I have an integrated tube amp from Pilotone, c. 1956 that has a 3 channel feature. They called it a "curtain of sound". It is interesting because 1956 is supposedly the first year that stereo equipment hit the retail chain. The Klipsch Heresy was originally built for use as a center channel along with a pair of klipschorns or Cornwalls for L and R channels.
Sorry for being so late here. Back in the 70's I had a simple bookshelf system from Radio Shack which had a full-range driver firing upward into the backside of a cone and anywhere in the room, you had good coverage, imaging because sound radiated all around. I wonder if a more sophisticated speaker of this design would make a good center channel driver? Then, if you sit off-center maybe you won't lose the imaging as happens with conventional center speakers.
“The Ramblings of Paul McGowan and his Journey through the HiFi Universe” - You should rename your show and the upcoming book. Thanks for the daily mental massage. Love it!
This reminiscing reminds me of my first "real job" as a motion picture projectionist in mid 80's. Most films we stereo AT BEST and maybe Dolby or THX but some were still mono. The audio systems had to reproduce or compensate depending on the format. We had Dolby decoding, THX decoding, and a Kintek audio processing system that would synthesize 4 channels from whatever you give it. Learning the management and maintenance of those sound systems was quite an education.
Jolida's Foz SS-X has at it's core a system that lets users gradually decrease the inter-channel channel crosstalk of their front channels, essentially enlarging an individual's perception of the proportions of the room they're listening in. Jolida also makes the Foz XT-R interchannel crosstalk reduction system specifically for phono reproduction. Used judiciously, both achieve amazing results. I use a Foz SS-X between my phono stage and my preamp because the SS-X does essentially the same thing as the XT-R but has three sets of RCA inputs and a tube buffer stage to inject some of that tube magic into the mix. I run the single ended outputs from my Oppo UDP-205 through the Foz and into a separate input on my preamp to tame many of the older, crunchy sounding digital recordings as well as all my old mp3 music files. The SS-X, which sounds remarkably neutral and yet it somehow makes those old files much more pleasant to listen to without sacrificing detail or frequency extremes. It doesn't magically make a bad recording sound good, it just makes listening to them less irritating so I an focus on the music. The Oppo's balanced outs of course go into my preamp's xlr inputs. It's like having two DACs in one and I can switch between them on the fly with just a push of a button on my preamp's remote. To listen to LP's , I select the Foz's input on my preamp and flick the input selector toggle on the Foz to the phono stage. It works surprisingly well.
Dynaco QD II / hafler matrix. It was a box that you plugged a 2 channel amp into and it divided the l minus r signals for the surrounds and created a phantom center which also had a gain knob on it so you could just slightly raise/ draw more attention to the surrounds and center. I have a couple of these boxes. I found the larger the space and the higher the volume the better they worked. I used this instead of a pro logic system for many years. The idea behind it also was to divide 5 channels from "any" 2 channel source but didn't bog things down with a processor. Stereophile back in the 90s gave it a very favorable review for the time.I enjoyed it and liked the way it worked. You didn't have the front to rear steering of effects for movies or the extreme left to right. Many people would use the device and put the front speakers to the rear and the rear speakers to the front. I felt it greatly enhanced the center doing that. That produced a pretty interesting effect that I tried for a while. Fun stuff to experiment with!
dave used a third driver with the terminals for that driver hooked up between the positive outputs left and right of the primary non-bridgeable stereo amplifier. it reproduces whatever is NOT summed mono between the two channels. the "ambient" driver,as it were, would increase in volume as the pan on the mix was moved further either left or right in the mix. on some recordings this can generate quite the range of unusual(but interesting)spatial effects but when used in a mix with this function in mind or on a live recording that is 2 channel(as in only two microphones used in a point source configuration) the effect is striking in how the sound stage...and the detail of the venue...is reproduced.
"That's the famous Hafler Circuit, given to the world by the famous designer David Hafler (and picked up and made into millions of dollars by Mr Dolby). The effect is subtle; it "warms up" the acoustic feel of the room. It isn't time-delay reverb, just an out-of-phase 'difference' between left and right, which itself is neither left nor right." From: www.sa-cd.net/showthread/18552/18567
I use this system (or let's say: way of connecting the speakers to the amplifier) for years. The middle speaker gives you the "room" acoustics, and contributes to the stage image. My middle speaker is located behind the line where my main speakers are and this third speaker does not have to be of excellent quality. If you only listen to this third channel, you hear a strange, far away hall-like sound :-)
I use a Dynaco Quadapter which was designed by David Hafler and it does exactly what you stated. Best results are heard from live recordings as you can hear the reflected sounds which gives you a sense of scale of the recording space. The best part is that it is all done analog and it works. As others have pointed out, you can use a dedicated amp and speaker just by wiring the speaker to the left/right positive terminals on the amp you can isolate the effect as well as volume control for blending back into the main mix. You can also run a line from the left/right speakers positive terminals to a 3rd speaker for the phantom channel with no other control. Interestingly, if you have a mixer with pan-pots you can pan both channels to center which completely eliminates the effect.
For some recordings a mixture of the right and left channels does what a third microphone would have done in front of the orchestra. The way I did this was in the intermediate stereo amplifier stage. I have a series push pull driving a pair of 45 grids which I had originally used for a bi-amplification of my speakers. When I converted to Magnetic planar speakers I wired up one pair of 45 plates to drive a pair of 833-A's and the other pair to drive a pair of output transformers the secondaries of which I connected together mixing the stereo channels. This mixed sum drives a center channel GM70 amplifier. That gives me a choice to run the system 3 channel for orchestral recording but not to run it for opera, which can be run in 5 channel surround sound Dolby digital and a switch on the center channel amplifier to use the disc player center channel to drive the center channel amplifier. Or I can not turn on the center channel if I want to listen in pure stereo.
I remember back in the early 90s i conncet only the possible wires to 2 speakers, and the 2 negatives to a extra speakers, and create a third channel, soun like sourround.
