[fid]

Hello,
I have a surround system of four full range speakers. I took out the
center speaker because I have no place where to put it and I prefer
the look of the living room without it.
On material like Dolby Digital I hear a weaker phantom center, so much
so that I have difficult time hearing the voices on movies which are
overwhelmed by other sounds. On music material like SACD I also hear a
week phantom center. Not much so on PLII or Neo:6.
Probably this question will not make much sense but, is there a way to
increase the output of the center image without the center speaker?
Please share your thoughts on my dilemma.
Thank you.

[MiNe 109]

In article . com,
fid wrote:

Hello,
I have a surround system of four full range speakers. I took out the
center speaker because I have no place where to put it and I prefer
the look of the living room without it.
On material like Dolby Digital I hear a weaker phantom center, so much
so that I have difficult time hearing the voices on movies which are
overwhelmed by other sounds. On music material like SACD I also hear a
week phantom center. Not much so on PLII or Neo:6.
Probably this question will not make much sense but, is there a way to
increase the output of the center image without the center speaker?
Please share your thoughts on my dilemma.

Does your receiver (or DVD player) know you only have four speakers? I'd
double-check that, assuming you haven't already. DD has a discrete
center that should be distributed to the fronts in a four-speaker
configuration.

There are at least two stupid ways to increase the phantom. One is to
remove large boxy objects that break up the image from between the front
speakers. Another is to run the center channel signal to the front
speakers for a mono phantom.

Stephen

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:43:21 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

For music, move the speakers together, or replace the speakers with models
that have wider dispersion. Trifield processing, invented by Michael Gerzon,
is said to be useful, but was dropped in consumer products several years
ago.

Still available and useful in Meridian products.

Kal

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

BTW, my awareness of this is from a recent Stereophile article.

Turns out when you say "Stereophile" to Scottie, he ****s a brick and
throws a barking tantrum.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
news


Robert said:

BTW, my awareness of this is from a recent Stereophile article.

Turns out when you say "Stereophile" to Scottie, he ****s a brick and
throws a barking tantrum.

Yawn...Stereophile...the cure for insomnia.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"fid" wrote in message
ups.com
Hello,
I have a surround system of four full range speakers. I
took out the center speaker because I have no place where
to put it and I prefer the look of the living room
without it.

To summarize, you wish to scrap the benefits of highly effective modern
technology because you're lazy and really not all that interested in good
sound.

On material like Dolby Digital I hear a weaker phantom
center, so much so that I have difficult time hearing the
voices on movies which are overwhelmed by other sounds.

That's what the center channel was supposed to do.

On music material like SACD I also hear a week phantom
center. Not much so on PLII or Neo:6.

Oh, you're more interested in games than music, anyhow.

Probably this question will not make much sense but, is
there a way to increase the output of the center image
without the center speaker?

One historial but rather effective means for having a pretty fair phantom
channel is called 2-channel.

Please share your thoughts on my dilemma.

Replace your center channel speaker with two small, but high quality
speakers connected in parallel. Put one by each front speaker.

[fid]

To summarize, you wish to scrap the benefits of highly effective modern
technology because you're lazy and really not all that interested in good
sound.

If I were not interested in modern technology I would have not been
interested in the speakers I own, the Vienna Acoustics Mahler, they
are tall, sound wonderful to me, they spread the sound across the
front-stage very well. The only problem is that in material where
discrete signal is involved there is a shallow phantom center. I am
trying to understand if I am missing something. I am trying to get the
best I can without the center speaker, because the matching center
speaker would be too big, bulky, and would make living room look like
more of an entertainment center, which I prefer not.
The processor is a B&K reference 50 which does everything a modern
processor does, but the phantom center level.

On music material like SACD I also hear a week phantom
center. Not much so on PLII or Neo:6.

Oh, you're more interested in games than music, anyhow.

Never played games...

[fid]

To summarize, you wish to scrap the benefits of highly effective modern
technology because you're lazy and really not all that interested in good
sound.

If I were not interested in modern technology I would have not been
interested in the speakers I own, the Vienna Acoustics Mahler, they
are tall, sound wonderful to me, they spread the sound across the
front-stage very well. The only problem is that in material where
discrete signal is involved there is a shallow phantom center. I am
trying to understand if I am missing something. I am trying to get the
best I can without the center speaker, because the matching center
speaker would be too big, bulky, and would make living room look like
more of an entertainment center, which I prefer not.
The processor is a B&K reference 50 which does everything a modern
processor does, but the phantom center level.

