3.1 Hi-Fi Sound; How do I achieve it?

[Undesirable]

Hello, I already have Dali Zensor 1 speakers, which only just about fit on my shelf (depth-wise), so I can't really get anything bigger; which rules out most other more expensive audiophile speakers. Underneath my rather modest desk also sits an SVS SB-1000 subwoofer. I do not use a receiver at the moment, because I couldn't afford one at the time, so I'm running on an Amptastic Mini-T TA2020 (the original version) because I heard good things about it, it's cheap and isn't affected by all the electronics you would get in a cheap A/V reciever.

The only way I can think to enhance my experience further is to purchase a middle speaker for 3.1 sound, because I don't have the space or inclination to go full 5 or 7.1 channel at the moment . Now my only concerns are:

1) If I hook it up with my current setup, I'd have to buy another amp, split the sound coming from the source RCA input so that they go to both amps. On the middle speaker amp RCA input, I'd have to have a stereo-to-mono adapter because there's likely only 1 channel's worth of speaker wire connectors on that middle speaker. Then the middle speaker would be outputting mono sound with a separate amp to the main speakers, which would still be normal stereo. However, then I will have messed up the sound-stage, wouldn't I?

2) If I purchase a proper A/V receiver to do the job for me, my current amp would then go unused, but then I'm guessing the sound quality would be affected because, to output in 3.1 sound, I'd wouldn't be able to use PURE DIRECT mode. I'd have to enable a dreaded Dolby Surround mode to create a proper sound field spread between the speakers. Isn't Dolby Surround lossy?

Please advise if you can think of a better way of wiring this all up, or whether I should even bother trying in the first place.

 

[Laurens_B]

Of course you cannot use pure direct mode, because pure direct is two channels. If you want to split your RCA channel from stereo amp, you have to downmix the left/right as you rightly point out. This is exactly what an AV receiver can do correctly, with the all channel stereo mode. I would definately settle on an AV receiver in your case. Don't worry about worse sound quality or something. What is the budget, if you would sell your current amp?

 

[Undesirable]

I'm not sure on the budget, whatever it takes get the job done and still have audiophile sound where possible. I'm guessing the more you splash on a receiver, the more channels, higher wattage per channel and more A/V connectors you get, rather than simply wattage and sound quality as with a hi-fi amplilfier. The thing I'm mostly worried about is that if I enable a Dolby Pro-Logic mode, which is apparently required to output stereo music to more than 2 channels, Pro-Logic may be optimized for 4 or more channels rather than just 3, so I'm wondering if some sound is being lost by only using 3 speakers. In addition to that, I believe Dolby encoding is lossy and the extra circuitry is in use when enabled, so perhaps all this isn't worth it?

 

[ID.]

Sounds undesirable to me.

I can understand maybe for movies because the multichannel mix predominantly puts dialogue through the center speaker. It Also means that multiple people sitting in different positions can all have the dialogue centered on the screen rather than by the relatively limited "sweet spot" that you get with stereo. If this is what you want then you need a receiver or something doing the processing and sending the right channels to the right speakers. You aren't going to be able to jury-rig yourself up a proper 3.1 setup.

Unless you are talking about a setup for listening to music,

Home cinema section that wayy ----> http://www.whathifi.com/forums/home-cinema

 

[steve_1979]

Why would you want to use three speakers when music is recorded in stereo?

 

[spiny norman]

Why would you want to use three speakers when music is recorded in stereo?

You do realise that 'stereo' doesn't actually mean 'two-channel', don't you?

 

[spiny norman]

The accursed double-post strikes again! ;-)

 

[steve_1979]

Why would you want to use three speakers when music is recorded in stereo?

You do realise that 'stereo' doesn't actually mean 'two-channel', don't you?

True stereo technically means an illusion of multi-direction sound using two or more speakers (thanks Wikipedia).

But almost all music is recorded using only two channels which is obviously the point being made here.

