Stereo Set up with a center speaker, comments please. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Stereo Set up with a center speaker, comments please.



soundpurist
08-02-2007, 01:00 AM
To everyone, Hi!
I am planning to set up a center speaker (purely for midrange) to be driven by CJ premier 4
for my existing stereo setup, purpose: to give more life like reproduction of music as much as it can with much warmness and lush. With this in mind, am planning to use a HT processor to provide signal to the center speaker thru its center channel. The HT processor shall have its signal from one of the output channels of my hifi stereo pre amp. Please give your comments, especially to those who have experienced it before. Will it work? Thanks Sirs

noddin0ff
08-02-2007, 04:05 AM
So, if I understand... the path to the L/R stereo speakers will not be altered. You're going to take another L/R stereo output from a parallel out from the pre-amp (like a 'B' speaker out). Then you're going to send the second output to a HT receiver and apply something like Dolby Pro Logic II to the stereo signal to generate a HT-like center channel effect. Then only pass the center channel to the new center...dropping the L/R from this second processed signal...

It'll work. I've certainly not experienced it. In my off-the-cuff opinion it sounds wacked. There could be some slight timing issues due to the processing of the center channel sound relative to the 'unprocessed' L/R. You'd want to match the center speaker very well with your mains. It seems to me if you want more midrange and warmth you could do that with EQ adjustments. If you want more lushness and realism, you should try moving your speakers around to get a better 'sweetspot'. I'd be thinking about better speaker placement, wall interactions might be killing your midrange, or consider that you might just need a speaker upgrade more in line with your tastes. Why buy a 3rd center speaker for a strange and iffy arrangement when you could get a new pair that you like more?

2 cents

E-Stat
08-02-2007, 09:35 AM
To every Please give your comments, especially to those who have experienced it before. Will it work?
Actually, this concept dates back to the 50s with the Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo recordings all captured in three channel. Some of those have been reissued in SACD using the original three channel master. Those old minimally miked recordings still provide some incredible soundstaging. If memory serves, Paul Klipsch promoted a three channel setup back then using a pair of K-Horns with a Belle as center. Some fifties preamps offered a separate mono output to feed the middle channel.

Unlike today's 5.1 recordings with a discrete center channel (usually containing the voice track), you will need for the processor to provide a summed (mono) output for the center channel.

Good luck!

Mercury Living Presence (http://audiophileaudition.com/audaud/NOV04/hires/hiresMerc.html)

rw

noddin0ff
08-02-2007, 09:59 AM
But typically, when the HT processor sums the mono output for the center, it subtracts it from the L/R. He's adding a summed center to a normal stereo L/R.

That said, the 3 channel Living Stereo SACDs I have are pretty nice.

PeruvianSkies
08-02-2007, 10:00 AM
What are you using as your mains? What is the rest of your equipment?

noddin0ff
08-02-2007, 11:05 AM
What are you using as your mains? What is the rest of your equipment?It's in the profile...

amps: krell fpb 350 monoblocks for lows
musical fidelity kw750 for mids
& highs
preamps: musical fidelity kw pre amp
conrad johnson pv14
krell krc 3
active crossover: dalquest
buffer tube: mf x10v3
sources: sacd/cd shangling T200
J.A Michell oddysey series# 5
cables & interconnects: transparent music link plus, music link super & reference xlr for interconnects, and musiclink plus and musicwave ultra for speaker cables biwire.
speakers:b&w 800 nautilus
power conditioner: audio prism
vinyl cleaner: vpi

PeruvianSkies
08-02-2007, 01:24 PM
It's in the profile...

amps: krell fpb 350 monoblocks for lows
musical fidelity kw750 for mids
& highs
preamps: musical fidelity kw pre amp
conrad johnson pv14
krell krc 3
active crossover: dalquest
buffer tube: mf x10v3
sources: sacd/cd shangling T200
J.A Michell oddysey series# 5
cables & interconnects: transparent music link plus, music link super & reference xlr for interconnects, and musiclink plus and musicwave ultra for speaker cables biwire.
speakers:b&w 800 nautilus
power conditioner: audio prism
vinyl cleaner: vpi

With that kind of equipment I don't see how you could be having issues, but I would think that an EQ can help you achieve what you want.

Mr Peabody
08-02-2007, 06:49 PM
In my HT set up I had a 3 channel Arcam with Krell to the mains. I took the Krell out of my main system and went with Conrad Johnson pre and power. I separated my systems at that point because the tubes and solid state did not mix well. Even with all the front 3 channels balanced the sound simply didn't blend. The 3 channels were CJ main L/R with the Arcam doing the center.

