How Important is a Center Speaker?

[itgbkj]

Hello... I've just purchased a DTS Receiver and had Wharfedale 9.2 for the front, Wharfedale Valdus 100 for the Rear, and a local center speaker for the "center." I've noticed that DTS does a good job on splitting sounds and utilizing each speaker - especially with the center. I'm planning to upgrade my Valdus and the Center to a Warfedale CS (Center), and WH-2 Set for the Rear (center rear too).

Aside from the first question: "How important is a center speaker for you," I have a second one. "Who has a Wharfedale Center speaker (Diamond CS) - is the speaker's performance/quality ok with you?

Thanks!

[paul_pci]

Very.

DTS doesn't split sounds, prologic does. In DTS movies, for instance, sounds are encoded for the different speakers, and the decoder/processor then routes those sounds to the appropriate speakers. And consider that no less that 60% of the sound in a given movie is sent through the center channel, then, yes, i'd deem that important.

[Rock789]

yes, center is very important
Mike

[Woochifer]

The center channel is important, BUT it's more important to get a properly matched center speaker. Another way of putting it, you're better off without a center speaker than by going with a mismatched one. The most important consideration in going with a center speaker is not how good it is, but in how well it matches your L and R main speakers.

With 5.1 discrete DD and DTS, the center speaker is desirable because the center channel is discrete. When you go without a center speaker, the signal gets split to the L and R channels at a predetermined mixdown level. This does not necessarily create an ideal center image. With two-channel sources like CDs, the L and R channels are deliberately mixed to create a "phantom" center effect. With 5.1 sources, the center channel gets mixed independently from the L and R channels, and the levels can get varied to create deliberate spatial cues and effects.

Your point about DTS "splitting sounds" and "utilizing each speaker" is not necessarily format driven. Any 5.1 soundtrack can make use of each channel, but this has nothing to do with the format, and everything to do with how the soundtrack got mixed. Having all five speakers in a 5.1 setup ensures that you're hearing a 5.1 soundtrack the way that it was intended to be heard. But, as I mentioned before, this applies only if you got a sufficiently voice matched set of speakers up front. Without sufficiently matched sound up front, then you're better off with just the L and R speakers.

[Tahoe Gator]

Interesting given my dilemna of trying to inobtrusively place a center channel speaker. I have JBL SPC8 speakers mounted in ceiling for L+R front and rear and was planning to use the Monitor Radius 225 as a center channel because it's shape makes it less obtrusive in my setup (and presumably it is a good speaker) ... would I be better off with a JBL center channel, even if I detest the way it will look? Another SPC8 in the ceiling would be perfect match, but at the sacrifice of in the ceiling instead of nearer the screen.

[itgbkj]

No wonder people have been telling me to get ALL WHARFEDALE brands to complete my set. It has something to do with matching speakers. Thanks for that tip! Now, I'm settled to getting that Diamond 9 CS. :)

[Woochifer]

Interesting given my dilemna of trying to inobtrusively place a center channel speaker. I have JBL SPC8 speakers mounted in ceiling for L+R front and rear and was planning to use the Monitor Radius 225 as a center channel because it's shape makes it less obtrusive in my setup (and presumably it is a good speaker) ... would I be better off with a JBL center channel, even if I detest the way it will look? Another SPC8 in the ceiling would be perfect match, but at the sacrifice of in the ceiling instead of nearer the screen.

You generally should go with three identical speakers up front wherever possible. With ceiling mounted speakers, you don't have an issue with the TV in the middle, so there's no reason not to use three identical speakers for the L/C/R channels.

Any kind of tonal mismatch with the center speaker will disrupt the continuity of the front soundstage. You want it as seamless as possible, and using a mismatching center speaker is more likely to create a disruption.

[kexodusc]

The center channel is important, BUT it's more important to get a properly matched center speaker. Another way of putting it, you're better off without a center speaker than by going with a mismatched one. The most important consideration in going with a center speaker is not how good it is, but in how well it matches your L and R main speakers.