 

[spiny norman]

Spiny mate, are you being deliberately obtuse friend? Ha

No, not being obtuse at all: the addition of a centre channel, fed with a mix of the left and right channels, can do an excellent job of firming up the stereo image, and in fact it's only through reasons of convenience and cost-cutting that two channels, not three, were settled on as the usual means of stereo reproduction back in the mists of time. Well, that and the fact that LPs struggled to contain anything more than two channels of audio, as later became clear when Quadraphonic releases were tried.

A three-channel system is much less fussy when it comes to the placement of speakers to create a solid image, and there are some remarkable RCA Living Stereo three-channel recordings available as SACD re-releases. These were originally downmixed for LP release, but in the SACD releases the third channel is revealed through suitable equipment, and very effective it is too.

More recently this has been acknowledged in technology such as Meridian's Trifield Stereo mode, available via its processors and digital speakers: something very similar can be achieved by summing the left and right channels into a third amp and speaker, though this involves a bit of fiddling with making up custom cables, or judicious use of Y-adapters between source and amplifiers.

For example, you could use Y-adapters on the left and right outputs from the source, with one 'leg' on each channel feeding the appropriate speaker, and the other commoned together using another Y-adapter into a single feed for the 'centre channel' amp. I've tried it, and it can be extraordinarily effective.

All you need is three of these and approriate interconnects.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

In my experience 2ch music sounds best as 2ch. Its mixed that way. The centre and surrounds create artificial effects which are to my ears unpleasant. Only my opinion and others may find differently.

 

[ID.]

Spiny mate, are you being deliberately obtuse friend? Ha

No, not being obtuse at all: the addition of a centre channel, fed with a mix of the left and right channels, can do an excellent job of firming up the stereo image, and in fact it's only through reasons of convenience and cost-cutting that two channels, not three, were settled on as the usual means of stereo reproduction back in the mists of time. Well, that and the fact that LPs struggled to contain anything more than two channels of audio, as later became clear when Quadraphonic releases were tried.

A three-channel system is much less fussy when it comes to the placement of speakers to create a solid image, and there are some remarkable RCA Living Stereo three-channel recordings available as SACD re-releases. These were originally downmixed for LP release, but in the SACD releases the third channel is revealed through suitable equipment, and very effective it is too.

More recently this has been acknowledged in technology such as Meridian's Trifield Stereo mode, available via its processors and digital speakers: something very similar can be achieved by summing the left and right channels into a third amp and speaker, though this involves a bit of fiddling with making up custom cables, or judicious use of Y-adapters between source and amplifiers.

For example, you could use Y-adapters on the left and right outputs from the source, with one 'leg' on each channel feeding the appropriate speaker, and the other commoned together using another Y-adapter into a single feed for the 'centre channel' amp. I've tried it, and it can be extraordinarily effective.

All you need is three of these and approriate interconnects.

interesting. I learn something new every day. And to think I'd almost completely given up on the forum.

 

[ellisdj]

The main benefit of using an avr or meridian processor for this type of setup is the level matching facility.

Dont know how you would do this successfuly without it - the speaker closest to the listener probably the center will likely be louder.

Meridian has lots of options for trifield - it does work but its not for me

 

[Leeps]

In my experience 2ch music sounds best as 2ch. Its mixed that way. The centre and surrounds create artificial effects which are to my ears unpleasant. Only my opinion and others may find differently.

My experience with using more than 2 speakers for 2-channel sources depends very much on precisely how it's implemented.

I've heard Dolby Prologic attempting to create a true surround effect (with different parts of the mix coming from different speakers) and it sounds truly awful: muddy, lacking in detail clarity and timing. Really worth avoiding.

On the other hand, I've used Extended Stereo on my AVR with very good results, although its success has depended on the particular qualities of the speakers being used.

Extended Stereo's best implementation was when I had the Monitor Audio Radius R270HD floorstander fronts with R250HD centre, R90HD rears and sub. I used the app to alter the fader half way in favour of the front speakers. The effect didn't draw unnatural attention to itself, but it simply made the soundstage enormous.