On music material like SACD I also hear a week phantom
center. Not much so on PLII or Neo:6.

Oh, you're more interested in games than music, anyhow.

Never played games...

[George M. Middius]

fid said to SnottyBorg:

To summarize, you wish to scrap the benefits of highly effective modern
technology because you're lazy and really not all that interested in good
sound.

If I were not interested in modern technology I would have not been
interested in the speakers I own, the Vienna Acoustics Mahler, they
are tall, sound wonderful to me

Don't take Krazy Krooger's snot-attacks to heart. He is quite insane.
Ask anybody.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[fid]

To summarize, you wish to scrap the benefits of highly effective modern
technology because you're lazy and really not all that interested in good
sound.

If I were not interested in modern technology I would have not been
interested in the speakers I own, the Vienna Acoustics Mahler, they
are tall, sound wonderful to me, they spread the sound across the
front-stage very well. The only problem is that in material where
discrete signal is involved there is a shallow phantom center. I am
trying to understand if I am missing something. I am trying to get the
best I can without the center speaker, because the matching center
speaker would be too big, bulky, and would make living room look like
more of an entertainment center, which I prefer not.
The processor is a B&K reference 50 which does everything a modern
processor does, but the phantom center level.

On music material like SACD I also hear a week phantom
center. Not much so on PLII or Neo:6.

Oh, you're more interested in games than music, anyhow.

Never played games...

[fid]

To summarize, you wish to scrap the benefits of highly effective modern
technology because you're lazy and really not all that interested in good
sound.

If I were not interested in modern technology I would have not been
interested in the speakers I own, the Vienna Acoustics Mahler, they
are tall, sound wonderful to me, they spread the sound across the
front-stage very well. The only problem is that in material where
discrete signal is involved there is a shallow phantom center. I am
trying to understand if I am missing something. I am trying to get the
best I can without the center speaker, because the matching center
speaker would be too big, bulky, and would make living room look like
more of an entertainment center, which I prefer not.
The processor is a B&K reference 50 which does everything a modern
processor does, but the phantom center level.

On music material like SACD I also hear a week phantom
center. Not much so on PLII or Neo:6.

Oh, you're more interested in games than music, anyhow.

Never played games...

[fid]

To summarize, you wish to scrap the benefits of highly effective modern
technology because you're lazy and really not all that interested in good
sound.

If I were not interested in modern technology I would have not been
interested in the speakers I own, the Vienna Acoustics Mahler, they
are tall, sound wonderful to me, they spread the sound across the
front-stage very well. The only problem is that in material where
discrete signal is involved there is a shallow phantom center. I am
trying to understand if I am missing something. I am trying to get the
best I can without the center speaker, because the matching center
speaker would be too big, bulky, and would make living room look like
more of an entertainment center, which I prefer not.
The processor is a B&K reference 50 which does everything a modern
processor does, but the phantom center level.

On music material like SACD I also hear a week phantom
center. Not much so on PLII or Neo:6.

Oh, you're more interested in games than music, anyhow.

Never played games...

[fid]

I apologize for the multi-posts. having some problems with my
connection.

Don't take Krazy Krooger's snot-attacks to heart. He is quite insane.
Ask anybody.


Yeah, i noticed, he goes straight there to light the fire. But I am
not in mood to waste time.

I thought my question about the level of the phantom center is rather
interesting and I hope to see in the near future the industry to take
some steps toward it. Having to possibily to increase or decrease the
phantom center would be really a great feature. Many people would
prefer an optimization of four speakers over five. Beside, the center
channel is very difficult to integrate properly, especially (-Krooger)
if you have quality front speakers.

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:31:38 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:43:21 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

For music, move the speakers together, or replace the speakers with models
that have wider dispersion. Trifield processing, invented by Michael
Gerzon,
is said to be useful, but was dropped in consumer products several years
ago.

Still available and useful in Meridian products.

Kal

Ah. BTW, my awareness of this is from a recent Stereophile article.

Ah. BTW, that article did state:
"Despite this critical acclaim, Trifield—like Ambisonics before it—has
never achieved critical mass. Meridian was an early adopter of
Trifield in its surround processors and remains faithful to this day,
but few others followed Meridian's lead—although for a while Yamaha
did offer Trifield in its home-theater products."

Kal

[MiNe 109]

In article .com,
fid wrote:

I apologize for the multi-posts. having some problems with my
connection.

Don't take Krazy Krooger's snot-attacks to heart. He is quite insane.
Ask anybody.


Yeah, i noticed, he goes straight there to light the fire. But I am
not in mood to waste time.

