phantom center channel

Johnmcelfresh wrote: "With my processor (as many others) you tell the unit the center is "phantom" and the information is routed to the L+R fronts (in mono, I would assume). Therefore, no information is lost."

There are signals in the center which, due to the distance between the two sources, is somewhat out of phase electrically but which, if reproduced by the separate speakers, will sum/interact acoustically and give a correct signal at the ear of the listener. When these signals are combined electrically, as with your processor, the signals tend to cancel and cannot be recovered. Information is lost.

Kal

Kal-

Given the difficulty of properly setting up even a two channel system to get signals to sum and interact properly, and the fact that adding a center channel magnifies the set up problem in a non-linear fashion, I suspect the trade off still mitigates in favor of ditching the center channel. Besides, the concept of the center is to--as others have noted--anchor the sound for off-axis listeners anyway. Thus, the benefit of a center is for people who aren't going to enjoy the benefit of correctly summed/interacted signals anyway. I've run several iterations of HT systems, with and without center channels, and always preferred the phantom center mode.

But, I'm probably a bad person to ask. I got rid of everything except the L and R mains because I found DTS/DD didn't really enhance my viewing experience sufficiently to overcome the downside of having all that stuff...

Sammydog, I feel your pain! I'm currently using a center channel in my system, but I want to upgrade to a front projecter/screen setup and will lose the space to fit my current center speaker due to it's depth and the fact that I still want to be able to use my fireplace. There's definately going to be pros/cons and sonic benefits/compromises (isn't there always?!!).

JZ

Edesilva-

I do not disagree with your philosophy. However, I only recommend using the number of speakers that correspond to the number of discrete channels in the source. Thus, for stereo, only two. For 3.0 (MLP and LS SACDs), 5.0 and 5.1, I find a center amp/speaker essential for coherent reproduction. I eschew DPL and other matrixing modes but DD/DTS sorta come along free with the full amp/speaker array. Or course, I am also talking about using a full-size center channel speaker identical to those used for the main L and R.

BTW, my experiments with the 3.0 SACDs were the most convincing of the necessity for a center channel but creating a phantom center with them was as unsatisfying as deriving the center signal from the stereo tracks. Several doubters have heard this advantage clearly in my main system.

Kal

Kr4...I beg to differ with you about the effectiveness of deriving a center channel from a 2-channel source. In many recordings where there is a soloist, he/she was originally recorded as a discrete channel, and was subsequently mixed equally into Left and Right. When you derive a center channel what you are doing is unmixing so as to restore what was there originally.

I have used a center speaker for almost forty years, and have used many different techniques to drive it. Some work better than others. Of course, a discrete recorded center channel, SACD or DVDA, is best, but with some recordings the derived method comes close.