On the myth of "the matching center channel speaker"

[Boomzilla]

The prevailing wisdom is that, if you want a seamless blend between the front three speakers of your HT setup, that the center channel must "match" the R & L front speakers. In theory, this seems like sound advice (bad pun intended), but in reality, how accurate is the prevailing wisdom?

Merely being from the same manufacturer does NOT a coherent system make. Further, even the center speaker that the manufacturer intends to be the "match" for your sides may not be any better than random chance. Why? Because speaker manufacturers design the center channel speakers primarily by cost. If the customer is buying a $4K pair of R/L speakers, the same customer will look askance at any center channel not priced commensurately. Therefore, most center channel speakers seem designed to cosmetically match the selected level of R/L speakers and to be priced accordingly. This may sound cynical, but it seems logical to me.

So why wouldn't the center channel be a good match for the main speakers? It's certainly true that above a certain price point, the manufacturer tries to "voice" the center to match the mains. However, what sounds matched in the manufacturer's test room may not even closely match in your HT room. The different dispersion characteristics, alone, of a "matched" center channel will prevent it from ever sounding identical to the R/L main speakers.

The ONLY way to have the center as close as possible to the right/left fronts is to use EXACTLY the same make/model speaker and have it oriented the same way (horizontal/vertical) as the other two. With any other option, you get different dispersion, different frequency response, and different room effects. If you had a point-source radiator (think KEF LS-50), and used three of them in the R/L/C positions, you might have a fair chance (not perfect, but only fair) of having the mythical "seamless surround" experience.

Even with identical speakers, they won't sound identical. Why not? Your room acoustics are different for each of the speaker locations. This has more effect on the sound than the manufacturer's voicing attempts by far. Even the height of the center channel would need to be identical to the height of the R/L to maximize coherence.

Now the foolishly optimistic among us would tell you that electronic digital signal processing (REW-DSP-MOUSE) will bring salvation to your disparately singing speakers. Not to be too factual about it, but I've not found it so. Both Emo-Q and Yamaha YPAO failed to do any better than random to my ears and in my room.

I've tried to "match" my front R/L speakers to a center several times now. My most extravagant attempt was the manufacturer's recommended center. Not only did it not match, but also it sounded significantly and audibly different from the R/L. The two closest matches I've found were an inexpensive center from another manufacturer and the least expensive center from the R/L speakers' manufacturer. This bodes ill for those trying to select by manufacturer's recommendations.

So to summarize, I think that center channel selection is more random than any other aspect of home theater audio. Neither common manufacturer nor manufacturer recommendation seem to be a reliable path to a harmonious match. Experimentation may be the only way to achieve a blend acceptable to your ears. Certainly it would make sense to at least audition the manufacturer's recommended center channel via pink noise calibration. But if the center sounds significantly different than the R/L, then you may want to continue shopping.

Boomzilla

[Priapulus]

Isn't the center channel for voice, rather than music? In that case, seamless blend with the L&R (or even hi-fidelity) is pointless. Matching efficiency seems more relevant.

Sincerely
/blair

[Boomzilla]

Yes, the center channel is primarily for voice, but without a tonal match, a voice starting in the left speaker and panning to the right, as the actress/actor walks across the screen, will change timbre as the source moves. This can be highly distracting (although some are oblivious to it). The "rock stars of home theater" recommend having a tonal match between all speakers in the system.

[bootman]

I'm assuming your system is primarily 2ch music based? (you put your stereo system first)
For a HT only system, I think you should choose the center first since it is doing the heaviest lifting.
If voices don't sound right on a center speaker, you are never going to be happy with your system.

[bootman]

And yes, three identical speakers behind a screen, is what the big boys play with.
The stuff us mere mortals play with is a compromise at best.

Unless you use small identical speakers across the front like Gallos which are more placement friendly.

[thrillcat]

Just get 5 of those little Bose cubes and you're good to go!

[DYohn]

It's no "myth," the center channel is possibly the most important system in a theater and in an HT from the perspective of proper soundtrack reproduction. But most people overlook it, and many people don't care. To each his own.

[Deleted]

cost is NOT the primary design when centers are made by manufacturer...but orientation IS..they KNOW the center will most likely need to go under or sometimes over a TV...so it is made horizontal..just he horizontal orientation will make the speaker sound different..

now yes you are right about placement being a big issue..but of you are designing your room correctly and you have all three identical speakers in the identical orientation...the sound stage will in fact be seamless...you wont be able to tell where one speaker lets off and the other picks up

this above is NOT practical in the non dedicated theater..but when I properly treated my entire front stage...and setup entirely identical speakers across the front it was astounding the difference...

but the center channel is THE most important speaker in ANY HT...so to skimp on it is just plain wrong

[Boomzilla]

I never said "skimp on the center channel speaker." I agree with bootman DYohn and with @bmoney that for HT, the center channel IS the most important speaker. I only say that the "manufacturer recommended" center has, in my experience, NOT always been the best match. I further find that the "pink noise test" is very revealing on how well the center will match the R/L. And, finally, YES - Dialogue clarity and articulation is the prime test of a center channel speaker.

Boom

[melm]

This is why I don't bother with a center channel. I have Maggie 3.6r's and it's not possible to match them. In my room, I get a beautiful phantom center which is, of course, coherent. Pans across the front speakers work perfectly with no discontinuities. The Maggie's, being front and back radiators, probably help.

Dirac has made the center imaging even better. So no expense and no complaints. It would be utterly impossible to put another flat panel vertically in the room at the center obviously.