I thought my question about the level of the phantom center is rather
interesting and I hope to see in the near future the industry to take
some steps toward it. Having to possibily to increase or decrease the
phantom center would be really a great feature. Many people would
prefer an optimization of four speakers over five. Beside, the center
channel is very difficult to integrate properly, especially (-Krooger)
if you have quality front speakers.

This is definitely interesting. My television system sounded fine in
stereo, but I wanted to hear three-channel SACDs so I took the
multichannel plunge. I was somewhat joking about using the fronts for
center channel content, but for DD I don't even turn on the fronts for
casual listening as center-plus-surround seems to have enough info for
intended production effect.

The Trifield Meridian sounds interesting. (The wiki says not to confuse
it with the Yamaha system.) There's also a Denon 2.1 system using "Dolby
Virtual Surround" that has marketing implications, although it doesn't
look like hifi for now.

Stephen

[Kalman Rubinson]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:55:20 -0500, MiNe 109
wrote:

The Trifield Meridian sounds interesting.

Yes. It also allows you to adjust levels/distances to taste.

Kal

[dizzy]

fid wrote:

I apologize for the multi-posts. having some problems with my
connection.

Don't take Krazy Krooger's snot-attacks to heart. He is quite insane.
Ask anybody.


Yeah, i noticed, he goes straight there to light the fire. But I am
not in mood to waste time.

I thought my question about the level of the phantom center is rather
interesting and I hope to see in the near future the industry to take
some steps toward it. Having to possibily to increase or decrease the
phantom center would be really a great feature. Many people would
prefer an optimization of four speakers over five. Beside, the center
channel is very difficult to integrate properly, especially (-Krooger)
if you have quality front speakers.

Well, I for one don't buy the theory that the center channel needs to
"perfectly" match the L and R speakers, especially when they are large
and expensive. A smaller speaker will fill the hole fine (with the
lowest freqs sent somewhere else, of course).

If it's only for movie use, I don't even think it needs to be the same
brand, necessarily...

[dizzy]

ScottW wrote:

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Robert said:

BTW, my awareness of this is from a recent Stereophile article.

Turns out when you say "Stereophile" to Scottie, he ****s a brick and
throws a barking tantrum.

Yawn...Stereophile...the cure for insomnia.

I don't know... I wait with extreme excitement that next review of a
$10,000 CD player that "sounds as good as CD can sound" (just like a
player that costs 1/20th as much) or $5,000 "Ultimate" integrated amp
and doesn't even have tone controls, not to mention the ****ty
internal-heatsink design (external heatsinks just don't look good,
apparently, even though doing it any other way on a high-powered amp
is ****ing STUPID).

[George M. Middius]

dippy said:

If it's only for movie use, I don't even think it needs to be the same
brand, necessarily...

You must be half-deaf, dipster. Just try listening to a mismatched LCR
array and THEN tell us it "doesn't matter".

Idiot.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[dizzy]

George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:
dippy said:

If it's only for movie use, I don't even think it needs to be the same
brand, necessarily...

You must be half-deaf, dipster. Just try listening to a mismatched LCR
array

I have one. Different brands entirely, although "similar" sounding.

For movies, it's fine. In fact, I'd say it sounds "great"
(considering we're talking about DD movies, here).

and THEN tell us it "doesn't matter".

I didn't say it "doesn't matter". I said that, for movies, they don't
nesessarily need to be the same brand.

Idiot.

You forgot the sig delimiter.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

dizzy wrote:
ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
Robert said:



BTW, my awareness of this is from a recent Stereophile article.

Turns out when you say "Stereophile" to Scottie, he ****s a brick
and throws a barking tantrum.

Yawn...Stereophile...the cure for insomnia.

I don't know... I wait with extreme excitement that next review of a
$10,000 CD player that "sounds as good as CD can sound" (just like a
player that costs 1/20th as much) or $5,000 "Ultimate" integrated amp
and doesn't even have tone controls, not to mention the ****ty
internal-heatsink design (external heatsinks just don't look good,
apparently, even though doing it any other way on a high-powered amp
is ****ing STUPID).


There are several publication available to public if your unhappy.
Is there any particular reason that you focused on one ?

[dizzy]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

dizzy wrote:
ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
Robert said:

BTW, my awareness of this is from a recent Stereophile article.

Turns out when you say "Stereophile" to Scottie, he ****s a brick
and throws a barking tantrum.

Yawn...Stereophile...the cure for insomnia.

