|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.112.27.9
In Reply to: Parvi Dvorak 9th-Telarc "House Sound"? posted by Robert C. Lang on March 24, 2007 at 00:17:45:
HowdyI'll take issue with your center channel arguments:
In my experience the center channel is irrelevant to a solid soundstage IF you are listening from the sweet spot. I often have to mute the left or right speakers or solo the center to show people that the sound is really not coming from the center.
I'll have to attribute the differences in our experience to the differences in our systems: not too surprising :)
Perhaps it's due to my use of TG Audio cables: Bob used to aways remark that most people have systems that you could drive a truck thru the center of the soundstage and he tried to address this with his cables.
If you wish to pursue this more specifically I'd be happy to listen to any particular examples of music that have a less solid center and see if I agree with your examples despite what I said above.
Follow Ups:
I don't see a disagreement.I said:
****I have found that multi-channel recordings that don’t utilize a center channel, or that underutilize the center channel do not have this solidity/wide sweet spot attribute.****
You said:****In my experience the center channel is irrelevant to a solid soundstage IF you are listening from the sweet spot.****
I agree with what you have said. Completely.
I have found that the sweet spot is less of an issue with a well-done center channel. I find the soundstage to be more solid over a wider area with a good center channel mix. The sweet spot is broader. That is, you can sit a bit left or right of the "traditional sweet" spot with minimal or no sound degradation. Although, as I mentioned I always sit in the traditional sweet spot regardless. Without a center channel, I have found the sweet spot to be much more critical.
You also said:
****I often have to mute the left or right speakers or solo the center to show people that the sound is really not coming from the center.****
I have had the same or similar experience with a variety of speakers for years, beginning with the Ohm F in the 70s. When playing two channels new listeners insist that I must have a speaker hidden in the fireplace that is in between and behind the speakers. They consistently get up to look for it. Or since I have had multi-channel they will think for sure that music is coming from the middle speaker when it is completely off. Likewise with a multi-channel recording that has no center mix they (and yours truly) will be fooled into thinking that music is coming from the center channel when it is not active. (I didn't realize that Telarc's Mahler 5 (Zander) center channel was practically mute until Robert88 [I think]made mention of it). In the case of a multi-channel recording with no center channel this allusion can collapse if you wander from traditional the sweet spot.
And yes let me make it clear, my observations are limited solely to my experiences in my system. Like everything else in audio experiences will vary from system to system and then from room to room (which I would venture to say has a lot more effect than audio cables in my experience). In the case of the center channel a lot may depend, also, how it is being utilized in a particular mix as to whether it is important or not.
While we are on the topic of do you know the purpose of the center channel in SACD? (In that the center channel seems to have a completely different use than in HT).
To this day though if I could only take one of these two to the island with me to listen to for the rest of my lifetime, I'd probably lose a bit of sleep the night before! :)I do well remember your post beforehand about comparing these two recordings which be the obvious thing most folks would inquire about for the 9th on SACD whether it be MCH or two channel. When I have the opportunity, I'll have to listen to some of the movements again on my systems. It may just be entirely a preference thing however for an individual to choose one over the other as each present a wow factor for sound and a each include a very very good performance.
Regarding the Zander Mahler 5th, his 6th absolutely blows it away in my opinion and I feel one of the reasons is because of the use of the center. The 6th is one of the best MCH recordings for the sense of aliveness that I own!
HowdyI must have misunderstood you :)
Since video still matters to me my center is not at the same height as my left and right speakers and they are perfectly capable of handling the power I'm tempted to get my preamp modded to split the center channel inputs evenly into the left and right speakers. I suspect that then I'd have better sound both because my phantom center would match the left and right better and I'd be able to make my ITU circle just a little bigger which I think also could help.
And quite daring.
