have spent countless hours moving my speakers closer, further, apart to each other, or to my listening position. my center channel and soundstage is amazing. Unless the recording is really bad, my open baffle speakers seem to always disappear. the music always comes from behind them. If i want to take it to the extreme, i turn off all the lights and put on my eye mask to block out any ambient light. It usually takes less than a minuet for your brain to realize there are no speakers in your sight now. Nothing to distract you from the sound your hearing. If you haven’t tried this ,you don’t know what your missing. It’s a total immersive experience if you already have a well laid out system. And it’s free
Just getting back into the hobby after 35 years. I have a 16x24 foot Dutch style loft I'm setting up. I don't have the equipment yet to take measurements so I'm just earballing it. I'm running two Klispch RP500M bookshelves with two used dirt cheap 4 ohm 6.5" home theatre subwoofers off of a Fosi BT30 amp which is an incredible device for $80. Clean sound, good power, bluetooth and can run powered and passive subs! I wanted bigger sound so I mounted a 4 ohm Dayton Audio exciter to a 1" thick 10" diameter foam insulation board circle I cut and suspended inside a 12" diameter 48" long concrete form cardboard tube using springs . I put a foam board baffle in the back so it's closed. The result sounds AMAZING! Very vibrant and punchy of course but it was warmth that surprised me the most . I'm pretty sure the tube, which barely vibrates itself because of dual tube and soundboard suspension, is picking up the other speaker frequencies around it and focusing them. I'm guessing that is the magic ingredient. I'm I've never heard anything quite like it before. It's not really a third channel and I don't look at it as such. It's really a sweetener and focal point. It can get too harsh on certain recordings. On others it just lights up the room. I'm going to try adding a flat DML center panel and making a second tube speaker and just running those with the subs. By the way, I'm getting significant amount of base from the exciter/foam speakers, something most say is impossible.
@@musicman8270 I built a speaker years ago, If I remember right it was called a Jenson design maybe, It took 3 sheets of plywood. the top was a horn and buried inside was a 15" woofer. I kept in my wood shop 25x70, an old Grange hall. It was mono but it filled my shop like a live band
Hey Paul, three channel sound has already been tried. Living Stereo reissued a number of three channel recordings from the late 50’s/early 60’s on SACD in the early 2000’s. They sound astonishing through the front three channels of a 5.1 system.
There are excellent 3 channel recordings available that where made in the 1950's. I'm referring to the RCA "Living Stereo" recordings that are now available on SACD. RCA originally recorded the music in 3 channel (left, center, right) and "downmixed" the master to traditional 2 channel for the vinyl pressing. Back in the 50's there were many who thought 3 channel would eventually replace 2 channel. So, RCA wanted to have a 3 channel master - just in case. The SACD includes the original 3 track recording and the stereo recording. Both versions have been remastered for the SACD. I highly recommend them. Obviously you have to listen to the 3 channel files through a home theater setup rather than a normal stereo amp.
There were a number of movies made in the 50's that featured discreet multi channel sound The Ten Commandments (1956) www.imdb.com/title/tt0049833 6-Channls on 70mm projection Ben Hur (1959) www.imdb.com/title/tt0052618 6-Channels on 65mm projection
Thanks very much. I'm aware of that good ol' record label if course. but I didn't know that RCA recorded music that way. This is so cool to know and good news for me. I'll pick up an SACD and give it a test drive on my front speakers. I only listen to music seriously in 3-channels anymore. I've been listening this way at home for less than a year & I have little desire to return yo 2 Channel playback. The 3-channel experience is way bigger, bolder & closer to being there. The all- elusive of perception depth is ever present & the music appears to be flowing outwards effortlessly from somewhere deep inside the wall behind the stack of Center Channel Speakers. It's an insanely large and exciting but all to life-like illusion. I did a modest gear upgrade around this listening goal. I picked up 2 used (& now vintage) B&W 702 Center Channel Speakers..that are stack, well isolated from each other. The sound is huge & clear. They sing. OMG. I Highly recommend it. BTW, I have a critical set of music listening ears and I went to music school..In other words, I have a decent understanding of how to make music...how music sounds in a studio and in a live concert hall situation. Hope you enjoy your weekend. Regards, D-
Hey Paul, hello from Kenthurst in Australia. Just to add to the conversation I currently have a 15 year old 5.1 system. Denon Surround Amp with Energy Speakers. The Denon has a switch called the 5 channel stereo which some how uses the centre channel primarily for mid range sound (voice or main instrument) and uses Front Right and Rear Right and Front Left and Rear Left as the Stereo component. It is a very immersive experience as opposed to just stereo. So if your inquirer wanted to experiment Denon already have a solution out of the box. I know it's not at the high end of town but it works. Love your Utube input and look forward to the videos always. Cheers from Australia, Tony
Some vintage stereo preamps DID have a center channel output. I have a Harmon Kardon A500 tube integrated amplifier with an "Ambience" knob that makes a mono sum from the output transformers (post-tone control) to an RCA jack. All you then need is another mono amp and a center speaker. I was afraid that it would just collapse the stereo image like panning the L & R channels to the center (the A500 also has a "Blend" knob that does just that), but instead of narrowing the stereo image, bringing up the gain on the mid channel actually stabilizes the center of the soundstage and gives a virtual sensation that you are hearing vocals & solos from a discrete mid channel! A simple passive summing circuit could accomplish the same function with any stereo system. I also have an SACD player and enjoy listening to new releases of classic 1950's RCA and Mercury recordings in their original three channel format.
Thank you for answering my question. I come from a home theater background and just wanted some informed knowledge. AND, you even said my name correctly. Thanks for the info and the safe space to ask questions.
Paul is a master lesson in humility. This is what gives “safe space”. 2 ears 2 channels. So the best setup audio can create a holographic sound. But perhaps lesser systems could benefit with 3 channel audio.
Lexicon provides through their many DSP (digital signal processing) settings, a setting referred to as Panorama. This DSP setting only utilizes the front 3 speakers referred to as the front stage of any home theater. Lexicon provides these DSP settings for different audio experiences for their customer's and are now all but standard equipment in most AV Receivers. Lexicon DSP is as about as good as DSP gets. Truthfully, audiophile's usually stay away from anything that is not 2 channel. I for one find the Panorama setting very enjoyable. Two channel is always one button press away. With proper 2 channel imaging you can actually gage the distance between instruments (and musician's) on the soundstage itself.
For those interested in 'closing your eyes, to hear it better', try putting your listening room lighting on a remote control dimmer (great easy/cheap upgrade to a light switch, by the way). As you progressively dim the lights, the sound stage actually does become more defined. On a good recording, you should be able to pin point each musician/performer/sound in space. This is a good way to prove it to yourself, and also a nice lighting convenience.
ive been listening this week in Dolby surround 11.2.4.and it sounds perfect.the stage is very wide with huge space between the instruments.the singer is placed usually slap bang in the middle.it seamlessly blends into the r + l speaker. because the surround speakers come back with a hint of surround,to me its even more easy to see a great image.
@@ChiefExecutiveOrbiter over kill!... when we purchase cables for thousands ,appliances for 10's of thousands .a few speakers thrown in the mix doesn't sound so ludicrous
I can heartily recommend Steven Wilsons new album The Future Bites on Blu-Ray disc. He has a Dolby Atmos mix on there which really showcases the potential of the technology. Up till now I have found Atmos music underwhelming but this is utterly immersive. That was in a 7.1.4 system so you should be even better. 5 better.... .
I think that's actually really interesting. Never heard of this before, but will do some online research (as well as go break out my old SACD's and revisit). So anyway thanks for giving me something new to due during these weird times! Be safe!
@@usaturnuranus Analog Productions has made quite a few SACD’s featuring direct 3-channel transfers on their multi-track layer. You can browse 3-channel discs on their site too. Mostly jazz titles and vocal jazz, some classical as well. My personal favorites are Nat King Cole 3-channel, where Nat’s mic gets center channel, but sadly many are out of print now and hard to get. There’s also a 3-channel “Kind of Blue” by Sony from way back, not too hard to find and is fun to listen to. But yeah, they’re great, a cool perk of SACD and I wish it was done more often.