I agree, I can't understand the problem with that type of gear.

Here's what you should try, use the Shangling into the CJ preamp, use the Premier 4 in place of the Musical Fidelity on mids/highs. If that don't get you closer then you may want to audition some different speakers. I also used Transparent with my Krell and still do in my HT set up but I preferred Siltech New Yorker MXT Pro with my CJ gear. A friend of mine swears by the Cardas cables. Cardas has different series for certain types of sound. You may want to experiment with different cables on the mid/high connection. I don't think you will find a better bass combo than Krell and Transparent. Also, the apitomy of midrange would be a CJ pre AND power combo. I'd love to hear this.

Let us know if you make any changes and how you think it turned out.

PeruvianSkies
08-02-2007, 07:46 PM
In my HT set up I had a 3 channel Arcam with Krell to the mains. I took the Krell out of my main system and went with Conrad Johnson pre and power. I separated my systems at that point because the tubes and solid state did not mix well. Even with all the front 3 channels balanced the sound simply didn't blend. The 3 channels were CJ main L/R with the Arcam doing the center.

I agree, I can't understand the problem with that type of gear.

Here's what you should try, use the Shangling into the CJ preamp, use the Premier 4 in place of the Musical Fidelity on mids/highs. If that don't get you closer then you may want to audition some different speakers. I also used Transparent with my Krell and still do in my HT set up but I preferred Siltech New Yorker MXT Pro with my CJ gear. A friend of mine swears by the Cardas cables. Cardas has different series for certain types of sound. You may want to experiment with different cables on the mid/high connection. I don't think you will find a better bass combo than Krell and Transparent. Also, the apitomy of midrange would be a CJ pre AND power combo. I'd love to hear this.

Let us know if you make any changes and how you think it turned out.

I just can't imagine the B&W's not giving enough mid-range...although I must confess I am a huge fan of mid-range and there aren't many speakers that can deliver great midrange as well as highs and lows, usually you can find ones that are good at 2/3. My Platinum's are GREAT with highs and mids, esp. mids, I let the sub take the lows.

x-large
08-03-2007, 05:01 PM
I agree also, you shouldn't have any issues with the equipment you are using.

If you're trying to achieve warmth and lushness, you won't do this by adding a center channel as it is a function of the gear being used and the respective sound each component is adding to the mix.

What HT processor are you considering using? This again will detract from what you are trying to do, especially if you are only using it for the center and a separate two-channel pre for L/R, as the tonal differences will ruin the soundstage.

Personally I'd stick with straight two-channel and focus on tweaking what you have, swapping out cables, moving speakers around, or an EQ as the others have suggested.

Another thing, is your room big enough? In my experience B&W 800 series speakers require a decent sized room. A friend had a pair of 802s running off Perreaux 750 mono-blocks in a room that was approx 13ft x 20ft and the speakers sounded like they were being strangled, even with intensive room conditioning. When he moved to a larger room about 20ft x 28ft the system came alive.

Keep in mind that stereo recordings are engineered to be played back in a stereo environment, so why mess with the equation. By all means give it a crack, but I wouldn't pin your hopes on it answering your prayers...

x-large
08-03-2007, 05:07 PM
Another thing I forgot to add, what are your opinions of multichannel albums played on a multichannel system?

When I listen to multichannel recordings the soundstage seems flat and without depth. Sure it is wide with good imaging, but I feel it loses the depth and 3D, holographic-like sphere that a good, well set-up, two-channel system offers.

Just my observations...

Mr Peabody
08-03-2007, 05:18 PM
XL reminds me of another distinction between Krell and CJ, The Krell does a nice soundstage but they tend to put all details on a even plain. This could be why they have a rep for being detailed or analytical. On my Conrad Johnson some of the minor, or more subtle, accompaniment, is just that, subtle, and you have to listen a bit harder maybe to notice, but the perception of depth and positioning is much greater with CJ.

x-large
08-03-2007, 05:42 PM
I'm wondering if having the speakers bi-amped, with what seems to be from multiple preamps and active crossover is way too much of an equation to get right.

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but from the equipment list, that is all I can make out.

Mixing the Krell and MF doesn't really seem like a good mix to me. What you say above MrP could be going on here with this combo and resulting in an incoherence between the mids & highs (MF) and lows (Krell).

