DVD-Audiobahn

New DVD-Audio music releases and talk about the latest players.

Return to DVD-Audiobahn

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Why not 4.0 or 4.1?

66.24.42.171
Posted on January 31, 2003 at 13:14:14
mcp
Audiophile

Posts: 665
Location: New York
Joined: October 14, 2001
 This may be a stupid question, but why should 5.1 be a standard for surround music? I've just recently converted from a 2 channel system to a HT/Music system. It seems to me that the center channel is almost always the "odd man out" when it comes to timbre matching. Even using the same drivers, the dispersion is almost always different given the horizontal nature of the speaker. I can count on one hand the number of systems I've seen with 3 matching floorstanders or stand mounted speakers in the front--I do realize that this is ideal.
The center channel for dialog is a given when playing video, but the
image depth using two front speakers is almost always superior to setups with a center channel speaker on music. I would love to hear a good 4.0 or 4.1 recording. I listen to a lot of rock and think that there definitely a future for surround recordings. It just bothers me that DVD-A assumes (for the most part) that the setup will include a monitor to make format choices, but fails to recognize that the center channel gets in the way on most systems in the real world. Just because there's room for 5.1 doesn't necessarily make it the best choice ( I am amazed every time I see a photo on eBay of a 100 lb speaker on its side on top of a big screen TV--is this progress?). Am I missing the point?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Stand your speaker on end., posted on January 31, 2003 at 13:20:08
Jim Pearce
Audiophile

Posts: 23687
Joined: January 4, 2002
 I stand my Paradigm Reference CC on end, and it is a beautiful match to my Paradigm 100s.

5.1 is the HT standard, but more importantly most of the benefit to music (dynamics!) from 5.1 comes from the center channel. 3.1 would make more sense than 4.1.

 

Re: Stand your speaker on end., posted on January 31, 2003 at 13:21:57
mcp
Audiophile

Posts: 665
Location: New York
Joined: October 14, 2001
 How much higher is you center channel than your L/R mains?

 

Re: Stand your speaker on end., posted on January 31, 2003 at 13:31:30
Jim Pearce
Audiophile

Posts: 23687
Joined: January 4, 2002
 Without measuring, I'd guess it is raised about 12" from the floor, making the tweeters about 16" and 38".

 

I guess I'm always paranoid, posted on January 31, 2003 at 13:38:45
mcp
Audiophile

Posts: 665
Location: New York
Joined: October 14, 2001
 about orienting speakers in a way that is different from the way they were designed. Some CC speakers have offset tweeter (yours don't)and I don't know how well they'd do upright. I think that many people would have problems with stability and (shudder!) looks of an upright speaker. BTW--I love Paradigms. I have owned the Studio 60s V 2, the Atoms and a complete Cinema90/ADP/CC system. I have owned many speakers (Proac, Von Schweikert, B&W, Thiel etc) but find that no one delivers performance for the price like Paradigm.

 

i think the centre channel is important ..., posted on January 31, 2003 at 14:27:34
Christine Tham
Reviewer

Posts: 4839
Location: Sydney
Joined: December 29, 2001
 early tests on stereo indicate that three speakers were the minimum to reproduce a stereo soundstage accurately, so 2 channels is a compromised we have lived with all these years.

what you can do is five identical floorstanding speakers in an ITU configuration supported by 1 or 2 subwoofers.

to watch an image, use a projector and mount your screen above the speakers. a few of my friends have this configuration.

the compromise you are making is that the visual location of images is then above the aural soundstage.

i adopt two compromises. four identical floorstanding speakers, but a low timbre matched centre channel with the screen mounted above the centre speaker. therefore i get the all important congruence between visual and aural location. if a car for example moves from left to right, my ears correlate the exact position of the sound with the exact position of the car on screen. this greatly enhances the impact of watching films and is well worth it.

the compromise is non-identical speakers, and also on surround mixes where the vocals are in the centre channel only, the "height" of the centre channel is lower than the other speakers which create an "anomaly"

however, most surround mixes places vocals on front left and right and the centre channel is used as a "filler" and that works out really well.

 

Some thoughts, posted on January 31, 2003 at 15:02:59
Eric LeRouge
Audiophile

Posts: 3060
Location: France, Paris
Joined: October 7, 2002
 Jim,

I agree with your advice, but it may have uncontrolled effects if the center speaker is d'Appolito (most CC speakers are). I posted about this on the old board, and also about the Queen mix last week. Also I have tried this setup, and found that the consequences were not good. By doing that, you may be introducing some phase problems into the system. As a general rule, I think one should avoid horizontal d'Appolito CC speakers.