Three channels... Super fiddly. This harkens back to the early days of hifi. When I was a kid getting into the avocation, I took over my father's audio system - Dynaco ST-70, PAS-2, FM-1 tuner with multiplexer, AR-2AX, Rek-O-Kut turntable and arm, Shure M3D cartridge. The Dynaco PAS preamps had a center channel blend control. I didn't mess with this much. Later, getting into better kit, stuff that imaged well, two channels worked great - it actually imaged well (yes, the repetition is intentional to underscore the stark difference in performance from that old set up I mentioned and the later gear). I also played with David Hafler's ambient recover stuff - connecting speakers as Paul described and the Dynaco Quadapter (which was/is a box that kinda does the same thing). This was all about two additional rear channels, not about a center channel. Two channels - of good gear set up well - worked much better and with less work and fewer parts to provide a holographic soundfield in front of the listener.
Several of my vacuum tube HH Scott pieces also have this center channel output (line-level, however). Like you I've never tried it myself. I assume it's "derived" vs. "discrete". Scott documentation states it used for cases in which speakers are placed quite far apart to restore the stereo image where there would otherwise be a "hole-in-the-middle".
SO, . . I am a firm believer that stereo, as good an idea as it is, isn't really much more than a gimmick to make music more interesting, but not something anyone in a live music situation ever pays any attention to. Don't get me wrong, I want stereo, but since when was the "placement" of musicians and their instruments important in live settings? It's really not. Stereo was invented mostly for movies where the screen is two-dimensional, and in that application stereo makes sense. It lets the voice follow the picture on the screen. For true "3D" effects we can easily go to dodecaphonic, but I think the bigger question for audio is, "how many channels does it take to produce a nice room filling effect?" To my way of thinking 2 is not actually enough. 2 can give you a phantom center, but only if you put yourself in the sweet spot, and only if you stay pretty still. That last part is what people really miss. We all unconsciously move our heads a little bit at a time, constantly, so our brains can "locate" things in the room. When those things really are producing sounds from different locations, we get an accurate mental picture of where everything is. When the sound is actually coming out of two points, or two lines in the room, the illusion of multiple sound sources in multiple locations evaporates pretty quickly. So how many does it take to overcome that? If you want the sound to only appear as if it's coming from in front of you, I think 3 is probably enough. If you want to be surrounded, I suppose at least 5, maybe 7 would be enough? Sticking with music, I think it really makes sense to set up 3 channels to achieve a continuous two dimensional line of sound in front of listeners. And here is the cool part - it doesn't have to be 3 truly discreet channels. 3 speakers with a stereo source, left - synthesized center - right, is all we need to vastly expand a sweet spot and help hold that multiple instrument source illusion throughout most of a normal room and overcome the unconscious head movement phenomenon. How do we synthesize the middle channel? It would be only the sounds that both left and right have in common. I don't know exactly how that is achieved electronically, but the idea is relatively simple - L, L&R common, R.
Occasionally I go to the multichannel stereo mode on my Marantz SR7012 AVR and turn off all of the channels except the fronts and the center channel . I turn down gain on the center by around half. This gives you a wider sweet spot when you have multiple people listening. Give it a try. It is easy to change back and forth.
In chapter 7.1.1, of a certain book about loudspeakers, the author discusses how moving slightly from the "sweet spot" when listening to stereo music can compromise the timbre and spatial perception of certain sounds, particularly in scenarios where the stereo phantom center image is dominant. You should read it and decide for yourself. As for the configuration, I see someone already mentioned the Dynaco method that puts the Center speaker in series with the ground return path for both L and R speakers so you only get sound out of the Center for signals that are in phase on L and R speakers (mono.) Just be sure that your amp outputs have common ground.
Ya did not mention that stereo was originally a 3 channel tape recorded proposition which can be enjoyed today via multi-channel SACDs of Living Presence and Living Stereo recordings.
Back in the day, and this shows my age, the Klipchhorn's were in the corner with a Cornwall in the center. That is what Paul W. Klipsch designed the Cornwall for.
Yes, but the entire Klipsch concept was based on reproducing the 3D image over a WIDE stage, like a movie theater. If the stage was greater than 20 feet apart, then you need a Heresy , LaScala, or Cornwall at center stage to provide the imaging for a wide range of seating positions. If you are talking about a "near-field" listening situation (based on dispersion characteristics) you only need two speakers to provide a 3D stereo image. That's why movie theaters utilize from 3 to 6 front channels. They want as many people as possible to hear most of the sounds. Surround channels are just an afterthought, really. And, again, they keep adding more surround channels, but they only are effective in big auditoriums. This is why most 5.1 channel home theater systems are just fine for 99.8% of all "home theaters". "Listening" is definitely a learned skill. But I have a feeling that many so-called "audiophiles" are living in their own minds.
I recently got rid of my center on my home theater setup. My mains are kirksaeter monitors and with a phantom center it sound so much better. The voices match with the people on screen from right to left perfectly its magic . Before I've tried a few centers and they always sounded boxy and most the audio seems to come from them. Now therea a proper soundstage that sound large and encompassing.
There is no substitute for a quality center channel speaker. You gave up and convinced yourself you don't need one. I'm 2 channel all the way unless I'm watching a movie. A dialed in, dedicated dialog speaker is a must in my book. I use a Martin Logan Cinema center and never looked back. Had it for years now. I use an old Lexicon DC2 for processing because of its world class 2 channel processing. It's 3 channel setting called Panorama is also amazing incorporating the front 3 speakers only. Spend some real money on a center channel speaker (with a good return policy) and you will understand my point. Bang for the buck, even with older (non HDMI switching) processors is amazing. I use toslink from a computer to the lexicon processor. My sonic bliss. What I removed was the rear speakers.
Paul at TAD in Chicago had as one of his last products a SS amp the TAD-125 Hibachi looked weird sounded wonderfully like a tube amp when used with a tube Pre. It had RCA in and out so if you had three of them and ran the left and right to the third amp you could make a mono center. Paul at PS is spot on, close your eyes and you could point out the sax player along with everyone else on stage. Due to Covid, I sold my three in March, really sorry I did they are rare as hen's teeth at this point. A lot of recordings sounded great the stand-out is the Beatles Love. this one actually placed musicians behind you. Today I finally replaced them with M700s so far so good but dang it HOW do I make a center with these.LOL
For those fortunate (and old enough) to have visited the 1964 Worlds Fair in NY, the Dupont pavilion featured a catchy tune presented in 3 channel 'stereo'. Wish I could remember all the words. My understanding was that Ampex made 3 channel heads for this show. Not sure of any other details. Anyone out there in Hi Fi land know more?
A lot of early stereo recordings from RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence were made using 3 microphones into 3 channel tape recorders. The problem was they could not get these out over stereo LPs (which were new things in and of themselves at the time) and not that many people had the necessary hardware (tape deck, amplification, and 3 speakers; although a friend recently sent me an old picture of Frank Sinatra's home 3 channel system, further proof of how cool Frank was, thank's Mike). Some of my multichannel SACDs have this option using only the 3 front channels, but my player and system is 2 channel only (wah-wahhh).
First thing to come to my my is medians trifield processing for 3 channel audio. I assume they still do this on current products. Heard they do a half decent job if your into that.
Easy to achieve with a small sound processor that ignores everything in the signal from L and R thats different and only amplifies what is coming from both channels thats the same some home theater amps can do this as part of "stereo" upscale but you have to either have a separate volume control on the centre else it over powers the stereo or you need a built in balancer that blends it to comparable levels to the stereo output
You can try it right now, with some of the Atmos concert blurays. I still stand by that the mastering and mixing on "John Williams in Vienna" is masterfully done. And that has a center channel and the rest of the Atmos ones too. The bluray includes non Atmos tracks too, you you can mess around with it a bit. It plays loud well, can almost run the theater at reference volume without getting hearing damage.
I bought 2 used B&W 702 ( now vintage) Center Channel Speakers. I stacked them slightly apart with heavy duty antivibration devises. OMG, they sound great together..they have the same tech & driver materials as B&W Bookshelf Speakers...all the same age. The sound is extremely fast clean, clear, bold powerful and just bad-ass. It's one seamless little wall of sound. lol
Sound stages in stereo imaging is one of those things, that when I look around me, nobody but you all even know about. Even many of the music production channels I watch do not make recordings that image. When is close my eyes, my favorite recordings have an immersive quality that I fear many people who would benefit from it don’t have access to.
Same. Every artist I consult I discuss the stereo field, depth and image. Headphones don’t adequately replicate and allow for the pyschoacoustics to do their thing.
Meridian Audio dabbled in 3ch from 2ch data. It’s called “Trifield”. I believe Trifield is still a DSP on their AV processors. Works well in untreated rooms where you just can’t get a phantom centre to form. Other than that it really isn’t very useful as the direct 2ch presentation through 2 speakers almost always offers a more coherent sound if set up correctly. But you do have to sit in the middle, the speakers need to be set up with symmetry within the room and early reflections need to be at a minimum.
