The Two Channel Illusion

[mep]

I was thinking about the two-channel illusion last night when I was listening to my system. Some of us have noticed some people bemoaning the fact there is no center channel and yet others find they feel like they do have a phantom center channel because the sound coming from between the two speakers is so powerful and palpable that you would swear there is a center channel. That’s the camp I’m in, but then I happen to like my system and I like two-channel audio.

It only stands to reason that the better your system is, the better the illusion you conjure up in your room will be. Conversely, the worse the system is, the more the illusion suffers and your unhappiness increases exponentially.

So for those that don’t think they have a solid phantom center channel, I think their system may not be up to the task of pulling off a really good illusion. This could easily lead to teeth gnashing and erroneous conclusions about what two-channel audio is capable of pulling off.

[DonH50]

My understanding is much of the early recordings were three-channel so the center hole is not a new issue...

I think the center image has more to do with speaker placement relative to the listener and room interaction than the quality of the system itself, at least over some moderate threshold. I have had several people put their ear to my center speaker on stereo material to convince themselves it was not on and mine is not a high-end system.

An interesting sidebar might be to discuss what you have done to create the illusion so that others might benefit. In my case, it is room treatment and much fiddling with speaker placement.

[puroagave]

the room/speaker interaction plays a big role. my curent speakers beam like a sombitch and consequently have a very strong phantom centerfill, holographic image and good width outside the speaker positions, i have no room treatments save for a vaulted ceiling that does wonders. the converse of that are speakers with broad dispersion characteristics with strong reflections first bouncing off walls rather than hitting the listeners ears. looking through owner galleries here and on a'gon, most rooms have little to no acoustic treatments - this with megabuck systems, a waste imo.

[mep]

An interesting sidebar might be to discuss what you have done to create the illusion so that others might benefit. In my case, it is room treatment and much fiddling with speaker placement.

Don-I don't think there is any magic associated with getting strong center fill. I'm sure most people have it unless they pull their speakers too far apart from each other. I do think it would be interesting to hear the systems of those who complain about the lack of a center channel speaker.

[Bruce B]

I think anyone can have a strong center fill. All it requires is proper speaker positioning and toe-in.

I have several 3-track tape masters and have found the center track always to be too hot.

[andromedaaudio]

Maybe that could be solved by placing the 2 speakers wider apart lets say 5 , 6 meters and play (measure ) with the center until you have the right spot .
You could then get maybe the "wall of sound " , the full orchestra in front of the listener ??

[FrantzM]

Hi

There are many topics in this thread and they deserve to be discussed. I could be wrong but I see the following for now:

Speaker positioning and center fill
Physical Center Chanel vs. Phantom Center Channel
2-Ch versus MC (This one lightly veiled )

I will start with 3 we'll debate some more anyway ...

I am a 2-Ch person. I had at one point about 3 years ago two systems separated in different room. One 2-Ch and one MC/HT. The bulk of the money and care was on the 2-Ch. The MC was for Movies and the (really rare) Multi Channel. The HT was more than decent with Krell HT gear and Dynaudio speakers. In all this time I listened mostly to the 2-ch. let me put it in a better way. I listened to music in 2-ch and watched movies in the HT... Yet ... it dawned to me then and still now that with the proper software (music that is) and system a MC system will provide a better sense of realism than a 2-ch. it is to me clear simple and definitive. Not a "ummm" , not a"maybe" , simple: MC trumps 2C... The software that I found were far and few. I can remember one particular SACD I had of two pieces I looooove: Saint Saens Symphony #3 , it also has the Poulenc "Organ" Symphony and people this an extraordinary realistic SACD

'It is funny that I was listening to it this morning on Headphones thus in 2-ch and headphones cannot begin to reproduce this kind of music .. NOT AT ALL ( I had to shout) .. There were also some operas and there were an SACD of the Mahler Symphony #2t even begin to remember them There was an Opera which I think was spectacular and there were some SACD from Sony I can't fully remember but even with the inferior the HT system you could tell there was something special about MC... The Organ symphony was the most realistic I have heard .. I could nitpick the conducting but the overall record was superb...
At the same time the industry of music has thought and continue to think in term of 2 channels.. The vast majority or if we want to be more precise 99.999% of music recorded is recorded in 2-ch. I am foremost interested in music and what I find and buy is in two channel.. I don't look much into MC when I buy to tell you the truth so 2-Ch it has remained for me.
There is another issue that seems to me to be a problem in MC: Speaker Positioning. There is a nice ITU placement with speakers at a nice angle surrounding the listener. I have always wondered if this type of placement is realistic. Anyone who has fought with only two speakers in a room to find the best placement can imagine what it must become with 5 or more .. How do they interact.. Where... How high how far.. How does one optimize placement in MC? What are the tricks ? Rules? semi-rules? What do we look for ? How does it work tonally?
Then there is the issue of finances... Suddenly if you go MC you have to think in multiples of your favorites piece of gear so if you're into monoblocks.. you will have 5 to contend with ... plus of course if you're in cables that’s more cables too and more Power too and more of everything it quickly becomes a money sink in my view ... Meanwhile my favorite piece of music are not in MC so MC is not a given but when well executed it is superior to 2-Channel.. I will end this part of my post by saying this which for us 2-ch people is hard to accept: it ought to be better. in real life sounds really comes from all around us including and especially in a concert hall... What we are doing in 2-ch is a mimicry of the real sound hoping that our room will fill in for what comes from around us.

More later guys I will address (maybe eh eh eh eh ) pointa 1 and 2.


Oh! and before this gets lost in my long post. I am a fervent2-ch person . Adding a little pedantry to this: Stereo does not mean 2-ch. In the beginning stereo meant at least 3. When it was originally conceived they knew (at Bell Labs) that they needed more than 2 channels . The technology of the time could not accommodate more than 3 so they went with three ... And in fact the etymology of the word suggest all around sound ... so I will not use the term "stereo" in my posts/essays

[Bruce B]

Maybe that could be solved by placing the 2 speakers wider apart lets say 5 , 6 meters and play (measure ) with the center until you have the right spot .
You could then get maybe the "wall of sound " , the full orchestra in front of the listener ??

I just decrease the "center channel" volume!

[Kal Rubinson]

Hi

There are many topics in this thread and they deserve to be discussed. I could be wrong but I see the following for now:

Speaker positioning and center fill
Physical Center Chanel vs. Phantom Center Channel
2-Ch versus MC (This one lightly veiled )

I will start with 3 we'll debate some more anyway ...

I am a 2-Ch person.
.................................................. .......................................
Oh! and before this gets lost in my long post. I am a fervent2-ch person . Adding a little pedantry to this: Stereo does not mean 2-ch. In the beginning stereo meant at least 3. When it was originally conceived they knew (at Bell Labs) that they needed more than 2 channels . The technology of the time could not accommodate more than 3 so they went with three ... And in fact the etymology of the word suggest all around sound ... so I will not use the term "stereo" in my posts/essays

Well, you know where I stand but I do not scream out for a physical (derived) center with any decent 2channel recording as the "phantom" center is fine. Stereo works. I would only demand a physical center if there is a discrete center signal. Multichannel is yet another thing.

[Kal Rubinson]

So for those that don’t think they have a solid phantom center channel, I think their system may not be up to the task of pulling off a really good illusion. This could easily lead to teeth gnashing and erroneous conclusions about what two-channel audio is capable of pulling off.

Of course. Is this up for argument?