I find the most significant benefit of CC use is that it can pin down the bass in a very specific spot in some recordings. Some recordings use CC mainly to add depth, I like that also (Paul Simon)

But I would not discard 4.1 just like that, if the system allows for phantom center, it's a good option sometimes. Tubular Bells on SACD, Deep Purple Machinehead, and ELP (in short, all quad stuff), work better in 4.1
I almost always give it a try on 4.1 when the center channel is not pleasant, and sometimes I like the result better.

It's really a matter of trial and error, and having fun.

Best

Eric

 

Re: i think the centre channel is important ..., posted on January 31, 2003 at 15:21:40
Eric LeRouge
Audiophile

Posts: 3060
Location: France, Paris
Joined: October 7, 2002
 Christine,

Ideally, the CC speaker should be located according to the ITU: on the same level as the fronts, but behind the screen. This is the only ITU recommendation I find really useful. Most of the time, the front stage becomes more 'three dimensional' in movies and music alike.

The best investment for HT use is in a good screen allowing the use of center speaker(s) behind the screen. I don't have one, but I've seen them at demos, they work well.
In fact, I see them all the time in the movie theaters...

Best

Eric

 

After listening to hundreds of Quadraphonic Rock records , and many modern Multichannel Rock ..., posted on January 31, 2003 at 16:30:04
ZS KEKL
Audiophile

Posts: 1589
Joined: January 23, 2002
 discs , I think that a 4.0 mix is best .

I find that if the Multichannel lead vocal is mixed to only the Center channel , then there is too much attention brought to the Center , and the Front Left to Right separation is compromised .

I prefer the phantom Center of a 4.0 mix .

The best Multichannel Rock discs have the lead vocal placed equally in the Front Left and Right channels , with liitle or no lead vocal in the Center channel .

The Center channel for Multichannel music only exists because it is a carry over from Home Theater .

Several very well known engineers , including Alan Parsons , dislike the use of the Center channel for music . Some have said that they would prefer to put nothing in the Center . They have said that the only reason that they put a little something in the Center is because if they put nothing in the Center , they are afraid that consumers would think that there was something wrong with the discs , and that the consumers would complain about " defective " discs , or about their systems not working properly .

As well , some of these same engineers have said that they feel the same way about the Subwoofer channel , as they do about the Center channel .

 

Agreed. Unfortunately the surround mixes tend to assume everyone has a decent center speaker...., posted on January 31, 2003 at 16:51:28
oscar
Audiophile

Posts: 19522
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Joined: October 25, 2000
 I asked Telarc about why the center channel and they just said ya gotta have a good center speaker; preferably identical to the mains right where most people would put the TV. Not practical in most systems; mine included. This is a serious topic making me consider a "dropdown" projection system with a reasonably acoustically transparent screen (a al movie theaters).

 

I also would like a 4.1 or 4.0 (a.k.a. quadraphonic) format. And EMI does too!, posted on January 31, 2003 at 17:49:31
HiFi Connasewer


 
IMO unless your front main speakers totally suck, a center channel just isn't needed. As others have aleady said, its diffcult to find a center to perfectly match the mains, and horizontal dispersion problems (also known as "lobing") are common. There are a few 3-way centers with vertical tweeter/midbass arrays that address this problem, but they are rare & usually expensive (exception: JBL does sell one with this at Best Buy for @$300). And trying to place a center channel properly isn't always an option.

Subwoofer? Hmm, can be advantageous & fun sometimes, but trying to blend it with the other channels accurately is very tricky. Movie explosions are one thing (i.e. "accurate" explosions?) but to me music bass is a whole other level.

EMI obviously likes (or likED) this idea too: At Best Buy they sell two classical discs Handel: Fireworks, and Bach: Magnificat. Just plain old 4 channel, with a stereo track included:

 

there's actually two itu recos - one for ht, and one for music, posted on January 31, 2003 at 17:53:17
Christine Tham
Reviewer

Posts: 4839
Location: Sydney
Joined: December 29, 2001
 yes - ideally for movies the centre channel should be located behind the screen, but in my experience "acoustically transparent" screens aren't so transparent, and some of us are not prepared to make that sacrifice.

 

Alan Parsons vs Center Channel, posted on January 31, 2003 at 18:45:23
sven_tosing
Audiophile

Posts: 59
Joined: May 18, 2001
 Alan Parsons "On Air" (only available as redbook or MC/DTS) whas made with the pure intention to show off the possibilities with MC.
AND: he refuses to use the center with ONE exception. In the middle of tr.no 8 there is JFK quote about "before the end of this decade landing a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth".

