is a center channel really necessary??


I am currently redesigning the family room and have the option of installing a 5.1 system but have always been a 2 channel kinda guy. I love films and music equally, but assuming a fixed budget, may $4K, I know I could get a killer 2 channel setup but just a mediocre HT. MOst films I like aren't effects type, but I am concerned about hearing dialog clearly.

How much does the center channel matter?? Won't a set of good monitors image well enough to handle the dialog??
tswei99
...I am concerned about hearing dialog clearly. How much does the center channel matter?? Won't a set of good monitors image well enough to handle the dialog??

You are quite right that a good set of stereo speakers will easily image well enough to anchor dialogue where it needs to be - on the screen. However, good imaging does not have much to do with dialogue intelligibility, which you mention as one of your concerns. In light of that, you might want to consider that a dedicated center channel will often help with dialogue intelligibility, among other things.

Without a dedicated center channel, you will typically be listening to a 2 channel "mixdown" of the 5.1 soundtrack. Unlike the 5.1 soundtrack, which is the result of highly skilled rerecording engineers working hundreds of hours, the 2 channel mixdown is largely the result of a "one size fits all" software algorithm. Because of this, mixdowns are often flawed, and poor dialogue intelligibility is a common problem. Also, without a dedicated center channel, you will typically not be able to control the RELATIVE LEVELS of dialogue vs. music/fx, which is a major determinant of dialogue intelligibility.

Having said this, your limited budget would go much further if you stick to 2 channel. So, to me, both solutions involve compromises. I just wanted to mention some of the benefits of a dedicated center channel, particularly for someone concerned with dialogue intelligibility.
You absolutely need a processor that can properly mix down the L F R into just L and R. Otherwise speech will be almost unintelligible.
thanks for all the thoughtful responses so far. Just to clarify, I am debating 2.1 w/ stereo integrated vs 5.1w/ AVR (not 4.1 vs. 5.1), so Byroncunningham brings up a good point. Sounds like you DO lose alot with a two channel downmix.

And it's not just about sound quality, 5.1 will require more boxes around the room that is a multipurpose family room and as much as I like killer sound systems, there's an aesthetic issue here.

One thought if I go 5.1 is to put the surrounds in the ceiling, which takes away two boxes, but still leave 3 for the front stage which will sit on top of a built-in cabinet (maybe 24" deep)..
I agree with Shadorne that 4.1 is much preferrable to 2.1 for an enjoyable movie experience. I also agree that a poor mix down can make the dialogue hard to understand. But in my experience you don't need to spend a ton of money to get a pre/pro or receiver that will do a good job on the mixdown. My mid-range Pioneer Elite receiver does a fine job with the mix down. Not quite as good as my old Bel Canto Pre/Pro, but dialogue is always clear. Very important is to have good speakers of course.
So far we've only talked about 5.1 in a movie application. What about multichannel SACD? IMHO, ya gotta have the center to create most coherent sound wall across the front in MCH. I have my system set-up for 2CH, with HT bypass => AH tube buffer => monos, 5.1 HT using DSP, and 5.1 MCH SACD with discreet analog out (vs HDMI). Formerly did 2CH with dedicated CDP, but now moving to a one-box solution with MW modded Oppo BDP-83. For $1,500 (which includes player) everything is covered ... movies, 2CH, and Multi. So going 5.1 with SACD, there's no mix down, and there is a fair amount of information to be captured from the center channel.