Paul, the info about 3-channel recording was interesting, but for 3-channel playback, you overlooked one of the pioneers: Paul Klipsch. His Klipschorns should be located in the corners of a room, because they use the walls as extensions of the bass horns. However, in a very wide room, with the speakers more than about 18 feet apart, a "hole in the middle" effect becomes noticeable. To address this, in 1957 Paul Klipsch built the world's first centre speaker, the Heresy. It's still in production, in the improved Heresy III version. Later, he used a large La Scala speaker in the centre, but when his wife Belle objected to its looks, he designed the Belle Klipsch, possibly the prettiest speaker he ever designed, to go in the centre. Paul was the first speaker manufacturer to address WAF, Wife Acceptance Factor, something that is sometimes an issue even today. This is the main reason modern speakers tend to be narrow and deep, rather than wide and shallow. They have the needed cabinet volume, but appear to be more compact, and less objectionable to the music lover's partner, regardless of gender. The signal going to his centre speaker came out of a simple box that did a little more than sum the Left and Right signals, plus he added a volume control so the centre effect and volume could be dialed in. This was in the Fifties, putting him ahead of his time, not for the first time.
My av receiver can play 3 channel. I believe it's the Theater Dimensional filter, but the receiver does processing to get the center. I think it's to simulate surround w/o all the speakers. It gives a sound bar affect. It's actually 3.1, more for movies than music.
The original standard for stereophonic sound calls for a left, center and right channel and the master tape of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was done in this format probably in the anticipation that three-channel stereo could become the norm. Strangely, around 2005, a three-channel DSD / SACD version of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was released - sadly with only scant announcement and notifications.
@@VAVESSAU235 Weird fact - the decision to opt for a three channel master tape for KoB also resulted in a very great sounding mono pressing versions of this iconic album.
That is how pro-logic was encoded back in the day. I used to connect my speakers like that 30 years ago, on an old Denon two channel receiver. The A speakers were L and R and on the B speakers I used the sum / diff on + and - speaker connections, to extract center and surround (mono). A simple press on be B speaker button enabled surround "decoding".
Dolby Pro Logic or Digital 3.1with three front channels and subwoofer is really quite a perfect setup for serving great music and TV watching performance. The center channel is really great for enabling a more realistic soundstage when using a TV. Add a subwoofer if needed. Surround channels are secondary if your primary aim is music.
You can use the Speaker Fill option in Windows 10 to do this and then adjust the volume of the center channel so that it blends in perfectly with the mains. It can produce a nice full sound.
i have some 3 channel SACDs. one is from the RCA living stereo series. good stuff but i think for most people to have a matching tower in the center along with another matching amp that is just for the center might be a bit much. the easy way to do this is to run it all through a home theater receiver. of course then ur most likely dropping the sound quality down from dedicated amps. a slippery slope this is but if u really wanted to hear a perfect recording that was made in 3 ch then as long as ur setup is equal to the 2ch amps and speakers then the 3ch will be better in my opinion.
We don't need to bring it back, because it never left. Today, both the Living Presence and Living Stereo Classical Series are available in their original 3 channel configuration from the multi-channel layer of hybrid SACD production of the series. These SACDs are available from Amazon. I have about a dozen of them and have not yet scratched the surface of what is out there on SACD. I play these on an OPPO UDP-205 outputting in multi-channel analog to a Sony TA-P9000 analog 5.1 multi-channel preamplifier. These 3 channel recordings sound better than stereo of same material, a lot better. Instrument positions in orchestra are clearly defined. Reading other posts here, it seems these recordings have eluded some folks, perhaps from poor marketing, who knows. At any rate, most any cheap Sony Blu-ray Player will play these multi-channel SACDs via HDMI to an AVR, so access to this awesome listening experience is as easy as it is inexpensive. Until you hear these 3 channel productions you might want to reserve any sort of declaration that stereo is best.
What is frustrating is that they are selling us the same stuff over and over again and then telling us that it is in our best interest to buy into their proprietary technologies to do so. It is also embarrassing as a human to know that there are lesser forms of the same thing just for the sake of profit. Basically, none of us know about this stuff because they don't market to the "commoner".
Interesting discussion with an interesting history. I own Klipsch HeresyIII speakers . The Heresy was originally developed by Klipsch as a center speaker to add to their Klipschorns of the day. Paul Klipsch wrote then about 3 channel stereo back in 1957 in the magazine Audiocraft, Nov 1957, page 26.: "Two-Track,Thre-Channel Stereo How to ad a phantom third channel" , by Paul W. Klipsch.
I can see the benefits when using the 3 channel mode for television and movies . Having been into the surround sound up to the 7.1 channel mark . I gave it up and went to 2 channel . Now rearranging the room is no big deal , compared to finding a good place for 8 speakers and running wires . It would be nice to go back and forth with the push of a button .
Paul Klipsch has diagrams of his three channel audio set that you can see online. Any idea how you would amplify the center channel? I have a tube preamp that has L ,R, and L+R line level outputs. I currently have two monoblocks for power amps for the left and right channel. Would having an rca cable run from the L+R output to a third monoblock be the ideal way of powering a center channel?
Thought provoking indeed! Generally we covered that more speakers = better sound because each speaker has less work to do. In a typical 5.1 home theater setup, the center channel is typically a relatively pricey component for just 1 speaker. Making use of that extra speaker could then theoretically be a benefit, less for imaging/sound staging, but more-so in putting to task more speakers to do less work. I think that the concept of interpolating a center channel from the left and right is really interesting, even if for an academic exercise. Would we "simply" filter out and play in the center channel speaker any frequency that is practically identical in both channels?
Brian Eno put a diagram in the original vinyl LP of Ambient 4: On Land which added a separate third speaker, which was then placed behind the listener. The normal stereo speakers were left as they were, and an additional speaker was wired up to only the positive terminals of the speaker circuit. This meant only the sounds that were NOT common to both sides were produced in the third speaker, hence the use in ambient music. So, kind of the opposite of a normal three channel system.
I can see that working. By canceling out the common signal in each channel, then canceling out everything but the common signal for the center. This could produce a problem with some music being all center channel. It's not so much about it sounding mono, but rather that it wouldn't use two out of three amps very much. Come to think of it, a clever engineer could control how much the three are separated; reducing or possibly even eliminating this problem. This could work well because it would allow you to separate the two stereo speakers further and possibly even compensating for unwanted cross talk; expanding the sound stage even further. There's some songs that would do well with this. A couple of Beatles songs comes to mind; Paperback Writer, most notably. Other bands have done similarly, where you have one instrument entirely in one channel, another in the other channel, and only the vocals and drums are in the center. If I remember right, "Quad" was all about moving that 'sweet spot' around the room so you didn't have to sit front and center between two speakers at a given distance. But this is where things move towards surround sound. The Yamaha DSP-1 was an astounding piece of hardware for its time - terrible S/N ratio though. I would love to find a software replica of the original DSP-1, sans all the noise.