Wooch, I'm not sure it's as simple as that. I've experienced first hand more than a few home theaters that had mismatching center channels, the amount of variance in tone anywhere from small to huge. I can quite easily recall going through this with a one of my own systems where it was preferable to have center channel speaker that sounded "different" than the mains, instead of no center at all. This became immensely important when a second person entered the room and I no longer could enjoy sitting in the "sweet spot". For anybody who doesn't get to sit in the sweet spot, or has more than one person in the room during movies, you'll really miss out not having a center channel, and all the phantom imaging in the world does nothing the further off-axis you sit.
In this case, the few annoyances in changes of tone while panning can become tolerable.
This is especially significant for many of todays razor sharp imaging speakers.

It's admittedly a trade-off, mismatch tone for a wider, and more realistic soundstage...but a lot of speakers can sound similar, if not exactly matching, and it can often be a worthwhile trade-off under the right circumstances.

Once the buyer determines whether or not he or she can sit in the sweet-spot more often than not, and for how many people they wish to please with this system, then they can decide which route to take.
For a bachelor, the phantom image approach is a great idea. For those of us with women in our lives who love to watch rediculous Hugh Grant movies in DTS, a bit more consideration is required :D


You generally should go with three identical speakers up front wherever possible. With ceiling mounted speakers, you don't have an issue with the TV in the middle, so there's no reason not to use three identical speakers for the L/C/R channels. Any kind of tonal mismatch with the center speaker will disrupt the continuity of the front soundstage. You want it as seamless as possible, and using a mismatching center speaker is more likely to create a disruption

But on these points I'm absolutely in agreement with you...I'd sooner ditch the surround channels than the center channel, which contributes far more than just dialogue to overall presentation. Some of the "virtual surround" DSP's do an excellent job these days.
If anything I would go cheap on the surround channels (unless multi-channel audio is heavily in the picture) in order to ensure the front 3 speakers are as good and as closely matching as possible.

Just my .02 cents.

[shokhead]

Wooch, I'm not sure it's as simple as that. I've experienced first hand more than a few home theaters that had mismatching center channels, the amount of variance in tone anywhere from small to huge. I can quite easily recall going through this with a one of my own systems where it was preferable to have center channel speaker that sounded "different" than the mains, instead of no center at all. This became immensely important when a second person entered the room and I no longer could enjoy sitting in the "sweet spot". For anybody who doesn't get to sit in the sweet spot, or has more than one person in the room during movies, you'll really miss out not having a center channel, and all the phantom imaging in the world does nothing the further off-axis you sit.
In this case, the few annoyances in changes of tone while panning can become tolerable.
This is especially significant for many of todays razor sharp imaging speakers.

It's admittedly a trade-off, mismatch tone for a wider, and more realistic soundstage...but a lot of speakers can sound similar, if not exactly matching, and it can often be a worthwhile trade-off under the right circumstances.

Once the buyer determines whether or not he or she can sit in the sweet-spot more often than not, and for how many people they wish to please with this system, then they can decide which route to take.
For a bachelor, the phantom image approach is a great idea. For those of us with women in our lives who love to watch rediculous Hugh Grant movies in DTS, a bit more consideration is required :D



But on these points I'm absolutely in agreement with you...I'd sooner ditch the surround channels than the center channel, which contributes far more than just dialogue to overall presentation. Some of the "virtual surround" DSP's do an excellent job these days.
If anything I would go cheap on the surround channels (unless multi-channel audio is heavily in the picture) in order to ensure the front 3 speakers are as good and as closely matching as possible.

Just my .02 cents.

Opps,i'm not with you on that at all. Go ahead and ditch the surrounds and watch SPR. I would WAY rather not have the center then the surrounds. How empty a movie would be without surrounds,wow.

[noddin0ff]

Because I didn't have the cash to get the Paradigm Studio center, I first got some cheaper surrounds (Titans). A couple years later I got the center to go with my Studio 20's. I really enjoyed the surround effects and that immersive feel of having sounds come from behind. But what really lacked until I got the center was dialog. I'd suggest that if you like action movies where everyone shouts and dialog is not that critical surrounds are more fun and do make for a good experience. But if you watch conversation oriented movies with complex dialog, a good center is critical. Lacking a center was really frustrating. Lots of 'rewind so I can hear what she said' moments.

