phantom center

[rbrown0678]

Hi all,

Looking to those who have use three speakers in front array, not as part of a surround, more as a derived center.what your perceptions ,have you continue with this setup. If not was there any particular reason for moving from that direction, if that or those deficiency were eliminated would you re-evaluate.

My reason for information,i am and have been listening to phantom center and wondered Wether there would be any real improvements to be gained, using physical center.

Thanks for sharing,

Errol

[CECAA850]

The biggest advantage is if you have to move off center. You can still hear the center channel.

[wvu80]

Hi Errol!

 

I run my speakers 3.1 or 3.0 at the moment but my AVR gives me a lot of listening options in terms of which speakers are doing what.  Frankly for most TV or even movie listening I like 3.0 unless I am playing a full Blu-ray loud and I want the big rumbles, then the sub adds a lot.  The surrounds add very little to the listening experience, IMO.

 

What the 3.0 does for me in All Stereo is give me a smooth sound stage, a wide sound stage.  It sounds good from any seat in the living room.

 

What my AVR gives me in 2.0 Stereo or Pure Audio is the best sound from the L/R from the main listening position.  The imaging is much more pronounced so I hear the sound, not the speakers. 

 

The trade-off is whereas I get this nice imaging from the MLP, there is a sharp drop-off of imaging for any off-axis listening.  For any seat not in the exact middle I hear point-source sound from the speakers themselves.  If I'm sitting left, I can hear the left speaker louder than the right.  That is OK for movies and TV for not so great for music.

 

I think you DO need a physical center for movies in 5.1 because that is where the dialog comes from which is 90% of what you hear and there is a clarity improvement.  If you have strictly 2.0 or 3.0 for music, I prefer 2.0 because of the imaging advantages.

Edited June 1, 2016 by wvu80

[Chris A]

Beside the obvious "locking in" of the center image when not on centerline mentioned above, two other distinct advantages of having a dedicated center channel include:

 

1) greatly improved speech intelligibility in center images, and

 

2) the avoidance of the stereo "dullness" when listening on centerline - the 1.8 kHz psychoacoustic notch, otherwise called the "fundamental flaw of stereo", which also causes the stereo image to jump left or right when moving very slightly left or right from centerline.  The dedicated center channel avoids this sensitivity of stereo imaging to slight lateral head movements.

 

Chris

[dtr20]

This raises a question for me (not trying to hijack the thread). I know that the heresy was made as a center channel for the klipschorns. Back then (50s, 60s ish) there was no such thing as surround sound. So back in the 2 channel hay day, how did you hook up three speakers? Ask of the vintage equipment I have seen was only meant for left and right speakers. This has been bugging me for awhile.

[Chris A]

See the following on how PWK did it:

 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=66003

 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=66004

 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=66005

 

Chris

[rbrown0678]

Thanks for the responses from all,the common thread being the stability of the off axis and it's affect on the sound, the merging of left /right image seems to produce and blend not present in either channel.

I have not looked at the data provided as yet, my concern with a hard center,will the Suttle semblance be enhanced.

[wvu80]

the common thread being the stability of the off axis and it's affect on the sound, the merging of left /right image seems to produce and blend not present in either channel.

 

With 5.1 audio the center channel uses DISCRETE information, not native to L or R channels.  That's why dialog is usually so clear, it is sent to the center while music background is separated and sent to the L/R.  There is no blending of sound.  (simplified example for the sake of brevity)

 

With L/C/R stereo, the center is usually a combination of the information sent to the L/R.

 

And we haven't discussed this part of L/C/R stereo, but you should hear what it sounds like when a Stereo signal is played in all Mono.  It sounds pretty good! 

Edited June 1, 2016 by wvu80

[erik2A3]

We discussed this topic often some ten years ago or more. I was using La Scalas at the time, and decided one Saturday morning to build the P. Klipsch's little box that dropped R/L speaker level feeds down to a combined, strong line-level output to a third monophonic amp and Heresy I.