One of my old surround recivers had a 3 channel stereo mode. The center speaker just got the stereo signal converted into mono while the left and right speakers played stereo as normal. Bot recomended. Just like 5ch stereo is also not recomended.
3 channel sounds great! I have my system set up for three channel and it solves the biggest problem in the audio world, being able to listen to our stereo with my wife for serious listening while not having to sit on top of one and other. Movie theaters have been using the concept since the 50's, projected through the screen. I've also played around with using my HT integrated amp, by doing a lot of experimenting I have found that by using a speaker that is not matched to the stereo speakers can increase the realism by making up for deficiencies in that set. You can use a stereo amp to make the center channel viable by connecting the positive from left and right to drive the third speaker. Don't try this until you have Googled this and know what you're doing, because you can break expensive things this way.
3 channel audio? Right, Left and center? I think Quadraphonic stereo...., (is that the right way to say that?), was the way to go. Tow speakers set up correctly will give you all the imaging you need. Beyond that the rear channels give you the third dimension. Depth, in front and behind the listener. Great for home theater, but when your listening to music, where the band is playing right in front of you, three channels??? Maybe. But a good stereo and the imaging it creates gives you the whole experience. Just close your eyes and your there, right with the band, the guys in the mixing booth and the guys bringing them cold beers while they laid down the most awesome tracks ever created. To me, two ears = two speakers. Plain and simple. When things are set up right, when a great set of speakers are played through a great amp, you don't need anything else!
I can see how hard it would have been to have a 3 channel discreet analog recording, especially on an LP. Paul is correct on the fact a hi end "stereo", with near perfect phasing, speaker placement, listener placement would re-create a 3rd channel smack dab in the middle of the stereo speakers from the material that is equally present on both L/R channels aka mono. But with modern day surround sound receivers/processors, the DSP sorta can "extract" the mono-ish signals going to the main L/R and re-direct it to the center channel speaker. That is how I listen to standard music sources on my home theater system. Since my main L/R speakers are old vintage horn loaded units, they are not the greatest for good imaging. So I have a large PA...yes...PA cabinet as the center speaker! Using careful leveling of output power, I get a nice strong vocals from that big PA speaker and the instruments from the big ole L/R speakers! Now, with the rear back speakers producing the reverb/echoes, from the musical source, the playback is pretty darn good!
I have a mid-fi 7.2 home theater system but I only listen to music in 2.2 channel mode. And I have to say I get amazing stereo imaging out of my 2.2 system when listening to music. Which is just 2 Klipsch R-28F towers and two Klipsch R-12SW subs. Which is on the low end of the Klipsch product line. It's the cheapest 8" towers they make and the cheapest 12" subs they make. I'm pretty sure they are anyway. All powered by a mid-tier Onkyo TX-NR757 A/V receiver. It sounds amazing to me but I also have a near perfect sized and shaped rectangular room along with perfect speaker placement and seating position. And I'm serious, the room height, width and length are THE perfect ratio for what is recommended in a rectangular room. So as far as room and seating goes I'm getting the very best out of my equipment as I think I possibly can. Having the right room, seating position and speaker placement can do amazing things for modest equipment. I know Paul isn't the biggest Klipsch fan but I have to say I'm a Klipsch customer for life.
Round Earth Shill Hey....Sounds like a winner to me! I have friends that have Klipsch speakers and I find nothing wrong there! You just proved that you don't need a center channel speaker when listening to standard stereo content when you have the ideal room and placement. BTW, I have the exact same receiver that you do! LOL. It has several issues, but does the job. OH....Here's a question: When I set up my speakers to run "full range" instead of using the built-in hi pass X-overs, it totally shuts off output to the sub! The display still shows sub active, but it's dead! What's your take on that? Software glitch? Maybe I still want my sub(s) active but Nazi receiver says NO!
Curt Chase Is this the source digital signal you are setting to full range? If so, the digital signal will be missing the subwoofer channel as you told it to just output full range. It does sound like a 'glitch', but I don't know how you have everything setup. Sounds like the dac isn't mixing a subwoofer channel for you if it doesn't receive that channel from the digital source.
Curt Chase, that’s weird man! I’ve actually never had that problem but I’ve only run full range for probably a combined time of no more than 10 minutes but my subs were definitely working. There’s been quite a few software updates on the receiver in the almost 2 years I’ve owned it. Have you updated it ever? Both my subs and all other speakers are crossed over at 80hz. Running my towers at full range causes the bass to boom too much. Actually I think I know your problem. If you activate full range on your speakers and notice the subs aren’t outputting, enable the “double bass” feature in the crossover menu. That is supposed to send more of a signal through the sub pre-outs. See if that fixes it.
Round Earth Shill Thanks for the help! Like you, I do not run my system in "full range" mode, but was just playing around with the settings one day. As far as firmware updates: I have gotten only one in the nearly 2 years I've had the rig. You say there have been several? Hmm. I guess I will try to do a forced update check here. I will try the double bass setting, as an experiment, to test your theory. I'll check back soon.
I have recently set up a 2.4 stereo channel. I know most of you will shake your head sternly with a frown lol. But can careful matching of 4 front speakers work?
Also, there are some drivers that are very narrow in their focus . . . namely some tweeters like Air Motion Tweeters. Of course, there may be some exceptions, since I have not listened to every speaker system on earth, wish we could; thereby, we could really come up with the best combination of drivers to accomplish exactly what we are striving for in our home systems. I think there is a certain amount of mystery behind that curtain, that is not as mysterious as those making big money from the illusion are handing us. I think there are some DIYers that have pulled back the curtain, but through lack of resources or by choice, the information is just not past on to the rest of us, who may or may not also find its path and do the same. Politics finds itself embedded in everything these days . . . and it is most certainly the love of money that is the motivation and drive that oils this system -- even in the accurate reproduction of sound.
Oh boy, this was like looking down the rabbit hole of multi-channel audio...sneaky! Paul, have you ever had the chance to demo Auro-3D? As I understand it was developed for music, then bleed over to movies...? If so, what did you think of the imaging?