[weeboy]

Wooch, I'm not sure it's as simple as that. I've experienced first hand more than a few home theaters that had mismatching center channels, the amount of variance in tone anywhere from small to huge. I can quite easily recall going through this with a one of my own systems where it was preferable to have center channel speaker that sounded "different" than the mains, instead of no center at all. This became immensely important when a second person entered the room and I no longer could enjoy sitting in the "sweet spot". For anybody who doesn't get to sit in the sweet spot, or has more than one person in the room during movies, you'll really miss out not having a center channel, and all the phantom imaging in the world does nothing the further off-axis you sit.
In this case, the few annoyances in changes of tone while panning can become tolerable.
This is especially significant for many of todays razor sharp imaging speakers.

It's admittedly a trade-off, mismatch tone for a wider, and more realistic soundstage...but a lot of speakers can sound similar, if not exactly matching, and it can often be a worthwhile trade-off under the right circumstances.

Once the buyer determines whether or not he or she can sit in the sweet-spot more often than not, and for how many people they wish to please with this system, then they can decide which route to take.
For a bachelor, the phantom image approach is a great idea. For those of us with women in our lives who love to watch rediculous Hugh Grant movies in DTS, a bit more consideration is required :D



But on these points I'm absolutely in agreement with you...I'd sooner ditch the surround channels than the center channel, which contributes far more than just dialogue to overall presentation. Some of the "virtual surround" DSP's do an excellent job these days.
If anything I would go cheap on the surround channels (unless multi-channel audio is heavily in the picture) in order to ensure the front 3 speakers are as good and as closely matching as possible.

Just my .02 cents.
In regard to unrelated speaker brands sounding similar.
Is there a site or method, or if you or someone has personal knowledge of which center speakers might closely match up with different fronts.
ie. I have NHT front speakers with an inadequate JBL mr center speaker but would be interested in other centers that aren't NHT
Which speaker brands would be compatible ?
Thanks

[kexodusc]

In regard to unrelated speaker brands sounding similar.
Is there a site or method, or if you or someone has personal knowledge of which center speakers might closely match up with different fronts.
ie. I have NHT front speakers with an inadequate JBL mr center speaker but would be interested in other centers that aren't NHT
Which speaker brands would be compatible ?
Thanks

Weeboy: This is a good lesson in why you should try to match all 3 front speakers first if possible...There's really no sources I know of that compare brands of speakers for the purpose of mixing and matching...For a start, you could look at the material of the drivers, but that only tells you so much.

Near as I can tell, you're left with trial-and-error or the testament of someone else with the same speakers as you (who probably went through trial-an-error) to find a match. Many receivers have eq's for the center channel now, though, this can help.

Part of it is just how darn fussy are you over these things...I suspect many people would never notice a tonal mismatch to the point it was bothersome anyway...sometimes we all take for granted that not everyone has the same level of discriminating tastes as the member of this site...

Here's what you do: Try the phantom image approach: IT'S CHEAP!!! :D
If you're happy...Stop.
If you're not happy...Give it a week.
If you're still not happy...Begin looking for a center channel, preferably a matching one, but don't take out a second mortgage on your house for it.

[kexodusc]

Because I didn't have the cash to get the Paradigm Studio center, I first got some cheaper surrounds (Titans). A couple years later I got the center to go with my Studio 20's. I really enjoyed the surround effects and that immersive feel of having sounds come from behind. But what really lacked until I got the center was dialog. I'd suggest that if you like action movies where everyone shouts and dialog is not that critical surrounds are more fun and do make for a good experience. But if you watch conversation oriented movies with complex dialog, a good center is critical. Lacking a center was really frustrating. Lots of 'rewind so I can hear what she said' moments.

I think noddin0ff summed it up best...Even in many good action movies, the surrounds are rarely used more than 30% of the time...reflected sound in the room will provide at least some ambient effect, virtual surround DSP can help here too.
There's many ways to build a system...I like the idea of buying the best front 3 speakers you can, and 2 lesser surround speakers if you're on a budget until you can afford the matching surrounds.

I did have a pair of Studio 40's and Studio 20's with no center channel for awhile...Nothing worse than all the dialogue and center effects (as much as 80% of the movie) being skewed to the side of the room I was sitting on. This drove me nuts so I went out and bought a cheap Paradigm speaker that didn't match...much better IMO...until I could afford the Studio CC.

Guess it comes down to preference again...would you rather an excellent sound 70% of the time, or mediocre sound 100% of the time....tough call....six of one, half-dozen of the other...no right or wrong I guess.