Hi Paul! A center channel would introduce more more phase issues, because now instead of a virtual line where the distance from the 2 speakers is the same (reducing phase issues) nou you would have only 1 point where there would be no phase issues! Remember that the center channel on Cinema sound systems is used only for dialogs, and what comes out from that channel doesn't come out from any of the other channels!
What about if the third channel was simply a mono, a combination of both left and right, or would that create cancellations? or is that what you mean about the 2 hot wires?
Three channel stereo was quite popular in the 1950s. Some high end electronics from the era like the Harman Kardon Citation One preamp had a circuit to derive a center channel signal.
I use my 6 channel demon receiver like a 3 channel I simply use the rear center to power my klipsch center in my 5.1 setup and use my fronts left and right to power my horns and surround speakers while I use a separate 2 channel pioneer amp to biamp the woofers in my klipsch rb51's and a dedicated sub for the lows and I'm extremely happy with the results
I use 3 Chanel stereo and have for years. It is awesome sauce. You can do it quick by hooking a center speaker to both l+ r+ or you can follow the dynaco 3 channel wiring scheme which I suggest.
There is also one thing you didn't mention - some (reeeealy small number of) people - listen music in headphones. so then, how the distribution will look for that?
Audiophile systems are optimized for a center listening position, and do not benefit from a center channel, if the listener is centered. But moving away from center can shift the image very quickly to one side. Home theater systems cater more to groups of listeners, who cannot all be centrally located. Then the physical front-center channel helps to keep the image located at the movie screen for listeners sitting toward the sides of the room.
Nothing beats a good recording on a good system sitting in the sweet spot . Close your eyes and you hear the location of the musicians singer front center slightly left or right drummer Back Base and
I use trifield and like it a lot too. Using an old plugin, (the only one there is, as far as i know...) that has implemented the Gerzon’s algorithm. A little bit difficult to setup but once you found the right combination of parameters the soundfield is amazing.
And opinions are always welcome! Especially different ones. They make us think. Whenever I hear a good surround system stereo always sounds empty and lacking.
Paul, the problem with most surround codecs is that the (center) stage is not tuned properly and the time and decay in the rear channels is often over used (too much volume and too much decay). It takes a good ear to get time, room size and decay right. In my experience, most just don’t understand. These issues aren’t a problem in the stereo world, stereo is MUCH easier to set up. Understand, I like stereo too! Trifield is more engaging to my ears.
An up-mixed center channel works wonders for a less than ideal listening position, multiple people cannot all sit in the perfect position (maybe audiophiles just want to be on their own listening to their systems). There are a number of DSPs that can 'create' a center channel signal to feed to an amp and speaker.
The open reel master tape of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue is in 3 channel stereo format. Sadly, my current rig doesn't seem to favor 3 channel left-center-right recordings because if I switch on my digital front end's 3 channel mode my rig over exagerates the faults of the recording being played back - as in making the recordings sound as if they were from the mid 1950s to early 1960s albeit excellent recordings instead of an indistinguishible rendition of a live musical performance - but maybe its just because all of the 3 channel SACDs I currently own are made from open reel master tapes that date from 1955 to 1961. The 2 channel mode seems more natural sounding. 🤔
I have some SACDs that are 3-channel. They're all classical albums. Not sure if they were mastered as 3-channel, but most likely remastered to it. They do give a nice soundstage overall. There is always DSP options for this too, but the results vary depending on the album and equipment. But I do like to tinker with the equipment so there is that😅!
I know Deadmau5 has mixed & mastered his live events in 3D virtual space using Dolby Atmos. It would be interesting to have like a conversion from 2 channel to 3+ channel. There would definitely have to be some sound processing to basically create a "stage" that would be in the virtual space and the speakers reproduce the sound at that position.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio I’m not sure, I do not have three channel system, but I’ve read they were three channel. Amazing recordings btw) www.stereophile.com/content/mercury-living-presence-sacd-23-channel-1
@@stanislavshokurov6532 Yes, as I said, they were recorded on three channels but mixed to stereo 2-channel. Some later remasters may have made the three channels available as in the article but it wasn't the norm.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio but I was writing about SACD’s. I know the original LP’s were stereo.) Many SACD titles were remastered in multichannel, I’ve never seen any high end multichannel DAC or even multichannel player.
I think that some early stereo recordings made on optical 35mm film were 3 channel. However, it is generally easier to get a great soundstage with two channels than with three. Even with movies, I have opted to just use two channels at the front, but that is mainly because way to much (often 70%) is pushed through the center on films and this can stress that channel. I prefer to spread the load to the two front. Having rear channels for music is another matter. Pink Floyd Atom Heart Mother must be heard in Quadrophonic to hear it as it is meant to be.
This looks like Paul's "uncomfortable position". I suspect there are two high-end loudspeakers out of the picture to the right. When watching a movie he has to turn his head 180 degrees. No problem, that screen needs just some more tinkering.
Dolby Prologic (1987) was a "steering" technology that took two channel audio content and "steered" 4-Channel sound. Left, Right, Center and Rear. Separation between the channels could be as much as 30db. There were professional Dolby Prologic Sound Encoding Processors that could be used in the editing stage that made the 2-channal content friendly to a Prologic decoder. I purchased a Fosgate Dolby ProLogic Processor, cost me $1000. I think around 1990 that did a commendable job presenting Left, Right, Center and rear. Even from VHS Video ( Movies ). It was actually quite fun. LP's and CD's not preprocessed for ProLogic results were a mixed bag but always fun to listen to. I've long since sent the Fosgate processor to the recycler. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Pro_Logic#Dolby_Pro_Logic
I honestly haven't lacked a phantom center on any brand at least since AI has been designing speakers, or at least anything that has been built from Y2k onward. More so with any design containing even a subtle waveguide on the tweeter. With toed-in SEOS horns, the center image is nearly inescapable, even while walking way off axis in the near field. Same with pretty much the all the JBL studio monitor types.
Definitely off yogic but a question for Paul and his listeners.. What are your absolute fav/desert island audiophile-grade records of any musical genre of your choice?
I have a question about a 3rd channel of a different type. Long ago, I had an Aiwa mini system that came with 2 small 'surround' speakers that connected to different jacks. These speakers would play the same sound as if I were listening on a Walkman and pulled the headphone jack out halfway. This system allowed you to access this sound on the main speakers with a vocal removal mode used for karaoke. Aiwa called the channel surround but what is it really? I heard this before in my rear speakers in Dolby Pro Logic mode on some systems. This channel doesn't really exist in all recorded audio though, right?
I remember "3ch stereo" was a sound mode on a surround reciver I had some years back. It kinda worked actually but I did not use it. But it just took the stereo signal into mono for the center and normal stereo went to the front speakers as normal. But playing in 2ch is better..
There might be a way to do with, with Mid/Side encoding, or that Haffler thing. Actually, scratch that. JUST ENCODE IN 5.1 or 7.1 and only plug in L/C/R.
Weird. I could've swore Paul covered this before, with people in the comments saying that there used to be three channel audio systems long ago. Hmmm...
When it comes to records wouldn't you need another output on the record deck and you would need a third channel output so the whole audio path would need a third channel
Assuming you are talking about a 3 channel recording, no. Its impossible. On a record, 1 side of the groove is for the left channel, and the other for the right. If you wanted a 3rd channel, you would have to make a special record with 2 grooves to accommodate the 3rd channel, a second phono cart somehow mounted to the arm, a special phono pre, and a 3 channel amp, preamp, speaker setup. Stereo, if done properly, negates the need for a 3rd channel.
Mid/side would work just fine, I think. Just use a surround receiver for convenience. To decode, mid goes straight to the center channel input. Side goes to both the left and right input, but invert the phase of one or the other. If I recall correctly. You just need music that's encoded in mid/side format.
If you have a center speaker, it makes the illusion of a proper soundstage impossible. Home theater systems use one, but that works best based on a discrete digital signal, not an analog signal.