I looked out and found the Trinaural Processor Surround by Spread Spectrum Technologies (SST). Once featured as CES the “Best of the High-End” Award and Stereophile Magazine “Class A” Recommended Component... Hmm, interesting.
I have really liked the idea of 3-channel audio for a long time. I think the stereo image effect is somewhat overrated except in the case of headphones. In loudspeaker setups the sound is filling a room and I just feel that assuming that the sound stage is a 2 dimensional area the only way to really fill it is with at least three speakers. I always imagine putting two speakers in front of a person and one behind, but the real purpose of a 3 speaker setup would be to allow the listeners to enjoy two dimensional sound anywhere in the room and also while moving, as one would be doing while dancing. Does no one dance while listening to music? Do you audiophiles never dance? I'm just asking.
It would be a Mono center . If you listen to a great recording it has a very wide sound stage, you don't need to complicate it. Just tell musicians and engineers to Mix Properly .
Oh, ps. Since your going to have a recording studio on premises and you make equipment it would be a natural to record in three channel and build a three channel system for playback.
sir i have somehow manage to build a dual 15 inch hifi speakers of 600 rms it incudes a horn tweeter any thing in ur side wich can freely master this speaker
Three channel is for home theatre where you are getting discrete channel information for each channel. Then why stop at three channels when you can have full 5.1 or 7.1. But for music nothing beats stereo from a good system where you get a walk around soundstage with enormous depth and pinpoint image - all from two channels, no more needed.
Agreed completely. Nothing beats hearing music while sitting in the right position out of a good stereo system. Although mine is 2.2 but the subs and towers blend so well together it sounds like 2.0. It's a beautiful thing. God I rememebr my days of playing music through my 7.1 home theater system and putting the receiver into "all channel stereo" mode so that all 7 channels were playing at equal volume lmao. I wish I could say this was 20 years ago and I was 12 years old but nope, this was like 3 years ago and I was 30 :( I've come a good ways
Sorry, but I still prefer discrete channels and don't care of matrixed anything... This goes back to my days with QUAD..........the only true way to listen to that format was with TAPE ! I just received some of the most ENVELOPING 5.0 BLURAY audio discs from HDTT ! The engineer puts ONE MIKE per channel, NO MIXERS USED! You all should here a live organ and orchestral concert recording such as these 24/192 Hz. performances.... Just amazing !
Emotiva xmc1 asign one of its presets using onlyn two fronts center and sub set the other surround speakers to none asign all stereo or multiple stereo wat ever and there u have 3 channels well 3.1
3-channel ? Man, everyone knows quadrophonic is where its at ! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadraphonic_sound Tyll Herstens, John Atkinson and several other longtime reviewers claim that surround can be configured to deliver superb sound but at a (hideously expensive) cost. There's a video floating around YT of this crazy guy who has a 'ring' of speakers, each driven by a stack of McIntosh electronics and he claims music playback on that system is better than anything he's heard in a dealer showroom.
Left, Right, Bass. Thats all you really need for music alone. If you're doing a home theater surround sound is very nice and very worthwhile but for music alone two channels and a sub is all you need.
I'm replying this to a few people - what you say is true in theory, but in practice three channels make a much more realistic image in most people's setups. The biggest problem it overcomes is the fact that your brain immediately recognizes 2 channels from "3D" as soon as you move your head, even just a little. 3 channel doesn't completely trick your brain either, but it's a huge step up and you don't have to pretend that hard because it's one more primary source of sound that both ears pick up, and that overwhelms your brain's ability to separate and pinpoint the actual places in the room where the sound first emanates. Obviously a dozen channels would be even better, but the believability curve between one and twelve speakers goes up significantly at 3 and flattens quite a bit after that.
3 channel stereo .... lol ! It's like having three channel headphones... David Haffler invented his so called 'surround sound' system back in the mid 70's whereby two speakers were joined in series and out of phase and then the pair were connected across the positive + terminals of the amplifier . It was a gimmick !! They only worked when there was a strong difference level in the stereo signal .. The Leak 2200 amplifier featured this very thing ...
In theory that's true, but in practice 3 channels produces a much more lifelike image when you're not staying completely still, facing perfectly forward in the exact sweet spot of the room. At 2:50 Paul says the center channel makes the imaging better because, "your brain no longer has to synthesize that [center] channel."
the only "true" properly setup 2 channel system is called binaural which requires a dedicated stereo mic built into a fake human head. The only way to listen, headphones of course. Loudspeakers are a compromise by design.
![[TH] VALORANT Champions Seoul - Semi-Final - SEN vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IewhVY9cAmQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I have an integrated tube amp from Pilotone, c. 1956 that has a 3 channel feature. They called it a "curtain of sound". It is interesting because 1956 is supposedly the first year that stereo equipment hit the retail chain. The Klipsch Heresy was originally built for use as a center channel along with a pair of klipschorns or Cornwalls for L and R channels.
The three track Ampex RCA recordings are available on SACD, which includes some of the famous Chicago Symphony recordings, from Acoustic Sounds.
Sorry for being so late here. Back in the 70's I had a simple bookshelf system from Radio Shack which had a full-range driver firing upward into the backside of a cone and anywhere in the room, you had good coverage, imaging because sound radiated all around. I wonder if a more sophisticated speaker of this design would make a good center channel driver? Then, if you sit off-center maybe you won't lose the imaging as happens with conventional center speakers.
“The Ramblings of Paul McGowan and his Journey through the HiFi Universe” - You should rename your show and the upcoming book. Thanks for the daily mental massage. Love it!
And yet you come and watch all his vids......real brainchild....
This reminiscing reminds me of my first "real job" as a motion picture projectionist in mid 80's. Most films we stereo AT BEST and maybe Dolby or THX but some were still mono. The audio systems had to reproduce or compensate depending on the format. We had Dolby decoding, THX decoding, and a Kintek audio processing system that would synthesize 4 channels from whatever you give it. Learning the management and maintenance of those sound systems was quite an education.