[jclin4]

I recently added a center channel. My system had 4 speakers and no sub for about two years, before this latest addition. Adding a center speaker made a huge difference.

Certainly for DVD's it has certainly made the dialog substantially more clear. For multi-channel music like SACDs, my impression is that the addition of the center has improved the performance of the other speakers. For example, eventhough the center is in front, the rear speakers seem more alive and present than before. I know this sounds strange, but this is what I perceive.

Also, stereo music made into 5.1 channels through Dolby Pro Logic processing sounds much better than before. I still prefer listening in plain stereo for most two-channel sources, but for some types of music, e.g. Ambient music or random listening on the radio, I think it can enhance the experience.

Finally, the center speaker I added was from a different manufacturer than my fronts. I don't think that the center was much different in character or timbre from the front speakers, but still, I noticed a difference. I have since adjusted the center channel EQ through my receiver, and now feel that all the speakers are well matched.

[shokhead]

I think noddin0ff summed it up best...Even in many good action movies, the surrounds are rarely used more than 30% of the time...reflected sound in the room will provide at least some ambient effect, virtual surround DSP can help here too.
There's many ways to build a system...I like the idea of buying the best front 3 speakers you can, and 2 lesser surround speakers if you're on a budget until you can afford the matching surrounds.

I did have a pair of Studio 40's and Studio 20's with no center channel for awhile...Nothing worse than all the dialogue and center effects (as much as 80% of the movie) being skewed to the side of the room I was sitting on. This drove me nuts so I went out and bought a cheap Paradigm speaker that didn't match...much better IMO...until I could afford the Studio CC.

Guess it comes down to preference again...would you rather an excellent sound 70% of the time, or mediocre sound 100% of the time....tough call....six of one, half-dozen of the other...no right or wrong I guess.

98% of LFE is 25HZ and up so why get a sub that goes lower? No center and you can get the dialogue from the mains. No surrounds and thats all lost.

[kexodusc]

98% of LFE is 25HZ and up so why get a sub that goes lower? No center and you can get the dialogue from the mains. No surrounds and thats all lost.
Your argument about the LFE isn't quite a proper analogy in this case. This really all depends on your priorities. I could use your LFE comments to strengthen my point: If you don't have the budget to do it all, do what you can. In this case, if all you can afford is 25Hz LFE, ie: get 98% of the LFE and don't sweat the small stuff. Prioritize where most of the important information is. Actually, many serious hi-end 2-channel audio systems don't bother much below 27 Hz...there's almost no musical information there.

Not all "surround" info is lost by having no rear speakers. The signals are instead routed to the front channels anway, and much of the ambience occurs from natural reflections in your room. Throw in a decent Virtual DSP and you can get by.
The undisputable fact remains, once you move outside the sweet spot in any room, often just a few inches, the phantom image disappears, and instead your brain processes the louder information - this is known as the Haas (or Precedence) effect. So while you don't lose the surround info, you DO lose the center image and it's all skewed to whichever speaker you're closer too...nothing worse than watching someone in the middle of the room but hearing them in the corner, especially since dialogue is used much more than surround channel info.
... I'm not suggesting not to have rear surrounds, but rather if compromise must be made, I'd sooner have the most important, and most used parts of the soundtrack at their finest until such a time as adding surround speakers is feasible (unless you are absolutely sure you can always be in the perfect sweet spot and could care less about other people's listening experience, in which case I would agree with your approach). YMMV

[shokhead]

Well speaking of center speakers,i have a B&W CC6 and i'm thinking of replacing it with a LCR600. Anyone with advice to do or dont?
I'd still rather have surrounds. LOL Luckly,i have both. I remember how much better it was from PL to seperate surround channels. 2 Cenyrt channels? Could it happen? i think .2 is not far off,imo.

[kexodusc]

Well speaking of center speakers,i have a B&W CC6 and i'm thinking of replacing it with a LCR600. Anyone with advice to do or dont?
I'd still rather have surrounds. LOL Luckly,i have both. I remember how much better it was from PL to seperate surround channels. 2 Cenyrt channels? Could it happen? i think .2 is not far off,imo.
Since you asked Shokhead...A good friend of mine recently bought a complete 603/601/LCR 600 s3 system...He started with the LCR 60, wasn't impressed and for the extra cash said the 600 was the way to go...apparently the previous CC6 wasn't as good as the rest of the 600 speakers, but I've never heard it, so I can't really comment. If the drivers have changed as the series number changed, you may wish to match the center to whatever Series number you have for best results.

