In Reply to: RE: Since you haven't followed the discussion . . . posted by Pat D on July 1, 2010 at 07:31:22:
Thank you for being specific. Now we can specifically disagree. Perhaps c93's restatement is not a perfect paraphrase of the original, but it seems like a reasonable summary to me. It is definitely not a total misrepresentation.
Having used a center channel speaker in the summer of 1962 the three of us, Brad Meyer, Clark Johnsen and I found that it was beneficial on some material, e.g. the stereo Mercury Living Presence recordings, It was possible to increase the angular separation of the left and right speakers from the listening position, with the amount depending on the level of the center speaker. For most recordings the benefit was slight, certainly not enough for any of us to go to a three channel system once our group split up and we went our separate ways. The center speaker was mostly an experiment that we tried because we had lots of speakers and amps sitting around that summer.
In my experience if one has imaging problems then this is best addressed with system set up, especially speaker positioning and other room related adjustments. There are many ways stereo recordings are made and it may even be necessary to make adjustments according to the recording. If the setup is sound then it is usually possible to fine tune for a particular recording by adjusting the listening position. (Of course in all cases one must adjust the playback gain and polarity for each recording.) Even with 5 speakers, 7 speakers, or 1000 speakers, if you are playing only two channel material you've got nothing more than a big stereo system, and probably not a very good one at that for various reasons (such as probable comb filtering).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Since you haven't followed the discussion . . . - Tony Lauck 08:07:05 07/01/10 (19)
- Nonsense. - Pat D 10:17:16 07/01/10 (18)
- Please stop embarrassing yourself. - robert young 13:14:01 07/01/10 (2)
- Why don't you read the whole text for context? - Pat D 14:14:18 07/01/10 (1)
- I did, and many here have, and you're still wrong... - robert young 04:47:58 07/02/10 (0)
- I decline to take a third dip in your pool of confusion. nt - Tony Lauck 12:01:16 07/01/10 (14)
- You're the one confused. - Pat D 01:53:07 07/02/10 (13)
- Read Olive's quote again Pat: the system is not a specific one. - robert young 05:39:22 07/02/10 (12)
- Changes nothing relevant. - Pat D 08:39:14 07/02/10 (8)
- But I didn't atack Sean, I attacked your interpretation of what he wrote. - robert young 09:29:27 07/02/10 (7)
- I never said *you* did. - Pat D 10:32:02 07/02/10 (6)
- RE: I never said *you* did. - robert young 20:05:03 07/02/10 (5)
- What I did in concurring with C93's observation - E-Stat 07:49:54 07/03/10 (4)
- It's is - if he's your idol, that you worship, and are never allowed to question. N/T - carcass93 08:28:06 07/03/10 (3)
- Naw, you're my idol (nt) - Pat D 16:10:01 07/03/10 (2)
- Is that the "whether you mean it or not" part of Flanders & Swan? :) - kerr 05:10:07 07/04/10 (1)
- RE: Is that the "whether you mean it or not" part of Flanders & Swan? :) - Pat D 17:34:34 07/04/10 (0)
- RE: Read Olive's quote again Pat: the system is not a specific one. - Tony Lauck 07:08:17 07/02/10 (2)
- RE: HA - rick_m 08:46:17 07/04/10 (0)
- "why HA continues to exist" - it's a social club, that just happens... - carcass93 18:34:47 07/02/10 (0)