What a coincidence. Watched the techmoan channel and there it was, a new quadrophonic release, on vinyl! How about that :)
Jolida's Foz SS-X has at it's core a system that lets users gradually decrease the inter-channel channel crosstalk of their front channels, essentially enlarging an individual's perception of the proportions of the room they're listening in. Jolida also makes the Foz XT-R interchannel crosstalk reduction system specifically for phono reproduction. Used judiciously, both achieve amazing results. I use a Foz SS-X between my phono stage and my preamp because the SS-X does essentially the same thing as the XT-R but has three sets of RCA inputs and a tube buffer stage to inject some of that tube magic into the mix. I run the single ended outputs from my Oppo UDP-205 through the Foz and into a separate input on my preamp to tame many of the older, crunchy sounding digital recordings as well as all my old mp3 music files. The SS-X, which sounds remarkably neutral and yet it somehow makes those old files much more pleasant to listen to without sacrificing detail or frequency extremes. It doesn't magically make a bad recording sound good, it just makes listening to them less irritating so I an focus on the music. The Oppo's balanced outs of course go into my preamp's xlr inputs. It's like having two DACs in one and I can switch between them on the fly with just a push of a button on my preamp's remote. To listen to LP's , I select the Foz's input on my preamp and flick the input selector toggle on the Foz to the phono stage. It works surprisingly well.
Dynaco QD II / hafler matrix. It was a box that you plugged a 2 channel amp into and it divided the l minus r signals for the surrounds and created a phantom center which also had a gain knob on it so you could just slightly raise/ draw more attention to the surrounds and center. I have a couple of these boxes. I found the larger the space and the higher the volume the better they worked. I used this instead of a pro logic system for many years. The idea behind it also was to divide 5 channels from "any" 2 channel source but didn't bog things down with a processor. Stereophile back in the 90s gave it a very favorable review for the time.I enjoyed it and liked the way it worked. You didn't have the front to rear steering of effects for movies or the extreme left to right. Many people would use the device and put the front speakers to the rear and the rear speakers to the front. I felt it greatly enhanced the center doing that. That produced a pretty interesting effect that I tried for a while. Fun stuff to experiment with!
Do a give-away on the sprout ;)
dave used a third driver with the terminals for that driver hooked up between the positive outputs left and right of the primary non-bridgeable stereo amplifier. it reproduces whatever is NOT summed mono between the two channels. the "ambient" driver,as it were, would increase in volume as the pan on the mix was moved further either left or right in the mix.
on some recordings this can generate quite the range of unusual(but interesting)spatial effects but when used in a mix with this function in mind or on a live recording that is 2 channel(as in only two microphones used in a point source configuration) the effect is striking in how the sound stage...and the detail of the venue...is reproduced.
"That's the famous Hafler Circuit, given to the world by the famous designer David Hafler (and picked up and made into millions of dollars by Mr Dolby). The effect is subtle; it "warms up" the acoustic feel of the room. It isn't time-delay reverb, just an out-of-phase 'difference' between left and right, which itself is neither left nor right."
From: www.sa-cd.net/showthread/18552/18567
I use this system (or let's say: way of connecting the speakers to the amplifier) for years. The middle speaker gives you the "room" acoustics, and contributes to the stage image. My middle speaker is located behind the line where my main speakers are and this third speaker does not have to be of excellent quality. If you only listen to this third channel, you hear a strange, far away hall-like sound :-)
I use a Dynaco Quadapter which was designed by David Hafler and it does exactly what you stated. Best results are heard from live recordings as you can hear the reflected sounds which gives you a sense of scale of the recording space. The best part is that it is all done analog and it works. As others have pointed out, you can use a dedicated amp and speaker just by wiring the speaker to the left/right positive terminals on the amp you can isolate the effect as well as volume control for blending back into the main mix. You can also run a line from the left/right speakers positive terminals to a 3rd speaker for the phantom channel with no other control. Interestingly, if you have a mixer with pan-pots you can pan both channels to center which completely eliminates the effect.
Any stereo amplifier is capable of 3 channel audio. the two red terminals from your left and right speakers outputs is the 3rd channel.
For some recordings a mixture of the right and left channels does what a third microphone would have done in front of the orchestra. The way I did this was in the intermediate stereo amplifier stage. I have a series push pull driving a pair of 45 grids which I had originally used for a bi-amplification of my speakers. When I converted to Magnetic planar speakers I wired up one pair of 45 plates to drive a pair of 833-A's and the other pair to drive a pair of output transformers the secondaries of which I connected together mixing the stereo channels. This mixed sum drives a center channel GM70 amplifier. That gives me a choice to run the system 3 channel for orchestral recording but not to run it for opera, which can be run in 5 channel surround sound Dolby digital and a switch on the center channel amplifier to use the disc player center channel to drive the center channel amplifier. Or I can not turn on the center channel if I want to listen in pure stereo.
I remember back in the early 90s i conncet only the possible wires to 2 speakers, and the 2 negatives to a extra speakers, and create a third channel, soun like sourround.
Paul, the info about 3-channel recording was interesting, but for 3-channel playback, you overlooked one of the pioneers: Paul Klipsch. His Klipschorns should be located in the corners of a room, because they use the walls as extensions of the bass horns. However, in a very wide room, with the speakers more than about 18 feet apart, a "hole in the middle" effect becomes noticeable.
To address this, in 1957 Paul Klipsch built the world's first centre speaker, the Heresy. It's still in production, in the improved Heresy III version.
Later, he used a large La Scala speaker in the centre, but when his wife Belle objected to its looks, he designed the Belle Klipsch, possibly the prettiest speaker he ever designed, to go in the centre.
Paul was the first speaker manufacturer to address WAF, Wife Acceptance Factor, something that is sometimes an issue even today. This is the main reason modern speakers tend to be narrow and deep, rather than wide and shallow. They have the needed cabinet volume, but appear to be more compact, and less objectionable to the music lover's partner, regardless of gender.
The signal going to his centre speaker came out of a simple box that did a little more than sum the Left and Right signals, plus he added a volume control so the centre effect and volume could be dialed in. This was in the Fifties, putting him ahead of his time, not for the first time.
My av receiver can play 3 channel. I believe it's the Theater Dimensional filter, but the receiver does processing to get the center. I think it's to simulate surround w/o all the speakers. It gives a sound bar affect. It's actually 3.1, more for movies than music.
The master tape of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue album is a 3-channel left - center - right stereo open reel tape.