I did hear his system once we set it up and it sounded pretty damn good to my ears.

[paul_pci]

Well speaking of center speakers,i have a B&W CC6 and i'm thinking of replacing it with a LCR600. Anyone with advice to do or dont?
I'd still rather have surrounds. LOL Luckly,i have both. I remember how much better it was from PL to seperate surround channels. 2 Cenyrt channels? Could it happen? i think .2 is not far off,imo.

Since we have similar setups, I can say that the LCR60 does a good job as a center channel and I'd only recommend getting the 600 if you room is sufficiently large enough that you'd need the extra horizontal dispersion. And the LCR60 is much cheaper.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

98% of LFE is 25HZ and up so why get a sub that goes lower? No center and you can get the dialogue from the mains. No surrounds and thats all lost.

I guess I am from the school that says that your speakers should have a greater frequency response, and dynamic ouput than the source itself. So if my LFE average frequency response is around 30hz or so, I buy a sub that can do 16hz so that if there is a chance that information exists, then it will be reproduced. I don't like to miss a note if I can help it.

[Woochifer]

Wooch, I'm not sure it's as simple as that. I've experienced first hand more than a few home theaters that had mismatching center channels, the amount of variance in tone anywhere from small to huge. I can quite easily recall going through this with a one of my own systems where it was preferable to have center channel speaker that sounded "different" than the mains, instead of no center at all. This became immensely important when a second person entered the room and I no longer could enjoy sitting in the "sweet spot". For anybody who doesn't get to sit in the sweet spot, or has more than one person in the room during movies, you'll really miss out not having a center channel, and all the phantom imaging in the world does nothing the further off-axis you sit.
In this case, the few annoyances in changes of tone while panning can become tolerable.
This is especially significant for many of todays razor sharp imaging speakers.

Keep in mind that when I refer to mismatching center speakers I'm not talking about brand matching, I'm talking about timbre-matching.

I firmly believe that it is as simple as I stated. If the center speaker matching is insufficient, the liabilities far outweigh the benefits. My argument in favor of using a center speaker in the first place has more to do with how the soundtracks are mixed, and trying to reproduce that signal as closely as possible. The default downmixing on a 5.1 soundtrack does not always create a solid phantom center image, however the detrimental effect that process has is nothing compared to how a mismatched center speaker can hollow out and ruin the front soundstage. I've heard center speakers from Boston, B&W, and Bose that mismatched the mains so badly that I much preferred the sound with the center speakers switched off.

The horizontal positioning of a center speaker already ensures that the match won't be perfect, but in plenty of cases, it can be close enough so that the benefits of having that center speaker in place outweigh whatever drawbacks it brings. But, so many center speakers have been designed almost as afterthoughts -- different drivers, different tonal characteristics -- that they cross that line where their liabilities begin to outweigh the benefits. Even worse when timbral characteristics get deliberately jumbled together by consumers looking to add a center speaker to an existing setup, and go on the cheap. With surround speakers, you can get away with mismatches because of how most of the existing 5.1 soundtracks got mixed (with separation between the front and surround soundstages, and minimal mixing that crosses the front and surround channels at roughly equal levels). With center speakers, the mismatches become apparent very quickly.


It's admittedly a trade-off, mismatch tone for a wider, and more realistic soundstage...but a lot of speakers can sound similar, if not exactly matching, and it can often be a worthwhile trade-off under the right circumstances.

I think we're in agreement here. My point is that center speakers are already compromises to begin with because of their horizontal alignment. Any further compromises in the timbre matching and the utility of the center speaker falls below the compromises inherent in going without a center speaker.


But on these points I'm absolutely in agreement with you...I'd sooner ditch the surround channels than the center channel, which contributes far more than just dialogue to overall presentation. Some of the "virtual surround" DSP's do an excellent job these days.
If anything I would go cheap on the surround channels (unless multi-channel audio is heavily in the picture) in order to ensure the front 3 speakers are as good and as closely matching as possible.

