same?
Also Atmos speakers have cut offs at much higher frequencies than fronts so why would I want them to match?"


I have more experience than I would like regarding trying to get speakers to match. When I replaced my "smallish" Boston A70 surround speakers with AR90's even Mrs. Surround (who doesn't care an iota about my system or audiophile stuff) noted that the system sounded much better with the new AR90's. The 4-way AR90 has the same drivers as the front AR9 except for dual 10" woofers as opposed to 12" in the AR9. Even then, I had to tweek the AR90's to get them fully tonally balanced to the AR9's.

Then there is that evil center channel speaker. I went from a two-way Boston A60 to a larger A70; and then to a three way AR48. All proved unacceptable as they were too either overwhelmed by the giant AR9's or tonally different. Finally I installed an AR91 which has the same drivers as the AR9 except that it is only a three-way system vs. the 4-way AR9 and AR90.

The AR91 is by far the best option so far. But the need to put the speaker below the TV means that there is a 16" difference in elevation between the midrange drivers of the AR9's and the AR91. This difference is only noticeable on mixes such as Abbey Road with very aggressive use of the center speaker for vocals. It's not that the height difference is noticeable, but rather that the center speaker draws attention to itself; and the front sound field isn't as seamless as with mixes having the vocals in the fronts as well as the center.

So in my experience, it is just as important to get the height of the midranges and tweeters of the front three speakers as close as possible as it is to have matching drivers.

Rebuttals?

I see your situation as having the biggest improvements with speaker upgrades. You got drivers that match each other, great too! I think it's very possible to get matched up (or seemless) sound with using different brands provided the performance is more or less equal.

And I don't find that many surround mixes that try and crate a seamless spread from speaker to speaker, or from L to C & R. It's a mixing choice, and I am also fine with totally discreetness in all channels. My room can do seamless, if that helps.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

And I don't find that many surround mixes that try and crate a seamless spread from speaker to speaker, or from L to C & R. It's a mixing choice, and I am also fine with totally discreetness in all channels. My room can do seamless, if that helps.

Quicksrt,

What is the distance of your R to L soundstage?

 

[quicksrt]

Quicksrt,

What is the distance of your R to L soundstage?

I’d have to measure and I’m not at home now, but 15 feet wide is close to it. And it sounds great with center being sometimes a tad too loud (Lennon Imagine Raw takes) but I have volume adjustment for that.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

And I don't find that many surround mixes that try and crate a seamless spread from speaker to speaker, or from L to C & R. It's a mixing choice, and I am also fine with totally discreetness in all channels. My room can do seamless, if that helps.

Yes, it's a mixing choice but one that is resident in some genres of music and not in others. How do you change something that has become embedded in a culture?
EDIT: I was referring to (and disliking) the second: Total discreteness in all channels.