The original standard for stereophonic sound calls for a left, center and right channel and the master tape of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was done in this format probably in the anticipation that three-channel stereo could become the norm. Strangely, around 2005, a three-channel DSD / SACD version of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue was released - sadly with only scant announcement and notifications.
@@VAVESSAU235 Weird fact - the decision to opt for a three channel master tape for KoB also resulted in a very great sounding mono pressing versions of this iconic album.
A three-channel stereophonic master tape of Kind of Blue allows the mono pressing to sound as good as the iconic "big mono" recording Bags Groove.
That is how pro-logic was encoded back in the day.
I used to connect my speakers like that 30 years ago, on an old Denon two channel receiver.
The A speakers were L and R and on the B speakers I used the sum / diff on + and - speaker connections, to extract center and surround (mono). A simple press on be B speaker button enabled surround "decoding".
Dolby Pro Logic or Digital 3.1with three front channels and subwoofer is really quite a perfect setup for serving great music and TV watching performance. The center channel is really great for enabling a more realistic soundstage when using a TV. Add a subwoofer if needed. Surround channels are secondary if your primary aim is music.
You can use the Speaker Fill option in Windows 10 to do this and then adjust the volume of the center channel so that it blends in perfectly with the mains. It can produce a nice full sound.
i have some 3 channel SACDs. one is from the RCA living stereo series. good stuff but i think for most people to have a matching tower in the center along with another matching amp that is just for the center might be a bit much. the easy way to do this is to run it all through a home theater receiver. of course then ur most likely dropping the sound quality down from dedicated amps. a slippery slope this is but if u really wanted to hear a perfect recording that was made in 3 ch then as long as ur setup is equal to the 2ch amps and speakers then the 3ch will be better in my opinion.
We don't need to bring it back, because it never left. Today, both the Living Presence and Living Stereo Classical Series are available in their original 3 channel configuration from the multi-channel layer of hybrid SACD production of the series. These SACDs are available from Amazon. I have about a dozen of them and have not yet scratched the surface of what is out there on SACD. I play these on an OPPO UDP-205 outputting in multi-channel analog to a Sony TA-P9000 analog 5.1 multi-channel preamplifier. These 3 channel recordings sound better than stereo of same material, a lot better. Instrument positions in orchestra are clearly defined. Reading other posts here, it seems these recordings have eluded some folks, perhaps from poor marketing, who knows. At any rate, most any cheap Sony Blu-ray Player will play these multi-channel SACDs via HDMI to an AVR, so access to this awesome listening experience is as easy as it is inexpensive. Until you hear these 3 channel productions you might want to reserve any sort of declaration that stereo is best.
What is frustrating is that they are selling us the same stuff over and over again and then telling us that it is in our best interest to buy into their proprietary technologies to do so. It is also embarrassing as a human to know that there are lesser forms of the same thing just for the sake of profit. Basically, none of us know about this stuff because they don't market to the "commoner".
Interesting discussion with an interesting history. I own Klipsch HeresyIII speakers . The Heresy was originally developed by Klipsch as a center speaker to add to their Klipschorns of the day. Paul Klipsch wrote then about 3 channel stereo back in 1957 in the magazine Audiocraft, Nov 1957, page 26.: "Two-Track,Thre-Channel Stereo How to ad a phantom third channel" , by Paul W. Klipsch.
All of his papers on the subject are a great read and have some great technical information.
I listen to all content in 3 channels up-mixed via Yamaha Aventage AVR.
I can see the benefits when using the 3 channel mode for television and movies . Having been into the surround sound up to the 7.1 channel mark . I gave it up and went to 2 channel . Now rearranging the room is no big deal , compared to finding a good place for 8 speakers and running wires . It would be nice to go back and forth with the push of a button .
When mixing for Dolby 3 channel, all panning must be left centre or right. So stereo is actually more pleasant.
Paul Klipsch has diagrams of his three channel audio set that you can see online. Any idea how you would amplify the center channel? I have a tube preamp that has L ,R, and L+R line level outputs. I currently have two monoblocks for power amps for the left and right channel. Would having an rca cable run from the L+R output to a third monoblock be the ideal way of powering a center channel?
Thought provoking indeed! Generally we covered that more speakers = better sound because each speaker has less work to do. In a typical 5.1 home theater setup, the center channel is typically a relatively pricey component for just 1 speaker. Making use of that extra speaker could then theoretically be a benefit, less for imaging/sound staging, but more-so in putting to task more speakers to do less work. I think that the concept of interpolating a center channel from the left and right is really interesting, even if for an academic exercise. Would we "simply" filter out and play in the center channel speaker any frequency that is practically identical in both channels?
As soon as I saw the tag for this episode I thought Living Presence! They sound great through 2 channel stereo.
The original McIntosh C-22 preamp was 3 channel and it's what Sinatra had.
Brian Eno put a diagram in the original vinyl LP of Ambient 4: On Land which added a separate third speaker, which was then placed behind the listener. The normal stereo speakers were left as they were, and an additional speaker was wired up to only the positive terminals of the speaker circuit. This meant only the sounds that were NOT common to both sides were produced in the third speaker, hence the use in ambient music. So, kind of the opposite of a normal three channel system.
Yup, this is what a true "phantom channel" is. The center on most home theatre systems is just left/right summed.
I can see that working. By canceling out the common signal in each channel, then canceling out everything but the common signal for the center. This could produce a problem with some music being all center channel. It's not so much about it sounding mono, but rather that it wouldn't use two out of three amps very much. Come to think of it, a clever engineer could control how much the three are separated; reducing or possibly even eliminating this problem.
This could work well because it would allow you to separate the two stereo speakers further and possibly even compensating for unwanted cross talk; expanding the sound stage even further. There's some songs that would do well with this. A couple of Beatles songs comes to mind; Paperback Writer, most notably. Other bands have done similarly, where you have one instrument entirely in one channel, another in the other channel, and only the vocals and drums are in the center.
If I remember right, "Quad" was all about moving that 'sweet spot' around the room so you didn't have to sit front and center between two speakers at a given distance. But this is where things move towards surround sound. The Yamaha DSP-1 was an astounding piece of hardware for its time - terrible S/N ratio though. I would love to find a software replica of the original DSP-1, sans all the noise.
One of my old surround recivers had a 3 channel stereo mode. The center speaker just got the stereo signal converted into mono while the left and right speakers played stereo as normal.