Actually, I would much rather go without a center speaker than without surrounds. IMO, the best justification for the upgrade to 5.1 is the full bandwidth discrete surround channels. It's the surround channels that create the depth perception and limitless horizontal soundstage with good multichannel music soundtracks, and it's what gives that extra sense of immersion with movies.

Growing up in L.A., I was totally spoiled by the number of movie theaters down there that featured 70mm presentations. In the days before theatrical Dolby Digital and DTS, this was the only way to hear discrete full bandwidth surround sound. That's why I was never enamored with Pro Logic, because it still featured a two-channel soundtrack with bandwidth limitations. The center speaker did not represent enough of an upgrade for me to make the upgrade.

It wasn't until 5.1 DD decoders became available for home use that I seriously even considered upgrading from two-channel. The key difference there was discrete surrounds. IMO, that is the key to recreating the theatrical experience. Even more important than the subwoofer, because even in a 5.1 theatrical setup, not all of the theaters will have good subwoofers in place.

[Woochifer]

Well speaking of center speakers,i have a B&W CC6 and i'm thinking of replacing it with a LCR600. Anyone with advice to do or dont?
I'd still rather have surrounds. LOL Luckly,i have both. I remember how much better it was from PL to seperate surround channels. 2 Cenyrt channels? Could it happen? i think .2 is not far off,imo.

Definitely do the upgrade if you can afford it. B&W's CC6 was not a well matched speaker for the 600 series.

[kexodusc]

I firmly believe that it is as simple as I stated. If the center speaker matching is insufficient, the liabilities far outweigh the benefits. My argument in favor of using a center speaker in the first place has more to do with how the soundtracks are mixed, and trying to reproduce that signal as closely as possible. The default downmixing on a 5.1 soundtrack does not always create a solid phantom center image, however the detrimental effect that process has is nothing compared to how a mismatched center speaker can hollow out and ruin the front soundstage. I've heard center speakers from Boston, B&W, and Bose that mismatched the mains so badly that I much preferred the sound with the center speakers switched off.

I agree with you all the way here, with the exception of off-axis response...I'm only going by my experience and preference, but being just a foot or two off center on our seats really skewed the soundstage...The phantom image was great when I was the only one in the room, unfortunately, this is rarely the case in my house. The lady does actually take an interest in this stuff (lucky me!) and doesn't let me hog the sweet spot. For us it was just rotten...
I will surrender, however that perhaps I did not hear a center channel so poorly mismatch with my mains, the CC-170 didn't sound that bad for the brief time I owned it. I can believe if I had a Bose center in that setup it would have driven me bonkers.



Actually, I would much rather go without a center speaker than without surrounds. IMO, the best justification for the upgrade to 5.1 is the full bandwidth discrete surround channels. It's the surround channels that create the depth perception and limitless horizontal soundstage with good multichannel music soundtracks, and it's what gives that extra sense of immersion with movies.


It's pretty hard to persuade someone to abandon personal preference, so I won't even try...my tastes are just a bit different than yours in this regard for the reasons mentioned (unless you do get to hog the sweet-spot! then I'm with you all the way as I said). Not that I don't appreciate the rears, but I've had better experience with relatively inferior surrounds and a higher quality, matching center channel, than a non-matching, lower-end center and matching surrounds...just my opinion though, obviously not everyones. I will concede the sweet-spot argument is the only exception I can think of.
Hopefully the poster has been exposed to few more factors for consideration.

[shokhead]

Thanks for the advice. I always felt the CC6 was the weak link of my other B&W's. Now to find a LCR600 ant a good price. :D

[shokhead]

Thanks for the advice. I always felt the CC6 was the weak link of my other B&W's. Now to find a LCR600 at a good price. :D


Opps.

[IRG]

Keep in mind that when I refer to mismatching center speakers I'm not talking about brand matching, I'm talking about timbre-matching.

I firmly believe that it is as simple as I stated. If the center speaker matching is insufficient, the liabilities far outweigh the benefits. My argument in favor of using a center speaker in the first place has more to do with how the soundtracks are mixed, and trying to reproduce that signal as closely as possible. The default downmixing on a 5.1 soundtrack does not always create a solid phantom center image, however the detrimental effect that process has is nothing compared to how a mismatched center speaker can hollow out and ruin the front soundstage. I've heard center speakers from Boston, B&W, and Bose that mismatched the mains so badly that I much preferred the sound with the center speakers switched off.