Dear Paul. At the end you just mentioned something that is key for me... The center channel allows more "sweet positions" The fact is that I usually use my multichannel system (a 7.1) for music, of course when is a multi channel SACD but also in stereo music, I use one of the processors that my AV receiver has that converts the 2 ch in a 7.1 one.... And it's glorious, mainly when are more people listening the music and not only I I supposed that the program that proccess the signal, take all what is identical in the left and right channel and send it to the central channel. I love the stereo image when I listen to music in the correct position, for example in my desk (I love my desk system). In my desk a complete music world happens behind the screen... But in the living room, nothing is better than use the 7.1 system for listening to music. I know I am blasphemous and a sinner... But I enjoy it, and this is the target. Regards and thank you for all what you share with us. Time, knowledge and friendship. THANK YOU
If you have a Bluray player which can read SACD, and which has a quality DAC to give good audio reproduction, so not the cheapest ones on the market, then there are titles in SACD-format mastered for 3-channel audio. Catalog is limited, but if you already have the gear, then why not by a few and check them out. I'm guessing, but don't know, that most audiophiles spend tons more time and money on their 2-channel, than they do on home theatre 🙂
Stereo means "solid" in Greek not two... the original "stereo" system was a 3 channel system by Western Electric because the engineers still knew about the proximity effect, which brought the "center" information to the closest speaker to the listener. If a listener is not in the EXACT center of the 2 speakers, the center information moves to whatever speaker the listener is closest to... So, an audiophile is a very lonely job because only ONE listener can hear the soundstage and placement of sound as intended... But the reason why we still only have 2 channels for "stereo" sound is the technology behind the phonograph, which can only encode 2 channels in the grooves... One can encode a 3rd channel quite easily and is done all the time electronically in 5.1 setups... a 3 channel system would present the SAME SOUNDSTAGE to every listener in the room...
History is always useful to know. In the 1950s Klipsch developed the Heresy to be a center channel speaker between the necessarily widely separated Klipsch Horns. Some electronic manufacturers even produced equipment with a mono out in addition to their stereo outputs. Here's a useful intro community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/292-three-speaker-stereo/
That's not really the same. Music generally just comes from the front while sound effects in a movie is supposed to be sourrounding you according to their placement in the scene. Music is best played in 2ch stereo when recorded in 2ch stereo.
@@Oystein87 Sure, music is generally produced to be imagined as coming from the front but our brain interprets audio in a more rich soundstage and especially when you are in a large concert hall, you perceive reflections from around you. And like music making you feel immersed through surround speakers, I wouldn’t mind music would do the same with some sounds being reproduced in a full surround environment coming from behind and above me. This is especially true for music that doesn’t pretend to be made by a band standing on a stage.
@@ThinkingBetter And that experience you get thru placing and adjusting the speakers correctly. Then you do not need extra channels to fake something that should already be there👍 I get sound fram all around me when playing in 2ch stereo. I habe to double check if the surround is active sometimes😝 Adding channels that is not there just messes things up. Talking from experience
@@Oystein87 Of course only music mastered for surround playback should use surround speakers. A 4K Dolby Atmos concert can be much more enriching for our senses than the same concert played out of a stereo setup. The best sense of “being there” takes more than a couple of audio tracks.
@@ThinkingBetter Ahh.. I missunderstood you a bit then. For music recorded and mastered live I agree. I thought you also ment to add extra channels for stereo recordings..😝
Since the infinty speakers in the listening room are 4 separate speakers....I consider it 4 channel listening....but once you sell them to me for 500$ ....I will seek out some 4 channel recordings 😀
it's not that difficult on modern hardware with room EQ and so dsp on board anyways - it's more or less take the identical parts of left/right and at the same time reduce that signals on the front speakers just look what DTS Neo / Dolby pro logic does, especially the difference of music / cinema mode music mode does it less heavy and yes you solve the only one sweet spot issue when done ptooer3
Lexicon provides through their many DSP (digital signal processing) settings, a setting referred to as Panorama. This DSP setting only utilizes the front 3 speakers referred to as the front stage of any home theater. Lexicon provides these DSP settings for different audio experiences for their customer's and are now all but standard equipment in most AV Receivers. Lexicon DSP is as about as good as DSP gets. Truthfully, audiophile's usually stay away from anything that is not 2 channel. I for one find the Panorama setting very enjoyable. Two channel is always one button press away. With proper 2 channel imaging you can actually gage the distance between instruments (and musician's) on the soundstage itself.
I don't know - this sounds to me like sth. that's potentially superior in theory, but in RL might cause more problems than it solves. To me, a big part of the stereo magic is the speakers disappearing, and I'm not sure how well this would work if one of them were blaring right in my face. And even if that's not a problem, I'm not sure if X amount of money would really be better invested in three speakers + three amp channels versus two 50% more expensive speakers/channels, I'd lean towards the latter. Besides, I do get a nicely locked in center image from my stereo set - I have to say I'm kind of constantly astounded by just how well stereo imaging actually works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
See my other post about the TAD-125 mono blocks above? What I forgot to add was each amp had a volume control out. Took a while to dial it in but oh boy when it was right all was well in my world.
Stereo is a format. It can't be 3 channels. It comes from vision. We see in stereo. That's why we have 2 eyes but 1 field of vision, including depth perception. A working stereo system wouldn't need, and can't have a 3rd channel.
@@solarfall2728 Yeah but the original idea before the current format was three channel, but they decided that a "phantom" image in the center was best. The Vinyl album made a three channel format problematic for several reasons, since each wall of the groove had a channel you would have to get a center by summing from those two, a two channel was just an approach that was more elegant.
@@solarfall2728 Oh, and we "see" three demensions by combining two inputs from two eyes, and we hear in surround with two ears, and all of this is due to the best processor on the planet, the human brain.
Paul, my wife surprised me with 2 Mackie Thump 15" speakers and a Thump 18" subwoofer. I wanted to go Yamaha. Should I keep my Mackie speakers and sub?
Speaking of sounstage... a little segway here, will the sprout 100 pair well with a psb alpha P5? My son, is starting on his audiophile journey and I was thinking these 2 units would be a good starting point. The PSB's for it's soundstaging and center imaging and the sprout for the best bang for the money. Thanks!
have spent countless hours moving my speakers closer, further, apart to each other, or to my listening position. my center channel and soundstage is amazing. Unless the recording is really bad, my open baffle speakers seem to always disappear. the music always comes from behind them. If i want to take it to the extreme, i turn off all the lights and put on my eye mask to block out any ambient light. It usually takes less than a minuet for your brain to realize there are no speakers in your sight now. Nothing to distract you from the sound your hearing. If you haven’t tried this ,you don’t know what your missing. It’s a total immersive experience if you already have a well laid out system. And it’s free
Just getting back into the hobby after 35 years. I have a 16x24 foot Dutch style loft I'm setting up. I don't have the equipment yet to take measurements so I'm just earballing it. I'm running two Klispch RP500M bookshelves with two used dirt cheap 4 ohm 6.5" home theatre subwoofers off of a Fosi BT30 amp which is an incredible device for $80. Clean sound, good power, bluetooth and can run powered and passive subs! I wanted bigger sound so I mounted a 4 ohm Dayton Audio exciter to a 1" thick 10" diameter foam insulation board circle I cut and suspended inside a 12" diameter 48" long concrete form cardboard tube using springs . I put a foam board baffle in the back so it's closed. The result sounds AMAZING! Very vibrant and punchy of course but it was warmth that surprised me the most . I'm pretty sure the tube, which barely vibrates itself because of dual tube and soundboard suspension, is picking up the other speaker frequencies around it and focusing them. I'm guessing that is the magic ingredient. I'm I've never heard anything quite like it before. It's not really a third channel and I don't look at it as such. It's really a sweetener and focal point. It can get too harsh on certain recordings. On others it just lights up the room. I'm going to try adding a flat DML center panel and making a second tube speaker and just running those with the subs. By the way, I'm getting significant amount of base from the exciter/foam speakers, something most say is impossible.
I remember when I was a child I used to have a third channel. It was between ABC and NBC.
soundstage to me is such a magical and beautiful thing - it is the main thing that got me hooked on decent equipment
Same here, but there are people who prefer mono for some reason
@@musicman8270 I built a speaker years ago, If I remember right it was called a Jenson design maybe, It took 3 sheets of plywood. the top was a horn and buried inside was a 15" woofer. I kept in my wood shop 25x70, an old Grange hall. It was mono but it filled my shop like a live band
Yes I agree. Me as well
Hey Paul, three channel sound has already been tried. Living Stereo reissued a number of three channel recordings from the late 50’s/early 60’s on SACD in the early 2000’s. They sound astonishing through the front three channels of a 5.1 system.
