phantom center channel

Sammydog,

I ran a dynamic center channel for awhile with Magnepan fronts and found I preferred the phantom center channel - the voices were better integrated with the rest of the audio. But I recently added a Magnepan center channel to match the fronts and found I prefer this due to my seating arrangement for movies: the seats are along both sides.
It definitely anchored the dialog and made it more cohesive. If you're seating positions are centered, I'd suggest just using the phantom. But if they're not, I' d say use a center of the same brand and quality.

There's a very good roundtable discussion on this in one of last years Absolute Sounds. Don't rememenber which issue but I think it's included in the surround sound discussion.
EMM labs will mod their Switchman preamp for a phantom center by spliting the center channel info to the front right and left speakers.

Don't forget though, that in movies, the center channel passes over 60% of the sonic energy...The percentage used to be greater with Pro Logic setups (>70%), but, nonetheless, the majority of action is happening on your screen, or behind it, as the mounting case may be. The main L & R, and secondary L & R fronts, in some systems configured as such, are obviously important, as well, as are the surround channels. In my opinion, though, there is too great an amount dedicated to a driver array that would not be "there". Plus, if one is interested in running a spec system (be it THXU2, THXU1, THXSelect1/2, or just a great 5.1 configuration), one should at least run with the basics covered, at first, and make additions/deletions from there...

Ivyinvestor,

With my processor (as many others) you tell the unit the center is "phantom" and the information is routed to the L+R fronts (in mono, I would assume). Therefore, no information is lost.

It is not lost, per say, but it's certainly no longer anchored to the action occurring on screen.

Please recall that these audio standards were created to support large screen displays, at least initially. Thus, in a theater, either home or away, where all three primary channels are behind a perferated screen, their emplacement corresponds, if encoded/decoded correctly, to very near where the actions taking place on screen are located.

Forgive my assertion if you understand this. I very much appreciate the fundamentals behind stereo and multichannel setups. However, I often find that true stereophiles seem to agree that something that was spatially encoded can be moved around to support a non-HT standard. As a devout fan of several large orchestras, I have a good operating concept of where certain instruments are setup during performances: you likely do, of your favorite pieces/artists, as well. When some piece/artist is rearranged during a performance, or for a particular solo, I realize it: again, you likely do, as well.

If Lucasfilms specifically codes certain data to be in the "center", even the best processors do not make up for the physical lack of a transducer array in that position, regardless of price. There are too many spatial variables that are physically missing. Quite literally, the THXUltra 1&2 standards actually make an attempt, through re-equalization and time code adjustments, to account for a physical array. After all, the re-eq must deal with cabinet diffraction, reflections, and sub-modes created by nearby cabinets - even if wall mounted, behind a screen, & etc.

My thesis design project as a senior physics major was rooted in the beginnings of this thread. If you wish, I'd be happy to discuss further the variables that are neglected without a physical center channel - or the decoding requirements violated by matrixing the sound to either 1) the front L/R pair or 2) two center channel speakers (not really common anymore)...

Of course, what it all distills to is: do you appreciate your system as it stands? If so, who am I to tell you that physics and some rules from Dolby contend that you shouldn't?! ;)

Enjoy!