The horizontal positioning of a center speaker already ensures that the match won't be perfect, but in plenty of cases, it can be close enough so that the benefits of having that center speaker in place outweigh whatever drawbacks it brings. But, so many center speakers have been designed almost as afterthoughts -- different drivers, different tonal characteristics -- that they cross that line where their liabilities begin to outweigh the benefits. Even worse when timbral characteristics get deliberately jumbled together by consumers looking to add a center speaker to an existing setup, and go on the cheap. With surround speakers, you can get away with mismatches because of how most of the existing 5.1 soundtracks got mixed (with separation between the front and surround soundstages, and minimal mixing that crosses the front and surround channels at roughly equal levels). With center speakers, the mismatches become apparent very quickly.



I think we're in agreement here. My point is that center speakers are already compromises to begin with because of their horizontal alignment. Any further compromises in the timbre matching and the utility of the center speaker falls below the compromises inherent in going without a center speaker.



Actually, I would much rather go without a center speaker than without surrounds. IMO, the best justification for the upgrade to 5.1 is the full bandwidth discrete surround channels. It's the surround channels that create the depth perception and limitless horizontal soundstage with good multichannel music soundtracks, and it's what gives that extra sense of immersion with movies.

Growing up in L.A., I was totally spoiled by the number of movie theaters down there that featured 70mm presentations. In the days before theatrical Dolby Digital and DTS, this was the only way to hear discrete full bandwidth surround sound. That's why I was never enamored with Pro Logic, because it still featured a two-channel soundtrack with bandwidth limitations. The center speaker did not represent enough of an upgrade for me to make the upgrade.

It wasn't until 5.1 DD decoders became available for home use that I seriously even considered upgrading from two-channel. The key difference there was discrete surrounds. IMO, that is the key to recreating the theatrical experience. Even more important than the subwoofer, because even in a 5.1 theatrical setup, not all of the theaters will have good subwoofers in place.

I'm with Kexodusc on this one, with the understanding that this is all personal preference, and not simply there is only one right way to go. I have owned both a 5 channel surround system, a 2 channel system, and now am back to a 5.1 system again. Actually it is a 3.1 system. No surrounds yet. Do I miss them? For music no, for HT, only a little bit. I have never had a good place to put them, and once this is resolved, I will get rear surrounds. But I do have a center channel (that doesn't match my mains), and since I didn't have one with my 2 channel system, this was much more missed than my surrounds. Not even close.

And do I care that my center (Athena) doesn't match my mains (Paradigm)? Again, not even an issue to me. It used to be, but now I believe there are other things in life to worry about. I made sure I had all of the channels with the same output (I thank Woochifer for this), and that alone makes a bigger difference to me. Granted, Athena and Paradigm Monitors are not all that different to begin with. If I had mixed a horn with a planar speaker, I might feel differently.

Also, almost as important (to me) as the center, was adding my old sub back into my system. I didn't have it with the 2 channel system, and now that it is back, it just makes both music and HT much more enjoyable.

I have posted about sub purchases, and am still looking. I would spend a lot more on a sub purchase than a center speaker purchase. Because for me, the sub makes a big difference on music, whereas for a center is not even being used.

It is also important to note that generally when I do get to listen to a DVD at night, I can't turn it up real loud anyway, so most of the time any mismatch with timbre that might exist is so subtle at best, as to be a non factor. If I listened at reference levels, again, I might feel differently. We all have different expectations and demands. My demands are much more aligned with getting music right (and I have a long ways to go) than with HT, which is less a priority. Have a nice weekend y'all.

[shokhead]

I'm with Kexodusc on this one, with the understanding that this is all personal preference, and not simply there is only one right way to go. I have owned both a 5 channel surround system, a 2 channel system, and now am back to a 5.1 system again. Actually it is a 3.1 system. No surrounds yet. Do I miss them? For music no, for HT, only a little bit. I have never had a good place to put them, and once this is resolved, I will get rear surrounds. But I do have a center channel (that doesn't match my mains), and since I didn't have one with my 2 channel system, this was much more missed than my surrounds. Not even close.