There are excellent 3 channel recordings available that where made in the 1950's. I'm referring to the RCA "Living Stereo" recordings that are now available on SACD. RCA originally recorded the music in 3 channel (left, center, right) and "downmixed" the master to traditional 2 channel for the vinyl pressing. Back in the 50's there were many who thought 3 channel would eventually replace 2 channel. So, RCA wanted to have a 3 channel master - just in case. The SACD includes the original 3 track recording and the stereo recording. Both versions have been remastered for the SACD. I highly recommend them. Obviously you have to listen to the 3 channel files through a home theater setup rather than a normal stereo amp.
There were a number of movies made in the 50's that featured discreet multi channel sound
The Ten Commandments (1956)
www.imdb.com/title/tt0049833
6-Channls on 70mm projection
Ben Hur (1959)
www.imdb.com/title/tt0052618
6-Channels on 65mm projection
Very true. I have the Living Stereo SACD with Arthur Fiedler conducting the Boston Pops playing Rhapsody in Blue. The 3 channel version is quite good.
Thanks very much. I'm aware of that good ol' record label if course.
but I didn't know that RCA recorded music that way. This is so cool to know and good news for me.
I'll pick up an SACD and give it a test drive on my front speakers.
I only listen to music seriously
in 3-channels anymore. I've been listening this way at home for less than a year & I have little desire to return yo 2 Channel playback.
The 3-channel experience is way bigger, bolder & closer to being there. The
all- elusive of perception depth is ever present & the music appears to be flowing outwards effortlessly from somewhere deep inside the wall behind the stack of Center Channel Speakers.
It's an insanely large and exciting but all to
life-like illusion.
I did a modest gear upgrade around this listening goal. I picked up 2 used
(& now vintage)
B&W 702 Center Channel Speakers..that are stack, well isolated from each other.
The sound is huge & clear. They sing.
OMG. I Highly recommend it.
BTW, I have a critical set of music listening ears and I went to music school..In other words, I have a decent understanding of how to make music...how music sounds in a studio and in a live concert hall situation.
Hope you enjoy your weekend.
Regards,
D-
Hey Paul, hello from Kenthurst in Australia. Just to add to the conversation I currently have a 15 year old 5.1 system. Denon Surround Amp with Energy Speakers. The Denon has a switch called the 5 channel stereo which some how uses the centre channel primarily for mid range sound (voice or main instrument) and uses Front Right and Rear Right and Front Left and Rear Left as the Stereo component. It is a very immersive experience as opposed to just stereo. So if your inquirer wanted to experiment Denon already have a solution out of the box. I know it's not at the high end of town but it works. Love your Utube input and look forward to the videos always. Cheers from Australia, Tony
Some vintage stereo preamps DID have a center channel output. I have a Harmon Kardon A500 tube integrated amplifier with an "Ambience" knob that makes a mono sum from the output transformers (post-tone control) to an RCA jack. All you then need is another mono amp and a center speaker. I was afraid that it would just collapse the stereo image like panning the L & R channels to the center (the A500 also has a "Blend" knob that does just that), but instead of narrowing the stereo image, bringing up the gain on the mid channel actually stabilizes the center of the soundstage and gives a virtual sensation that you are hearing vocals & solos from a discrete mid channel! A simple passive summing circuit could accomplish the same function with any stereo system. I also have an SACD player and enjoy listening to new releases of classic 1950's RCA and Mercury recordings in their original three channel format.
Thank you for answering my question. I come from a home theater background and just wanted some informed knowledge. AND, you even said my name correctly. Thanks for the info and the safe space to ask questions.
you lost me at 'safe space'
Paul has always made us feel comfortable to ask questions. It has always felt safe to ask anything.
Paul is a master lesson in humility. This is what gives “safe space”. 2 ears 2 channels. So the best setup audio can create a holographic sound. But perhaps lesser systems could benefit with 3 channel audio.
Uuuuuuummmm...Thanks?
Dolby has a dsp called "theater dimensional" which is a 3.1 decoding. As Paul speculated at the end, it is a superb off axis center image
Lexicon provides through their many DSP (digital signal processing) settings, a setting referred to as Panorama. This DSP setting only utilizes the front 3 speakers referred to as the front stage of any home theater. Lexicon provides these DSP settings for different audio experiences for their customer's and are now all but standard equipment in most AV Receivers. Lexicon DSP is as about as good as DSP gets. Truthfully, audiophile's
usually stay away from anything that is not 2 channel. I for one find the Panorama setting very enjoyable. Two channel is always one button press away. With proper 2 channel imaging you can actually gage the distance between instruments (and musician's) on the soundstage itself.
For those interested in 'closing your eyes, to hear it better', try putting your listening room lighting on a remote control dimmer (great easy/cheap upgrade to a light switch, by the way). As you progressively dim the lights, the sound stage actually does become more defined. On a good recording, you should be able to pin point each musician/performer/sound in space.
This is a good way to prove it to yourself, and also a nice lighting convenience.
ive been listening this week in Dolby surround 11.2.4.and it sounds perfect.the stage is very wide with huge space between the instruments.the singer is placed usually slap bang in the middle.it seamlessly blends into the r + l speaker. because the surround speakers come back with a hint of surround,to me its even more easy to see a great image.
Overkill
@@ChiefExecutiveOrbiter over kill!... when we purchase cables for thousands ,appliances for 10's of thousands .a few speakers thrown in the mix doesn't sound so ludicrous
I can heartily recommend Steven Wilsons new album The Future Bites on Blu-Ray disc. He has a Dolby Atmos mix on there which really showcases the potential of the technology. Up till now I have found Atmos music underwhelming but this is utterly immersive. That was in a 7.1.4 system so you should be even better. 5 better....
.
@@jimfarrell4635 will take a look at that. is it on tidal?
Because the headphone on my nose would look weird.
There are a number of SACD that are in 3 channel, as the original masters were 3 tracks, and they really work well
I think that's actually really interesting. Never heard of this before, but will do some online research (as well as go break out my old SACD's and revisit). So anyway thanks for giving me something new to due during these weird times! Be safe!
@@usaturnuranus Analog Productions has made quite a few SACD’s featuring direct 3-channel transfers on their multi-track layer. You can browse 3-channel discs on their site too. Mostly jazz titles and vocal jazz, some classical as well. My personal favorites are Nat King Cole 3-channel, where Nat’s mic gets center channel, but sadly many are out of print now and hard to get. There’s also a 3-channel “Kind of Blue” by Sony from way back, not too hard to find and is fun to listen to. But yeah, they’re great, a cool perk of SACD and I wish it was done more often.
@@usaturnuranus The RCA "living Stereo" recordings done in the 1950's have a few 3 channel SACD's created from the original 3 tape recorder masters.
Three channels... Super fiddly. This harkens back to the early days of hifi. When I was a kid getting into the avocation, I took over my father's audio system - Dynaco ST-70, PAS-2, FM-1 tuner with multiplexer, AR-2AX, Rek-O-Kut turntable and arm, Shure M3D cartridge. The Dynaco PAS preamps had a center channel blend control. I didn't mess with this much. Later, getting into better kit, stuff that imaged well, two channels worked great - it actually imaged well (yes, the repetition is intentional to underscore the stark difference in performance from that old set up I mentioned and the later gear). I also played with David Hafler's ambient recover stuff - connecting speakers as Paul described and the Dynaco Quadapter (which was/is a box that kinda does the same thing). This was all about two additional rear channels, not about a center channel. Two channels - of good gear set up well - worked much better and with less work and fewer parts to provide a holographic soundfield in front of the listener.
I never tried it, but my old McIntosh C28 preamp had a center channel output to assist with wide spread stereo.
Several of my vacuum tube HH Scott pieces also have this center channel output (line-level, however). Like you I've never tried it myself. I assume it's "derived" vs. "discrete". Scott documentation states it used for cases in which speakers are placed quite far apart to restore the stereo image where there would otherwise be a "hole-in-the-middle".
SO, . . I am a firm believer that stereo, as good an idea as it is, isn't really much more than a gimmick to make music more interesting, but not something anyone in a live music situation ever pays any attention to. Don't get me wrong, I want stereo, but since when was the "placement" of musicians and their instruments important in live settings? It's really not. Stereo was invented mostly for movies where the screen is two-dimensional, and in that application stereo makes sense. It lets the voice follow the picture on the screen.
