It is interesting that in another recent thread on Audiogon regarding the use of center channels I seem to recall that a number of the contributors have abandoned their center channel altogether with the possible exception of DVDs in HT in favor of two channel stereo. Krell has always produced a superior product IMO so no doubt this would also add a new dimension . . . .or gimmick??? It would seem to be a good idea, however, if Magnepan is in support of two channel centers but, then again, they would sell more center channel speakers as a result.
My system uses Maggie 20.1s and Krell fpb 350 monos. I have disconnected the Maggie center and corresponding Krell amp. It still sounds great to me!
Peurto, The center's importance, I should have emphasized (but this is the home theater section!), is, in my opinion, most obvious for movies (DVD and BluRay), especially with discrete multi-channel sources, and it also contributes positively for well mastered music in this format (which can be spectacular in the uncompressed BluRay format).
For stereo sources, and with great left and right speakers like yours, a center certainly can get in the way if not degrade the sound (with the processor's help).
I think 5 or more speakers is too many even for movies. I do like the subwoofer though that really adds to the sound effects and brings a good foundation for most music. I would try 2 channel with a subwoofer and see how it sounds to u. your opinion is the only one that counts. Shay
Maybe they're just on something?
All joking aside, I like 7.1 channel for movies and music sometimes.
FWIW my personal preference is having dual center channels. I had a spare set of speakers and put 1 on either side of the TV. It gives a more theater like experience I think.
Good idea. I currently use a Y splitter for the center channel so I can put 2 center speakers under an 8 foot projector screen.
I'd guess it depends on the size of the screen. If the screen is small, there might be a concern about comb filtering. If the screen is large, it might provide for a more centered image.
advantages to using multiple speakers (or even multiple redundant drivers in a speaker, for that matter), would be added system efficiency - likely yeilding better dyanmic potential from any given channel/system - reinforcement of frequencies (possibly more solidified image), cancelation of any differences between speakers/drivers for less discernable distortion, and "maybe" a more diffuse or larger sound from that channel, possibly.
Balance and quality over quanity and unbalance is always going to be of a higher priority ranking, imo. And the downsides to doing such things would be that you would most likely deal with, yes, comb-filtering and phase cancelation, and holes in the bass response (probably upper and mid bass freq cancellations for guestimated distance from one speaker to the next for any likely center channel arrangement being applied above/bellow or flanking side/side).
Sitting closer to one center vs. the other would surely have you only really hearing sound from one speaker, domminating (haus effect?...forgot). And, at that, you would have to be concerned about filtering from the bass, as I said.
This would be akin to a speaker designer carefully designing a Dappolito configured speaker, where two opposing woofers could possibly canceling each other at certain frequencies, who's distance between themselves were 1/4 (1/2?) wavelengths, corresponding to specific frequencies of that length. (lol- i think this came out right?)
Anyway, if simply putting more speakers for each channel was the solution, we'd all be doing it in our systems. At the very least, adding more speakers means more acoustic issues to deal with, especially in context of multiple seating arrangements. Now if you could adjust phase or time delay for all channels, relative to how far away in proximity to each speaker in relation to each other, you could probably serve up more benefits than down-sides to this approach.
I personally think a more practical approach is to have superior quality speakers (active, hi-efficiency models?) setup optimally for maximum coverage, dynamic range, soundstage pressence, coherence, detail, flat accurate response and tonality,etc. I just think just adding more speakers, just for the sake of adding for "more should be better" kind of a theory is probably going to be troublesome for most, in all likelyhood. And, given that most people have know clue what's doing what acoustically in a system, and or how to properly work with what they got, I think this using multiples should be left alone for most of us. But hey, that's just my perspective.
Leave the tricky stuff to the professionals,and focus on quality over quantity. Yeah, that's my stance, and I'm sticking by it - lol
I've been using two center channels for over a year now and they sound great. Two speakers do a much better job than one in my system. I have a very large screen (16 ft wide)and a very large room. I also sit 30 feet away from the screen. Two center channel speakers may not work in a smaller room.
I am assuming that in order to obtain this effect, Krell processes the center channel input into two outputs?
If so, wouldn't that degrade the signal from just having one center channel, since all blu-rays are currently mixed with only one discrete CC?
For me Stereo sounds best as a 2.1 system( left/right speaker and subwoofer system) Home Theater sounds best as a 7.1(left,right,center and surround left/right/center and sub) Mono sounds best as a 3.1 system( left/right/center/sub)
Ok then if two center speakers were better than one, then wouldn't 4 or more be better than two?
How about this formula: simply split the wall at the front of your room into 3rd's, and just cover each 3rd of the wall with a solid array of loudspeakers for each left/center/right channel (using in-wall speakers?)!
Then, simply get enought amplifiers to handle all the current demand for each channel, EQ, level match, bass manage, and you should be done.
I mean, if more is better, why not go all the way, right?!
Ok, we need to get someone with lots of ambition, and time on their hands, to do this experiement, and get back with us! Can I get a show of votes here?! Then we can make this "two centers vs one" point of contention a moot point, once and for all.
I don't think more is better when it comes to center channels. The idea is to have the dialog to appear to come from the screen or center. If you want multiple center channels, let your mains and surrounds handle it on there own. I don't use a center channel and seldom miss it.
I think a lot of this has to do with the size of your room and screen. If you have a very large screen and a very large room and are sitting a very long distance from the screen, two center channels can work, it does for me.
What the heck is an EISA?! Never heard of her...
For the record, anyway, do you really need Krell's AV equip to get an award to know it's automatically going to better than most all of the other stuff out there, anyway?! I think not.
Can't remember a piece EVER from Krell that was not excellent.
It seems to me that a big benefit of this is not for dedicated home theaters but for people who have mounted plasmas/LCDs. By using dual centers, you can use vertical speakers on either side of the TV and not be forced to use a horizontal speaker (which is a serious compromise in quality).