Bot recomended. Just like 5ch stereo is also not recomended.
Congratulation you didn't cut the top of your head off this time.... :)
Doesn't Dolby Pro Logic/2 do something like this?
Yes and it can sound very good too...
Yes right. It can work well for some music.
Surprised it wasn't mentioned.
@@uninvestigated He cant because dolby is a trademarked product in which you need a licence to implement and use.
That makes no sense. Just because something is trademarked doesn't mean you cant talk about it.
3 channel sounds great! I have my system set up for three channel and it solves the biggest problem in the audio world, being able to listen to our stereo with my wife for serious listening while not having to sit on top of one and other.
Movie theaters have been using the concept since the 50's, projected through the screen. I've also played around with using my HT integrated amp, by doing a lot of experimenting I have found that by using a speaker that is not matched to the stereo speakers can increase the realism by making up for deficiencies in that set. You can use a stereo amp to make the center channel viable by connecting the positive from left and right to drive the third speaker. Don't try this until you have Googled this and know what you're doing, because you can break expensive things this way.
3 channel audio? Right, Left and center? I think Quadraphonic stereo...., (is that the right way to say that?), was the way to go. Tow speakers set up correctly will give you all the imaging you need. Beyond that the rear channels give you the third dimension. Depth, in front and behind the listener. Great for home theater, but when your listening to music, where the band is playing right in front of you, three channels??? Maybe. But a good stereo and the imaging it creates gives you the whole experience. Just close your eyes and your there, right with the band, the guys in the mixing booth and the guys bringing them cold beers while they laid down the most awesome tracks ever created. To me, two ears = two speakers. Plain and simple. When things are set up right, when a great set of speakers are played through a great amp, you don't need anything else!
I think this was called the Hafler Circut but I would love to see what you could design using today's knowledge base !
I can see how hard it would have been to have a 3 channel discreet analog recording, especially on an LP. Paul is correct on the fact a hi end "stereo", with near perfect phasing, speaker placement, listener placement would re-create a 3rd channel smack dab in the middle of the stereo speakers from the material that is equally present on both L/R channels aka mono. But with modern day surround sound receivers/processors, the DSP sorta can "extract" the mono-ish signals going to the main L/R and re-direct it to the center channel speaker. That is how I listen to standard music sources on my home theater system. Since my main L/R speakers are old vintage horn loaded units, they are not the greatest for good imaging. So I have a large PA...yes...PA cabinet as the center speaker! Using careful leveling of output power, I get a nice strong vocals from that big PA speaker and the instruments from the big ole L/R speakers! Now, with the rear back speakers producing the reverb/echoes, from the musical source, the playback is pretty darn good!
I have a mid-fi 7.2 home theater system but I only listen to music in 2.2 channel mode. And I have to say I get amazing stereo imaging out of my 2.2 system when listening to music. Which is just 2 Klipsch R-28F towers and two Klipsch R-12SW subs. Which is on the low end of the Klipsch product line. It's the cheapest 8" towers they make and the cheapest 12" subs they make. I'm pretty sure they are anyway. All powered by a mid-tier Onkyo TX-NR757 A/V receiver.
It sounds amazing to me but I also have a near perfect sized and shaped rectangular room along with perfect speaker placement and seating position. And I'm serious, the room height, width and length are THE perfect ratio for what is recommended in a rectangular room. So as far as room and seating goes I'm getting the very best out of my equipment as I think I possibly can. Having the right room, seating position and speaker placement can do amazing things for modest equipment. I know Paul isn't the biggest Klipsch fan but I have to say I'm a Klipsch customer for life.
Round Earth Shill Hey....Sounds like a winner to me! I have friends that have Klipsch speakers and I find nothing wrong there! You just proved that you don't need a center channel speaker when listening to standard stereo content when you have the ideal room and placement. BTW, I have the exact same receiver that you do! LOL. It has several issues, but does the job. OH....Here's a question: When I set up my speakers to run "full range" instead of using the built-in hi pass X-overs, it totally shuts off output to the sub! The display still shows sub active, but it's dead! What's your take on that? Software glitch? Maybe I still want my sub(s) active but Nazi receiver says NO!
Curt Chase Is this the source digital signal you are setting to full range? If so, the digital signal will be missing the subwoofer channel as you told it to just output full range. It does sound like a 'glitch', but I don't know how you have everything setup. Sounds like the dac isn't mixing a subwoofer channel for you if it doesn't receive that channel from the digital source.
Curt Chase, that’s weird man! I’ve actually never had that problem but I’ve only run full range for probably a combined time of no more than 10 minutes but my subs were definitely working. There’s been quite a few software updates on the receiver in the almost 2 years I’ve owned it. Have you updated it ever? Both my subs and all other speakers are crossed over at 80hz. Running my towers at full range causes the bass to boom too much.
Actually I think I know your problem. If you activate full range on your speakers and notice the subs aren’t outputting, enable the “double bass” feature in the crossover menu. That is supposed to send more of a signal through the sub pre-outs. See if that fixes it.
Round Earth Shill Thanks for the help! Like you, I do not run my system in "full range" mode, but was just playing around with the settings one day. As far as firmware updates: I have gotten only one in the nearly 2 years I've had the rig. You say there have been several? Hmm. I guess I will try to do a forced update check here. I will try the double bass setting, as an experiment, to test your theory. I'll check back soon.
Frank Sinatra had a dedicated center channel because he hated the phantom mono from stereo speakers.
I have recently set up a 2.4 stereo channel. I know most of you will shake your head sternly with a frown lol. But can careful matching of 4 front speakers work?
MEYER SOUND has BlueHorn System consist of 3 powered speaker plus a Processor,claim to be the most advance and breakthrough in sound reproduction.
what kind of music do you imagine you'll be recording/mastering in your new building?
Also, there are some drivers that are very narrow in their focus . . . namely some tweeters like Air Motion Tweeters. Of course, there may be some exceptions, since I have not listened to every speaker system on earth, wish we could; thereby, we could really come up with the best combination of drivers to accomplish exactly what we are striving for in our home systems. I think there is a certain amount of mystery behind that curtain, that is not as mysterious as those making big money from the illusion are handing us.