Mel

[Boomzilla]

For one or even two to three centrally seated viewers, a phantom center channel can work most excellently. For larger groups, though, either the viewers must sit behind one another (auditorium style seating) or a center channel speaker must be used for wider horizontal dispersion. Despite the fact that most center channel speakers are designed for limited horizontal dispersion, having a center makes the dialogue significantly clearer to viewers who are not centrally seated.

[DYohn]

Jun 8, 2015 9:30:40 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

I only say that the "manufacturer recommended" center has, in my experience, NOT always been the best match.

This is mostly true for low to mid-tier commercial systems designed more for aesthetic appeal than for sonic performance. But even with these, as long as they are properly set up the results are usually better than using a cc loudspeaker that is totally unrelated to the mains. And it is certainly better than a "phantom" CC (which is a psychoacoustic effect created by digital phase and timing manipulation and can sound really odd with some processors.) I have never heard a phantom setup that was successful.

[Boomzilla]

If one down mixes the 5.1 soundtrack to 2.1, the phantom center works pretty well in my experience. But my visitors who had to sit off-center DID have significant difficulty understanding the dialogue.

As to using random centers - my experience has been good. I've found better matches there.

[stiehl11]

Ran 3 Phase Tech PC-3 speakers L/R/C from 2001 to 2012. Now running the PC-9 for L/R while keeping the PC-3 for Center. The great thing about the PC-3 is that the tweeter and mid-range can be rotated to fit the speaker's orientation (horizontal or vertical, high mount or low). The PC-9 is sonically similar to the rest of the PC line up using the same drivers and cabinet materials. The only difference you'll hear from the PC-1 to the PC-9 is how much bass extension you get.

Phase Technologies: the best speaker you're not listening to.

[DYohn]

Jun 8, 2015 9:59:41 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

If one down mixes the 5.1 soundtrack to 2.1, the phantom center works pretty well in my experience. But my visitors who had to sit off-center DID have significant difficulty understanding the dialogue.

As to using random centers - my experience has been good. I've found better matches there.

Sometimes you get lucky.

[novisnick]

I started with my main system and 5.0 HT long ago. I've had many, many different sytems with many a matched, mismatched center.
The a salute best sounding HT matched speakers are the Studio 100s !!!
The center is a tower on its side with the speakers aliened horizontally.
Perfect blend IMHO.

You can get a great deal on this system and help a friend out by making the purchase I refer to here!! 8)


emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/42864/paradigm-hsu

[vneal]

Jun 8, 2015 8:43:37 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Yes, the center channel is primarily for voice, but without a tonal match, a voice starting in the left speaker and panning to the right, as the actress/actor walks across the screen, will change timbre as the source moves. This can be highly distracting (although some are oblivious to it). The "rock stars of home theater" recommend having a tonal match between all speakers in the system.

The easiest way to get a tonal match for the center channel is usually from the same manufacturer. Not always. Usually. --Especially if the center was designed to blend with the fronts. I would say the same applies for the rear channels

[KeithL]

I think you're all missing a point - specifically with Home Theater.

First, I'm of the opinion that all three of your front speakers should be matched - as much as possible. True, when you're listening in stereo, you're only going to be using the two main speakers, and a lot of dialog in home theater lives in the center channel... but in home theater THINGS MOVE AROUND. If the fellow on the screen is walking from left to right, or walking back and forth around a room, his voice is going to move between the mains and the center; and the same is true for critters flying around, or tanks driving across from left to right; if the three front speakers aren't reasonably well matched, then that movement will not be smooth or consistent. It will pull and seem to stay stuck in the corners, or in the center, then jump suddenly from speaker to speaker - all of the things we associate with "poor imaging". To put that another way, if the voice is supposed to be coming from a point halfway between the front left speaker and the center speaker, that imaging will be all screwed up if those two speakers don't sound the same (at least as much as possible considering room placement). Our brains use all sorts of cues to tell which direction sound is coming from, and it's going to mess all that up if we can't hear the cues that tell us whether our narrator is standing in the front left corner or the front center because the speakers are so different that they muddle them up. (Theoretically, this would be true for all the speakers, but very little important stuff happens in the back.)

Of course, our brains treat what we SEE as an "overwhelming cue", so we tend to "hear" the narrator "talking from" wherever we see him on the screen no matter what - but, if we're assuming any of this matters, then we might as well aim to get it as right as possible.

[melm]

Jun 8, 2015 9:56:36 GMT -5 DYohn said:

Jun 8, 2015 9:30:40 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

I only say that the "manufacturer recommended" center has, in my experience, NOT always been the best match.

This is mostly true for low to mid-tier commercial systems designed more for aesthetic appeal than for sonic performance. But even with these, as long as they are properly set up the results are usually better than using a cc loudspeaker that is totally unrelated to the mains. And it is certainly better than a "phantom" CC (which is a psychoacoustic effect created by digital phase and timing manipulation and can sound really odd with some processors.) I have never heard a phantom setup that was successful.

That's my situation exactly. Hardly ever more than 4 people in my listening room and I've checked each position. It's solid everywhere. So,for me, in my situation, problem solved with no expense.

Centered voices are clear, and anchored to the correct position. For others, with different configurations, some other approach may be needed. But I think having a smooth frequency response is really important and this solution accomplished that from multiple locations.

Mel

[Deleted]

how are we missing the point? pretty sure everything you just posted has been mentioned by all of the responses combined?