Then there is the question of whether the active crossover is set at the correct frequencies, not to mention how the different preamps are affecting things in lows vs. mids vs. highs.

soundpurist - can you please clarify how your system is pieced together?

The more I look at it, it seems like it's way more complex than it needs to be. Maybe it's worth taking a step back, then working forward and quantifying what changes have taken place with each addition and/or subtraction.

Mr Peabody
08-03-2007, 05:53 PM
Bi-amping isn't a bad Idea, especially if he will try tubes on the mid/highs. Krell is one of, if not the best bass amps around. Then the tubes would do their magic on the mids/highs. Hopefully that is just equipment he has on hand. I'd hate to think all that is linked together in one system.

PeruvianSkies
08-03-2007, 10:09 PM
Bi-amping isn't a bad Idea, especially if he will try tubes on the mid/highs. Krell is one of, if not the best bass amps around. Then the tubes would do their magic on the mids/highs. Hopefully that is just equipment he has on hand. I'd hate to think all that is linked together in one system.

I am still trying to fathom this system not having adequate mids...just blows my mind...unless there is something missing in the setup or the room. This is where hearing the system would be quite nice.

musicman1999
08-04-2007, 03:35 AM
It is all a metter of expectation,what one listener hears as good another may not.You or I may think his mid's are great,he does not.

bill

bobsticks
08-04-2007, 08:07 AM
What HT processor are you considering using? This again will detract from what you are trying to do, especially if you are only using it for the center and a separate two-channel pre for L/R, as the tonal differences will ruin the soundstage.

Personally I'd stick with straight two-channel and focus on tweaking what you have, swapping out cables, moving speakers around, or an EQ as the others have suggested.

Another thing, is your room big enough? In my experience B&W 800 series speakers require a decent sized room. A friend had a pair of 802s running off Perreaux 750 mono-blocks in a room that was approx 13ft x 20ft and the speakers sounded like they were being strangled, even with intensive room conditioning. When he moved to a larger room about 20ft x 28ft the system came alive.

Keep in mind that stereo recordings are engineered to be played back in a stereo environment, so why mess with the equation. By all means give it a crack, but I wouldn't pin your hopes on it answering your prayers...

Good post. My concern with your plan would be the issue of tonal differences. What you're proposing would simultaneously involve a straight analog playback on your L/R and a digital matrixing for the center. Even if you could accomodate timing variables there will still be significant tonal variations.

I also agree with XL's take on room size. Speaking only for myself, the thing that would have the greatest overall impact on my system would be an additional two or three feet on both sides of the room...and I have a lot of opportunities for improvement.

Personally there are three things I would check before going through the expense of your proposal:
1) The MF tube buffers, though nice pieces of equipment, seem redundant and could be negatively affecting system synergy.
2) Check your power conditioner. I have more experience with these in a live music application, but I can assure that under certain circumstances these can suck the life out of an amp.
3)The are a lot of Shanling units available for sale on the used market. This begs the question "Why?". Perhaps a more robust--I have heard one dissatisfied owner call the Shanny "dull"--cdp might be the answer.

In any case, good luck and kep us informed. This is an interesting thread.

peace

PeruvianSkies
08-04-2007, 09:05 AM
Good post. My concern with your plan would be the issue of tonal differences. What you're proposing would simultaneously involve a straight analog playback on your L/R and a digital matrixing for the center. Even if you could accomodate timing variables there will still be significant tonal variations.

I also agree with XL's take on room size. Speakinh only for myself, the thing that would have the greatest overall impact on my system would be an additional two or three feet on both sides of the room...and I have a lot of opportunities for improvement.

Personally there are three things I would check before going through the expense of your proposal:
1) The MF tube buffers, though nice pieces of equipment, seem redundant and could be negatively affecting system synergy.
2) Check your power conditioner. I have more experience with these in a live music application, but I can assure that under certain circumstances these can suck the life out of an amp.
3)The are a lot of Shanling units available for sale on the used market. This begs the question "Why?". Perhaps a more robust--I have heard one dissatisfied owner call the Shanny "dull"--cdp might be the answer.

In any case, good luck and kep us informed. This is an interesting thread.

peace

Those are terrific suggestions!

Mr Peabody
08-04-2007, 09:44 AM
Bobsticks you brought up a couple good points I missed. From reviews it does seem that the MF tube buffer is a better fit for mid to entry level gear and not such a good addition for the posters level of gear. I tried a Transparent power conditioner one time on my Krell amp and did not buy it because I didn't like the effect, it did seem to take away from the Krell's attack.