I don't know... I wait with extreme excitement that next review of a
$10,000 CD player that "sounds as good as CD can sound" (just like a
player that costs 1/20th as much) or $5,000 "Ultimate" integrated amp
and doesn't even have tone controls, not to mention the ****ty
internal-heatsink design (external heatsinks just don't look good,
apparently, even though doing it any other way on a high-powered amp
is ****ing STUPID).

There are several publication available to public if your unhappy.

Really? Is there one that tells the truth, like there's no reason why
high-performance CD players and line-level preamps need to cost
thousands of dollars? That it's ridiculous that you can't hardly find
a preamp with tone controls? That anyone who thinks that their sound
will be hurt by having a tone-control defeat-switch in the circuit is
an idiot? That spending money on expensive cables is sheer lunacy?
That $200 worth of fiberglass panels can make a bigger improvement in
your sound than those $40,000 speakers?

Is there any particular reason that you focused on one ?

This "one" came up in the discussion.

[George M. Middius]

dippy, are you lonesome without the Krooborg around to lead the battle
against the E.H.E.E.?

Is there one that tells the truth, like there's no reason why
high-performance CD players and line-level preamps need to cost
thousands of dollars?

It's not a secret that there is no "need" for all such items to have
such prices. That, believe it or not, is why they don't all cost that
much. Have you noticed that $200 CD players outnumber $2000 ones by a
factor of 50 or more?

I will give you credit for admitting the true cause of your irrational
hatred of the high end -- class envy. Scottie Terrierdork still can't
admit the same of himself.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

dizzy wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
dizzy wrote:
ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
Robert said:



BTW, my awareness of this is from a recent Stereophile article.

Turns out when you say "Stereophile" to Scottie, he ****s a brick
and throws a barking tantrum.

Yawn...Stereophile...the cure for insomnia.

I don't know... I wait with extreme excitement that next review of
a $10,000 CD player that "sounds as good as CD can sound" (just
like a player that costs 1/20th as much) or $5,000 "Ultimate"
integrated amp and doesn't even have tone controls, not to mention
the ****ty internal-heatsink design (external heatsinks just don't
look good, apparently, even though doing it any other way on a
high-powered amp is ****ing STUPID).

There are several publication available to public if your unhappy.


Really? Is there one that tells the truth, [...]


Could you be more precise?


like there's no reason why high-performance CD players and
line-level preamps need to cost
thousands of dollars?


You have no money or what ?


That it's ridiculous that you can't hardly find
a preamp with tone controls? That anyone who thinks that their sound
will be hurt by having a tone-control defeat-switch in the circuit is
an idiot? That spending money on expensive cables is sheer lunacy?
That $200 worth of fiberglass panels can make a bigger improvement in
your sound than those $40,000 speakers?


So you are unhappy because you like using fiberglass panels and you
resent not having tone controls in products they review.

Okey, there's Sensible Sound with Howard Ferstler, a hack writer,
waiting for you.



Is there any particular reason that you focused on one ?

This "one" came up in the discussion.

The reason it came up regards an article discussing Trifield processing.

Is there any particular reason about Trifield processing that angers you
triggering to decry high performance CD players and preamps lacking
tone control ?

[dizzy]

George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Have you noticed that $200 CD players outnumber $2000 ones by a
factor of 50 or more?

No, I have not. Please list available $200 CD players.

[dizzy]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

Could you be more precise?

Idiot.

You have no money or what ?

Idiot.

So you are unhappy because you like using fiberglass panels and you
resent not having tone controls in products they review.

Idiot.

Is there any particular reason about Trifield processing that angers you
triggering to decry high performance CD players and preamps lacking
tone control ?

Idiot.

[George M. Middius]

dippy whined:

Have you noticed that $200 CD players outnumber $2000 ones by a
factor of 50 or more?

No, I have not. Please list available $200 CD players.

Sorry, I ddin't realize you're a total basket case.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

dizzy wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:


Have you noticed that $200 CD players outnumber $2000
ones by a factor of 50 or more?



No, I have not. Please list available $200 CD players.


YO man ! What kinda show are you putting out here
tonight !? You're failing to fulfill the necessary virtue
worthy to be among Arny's unshakable minions.
You could get him all upset and go to google and send
you page after page of CHEAP cd players from all
around the world. Is this what you want ? He might even
throw in those $35 dollar ones that Norm Strong has
in his sound system for kicks. So if I were you, I wouldn't
go as far as to upset 'em like that.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

dizzy wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:



Could you be more precise?

Idiot.


YO man! Whats goin on !

So, you cannot allow any discussion about specific
article without going ballistic, right?