Post by seth June 8, 2012 (11 of 26)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
I would certainly disagree. Unlike movies where the centre channel is used extensively for dialogue, with SACD, even for 5.1, I do not think you would lose a lot. I do think he should get one, but if budget limited, then, best to optimize more critical components.
I'm sorry, but that's totally ludicrous. 5.0 recordings are mixed to utilize the center speaker -- you cannot just ditch it and expect no impairment to the imaging.
If the center channel is of so minimal importance, then why don't labels simply release 4.0 recordings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
ClassicalDJ said:
I suspect rear floorstanding towers will not work with my living room setup. Currently I am eying Klipsch Reference shelf speakers (they would match nicely except for height) with similar specs to the RF-15 towers I own.
You really do not need full size speakers all around. But, I think it is a good idea to stay with the same manufacturer, though not absolutely essential. Audyssey will EQ much of that difference away. Also, stay away from bipolar/dipole surrounds for music. Stick with monopole surrounds to compliment your mains. Bipole/dipole surrounds are for THX with movies and give a vague, fuzzy wuzzy surround effect which I do not even like with movies.
Yes, by all means use a center channel and a sub for best results.
The main difference between floor standers and bookshelves is often just the bass cutoff frequency, and often the mid/HF drivers are the same or similar in both cases. I would look for center and surrounds that are spec'd to at least 60 hz. But, bass management in your AVR takes care of differences in bass response, ideally with a sub. All bass below the crossovers from all channels is directed to the sub, and I find the bass frequencies non-directional and non localizable as long as the xover frequency is low enough, ideally 80hz or below. But, even 100hz is tolerable. Audyssey will measure and set the xovers for all channels near optimally. Do not be surprised if what Audyssey determines disagrees with optimistic specs for the speaker, and room and placement issues can have further effect. Just do not be tempted to manually lower the xover from what Audyssey has determined. You can manually raise it from there, however.
With a powered sub, it is not a bad idea to manually raise all channel xovers to 80 Hz in the AVR setup parameters, even if Audyssey thinks some can be set to "large" or full range. That is assuming Audyssey measures all channels as able to go down to at least 80hz. This will improve your system's power handling by directing more of the signal to the sub, which is designed for heavy duty bass.
I am afraid I cannot be of much help on an inexpensive sub recommendation. I have recommended Definitive Technology to others for low cost subs, but there are many others that might be worthy. Just do not expect them to go down to 20hz unless you spend a great deal more. But, that should not have much effect on most music.
Whoever you do, though, be sure to look up and adhere to the Audyssey Setup Guide at the Official Audyssey thread at avsforum. The manufacturers' instructions and even the Audyssey website are of insufficient help.i
|
|
|
|
|
|
seth said:
I'm sorry, but that's totally ludicrous. 5.0 recordings are mixed to utilize the center speaker -- you cannot just ditch it and expect no impairment to the imaging.
If the center channel is of so minimal importance, then why don't labels simply release 4.0 recordings?
It is not ludicrous, it's just an acceptable compromise, should a compromise be necessary, e.g. budget.
My point being, for clarification, that the centre channel has a more generic use in SACD than in movies, where in the latter case it is clearly used for putting voices to the fore amidst a busy ambient soundfield.
I may be wrong in some cases. E.g. I have a few Linn SACD's, where the centre channel use for vocals clearly enhances the recording, giving the other speakers freedom for isntruments, etc.
Even then, I have comapred to the 2 channel SACD layer, and it is the overall soundfield that is affected rather than the vocals.
So I agree with you, just saying that it is MOST DEFINITELY tolerable to not have a centre channel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I may be wrong as I am a bit fuzzy on surround sound history, but surround sound music was in 4.0 in the first instance.
The centre channel only became trendy because of films, and subsequently adopted for SACD, DVD-A, etc.
This kind of supposrts my argument to the extent that you can get good surround sound music with 4.0, or 4.1.
Correct me if I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
Also, I may be wrong as I am a bit fuzzy on surround sound history, but surround sound music was in 4.0 in the first instance.
The centre channel only became trendy because of films, and subsequently adopted for SACD, DVD-A, etc.
This kind of supposrts my argument to the extent that you can get good surround sound music with 4.0, or 4.1.
Correct me if I am wrong.
There are a few 5.1 SACD that uses the center channel for main vocals so it is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, not NEEDED, as the sound will be sent to left and right channels instead. Preferable, certainly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
No, not NEEDED, as the sound will be sent to left and right channels instead. Preferable, certainly.
OK if you tell you receiver that there is no center channel.
|
|
|
Post by seth June 8, 2012 (18 of 26)
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
Also, I may be wrong as I am a bit fuzzy on surround sound history, but surround sound music was in 4.0 in the first instance.
The centre channel only became trendy because of films, and subsequently adopted for SACD, DVD-A, etc.
This kind of supposrts my argument to the extent that you can get good surround sound music with 4.0, or 4.1.
Correct me if I am wrong.
What does that have to do with anything?
A 5.0 recording has been mixed for playback over 5 channels, which includes center.
You're making it sound like the center channel sits there dormant except for a few recordings.
If you don't have a center channel you're better off sticking with stereo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FunkyMonkey said:
Also, I may be wrong as I am a bit fuzzy on surround sound history, but surround sound music was in 4.0 in the first instance.
Ah, but stereo was in 3 channels if you go back to its development. It appeared commercially as 2 channels because of the technical limitations at the time. The same might be said of quad as that was the number of channels possible at the time. Today, neither technical limitation exists.
So, it is not a matter of superiority for the restricted number of channels. One should play the recordings over the number of channels in which it was made. Any fewer is a compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kal Rubinson said:
Ah, but stereo was in 3 channels if you go back to its development. It appeared commercially as 2 channels because of the technical limitations at the time. The same might be said of quad as that was the number of channels possible at the time. Today, neither technical limitation exists.
So, it is not a matter of superiority for the restricted number of channels. One should play the recordings over the number of channels in which it was made. Any fewer is a compromise.
Totally agree, all I am saying is that missing out the centre channel because of enforced austerity, for example, is not a limitation that will ruin your enjoyment of MCH recordings.
|
|