 

surround can be done just as well in 4.0, without the Center channel, posted on January 31, 2003 at 18:56:46
High-end Dreamer
Audiophile

Posts: 1702
Joined: April 13, 2000
 Peter McGrath and Jerry Bruck have been making 4-channel recordings for more than 10 years, and each time I read about them being demo'd in this situation or that situation (like at shows, or for reviewers, or at conferences, etc.) the usual response is that they are the "Best and most life-like recordings [they] have ever heard, period." This is not an exaggeration, I have seen these kinds of descriptors used quite often for Bruck/McGrath's 4-channel recordings. (John Marks uses the same system, much of the time).

Anyway, I'm sure that equally great results can be obtained with 5.0 or the 'standard' 5.1 config. For performances with vocal (most pop material), I can see how the center might be advantageous. Most of Peter's recordings have been of symphony orchestra in a large hall, and with solo piano (in what space I'm not sure). Perhaps this is why the lack of a center channel doesn't seem to matter.

Of course the only way to tell which one is 'best' is to carefully try recording and mixing for one and then recording and mixing for the other, using experienced engineers, and then evaluate the results.

Mike

 

Chesky likes 4.0; he like 6.0 even more!, posted on January 31, 2003 at 19:48:17
ted_b
Audiophile

Posts: 803
Joined: January 14, 2001
 I was never a Chesky fan until recently. He likes 4.0 for a lot of the reasons posted here (poor center channel logistics, etc) and his DVD-A recordings sound absolutely fantastic in 4.0 (and even better in 6.0). Chesky's Swing Live DVD-A (Bucky Pizzarelli) conveys a tremendous sense of depth, warmth and soundstage, and doesn't utilize a center channel.

As for 6.0, his idea is to use the center and sub channels for a couple of height channels, located slightly higher and to the outside of the main l and r (but not sides, per se). I experimented with it (pita) and it sounded great, but is too cost-prohibitive and has poor WAF.
Ted_B

 

Re: there's actually two itu recos - one for ht, and one for music, posted on January 31, 2003 at 22:21:55
John Kotches
Reviewer

Posts: 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO Area
Joined: November 16, 1999
 Which is why Stewart provides an EQ (included in the cost) to compensate for the response changes created by their Microperf screen.



Regards,
John Kotches

 

and that disc sounds great! nt, posted on February 1, 2003 at 09:57:19
Duilawyer
Audiophile

Posts: 29475
Joined: November 5, 2001
 .

 

Re: there's actually two itu recos - one for ht, and one for music, posted on February 1, 2003 at 13:48:29
Eric LeRouge
Audiophile

Posts: 3060
Location: France, Paris
Joined: October 7, 2002
 I know about the two recommendations, but both have CC behind the line going from front L to R. I'm not very good in geometry, so I can't give the exact angle, but it's the same in both ITU recos (the ones I have seen anyway, including those leaflets in SACDs)

Setting the CC behind that line will almost always improve the "depth" of the sound stage, IME. However, I don't believe in orienting the front L and R along the 22° angle.

Best

Eric

 

how does this EQ actually work?, posted on February 1, 2003 at 14:25:23
Christine Tham
Reviewer

Posts: 4839
Location: Sydney
Joined: December 29, 2001
 if it's hardware based, won't it actually create more problems than it solves?

 

Philips/Pentatone likes 4.0, too., posted on February 1, 2003 at 15:24:05
Kal Rubinson
Reviewer

Posts: 12436
Location: New York
Joined: June 5, 2002
 Ooops, they're SACDs.

 

Re: Why not 4.0 or 4.1?, posted on February 1, 2003 at 19:50:50
Kelvin K


 
One of the solutions is to use the Accuphase CX-260 preamp that can 'downmix' the front LCR to LR signals in the analog domain.

http://www.accuphase.com/cx-260_e.htm


 

Why not 3.0?, posted on February 2, 2003 at 04:19:05
Max


 
My preferred arrangement would be 3 front speakers, no surrounds. Naturally there would no video screen to obstruct the center speaker.

Some advantages of this format:
(1) Compatible with 2 channel playback (using "phantom" center mode)
(2) Data space efficient
(3) Does not require new recording techniques; a simple upgrade of stereo
(4) Many old recordings can be reissued in 3 channel stereo

 

Re: there's actually two itu recos - one for ht, and one for music, posted on February 2, 2003 at 13:17:42
John Kotches
Reviewer

Posts: 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO Area
Joined: November 16, 1999
 Where are you willing to make a compromise? Are you really willing to accept the alteration from flat in frequency response when a perforated screen is in use?

Stewart correctly sends an EQ which you can use or not use at your discretion.