There have been a lot of good options suggested, I hope he returns soon to let us know if he tried any of them and what the result was.

x-large
08-04-2007, 05:25 PM
Yea bobsticks, great suggestions. I haven't had any experience with the MF tube buffers, but my impression, like MrP says, is that they are better suited to mid to entry level gear. I think they are a cheap way to get the tube sound from cheap solidstate components.

I hope also that he returns. Will be interesting to see how it pans out and if he achieves his goals.

Woochifer
08-06-2007, 12:15 PM
With the exception of those RCA and Mercury three-channel SACDs, most other music sources out there are not designed to be used in a three-channel front loaded setup. These three-channel SACDs can sound quite good because they are discrete sources designed for three-channel playback, but you still need a very well matched setup in order to get the most benefit out of that. As others have suggested, I would worry more about optimizing the two-channel placement than trying to shoehorn a third speaker into the middle.

Most of the matrix processors out there for HT use not only extract the center channel information, but they also reallocate the ambient sound into a surround channel. This process can cause havoc on the sound quality if the original recording was not originally intended for this application. A lot of hit or miss, because engineers tweak with the mix so much in order to create a "phantom" center effect on two-channel recordings. In my experience, using Pro Logic with two-channel music sources can often collapse almost the entire soundstage into the middle, since the processing also affects the L and R channels. This does not happen with those RCA/Mercury recordings because the center channel is discrete, and leaves the L and R channels alone during playback.

If you want to integrate a matrix processor into your two-channel listening, I think you might actually get more listening enjoyment by using the processor with surround speakers. Depending on the recording, this can give you greater sense of spatiality, which is the opposite of what a center channel can often do to a recording designed for two-channel playback.

On discrete 5.1 music mixes, more and more recording engineers lean towards limiting what they mix into the center channel (i.e., not mixing it so that the center channel totally dominates the level output), which again is the opposite of a Pro Logic decoder might do. On a two-channel recording, most of the sound output could wind up getting channeled into the center when using a Pro Logic decoder. With a 2.0 Dolby Surround-encoded soundtrack, this is the intended effect. But, for non-encoded two-channel sources, this funneling towards the middle might be far from what the sound engineer intended.

E-Stat
08-06-2007, 01:56 PM
But typically, when the HT processor sums the mono output for the center, it subtracts it from the L/R. He's adding a summed center to a normal stereo L/R.
Oops! I confess gross ignorance in the HT decoder arena since I'm primarily a two channel guy. Other than movies with a real 5.1 mix, I find the other modes with my NAD receiver kinda hokey.

rw

Quagmire
08-09-2007, 11:39 PM
As others have mentioned, the RCA and Mercury 3 channel SACDs were originally recorded and mixed for three channel playback. I have several of these and think they sound quite nice. If you were trying to replicate that balanced sound accross the front soundstage, you won't be accomplishing that with the setup you've described. Even though you are sending and unaltered signal to the left and right speakers, you will be duplicating some of that sound in the center speaker. When mixing sound to create a phatom center image from a stereo source, like trying to make a vocalist appear to be in the middle of the soundstage between the two speakers, the sound engineer must add that vocal track to BOTH the left and the right channel, creating the illusion that the singer's voice is eminating from direct center. Pro Logic type matrixing takes advantage of that fact, "sensing" the identical information in both the left and right channels, extracting it, and sending it to the center speaker. However, with the setup you described, that information will be going to all three speakers at the same time -- not just the center speaker. This won't enhance midrange, it will only create an overabundance of the information which was meant to be in the center or "middle" of the stereo mix. Maybe you are confusing this with "midrange"?

To truly extract this information from the left and right channels, you could use "Three Channel Stereo" processing which was found on some early Pro Logic receivers, but it would be a waste of time as the result of this processing with stereo sources was quite "unmusical", just as Wooch has said, collapsing almost the entire soundstage to the center channel speaker. This was known as "center channel bloat" in the days of Pro Logic and was the primary reason that many people actually preferred the sound of their system in a phantom center mode without a center channel speaker -- at least for music listening that is.

Q

PeruvianSkies
08-10-2007, 12:18 AM
This sound format was also experimented a bit with film as well, I believe it was called PERSPECT-A-SOUND, which was a 3.0 channel format. Paramount used this with their VistaVision films and it was to simulate a stereo effect. One DVD that I have that offers the 3.0 configuration is Akira Kurosawa's THE HIDDEN FORTRESS, which was one of George Lucas's "inspirations" (read rip-off) for STAR WARS.