For true "3D" effects we can easily go to dodecaphonic, but I think the bigger question for audio is, "how many channels does it take to produce a nice room filling effect?" To my way of thinking 2 is not actually enough. 2 can give you a phantom center, but only if you put yourself in the sweet spot, and only if you stay pretty still. That last part is what people really miss. We all unconsciously move our heads a little bit at a time, constantly, so our brains can "locate" things in the room. When those things really are producing sounds from different locations, we get an accurate mental picture of where everything is. When the sound is actually coming out of two points, or two lines in the room, the illusion of multiple sound sources in multiple locations evaporates pretty quickly. So how many does it take to overcome that? If you want the sound to only appear as if it's coming from in front of you, I think 3 is probably enough. If you want to be surrounded, I suppose at least 5, maybe 7 would be enough?
Sticking with music, I think it really makes sense to set up 3 channels to achieve a continuous two dimensional line of sound in front of listeners. And here is the cool part - it doesn't have to be 3 truly discreet channels. 3 speakers with a stereo source, left - synthesized center - right, is all we need to vastly expand a sweet spot and help hold that multiple instrument source illusion throughout most of a normal room and overcome the unconscious head movement phenomenon. How do we synthesize the middle channel? It would be only the sounds that both left and right have in common. I don't know exactly how that is achieved electronically, but the idea is relatively simple - L, L&R common, R.
Occasionally I go to the multichannel stereo mode on my Marantz SR7012 AVR and turn off all of the channels except the fronts and the center channel . I turn down gain on the center by around half. This gives you a wider sweet spot when you have multiple people listening. Give it a try. It is easy to change back and forth.
In chapter 7.1.1, of a certain book about loudspeakers, the author discusses how moving slightly from the "sweet spot" when listening to stereo music can compromise the timbre and spatial perception of certain sounds, particularly in scenarios where the stereo phantom center image is dominant. You should read it and decide for yourself.
As for the configuration, I see someone already mentioned the Dynaco method that puts the Center speaker in series with the ground return path for both L and R speakers so you only get sound out of the Center for signals that are in phase on L and R speakers (mono.) Just be sure that your amp outputs have common ground.
Ya did not mention that stereo was originally a 3 channel tape recorded proposition which can be enjoyed today via multi-channel SACDs of Living Presence and Living Stereo recordings.
Back in the day, and this shows my age, the Klipchhorn's were in the corner with a Cornwall in the center. That is what Paul W. Klipsch designed the Cornwall for.
Heresy.
Yes, but the entire Klipsch concept was based on reproducing the 3D image over a WIDE stage, like a movie theater. If the stage was greater than 20 feet apart, then you need a Heresy , LaScala, or Cornwall at center stage to provide the imaging for a wide range of seating positions. If you are talking about a "near-field" listening situation (based on dispersion characteristics) you only need two speakers to provide a 3D stereo image. That's why movie theaters utilize from 3 to 6 front channels. They want as many people as possible to hear most of the sounds. Surround channels are just an afterthought, really. And, again, they keep adding more surround channels, but they only are effective in big auditoriums.
This is why most 5.1 channel home theater systems are just fine for 99.8% of all "home theaters".
"Listening" is definitely a learned skill. But I have a feeling that many so-called "audiophiles" are living in their own minds.
I recently got rid of my center on my home theater setup. My mains are kirksaeter monitors and with a phantom center it sound so much better. The voices match with the people on screen from right to left perfectly its magic . Before I've tried a few centers and they always sounded boxy and most the audio seems to come from them. Now therea a proper soundstage that sound large and encompassing.
Good tip. Maybe no center speaker is better than a crummy center speaker.
There is no substitute for a quality center channel speaker. You gave up and convinced yourself you don't need one. I'm 2 channel all the way unless I'm watching a movie. A dialed in, dedicated dialog speaker is a must in my book. I use a Martin Logan Cinema center and never looked back. Had it for years now. I use an old Lexicon DC2 for processing because of its world class 2 channel processing. It's 3 channel setting called Panorama is also amazing incorporating the front 3 speakers only. Spend some real money on a center channel
speaker (with a good return policy) and you will understand my point. Bang for the buck, even with older (non HDMI switching) processors is amazing. I use toslink from a computer to the lexicon processor. My sonic bliss. What I removed was the rear speakers.
I have about 60 SA-CDs that are three-channel. They're mostly from Mercury and RCA.
Paul at TAD in Chicago had as one of his last products a SS amp the TAD-125 Hibachi looked weird sounded wonderfully like a tube amp when used with a tube Pre. It had RCA in and out so if you had three of them and ran the left and right to the third amp you could make a mono center. Paul at PS is spot on, close your eyes and you could point out the sax player along with everyone else on stage. Due to Covid, I sold my three in March, really sorry I did they are rare as hen's teeth at this point. A lot of recordings sounded great the stand-out is the Beatles Love. this one actually placed musicians behind you. Today I finally replaced them with M700s so far so good but dang it HOW do I make a center with these.LOL
For those fortunate (and old enough) to have visited the 1964 Worlds Fair in NY, the Dupont pavilion featured a catchy tune presented in 3 channel 'stereo'. Wish I could remember all the words. My understanding was that Ampex made 3 channel heads for this show. Not sure of any other details. Anyone out there in Hi Fi land know more?
I think meridian had a preamp wit a three channel ‘stereo’ for music 20 years ago. Not sure if they still have that as an option.
I think it was called trifield.
A lot of early stereo recordings from RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence were made using 3 microphones into 3 channel tape recorders. The problem was they could not get these out over stereo LPs (which were new things in and of themselves at the time) and not that many people had the necessary hardware (tape deck, amplification, and 3 speakers; although a friend recently sent me an old picture of Frank Sinatra's home 3 channel system, further proof of how cool Frank was, thank's Mike). Some of my multichannel SACDs have this option using only the 3 front channels, but my player and system is 2 channel only (wah-wahhh).
First thing to come to my my is medians trifield processing for 3 channel audio. I assume they still do this on current products. Heard they do a half decent job if your into that.
Easy to achieve with a small sound processor that ignores everything in the signal from L and R thats different and only amplifies what is coming from both channels thats the same some home theater amps can do this as part of "stereo" upscale but you have to either have a separate volume control on the centre else it over powers the stereo or you need a built in balancer that blends it to comparable levels to the stereo output
You can try it right now, with some of the Atmos concert blurays. I still stand by that the mastering and mixing on "John Williams in Vienna" is masterfully done. And that has a center channel and the rest of the Atmos ones too. The bluray includes non Atmos tracks too, you you can mess around with it a bit. It plays loud well, can almost run the theater at reference volume without getting hearing damage.
I bought 2 used B&W 702 ( now vintage) Center Channel Speakers. I stacked them slightly apart with heavy duty
antivibration devises. OMG, they sound great together..they have the same tech & driver materials as B&W Bookshelf Speakers...all the same age. The sound is extremely fast clean, clear, bold powerful and just
bad-ass. It's one seamless
little wall of sound. lol
Sound stages in stereo imaging is one of those things, that when I look around me, nobody but you all even know about. Even many of the music production channels I watch do not make recordings that image. When is close my eyes, my favorite recordings have an immersive quality that I fear many people who would benefit from it don’t have access to.
Same. Every artist I consult I discuss the stereo field, depth and image. Headphones don’t adequately replicate and allow for the pyschoacoustics to do their thing.
@@jacksonreazin6042 indeed, and I’m finding that proper recording techniques are crucial also.
Meridian Audio dabbled in 3ch from 2ch data. It’s called “Trifield”. I believe Trifield is still a DSP on their AV processors.
Works well in untreated rooms where you just can’t get a phantom centre to form. Other than that it really isn’t very useful as the direct 2ch presentation through 2 speakers almost always offers a more coherent sound if set up correctly. But you do have to sit in the middle, the speakers need to be set up with symmetry within the room and early reflections need to be at a minimum.
Hi Paul! A center channel would introduce more more phase issues, because now instead of a virtual line where the distance from the 2 speakers is the same (reducing phase issues) nou you would have only 1 point where there would be no phase issues! Remember that the center channel on Cinema sound systems is used only for dialogs, and what comes out from that channel doesn't come out from any of the other channels!
What about if the third channel was simply a mono, a combination of both left and right, or would that create cancellations? or is that what you mean about the 2 hot wires?
Three channel stereo was quite popular in the 1950s. Some high end electronics from the era like the Harman Kardon Citation One preamp had a circuit to derive a center channel signal.
How many albums were released in stereo when it first came out. I have several stereo releases that say the are compatible with mono equipment.
