 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: killing a center channel speaker worked better than I expected... posted by kuma on August 26, 2002 at 17:17:27:
If so, there's some setup issue you could probably fool around with if you feel like it. I'm afraid it's potentially time-consuming, but not necessarily expensive to adjust. The 2.0 mix should sound better since it was mixed appropriately for no center, compared to the 5.1 mix with no center. For that you're relying on your decoder/gear maker to compensate adequately, and they don't always (at least to my taste). That was what I noticed when I didn't do the center properly at first, just tried a bunch of speakers pulled from different systems in that position, no luck. What I'm saying is, because my initial trials sucked, that does not mean that it isn't better when more properly done. I think everybody tries to use no center at first when they get frustrated (judging by posts), it *does* sound worse with an ill-suited one. Just my experience/taste of course...
Follow Ups:
lack of space and flexibility.As you've noticed, badly set up CC speaker does more harm than not having one.
With unlimited funds and space, I do think that properly done 5.1 in an appropriate room
would be a nice bonus.But in our current set up with a direct view TV in the middle in a very limited
real estate, I think no center channel can get a fair shake.For now, I can *work with* 4.1 set up. ( and yep. it is still evolving )
evangelist, probably annoying. I have spent a lot of time moving stuff around, positioning speakers, auditioning speakers, changing electronics config etc. This HT stuff is NOT a no-brainer, especially when you consider most people (not here, in general) don't even have 2 speakers set up half-decently. I have put a lot of effort into it, and though my setup isn't expensive, I am pleased with the way it works in a not very big room. The junk does take up a lot of space, then you have to sit so far from the screen so it looks right, mount the speakers so they sound right where you're sitting, etc. etc. So many decisions.But the center and the sub were what I wasted most time on. You can throw either in a room and plug them in, but it's amazing how annoying they can be if you do that. To me they ruined things, I didn't appreciate that they (obviously, now) require consideration like the rest of the gear. It's a learning process, and it's no wonder many people consider the whole thing gimmicky, because I see typical systems even at showrooms are just thrown together. The centerpiece is the nice display, and the sound is given little consideration it seems. But we appreciate the sound, so maybe it just seems more important to us, I think most people don't care so much.
*The centerpiece is the nice display, and the sound is given little consideration it seems. But we
appreciate the sound, so maybe it just seems more important to us, I think most people don't
care so much. *After all, HT entertainment is two-fold: visual and aural pleasure/excellence.
( it sure makes it much more expensive proposition than 2 channel. )But from my two channel listening habit, I can fill in what's lacking
from visual ( nothing much I can improve here out of 32" direct view'
without even a progressive scan ) by creating believable sound reproduction.It is too bad, like you said, the sound part of the HT systems at most
dealers is served up as a second banana.I think most people respond better to the visual stimulation and loud boom 'n' sizzle ( the sound
that impresses owners as well as their neighbors in a short run) than subtle aural ques
that make up a complete whole.
With a direct view, you can sit much closer than I can. And you can benefit from near(er) field listening. That's usually better anyway. I have a setup with a much smaller screen than yours. I like it too. But it's different since it's cosier. There's something about when you expand the space you want to fill with the "experience", the requirements go up exponentially. Better to keep the space small if you want to keep it simple, I made the mistake (?) of trying to make the system friendlier to more people, different requirements, makes you appreciate the people who set up good large theatres.
that's the lesson I've learned from two channel set up I forgot.Or match the equipement used to the room *if* no dedicated room is
available. Not the other way around. ( easier to deal with in a long run )Interesting you say how many people you want to accomodate as well as
monitor used change things.
Well, my small system is in my bedroom...how many do you think I should *reasonably* accomodate in there, at once? Probably more than I can get...I just meant that when I went for the larger screen in the main room, the required longer viewing distance allowed for more viewers, and a different sound arrangement. The big screens IMO don't look so good from close up, I mean you have the same quality video source on a similar quality (to the big) small screen and it looks better, so you have to sit farther away for things to be good with the big screen. When you sit farther away, the sound has to fill a larger area, etc. etc.
I originally had a small separate viewing room, and I decided to make it more "public". That was a conscious decision, and basically the HT gear I already had didn't survive the transition to the larger room. I didn't realise that would be the case when I started, even though it should have been obvious...so yes, the gear has to be chosen specifically for the room.
Just my 2 cents... As you have said setup is a big part of the equation for center channels. At the same time, the type of room you have can allow you to work without a centre, if your main speakers image correctly. My Linn Helix soundstage great and in a number of cases I switch to stereo mode to listen/watch a movie because otherwise all the info would come out of the center only. Also where everyone seats makes it possible to live without the centre (even though I have one). On properly mixed action movies in DTS, I notice the value of the 5 speakers more, than on dramas that are mostly dialogue anyway.
Agree, the majority of DVD movies I have have 99% of the sound in the center. So then I switch to a stereo-derived mode, sometimes with "stereo" from all my "7.1" speakers. Actually, every movie is different. I notice I have been preferring the analog 5.1 outputs from my new DVDP over the digital output. I try not to screw around with things too much, I swear I make my sound method determination and level adjustments (all movies sure aren't the same) within the first 5 minutes, then don't touch it again for the rest of the movie.
Agreed. For all the fuss the industry makes about the "quality" of thier product, some of it sure is junk.
Perhaps your correct here... I'd have always wondered why so many people here seem to find no center better than having one for sweet-spot movie watching.Perhaps it is that some people don't use a speaker designed as a center with wide horizonal dispersion? Or that they place the speaker in the wrong place, or at the wrong angle?
I found that getting the center to the correct angle took some time, but in my setup the results were well worth it. The sound had a certain fullness added to somehow, and it really works much better for movies. Besides their is only one sweet-spot, the center makes it much nicer for your family or company.
surprisingly, I am not suffering from 'one-man-only' sweet spot
syndrome without sacrificing image stability. Altho, it does varies
by equipment used.I'm guessing it's because the way speaker themselves are designed
( some speakers just have wider dispersion pattern than others )
as well as they are apart only by 8 ft or so.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