I think there are some DIYers that have pulled back the curtain, but through lack of resources or by choice, the information is just not past on to the rest of us, who may or may not also find its path and do the same. Politics finds itself embedded in everything these days . . . and it is most certainly the love of money that is the motivation and drive that oils this system -- even in the accurate reproduction of sound.
my fisher kx 200 has a center channel
Oh boy, this was like looking down the rabbit hole of multi-channel audio...sneaky!
Paul, have you ever had the chance to demo Auro-3D? As I understand it was developed for music, then bleed over to movies...?
If so, what did you think of the imaging?
I looked out and found the Trinaural Processor Surround by Spread Spectrum Technologies (SST). Once featured as CES the “Best of the High-End” Award and Stereophile Magazine “Class A” Recommended Component... Hmm, interesting.
I have really liked the idea of 3-channel audio for a long time. I think the stereo image effect is somewhat overrated except in the case of headphones. In loudspeaker setups the sound is filling a room and I just feel that assuming that the sound stage is a 2 dimensional area the only way to really fill it is with at least three speakers. I always imagine putting two speakers in front of a person and one behind, but the real purpose of a 3 speaker setup would be to allow the listeners to enjoy two dimensional sound anywhere in the room and also while moving, as one would be doing while dancing. Does no one dance while listening to music? Do you audiophiles never dance? I'm just asking.
I guess plenty of dsp could do this having just the middle in the Center and the sides on the l/r
Jim Bongiorno also took a stab at it with his Triaural Processor.
www.sst.audio/new-products/trinaural-processor
It would be a Mono center . If you listen to a great recording it has a very wide sound stage, you don't need to complicate it. Just tell musicians and engineers to Mix Properly .
Oh, ps. Since your going to have a recording studio on premises and you make equipment it would be a natural to record in three channel and build a three channel system for playback.
Bose had 3 channel system a while back. A friend has it.
sir i have somehow manage to build a dual 15 inch hifi speakers of 600 rms it incudes a horn tweeter any thing in ur side wich can freely master this speaker
I have 5 channel stereo option on prepro sounds good ..
I believe Mercury Living Presence mastered their recordings on magnetic film!
Sure would like to see what could be done with 35mm magnetic film these days. Could it be the best recording format ever?
Three channel is for home theatre where you are getting discrete channel information for each channel. Then why stop at three channels when you can have full 5.1 or 7.1. But for music nothing beats stereo from a good system where you get a walk around soundstage with enormous depth and pinpoint image - all from two channels, no more needed.
Agreed completely. Nothing beats hearing music while sitting in the right position out of a good stereo system. Although mine is 2.2 but the subs and towers blend so well together it sounds like 2.0. It's a beautiful thing. God I rememebr my days of playing music through my 7.1 home theater system and putting the receiver into "all channel stereo" mode so that all 7 channels were playing at equal volume lmao. I wish I could say this was 20 years ago and I was 12 years old but nope, this was like 3 years ago and I was 30 :( I've come a good ways
Unless you master your own 5.1 music which is what i do.
Tony orlando? I think I know why it neve took off.
In car audio they are soon ready with DSP for making a center channel.
Paul almost passes away at PS Audio from slipping on an electrolytic capacitor !
I think bipolar speakers would be a better choice, the idea being the sweet spot is anywhere in the room
I have 3 channel mode built into my Harman kardon receiver .
Sorry, but I still prefer discrete channels and don't care of matrixed anything... This goes back to my days with QUAD..........the only true way to listen to that format was with TAPE ! I just received some of the most ENVELOPING 5.0 BLURAY audio discs from HDTT ! The engineer puts ONE MIKE per channel, NO MIXERS USED! You all should here a live organ and orchestral concert recording such as these 24/192 Hz. performances.... Just amazing !
Emotiva xmc1 asign one of its presets using onlyn two fronts center and sub set the other surround speakers to none asign all stereo or multiple stereo wat ever and there u have 3 channels well 3.1
we got 2 ears...
MiniDSP has a device for this already - www.minidsp.com/images/documents/Product%20Brief-Rear-Center%20channel%20plug-in.pdf (hope that link works).
www.minidsp.com/products/plugins/rear-center-channel-detail
Pro-logic ll and DTS Neo 6
3-channel ? Man, everyone knows quadrophonic is where its at !
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadraphonic_sound
Tyll Herstens, John Atkinson and several other longtime reviewers claim that surround can be configured to deliver superb sound but at a (hideously expensive) cost. There's a video floating around YT of this crazy guy who has a 'ring' of speakers, each driven by a stack of McIntosh electronics and he claims music playback on that system is better than anything he's heard in a dealer showroom.
Left, Right, Bass.
Thats all you really need for music alone.
If you're doing a home theater surround sound is very nice and very worthwhile but for music alone two channels and a sub is all you need.
I'm replying this to a few people - what you say is true in theory, but in practice three channels make a much more realistic image in most people's setups. The biggest problem it overcomes is the fact that your brain immediately recognizes 2 channels from "3D" as soon as you move your head, even just a little. 3 channel doesn't completely trick your brain either, but it's a huge step up and you don't have to pretend that hard because it's one more primary source of sound that both ears pick up, and that overwhelms your brain's ability to separate and pinpoint the actual places in the room where the sound first emanates. Obviously a dozen channels would be even better, but the believability curve between one and twelve speakers goes up significantly at 3 and flattens quite a bit after that.
Qaud would be better
3 channel stereo .... lol ! It's like having three channel headphones...
David Haffler invented his so called 'surround sound' system back in the mid 70's whereby two speakers were joined in series and out of phase and then the pair were connected across the positive + terminals of the amplifier . It was a gimmick !! They only worked when there was a strong difference level in the stereo signal ..
The Leak 2200 amplifier featured this very thing ...
No. A properly setup 2 channel gives you all that you need.
In theory that's true, but in practice 3 channels produces a much more lifelike image when you're not staying completely still, facing perfectly forward in the exact sweet spot of the room. At 2:50 Paul says the center channel makes the imaging better because, "your brain no longer has to synthesize that [center] channel."
the only "true" properly setup 2 channel system is called binaural which requires a dedicated stereo mic built into a fake human head. The only way to listen, headphones of course. Loudspeakers are a compromise by design.
Fun fact. PS Audio logo looks like a snake. 🐍🐍🐍
John Smith snake oil isn't it lol
What? It is a blue tennis ball
John Smith i thought it was a sine wave in an old scope...