I use my 6 channel demon receiver like a 3 channel I simply use the rear center to power my klipsch center in my 5.1 setup and use my fronts left and right to power my horns and surround speakers while I use a separate 2 channel pioneer amp to biamp the woofers in my klipsch rb51's and a dedicated sub for the lows and I'm extremely happy with the results
I use 3 Chanel stereo and have for years. It is awesome sauce. You can do it quick by hooking a center speaker to both l+ r+ or you can follow the dynaco 3 channel wiring scheme which I suggest.
There is also one thing you didn't mention - some (reeeealy small number of) people - listen music in headphones. so then, how the distribution will look for that?
Audiophile systems are optimized for a center listening position, and do not benefit from a center channel, if the listener is centered. But moving away from center can shift the image very quickly to one side.
Home theater systems cater more to groups of listeners, who cannot all be centrally located. Then the physical front-center channel helps to keep the image located at the movie screen for listeners sitting toward the sides of the room.
Nothing beats a good recording on a good system sitting in the sweet spot .
Close your eyes and you hear the location of the musicians singer front center slightly left or right drummer Back
Base and
Sorry Paul, I love Trifield for music when it’s calibrated and set up properly. Stereo just sounds empty in comparison. Just my opinion.
I use trifield and like it a lot too.
Using an old plugin, (the only one there is, as far as i know...) that has implemented the Gerzon’s algorithm.
A little bit difficult to setup but once you found the right combination of parameters the soundfield is amazing.
And opinions are always welcome! Especially different ones. They make us think.
Whenever I hear a good surround system stereo always sounds empty and lacking.
Paul, the problem with most surround codecs is that the (center) stage is not tuned properly and the time and decay in the rear channels is often over used (too much volume and too much decay).
It takes a good ear to get time, room size and decay right. In my experience, most just don’t understand. These issues aren’t a problem in the stereo world, stereo is MUCH easier to set up.
Understand, I like stereo too! Trifield is more engaging to my ears.
I think James Bongiorno in his last commercial venture ventured into 3 channels in his equipment.
The Beatles collection remastered in Mono has the most roomy sweet spot in the Middle speaker spot.
An up-mixed center channel works wonders for a less than ideal listening position, multiple people cannot all sit in the perfect position (maybe audiophiles just want to be on their own listening to their systems). There are a number of DSPs that can 'create' a center channel signal to feed to an amp and speaker.
finally an intelligent comment
My pre amplifier has two sets of pre out rca connectors can I use another amp to feed a rear speaker for rear soundstage sound
Yeah, flip the phase of the rear speakers.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 you mean conect the two red ones to the speaker
The open reel master tape of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue is in 3 channel stereo format. Sadly, my current rig doesn't seem to favor 3 channel left-center-right recordings because if I switch on my digital front end's 3 channel mode my rig over exagerates the faults of the recording being played back - as in making the recordings sound as if they were from the mid 1950s to early 1960s albeit excellent recordings instead of an indistinguishible rendition of a live musical performance - but maybe its just because all of the 3 channel SACDs I currently own are made from open reel master tapes that date from 1955 to 1961. The 2 channel mode seems more natural sounding. 🤔
I have some SACDs that are 3-channel. They're all classical albums. Not sure if they were mastered as 3-channel, but most likely remastered to it. They do give a nice soundstage overall. There is always DSP options for this too, but the results vary depending on the album and equipment. But I do like to tinker with the equipment so there is that😅!
Thanks for posting this very interesting video Paul. I appreciate it.
I have designed PA systems with 3 Chanel’s , when mixed properly the results are very good.
There are a number of three channel recordings that were made in the mid-20th Century. Some have been released on SACD.
I know Deadmau5 has mixed & mastered his live events in 3D virtual space using Dolby Atmos. It would be interesting to have like a conversion from 2 channel to 3+ channel. There would definitely have to be some sound processing to basically create a "stage" that would be in the virtual space and the speakers reproduce the sound at that position.
My soundstage sounds brilliant with the center channel. It's all in sync, especially the one I bought from you guys.
Can 3 channel make electrostats have a wider sweet spot?
Mercury Living Presence SACD’s are 3 channels audio
No, they are not. They were three channel recordings mixed to 2-channel stereo. So, you're close, but not cigar.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio I’m not sure, I do not have three channel system, but I’ve read they were three channel. Amazing recordings btw)
www.stereophile.com/content/mercury-living-presence-sacd-23-channel-1
@@stanislavshokurov6532 Yes, as I said, they were recorded on three channels but mixed to stereo 2-channel. Some later remasters may have made the three channels available as in the article but it wasn't the norm.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio but I was writing about SACD’s. I know the original LP’s were stereo.) Many SACD titles were remastered in multichannel, I’ve never seen any high end multichannel DAC or even multichannel player.
I think that some early stereo recordings made on optical 35mm film were 3 channel.
However, it is generally easier to get a great soundstage with two channels than with three.
Even with movies, I have opted to just use two channels at the front, but that is mainly because way to much (often 70%) is pushed through the center on films and this can stress that channel. I prefer to spread the load to the two front.
Having rear channels for music is another matter.
Pink Floyd Atom Heart Mother must be heard in Quadrophonic to hear it as it is meant to be.
This looks like Paul's "uncomfortable position". I suspect there are two high-end loudspeakers out of the picture to the right. When watching a movie he has to turn his head 180 degrees. No problem, that screen needs just some more tinkering.
Dolby Prologic (1987) was a "steering" technology that took two channel audio content and "steered" 4-Channel sound. Left, Right, Center and Rear. Separation between the channels could be as much as 30db. There were professional Dolby Prologic Sound Encoding Processors that could be used in the editing stage that made the 2-channal content friendly to a Prologic decoder. I purchased a Fosgate Dolby ProLogic Processor, cost me $1000. I think around 1990 that did a commendable job presenting Left, Right, Center and rear. Even from VHS Video ( Movies ). It was actually quite fun. LP's and CD's not preprocessed for ProLogic results were a mixed bag but always fun to listen to. I've long since sent the Fosgate processor to the recycler.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Pro_Logic#Dolby_Pro_Logic
Best way I've found to get the perfect spot/sound, have a few whiskies either neat or on the rocks.
Scotch and Take Five. Boom.
I honestly haven't lacked a phantom center on any brand at least since AI has been designing speakers, or at least anything that has been built from Y2k onward. More so with any design containing even a subtle waveguide on the tweeter. With toed-in SEOS horns, the center image is nearly inescapable, even while walking way off axis in the near field. Same with pretty much the all the JBL studio monitor types.
Definitely off yogic but a question for Paul and his listeners..
What are your absolute fav/desert island audiophile-grade records of any musical genre of your choice?
I have a question about a 3rd channel of a different type. Long ago, I had an Aiwa mini system that came with 2 small 'surround' speakers that connected to different jacks. These speakers would play the same sound as if I were listening on a Walkman and pulled the headphone jack out halfway. This system allowed you to access this sound on the main speakers with a vocal removal mode used for karaoke. Aiwa called the channel surround but what is it really? I heard this before in my rear speakers in Dolby Pro Logic mode on some systems. This channel doesn't really exist in all recorded audio though, right?
I remember "3ch stereo" was a sound mode on a surround reciver I had some years back. It kinda worked actually but I did not use it. But it just took the stereo signal into mono for the center and normal stereo went to the front speakers as normal. But playing in 2ch is better..
There might be a way to do with, with Mid/Side encoding, or that Haffler thing.
Actually, scratch that. JUST ENCODE IN 5.1 or 7.1 and only plug in L/C/R.
Weird.
I could've swore Paul covered this before, with people in the comments saying that there used to be three channel audio systems long ago.
Hmmm...
Paul W. Klipsch made the Heresy as a center for his K-Horns. Late 50's early 60s?
When it comes to records wouldn't you need another output on the record deck and you would need a third channel output so the whole audio path would need a third channel
Assuming you are talking about a 3 channel recording, no. Its impossible. On a record, 1 side of the groove is for the left channel, and the other for the right. If you wanted a 3rd channel, you would have to make a special record with 2 grooves to accommodate the 3rd channel, a second phono cart somehow mounted to the arm, a special phono pre, and a 3 channel amp, preamp, speaker setup. Stereo, if done properly, negates the need for a 3rd channel.
Why would you want to amplify the L/R differences? Where is this used?
If remember right, the Dolby Surround Pro Logic used this way to recreate the back chanel
I like 3 channel audio. I have been thinking of someone building a quality 3 channel receiver only.
Buddy, just get some old 5.1 receiver at Goodwill for $25, and don't plug in the rear surround speakers.