It was wonderful with some of my jazz favourites especially as it would really give a beautiful jazz club type ambience to the music. This was in 5.1 configuration though rather than the OP's suggested 3.1. In the main I'd agree with most of the above comments and stick to 2 speakers, but if it's done well with the right speakers (all my Radius speakers had identical tweeters and drivers which I think helped), then it can work well.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Excellent suggestions by Spiny Norman.

An AV receiver is definitely the way to go.

It'll drive your stereo speakers and with a dedicated centre enhance the 'stereo image' by adding weight and centralizing vocals or solo instruments and giving real 'pop' in a stereo mix.

Plus the option to expand to 5.1 or 7.1 stereo - some swear by this feature.

The only real issue you may have is the distance between your stereo speakers. You may not appreciate the difference a centre speaker could make if they're relatively close to each other.

The y-connectors are a great idea if you only have a 2channel amp.

Good work Norman.... :good:

 

[steve_1979]

Using 3 speakers for 2 channel audio is a stupid idea. Don't do it. No matter what price point you look at it's always 2 speakers* and there's a good reason for this - 2 speakers are what work best with music recorded using 2 channels of audio.

The only reason for using 3 speakers that I can think of is with movies that are decoded from 5.1 to 3.0 to keep the dialog pinned to the screen no matter where you sit. This would be pointless wouldn't work with with audio that's recorded in 2.0 though.

* with the exception of 2.1 for the bass or full surround sound which usually has 5.1 or more speakers.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Using 3 speakers for 2 channel audio is a stupid idea. Don't do it.  No matter what price point you look at it's always 2 speakers* and there's a good reason for this - 2 speakers are what work best with music recorded using 2 channels of audio.

The only reason for using 3 speakers that I can think of is with movies that are decoded from 5.1 to 3.0 to keep the dialog pinned to the screen no matter where you sit. This would be pointless wouldn't work with with audio that's recorded in 2.0 though.

?

* with the exception of 2.1 for the bass or full surround sound which usually has 5.1 or more speakers.

Now you're just being ignorant...... :-D

Listen to a stereo image - the vocals for example are mono and will appear in a central position in the soundstage between the speakers.
The 2 speakers create a virtual centre speaker so to speak..

A centre speaker just reinforces that central image in a 3.1 set up.

It will not affect left and right channel information/effects.

And will not affect the soundstage negatively.

It's like 7.1 over 5.1.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Using 3 speakers for 2 channel audio is a stupid idea. Don't do it. No matter what price point you look at it's always 2 speakers* and there's a good reason for this - 2 speakers are what work best with music recorded using 2 channels of audio.

The only reason for using 3 speakers that I can think of is with movies that are decoded from 5.1 to 3.0 to keep the dialog pinned to the screen no matter where you sit. This would be pointless wouldn't work with with audio that's recorded in 2.0 though.

* with the exception of 2.1 for the bass or full surround sound which usually has 5.1 or more speakers.

Now you're just being ignorant...... :-D

Listen to a stereo image - the vocals for example are mono and will appear in a central position in the soundstage between the speakers. The 2 speakers create a virtual centre speaker so to speak..

A centre speaker just reinforces that central image in a 3.1 set up.

It will not affect left and right channel information/effects.

And will not affect the soundstage negatively.

It's like 7.1 over 5.1.

A agree Steve (except my last post got lost in the ether). I dislike most processing options (except 5.1 SACD clearly different). It may depend on kit, room & preferremces but for me the least processing the better.

I believe Thompson to be mistaken. Vocals are not mono - depends on mix - unless u consider every single microphone as mono - which they are.

To suggest the centre ONLY gives a mono vocal and does not effect fronts is odd. Certainly the centre will give some of the L/R signal - since that's all its given. And how about a full orchestra - where is the mono vocal? I recon a system with good soundstage setup operates much better than a L/C/R setup for which the recording mix was never designed.

I don't like 'being ignorant' as an excuse for discussion.

 

[ID.]

Now you're just being ignorant...... :-D

Listen to a stereo image - the vocals for example are mono and will appear in a central position in the soundstage between the speakers.