I honestly thought it to be the single most gratifying modification to our system I had ever made. I became very interested in surround sound at the time, which led to the purchse of a used Lexicon DSP for much improved control and manipulation. Having already built several valve preamps, the Lexicon DC-1 became very much the 'brain' and control center of our system. One of the criticisms at the time, if I recall correctly, had to do with what was described as inadequate timbre matching between the La Scala and Heresy, however I found no issue whatever with that. What had become noteworthy, however, was a mild bass hump with the Heresy, and as a remedy for that I used an in-line, non-polarized electrolytic cap on the Heresy woofer to limit its response to 100Hz or so. This helped even things out tremendously.

I was posting under a different handle at the time; maybe I can excavate some of those old posts. Klipsch's little box would make for an excellent first scratch-build project for someone interested in getting into a bit of audio DIYing - akin to rebuilding one of the low order Heritage crossover networks in terms of requisite wiring and soldering ability.

[rbrown0678]

As always many thanks for your sharing, I'm trying to draw from the different views offered. I must say I was a little surprised to find the different speaker was used with the heresy as a center,

The fact that a center is not dependent on speaker matching, but more so on mid,and high

Frequency matching.

I am aware of the need to have the LCR to match in a front array for home theater application,

there is a lot to enjoy with listening in mono,basically I'm doing so with the phantom center, thou,with an additional openness. Clarity is certainly one of the more enjoyable side benifit from this arrangement, making it unnecessary to listen at high volume. Amplification mid & hi

Frequency seems to be direction for me to explore,

Errol

[WMcD]

This raises a question for me (not trying to hijack the thread). I know that the heresy was made as a center channel for the klipschorns. Back then (50s, 60s ish) there was no such thing as surround sound. So back in the 2 channel hay day, how did you hook up three speakers? Ask of the vintage equipment I have seen was only meant for left and right speakers. This has been bugging me for awhile.

Back in the day, at least one McIntosh pre-amp, the C-26, had a center output and volume control.

 

http://www.roger-russell.com/c26pg.htm

 

I see that PWK complained that the pre-amps with the controls were not conveniently located.  Maybe this is what he was contemplating.

 

IIRC we had some discussion of a Scott with center channel configuration long ago.

 

I note that Klipsch was suggesting a small speaker as a center.  Further, in a Dope from Hope he suggested that retailers should suggest that a buyer wait until he can afford a Belle with K-Horns so that lack of distortion would be matched by the Belle horn loading.

 

I've often wondered why PWK (as far as I know) never suggested three CW's across the front (or Belle or anything).  Three identical speakers are what was used in the Bell Labs demo. 

 

Of course there is some expense to all this.

 

WMcD

[IB Slammin]

This raises a question for me (not trying to hijack the thread). I know that the heresy was made as a center channel for the klipschorns. Back then (50s, 60s ish) there was no such thing as surround sound. So back in the 2 channel hay day, how did you hook up three speakers? Ask of the vintage equipment I have seen was only meant for left and right speakers. This has been bugging me for awhile.

Back in the day, at least one McIntosh pre-amp, the C-26, had a center output and volume control.

 

http://www.roger-russell.com/c26pg.htm

 

I see that PWK complained that the pre-amps with the controls were not conveniently located.  Maybe this is what he was contemplating.

 

IIRC we had some discussion of a Scott with center channel configuration long ago.

 

I note that Klipsch was suggesting a small speaker as a center.  Further, in a Dope from Hope he suggested that retailers should suggest that a buyer wait until he can afford a Belle with K-Horns so that lack of distortion would be matched by the Belle horn loading.

 

I've often wondered why PWK (as far as I know) never suggested three CW's across the front (or Belle or anything).  Three identical speakers are what was used in the Bell Labs demo. 

 

Of course there is some expense to all this.

 

WMcD

Well said.

Had a Marantz 7-T preamp in the '70's and the center pot was on the back.

In two channel:

One reason for a center would be an excessive distance between the flanks leaving a "hole" in the middle. Another is that Khorns are locked into the corners so there is no toe-in.

tc