Job DONE.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 You missed the point. I do have 5.1
And who just acquired a studio? Let's make this happen! You could pioneer this new market! Perhaps even pick up where quadraphonic audio left off. 😜
Center could make reflections, sine wave collisions.
Would a m/s encoder that send the mid to channel 3 and then the usual decoder to send just the side to the respective ch 1 & 2?
Mid/side would work just fine, I think. Just use a surround receiver for convenience.
To decode, mid goes straight to the center channel input. Side goes to both the left and right input, but invert the phase of one or the other. If I recall correctly.
You just need music that's encoded in mid/side format.
FM radio stereo transmission is also somehow 3 channel, to be compatible with mono radio's.
They could just add L+R to accomplish mono. You don't need a third channel.
If you have a center speaker, it makes the illusion of a proper soundstage impossible.
Home theater systems use one, but that works best based on a discrete digital signal,
not an analog signal.
Dear Paul.
At the end you just mentioned something that is key for me... The center channel allows more "sweet positions"
The fact is that I usually use my multichannel system (a 7.1) for music, of course when is a multi channel SACD but also in stereo music, I use one of the processors that my AV receiver has that converts the 2 ch in a 7.1 one.... And it's glorious, mainly when are more people listening the music and not only I
I supposed that the program that proccess the signal, take all what is identical in the left and right channel and send it to the central channel.
I love the stereo image when I listen to music in the correct position, for example in my desk (I love my desk system). In my desk a complete music world happens behind the screen... But in the living room, nothing is better than use the 7.1 system for listening to music.
I know I am blasphemous and a sinner... But I enjoy it, and this is the target.
Regards and thank you for all what you share with us. Time, knowledge and friendship.
THANK YOU
If you have a Bluray player which can read SACD, and which has a quality DAC to give good audio reproduction, so not the cheapest ones on the market, then there are titles in SACD-format mastered for 3-channel audio. Catalog is limited, but if you already have the gear, then why not by a few and check them out. I'm guessing, but don't know, that most audiophiles spend tons more time and money on their 2-channel, than they do on home theatre 🙂
I thought Paul Klipsch developed a center channel called HERESY ???
Yes, he did. I used a LaScala with my K-Horns however ;+)
Paul K at about 3:00 in. th-cam.com/video/WQaJNGsSRpY/w-d-xo.html
Stereo means "solid" in Greek not two... the original "stereo" system was a 3 channel system by Western Electric because the engineers still knew about the proximity effect, which brought the "center" information to the closest speaker to the listener. If a listener is not in the EXACT center of the 2 speakers, the center information moves to whatever speaker the listener is closest to... So, an audiophile is a very lonely job because only ONE listener can hear the soundstage and placement of sound as intended... But the reason why we still only have 2 channels for "stereo" sound is the technology behind the phonograph, which can only encode 2 channels in the grooves... One can encode a 3rd channel quite easily and is done all the time electronically in 5.1 setups... a 3 channel system would present the SAME SOUNDSTAGE to every listener in the room...
Well said Mr Paul very well said .
History is always useful to know. In the 1950s Klipsch developed the Heresy to be a center channel speaker between the necessarily widely separated Klipsch Horns. Some electronic manufacturers even produced equipment with a mono out in addition to their stereo outputs. Here's a useful intro community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/292-three-speaker-stereo/
The movie industry realized ages ago that for the most precise soundstage experience, 2 speakers are not enough.
That's not really the same.
Music generally just comes from the front while sound effects in a movie is supposed to be sourrounding you according to their placement in the scene.
Music is best played in 2ch stereo when recorded in 2ch stereo.
@@Oystein87 Sure, music is generally produced to be imagined as coming from the front but our brain interprets audio in a more rich soundstage and especially when you are in a large concert hall, you perceive reflections from around you. And like music making you feel immersed through surround speakers, I wouldn’t mind music would do the same with some sounds being reproduced in a full surround environment coming from behind and above me. This is especially true for music that doesn’t pretend to be made by a band standing on a stage.
@@ThinkingBetter And that experience you get thru placing and adjusting the speakers correctly. Then you do not need extra channels to fake something that should already be there👍 I get sound fram all around me when playing in 2ch stereo. I habe to double check if the surround is active sometimes😝 Adding channels that is not there just messes things up. Talking from experience
@@Oystein87 Of course only music mastered for surround playback should use surround speakers. A 4K Dolby Atmos concert can be much more enriching for our senses than the same concert played out of a stereo setup. The best sense of “being there” takes more than a couple of audio tracks.
@@ThinkingBetter Ahh.. I missunderstood you a bit then.
For music recorded and mastered live I agree.
I thought you also ment to add extra channels for stereo recordings..😝
What if you just add the channels together and have the mono sound in the middle. But I guess interference would destroy it.
Since the infinty speakers in the listening room are 4 separate speakers....I consider it 4 channel listening....but once you sell them to me for 500$ ....I will seek out some 4 channel recordings 😀
Tweaking stuff is part of the fun.
it's not that difficult on modern hardware with room EQ and so dsp on board anyways - it's more or less take the identical parts of left/right and at the same time reduce that signals on the front speakers
just look what DTS Neo / Dolby pro logic does, especially the difference of music / cinema mode
music mode does it less heavy
and yes you solve the only one sweet spot issue when done ptooer3
Lexicon provides through their many DSP (digital signal processing) settings, a setting referred to as Panorama. This DSP setting only utilizes the front 3 speakers referred to as the front stage of any home theater. Lexicon provides these DSP settings for different audio experiences for their customer's and are now all but standard equipment in most AV Receivers. Lexicon DSP is as about as good as DSP gets. Truthfully, audiophile's
usually stay away from anything that is not 2 channel. I for one find the Panorama setting very enjoyable. Two channel is always one button press away. With proper 2 channel imaging you can actually gage the distance between instruments (and musician's) on the soundstage itself.
That was HILARIOUS!!
So, there is NO SUCH THING as stereo music with a center channel included? 3.0 recordings?
I don't know - this sounds to me like sth. that's potentially superior in theory, but in RL might cause more problems than it solves. To me, a big part of the stereo magic is the speakers disappearing, and I'm not sure how well this would work if one of them were blaring right in my face. And even if that's not a problem, I'm not sure if X amount of money would really be better invested in three speakers + three amp channels versus two 50% more expensive speakers/channels, I'd lean towards the latter. Besides, I do get a nicely locked in center image from my stereo set - I have to say I'm kind of constantly astounded by just how well stereo imaging actually works. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
See my other post about the TAD-125 mono blocks above? What I forgot to add was each amp had a volume control out. Took a while to dial it in but oh boy when it was right all was well in my world.
How about bringing back the Quadrophonic Sound system back alive ? Its a lost tech that was launched by Sony in he 70's
No need time bring anything back, just use 5.1 or 7.1 encoding, and don't bother adding surround channels. Any old receiver can decode that, now.
Multichannel sacd and dvd-a are mastered like that.....
Stereo started out as a 3 channel concept, but they would not fit on a record without limiting the signal
Stereo is a format. It can't be 3 channels. It comes from vision. We see in stereo. That's why we have 2 eyes but 1 field of vision, including depth perception. A working stereo system wouldn't need, and can't have a 3rd channel.
@@solarfall2728 Yeah but the original idea before the current format was three channel, but they decided that a "phantom" image in the center was best. The Vinyl album made a three channel format problematic for several reasons, since each wall of the groove had a channel you would have to get a center by summing from those two, a two channel was just an approach that was more elegant.
@@solarfall2728 Oh, and we "see" three demensions by combining two inputs from two eyes, and we hear in surround with two ears, and all of this is due to the best processor on the planet, the human brain.
Paul, my wife surprised me with 2 Mackie Thump 15" speakers and a Thump 18" subwoofer. I wanted to go Yamaha. Should I keep my Mackie speakers and sub?
He says sit in uncomfortable positions I'm moving my head to center at my monitors! Z.K.
It sounds silly at first...but 3 channel is an interesting idea.
Speaking of sounstage... a little segway here, will the sprout 100 pair well with a psb alpha P5? My son, is starting on his audiophile journey and I was thinking these 2 units would be a good starting point. The PSB's for it's soundstaging and center imaging and the sprout for the best bang for the money. Thanks!
Eh... I’d do it with a DSP stage in the playback computer; and a multichannel professional audio interface box. 🤔
One can imagine being in an uncomfortable position. Such as contorted with head practically inverted lmao. But I concur
Are you threatening me?
I am The Great Bassholio!
Interesting idea, but would unfortunately block my TV.
Why not both? 😉