Regards,
John Kotches

 

Re: how does this EQ actually work?, posted on February 2, 2003 at 15:11:44
John Kotches
Reviewer

Posts: 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO Area
Joined: November 16, 1999
 See above.


Regards,
John Kotches

 

sorry still don't understand ..., posted on February 2, 2003 at 18:21:19
Christine Tham
Reviewer

Posts: 4839
Location: Sydney
Joined: December 29, 2001
 what is this "EQ" thing? a piece of paper with the frequency response curve? a parametric equaliser? a set of specially made ear buds that counteract the effect of the screen? :-)

an inquiring mind wants to know ...

 

Re: sorry still don't understand ..., posted on February 2, 2003 at 22:37:54
John Kotches
Reviewer

Posts: 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO Area
Joined: November 16, 1999
 I can't help your lack of understanding that it's an equalizer tuned to the response issues of the microperf screen.

It works very well by the way, I heard a smashing demo last night with VMPS RM40s left/right and the corresponding Large Ribbon Center.

Very effective presentation.



Regards,
John Kotches

 

well i was hoping you would actually provide details rather than simply repeating your post?, posted on February 3, 2003 at 14:57:57
Christine Tham
Reviewer

Posts: 4839
Location: Sydney
Joined: December 29, 2001
 what is the nature of this equaliser? does it require power, does it connect between the amp and the speakers, or in the pre amp stage, what are the characteristics of the equaliser, does it digitise the inputs, ...? from your first post i was not even sure you were talking about a piece of hardware.

if you cannot answer or are unwilling to answer, just say so. posting a sarcastic reply does not help.

 

Re: well i was hoping you would actually provide details rather than simply repeating your post?, posted on February 3, 2003 at 20:23:49
John Kotches
Reviewer

Posts: 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO Area
Joined: November 16, 1999
 Well ma'am, it can be hooked up in a tape loop, or it can be hooked up between the preamp and amp and defeated.

S BTW, you should change over to an "R" status to correctly indicate your affiliation with MichaelDVD.



Regards,
John Kotches

 

ok - thanks - sounds a bit intrusive for my liking, posted on February 3, 2003 at 20:50:21
Christine Tham
Reviewer

Posts: 4839
Location: Sydney
Joined: December 29, 2001
 i don't put an (R) next to my name because i don't get paid by michaeld so the situation is no different from anyone posting an opinion on an internet forum (such as this one!)

i don't represent michaeldvd when i post on this forum, and i'm sure brian moura doesn't represent highfidelityreview when he posts on this forum either

i thought the (R) category was for professional reviewers

 

Re: ok - thanks - sounds a bit intrusive for my liking, posted on February 3, 2003 at 21:30:32
John Kotches
Reviewer

Posts: 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO Area
Joined: November 16, 1999
 The response curve isn't that terrible through Microperf, and if your processor or receiver has Cinema ReEQ you could try that out and see how it does.

If you have the right projector, it's a great way to go.

It shouldn't matter that you're paid or not, I wasn't paid when I was at Secrets, but I still marked with an "R".

Professional isn't about being paid, it's about doing a good job on reviews.


Regards,
John Kotches

 

Re: Why not 4.0 or 4.1?, posted on February 4, 2003 at 17:03:57
grsteve
Audiophile

Posts: 22
Joined: April 19, 2002
 Many AV receivers/controllers allow you to configure a "phantom" center, Large front speakers, and no subwoofer. I'm doing this right now with my 4 speaker setup.

Isn't this pretty much the same thing with just a different name?

 

Accuphase CX-260, posted on February 4, 2003 at 19:41:28
Kelvin K


 
Most of these 'phantom' modes are produced by DSP in the digital domain. However unless you are using a hi-end processor, the DSP chips/circuits in most of these receivers/processors are of mediocre quality and will bring about sonic degradation.

Accuphase CX-260 do it in the analog domain, minimizing the loss in sonic quality. In fact CX-260's warm & musical character can alleviate the 'digital' sound of most of the HiVi softwares.

See http://www.accuphase.com/cx-260_e.htm

 

I agree, and as for classical . . ., posted on February 7, 2003 at 05:36:24
Martin says
Audiophile

Posts: 1347
Joined: December 21, 2001
 Just listen to Guarneri String Quartet -- that's a 4.0 recording, and sounds as three-dimensional as I've ever heard. I also play MDG's new "Missa Solemnis" with the center turned off (that's also partly because MDG's 2+2+2 recordings do not really use the 'centre' channel to drive a speaker which is positioned directly in the middle of the two fronts, as such.

 

Page processed in 0.043 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]