Regards,
Geoff
...I understand what you are saying about the center...I often have to mut the main channels to be sure I know what is going on with the center.....when I am sitting in or partially in ... the sweet spot. But when I move to either side (which I often do on the sofa) with a stereo signal the sound collapses towards the speaker on that side. With a good center channel (viz the early RCA's, the Telarcs, and some others) the orchestral spread stays rock solid and only the perspective changes...like moving to a seat on the outside of the center-side aisle. But you still hear the whold orchestra spread.This becomes especially important with concerto performances, where a good center helps anchor the piano, violin, cello, or whatever featured instrument.
Harry
HowdyHe said "I’m not the type of that walks around while listening. In fact, my kids tease me because I listen the old fashion way, as if I’m fastened to my listening chair with a six-point seat belt ready for blastoff..." and I qualified my post with "In my experience the center channel is irrelevant to a solid soundstage IF you are listening from the sweet spot." Note the IF :)
Even on the sweet spot a good recording with a center delivers a much improved resolution compared to 2 channels in front.
HowdyI'm not sure of that. As I said It's not my experience and I'm sure it depends on your equipment.
I think it has probably more to do with the recording technique. If in the recording the center channel has not been used as 'prominant' as the left and right than the difference between a mixdown from 3 to 2 is less obvious than when the recording has a fully equal use of the 3 front channels. A third source used correctly like that will increase the overall resolution. The same also applies to the way the rear channels are used.
It takes time for engineers to take a different approach in their recording techniques with respect to surround compared to stereo. That is also difficult as we hardly ever make surround only recordings but always have to achieve an equally good result in stereo, much like the beginning of stereo when a mono result was still required. Only after not having to think about the mono did engineers fully concentrate on stereo. At the same time (2 channel) stereo has been the norm for such a long time that people generally take it as their reference. Also recording engineers. In my opinion (5 channel) surround can deliver much improved results over stereo and quadro, and with time and experience consumers and engineers will think of surround compared to stereo as they now of stereo compared to mono.
HowdyI understand your point and agree in so far as more info should lead to more resolution, but in all systems there are compromises and more chances for something going awry. I have thousands of MC discs and there doesn't seem to be a big difference in the resolution of discs that use the center channel vs. ones that don't to me in my system... I've got to wonder if some people mix discs with the center monitor on a plane between the front left and right monitors instead of on an ITU circle or something like that...
-Ted
P.S. You folks put out some of the most consistently great discs I have. It's clear that you'all have some of the best MC recording experience around. Thanks a lot for your work.
If you were to use a center speaker, that for the sake of comparison, was identical to your L/R mains (or a speaker one down in the product line) and had that center speaker "ITU positioned" do you believe you would hear benefits (even some)on some or many of your collection of SACD multi-channel discs as a whole?
Robert C. Lang
HowdyThe speaker I'm using for my center has the same tweeter and mids as my left and right front speakers. It's problem is that the tweeter is at the wrong height. This does cause a few problems that I'd like to address without compromising my video.
If your question is "If you replaced your center speaker with one at the proper height would it make a difference?" then my answer is definitely yes.
On the other hand if your question is "Do you think that a center speaker (with the tweeter at the proper height) with five channel discs is better than four channel discs?" or "Do you think that a center speaker (with the tweeter at the proper height) would be better than a phantom center?" then my answer is not necessarily in my system:
I don't know for sure, but since my left and right front speakers and amps are so much overkill for my room I don't think I need a center for the reasons related to capacity or resolution. Also I don't think I need a center for anchoring the soundstage (it's already quite solid.) So I'm not sure what I need it for :) That's why I'm considering getting my preamp modded to support a phantom center...
I'm not recommending this for everyone (or even anyone else), I'm not saying that I prefer 4 channel discs to five channel (let's ignore the sub for this discussion), and I know that taking it to the limit doesn't make any sense at all. ("Why 4 instead of 5?" leads you to ask "Why not 3 instead of 4?"...) But mathematically, if you are only considering the sweet spot and if your system can handle the extra power without loss of detail, in an ITU setup putting 1/2 of the center into each of the left front and right front is simple and well defined.
Sorry if I'm rambling.