And do I care that my center (Athena) doesn't match my mains (Paradigm)? Again, not even an issue to me. It used to be, but now I believe there are other things in life to worry about. I made sure I had all of the channels with the same output (I thank Woochifer for this), and that alone makes a bigger difference to me. Granted, Athena and Paradigm Monitors are not all that different to begin with. If I had mixed a horn with a planar speaker, I might feel differently.

Also, almost as important (to me) as the center, was adding my old sub back into my system. I didn't have it with the 2 channel system, and now that it is back, it just makes both music and HT much more enjoyable.

I have posted about sub purchases, and am still looking. I would spend a lot more on a sub purchase than a center speaker purchase. Because for me, the sub makes a big difference on music, whereas for a center is not even being used.

It is also important to note that generally when I do get to listen to a DVD at night, I can't turn it up real loud anyway, so most of the time any mismatch with timbre that might exist is so subtle at best, as to be a non factor. If I listened at reference levels, again, I might feel differently. We all have different expectations and demands. My demands are much more aligned with getting music right (and I have a long ways to go) than with HT, which is less a priority. Have a nice weekend y'all.


A sub adds bass for music but its yhe .1 in movies which makes it more important for movies for me. You'll still here most the bass withoiut it but you'll miss all the .1 in the movie. And not having surrounds,watch SPR and then when you get the surrounds and watch it, well its different. Bottom line is you should have 5 plus a sub to get the full benifit out of a 5.1 reciever.

[Quagmire]

I've been reading over all of these posts... interesting thread on a subject that has come up more than a few times on this board. I am generally a big advocate on the use of a center channel speaker. As far as placing a value on whether one should go without surrounds versus going without a center channel speaker, that's hard to say. If I HAD to choose one or the other, I'd probably go without the center channel speaker because, unlike Kex's wife, my wife could care less about all of this audio stuff and I can assure myself of a seat in the sweet spot almost everytime. If I couldn't have the sweet spot most of the time it would drive me nuts to have the center channel information collapse to the nearest front speaker -- more so than having the surround information folded into the front speakers if I didn't have surrounds. So you can see I'm firmly "on the fence" and of no help on this subject at all. I will say that with older DPL based systems, there were times when I actually preferred how systems sounded without a center channel speaker because this processing created such a "center channel bloat"; even with DPL's limited bandwith mono surround information I would have given up the center speaker instead of the surrounds everytime. But asside from chosing one over the other, to me the really important issue is to advocate for timbrally matched speaker systems as much as possible. I don't mean to be cynical but I suspect there are many casting their votes one way or the other without ever having heard the benefits of a system with truly timbre matched center and main speakers -- or even better yet, a complete timbre matched 5.1 system. At least with the discrete surround formats (DD & DTS) I have always believed in the importance of using a center channel speaker, whether timbre matched or not. But it wasn't until I made the move to timbre match my front three that I gained an appreciation for just how much of a difference this can make. What I'm saying is that you can speculate as to how much (or little) importance timbre matching makes to overall system performance, but until you experience it for yourself, you may not know as much as you think you know.

I actually run three identical speakers up front (three Klipsch KLF 10's) rather than mains with the designated and supposed timbre matched center channel speaker, and I can tell you that the difference in sound quality and the cohesiveness of the front sound stage is substantial. With this setup, you lose the sense that there are even three seperate speakers in front of you, they become much more transparent and the sound takes on a naturalness of one giant soundstage. I had no idea that all of the elements of the front soundstage could intergrate or were even suppose to intergrate so well together. With a mismatched center speaker, dialogue remained anchored at the center channel speaker as you would think it should, but it wasn't until after I made the change to timbre match my system that I found much dialogue was actually panned half or a quarter way between center and left or right channels. Before, it had simply all collapsed to the center speaker because the intergration between the center and mains was not as good as it could be. This is why I always recommend that if it is possible, people look at running three identical speakers up front -- for most folks, three identical bookshelf speakers, as compared to the mains and a manufactured center channel speaker. If you can get them all on the same plane, that's even better. I realize that all of us have to make compromises that effect sound quality in consideration of other factors. But I do think it is a mistake to abandon certain standards so easily because they are assumed to be not as important as advertised. Generally I have found that where you are able to setup systems to these standards there are definite rewards there waiting for you. Just my $0.02

Q