The master never fails to deliver.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

Little real knowledge here - just a little more experience. Googled stereo mono mix things and quite interesting. Whilst not fully understanding much of it my summary, within the criteria of this post, is that music is mixed with both stereo and mono files. There can be a whole host of mixing tricks then to widen the stage, position certain sounds etc. However, this is all done to make the final mix best for a 2ch output. Speakers or headphones. MP3 or high Res. Who knows how the mixer will mix. But - always for the best stereo sound (in their opinion). An extra centre speaker is always gonna screw that designed sound. For good or bad? Up to you the listener.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Robin - a pair of speakers can mimic a mono image. The image coming from a single point. Equal output from L/R in the mix.

Backing vocals can be left or right of the 'mono' image purely by adjusting the levels of L/R in the mix.

Listen to an image test that sweeps from left to right.

An AVamp will do its work - that's what it does in a 5.1 set up.

In the same way has a musicians placing in an orchestra some instruments are more central than others.

A centre works in the same way a sub will in that it enhances bass if set correctly. And is mono.

Not sure how you guys have your systems set or how they image or why you'd think a centre speaker will mess up a stereo image.

But try it, you have a full size system, surprised you come to your conclusion.

Oh - don't be like that, I'm not saying he or anyone is ignorant in a negative way - we been on here long enough..... c'mon.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

In my ignorance I googled the mix 'thing'. Its far more complex than your beginners lesson suggests. However, if it works for you then great. It doesn't work for me - I almost always choose the least possible processing - Pure Direct in my case gives by far the best sq. I have tried 3.1, 5.1 etc with several DSL options but they don't suit my amp, room, speakers, ears. They may well suit you and the OP.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Now you're just being ignorant...... :-D

Listen to a stereo image - the vocals for example are mono and will appear in a central position in the soundstage between the speakers. 

The master never fails to deliver.

You need to clarify what your gripe with that statement is....lol.

 

[chebby]

Listen to a stereo image - the vocals for example are mono and will appear in a central position in the soundstage between the speakers.

Not in my experience. Voices move around depending on where the people are speaking from. A well recorded BBC drama with a mixture of environments (large rooms, small rooms, car interiors, open-air in town, open-air in the countryside etc.) place actors all over the soundstage. It's easily heard if your speakers are positioned properly - and ambient noise is low - even more pronounced through my headphones where it seems sounds - including voices - can even emerge from above and below too.

 

[spiny norman]

As an added nicety to the Y-adapter system I tried above, you could try adding an attenuator to the feed to the power amp driving the 'third speaker', or even better a potentiometer allowing you to adjust its level (unless the amp feeding it has its own volume control). Whenever I've played with the whole 'three-speaker stereo' thing, I've found it useful to be able to reduce the level of the centre speaker a little relative to the left and right, so it reinforces the sense of soundstage solidity rather than dominating matters.

And just to respond to the naysayers, yes it's possible to get a good solid stereo image from the right speakers in the right positions in the right room, but most domestic listening rooms are far from ideal, so however much you faff with positioning it can be hard to achieve, not to mention that the stereo effect only tends to work in a fairly narrow 'sweet spot' listening position. The third speaker idea can firm up the stereo image, and also keeps it over a much wider listening area.

Yes, of course it's an illusion, and all about fooling your ears, but then so is stereo!

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Listen to a stereo image - the vocals for example are mono and will appear in a central position in the soundstage between the speakers.

Not in my experience. Voices move around depending on where the people are speaking from. A well recorded BBC drama with a mixture of environments (large rooms, small rooms, car interiors, open-air in town, open-air in the countryside etc.) place actors all over the soundstage. It's easily heard if your speakers are positioned properly - and ambient noise is low - even more pronounced through my headphones where it seems sounds - including voices - can even emerge from above and below too.

 

I cannot argue with you, my set does the same thing with that type of material.

But take Toni Braxton, SeasickSteve, Bilal, Ray Lamontagne....centre stage.

Colltrane, Armstrong, Davis slap bang centre in the soundstage unless mixed other wise.