Zander Mahler 5th and 6th. The 5th basically makes no use of the center. It was one of the earlier MCH recordings released on SACD.
HowdyYep the center on the 5th is quite quiet...
It seems like a good place to listen for solidity of soundstage on the 5th is track 5, there both the stereo and MC are quite solid and each solo instrument is in a well defined space (no matter what else is going on.)
The center isn't all that loud on the 6th either (about the same level as the rears), tho it is certainly used more than the 5th.
The beginning of track three seems like a good place to listen to the solidity of the soundstage, once again each solo instrument is in a well defined place.
Going back and forth a few times at the same volume level, the 6th seems to be a little cleaner with a lower noise floor.
I guess I'm not sure exactly what else you might be asking for. They both sound great and I'm glad you prodded me to listen to them again. It's been a while and they are wonderful to listen to.
Then I assume one should be putting dollars into the front speakers rather than utilize a center channel if you don't detect a large difference between these two recordings.The 5th was one of the first MCH recordings if I remember correctly. The 6th is IMHO one of the best MCH recordings for SACD. If there isn't a large difference and the 5th doesn't really utilize a center and the 6th does but it is basically very subtle and regardless it is still one of the best IMHO....
Maybe I'll play the 6th without the center and see what I think about it and some others that I feel are top notch MCH recordings also.
HowdyI'm not sure this is much of a test, the 6th doesn't put a lot of energy in the center, as I mentioned the center is at about the levels of the rears, more of a fill/ambiance level... I'm not sure it tells us much about what the center can do...
Also I'm note sure what differences you are asking about: to me the 6th was a little clearer, etc. but it seems to me you are making extrapolations that I don't understand.
I guess this is the reason I don't talk about performances or software much :) I'm comfortable with the technical and talking about it, but I just enjoy the music too much to get too analytical about it.
Thanks for the thoughtful replys. No, I don't view them as rambling at all; makes sense.An observation I have made is that SACD multi-channel recordings are getting better and better. It is as if the format is moving forward from the "early ages", much like stereo did after a while. I have found that current SACD multi-channel mixes sound more convincing than the newly recorded mixes from 5 years ago. There *seems* to be less reliance on the two mains (except for the deepest bass) and an elevation of the center channel (especially) and the surrounds as more as equal partners (but still not equal).
The increase in center channel reliance in the mixes does not necessarily result in improved or increased "center fill" in my system when attempting to make those kinds of comparisons (which I rarely do any more). As has been pointed out stereo addressed any "center fill" issues years ago with only two good speakers.
Nevertheless, the mixes sound better than ever. I have found that the sound quality is improving even though my ears, gear and the room have not changed at all (well may be my ears). This may have more to do with improved use of the surrounds than with increased center channel participation. Or the improvement can be for some other reasons. I don't know. It may be more of a synergy thing.
One result in the market place I have seen is that newly recorded 4 channel discs don't seem to be as common as they once were. Although I have observed that in my collection that some of the more “purist” (talk about an oxymoron!) multi-channel recordings leave out the center channelSorry if I'm rambling.:)
HowdyOne source of four channel recordings was the re-release of old quad recordings. I like a lot of these. I think, like you and Erdo have said on this thread, that newer recordings are using the center more and arguably better.
BTW I still find it disconcerting when the voice comes almost exclusively from the center and little of the instrumentation does, but of course I only know this by playing with the channel solo buttons on my preamp (or by listening too carefully for my own good :)
...if he truly just sits in the sweetspot, then phantom central image is just fine...you are right.
Harry
and I admit it is not really important to me, is that when I have more than one guest the center channel makes it viable for 3-4 people (depending on their girth:) to sit abreast and still enjoy excellent sound. I can shoehorn only two (and I’m reluctant to even do that) into the sweet spot with no center channel without fear of audible compromise.But to be perfectly honest when I have guests for listening it’s rarely more than two and I defer completely to them the sweetest possible spot. After all, I enjoy it everyday.
Robert C. Lang
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: