How important is a centre speaker to you?

[admin_exported]

I got rid of mine about 18 months ago along with the rears, and i've been happily enjoying TV/Movies in stereo, i don't have a sub either though would have if i could afford the ADM one. For me, 2.1 is fine and i don't miss the centre at all, or the rears.

What do you guys think? Is a centre speaker essential for you? Or not?

Thanks..

 

[CnoEvil]

The answer may depend how important music is in the equation. If AV is the big priority, then surround sound is important.

In my case, I would rather have a quality 2.1 than a mediocre 5/6/7.1

 

[daveh75]

Depends how important m/c audio is to you, and to me it is important, as is a sub.

Without them you're simply missing info... anything else is a compromise.

 

[Frank Harvey]

A centre is a must for those systems that will be viewed by more than one person in order for the dialogue (as well as sound effects) to be anchored to the screen. In a two channel system, sit off to the left and dialogue will come from the left speaker. Unless two people can occupy exactly the same central space, sounds that have been engineered to be placed dead centre won't come from the centre for one, or both people, depending on the seating arrangement.

Even my KEF's, which have excellent off axis performance, can't recreate a dead central image when the listener is off centre, althoughh they do a better job than most. This is where a dedicated centre comes in.

The dialogue level isn't consistently mixed regarding level in all movies. Some will lose the dialogue a little during action scenes, and some films the dialogue will be slightly higher or lower than it needs to be. This is where a discreet centre channel will come into its own - not only can the level be adjusted to suit the film, but it can also be suited to suit the user's preference - some prefer the sound to be more biased towards the screen, where, after all, the sound should be coming from. For me, I could never own a system without a centre channel.

 

[daveh75]

I would rather have a quality 2.1 than a mediocre 5/6/7.1

It's possible to do quality 2.1 and 5/6/7.1 (without using seperate systems or trying to combine A/V and stereo amps...)

 

[CnoEvil]

I would rather have a quality 2.1 than a mediocre 5/6/7.1

It's possible to do both (without using seperate systems or trying to combine A/V and stereo amps...)

That's exactly what I do......I was really talking about where funds are limited and compromises have to be made.

Edit. If the above statement sounds a little arrogant, it's not meant to.

 

[Paul.]

Switching from a low/mid marantz 2 channel to a mid/high Onkyo av (using same speakers) I lost mayby 10 percent for music but gained 200 percent for movies in my opinion. I won't own a dedicated two channel setup again untill I can afford a bigger house with a cinema room to move my AV setup in to

 

[John Duncan]

Well since 70% of the soundtrack is the centre, I guess doing without it is less accurate.

 

[bigboss]

Well since 70% of the soundtrack is the centre, I guess doing without it is less accurate.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Depends how important m/c audio is to you, and to me it is important, as is a sub.

Without them you're simply missing info... anything else is a compromise.

Snap

 

[bigboss]

Depends how important m/c audio is to you, and to me it is important, as is a sub.

Without them you're simply missing info... anything else is a compromise.

I agree. For me, the sub is the most important component of a home cinema system, followed by the centre speaker. Nothing can really replicate the centre speaker for dialogue delivery as effectively.

The other day, I had to switch the sub off when some friends came over, as their baby was getting irritable, to watch a film (The Lion King). I had watched the movie before, & it just sounded lifeless to me without the sub. I was surprised what a massive difference a sub can make!

 

[AlmaataKZ]

For movies there is a lot of sound content (I have seen 60-70% quoted) in the centre channel so for me having the centre speaker and it being high quality is very important.

Equally, in 5.1 music e.g. 'Later' or bluray concerts the centre channel is very important.

Using a 'phantom' centre is too much of a compromise IMO.

But I would not have it in 3.1 - 5.1 is the minimum worth going for if going multichannel.

 

[fr0g]

For the moment I am doing without because it's a little big.

Observations... 1. I need the volume much higher overall to catch everything that's said.

2.Even then, it isn't as clear

3.Moving to the side sofa makes the voices lop-sided.

A centre speaker is the MOST important speaker in a good HC system imo. The booms and bangs from the sub come second IMO.

Lastly, I don't buy the need to have a matching centre speaker. A good one, yes, but I have used different mixes of brands and can say I have never noticed a problem (so long as you set up all the volumes correctly)

Also I would far rather have 3.1 than 4.1 ( main and centre with sub v no centre with surround and sub)

 

[Big Chris]

All I know is, if I had no choice but to get rid of all the kit from either the A/V or Hi-Fi list in my sig (TV aside), it'd be the A/V gear which would be going.

I'd miss it sure, but not as much as I'd miss my Hi-Fi and I think the Hi-Fi would make a better fist of movies/TV than the A/V stuff would with my CDs.

 

[toyota man]

Hi Big Cris +1 on that one Hi fi wins every time:cheers:

 

[Paul.]

All I know is, if I had no choice but to get rid of all the kit from either the A/V or Hi-Fi list in my sig (TV aside), it'd be the A/V gear which would be going.

I'd miss it sure, but not as much as I'd miss my Hi-Fi and I think the Hi-Fi would make a better fist of movies/TV than the A/V stuff would with my CDs.

Have you tried the S3's with your 875 on pure audio mode? Would be curious if it got anywhere close to your arcam setup?

 

[Frank Harvey]

Also I would far rather have 3.1 than 4.1 ( main and centre with sub v no centre with surround and sub)

Agreed.

 

[Frank Harvey]

All I know is, if I had no choice but to get rid of all the kit from either the A/V or Hi-Fi list in my sig (TV aside), it'd be the A/V gear which would be going.

Thats a fair point Chris, but it's an answer to a different question than the OP asked. I'm sure there are many people that would give up their AV system before their hi-fi system, purely because they value music more. With that aside, would you give up your centre from your AV system?

 

[Big Chris]

All I know is, if I had no choice but to get rid of all the kit from either the A/V or Hi-Fi list in my sig (TV aside), it'd be the A/V gear which would be going.

I'd miss it sure, but not as much as I'd miss my Hi-Fi and I think the Hi-Fi would make a better fist of movies/TV than the A/V stuff would with my CDs.

Have you tried the S3's with your 875 on pure audio mode? Would be curious if it got anywhere close to your arcam setup?

Never have tried it. I had the Hi-Fi (or rather the original components of the Hi-Fi) before I bought the Onkyo/MT30 stuff.

 

[Big Chris]

All I know is, if I had no choice but to get rid of all the kit from either the A/V or Hi-Fi list in my sig (TV aside), it'd be the A/V gear which would be going.

Thats a fair point Chris, but it's an answer to a different question than the OP asked. I'm sure there are many people that would give up their AV system before their hi-fi system, purely because they value music more. With that aside, would you give up your centre from your AV system?

Yeah, I know it's a slight tangent, but in the body of his post he also talks about losing his rears, basically binning surround sound altogether.

I don't think I'd bin the centre alone. It'd be 5.1 minimum or back to stereo, with or without a sub but preferably with.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Lastly, I don't buy the need to have a matching centre speaker. A good one, yes, but I have used different mixes of brands and can say I have never noticed a problem (so long as you set up all the volumes correctly)

That may be because centres sound fdifferent to front left and right speakers. Their driver layout (even if it's the same as the front left and right) is turned through 90 degrees, changing dispersion characteristics and sometimes tonal balance. Their smaller cabinet (in relation to the front left and right) usually means they don't sound as full, usually sounding thinner than the front left and right. Mix that with different dispersion characteristics and you've then got a speaker that sounds quite different to the rest. In cases like this, using a different manufacturer's centre speaker isn't too different, which is why you may have never really noticed much of a difference. A well designed centre will match far better.

But the biggest difference is to use the same speaker as the left and right as a centre, for which there are many benefits. Firstly, the cabinet volume is the same, so timbre and tone match. Secondly, the drivers are exactly the same, and utilise the same layout, preserving dispersion characteristics. Thirdly, the upright (rather than sideways) nature of this "exactly matching" centre also preserves dispersion characteristics, and produces an exactly matching front soundfield - a "wall of sound", if you wish. Fourthly, any limitations or shortcomings of the speakers in use are equal, rather than adding in a centre that may bring it's own, unique shortcomings, which will only add to the differences between the front three speakers.

Obviously, in most cases this would make things very awkward or impossible for those using floor standing speaker's for front left and right, but those who use satellite speakers or standmounts (essentially better for home cinema anyway) its a feasible possibility.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Yeah, I know it's a slight tangent, but in the body of his post he also talks about losing his rears, basically binning surround sound altogether.

I don't think I'd bin the centre alone. It'd be 5.1 minimum or back to stereo, with or without a sub but preferably with.

I too would rather lose my rear speakers than my centre. For me, no centre, no system. Anyone with an AV system can switch to stereo and instantly hear how dialogue lacks compared to using the centre.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree that for the most immersive movie experience, a good quality 5.1 (or more) setup is the way to go, and anything less is a compromise.

But, many want high quality stereo sound for listening to music too, this is fine if you've got lots of money as you can have it all, but if for example, one has a pair of Dynaudio Excite X16s and a powerful amp like a CA850, and wants to complete the set for movies, then you'd need a Dynaudio exite centre and rears (if matching is as important as some say), a good quality sub (perhaps Dynaudio) and a good quality AV receiver.

That's going to cost quite a considerable amount of money, probably more than double the initial outlay for the amp and speakers, and you're going to have to accomodate it all, more boxes, leads, cables, speakers etc.

So, while not having a 5.1 system is a compromise, it's one I expect many will make, as it means that if one is limited in what they can spend, they can have higher quality stereo sound whilst still having very good quality and enjoyable movie audio, with less clutter and boxes to boot. And that's a smarter compromise IMO.

I'll get the AVI sub one day though, movies will definitely be better with that

 

[shafesk]

As Frank has said, a center channel is very important to me as well. Precisely because it helps stereo imaging by making the dialogue appear in the center, I often watch movie with a lot of people so I don't enjoy it with a stereo setup because I'm the only one in the sweet spot. Sometimes I wish hi-fi had a center channel as well for the same reasons. Unfortunately, good centers are hard to find imho, I find them way to midrange-y.

 

[steve_1979]

How important is a centre speaker to you?

When I used to use 5.1 speakers for gaming on my PC I didn't like the centre speaker because I could hear that the source of the sound coming from above the monitor. For near field use at a computer 4.1 sounds better than 5.1 because you're always sitting in the sweet spot for the stereo image so the sound comes from the centre of the screen instead of from above or below it.

When using surround sound in a typical mid-field home cinema setup 5.1 sounds better than 4.1 because the centre speaker keeps the dialogue pinned to the screen no matter where you're sitting in the room.